This shouldn’t surprise us, Hollywood is a fantasy factory – so it seems that the foreign policy experience of these folks reflects more their career than it does any true understanding of the reality of the governments they so enthusiastically defend. Recently, Hollywood liberals have found a new group of dictators to support. They now heedlessly defend the nouveau authoritarians of South America, like Hugo Chavez, Rafael Correa, and Evo Morales.

In the most recent episode, Sean Penn wrote an op-ed in Huffington Post condemning the State Department for economic sactions against Venezuela’s oil company, PDVSA. Decrying the sanctions’ unfairness, Pennsays that ‘Venezuelans live in abject poverty’. On that we agree: the plight of the poor in Venezuela is stunning. Yet Mr. Penn it seems has not stopped to think of why so many Venezuelans are so poor in such a rich country. Under Chavez’s twelve-year rule alone, Venezuela has earned close to 1 trillion dollars in oil wealth. Yet the people remain desperately poor. Lets put this in perspective, this one thousand billion dollars translates to over $130,000 per average Venezuelan family. What did Chavez do with it? It is hard to believe that after 12 years of this kind of hard income Chavez – who Penn defends so wholeheartedly – has been unable to reduce poverty. This seems to be more a reason to call for new leadership than to defend the current one. If this were the case in the United States, of a President who after holding the equivalent of three terms, as Chavez has – Mr. Penn himself would probably be calling for a change in the White House – and rightly so.

This further illustrates the double standard of armchair experts and coddlers of corrupt despots. They seem willing to accept dictatorships of the left if those regimes justify their authoritarianism in the name of “equality” or “social justice.” Every dictatorship in history has had to justify its abuses, even the most brutal – Mussolini made the trains run on time, Stalin brought modern factories and electricity to rural Russia and Hitler eliminated inflation and unemployment and built the Autobahns. Oh, yes, they also perhaps went a bit far in how they “persuaded” their populations that the regime meant well.

Hollywood liberals praise the perception of Third World “socialist” programs without ever having to experience the reality. It is easy to praise Chavez’s inadequate housing programs from the comfort of a Malibu mansion, or Castro’s medical system while being attended by the best doctors in California when the reality is that an ordinary Cuban being operated in a Cuban hospital for ordinary citizens has to take his or her own bedsheets, sutures, and even aspirin to the hospital. But those are not the Cuban hospitals that appear in Hollywood’s films, like Michael Moore’s “Sicko”. The hospitals in Hollywood’s make-believe world are reserved for tourists and others who pay in foreign currency (even the hated American Dollar). Those facilities are clean, well-stocked and modern. They also do not allow Cubans, except high-ranking members of the Cuban Communist Party, Government or Armed Forces.

That is bad enough, but when it comes to freedom, Hollywood types are noticeably quiet. They live in the world’s epicenter of free speech, enjoying immense power and privilege provided them by capitalism – and use that position to decry the very system which made them wealthy. Yet they say nothing when TV stations are shut down or taken over (for example, 3 in Venezuela, 3 in Ecuador, 2 in Nicaragua) or when excellent movies made by skilled filmmakers are denounced as “imperial plots” (as in the case of Secuestro Express in Venezuela – a movie that would have won at Cannes several years ago but was vetoed by the Chavez government for allegedly showing a “negative vision” of Venezuela). Instead of standing with their colleagues – those in the entertainment industry – they say nothing as dictators control free expression and as ordinary citizens (should we call them “audiences?”) are denied the right to watch, read or listen to what they want.

Naturally, Hollywood (and Mr. Penn) have the right to say what they will – something that is not the case in the countries they so freely defend. But it is way past due that those who defend the liberties that Mr. Pennenjoys point out the inconsistencies in their logic.

Finally, with regards to the sanctions on PDVSA, Chavez willingly brought these problems on himself. The sanctions were imposed by the US on a half-dozen countries and companies, including PDVSA, that have financial and energy ties with Iran, ties that in the opinion of the US Congress and Administration help finance Iran’s terrorist activities around the world.

