EXTRA: Cheech & Chong gag obsolete? At least in Illinois!

The Illinois House of Representatives completed the legislative portion of the process by which marijuana use in the Land of Lincoln loses its stigma -- sending off to Gov. J.B. Pritzker the bill that will make it no longer any kind of illegal act for people to light up a joint/doobie/whatever you choose to call it.

Which makes me wonder about the old Cheech & Chong comedy skits involving the Sgt. Stedenko character. The overbearing, and inept, cop was forever trying to bust the comedy team -- and as I recall in one of their films, turned out to be a drug user himself.

BUT HOW WILL future generations view such moments? Will they wonder just why a cop was getting all worked up over someone wanting to indulge themselves in having a smoke for pure pleasure?

For the intent of Illinois' new law, which Pritzker is expected to sign off on some time this summer, will allow for people to purchase their "pot" from officially licensed vendors -- whose sales will be taxed, Meaning Illinois will get its "cut" of the proceeds. Which the cynics say is an immoral, if not ought to be criminal, reason to legalize something.

I don't doubt some people are going to wan to forevermore maintain the stigma of marijuana use -- mainly because they're going to object to the kinds of people they want to believe actually use the substance,

Which is why the most important part of this legislation, which takes effect Jan. 1, 2020, if Pritzker actually signs it into law, are the measures allowing for people to have their criminal records cleared of any offenses for past usage.

THE MARIJUANA POLICY Project estimates that some 750,000 people in Illinois will be eligible to have their records cleared for any times in the past they were caught by police using. It should be clear that people have to show they didn't commit other illegal acts while using pot -- their convictions will remain in place.

It should be noted that this change in law, when it takes effect, will not legitimize your neighborhood drug dealer. If anything, they're going to remain under police scrutiny. They will be, after all, selling pot products that compete with the officially-licensed vendors the state will want people to purchase from.

It will be something along the lines of the "illegal lottery" rackets that compete with the Illinois State Lottery games and are the remnants of the old policy rackets that allowed people to place nickel bets on numbers in hopes of winning a prize. The police still crack down on those people -- because they want us to buy lottery tickets from gas stations and convenience stores instead.

Which means that the cops are still going to crack down on the scuzzy-looking guy who tries growing his own pot product for sale. "Sgt. Stedenko," however, will become a less onerous law enforcement image -- and something more akin to "Barney Fife."

  -30-

DeLUCA: Our brains on drugs

EDITOR'S NOTE: Just a bit of evidence as to how some people will always remain opposed to the idea of legitimizing marijuana use. Amongst the legislators who voted "no" are state Rep. Anthony DeLuca, D-Chicago Heights, who couldn't bring himself to side with the desires of his political party's governor. DeLuca brought to mind that old public service announcement, reenacting that moment by frying an egg in a pan within the House chambers, then telling us, "This is your brain on drugs."

What about Roseanne & Ill. Lottery? An unanswered question about re-boot

I was never a big fan of “Roseanne” back when it was in its first run on television, although I have managed to see several episodes as the show continues to live on in reruns.

Meaning I’m fully aware of the fact that the story line over its nine seasons on the air included a sequence in which the fictional Conner family wins the Illinois Lottery. Supposedly $108 million, and there was a year’s worth of episodes in which the newly-wealthy Roseanne and her family try to adjust to life amidst old-money types and their “strange” ways of doing things.

SO AS THE program is in a re-boot and we’re supposedly seeing what has become of all the characters some 20 years later, I can’t help but wonder. What happened to the big bucks of their Lottery prize?

Much has been made of the fact that the pater familias of Dan Conner (played then, and now, by actor John Goodman) is still alive – even though the series ended back in 1998 with hints that Goodman’s character had died of a heart attack.

But what about the money?

Should we now presume that Roseanne and her whacky sister Jackie (who supposedly was once a cop in their fictional suburb located on the fringes of the Chicago area when she wasn't being a truck driver) never had the prize?

TRUMP: Is it really all about The Donald?

OR SHOULD WE presume that the Conner clan had those big bucks and somehow managed to waste it away? Blew it all on trivialities to the point where there’s nothing left and their lifestyle is back to the same ol’ blue collar, lower-middle-class standards of the past.

Not that I’m losing much sleep over this “burning” question. If I really want to see the wealthy Roseanne, all I have to do is watch the re-runs on any of the many channels that air them.

