My, Wasn't Che a Cuddly Fellow.
 

I was nosing around after stuff on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, which I only knew from a disparaging mention in a William F. Buckley column many years ago.

Aside from discovering that the New Orleans chapter of this unhappy organization featured a guy named Lee Harvey Oswald, there's also this about Che Guevara's career. Since this is not at all a current event, it's going here.

Well. He kind of sounds a little like you Urbane. He deems the Imperialists worthy of extermination and deserving of no rest; you have the same attitude to 'unfreedom' and those who run their countries in ways you do not approve of.

Incidentally, how many times did America try to assassinate Fidel? This was a two way street.

I believe they recorded 638 suggestions. As I can recall there was a number of real attempts but most failed badly.

But of course, DanaC: I am, after all, a moral being, and oppression and misgovernment are quite immoral, and ought not to be. Is this anything other than self-evident?

And for the other side (e.g Che) they also believe themselves to be moral beings and see imperialism as immoral and 'ought not to be'.

lol!!!

Urbane is an enemy of the United States...So was Lincoln. yep...Did you know that Lincoln was assassinated by his self and was threatening to blow up Canada? Me either. Because I just made that up.
:D

Long story long....I think the posted article is a bunch of "hooey". If you believe that....

Sidenote: The author of the article is also a prose-poet so he is qualified as a historian.

Che wasn't the first leader to plan a terror campaign in the United States.


FYI, Washington had a reason to do this. The Iroquois sided with the British. However, he did deliberately include civilians as casualties through direct action or starvation.

Brutality towards an enemy population is not a new process or a tactic used by only those we dislike.

True. It is used against those we dislike. Kind of a rule of thumb. And if that pisses them off, they are combative and that much more a threat. Awesome.

Circular illogic.

DanaC, that is the second time in the last thirty days you've tried to sell me a crap idea you're completely sold on yourself: that of moral equivalence. With a Communist??? -- were you thinking when you wrote?? The kindest interpretation is you're being the advocatus diaboli.

When you finally understand there is no moral equivalence whatsoever between the partisans of freedom (me -- maybe, possibly, you; but I'll say it doesn't look much like it) and the partisans of unfreedom in the form of excessive government, then you will have gained much more wisdom than you show now.

Leftism always peddles these crap ideas -- that Big Government will solve social problems better than Small, that slavemongers have moral equivalence with the free peoples who don't want slavemongers running anything, let alone the lives of them and theirs, and on and on in examples almost too numerous to. It'd take a book, and many have been written.

This is why I'm not a leftist. Leftists, from what I can see, suffer mental dysfunctions that make them choose the worse choices. I'm just too smart to buy what they're selling. Been that way all my life, and God, there's a howling from the hard Left around here when I mention it. Let 'em; the Left as a whole is too stupid for me, and stupid ideas like "moral equivalency" remind me of just how poor the Left's mental battery really is. You in particular, Dana, lack the ideas and the intellectual horsepower to persuade me away from the path I understand to be right, when it comes to politics. I'm not even sure you understand how little you have to believe in. And yes, I think it's a pity. You might have done better.

You still could -- while there's life, there's hope -- but it will take a real epiphany.

I disagree with Dana on many things, but I find her commentary to be quite intelligent and honest. What you fail to see is that your passion for militarism carries the seed of totalitarianism. War-making is a big government solution.

The seed and a lot of fertilizer.

:mecry:

Oh Urbane, you've cut me to the quick!

Griff, just how in hell do you expect to replace the misgovernment of totalitarianism, which you despise, with the blessings of libertarianism?

Have you given it any thought? Are you about to? Why do you think I'm asking?

Totalitarians are famous for never responding to a good example. They respond much more favorably to well directed bullets. In the middle and in the end, the libertarians will have to end the fascists in violence. We really wouldn't want to keep any unreconstructed totalitarians around anyway.

Call me a fanatic if that's the only damn thing you can do about anything -- that's guaranteed not to impress anyone with your advocacy of liberty. I just reckon I know who's the more motivated, and who understands man-unkind the better.

Note, too, the remarkable poverty of DanaC's response. Hey, if that's modern socialism, I'd walk away from it towards something embodying more hope. (I'm a typical American; we do that.)

First, we reduce it at home. That means no more voting for national Republican candidates until a new generation, which believes in Constitutional government, develops. The Democrats can be counted on to reduce military spending, which in this time of no truly serious foreign military threats makes sense. Americans can begin to focus on America again. Once Republicans remember their past antipathy for the Unitary Executive, we can support them in office and roll back whatever indignities the Democrats work in the mean time.

