• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Colbert! Congress!

FSM said:
has absolutely nothing to do with the experiences of the conditions facing farm workers?
Click to expand...
The conditions facing farm workers are the result of illegal immigration. In fact, the sole purpose of hiring immigrants (legal and illegal) as farmworkers is to exploit them for cheap labor with no benefits. Hard to demand better wages and working conditions when there's always new people crossing the border willing to do it for minimum wage.

If you want to improve conditions for farm workers, control illegal immigration and limit legal immigration for low-skilled workers only in cases of demonstrable shortages. And by "demonstrable shortages" I don't mean shortages caused by crap wages and benefits. I mean shortages even after wages, benefits, and working conditions have greatly improved.
 
Wowbagger said:
I try really hard to like Stephen Colbert. But, sometimes, he just comes off as annoying.

As much 'fun' as his character might be, I just don't think congress is an appropriate place for character antics.
Click to expand...

But congress is an appropriate place for the antics of the likes of James Inhofe (his histrionics surrounding AGW are downright hilarious and appalling at the same time) or John Boehner (that orange glow has got to be a joke)? Let's stop pretending that Congress is a place for "serious people" only and acknowledge that there have been shenanigans going on by the very people we elected to get the job done.
 
themusicteacher said:
But congress is an appropriate place for the antics of the likes of James Inhofe (his histrionics surrounding AGW are downright hilarious and appalling at the same time) or John Boehner (that orange glow has got to be a joke)? Let's stop pretending that Congress is a place for "serious people" only and acknowledge that there have been shenanigans going on by the very people we elected to get the job done.
Click to expand...

There is ample idiocy in Congress. However, when one sees a Hank Johnson, or a Sheila Jackson Lee, in the throes of stupidity, one is struck by the disheartening realization that (a) this person is not intending to be funny, and (b) a majority of voters in some district or state elected this person to represent them.

Zoe Lofgren, D-CA, the Committee Chair, a "longtime advocate for farm workers' rights", presumably cares about this issue. However, does her selection of a comedian who testifies in character help her point of view or harm it? Does it result in her point of view gaining traction? It seems that many in this thread thought the testimony "absurd", a "farce", a "mockery". (This thread was originally tagged with "mockery". Then the tag removed. Now the thread is tagged with "cornpacker" and other juvenile tags.) Is this an issue that Democrats take seriously? Is it an issue that Democrats expect me to take seriously? Is it an issue that Colbert takes seriously, or wants anyone to take seriously?

Conyers' first instinct was correct. This was a terrible idea by Lofgren, and does not reflect well on the Democrats.
 
quixotecoyote said:
I'm sure they'll take your reasoned and unprejudiced opinion on board for the future.
Click to expand...

John Conyers is a Democrat, and the Chair of the Judiciary Committee. Do you consider his opposition to this stunt reasoned and unprejudiced? Clearly he does not need to take my opinion on board; his first instinct was right.
 
Augustine said:
John Conyers is a Democrat, and the Chair of the Judiciary Committee. Do you consider his opposition to this stunt reasoned and unprejudiced? Clearly he does not need to take my opinion on board; his first instinct was right.
Click to expand...

Did you watch the testimony, statements and questions alike?

Colbert's satire was pointed as usual. He was invited there by a Congresswoman and United Farm Workers President Arturo S. Rodriguez. They wanted him to publicize the issue. Time will tell if it worked.
 
Well, we're all talking about it, right? I'd say in that sense it worked.

ETA: Also, I love how some people criticizing Colbert's appearance give a complete pass to the Republicans having a friggin' muppet testify before a congressional committee.
 
Last edited:
TraneWreck said:
Did you watch the testimony, statements and questions alike?

Colbert's satire was pointed as usual. He was invited there by a Congresswoman and United Farm Workers President Arturo S. Rodriguez. They wanted him to publicize the issue. Time will tell if it worked.
Click to expand...
Well, it certainly made me pay more attention to a congressional hearing than I have in ages.

