Shameful Che Shirts

Do you own, or have you owned and worn, or know someone who owns and has worn one of those allegedly 'cool' Che Guevara t-shirts? Do you know the reason that the shirt was being worn? Does the image on the shirt actually stand for something? Do you even know who Che Guevara really was?

The 'Che Guevara' t-shirt and image has become a symbol of sorts for all that is 'counter-cultural'. It is often meant as a protest symbol for those who feel that the 'little man' is being intentionally repressed in some way by government and/or business.

Wanting to help those who are less fortunate than we are is a noble sentiment. So is wanting to effect positive changes on a government or on a society that has become repressive or abusive to it's citizens. So what exactly does that have to do with America, the most free country in the history of the world? And why on earth would this man be an appropriate symbol for such protests anyway?

Ernesto 'Che' Gevara was born in 1928 in the South American country of Argentina to parents of mixed Spanish and Irish heritage. He was brought up in a very political and intellectual environment, and became a reader of the works and teachings of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin at an early age.

In 1951 he took a year off before entering medical school in order to travel around South America on a motorcycle. During this trip he experienced first-hand the poverty in much of the land, and as a result ultimately wrote 'The Motorcycle Diaries' in regards to the trip. The book was subsequently made into a major release film in 2004.

As Guevara matured into manhood his views became more and more radical, and he eventually established the stated viewpoint that Marxism achieved through armed struggle and defended by an armed populace was the only way to rectify what he believed had become 'American imperialism' in Latin America.

Of course the true facts were that in nearly the entirety of South America, poverty was endemic, and ruling regimes in nearly every country had for centuries failed to bring about positive change due to greed for power and controlled material wealth for the privileged few.

Any American efforts to change those conditions in order to ultimately help the people by establishing democracy and capitalism was seen as interference, or 'imperialism', trying to impose our ways on others. The motives of the American government and business were always painted as self-serving when the truth was that true capitalist democratic change would indeed be good for both North and South American peoples.

The fact is that Latin American people would indeed be freer and have a better chance at sustained economic growth under truly democratic forms of government that adopted capitalist economic systems. But the power-hungry South American rulers would not let that happen, in fact would consider such a statement as paternalistically insulting, and so used and still use propaganda to paint America as a big bully and themselves as poor peasants who just want to be left alone.

It was within this atmosphere that Guevara moved his family to Mexico City in 1954, and a year later he was introduced through some Cuban exile friends to a man by the name of Fidel Castro. He was immediately swayed by Castro's militant revolutionary ideas and began serious military training in guerrilla warfare tactics.

He went with Castro to participate in the violent overthrow of the Cuban government in the late 1950's, becoming an integral leader of the rebel army. He became feared for his brutality and ruthlessness, torturing or executing anyone whom he deemed a traitor, spy, or deserter. Finally the Castro forces were able to defeat and overthrow the Cuban government and took control of Havana in January of 1959.

On taking charge, Guevara was put in charge by Castro of sorting out and punishing all political enemies and 'war criminals'. In this role, Che Guevara oversaw and even participated in the killing of hundreds of people without due process. Guevara was then later put in charge of the economy, and began to install his beloved socialist values. As always happens with such socialist systems, his programs ended in the abject failure of decreased productivity and increased dependency on the government. The Cuban economy remains in shambles to this day.

During the 1960's he became the principle voice and actor in establishing and growing the Cuban-Soviet relationship that brought Soviet ballistic missiles to the island nation just a hundred miles from the Florida coast. As history tells us, this led to the single closest experience the world would ever come to all-out nuclear war.

When the Soviets finally backed down from the Kennedy administration and withdrew the missiles, Che became enraged at what he called their betrayal, and he turned against them. He stated that had the nuclear-armed missiles been under Cuban control, he would have fired them off against the Americans. During the course of his adult life, Guevara was possibly the most vocally anti-American individual in history.

