Today we present a challenge to the Phil Are GO! Joke-Getting Assault Squad (JGAS), our hand-picked group of the most charitable and sympathetic staffers. Their task? To figure out why these are comics. It sounds easy, but nothing could be harder or less funny. Do you think you understand why these comics are comical? See if you can Spot The Joke! The JGAS's analysis is posted after each "uncomic".
Both of today's joke challenges come to us from the August 10, 1968 issue of The Saturday Evening Post.
Theory #1 - The woman's sophistication with regard to wine choice will make her an excellent spouse and/or life partner, but a very expensive one. This is funny.
Theory #2 - The woman, due to her discerning taste in wines, would appear to lead a life of refinement and luxury, despite her having obviously made her dress out of a bit of the meadow. This is funny.
Theory #3 - The lady, having spent a life drinking seventy-eight cent wines, knows one when she tastes one. Therefore, if her date has spent seventy-nine cents on the bottle in question, he has been swindled out of one penny. Depending on their particular state's laws on larceny, this may or may not be funny.
Theory #4 - The lady, whom the viewer may understand to be referring to the bottle of wine, is, in fact, looking at one of the flowers in the meadow. Assuming that the man has prepared the meadow for their date by purchasing and planting each bloom himself (which would generally be regarded as a romantic gesture), one of the flowers seems to be of inferior quality as compared to the other flowers, letting down the lady's experience for the evening. This is funny.
Theory #5 - Rather than being pleased that the man has arranged a romantic date by buying a bottle of wine to enjoy in a moonlit flowered meadow, the woman chooses to focus on the seeming inferiority of the wine. She will marry him regardless, and wait until her husband lies on his death bed, breathing his last, to remind him how he bought her terrible wine on their first date. This is funny.
Theory #6 - Arsenic usually sells for several dollars per bottle... not seventy-nine cents. This is funny.
Theory #1 - The boy has chosen to wash his ducks in a kiddie pool, while his mother expected him to was them in the cargo area of her Subaru wagon, which is famous for its water-tight weather sealing and general build quality. This is funny.
Theory #2 - The boy is bathing his ducks himself, rather than letting the housekeeper do it for him, which is obviously one of her duties. This is funny.
Theory #3 - Despite the fact that the housekeeper reminded him to wash them yesterday, the boy is only just now washing his ducks, while his mother impatiently waits to take them all to the duck cotillion. This is funny.
Theory #4 - The boy is apparently using soap to wash his ducks. The housekeeper has tried time and time again to teach him that a duck's feathers are coated with an oil from the bird's uropygial gland, spread over the bird's plumage by the process of preening, and that soap is neither helpful nor necessary for duck-washing. The boy's inability to understand this is funny.
Theory #5 - Despite being clearly wealthy enough to afford not only ducks, but also a housekeeper, the boy and his mother live in a car. This is funny.
Theory #6 - The boy is washing the ducks he believes belong to his mother, although he bears a greater resemblance to the housekeeper, suggesting that his relationship to the woman in the car is a sham that will ultimately cause him horrible emotional trauma when the truth comes out someday. This is funny.
[Commenter theories will be published in this peer-reviewed journal. -Mgmt.]