Yes, the ‘Che as an Insider topic’ saga continues. (See: Che debate and Che movie thoughts)

This time, it comes in the form of a stressful Benicio del Toro interview which he walked out of. Knowing the nature of the newspaper which tried to interview him, the Wahington Times, a typically moderate to right-of-center publication, I’m sure they probably asked del Toro tough questions like: “why did you choose to take part in a movie that glorifies the life of a killer,” or even tougher questions like “why did you choose to openly defend and dedicate your award to a man who, without hesitation, ended families and murdered dissenters?”

Whatever the case may be, it seems that del Toro is a little lacking as far as his knowledge on the subject. One of his quotes from the Times interview: “Not knowing much about the history of Cuba, the history of Che, not being taught anything about it. The image that I have or what has been told to me about this character is that he’s kind of a cowboy – a bloodthirsty cowboy.”

I find it not only curious but quite irresponsible that del Toro did not do significant background research before jumping on to the bandwagon for this one. Del Toro said that he started his research by reading the writings of Che; his diaries, journals, etc. So, what I can conclude from this that 1) Del Toro is an irresponsible actor for not knowing the background of the character he is to glorify, and thus, in his ignorance he agreed to play the part or 2) Benecio did in fact do more research beyond Che’s diaries, but is a sympathizer for communism, and believes the actions carried out by Guevara are a necessary evil. Instead, it may have been more reliable to delay on reading the self-reflections of Che but rather interview a surviving Cuban labor camp captive or the numerous children whose parents vanished at the hand of the Cuban communist regime.

This is not a trivial matter – the influence of Hollywood and big-name actors such as del Toro turns a relatively isolated view of Che as a hero into a major misconception among youth already teetering on the subject. It dulls what should be a strong opposition to the flaws and destruction brought about by communism and extremist values in the hands of political figures.

The only good thing I can see in the film is its length – running about 4 hours, I doubt our increasingly less attentive youth will be able to sit through the propaganda.

Fascinating article posted on Yahoo! today regarding a new movement by news outlets like the St. Petersburg (FL) Times and the National Journal to keep track of President Obama’s progress on the fulfillment  certain promises. This mechanism of sorts, called the “Obameter”, is essentially a checklist of the over 500 promises Obama made over his campaign, many of which are realized as non-pragmatic even in his own camp. The article also offers a theory as to why politicians go back on their promises: to paraphrase, smart politicians will realize the folly and long term future detriments of certain promises that got them in office and do not follow them. It is my hope that Obama realizes this about some of his own policies (see massive government healthcare program, stimulus package consisting largely of funds spent towards unknown causes, etc). Article.

I recently engaged in an interesting discussion with a former classmate regarding the presence of the Guantánamo bay detention camp.

In short, she supported Obama’s decision to temporarily close down the prison, advocating the commonly held belief that the camp violates basic rights upheld by the constitution (i.e, no cruel and unusual punishment, right to a fair trial; all are legitimate points). I, on the other hand, acknowledging these points, also said that extreme danger posed by terrorism in turn can provoke extreme measures to ensure our great nation’s security. Whether this means water-boarding some admitted al Qaeda members or locking up terrorists without an immediate trial, it seems that the methods enacted by the government have been successful.

Well, whatever the case may be, it seems that the release of some of the prisoners, delaying of trials of self-proclaimed 9/11 masterminds, is not wise.

And now the link: it seems released Guantánamo detainees may eventually come back to bite us where it hurts.

     What will tomorrow’s inauguration be remembered for? Perhaps this is how it will be recorded in the history books: “After a much despised and ineffective President Bush left office, the young and promising President Obama successfully led America out out of economic recession and reestablished America’s role as the respected global superpower.” Or, alternatively: “Despite his leadership during eight years of sustained American security and victories against Islamist fundamentalists, President Bush left office with dwindling popularity figures. In it’s naivete, America elected the vibrant but notably inexperienced politician Barack Obama to the office of President. His first term was disrupted by corruption scandals, vacillation and indecisiveness in international affairs, and massive government bailout programs that only hurt the already flailing economy.” 
     Only time will tell which scenario will play out, but one thing is certain: tomorrow’s inauguration is a testament to the American institution of democracy. To paraphrase my government Professor Patel, a truly amazing thing will happen tomorrow when George Bush steps down from office. No, this isn’t a political judgement or bias. Our current president will hand over power to a man who he completely opposes politically and disagrees with on many policy issues. In these peaceful transitions lies the true strength of American democracy.