my connection with the tea party

[Jester]

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications.../2046.html

According to the CIA world fact book, US has 12% (2004) living in poverty, Denmark has 12.1%(2007).

You warn us about the problem of using relative vs. absolute measures of poverty, and then walk smack dab into that exact problem? The CIA world fact book explicitly states that these figures are not comparable...

By US "absolute" measures of poverty, Denmark has almost no poverty. By Danish "relative" measures of poverty, the US is a lot worse than 12%. (Actually, even by US standards, it's higher - about 15%. Remember the crisis?)

Poverty scarcely exists in Denmark, by absolute or most historical measures. In the United States, it's worse, although you're right to say that there is nothing like what exists in most third world countries, either in terms of inequality, or in terms of absolute deprivation.

-Jester

---

I am guilty of not reference checking the quote. I agree the quote took liberal license with the translation, and that they took it out of context.

That's not "liberal licence". Spanish is not that hard - sentences about millions of atomic casualties do not appear and disappear based on translation nuances! They are simply inventing things, whole cloth, in order to make their ideological opponents look bad.

Funny enough, the context is actually more or less correct. It is an address by Che, telling the people of the world they must nurture their hate as part of hardening themselves for revolutionary struggle - which is more or less the same context Conservapaedia et al. present it in. It's the content that's the problem...

-Jester

[kandrathe]

You warn us about the problem of using relative vs. absolute measures of poverty, and then walk smack dab into that exact problem? The CIA world fact book explicitly states that these figures are not comparable...

By US "absolute" measures of poverty, Denmark has almost no poverty. By Danish "relative" measures of poverty, the US is a lot worse than 12%. (Actually, even by US standards, it's higher - about 15%. Remember the crisis?)

Poverty scarcely exists in Denmark, by absolute or most historical measures. In the United States, it's worse, although you're right to say that there is nothing like what exists in most third world countries, either in terms of inequality, or in terms of absolute deprivation.

Yes! It was my intention to show that when you grab statistics you need to look at them in context. I found a source that showed the US to be equal to Denmark, unless you dig into the numbers they are meaningless.

I am guilty of not reference checking the quote. I agree the quote took liberal license with the translation, and that they took it out of context.

That's not "liberal licence". Spanish is not that hard - sentences about millions of atomic casualties do not appear and disappear based on translation nuances! They are simply inventing things, whole cloth, in order to make their ideological opponents look bad.

Funny enough, the context is actually more or less correct. It is an address by Che, telling the people of the world they must nurture their hate as part of hardening themselves for revolutionary struggle - which is more or less the same context Conservapaedia et al. present it in. It's the content that's the problem...

See my edit in the previous note. It's not really invention, other than in construction. It is actually snippets of many statements made by Che, over time, then sewn together much like a Micheal Moore film. It is a deception I do not condone. Had I realized it was a mishmash, I would have taken just the hatred snippet.

The atomic bomb part came from an interview after the Cuban Missile crisis, and is referenced by Anderson, Jon Lee (1997). Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life. New York: Grove Press. ISBN 0-8021-1600-0. Page 545.

[Jester]

It's not really invention, other than in construction. It is actually snippets of many statements made by Che, over time, then sewn together much like a Micheal Moore film.

I think it's much more than that. They change tone drastically, and create new, and false, meanings by putting (falsified, exaggerated) sentences together which were never meant to be attached to one another.

By putting the statements together, they make it out that Che is advocating exterminating his enemies through nuclear war - which is a complete fiction. He said the fight must continue. He said that hate is a part of what makes soldiers determined, and they need that determination. And he said that they will fight, even if it comes to nuclear war (which, last I checked, is the position of all nuclear-armed powers...)

At no point did he argue for a war of extermination using nuclear weapons, which is exactly what that quote, in its "construction," has him saying. That's far beyond what even Che, a radical's radical and unflinching about the use of violence, ever said. (I'll check the library copy of the Anderson biography for the full quote, mine's back in Canada - I don't think Che said the part about using the missiles at the same time as the victory of socialism being worth the millions of deaths. I think those are separate quotes, from separate occasions - one about what Cuba would have done if attacked by the US, and the other about whether it would be worth the consequences.)