If Mr. Penn has such an excellent relationship with Hugo Chavez, and if Chavez is equivalent to “the US President” as Penn states, he could perhaps use his access to convince the Venezuelan dictator to cease dealing with the anti-semitic and repressive government of Iran, for the good of the Venezuelan people who Mr. Penn seems to care about so much. Should he do so, however, I imagine Mr. Penn would find himself unwelcome in Hugo Chavez’s workers’ paradise.

Stone was the guest of pro-Hugo Chavez, anti-tea party professor, Miguel Tinker Salas, according to the student newspaper. When answering a question about Chavez’s support for the Iranian dictatorship and Hezbollah, Stone curiously leaned over and whispered with Tinker Salas. I guess he was looking for the party line.

Even the left-wing newspapers think Stone’s film is propaganda. “South of the Border” was savaged in the New York Times. The Washington Post said Stone lobbed softball questions to Chavez. NPR said Stone treated Latin American leaders with “kid gloves.”

Stone, who says that he “liked what we saw” in Latin America, never met with any dissidents while there.

Here’s the transcript of an exchange with Stone and a Pomona college student. You can watch the exchange here…

Student: Chavez considers the dictatorship of Iran great for its people and fully supports the government. He also considers Hezbollah to be heroic and legitimate. Do you agree? And Danny Glover got money from the government of Venezuela; did you? And who financed this film?

[Leans over, and whispers to pro-Chavez professor Miguel Tinker Salas]

Stone: We did not get any money from the government of Venezuela for the film. We made this movie outside that domain, and we were critical, if need be, but we liked what we saw. As you can see from the movie, we were trying to balance what we see as an extremely negative picture, so we were not going to go into a ‘he-said-you-said’ kind of documentary because I think it would have taken far longer and we would not have been able to cover the general movement of change in South America. This is truly a first look, a 101 type course, on South America. On the issue of the Middle East, on Iran, I heard, and on Hezbollah, I’m not going to get into that argument, but I will say Chavez trades with us in oil and Iran is a standing member of OPEC and has been for quite a few years and all, not just Chavez, but Saudi Arabia, all the members of OPEC, Russia, and have quite a lot of [business dealings] to Iran, so does the United States, too, by the way.

A huge amount of (business  dealings) as we know. Something like 250 firms are doing business with Iran, so what you read in the media is, again, you know it’s very distorted about Iran. There are some many problems, but a lot of that is bullshit. So re-examine your sources on Iran and on Hezbollah too because Hezbollah keeps getting re-elected in a very strange sort of balance in the Middle East, so I, I just, you know, let’s get off the American view of the Middle East. Just get away from it.

Student: Okay, thank you.

I have been a journalist in some pretty unusual places that have more than a few security issues. I have investigated some unsavory people in places such as Romania, Uzbekistan,Cambodia and Uganda. I went undercover in Indonesia and ended up ensuring that one particularly cruel and crooked mother and daughter team received lengthy jail sentences in the other Jakarta Hilton.

But out of all these places and scenarios I can honestly say that Caracas is the scariest place I have ever been.

It feels and is lawless. The people have the despair of those who know their lives should be better but are beaten down by the everyday misery of watching their savings and futures disappear. Murders and kidnappings are endemic. There is a small area of Caracas that is safe for foreigners during the day. At night you have to be careful everywhere. Poverty and high prices seem to increase along with the oil revenues that are kept or misspent by the government.

Whilst I was there Hugo Chavez, the country’s president, did one of his regular Sunday broadcasts. These 4 hour homages to himself are a feature of life in Venezuela, that and shortages of things like milk, bottled water and toilet paper. During the broadcast Chavez is seen walking through an old part of Caracas with the local mayor. His red-shirted entourage surround him. He points to a jewelry shop and asks what it is. When he is told he immediately shouts, Expropriate! Expropriate! He goes on to repeat this action on a number of other small jewelry shops in the area before moving on and reminding his audience of how great he is.

