propaganda is pretty (or) viva ernesto. i walked into a bar once, in glasgow, scotland. this is not a set up for a joke. unless you think me willingly walking into a bar is amusing. this particular bar was adorned with lots of etched red stars, hammer and sickles, images of lenin, trotsky and mao, along with a nice classy manhattan-ish atmosphere. upon closer inspection, as i cue-ed up to order my girly drink, i saw che guevara's image frosted into the glass on the bar's refrigerator door. name of the bar? revolution. duh.



i thought it was so odd that a bar's design theme was revolution and apparently, socialism. is the bar being political? are drinks drunk community style or parceled out equally? i didn't get it. and why was this che character on the refrigerator? i wondered if that had to be specially made or if a company just happens to make che frosted refrigerator doors. so i investigated. first by clarifying exactly who this che character was. at that point, i had no knowledge of anything about che's life or beliefs, aside from that one pervasive image of him.

"in the late 1960s, che became a popular icon for revolution and youthful political ideals in western culture. a dramatic photograph of che taken by photographer alberto korda in 1961 soon became one of the century's most recognizable images, and the portrait was simplified and reproduced on a vast array of merchandise, such as t-shirts, posters, and baseball caps."

but what does that mean? che is a pop icon? great. was the bar reinforcing his icon status by turning a tidy profit serving alchohol to the masses or was it admiring him for his beliefs?

"why do people admire guevara? because they are admiring themselves in depth for something they already have inside, but that they have to exercise. and, unfortunately, nowadays they are told that ideals are not possible. and this is a lie. ideals are possible. how are they going to squeeze out life, saying we cannot be human, we cannot be generous with other human beings?



many of argentina's young regard che as a symbol of hope and freedom for people in need, and that he harks back to an age of higher ideals.



even liberal elements that felt little sympathy with che's communist ideals during his lifetime expressed admiration for his spirit of self-sacrifice. he is singled out from other revolutionaries by many young people in the west because he rejected a comfortable bourgeois background to fight for those who were deprived of political power and economic stability. and when he gained power in cuba, he gave up all the trappings of privilege and power in cuba in order to return to the revolutionary battlefield and ultimately, to die."

this seemed a bit too complex to be reflected in an image, much less on a refrigerator door. and then i found out that revolution was the world's biggest chain of vodka bar. so maybe the theme finally made sense (vodka = potatoes = russia = communism?) even if nothing else did. this led me to wonder if maybe che's image was being exploited for commercial purposes -- i know, inconceivable. i mean, people are walking around with his picture all over the place, but does anyone know what it means? if you're gonna have someone's face on your chest, it's probably better to know what the symbol/icon represents right?



somehow however, this is not the case. i'm sure if people started popping out iconic pictures of jeffrey dahmer -- assuming anyone recognized dahmer's image -- it would be an instant best seller. if only for the shock and cool factor. i'm actually surprised OJ hasn't been made into a t-shirt yet. or has he? maybe it's best if we wait twenty years to paste OJ's mug all over the place so that his role in the naked gun movies can be forever forgotten.



i don't understand how people can plaster themselves with symbols, logos, faces, without knowing anything about what they're wearing. then again, i choose all my clothing based on aesthetic value and solid colors, so who am i to talk? but if i were to emblazon myself, i'd like to at least do some research into who/what i'm weaering.

shoot, coward, you're only going to kill a man. like so many epics, the story of the obscure argentine doctor who abandoned his profession and his native land to pursue the emancipation of the poor of the earth began with a voyage. in 1956, along with fidel castro and a handful of others, he had crossed the caribbean in the rickety yacht granma on the mad mission of invading cuba and overthrowing the dictator fulgencio batista. landing in a hostile swamp, losing most of their contingent, the survivors fought their way to the sierra maestra. a bit over two years later, after a guerrilla campaign in which guevara displayed such outrageous bravery and skill that he was named comandante, the insurgents entered havana and launched what was to become the first and only victorious socialist revolution in the americas.



