James M. Redwine

America

Do Not Fly the Unfriendly Skies

by Leave a Comment

Photo by Jim Redwine

If you have traveled by commercial aircraft recently you can only marvel at the British security measures for the Queen’s funeral queue. From September 14 to September 19 about 250,000 people lined up for up to 24 hours to view the Queen’s coffin for less than one minute. Other than one fool who tried to touch the flag on her coffin and was immediately arrested, I am not aware of any “security incidents”.  In other words, our English cousins managed to process about 50,000 people a day without so much as a scuffle.

Now compare that to the airlines’ inability to keep many thousands, perhaps millions, of people from losing their luggage and missing their connecting flights while being prodded like cattle into uncomfortable seats next to complete strangers. And for that dubious privilege you pay enough money to purchase stock in the company. Although that may not be such a wise waste of your money.

It is not that I am unaware there may be bad people who both fly commercially and may want to harm others. Evil exists; I get it. But our response should not add to our grief. If the Brits can process 50,000 people per day and prevent any real problems, surely the airlines can manage to get a plane load of 300-350 passengers, such as fly on a Boeing 700 Series plane internationally, from point A to point B or points A, B, C, etc., within the time an airline ticket promises. After all, our tickets represent an obligation that is what we in the legal field call an adhesion contract. That is, you and I and all our fellow travelers are totally without any influence on the agreement. The airlines tell us where and when to show up and how much to pay and we show up and pay, even if we miss flights, lose luggage and wonder whom to blame but the gods. Does the Federal Aviation Administration come to mind?

Peg and I recently flew from Tulsa, Oklahoma to the country of Georgia. The cost of our tickets were such that Jesse James would have been proud. Since we were on business we paid an exorbitant rate to fly Business Class. What that got for us other than a hole in our checking account I have yet to discover. However, that is not the issue you and I are here concerned about. As instructed by the airlines, we arrived at the Tulsa airport three hours before our flight was to depart. Then we went through security and customs right there in Tulsa. Next the airlines flew us west to Denver. That is right, Gentle Reader, United Airlines flew us west to go east. The plane did not take on enough fuel in Tulsa, so when we got close to Denver we had to land in Pueblo, Colorado to refuel. That totally unnecessary stop caused us to miss our connecting flight from Denver to Munich, Germany. Once in Denver I had to stand in line for six hours, from 8 p.m to 2 a.m., to book another flight. Once we had our new flight plan we had to spend the night in the Denver airport on cots waiting to depart the next day. There were so many passengers who also missed their flights we were unable to sleep next to each other. Our flight from Denver to Chicago, yes, I had to rebook us through Chicago to Munich, took off around 11 a.m. We arrived in Chicago about 1:30 p.m. and had to wait in Chicago for our flight to Munich that took off about 10:30 that night. That was day one of our trip and we still had not left the United States. Of course, we had to go through security and customs again in Chicago before boarding the flight to Munich. The flight from Chicago to Munich was about 9 hours which took us into day two. When we got to Munich we had to wait about six hours for our flight to Tbilisi, Georgia, and, of course, go through security and customs again. By the time we got to Tbilisi at 4 a.m. Georgia time it was day three. Plus, our luggage got lost along the way. As our final destination in Georgia was the city of Batumi, that is a long car trip from Tbilisi, we had to wait in Tbilisi for two days for the airlines to find our luggage.

So, what can the airlines do to comply with the contract they have written and to treat passengers like customers instead of an inconvenience? I suggest one security and customs check at one’s initial departure airport should be plenty. At that first airport you can arrive early and give the airlines all the time that is needed to make sure one is not a danger and that one’s baggage follows along. Also, in this age of computerization, all of a passenger’s security and customs clearance information could be shared among the airlines, airports, cities and countries involved in a passenger’s trip. In our case that would have involved Tulsa, Denver, Chicago, Munich and Tbilisi and the United States, Germany and Georgia. It would also be helpful if the airlines would put enough fuel in the planes to avoid unplanned refueling stops and if the flight plans could exempt flying the wrong way.