But considering how some people are trying to make a big deal out of this particular reboot of an old television program (whose ratings for the Tuesday night rebirth were 18.2 million viewers and more people than watched the record-high viewership that the show’s farewell generated in ’98), I can’t help but expend a little bit of brainpower on it.

Because if it turns out that the show being touted and praised by those who are in full support of this Age of Trump that we’re now in is really about people who had a chance, and blew it big time, I’d say that doesn’t say much about us as a society.

The 'queen' of over-reaction -- Becky, ...

OF COURSE, IF it (the lottery winnings) didn’t happen, it would still be sad if we’re talking about people whose fantasies focus around a once-in-a-lifetime prize and they do nothing to try to make it a reality.

For what it’s worth, the news reports told of how President Donald Trump himself felt compelled to place a telephone call to Roseanne Barr on Wednesday to congratulate her on a television success story – managing to draw all those viewers back to the character for which her life will forever be remembered while also giving the Trump presidency a plug or two!

Which, to my mind, means Trump (himself once the character of a television program The Apprentice) probably thinks this is a priority – and that the “real” issues he’s confronted with are all the “boring” details that overly-serious people think are important.

Personally, I find it amusing the way some people are getting so worked up over this reboot; largely because I think it sad that some people want to make careers out of broadcasting the same ol’ stuff over and over again. Coming up with new characters and stories is just too much work, it seems.

I EVEN FIND it pathetic the way many people feel compelled to go on various Internet sites to post anonymous comments bad-mouthing Barr & Co. If the show dulls your sensibilities that much, just change the channel. There are so many others to pick from in the modern-day programming environment.

... or Marcia Brady?

As for me, my own thoughts about Roseanne were cemented the one time I actually watched an episode back in the show’s first-run days.

It was the episode where daughter Becky (played by Evanston native Lecy Goranson) was convinced her life was forever ruined because she farted in the middle of giving a speech to the student council. Similar to that old Brady Bunch episode where Marcia got hit right on the nose with a football, causing it to swell up. In the end, Roseanne/Mike Brady gave their daughters a lecture making them realize how the humiliating moment wasn’t that big a deal.

I might be the first person to make a comparison between Roseanne and The Brady Bunch. Except that I can’t help but think that Maureen McCormick (the ultimate teenaged television cutie) played out her scenes with more sophistication.

  -30-

What should we think about safety?

We’re not safer. We’re just crummier shots.”

That was the  observation I heard from a Jewel bagboy when, while bagging some grocery items I was buying, he took a glimpse of the front page of the Chicago Sun-Times I purchased.

 THAT FRONT PAGE  gave us the headline “Under The Gun,” and teased a story about how the number of people killed in Chicago this year thus far is less than what it was last year.

 BUT…

 The number of shooting incidents that have occurred this year compared to last is on the rise.

 Specifically, 5 percent fewer people killed but 8 percent more incidents involving gunfire, according to the Sun-Times for the first six months of 2014 compared to the first half of 2013 – which was a way-above-average year.

 ONE IN WHICH people would have to look back into Chicago history to find a period that was more violent than ’13 was for the Second City.

 Now I’m not about to take seriously the views of a guy who managed to avoid crushing my grocery items while putting them into plastic bags. I’m well aware that he was trying to make a joke while engaging in some small talk to keep himself from being bored.

 He also speculated about how wonderful Jose Abreu was for the Chicago White Sox this year. Is he a top-notch sports commentator?

 Besides, a part of me wanted to retort as a gag that perhaps that the statistical combination  was evidence of the advancement of medical techniques – we’re saving more lives of gunshot victims.

 THE REALITY IS more a matter of  the fact that there are certain parts of  Chicago that have become so violent – and so isolated from the rest of the city that it is way too easy to ignore what happens there.

 While also looking at the fact that there are certain neighborhoods in Chicago where violence, homicide and crime in general is so low that some of us want to believe all the crime stats must be some sort of lie!

 Which is a shame because, in some ways, Chicago is no better or stronger than its weakest, most violent neighborhoods,

 We can brag about the Gold Coast (although my memory of a quarter-century of news stories I wrote about includes people who were shot and killed there too) and try to pretend that Englewood is an alien land.

