lol, ok so maybe my reaction was a bit strong. I'll change the topic name
but the reason for my vehement response was one line in particular:
To all those who decide that you want to be coffee house communist-chic, remember this: When you are wearing a Che T-shirt, you're wearing the same shirt that makes terrorists believe you're just one of the gang. I hope that latte is tasty.
I felt that the tone of this one-liner was present throughout the article.
Before going any further, let's be clear on a few points:
1. I'm not a Che Guevara fan.
2. I don't sympathize with Che Guevara fans, Che's philosophies, or Che's actions.
3. I don't wear Che Guevara t-shirts.
4. I don't like or dislike people who do wear Che t-shirts.
5. I am not a "coffeehouse communist-chic hipster" (wtf is that anyway); I don't even like coffee.
I agree with Glenn Beck that people who wear Che shirts probably have no idea who Che Guevara was, what he stood for, what he did, etc. And I agree that if people know or find out what Che's philosophies were, what his actions were, etc., and continue to wear that shirt in order to show their sympathy for such thoughts and actions, then yes, that is deplorable.
But there is a huge difference between displaying a bumper sticker that sympathizes with Eric Rudolph's actions ("Run Rudolph Run"--see Beck's example towards the end) and putting a bumper sticker on your car that expresses your sympathy for a broader concept--"Life is precious" bumper stickers, for example. If I wore a shirt that said "Che Guevara is my role model!", then yes, that is analogous to displaying a "Run Rudolph Run" bumper sticker. But wearing a t-shirt with Che's image doesn't necessarily symbolize sympathy for the man or his actions. The image of Che's face has come to symbolize a much broader and abstract idea. As one of the commentors on the CNN article put it, "Che is nothing more than an icon of revolution." Beck apparently doesn't realize or accept this. To many people, that particular image has become just iconic art on a t-shirt, no different than the Abercrombie or American Eagle or GAP symbols on those t-shirts. The Che t-shirts just happen to be worn by individuals that Glenn Beck seems to have a problem with...after all, the same argument that Beck makes regarding Che t-shirts could be make regarding Abercrombie/American Eagle t-shirts or Nike shoes. There was a lot of controversy swirling around Abercrombie and American Eagle b/c of their discriminatory employment practices. Does wearing either of those shirts mean I am endorsing their practices? Similarly, Nike took a lot of criticism for the the terrible conditions that Nike workers in Chinese factories had to endure? Does wearing Nike shoes mean I support such human rights abuses? Why didn't Glenn Beck rail against people wearing those products? What about those Fidel Castro-type caps that are becoming all the rage? Does wearing one mean that I sympathize with the Castro regime? Does it make me a Communist?
Ok, so all these points above, regardless of whether they are "correct" or not, reflect my opinions and points of disagreement with Glenn Beck. So why did I have such a strong reaction and end up calling him a douchebag?
Well, multiple reasons, not all of which are good I'm afraid.
First, I try not to judge people, and I dislike people who do (so I guess you could call me a hypocrite for judging people who judge people, but that's fine, one's gotta draw the line somewhere). I have no problem with Glenn Beck telling people: "Hey, you are wearing a shirt whose symbolism perhaps you don't understand, but here's what the guy did, so by wearing it, you are endorsing what he did." But I do have a problem with Glenn Beck doing so in a snarky, mean manner using lots of stereotypes (seriously, how many Hollywood celebrities can he actually name that he has seen wearing Che t-shirts?? And since when was wearing a Che t-shirt limited to Hollywood celebrities, "pseudo-starving artists, and confused hipster teens"?? If I go out and buy a Che t-shirt tomorrow, does that make me a coffeehouse communist-chic hipster??). The commentor I quoted above made a good point regarding this, so I'll post his comment in full:
"Che is nothing more than an icon of revolution, which many people at different times and for different reasons find appealing. The fatal flaw of all revolutions is that because they begin with unrest, they inevitably replace one despot with another.
The issue is not Che or T shirts, but the fascination with revolution, as those on the far left call it, or "regime change," as those on the far right call it. Any rapid, unnatural change comes with a high cost, most often in human lives.
What everyone wants (left, right and center) is improvement. That's what hope is all about. We want steady movement toward the optimum. The good news is that what we want is actually occurring right now. That's what evolution is: A slow, steady, methodical change that brings about constant improvement. It's not a philosophy, or a religion, or political movement; it's the direction of nature. It has no figurehead and no heroes, so there is no T shirt for this.
Since we're all involved in evolution, maybe it's a smart idea to lighten up on other people (and their T shirts) and focus on our own individual improvement."
The last line is really what I was trying to get at. Is Glenn Beck seriously going to get on other people for wearing Che t-shirts?
Second, I think the headline on the CNN frontpage also helped set me off: "Beck: Che Guevara shirts fit for terrorists." Now, I realize that, taken logically, the sentence simply states: this t-shirt was good enough to infiltrate a group of terrorists (ASIDE: btw, I don't know the details, but I have serious doubts about Beck's insinuation that the Red Cross insignia wasn't as significant as a Che t-shirt in infiltrating the camp--all the more so b/c Beck is so vague about it: "other accounts confirm" that someone was wearing that shirt, not that it had any impact!). Anyway, back on point--I realize that the headline is another way of saying that the shirt was enough to get into the camp, but to the average reader, that's not what it says. An average mind will equate "Che t-shirt fit for terrorists" with "if you wear a Che t-shirt, you are a terrorist sympathizer." I think this country has had enough of this kind of rhetoric over the past eight years.
Third, I'll admit, it was an over-reaction. Partly, I was upset b/c CNN, which I used to defend in arguments about FoxNews vs. CNN, has steadily been moving towards a "we're the anti-FoxNews" direction by focusing more on Opinions and Commentary and less on just reporting the news. I hate seeing headlines that aren't actually headlines but simply the titles of another Opinion article by Lou Dobbs or Martin or Navarette.
Fourth, it was the tone of the article--I'll even concede that perhaps it was simply the perceived tone.
As I said above, I'll change the topic name.
