Friday, June 13, 2008
Background noise
So, you have to love the photograph of the liberal Ohio judge who declared the death penalty as administered in that state unconstitutional. Is he a Communist who happens to support Barack Obama in the absence of actual Communists, or an Obama liberal who sees nothing wrong in promoting a Communist murderer? It is difficult to know which. The question is, why do we keep seeing Obama supporters who revere Che Guevara?
CWCID: Orin Kerr, via Glenn Reynolds.
46 Comments:
By 
dw, at
Sat Jun 14, 01:33:00 AM:
"The question is, why do we keep seeing Obama supporters who revere Che Guevara?"
I don't think having a photo of Che necessarily means "revere," believe it or not. I found that in college many people who had t-shirts of Che (and yes, there were republican guys too with 'em) actually didn't know what Che did. I think this is one of those situations where the image is detached from its meaning and history. Perhaps now it represents "change" or revolution to people. Is it a shitty image to represent change? Of course. He was a bastard. But that's my two cents on why people continue to wear the image. From an aesthetic point of view, it is a powerful and striking image and a decent crop of a photo (I believe taken with a Leica camera, too). Too bad the guy was a chump and people had to latch on to this picture, but I don't think that it actually has to do with supporting communism.
By 
, at
Sat Jun 14, 03:33:00 AM:
So ignorance is OK, David?
I have Che t-shirts, but have added on snarky remarks about El Che Che Grande in idiomatic Spanish.
Those who display such Che memorabilia without such defacement are either ignorant fools or are shilling for a murderous thug. I guess irony is another possibility. For a while in the 1990s I wore a Red Star pin with a cameo of Baby Lenin, in the spirit of an implicit mockery of the former USSR. I doubt the judge deliberately intended such irony. I doubt the judge realizes the unintended irony of ruling against the death penalty while displaying a poster of a thug who ordered several thousand executions himself.
In fact irony goes hand in hand with many who simultaneously display both Obama and Che artifacts. Maria Isabel, the Che campaign worker who displayed a Che flag at Obama HQ in Houston, and her husband have a zoning dispute where they are trying to construct a McMansion in a historic neighborhood.Here is what Maria Isabel said on the issue.
“It’s wrong to try to implement restrictions in my private property. I own this piece of land. This is America. I should be able to do anything I want with it.”
Given Che’s hard-core Communism,I doubt that Che would have taken such a libertarian view of ownership rights.
IOW, both Maria Isabel and the good judge come off as ignorant fools, when they display Che posters.
By davod, at
Sat Jun 14, 06:11:00 AM:
Having Che in the wall is in line with his complaint. After all, Che didn't believe in a two-stage execution process. Unless you consider torture then a bullet to be two-stage.
Some enterprising reporter should ask the judge whether he thinks a firing squad would be better.
By , at
Sat Jun 14, 09:28:00 AM:
David said...
"the image is detached from its meaning and history"
That defense cannot be used to fly the Confederate Battle Flag. With liberals some symbols are more detached than others, and they get to decide which ones those are.
"La Raza" is no big deal to them.
By , at
Sat Jun 14, 09:57:00 AM:
@ tyree: Liberals only have problems with THE GOVERNMENT running the confederate flag, much like they only have problems with THE GOVERNMENT leading prayer in schools. What you do is your business, see some of the less famous cases by the ACLU that defended students handing out religious tracts at lunch and the like.
General observation: it's this kind of disagreement over what a symbol means, and the near impossibility of a right answer, that makes people keep opposing a flag burning amendment. Beware of that issue if you think the "Che" disagreement has obvious issues. Also, I think it strange that people can't emblemize something for part of it's meaning, (such as Che's emphasis on fighting overwhelming poverty, US pseudoimperialism in the form of Batista, or moral vs material incentives). Why not rely on the fallback of "What do you think I am endorsing, the struggle for a better life in rough times or Draconian measures?" Unfortunately, this partial endorsement is complicated, and thus scary; I bet similes are rought for people that agree.