the images were thereafter invariably gigantic. che the titan standing up to the yanquis, the world's dominant power. che the moral guru proclaiming that a new man, no ego and all ferocious love for the other, had to be forcibly created out of the ruins of the old one. che the romantic mysteriously leaving the revolution to continue, sick though he might be with asthma, the struggle against oppression and tyranny.



his execution in vallegrande at the age of 39 only enhanced guevara's mythical stature. that christ-like figure laid out on a bed of death with his uncanny eyes almost about to open; those fearless last words ("shoot, coward, you're only going to kill a man") that somebody invented or reported; the anonymous burial and the hacked-off hands, as if his killers feared him more after he was dead than when he had been alive: all of it is scalded into the mind and memory of those defiant times. he would resurrect, young people shouted in the late '60s; i can remember fervently proclaiming it in the streets of santiago, chile, while similar vows exploded across latin america. "no lo vamos a olvidar!" we won't let him be forgotten.

-time magazine-

wok n roll. on the list of "most unique things i've ever seen in my life," i'd say seeing kenny snare an eight bagger was just about a top five event. isn't it amazing to see someone you know do the most incredible thing? i mean, how often have you seen an eight bagger? in print, on tv, in real life? i'd bet never.



i know a few folk who think they're pretty good bowlers but i doubt they've ever had eight strikes in a row. by the time we started paying attention to kenny's handiwork, he was already five frames and five strikes in. by the time he got up to six strikes, the lanes next to us were clapping and cheering him on. when strike number seven was delivered via a tottering number three pin, the crowd in back (three old guys holding beers and wearing real trucker hats) were toasting him.



i felt like i was a part of muhammad ali's posse. "kenny boma-ye!" in my head i was thinking of what would happen if we saw kenny get a perfect game. would we take pictures? would we get complimentary shoe rentals? would we get cake? would they shut down the other lanes and thrown us an impromptu party? would they rename the thirteenth lane "kenny alley?" my mind raced through emergency scenarios. would we have to sneak kenny out the back because of hordes of autograph seekers? would i have to catch projectile panties?



luckily for us, kenny missed a few pins on frame nine and the 300 dream died. but he still ended up bowling a 262. an unprecedented feat and worthy of a top five life moment i'd say. a two sixty two. are you bleeping serious?!? kenny is a super stud. and his bowling style is very, how you say, unique. just all limbs and snoop dogg laid backness. it's crazy.



on a sidenote, every time we bowl boys against girls, we lose (kenny was a girl for the purposes of this competition). the two highest scores outside of kenny's on friday were both scored by girls. a few years ago, me, greg and louis were beaten badly by winnie, carol and george. that time, all the girls bowled above 150 (winnie had a 200+) and our top "man" had maybe 130? they should really have bowling as an event on real world: battle of the sexes. why haven't they done this?

popular. you're gonna be pop-u-lar. there's this notoriety a guy can get, simply by having friends. not just any friends, but by having a hot friend. or more accurately, the hot friend. say you have a friend who knows the local hot girl, suddenly every guy is wondering two things. one, why is she friends with this loser and not me? two, how can i get to be friends with him so that i can hang out with her?



guys are simple creatures. whomever has the fastest car gets acclaim. the best basketball player comes to be defined by his on-court heroics. the smartest guy in a room full of sub-seventy IQed neanderthals is immediately dubbed "einstein." the guy with the hottest girl friend gets his own special medal. he gets invited to functions simply because there's an outside, teasing, chance that he'll invite her along.



guys don't even try to hide their motivation for asking "friend of hot girl" along. girls will do this. they'll try to couch their desire for a (male) hot friend in language that suggests they actually want YOU to go. "yeah, we're like totally having a jacuzzi party on friday, and you should totally come. and oh yeah, bring tony for sure." or better yet, they go the slightly more direct route of "you should really try (but not too hard) to come to our sleepover... and i think i'll invite tony too, what's his number?"



dudes feel no compulsion to pretend that they're after anything but the hot friend. "listen vincent, you can come to vegas with us if you invite vanessa along. but if she doesn't come, we ain't got no room for you in the car." guys will also put up with almost any nuisance/annoyance, as long as the hot girl comes out. vincent is a blabbering idiot who has a rock bottom social rating? who cares, he knows vanessa. invite him.



