Güero, the Commie Bastard?!

Let me start off by stating what a great Superbowl game it was yesterday. I actually sat through the entire game. But perhaps more amusing than the twisted ultraviolent adverts that were aired, was the fact that I received a reply to my email to local film critic, Mick Lasalle. I sent it two weeks ago after I read his review (click here) of the new flim "Che" directed by Steven Soderberg and starring Benicio del Torro. Stranger yet, he included it in his weekly "Ask Mick Lasalle" column in yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle.

Here is my original, email:

Although you might be right that the film is one big boring stroke off to Che Guevara, I think your review was way too stewed in your own politics. I think that instead, you should have just questioned why Soderberg stayed away from some of the more controversial and questionable actions of Mr. Guevara. Your political attack is weak because while you mention Castro's faults, you don't mention that Batista was a dictator and a stooge for the corporate and criminal elements of the US. Castro was/is a dictator as well but he won independence for the people of Cuba. Things might not have been so bad in that country had the US, and the powerful Cuban lobby, in Florida not isolated it. Why for instance, is the U.S. so favorable to China? They are communist and oppressive as well. This is why I wish you stayed away from the politics. It read like you have your own political axe to grind.

John Nuno Jr.
San Francisco, CA

And here is how my email was edited in his column yesterday. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like he made me sound like I'm some kind of radical Pro-Castro communist.

Dear Mick LaSalle: I think your "Che" review was way too stewed in your own politics. Your political attack is weak because, while you mention Castro's faults, you don't mention that Fulgencio Batista was a dictator and a stooge for the corporate and criminal elements of the United States. Castro was/is a dictator as well, but he won independence for the people of Cuba.

John Nuno Jr., San Francisco

Dear John Nuno Jr.: Reviewing a movie about a political figure inevitably leads to a political response because the aesthetics of the movie become tied up with the politics. For example, if you praise Leni Riefenstahl's Hitler documentary, "Triumph of the Will," you end up either saying or implying that the film's great achievement is that it makes a monster look glorious and decisive. Now, there's nothing controversial in calling Adolf Hitler a monster, but that's still a political response. In the case of "Che," three-quarters of what's wrong with the film has to do with purely aesthetic considerations, but the rest of the problem is that director Steven Soderbergh chose a dubious figure for deification and then didn't make the case for treating him in that way. Had he chosen, say, Joan of Arc, as Jacques Rivette did in "Joan the Maid," the choice would have been less discordant and would have required less justification or explanation. Of course, to say that is both a political and an aesthetic judgment, but to refrain from making it would be to duck the task of criticism. Frankly, I would challenge anyone to review a 257-minute hagiography about Josef Stalin or Benito Mussolini or Benjamin Franklin or, for that matter, Dan Quayle without dealing with the contrast between the celebratory form and the worthiness of the subject. My point is, your problem is not really with the review, because there was nothing wrong with the review. Rather, your problem is with the opinion that inevitably came through it, which is that a dictator who prevents free elections in his country for 50 years is no liberator and that the revolutionary who helped bring him into power is a bizarre subject for heroic screen treatment.

Indeed, Mick Lasalle is the critic and it's his column but I still feel his own political views overshadowed why some one like Che Guevara could develop such a following in the first place. Look, I'm aware that Guevara committed some pretty horrendous atrocities, including ones that even shocked and awed his own revolutionary comrades. I think it's completely fair for anyone to challenge Soderberg for making a 257-minute film about Che Guevara and not delve into his darker and down-right murderous and Stalinist tendencies. Mick Lasalle, however only sticks to his own views, without considering the whole context of what nefarious activities were being perpetrated in Central and South America in our country's name. National Independence is an American legacy which we all celebrate, but back then the U.S. did almost everything to crush any kind of movement in that direction, even when the leaders were primarily moderate, in order to keep a handle on the natural resources there. Needless to say, I was disappointed but probably not surprised that Lasalle didn't mention anything about our close economic ties to China, a large communist country that's also well known for it's deplorable human rights - even on a greater scale than itsy-bitsy Cuba. China also has the world's largest army and nuclear weapons. I don't think Mick Lasalle has ever made a big fuss about any films that have been produced from that country and he hasn't complained about why we show them here. He also doesn't seem to want to entertain my point that change may have come to Cuba from within itself, if we didn't isolate the country as we have and continue to do.