 BUT THAT KIND of  rhetoric just makes us all seem foolish. Besides, even if the number of people killed is on the decline, there’s still the reality that even one homicide is one too many.

 And to the people directly impacted by the list of the deceased, that one is all that matters. Too many families get devastated, then forgotten about in the mess of murder statistics that are being compiled.

 The sad part is that just the other day, I stumbled across some four-decade-old reruns of “Good Times,” the show where Jimmie Walker tried to become the clown prince of the Chicago ghetto and public housing.

 The episodes I saw were the two-part tale of where Walker’s “J.J.” character was shot by a streetgang member who was trying to recruit/pressure him into joining the “gang.”

 FOR A COMEDY television series, it was way too real. For J.J.’s gunman, gang leader “Mad Dog” wound up getting probation for the shooting because there was no space available to hold him either at the youth home in St. Charles or at the Cook County Jail.

 Those are a set of circumstances that were all too real in 1970s Chicago, and remain true today. How many “Mad Dogs” (his real name was supposed to be “Cleon”) are being produced by the rising numbers of shootings occurring in Chicago?

 

And isn’t that a more significant problem than however many homicides are occurring? You want numbers, check out 11, 25 and .312 – the home run total, runs batted in and batting average for Abreu during the month of June.

 They’re less depressing to think about.

 

 -30-

Ramis – the eternal ‘straight man’ who made Bill Murray funny – dies

It was a bit of a blow to learn Monday that actor, comedy writer and film maker Harold Ramis – who started out at Chicago’s Second City comedy troupe – is dead.

Because he’s the guy we didn’t notice as prominently as people like Dan Aykroyd or Bill Murray, but whose sense of how to play the “straight” role made the characters those other two played seem all the more off-the-wall, funny and entertaining.

RAMIS, WHO DIED early Monday at age 69 from a condition that caused his blood vessels to swell, was one of the Ghostbusters, along with Aykroyd and Murray.

He also was the friend of Murray’s “John Winger” character who got conned into enlisting in the U.S. Army along with him, thereby giving him somebody to watch his back – and join him when the two have to go into then-Communist-controlled Czechoslovakia to retake their army unit.

Who, by the way, were only captured because they were searching for the Murray and Ramis characters – who had taken the Army’s experimental prototype of a combat-ready recreational vehicle out for a spin to pick up some girls.

It literally is a line from Stripes (along with Murray’s quip about how Tito Puente was unappreciated in life) that still gets quoted by my brother.

WITH MURRAY’S CHARACTER telling Ramis’ role: “Come on, it’s Czechoslovakia. We zip in, we pick them up, and we zip right out again. We’re not going to Moscow. It’s Czechoslovakia, it’s like going to Wisconsin.”

To which Ramis’ “Russell Zitsky” character responds, “Well, I got the shit kicked out of me in Wisconsin once. Forget it!”

Much of the humor was in the timing. It’s funnier on film than it is on the written page. Although I’m not about to reduce Ramis’ working life to a single quip about the cheeseheads to the north of us.

It was just this past weekend that I happened to be stumbling my way through television channels when I came across “Meatballs,” a Bill Murray comedy from back in that period right before I began high school.

WHICH MEANS ITS overly-horny prepubescent characters and trivial nonsense were at about my age level (I drooled back then over the blonde who, looking at her now, makes me feel like a dirty old man). With Murray as the out-of-control camp counselor who befriends a particularly vulnerable summer camper.

Ramis co-wrote that script.

While I don’t doubt that Murray can improvise with the best of them (the film was basically Bill Murray saying and doing outrageous things), it was Ramis who put the thoughts and images onto the page of a script so they could be turned into something resembling reality on the movie theater screens (and now our television screens every time we watch it).

Although I thought that the repeated running gag about the head camp counselor repeatedly finding his bed moved in the middle of the night (with him still in it) to various locations (up in a tree, alongside a lake, at the entrance to the camp) was a bit overdone.

THEN AGAIN, THIS is the man who also wrote the script for Ghostbusters who envisioned the idea that all of mankind could be threatened by a gigantic Stay-Puft Marshmallow man.

Which brings to mind Murray’s celluloid response of a quip, “Now that’s something you don’t see every day.”

Although it’s not just these moments that Ramis gave us. He also was the director of “Analyze This” (and the sequel, “Analyze That”), which purported to give us the concept of an organized crime boss (played by Robert DeNiro) having to see a psychiatrist (portrayed by Billy Crystal).

