Not surprised.

Amazing how much denial people can sustain to inflate/justify their existence.

Maybe we can make him our Ambassador to Iran.

Great idea! They could use an, uh, open-minded American dignitary in attendance when they hang teh gays.

Hmmm, maybe if Charlize and her kids were skinned alive and quartered, as so many have been on el chapos orders if not all by his own hand, Penn might sing a different tune.

But the ugly brown natives don't count, what counts is the man supplying Hollywoods drugs.

If only the Mexicans would arrest Mr. Penn for aiding a known fugitive. It would be a real eye opening experience for Mr. Penn to have a such and experience with the Mexican judicial system.

I don't know why anybody would complain using the term "Hollywood's drugs". It's not like he doesn't supply other people, too.

Some of whom apparently think they have a right to his product…

Sean Penn hasn't met a tin-horn dictator he didn't like.

Sean Penn - another Hollywood over-rated, under-talented, self-promoting blowhard.

This is the funniest thing I've read all year. The sheer wrong-headedness of it combined with Penn's pompous $20 words (when a nickel word would do) is high humor.

It should be noted that Rolling Stone admits that El Chapo had editorial control of the final product. Quite a little journalism operation RS has going on.

Hmmm, maybe if Charlize and her kids were skinned alive and quartered, as so many have been on el chapos orders if not all by his own hand, Penn might sing a different tune. ~ Posted by: momof4 at January 10, 2016 7:38 AM

Nope. Ignoring a fart is chivalrous in Penn-world. Skinning your competitors alive, on the other hand, is just business. And plunging Mexico into violence and economic ruin was someone else's doing. No, Guzman is just a misunderstood guy to whom Penn and Rolling Stone are giving a voice. A movie is in the works. Right after Penn's Chavez hagiography.

Sean Penn hasn't met a tin-horn dictator he didn't like. ~ Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at January 10, 2016 8:48 AM

From the Rolling Stone article: "...Chapo swiftly rose through the ranks, building an almost mythic reputation: First, as a cold pragmatist known to deliver a single shot to the head for any mistakes made in a shipment, and later, as he began to establish the Sinaloa cartel, as a Robin Hood-like figure who provided much-needed services in the Sinaloa mountains, funding everything from food and roads to medical relief."

Murder hundreds of thousands and plunge a poor country into violence and economic ruin, but build a school or hospital and the political leftists in this country will fall at you feet in worship.

Robin Hood remains the heroic archetype of American leftists, not for his rebellion against the usurper Prince John, but for his attacks on rich Normans (John's supporters). They distorted the legend to fit their political narrative, then they convinced themselves that their version was true..

I wasn't surprised by Penn at all, what shocked me was Kate del Castillo. She is one of the queens of telenovelas and I was unaware she was besties with El Chapo and Penn.

She runs various anti-human trafficking charities for the UN. What the fuck?

"Robin Hood remains the heroic archetype of American leftists, not for his rebellion against the usurper Prince John, but for his attacks on rich Normans (John's supporters). They distorted the legend to fit their political narrative, then they convinced themselves that their version was true.."

I don't know how much they distorted the reality vs. the legend. As I understand historical fact Robin Hood was just a criminal who robbed from anyone in his area. Rich, poor, priest, noble, or serf it didn't mater to him. He was famous for being able to resist the powers that be. A fantasy many of the locals had. The whole giving to the poor came much later.

Well, that's assuming he was one particular person in the first place, as opposed to a composite. I'm pretty sure most historians don't try to make the former claim.

However, here's what historian Richard Shenkman wrote (this is not from one of his more sophisticated books, mind you):

There have been quite a few people in English history who stole from the rich and gave to the
poor (though stealing from the poor and giving to the rich seems to have been far more common),
but none, as far as we know, went by the name Robin Hood.

Historians have found a half dozen or so medieval men by the name of Robert Hood who pretty much fit the bill. One, who lived back in the 1200s, even seems to have gone around stealing from the rich “for the benefit of the many.” But nobody knows if the Robin Hood saga is based on the adventures of this particular fellow or not.

The Robin Hood saga, I should point out, has changed over the years.