If this approach is too sensible for the FAA and airlines, we could allow them to lose a customer’s luggage every now and then on a random basis so they do not feel superfluous. And, by the way, congratulations to the British for sending that marvelous monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, off royally. Maybe we should ask those Britons who planned and executed the Queen’s funeral to operate the airlines.

Shanghaied

by Leave a Comment

On February 04, 2022 Russian President Vladimir Putin, on an invitation from Chinese President Xi Jinping, attended the China Winter Olympic Games in Beijing. Twenty days later Russia invaded Ukraine. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, in response to an invitation, visited Taiwan over China’s objections on August 2, 2022 and China immediately responded with massive military maneuvers around Taiwan.

Russia has now been at war with Ukraine for over six months. Ukraine has been supplied with many billions of dollars’ worth of military hardware by America before and during the war. Taiwan has recently received a pledge of over one billion dollars’ worth of military aid from the U.S. The U.S. has long supported Taiwan’s independence from China which claims Taiwan as part of China.

Russia and China share some common borders on the eastern and western edges of both countries and share one main nemesis, America. On September 15 and 16, 2022 Xi and Putin will meet face to face at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit in the city of Samarkand, Uzbekistan. The United States is not invited.

It is possible Russia and China just want to confer on the relative merits of their national ballet companies and the ten billion cubic meters of national gas Putin promised to Xi in their February meeting. Or perhaps Putin and Xi want to compare notes on how each can continue in power beyond the traditional terms of prior Chinese and Russian presidents.

On the other hand, I suggest the two leaders may be getting together to discuss their largest common problem, us. Not much information was released from their conference in Beijing in February and almost no advanced agenda has been published for their Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit. My suspicion is the name “Shanghai” was not chosen idly. It may be that China is reminding the United States of the practice of tricking or forcing sailors to serve on merchant ships sailing to Shanghai in the 1800’s as was often done by American, British and French merchants. Perhaps it is meant as an otherwise inscrutable warning to America to butt out of Ukraine and Taiwan.

As for me, I think Pelosi or anyone else ought to have the right to visit Taiwan and, I think, Ukraine’s territorial integrity should be respected. Of course, I find it difficult to analyze the motivations of China, Russia or even my own country when it comes to engagement in foreign wars unless one is attacked. It seems to me our Constitution’s provision for military defense, not offense, makes sense. But then I am not in charge of our foreign policy. If I had been, Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan might have unfolded differently and maybe Ukraine and Taiwan too. Those are matters our elected leaders are much more informed upon, I hope.

The Source

by Leave a Comment

Where my boxes of stuff went!

When former President Donald Trump moved out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. he took fifteen boxes of stuff with him that he stored at his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida. Someone tipped off the FBI that the boxes were stashed in some closets. Who might that have been is one of the matters the FBI and the Department of Justice wish to keep confidential. That information is most likely part of what was redacted from the Affidavit that was filed with the application for the Search Warrant. We in the general public, therefore, do not know who the source was; I certainly do not. However, I do have a theory for your consideration, Gentle Reader.

It is reported that the 15 boxes contain governmental documents with news articles and magazines interspersed. Who would be concerned with such stuff being left sitting around the house? If The Donald is like most husbands, he probably does not get exorcised over a few extra items thrown into an attic, a basement or a closet. However, if Melania is anything like Peg, she takes a dim view of stacks of stuff cluttering up her house.

I remember when Peg and I last moved she took it as an opportunity to jettison a great deal of what I held dear, such as stories about my youth and old files from legal cases long forgotten. Anytime I was not vigilant Peg would trash my treasures to make room for her new acquisitions in our new residence. Clutter is to Peg as the contents of the Augean Stables were to Hercules and it seems most of what I hold dear as personal history Peg decrees to be stable staples. We are in a perpetual yang and yin of store or shovel when it comes to my inclination to preserve what Peg sees as dross. My guess is Donnie and Melania live a similar dynamic.