Sadly, it would seem that such a line would rely on NOT assuming that the person involved is bent on the destruction of everything good and decent, the killing of puppies and the murdering of rainbows. Such a charitable (sensible) interpretation frequently escapes commentators on Faux News and Rush's show.
Finally, terrorists, freedom fighters; I can never keep them straight, so I don't try.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Jun 14, 11:05:00 AM:
Is this what leftists mean when they complain about a lack of 'nuance?'
When people put up a portrait of Josef Stalin, I don't interpret it to mean that they simply approve of bushy moustaches. Likewise, when people put up a portrait of Che I don't interpret it to mean that they simply hate poverty.
And given the historical leftist obsessions with 'redistribution of wealth,' 'revolution,' and anti-capitalistic initiatives, you can't seriously believe that I'm being unreasonable. Or, gods forbid, uncharitable.
There is only one reason to put up a secular portrait like the ones shown: to SHOW OFF your beliefs. Therefore, you ought to be prepared to accept other people's inferences from such portraits. If I (Godwin forgive me) put up a portrait of Adolf Hitler in my study, a reasonable observer would infer that I am a neo-Nazi or otherwise a supporter of Adolf Hitler; NOT that I'm just a fan of his snappy uniform or an advocate of nationalizing the arms industry for whatever convoluted reason.
Complicated and therefore scary... how condescending.
And I find it amusing that you can apparently interpret a positive, peaceful, and moral meaning from a picture of a bloodthirsty revolutionary, but claim to be unable to tell the difference between terrorists and 'freedom fighters.' I guess nuance only goes so far?
By , at
Sat Jun 14, 11:46:00 AM:
@ anonymous
Also, I think it strange that people can't emblemize something for part of it's meaning, such as Che's emphasis on fighting overwhelming poverty….
Here we are in image versus reality, as Cuba pre 1959 was one of the better off countries in the world. If poverty were the reason for a Revolution, Cuba pre 1959 would have been far down the list. The following data is from Renaissance and Decay and from World Bank Development Indicators online.
Consider health care. From Renaissance and Decay:
"Cuba’s infant mortality rate of 32 per 1,000 live births in 1957 was the lowest in Latin America and the 13th lowest in the world, according to UN data. Cuba ranked ahead of France, Belgium, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Portugal, all of which would eventually overtake Cuba in this indicator during the following decades (UN1979, pp. 67-188).Today, Cuba remains the most advanced country in the region in this measure, but its world ranking has fallen from 13th to 25th during the Castro era, according to UN Data (1997b, pp. 93-100)."
In 1957, Cuba had ~ 1000 inhabitants per MD, comparable to the US and Western European countries, better than many countries in Europe and all the “Third World” countries with the exception of Argentina, Uruguay, and Hong Kong.(UN, World Health Organization yearbook ).
In 1960 life expectancy in Cuba was 8 years greater than that in Latin America ( 64 versus 56 years). In 2005, life expectancy in Cuba was 5 years greater than that in Latin America (78 versus 73 years). (WBDI)
From Renaissance and Decay we get information on food supply.
"The UN’s Statistical Yearbook, 1960 (pp. 312-316) ranked pre-revolutionary Cuba third out of 11 Latin American countries in per capita daily caloric consumption. This was in spite of the fact that the latest available food consumption data for Cuba at the time were from 1948-49, almost a decade before the other Latin American countries’ data being used in the comparison."
By 1996, Cuba was last among those 11 countries.
There is further irony about Che’s “idealistic” image, with regard to Bolivia. Che the Argentine wanted to bring revolution to Bolivia, when Bolivia had already had a revolution in 1952 that had nationalized the mining companies and passed out land to peasants. The irony is that many Bolivians view Argentines as arrogant racist SOBs. Here is a joke that illustrates that point of view.
