(l-r : Venezuelan Prez, famous thespian, brace themselves for Ben Schwartz claiming the former is actually Carlos Zambrano, valid complaints from CSTB readers that captions are being regurgitated far too often)
Through actor/director Sean Penn’s mostly distinguished career, there have been a number of notable fuck-ups, most prominently Neil Jordan’s horrible “We’re No Angels”, the insipid “My Name Is Sam” and most spectacularly, the Penn/Madonna vehicle “Shanghai Surprise”. Ignoring Penn’s handful of celluloid atrocities, White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen took to his family’s favorite social networking platform to lambaste Penn for a recent Huffington Post editorial defending Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as a democratically elected leader, as opposed to the free-expression crushing dictator he’s otherwise portrayed as by the American government (“while our own cultural and constitutional conditioning would lead us to serious concerns in the powers of his office, there must be an informed adjustment to give our analyses a context that may extend beyond our border”). From Yahoo Sports’ Kevin Kaduk :
Upon learning of Penn’s post, Guillen once again ripped his ideological nemesis on Twitter. “Sean penn,” he posted, “if you love venezuela please move to venezuela for a year.” Guillen put a vitriolic cherry on top by challenging Penn to rent property in one of the country’s impoverished cities and see how long he’d last. Oh, and to emphasize the point, as only Ozzie can, he called Penn a clown.
This is not the first time Guillen has used his position as Sox skipper to blast Chavez (“His Name Is Ozzie Guillen And He Wants To Recruit You”, March 15, 2010), though whether or not Penn is qualified to offer an opinion on the U.S.’s treatment of a nation he’s only visited is sort of missing the point of the HuffPo piece (which Ozzie may or may not have read start to finish). There are probably a few impoverished cities in this country that Sean Penn would have a tough time in, however he need not sign a lease in any of ’em to argue whether or not their leaders were fairly elected.