Still Misplacing Blame Knowing What We Know

“The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it.” -Ayn Rand

“Knowing what we know now” arguments are irrelevant to history, i.e. the Iraq War. We cannot study it through that prism, because decisions were based on what was believed at the time. Besides, what is it that we supposedly “know now”? That Saddam Hussein indeed had weapons of mass destruction, and impeded United Nations-mandated weapons inspections for over a decade? Check. That Iraq harbored terrorists throughout that time? Check. That we are still fighting terrorism, despite those who wish to ignore that fact? Check. That current instability in the region is a direct result of U.S. troop withdrawal and failure to secure a Status of Forces Agreement? Check. And that ISIS grew from this failure? Check. So, what is this “new” information warranting yet another re-visiting and second-guessing the reasons for the war?

A decades-old argument - “Would a president drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima knowing what we know now?” - has morphed into the current discussion - “Would a president invade Iraq knowing what we know now?” Since hindsight has a perfect record, this always is a flawed debate. On both accounts, information at the time said yes; any present circumstances - which are due to many unrelated factors - is irrelevant to that decision. The best example of this in more recent memory is the equally divisive and oft-compared Vietnam War. A conflict that epitomizes the Cold War, it was supported early as a fight against legitimate communist aggression that potentially could cascade across Southeast Asia and beyond. When that “domino effect” failed to materialize, critics attacked the validity for the war in the first place. Remember too, at the onset of the Second World War, the U.S. was only fighting Japan until Germany declared war on us as well. The focus then shifted to a two-front war, but as part of a larger picture; in my opinion, and for many like-minded people, a similar situation existed with Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet, we have pulled out and failed to maintain a military readiness in either country to counter the continuing cascading threat from the likes of al Qaeda and ISIS.

Concerning the lead-up to the Iraq War and its fallout, I still wholeheartedly support - as do many of those same like-minded people - the decision by the Bush Administration and our allies to act in 2003. Saddam Hussein and his tyrannical regime had to go, as a threat to the Iraqi people, to the region and in the grander scheme of fighting terrorists and those who harbor them. After a decade of disregard and obfuscation by Iraq over its WMDs, who finally was going to force them to comply? The ineffective U.N. that cowered and had been duped by Saddam over that time? How much more time would he be allowed? Another decade? The U.S. and its allies took the initiative lacking in the useless U.N. in order to enforce that compliance. Even more, the critical attacks on the intelligence for WMDs now have been shown, at the very least, to be without merit themselves given “what we know now”...which some of us knew all along concerning Iraq’s weapons program:  they had them.

In comic books, it is becoming evermore a rarity to have purely good superheroes, because even they must exhibit a darker side to have value in an increasingly cynical world. That is the problem with the world today. Every decision is second-guessed in hindsight as a consequence of this attitude, forgetting the valid reasons for it at the time. In doing so, we perform a disservice by tearing down good while raising up evil. For his part, President Obama's “legacy” will be remembered as a failure, defined by ineffectiveness, weakness and retreat in the face of that evil born from that cynicism. Meanwhile, the legacy for those opposed to the Iraq War - both then and now - will be the still cynically misplaced blame on the “evil” President Bush for that current situation. All because of the ambiguous assertion over “what we know now.” 

©2015 Steve Sagarra

My Take: Batman vs Superman Dawn of Justice

Batman vs. Superman:  Dawn of Justice opens in less than a year. As soon as it was announced, I decided to have some fun and create my own version of the opening scene as follows:

Events of the battle of Metropolis are witnessed once again. Approaching its ultimate climax, the scene pans out to a darkness illuminated only by the light of an oversized monitor. A cave, the nocturnal activity of its residents echoing. Attached to the monitor is an advanced computer terminal, before it a fashionably dressed gentleman, his hair coiffed neatly to match his designer cufflinks, sits in a high-backed chair. Through his chiseled and stoic appearance, he keenly observes the action between Superman and Zod play out on the monitor.
      The gentleman pushes a small, black button on the console.
      “Alfred, I believe it’s time for that meeting with Alexander Luthor in Metropolis.”
      “Very well, sir. Will you be visiting in your typical manner, or just as Bruce Wayne?”
      “Both.”

