I'm never standing still when you ask to shoot my picture again.

How can we resist the caption?

"C.A. Morse and his childhood hero"

(Have fun, guys.)

Viva la Reagan Revolucion!

Over his left shoulder no less!

Hopefully, management presented the guest of honor with a T-shirt or tote bag.

Justin said: "My question: Was this a sly cut at the icon by the artist, or is death something that fashionable leftist-revolutionary-ophiles like to see as the gleam in their heroes eyes?"

Or, perhaps Che's just forseeing his eventual assassination by the CIA. Of course, that was back in the day when they were real killers, and not just torturers and videotape shredders.

Interesting, isn't it, that Grover Norquist and Karl Marx share the common goal of destroying the State.

FYI Che was killed by the Bolivian Army. He would have been more valuable to the CIA alive for the depth of information he knew about the Cuban government. He was actively working to overthrow the Bolivian and other South American governments after all. Most countries don't take that lightly.

Marx's goal was not to destroy the State, but rather, to make it all powerful. Grover's goal is to reduce it's power, in order to maximize personal freedom and liberty.

FYI yourself, Will

The Bolivian Army could hardly have found its posterior without a flashlight. And they probably could not have killed Che without the CIA. At any rate, the CIA's active participation in Che's killing is well-documented. Maybe the Bolivians fired the actual shots, but CIA operatives were certainly present and assisting at the scene.

I believe you are also mistaken as to Marx's goals. (which I am not interested in defending) This is from Engels, but I doubt the distinction is important: "so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist ..."

Thus, I think Marx and Engels would also characterize their goal as maximizing personal freedom. I would not take them at their word, at least not more than I would take Norquist at his.

>>The Bolivian Army could hardly have found its posterior without a flashlight. And they probably could not have killed Che without the CIA. At any rate, the CIA's active participation in Che's killing is well-documented. Maybe the Bolivians fired the actual shots, but CIA operatives were certainly present and assisting at the scene.

If the CIA was involved, good for them! Good riddance. Now, if we could get the CIA to arrange a similar fate for Osama bin Laden via the Afghan and/or Pakistani armies ...

>>Thus, I think Marx and Engels would also characterize their goal as maximizing personal freedom.

They were collectivists, and collectivism is by definition an antithesis of personal freedom.

>>>>I believe you are also mistaken as to Marx's goals. (which I am not interested in defending) This is from Engels, but I doubt the distinction is important: "so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist ..."

Yep, just ask the proletariat that have enjoyed workers paradises under the states of Stalin; Mao; Cecesceau; Kim Jong Il, that have shown their adeptness at holding down adversaries.