Chatological Humor* (Updated 11.10.06)

* Formerly known as "Funny? You Should Ask ."

Daily Updates: 11.08.06 | 11.09.06 | 11.10.06

Gene Weingarten's controversial humor column, Below the Beltway , appears every Sunday in the Washington Post Magazine. He aspires to someday become a National Treasure, but is currently more of a National Gag Novelty Item, like rubber dog poo.

He is online, at any rate, each Tuesday, to take your questions and abuse.

He'll chat about anything...

This week's poll: Men | Women

Weingarten is the author of "The Hypochondriac's Guide to Life. And Death" and co-author of "I'm with Stupid," with feminist scholar Gina Barreca. "Below the Beltway" is now syndicated nationally by The Washington Post Writers Group .

New to Chatological Humor? Read the FAQ .

____________________

Gene Weingarten: Good afternoon.

Now that it is too late to help the evil ones, I can reveal my son's brilliant prescription for a surprise Republican win today. We were watching TV last week, where the news was bleak for Bush, reporting that he was having a hard time finding candidates who wanted to appear with him. He'd get to Republican campaign events, and the candidate would, like, hide in the bathroom until he left. He was reduced to appearing either with candidates who were basically unopposed, or candidates whose campaigns were so far down the pooper it didn't really matter if they lost another dozen percentage points or so. He was like the geek legacy at a frat party... go over there, talk to Fnyoosh.

So, Dan is watching this and says, "You know what Bush should do? He should start campaigning for Democrats."

It would have been the political masterstroke of the new century! Bush shows up at a Webb campaign appearance, glad-handing, back-patting, posing thumbs-up behind the candidate for a killer photo-op. He could have flipped eight or nine presumptive Dem victories in a single whistlestop weekend.

---

I'm not going to write a single snarky or disrespectful sentence about the tragic happenings that have befallen evangelist Ted Haggard, as they are so sad and tragic and everything. A poem would be better.

Higgledy Piggledy

Teddy Evangelist

Got a massage but says

There was no [f-word].

Bought but used none of the

Methlyamphetamine --

God, the man's guilty of

Being a schmuck!

(Okay, TWO poems:)

Higgledy Piggledy

Haggard the Hypocrite

Wanted gay marriage plans

Put right to death.

Now it would seem that quite

Homoerotically

Teddy has got in a

Hell of a meth.

---

Okay, then.

Thank you Michael Sewell for this excellent headline .

And on the aptonym front, thank you to the dozens of people who alerted me to this line, from The Post:

Nearly a third of currently fished species are already in a state of collapse, said Boris Worm , a marine conservation biologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and the study's lead author.

Also, Curtis Edmonds found this in the Dallas Morning News:

The past doesn't matter to Woods. He looks at this year's OSU offense like it's the lottery, only everybody's a winner. "Coach Fedora pulls a name out of a hat and goes with it," Woods said.

Sarah Doelp, followed by several other women, and no men, pointed out the horror in this FBOFW last week. Is there any man who can find it?

Okay, time's up, guys.

April is in a ladies room, wearing no shoes. --

Please take today's poll. Some of you have either guessed or researched who the comic is. I will be able to explain, midway through, where so many of you screwed up.

The Comic Pick of the Week is Sunday's Watch Your Head . First Runner Up is Sunday's Baby Blues . Honorables: Saturday's Baby Blues . Saturday's Mother Goose and Grimm .

Special commendation to Monday's Sally Forth , which can only be interpreted as a penis joke.

I hope you all noticed that Friday's Zippy was the embodiment of an entry in the Style Invitational, by Jay Shuck.

And finally, a question:

Please critique Sunday's Opus . What does it mean, and is it good? You are entering a debate that has already started between me and someone else.

Okay, let's go.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Do you think people's opinions would change if you told them when the jokes were from?

Gene Weingarten: Yes.

Gene Weingarten: Well, maybe. This guy died in 1994.

_______________________

Earlybird: wow, I was the second person to vote in the pole (men). Does that make me a loser?

Also, the first person to vote was wrong about which bit was the funniest. Wrong, or a woman taking the men's poll. The funniest line is the one about Satan mowing the lawn.

Gene Weingarten: You said "pole (men)".

I was the first. I was not wrong. But you were not way off.

_______________________

Allentown, Pa.: I loved the argument from your friend's brother in the updates last week: "Here's the thing -- when people say 'being gay is a CHOICE', we need to remember that RELIGION is a choice."

It leads me to think, why not just make "gay" a religion? Stranger things have happened; in the last British census Star Wars fans tried to get "Jedi" declared a religion by having enough people claim it as their faith when surveyed.

Just imagine it: a religion with fashionable vestments, hymns with a good bass beat, and being caught with a male escort being not such a big deal.

Gene Weingarten: Could we make "smartass" a religion, too? I could use the tax break.

_______________________

Portland, Ore.: That's Denis Leary, with one "n," Mr. Editor Man. You stepped on one of the best jokes. Certainly the most enjoyably vicious.

washingtonpost.com: Oopsy!

Gene Weingarten: Ah. Well, I would argue that it's not exactly stepping on the joke.

Gene Weingarten: Speaking of which, did you call catch that u-tube thing of Denis Leary at the Redsox game? "We got two Jews"? It was in my update a few weeks ago. Lizzie, can we re-post? It's great. It is the first time I've actually liked Denis Leary.

washingtonpost.com: Leary and Clarke ( YouTube.com )

Gene Weingarten: The great thing about this: The regular announcers are simply beside themselves. What Leary is doing is SO beyond the pale. He is going where they are never, ever permitted to go.

_______________________

Washington, DC: Gene, I don't know where else to turn for an answer to this, but it's a serious question and all that (i.e., (1) it's absolutely true, and (2) I'm not a crackpot). Okay, here goes:

Some time ago, my friend and I, after making a model of the U.S. Supreme Court out of potatoes as an apartment-warming gift for her then-boyfriend (now her husband, in spite of that), we had some leftover potatoes. So we put one of them on the windshield of his car, which was parked outside. Fine. But then something weird happened: the next time we went out to his car, about two days later, we saw that a part of his car was absolutely covered in bird droppings within about a two-foot radius of the potato. The potato was uneaten/unpecked, and the rest of the car was generally untouched, bird dropping-wise. So, um, are there any ornithologists in the house who could explain this bird behavior? If it helps, this happened in D.C., so maybe it's a pigeon thing or something. All I know is it happened about five years ago, and it still freaks us out.

Gene Weingarten: I will put this out there. The potatoes were outside the car, not inside, right?

_______________________

Double Dactyl Deception: I've had enough! If you want to keep DDing, fine, but can you please come up with a new nonsense beginning and stop ripping off "Higgledy Piggledy"? All the best double dactyls have their own twist on the nonsense words that begin them. They're not just filler. They have a point, you know. They can -- though nonsensical -- be relevant to the material at hand. That's the trick.

Gene Weingarten: Absolutely incorrect. They are intended to be nonsensical and it is only the lame who insist on some interior joke. Because it NEVER works.

_______________________

Leesburg, Va.: Have you had a chance to see Borat? I'm going to see it with a friend tonight, and I'm wondering if it's really as funny as all of these reviewers are saying. You're the expert when it comes to what's funny and what's not, so I figured I would get your opinion.

washingtonpost.com: Very nice!

Gene Weingarten: I will be seeing it this weekend, and will report back.

_______________________

New Hampshire: This will be the one and only time that I publish what would comprise my dream home. Some key components include: wood paneling around the outside like that of an 80s-era Caravan, a doorbell that plays Gloria Etefan's "1,2,3,4 C'mon Baby" song, garage doors that resembled eye lids. I'd have a hammock attached to a single tree. I'd want a pond with a full time gondolier, the front walk would be a treadmill so it'd be easy to get to the front door while leaving was real hard. I'd want shrubbery like that of Willy Wonka's chocolate factory except that they wouldn't be edible. As for the inside, I would have a room upstairs that had real grass that I could mow, a room with velcro walls, a gauntlet, a kitchen like the one from "Family Ties" that only has three walls and seating for a studio audience. I'd want flammable curtains that would ignite if you said the phrase "nice curtains", I'd want an elevator that started on the second floor and only went to the second floor, the dining room table would be shaped like Rob Reiner. The garage floor would be like a turntable so it could rotate my car so i never would have to back out of the driveway, my front door would be a big rubber flap with a small door on hinges at the bottom for my dog. I would have a family room complete with a real family.

Gene Weingarten: Thank you.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Ha, the News and Observer. I'm down with the Raleigh, N.C. (Go Pack!), but that paper's not that great. We used to call it the Snooze & Disturber.

Gene Weingarten: It is one of the greatest newspapers on Earth.

It carries my column.

_______________________

Opus: The set up is OK, but the second half doesn't make sense. For one thing, an anti-Republican voter is much less likely to have a gun and surely wouldn't point it at someone on their stoop. For another thing, the chuck eggs line doesn't make sense. It's trying too hard.

Gene Weingarten: Okay, but what is it trying to say? What is the point that you say it is missing?

_______________________

Minneapolis, Minn.: Among the non-partisan candidates for Soil and Water Supervisor, District 2, here in the Twin Cites, is Dan Flo. I voted for him purely on aptonym grounds.

Gene Weingarten: As well you should have.

_______________________

Draft Card: You still have yours?

You CARRY it in your wallet?

By the way: After serving a year in Viet Nam and a total of three years in the Army, I went by my local draft board to change my draft status. The infamous draft lady yelled at me for losing track of my then irrelevant draft card. I still remember her name over 35 years later. (I am 35 pound heavier today).

Gene Weingarten: Yes, I have two very odd things in my wallet.