Ultimately Guevara would travel all around the world trying to educate himself on Marxist, communist, socialist, and terrorist ideals and tactics. His trips would take him to places as disparate as China, Egypt, and Ireland. He would lend his hand to Marxist revolutionary efforts in the Congo in Africa and back in South America in Bolivia. It was there that he was finally captured and executed in October of 1967.

During his lifetime, Che Guevara was closely involved with or directly responsible for violent government overthrow, torture, execution and overall destruction to humanity on a massive scale. None of his efforts were ever successful at helping any group of citizens lead a safer, happier, more secure life. In fact, his policies and actions in Cuba and other parts of the world led to death and disillusionment for millions. In the end, like Mao and Lenin and numerous others, he was a failed socialist murderer.

So this is the man whose image the 'counter-culture' has deemed as 'cool' to wear on a t-shirt. At least in South America they are beginning to get it. A recent popular t-shirt worn by youth in Argentina mocked "I have a Che tshirt and I don't know why", capturing perfectly the question for any young American who would ever display his image. Why are you wearing that shameful Che shirt?

Tearing Down the Wall

Twenty years ago an amazing event happened, one that two generations of Americans and lovers of freedom the world over had a hard time imagining would ever happen in our lifetimes. On November 9th, 1989, at the crest of a wave of liberty sweeping across Eastern Europe, the East German government announced that its citizens could openly visit West Berlin.

The problem with such visits for decades had been the presence of one of the single most blatant symbols of political and cultural oppression in modern history, the Berlin Wall. The Wall was not just symbolic of socialist and communist oppression, it was a literal wall that encircled the 'free' city of West Berlin and included a thick concrete wall, barbed wire, guard towers, and patrolled trenches that would become known as 'the death strip' in history.

During the period of the Wall's existence between 1961 and 1989, estimates show that a couple of hundred people were killed in approximately 5,000 attempted crossings. All were trying to move one way, across the 'Iron Curtain' from the oppression of the Eastern Bloc to the freedom of Western Europe.

The roots of the Berlin Wall stretched back to the end of World War II, when what remained of Nazi Germany was divided by the Potsdam Agreement into four 'occupation zones', each controlled by one of the victorious Allied powers: the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union.

Despite the fact that the capital city of Berlin lay entirely within the Soviet zone, that city was also divided into four controlling zones for the Allied powers. Within short order, rifts began to appear between the Soviets and the others on a number of post-war issues regarding reconstruction of Germany, as well as political and ideological differences between the nations.

Almost immediately after the war, Soviet leader Josef Stalin began to orchestrate the creation of and control over an 'Eastern bloc' of nations including Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and the Soviet-controlled section of Germany which he envisioned as a buffer zone of protection for the USSR against the influence or advances of the European democracies.

In 1948, Stalin began to finalize his ultimate plans of a complete takeover of Germany by instituting a blockade of West Berlin, the section controlled by the other Allied powers. His hope was to see the others withdraw from control over and interest in the city. But the Americans and British responded with the 'Berlin airlift' efforts that kept the free section of the city supplied with goods and materials. After almost a year, Stalin finally lifted the blockade.

In October of 1949, the German Democratic Republic (GDR) was declared and would become known as East Germany. This section of Germany was highly influenced by the Soviets and was oppressive to its people. West Germany developed as a capitalist nation in alliance with the United States and the other western nations. Over the years, West German economic growth and political freedoms became increasingly attractive to hundreds of thousands of East Germans, who fled their nation for the freedom and prosperity of the west.

In the first few years, nearly a million people fled the Eastern bloc to West Germany as people began to recognize the oppressive tactics and governing principles of socialism and communism. What became known officially as the 'German inner border' but was more popularly christened as the 'Iron Curtain' by Winston Churchill was the response. Initially a recognized but open border between the post-war zones controlled by the Soviets and the western powers, the 'Curtain' was formally closed with the erection first of barbed wire fences and later more substantial security in 1952 and 1953.

