od culture with contempt, is also a bit odd. How do people who have made their reputations in Hollywood, thanks to an entertainment sector powered by American capitalism and enabled by American constitutional freedoms, go to Caracas in order to embrace a man who is virulently anti-American (despite the self-serving distinctions he draws between America-the-bad and 'the other' America)? A man who is also a racist, known for taking cheap shots at Jews and referring contemptuously to white Americans as "gringos".

A lot of Americans and Canadians have an issue with the policies of the current Republican administration, and I'm one of them. But this doesn't drive them into the arms of a Chavez or prompt them to become fist pumping fans of Che. In some cases the detractors talk about the need for radical change, but what they don't tell you is what they propose to replace our admittedly flawed system with. The reason they don't get into that challenging territory, is because most of them have only the vaguest of clues. They just know they are angry and in some

Not a few people who were short on talent or even outright con artists have succeeded in securing honorable mentions in the history books, thanks to being in the right place at the right time. Some historical heroes on closer inspection turn out to be cowards or psychopaths whose lives have been glamorized to suit the ideological ends of a particular political agenda or to fill the need for a national icon.

A good example of posthumous hype is Ernesto Guevara de la Serna, also known as "Che".

He was born in Rosario, Argentina, in 1928, the eldest of five children. By the standards of the day, his family would have been considered upper class. The ethnic background a combination of Spanish and Irish. A forebear named Patrick Lynch, hailed from Galway, Ireland.

One of the difficulties in getting to the truth behind the Che legend is that fiction and fact have become almost indistinguishable. The facts, buried behind the virtually impenetrable fog of myth, reveal a man who was very different from the revolutionary hero whose iconic image has ended up on T'shirts in every corner of the globe.

We are told that Che was a medical doctor who abandoned his profession in order to take up the revolutionary cause, yet there is no evidence he ever earned a medical degree. We are told that he was a legendary fighter, and yet there are those that claim when serious fighting got underway during the Cuban campaign, Che was rarely to be found.

Rene Burri, who photographed Che in 1963, spoke of his dark side, and even referred to him as "a killer" in the non-military sense of the term. Castro had reservations about Che from the early going, and viewed him as a bit of a wild card.

Che thought of himself as a cut above the people he was liberating. Despite his communist beliefs, he never entirely lost his upper class Spanish airs. His revolutionary activity was part of a romantic saga in which he saw himself in the lead role.

He ordered the execution of homosexuals and others deemed to be enemies of the new order. A lot of these killings took place when Che headed up a military tribunal at La Cabana prison. Alleged 'counter-revolutionaries' were executed without the benefit of anything approximating a fair trial. Estimates of the numbers murdered in this fashion range from hundreds to thousands. Not that any of these details mattered to Che, who famously said ... "I don't need proof to execute a man. I only need proof that it's necessary to execute him."

Playing God never got better.

In 1965, with Castro's consent, Che traveled to the Congo, where his revolutionary efforts were a spectacular failure. Despite the experience he picked up during the Cuban campaign, Che had no formal military training as such. There were even those who regarded his efforts as a military strategist as something of a joke. His wanderings after the Congo debacle took him to Dar-es-salaam and Prague, and into Western European countries in order to "test" various false identities.

His ill-conceived plan to stir up revolution in Bolivia led to the final stages of his end game. Although he had a small group of fighters, he wasn't able to recruit a single local peasant to his cause. As the noose tightened Havana seemed increasingly detached from Che's plight. His Cuban supplied shortwave transmitters turned out to be faulty, so communications were cut off. Despite the well publicized reports of Che's Bolivian problem, Castro didn't dispatch even a small force to help him out of the hole he had dug for himself. Some of this may have been a result of international political pressure, but the fact remains, Castro chose not to act.

When Che was eventually cornered by the Bolivians in 1967, he surrendered without a fight. He then entreated his captors to keep him alive claiming that he was "worth more alive ... than dead". His entreaties didn't work and he was put against a wall and shot, just as he had orchestrated the killings of hundreds who he judged to be enemies of the revolution.

It's hard to understand the appeal Che holds for American enthusiasts, who not so long ago gave standing ovations to the The Motorcycle Diaries The fascination some Hollywood celebrities have for leftist dictators who view Hollywood culture with contempt, is also a bit odd. How do people who have made their reputations in Hollywood, thanks to an entertainment sector powered by American capitalism and enabled by American constitutional freedoms, go to Caracas in order to embrace a man who is virulently anti-American (despite the self-serving distinctions he draws between America-the-bad and 'the other' America)? A man who is also a racist, known for taking cheap shots at Jews and referring contemptuously to white Americans as "gringos".

