It's not often that I find myself on the same side as Bill O'Reilly. In fact there are times when I feel even watching FOXNews is like letting bad energy into my home. On the other hand, I enjoy watching The Daily Show. Jon Stewart is one of those rare talk show hosts that is funny and intelligent, without trying hard to appear so. Well, in life there are always exceptions, and that's what happened here - where on the same subject, I found myself somewhat agreeing with O'Reilly and totally put off by Jon Stewart's pathetic performance as an interviewer. The guest in question? It's Vicente Fox, former president of Mexico. Now, that was sometime by the end of last year. Why the hell am I writing about it now? I'll tell you the reason later. Of course, I did want to write about it at that time - but like many things in life, it just got put off.
Here was this man, promoting his book, appearing on lots of TV talk shows, and doing his standard shtick on a North American Union (he tends to pronounce it as 'jew-nion', lol) a-la the European Union. Of course he wants Americans to be open-minded about Mexican immigrants, legal or otherwise. And he has an advise for the American people to not let their policies be guided by fear. The Daily Show audience seem to be a generous crowd - there was even an applause for this line. Oh, and there was the standard story of how his grandfather got on a horse and went from Cincinnati to Mexico in search of his American dream. Jon Stewart let all of this go without challenging him on any of these points.
The reason I consider this to be his worst interview was because he threw in a gratuitous question on Evo Morales, the president of Bolivia (who had appeared on The Daily Show earlier) and also asked for his comment on Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Vicente Fox dismissed both Morales and Chavez as populists, and that it was sad that they would rather hand out fish to their people instead of teaching them to fish! Jon Stewart, dumb as a rock (not really sure if rocks are dumb, either - I read an interesting theory that rocks contain information), let this one go as well - without challenging Fox by reminding him that, except in most of the Latin American countries, most people can't 'fish' because access to the 'fishing area' is not open to most of them. I'm talking about the relative land holdings of the whites and the native people in those countries, including Mexico. Vicente Fox's apparent contempt for the indigenous people was clear when Jon Stewart asked him about Evo Morales' language and wondered if he spoke Spanish. Fox says, 'No, he speaks his own dialect. He's indigenous'. WTF? Why would Jon Stewart ask Vicente Fox about Evo Morales? Before I continue, here is the interview I'm talking about: (I'm going to have to split this blog entry into different pages, as I couldn't get the YouTube videos appear in the middle of the text. Be sure to click the link at the bottom to move to the next part(s).
To be fair to Jon Stewart, he did a pretty good job of 'interviewing' the Bolivian President Evo Morales. Basically he asked few questions and let Morales talk. I was particularly struck by the demeanor of Evo Morales, and couldn't help comparing it with that of Fox. Also, Vicente Fox looks somewhat disingenuous in his arguments, and Morales looks and sounds honest. Well, that's my impression anyway.
Be sure to click on the link at the bottom to move to the next part, where Vicente Fox meets Bill O'Reilly.
Vicente Fox nearly got away with his bluff in most of the talk shows until he ran into Bill O'Reilly. I wonder if he expected a somewhat more friendly treatment there, that being the 'FOX'News and all. Boy, oh boy, O'Reilly just tore into his arguments and exposed them for what they are: just more opportunistic policies by the elite in Latin America, while doing little to tackle corruption in their own governments. While stopping immigration into Mexico from poorer countries down south, Mexico wants pretty much an open border in the north. Let me make it absolutely clear that I sympathize with the poor migrant workers (legal or illegal, I don't care - after all, the white settlers from Europe must have looked like illegal thugs in the eyes of the native population). I just want the world to know that the white minority in most of Latin America controls most of the land, resources and of course, the economy and the political power, not to mention the military. Some countries are attempting to put some semblance of justice and equity into motion - but they are called 'communists', 'leftists' and all kinds of labels by the mainstream media. They never mention that these reforms are attempted by democratic means, without recourse to a violent revolution. OK, that's enough of a disclaimer for now - I really needed that because there's simply so little where I can agree with Bill O'Reilly and FOXNews and I don't want anyone to get the idea that I get my news and information from FOXNews. You can see the 'treatment' that Vicente Fox got on O'Reilly's show here (and I talk about what made me write this thing now - it's in the next part, the link is at the bottom):
OK, let me repeat - I sympathize with the plight of the migrant workers. But they are pushed to this desperate situation where they have to risk their life first of all crossing the border, and then continue to live in fear for the most part as they make their living in the US. I don't buy the argument that somehow they cause the increase in crime - statistically I think the criminal portion of the Hispanic population in the US would be negligible. Anyway, that's not my point. My point is, the Mexican government and the Mexican elite are doing almost nothing to improve the condition of the poor people in their own country while lecturing other people to be open-minded. They seem to take pride in the improvements in the overall Mexican economy while glossing over the question of how equitably this wealth is getting distributed. Life is still pretty dangerous for the journalists working in Mexico - in fact, according to the 'Reporters Without Borders', Mexico is the second most dangerous country for journalists, after Iraq!