The first is my draft card, which I am looking at right now. It reveals I am 5 ten and 145 pounds, and I'm sticking to that. It was filled in on a manual typewriter, dated Oct. 27, 1969. My middle name is Norman. My selective service number was 30751512.

The second odd thing I carry is the actual business card of actual astronaut Steve Smith, the 100th man in space. It says, simply, "Steve Smith -- Astronaut." I figured it might come in handy in a bar one night.

Speaking of which, there is a third odd thing in my wallet. It is a laminated, miniature copy of the degree I purchased for a story several years ago, issued by "Brentwick University." The degree is in "Outer Space Physics." When they send you your degree, which costs $850, they throw in one of these jobbies. Also, presumably, for use in a bar.

"Hey, baby. Come here often? I'm often here when I am not in space. What's that? Yeah, I'm an astronaut, as you can see by this hear card. What do you mean? MANY Jews are named Smith. We are particularly EDUCATED astronauts, as you can see by ...."

Liz, can we link to my Brentwick story, with the sidebar? 1998 or so? It's very weird, but also long, so you may want to leave it for later. Or ignore it altogether.

washingtonpost.com: This is Gene. He's a Little Worried About His Diploma , ( Post, Oct. 15, 2000 )

_______________________

opus is la, ME: This Opus fails. Rural Republicans are the ones with the guns and the hair-trigger reflexes.

Gene Weingarten: Okay, we've established that is probably an error. I am more interested right now in the point of the strip, and whether it is delivered.

_______________________

re: Opus: Democrats have no plan; the idea of them having one is funny. Republicans plan is to bomb us all or something like that. Destroy America.

Gene Weingarten: Bomb us all?

_______________________

doggerel: Your second poem would have been better if you'd used "homo-ironically."

Gene Weingarten: YES!!! Excellent! Consider it done.

_______________________

DD deception: So if the words at the start of the poem have no meaning what's the point of having them there in the first place? Why not just start the poem with the first line of actual original thought?

I seem to recall that your opinion on knock-knock jokes was that the funniest ones were the ones that broke the rules of knock-knockery.

Gene Weingarten: The idea is to get your brain rolling in a certain meter.

There is a variation of the Double Dactyl called the, um, I forget. But that one requires no gibberish.

_______________________

Op, US: Seems fairly clear; Dems are pathetic and ineffectual, while GOP is frightening and dangerous. I do think it's pretty good, with the middle panel being a poke at the media's tendency to present a false equivalence, petrified at being perceived as biased.

Gene Weingarten: Yep, that is what was intended. I contended it was too obscure, and confusing. But two people now have intuited it.

_______________________

McLean, Va.: Mr. Weingarten, it's early morning on voting day, and I can't sleep. This is going to be long, and I apologize, but I had to write to you. I'm scared that today my state is going to vote to deny rights to all single people, gay or straight. The proposed ammendment to the state constitution reads that no unmarried persons will be afforded the same "design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage," including, but not limited to domestic violence statutes and hospital rights. If my boyfriend of 2.5 years slips into a coma, I can't make any decisions for him, even though his parents are 6 hours away.

I don't really know what I'm hoping you will do, except for maybe two things. One, please help me urge people in Virginia to go vote, especially if you will vote no on propisition #1 (the ammendment). And two, Mr. Weingarten, please help me come to terms with the idea of living in Virginia if this ammendment passes. I am a student here, with family and friends, and to leave would be very hard, but I do not see any way to stay in a state that hates gay people so much it would legislate against straight ones just for emphasis. I'm sure there is humor in this somewhere, but I just can't see it.

Thank you for reading this, even if you don't post it.

Gene Weingarten: At the risk of offending you, I am not sure that a girlfriend of 2.5 years should have presumptive life or death decisionmaking power, when there are parents. I can see an enormous potential conflict there. But I suspect that all you and your boyfriend need to do is have a clear and binding contract on this issue, if he wants to. Presumably Amendment one is a default situation, right? Absent any other existing document?

That doesn't address the meat of your very earnest question. And please stop calling me Mr. Weingarten. Of course you can continue living in Virginia. If dissatisfaction with the existing government of a place were reasonable grounds to flee, I'd be in Canada by now. We are living under the worst presidency anyone currently alive has seen. If you feel strongly about this, become an activist.

_______________________

Woop Woop, Australia: Gene, I said the comedian was "good" and then I read some of his other stuff online. I want to change my answer to "one of the best." I blame you for this, for not choosing his best material. For shame.

Gene Weingarten: I couldn't choose his best material! It's unpublishable.

Yes, this is among the greatest standup comics who ever lived.

_______________________

Moral dilem, MA: While grocery shopping over the weekend, I used one of the self checkout aisles. I used my ATM card and asked for $35 dollars cash back.

The machine gave me $30, then a few seconds later, spit out $35.

After about a minute of deliberation, I went to customer service, explained the situation, showed my receipt, and returned $30 to the man behind the counter. He seemed stunned by my honesty.

Was I chump to return the extra money? A subsequent check of my bank account informs me that I was indeed not charged for the extra $30, so it would have been free money.

What would you have done in my place? What would other chatters have done?

Gene Weingarten: I might have kept the money, but not out of dishonesty.

I might have kept the money simply because I value my time.

There was always a chance that it had taken all the money from your account, so that if you returned it, you then would have had to come back, with proof that it had been your money, etc. A hassle.

I would just want to get out of there -- knowing mistakes are made all the time that cheat me of money, and I don't notice, and these things even out.

If it had been a significantly greater amount of money, I would have had to Go To Authorities, as you did.

_______________________

Atlanta, Ga.: How is it that you got hooked on Bill Hicks? I bet it has something to do with those very smart children of yours...

Gene Weingarten: And yes, this is Bill Hicks, and no, I actually introduced him to my kids. Dan worships him.

I discovered Hicks because he and I had a friend in common. I had one chance to see him, when he was a nobody, and didn't. Then he died.

_______________________

You wanted someone to say it: I'm here to tell you what you've said nobody would say.

I think marriage should be only between a man and a woman because I think that homosexuality is something that needs to be fixed. I actually believe that men and women were born gay, but I think it is something that needs treatment. I think of it much like I would think of a cleft palate. We wouldn't be thinking "It's just the way they were born, let's leave them be." We would find every resource and give every chance for that child to become normal. Instead of trying to fix homosexuality, we are normalizing it and making it easier to be gay.

If I feel this way, why in the world would I vote to make marriage between a gay couple legal? I don't feel it would lessen my marriage, I feel it would lessen my humanity.

Gene Weingarten: Thank you.

This person is being honest, and, I think, speaking for many others who refuse to be honest. And in appreciation of that fact, I'm not going to respond.

Thank you.

_______________________

Op, US: The previous correspondent is exactly wrong. The GOP half works much better; it is the Dem half and explanatory message that are ineffective. The "Dems are wusses" joke is tired and never was that funny, only kinda mean and condescending. The "GOP inspires existential terror" is relevant on several measures: truth and timeliness, and also as a "Halloween costume taken too far."

Gene Weingarten: Well, y'know, I think the Dem side works fine. So if you think the Repub side works....

_______________________

Odense, Denmark: "Gene Weingarten: We are so far from perfect, as a society. Anyone know a lot about the Netherlands? Are they as cool as I've heard? Should I move there? How hard is it to learn Dutch?"

I don't know about the Netherlands, but Denmark is very progressive and cool. You'd love it. Gay marriage has the exact same status as heterosexual marriage (of course, they don't even differentiate the two -- it's just ... "marriage"). I regularly see women walking hand in hand, and, less regularly, men. On top of that, most people don't even bother to get married until they're ready to have children, but they still refer to each other as husband, wife or spouse.

Learning Danish, however, is nearly impossible for non-Danes. But this is compensated for by the fact that nearly everyone speaks fluent English. On top of that, we get an ungodly amount of vacation and holidays.

And just wait until you see the women commuting on their bikes in high-heeled boots. It'll put VPL out of your mind in an instant.

Let me know when you need a place to stay.

Gene Weingarten: But doesn't the weather suck? And isn't everyone all melancholy? And don't all guys want to sleep with their mothers?

_______________________

Possible Genetic Mutation: I have medical question(s) for you, possibly bizarre, possibly paranoid, but definitely in your line of expertise. When I was younger, I remember a friend of mine describing how he hated Mexican food because of the cilantro, that it tasted like soap. I thought this was distinctly odd, until I read somewhere that there is a genetic trait that causes cilantro to taste like soap to some people. OK, then! I was glad that I didn't have that specific trait and could enjoy Mexican food in peace.

So, some 10 years later, I'm eating a hoity-toity mixed-greens-and-herb salad, and I start wondering what tastes so odd. Lo and behold, it's the cilantro, tasting a little, well, soapy.

My questions:

1. Is it true that genetics are behind the soapy/non-soapy cilantro dichotomy?

2. If my experience of cilantro changes, does that mean that my DNA has been altered somehow?

3. If so, is there someone I can sue to get my old taste buds back, because I really like Mexican food.

Gene Weingarten: To me, it tastes like 20 Mule Team Borax. I have been told this is indeed genetic, as is the ability to smell asparagus pee. What has happened to me over time is that the soapy taste has become less strong, and it no longer destroys a dish, it merely makes it annoying.

A chef once told me that the soapy taste was also affected by how fresh the cilantro is. The older, the soapier. I dunno. I do know that Julia Child once told me that cilantro tasted like soap to her, and she didn't like it either.

I have no idea why you had my experience in reverse.

_______________________

Leary Li, NE: To me, the most devastating twist in the Leary joke is "camouflaged it with punchlines." I would have put that last.

Gene Weingarten: Yes, that is the great line in that one. But I don't think you can put it last, because "did it first" is the stopper. You know? Once you say that, the joke is over.