That Robin Hood was an aristocrat, for example, seems to have been added into the story in the sixteenth century. So was the business about his love of Maid Marion and his friendship with Friar Tuck. In the original versions of the story, he didn’t even roam around Sherwood Forest. He lived in Barnesdale Forest. Why suddenly somebody decided to have him in Sherwood Forest I couldn’t tell you.

In some early accounts, Robin is not so much the class-conscious hero of the poor as the tribal leader of the downtrodden Saxons, many of whom remained unreconciled to the conquest of the island by the conquering Normans. Robin, however, was a funny name for a Saxon leader, as it is French.

And just to show you how his story keeps changing, in the medieval versions he wasn’t even
lovable. Say a fellow he didn’t like happened into the forest and by accident crossed his path.
Think Robin would just search the man’s pockets for gold and stuff and let it go at that? Robin
was a two-fisted troublemaker of the first order. At the least he’d box the guy’s ears and yank off
one of his limbs or something.

What he’d do to clergymen you wouldn’t want to hear. I read it wasn’t too pleasant.

(end)

If you want to know, regarding that last (prepare yourself):

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/child/ch154.htm

Search on "monkes." It's about 1/5 down the page.

Though from the next verse, one might infer that Robin Hood was doing a pretty important favor to women and children everywhere.

Thank you Lenona for the better souring than my poor brain could provide.

Composite or actual person, the mythical Robin Hood, robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, remains the archetype hero for socialists, Leftists, and class warriors.

Murderous thugs like Guzman build a road and become folk heroes to the American political left, despite murdering thousands.

Even Hitler got a pass from Ted Rall for building a road.

http://feldsparia.blogspot.com/2005/10/ted-ralls-bush-comparisons.html

By the way, Hitler's Autobahn (about which Rall has him saying "can't spend all our cash on war") was intended to enable Germany to fight a two-front war by giving them a means of rapidly moving troops, weapons, and supplies between the Eastern Front (Russia) and the Western Front (France).

And as far as being "democratically elected," Hitler's Nazis won 37% of the Reichstag seats in January 1932 (their highest total ever). No party won an outright majority so a coalition government was formed, or forming one was attempted.

The Nazis had the largest bloc of seats so Hitler thought he should be asked to from the coalition government. But he was rejected as chancellor by president Paul Hindenberg and declined to include his 37% in any coalition government. As a result, none was able to be formed.

Hitler's Nazis won only 33% of the seats in the resulting November 1932 election, called since no coalition government could be formed from the earlier election. Despite losing seats, the Nazis still represented the largest bloc of seats in the Reichstag.

Hitler, as party leader, was this time selected (reluctantly) by Hindenburg to form a coalition government. The monarchists on the right assured Hindenburg that they could "handle" Hitler and keep him under control. He proved them wrong and by March 1934 was firmly in control of the German government. The beginning of the Third Reich is usually depicted as 1933, the year Hitler was chosen to be chancellor.

So, you see, Ted, Adolf Hitler was never really "democratically elected" to be chancellor of Germany and his roads were intended for use in the coming war. And Ted Rall is an idiot.

And as far as Hitler winning "most of his military campaigns," he actually lost every one of them.

From War History Online:

Hitler’s military planning also proved to be poor. The Nazi invasion of France went well until when he started to do all the planning during the Battle of Dunkirk, when he let 300,000 Allies escape. And during the Battle of Britain he cancelled invasion of Britain when the Germans were in an advantageous position and which could be the turning point of the WWII. Hitler professed a belief in an ‘Aryan Jesus’ who fought against the Jews, carried out mass murder against the Jews and minorities, refused peace negotiations and considered the completed destruction of Germany preferable to surrender.

Let's review, he lost Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain, the invasion of Russia, North Africa, the Atlantic Wall, the Battle of Stalingrad, and the Battle of the Bulge - every campaign he directed or in which he took operational command was a colossal failure.

His "fight to the death" orders almost destroyed Rommel's army in North Africa and did destroy Paulus' Sixth Army at Stalingrad.

I repeat, Ted Rall is an idiot.