At the end of every mass, a young Bolivian priest concluded mass by saying, “And may God give the Argentines the punishment they deserve.” Eventually word of this got back to the Bishop, who had a talk with the young priest. “The Argentines, like the Bolivians, are children of God. Stop it.” The young priest stopped bad-mouthing the Argentines.
The year rolled on, and Easter approached. The young priest related the story of the last supper to his congregation. Jesus said to the apostles, “One of you will betray me.” Peter said, “ Maestro, soy yo.” “Lord , it is I (who will betray you).” Jesus replied, “No, Peter, it is not you who will betray me.” Simon said, “Master (maestro), it is I (who will betray you).” Jesus replied, “No, Simon, it is not you who will betray me.” This went on, until Judas spoke, in an accent muy cantante/singing . Argentinines have a cantante/singing accent, due to the Italian heritage of many Argentines. “Che, Maestro, soy ZHO.” ("Soy yo." It is I (who will betray you)- in a distinctly Argentine accent.)
IOW, the Bolivian joke identified Judas as being Argentine. So much for an Argentine liberating Bolivia.
From start to finish, Che is about either 1) his actual incompetence and brutality or 2) an image. The image of Che has nothing to do with reality. Adolf vanted only the best for Germany, no? Adolf was very idealistic and was willing to fight down to the last German for his ideals. Somewhere along the line, results count.
By , at
Sat Jun 14, 02:38:00 PM:
Wow. I thought about providing a few observations re: the "nuance" that allows "Anonymous" to make such idiotic arguments couched in pseudo-intellectualism but DawnFire and Boludo have completely pwned him. Good work!
By JorgXMcKie, at
Sat Jun 14, 02:58:00 PM:
Back to the original question. I have an academic friend and colleague who is a dedicated Marxist. (I know, I know, but except for that particular bit of insanity he's a decent guy.)
Anyway, he was an early Obama supportr It is my view that what those who revere Che see in Obama is the mindless mob-following that charisma produces. I don't think (despite their words) that they believe that Obama is all that smart or tough-minded. Therefore, they expect to hijack his Presidency.
Clinton may be "of the Left", but she *is* tough-minded, and while she might be preferable to any non-Lefty, she is very unlikely to allow herself to be hijacked.
Obama falls into the "useful fool" category, I think.
By , at
Sat Jun 14, 03:00:00 PM:
Thanks Dawnfire. Worth repeating:
"And I find it amusing that you can apparently interpret a positive, peaceful, and moral meaning from a picture of a bloodthirsty revolutionary, but claim to be unable to tell the difference between terrorists and 'freedom fighters".
Each time I read it it gets more delicious.
By ron nord, at
Sat Jun 14, 03:07:00 PM:
Che used to like doing the executions himself, after torturing the condemed he'd shot them in the face so they could see it coming. Its true he broke a few eggs to make the omelet but what the hell, the trains ran on time and Dr. Mengle would take care of you over in his hospital after you've had your shower.
By , at
Sat Jun 14, 03:25:00 PM:
Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100 percent literacy. -John Derbyshire
By Ken, at
Sat Jun 14, 03:33:00 PM:
If you would object to a portrait of Himmler then you must either object to one of Guevara or support his ideals. Take your choice. You can't pick or choose your mass murderers unless you accept their ideology.
By , at
Sat Jun 14, 03:34:00 PM:
"Whoever has not anything will not get anything either. All my life I have been a have-not. I count myself as one of their number and have fought for them. Now again, I enter the fight as the representative of the havenots. I will never recognize the claims of others to that which they have gained by force and robbery. In no case will I permit this claim to apply to what has been taken from us."
-A. Hitler
So I suppose we should give Adolf partial credit for his populism?
By , at
Sat Jun 14, 03:34:00 PM:
Liberals only have problems with THE GOVERNMENT running the confederate flag, much like they only have problems with THE GOVERNMENT leading prayer in schools.
You are being ironic right? Please tell me you are being ironic. Being that that is a Che poster hanging in the judge's office and all...