_______________________

Christian Bashing, Gene?: Gene: "So what do people with certain biblical values tell their kids about how all Jews will go to hell? Or what about the biblical value of all them patriarchs having multiple wives and concubines? You gonna pass those values on, too?"

Gene - your mischaracterization of Christianity is wrong and unfair and hateful and, frankly, beneath you. The Bible doesn't teach that all Jews are going to hell, but that they will be saved by grace because of God's love for the patriarchs (yes, the polygamist patriarchs). The Bible is full of God's unending love of the Jews, and no one who has read it can come away thinking that cursing Israel is a good idea. Yes, there are some Christian anti-Semites but they are a tiny misguided minority and to paint us all with that brush is misleading and unfair. Every group has some bad apples, but to stereotype us all based on these is something you would never do to another group.

As for polygamy in the bible, anyone who has read the bible knows that the polygamy of the patriarchs had disastrous results. I'd be happy to provide a list of horrendous outcomes resulting from the polygamy of Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, etc. Yes, some patriarchs were polygamists, but it was NOT A GOOD THING. They were human, they made mistakes, we read the bible to learn from them, and any ambiguity about the appropriateness of polygamy is cleared up by Jesus himself in the New Testament. So to answer your question, No, of course we don't pass anti-Semitism and pro-polygamy values on to our children because they are not biblical values, which is what we had been talking about.

Having said that, I still heart you, but no virtual panties, mister, you're married.

Gene Weingarten: Could someone who knows more of the Bible than I do weigh in here and let me know if an apology is in order?

I have had many fundamentalists (Johnny Hart among them) inform me that a simple, direct reading of the New Testament makes it quite clear than any person who has been exposed to the teachings of Jesus, and who fails to accept Him, is doomed. Is this not true?

Knowledgeable responses only, please.

_______________________

Are you?: "We are living under the worst presidency anyone currently alive has seen. If you feel strongly about this, become an activist. "

Are you?

Gene Weingarten: Obviously.

_______________________

Doonesbury Redux: I seem to recall that Doonesbury was moved to Page 3 of the Style section when Trudeau objected to the shrinking of the space for all the four-panel comics in the regular comics section. He may have even delivered an ultimatum on it. Doonesbury is significantly larger than the other comics. I like the way it stands on its own in that spot and I would suspect that it is read by people who generally ignore the comics section.

Gene Weingarten: That is correct. I was wrong to imply that it was because of the content. Trudeau asked for the larger space.

_______________________

Double Dactyl: Smacketty-Wacketty

Midterm elections could

Sweep in an era

Conservatives dread

Let's hope the Dems do not

Characteristically

Go from a "blowout"

To "blew it," instead

Gene Weingarten: Very nice. Good wordplay. Your meter is off, though. Remember the first three lines in each stanza needs to be two dactyls, and the final lines a dactyl plus a beat. Edited:

Smacketty-Wacketty

Midterm elections could

Sweep in an era Con-

Servatives dread.

Let's hope the Dems do not

Characteristically

Go from a "blowout" to

"Blew it," instead.

Gene Weingarten: Er, and it really should begin Higgledy Piggledy.

_______________________

Gene Weingarten: Oh, by the way... could the person who suggested the name Murphy please identify hisself or herself to Liz. We won't post it. I did find it, and I do owe you something! As does Murphy, who is sitting next to me incessantly demanding that I throw a squeaky toy for her to retrieve.

_______________________

The Poll: I personally feel that just reading a stand up comic's material isn't really fair, because we all know that the delivery can make things a thousand times funnier (or not.)

Gene Weingarten: Some make it less funny. I would argue Stephen Wright ruined his material by actually saying it. Hicks was a performer, but he was not the performer that, say, Pryor was.

Man, all the great ones are dead, aren't they?

_______________________

Madison, Wisc.: I can soullessly report that I hated pretty much all the jokes in the poll. I Googled them, and it turns out the comedian was someone who I never thought was funny and always thought was extremely overrated. The feeling of confirmation was blissful.

What is it about dead comedians that leads to people automatically remembering them funny, no matter how bad they were in real life? For God's sake, I remember people mourning Sam Kinison, whose idea of funny was to scream after every bad joke.

Gene Weingarten: Sam was pretty good, too.

_______________________

Washington DC: A few years ago I asked for $65 from an ATM and got $70. It wasn't even my bank, and I didn't take the effort to try to fix the error. A month later, there was a $5 adjustment on my statement.

So don't worry, they'll fix it.

Gene Weingarten: My assumption, too.

_______________________

Gallery Place, Washington, D.C.: So, Gene, have you ever tried stand-up yourself? You consistently claim to be funny - 99th percentile funny, even - and maybe for once your voice will be an asset!

I'd come see you if you did...

Gene Weingarten: I did it once, and was godawful. Liz, can you find this? Google me and the Improv.

I covered an open-mike event by participating.

I also did it at a celeb fundraiser once. The funniest celeb in D.C. thing. I finished third to two congressmen, so you know how bad I was.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Are you saying that not everyone notices that smell in your pee after you eat asparagus? I always think naysayers are denying the fact that their pee smells afterwards and are being prudes for not wanting to discuss. This changes everything!

Gene Weingarten: Correct. Some people don't smell it, and they think their pee doesn't stink.

_______________________

Steven Wright: I think you know he's not, but you implied Steven Wright is dead. He only seems that way on stage.

Gene Weingarten: Wait.. .he's not DEAD? Yes he is, isn't he?

_______________________

The Foggiest Bottom: In the last four or five months, I have been experiencing a mysterious reaction. I'm not normally an allergy sufferer, but it is the only way I can describe it. The strangest part is that it only occurs on my right side. The right side of my throat starts to tickle. Then my right eye tears up and runs. My right sinus starts dripping down the back of my throat. It gets worse and worse, and I begin coughing. Sometimes it's so bad that I cannot speak or breathe without coughing and/or gagging. Then, it begins to subside. The episode lasts about five minutes. These episodes can occur anywhere - at home, work, on the bus, outside, inside, while I'm in bed, it doesn't seem to matter. It doesn't happen every day. Sometimes I'll have more than one episode in a day. Sometimes I'll go for days or more than a week without it. It's frightening and/or disruptive to anyone I am around.

How can one side of me be allergic? Also to note - my chronic pain problems (migraines, osteoarthritis) are also only on my right side.

What do you think Gene, brain tumor on the left side?

Gene Weingarten: This is really interesting, and beyond me. Any otorhinolaryngologists out there?

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: I'll post the text of the Improv article at the end of the show.

_______________________

Worked O, UT: Hi Gene,

Your chat has transcended the boundaries of its media -- I was at the Dupont Circle Washington Sports Club the other night, and someone had printed out the whole thing and left it in the magazine rack, between "AARP" and "Professional Remodeler."

washingtonpost.com: Wow.

Gene Weingarten: Wow.

_______________________

Silkworm joke punchline: Neither. They both ended up in a tie.

Gene Weingarten: Thank you.

_______________________

Religion Major: The problem with saying that your evangelical friend is right or wrong is that (s)he is both! The Bible is open to so many interpretations that one devout, Bible-beleiving Christian could say that all non-Christians are going to hell and another could say just the opposite. Jesus did speak of people being thrown into the fire where there will be weeping and nashing of teeth if you don't believe, but whether that means that people are going to hell or whether it means that people are going to suffer if they don't help others is open to debate.

Jews of Jesus day for the most part did not believe in an afterlife, so they might well have interpreted him as meaning the latter, but there really is no way to know.

If there is one thing I learned from studing religion in college it is that there are myriad ways to interpret the Bible. That's why when you go to a theology section of a bookstore, there are shelves and shelves of books trying to figure out what it all means. To say that there is only one way to understand the Bible is, in my view, arrofant and wrong.

Gene Weingarten: Okay, we'll accept this until something better shows up.

_______________________

Gene Weingarten: Hm. I just inadvertently deleted my entire analysis of the poll. It will take too long to recreate, so.... it will be the first item in tomorrow's update.

_______________________

The otorhinolaryngologists : would be a terrible band name

Gene Weingarten: Actually, it would be a great name.

_______________________

Anonymous: The intention of the the Virginia amendment is to eliminate the possibility of civil unions in Virginia. However, it is so broadly worded that it could invalidate existing contracts between unmarried heterosexual couples, or same sex business partners. Amendment no. 1 is not a default document, but one that would invalidate existing documents. The Amendment reads:

"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."?

Gene Weingarten: But surely this cannot prevent me from signing a document saying that I want my girlfriend, and not my parents, to make decisions on whether I live or die? Obviously, no one can make a law saying I cannot do that. Right?

_______________________

Asparagus pee: Even more fascinating, genetics determine whether your pee smells and whether you can smell the asparagus pee -- and these are two different factors. So because my pee didn't smell to me, I didn't know if it didn't smell or if I couldn't smell it. Needless to say my husband and I had to perform a scientific experiment to determine what was the case. In fact my pee doesn't smell and I can't smell asparagus pee. Case closed.

Gene Weingarten: Wow. I didn't know that first part. some people don't have asparagus pee?

_______________________

Not dead yet: But stick around.

Gene Weingarten: Wow. I am remembering a similar comic, then, who died about a year ago. Who was that?

_______________________

Steven Wright: ...is still alive. You might be thinking of Mitch Hedberg, whose jokes are sorta similar to Wright's and who recently died young.

Gene Weingarten: Yep, thassit.

