It was 1963 and Camelot was still in full swing. JFK had stared the Soviets in the eye, and they blinked; Jackie had remade fashion in her own image; a comedian named Vaughn Meader who did a note-perfect Kennedy impression sold zillions of copies of an LP called The First Family and was readying Volume 2; and all, we thought, was right with the world.

Then came November and that terrible day in Dallas and nothing was ever going to be the same. The national funny bone disappeared, with no sign it might ever be tickled again. A week passed, and Lenny Bruce was booked into a theatre on the Lower East Side, and the audience was more than usually anxious: what would he say? How can he say anything at a time like this?

And Lenny Bruce came out and stared at the audience. He unscrewed the mike and walked away from the spotlight. He stared at the audience, paced up and down the stage, and stared at the audience again. And what he said was this:

“Vaughn Meader is screwed.”

And then, of course, the dam burst.

On the other hand, what parent wouldn’t want to do that if their kid was attacked? It’s entirely understandable. Just, sadly, not as politically astute. Especially against a comedian.

Comedians are, by their own nature and preference, at the margins. Most make their living walking up to the line, then crossing it. They go where polite society doesn’t. Sometimes they win with accolades for “edginess”. Sometimes they lose their audience.

But I think when you try to debate them, you always lose to some extent. Because they’ve done their bit expressly for that purpose: to get a rise and to get more airplay. You give them what they want.

And I was proud of them.

Snarking on Michelle’s wardrobe is not even in the same category.

Okay, truce. But it looks like I still need to post disclaimers.

This next comment will probably start another firestorm:

I can sympathize with a mother lashing out at someone who makes a tasteless public joke at the expense of her daughter, but a savvier politician would have ignored the comment as unworthy of comment.

No public figure’s child endured more horrendous and vitriolic abuse than Chelsea Clinton. But the Clintons, while I’ve never accused them of being classy, had the smarts to completely ignore those comments. It dignified them and Chelsea while making the so called “comedians” look like bullies and worse. And it left the public to do the defending which absolved the Clintons of looking like they were using their child as publicity. Which is sometimes a byproduct, whether warranted or unwarranted, of these sorts of altercations.

After all with Letterman’s ratings (even with their recent uptick), it’s safe to say the vast majority of us never even heard of the joke until Palin elevated it to front page status.

I’d submit that the Obamas, should Letterman start snarking on Michelle’s wardrobe, would probably shrug, ignore it and change the channel to Charlie Rose.

Jeez McGehee, everything isn’t a vast conspiracy.

What did I say that suggested I thought otherwise?

I just happen to think it’s too easy for people to mistake the differences intrinsic to an ambiguous figure of speech, especially on a matter as charged as, well, speech. Charles recently accused me of being a stickler for accuracy, and I was merely living down to the accusation.

Since much of my humor plays off those same ambiguities, I may be more sensitive to them than most. Canary in a coalmine.

As for all the rest of what you seem to have read into my commentary, I’m never that subtle.

If you find a certain bent to Letterman’s humor offensive, mainly because he mocks the family of a politician you might like, it probably isn’t really moving the dialogue along to encourage him to be equally offensive to the family of a politician you don’t like.

Whew! Everyone clear? Guns down? Everyone playing nice?

There has always been only one truly effective way to “shut people up” on TV. Stop watching. Ratings go down. Sponsors pull out. Person off air. Well, they probably aren’t shut up. They can still rant on street corners. But you don’t have to stumble over them while flipping channels or with dozens of people sending you YouTube clips.

No, just saying no with the channel switcher.

There’s a difference between saying “stop listening,” which I’ve long since done to all those late-night gabbers (except occasionally maybe Ferguson), and saying “shut him up.” Small matter of words meaning things.

Of course, Letterman seems to believe that if he were to direct his “humor” at Barry and Michelle, he’d learn for real what “shut him up” means.

I’d just like to see the hypothesis tested.

Wouldn’t a better plan be to shut Letterman up completely?

You mean, stop him from going about his own business as he sees fit?

However, I am greatly fond of the idea of drowning someone in a sea of dissenting voices.

Do we really want to encourage Letterman to be an equal opportunity offender? Wouldn’t a better plan be to shut Letterman up completely?

M

It’s that ugly-going-clear-to-the-bone thing. Ugly soul, ugly countenance.

M

When I was in high school, I thought that look was HOT!.

How about some noogies.

McGehee – mental floss, stat!