"I don't want a tomato picked by a Mexican. I want it picked by an American, sliced by a Guatemalan, and served by a Venezuelan, in a spa, where a Chilean gives me a Brazilian."
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to d_phaneuf For This Useful Post:
Colbert, for the first time today, drops out of character.
"I like talking about people who don't have any power...I feel the need to speak for those who can't speak for themselves....We ask them to come and work, and then we ask them to leave again. They suffer, and have no rights."
The media came in today bound and determined to make their narrative -- "OUTRAGE! Stephen Colbert addresses Congress 'in character'" -- stick, and thus far they have managed to keep it up despite the fact that it's not, as they say, "true."
"But wait," you are saying to yourself, "the only way they could get away with that is to entirely ignore the answer Colbert gave to his last question!" Well, yes. And that is exactly what they are doing.
Last edited by troutman; 09-24-2010 at 03:27 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
the fact that the right wing mouthpieces are so pissed off about this makes it all the more awesome. between this and Oprah throwing her support behind Jon Stewart's Rally for Sanity, Oct. 30 should be quite interesting
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hemi-Cuda For This Useful Post:
Heres his bit. I dont follow American politics as closely as I maybe should, but this 5 minute clip shows just how much of a joke that system has become. When you have a comedian delivering an address to a House Committee on an important topic such as this it tells me that they're really reaching and basically flat out of ideas.
Not to mention the fact, that he actually made some very good points, but the Committee might as well have saved themselves the time, that one woman was seriously checking her Blackberry. Wake up! This guy is going to talk for 5 MINUTES! You cant pay attention for 5 minutes?
Now, I know he injected some humour in there, and they were visibly unimpressed, tough crowd, but what were they expecting? They know who they asked to come before them, they know what he does. Thats like inviting Ozzy Ozbourne to speak at women's equality rally and expecting to understand him!
This was actually really well done by Colbert, but the problem is that it isnt going to work because he tried to please too many people. He presented a couple of suggestions that I doubt they even heard because it was sandwiched between a couple of humorous barbs.
All they did was sit there and feel insulted the whole time. Maybe a little humility for them.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
The only negative I can see is that Colbert's comedy is based on him pretending to be Republican and acting out every Liberal stereotype of what a Republican is and what they believe. Whatever Democrat invited Colbert to an offical committee meeting didn't do it to bridge the divide between the 2 positions. He did it for the theatre and to pick up some cheap political points from that segment of the american population who bases their political positions on what they see on the comedy network.
That segment of the population already votes Democrat when they vote so I really don't see the benefit of staging this performance.
The only negative I can see is that Colbert's comedy is based on him pretending to be Republican and acting out every Liberal stereotype of what a Republican is and what they believe. Whatever Democrat invited Colbert to an offical committee meeting didn't do it to bridge the divide between the 2 positions. He did it for the theatre and to pick up some cheap political points from that segment of the american population who bases their political positions on what they see on the comedy network.
That segment of the population already votes Democrat when they vote so I really don't see the benefit of staging this performance.
The benefit, as has already been stated, is to bring attention to the issue. Obviously it's not an attempt to 'bridge the divide'. No one is doing that in Washington at all, it's in both parties advantage to maintain the partisanship.
Also, it should be pointed out, this is not the first time someone has appeared before congress "in character". Republican Randy "Duke" Cunningham called Sesame Street Muppet Elmo to appear before congres in 2002 to urge to support increases in funding for music education.
Also, Comedy Central does better political reporting than anyone else these days. Which is fataing ridiculous, but it's true.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
that segment of the american population who bases their political positions on what they see on the comedy network.
By comedy network, you mean Fox?
I think this was more than a stunt by Colbert. All week on his show he actually went out and worked on farms with immigrant laborers. Behind the jokes, you could see how harsh a life it was for these people.
The only negative I can see is that Colbert's comedy is based on him pretending to be Republican and acting out every Liberal stereotype of what a Republican is and what they believe. Whatever Democrat invited Colbert to an offical committee meeting didn't do it to bridge the divide between the 2 positions. He did it for the theatre and to pick up some cheap political points from that segment of the american population who bases their political positions on what they see on the comedy network.
That segment of the population already votes Democrat when they vote so I really don't see the benefit of staging this performance.
I just noticed you live in Creston, BC - Do you seethe with anger, living amongst the hippies?
I think this was more than a stunt by Colbert. All week on his show he actually went out and worked on farms with immigrant laborers. Behind the jokes, you could see how harsh a life it was for these people.
Colbert is on the Comedy network.
Colbert obviously have a passion for the immigrant laborers. I don't doubt his motives. But this was a congressional committee looking at writing laws giving these illegal aliens citizenship. Publicity isn't going to sway them. The public eye will only futher polarize their positions.
