James M. Redwine

News Media

Lip Service

by Leave a Comment

Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia and some other members of Congress took a fifteen-minute recess from regular duties to raise money for the National Republican Committee. One hundred thousand dollars was raised in a quarter of an hour when Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy pulled out his tube of used cherry flavored Chapstick and auctioned it off. McCarthy is from California so such economic disequilibrium is not surprising to Americans who follow reports of calls for five million dollar per person reparations in San Francisco and especially when Georgia’s Greene was the winning bidder.

This impromptu fundraiser took place in the halls of Congress on Tuesday, May 23rd. Such tangential matters as the then impending default on our 31 trillion dollars national debt and the 30 billion dollars worth of military armaments we have given to Ukraine pale in significance to the issue of chapped lips. Perhaps fifteen minutes spent on funding social security or avoiding a nuclear war with Russia could be squeezed into Congress’ agenda. It is certainly impressive how the essential matter of financing political campaigns could be so quickly addressed by our politicians.

Of course, America is not the only country that pays lip service to grave matters while politicians and the news media, including newspaper columnists, concentrate on bruised lips and egos. Meghan Markle sought to bring down the British monarchy before she had even joined it by demanding to use Kate Middleton’s Clarins Natural Lip Protector during a February 28, 2018 meeting of the Royal Foundation Forum. Kate and William were shocked and Meghan and Harry were offended that Kate and William were shocked. A toppling of the throne was averted by Meghan squeezing some balm out of the tube onto her finger instead of applying it directly to her lips.

The backdrop for Meghan’s royal faux pas was the first public event to initiate the Royal Foundation Forum which was established to help fund charitable causes such as mental health needs. Naturally, the failure of British etiquette by the plebeian American received more coverage than the fund raising. Harry even saw fit to highlight it in his family confessional book, Spare.

I suppose it is too much to expect the British public to be less concerned with the battle among the royals over lip gloss than the Battle of Hastings. Nor should we be surprised if our Congress can find time to quickly fund political campaigns but not the national debt. But, Gentle Reader, wouldn’t it be refreshing and bring smiles to our faces if such topics were the fodder of columnists instead of chapped and colored lips?

Undermining the Courts

by Leave a Comment

At 3:30 am on Thursday, April 20, 2023 I was watching cable news anchor Alex Wagner of MSNBC, who was analyzing the controversy involving two conflicting federal court rulings concerning the abortion drug Mifepristone. Wagner pointed out the federal district judge in Texas had been appointed by President Donald Trump. Ms. Wagner did not refer to the federal district judge in the state of Washington having been appointed by President Barack Obama. Wagner opined that these diametrically opposed court holdings and the U.S. Supreme Court’s attempts to reconcile them, “Could undermine the legitimacy of the courts.”

Naturally, Gentle Reader, your first thought is what was I doing watching television at three thirty in the morning and why would I watch MSNBC at any time? As to why I was awake, hey, I’m frequently responding to urges I never had when life was new. As to why MSNBC, I watch the news with my finger on the remote so I can attempt to outmaneuver the commercials. MSNBC happened to have the court story on instead of some offer of products guaranteed to enhance weight loss and other things, so I listened in.

It was Wagner’s views on the court system, not any exposition of Mifepristone, that piqued my attention. She said on national TV what may be a sub rosa thought with many Americans, “Why should we have confidence in the independence and reliability of our federal judges?” Are federal judges acting as Socrates demanded or are they deciding cases politically? Does a federal judge’s ruling depend more on the facts and the law or the judge’s political views and those of the president who appointed them?

In his trial before the Athenian judges, Socrates admonished his judges, “To do justice, not make a present of it.” In other words, a judge’s duty is not to repay his or her appointing politician, but:

“To hear courteously; to answer wisely; to consider soberly; and to decide impartially.”

Americans have for over 200 years supported the right of judges to be a separate and independent branch of our government. However, in our current national environment, many decisions from, especially the U.S. Supreme court, but more and more frequently also from the lower federal courts due to wide-ranging injunctions from one-person federal district judgeships, are seen by many Americans as political pronouncements.

Virtually every national debate about federal judicial decisions begins with a reference to the politics of who appointed the judge or judges and the history of the judge’s political leanings. It may be difficult to recall, but before our current turbulent social environment seldom was it alleged that, as justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said in dissent to the abortion decision of Dobbs vs. Jackson, “Today the proclivities of individuals (Supreme Court Justices) rule.”

When even one third of the members of the U.S. Supreme Court publicly and in print accuse the other two thirds members of deciding cases for political reasons, it sounds an alarm about an independent judiciary. An independent judiciary is essential to maintaining our democracy. As long ago as 1835 Alexis de Tocqueville noted, “In America, practically every political question eventually becomes a judicial one.” De Tocqueville meant that Americans have confidence in the impartiality of our courts so they take their disputes to courts to be resolved.

It would be a shame if now de Tocqueville might have to conclude, “In America, practically every federal judicial question becomes a political one.” Perhaps next week, if I am still awake at 3:30 am, we might further address these volatile issues including some suggested remedies.

