Since I suspect most people might be watching the presidential debate tonight, I figured that the most appropriate thing to post is perhaps the most-classic presidential debate sketch that Saturday Night Live has done.

This is from 2000, with Darrell Hammond superbly playing Vice President Al "Lock box" Gore, and Will Ferrell memorably portraying Gov. George W. "Stategery" Bush.  It's also worth noting what an excellent job Chris Parnell does as moderator Jim Lehrer, who one might think a difficult person to impersonate.

As I mentioned the other day, Martin Short is guest-hosting Jimmy Kimmel Live this week on ABC.  On Monday, he mentioned that he had a previous engagement set for Thursday, so instead, he said that filling in for him that night to guest host will be...Jiminy Glick!

So, yes, after you've had your fill of post-debate coverage, Jiminy Glick will hosting the full 90 minutes tonight, starting at 11:35 PM in the East and West, 10:35 for the Midwest.  Usually his "Out and About" segments are about 8-10 minutes long.  So, this is going to be quite a stretch.  I trust that his guests are prepared to help out as much as they can.  

The guests, by the way, are Melissa McCarthy and Nick Kroll, who you may not know, but will likely recognize.  He's very funny and one of the forces behind Mel Brooks' The History of the World, Part II sequel last year.  There will also be a musical guest, so at least Jiminy will get a breather at that point...

Yesterday, in one of its end-of-the-year decisions, Snyder v. U.S., the Supreme Court ruled to allow political bribery.  Really.  Not all political bribery, just if it’s not after the fact, and with a knowing wink.
 
The case concerned the cash-strapped, then-mayor of Portage, Indiana, who prosecutors charged rigged the bidding for new garbage trucks and afterwards receive a “thank you for being good at your job” gift from the head of the truck company that won the bid.
 
Justice Neil Gorsuch referred to this as a “gratuity” and equated this $13,000 "gratuity" to a mayor to taking a teacher to the Cheesecake Factory as a thank you.  Really.  What's the difference, Justice Gorsuch wondered -- no doubt as Justices Thomas and Alito giggled. As they put out a "We accept tips" jar.
 
One difference, of course, is that if you ate $13,000 worth of cheesecake at one sitting, it would probably kill you.
 
It all concerned a federal statute known as §666 (man, is that number appropriate here…), which deals with gifts that state and local officials can accept.  (The ruling does not appear to pertain to federal officials, though if not, it would see an easy next step.)  The decision was written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, apparently with a straight face, though he tried to justify it by saying the ruling doesn’t transcend local laws against bribery.  It only provides a map for driving around them. 
 
Kavanaugh wrote that "State and local governments often regulate the gifts that state and local governments may accept.  The federal law] does not supplement those state and local rules by subjecting 19 million state and local officials to up to 10 years in federal prison for accepting even commonplace gratuities. Rather, [the federal law] leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials."
 
See?!  There’s that “Gratuities” again.  It’s hard not to love it.
 
Kavanaugh added that “state or local official can violate §666 when he accepts an up-front payment for a future official act or agrees to a future reward for a future official act.  But a state or local official does not violate §666 if the official has taken the official act before any reward is agreed to, much less given. Although a gratuity offered and accepted after the official act may be unethical or illegal under other federal, state, or local laws, the gratuity does not violate §666."
 
At the very least, I hope he got a chuckle out of all those references about not violating “666.”  As much as he – and Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito -- must have loved calling them “gratuities.”
 
What the Justices voting in the affirmative here seem to miss (or see clearly, but just didn’t care) is that a ten buck tip is one thing, but when you hit $13,000 to a public official, whenever it’s given, the rotting fish starts to smell.  For that matter, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are state and local laws prohibiting public officials accepting a $10 “gratuity.”  After all, once the first public official (and would-be briber) knows they can get away with getting an after-the-fact bribe, as long as nothing was agreed to officially beforehand, then all public officials know they can, too.  And further, that erodes public trust in government.  Y’know, the whole “Appearance of impropriety” thingee.
 