With this major path to freedom blocked, more and more citizens of East Berlin began to flee into West Berlin, the only remaining bastion of freedom behind the Iron Curtain of Soviet and East German oppression. The East German authorities attempted many measure to thwart the massive emigration that ensued, as approximately 20% of the entire GDR population escaped to the freedom of the west up until 1961.

Finally, Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev gave the East Germans the orders to build a physical wall separating East and West Berlin. At midnight on August 13th, 1961, the police and units of the East German army began to close the border. Streets were torn up and barbed wire fences installed to prevent passage. By August 15th, construction of a concrete wall had begun. Many families were literally split apart suddenly, and people were unable to travel to their jobs.

The Berlin Wall was ultimately built up and strengthened over decades in four main elements. The initial 'Wire Fence' effort of 1961 was followed quickly by improvement to that fence between 1962 and 1965. A concrete wall was completed and extended between 1965 and 1975. Finally, the 'Border Wall' was built, extended, and improved between 1975 and 1980, but was continually improved right up until the end in 1989. In the end, the Berlin Wall was more than 87 miles long.

In the beginning, no crossings at all were allowed for over two years between 1961 and 1963. Negotiations between the powers allowed for Christmas visits over the next four years. There were ultimately 8 different official border crossing points between East and West Berlin which were all heavily secured and controlled. It was far easier for West Berliners to cross into the east than vice versa. For the most part, no East Germans were permitted to cross into West Berlin until the fall of the Wall in 1989.

Located near the center of West Berlin, the 'Brandenburg Gate' is one of the main historic symbols of Germany in general and Berlin in particular. On June 12th, 1987, American president Ronald Reagan appeared there and made a speech to help celebrate the 750th anniversary of the city of Berlin. Reagan had throughout his presidency challenged the ideology and authority of communist and socialist regimes, publicly calling the Soviet Union an 'Evil Empire' at one point.

In his speech that day, Reagan directly addressed Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev: "..we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!"

Inspired by events such as Mr. Reagan's speech, citizens and governments across the Soviet sphere of influence began to crack. In August of 1989, "red" Hungary removed its border fence with a free Austria, and 13,000 East German tourists escaped to freedom. This set off a chain reaction of similar activity in Czechoslovakia, and finally in East Germany itself. Mass demonstrations resulted in the resignation of the East German president in October 1989.

These generally peaceful demonstrations continued to build throughout East Germany, culminating in what was known as the "Peaceful Revolution" and the gathering of a million people in East Berlin on November 4th. In response, the East German government and its puppet-string pullers in the USSR had little recourse but to loosen their grip, and when some pieces of a plan to do so were leaked to a German television network, the story was run on November 9th that "the borders were open to everyone" on what was called a historic day.

After this public announcement on television, which was actually a complete jumping-of-the-gun by the network, Germans began gathering at the Wall, completely surprising and overwhelming the guards. In contacting their superiors for orders, the guards were given no direction, and became overwhelmed by the throngs. The gates were opened and people flocked from both sides, embracing one another in glee. Over the ensuing days and weeks, people gathered daily to climb the Wall, break off pieces, and begin to informally demolish the structure.

Over the next few months, restrictions on crossings became officially lifted, including at the Brandenburg Gate on December 22nd. The following day, visa-free travel began between the states. On June 13th, 1990, official dismantling of the Wall began, and continued until being completed in November 1991. Only a few guard towers and portions remain as memorials.

For three decades, the Berlin Wall stood as a wall of oppression, keeping people from seeking their freedom and liberty and entombing them inside a world of failed communist and socialist ideologies. It was ultimately the will of these freedom-seeking and loving peoples, aided by those of us around the world who share these ideals, that resulted in the awe-inspiring events which began on November 9th, 1989.

Your Fair Share

There are a surprisingly large number of people in America who sincerely believe that they are not getting and so want their 'fair share' which leads to the question: what is your fair share? What is it exactly that you are owed? And who owes it to you?