By , at
Sat Jun 14, 03:35:00 PM:
Liberals only have problems with THE GOVERNMENT running the confederate flag, much like they only have problems with THE GOVERNMENT leading prayer in schools.
Uh--unless I'm mistaken the picture was taken in the judge's chambers, which are owned by the government. Oh well, no argument is too weak to use when coming to the defense of a double standard.
By Jason, at
Sat Jun 14, 04:07:00 PM:
No. The ACLU does NOT believe that private citizens have a first amendment right to display the Confederate battle flag. Their new position, publicly stated, is that they support the right of government officials to quash this form of expression, even absent evidence of disruption.
http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2008/06/students-barred-from-graduation-for.html
The ACLU has long since sold out American civil liberties in the name of libtardism.
By , at
Sat Jun 14, 04:32:00 PM:
I really can't believe I'm the first one to put this to words...
A liberal judge...
who hates the death penalty...
who has a Che fetish.
Is THIS the type of "clear thinking" people those of us who think Obama isn't qualified to run a lemonade stand are supposed to emulate?
Only a warped mind belonging to a man who can simulatenously diefy Che Guvara and rage against the machine of capital punishment could find inspiration in Obama.
What a cluster**** of a human being this guy is. Anyone want to take wagers on what's on his family web server?
By Unknown, at
Sat Jun 14, 04:53:00 PM:
".... found that in college many people who had t-shirts of Che (and yes, there were republican guys too with 'em) actually didn't know what Che did......"
This guy is old enough to know better. He's in his 50s by the look of him and he's a JUDGE for God's sake. He's not a college student.
By , at
Sat Jun 14, 05:00:00 PM:
Anonymous @ 4:32 p.m.
I really can't believe I'm the first one to put this to words...A liberal judge...who hates the death penalty...who has a Che fetish
You are not. Read the second comment @ 03:33:00 AM : “I doubt the judge realizes the unintended irony of ruling against the death penalty while displaying a poster of a thug who ordered several thousand executions himself.”
By pittypatpages.blogspot.com, at
Sat Jun 14, 05:07:00 PM:
Liberals only have problems with THE GOVERNMENT running the confederate flag, much like they only have problems with THE GOVERNMENT leading prayer in schools.
And of course, this poster hanging in Obama's campaign headquarters, the guy who wants to hold the highest office in our GOVERNMENT, that's different? Typical liberal thought process...sigh.
By davod, at
Sat Jun 14, 05:09:00 PM:
The Real Che argument will gain no traction because most people do not know what he really was, and the media is not interested in telling the truth.
I suppose a mass internet campaign with the truth, and photos of the dead and tortured, might help but it will still be an uphill battle.
For those of you who do not understand what all the fuss is about I recommend: Humberto Fontova: Obama's Supporters Say "Viva Che!", written when we were only talking about Obama campaign chiefs, not sitting judges.
By , at
Sat Jun 14, 05:17:00 PM:
Che Guevara was no advocate of representative government. He was the government. His will, in his mind, was the law. Dissent meant torture and death. He is dead. What makes supporters of Senator Obama, place Che's picture along side the Senator's? Whatever the reason, the inference is that Che and Senator Obama are seen as of the same opinion as to government, a viewpoint which can only be viewed with grave concern.
By , at
Sat Jun 14, 05:31:00 PM:
Yeah, the Che poster is bad. But take a good look at that Obama poster. That's the one that is genuinely creepy. Does it remind you of anything you've ever seen before? It has all the artistic elements of a 1930s vintage fascist propaganda poster. Liberal fascism indeed!
By , at
Sat Jun 14, 05:43:00 PM:
David Wellbaum said "...I found that in college many people who had t-shirts of Che (and yes, there were republican guys too with 'em)...."
I said: In my youth, I was a long haired, thrash-metal, head-bangin' conservative. I suspect the Republican college students using the che shirt to 'get with' the hot commie / hippie chicks. they tend to be quite a bit easier than the true conservative girls.
