There are lots of competing lists out there of top news stories, so I have decided to contribute my own. I rank these not in terms of flashiness or popularity but their significance and potential for long lasting impact in 21st century history.

1) Barack Obama Elected as Forty-Fourth President of the United States. No one can deny the magnitude of Obama’s accomplishment in becoming the first African-American president in American history. Only time and the actions of his administration will judge the success of his presidency, but, even Obama dissenters like me will admit that his election will leave a permanent mark on our nation’s political and social landscape. 

2) Sarah Palin Runs for Vice-President. Palin’s run with McCain is not nearly as important as its implications for the 2012 election. I believe her appearance on the American political scene has brought to light the deep divides between the Christian and socially-liberal wings of the Republican Party- if Palin attempts to run in 2012, this division could lead to an all-out rupture between the two wings of the party. 

3) Russia-Georgian War Again, the event itself is not as important as its implications for the future. With this conflict we have learned that there are deep divisions of interests between the liberal-democratic West and the increasingly totalitarian Russian state. We witness  the beginnings of an attempted re-polarization not seen for many decades. 

4) Financial Crisis The world will either reaffirm its faith in capitalism or condemn the liberalized markets that brought so much growth over the last two centuries by turning to protectionism, regulation, and state intervention.

5) The Death of Aleksander Solzhenitsyn. The death of the little-known giant of a human being who was referred to by many as the “Man of the 20th century” reminds us of the growing challenges we will face in this 21st century.

This week’s leader in The Economist addresses the growing risk of protectionism as a response to volatility in international finance and trade. If you’re not a subscriber to The Economist, there’s no better magazine for weekly news and analysis, I assure you.

Very interesting article on Yahoo regarding a report recently published by the Department of Homeland Security overlooking the biggest threats to the country in the next 5 years. Definitely worth a read, especially for the national-security minded. Here’s the link.

It seems that ignorance and general carelessness about American history and U.S. politics have become commonplace in the majority of the youth of my generation.

In the (altered) words of Roger Waters, we are “comfortably dumb.”

I recently came to this scary conclusion when I stumbled upon a great response to the new movie Che, a film which essentially celebrates Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara’s life and glorifies his revolutionary ways.  I proceeded to post the article as my Facebook status.

The response was shocking. It was quite eye-opening to see the support for this man by his commie-red t-shirt toting followers.  Never before had I truly come to terms with the severity of the situation until I read the comments defending Che.

When looking at this case of admiration gone wrong, there are two aspects which need to be examined in order to tackle the situation fully.  First and foremost, we must find out exactly what inspires the support and where it comes from.  The second is to look at the Che clan’s reasoning and justification for his actions, and see how well that stands up under scrutiny.

So why the Che support and vast lack of knowledge amongst our youngsters? In the case of Che, I believe it is applicable to a few things: the ‘snowball-effect’ of beliefs via the leftist media, political correctness in education, and the general rebellious behavior and appeal of a revolutionary figure to teenage kids.

Of course, the fact that the age at which kids become interested in politics coincides with typically rebellious high school and college years, is obvious. But why, even in the face of irrefutable facts detailing Che’s unwavering killing, do multitudes of of people support him and pay for his t-shirts and movies?  I think that much of it is due to the preaching of political correctness in our schools and its influence on students beginning at a very young age.  We, as students, are taught to be tolerant to all beliefs (which I do not object to), but sometimes this tolerance is exchanged for sympathy when in regard to our enemies and foreign threats.  This is especially the case when dealing with Latin America and U.S. involvement during the time of Che.  Students are presented with a situation which attempts to subtly give justification for Che’s actions.  History classes today often make it seem as if America’s insensitivity and  hunger for power breeds terrorists and tyrants such as Che.

Once these kinds of ideas are ingrained into our student’s brains, they are further upheld by the constant influx of overwhelmingly liberal TV media, the main source of politics for people of this age.  However, I also blame the kids themselves in my generation for being lazy and not finding the time or interest to research political arguments on their own, but rather taking what is given to them as the absolute truth.

So, the next step is find these Che apologists and find out how much they really know and what their defense is for him.  Truth is, most of the time I have received the same sorts of responses I did when I asked many people why they support Obama – no response.  However, when a response is given it typically takes the form of a blame-America-because-we-created-Che argument.

Instead of launching into the very long and complex analysis of Latin American regimes and social ideologies of the mid 20th century, we can take a much simpler approach on Che’s life that eliminates any need for finding a ‘motive.’

Che was a murderer; a cold man who imprisoned people without trial and took joy in executing those who stood in his way.  His concept of life is no gentler or sophisticated than that of Stalin or Hitler.  Che did not want peace or agreements with the U.S., but rather convinced himself, Castro, and his followers that “we must walk the path of liberation even if it costs millions of atomic victims.” Che made it publicly known that if he had the means he would do everything possible to bring death, chaos, and humiliation to America.

No matter what these followers say Che’s  ‘motive’ or ‘justification’ was, I will not side with Che or Castro, nor will I ever condone such staunch hate and cold brutality.  I find it disturbing that so many people flaunt the Che icon on their chests and defend a man, who, given the opportunity, would not have thought twice to wave a destructive hand over the same country which gives them such unparalleled freedom and opportunity to express their beliefs.

The massive Che promotion movement is a scary testament to the spreading ignorance and lazy mindedness of a large portion of generation X.