there comes a time however, when vincent's utter un-bring-along-ability finally outweighs vanessa's hotness. at this point, a ritual separation of your guys and vincent/vanessa happens. i can tell you from personal experience that this threshold is a lot higher than one might think. it would take an absolute terrible time -- many of them in frequent succession -- with vincent to negate the joy that could be had with vanessa in the party. guys are good at this kind of math, trust me. the best scenario of course, is if you can split vanessa and vincent beforehand. this nifty process is called, "separating the curd from the whey."



note that this also applies equally to all vickys who are friends with vanessas. so if your invite says "vincent/vicky plus one particualr mandatory guest," you know what's up. just give us vanessa and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. thanks.

defying gravity. the best relationship advice i've ever gotten? technically, it wasn't relationship advice but rather pre-relationship advice. the words of wisdom boiled down to "get it over fast, get it over quick, bite the bullet, know where you stand." this having to do with finding out if someone could possibly have requited interest in you. the worst feeling in all the world is not knowing if someone likes you or not. you sit there and wonder, staring at them out of the corner of your eyes, feeling their very prescence from across the room. did that glance and quick smile have more significance than its supposed to? when she said she'll call, will she? this is pre-relationship torture. the not knowing part. so, one of my friends many years ago showed me, by example, how to eradicate this problem.



there was this girl that he probably maybe liked. he had been eyeing her for awhile and the mixed signals he was receiving weren't giving him any clear indication about what her feelings for him were. so, over a quick beer, during a brief interlude at a party, he asked her. "so, how do you feel about me?" paraphrased of course. i'm sure there was a lead in and an intro, a smooth transition from "how's the party" to "so, do you like me?" actually, i know that this particular friend doesn't mince words so he probably did ask exactly as i've reconstructed it.



when he told me what he had done, i was in total shock. wait, you actually just asked her? like right then and there? no preparation? no counsel? no passing notes back and forth between her friends and your friends? that's incredible! that's so mature! that's so taking the bitch by her horns! is that even allowed? his response was that such a swift decisive action can only be positive. either she returns your feelings of affection or she doesn't -- freeing you to cry in your little corner a bit earlier. my friend made the international gesture for wiping his hands clean and left his pre-relationship dilemma at that. and like a little padawan, i learned from his exercise in temerity, vowing to always declare my feelings if ever i felt them.



at which point you decide to ask the person is up to you. if you want to nip the potential like/love/fascination/pain in the bud, before you get flagrantly emotional, do it soon. if you want to wait until you are fully emotionally bound up to ask, then do it later. the only thing to not do is sit there and never ask, never find out, never know if they could or could not like you, out of fear that the answer is "no." or just out of general pussyness. also, don't ask if you're not sure you like them, otherwise you could be opening up an entirely different can of worms. if you just want to take a shot in the dark and see what you hit, this advice is not for you. anyway, that my friends, is the best relationship advice i've ever gotten. go forth and prosper.

me (and us) against the world. one of the best ways to ensure good practicable relationship advice is to find someone who thinks just like you do. they have the same theories, they have the same morals, they can see your side in every situation. an ally like this is invaluable. when the chips are down and you're standing on the firing line (saturday nights for me, might be different for you), you can always bust out the "but so-and-so totally agrees with me!" something about having another person agree with your view makes everything seem much less wack. this tactic may not save your relationship for long, but it can be a useful mis-direction move if used properly. the key is to not rely on your ace in the hole in every argument.



chances are, no matter how despicable your action, no matter how tired your excuse, you'll have somebody in your corner. this is known as the "my girls syndrome." if you are a female and happen to have a few ryde or die bitches in your inner circle of girl friends, you know what i'm talking about. even if you just cheated on your boyfriend with his brother, even if you just had his father's baby, your girls will still support you and see your side -- until you turn your back anyway. the only time your girl friends will turn against you is if you cheat on your boyfriend with one of their boyfriends. then nobody will trust you and you're ostrasized. time to make new friends at that point. still, until this happens (37% chance), having this type of team behind you will give you the mental strength necessary to do what you want to do.