Did Colbert say anything that wasn't already being said by experts? I doubt it. Did Colbert comment on the cost of providing citizenship for these illegals? Did Colbert discuss the morality of providing citizenship for illegal immigrant workers when their are tens of thousands of people who have applied through legal channels who are waiting and hoping to get in? Did Colbert discuss the costs already being paid by these border States because the Feds refuse to enforce their immigration laws?
Colbert no doubt had good intentions but, he added very little to the debate.
The benefit, as has already been stated, is to bring attention to the issue. Obviously it's not an attempt to 'bridge the divide'. No one is doing that in Washington at all, it's in both parties advantage to maintain the partisanship.
Also, it should be pointed out, this is not the first time someone has appeared before congress "in character". Republican Randy "Duke" Cunningham called Sesame Street Muppet Elmo to appear before congres in 2002 to urge to support increases in funding for music education.
Also, Comedy Central does better political reporting than anyone else these days. Which is fataing ridiculous, but it's true.
I doubt that that was a situation where the 2 sides were far apart. Also, Elmo doesn't make his living as a satirist for the republican party.
This is the thing: It is an important topic, but it's an important topic that wasn't getting a lot of attention in main stream media.
Guess what, now it is and I think that was Colbert's goal all along.
Thats actually my point. They've screwed this up to the point where they need a celebrity just so they get noticed.
Then they got it. But they spent the entire 5 minutes ignoring him. You dont think that sends a message? Yeah, they got some publicity, but in regards to them it was negative.
This was not a 'stunt.' Watch the clip, he actually makes some pretty astute observations, and makes a couple of good recommendations. Yes, it was bookended with humour and thus mostly ignored by the holier-than-thou decision makers. Colbert isnt an idiot. He just has a schtick, but he included intelligence into it.
He could have wasted their 5 minutes and just cracked jokes, and you could tell they were expecting it, and wrote him off before he even started talking. They needed the publicity and they got it, but they really looked the gift horse in the mouth on this one.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
Which was a resolution introduced on March 7th, 2002 (Elmo spoke on April 23, 2002) and co-sponsored by Rep Cunningham.
The resolution is essentially an empty document which states that it is the "sense" of Congress that schools should have music education, pay qualified music teachers, commend them for advancing music education and encourage research into whether music "contributes to the cognitive development of Children".
Also, it states that "Music in our Schools Month" (March 2002) is a good idea.
It provides no money or resources of any kind, nor any regulations, expectations or statutes.
It was referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on March 7th, and then on May 5th sent to the Subcommittee on Education Reform where it was never looked at. It languishes there to this day, some 102 months since "Music in Our Schools Month."
But having Colbert come and speak about the conditions facing migrant farm workers is a waste of time and money.
Which was a resolution introduced on March 7th, 2002 (Elmo spoke on April 23, 2002) and co-sponsored by Rep Cunningham.
The resolution is essentially an empty document which states that it is the "sense" of Congress that schools should have music education, pay qualified music teachers, commend them for advancing music education and encourage research into whether music "contributes to the cognitive development of Children".
Also, it states that "Music in our Schools Month" (March 2002) is a good idea.
It provides no money or resources of any kind, nor any regulations, expectations or statutes.
It was referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on March 7th, and then on May 5th sent to the Subcommittee on Education Reform where it was never looked at. It languishes there to this day, some 102 months since "Music in Our Schools Month."
But having Colbert come and speak about the conditions facing migrant farm workers is a waste of time and money.
It sounds like both were a waste of time and money.
Colbert obviously have a passion for the immigrant laborers. I don't doubt his motives. But this was a congressional committee looking at writing laws giving these illegal aliens citizenship. Publicity isn't going to sway them. The public eye will only futher polarize their positions.
Did Colbert say anything that wasn't already being said by experts? I doubt it. Did Colbert comment on the cost of providing citizenship for these illegals? Did Colbert discuss the morality of providing citizenship for illegal immigrant workers when their are tens of thousands of people who have applied through legal channels who are waiting and hoping to get in? Did Colbert discuss the costs already being paid by these border States because the Feds refuse to enforce their immigration laws?
Colbert no doubt had good intentions but, he added very little to the debate.
So having more people discussing the issue and perhaps putting a light on issues people were not aware of is a bad thing?
In your opinion these experts would just come to the right choices, cause they have been sooo good at doing that in the past when the public is not paying attention.
For shame that more people are watching what their goverment is doing, for shame. Nothing good can come from that.
Stephen Colbert speaks in front of the House Committee on Immigration and Agriculture