The only TV channel in the country that questions the president was also the only TV channel to interview the devastated owners of the jewelry shops that had just been seized by the government. Shell-shocked, the owners told how they had been operating for 30 and 40 years and now had nothing. Last week the owner of this TV station had to flee the country because an arrest warrant was issued claiming that a car dealership he ran was “hoarding cars.”

We went to a wedding whilst in Venezuela. At our beach hotel we woke up one morning to find the army/police had taken up positions and were talking to the owner. His crime was to complain that government-backed squatters had taken over buildings he had set up so that locals could sell their produces and crafts to tourists. After he complained to the local judge the police arrived demanding to see his papers.

In Hollywood ownership is a really big deal. Stealing other people’s ideas or films or scripts or songs is not appreciated, people do try but it’s not legal. How strange then that artists such as Sean Penn and Oliver Stone love Hugo Chavez. Indeed Stone has just directed a documentary South of the Border which opens in the U.S. this week. According to the advance publicity it examines 5 “progressive” governments in South America.

According to Stone “Hugo Chávez is an extremely dynamic and charismatic figure. He’s open and warmhearted and big, and a fascinating character. But as Mr. Stone notes, his view is not widely held in the US:‪ “When I go back to the States I keep hearing these horror stories about ‘dictator,’ ‘bad guy,’ ‘menace to American society.’” Well Mr. Stone you don’t have to go to America to find unfavorable opinions of Hugo Chavez. He is no dictator – he was elected and even lost a recent referendum, but he is a bad guy who is a major menace for the poor of Venezuela.

If Mr. Stone had taken his camera on to the streets of Caracas he would very quickly have found lots of people who think Chavez is a menace whos seizes property on a whim and gives it to his cronies. He arrests people for “committing acts of journalism” – you know Mr. Stone, like you are pretending to do in your documentary.

‬There would be an interesting documentary about how a country with so many natural resources could be so poor. There could also be an interesting documentary made about how democratic elected leaders in the region drift towards tyranny with no respect for the rule of law. These documentaries could also look at why elites from the U.S. and Europe seem to suspend their morals and believe that the people of these countries don’t deserve democracy or basic human rights. These would all be interesting documentaries but they are unlikely to be made Mr. Stone anytime soon.

[Ed. Note: According to Variety, Stone's South of the Border "sunk like a rock at the Venezuelan box office."]

—–

I thought Obama put an end to all this ugly America’s empiring? Or is Oliver Stone the last remaining critic of this country yet to receive a Presidential bow?

Anyway, here’s a glimpse of Oliver Stone’s pal:

Venezuela has asked Interpol to arrest the owner of the only TV station still openly critical of leftist President Hugo Chavez, the government announced Friday. ….

Zuloaga was previously detained in March, when he was accused of criticizing the government during a public forum outside the country.

International human rights groups have criticized the legal action against Zuloaga and other Chavez critics, calling such actions an attempt to silence them.

And here’s a glimpse of how much affection Chavez’s own people hold for him:

This is our sixth month of Obama Nation strips. Huzzah!

He directed his ire directly at journalists who accuse Chavez of being a socialist and a dictator.  He said:

“Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it. And this is mainstream media. There should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.”

According to the Washington Post, the murder rate in Venezuela has quadrupled in the past 11 years under the leadership of Hugo Chavez. The article breaks it down to two murders every hour.

Perhaps Mr. Penn would like to educate himself on the recent findings of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.  This 319-page report was referenced in an editorial in the Washington Post dated March 1, 2010 titled, “Report details violence and lost freedoms in Venezuela.”

According to the editorial “bogus criminal charges” are used to “silence human rights groups.” “… the commission, made up of seven jurists and rights activists from Antigua, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and the United States, offers a level of detail and a stance of impartiality that ought to discredit those defenders of Mr. Chavez who paint his critics as Yanqui imperialists or coup-plotters.”

Killing journalists, protesters, union leaders, and torture are but a few atrocities cited in the report. The following is but one paragraph from the Organization of American States, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, report titled, DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN VENEZUELA dated 30 December 2009. 

