Every now and then someone in the media gets it right. Man it feels good.

Another who doesn't understand that Che's enduring global popularity has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with symbolism. He symbolizes Latin independence, a thirst for justice and a new man unconcerned with bourgois values. Che's image is one uniquitous image that is not owned, not the propriety of some multi-national. Korda, the photographer, wanted it that way. Today Che is the symbol most likely to be seen in any Latin dorm room. The students must all be idiots though...

Leftside (a/k/a Matthew Glesne), although I am greatly tempted to delete your comment, I won't. I want everybody to read it and marvel at your mind-boggling stupidity. It is a thing to behold. First of all, learn to spell. The word you were looking for is "ubiquitous" not "uniquitous." And, you misspelled "bourgeois." Learn how to spell before the next time you have propaganda to spew. If che's image is "one ubiquitous image" then why in hell are his kid's demanding royalties on the use of it? Hypocrisy, ignorance, and stupidity -- the hallmarks of the left.

BTW, Matthew, nice blog. Too bad it's all BS.

Wise choice George...

"Cuba, Venezuela: Top Latin Economies in 2005"

HAHAHAHAHA

Great comment from Jeffrey Gedmin on Guevara on a German blog (in English)

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2005/07/jeffrey_gedmin_.html

"He symbolizes Latin independence, a thirst for justice and a new man unconcerned with bourgois values"

I don't see boggling stupidity here. This is the reason so many people, especially Latin Americans, use Che as a symbol. That's why Llosa says:

"It is not surprising that Mr. Guevara's contemporary followers, his new post-communist admirers, also delude themselves by clinging to a myth – a myth firing up PEOPLE WHOSE CAUSES FOR THE MOST PART REPRESENT THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT MR. GUEVARA WAS."

So where maybe Llosa and Leftside diverge is maybe that Leftside may believe Che was this symbol, while Llosa points out that people MISTAKENLY think Che was this symbol.

LOL!! YOU TELL THEM GEORGE!!
AMAZING THE STUPIDITY, IGNORANCE, AND ARROGANCE OF THESE PEOPLE IN THE LEFT, THAT HAVE NO CLUE AND SPEAK WITH SUCH AUTHORITY!!
PERHAPS THEY COULD LEARN SOME HUMILITY AND TRY TO LEARN SOMETHING FROM ACTUAL FACTS??
OH WELL.....

And if Leftside said "Cuba, Venezuela: Top Latin Economies in 2005" - THAT is boggling stupidity.

BTW, which is Leftside's blog?

Meyer, wouldn't it be mind-bogglingly stupid of me to wear a t-shirt with an image of Reinhard Heydrich on it, complete with his SS symbol and Totenkopf emblem, and then parade around and say that Heydrich represented the new man, the perfect man that was created by the Third Reich? Well, the symbol of che is just as repulsive to us as that symbol of Heydrich would be to a Jew. They are both repulsive, insulting, and evil. The "confusion" about che has been brought about by five decades of LIES and MISINFORMATION -- promulgated, disseminated, promoted, and published by the leftist Western press. And, of course, the net result is two generations of imbeciles (like Matthew Glesne), who buy into the myth but don't have the desire nor the intellect to research the actual truth and history. Why? Because the truth would burst his cozy little utopian worldview. Idiots.

I don't think Che was in the same league as the 3rd Reich. Pol Pot got close. But as repulsive as Che may be to many exiles, it really isn't fair to the Jews to make the comparison.

Remember, the info about Che is a lot more grey, due to indoctrination or whatever. The info we have is pretty clear about the 3rd Reich.

Meyer, you are being deliberately obtuse. You just do not want to understand. I could not have been clearer and yet you write this "grey" shit about che. Pathetic.

I'm not arguing about the merits of Che, but rather that comparing him to the 3rd Reich and what the jews went through is not accurate. Why not Pinochet instead?