Now I do not know what was in the boxes. I do know the stuff sat around Florida from when the Trumps left Washington on January 28, 2021 and the country seemed to chug along okay until August 08, 2022 when the Search Warrant was executed. The stuff in the boxes did not seem to affect America’s decision to send billions of dollars of military equipment to help Ukraine defend the war against Russia’s invasion. It is probably what the psychologists would call my retrogressive inhibitions from the 1960’s, but for some reason visions of Viet Nam and Afghanistan keep muddling around in my brain.  The contents of the boxes may be of no more significance than the contents of the file cabinets I struggled to schlepp down three flights of steps from my attic in our old home and haul to a barn at our new one.

That is not to say Donald should not turn them over to the National Archives. Maybe they are important, or not, but they still belong to all of us. And I wonder if Melania may not have been that unhappy to see the closet doors open for the FBI to haul the offending boxes away so that they have now become the National Archives’ problem instead of hers

Let There Be Light

by Leave a Comment

On August 08, 2022 the FBI executed a search warrant at former President Donald Trump’s residence, Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Florida. That is about the extent of what we in the general public know about the situation. There is a great deal of speculation about the process but very little of that speculation is likely to be unbiased. The search of any former president’s home would of necessity be embroiled in competing political interests. Many important issues are in play and countless questions arise.

We in the general public may be greatly affected by the search and the motivations for it or there may be no great significance to our democracy. We do not yet know the basis for the search or the reasoning of those who sought, granted or executed it. And that is unacceptable as almost always, our interests as a nation are better served by more factually correct information than less. A lack of transparency engenders suspicion and confusion. In a country so at odds over Donald Trump, more light is best. Careful release of information may be called for but it is more likely that the greatest harm to our country will result from suspicions raised by in camera legal proceedings.

There are good reasons our Founders saw Great Britain’s use of General Warrants and Writs of Assistance as cause for Revolution. The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution was adopted to protect our right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. It requires “an Affidavit of Probable Cause supported by Oath or Affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

I do not ascribe to the fear our country is near another revolution. However, I do think we should seek to benefit from the wisdom of those who fomented the first one. Was the search of Donald Trump’s home called for by the facts? Were those who made the call properly motivated? Was the Fourth Amendment followed?

Perhaps it was in America’s best interests to search Mar-a-Lago. Maybe evidence of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” was secreted in the premises. If so, then a search was not only justified, it was required. However, until the secrecy is removed and the light of justice is brought to bear, the citizenry is in the dark. And that dark might lead to more harm than the revelation of some uncomfortable documents.

Mom Knows Best

by Leave a Comment

Tom Nichols is a staff writer for The Atlantic magazine. In his opinion piece of August 15, 2022, Nichols asserted the United States is living in a “new era of political violence.” Nichols compared our current political climate to America’s Civil War and declared:

“Compared with the bizarre ideas and half-baked wackiness that now infest American political life, the arguments between the North and the South look like a deep treatise on government.”

Of course, Nichols, as all of us do, meant those ideas he disagreed with. He wrote his article as a warning against “the random threats and unpredictable dangers from people among us who spend too much time watching television and plunging down internet rabbit holes.”

While I believe Nichols falls victim to the kind of incitement to political violence he warns the rest of us to avoid, I agree with him that much of our poisonous political atmosphere is both created and exacerbated by “instigators who will inflame them from the safety of a television or radio studio.”

When I try to glean news from Facebook, MSNBC, CNN, FOX News and even sometimes NPR and the regular commercial news outlets, I spend a lot of my time hearing the echo of my Mother’s sage advice, “If you can’t say something nice about somebody, don’t say anything at all.”

In our current political discourse it seems almost every discussion has to first set forth the commentator’s pro or anti Trump diatribe then morph into the “real news.”  I keep trying, with little success, to block out the opening statements as I wait for any significant new facts.

