> I agree that he's basically towing the general impression of
> Chavez in
> the US press. But
> in and of itself, there's something to be said for his point,
> which was that Chavez calling Bush the devil makes legitimate
> critics of Bush also seem "crazy." I kind of feel he's
> making a legitimate point, though, again, he's on a comedy
> program, hence the segment ended with an interview with the
> Devil (literally). Anyway, judge for yourself
Why exactly is Chavez not a "legitimate" critic of Bush? Really, I can't figure it out. Please tell me what makes Chavez "crazy."
I love Jon Stewart, but he fucked up on this. This piece put him firmly in line with U.S. anti-Chavez propaganda. Why would any American spend any time castigating Chavez if not for propaganda? Chavez has no influence in this country, and the only reason to even think about him as an American is for the purpose of influencing Venezuela. Stewart's audience is Americans. He has no business telling Americans Venezuela's leader is crazy and that anybody who meets with him is crazy by association. That only makes it easier for the U.S. government to interfere in Venezuela's domestic affairs and to discredit critics of the U.S. government.
And Stewart cannot for a second take refuge in the "comedian" label. He's funny, yes. But he's not a comedian. He's a political figure and satirist, and he is that by very deliberate choice. As an American, he has no business taking on Chavez, except as a media pawn to advance American imperial adventures there, which I am sure Stewart does not wish to be (and which is why I characterize it as a mistake). If he wants to be serious (and, make no mistake about it, he does), he should focus on only one thing: the U.S. government.