> Which would be funny if Chavez had indeed said Chomsky was dead. He did not. He referrenced John
> Kenneth Galbraith who died in April of this year and regretted that he never had a chance to meet him. I'm
> sorry to see Stewart fall in line with the NYT's in repeating this lie. It isn't Chavez who is displaying ignorance
> with his foot in his mouth in this instance.
Right, it sounds like the NYT may be wrong about Chavez saying that Chomsky was dead.
Jon Stewart is a brilliant comedian, so he works with the news as it is reported. He is hardly following the Time's line. That's funny. Chavez deserves to be lampooned. Any self-important famous person should be the subject of humor and ridicule. It's just too bad that Stewart couldn't needle leftists who virtually worship Chavez. His audience just wouldn't get those references.
> What part his criticism did you find tame? Have you read the translated transcript? It is a very forceful critique
> of imperialism and capitalism. Very little about it was tame. The devil comments were unnecessary hyperbole in
> my opinion but they do not reflect most of the content of the speech.
I didn't read the transcript of his remarks. I think that the stuff he said that was reported was amusing, albeit tame. Everybody knows that people around the world don't like Bush. Hell, the Daily Show airs humor about that every other night. Who cares if he said something forceful at the U.N. about capitalism and imperialism. Are his words going to change any minds? No, certainly not Americans, who see the U.N. as the joke that it is.
Chuck