Though perhaps when some Justices like Clarence Thomas are dealing with $4 million worth of “gratuities,” a $13,000 tip probably is just pocket change.
 
Just to put some perspective on this all, I have a grad school friend Peter Carlisle who was the Chief Prosecuting Attorney of Honolulu for about 16 years, and then got elected the city’s mayor.  At one point while in office – after he announced for mayor – he flew to Southern California for a conference of law officials in Orange County.  But instead of lying there directly, he flew to Los Angeles, so we could visit.  I picked him up at the airport, and after paying for parking, I handed him the $8 LAX receipt, since it did me no good – but he wouldn’t accept it.  He said this flight to Los Angeles was a pleasure visit, not an official government trip.  If he’d flown directly to Orange County, that would have been different.
 
Yes, I know, that might be carrying things to extremes, but that’s also how the concept of being honorable and the “Appearance of impropriety” works.
 
Note to Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh. Roberts and Coney-Barrett:  See above. And just know that Peter Carlisle is not a tree-hugging liberal, he’s a Republican.  So, it’s actually possible.  Rare though such things apparently may be.
 
I was going to say that it probably helps when you were a Chief Prosecuting Attorney for 16 years, but then an image of Rudy Giuliani popped into mind.  Though I would like to believe he’s the exception.  Though given the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, I don’t know if my belief is supported.
 
In case you find this ruling too bizarre to believe, you can read a full article about it all here.

And this seems an appropriate place to add that if you have enjoyed these free columns over the years, just click on the "Buy Now on Amazon.com" icon in the upper right of any page before the next time you go to Amazon to buy anything.  It will take you directly to Amazon as normal, but a code will be attached so that I will receive about .000001% of whatever you buy during that session.  Last year, I made about $20 this way!  (Thanks to everyone who participated.  After the fact, of course.)  Oh, sure, it's not exactly a "gratuity," and not anywhere near $13,000.  But if I keep it up for another 650 years, I'll be there!

Also, I offer nothing in advance for this.  The only thing I guarantee is that during the next six centuries, I will at some point write about Chicago and reference the beloved Northwestern University.
​

Though new, it's from three weeks ago, and it fell through the cracks and I missed it.  But I'm glad I came across it belatedly because it's a good one.  With a particularly fun premise set-up.  The song is a parody of a number from Grease, "Look at Me, I'm Sandra Dee."

The only thing less-good here is that he put an actual product placement ad in the beginning.  Not a parody ad, but a real ad, as if it's part of the video, for an Internet news service.  Getting sponsors is fine, and I'm glad he can monetize his efforts.  And there's nothing inherently wrong with interpolating ads into the work.  But it's risky to blur the lines between viewers' trust in the work and the marketing.  It can ​be done, but requires a careful touch in how it's handled, and I don't think it's quite as deft here as it should be.

​So, let’s see.  According to MAGOPs, President Biden has long had cognitive disorders and is enfeebled with dementia, so he will be babbling during the debate, and Trump will wipe the floor with him.
 
Also according to MAGOPs, President Biden is going to be so hopped up with drugs that he will be vibrant and brilliant and do so great in the debate that he will wipe the floor with Trump.
 
And according to MAGOPs, as well, unless CNN apologizes for host Kasie Hunt kicking a Trump surrogate off her show for continually refusing to stay on topic, Trump should pull out of the CNN-run debate, especially since the two CNN moderators are very unfair and biased against Trump.
 
It seems like MAGOPs are having a difficult time figuring out if Trump is going to overwhelm President Biden at the debate, or by run over by a Biden tsunami.
 
Actually, that’s only partially true.  They are clearly having a difficult time with what they think will happen – whether President Biden is a wizened vegetable or a brilliant genius (who, by the way, is able to rig elections and rig court cases – he just isn’t able to keep his son from being indicted and can’t get him off, and could only rig the presidential House, but couldn’t keep Republicans from taking control of the House and was only able to get a one-vote advantage in the Senate – though it’s clear they do think Trump is in trouble and at risk of doing very badly.
 