Of course, I have absolutely nothing to do anything remotely resembling the issue, so the value of that is rather suspect.
 
johnny karate said:
Also, I love how some people criticizing Colbert's appearance give a complete pass to the Republicans having a friggin' muppet testify before a congressional committee.
Click to expand...

If that refers to me, I would point out that I am not giving a complete pass to anyone. Having a puppet testify is ridiculous.

HOWEVER, Elmo was testifying before an Appropriations Subcommittee on a $2M expenditure in a total federal outlay of $2T. In other words, the muppet testified to one-ten thousandth of one percent of federal spending (or 0.0001%). Which is the approximate amount of federal spending I am comfortable taking the word of a muppet on.

Colbert is testifying before a subcommittee on an issue that some 60% of Americans want to see meaningful reform on. There is no equivalency here between the two appearances, unless Democrats and Colbert are saying that immigration merits the same attention as 0.0001% of federal spending does. His appearance was ridiculous, and did nothing to stimulate a substantive discussion of the issue, as this thread alone demonstrates.
 
Augustine said:
His appearance was ridiculous, and did nothing to stimulate a substantive discussion of the issue, as this thread alone demonstrates.
Click to expand...

Ahh yes, they did overlook the possibly that people would be so focused on how outrageous it was for Colbert to appear that the discussion would be focused on that rather than the issue.
 
quixotecoyote said:
Ahh yes, they did overlook the possibly that people would be so focused on how outrageous it was for Colbert to appear that the discussion would be focused on that rather than the issue.
Click to expand...

The OP didn't seem outraged by Colbert's appearance. Yet, by his tags and comments, it would seem that he does not want to discuss the issue either.
 
Augustine said:
If that refers to me, I would point out that I am not giving a complete pass to anyone. Having a puppet testify is ridiculous.

HOWEVER, Elmo was testifying before an Appropriations Subcommittee on a $2M expenditure in a total federal outlay of $2T. In other words, the muppet testified to one-ten thousandth of one percent of federal spending (or 0.0001%). Which is the approximate amount of federal spending I am comfortable taking the word of a muppet on.

Colbert is testifying before a subcommittee on an issue that some 60% of Americans want to see meaningful reform on. There is no equivalency here between the two appearances, unless Democrats and Colbert are saying that immigration merits the same attention as 0.0001% of federal spending does.

<snip>
Click to expand...


So you think Colbert wasn't ridiculous enough?

Tough audience.
 
Augustine said:
The OP didn't seem outraged by Colbert's appearance. Yet, by his tags and comments, it would seem that he does not want to discuss the issue either.
Click to expand...

Ahh the conservative mantra of personal responsibility, how I love it's dulcet tones.
 
Can someone explain how immigration reform is going to help farm workers?
 
WildCat said:
Can someone explain how immigration reform is going to help farm workers?
Click to expand...

If they are now here illegally, they can be abused in many ways, and have no recourse. If we allow workers to come north with the harvest cycle, have real green cards and real social security cards, and pay real taxes, then they have recourse to law when abuses happen.
 
BenBurch said:
If they are now here illegally, they can be abused in many ways, and have no recourse. If we allow workers to come north with the harvest cycle, have real green cards and real social security cards, and pay real taxes, then they have recourse to law when abuses happen.
Click to expand...
But then they'd also be legal, and more expensive. What's to stop the plantation owners from hiring cheap illegal workers, just like they do now?

After all, there's lots of legal workers they could hire right now. But they're too expensive, say the plantation owners.

The problem with touting immigration reform as a cure to the poor conditions of farm workers is it assumes that farmers want legal immigrants as workers, when what they actually want is cheap workers whose labor they can exploit for a pittance. Opening the flood gates to more immigrant workers simply drives the price of labor downward to the minimum wage for legal workers, and lower than that for illegal ones.

You do not drive wages, benefits, and working conditions upwards by increasing the supply of labor while the number of jobs for those workers remains stagnant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom