Rally to restore sanity (Stewart) / keep fear alive (Colbert)

I didn't watch it but it seems that the obvious answer is that he was invited to bring attention to the subject, not to provide any substantive discussion.

If that was the aim I would say it succeeded. Whether stunts such as this are appropriate for congressional hearings I'm not sure, but it's not like they invited him to give honest and thoughtful information.

 

What's with all the right-wing crybabies coming out of the woodwork all of a sudden?

It's called satire. You should try it sometime, as it is has the uncanny effect of rapidly cutting through the bull**** you seem to be drowning in at the moment.

 

You do realize that he's helping the farmers right? He is saying farming IS a tough job, and he is indirectly helping them employ cheap labor.

 

You can be called many things (most of them profane), but one thing you are NOT is the voice of "all Americans". The bile you spew on this BBS is far more embarrassing than any jokes he cracked on the Hill.

 

If he was interested in helping farmers/immigrants he would of given a serious testimony.

The embarrassment I speak of stems from the representative who invited him and thus wasting tax dollars and time, not from Colbert.

 

Dumbass. One more migrant worker organizer's testimony wouldn't have made a ripple on the political status quo if they would have dug up César Chávez to do it. If you would actually listen to what Colbert had to say you would see there is actually a biting commentary there. He illuminates truth with humor, he exposes the real plight of agricultural workers with self-deprecation, and skewers the theater of politics where posturing and image take precedence over substance and action.

If you are offended by the jester's ridicule of fools then chances are, you are one of them.

 

How do you know? Are you of the opinion that migrant workers are pathetic at giving emotional, meaningful speeches?

Yes, he truly is a poet illuminating his message with gay slurs like "corn packer".

I am not offended by anything Colbert does. I suggest you read my post above yours.

 

Weird way to couch it but no, I witnesses the work of Cesar Chavez, but 30 years later conditions for migrant farm workers are still abysmal. And sitting right next to Colbert were migrant worker's leader waiting to testify but you see, they didn't get any press.

Fudgepacker is a gay slur, cornpacker is a joke.

 

corn packer means a gay Iowan, but in fairness, I did not know that until this weekend so maybe Colbert didn't either.

 

That was a joke. Colbert came up with the term. It didn't exist before he used it.

 

How about the salaries of those Congressman and the cost of the building they are in?

 

Money well spent, since attention was actually drawn to the issue they were discussing. How many people really watch C-SPAN on a daily basis? Probably not too many. But I'm sure a lot MORE watched it because of his testimony. There's a great big spotlight on this issue now, thanks to Mr. Stephen Colbert, and I'm sure the Congressmen are keenly aware of this fact.

Furthermore: Stephen Colbert is a citizen of the United States. He has as much right to be heard as anyone else.

 

Colbert paid for his own accommodations, and snow machine. :grin:

 

If he wanted to bring attention to an issue he could of in a million different ways that wouldn't of used tax payer dollars (say talk about it on his show or at that speech he is about to give with Stewart). He has money and an audience. This was unnecessary.

Of course he has the right to speak. Does that mean the representative was correct in inviting him?

 

Also you could make this argument to justify any ridiculous behavior. He could of entered the hearing dressed as Bootsy Collins and defecated on the floor and you would say he was justified because he brought attention to the issue.

 

Are people more aware of the issue? Yes. Will his speaking perhaps spur Congress into action to remedy the migrant situation? I believe so, yes. Therefore, the representative was correct in inviting him.

Humor is a means of communication. And is, in my mind, a much more mature and sophisticated means of communication than Ted Stevens or John Boehner or Joe Wilson screaming like crazy people, or Cheney telling a Senator to "go f_ yourself".

Colbert took a few minutes of Congress' time to make them consider this issue from a different perspective. And it seems to have worked. Good for him.

 

Isaac Asimov quote:

"Jokes of the proper kind, properly told, can do more to enlighten questions of politics, philosophy, and literature than any number of dull arguments."

 

What perspective did Colbert provide? the "corn packer" perspective? Why do you say it worked? Has new legislation been introduced about migrant workers?

 

What the hell are you making such a big deal out of a 5-minute speech as part of a meeting that was already scheduled? How do you know that new legislation won't result from this? Do you think that within 2 days of his appearance, there is supposed to be some legislation passed in record-breaking time? Do you not think that many individuals who would not have normally watched C-Span, like myself, actually watched and became aware of an issue that is worth analyzing? If you are so upset about a waste of taxpayer dollars, why not go retro and demand that Elmo and Christie Brinkley reimburse Congress for their appearances?

Here's the key question: why don't you admit why you're really upset? You don't like Colbert- probably still upset that he got your boy Bush right where it hurt in 2006- and you are upset because he dared to inject a bit of humor as well as a serious note into a serious topic? Let me guess: he "violated the sanctity" of Congress, right? I'd venture to say that Mr. Colbert did much more good than harm in his appearance, and I think the big boys and girls in Congress will be OK.

My theory is that maybe, just maybe, when his father and his 2 brothers were killed in a plane crash when he was 10, and it was determined that it was due to the inattention and neglect of the flight crew, and it took forever for Congress to pass a law that required the flight crew to discuss nothing but the actual flight when at a certain feet close to landing, just maybe, he's got something personal against the workings of Congress. Possibly there's nothing there, but you never know. At any rate, it was brilliant, I watched c-Span for the first time since the 1990s, which I'm sure many did, and it has people talking about the topic. And anything that provokes people into thinking, provided it doesn't cause harm like violence or death, is worth its weight in gold.

Go ask Elmo, I bet he'll know.