James M. Redwine

Trump

It’s Just A Number

by Leave a Comment

An ABC News/Washington Post Poll taken Sunday, May 07, 2023 of likely voters in the 2024 Presidential election had 68% of Americans saying Joe Biden is too old to be president next term. The same poll says only 44% think Donald Trump could be too old to serve. Biden is now 80 and Trump is now 76.

Joe Biden is claimed to have a fetish about sniffing the hair of women who are not his wife. Trump is alleged to have sexually assaulted several women to whom he was not married. If the American public’s fascination with sexual activity by characters on TV, in movies and books is considered in the choosing of our political leaders, we can postulate there may be a virility factor in play in choosing between our current and former president.

Apparently, the four-year difference in what will be two octogenarian relics by the end of the next term is of material importance to most voters. Neither old guy is the John F. Kennedy sex symbol he may see himself to be but the public appears to prefer its senility a little more virile, at least by reputation. Of course, it is possible neither Biden nor Trump will be on the ballot in 2024 as some dark horse may yet rush in to take all the perks of the presidency.

Of course, sexuality is only one element of a candidate’s character. We should examine the policies and performance of both Biden and Trump. In that regard, some like Trump’s stance on immigration and some like Biden’s. The same is true on the economy, cultural issues and international relations among many other issues. That is why we have elections and campaigns. But just as the coronation of King Charles III seemed to find the media concentrating on which crowns and robes Charles and Camilla donned as well as which handbag Kate carried as opposed to the substance of Charles’ vision for Great Britain’s future, it will not surprise any of us if the national media miss all the policy differences any of the candidates may have as the media focuses on the titillation of each person’s peccadilloes. Of course, the reason the media will do this is because that is what most of us are interested in. Policy is just so common.

Superannuated lotharios may be past their prime but they are more interesting than policy differences. As for me, Gentle Reader, for personal reasons, I choose to believe either Joey or Donnie or some other codger or even a 35-year-old could serve okay if the only consideration is age. Now whether we happen upon anyone who should lead this great country for the years 2025-2028, well, I must leave that lucky guess to each of you and the fickle folly of fate.

 

Peace Be Upon Us

by Leave a Comment

Photo by Peg Redwine

The United States and Russia have been jockeying for position in Ukraine since, at least, 2014. Three American presidents, Obama, Trump and Biden, and one Russian president, Putin have been in power during this period.

According to a publication of the Congressional Research Service updated on October 21, 2022 the United States has, up to October 14, 2022, provided $20.3 billion in “security assistance” to Ukraine. As one can observe on CNN, Russia has destroyed large swaths of Ukrainian territory and Google projects if the war ended now it would cost between $100 billion – $200 billion dollars to reconstruct the damaged areas. The human cost was not considered but it is immense.

Ukraine’s Crimea area was taken over by Russia by force in 2014. The world took note and America began arming Ukraine in anticipation of just what happened on February 24, 2022. If that invasion had not happened the United States could have saved over $20 billion dollars, Ukraine could have been spared up to $200 billion dollars in reconstruction costs and Russia could have preserved untold billions in economic and humanitarian costs. The spin off cost to the rest of humanity is incalculable with the loss of tens of thousands of lives, untold wounds and injuries and millions of people displaced from their homes.

We humans have known since cave man days that there may be times when peace is bought at too dear a price, but there never is a time when war is good in either human or economic terms. What we have not yet perfected is a method of maintaining a just peace in the face of an aggressor who is bent on an unjust war.

But we all know peace is best and war is worst. Muslims greet people with “Peace be upon you” and Christians cite the peace-keeping propensities of Jesus as his greatest virtue. Jews say “Shalom” (peace) when coming or going and virtually every culture claims peace as one of its paramount goals. We humans have repeatedly codified peace as one of our greatest treasures.

The Charter of the United Nations, ratified on October 24, 1945, at Chapter VI, Article 33, demands that disputing countries:

“[S]hall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation,
conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional
agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.”

“The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary,
call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.”

Just such a solution was found to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 by United States President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Union President Nikita Khrushchev. America had installed nuclear missiles in Turkey, then on the border of the USSR, and in Italy that was not far from Russia. Khrushchev responded by seeking to install nuclear missiles in Cuba. Instead of nuclear war, America withdrew its armaments from Turkey and Italy and the USSR turned its missile loaded ships around and took them home.

There are similarities to the current confrontation among Russia, Ukraine and America. The United States has armed Ukraine that borders Russia. Russia rattled its sabres for some time and has brought disaster on itself, Ukraine and, potentially, its other neighbors, such as Georgia that was invaded by Russia in 2008 and 2014. Poland, Finland, Moldova, etcetera, etcetera remain within Russia’s radar. Perhaps reliance on the wisdom of the United Nations Charter might be in order.

As Abraham Lincoln advised:

“Discourage litigation (and war is the ultimate litigation);
Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can.”

In their book, Law and Economics, at p. 356, Robert Cooter and Thomas Ulen state:

“For any trial [war], a settlement usually exists that makes both parties better off, so trials [wars] are usually inefficient.”

 And legal philosopher Richard Posner states:

“The primary (though not the exclusive) function of law is
to aid parties by altering incentives.”

                                                Economic Analysis of Law, p 256

The American Bar Association explains that disputes should be approached by emphasizing a problem solving attitude (integrative bargaining) in which both sides seek a solution that meets their interests. And other countries should encourage such an approach, not exacerbate the problem.

Now one might think we are a little late in the Russia/Ukraine War to pour oil on troubled waters, but what is the alternative, perpetual and expanding war? Besides, Ukraine is only one of Russia’s neighbors. Peace in the whole world should be the goal. For as suggested by the Charter of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization):

“Since wars begin in the minds of men”,
peace must supplant conflict in their hearts.

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.

%d bloggers like this: