HorsesAss.Org

I’ve already thoroughly deconstructed Rep. Dave Reichert’s childish “joke” about Hillary Clinton falling to her death from an airplane, but I’ve got a couple more observations that I think are worth discussing, the first of which was first raised in a press release from Darcy Burner spokesman Sandeep Kaushik:

“When Congressman Reichert goes before non-partisan audiences he likes to bemoan the loss of civility and lack of bipartisanship in Washington, D.C. Apparently he does not really mean it, because when he gets before his fellow Republicans he takes a very different tone — this is just the latest unfortunate example of that.”

Of course Reichert’s civility campaign is total bullshit, and if editorialists and other opinion makers don’t see this, it is because they choose not to. Remember, this is the same guy who compared Democrats to the Green River Killer:

“And in America how hard is it to put my arm around a Democrat if I can put my arm around Gary Ridgeway.”

That’s civility? That’s bipartisanship? That’s conscience-driven independence?

Like Mike McGavick before him, Reichert’s emphasis on civility and bipartisanship is little more than a strategy to avoid talking about actual issues, an honest debate of which would overwhelmingly favor Burner. It is also implicitly (and hypocritically) a negative attack on his opponent, as one cannot accept Reichert’s civility meme without inferring that Burner is not sufficiently civil herself.

The other observation I’d like to make refers back to my original post, and my assertion that at least part of the humorous impact of the the “joke” comes from playing off of a popular perception of the object of ridicule as stupid:

Deserved or not, this works well with President Bush in the lead role (as it would for Dave Reichert himself), but whatever you think of Hillary Clinton, she certainly doesn’t have a reputation for being dumb, and as such, the joke comes off more mean spirited than funny. It’s just a poor vehicle for ridiculing her.

What is curious is that Reichert should apparently believe that Clinton in any way fits the stereotype on which the punchline is at least partially predicated. It is ironic that a man with a two-year degree from an obscure Christian college, and an undistinguished career in Congress, would impugn the intelligence of an accomplished woman who graduated from one of the top colleges and top law schools in the nation. But it is not without precedent.

This has always been the Reichert camp’s most consistent critique of Darcy Burner—that she is “ditzy” and a “lightweight”—a critique that comprised the main theme of what was perhaps Reichert’s most offensive (and effective) ad of the 2006 season. And as with his characterization of Clinton, it is equally ironic when applied to a woman like Burner, who graduated Harvard University with a B.A. in computer science and economics, and who went on to become a high-level manager at Microsoft. Apparently, Reichert and his most vocal supporters need little more evidence to snidely dismiss the intelligence of a woman than her gender.

I won’t hazard a guess as to how else Reichert objectifies women (though his staunch opposition to reproductive rights is highly suggestive), but clearly, when it comes to the political arena, he views them as objects of ridicule.

The TNT’s Niki Sullivan, live blogging from the state GOP convention in Spokane, reports on the latest attempts at Republican humor. First Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers entertained the crowd with the “Top 10 reasons it’s good to be a Republican in 2008,” including such comic gems as:

3. We believe Al Gore deserves an ‘F’ in science and an ‘A’ in creative writing.

That’s a hard act to follow. But Dave Reichert tried, trotting out his now familiar Borscht Belt routine:

Right now, U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert is up. He repeated a joke I first heard him tell at the Pierce County Republicans’ Lincoln Day breakfast earlier this year. It involves an airplane that’s going to crash, one fewer parachute than passengers and, ultimately, Hillary Clinton dying.

Hillary Clinton dying… oh man, that’s a knee-slapper, isn’t it?

I’m actually well familiar with this joke. My 11-year-old daughter used to tell a variation of it, but involving President Bush instead of Hillary Clinton. And she found it absolutely hilarious… when she was nine.

In fact, the inappropriateness of a sitting congressman joking about the death of a sitting senator aside, this is a joke specifically designed to appeal to nine-year-olds. It goes something like this:

A grandfather, a grandson, a wealthy man and [Despised Public Figure] are flying on a plane, when the pilot comes out and announces that the plane is about to crash, but that there are only four parachutes for the five of them.

“I’ve trained for too many years to die like this,” the pilot says, so he straps on the first parachute and jumps out of the plane. Next the wealthy man says, “I’m much too rich to die this young,” so he grabs the second parachute and jumps out of the plane. Then [Despised Public Figure] stands up and says “I’m [Despised Public Figure], and I’m much too important to die,” so he grabs the third parachute and jumps out of the plane.

Finally, the grandfather turns to his grandson and says, “I’m old; I’ve lived a long life. Here, you take the last parachute.” To which the grandson replies, “That’s okay grandpa, there’s a parachute for both of us… [Despised Public Figure] took my backpack!”