_______________________

Guinea, West Africa: Hiya Gene,

I thought you would be happy to hear that poop humor really is universally loved. I'm living in a village in Guinea right now where cows, sheep, dogs, small children, etc. run and poop freely. I've gotten to the point where I don't even register the poo anymore, other than as a marker of where not to step, and I figured that Guineans were just as blase about it. Then when I was walking to the school the other day I saw a perfect round giant cow pie in the middle of the road--with a stick stuck in and a little flag of cloth flapping happily in the wind. Well maybe that speaks less to the globalness of poop humor and more to the fact that now whenever I see poop, anywhere in the world, I think of you.

Happy election day!

Gene Weingarten: Speaking of Bill Hicks, he was a big fan of magic mushrooms, and he used to reserve at least a half hour out of every trip for laughing his arse off over the fact that the mushroom buttons grew on cow poop.

_______________________

Tampa Bay, Fla.: This from Charles Lane's article, "A Powerful Voice in Patent Disputes," in Monday's Post: "None of the justices are experts on patent law."

Are Tom the Butcher and his toadies so seized with excising lively and insightful content from your work that they've let the rest of the paper go to hell grammatically? And since you know everybody at The Post, what can you tell us about this Lame, uh, Lane guy?

Gene Weingarten: You ever see "Shattered Glass," the movie about journalist felon Stephen Glass? Well, Charles Lane was the good editor who exposed him. He had been editor of The New Republic.

So he made a small mistake here. A copydesk shoulda caught it.

("None" is singular.)

_______________________

Free money: It's not nearly as satisfying to correct an ATM error as it is to hand back to some dumbass cashier an inadvertent extra dollar. Without fail they'll look at you in astonishment and say, "Wow, you're really honest!" You get to be a frigging saint for only one dollar.

Gene Weingarten: It's worth just giving her one of YOUR dollars.

Actually, that is a trick of grifters and really good shoplifters. Just before you steal something, you do something minorly honest.

_______________________

Centreville, Va.: Thank you for continuing to help keep the memory of Bill Hicks alive. And never let it be forgotten that in the final year of his life, indeed, just after he had already passed away from pancreatic cancer, the American Comedy Awards finally saw fit to honor him with a nomination for the year's best male comic. And who won that year? F---ing Carrot Top.

washingtonpost.com: Is it just me or has Carrot Top had plastic surgery?

Gene Weingarten: No one answer that. We are not going to have a discussion of Carrot Top, with Bill Hicks as background noise.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Someone needs to invent a dog toy throwing device akin to the putt machine that spits the ball back and a tennis machine that spits out balls. Something like a very short distance ball tosser. I wonder if dogs would go for it or if it needs to be a human that does the tossing.

Gene Weingarten: It would work, but only if the toy could then engage in a growly game of pull with the dog, before the dog finally releases the toy. Essential.

_______________________

Virginia Amendment: Gene Weingarten: But surely this cannot prevent me from signing a document saying that I want my girlfriend, and not my parents, to make decisions on whether I live or die? Obviously, no one can make a law saying I cannot do that. Right?

Well, it depends on what judge looks at it. There is a lot of room for interpretation here. This is the state constitution, not just a normal statute. A constitution can easily prevent specified types of contracts from being enforceable.

Gene Weingarten: Hard to believe. Really.

_______________________

On Gay Marriage and Insurance Premiums: "Here's an interesting thought: If there is gay marriage, then it will suddenly become obvious to insurance companies who is gay and who is not -- based on name of spouse. They can't ask now, but they won't have to. So will they charge more for gays, in an era of AIDS? Will that be legal? Moral?"

In states that require blood tests before issuing marriage licenses, an HIV test is performed at the same time. This, to me, seems like a logical answer to this question. Require pre-marriage blood tests for everyone. A person in a monogamous relationship, with a negative HIV test, assuming no IV drug use, would fall into the lowest possible risk group for contracting AIDS - gay or straight. I can't imagine a way to justify higher premiums for gays based on risk of AIDS, given a negative HIV test and a marriage contract, without stooping to outright bigotry.

Gene Weingarten: You think we are beyond outright bigotry?

We are talking insurance companies here. If their figures show that married gays are more likely to contract AIDS than married straights....

(I have never understood how insurance companies can get away with charging more for younger people, less for women, etc., based on statistical predictions of behavior by group.)

_______________________

Re: You wanted someone to say it: Um, isn't that what people used to think about left-handedness? My mom's best friend grew up in Ireland, taught by nuns, and they actually tied her left hand behind her back to keep her from using it. That also had some theological background to it, as I recall (Satan sat at the left hand of god or something). Gene, you said once that when you were a child your parents transferred things from your left hand to your right until you started to prefer your right - did you ever ask why?

Gene Weingarten: Yes, they thought the world was easier for the right handed.

_______________________

Dimwitted comment of yours: In an updated about insurance, you wrote: "So will they charge more for gays, in an era of AIDS? "

Um, last time I checked, a few hundred straight people were HIV positive, maybe give or take a dozen. I HOPE you were being ironic.

Gene Weingarten: Gimme a break. We are talking about insurance companies here. In this country, statistically, a gay person is more likely to contract AIDS than a straight person. That's all that will be on the table, for them.

_______________________

Virgin, IA: Gene Weingarten: But surely this cannot prevent me from signing a document saying that I want my girlfriend, and not my parents, to make decisions on whether I live or die? Obviously, no one can make a law saying I cannot do that. Right?

Gene, you remind me of my little sister, who wouldn't believe that the Government could make people go off to war. I had to get out the encyclopedia (this was a while ago) to prove it to her. Of course, she was 10 years old. You are so naive.

Gene Weingarten: I demand that this be resolved right now. Does this law actually suggest a person cannot legally appoint his own plug-puller?

_______________________

Anonymous: Gene -- I'm a 49-year-old gay man, and if nothing else, the Ted Haggard scandal has convinced me that it's never too late for me to fulfill my dream of becoming a male prostitute for an elite clientele--and that I don't need to be in LA, DC, or NYC -- to do so. Mike Jones is a god to middle-aged homos everywhere.

Gene Weingarten: Thank you.

_______________________

So, to clarify...: Was it Mitch Hedberg's delivery you don't like, or Steven Wright's? Or both? Personally, I thought Wright's is hilarious. Hedberg always managed to sound like he was reading his (badly) from a teleprompter.

Gene Weingarten: I think they are both weak, actually. But Hedberg was the one I was thinking about.

_______________________

Scientific sniffer, again...: Here is a summary of some scientific studies, footnotes removed:

"Allison and McWhirter first showed that the ability to produce methyl mercaptan after eating asparagus is not universal. Some people would produce detectable amounts in the urine after eating only three or four spears of asparagus, while others would produce none even after eating as much as one pound (0.45 kg) of asparagus. In their random sample of 115 human subjects, they demonstrated that this ability occurred in about 40% of the population Interestingly, the BMJ later reported a study in which all the subjects could produce methyl mercaptan, but their ability to smell it in the urine differed. Those who were able to smell the odour in their own urine could smell it in the urine of anyone who had eaten asparagus irrespective of whether or not that person could smell it. The authors suggested that the ability to smell these substances in one's or, indeed, another's urine was also genetically determined."

Gene Weingarten: Thank you!

There is nothing that has not been studied.

_______________________

Amend. No. 1: Well, someone can pass a law to say pretty much anything... and it seems the Amendment says that you cannot sign a document to have your GF make decisions instead of your parents. Whether that law is ultimately constitutional is a different step in the process; there is no immediate safeguard to prohibit unconstitutional laws from being passed. Someone would have to go to court to enforce their BF/GF agreement by claiming the Amendment was unconstitutional, which it almost certainly is.

But sometimes we just keep passing laws until the courts give up. Or begin to agree with us. Which is what may be happening with the partial birth abortion laws that keeps bouncing around.

Gene Weingarten: This sounds authoritative. Well, it will be declared unconstitutional if passed.

_______________________

Pat the Perfect, ME: Even the extremely prescriptive American Heritage Dictionary offers this about using "none" as a plural:

" and then there were none." The closing words of this well-known nursery rhyme should dispel the notion that "none" can only take a singular verb. People opposing the plural use base their argument on the fact that "none" comes from the Old English word an, meaning "one." But the citational evidence against restricting "none" is overwhelming. "None" has been used as both a singular and plural pronoun since the ninth century. The plural usage appears in the King James Bible as well as the works of John Dryden and Edmund Burke and is widespread in the works of respected writers today. 1

Of course, the singular usage is perfectly acceptable. Whether you should choose a singular or plural verb depends on the effect you want. You can use either a singular or a plural verb in a sentence such as "None of the conspirators has (or have) been brought to trial." However, "none" can only be plural when used in sentences such as "None but his most loyal supporters believe (not believes) his story."

Gene Weingarten: Patricia, I cannot believe you of all people are contributing to this.

You accept "None were...."?

_______________________

Alexandria, VA: Gene, the guy equating homosexuality to a cleft palate just makes me sad. There are still plenty of people who think the curse of Ham (Ham sees his Dad Noah naked, Noah curses him and his descendants who are the forefathers of Africans) makes blacks less than human, so should I get an operation to fix my complexion?

Gene Weingarten: Oh, obviously it is a sad and wrong and backward and fear-filled attitude. I wasn't endorsing it, obviously. I just applauded the person's courage to articulate it in this forum.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I read I'm With Stupid on Saturday. Thought you'd like to know that 1. Alexandria has a nice library and 2. that while reading a religious "save yourself NOW" pamphlet fell out. I wondered if someone that would read your book felt the need to put that in there as a joke or if someone was duped by the cover and was outraged it had nothing to do with religion.

Gene Weingarten: I bet it is the former.

