June 25, 1992
Dear Everyone:
Did I mention that I've been watching
The Tonight Show a lot lately? I
don't watch it when it's on, of course; it's much too late.
Instead, I tape it one night and
watch it the next evening while I exercise.
I never bothered with the show before; but now that
most of the networks are on the West Coast Schedule, shows start an hour
earlier. Things that used to be
on at 10:00 (too late for me) are now on at nine o'clock and I "watch"
them while I finish my evening chores, instead of taping them for later
viewing.
Consequently, I have a lot less "deferred viewing"
to do. But this presents a
problem. Deferred viewing is what
I usually watch while I'm exercising. No
D.V., no exercise. You can't,
after all, "simulate cross-country skiing" and read a book at the same
time. Ditto for sit-ups.
So now, I tape
The Tonight Show.
Think of it as "Jay
Leno's Political Commentary and Exercise Videos".
(Just don't let Jane Fonda find
out.) Like the late, great Will
Rogers, Leno gets his best jokes from the day's headlines.
Actually, Rogers used to
literally get laughs just by reading the daily papers on-stage.
And, of course, this
is an election year.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised
if it was Leno who begged
Johnny Carson
to "please, please, please don't leave until the election year starts!"
Naturally,
Dan Quayle
provides the most material. First
it was Murphy Brown's
"unwed child". Now it's the Great
Potato-With-an-E Scandal. Although,
as one guest pointed out, "at least he's smart enough to prefer golfing
to spelling".
Sam Donaldson
(his hair really does look like it's painted on) was a guest one night
and wanted to know if Leno, like other talk show hosts, would invite the
Big Three presidential candidates to appear on The Tonight Show.
Leno said no, because "you have
to be nice to a guest."
He prefers to "degrade and
humiliate them all equally."
Of course, some people feel that Leno is picking on
Quayle while others complain that Quayle Jokes are too easy.
Like shooting fish in a barrel.
Now, let's stop and think about this for a moment,
shall we? Shooting fish in a
barrel. What does that
entail?
1.
First, you have
to find a barrel. Not that easy
these days. Where would you go to
get one? A hardware store?
Nursery?
2.
Fill the barrel
with water. What?!
In the middle of a six-year
drought? How many gallons does
this barrel hold?
3.
Add fish.
Presumably live ones.
Unless we're talking about
tropical fish from a pet store, I haven't the faintest idea where you
would go to get these.
4.
Point a firearm
down into the barrel.
5.
Fire.
Plus, now you've got fish blood-and-guts all mixed
in with your water. And, speaking
of water, wouldn't the bullet also go through the side of the barrel?
So now, all that precious water
is spilling out of the barrel onto the ground, or the rug, depending on
where you set the barrel.
And as for the barrel, what are you going to do
with it now.? It won't hold water
anymore. Are you going to turn it
into a planter box?
All in all, shooting fish in a barrel strikes me as
a pretty expensive way to do something easy, just because it's easy.
And dumb.
Though, maybe not as dumb as Dan Quayle.
Love, as always,
Pete
| Previous | Next |