'Humanly Impotent': The Musings of Sean Penn by Ben Shapiro 22 Apr 2009 post a comment Share This: Disparaging Sean Penn's brainpower is somewhat like picking on Roseanne Barr's lack of charm. It's redundant and superfluous and altogether unnecessary. At the risk of writing something redundant, superfluous and altogether unnecessary, I'm going to go for it anyway. I'll start with an understatement. Sean Penn is not one of the world's more intelligent men. Yet his moral and mental deficiencies have not stopped him from posting his alleged thoughts over at Huffington Post. His latest expression of genius bemoans criticism of President Obama - which is not particularly shocking, considering that Penn has had his nose so far up Obama's posterior for the past few months that there's a good argument to be made that he's personally convincing Obama of the need to rethink his position on gay marriage. "Once again the simple-minded media and its pundits are confused about the nature of Americanism and language," states the ever-incisive Mr. Penn. "When President Obama today inferred consideration of holding former administration officials accountable to law, he was immediately accused of violating his belief that we should ‘look forward,'" writes Penn, frantically and mistakenly thumbing through an unused thesaurus. It's "implied," not "inferred," Sean. But back to the idiocy. Had President Ford ‘looked forward' in his decision as to whether or not to hold Nixon accountable, he perhaps would have seen the Bush administration abuse of power coming and chosen to be genuinely tough on crime -- you know, ‘tough on crime' -- sending Nixon to jail and deterring this recent avalanche of abuse. Ford's been dead a couple years, Sean. Nixon's been dead even longer. Can we move on yet? Further, the criticisms of President Obama's warm greeting toward President Chavez of Venezuela have been the posturing of our nation's most bitter and humanly impotent voices. Humanly impotent? I'm confused. Does that mean Obama's enemies are unable to achieve sexual performance with humans? Why is anyone listening to former Vice President Cheney? He's the one person alive proven wrong on virtually every topic. Mirrors are apparently in short supply in the Penn household. Then there's Newt Gingrich, who commented on the Chavez greeting as being approached wrong. He suggested that the meeting itself may not be improper, but that it should have been handled with a cold demeanor. This is a pattern of bad acting advice from bad actors. (All wimps think playing a tough guy is done in one-note coldness.) With a friend, or an enemy, our president will gain greater strategic position with a smile. Ahh, acting advice. Finally we come to the crux of Mr. Penn's authority. He's a great actor, and therefore he can tell us how best to interact with dictators. And not only can Penn give acting advice, he has acted before dictators, he tells us. I know President Chavez well. Whether or not one agrees with all his policies, what is certainly true of Chavez is that he is a warm and friendly man with a robust sense of humor (who daily risks his own life for his country in ways Dick Cheney could never imagine). To treat such a man coldly is akin to spitting on him. Yes, Sean, that would be the point. Apparently, you prefer swapping spit with him - apparently the "warm and friendly man with a robust sense of humor" cures you of your own "humanly impotence" -- but the rest of us think he's a monstrous dictator who quashes dissent and keeps his people in misery. Penn is almost done. As a country we've done enough of that. Say what you will, but it has only resulted in the self-celebration of our smirking spitters, while costing us international respect, American lives, and left wounds in the hands of our children's future. I won't pick on the grammar here. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, it is not done well, but you are surprised to find it being done at all. Let's just focus on his argument - what there is of one. Apparently, smirking at Hugo Chavez, or spitting on him, or treating him coldly, or refusing to smile while he rips America and hands you a book telling you how evil America is - that sort of behavior costs American lives, international respect, and "left wounds in the hands of our children's future." Which American lives, Sean? I thought Hugo was a nice guy who would never target Americans. As far as the wounds in the hands of our children's future, I was unaware that our children's future had hands, and I can assume that if the future's hands have wounds, they are likely caused from smiting themselves in the head after reading your incompetent drivel. Now for Penn's sign-off. The Cheneys, down to the O'Reillys and Hannitys and Limbaughs, effectively hate the principles upon which we were founded. They are among the greatest cowards in all of American history. I applaud an American President who's tough enough...to smile. Yes, kowtowing to dictators - that's the principle upon which we were founded. Smiling at murderous thugs - that's an American principle. If someone knows American principles, it's a man who once defended Saddam Hussein. Let's not go too hard on Sean, though. He has spent so long cleaning dictators with his tongue, it's a wonder he has even retained the power of speech. Instead, let's marvel at America, a country where anyone truly can get ahead - no matter how morally challenged, mentally bereft, and internationally yellow-bellied they are.