The Mass Shooting Tocsin

by Leave a Comment

The definition of a “mass shooting” in the United States is a moving target based on the source of who describes an incident. While there is no neutrality on the issue of guns, the non-profit organization, Gun Violence Archive (GVA), defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people, not including the shooter, are killed from gunshots. Applying these criteria, the GVA has published its figures for the period of January 01, 2023 to April 10, 2023 and compared it to the same time for 2014. In 2014 there were 59 incidents of mass shootings in the U.S. and in 2023 there were 146.

While those who announce the statistics may have motives to mischaracterize the figures, the statistics starkly establish an alarming trend upward. In a country of 330 million people where more people commit suicide with guns than commit mass shootings, and more than 30,000 die in vehicle accidents each year, it may appear that mass shootings in America are not out of control. But the tocsin should sound to alert us to a possible greater danger of a change in our national character.

It is not the inanimate objects of firearms that may be our greater concern but the animus we feel for one another. The most significant issue we should concentrate on is not the number of guns in our country nor who can access them, although these are important. What may be in play is why are we as a people engendering a degree of nihilism in some members of our society that so devalues oneself and others that “death by cop” and the deaths of unknown others is preferable to living.

I own guns, have since I was a boy. We had long guns in the pantry right next to our family’s dining table. There were no locked gun cabinets and no need for one. If I wanted to go hunting, I pulled back the curtain on the pantry, grabbed one of the guns and went hunting. Every boy and man I knew owned or had access to guns. Guns were not a means to achieve attention. We knew approval came from school and work and how we treated others, disapproval too. National attention was not on our radar but if it had been we knew it would need to come from helping others not indiscriminately murdering them. Our family was like most others and if we ever achieved any news media notoriety it was for some small contribution to local culture. It did not compute for most people that fame and infamy were equally desirable as long as they spelled the names right. So, what happened? What went wrong and how can we fix it?

The news media is not to blame for fostering a climate of “If it bleeds, it leads.” As a newspaper columnist for 33 years, I am a member of the media and I deny responsibility for anyone else’s behavior. I have enough to do being responsible for my own. No, the media is simply following the demands and interests of the American public. Movies, songs, video games and television shows that garner ticket sales and awards for ad nauseam renditions of pornography and senseless violence are the harbingers of what news sources people will pay attention to. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and others are in business. They follow the demographics and those demographics are that what sells is the denigration of our politicians and blood from our citizens. What does not sell is any mention of good character and acts of kindness.

So, what does a disaffected, depressed, detached and marginal person conclude from the media? If one wants to matter, he or she must denigrate others or spill the blood of innocent strangers and themselves. I realize we will not return to the Andy Griffith Show and Walter Cronkite country we transitioned out of when all politics and all news was local. However, we can reevaluate how we report, not comment, on people with whom we disagree or, perhaps, even despise. The facts should be enough. Adjectives as to a politician’s motives should be eschewed. If the object of a news story is wrong, the public can reach that conclusion without some news anchor repeatedly claiming, “That’s a lie!” A lie requires intent and how does the news anchor know one’s intent. It should be sufficient to state the evidence and leave it up to the viewer or reader to decide if it is a lie or a mistake or even a difference of opinion.

A gradual turning away from a culture where, “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones”, might be a good place to start. Or, if not Shakespeare, how about our mothers’ advice, “If we can’t say something nice about someone, don’t say anything at all?”

I get it that this approach might take years to help assuage our epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings. But I ask you, Gentle Reader, do you think the problem will be solved by continuing to vilify everyone we disagree with? Maybe, at least, respectfully hearing out opposing views before we label someone a crook or a liar might pour oil on troubled waters and help reduce our national tendency to assassinate character. Such an approach of just reporting the news may tend to discourage people teetering on the edge from taking up arms and actually assassinating innocent people.

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.

Positive or Negative

by Leave a Comment

Equal Justice Initiative National Memorial Montgomery, Alabama

 

There is no memorial on the Posey County, Indiana courthouse lawn to the seven Negroes murdered by a white mob on October 12, 1878. There is a modest stele naming those soldiers with Posey County connections who served in   the Revolutionary War and an impressive statue honoring all who served in the Civil War. There are bronze plaques on the lobby walls of the Posey County Coliseum commemorating many of those who served. The Coliseum houses one of Posey County’s two courts and the other court is located in the courthouse.

Because I was the elected Posey Circuit Court Judge and because our son, James David Redwine, was a West Point graduate who would later earn a Bronze Star for Service on the front lines of both the Gulf War 1990-1991 and the Iraq War of 2003-2011 I was asked to speak at both the War Memorial Re-Dedication on Sunday, October 21, 1990 and Re-Dedication of the Soldiers and Sailors Monument on July 23, 2008. I was honored to do so and wrote the following poems for the occasions. The poems appeared in several newspapers after each commemoration:

 

WAR MEMORIAL RE-DEDICATION
(Sunday, October 21, 1990)

SUNDAY MORNING CHIMES

How dear it is to be alive:
To hear the peal of morning chimes;
To feel the invigorating sting of this autumn day;
To taste the rich and biting air;
To smell the acrid smoke of burning leaves;
To see the glory of Nature’s third act.