On that point: " Cuba is part of a world that is experiencing intense anguish because we do not know if one of the parts — the weakest, but the most aggressive — will commit the stupid mistake of unleashing a conflict that would necessarily be a nuclear one. Cuba is on the alert, distinguished delegates, because she knows that imperialism would perish enveloped in flames, but that Cuba would also suffer in its own flesh the price of imperialism's defeat, and she hopes that it can be accomplished by other means. Cuba hopes that her children will see a better future, and that victory will not have to be won at the cost of millions of human lives destroyed by the atomic bomb." -Che, On Growth and Imperialism, Punta del Este, 1961

-Jester

P.S.: Even in the retraction, you can't help but take the shot at Michael Moore?

[DeeBye]

P.S.: Even in the retraction, you can't help but take the shot at Michael Moore?

Well to be fair Michael Moore is a pretty big target.

[kandrathe]

They change tone drastically, and create new, and false, meanings by putting (falsified, exaggerated) sentences together which were never meant to be attached to one another.

Well, no, Che said all those things. Just that it was over 10 years, and not in that one context. I'm sure if you cherry picked and arranged statements from any politician talking about wars or conflict, you could paint them as a monster. But, as I said, I was really just interested in the statement he made about fanning the flames of hatred to rile up the people into a revolutionary fervor. Which was from the conference cited.

P.S.: Even in the retraction, you can't help but take the shot at Michael Moore?

It seems every Marxist socialist I debate flings him at me, so I do find I'm a bit over zealous in exposing his use of documentary as a facade. In a recent class, a student tried to use one of his films as a source. barf.

I'm hopeful history will reveal his work akin to Fords war films (esp. ones like "December 7th").

[eppie]

When it comes down to the negotiation of care, ALL of my poor friends get the care they need, but maybe not the care they want. I'm reminded of a close friend who is a very poor artist. She needed a $30,000 (rock bottom price) surgery and didn't have insurance or that kind of money. She ended up negotiating a deal where she would make a sculpture in exchange. Barring that, her cadre of artist friends were willing to step in and help out too. By far, most of my personal experience and the stories of "denied" that I hear of are from people with insurance where the insurance company refuses to pay after the fact.

Which country is this? Angola?

The question is not "Would you treat him?" The questions was, "Should someone be forced to treat him at their own expense?" And, people always get confused by this... insurance <> health care. Insurance is a financial product where you abate risk. I can afford to pay $13500 per year for health insurance to protect me from the rare chance I'll need millions of dollars of health care.

It is a question of civilization. Some people will need more care and some people are to dumb (or simply to poor) to pay for health insurance. The government and , you the people, decide if you want to help your citizens (also the dumber and poorer ones) or not.

I mean your government also decides that in order to save its citizens it needs to invade Iraq and Afghanistan right? So why can they decide that and pay for it, and not decide to have a simpler and more fair health care system?

[Jester]

Well, no, Che said all those things. Just that it was over 10 years, and not in that one context. I'm sure if you cherry picked and arranged statements from any politician talking about wars or conflict, you could paint them as a monster. But, as I said, I was really just interested in the statement he made about fanning the flames of hatred to rile up the people into a revolutionary fervor. Which was from the conference cited.

While that is no doubt closer to Che's intentions, he didn't say that part either. That's also from the false version. What he said was:

Hatred as an element of the struggle; a relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us over and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to and transforming him into an effective, violent, selective and cold killing machine. Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy.

... which is to say that Che sees hatred as a natural reaction to oppression, which must be harnessed in order to harden the people for the revolutionary cause. Which is quite relevantly different from something which must be artificially incited, "fanned" and "riled up"- which is, of course, the view held by Che's opponents, that people are ordinarily content and quiet, without the baneful influence of communist agitators.