_______________________

Haggard, Colo.: Double dactyls aside, I think the creepiest thing about the whole Haggard scandal is his response to it. Having warped his life and the lives of his family by buying into the idea that being gay is bad, he could have taken this opportunity to finally choose a new path, to say "You know, there's a reason I couldn't overcome this, and that reason is that everything we say about homosexuality is wrong." Instead, he attacks himself, calling himself a deceiver and a liar (well, yeah), as well as repulsive and dark. As much condemnation as he deserves for trying to keep psychologically healthier people locked in the same closet he was in, I really pity him for being so needy of the acceptance of people who hate him that he negates himself.

Also, in this case, is Haggard an aptonym?

Gene Weingarten: Very well put. But I think he is beyond real help. His entire life has been a lie. He can't face it.

_______________________

Involuntary Elvis: Gene,

For the past two days, I have experienced a moderate spasmodic twitching on the left side of my upper lip. An episode lasts several minutes, and the episodes occur about 10 times a day, at varying intervals. I look like a total jackass when this is going on. Am I going to die?

Gene Weingarten: Involuntary Elvis would be a great name for a rock band!

I dunno, but little twitchings seldom mean much. Eye twitchings don't. Sometimes, but incredibly rarely, they signal the start of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. But don't worry about that.

_______________________

Seattle, Wash.: Courage to be a bigot? Courage is confronting and overturning backwards beliefs.

There is no courage in an anonymous posting to an Internet chat.

Gene Weingarten: Actually, the courage is admitting it to her/him self. No obfuscation. No one else did that.

_______________________

Virginia Amendment: Chatters and Gene: You are all missing the point! This is an amendment to the state constitution, not a law -- thus it will be constitutional as soon as it is passed.

Scary, but true.

Gene Weingarten: No, no. It will be state constitutional. It will be ruled federally unconstitutional. Which supercedes.

_______________________

There were no, NE: Why is zero plural? i.e.

There were no birds in the yard.

There was one bird in the yard.

There were two birds in the yard.

Gene Weingarten: Good question!

_______________________

None=plural?: In her explanation, Pthep notes: "None but his most loyal supporters believe (not believes) his story." is acceptable. However, note that the sentence itself implies that the subject is plural -- i.e. it is "his most loyal supporters" that will be doing the believing. Accordingly, When contructed in a complex subject that is plural, then, yes, "none" can take a plural verb. That's a pretty narrow exception to the rule.

Gene Weingarten: Pthep?

_______________________

Cincinnati, Ohio: Hi Gene- If anybody has raised this one yet in the "how can you be against gay marriage" debate, I haven't seen it posted:

How about the effect of gay parents on children? Not the effect of the actual parenting -- I understand many gay parents are actually "better" at it than straight parents -- but the effect of being ostracized by much of society? In many parts of this country a kid with gay parents is going to get the crap beat out of him every day on the playground, get stared at every time they go out in public as a family, and possibly even be discriminated against by his teachers. (There was that case a couple years ago where a teacher punished a little boy for saying "lesbian" because she claimed it was a bad word.)

Of course it's not right that this should happen. Of course children should be treated fairly no matter who their parents are. But that's just not reality as it exists in America today and we need to recognize that.

For many people, being bullied in childhood leaves lasting scars well into adulthood. Adoption is supposed to be for the benefit of the child , not the parents, no matter how badly they want to be parents. Can you honestly say that allowing a gay couple to adopt a child is in the best interests of the child, when you know you are dooming the kid to be a social misfit?

washingtonpost.com: Are you kidding? Is this a joke?

Gene Weingarten: I believe it is not a joke. Some people are so viscerally opposed to this issue, and so unwilling to confront the real reason why, that they will raise any argument, however thin.

To answer: I would think that any set of gay parents intending to adopt would have thought this through very clearly. The would know exactly what to say to their child to minimize this sort of thing, and, more important, they would choose to live in places and among people where this would not be a problem.

"Ostracized by much of society" is an enormous overreach. "Ostracized in some pockets of bigotry" is closer. Gradually, as a society we are coming to understand that gay people are the same. The absolute same. Same strengths as straight people, same flaws, just as vulnerable to unfair criticism by selective example. I keep reminding people that there was a time in this country when reasonable, important people, pillars of the community, were debating whether women should have the vote. Same thing. This will not be an issue in 50 years. And people arguing against it will look, in retrospect, like Neanderthals.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Every time I get an unexplainable sore neck (like I do right now) I panic about having meningitis. Then I decide that I'll wait it out because having it checked is too much of an effort.

Would you classify this as "calculated risk taking" or "lazy hypochondria"?

Gene Weingarten: It is intelligent hypochondria. It was my form. The problem with that is if you are a genuine hypochondriac, the pain won't resove UNTIL you see the doctor. Being acutely aware of a pain, and constantly testing to see if it is still there, and carrying yourself slightly differently because of the pain, often causes the pain to continue or worsen.

_______________________

Enquiring Mi, ND: As a serious representative of American journalism, if you could interview Saddam Hussein, what would you ask? His favorite American TV show? What he thinks of Neil Patrick Harris?

Gene Weingarten: I would ask him to describe what it feels like to order the death of a political opponent who happens to be a child. What weighs on the mind of one who "must" make such a decision. I would ask it in a respectful manner, and he just might answer, and that would be valuable.

_______________________

Springfield, Va.: Gene, please consider one more view on the debate over gay marriage and the marriage amendment in Virginia.

My personal view is that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. I don't consider the relationship between two members of the same sex to be a marriage. I don't believe this a bigoted viewpoint, but it is a subject opinion.

However, I don't believe that I or the government have any right to impose such beliefs on others who feel differently. My church (Roman Catholic, if it makes a difference) has the right and obligation to proselytize its views on moral issues and to try to persuade others of their rightness. It does not have the right to attempt to enlist the government in advancing those views.

The role of the government vis-a-vis marriage relates to the enforcement of social contracts between two consenting adults. Other chatters have discussed why these arrangements shouldn't logically extend to relationships involving minors, more than two parties, or barnyard animals. Excepting these cases, any two consenting adults should have the right to enter into this social contract. This might also include (as in the case of two of my parents' close friends) to two siblings who never married and form a joint household.

Those arguing for the Virginia amendment point out that there are still avenues open to provide insurance coverage, jointly hold property, etc. However, the legal contract known as a marriage is a "blanket" way to allow two individuals to establish a household and enjoy the attendant rights and responsibilities. To say that the amendment doesn't discriminate against those in "alternative" relationships is disingenuous.

Sorry this wasn't funny. Poop on the marriage amendment.

Gene Weingarten: Hm. Now, wait a minute.

Your personal view is NOT that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. Your personal view is that marriage can exist between a man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman, and a brother and a sister! You do not LIKE that designation, but you support it.

You are a wild person! A libertarian! A tear-down-the-walls-and-build-it-all-over person. Good for you!

_______________________

Pat the Perfect, ME: I don't care much if "none" is plural, but I don't much like the spelling "supercedes." Totally the wrong root.

Gene Weingarten: I wrote it with an s and then changed it. So I was half right.

_______________________

Virginia Amendment: "It will be ruled federally unconstitutional."

Based on what?

Gene Weingarten: Equal protection. Slam dunk.

_______________________

Supreme, CT: Gene,

The federal courts have no jurisdiction over state constitutions. Man, you're batting .000 on this question. It's bad and serious and permanent: wake up!

Gene Weingarten: This is not right. It cannot be right. A state cannot declare it illegal to be Jewish. Even if the voters approve.

_______________________

Tac, KY: Are family photos on the mantel tacky? I agree that family photos don't belong on the living room walls and have managed to keep them off; however, my wife insists on keeping them on the mantel. This bothers me in a vague sort of way, but my wife isn't buying the tacky argument because I can't think of anything better to put up there. We have a clock (nothing fancy) but it looks stupid by itself (and even worse with the various other trinkets and curios we've picked up since we met). Any suggestions?

Gene Weingarten: I see no problem so long as you are fine with having a shrine to yourselves in prominent display in your house. This is completely a matter of personal taste, which some people have, and some people do not.

_______________________

Prosopagnos, IA: I just spent some time playing with the celebrity face matching tool at myheritage.com, and of course I put in a few different photos of my wife, the most beautiful woman I know.

The tool matched her, variously, with Kirsten Dunst, Linda Lovelace, Kenneth Branagh, and Vladimir Putin.

She will find this very funny. What's the funniest, or cleverest, way I can tell her?

Gene Weingarten: You have to set it up with the picture of her that elicits Putin, and have her do it herself.

He kind of does look like a woman, though.

_______________________

Tackytac, KY: In reference to your skull stick shift knob (heh. stick shift knob.), you said:

Gene Weingarten: Nope. Because I know it is tacky. It would only be tacky if I didn't know.

So, now that you've informed me that my display of photos of my family and friends is tacky, I can keep them where there are, protected by the Weingarten Postulate. Thanks!

Also, does it lower the tackiness level if the friends and family photos are on bookcases and tables, with my wall decor only art?

Gene Weingarten: No, because you had to be INFORMED it was tacky, ergo you did not think it was tacky prior to displaying it, hency there is no irony.

And you certainly are not okay by putting em on shelves, atop grand pianos, etc. Tacky is tacky. You are a rube.

_______________________

Gene Weingarten: Aaaaaand we are done.

I hope whoever you support in today's election wins. Except in certain cases. You know who you are.

Tomorrow's update begins with Bill Hicks.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Gene's Improv article.

So Who's the Comedian?, (Post, Sept. 14, 1999)

According to a recent poll, 84 percent of adult American men believe they are funnier than the average stand-up comic, and that if they ever got up behind a mike and in front of a brick wall they'd bring down the house.