It is a plague and it must be stopped.

Thanks to Mark Goldblatt’s article for the inspiration and Facebook as a platform for political debate and communication.  Below is a transcript of my conversation between a Che follower and a moderate that took place on Facebook before I wrote this article.

I posted a link to an article about Che as my Facebook status, and the following is the debate that ensued.

Anonymous 1: Che’ had good reason to feel the way he did about American capitalists.

Me: hmm… im not sure if that is sarcasm or complete ignorance. So you’re saying there is justification for unbridled hatred and cold murder? Interesting.

Anonymous 1: Would you justify what our government did to Latin America?

Me: Complete non sequitur. Maybe I don’t condone the methods used by the US in LA. However, it is one thing to try and stop the spread of communism, a method of government which, by example from Cuba, China and other LA countries, infringes on basic human rights. It is another thing to be malicious and murder people in cold blood and enjoy doing it. It is even YET another thing to celebrate this behavior and wear it on your chest.
Would you justify extremist Islam and Nazism? These ideologies, too, have ‘justification’ for their actions. The author of the article makes a great point, maybe you should also purchase a Heinrich Himmler t-shirt while you’re celebrating extremism and intolerance.

Trying to ‘justify’ Che’s actions and saying he had ‘good reason’ to do what he did are also two different arguments, you are already rescinding your stance slightly.

Anonymous 2: User submitted a comment which he later deleted that basically said two things. 1) He did not support Che’s violence and believes it is in fact ignorant that so many people display his icon without knowing the history behind him. 2) However, the author of the article in question had misconstrued communism and was characterizing it as something it is not.

Anonymous 1: Augusto Pinochet, The Mendoza family, Batista these men were emplaced simply because they were capitalists. [Their] methods were far worse than the leftists that predated and fought them. You tell me where all those Chileans went. Che’[s] actions are equal to those of Harry Truman.
That article also tries to glorify McCarthy that worthless fear mongering demagogue was a symbol of all that this country should not be.
Che’ stood there in Guatemala and saw what the Americans were all about. We made him what he is.
I agree that it is ironic that so many mindless teens where Che’ upon there chest without full knowledge of his existence.

Me: “Che’[s] actions are equal to those of Harry Truman.”
“Che had good reason to feel the way he did about American capitalists.” – from Anonymous 1.
You seem to support Che’s actions and his disapproval of America, yet you sit and reap the benefits of capitalism and comfortably breathe its air. Ironic? As far as Che’s motives and Truman’s go, I think you should re-read your American history book, or read it if you have yet to. (p.s. the author does not glorify McCarthy whatsoever, re-read that, too)

Anonymous 2 – thanks for your input. It is absolutely true that the original ideology of communism is never successfully carried out in practice. But if this is the case, like you say, then shouldn’t we redefine the word [for practical reasons]? If all we have is one type of example to go off in defining something, then I think it is logical to consider that type of ‘communism’ as the only ‘communism’ we know. The point is, it is never successfully implemented, and is time and time again transformed into a dictatorship.

Anonymous 1: Che’ was a doctor, a man there to help people until he watched his world burn at the hands of American diplomacy. Truman doctrine is what enabled the actions of CIA operatives and other such maneuvers that damned the fates of Latin American nations.
“Why does an obsessive Nazi-hunter like Simon Wiesenthal get positive press while an obssessive Communist-hunter like Joe McCarthy is vilified?” In this comparison it sounds like the author believes the public views of the two should be reversed.

Me: Not being vilified and being glorified are two completely different views. The author is not glorifying McCarthy. Very straightforward there.
I’m done debating this topic. The man was a murderer and would have launched attacks against our country if he had the means – just like his leader Fidel. They both hate(d) America and spent their lives massacring innocent people and exhibiting the most extreme form of intolerance. I will not take their side no matter what their ‘motive’ or ‘justification’ is(was), and I will never condone such staunch hate and cold brutality.
I find it disturbing that you defend a man, who, given the opportunity, would not have thought twice to wave a destructive hand over the same country which gives you such unparalleled freedom and opportunity to express your beliefs, no matter how skewed they may be.
But that is just me.

Anonymous 1: You are a very reasonable man Oliver and I understand your point of view, but I am too well versed in history to believe that there are good and bad guys. There [are] just two sides. We are no more righteous than Che’ it is all a matter of perspective. With that i close my [argument].

December 22-23, 2008

There is a new directive going through the Russian legislature that would basically qualify any anti-government rhetoric as treason. More here. Putin’s rationale rests on the idea that attempts to destabilize Russia in the midst of a widening economic crisis should be properly suppressed. In the midst of Medvedev’s recent meetings with Chavez and Castro, along with joint Russian-Venezuelan military operations, I’m no longer easily surprised by actions of the Russian government, but this has crossed the line of pure absurdity. It’s becoming almost a sport to speculate on Russia’s next totalitarian proceedings.

Sort of in a response / follow-up to an article I wrote a few months ago for the Review about a ‘snow-ball effect’ and its ability to gain apparently mindless Obama followers, here is a funny video brought to you by the Onion. It plays on the late determination, obsession, and close-mindedness of Obama sicko-fans and supporters.

Senate -candidate Caroline to be exact. The woman Matt Drudge dubbed the “Princess of Camelot” failed to woo Upstate N.Y. Dems  and media-types during her recent swing through our portion of the state.