Having left the muslim world to stew in its own madness while getting our house back in order, we can only hope they take the hint. If they don't care enough to overthrow their own little tyrants, it is none of our damn business.

That form of isolationism would never work Griff, I like the sounds of it but practically it would not work. In our day and age of globalism we could not ignore previous treaties and business relationships with companies that keep our economy grinding forward. The costs would be to high.

On the note of your ideas in post #14 what are your thoughts about this: http://lighthousepatriotjournal.word...sty/#more-2750

About a week ago Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates testified before Congress requesting that there is a need for high-tech, skilled foreign worker visas. House leaders are reporting that HR 5630, sponsored by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), will increase the annual cap for high-tech H-1B visas from 65,000 to 130,000 starting this year, and up to 180,000 by the year 2010. This legislation will also make it easier for foreign students who are graduates in high-tech fields to enter or stay in the US and compete with US graduates. [Congress Now, March 18th 2008]

If we are truely interested in improving things here, shouldn't we focus on our own educational values to improve the system and encourage and reward those who seek to enter higher levels of education in science so they can contribute to our own society vs allowing a flood of others in to do the job we should do?

Remember what our treaty-bound allies were saying before the Iraqi debacle? The standing army game isn't working right now. The Executive branch is unable to resist attempting to remake the world when it has vast resources. I suspect most of our treaty obligations are in the form of defending allies territory, when was the last time we were called on to do that?

Most of those treaties grew out of the aftermath of the post WW2 era and Korea. People feared their big neighbor and wanted us to take them under their wing in exchange for access to ports and resources. Very little has changed in that respect other than now there is competition for those essential resources and large powers are now looking to get at them. Competition is good for us as a country. Few countries will ever need to call in that card with the exception of Israel or Taiwan. And in both of those treaties we would be in a hornet nest ten times the complication of our current situation.

My perspective is evolving with what I am seeing working with urban kids from deprived backgrounds. It came out this week that the new regulations for Head Start, which are apparently well thought out, are going to be expensive to implement. This is going to cost a lot of seats because no money was set aside for it. We have a lot of American born kids cycling back into the poverty of their ancestors. Some of these families have been working the system forever, other's just have no idea how to work out of poverty, while others are doing what needs to be done working, going to school, and raising kids as best they can. My perspective is that the children of the poor should be put in the position of getting an equalized opportunity if they are to ever exercise liberty. We have a large segment of our population who could be educated to the jobs of the future.

Gates is looking for a stop gap to protect his industry now, but I don't see how we can do this stuff on a permanent basis. In an ideal world, we'd have open borders and a free market but our market isn't free. We seem to want socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. That isn't sustainable. If we're going to protect investors from themselves, we can hardly justify throwing Head Start 3 and 4 year olds out of a program that feeds them and enriches some pretty desperate lives.

I have to admit that I am a bit further from that issue now that my kids are in their teens and twenties. My father was an educator all his life so I understand some of the issues. Head Start and NCLB have all had merits but like most feel good things that come out of Washington they are unfunded mandatest that in the end make us pick and choose among those who are most likely to succeed, not who needs it the most. Georgia's Hope Scholarship program is one of the things that kept us here and so far it is working for many kids who could never have afforded to go to college.

I see things differently on the socialism thing. I feel that the masses want Socialism for everyone and wealth redistribution in an effort to gain parity the easy way, tax those who busted ass to make it good and give it back to those on the dole so things don't have to be so tough for them. I say becareful what you wish for, in the end no one will be happy.

I thought Che was really cool in Evita.

Actually, we're probably pretty close together on this. I just see it as upper, middle, and lower class fighting for control, protection, and a free ride. The danger we need to recognize is that any one of them would destroy the economy given the opportunity.

Che was certainly a scumbag murderer. It makes me sick when I see kids wearing a t-shirt with his likeness. I ask, do you even know who that is? Very few do, and those that do are the pseudo-intellectual kids who think communism is a great idea and free markets where no force or coercion is used is evil.

I need a shirt like THIS one.

http://www.bant-shirts.com/images/ph...-women-300.jpg



Revolution, good.
Murder, bad.

Is that the old guy from the 6-flags commercials?

Yeah, I bet Ghandi was against wearing bras, too.

They need to draw Gandhi better: that picture looks like Ayman al-Zawahri in glasses.

The Reaganauts can sport a "Ronnie" t-shirt in that graphic style too.

Thoseshirts.com