I just made that poll up, but literal truth is inessential to being a stand-up comic, which I now am. I became a stand-up comic at 12:45 yesterday afternoon when I walked onto a stage at the Improv, Washington's top comedy club, and did a "bit." It was an open-mike casting call in which professional and semi-pro comedians had exactly two minutes each to perform for a big-shot producer, in the hope of landing a shot at a spot at the U.S. Comedy Arts Festival next February in Aspen, Colo.

During my two minutes, I learned many things about the craft of comedy, the main ones being:

1. Two minutes is a very, very, excruciatingly long time.

2. You should always remember not to inhale beads covered with spit, because you can die.

But I am getting ahead of myself.

I submitted my name as George Spelvin, the catchall pseudonym used in early theater when an actor did not wish to be identified by his real name. I used this name on the theory that no one would be old enough to have heard it, inasmuch as most of the 45 comics in attendance seemed to range from 25 years old to maybe 11. They also ranged from male to female, good to bad, and dirty to real dirty to un-%*#@$%l-believably dirty. One routine, by comic Douglas Berryhill, repeated the S-word 44 times, by my count. Remember, this is a two-minute gig.

Some jokes were printable, if not exactly genteel.

"My girlfriend calls me her Popeye," said Doug Hecox, "because of my build. I call her Sweet Pea because she has a bladder infection."

Kevin Downey Jr. confessed to being a little weird: "My dad says I'm too effeminate for my own good. But my gynecologist says there's nothing to worry about. . . . My wife asked me, if you could have sex with any woman living or dead, who would it be? I said Cindy Crawford, dead."

You would think an audience consisting entirely of stand-up comics would be pretty demanding. But this crowd was enthusiastic, since virtually all them are dreadfully underemployed. The 1990s have not been a prosperous time for club comics. Club comedy has been clobbered by cable TV--which makes good stand-up available for free--and by stricter DUI laws, which make people less likely to patronize drinking clubs. And so these comedians, by and large, had wounded eyes and a slightly hunted look, and they needed laughs and were not about to deny them to others.

One of the loudest laughers, and better comics, was Joe Hansard, from Dundalk, Md. Hansard says the biggest paycheck he ever got from a gig was $40. "Wait," he amended, pointing to fellow comic Nick Curtin, who looks exactly like a young Fatty Arbuckle, "Nick and I once got $50, but we had to split it."

The one-liners continued.

Wendy Webb said she had some lump on her arm and was hoping it would develop into a third nipple; it might help her get guys.

Debbie Perlman said she was weirded out by a sperm bank: "I can't imagine getting pregnant from a total stranger. (Pause.) While I'm sober."

One guy named Laughing Lenny may well have been a comic genius but he spoke so fast, and in such thick street dialect, that virtually no one in the audience could understand a thing he said. My notes read, verbatim: "lwa swa ig'n hawta fwahzz sma sheeee."

He got a nice round of applause.

I didn't decide to perform, for sure, until I heard Laughing Lenny.

I am not a comic, have never appeared onstage, am awkward before a mike, have no spontaneity and basically no interpersonal skills. But I have written some funny things in the newspapers, and I figured that if you can write funny, you can be funny. That was my first mistake.

My second mistake was not staying in my seat when George Spelvin's name was called. Good stand-up comics hone their acts over months if not years, polishing them before bathroom mirrors, their friends, etc. I developed the key element of mine the morning I went on. The last thing I did before I left the house was bring a box full of plastic beads, because I figured they could be a prop for something. I figured out what between Tenleytown and Van Ness on the Red Line, and wrote the bit in the margins of my Washington Post, which I then accidentally tossed away at the station.

Here's a fact I didn't know: When you are onstage in the spotlight, you can see nothing but the spotlight. You are totally blinded by the light, not in the sense of a man undergoing an intense religious awakening, but in the sense of a man staring at a thermonuclear explosion through binoculars. And so for the first few seconds of my two minutes, I was simply staring forward, mouth agape, expressing the concept: "Uuungh."

Finally:

"This is the debut of my career as a professional stand-up comic. It's a kind of a special moment for me. I'd like to take this opportunity to say something to my mother, who was an inspiration to me throughout my life. My mother is dead. She died a few years ago, but I feel she is still with me. All the time, wherever I go, I feel her presence. Day in and day out. So I would like to say this to her. LEAVE ME ALONE, MA!"

Some people actually laughed.

Then I said, "Anyway, this really is my first time onstage, and I'm pretty insecure because, y'know, I'm not all that funny and I have a really lousy stage presence . . ."

People were laughing. Yes, I realize they were mostly laughing about how bad I was, but, um, I seemed to be working reasonably well as the butt of my own joke.

". . . And when I'm nervous I tend to stammer and stutter and, y'know, projectile-vomit and . . ."

Still laughing.

"But I've been working on the problem. A long time ago a Greek guy named Demosthenes had the same problem I have, and he became a great orator by sticking pebbles in his mouth, so I thought I would [and here I began putting the beads in my mouth] try that. See, the idea is that if you can talk through the pebbles [now I was stuffing them in by the handful] you can learn to . . ."

More laughter.

". . . talk better and wfnm fmuff frmphm grphnm fprm . . ."

I looked at my watch, said something that might have sounded like "My time is up," and left to somewhat spirited applause. What the audience did not know was that I was quietly choking on a slippery bead. I finally hawked it up, but for a few seconds it occurred to me I might actually die for my art.

When I got back to my seat, Nick Curtin told me he'd wished he'd used my bead act.

My act!

After all the performances were done, the comedy honcho, Lou Viola, chose his 12 finalists to perform later that night, in a second audition. Joe Hansard made the cut, and Doug Hecox and Debbie Perlman and Wendy Webb. Nick Curtin did not. Kevin Downey did not. George Spelvin did not.

Afterward I asked Viola how the judging went.

Okay, he said, noncommittally.

Viola is a guy about my age, around 50, a kindly-looking man with a gray beard and a very difficult job. He knows stand-up, and has to make some hard decisions about the careers of some earnest and vulnerable people. As we spoke, a polite kid came up to us. Paul Jay is 24. He didn't make the final cut. He and asked Viola for a critique. Before Viola could answer, Jay blurted, "Sometimes I don't know who I am as a comic."

Viola nodded encouragingly. "Right. The audience needs to figure out who's talking to them." He asked Jay why he performed, and Jay said, "It validates me."

Viola thinks Jay has some promise. But sometimes, he says, "I want to say to someone, 'You're never going to be a stand-up comedian. How are you going to support your family?' " But he never says that. He tries to be upbeat.

I asked him what I did wrong.

Everything, he said.

Oh.

"You took way too long to get to the punch line of your first joke, waaaaaaay too long, and Demosthenes needed a better payoff."

So basically, I sucked?

"Basically."

Oh.

_______________________

UPDATED 11.08.06

Gene Weingarten: So, then. Virginia has clearly and forthrightly declared itself the state of sanctimonious bigotry, and our discussion of yesterday is no longer moot. Now we are trying to analyze the law of the land.

Fortunately, more than 20 lawyers weighed in since the chat! Unfortunately, they weren't in agreement about much.

The two questions at hand were:

1. Does Virginia's revolting Amendment 1 actually prohibit a person from designating medical power of attorney to a live-in lover? And:

2. If so, could this issue be successfully challenged through an appeal to the United States Supreme Court?

Twenty lawyers. All voluble and opinionated. And their conclusion was fairly indecipherable, though a distillate is possible:

1. In all probability, judges in Virgina would rule that a medical power of attorney is distinct and separate from this constitutional provision, and would thus trump it. Or end-run it, actually. (The issue of cohabitation might simply be declared moot, since said contract would be enforceable if the person designed, say, his cousin who lived elsewhere.) But some might not. Case law would have to be made on this issue. Some judge somewhere -- likely in the south -- is going to refuse to allow a domestic partner to pull a plug when a parent opposes it, even in the presence of an uncontested prior legal agreement.

2. I was correct that that the Supreme Court can declare unconstitutional a provision in a state constitution. This is amply established by Supreme Court case law dating back to Marbury v. Madison and is as current as yesterday -- voters in Va. were asked to invalidate a constitutional amendment that was previously adopted but declared unconstitutional by the Supremes. The controlling authority in this case would probably be the equal protection clause.

The difficulty in this case might arise because the federal government has limited jurisdiction over contracts, which are generally a state matter. And any appeal of a ruling under Amendment 1 would probably be over a contract issue. So the issue would have to be broadened, as a strategic matter.

Now I will get 20 correspondences from lawyers today explaining how I didn't explain this right.

_______________________

Gene Weingarten: Now, for the poll. Yes, this was Mr. Bill Hicks, and yes, he is in the pantheon of standup comics. I cannot condemn you if you labeled him merely "good," since these bits do not do justice to his oeuvre. For one thing, I was limited to publishable, short material. Also, you are not getting the benefit of his performance. "Good" is a fine answer.

But if you said just "okay" or "poor," you should be ashamed. Even barren, on the page, this material is plenty good.

Women liked him less than men, for understandable reason. Hicks's best material defines women sexually; he loved women, but lusted for them more, and relished in trampling their taboos. Hicks frequently would do hilarious gigs about how much he loved pornography, and why. And toward the end of his life he created an onstage character called "Goat Boy" that (satyrically and satirically) appeared to celebrate all forms of licentiousness, including but not limited to heterosexual pedophelia. I think the women taking this poll got a small taste of that sour little edge.

To me, the funniest line (you have to remember he died in 1994) was the self-bj joke, because it had a nice sight gag AND second zinger. But you didn't go wrong with most any choice -- Satan, cigarettes, etc. The most clever was probably Leary or the poet/comic.

It was the final question that was my favorite, and you failed dramatically. All of these were pretty perfect, except for the joke about marijuana. He blew it (as it were) in a Kerry-like fashion by including that line about "unmotivated." "Unmotivated" is EXACTLY what he then describes in the last line. The joke is self-contradictory.

