Job Americans Won't Do?

I'm a huge fan of Comedy Central's faux-conservative pundit Stephen Colbert - although I initially had reservations about his latest stunt.

Teaming up with the United Federation of Farm Workers, he boldly challenged the ranks of America's unemployed (whom, until recently, I was one of) to fill the thousands of farm worker jobs advertised each and every autumn.

Their website is Take Our Jobs.

The stunt's meant to draw attention to the plight of illegal immigrants in this country, as three-quarters of all farm workers were born outside of the United States, and more than half of them are illegal immigrants.

The challenge to 'take our jobs' is a direct attack on the notion that 'illegal invaders' are taking jobs away from American citizens. The United Federation of Farm Workers argue that farm worker jobs truly are the jobs American citizens 'won't do.'

(And to prove that point, during the last recruitment drive to get the unemployed Americans to fill the thousands of vacancies, just three even bothered turning up to be interviewed.)

But to my mind, this stunt highlights an entirely different problem. We shouldn't be celebrating the fact that illegal aliens are willing to do the jobs that Americans 'won't do.' We should be wondering how - in a modern, industrialized economy - we allow an employment model to exist that basically precludes anybody but undocumented aliens and those coming from nations of extreme poverty.

Colbert revealed what the life of a farm worker is like and it's not pretty.

For a start, it's one of the most dangerous jobs in America. Laboring for half a day in the blazing sun leads to heat-stroke and death on frequent basis. Yet I don't think long hours, hard work or danger are the reasons American citizens are refusing to accept these jobs.

In addition to this backbreaking work, farm labors earn a pittance. Many farms aren't required to give even minimum wage and many are excluded from paying overtime as well. What's worse, smaller farms are even exempt from workers compensation - so if you collapse in the field from heat exhaustion, you can't ask your employer to cover your medical costs.

It's basically little more than slave labor - no great step up from how farm workers used to live during the reconstruction following the Civil War. The reason these are jobs 'no American would take' is because they're jobs no human being should take.

And it's wrong. It shouldn't be allowed.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm fairly conservative and a fierce supporter of the free market system - however I have stronger support for the principle of a living wage.

I believe, without exception, that if you hire somebody to work for you full time (for more than forty hours a week) you are morally - and should be legally - obligated to:

• Pay them a wage on which they can live.
• Provide them with basic medical insurance.
• Offer them the basic protections required by law.

The farming industry fails to provide farm laborers with any of those things, which is why it's entirely understandable that no American wants to take that work. They shouldn't have to.

And before they open their opinionated mouths, right-wing types who argue about 'the free market' need to remember that the farming industry in America doesn't really count as part of the 'free market' anyway.

It survives on billions of dollars of government subsidy each and every year and therefore shouldn't be subsidized any more by the blood and sweat of exploited workers.

Offer farm laborers decent wages, decent health coverage and basic protection and I guarantee that American citizens would happily brave the blazing heat and punishing hours. Americans aren't afraid of hard work - they just expect to be able to earn enough to live off doing it.

And if the farming industry can't afford to pay its workers what they owe them? Well, perhaps that says more about the farming industry than the immigration debate. Maybe those farms don't deserve to be in business, and maybe billions of dollars of federal subsidies would be better spent elsewhere.

It's harsh, I know - and don't get me wrong. I love farming. I grew up on a farm, the countryside is in my blood and one of the things I love about America is the fact that it still manages to be remarkably self-sufficient when it comes to food.

But even I - one of the biggest advocates of farming going - believe the era of the great American farm might be over if this is what they've reduced themselves to in order to make a profit.

As far as illegal immigration fits into this problem, it's a symptom - not the disease. If the farming industry was obligated to pay workers what it owed, either Americans would fill those jobs or the source of production would move overseas (as, for all those 'free market' advocates, perhaps it should.')

In either eventuality, it would end one of the biggest lures this nation has for illegal immigrants.

Whatever happened to the facts?

I realise I've been ragging on conservatives for quite a while - but the problem is they drive me crazy! Especially trying to debate something with one.

