Air Assaults

      New York Governor Michael Pataki's pre-Christmas pardoning of Lenny Bruce for long-forgotten obscenity charges may have seemed like a 'too-little, too-late' pat on the head, rather like the apologies governments occasionally issue after wildy-reactionary gestures. But this blog would like posit this article for your consideration, because it seems to me the central question raised by this article is provocative, and reminds that the sword of satire is always double-edged, and that the wielder of that sword is often guilty of that which he satirizes. Bruce's commentaries may indeed have been brilliant, but he was as guilty as his satirical targets of burning enemies at long-distances without seeing the consequences of his aired assaults. As Lear's Fool knew full well, it may be necessary to jest that the king's crown is made of eggshells, but trespass lightly, for there always remains the possibility of the dragon issuing its wrath.

      This blog isn't attacking Bruce, nor is it defending the obscenity charges laid against him all those years ago (mainly because Bruce suggested that Jackie Kennedy wasn't trying to protect JFK after the shots rang out, but that she was just trying to get the hell out of the firing line, seen then as a gesture of profound bad taste which allowed those that had grudges against Bruce to retalliate against him from a position of supposed justification). But the Fool knows the dangers of his task, and accepts as part of his duty that retribution is always a possible response. And Bruce no doubt knew it. As the song goes, it's all in the game. So, please, respect, admire, or whatever Lenny Bruce, but let's not sanctify him, as most recent articles have; to record him into history as a kind of patron saint of political satire is to brace him with a crown from another set of eggshells.