What he should have said was "They say it makes you stupid."

_______________________

Gene Weingarten: And thanks to Shawn Milleville, for this incredibly disturbing "game."

_______________________

Gene Weingarten: I forgot to mention yesterday's Sally Forth.  A possibly unprecended bit of meta-play! Entertaining! Existential. Surreal. I like it.

_______________________

A little Election Day therapy for me: Not so very many years ago I was a high school student in Fairfax County. I was skilled enough to win a prestigious national award, and as a result I became a fifteen-minute photo op for the state politicos. "What a shining example of Virginia youth!" they touted. Today those same men and women are deciding whether I am able and worthy of real commitment and love. I face homophobia all the time, and consider myself basically inured to it, but today hurts. There's an old saying that whenever you forget you're gay some homophobe will remind you. Today I might have a whole state of them take up that privilege.

So you want to be cool, right? But let's face it, even though you don't have a problem with gays per se, you know there's something not quite right about them¿you can just feel it. Believe you me, I actually do understand your discomfort: I think straight people are just a little bit icky and unnatural. That slightly creepy, "off" feeling you get when two guys kiss? Try getting that dozens of times a day, not to mention on every opposite-sex liaison you forced yourself into in your teens. Yeah, gay people understand homophobia much better than you think we do. But we also know that yes Virginia, there is a way to triumph over homophobia. Stand up. Speak out. Don't tolerate intolerance from yourself or others, even when acceptance feels just a little bit icky. Vote no on Question One, and help me be proud of Virginia the way Virginia was once proud of me.

Gene Weingarten: Boy, was that well put.

We lost.

I emphasize "we," brother.

_______________________

UPDATED 11.09.06

Gene Weingarten: A long, sane post from Suzanne Stradling on the subject of gay marriage and why I am not helping the situation:

For a long, long time, marriage was the way you got permission to have sex. Having sex outside of marriage was offensive to God, and so marriage had the secular effect of creating a legal child-rearing unit and the religious effect of allowing the devout to actually get some action. When Church and State are one, no problem. But society and religion have parted ways on the subject of appropriate sexual behavior, and that aspect of marriage-as-a-concept disappeared sometime last century in the broader American society. There are still significant religious communities where sex without marriage is considered a sin, however, and committed believers remain celibate until marriage.

Most of these orthodox religious communities don't accept a solely religious ceremony as a valid marriage. Having a civil law covenant is part of receiving the religious legitimization of sex. (There is an exception in some polygamist communities, but even there, a man may be required to legally marry a wife, divorcing her before legally marrying again, on the basis that you can ignore the divorce but the marriage is necessary.) Furthermore, in most of these communities, there is no actual religious ceremony required--in the sense that a couple married in front of the county clerk are regarded as being morally chaste when they engage in conjugal sex, while a couple married by a minister but without a legal license are committing the sin of fornication.

In communities where marriage is the one and only way to get God's imprimatur on sexual behavior, gay marriage causes problems of logic. If God hasn't accepted or has forbidden gay marriage (a belief of most orthodox religious communities), then one presumes that a marriage of two men does not carry the same legitimizing religious effect as the marriage of a man and a woman.

You can argue that believing this in the first place is bigotry and perhaps for some it is. But there are plenty of religious people who believe that, while they have been instructed by Spirit or grace to follow certain principles, those people who haven't received the same instructions or made the same commitments are not bound by the same rules. So gay sex (or premarital sex) is forbidden in the believer but not a reason to condemn anyone else. Since it's hard to live in a heterogeneous society without knowing and liking lots of people who have different values and beliefs, I suspect that many or most of the people who govern their own lives by strict religious rules are actually pretty laid back about everyone else's version of decent human behavior.

So why object to gay marriage for others? Essentially, the state has become the only legitimate sponsor of a religious sacrament. Significantly reworking or expanding the definition of marriage calls into question the sacramental nature of the resulting civil act.

Opposition to gay marriage is based in concern about the effect gay marriage would have on the religious validity of heterosexual civil ceremonies. Sound bizarre? Well, yes, making the government the vehicle of something that religiously important IS bizarre. What we have here is the intersection of deeply held religious belief and the obligation of the government to treat all its citizens fairly.

Given the immense religious importance attached to marriage by the religiously orthodox (how would you like to spend years celibate?), it's unfair to call them bigots for questioning the theological effect of a reorganization of marriage. (And, given the celibacy thing, you can even understand if they're a little cranky about it.) If the state solemnizes marriages that fall outside of the religious requirement of marriage, then what happens to the power of the state to act in loco dei and legitimize sex? Does it lose its effect altogether?

This is why you have people who are fine with a gay equivalent of marriage--"so long as it's called something else." The idea is to protect the power of divine sanction for people whose concept of marriage requires that sanction.

The "Save Traditional Marriage!" campaigns have simply failed to point out that the traditional marriage they are saving is one not actually entered into by most heterosexual couples. It's VERY traditional marriage, in which neither partner has sex before or outside the marriage bond. Admittedly, this translates poorly to focus groups. Most people support marriage, but find unmarried celibacy unappealing. But the religious don't want everyone to be forced into their idea of marriage, they just want the original religious significance of the ceremony preserved for those who value it--not an unreasonable request, given that the state originally adopted, supported and modified religious marriage for its own ends.

Here we actually have a nice moment of the religious community getting worked up about a legitimate theological question. Can anyone really doubt that the greatest threat to this very traditional idea of marriage is heterosexual sex outside of marriage? But there is no movement to ban Britney and K-Fed, or to recriminalize gay sex or premarital sex. The focus really is on a genuine threat to the theological concept and treatment of marriage within a religious community.

And, yes, the psycho guy who takes "God hates fags" signs to funerals probably also supports banning gay marriage. But that doesn't tar everyone with his viewpoint, any more than the fact that Saddam Hussein also wants the U.S. to get out of Iraq makes you a deposed ex-dictator. (If I were writing to the ex-Czar of the Style Invitational, now . . . .)

The question is, of course, what ought to be done? The government is and should be in the business of providing equal rights to all its citizens. It should not be in the business of watering down religious ceremonies. I would like to see a complete break between the civil and religious marriage ceremonies (as in France, where marriage always takes place at City Hall and is followed by the religious ceremony of choice, if desired.) At least a few religions have found it necessary to institute additional religious requirements in order to obtain a divorce, so coming up with something for marriage ought not tax their abilities. The idea of making the government come up with marriage-plus-plus (a la covenant marriage) for the devout is idiotic.

Since most orthodox religious communities are, by their nature, conservative, instituting an entire new set of marriage rules is much less desireable than maintaining the status quo. Yet the status quo is going, like it or not, and, as the matter is a theological one, it ought to move to that arena to be resolved. It would also save us all the inanities of clueless politicians posturing to their base without any comprehension of the issues in question.

I genuinely believe that a subtantial number of the people against gay marriage are not bigots. But I should probably add that, for true "non-bigot" cred, they have to believe and observe restrictive religious rules--making the question about them, not about gay people. And there are a substantial number of people in the discussion who are bigots, or whose bigotry fuels a broader desire to "make a statement" about gays or otherwise squash any government support of alternative sexual lifestyle.

So, discussion question: are there gay people who have religious beliefs preventing gay sex outside of marriage but sanctioning it within? The entire argument I've made presupposes no overlap between the gay people who wish to marry and the religious people who place a very high value on marriage-as-sanction. Am I wrong?

Gene Weingarten: And here's another smart one pointing out that my approach leads nowhere:

I'm Canadian, which gives me an indelible liberal pedigree somewhere on the 'insane left' on the American political spectrum. Naturally, I consider myself to be pretty reasonable. After 5+years of living in D.C. and observing the American experiment I really am stunned by the wilful ignorance surrounding the gay marriage debate (and others). Its also distressingly 'single note.'

In yesterday's chat, one poster ranted about children and gay parents There is data on this, plenty of it. In Canada, gay couples (and gay singles) have been adopting and/or raising children since 1982, and reams and reams of research shows that these adoptees'/children's care and achievements are on par with or slightly higher than children raised by one or two 'straights' (for lack of a more convenient term). So, big data sets show no harm. Legally and morally in Ontario, for example, the critical legal determining factor in custody and adoption decisions is the BEST interest of the Child. And rightly so - the best interest of a child is a demonstrable thing, while 'harms to society' are not demonstrable, are disallowed and are irrelevant. All scripture, prophecy, rhetoric, and like fall aside. Unless you're in America, where it seems that this relationship is reversed. Oh, and in Iran.

It seems to me that you just can't win against the conservative zealots by moral argument. Telling a conservative that his/her moral compass is badly calibrated is like telling a liberal that they don't value or understand freedom/personal choice. It has the effect of shuttering change, and when played out in the news media, these tit-for-tat exchanges mire the policy debate in moral quicksand. And that is really good for the status quo, and bad for change, as The Right knows fullwell and exploits. But policy is, or at least ought to be, influenced by pragmatic factors, like facts.

What might work better is to redirect efforts to convert the Chosen to winning over the undecided or dubious, more-or-less middle of the road audience, and factually demonstrate that (a) there is nothing new about gay parenting or marriage [cf. Canada, Yurrop], (b) we know that no harm comes from it [ditto], (c) and, by the way, all y'all, it is fair and upholding of contemporary standards of fairness, decency and moral reasoning....so the progress of society lies down one path, and regression (or harm) to society down the other. [Plus some allusions to currently generally accepted positive social change since the time of Abraham. Or at least Washington, which seems to be as far back as mostly secular wing-nuts want to go.]

It just takes longer to say all that than "Wow, you're a courageous bigot, thanks for writing that screed!"