That's really what all these false quotes share - wish fulfillment. "If only my worst enemies had said exactly what I imagine them to have said..." I'm more than happy to hang El Che out to dry for what he actually did say - he was ruthless, his methods were ineffective, and his goals dubious. But he, like everyone, deserves to be understood, and not just turned into a cardboard cutout.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

While that is no doubt closer to Che's intentions, he didn't say that part either. That's also from the false version. What he said was:

Hatred as an element of the struggle; a relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us over and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to and transforming him into an effective, violent, selective and cold killing machine. Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy.

Ah, but to me the key to understanding his intention is in the sentence "Our soldiers must be thus", rather than "Our soldiers will be thus".

Using "must be" implies riled up. Had he used "will be" then I might agree it was an observation of human nature.

Hatred was a tool for Che evidence in much of what he said and did, such as "This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate."

[Jester]

Hatred was a tool for Che evidence in much of what he said and did, such as "This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate."

(Every once in awhile, I wonder if you're not intentionally trying to drive me crazy...)

At risk of sounding like a broken record, do you have a source on that? Wikiquote has that one as "disputed," being an unsourced assertion from an anti-Che article titled "Che Guevara: Assassin and Bumbler" by Humberto Fontova, a fierce anti-Communist partisan who "lathers himself into a rage" when it comes to Che. Read for yourself; is this man within a thousand miles of being objective?

Simply being "Che-ish" is not sufficient. Give the man his own words, please.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

(Every once in awhile, I wonder if you're not intentionally trying to drive me crazy...)

At risk of sounding like a broken record, do you have a source on that? Wikiquote has that one as "disputed," being an unsourced assertion from an anti-Che article titled "Che Guevara: Assassin and Bumbler" by Humberto Fontova, a fierce anti-Communist partisan who "lathers himself into a rage" when it comes to Che. Read for yourself; is this man within a thousand miles of being objective?

Simply being "Che-ish" is not sufficient. Give the man his own words, please.

Fontova has no reason to be objective, and yes, he is not writing as a historian but more of a witness for the prosecution against Che. He is biased, as any exile who has lost family to the firing squads would be. He paints a more accurate picture of the bloody and ruthless mass murdering revolutionary guerrilla Che, than does the usual liberal sop painting him as the romanticized pop icon adorning t-shirts and inspiring college radical wanna-be's.

[Jester]

Fontova has no reason to be objective, and yes, he is not writing as a historian but more of a witness for the prosecution against Che. He is biased, as any exile who has lost family to the firing squads would be. He paints a more accurate picture of the bloody and ruthless mass murdering revolutionary guerrilla Che, than does the usual liberal sop painting him as the romanticized pop icon adorning t-shirts and inspiring college radical wanna-be's.

(Okay, maybe you ARE trying to drive me crazy. You do realize the article you just linked to as supporting the "accuracy" of Fontova's position cites, as evidence for Che's brutality (wait for it...) FONTOVA? This just goes around in circles, doesn't it.)

Fontova, a witness for the prosecution? When the Cuban revolution happened, he was five years old. (Seven by the time he left Cuba.) Try "polemicist grinding his axe."

Regardless, whatever one thinks of him, neither he nor anyone else is allowed to pollute the historical record by making up "quotes" and putting them in the mouth of his enemies. One does not paint a "more accurate picture" by making stuff up. The credibility of the rest of his interpretation is called into question, as it would be for anyone fabricating evidence.

Che is a particularly touchy topic, because, like Twain, he seems to have said about 500% of what we can source, but unlike Twain, most of it comes from his ideological enemies. Making up Che quotes is something of a cottage industry for the Miami exiles.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Regardless, whatever one thinks of him, neither he nor anyone else is allowed to pollute the historical record by making up "quotes" and putting them in the mouth of his enemies. One does not paint a "more accurate picture" by making stuff up. The credibility of the rest of his interpretation is called into question, as it would be for anyone fabricating evidence.

