06E005
Paleohumorists have uncovered what is,
possibly, the very first joke ever made. To their surprise, there is no
reference walking into a bar in the Sanskrit text. Also missing — bodily
functions, and the word "Nantucket." (Extra credit — what is the
Sanskrit word for Nantucket?)
The joke is inscribed on a
weather-beaten stone tablet, chipped in place, but otherwise in fair condition.
Loosely transliterated, it goes
something like this —
Tchak-Tchak.
Hooba dar?
Otsch.
Otsch hoo?
Unfortunately, that's where the etched
characters start to fade. Puzzled paleohumorists turned to humorologists,
satiric reconstructionists, and finally, in desperation, to the comedic
engineers in TV land. To date, there is no consensus on how the joke might have
ended. The only thing everyone seems to agree on is (and this is a loose
translation), "When do we get paid?"
(Extra credit answer — the Sanskrit
word for Nantucket is Hoboken.)
All of which just points up the
inherent difficulty in explaining a joke. Hard as it may be to explain a joke
when parts of it are missing, it is even more nerve-wracking to explain a joke
in its entirety. This is especially true when the joke fails. According to
paleohumorists, failed jokes are not at all uncommon.
(Extra credit — Who said "When I
make a joke, nobody gets injured … when Congress makes a joke, it's the
law." )
Which brings us to the mission of the
Select Committee on Unamerican Media Banality And Grossness, whose mission is
to discover whether a joke is, scientifically speaking, "funny,"
"offensive," or "incomprehensible." The FCC has stepped in
to advise on what should be censored. Whatever remains on TV or radio would be,
by definition, either funny or incomprehensible. That's good enough for me.
(Extra credit answer — Will Rogers.)
Is America really ready to deregulate
humor?
Sen. Combover: Come to order! We are
here to determine what, if anything, is legally funny. Call the first witness
... Come on, who's on first?
Mr. Powell: What? I don't know.
Yesterday, my staff observed this obscenity on TV. "A doctor, a lawyer and
a priest walk into a bar … "
Sen. Combover: Is this some kind of
joke?
Mr. Powell: That's the bartender's
line!
Dr. Greenbaum: I object!
Sen. Combover: Are you a bartender?
Dr. Greenbaum: No sir, I am a doctor.
It is medically incorrect to imply that everyone can walk. If you were a REAL
lawyer, you would know that accessibility lawsuits are choking our legal
system!.
Sen. Combover: Are you a REAL doctor?
Dr. Greenbaum: No, but I play one on
TV. Mostly — sometimes I play a lawyer.
Father O'Reilly: I object! TV is not
the issue. It is irresponsible, perhaps religiously incorrect, to suggest that
a priest would associate with a lawyer!
Sen. Combover: Are you also an actor?
Father O'Reilly: No, but I play one on
TV. When do we get paid?
Sen. Combover: In the interest of
humor correctness, can we agree on a compromise? "Three professionals of
indeterminate gender enter a public establishment, in which alcoholic beverages
may or may not be served. A host/server/waitperson who may or may not be
associated with the preparation of beverages, alcoholic or otherwise, and who
is not necessarily assumed to be an avid listener of patrons' problems,
inquires of the parties, collectively and separately, whether there is any
humorous intent, express or implied, in the fact of their simultaneous arrival
at the aforementioned establishment."
And when Congress keeps this up long enough, it eventually turns into a joke.