Which is very “The Sopranos” sounding. Although we should remember the Sopranos scene where the late actor James Gandolfini appears like he wants to smack upside the head the psychiatrist who tells his “Tony Soprano” character that he understands “the mob” because he saw “Analyze This.”

THESE ARE JUST a few of the career moments that have given us humor. It is why we’re better off that a one-time Rogers Park resident who actually once wrote freelance stories for the old Chicago Daily News decided there were better things to do with his life than try to report the news.

He’s given us moments to brighten our day, for so long as all those DVDs of his films continue to function properly.

  -30-

Perhaps they should have dug up Garrett Morris for ‘interpreter’ duties

It has been some nearly four decades since actor Garrett Morris did his comedy sketches on Saturday Night Live as the head of the New York School for the Hearing Impaired.

Those sketches were actually written into larger sketches when Morris’ face would suddenly appear in the sketch and he would “interpret” for the hearing-impaired exactly what was being said.

THE GAG, OF course, was that all he did was cup his hands around his mouth and scream at the top of his voice. Which usually got bigger laughs than whatever the original sketch was about!

Because we all know that when dealing with someone who is deaf, it really doesn’t matter how loud (or how slow) one speaks. They still can’t hear you.

Although I wonder if Morris would have been a more legitimate deaf interpreter than the man who actually was on hand to perform such duties at the memorial service held earlier this week for Nelson Mandela.

The world was focused on Johannesburg, with leaders from around the globe on hand – including President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle. A man was on stage going through a series of intricate hand gestures that allegedly were supposed to clue-in the hearing impaired as to just what was being said by the assorted world leaders on stage.

BUT THE REUTERS news wire service reported that officials with DeafSA, a South African organization meant to help hearing-impaired in that nation, were upset. Because the gestures the man made were little more than physical gibberish.

They weren’t any form of real sign language. The group also noted that a real interpreter also uses their face to try to convey the mood of an event – apart from what comes from the mouths of the people who speak.

It also seems that no one is really sure just who this man was. The group claims not to have any recognition of him as a legitimate interpreter for the deaf. It’s almost as though a mystery man managed to get on stage and just take over.

So much for the security for the Mandela memorial service.

I SUPPOSE WE ought to feel fortunate that this man merely felt compelled to wave his arms about, rather than commit some serious act of violence during the event.

OBAMA: Did he realize the signing was gibberish?

Although the odd part is that officials investigating the matter of “Who Is He?” have come up with television clips of African National Conference events during the past year in which the same man did a similar routine in the name of “deaf interpretation.”

Some people are more concerned about the fact that deaf people would have trouble comprehending what happened at the event. Television stations broadcasting the service within South Africa had their own sign-language interpreters on hand to translate for the hearing-impaired.

But activists in London told Reuters that deaf people in the rest of the world essentially were excluded from being able to comprehend the Mandela memorial – an event they want to believe was historic in nature.

NOW I’M NOT downplaying the significance of Mandela. Although my own impression of such large-scale events is that unless you’re actually there in person, they don’t mean much.

It just doesn’t seem like being a part of history that many people the world over watched the same television program. Or in reality, had it on their television sets as background noise.

Unless you were among those in the 95,000-seat stadium, what did you really miss? And if you were there, it was most likely that you wouldn’t have been able to clearly see the interpreter and figure out what the gestures were.

 

Which makes me wonder that if the current incarnation of Saturday Night Live wants to mock this controversy, perhaps they ought to bring back Morris for a redux of his old routine.

  -30-

What did they think he’d say?

Perhaps it is only appropriate that a one-time member of the comedy troupe at Second City managed to get Congress all worked up into a frenzy with his recent appearance before a House of Representatives committee studying issues related to migrant laborers.

The last time that a Chicago-connected person managed to get a committee all worked up was probably back when Sammy Sosa said he didn’t speak English well enough to answer their questions about steroids use.

IF ONLY STEPHEN Colbert had taken the same silent treatment, nobody would be upset. Instead, Colbert showed us what a big mouth he has, and how he at heart is an entertainer – even when testifying before Congress.

Colbert, of course, is the guy whose career has peaked with the persona he plays on television – that of a parody of a conservative ideologue television talk show host who spouts off all kinds of stupid remarks that only a nitwit could agree with.