Because conservative logic is blissfully free of fact. Opinions and decisions are not reached through an objective appraisal of the evidence, but through sheer, pig-ignorant gut feeling. "This is the way I feel," a conservative will argue, "and nothing you tell me or show me will make me feel any different."

It's a condition comedian Stephen Colbert characterised as 'Truthiness.' "We're not talking about truth," he explained, "we're talking about something that seems like truth—the truth we want to exist."

"It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts," he continues, "but that's not the case anymore."

Colbert managed to hit the nail right on the head with his definition of the word 'truthiness.' Because we live in a world now that's moving further and further away from rationality, straight into the lap of blissful ignorance.

And there, facts are totally redundant.

A conservative doesn't base his or her opinions on facts. Instead, they're based on a more nourishing mixture of gut feeling and assumptions. Assumption always comes before fact - whereas a rational person examines the facts first and makes assumptions based on them afterwards.

Take creationism, for example. A creationist makes the assumption that the Bible contains an 100% accurate account of the creation of the world - 7,000 years ago when God made Adam from the clay of the earth and Eve from one of his ribs. He examines the evidence afterwards and interprets it in a way that will match his assumption.

A rational person, on the other hand, examines the evidence first and uses that as a basis for his assumptions. Learning that every tree grows a 'ring' during each year of it's life, he could cut down the oldest tree in the world, count the rings and assume (based on the facts) that the world is 4,000 years old (the age of the oldest tree on earth.) Or he could learn that there's a new layer of ice grown in the North Pole every year, so he could drill through the ice and count the layers to discover that the 'world' (or, at least, ice) was 420,000 years old. Similarly, examining geological evidence suggests the world is half a billion years old. All assumptions are based on physical evidence.

That same physical evidence is open to interpretation - which means a rational person might come to one conclusion, but be forced to change their mind should further evidence disprove their original hypothosis. The problem with conservative is that their assumptions are set in stone - often before they've even examined the facts.

Once those assumptions have been made, a true conservative is incapable of changing their mind - no matter what the 'facts' say. That's my major problem with them.

You can't debate with somebody who's incapable of changing their mind. You might as well argue with a brick wall.

I am America! (and So Can You!) by Stephen Colbert

I've already mentioned just what a sublime comedy genius Stephen Colbert is. His nightly show is a ripping attack on right-wing political pundits and the increasing gap between 'Truth' and 'Fact' in the modern media.

So I have to admit, I was looking forward to reading his book, I Am America (and So Can You!) ever since it was released (cannily coinciding with his abortive run for the presidency in South Carolina.)

However, the book actually turned out to be every bit as flippant and inconsequential as the character Stephen portrays. I actually felt like the joke was on me once I'd finished reading it.

Which, in itself, is kind of the punchline. Having spent three days reading his whirlwind diatribe of opinion and ignorance, I was left feeling both cheated and validated at the same time. And I should have known better...

After all, Colbert proudly announced that he hadn't 'written' his book - he'd 'shouted it into a tape recorder over the Columbus Day weekend.'

It was meant to be written in the style of a narcissistic political pundit who churns out books without giving much more than scant attention to what's in them. And the twist in this satirical tale? That's exactly how the book was written!

In the 240 pages of I Am America, Stephen Colbert coolly waxes lyrical about politics, religion, education, history, sports and race relations - all in the slick, polished character he appears as every night on Comedy Central.

He perfectly apes the self-important, fact-free rants of right wing political conservatives who believe 'gut feeling' has more veracity than evidence or fact. However, in doing so, it all gets very tiresome very quickly.

Because Colbert's book is basically a one-trick pony. It's funny, I'll grant you. It provides consistent smug chuckles throughout. However, if I'm going to spend three days reading somebody's dumb political ideas, I'd rather read a real person's dumb political ideas, rather than read what a brilliant comedian scathingly imagines somebody's dumb political ideas to be.

In the end, I still think I Am America (and So Can You!) is something I'm very proud of to have in my bookcase - but owning this book isn't so much about reading it as making a political statement by buying it (and my copy was a gift from my sister.)