This atmosphere of dueling slings and arrows, some of which are more than mere rhetoric, is the “political violence” Nichols refers to. People committing random acts of physical violence against complete strangers for no reason other than to attempt to give some meaning to their uninteresting lives. And as many of us have suffered through the discomfort, or worse, of political conversations with our friends and family these last few years, it is not just random strangers who have accosted one another with Nichols’ “New Era of Political Violence”. Long-time friendships and relationships have often suffered due to competing political views.

A large contributor to the current “Era of Bad Feeling” is the tendency to classify those who do not share our political views as holding “half-baked” or “wacky” ideas because, in Nichols’ view, they suffer from “a generalized paranoia that dark forces are manipulating their lives.” The sense I get from our current political in-fighting reminds me of the McCarthy Era from the 1950’s when Senator Joe McCarthy held hearings that ruined countless lives with accusations of Communistic leanings among American citizens. Sure, eventually we, as a democracy, saw through the “Red Scare” but it was too late to save many good citizens.

It feels to me now as those Red Baiting times felt. We seem to go immediately to anger when the “other side” speaks its views. Perhaps we could learn from our history instead of repeating it. As Mom would have said, “Just because someone sees things from their viewpoint doesn’t make them wrong. And just because someone else voices an opinion opposed to ours doesn’t mean they are bad.” It kind of goes back to that old advice, “If it ain’t good, don’t say it.”

That does not apply to real news, only personal character assassination. We need our democracy to have unfettered access to information about many subjects. That is, we need facts to make good decisions. What we do not need is vituperative personal attacks masquerading as evidence.

Our Two Branch Democracy

by Leave a Comment

Photo by Peg Redwine

Pure democratic government involves direct selection of leaders by those who are led. The United States is two thirds of a democracy. The Executive Branch is elected by popular vote every four years. The House of Representatives of the Legislative Branch is elected by popular vote every two years. The Senatorial part of the Legislative Branch is elected by popular vote in staggered parts over six years. The Executive and Legislative Branches then select all members of the federal judiciary. The American public has no direct input in the selection of the Judicial Branch.

Federal judges receive life-time appointments subject only to their own choice or, extremely rarely, impeachment. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase (in 1805) was the only U.S. Supreme Court justice to have articles of impeachment brought against him; he was acquitted and continued on the court. Fifteen lower federal court judges have been impeached in American history. Eight were convicted and removed from the court. Four were acquitted and three resigned. We currently have about 1,800 federal judges including 9 Supreme Court justices.

The Judicial Branch of our government is in some ways the most powerful and in every way the least democratic branch. While we have only one President, the President may serve a maximum of eight years and must be elected by popular vote. Of course, the Electoral College is the mechanism we use, but popular vote by the electorate is still the gold standard. That is, we have the right to help choose our Executives. Not so our federal judges.

In like manner, we have the right to help choose our state’s Congress people and our state’s two senators. And while there are no term limits for the Legislative Branch, if we choose, we can vote them out. Not so our federal judges.

The historical reasons for how our ideal form of a Three Equal Branch democracy became two equal branches with the Judicial Branch being outside the control of the citizens are complex and, in many ways, convoluted. For the purposes of this column, I ask for a suspension of your legitimate questions about the etiology of how we got to our current non-democratic system. I respectfully recommend an examination of the most famous and momentous U.S. Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1cranch) 137 (1803). It was the original wrongly decided case that the highly political Chief Justice John Marshall used to outfox his bitter political opponent, President Thomas Jefferson, and usurp out of whole cloth for the Supreme Court the ultimate authority to determine if an act or law was constitutional. That was the beginning of how the federal courts have placed themselves beyond the reach of the citizens and slowly but inexorably created a government that, I submit, James Madison and the other Founders would not recognize. The ideal of a living democracy based on direct citizen involvement in the selection of each of three separate and equal branches of self-government has evolved into bicameral branches of Executives and Legislators who then choose the Judicial Branch.

Most experts now believe it would take an amendment to Article III of our Constitution to return to the purity of the Founders’ vision. If so, that painful and arduous process would be preferable to the alternatives.