Executive Summary, Page 1 Paragraph 4.  The full report can be read here. 

In this report, the Commission identifies issues that restrict full enjoyment of the human rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights. Among other issues, the IACHR analyzes a series of conditions that indicate the absence of due separation and independence between the branches of government in Venezuela. The Commission also finds that in Venezuela, not all persons are ensured full enjoyment of their rights irrespective of the positions they hold vis-à-vis the government’s policies. The Commission also finds that the State’s punitive power is being used to intimidate or punish people on account of their political opinions. The Commission’s report establishers that Venezuela lacks the conditions necessary for human rights defenders and journalists to carry out their work freely. The IACHR also detects the existence of a patter of impunity in cases of violence, which particularly affects media works, human rights defenders, trade unionists, participants in public demonstrations, people held in custody, Campesinos (small-scale and subsistence farmers), indigenous peoples, and women. 

So if Mr. Penn has any friends out there who read Big Hollywood perhaps they could pass this on to him. Of course Penn will probably shrug off the report, as “that’s bogus man.” 

It must be refreshing to Mr. Penn to have such a great friend as Mr. Chavez. 

The same article in the Guardian states:

Chavez thanked Penn for his support in what he said was a daily battle for public opinion. 

“I was reading the declarations from our friend Sean Penn, the famous American actor,” he told a televised rally in Caracas. “Penn defended what he considers to be the truth.” 

The Hollywood star was an ally in the effort to counter a campaign to “confuse” Venezuelans, said the president, who has been in power for 11 years. “From here I thank you very much.” 

Mr. Penn thinks himself a patriot but I think he has gotten his loyalties confused he is a patriot of Venezuela not America.

You know… kind of like when Bush was trying win a war in Iraq – and all those left wingers stood behind him.

And that’s my first point: The right has every right to gloat over Obama’s humiliation, because, thankfully, NO ONE DIED. Unlike, say during the Iraq war, where, whenever there was a roadside bombing, the progressives did their own special victory dance – using the consequences of war to gloat over an embattled president and an unpopular country. I didn’t hear much of the smarmy press calling them out.

So, if I take pleasure in watching Obama’s big fail, it’s only because it proved a point I made before he was elected: that being likeable, in and of itself, does nothing for America. To protect our nation and further our interests, our leader must reject the need to be loved by the world, and embrace being feared, even hated. I know that’s hard for our guy. Being a self-proclaimed “citizen of the world,” he enjoys the accolades of Libya, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba and Russia. With friends like that, who needs enemies.

But hey – screw the Olympics. Maybe Obama should now focus on bringing the World’s Fair back to Chicago. If there’s one thing that could make dictators like us more, it would be temporary structures filled with stuff from other countries. They look positively magical, even if they’re flimsy and fall apart in a strong wind.

Which sounds familiar.

And if you disagree with me, then you’re probably a racist.

Tonight we’ve got Jim Norton, S.E. Cupp, Mark Prindle and Ron Geraci!

Irony is what happens when a Hollywood director (Oliver Stone) goes to Latin America, produces a film favorable to one of the most maniacal and politically obnoxious figures in the region (Hugo Chavez), and then returns to the States to tout what he sees as his own astounding “research” skills. In what world would legitimate research on Chavez result in any favorable representation in film or any other venue, for that matter?

Even more concerning than Stone’s own tweaked coverage and perception of the dictator is the L.A. Times’ representation of the film – and shall I say, meager, questioning of its tenants. In an article by Times journalist Reed Johnson, the paper, in all of its glory, referred to Chavez as a “…former military officer turned democratically elected socialist leader.” Talk about niceties.

While admitting that the film does not provide diverse views on Chavez, the article only mentions “dust-ups” with media outlets opposed to the regime and Chavez’s role in assisting radicals in rallying against Columbia’s government (but these mentions come only in the context of what the film, itself, does not cover).