A lot of Americans and Canadians have an issue with the policies of the current Republican administration, and I'm one of them. But this doesn't drive them into the arms of a Chavez or prompt them to become fist pumping fans of Che. In some cases the detractors talk about the need for radical change, but what they don't tell you is what they propose to replace our admittedly flawed system with. The reason they don't get into that challenging territory, is because most of them have only the vaguest of clues. They just know they are angry and in some c

d up on T'shirts in every corner of the globe.

We are told that Che was a medical doctor who abandoned his profession in order to take up the revolutionary cause, yet there is no evidence he ever earned a medical degree. We are told that he was a legendary fighter, and yet there are those that claim when serious fighting got underway during the Cuban campaign, Che was rarely to be found.

Rene Burri, who photographed Che in 1963, spoke of his dark side, and even referred to him as "a killer" in the non-military sense of the term. Castro had reservations about Che from the early going, and viewed him as a bit of a wild card.

Che thought of himself as a cut above the people he was liberating. Despite his communist beliefs, he never entirely lost his upper class Spanish airs. His revolutionary activity was part of a romantic saga in which he saw himself in the lead role.

He ordered the execution of homosexuals and others deemed to be enemies of the new order. A lot of these killings took place when Che headed up a military tribunal at La Cabana prison. Alleged 'counter-revolutionaries' were executed without the benefit of anything approximating a fair trial. Estimates of the numbers murdered in this fashion range from hundreds to thousands. Not that any of these details mattered to Che, who famously said ... "I don't need proof to execute a man. I only need proof that it's necessary to execute him."

Playing God never got better.

In 1965, with Castro's consent, Che traveled to the Congo, where his revolutionary efforts were a spectacular failure. Despite the experience he picked up during the Cuban campaign, Che had no formal military training as such. There were even those who regarded his efforts as a military strategist as something of a joke. His wanderings after the Congo debacle took him to Dar-es-salaam and Prague, and into Western European countries in order to "test" various false identities.

His ill-conceived plan to stir up revolution in Bolivia led to the final stages of his end game. Although he had a small group of fighters, he wasn't able to recruit a single local peasant to his cause. As the noose tightened Havana seemed increasingly detached from Che's plight. His Cuban supplied shortwave transmitters turned out to be faulty, so communications were cut off. Despite the well publicized reports of Che's Bolivian problem, Castro didn't dispatch even a small force to help him out of the hole he had dug for himself. Some of this may have been a result of international political pressure, but the fact remains, Castro chose not to act.

When Che was eventually cornered by the Bolivians in 1967, he surrendered without a fight. He then entreated his captors to keep him alive claiming that he was "worth more alive ... than dead". His entreaties didn't work and he was put against a wall and shot, just as he had orchestrated the killings of hundreds who he judged to be enemies of the revolution.

It's hard to understand the appeal Che holds for American enthusiasts, who not so long ago gave standing ovations to the The Motorcycle Diaries The fascination some Hollywood celebrities have for leftist dictators who view Hollywood culture with contempt, is also a bit odd. How do people who have made their reputations in Hollywood, thanks to an entertainment sector powered by American capitalism and enabled by American constitutional freedoms, go to Caracas in order to embrace a man who is virulently anti-American (despite the self-serving distinctions he draws between America-the-bad and 'the other' America)? A man who is also a racist, known for taking cheap shots at Jews and referring contemptuously to white Americans as "gringos".

A lot of Americans and Canadians have an issue with the policies of the current Republican administration, and I'm one of them. But this doesn't drive them into the arms of a Chavez or prompt them to become fist pumping fans of Che. In some cases the detractors talk about the need for radical change, but what they don't tell you is what they propose to replace our admittedly flawed system with. The reason they don't get into that challenging territory, is because most of them have only the vaguest of clues. They just know they are angry and in some

ana prison. Alleged 'counter-revolutionaries' were executed without the benefit of anything approximating a fair trial. Estimates of the numbers murdered in this fashion range from hundreds to thousands. Not that any of these details mattered to Che, who famously said ... "I don't need proof to execute a man. I only need proof that it's necessary to execute him."

Playing God never got better.

In 1965, with Castro's consent, Che traveled to the Congo, where his revolutionary efforts were a spectacular failure. Despite the experience he picked up during the Cuban campaign, Che had no formal military training as such. There were even those who regarded his efforts as a military strategist as something of a joke. His wanderings after the Congo debacle took him to Dar-es-salaam and Prague, and into Western European countries in order to "test" various false identities.

His ill-conceived plan to stir up revolution in Bolivia led to the final stages of his end game. Although he had a small group of fighters, he wasn't able to recruit a single local peasant to his cause. As the noose tightened Havana seemed increasingly detached from Che's plight. His Cuban supplied shortwave transmitters turned out to be faulty, so communications were cut off. Despite the well publicized reports of Che's Bolivian problem, Castro didn't dispatch even a small force to help him out of the hole he had dug for himself. Some of this may have been a result of international political pressure, but the fact remains, Castro chose not to act.

