Hypocrisy and doubletalk: Lessons from Sean Penn

As many of you know, the B-actor Sean Penn took it upon himself to interview the infamous head of the Sinoloan drug cartel, "El Chapo" Guzman. Why? According to Penn it was to open a dialogue about the failed Drug War. Now, I'm not a proponent of the so-called Drug War either, but I'm failing to understand how meeting a man who has beheaded more people than ISIS is going to accomplish his stated objectives.In true Hollywood activist form, Penn, on numerous occasions, has bloviated about a lot of liberal talking points over the years. He has excoriated Bush II for his actions in Iraq and Afghanistan which, on the face of itself, is a fair question to raise. He has repeatedly called him a war criminal in the past which, again, is worthy of debate. So what sense does it make to meet a man who kills 60 people before breakfast if it serves to enrich him if ultimately you're critical of U.S. policies? How is talking to El Chapo going to somehow change drug policies in the United States?And this got me thinking about how many self-professed Progressives are extremely hypocritical. Penn and Progressives have no problem excoriating conservatives over greed and their compunction to kill and torture in the name of money for oil, but neglect to recognize what someone like Guzman does for a living and why. Guzman would torture and kill your entire family for greed. But Penn would never scream at the top of his lungs at Guzman. Rather, he reserves his condemnation for someone like Trump. And while Trump is a monumental piece of shit, it is nevertheless ironic that you don't reserve the same kind of righteous indignation for someone as transparently psychotic as El Chapo.It is good to be critical of your nation and how it operates. It helps keep them accountable. The Drug War is a failure, in my estimation, that does more harm than good, but how to go about bringing that change through Guzman is specious at best and hypocritical at worst. So you meet with a drug warlord who has slaughtered thousands as a way to highlight the U.S.'s failings? Trump is a greedy piece of shit, but no mention of Guzman? Makes no sense whatsoever. This is just typical, bullshit grandstanding from a self-important jackass.

Of course you see duplicity, hypocrisy and egoism from all sectors of life, but I am referring to traits that seem highly prevalent among self-professed Progressives; and that is that there seems to be a tier of good and evil. At the top of the evil list are American conservatives and their policies (i.e. the War on Drugs). Even fanatical Muslims and heads of cartel are not excoriated with the same ferocity. I find that ubiquitous characteristic among Progressives a little odd.Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in the OP. My apologies, if so.

YEAH! That's why you are not a conservative, and neither am I. We aren't conservatives because there are qualities among them that we find counterproductive.Likewise, I don't agree with much of the characteristics prevalent among the Progressive ethos, which is why I'm not one.

No more so than making a case about conservative ideology by questioning Donald Trump.

How exactly should I respond to something asinine that is detracting from the OP and offers nothing substantive to the discussion?What I'm tarring is the Progressive concept that what conservative U.S. politicians do is somehow more vile than what even Chapo Guzman could do. Penn is merely the example -- i.e. Lessons from Penn.This isn't an indictment of all Progressives, though I see you're really butt-hurt about it. I'm speaking in generalities, NoNukes. M'kay? There. All better now.Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

That might have something to do with you being a Progressive perhaps.I think the spat between Sam Harris and Ben Affleck on the Bill Maher Show highlights what I'm referring to. You have voices on the Left that are too afraid to really be critical of Islam out of fear of being labeled as racists, labeled as intolerant, or of not being politically correct enough, not self-deprecating enough. Maher points a mirror back at Affleck to highlight how the Left is throwing blinders on in the name of tolerance.(Please note that I deliberately chose Sam Harris and Bill Maher to demonstrate that it's not a condemnation of all Progressives, but rather there ARE certain qualities that most Progressives adhere to as a matter of GENERAL principle. And Maher highlights it and euphemistically says, "Look in the fucking mirror some time! We, as Progressives, have some issues we need to sort out as well.").Yes, it is very fashionable to bash Bush and bash conservatism and bash Christianity more so than it is to bash ISIS or, in this instance, the Sinoloan drug cartel.Now, the same thing could be said of conservatives! They bash Obama and liberalism even more than they metaphorically piss on ISIS. But I bet you wouldn't disagree with that, and had my original focus been on Conservatives instead of Progressives, you wouldn't have taken any exception to the thread.Hypocrisy and doubletalk.

Were you going to explain how I'm being hypocritical or simply make the assertion?

There's really not much to discuss then. Had I used Mel Gibson to summarize the conservative ethos we wouldn't be having this discussion. The peanut gallery has obviously taken strong exception with using Sean Penn, so I guess this thread is dead.