Monday, May 11, 2009

A New Arms Race

My dear readers, I must apologize. What with having such a lovely time yesterday, I fell down on the job. I failed to report a story of national importance--hat tip: Amy Welborn--which is being discussed even as we speak by Washington insiders and serious reporters of all stripes, even religion reporters.

Brace yourselves: Michelle Obama has arms.

So far, all we know for sure is that her arms are "transformational." No word on whether that means that Mrs. Obama is restricting herself to conventional weapons, or whether there are nuclear arms in her arsenal. I expect that a national security briefing is immanent; surely we'll know more soon, provided our nation's intelligence gathering branches can get past the Secret Service to determine just how much of a threat Mrs. Obama's arms may be. There are, of course, many unanswered questions at this point, such as:
  • Is it going to be a new trend for first ladies to have their own arms? The media's level of shock and astonishment over the fact that Mrs. Obama has arms would seem to indicate otherwise, but is it really a good idea for first ladies to arm themselves?
  • Do the arms Mrs. Obama has so far displayed (judging from media reports) mean that she has revealed the extent of her weapons cache, or is she simply making a statement against "concealed carry" laws?
  • Are her arms at the disposal of the nation for purposes of security, or is she reserving to herself the right to use them against anyone she personally deems to be a threat?
  • What does this mean in terms of Democrats and the Second Amendment? Are we seeing a policy shift here, or just a bucking of the trend by one individual Democrat?
  • Are other First Ladies going to escalate this situation? Is Carla Bruni-Sarkozy going to go beyond displaying her arms? Can anything be done to dissuade Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, from entering this unprecedented arms race?
  • What if this spreads to Congress? I'm sure I speak for many when I say that if Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have arms, we don't need to see them.
  • What if it spreads beyond Congress, to the Cabinet, or worse--the Supreme Court? The mind boggles; even the mental image might be torture (and if it is, I apologize).
As you can see, these are serious issues. Once the First Lady starts waving arms around, other people might join in. Being that she's a transformational trendsetting transcendent cultural icon, and all. Which is probably why Michelle Obama's arms have become such a huge news issue in such a short time, pushing such less important stories as the sluggish economy, the likelihood that Pelosi knew about torture all along, and even the Pope's visit to the Middle East out of the headlines.

I'm sorry I missed this huge, huge development, but rest assured, I'm keeping a close eye now. And if we start seeing a Kennedyesque hemline rise--well, we'll know this particular and serious sartorial threat has risen to a new, and dangerous, level, one that might well threaten the good taste and decent covering of all of our nation's women.


LarryD said...

A disarming development, to be sure.

So who needs late-night comedians making jokes about the Obamas, when the MSM does it for him, albeit unintentionally?

Sally said...

I was leafing through the tabloids in the checkout line the other day and saw a magazine with promo pictures of various celebrities. Mostly hilarious to see the pink tuxes on the men and the big hair on the women. They included Mrs. Obama's, who as a teen, wore a dress to prom with a slit up to *there*. So apparently she had legs also!