22 years later, I am dating a product of the former Soviet Union. She literally wept when I told her that I voted Republican. No kidding, right in front of me. Tears actually streamed down her face. Probably worse than if I claimed to be a horrible criminal.
By Brian, at
Sat Jun 14, 05:48:00 PM:
Using the word "nuance" is liberals way of saying you are too stuipd to see that what you see really isn't what you are seeing.
By , at
Sat Jun 14, 05:58:00 PM:
If I hang a picture of Hitler in my office it will be noticed, thought about and I'm sure commented on. Provocative art and all that. I do it intentionally as I am a learned man. If asked I can patiently explain, in my very scholarly way since of course I am a judge and well schooled, that I do not support all of Hitler's methods, understand that he murdered many, but do find some of his positions to be very interesting socially. These positions I find to have relevance to our present situation and society. All very erudite and civilized. I have hung the picture for those reasons.
As a judge with integrity to uphold the law blindly, I have rendered a verdict on something very socially divisive, say the death penalty, and I hold a news conference to discuss my ruling and let the people who depend on me for remaining neutral know that I have reached a verdict dispassionately.
Low and behold the picture of Hitler is behind me and someone snaps a picture with it as a backdrop. My views and more than likely some portion of my political beliefs have been juxtaposed upon the legal ruling that is the news for which all are gathered. I have allowed my very important ruling to become mixed up with a picture of my own personal beliefs, however nuanced, knowing that it is very disturbing to many people for many different reasons. Neither the time or place where a necessary discussion about why it is there can follow. It is for the viewer to understand and give meaning for themselves.
Feel free now to replace said image with a cross, flag or dare I say it a Marxist revolutionary. What on earth is this judge thinking? He has willfully poked me in the eye with an image that I find offensive. I don't like being poked in the eye especially, but may accept it if it has something to do with why I'm there.
Jees, what a tool. I'm supposed to believe he reached this decision impartially, by the law? Bad enough that the guy makes sure everyone knows what side of the street he lives on, but also uses a ruling on the death penalty to highlight a person who imposed his will on others by KILLING THEM! Makes me wonder why the supreme court doesn't hang pictures of their heros(?) or philosophical mentors behind them when hearing arguments or announcing decisions. What do you think? Maybe someone would think that they may be biased against people who don't hold their beliefs. I can see it now, Judge Scalia could have a picture of Jesus behind him and NO ONE WOULD SAY A THING.
By richard mcenroe, at
Sat Jun 14, 06:30:00 PM:
"I found that in college many people who had t-shirts of Che (and yes, there were republican guys too with 'em) actually didn't know what Che did."
Riiiiiiiiiight...
ya wanna think we're stupid, that's your call, but for god's sake don't TALK to us like we're stupid...
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sat Jun 14, 07:33:00 PM:
If the judge's message is "I am one of those hip people who like the ideals of radical leftists, without looking too closely into the precise details," I don't see how that is an improvement.
By , at
Sat Jun 14, 08:11:00 PM:
Suggestion: either define the word "liberal" in an entirely rigorous and sound way with extensive elaboration of philosophy and examples, or acquiesce to the notion that the word will lose meaning when everyone has their own definitions.
I'll draw a line between a courtroom and the judge's office, in much the same way I will draw the line between a school and the bottom of a drawer in a filing cabinet in a principal's office of that school. The courtroom and the school are public places; all of the arguments concerning government endorsing particular things, and why it shouldn't do that, apply. This ISN'T true in the judge's office, or said location in the principal's, because these are spaces that are incredibly unlikely to be seen by public and if even if they are, the implication that it is a personal endorsement and not a governmental one is clear. Similarly, I would have no problem with the ten commandments, the bible, the Koran, the Hadith, the Torah, etc in either of these locations, as the topic matter isn't important for the arguments.
It seems my previous elaboration was lost in submission, so I will repeat it. It's threefold, and would have been my first post if I suspected that the audience cared anywhere near as much about arguments as they seem to about ad hominem attacks, name-calling and labels.
