OK, let us become serious for a moment, I actually do have a sense of humour, as cynical as it might be on occasional. But what I do not have time for is any so-called humour that includes attacks of individuals on a personal basis. Although we have some added latitude with regard to politicians and other public figures - particularly relating to SNL type satire - I draw a firm line in the sand with regard to the families of those figures, most particularly the minor children and spouses that are not directly involved in political policy. And in that regard, the role of the First Lady of the US has become increasingly political over the years. Consequently the issues relating to the FL do become a bit murky. But what I do have a problem with are jokes that are offensive with regard to race, ethnicity, gender, religion. Although I will confess that it is often times debatable if a joke actually crosses the line in one of these areas. And no, I cannot provide simple clear cut definition of what is offensive. It is a bit like the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's definition of Pornography -- "I don't know how to define it, I just recognize it when I see it". So, is the joke in question offensive or not? Actually, I find it offensive primarily for a couple of reasons. First the choice of the animals used in the punch line of the joke, secondly, and most particularly, the history that is associated with the attacks that have been directed at this president and first lady, attacks that all too often carry with them racial undercurrents - or even are outwardly racist in nature. To deny the existence of these racial issues is naïve at best -- dishonest and disingenuous at worst.
Good post. And I do agree with you. First, children should be entirely off the targeting grid. Note that we are talking CHILDREN, not young adults who are either A) making themselves a part of the campaign of their parent, or B) deliberately placing themselves in a spotlight. Early on in the Bristol Palin discussions, I strongly opposed people bring her pregnancy into the discussion. It was wrong. However, when she started to speak in support of her mother, and when she joined "Dancing With The Stars", as far as I was concerned, she shed the protection by choice. Some of the things that were said about young Amy Carter, then Chelsea Clinton, and now Sasha and Malia Obama just never should be said. Not remotely. As you said, the role of a First Lady really has become much more active than in the old days. And as regards policies or programs they champion, absolutely, they are on the table for discussion, and SHOULD be. But the verbal abuse of the First Lady by calling her things like "Chewbacca" or "Sasquatch", or "Moochelle", well, these kinds of things only show the limited intelligence and complete lack of class of the person using them. You're right - there are some of these attacks - like calling the First Lady a "Wookie" or "Sasquatch" or referring to her and her daughters as apes - or even calling her husband a "Brazil Nut" that are completely racist in nature and utterly unacceptable. Hell, I didn't even like the jokes that referred to Barbara Bush as looking like George Washington. In the grand scheme of things, especially with what has been piled on Michelle Obama, that may seem mild, but I still found it to be out of line. Small people have to be small. They can't help it. It's just a shame they have to flock to message boards, or blog, or get jobs on air at political propaganda stations on radio and TV masquerading as "news".