But now, there I am, in his column, in print, sounding like some kind of pro-communist supporter. Shit like this in the 1950s could have got me blacklisted or my phone bugged. But maybe, that's only assuming I had any influence...which I don't. And did I mention that I haven't even seen the movie? It looks interesting but I hear it's a snooze-fest...

Related Posts:
ON THE ROAD TO REVOLUTION:THOUGHTS ON "THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES"

LEFTIST REVOLUTIONARY CHICKS ARE HOT!

ON THE ROAD TO REVOLUTION: THOUGHTS ON "THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES" BY ERNESTO "CHE" GUEVARA

So in light of the 50 year Anniversary of the Cuban Revolution and the recently released Steven Soderberg films: "Che Part 1" and "Che Part 2", I've decided to post this little review/essay about Ernest "Che" Guevara. I wrote it last summer, just after my wife and I were wrapping up our "failed" business venture in San Diego and I just never got around to posting it. So if politics and history bore you, don't read it! And equally, if you are a political and historical expert, don't criticize me!

July 2, 2008

So a few weeks ago, whilst preparing to leave San Diego, I finished reading "The Motorcycle Diaries" as I'm fascinated as anyone else with Sr. Ernesto "Che" Guevara. He's a much more complicated man than the rebellious icon he's been made out to be. Many of his observations are right on and others well...let's just say he was a man of his time and place and some of his musings would by today's standards be considered, perhaps slightly, racist and homophobic. But to be fair, those things are minor compared to his overall view of the world and it's problems and the solutions he felt were necessary.

The issue I have with Guevara’s ideas is that he felt that individualism should be eradicated for the good of all people- an idea that, to me, is an extraordinary contradiction of his own character. As I see it, his life (and he would probably stab me mercilessly in my bourgeoisie throat for saying so) was more American than anything else. After all, here he is, a young Argentinian doctor born into an upper-middle class of Irish/Spanish descent, who can afford to put his professional career on hold and live a life of adventure: tear-assing across the beautiful vastness of Latin America. That’s sounds more like Jack Kerouac than Karl Marx. So in his speech to Cuban medical graduates (in the last entry of the book), he goes on to condemn the power and will of individualism – the very vital quality that allowed his own social and political transformation. So I have to ask, how did he feel about denying this freedom of choice to others?

So when it comes down to it, I think the people who mindlessly wear t-shirts and hats with Guevara are just that - mindless. Equally, so are the right wing conservatives who seem to have no shortage of books, documentaries and web sites painting him as a blood thirsty, cold blooded murderer.

The first group seems to ignore that Guevara did indeed oversee hundreds of executions- without trial and berated and belittled his own fellow comrades who thought there should be some sort of justice by way of trials. He was also known for having the families bare witness to the executions of loved ones. They also seem to ignore or overlook that Guevara had no mercy with the Indians, who fought on the side of governments he was trying to undue. Not taking into account that these poor Indians fought not out of ideology, but of economic necessity – to feed their families. In deed, in some of his own writings, Guevara admits to succumbing to bloodlust and enjoying the excitement of battle. That said, it' no surprise that he would leave the tedious, day-to-day business of running Castro’s Cuba in order to chase revolutionary glory in Bolivia, where he was killed in a manner not unfamiliar to his own tactics.

The second group, on the other hand, tends to ignore the context of the time and place in which Guevara lived. During that period, the US had a notorious habit of using its C.I.A. to dismantle democratically elected governments all over Latin America. Putting in their stead, military dictatorships that ruled with unspeakable brutality and oppression. While they belittle Guevara, they don’t often expound upon the "greatness and compassion" of American “friendly” leaders like, Fulgencio Batista, Carlos Castillo Armas or Augusto Pinochet. I mean, let’s face it, these guys and others like them, were evil, scum-sucking shit bags of the first order and they had no reservations about raping and fleecing their own country with reckless, gleeful abandon. Our government was there and they were ready and all too eager to assist. It’s also apparent that the Guevara detractors easily overlook, or dismiss similar actions committed or permitted by the US, such as the recently reported mass executions during the Korean War.