I tend to lend more credence to the victims, rather than the brute. It's hard to get the accurate historical picture, what with all the opponents of the regime being dead, and the only information escaping Cuba being sanitized by the regime. So, I choose to look at and believe the stories of the exiles. Somewhere between the spittle soaked outrage on either side, you glimpse the reality which was and is Cuba and see the real Che, and Casto brothers.

[Jester]

I tend to lend more credence to the victims, rather than the brute.

Historical. Record.

It matters. It honestly does. You don't get to make up quotes by Hitler, just because he's a bad guy. His being good, or bad, or upside down, has ZERO bearing on what he did and did not say. Truthiness is insufficient. Indeed, we should be *most* suspicious of unsourced or badly sourced claims that reinforce our preconceptions, because those are the ones most likely to get past our bullshit detectors.

I don't care who you prefer to believe in terms of opinions. But what Che said, and did not say, are matters of fact. Nobody gets to make those up.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Truthiness is insufficient. Indeed, we should be *most* suspicious of unsourced or badly sourced claims that reinforce our preconceptions, because those are the ones most likely to get past our bullshit detectors.

I reject that. Documentation is good, when you can get it. But, "Truth" is often more elusive and requires one to see between the lines. Facts, and material evidence are great and usually incontrovertible, however, the crime scene is usually scrubbed clean over time.

By reviewing all the evidence for and against him, I find that Che was a barbaric war criminal who riled up his supporters into a murderous frothy rage. Then again, I'm forming an "opinion", and not in charge of determining a death sentence.

How about; Che Guevara's Forgotten Victims.

[Jester]

I reject that. Documentation is good, when you can get it. But, "Truth" is often more elusive and requires one to see between the lines. Facts, and material evidence are great and usually incontrovertible, however, the crime scene is usually scrubbed clean over time.

By reviewing all the evidence for and against him, I find that Che was a barbaric war criminal who riled up his supporters into a murderous frothy rage.

How about; Che Guevara's Forgotten Victims.

And you are unworried by confirmation bias? Because it scares me to death, as a historian. And it should scare you too, if you're interested in being objective.

My argument is not that Che was a nice guy and did not kill people. Che was a violent revolutionary who believed the uncompromising use of force was the only viable way to attain social change - changes which I do not, by and large, believe in.

My argument is that *whatever* you want to say about Che, from making a saint of him to damning him utterly, it must be based on facts. You can "read between the lines" once you've got the lines straight, but the process is clear: evidence first, interpretation second. If your interpretation is already in place, colouring your "evidence," then you are at serious risk of falsifying the historical record.

Re: the Cuba Archive, I'll look into it. Although it is interesting to note that their tally is in the hundreds, not the tens of thousands, as regularly claimed. Once again, I have no doubts the Cuban revolutionaries executed plenty of people, and many of them with little or nothing in the way of a trial. But whether that's a couple hundred people killed during a revolution, or tens of thousands killed in massive political oppression, is a matter that needs to be settled historically, not by going with whatever our gut feelings tell us.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

And you are unworried by confirmation bias? Because it scares me to death, as a historian. And it should scare you too, if you're interested in being objective.

I am objectively seeking the truth. There is always bias, and so one must be skeptical and willing to review evidence and counter evidence. As such, I welcome your scrutiny and questioning of sources. Anecdotal evidence is less reliable, but en masse it lends credibility to the emerging picture of the man. His own diary convicts him.

My argument is not that Che was a nice guy and did not kill people. Che was a violent revolutionary who believed the uncompromising use of force was the only viable way to attain social change - changes which I do not, by and large, believe in.

That is good. I understand you are questioning the process, and not necessarily the result.

My argument is that *whatever* you want to say about Che, from making a saint of him to damning him utterly, it must be based on facts. You can "read between the lines" once you've got the lines straight, but the process is clear: evidence first, interpretation second. If your interpretation is already in place, colouring your "evidence," then you are at serious risk of falsifying the historical record.

It appears the official history so far has been the opposite, falsely uplifting a murderous brute into a romantic hero. I'm willing to listen to those who are interested in setting the record straight, even when the evidence is third-party, such as the "he was often heard to say, " type of anecdotal testimony.