1: The Have Your Cake and Eat It Too principle. Unless you condemn US actions supporting dictators, insurgents, and the like in South America and the Middle East, the condemnation meted out is purely pragmatic rather than principled; something is bad because it is against our interests, rather than something is bad because it goes against these basic moral precepts. When you sacrifice principles for pragmatism, the moral high ground goes out the window. You can do that, but it won't command respect.
2: What was Che fighting against? The Batista regime regularly enriched political appointees, condoned mob influence, made people disappear, persecuted opposition via speedy trial, replaced, the government, dissolved political parties, etc. This, I would argue, is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from the citations for violation of Godwin's law above. Hitler villified a demographic during trying economic times to cement his power, using influence to persecute. Che sought to depose the violations cited above, and went on to do a number of Draconian things. If you consider abuse of authority to be the same as fighting the abuse of authority, please stop reading, as nothing I say will matter.
3: The sneaky bastard argument. Let's assume Che was exactly like Adolph Hitler in every meaningful way, nay was in fact Satan himself. However, much like in the status quo, assume his image was associated popularly with a countercultural, antiauthoritarian bent and not his presumed legacy. For purposes of communication, it seems totally legitimate to use his image to spark those countercultural sentiments, as that is the message that is received rather than what actually took place.
I'll give you that it was a bad plan for the judge to be photographed with said poster, but I'd need tha bove to be addressed before I accept tht using Che's image is ever bad.
By , at
Sat Jun 14, 09:40:00 PM:
Among Mr. Guevara's enduring critics in Argentina are members of his own extended family. In an article titled "My Cousin, El Che," Alberto Benegas Lynch wrote last year that to wear a Che T-shirt "is like flaunting the gloomy image of the swastika as a peace symbol."
Cut and pasted from the WSJ.
unkawill
By dw, at
Sat Jun 14, 09:43:00 PM:
"So ignorance is OK, David? "
No, Boludo. Where do I say or imply that it is?
By The Fop, at
Sat Jun 14, 09:59:00 PM:
But the guy's a judge, for G-d's sake. He's not a politician that got elected by the people. He was appointed to uphold the laws of our constitution.
Che was an enemy of our country and an enemy of democracy and capitalism. If people in Berkeley want to elect left wingers that revere him, that's fine. America is a great country because 95% of it is NOT like Berkeley, or else we'd be Belgium.
But a judge? That's unacceptable. Sorry, but judge's offices should have pictures of our founding fathers, not pictures of people who would love to put a bullet in our founding father's faces.
By , at
Sat Jun 14, 10:08:00 PM:
Anonymous at Jun 14, 08:11:00 PM
Suggestion: either define the word "liberal" in an entirely rigorous and sound way with extensive elaboration of philosophy and examples, or acquiesce to the notion that the word will lose meaning when everyone has their own definitions.
Good point.
1: The Have Your Cake and Eat It Too principle. Unless you condemn US actions…
This is like the old Stalinist response to any condemnations of the USSR: what about Jim Crow oppression of blacks in the Southern USA? Yes we killed 20 millions in the Gulag, starved 6 million Ukrainians to death while exporting grain, but what about blacks in the South? It basically serves as a distraction. You cannot discuss Che unless you also condemn A…B….C…D…..N with regard to the USA. It is a way of avoiding the topic.
2: What was Che fighting against? The Batista regime regularly enriched political appointees, condoned mob influence, made people disappear, persecuted opposition via speedy trial, replaced, the government, dissolved political parties, etc. …..Che sought to depose the violations cited above and went on to do a number of Draconian things. If you consider abuse of authority to be the same as fighting the abuse of authority, please stop reading, as nothing I say will matter
On the contrary, far from “deposing the violations cited above,” Che and Fidel REPEATED the “violations cited above,” and worse. If Fidel and Che did not engage in abuse of authority, then the moon is made of blue cheese. A one-party totalitarian state does not engage in abuse of authority?