Sadly, the piece serves as a bullhorn for Stone’s own views on the evils of America and his infatuation with the Venezuelan dictator’s charm. Instead of raising facts and figures from those who would disagree with anti-American rhetoric, the piece does little to provide well-rounded perspective. Johnson writes:

In his new documentary “South of the Border,” Oliver Stone is shown warmly embracing Hugo Chavez, nibbling coca leaves with Evo Morales and gently teasing Cristina Elizabeth Fernández de Kirchner about how many pairs of shoes she owns.

These amiable, off-the-cuff snapshots of the presidents of Venezuela, Bolivia and Argentina, respectively, contrast with the way these left-leaning leaders often are depicted in U.S.”

The article makes no real effort to delve into the human rights violations that Chavez champions in Venezuela. And while one can argue that this wasn’t the purpose of the article, Stone is minimally pressed to answer further about why he’s avoided these issues. If the L.A. Times felt it so necessary to provide a platform for Stone’s work, why not also provide a framework through which readers could better understand why many Americans dislike Chavez’s restrictive regime? The U.S. retains a negative view of Chavez with good reason.

Take the following statement from Human Rights Watch (coincidently, not a right-leaning group by any stretch of the imagination):

On September 18, we released a report in Caracas that shows how President Hugo Chavez has undermined human rights guarantees in Venezuela. That night, we returned to our hotel and found around twenty Venezuelan security agents, some armed and in military uniform, awaiting us outside our rooms. They were accompanied by a man who announced—with no apparent sense of irony—that he was a government “human rights” official and that we were being expelled from the country.

The official reason for their expulsion? “[Violating] the constitution by criticizing the government while on tourist visas.” Ironically, they weren’t even on tourist visas. But this is only one example. One wonders what happens to Venezuelan citizens who dare question Chavez’s authority. Note: The L.A. Times may not be the place to go to collect this information.

And, while the Times would apparently seek to focus, as does Mr. Stone, on the fact that Chavez is “democratically elected,” let’s review the radicalization we’ve seen coming from his administration – violations that the L.A. Times confirms Stone left out of his leftist propaganda.

According to The New York Times, following re-election in 2006…

“[Chavez] nationalized electrical companies, asserted government control over oil projects in the Orinoco forests and withdrew from the International Monetary Fund. He also cracked down on television stations that had been critical of him, and proposed a referendum on constitutional changes that would centralize power in the presidency and remove term limits for the post.”

Ahh, a whiff of democracy!

Oh, and did I mention that Venezuelan voters democratically turned down his insane referendum? Would it have killed Johnson to merely mention of the constrictive actions that pose concern not only to conservative groups in America, but also to the leftist Human Rights Watch? Probably not. To those completely unfamiliar with Venezuelan politics, this article did little more than promote Stone’s film.

Ironically, Stone – an artist – doesn’t address Chavez’s media restrictions and state-run outlets (apparently love for a dictator of sorts trumps his love for the arts). And the Times, a supposed-democratic tool, also declines to delve into this important detail. Both would have us to believe that the heinousness Chavez inflicts on the citizens of his nation – and on the arts and media – is good old democracy at work. Insane.

In today’s L.A. Times director Oliver Stone discusses his upcoming documentary “South of the Border,” about the “warmhearted” Hugo Chavez. [emphasis added]:

Oliver Stone is shown warmly embracing Hugo Chávez, nibbling coca leaves with Evo Morales and gently teasing Cristina Elizabeth Fernández de Kirchner about how many pairs of shoes she owns. …

“I think he’s an extremely dynamic and charismatic figure. He’s open and warmhearted and big, and a fascinating character,” … ”But when I go back to the States I keep hearing these horror stories about ‘dictator,’ ‘bad guy,’ ‘menace to American society.’ I think the project started as something about the American media demonizing Latin leaders.

Guys like Stone are forced to rationalize that the American media is right-leaning in order to avoid their head exploding due to an acute case of FacingTheTruth-itosis. But maybe the doc will be more critical than we’re led to believe in this article. During their warm embrace, it’s possible Stone whispered hard-hitting questions in Hugo’s ear about reports such as this from the not-so-conservative Human Rights Watch.