Vicente Fox represents this kind of elite group in Mexico. And Jon Stewart simply let him get away with it all. For a moment, I thought perhaps Jon Stewart was being pretty smart - by giving open-ended questions to Vicente Fox and letting him speak, he was luring Fox into exposing himself, with his views on NAFTA, immigration, etc. Of course, he doesn't have the same amount of air time that O'Reilly has at his disposal. But then I thought, nah, it can't be that - because towards the end, Stewart was praising Fox profusely. He even feels embarrassed that he found Evo Morales' position as 'making sense' before, and now he finds Vicente Fox 'making sense'. What a sell out! Shame on you, Jon Stewart! You did the unusual, but commendable thing by inviting the Bolivian president Evo Morales to your show - but then you were trying to make up for that by swallowing Fox's BS? Come on, you can do better than that. Everyone does something like this at least once in their life - where they make a fool of themselves, only to regret it later - I have my episodes in my life - I think this could be yours. Of course, Americans have a very short memory and an even shorter attention span - so you don't really have to worry about all that - unless you want to safeguard your integrity.
What made me write this again? It's this news item that I came across by the Friends of Brad Will that once again reminded me of the real situation in Mexico. I don't blame you if you don't know who Brad Will is - he was an American journalist who was shot and killed, as he was covering the teachers' strike in Oaxaca, Mexico in October 2006.
There are any number of things that Jon Stewart could have raised with Vicente Fox - after all, he once had Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan almost choking just as he was sipping his tea, with the question, "So, where's Osama Bin Laden?!". Here are some things for him to think over:
On the question of the safety of journalists, Mexico is 'out of control'.
It's not like everyone in Mexico is poor. Carlos Slim, the richest man in the world (?) According to CNNMoney,
By our calculations, the 67-year-old Slim has amassed a $59 billion fortune, based on the value of his public holdings at the end of July. This number puts him just ahead of perennial No. 1, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, whose net worth is estimated to be at least $58 billion. But Gates is selling off his single greatest source of wealth, Microsoft stock, to fund his foundation, while Slim's fortune is growing at a stunning clip.
Forbes has him as possibly the third richest man, and says
Slim, 67, amassed his pile in a nation where per capita income is less than $6,800 a year and half the population lives in poverty. His wealth comes to 6.3% of Mexico's annual economic output.
My point is, there seems to be enough wealth to go around in Mexico - as in every other country - it just needs to be distributed more equitably. Vicente Fox was waxing eloquently on the benefits of NAFTA wherever he went. Here is something from a slightly dated report (it's 10 years old):
Since 1982, when Mexico agreed to begin "structural adjustment," privatization and deregulation have contributed to ever more concentration of income and wealth. The massive transfer of resources from the salaried workforce to the owners and controllers of capital, and from public control and accountability to a small number of private elite, has proven the "trickle up" rather than trickle down reality. Over the past decade the preexisting gap between rich and poor in Mexico has continued to widen:
...
Under President Salinas (1988-1994) the number of billionaires rose from 2 to 24, while nearly 20% of the population (over 17 million people) subsisted on less than the equivalent of $350 per person per year. The assets of one of the richest men in Mexico ($6 billion) actually totals more than the annual income of the poorest 17 million people combined.
Those brought up on the religion of 'capitalism' and 'free market' cannot comprehend the concept of equity, nor can they see through all the corruption and manipulation that are needed to prop up this crony capitalism. But again, I digress.
Vicente Fox talked about how Mexican economy was improving and how it would continue to improve even in the future. What he didn't say, obviously about which Jon Stewart hadn't a clue, was that remittances from overseas Mexicans was their third largest source of foreign exchange earnings. OK, most of these folks send the money back home to take care of their family members, and I am willing to bet that most of these folks work their butt off in foreign lands (not just the US) to earn and save whatever they can. That being the case, when Vicente Fox talks glowingly of a North American Union, we have to wonder, who is it really going to benefit?
Well, these are some of the things that Jon Stewart should have asked, could have asked, but didn't! And I got to watch this interview more than once, as it was repeated during the writers strike. Jon Stewart, here's a belated "Shame on you!"