“regularly enriched political appointees:” check. All the mansions expropriated by the Fidelista Nomenklatura, Che included , not to mention access to foodstuffs, foreign trips and foreign consumer goods denied the average Cuban.
“made people disappear” .check. You haven’t heard of the DGI?
“persecuted opposition via speedy trial” . check. All of Che’s and Fidel's show trials. Does Huber Matos ring a bell? Have you ever bothered to read up on the early show trials of the Castro regime? Have you ever bothered to compare the number of Castro regime political executions with the number killed in the war against Batista?
“replaced, the government” : check
“dissolved political parties”: check . "Within the Revolution, Everything. Outside the Revolution, Nothing.” Does that ring a bell?
“condoned mob influence” :check. not Che, but see years later re cocaine trafficking, and fugitive from justice millionaire Robert Vesco given haven for years in Cuba before he was finally jailed. Guess the protection money ran out. I am surprised you didn’t talk about how Fidel got rid of all the prostitutes from Batista’s Cuba. Guess you didn’t because today prostitutes/jineteras are a very prominent part of the Cuban landscape.
In summation, every abuse that you accuse the Batista regime of,Fidel’s regime and Che committed, in spades.
I leave you with another vignette from our friend Che,nearly six years into the Revolution.
"Executions?" Che Guevara exclaimed while addressing the hallowed halls of the U.N. General Assembly on December 9, 1964. "Certainly we execute!" he declared, to the claps and cheers of that august body. "And we will continue executing (emphasis HIS) as long as it is necessary! This is a war to the DEATH against the revolution's enemies!"
According to the Black Book of Communism, those firing-squad executions had reached around 10,000 by that time.
By , at
Sat Jun 14, 10:16:00 PM:
@ David Wellbaum
"So ignorance is OK, David? "
No, Boludo. Where do I say or imply that it is?
The normal reason for asking a question is to find out something one doesn’t already know. I didn’t know your position on “ignorance,” so I asked you. You still haven’t answered my question.
By , at
Sat Jun 14, 10:18:00 PM:
David: my mistake. You DID answer my question.Thank you.
By dw, at
Sat Jun 14, 10:27:00 PM:
"The normal reason for asking a question is to find out something one doesn’t already know. I didn’t know your position on “ignorance,” so I asked you. You still haven’t answered my question."
Boludo, you asked a rhetorical question despite the fact that I did not imply in my post that the reason that these people are wearing the shirts is actually logical or justifiable, so for you to ask if I think "ignorance is OK" is just a condescending question. Does anybody think that ignorance is OK?
By Don Miguel, at
Sat Jun 14, 10:34:00 PM:
"2: What was Che fighting against? The Batista regime regularly enriched political appointees, condoned mob influence, made people disappear, persecuted opposition via speedy trial, replaced, the government, dissolved political parties, etc."
LOL! Short of "condoned mob influence" that sounds just like the Castro regime! The simple fact that Castro took Cuba from first to worst in just about every category when compared to every other Latin American country shows that what Batista did was nothing compared to what Castro and his henchman Che did once they got power. Cuba had a higher standard of living than several European countries and all of the rest of Latin America until the goon squad took over. And let's not forget that Castro and his notoriously racist buddy Che introduced systematic racism into a Cuba that before they came along had an elected black president and blacks in the highest echelons of government.
By J. Molinaro, at
Sat Jun 14, 11:41:00 PM:
...oh my gosh. I saw that picture yesterday and thought it was photoshopped. Wow.
By davod, at
Sun Jun 15, 07:01:00 AM:
Apologists or fellow travelers?
By , at
Sun Jun 15, 09:50:00 AM:
Here is another juxtaposition of current events with a picture of Che. Elián González recently joined the Young Communist League at the age of 14. Elián was the center of controversy when at the age of 6 he was returned to Cuba from Miami after the death of his mother in a raft fleeing Cuba with her son and others.