How satisfying to still be a player:
To know a child’s trust;
A family’s support;
A friend’s companionship; or
A lover’s caress.

How thrilling it is to learn,
To plan,
To strive
To serve,
To live!

These wondrous things:  These sensations;
These desires;
These dreams;
These visions.  This life,
Is what these heroes have sacrificed for us.

RE-DEDICATION OF THE SOLDIERS AND SAILORS MONUMENT
(Wednesday, July 23, 2008)

WELL DONE!

At Lexington and Concord, the young blood began to flow.
At the Battle of New Orleans, muskets killed our cousins and our foes.

At the Alamo and Buena Vista, we stood to the last man.
At Shiloh, Chickamauga and Gettysburg, brothers’ blood soaked the sand.

At San Juan Hill and when the Maine went down, our soldiers never flinched.
At Verdun and by the Marne, a million men died in the trench.

At D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge, after Hiroshima’s mushroom clouds,
At Incheon Landing the forgotten war brought many more funeral shrouds.

At Khe Sanh and during Tet, we held our own and more.
At the Battle of Medina Ridge, our Gulf War warriors upheld the Corps.

At Sinjar, Mosul, and places with strange names,
Our Iraqi War veterans now earn their fame.

In uniforms, our citizens have served well everyone.
Today, we here proclaim to them our solemn praise:  Well done!

 

It is fitting and proper that we honor those who serve and that we are permanently reminded of the horrors of war. Society needs to be constantly on guard and eternally grateful. Of course, the reasons that call for memorials about wars are much the same as why we need memorials to our collective evil done to some citizens by other citizens.

Since I first discovered, by accident, in 1990 the legal system’s long covered up murders of Daniel Harrison, Sr., Daniel Harrison, Jr., John Harrison, James Good, Ed Warner, William Chambers and Jeff Hopkins by, as the Mt. Vernon, Indiana Western Star Newspaper said on October 17, 1878, “two to three hundred of the county’s best white citizens” right on the Posey County, Indiana courthouse campus, I have called for accountability and a memorial to the victims. Society owes this atonement to the victims and we as a society need it for ourselves.

What the sign says. Pictures by Peg Redwine

Potsdam Revisited

by Leave a Comment

At the Potsdam Conference

Joseph Stalin (USSR), Winston Churchill (Great Britain) and Harry Truman (United States) met in Potsdam, Germany from July 17 to August 02, 1945 to “establish the post WWII order”. In 1945 the earth had 74 recognized countries. Some of the other 71 countries felt they should have been invited to the conference and have exhibited their displeasure from time to time since 1945.

When I turn on cable TV I sense that the heads of CNN, Fox News and MSNBC may have had their own Potsdam Conference and divided up the world’s news cycles. While it may appear to us viewers the news networks are competing, I suspect each is happy in its own sphere of influence. CNN regurgitates their favorite kicking boy Donald Trump whenever it wants to change the subject. For example, when they wish to ignore the question of whether Andrew Cuomo should lose his one-time COVID-19 sainthood. MSNBC has Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski vilify the conservatives in Congress whenever their ratings sag, which is often. And Fox News revels in finding stories of liberal policies run amok.

But I suspect the umbrage each cable news anchor evidences is more act than actuality. They all appear pretty well situated in their own tunnel vision. The problem for the rest of us is there are actual problems that need to be addressed other than whether some celebrity has fallen from their pedestal. We need news! What we don’t need are mere opinions in search of agendas.

I have a modest suggestion. I recommend every cable news executive and anchor read a book. I know it is a lot to ask but instead of just talking heads we need heads with something in them. This was apparently what my best friend, Dr. Walter Jordan of Martinsville, Indiana, thought about me. He sent me a book for my birthday entitled Think Again. He has known me long enough to know I need the advice.

Adam Grant’s book suggests we all could be happier and more productive if we would approach life actively open-minded and instead of always searching for reasons we must be right search for reasons we might be wrong. Grant is an organizational psychology professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He’s a smart guy but his book is still actually useful and fun to read.

Grant posits that we have two general biases that impact our inability to see the fallacies in our extreme positions, such as, should we get a COVID vaccination or not? One is confirmation bias where we see or hear what we expect to see and hear. The other is desirability bias where we see and hear what we want to. Grant suggests we need to be more scientific in our approach to life and instead of analyzing issues by starting with what we want and expect, that is, starting with a set answer, we should lead with questions and look for all the evidence.

Of course, my particular experience as a judge leads me to believe that gathering all the relevant evidence on a topic before one reaches a conclusion is the best approach. First glean the facts, then decide. But I certainly have fallen short of this goal from time to time. What I find dangerous about cable news attempts to set our society’s agendas is that the cable news networks seem to have it as their talisman that their desired outcomes are the facts. They can and should do better and so must we.

%d bloggers like this: