The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM
Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM
Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM
Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM
Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM
Idea Majorities Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM
Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM
The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM
From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM
Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM
Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM
Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM
Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM
Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM
Social Security Reform Thursday.
March 13, 2008
Caption Contest: Enter Today!
Due: July 29, 2008
The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006
Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008
Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007
Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006
A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006
Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori
WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy):
The WILLisms.com Gift Shop:
This Week's Carnival of Revolutions:
Carnival Home Base:
Nothing 'Revolutionary' About Che
George Washington, not Che Guevara, is the proper face of real, progressive revolution. Whereas Washington forged a new age of democracy and liberty, Guevara was a throwback to feudal 'might makes right' and all of the excesses and abuses of absolute power - 'divine right of kings' without the divine. Guevara was an enemy of the Enlightenment, and he, Castro, Lenin, Stalin and Mao cast billions of people (or at least those they did not murder) into a new dark age.
I would say that their names should be stricken from the tablets, except that we should never forget Santayana's dictum that those who forget that past are condemned to repeat it.
So too condemned are those who never learned about the past, and are all too likely to repeat those very same mistakes.
Posted by Ken McCracken · 2 June 2007 12:50 AM
I agree, but George is hard to recognize with Che's hair and hat.
Posted by: Bigfoot at June 2, 2007 05:10 PM
I agree, and I thought the final effect of that image was . . . odd.
Posted by: Ken McCracken at June 3, 2007 01:04 AM
In reality (a strange and foreign place to Ken and Tiger), Washington wasn't much of a revolutionary. He didn't seek to become commander of the Continental Army and most military historians rate Washington's leadership in the Revolutionary War as mediocre ( he lost 6 of the 9 battles he was involved with).
Washington's greatest impact was not as a revolutionary--it was his refusal to accept king-like status after the newly won indepedence from England.
OTOH, Guevara was a revolutionary. Imagine the odds; Castro, Guevara and a group of about 20 eventually overthrew the corrupt and murderous regime of Batista, which had US backing.
Posted by: Jadegold at June 3, 2007 09:12 AM
Again, Jadegold proves he is from Planet Moonbat, where good is evil, and evil is good.
The Batista regime was like a tender daycare center compared to Castro's regime. There simply is no comparison.
Washington's military career has nothing to do with how revolutionary he was. Yeah, he did in fact lose most of his battles, but so what? He is like General Giap, who never won a battle but never lost a war.
His refusal to become king, or president-for-life was one of the most truly revolutionary acts of all time, but it was merely one of his revolutionary achievments.
Go ahead, try and talk Washington down and talk Guevara up. You reveal yourself for the leftist mush head you are.
Posted by: Ken McCracken at June 3, 2007 02:44 PM
I made no claims as to good or evil; that's poor mindreading on your part.
What was being discussed was revolutions and revolutionaries. Revolutions/revolutionaries can be good, evil, or some combination thereof.
The plain and simple fact is that the Cuban revolution was a much greater feat than the US revolution in terms of audacity. You had a core group of 20 take on a brutal dictatorship (backed by the US) and it prevailed. OTOH, England--due to distance--was having a hard time keeping colonies that wanted independence. Add to that, the French were helping out.
Posted by: Jadegold at June 3, 2007 04:39 PM
The Cuban 'revolution' was only a revolution in the sense that a government changed occupants.
Casto and Guevara did not improve Cuban society or find a better way of doing things - quite the contrary, they were throwbacks to an era of god-kings.
As for their audacity, Castro and Guevara did not beat the best troops in the world at the time, and they certainly didn't do it with only 20 people.
Washington did beat the best armed, best trained army in the world, albeit with negligible French help (though their help at Yorktown was indeed critical, and is one of the reasons I am not a francophobe).
Posted by: Ken McCracken at June 3, 2007 06:21 PM
I think jadegold is saying that they were both revolutions, and are thus the same.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at June 4, 2007 10:07 AM
Ken... I really like your revolutionist George look! HA!
Posted by: zsa zsa at June 5, 2007 12:08 PM
Asst. Vil. Id.,
Interesting take on Jadegold. I think it's essentially correct.
I think he's saying, I am a liberal/leftist and therefore see all the goodness and achievement of my own heritage and civilization as evil and wrong.
I think he's saying, I am a liberal/leftist and therefore worship at the altar of the sacred Other (i.e., those who are non-white/non-Christian/non-heterosexual/etc.--the more unlike traditional America the better).
I think he's saying, I am a liberal/leftist and therefore see all the dysfunction and backwardness and barbarism of the Other as good and right.
But that's just my traditionalist take on liberals and leftists.
Posted by: Nathan Hale at June 7, 2007 10:07 PM