The embarrassment is the concept of Congress as representing the People of America and being a Sacrosanct Institution worth of respect.  Colbert should be criticized for mocking Corporatist Millionaire Hypocrite Sellouts?  Institutionalized criminals transferring the Peoples money to their Corporate Cronies?  Ruth makes a mockery of herself!  Find a new career, “Honey”.

Bringing in Colbert was sheer genius.  Only a great comedian can tell great truths that politicians won’t touch, such as addressing immigrant rights.  Conservative’s objections simply prove they have no sense of humor or justice.

****************

“”“Lofgren, when I spoke with her Tuesday,
expressed no regrets. “Outside the Beltway,
people are thinking a point was made, and I think
the understanding of farmworker issues has
increased dramatically as a result,” she said.”“”
****************

Outside the beltway. This is what gives me pause
for just what did the celebrity appearance serve if
it was to ‘enlighten’ those outside the beltway,
meaning all those members of the msm’s well
cultivated dumbstream garden, who over the
years and decades of subverted information base
some kind of opinion on flummery, razzle dazzle
and balderdash and just out right lack of real
information.

Just what kind of opinions did they get from this
testimony other than here was comedy and a
laugh from more infotainment, and maybe for
some a fine slap of embarrassment to those
members of the committee, in spite of colbert’s
pointing out of several issues about the
immigration problem.

There is a problem with Colbert and Stewart. They are
trying really hard to be poignant with parody and
satire.

But, as I have said many times, parody and satire
only work when you know, and it is common knowledge,
who the enemy is. And, as everyone knows, it is used
in a sly manner so that the object of the satire
cannot successfully accuse and murder you, and the
oppressed all get it.

But time and time again, recently, Stewart and
Colbert have tried to turn parody on its head by
applying it as propaganda and manipulation. That is
why it falls flat.

Its like, they might as well be saying, “look at
those peasants, aren’t they so incredibly
fashionless?” instead of saying “the emperor has no
clothes”.

They lost track of who the bad guys are. And token
attacks on Obama are not going to regain credibility
to their satire. It has lost its credibility.

Imagine Rodney dangerfield defending George Bush, or
the Queen of England, or Marie Antoinette. Doesn’t
work. Never, ever will no matter how many times you
call someone a douche or insane.

If you invite a Harpo Marx to appear before Congress, wearing his red wig, battered top hat and torn duster, you shouldn’t be surprised when he answers questions by beeping his horn!

Congress wanted Colbert’s star power as “Stephen Colbert, Comedian” then bitched when he delivered what they asked for.

Ruth Marcus must be an incredible pinhead if she thinks that any amount of stature was lost by that committee in particular and the government in general by letting Colbert testify. They have none. And as a dyed-in-the-wool, true-blue anarchist, it was a delightful way to reveal that the emperor has no clothes. It’s ALL bread and circuses!

Colbert’s serious comments talked about migrant farm workers, and his
humorous comments parodied the political process in which he was
participating.  Certainly the political process these days deserves being
parodied.  And fixing it is unfortunately more urgent than helping migrant farm
workers. 

Talking about the political process, even by parodying its nonsense, is always
relevant to any particular problem, since the political process is generally why
the problem does not get addressed or fixed.  The emperor is naked these days
—perhaps he always was—and Colbert’s parody plays the part of the little
boy who says so. 

Ms. Marcus apparently still sees clothes there.  She needs her eyes examined.  I
believe her when she says she is a fan, but she is missing the crucial point.  I
find myself wondering if she appreciated the famous Colbert roast of dubya and
understands why that event sent hundreds of thousands of people into
temporary ecstasy.

Nobody could have done better in showing us that there is no there there!  He did us a great favor.
The rest is now up to us—as it always has been—and I hope will continue to be.

I am with Don Farkus here.  The embarrassment is with Ruth Marcus and Congress.  I must wonder if Ruth bothered to listen to the entire transcript of Colbert’s presentation.  If so just what do you find offensive about Stephen’s boldness to point out that our system supports immigrant slave labor, incorporates into it into its model of the transfer of wealth to the elite, and is being inherently unfair to these powerless human beings who serve an important function in our economic system, yet have no rights?  So Ruth I ask you just what do you find so offensive about that message?  Is is that you would rather have that message only about the Chinese? ... and not bring attention to our own transgressions?

And as far as Colbert’s expertise in satirical comedy goes, I ask what more appropriate place to exercise the power of satire than in the halls of Congress, which is perhaps the seat of hypocrisy and the betrayal of our “Democracy” intended to be “for and by the people” as Congressman go about cashing their Corporate lobbyist checks?  Congress deserves scorn for its hypocrisy and deceit and Colbert is the perfect brilliant satirist to deliver it to this severely tainted institution.  What we really need is to have him back repeatedly to analyze the sleaze going on in this institutionalized farce on a more regular basis!

Ruth, I am sorry to say I could not disagree with you more.  It was amazing to watch Colbert be able to convey more useful information about the significant issues relating to migrant farm workers in his brief “testimony” before this Congressional committee, than most other witnesses seem to be able to do in much longer but less informative sessions.  Colbert obviously must have an exceptional talent and intellect in order to have succeeded so well at quickly distilling down to its essence such complicated issues into such a palatable form.  In just a few minutes, he was able to highlight several important issues including the mythology of migrant farm workers supposedly taking jobs away from Americans, the physically hard working conditions, primary circumstances that help facilitate farm worker exploitation, limitations of basing public policy on theoretical models of market behavior, the consequential reductions in cultivated acreage and agricultural production in U.S. due to lack of available labor, the illogical contradictions inherent in existing policy, the human and moral costs, etc.    And he was able to focus attention on the issue to get us all talking about it!  It was truly a masterful performance.  No wonder those opposing reforming currently counterproductive and inhumane policies did not want him to testify.

Don Farkas, Los Angeles

Oh, I think the Onion is hilarious - I’m not sure I want to watch them testifying in front of congress though.

It was so embarrassing I stopped watching. I like Stephen, but not in this forum - the presidential roast is a much more appropriate forum for him. Please!

Ruth, great article. I like Colbert, but what business does Congress have to
invite him to give testimony except as a concerned citizen? I’m still waiting for
my invitation, although I won’t be holding my breath. I would give them an
earful.

I went to Washington in the ‘80s to give testimony and it was a sad travesty to
see how they’ve subverted this once revered process. While the cameras were
focused center stage, so to speak, members were and chuckling on the
sidelines telling jokes or whatever, and one clown was periodically diving into
his sandwich.

We write in to these assholes to express legitimate concerns over the
functionality of some piece of ill-conceived legislation that they continue to so
easily spew, and unless there’s some check or a perk attached to it, our
concerns are casually dismissed. As it happened, the bill I was supporting later
passed and was signed into law, but I was disgusted by the total lack of
respect these buffoons have for the positions they’d attained or the citizens
they claim to represent.

We write in with concerns and get a form letter back. That can be understood,
but when we respond to the points of their response, why do we get the same
original form letter back?

All this arrogant adherence to Rules of Order is for civilized people in
performance of civilized duties. Washington is a whorehouse. My sincerest
apologies to any “Ladies of the Evening” who may have been offended by my
downgrading their status to that of a politician.