I'd like to go on but I don't really have the time to properly analyze and write all that I would like to in regards to the diary itself and the man. But to sum this up quickly, I'll only say that it’s just not helpful to understand Mr. Guevara by reducing his rebellious image on bumper stickers or t-shirts. Guevara is just too complicated a figure - in death as he was in life.

WHAT A NIGHT!...WAITING FOR THE EWOKS!

I went to class downtown last night and it was indeed hard to pay attention. I kept looking at the nytimes web site on my Blackberry. I couldn't believe that Obama won so early. Right before we returned from our break, CNN called the winner and we could all hear the horns and people screaming. I couldn't wait to leave.

As I walked to the BART station, my heart raced, my jaw ached, and my spine tingled. I felt like I was high on stimulants (not that I uh...have ever had any experience with that) I felt such emotion...positive feelings...and if you must know, I'm a pretty negative bastard. But FINALLY, FINALLY there was something to feel good about.

Not only are Cheney and Bush leaving the White House, but at last we have a leader that is well how should I say...some one who is an ACTUAL leader! Barack Obama is an intelligent, positive, and yes, a conservative thinker who has shown he can remain steady and serious in the face of adversity and criticism. He survived the old girl Hilliary and old man McCain along with his Bush campaign team. This swift victory was a mandate. A mandate that should tell all the Republicans that if they want to lead this country again, they ought to shit-can these cartoon character candidates who act like the folks "next door." If I want to borrow milk or sugar I will go to the folks next door but if I want some one to take charge of this country, then I want the best and the brightest. This country is facing its greatest economic downturn in over 70 years: I don't think a "breath of fresh air" is going to be able put out that burning house.

Yes I was excited last night. I stopped at the Napper Tandy pub on the way home and threw down two pints of Guinness. I didn't know anyone there and I didn't say much but I just drank, sank in the festive atmosphere while I was texting and calling friends. One drunk guy about my age stood next to me and slurred, "Do you really think this a historic moment..hah?". "Hell Yes!" I told him,"Most definately!" then I said, "I feel like the rebels just blew up the goddamned Deathstar and that I'm waiting for the fucking Ewoks and fireworks!"

He hiccupped and turned to his annoyed wife. "Did you just hear this guy?" he pointed to me and lurched forward, "he said the Ewoks....just blew up the...ahhh....Deathstar....ah....". He then left and stumbled off to the restroom.

I found a seat at the bar and watched young Mission hipsters dancing, kissing and laughing underneath the sounds of Abba's "Take A Chance On Me" blasting from the juke box; a muted Wolf Blitzer pointing to ridiculous graphs and charts on the mounted TVs. It was truly a surreal moment: I never thought I would enjoy listening to fucking Abba! But more importantly, I also thought how fucking awesome it was that America had decide to take its chance with Barack Obama. Let's go!!!


¡Sí se puede!

¡OBAMANOS! MISSION DEMOCRATS FOR OBAMA!

I've read some people saying on the MissionMission that some events don't get announced soon enough so I thought I would just throw out an event that some folks in the Mission might want to be aware of:

Miguel Bustos, an old schoolmate of the güero from St. Peters' school, right here in the Mission district, is putting on this event along with many others. All are welcome so whether you're a hipster(oh come on, you know you love the term), long-time resident, tenant, homeowner, recent immigrant or just whatever...come on down! This is good opportunity for Mission residents to get to know eachother and find out what we can do and maybe have a little fun in the process.

Here are the particulars or visit the website here!

Party for Barack Obama

Thursday, September 11, 2008

5pm-9pm

El Rio
www.elriosf.com

3158 Mission Street

$3 Happy Hour Drinks

Light appetizers and hors d'oeuvres

DJ

Plus, learn about local progressive candidates and statewide propositions at the info table.


Hosted by

Miguel Bustos • Annie Carmichael • Irving Diaz-Burg • David Edeli • Kathie and Terry Edeli • Kelly Finley • Francesca Gessner • Casey Harrell • Homer Hobi • Marika Holmgren • Nathan Lundy-Gonzalez • John Male • Valerie Orth • Jose Quiñonez • Maria Ramos • Gwen and Alexander Rose • Steve Rosenberg • Lonnie Slugocki • Yakira Teitel


PLEASE RSVP!

For more info and to RSVP, email miguelbustos@comcast.net or check out our website at: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gpl98x

Sliding Scale Suggested Donation:

• Students and the Job-Seeking: $10 -$50+

• The Rest of Us: Think about how much you desperately want Obama to win.