The film’s writer Tariq Ali describes his doc as a “political road movie.”

A Blame America Tour is more like it:

A big part of the explanation the film advances is that the free-market economic policies pushed by the U.S. and the International Monetary Fund over the last several years largely have failed to alleviate Latin America’s chronic income inequality.

And then there’s that awesome Bolivarian Revolution Stone’s “rooting for.” No word yet on whether or not he’s willing to live under it:

“I’m rooting for [Hugo Chavez's] Bolivarian movement,” he says. “I’m rooting for their independence because I think that America has a new role to play in this world, and that’s not of an oppressor, but that of a cooperative and, let’s call it equal, partner.”

Time for today’s edition of Choose The Bigger Whopper: Is it the Times’ claim that few Hollywood directors deal with political topics or Stone using the word “truth” in the same sentence as “JFK?”

In an era when few Hollywood directors bother to deal with historical or political topics at all, Stone frequently has been targeted for playing loose with historical facts[.] … On this score, he vigorously defends his record.

“You do your homework, you do your research, we always did, whatever you think of my work,” he says. “Even going back to ‘JFK,’ I’ve always done as much research as we could. And there’s mistakes made, but there’s a lot of truth, you know, as much as we can put into these movies.”

Elite Hollywood Leftists embrace Socialist thugs like Chavez for just that reason: they’re elites, who see themselves not as someone living under the oppressive regimes they boost, but as being the toast of those oppressive regimes. No more of that awful capitalist money-raising to fund the next feature, but better yet, all the Rush Limbaughs and Bill O’Reillys and Glenn Becks who dare hold them accountable are put out of business. Silenced.

Stone’s attraction to this kind of world makes sense in other ways, as well. If it wasn’t for all this pesky democracy stuff everyone would believe everything in his films and a large part of his legacy (other than a half-dozen brilliant films, including “JFK”) wouldn’t be as a punchline for conspiracy theory jokes.

UPDATE: In the comments Christian Toto sums it up perfectly: “It’s staggering that artists continue to support people who oppose free expression.”

Spike Lee … profile in courage: [emphasis added]

Filmmaker Spike Lee championed a free press Friday during a visit to Venezuela, where broadcasters are under pressure to avoid criticizing President Hugo Chavez’s leftist government.

The director didn’t directly refer to the dispute in Venezuela, but he said there are “no circumstances” under which news media should be silenced.

Lee’s never had a problem “directly referring” to America or Bush, so why do Venezuela and Hugo Chavez rate a pass? 

1. Lee just can’t bring himself to criticize a fellow Leftist?
2. Because he was in Venezuela, Lee was afraid he might need a food taster if he criticized Uncle Hugo?
3. Because he has dinner with Sean Penn and Danny Glover, Lee was afraid he might need a food taster if he criticized Uncle Hugo? 
4. Lee is a gracious and mature individual who would never insult his host country?

Other than knowing it’s not “D,” I have no idea.

Though shy about “directly referring” to Chavez, Lee walks the path blazed by many of his celebrity counterparts and is more than happy to criticize America on foreign soil. Speaking of American race relations:

[T]here is still a way to go, he added, citing shootings by New York City police officers involving blacks, including the May death of a black undercover cop killed by a white officer.

Lee said he has struggled in his own career as a black film producer, director and actor, but added he is grateful that from an early age his parents impressed on him the need to face challenges.

“It was drummed into my brain that in order to be successful in America you had to be ten times better than white folks,” he said.

Just imagine how much better the world (and movies) would be if Leftists were as critical of fascists and terrorists as they are of America and conservatives.

As far as being “ten times better than white folks,” Lee’s made a couple of great films (“Do the Right Thing” and “Malcolm X”) and a handful of good ones, but nothing ten times better than his white contemporaries — nothing even “twice better.”  But if by “ten times better” he means as a human being, that’s an even bigger joke.