Thursday, November 02, 2006

John Kerry: A Racy Joke?

I will not whip the John Kerry story to death, but there are several more things to say about Mr. Kerry's allegedly "botched joke." The first thing to say is that, if you get a chance to watch the video of Mr. Kerry's stand-up routine, you will see that he does not, at any time, LOOK (or sound) like he is telling any sort of joke. There is no facial cue, no lilt in the voice. He does not offer a softening of the eyes, or even a twinkle in one eye. There is no wink; no feigned laugh, no silly smirk. There is no affect whatsoever that he is trying to be funny. He does not prompt his audience after a long set-up to the punchline. Nay. He gives us nothing other than a very dour face; he looks like he is waiting for the audience to immolate themselves, to burn themselves to death. He does not look like he is expecting a laugh: His face, without doubt, looks like he is saying that none of this is a laughing matter.

That is point 1.

Point 2 is that even if we rewrite Mr. Kerry's joke, adding the "us" that he says he carelessly omitted, it isn't one whit funny. "You know, if you don't do well in school, well, you get us stuck in Iraq." AHHAHHHAHAHAHA! What a howler!

Point 3 is that, irrespective of Mr. Kerry's apology -- in which he apologizes, not for the joke but its misinterpretation (it's the listeners' fault) -- the joke, no matter how accurately or inaccurately delivered, cannot, in any way, be interpreted as NOT a slam of the military. For if Mr. Kerry is telling the truth, that he was merely damning the dumbness of the Bush Administration, he is nonetheless damning the Commander-in-Chief and his underlings. In other words, he is slamming the military. Moreover, he is also slamming the generals and colonels who submit to the alleged idiots in the White House; and he is also suggesting that many of the generals and other military officials who believe the invasion of Iraq was indeed a good thing are also "dumb". In other words, it is a joke belittling the military. Lastly, the joke suggests that all those soldiers who are UNDER the great dolts comprising the leadership of the war are themselves duped into submission, serving under leaders who are foolish, deceitful, empty -- men and women who did not do their homework. In other words, the joke damned every level of the military, no matter how you look at it.

The fourth point is one I brought up here yesterday. I am going to be so bold to suggest that I am one of the first bloggers (if not the first and only) to make the observation, and the observation is this: John Kerry might have been playing the race and class card. For we all know that certain Democrats, like Charlie Rangel and John Conyers, have complained that too many minorities -- inner-city minorities -- and the least privileged members of society, are most vulnerable to military recruitment. We also know that Messrs. Rangel and Conyers supported the reinstitution of the military draft during the 2004 election cycle: they played on the fears of their base under the guise that they were trying to build balance or parity in the recruitment of soldiers.

It appears to me that any sane observer could conclude that Mr. Kerry was playing this very cynical, racially-charged card. Context is everything, no? So it stands to reason that we might want to understand who it was Mr. Kerry may have been aiming his comments at; it is reasonable to ask to whom was Mr. Kerry speaking. You see, his joke was to a college crowd at Pasadena City College. As I stated yesterday, that inner-city college has a student body of over 25,000; 70.3 percent of that student body is made up of minorities. The school's largest minority group is Hispanic; the second is Asian; with the black student population making up just about 6.5%. Was John Kerry playing to this crowd? Was he saying -- since these listeners were minorities -- that they were most vulnerable to recruitment, to death on the war front? Was he playing to two stereotypes; one being that minorities make great cannon fodder for Republican wars; and two, that minorities are only able to save themselves if they rise above their apparent dumbness by doing well in school (I do not think there is ANY apparent dumbness, by the way)? Was Mr. Kerry propping himself up as a defender of minorities from alleged Republican indifference to their plight?

I think a good case could be made that he was so propping himself. This is not to suggest that Mr. Kerry is at all a racist himself. It is merely to posit some reason why Mr. Kerry said what he said. Here is a good question: Would Mr. Kerry have told this joke to an Ivy League college crowd? Had he ever told that joke to a group of affluent white folks? If he has told this joke before, or if he would have told this joke to a bunch of rich kids at Harvard, then my observations here are irrelevant and misplaced.

One final little note: Amy Kane of Atlantic Avenue passed this very informative link along to me. It is a very detailed study of the actual, rather than perceived, demographics regarding military recruitment.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: , ,

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi, Bill

I have to come back here- dinner is waiting! I enjoyed your "Comments" post the other day. I recently lost my temper in comments, for the 1st time since blogging...