It's exactly like one of those Oprah-endorsed best-sellers that people buy so they can leave it on their coffee table as a statement of their values and beliefs.

Which, if they're brutally honest, is pretty much the point of it.

HOWEVER...

After reading Stephen Colbert's entirely inconsequential book, I got to the end and discovered a 'page filler' which suddenly validated the entire purchase.

It was a transcription of Colbert's stunning 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner speech, which he'd given in front of President Bush and the entire White House staff.

A copy of this speech alone is more than worth the price of the book.

In having the chutzpah to stand on a podium in front of the leader of the greatest nation on earth - and horribly insult him - makes Stephen Colbert one of the bravest comedians of his generation - and also demonstrates that's he's possibly as arrogant as the character he portrays on TV.

It's a scathing speech - and whether you agree with it or not, it's difficult not to admire the depth of comedy genius behind it. You may think it an appropriate criticism of the press and the 43rd President - or you might agree with Fox & Friends that it went 'over the line.' Whatever you think, you'll probably agree with Colbert's colleague Jon Stewart, who told the press: "We've never been prouder of him... But holy shit!"

"The greatest thing about this man [President Bush] is he's steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change; this man's beliefs never will."

Colbert Nation

The White House Dinner speech is a whole other reason to buy Colbert's book - but if you do, just remember. You don't have to read it. You've already got the joke.

I Am America (and So Can You!) is available for $26.99 from most good booksellers.

Writing Adventure Stories for Fun and Profit

Nanowrimo is fast approaching and I'm totally at a loss about what to write.

Here I am, a talented [big head - Editorial Bear] young writer with a vivid imagination - but I have no idea what my 50,000 word story will be about - and I'm meant to start writing in a mere seven days.

Last year, I carefully crafted and planned the entire plot beforehand. Now I'm going to be plunging in at the deep end, hoping for the best.

One thing's for certain. It's quite a liberating feeling, knowing that I can write whatever I want. But do I just want to write? Or, like most Nanowrimo'ers, do I want to edge myself closer to publication?

If publishing is my game, I'd better have a plan [a game plan, perhaps? - Editorial Bear.]

That's why I've been giving some thought to what makes a book publishable.

Having married somebody with the attention span of a ferret, I am learning more and more about what makes things successful in the world of writing. It's 'bite' 'hook' and 'edge' that make all the difference. Get the reader hooked in five seconds or less, or they'll move on.

It's sad, but while writing talent is definitely part of the equation, it doesn't top the list of 'things that make people buy books.' That's why I've got to rely on more than my writing talent [talent? - Editorial Bear.]

When publishing companies pick up manuscripts, they first of all look at how marketable the entire package is. They worry more about how many copies they'll sell than the actual quality of the writing. That's where the money is.

Here's a good recent example. Missy Chase Lapine's recent kid's cookbook 'The Sneaky Chef' was passed over by a publisher who then went on to print Jessica Seinfeld's nearly identical 'Deceptively Delicious.'

Both were books about devious ways to encourage kids to eat more healthily (in fact, Jessica's book even contained some of the same recipes as Missy's.) The same books - and Missy's came first. But Jessica brought not just her possibly plagiarised prose to the conference table. She also brought the 'Seinfeld' name - she's the wife of famous New York comedian Jerry Seinfeld.

Celebrity Connections

That familiar name, plus showbiz connections, won an endorsement from Oprah Winfrey. That explains why Deceptively Delicious is zooming up the best seller lists in a way The Sneaky Chef couldn't have hoped to (although it still made it to The New York Times bestseller list.)

Celebrity sells. If you don't believe me, look at the top-five non-fiction hardback bestsellers this week:

• I am America (and so can you!) by Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert (who is also running for Presidential Election.)


• Clapton by Eric Clapton.


• The Age of Turbulence by former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board Alan Greenspan.


• Celebrity Detox by actress, talk show host and 'professional lesbian' Rosie O'Donnell

Inexplicably beautiful hate monger Ann Coulter's book 'If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans' was nudged off the top five by 'My Grandfather's Son' - a memoir by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas [does being a supreme court justice make you a celebrity? - Editorial Bear]

Getting Buzzed

The other way publishers are increasing sales is by publishing books with 'buzz.'

