The Parent of All Virtues

Despite current global political and economic issues, Thanksgiving is even more a time for giving thanks. As witnessed earlier this month, the transition of power, while not always amicable, sustains the principles that have governed since the inception of the United States. Though not a guarantee, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is still a tangible ideal beyond mere words on an aged parchment. Ultimately, opportunities exist consistent with the choices we make, with only our own hesitations for seizing upon them the true limitation. For those and other reasons, Americans should be thankful to live in such a country.

As the Cold War came to an end, those born during that tumultuous period of the late 1980s/early 1990s are now coming of age and leading toward the future. In the U.S., the founding members of that post-collapse generation voted in their first presidential election; some of those same individuals are engaged in defending and spreading those values in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. It is a blessing that the voice of the people matters, and to have those willing to sacrifice to protect that right. It was not the case in parts of the world twenty years ago, and even today, the fight continues to ensure and maintain it around the globe.

One of the best ways to experience expressions of thankfulness is a visit to the airport. There is no joke here about people gratified about landing safely or that their arrival/departure is on time. It would be too easy. No, the true source is in the people themselves. A mother, refreshed from a vacation with friends, hugging her little boy once disembarked. Thankful for the week of rest, more so for the one thing that matters most in her life. Or the soldier, fresh from a tour of duty himself, waiting for his buddies to arrive in town as well. It will be like old times, before the world’s problems called. Thankful they get another day.

Then there is Helen, recently diagnosed with breast cancer. Thankful it was caught in time, well aware that it could have been worse. Whether it contributed or not, she admits to a twenty-year smoking habit. Perhaps, it could have been lung cancer; thankfully, it was not. Her friend is en route from Omaha, taking the first flight out once she heard the news. They have not seen each other in ten years, but it will be just like yesterday Helen enthuses. When they meet, the joyful tears and enthusiastic roar echo throughout baggage claim. Perhaps it has been ten years, but it is just like yesterday.

Too often, we are bombarded by the grotesqueries of humanity, weakening the potential of the human spirit to overcome such things. Though not unique in the course of mankind, it is an uncertain world in uncertain times. Even so, as you sit down with friends and family this year, take the time to consider for what there is to be thankful. You may find that there is a lot, even if it may seem trifling.

©2008 Steve Sagarra

Historically Inaccurate Movies

For the obvious reason of being a historian, I am a nitpicker when it comes to historical movies. I get it from my dad, who was a history buff. It is so bad that no one will see a historically based movie with me any more - but I am always the first consulted if something needs clarification/verification! Needless to say, I was excited to come across 10 Most Historically Inaccurate Movies.

I love the fact that Braveheart makes the list, as I always cite it for the historical fallacies outlined in the article. Do not get me wrong, it is one of my favorites for its story and overall entertainment value. I also find it interesting that two other Mel Gibson movies – Apocalypto and The Patriot – make the list. However, there are two - 300 and 2001: A Space Odyssey - that I feel do not deserve the distinction. Stylized for a comic book audience based on another historically flawed movie (The 300 Spartans) that inspired him as a kid, Frank Miller stated that his graphic novel upon which the movie 300 is based is not accurate. It is meant to be entertaining, not history. Likewise, to include 2001 would be to include every futuristic movie that has not panned out; it is meant to be science fiction, not science fact.

I understand that movies are for entertainment, constantly chastising those who use movies as their sole reference source. As Maximus asks in Gladiator, another to make the list, "Are you not entertained?" Indeed, I am. Granted, good or bad, movies are a mass means for exposing people to a subject. Nevertheless, I often find that the true history is just as exciting, if not more so, than Hollywood’s version – and sometimes it is also truly stranger than the fiction. I just want people to be more critically aware to which version they are being exposed by taking the time to learn more about it. 

©2008 Steve Sagarra

Bushwhacked: The Prosecution Of A President

Voters in two Vermont towns – Brattleboro and Marlboro – voted, symbolically, to indict President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. The vote would authorize local police to arrest the two, or extradite them for prosecution elsewhere, if either ever visits the towns, should they not face impeachment first. There is just one problem, whether symbolic gesture or not:  while a sitting Vice-President, like all other federal civil officers, can face criminal prosecution, a sitting President cannot. Two famous examples are that of Vice-Presidents Aaron Burr and Spiro Agnew. The Department of Justice, in accordance with several court rulings, states that “…the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.”  Further, only the Congress has the authority to impeach a President while in office, and only later upon leaving can they be indicted and criminally prosecuted.

Impeachment is not a simple matter either, as a majority of the House of Representatives must agree to a resolution that alleges the President committed any of the offenses outlined in Article II of the Constitution – “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”  Ambiguity of the latter has perplexed legal analysts and scholars since inception. What exactly are “high crimes and misdemeanors”? With no explicit definition of what constitutes an impeachable offense, impeachment has been inherently more political ploy than a true legal process “ . . . regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, no. 65, 1788).

It is not a slight to say that the majority seeking the indictment/impeachment of President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are fringe leftists and politicians with an agenda. There have been many reasons offered for indicting/impeaching the President, but the two main arguments include the constitutionality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and federal electronic surveillance programs. The invasion of Iraq is a moot point for several reasons, but mainly because the entire Congress – Republican and Democrat alike – overwhelmingly approved giving President Bush the right to prosecute the war. Manipulation or not of the intelligence, as proponents of impeachment contend – and who is to say who may have manipulated it, if at all – Washington would be emptied if the sole case for impeachment were lying to the American people. Is it criminal to protect this country against those who are a threat to it?

Incidentally, President Clinton faced impeachment for lying to a grand jury about his relationship with an intern. Yet, a better case could have been made for involving the U.S. in the war in Kosovo under false pretenses – the still dubious and undetermined claim of genocide – without Congressional approval and against the United Nations’ mandate of non-interference. Yet, no such proceedings ever occurred. Lest it be forgotten as well, Clinton signed into law the “Iraq Liberation Act” in October 1998, which stood as an official statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq. Less than two months later, he authorized Operation Desert Fox, a four-day bombing campaign designed to weaken Saddam Hussein's grip on power – with the stated goal of hindering Iraq's ability to manufacture and use weapons of mass destruction. Five years later, the very same policy under the Bush Administration became an impeachable offense in conjunction with Democrats’ anti-war argument that Saddam Hussein never had WMDs.