Re: the Cuba Archive, I'll look into it. Although it is interesting to note that their tally is in the hundreds, not the tens of thousands, as regularly claimed. Once again, I have no doubts the Cuban revolutionaries executed plenty of people, and many of them with little or nothing in the way of a trial. But whether that's a couple hundred people killed during a revolution, or tens of thousands killed in massive political oppression, is a matter that needs to be settled historically, not by going with whatever our gut feelings tell us.

Right, but this is not evidence of just "the Cuban revolutionaries executed plenty of people", this is evidence directly linking the many hundreds of executions without due process to Che's command.

[Jester]

It appears the official history so far has been the opposite, falsely uplifting a murderous brute into a romantic hero. I'm willing to listen to those who are interested in setting the record straight, even when the evidence is third-party, such as the "he was often heard to say, " type of anecdotal testimony.

But this is exactly the point about confirmation bias. It's not the bias in the sources that worries me so much as bias in the reader; your bias, my bias. You've got your idea about what's true and false, what's "setting the record straight," and what's just "official" lies. You are willing to listen to sketchy evidence when it lies in your preferred direction, when it justifies the "emerging picture."

Down that road lies partisan madness. Even if something new comes to light that would ordinarily cause us to reinterpret our facts, we no longer can, because we've got our "picture" which feels true to us, not because the facts support it, but because we've allowed ourselves to be persuaded.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Down that road lies partisan madness. Even if something new comes to light that would ordinarily cause us to reinterpret our facts, we no longer can, because we've got our "picture" which feels true to us, not because the facts support it, but because we've allowed ourselves to be persuaded.

I am willing to allow myself to be persuaded, which is what I consider to be open minded. I won't flip flop on every new story, but each bit adds to the whole picture. Even if that picture results in two (or more) clearly diametrically opposed views with no middle ground compromise. Do I believe the tea party people are evil Nazi's? No more than I believe they are all well informed, intellectuals.

Circling around to the FIT's original premise. Are doctors, nurses, and hospitals money grubbing capitalists who value profits over their oaths? Maybe some are, but as a profession, no. The problems of inflation of health care costs, and education costs for that matter are more a reflection of globalization, rather than some evil corporate plot to bilk the middle class. The question I have would be whether the electorate can afford to give all the people the services they want. They all want to tax the other guy, without the responsibility to consider paying for their own services. Someone needs to be willing to foot the bill for themselves.

There is no magic "they" who have all the money and are willing to give it away to pay for all the wants or needs of everyone else indefinitely. But, I love the dichotomy of on the one hand portraying them as evil to justify taking their wealth, and on the other side expecting them to be benevolent to pay for all the whims of those who won't or can't provide for themselves.

It's the evil top 1%. We 99% can all side against them. Class warfare by degrees. How do you define peasant?

[eppie]

There is no magic "they" who have all the money and are willing to give it away to pay for all the wants or needs of everyone else indefinitely. But, I love the dichotomy of on the one hand portraying them as evil to justify taking their wealth, and on the other side expecting them to be benevolent to pay for all the whims of those who won't or can't provide for themselves.

It's the evil top 1%. We 99% can all side against them. Class warfare by degrees. How do you define peasant?

And this way of thinking among many people is exactly why 'they' can continue enriching themselves.
Probably most 'tea-party voters' would if you give them choices between simple things without telling them who's opinion this is, relate much more with a left wing democrat ideology but they are imprinted to hate anything that is left wing. People are not rational. And that is what the filthy rich class uses to keep things going their way.

And don't forget, those top 1% you are talking about got the chance of becoming so rich because the way the society is build up favors them.
Say, you sell arms, and your friends in politics invade a few countries that benefits you tremendously. OF course going to war just to support oil and arms industry luckily never happens....
Anyhow...is it strange that you would be asked to support your fellow American citizen that can't support himself a bit? For example because he was send out to fight in Iraq because that was more or less the only choice he had, he became handicapped and when back he was left to arrange things all by himself which isn't easy because handicapped people are not really good employees is what they say?? (or at least think).