And what could happen if he doesn’t.

Any donations above your $2,300 maximum go to the DNC … to help Obama!

1) Send this invite on to your friends!!!
2) Donate online: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gpl98x to help us reach our goal!

or print out the below donation form and mail a check (Made out to Obama for America) to:

Our Mission for Obama Fundraiser
48 Worth St.
San Francisco, CA 94114

Coming? Be Prepared Ahead of Time: Print out the below donation form and bring it with you to El Rio.

CALIFORNIA RULING...

TO ALL THE GAY FOLKS: Congratulations!! It's about damn time right?

TO ALL THE FOLKS THAT ARE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE: My advice: If you don't like the gays getting married, don't marry a gay. Face it, it's really none of your business. Life will go on. Don't worry.

Have a great weekend...

LEFTIST REVOLUTIONARY CHICKS ARE HOT!

So this most recent mess in South America, got me to Googling the FARC and some other related subjects when this photo popped up. My goodness, who wouldn't want to share a fox hole in jungle with this leftist mamacita and her AK-47? It makes me wonder, who is she? Where is she? Talk about marketing for the Farc. Can Maxim get her to do a cover?

Anyway, so things really seem be going south in South America. I think Hugo Chavez is really enjoying all this. Anything to make him like a Castro type of figure. But sorry Hugo, even Fidel has more class and tact than you. Restrain yourself man!

I think it also has the dual effect of taking the some the attention of Venezuelans away from the fact that Chavez's socialized supply structures are creating shortages of basic goods. So he wants to start a war when he can't even manage his own country? I don't think so...this all just another photo-op.

However, the fact that Columbia conducted a military operation in the sovereign nation of Ecuador does cause certain problems. I can't imagine that if some one like Mr. Chavez did the same thing, that the United States would be as understanding as they are with Columbia. Actually I wonder if that privately, the Bush Administration is tearing a Columbia a new asshole for getting into this mess. I don't think old Jorge the gringo needs anymore problems.

Why Hillary

So I've been taking some flak from friends for not yet getting on the Obama-rama Love Train of Change. I still support Hillary. Yes, that's right...that "polarizing" woman that everyone loves to hate but I honestly think she is best candidate out of two great choices. I don't even think that Obama and Clinton's ideals and goal are substantially different. I do like the man. Let's face it, Obama does indeed inspire and he gives great speeches but I don't know if that is going to be enough to get through to November.

So far Obama has captured the imagination of the public and media but what happens if, more like when, he is the only game in town? When his voting record and background are raked through the coals of the press, Karl Rove and conservative talk radio? So far, it seems like they have been going very light on Mr. Obama but every single day Matt Drudge can't resist an anti-Clinton article or using the worst possible photos he can find. And so he doesn't bore himself, Drudge will use the same tactics on an easier target like Bill Clinton and lately he must sigh in relief that daughter Chelsea now seems to be fair game.

Despite Obama's lead in delegates and apparent popularity, the right wing media hasn't taken any pause in shit bricking Hillary day and night which raises the questions, why do they still consider her to be such a threat? Why treat Obama with such kid gloves? Why do they seem to feel more at ease with Obama in the running?

While with Hillary, after 20 years of constant attacks, there is nothing new that the right wing movement can dredge up. The well is already dry and what more can they do? Dust off Ken Starr and open up the Whitewater files again? Probably not. For this reason, I feel more confident about about Hillary. What do the "vast right wing" conspirators have in store for Mr. Obama? Do they somehow consider him a smaller fish to fry? I don't know and I would not want to have to find out the hard way.

That said Hillary and her people have not handled this campaign well. Making attacks on Obama has not helped her cause, yet she keeps doing it anyway which makes her appear like the angry, sore loser who can't resist a cheap shot be it worthy or not.

Reality is a bitch, however, and it appears that Hillary may have to come to terms with her ambition and step down. She has to think about the party and not let it be divided for the Republicans to take advantage. In short, their goals and views are nearly identical but one thinks they can implement changes through inspiration and the other though experience. Obviously both are needed and hopefully these two will handle their differences gracefully and leave the party strong. And if Hillary steps down, I also hope that Obama can keep up the inspiration for a next eight brutal months and possibly beyond.