Back in 2007, comedian Sarah Silverman hosted the MTV Music Awards and told a joke about Paris Hilton going to jail. “I heard that to make her feel more comfortable in prison, the guards are going to paint the bars to look like penises,” she said. “I think it is wrong, too. I just worry she is going to break her teeth on those things.” Hilton was in the audience, and she was offended. Silverman later said she should not have told the joke, and apologized.
Earlier this year, Silverman appeared at a TED conference, and did a long routine that offended many. Silverman explained the experience recently to New York magazine.
“The bit was tied into the theme of the conference, which was ‘What the World Needs Now.’ So I say I’d like to adopt a retarded baby because I don’t have this urge to have a little version of myself to get right this time.” She stops to explain her feelings about the word retard. “I don’t like it. I think it’s a negative bummer word. Retarded, however, technically means [mentally challenged].” She continues: “So I say I’m adopting a retarded baby and I’ll be worried about who will take care of my child when I’m gone. So, solution! I’m going to adopt one with a terminal illness. Now, you’re probably thinking, what kind of person looks to adopt a terminally ill retarded child? An amazing person! I don’t see those 9/11 firefighters adopting retarded children with terminal illnesses. I’m just saying. Of course, there’s going to be the uncomfortable, inevitable question in the adoption process: Are you sure there are absolutely no cures on the horizon?”
Silverman did not apologize for the “retarded” routine. Why apologize for the Hilton joke and not this one? I don’t know. One of the great mysteries of comedy is that it is not clear where the lines should be drawn. In fact, good comedy often means that the lines are being redrawn. Which brings me to the topic of this post, Barack Obama’s “predator drone” joke at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWKG6ZmgAX4&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
Is this joke out of line? I didn’t think so at the time, but Adam Serwer makes a good case at the American Prospect.
I suppose the relative lack of outrage has to do with whose lives were the butt of the joke — we recognize the names and faces of the American service members who died because of Bush’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction as friends, relatives, and family members. The people who die in drone strikes are anonymous — they have no faces or names — except for the suspected terrorist targets the administration celebrates as being neutralized.
I like my comedy with edge, and . . . but . . . still . . . it is something to think about.