There are two things to note in deconstructing this joke. The first is that the punchline partially owes its humorous impact to playing off a popular stereotype of the Despised Public Figure as stupid. Deserved or not, this works well with President Bush in the lead role (as it would for Dave Reichert himself), but whatever you think of Hillary Clinton, she certainly doesn’t have a reputation for being dumb, and as such, the joke comes off more mean spirited than funny. It’s just a poor vehicle for ridiculing her.

The second thing to note about this joke is that the humorous twist is primarily derived from the unexpected contrast between the cool intellect of the child versus the panicked stupidity of a powerful adult. The punchline is not dependent on the identity of the object of ridicule because the humor comes less from the act of stupidity than it does from the act of a mere child being both observant enough to recognize the error as it was happening, and calculating enough to allow it to play out uninterrupted.

Think about it. You could swap “President Bush” with “Dave Reichert,” and the humorous effect is virtually unchanged, as long as the audience is familiar with Reichert. But if you put the observation in the mouth of the grandfather instead of the grandson, the joke just doesn’t work.

This is, at its core, a joke about empowering children. Which is why it is a joke that primarily appeals to children.

That Reichert finds this kiddie joke so humorous that he repeats it to Republican audiences statewide… well… I’d say that’s funnier than the joke itself.

Jesus Christ… when will our local media stop bending over backwards to accommodate Republicans in their efforts to greenwash themselves?

The sub-headline on Chris McGann’s article in Tuesday’s Seattle P-I, “Gregoire, Rossi battle for eco-credentials,” is a prime illustration of how journalistic “objectivity” goes awry, implying that there is some sort of “battle” between the two candidates when it comes to credibility on environmental issues, when in fact there has never been any contest at all. Gov. Gregoire has an impeccable environmental record that spans her entire career, whereas Rossi is a Dino-come-lately to the issue, spouting half-measures and platitudes in an effort paint himself as a moderate. (Whatever that means.)

And the text of McGann’s article isn’t any better than the headline.

Campaigning out of a hybrid SUV that gets about 27 miles per gallon, Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi says that when it comes to the environment, he’s more progressive than many voters might think.

I’ve long struggled to come up with a cogent definition of what it means to be a “progressive,” but apparently it merely requires driving a hybrid… even a hybrid SUV that gets only half the mileage of a fuel efficient Prius. By that measure, I guess Rossi is more progressive than I am. Who knew?

Rossi’s agenda calls for converting the state motor pool to hybrid and plug-in vehicles by 2015, providing a sales tax exemption on hybrid vehicles, replacing fish-killing road culverts and implementing massive congestion relief projects that he says will eliminate millions of tons of carbon emissions produced by cars stuck in traffic.

Uh-huh. Let’s take the main points of “Rossi’s agenda” one by one.

1) Converting the state motor pool to hybrid and plug-in vehicles by 2015.
Good idea. In fact it’s such a good idea, that it was one of the main points in Gov. Gregoire’s “Washington Climate Change Challenge,” Executive Order 07-02, signed and sealed by the governor on February 7, 2007. And how’s it going? 690 of the state motor pool’s 1,800 vehicles are now hybrids, a percentage that ranks WA number three in the nation. When you add in flex-fuel vehicles, WA ranks number one.

2) Providing a sales tax exemption on hybrid vehicles.
Because the last thing a Republican like Rossi would ever argue for doing is allowing market forces to work their magic… you know, the way $4/gallon gasoline is already driving consumers to more fuel efficient cars. But I’m willing to meet Dino halfway, and suggest a more targeted sales tax exemption for passenger cars that get better than 40 miles to the gallon, because hell if taxpayers should subsidize some $50,000 Lexus hybrid that gets only 25 mpg, just so Dino and his rich buddies can feel good about themselves while getting yet another a tax break to boot.

3) Replacing fish-killing road culverts.
Again, the state is already in the process of replacing salmon culverts as part of its Barrier Removal Program, 69 since 1992, at a cost of $27 million. Rossi’s much-ridiculed fantasy transportation “plan” would set aside $200 million toward replacing culverts at an estimated average cost of $100,000 each (about a quarter the price of already completed projects)… a random number he clearly pulled out of his ass.

4) Implementing massive congestion relief projects that he says will eliminate millions of tons of carbon emissions produced by cars stuck in traffic.
Too bad the science doesn’t bear this out. According to Sightline, “every extra one-mile stretch of lane added to a congested highway will increase climate-warming CO2 emissions more than 100,000 tons over 50 years.” It’s convenient rhetoric to argue that building new roads reduces carbon emissions, but it doesn’t pass the laugh test, let alone empirical inquiry.