[END SCENE. ROLL OPENING CREDITS, DISSOLVE INTO NEXT SCENE]

With his personal servant and bodyguard, Alfred Pennyworth, leading the way, Bruce Wayne disembarks into a private hangar at Metropolis airport. He is approached by a throng of the city's media personnel, none more visible than Lois Lane.
      “Mr. Wayne, why have you come to Metropolis? Are you here to help or to exploit?”
      “Ms. Lane, isn't it? I am here to offer the resources of Wayne Enterprises to assist LexCorp and the citizens of Metroplis rebuild this great city from the destruction caused by this so-called ‘Superman’ and his people.”
      “We all witnessed Superman save this city, and the world, from his people. Do you not believe his motives in protecting us?”
      He winks at her. “I tend to take a more skeptical approach than those who sensationalize them in the media. After all, we witnessed him kill one of his people. Seems we should question the danger he could pose to all of us.”
      Not allowing questions from any other reporters concerning Wayne's trip, Lois Lane further presses him on the topic of Superman.
      “What about other stories uncovered that portray him as a savior? Do those not allay any fears we should hold concerning him?”
      “I'd say more urban legend fabricated by an enthusiastic journalist than definitive proof of his intentions.”
      She smirks, glaring at him. “Like Gotham City's ‘Batman,’ Mr. Wayne?”
      “Exactly, Ms. Lane. Nothing more than a rogue vigilante who should let the real heroes do their jobs. Now, if you'll excuse me I have a meeting to get to with Mr. Luthor. Thank you everyone.”
      Alfred escorts Bruce to a waiting limousine, and they drive away.

It can be subtle, but I want references to Batman's former partners…whose real names don’t turn out to be Robin (screw you Nolan!), but rather are called “Robin.” Especially, Jason Todd, the second “Robin” after Dick Grayson, and the memorial established in the Batcave by Batman after his death. There is speculation that Grayson's Nightwing is to make an appearance, possibly along with Carrie Kelley who became Batman's partner in Frank Miller's seminal graphic novel, The Dark Knight Returns. It would be cool to have a cameo by Tim Drake as well, who became the third “Robin” after Jason. (All of which could lend itself nicely to a solo Batman prequel/sequel movie centered around either the New 52’s “Court of Owls” or “Death of the Family” story arcs while reflecting on past adventures. But, I digress…)

Despite all the hate he receives from critics, I always have enjoyed Zack Snyder's films. In my opinion, 300 (another Frank Miller creation) and Watchmen (Alan Moore, who automatically disowns all film rights, be damned) are two of the most faithful adaptations of a comic book/graphic novel. Although I was unfamiliar with the source material at the time of each movie's release, both have the look and feel of it (again, Moore be damned). I have faith that once again Snyder will be faithful to the source material, while exploring and expanding upon it to bring his nuance touch to DC Comic’s signature cinematic universe. (I'm sure Moore would disagree though.)

©2015 Steve Sagarra

A Not-So-Free Market

How many times must it be said? You cannot, and should not, be penalized for refusing to participate in commerce, or likewise restricted in doing so. We have already seen, and continue to see, this argument play out most recently in the courts concerning the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”). Free-market capitalism depends on this dynamic in order for it to work as it should in creating a competitive environment.

On a more general level, apparently businesses that refuse to do business with a customer now warrants fines and penalties. Not saying it is right, but it is a business' right to refuse to do business with a customer for whatever reason in a free-market economy. Same as customers have the right never to do business with them again. I mean, why would you even want to do business with someone who is discriminatory toward you? I certainly would not want to give my business to them. That is the part I never understand. If a business in some way makes a customer not feel wanted or appreciated, guess what most normal people do? Take their business elsewhere, because it is a free-market economy with plenty of other businesses more than happy to have it.

Imagine, if you will, a person who does not want to associate with someone because of their differing beliefs and values. I think it is safe to say that a majority of people have come to that crossroad at least once in their lifetime. As such, you probably would be okay with that individual making that decision, right? Now imagine that "person" is a business...is it still ok? Or no? See, the argument is not whether it is right or wrong for anyone - or in the latter case, any entity - to deny the association, but rather if we, as a collective body, have the right to dictate right or wrong over whom one chooses to associate. We do not have that right, equally as much as any individual or business holds the right, if they so choose, not to engage in commerce with a particular entity or group of customers. While that might seem antithetical to the basic tenets of capitalism, it is their choice to conduct themselves in such a manner.  

On a personal level, apparently being a faithful, albeit casual, eBay seller with a stellar performance rating for over a decade means squat. Currently, I am trying to sell a prized collectible of high value, but the company instituted a “seller limit” a few years ago. Whatever is meant by that anti-capitalism sounding restriction. Meanwhile several people with less years and less items sold but similar rating as me have the exact same item for sale at the similar amount that I wish to list. Thus, I requested an increase to my limit to match their same level; they refused, based on a case-by-case determination that they could not relent on. In essence, they are hindering my ability to engage in free-market commerce because I am only a casual seller who has not reached their mandated arbitrary plateau. 

My dad - like Jack Lemmon's George Kellerman in the movie, Out-of-Towners - always maintained a figurative “little black book” of businesses that pissed him off, and then never did business with them again. I have become the same way (sans black book), but more people should learn that lesson. 

©2015 Steve Sagarra