MAGOPs also appear unaware that Trump and his team approved the choice of CNN moderators.  But hey, why start quibbling with reality at this point…?
 
Mainly, though, I want to know what this magical drug is that is able to magically cure cognitive disorders and dementia, though only for 90 minutes.  After all, if such a magical drug actually does exist, it’s hard to understand why it hasn’t gotten FDA approval and isn’t on the market.  At the very least, why hasn’t the pharmaceutical company announced it and their test trial results, because it would send the stock price soaring.  Yet for some reason, this magical, magnificent drug that cures dementia – even if only for 90 minutes at a time – has been kept secret.
 
For that matter, since such a magical drug clearly exists, at least according to MAGOPs, why in the world hasn’t Trump’s team been giving it to him for the past year??!!  Then they wouldn’t have to worry about his paraphasia or his leg issues or him veering far off topic to talk about shark attacks, boat electrocutions, showers, water pressure and such every time he gave a speech.  And Fox could again begin carrying his speeches live and not have to edit his interviews so drastically.
 
Still, all this aside, I do think the funniest thing about it is that the leading MAGOP voice calling for drug testing before the debate has been retired former Rear Admiral, now demoted to Captain Ronny Johnson, as Trump called his former White House physician, Ronny Jackson, now in Congress.  Funny because when the Inspector General released a report on how the White House physician’s office was handled under Jackson/Johnson’s tenure, they were highly critical about the misuse of alcohol and drugs.  But again, why start quibbling with reality at this point…?
 
Personally, if I was on Trump’s team, I’d be far more wary about my own candidate taking a drug test then President Biden doing so, but in fairness I only say that because actually psychiatrists and psychologists like Dr. Jack Gartner have said that they see early dementia in Trump, but not in President Biden, who is only showing normal signs of aging – whereas dementia is not normal.
 
But then, why start quibbling with reality at this point…?

It's been much too long since we've gone Out and About with Jiminy Glick, so let's rectify that tonight.

​​Bill Maher has a new book out, and so of course he couldn’t interview himself -- therefore, he instead invited Jiminy Glick to his show.  And the result is wonderful. 

That said, Maher comes close to screwing it up.  Every other guest takes it totally straight, and only on a few rare occasions can you see them fighting not to break up.  Maher laughs throughout.  In fairness, I think some of that might be because there's an audience, which becomes infectious.  However, I also think he handles it more like a promotion for his book, which it is, rather than a standard Jiminy Glick "interview", so he seems to try to push it a little more about himself, which adds to taking us out a bit from the Jiminy Glick "bubble".  But all that aside, it's nonetheless still very funny.)
 
And being Maher, I hated how he talks about COVID and that "They got a lot of things wrong" (which only feeds anti-vaxxers, even though he isn't one, just a contrarian).  Yet all he mentions, and with great certainty, is that the virus came from a lab because the NY Times says so.  First, that has zero to do with the vaccines and their efficacies.  And second, Dr. Fauci has been interviewed this past week a lot for his book, and he (who knows a lot more than Maher) explains that several intel and health services say they still believe it came from human markets and animal transference.  Dr. Fauci says his own belief is that he thinks that’s most likely, but doesn’t know and he’s kept an open mind – and because we don’t know and probably never will because the Chinese are too secretive, he says we should consider both conditions as possible and work to create protections against both.  Further, I thought it was very "unfair" for him to dive that way in a Jiminy Glick interview, since he knows Jiminy is not going to debate health care and COVID facts with him.
 
Sorry, that’s off-topic.  The point is Jiminy Glick is great, and so let’s go out-and-about with him.

P.S.  I should add that Martin Short is guest hosting Jimmy Kimmel's talk show this week, and had a wonderful "Out and About" interview as Jiminy with Bill Hader.  And best of all, on Thursday he'll be hosting the show entirely as Jiminy Glick!  More about that tomorrow.

Okay, back to Jiminy and Bill Maher --
​