And neither does this ridiculous piece of editorializing:

Rossi, who like GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain says global warming is a problem that must be addressed, is running toward an issue many Republicans dismiss or ignore — the environment.

Uh-huh. Really…?

McCain: “The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention.”

Rossi: “We’ll see how this debate goes, but I don’t think anybody should panic at this point.”

So Rossi is in a “battle” to hybridize a state fleet that is already hybridizing, provide incentives that are already being provided by the market, replace salmon culverts that are already being replaced, and address global warming by building roads that will only increase carbon emissions. That’s some green agenda.

Sure, McGann eventually gets to the Democrats’ rebuttal but not until 200 words into the 275 that grace A1, after the headline and the lede have already done their damage. The impression left on most readers (many of whom don’t read much past the headline, let alone the front page) is that both candidates are fighting to claim the mantle of environmental stewardship, when in fact Rossi’s war is merely one of words, whereas Gregoire’s is one of actual accomplishments—according to Washington Conservation Voters, an “extensive record of environmental leadership.” And that’s only what she’s accomplished since becoming governor.

“So what are you doing about it?” Rossi asked. “Well, I’ve actually made a proposal that is the only serious proposal that would remove carbon from the air. She has made no serious proposal.”

Yeah, sure, that’s what Rossi said, I guess, but you didn’t have to repeat it, Chris. You’re a reporter, not a fucking stenographer, and it’s simply irresponsible to leave that claim dangling out there without making any effort to validate or fisk it. Rossi’s plan is arguably not serious, would not remove carbon from the air, and is most definitely not the only one out there. Gov. Gregoire hasn’t just been making carbon-cutting proposals (the Climate Action, Green Jobs, Renewable Fuel, Clean Cars bills, etc.) as governor she’s been implementing them. And as the P-I’s Capitol Reporter, Chris, you know that.

In fact, the whole premise of this article, that Dino Rossi could possibly have any credible claim to being pro-environment, let alone “progressive” for chissakes, is patently absurd! This is the BIAW candidate—the only major political organization in Washington state politics to oppose the Puget Sound Partnership—and you’re going to allow him to greenwash himself on the front page of the Seattle P-I?

Un-fucking-believable.

Mr. Mark Ginther
Executive News Director
KING 5 Television
333 Dexter Ave. N
Seattle, WA 98109

Dear Mr. Ginther,

As I’m sure you agree, Robert Mak leaving KING5 News is a great loss to both the station and its audience, but every crisis presents an opportunity, and in this case it is an opportunity for KING5 to continue its proud tradition of public-affairs programming, while producing a show that you and others might actually “get.” Specifically, I humbly propose that you replace Mr. Mak… with me.

Think about it. As a freeloader on the public airwaves, you have a moral obligation (if not a legally enforceable one anymore) to serve the interests of the local community, and yet you also have a fiduciary obligation to maximize profits for your Texas-based corporate overlords. So what better way to meet both these responsibilities than by putting your 24 minutes a week of public-affairs programming in the hands of our region’s most outrageous and influential blogger?

Imagine angry shouting matches over arcane details of Washington state’s tax structure, or Democratic consultant Cathy Allen spewing an endless stream of profanity as former state GOP chair Chris Vance assaults her with a folding chair. And trust me; they’ll do it. They’re both self-promoters trolling for clients, and they’ll do just about anything to get themselves on TV.

With a nod to Mak’s legacy and a wink toward my own, I call my show Up Yours with David Goldstein, signaling KING5’s ongoing commitment to thoughtful political coverage and analysis while adopting the snarky and somewhat irreverent attitude of the Daily Show, the blogosphere and the other new media outlets that have been steadily stealing audience (and advertisers) away from traditional news organizations such as your own.

But perhaps best of all, Up Yours would provide KING5 with an affordable and stable means of fulfilling its public service requirement. Having been out of a job since losing my talk show at 710-KIRO back in January, I’m willing to work for cheap. And, you can rest assured that with me behind the desk nobody, but nobody, is going to offer $160,000 a year to lure away your host. I even have an idea for my first segment that I bet you’re going to love: a tantalizing expose on wasteful government spending. For example, did you know that Seattle bizarrely pays the mayor’s communications director a higher salary than the mayor himself?! Shocking, I know. And after we hear what Mak has to say for himself, I plan to hit him with a chair.

Now that’s showbiz.

I look forward to meeting with you at your earliest convenience to discuss this opportunity further.

Sincerely,

David Goldstein
HorsesAss.org