The first thing that we need to do before we can determine what your particular fair share is would be to define exactly what it is we are talking about. What is it that you are missing out on that others are getting and that you deserve?

Tops on most people's list would be, of course, money. Are you getting your fair share of money? And if you don't think so, then why are you not getting your fair share? Who are you comparing yourself against? What do they do for a living? What do you do? Why do you deserve as much or more?

One area where you hear many folks complain about what others are earning is athletics, or entertainment. Why should a ball player or a singer or an actor make millions while you struggle every day at your difficult job and make five figures?

Well, first of all, how much do you generate in income with your production at your job, and how easy would it be to replace you right now, or in a short time? Could you get up on a movie set and act as well as Denzel Washington or Meryl Streep, get up on a stage and sing as well as Mariah Carey, step up to the plate and hit as well as Derek Jeter?

So the answer is a resounding "no", and you are willing to admit that. But you still sweat and toil, and wonder why they get paid so much more. Well, for one, tens of millions of people all over the country and from around the world are willing to pay their own hard-earned money to watch or listen to these performers. Is anyone willing to pay anything to watch you work?

Because of these individuals God-given abilities they have separated themselves from the rest of us with skills that many of us are willing to enjoy watching them perform. These talents and abilities generate vast sums of income for their studios, teams, and production companies, and a portion of this goes to the performers.

The easy solution would be to not go to any games, buy any music, view any movies, etc. However, the majority of your fellow citizens will not join you in this reclusive lifestyle, and so your protest will effectively be wasted and worthless, except to you, of course.

The exact same income-generation scenario plays out in other forms of salaried positions, from executive boards to law offices to surgery rooms people make money because they have specific talents, or have become educated in and mastered specific skills and professions.

Police officers in the career that I have chosen make more money than clerks in the banking industry that I left behind. The police work outside in all types of weather conditions, have to physically confront dangerous individuals, wear at least one weapon everywhere they go and may need to use it at any time. These and many other skills and job hazards lead to the discrepancy.

In today's America, and for decades now, the old arguments about equal opportunity no longer exist. There will be race-baiters, women's liberation holdovers, and other excuse makers who will try to play on the liberal conscience and make you believe differently, but the fact is that in the vast majority of circumstances in this country, anyone who wants to can succeed.

Recipes for success vary wildly, from taking advantage of some natural talent or ability, to concerted efforts at higher education, to plain-old hard work. If you don't have a natural talent, you can outwork that perceived disadvantage by staying in school and studying, taking low level jobs and working your way up, and so on.

Now some people put roadblocks in front of any success by their own actions involving personal behavior, substance abuse, criminality, and many other activities which cause them to miss opportunities, or have those delayed. This is nothing more or less than their own decision-making process effecting these opportunities.

If you don't want to work hard, or study hard, or conform to regulations, procedures, rules, and norms set up by society or professions, then that is your choice. But then don't blame anyone else for your lack of success either.

Some people complain that they have made all the right choices: never made poor personal choices, stayed in school and studied hard, and went out to work and worked hard, and yet still the big opportunities never came along. To the young who fit into this category all I can say is that competition is rough, and you may need to evaluate specialty education or skills. Keep plugging away, keep looking for opportunities, be willing to stretch yourself, stay on the right path.

To older individuals, you can take the same advice and make it work, but you need to realize that the older you get, there will be some opportunities that begin to close on you. This is a simple fact of life, and if you don't plan on making yourself valuable and diverse while you are young, you may never be able to make that up as you get older. You simply need to try as hard as you can while remaining realistic.

This is not to say that there are no people who need and deserve help. There are some who, because of physical or mental disabilities not of their own making, or because of unusual extraneous circumstances absolutely deserve assistive services in providing at least a certain level of opportunity. This is simple compassion. But no one deserves a check for sitting home and doing nothing when they could be out working and have the opportunity to do so.