When Che was eventually cornered by the Bolivians in 1967, he surrendered without a fight. He then entreated his captors to keep him alive claiming that he was "worth more alive ... than dead". His entreaties didn't work and he was put against a wall and shot, just as he had orchestrated the killings of hundreds who he judged to be enemies of the revolution.

It's hard to understand the appeal Che holds for American enthusiasts, who not so long ago gave standing ovations to the The Motorcycle Diaries The fascination some Hollywood celebrities have for leftist dictators who view Hollywood culture with contempt, is also a bit odd. How do people who have made their reputations in Hollywood, thanks to an entertainment sector powered by American capitalism and enabled by American constitutional freedoms, go to Caracas in order to embrace a man who is virulently anti-American (despite the self-serving distinctions he draws between America-the-bad and 'the other' America)? A man who is also a racist, known for taking cheap shots at Jews and referring contemptuously to white Americans as "gringos".

A lot of Americans and Canadians have an issue with the policies of the current Republican administration, and I'm one of them. But this doesn't drive them into the arms of a Chavez or prompt them to become fist pumping fans of Che. In some cases the detractors talk about the need for radical change, but what they don't tell you is what they propose to replace our admittedly flawed system with. The reason they don't get into that challenging territory, is because most of them have only the vaguest of clues. They just know they are angry and in some

asant to his cause. As the noose tightened Havana seemed increasingly detached from Che's plight. His Cuban supplied shortwave transmitters turned out to be faulty, so communications were cut off. Despite the well publicized reports of Che's Bolivian problem, Castro didn't dispatch even a small force to help him out of the hole he had dug for himself. Some of this may have been a result of international political pressure, but the fact remains, Castro chose not to act.

When Che was eventually cornered by the Bolivians in 1967, he surrendered without a fight. He then entreated his captors to keep him alive claiming that he was "worth more alive ... than dead". His entreaties didn't work and he was put against a wall and shot, just as he had orchestrated the killings of hundreds who he judged to be enemies of the revolution.

It's hard to understand the appeal Che holds for American enthusiasts, who not so long ago gave standing ovations to the The Motorcycle Diaries The fascination some Hollywood celebrities have for leftist dictators who view Hollywood culture with contempt, is also a bit odd. How do people who have made their reputations in Hollywood, thanks to an entertainment sector powered by American capitalism and enabled by American constitutional freedoms, go to Caracas in order to embrace a man who is virulently anti-American (despite the self-serving distinctions he draws between America-the-bad and 'the other' America)? A man who is also a racist, known for taking cheap shots at Jews and referring contemptuously to white Americans as "gringos".

A lot of Americans and Canadians have an issue with the policies of the current Republican administration, and I'm one of them. But this doesn't drive them into the arms of a Chavez or prompt them to become fist pumping fans of Che. In some cases the detractors talk about the need for radical change, but what they don't tell you is what they propose to replace our admittedly flawed system with. The reason they don't get into that challenging territory, is because most of them have only the vaguest of clues. They just know they are angry and in some

od culture with contempt, is also a bit odd. How do people who have made their reputations in Hollywood, thanks to an entertainment sector powered by American capitalism and enabled by American constitutional freedoms, go to Caracas in order to embrace a man who is virulently anti-American (despite the self-serving distinctions he draws between America-the-bad and 'the other' America)? A man who is also a racist, known for taking cheap shots at Jews and referring contemptuously to white Americans as "gringos".

A lot of Americans and Canadians have an issue with the policies of the current Republican administration, and I'm one of them. But this doesn't drive them into the arms of a Chavez or prompt them to become fist pumping fans of Che. In some cases the detractors talk about the need for radical change, but what they don't tell you is what they propose to replace our admittedly flawed system with. The reason they don't get into that challenging territory, is because most of them have only the vaguest of clues. They just know they are angry and in some cases, alienated and marginalized. However the answer isn't to idolize Che Guevara or Chavez, or look to Cuba and Venezuela as any type of alternative solution - even if that alternative is simply a chance to stage 'solidarity' photo ops. We would be much better served if people turned their energies and their reformist zeal on corporate corruption at home and wrong headed thinking in government so we can make some headway toward fixing a system that has a great many positives going for it.

The idolization of Che in Latin America is more understandable. There is a history on that continent of the worst forms of discrimination and exploitation. All the way from fascistic absentee landlords to corporate rip-off agendas and locally based crime syndicates. But the solution to these challenges isn't to resurrect the ghost of Che, however well intentioned the effort might be.

Che is about the power of myth and our need for heroes that transcend human limitations. His image has become a symbolic magnet with a power beyond language. It matters little if the man behind the myth was a shallow egoist and a heartless killer.

Che Guevara went to his death not as a martyr for 'the people', but driven by his own quixotic perversity.