"Gónzalez was one of the speakers at the ceremony presided over by Julio Martínez, leader of Communist Youth, which was held at the 80th anniversary of the birth of Che Guevara in 'homage' to the Argentine-Cuban guerrillero." (my translation)
This brings forth another point about using the image of Che in the US and other free countries. The oppressive regime in Cuba has appropriated Che for its propaganda purposes, which Che would have wholeheartedly approved. You in the US who use Che images: you are associating yourself with a symbol which is one of the icons of an oppressive regime.
Like Davod said in the previous post: "apologists or fellow travelers?" Or AVI: "I am one of those hip people who like the ideals of radical leftists, without looking too closely into the precise details."
HT: Babalu blog.
By Unknown, at
Sun Jun 15, 10:11:00 AM:
sry TG.
its generational.
we actually have no clue about the history and phlosophy of Che!
we just think he looks cool onna t-shirt.
By , at
Sun Jun 15, 10:37:00 AM:
And of course there's Soderbergh's four-hour "Che" to look forward to:
Soderbergh withholds much in addition to dramatic modulation, narrative thrust and psychological insight: A feeling of revolutionary zeal, the literal transformation of Ernesto into Che, his marriages and family life, the depiction of the entry into Havana, Che’s oversight of many executions after victory, the Cuban missile crisis and Che’s wish that nuclear missiles be immediately fired at the U.S.
-from Todd McCarthy's review in "Variety"
You know this movie sucks if Todd McCarthy, who finds a chance to dig at the U.S. government in a review of "Iron Man," can't even muster enjoyment
By Steverino, at
Tue Jun 17, 06:22:00 PM:
The judge may be very consistent in ruling the death penalty uconstitutional while revering Che Guevara, who was all about the death penalty. If he is a Marxist, he may be doing what he can to trim back the powers of the capitalist power of the USA. He may consider crime the natural consequence of a capitalist system and so criminals products of an oppressive system, ie society is to blame. He may consider murderers as revolutionaries carrying the fight to the system.
When Che executed his first man, a fellow Communist, he wrote home to his pappa to tell him he really liked killing people. As Castro's chief of secret police, he had 1892 men, women, and boys executed. Some he did himself. The others he watched from his window in his office. He loved it.
He chewed out the dopey lefty lawyers who thought they needed to collect evidence or give fair trials to the accused. Che said that the state executed out of revolution necessity, not on the basis of evidence, which was an archaic bourgeois artifact. The masses must be taught via the pedagogy of the firing squad.
Che came to regret the wasted blood from his executions, so he instituted a program to harvest the blood of condemned men immediately before their executions. He had them stop in a room a few steps away from the execution wall to donate a few pints, which Che sold to the North Vietnamese and others. This was at the same time Che was denouncing America as full of capitalistic vampires.
Che also planned a couple terror attacks against America which were foiled. One involved planting incendiary bombs and high explosives in department stores in New York City the day after Thanksgiving, when the stores would be full of Christmas shoppers. This came immediately after Che visited NYC and was feted in the penthouses of the elite of lefty society.
You can read all about why Che is bad in "Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him" by Humberto Fontova.
By , at
Tue Jun 17, 07:57:00 PM:
I wonder how much the judge got paid for this smear?
By Nomennovum, at
Wed Jun 18, 11:33:00 AM:
I'll tell you why the learned judge sports both Obama and Che on his wall. It's quite simple, really, and it explains everything you need to know about modern liberal thought:
It represents style over substance.
The Left cares only about poses, how you feel about issues, what something means to you on a personal level. It's adolescent, true, but it is very powerful. It is 100% emotion disguised as thoughtful intellectualism.
Leftists don't need to consider what Che (or Mao or Fidel) actually DID. All that matters is what Che signifies is their compassionate imaginings. And this also explains why the Democrats have chosen this cipher with the buttery tongue, Obama of the empty suit, Obama who sincerely thinks his smooth charisma can change the ways of international thugs and despots like Ahmedinejad, Obama who has never accomplished anything tangible in his life except pen a best-selling ersatz autobiography.
The pose is everything.