This is also not to say that there are not employers who have historically taken advantage of workers by not paying them a 'fair' wage. This happens when business owners in particular fields or businesses 'collude' to construct a salary structure that does not allow for competition. In such cases, limited intervention may be necessary such as salary arbitration, minimum wage laws, etc. But a fine line needs to be walked between protecting salaried workers and profit-seeking businesses so that neither ends up suffering.

The bottom line here is that the only 'fair share' that any of us is entitled to is that which we actually earn by our actions. The person who goes out to work at a low-skill job deserves more salary than the healthy person who sits home on the couch. The person who gets educated and gains experience in a field deserves more than the low-skilled worker. The naturally gifted talent that others are willing to pay see perform deserves more than this educated and experienced person.

You deserve a 'fair share' dictated by your own efforts, your talents, and your ability to generate income for others. There is no legitimate system in the world that works any other way. All systems of Communism and Socialism that attempt to take hard-earned money from true workers and disperse it among everyone eventually have collapsed or deteriorated into systems of pure political patronage.

In the end, the only 'fair share' that we deserve is in opportunity. If we waste away our time and our opportunities while others are working hard to make their dreams a reality, then those others deserve more than we do. Many Americans have simply become their own worst enemy, and the only path to success for them will never come from some political 'change', but only through personal change.

What a Hateful Liberal Bigot Looks Like

They have always existed, but they have become more emboldened with the recent leftward lurch in American political direction. I am talking today about liberal bigots, those lefties who are not only obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their own opinions and prejudices, but who also regard and treat those who disagree with them with vitriolic hatred. You frequently hear them harping about wanting freedom of speech, the right to express their opinions and viewpoints publicly, even the right to have their alternative lifestyles accepted by the mainstream public as 'normal' or at least 'acceptable'. But this freedom of speech, this right to express opinions and viewpoints, can never, ever extend to those who disagree with them. Perfect case in point came this past weekend with the Miss USA pageant questioning incident. As I previously discussed in another recent post, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was a contestant in the pageant. She is a beauty queen, a model, and she had a simple goal, to win a beauty pageant title. She wasn't looking to change the world on Sunday night, and certainly when it came to the question-answer stage she did not expect a controversial question on an epic hot-button sociological and moral topic. In any event, that is exactly what she received from pageant judge Mario Lavandeira, who goes by the professional name of 'Perez Hilton'. Lavandeira is a gay activist and celebrity blogger, and basically asked Prejean whether she supported 'gay marriage', and to give the reasons behind whatever her feelings were on the issue. Carrie Prejean simply replied from her heart, basically saying that she did not support the idea, that she believed marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and that basically this was how she was raised, taught, and now fundamentally believed. In the immediate aftermath of the pageant, at which she nearly won, finishing as the first runner-up, Hilton said that Prejean was a 'cunt', and then took to the internet and video-blogged that Hilton lost because she was "a dumb bitch." So in other words, Hilton as a gay activist has a right to voice his opinion on the issue, and the mainstream American public is supposed to tolerate not only that viewpoint, but also his public expression of it. But the same right is not extended to Carrie Prejean. Because she disagrees with Hilton on this issue, and because she had the audacity to answer his question with honesty, she is pilloried as some sort of bigot and neanderthal thinker, and then called names as well? How far does this freedom of expression, this right to your own viewpoints go, Mr. Hilton? And it wasn't just Perez Hilton, but also most of the 'gay rights' movement, and in fact most liberals as well, who ganged up on Carrie Prejean. In doing so they exposed themselves publicly for what they really are, a group of hateful bigots, everything that they claim to be against. This is the United States of America, and we are supposed to celebrate, support, and grow from the expression of differing opinions, not denounce them with hatred, ignorance, and profanity. It isn't as if Carrie Prejean said that any gay who actually got married should go to hell. She didn't say they should be arrested, tortured, or even publicly embarrassed if they tried to marry. She did not express that she didn't like gay people in general, and didn't call them any names. In short, she said nothing that would incite hatred or intolerance of gays. She simply answered the question put to her regarding the issue of marriage, stating that it should be between a man and a woman, which it should. Not an opinion, but a fact since the early days of man, and one that has only gained any public forum at all since the fringe gay element of society began imposing it's radical views on the vast mainstream 'straight' majority just a few decades ago. Carrie Prejean simply answered a direct question without lambasting or profaning anyone, but the response that she received in reply has been what we have come to typically expect from the liberal community. We conservatives love an open debate, love ideas expressed in public, and embrace the notion of having them put to the test of a vote. That is the true spirit of American freedom and diversity and exceptionalism at work. There are groups who have wanted that freedom of speech repressed in the past: Nazis, Communists, and brutal dictators of all stripes go this way. Add now to that group the ultra-liberal bigots who want anyone shut up and shut down who does not agree with them, from Rush Limbaugh to Sean Hannity to Ann Coulter to Carrie Prejean. For anyone out there who agreed with Perez Hilton's response to Carrie Prejean, not his view on the topic of gay marriage, but with his response to Sunday night's question-answer session, then you can count yourself in that group of liberal bigots. NOTE: As with every entry at this Blog, there is a 'Comments' button below. You can do so anonymously, but it would be appreciated if you had the courage of your convictions to add at least a real name.