_______________________

Returning the Money?: Would you do the same thing if it were a live cashier who made the mistake?

Gene Weingarten: Of course not. If there was someone who could be blamed for the mistake -- not a machine -- I would return the money right there.

_______________________

Maybe not an Aptonym but a Great Name Nonetheless: Ky. Governor Ernie Fletcher's campaign spokeswoman is named Jessica Ditto.

Gene Weingarten: Oh, it's an aptonym. When was the last time you heard a spokesperson -- Tony Snow, for example -- say, "Well, the president feels this way, but I, personally, believe he is wrong, and I'll tell you why...."

_______________________

Olney, Md.: So did you catch Faith Hill's reaction to her loss at last night's CMA's?? You really think it was a joke?

Gene Weingarten: This is really excellent. It is clearly not a joke. Also, is Carrie Underwood that stupid? And what is she wearing? Is that an unattractive dress or what?

washingtonpost.com: As producer of this show it is my duty to insist that all discussion of celebrities take place in the appropriate forum.

_______________________

Skeptic, AL.: Gene Weingarten: There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. A. Tasteless. Halloween. Costume.

I think a WTC costume with a scorched airplane sticking out the side, worn on Halloween 2001, would be very close.

Gene Weingarten: Let me try to elaborate on my contention here.

Halloween is a deliberately bizarre night. When adults do a Halloween party, part of the "joke" is grossing each other out. I think of a Halloween party as a temporary suspension of all rules of decency and etiquette. It's like "The Aristocrats." Would you go see the Aristocrats, knowing what you are going to see, and then say, whoa, WAIT A MINUTE ... they're making jokes about people in blackface using feces as makeup!

No, that's part of the joke. In fact, if you will recall, the genesis of the whole movie was the fact that Gilbert Gottfried told a 9/11 joke just after 9/11, and got booed, so decided to REALLY go for it.

So, yes. Burning skyscrapers. Sure. Just that once.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: A murdered version of somebody you hate who isn't dead would be a tasteless costume.

Gene Weingarten: No it would not. Because it is a joke.

But we are entering into productive territory. Let's say you are coming to a Halloween party where you know Joe will attend. And you know Joe's wife is dying of cancer. And you come as Joe's dead wife.

I would argue that is an act of obvious cruelty and hostility, and while it may be okay under my rules of engagement, Joe would be legally entitled to remove your eye with a serving fork. No jury would convict.

_______________________

UPDATED 11.10.06

World Toilet Organization: Yes, there really is one. And they have a game.

Gene Weingarten: Holy crap, as it were. This is hugely complicated. And possibly boring, too. Does anyone have the intestinal fortitude to learn this game and report back?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: What kind of pie do you think John Kerry likes? I'm going to bake him one as a thank you for helping us keep the Senate.

Gene Weingarten: I have actually just finished a column on this. Kerry was an amazing douche, but wasn't it stunning how dishonest and damagogic all you Republicans were in your reaction to this? Every single guy standing up there decrying Kerry's insensitivity to the troops (except maybe Bush, whose handlers never explained it to him) knew full well Kerry wasn't being insensitive to the troops. He was just doing lousy standup. My fave was the headline in the Washington Times:

KERRY APOLOGIZES FOR INSULTING TROOPS.

Gene Weingarten: Obviously, this post was writ by a Gopper before the events of Tuesday played out on Wednesday. Haha, you pathetic Gopper.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Oh my God. I just read the "curse of Ham" post and I realized that the first chimp in space was named Ham.

NASA was racist!

Gene Weingarten: You know, when I first read this post, I laughed and ignored it. On second reading, I am thinking you are right. "The Curse of Ham" was used for centuries as a religious excuse to persecute blacks. How is it that NASA chose this name for a chimp?

It's kind of amazing.

Gene Weingarten: Now, FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH, here is the NASA explanation, in context, from a NASA narrative about animals in flight.:

Sam, a rhesus monkey, was one of the most well known monkeys of the space program. His name was an acronym for the U.S. Air Force S chool of A viation M edicine at Brooks Air Force Base, Texas. He was launched on December 4, 1959, housed in a cylindrical capsule within the Mercury spacecraft atop a Little Joe rocket in order to test the launch escape system (LES). Approximately one minute into the flight, traveling at a speed of 3685 mph, the Mercury capsule aborted from the Little Joe launch vehicle. After attaining an altitude of 51 miles, the spacecraft landed safely in the Atlantic Ocean. Sam was recovered, several hours later, with no ill effects from his journey. He was later returned to the colony in which he trained, where he died in November 1982 and his remains were cremated.

Miss Sam, another rhesus monkey and Sam's mate, was launched on January 21, 1960, for another test of the LES. The Mercury capsule attained a velocity of 1800 mph and an altitude of 9 miles. After landing in the Atlantic Ocean 10.8 miles downrange from the launch site, Miss Sam was also retrieved in overall good condition. She was also returned to her training colony until her death on an unknown date.

In the Soviet Union, meanwhile, testing was also taking place on more dogs. On July 28, 1960, Bars ("Panther" or "Lynx") and Lisichka ("Little Fox") were launched on a Korabl Sputnik, a prototype of the Vostok manned spacecraft. The booster exploded on launch, killing the two dogs. On August 19, 1960, Belka ("Squirrel") and Strelka ("Little Arrow") were launched on Sputnik 5 or Korabl Sputnik 2, along with a gray rabbit, 40 mice, 2 rats, and 15 flasks of fruit flies and plants. Strelka later gave birth to a litter of six puppies one of which was given to JFK as a gift for his children. Pchelka ("Little Bee") and Muska ("Little Fly") were launched onboard Sputnik 6 or Korabl Sputnik 3 on December 1, 1960 along with mice, insects, and plants. The capsule and animals burned up on re-entry. On December 22, 1960, soviet scientists attempted to launch Damka ("Little Lady") and Krasavka ("Beauty") on a Korabl Sputnik. However, the upper rocket stage failed and the launch was aborted. The dogs were safely recovered after their unplanned suborbital flight. On March 9, 1961, another Russian dog, Chernushka ("Blackie") was launched on Sputnik 9 or Korabl Sputnik 4. Chernushka was accompanied into space with a dummy cosmonaut, some mice, and a guinea pig. Zvezdochka ("Little Star") was launched onboard Sputnik 10 or Korabl Sputnik 5 on March 25, 1961.The dog went up with simulated cosmonaut "Ivan Ivanovich" and successfully tested the spacecraft's structure and systems.

On January 31, 1961, Ham, whose name was an acronym for Holloman Aero Med, became the first chimpanzee in space, aboard the Mercury Redstone rocket on a sub-orbital flight very similar to Alan Shepard's. Ham was brought from the French Camaroons, West Africa, where he was born July 1957, to Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico in 1959. The original flight plan called for an altitude of 115 miles and speeds ranging up to 4400 mph. However, due to technical problems, the spacecraft carrying Ham reached an altitude of 157 miles and a speed of 5857 mph and landed 422 miles downrange rather than the anticipated 290 miles. Ham performed well during his flight and splashed down in the Atlantic Ocean 60 miles from the recovery ship. He experienced a total of 6.6 minutes of weightlessness during a 16.5-minute flight. A post-flight medical examination found Ham to be slightly fatigued and dehydrated, but in good shape otherwise.

Gene Weingarten: Also, from the NASA article. Interestingly, during the early years of the space program, we made no effort to save the beasts. Just let em slam back to earth, where they died on impact:

On June 11, 1948, a V-2 Blossom launched into space from White Sands, New Mexico carrying Albert I, a rhesus monkey. Lack of fanfare and documentation made Albert an unsung hero of animal astronauts. On June 14, 1948, a second V-2 flight carrying a live Air Force Aeromedical Laboratory monkey, Albert II, attained an altitude of 83 miles. The monkey died on impact. On August 31, 1948, another V-2 was launched and carried an unanaesthetized mouse that was photographed in flight and survived impact. On December 12, 1949, the last V-2 monkey flight was launched at White Sands. Albert IV, a rhesus monkey attached to monitoring instruments, was the payload. It was a successful flight, with no ill effects on the monkey until impact, when it died. In May 1950, the last of the five Aeromedical Laboratory V-2 launches (known as the Albert Series) carried a mouse that was photographed in flight and survived impact.

_______________________

Did You Know...: To all the Bible believers who say the Bible says homosexuality is wrong...there is also another sin that many Christians do and the Bible mentions it numerous times that it is wrong... that is loaning money with interest...

(Hebrews mentions it the most times...)

Gene Weingarten: Oh, yeah. Leviticus is FULL of that stuff. If you shave your head (Lev. 21:5) or wear clothing made from both wool and linen together (Lev. 19:19) or marry a divorced woman (Lev. 21:7) you have sinned. And if a married couple has sex when the woman is menstruating they are banished from civilized society and left to wander the earth (Lev. 20:18).

_______________________

Assparagus: I produce the asparagus smell in my urine, I can smell the asparagus urine, AND I can smell it on other peoples skin, ala garlic ooze. Makes for miserable wedding receptions.

Why do certain compounds get excreted through our skin? Don't our bodies break these things down or just flush 'em out? I guess we'll eventually evolve far enough that some folks will excrete cheeseburger smell.

washingtonpost.com: And who is more evolved? Those who smell or those who don't?

Gene Weingarten: Good question, Lizzie. I'm guessing those who cannot smell are more evolved. The ability to track prey or find a mate via analysis of their spoor and exudates is less important now. I think.

_______________________

Surely you watch 'The Daily Show': Did you see last night's animated "Midterm Elections" segment? And was that meant to be you in the third voting booth, reading "Cheap Poop Joke Monthly"?

Gene Weingarten: This is simply terrific. We'll end on it. As it were.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.