relationship advice is too varied and plentiful to have one rule of thumb for all situations. you have to take into account how two people interact, how needs and wants are different from person to person. this is what makes giving/receiving relationship advice almost a waste of time. everyone knows what they should do, because there is definitely a handbook about what to do. but that never seems to apply to most of the population, because each relationship is unique and dare i say it, special. the only relationship advice you really end up giving most of the time is "stay the course," "maybe you should tell him how you feel," or "dump his ass." everything else is just a variation on these three themes.



i've been listening to a lot of dr laura during my drive home and she gives out relationship advice on her show. it's amazing how caustic and acerbic she is. she pulls no punches, cuts callers off, and always just rips them a new one. she tells them to stay, talk, or dump, ten seconds into a phone call. she's really quite amazing. she doesn't take into account any extraneous factors that might go into explaining "why he treats me so bad." as much as i'm unappreciative of dr laura's conceit, i do think she makes a good example for relationship advice givers. you don't need the whole story to say "stay, talk, dump." all you need to hear is what happened, how long it's been happening, and how that action makes someone feel, before suggesting a solution.



but sometimes, with incoming relationship advice, you just want someone to agree with you. you want them to say that "staying with the loser is good, if it makes you happy." you grow to value a person's advice because they keep on yes-manning you. it's easier to be supported in all that you do, instead of being battered by rationality each time you bring up a new situation. which is better? the straight shooter and the voice of reason, or the "girls" who always got your back?

loveline. what makes someone qualified to give love advice? or rather, relationship advice? since we know that giving love advice is merely useless. when someone is in love, all the advice in the world won't make a dent in their thinking. so, relationship advice it is. but who do we turn to? are we more likely to listen to relationship advice from our trusted friends? from people who egg us on to do "whatever makes you happy?" what sets the criteria for good relationship advice?



first of all, it's generally thought of as bad to take advice from people who are either limited in experience or overly experienced. the former doesn't know shit, the latter are stuck in black hole-like ruts. who wants to listen to advice from someone who has had 20 failed relationships in a row? nobody. so, in the relationship advice industry, there is a clear middle ground of experience for who is the "best person" to take advice from.



some people feel like taking advice from people with successful relationships is the best route. "how did you deal with [insert problem]? what should i do to make her less angry? how can i make her feel appreciated while still ignoring her? is attraction really that important?" it's thought that people who are successful in relationships have the answers to these questions. but really, i find that truism to be false.



people who have successful relationships have gotten lucky. lucky in love. sure they've grown and matured and sacrificed for each other, but it's probably more a case of good match making than any relationship skill that "successful relationship-ers" possess. also, keep in mind, people only need to win the relationship lottery once to be set for life (well 50% of the time anyway, according to current divorce rates. but conceivably just once). nobody is consistently having bomb ass relationship after bomb ass relationship. your batting average will usually be 1-for-whatever. and if that one comes early, you look like a relationship genius, a true guru of the heart. me? i attribute that to luck. you took your monster cut at the ball and hit it out of the park. *clap*clap* i'm happy for you. but what do you know about the rollercoaster lifestyle of bad relationship followed by awful relationship?



the people i want to talk to are the ones who have fulfilled these criteria: (1) have had more than three serious relationships. (2) have had more than two different types of relationship issues to deal with. (3) don't have a track record for serial dating. (4) have achieved some sort of lasting happiness in at least one relationship. i want to talk to the people who've had a few strikeouts, had a bunt or two, learned how to stretch a single into a double, and then finally hit a good clean triple. they may not have muscled out a home run yet, but they're working on it. i have no desire to take relationship advice from people who haven't yet stepped up to the plate, or from the power couple who smashed the leather off the ball on one lucky swing.



after all, who makes the best coaches in competitive sports (and relationships are a competitive sport)? the best coaches are the mediocre players who really had to work on their game. generalization, great players don't make great coaches. why? because the game comes too naturally to them. if you're genetically inclined to be a great boy/girlfriend, what can you share about your winning formula? nothing. you need a coach who had to learn everything from the ground up, someone who really had to use their limited abilities to overachieve. that's the kind of guy i want on my relationship bench -- i want the hard cheering twelfth man, not the petulant superstar.