Books that relate to topical subjects, like Iraq, Afghanistan, Global Warming and related newsworthy topics, invariably get discussed. That talk propagates on the Internet and creates more buzz, while people in book shops pick up the books related to subjects they've heard discussed around the water cooler.

It's Who Reads You

Reviews count.

Oprah Winfrey in America and Richard and Judy in the UK basically control the book industry. The books they elect to review are the ones whisked off the bookshelves by eager sheep [shouldn't this be 'readers' - Editorial Bear.]

But even a small review can help boost sales. It's just a pity that book reviews are slowly being trimmed from national and local newspapers.

Print space discussing books could, in the eyes of most editors, be better used as ad space. Many newspapers, such as The Hampshire Chronicle in Winchester, only deign to have book reviews if their author or subject matter is directly relevant to Winchester or Central Hampshire.

But they still happen. 107.2 WinFM had a wonderful book segment cooked up by presenter Elysa Marsden, in which she interviewed authors like Wilbur Smith and Kate Mosse. Getting a book endorsed on radio or in print is an excellent way to let people hear about it.

Hooked

The most IMPORTANT aspect of putting together a marketable book package, however, has to be the 'hook.' This is the thing that can propel an aspiring author straight to the best seller lists - if only they can get it right.

Just like movie producers have to deliver a 'pitch,' a marketable book has to have something compelling about it that can be summed up in just a few short words.

This is the stuff people will discuss over the water cooler and in their book clubs. These are the things that will grab my wife's ferret-like 'oooh, shiny' attention and get her walking into Barnes and Noble clutching a ten dollar bill [where have you been? You can't get a decent hardback without a mortgage these days - Editorial Bear]

Consider the blurb - and then listen to the pitch - regarding these recent best sellers:

The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini - Against a backdrop of tumultuous events, from the fall of the monarchy in Afghanistan through the Soviet invasion, Amir, a well-to-do boy, is haunted by the guilt of betraying his childhood friend Hassan. HOOK: A teenage boy lets his male friend get raped by a Taliban bully - and feels really bad about it.

The Almost Moon by Alice Sebold - Sebold owns the template for writing dazzling openings too compelling to ignore, pulling you into a riptide that won't let go in an incessantly bleak novel of mental illness that leaves nothing to the imagination. HOOK: When a frustrated teacher's 88 year old mother loses bowel control, she murders her, hides her body and then has sex with her neighbour's son.

Into the Wild by Ken Follett - One of the most haunting, unforgettable reads in recent years. Krakauer, whose adventures have taken him to the perilous heights of Everest, explores the seductive, yet often dangerous pull the outdoors. HOOK: Successful college student gives away his car and possessions, hitchhikes into the middle of the Alaskan wilderness and... dies.

Murdering your mother! Letting your best friend get raped! Walking into the Alaskan desert and winding up as a gigantic ice-lolly. Who could FAIL to be hooked by these potent books?

Okay, they're all a bit depressing. But compelling? Oh yes!

Short of being a celebrity or cosying up to Richard and Judy [shudder - Editorial Bear] the best way you can ensure that your book will be a success if by giving it a compelling hook - a brief selling-point that will whet the appetite of even the most cynical reader.

Compelling hooks that involve death, dismemberment, rape and death [didn't we already mention death? - Editorial Bear] are the ideal choices (it's no surprise that W.H. Smiths now has an entire 'Personal Tragedy' section of tragic biographies.) However, if that's all a bit dark and gloomy for you, conspiracy, religion, sex, sex and more sex [you forgot sex - Editorial Bear] are likely to raise the eyebrows and hopefully assist on the journey from bookshelf to checkout.

Look Book

Finally, if all else fails, you could just slap a naked lady on the cover.

As a typical man, I will automatically pick up any book I see that has a naked lady on the cover. The same goes for sports cars, guns, World War II fighter planes [and semi-naked ladies - Editorial Bear.]