One World, One Dream

There has been much wringing of hands and criticism across the blogosphere and in news print about the Beijing 2008 Olympics being a facade. So let me get right to the point here and state that in my opinion these Olympic Games, as is any Olympiad, were a huge success in all the important ways. Is China a repressive communist nation that subjugates more than enhances the lives of its people? Yes. Does the Chinese government commit human rights atrocities in order to remain in power? Absolutely. Did the Chinese Olympic organizers commit a few slights of hand in order to make Beijing and the Olympic venues and ceremonies look better for the TV cameras than they actually were in person? Sure. But it remains that the International Olympic Committee selected China for these games, knowing that these things were and would be facts. They made the selection just as they made the choices of Los Angeles in 1984, Moscow in 1980, Berlin in 1938, and many other places around the world that have been controversial locations for some nations and political systems. We would like every nation in the world to be democratic, to grant freedom to their people, to open their societies to interact fully with the world. But the fact is that is not reality. China has been a nation and a people for more than 6,000 years. The American experience of 232 years pales in comparison. And though much of the world would like to see reform in the Chinese political system at least to the point of a little more tolerance of varied viewpoints, the answer is not to attack them or isolate them. The answer is to engage the Chinese in any positive way possible, with the hope that exposure over time to the free world will inspire change from within China. These Olympics undoubtedly were a positive step in that regard. A generation of young Chinese have been strongly exposed to the outside world in these past few years, and especially these last two weeks. They will carry this cultural experience with them for decades, and it will affect the way they view the rest of the world. I am no Pollyanna, and do not expect the Chinese dragon to change its stripes overnight, or perhaps even in my lifetime. But neither do I intend to give up on the possibility of a profound change in the Chinese people, and ultimately in their government, no matter that the powers-that-be will return to repression now that the spotlight has lifted. The Olympic Charter itself states that its purpose is "to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practiced without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play." These Olympics showcased all these aspects, from the victorious joy of Jamaican sprinter Usaim Bolt, the new "World's Fastest Human", the professional pride of American basketballer Kobe Bryant, China's excellent women's gymnast Kexin He, the dominating brilliance of American swimmer Michael Phelps, and so many others. Despite the Russian-Georgian conflict at the opening of the Games, and the looming American political conventions and election battles, these Olympics gave us many reasons to continue to cheer the human spirit. And after all, that is the point of their existence. The 2008 Beijing Olympics theme was 'One World, One Dream", and it says here that despite numerous differences of politics, religion, and culture the dream is still alive. A dream that, for the most part, we can find a way as humanity to co-exist and compete on friendly terms. It is a bit idyllic, but it is a dream that must not be allowed to die.