Stephen Colbert testified before the House on Friday on migrant farmworkers (the video of his testimony is below). Really this was a testimony to California Democrat Zoe Lofgren's (pictured left) feelings on her work in Congress- Lofgren invited Colbert to speak after he spent one day as a migrant worker. That is just great.
If this charade means Lofgren feels Congress' recent efforts have been silly and trite, she echoes the sentiment of most Americans. Don't get me wrong, I watch Colbert frequently and I think he is hilarious, but he should not be testifying about anything serious and he definitely should never get invited to testify to Congress unless he pledges to step out of character.
A couple of quotes from Colbert's testimony:
"Now we all know there is a long tradition of great nations importing foreign workers to do their farm work. After all, it was the ancient Israelites who built the first food pyramids. But this is America. I don’t want a tomato picked by a Mexican. I want it picked by an American, then sliced by a Guatemalan, and served by a Venezuelan in a spa, where a Chilean gives me a Brazilian."
"...[W]hen you’re picking beans, you have to spend all day bending over. It turns out, and I did not know this, but most soil is at ground level. If we can put a man on the moon, why can’t we make the earth waist high?"
"Now, I’m not a fan of the government doing anything. But I’ve gotta ask, why isn’t the government doing anything? Maybe this Ag Jobs bill would help, I don’t know. Like most members of Congress, I haven’t read it. But maybe we could offer more visas to the immigrants who, let’s face it, will probably be doing these jobs anyway. And this improved legal status might allow immigrants recourse if they are abused. And it just stands to reason, to me, that if your coworker can’t be exploited, then you’re less likely to be exploited yourself. And that, itself, might improve pay and working conditions on these farms, and eventually, Americans may consider taking these jobs again. Or maybe that’s crazy..."Based on some of Colbert's comments, I assume Colbert and Lofgren really care about the issue of migrant workers, but this silliness completely clouded their so-called "message". Congressional Democrats should be embarrassed by Lofgren, and Congressional Republicans should be embarrassed if they didn't make a stink about Lofgren inviting Colbert to speak.
Colbert is funny on Comedy Central, but in my opinion, he belongs in the 11:30 pm cable time slot- not in front of Congress.
You need to really distill down what he says. He makes a valid statement towards the end. Yeah, he's a comedian, but he brings immediate recognition to the issue, and its something he seems willing to take a stance on.
ReplyDeleteI understand there might have been some merit to his comments. Even a blind squirrel stumbles upon a nut here and there. But did he need to testify before Congress to give us 1 sentence that was not a joke? I assume he could have accomplished this via a press release or talking about it on his show.
ReplyDeleteI think blaming Colbert is like blaming a tiger who escapes a zoo cage and mauls someone. Blame the zookeeper.
ReplyDeleteHere's the serious, short clip, the out-of-character Colbert that is so rarely seen. Speak about the "least of these" (he's a practicing Catholic): http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0910/Colbert_out_of_character.html
Ok, I realize that might have sounded blunt. Blame whoever you want. I think we here are sane and realize that Colbert is all about comedy (and oh, how I wish Bolivian internet was fast enough for me to watch him every night. 320 KB speed for $50/mo... what?), but perhaps we should maintain a certain amount of respect for the democratic process.
ReplyDeleteRequest for the logic of choice: an analysis/response to Paul Kurgman's article from Sep. 09, "How did economists get it so wrong?"
ReplyDeleteMy neoclassical econ teachers ensured me that J.M. Keynes was the devil. Krugman suggests that some form of Keynsianism is the only option left. He is the devil too? And what is the neoclassical explanation for the recent recession?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=paulkrugman
Uh-oh, see FX's post above- a backhanded response to your Keynsian question? Let me read the story at your link, Adam, and I will try to provide a response.
ReplyDeleteBut I would agree strongly with much of Freeman's post because it doesn't take an economist to do so. You cannot spend more than you bring in for an extended period of time, and the same goes for stimulating the economy. There needs to be real economic growth instead of the manufactured kind via a central bank. At some point, the emperor has no clothes- no?
ReplyDelete