Lurid book covers sell books!

Conclusion

When we [who are you talking to? - Editorial Bear] embark on this Nanowrimo madness, we've got something important to consider. What is the hook we're writing about? What's going to grab the reader by the collar and wrench them into our make-believe world?

Over the last few years, I've spent a lot of time writing what I want to write - stories of adventure and excitement featuring Adventure Eddy and his chums. Now it's time to ask myself what a potential audience might want to read - and see if I can make the two meet somewhere in the middle.

I have a million and one additional Adventure Eddy stories I never seem to find time to write - but this time I'm going to invest a month in writing about something else. Something new, exciting and as much of a mystery to me as it will be to my readers [you have readers? Why was I not informed? - Editorial Bear.]

You still have a few days to join me on the Nanowrimo adventure!

Editorial Bear assisted with the editing of this post.

Fred Thomspon on Immigration

My presidential hopes are pinned on Stephen Colbert at the moment - who is running in the South Carolina primaries as both a Democrat AND Republican.

But on the off chance Comedy Central's finest can't pull a win out of the hat, my general feelings are still pointing in the direction of the Republican candidates. Rudy Giuliani is an excellent 'moderate' choice, seeing as he's supportive of gay rights and other issues which the evangelicals get their knickers in a twist about, but make very little actual difference in the grand scheme of things.

If two gay men want to get married, how does that negatively impact my life? It doesn't - not one jot - and it makes two gay men happy at the same time. Win / Win. Further evidence that religion and politics need to be ruthlessly separated.

But Rudy has always been soft on immigration. As mayor of New york City, he fought hard for the rights of illegal immigrants and won them schooling for their kids (fair enough) and the right to avoid questions regarding their immigration status from city employees (not really right.)

Since he threw his hat into the ring, Rudy has flip-flopped about immigration. He's done an about-turn and come more in-line with the Republican party's official policy. That doesn't mean he buys it, however.

Fred Thompson, on the other hand, seems to know exactly where he stands on illegal immigration and he won't let the Republicans or Democrats tell him any different. Today he released his 'presidential' policies regarding the thorny topic and they make for compelling reading. Read them here.

My highlights include: "Amnesty undermines U.S. law and policy, rewards bad behavior, and is unfair to the millions of immigrants who follow the law and are awaiting legal entry into the United States." Hooray! My one major gripe with illegal immigrants. Why should they be patted on the back for skipping over the border while I obey the rules and get stiffed out of three years of my life and thousands of dollars in 'fees.'

"Without illegal employment opportunities available, fewer illegal aliens will attempt to enter the country, and many of those illegally in the country now likely will return home." If illegal immigrants were unable to work, companies would have to rely on American labour - and pay them appropriately. The minimum wage in some states is barely $5 a hour. If a company is too cheap to pay an American citizen even that pifling sum, they have no rights employing anybody in the first place.

"Reduce the backlogs and streamline the process for immigrants and employers who seek to follow the law. Also, simplify and expedite the application processes for temporary visas." I waited nearly four years for the right to enter the United States because the immigration process was so backlogged and inefficient. If the systems were in place to give immigration hopefuls a 'yay' or 'nay' within a few weeks - instead of years - maybe there would be fewer incentives for illegal immigration to take place.

"Caps for any category of temporary work visa would be increased as appropriate, if it could be demonstrated that there are no Americans capable and willing to do the jobs." If people are talented, dedicated and hard working - and can really contribute something to the American economy - give them a shot at working there. If the opportunities are available, people will choose legal immigration over illegal - and aliens would enter American based on their skills and knowledge, rather than their ability to scale fences.

"Make English the official language of the U.S. to promote assimilation and legal immigrants’ success, and require English proficiency in order for any foreign person to be granted lawful permanent resident status." Are you reading this, Bank of America? Quit sending me stuff in Spanish just because you saw the 'non-American citizen' box was ticked on my application.

These are all sensible, reasonable and - most importantly of all - effective policy suggestions that could positively transform the dismal state of American immigration as it currently stands.

Fred Thompson? You have scored some brownie points today.