Of course it is a choice you make, and a choice I can respect....but what I don't respect is all the sweet talking around it to explain why some people deserve to have bad healthcare just because they were unlucky.

[FireIceTalon]

There is no magic "they" who have all the money and are willing to give it away to pay for all the wants or needs of everyone else indefinitely. But, I love the dichotomy of on the one hand portraying them as evil to justify taking their wealth, and on the other side expecting them to be benevolent to pay for all the whims of those who won't or can't provide for themselves.

It's the evil top 1%. We 99% can all side against them. Class warfare by degrees. How do you define peasant?

And this way of thinking among many people is exactly why 'they' can continue enriching themselves.
Probably most 'tea-party voters' would if you give them choices between simple things without telling them who's opinion this is, relate much more with a left wing democrat ideology but they are imprinted to hate anything that is left wing. People are not rational. And that is what the filthy rich class uses to keep things going their way.

And don't forget, those top 1% you are talking about got the chance of becoming so rich because the way the society is build up favors them.
Say, you sell arms, and your friends in politics invade a few countries that benefits you tremendously. OF course going to war just to support oil and arms industry luckily never happens....
Anyhow...is it strange that you would be asked to support your fellow American citizen that can't support himself a bit? For example because he was send out to fight in Iraq because that was more or less the only choice he had, he became handicapped and when back he was left to arrange things all by himself which isn't easy because handicapped people are not really good employees is what they say?? (or at least think).

Of course it is a choice you make, and a choice I can respect....but what I don't respect is all the sweet talking around it to explain why some people deserve to have bad healthcare just because they were unlucky.

Basics.

I had a really interesting thought earlier today. I find it ironic how the Tea Party and the far right in general embrace free-market, get-the-government-out of my life economics, but only when it benefits them. Privatize profits, socialize losses. Companies like Goldman & Sachs and AIG, contrary to popular belief, LOVE socialism (but like capitalism, only when it benefits them). This "too big to fail mentality" is what killed American capitalism, if you think about it. It is a myth: No firm is too big to fail, none. If it failed, it failed. When small businesses fail in a capitalistic system, they have to suck it up most of the time. But now giant lending firms on Fraud Street and other transnationals can simply rely on this new (or rather not so new if you think about it) concept of socialism for the rich, capitalism for everyone else. To me, it is just further evidence to reinforce the idea that not only are social democracies superior to capitalistic ones, but that in fact capitalism (even if it's not 'pure' capitalism) and true democracy are now INCOMPATIBLE since the political process now allows those with greater wealth to have more political clout than the rest of us, since corporations are now treated as individuals. The Citizens United decision needs to be overturned. Throw in a right-wing controlled media that spoon feeds citizens who can't think for themselves about what is best for them by creating a predetermined social discourse, the majority of whom drink it up like kool-aid, and Marx's concept of 'false consciousness' is illuminated. I think the Tea Party, more so than any other group I can recall in at least contemporary American (or even international) politics, exemplifies this concept almost perfectly. Normally I would feel sorry for these people, its one thing to be ignorant, but its an entirely other thing to be WILLFULLY ignorant as they are, thus when things go bad for them they do not have my sympathy (now I sound like one of them, but I can't help it). But this doesn't merely apply to business. It also applies to families that think a 'for profits' healthcare system is great but then wonder why they have to choose between losing their home, all their retirement savings (if they have any), and hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills to pay for their mothers cancer treatment or let her die.

And of course, our politicians wonder why we keep having recessions and depressions, and though we get out of them, they try to look for solutions to prevent them from occurring again. Thus far they have failed, and that is because there are no solutions. No amount of "deregulation" can prevent these booms and busts. As Marx said, they are an INEVITABLE part of a capitalistic system such as ours. The sooner politicians can take their blinders off and realize this, the better off they and the rest of us (or almost the rest of us ) will be.