The photo below is priceless! It was my biggest laugh of the day. Like I said, I have to return to READ.

I answered you at my blog and am copying it here for you:

___________________________________

Well, I could be Extremely Moderate as well, but that does not describe me at all!

I have 3 neighbors. 2 are GOP and one is waaay left. We have worked things out and become good neighbors to each other by way of settling our dog problems. We are his ideological opposite, but God has delivered opportunities to us to be kind. I wrote about it a bit here:

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/AmoScribo/198853/


Most of the people I interact with are of the homeschool community, so I don’t feel much heat. My husband, however, is at UVM, and used to get singed daily! People in his new building are more respectful now, however.

People in town are divided but respectful of each other, to the extent that whatever they have to say about us, it’s behind our backs at least, ha ha ha. Homeschoolers have to get used to scrutiny even before being labeled Right leaning.

I definitely have culture shock when I go into a mall or see our newspapers. Sometimes we feel very much in the minority, but the areas around us have a lot of conservatives: family people, farmers…the rural areas go Republican more.

I do NOT feel represented by my elected officials in Washington! Our state legislature is taking shape: Governor, Lt. Gov., and our House Rep is wonderful (our state Senator is not.)

I feel welcomed in this state by our neighbors and by God. God’s VT and NH are beautiful- we just have to hang in there to make the people’s VT and NH beautiful, too!
___________________________________

Have a wonderful evening.

LukeBuckham said...

Good points all.

"he does not, at any time, LOOK (or sound) like he is telling any sort of joke. There is no facial cue, no lilt in the voice."

True. But, Bill, that's not necessarily his fault. You see, John Kerry is a robot, built by Halliburton sometime during the late 1960s. I'm serious. I have the research to back it up and I will be publishing an article on the subject very soon in Unpopular Mechanics.

The following sentence, by the way, made me laugh so loud that a nearby librarian (I'm at the local college) looked at me with fear in his eyes:

"He gives us nothing other than a very dour face; he looks like he is waiting for the audience to immolate themselves, to burn themselves to death."

One thing's for sure: his audience proved that they have at least some semblance of REAL intelligence--by not laughing.

As for Mr. Sherman's comment, well: count me as one who opposes any and all service requirements of this kind. He is absolutely right that people should move out of their comfort zones more often, but in my view, requirements of this kind generally create resentment, and even boredome. There's too much obsession with legislation as a fix for everything in this country already. And if our relations with each other are so bad that we're suggesting a DRAFT of some kind to enhance well-roundedness, then a law won't be enough to solve it.

Just my opinion. Very conservative of me, I know.

Study hard,

Luke

Anonymous said...

Bill and Contratimes readers, the updated version of that military demographics study was released last Friday and here it is: Who Are the Recruits? The Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Enlistment, 2003–2005.

"In summary, the additional years of recruit data (2004–2005) support the previous finding that U.S. military recruits are more similar than dissimilar to the American youth population. The slight dif ferences are that wartime U.S. mil itary enlistees are better educated, wealthier, and more rural on aver age than their civilian peers.

Recruits have a higher percent age of high school graduates and representation from Southern and rural areas. No evidence indicates exploitation of racial minorities (either by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). Finally, the distri bution of household income of recruits is noticeably higher than that of the entire youth population."

I also read somewhere that all branches of the military exceeded recruitment goals for last year.

Bill Gnade said...

Amy,

Thank you. Your research is very much appreciated, as is your update.

No wonder we no longer hear much from the draft supporters. Your research shows that many of the prejudices on which their opinions were based were not particularly well-documented.

I will give Mr. Kerry the benefit of the doubt that he was telling his joke knowing full well that enlistees are not overly represented by poor, inner-city minorities with low aptitude. He was just dissing a President who did better at Yale than he did himself.

Peace, and thanks.

BG

Bill Gnade said...

Luke,

Thank you for laughing at what I hoped would be a decent line.

Your comments are accurate and well-taken. I am grateful you have left them here.

As for your take on R. Sherman: I don't know where I stand. I think there could be some wonderful programs that could be offered, though not necessarily mandatory ones (just ones with decent incentives). I think R.'s heart is very much in the right place; I know you are not suggesting that it isn't. But it would be interesting -- at least for me -- to explore his idea more fully.

Perhaps high school graduates should have to spend one day with Luke Buckham. I am sure that they would learn more about writing a good sentence in that one day than they learned in the last 720.

Peace, my friend.

Gnade