It is his schtick, just like his Comedy Central partner, Jon Stewart, plays the part of a television news anchorman as the forum for his own jokes.

So when I learn that Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., is seriously upset by Colbert’s appearance last week before a House committee (calling his comments “inappropriate”), I have to wonder what Steny is thinking.

GET A CLUE, Steny. Colbert did exactly what one should have expected of him. He played his part of a Republican blowhard who is willing to back anything that has the GOP label attached to it, and if it plays to the segment of the population that wants to think of migrant labor issues in terms of being “foreigners stealing jobs from real people,”

Anybody who thought that Colbert was going to give serious responses to questions put forth by the committee is ignoring two factors.

One is that he is the star of The Colbert Report, in which he plays a character. That character is what was brought before Congress. Two is that, what would Colbert know about migrant workers?

Even if he wanted to be seriously, he doesn’t have anything real to say.

IT MEANS THAT the real disgust on this “issue” ought to be directed (if anywhere) at the person who invited Colbert to appear before the committee, which he used as a chance to further his public persona.

For the record, that person was Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., who chairs the House Judiciary Committee’s immigration subcommittee that Colbert allegedly defiled with his physical presence.

The Christian Science Monitor newspaper reported that Lofgren had hopes that bringing in Colbert would create enough buzz that people would pay attention to the subcommittee, and perhaps even give some thought to the issues confronting migrant farm workers.

Instead, what will be remembered is the sight of Colbert testifying, under oath, that, “I endorse all Republican policy without question.” Which actually is something that would come from the mouths of those right-wing cable television blowhards who defile the airwaves every night much more than Colbert did for one afternoon last week in Washington.

NOT THAT LOFGREN has anything to worry about in terms of political backlash. She is liked in her congressional district, and faces only token opposition. She is returning to Washington following the Nov. 2 elections.

Of course, that goes to show how various members of Congress who are politically safe differ from each other.

People such as our own Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., do things such as file motions that could allow the DREAM Act (the measure relevant to the children of immigrant parents who don’t have a valid visa) to have a chance to come up for a vote some time this year.

Whereas Lofgren goes for the laugh, and lets the one-time Second City understudy to Steve Carell (remember “The 40-Year-Old Virgin”?) mock the Congress on its own turf.

POLITICALLY-INSPIRED COMEDY has come a long way from the days of Rich Little and Vaughn Meader, both of whom were impressionists whose routines were meant to get a chuckle (envision Meader as J.F.K. running through a list of bathroom toys for the first children, ultimately declaring that the inflatable rubber swan belongs to him).

Now, we get actual cracks on the policy questions and the ineptitude in which our elected officials conduct themselves.

What hasn’t changed is that the primary goal of a Little (who did so many impersonations of Ronald Reagan that I know find that schtick annoying) or a Colbert is that their primary goal is a laugh. They’re trying to entertain us.

Only instead of standing in front of a brick wall with a spotlight on himself while telling jokes, Colbert plays the part of a talk-show host who acts like a blowhard. Which is fine. It serves a purpose. But it also is why anyone who thinks they get their “news” from The Daily Show or Colbert Report is almost as big a fool as the members of Congress who thought Colbert was being serious last week.

I CAN’T HELP but think that the political people who are continuing to talk about this and rant and rage about how Colbert “embarrassed America” are going out of their way to grab sufficient lengths of rope by which to hang themselves.

Because you know Colbert, if not Stewart also, will take those snippets, edit them accordingly, and play them over and over for the cheap laugh that they’re worth.

  -30-

EXTRA: Obama’s “Open for Questions” likely to provide comedy sketch material

On the surface, President Barack Obama will use modern-day technology offered via the Internet to give the American people a chance to speak directly to him – and answer their questions about the economy.

But in reality, I can’t help but think the only people who will get anything of substance out of this session will be the writing staff for Saturday Night Live. I see little more than a comedy sketch for Saturday night coming out of the “Open for Questions” sessions.

THAT IS WHAT the Obama people are calling their new stunt, by which people can make a brief video (30 seconds or less, please) of themselves asking a question about the nation’s economy.

Other people can vote on what they think of the question. Come Thursday, people who go to the White House web site will be able to see video snippets of Obama providing answers to some of the questions.

Now the reason I think Obama is setting himself up for parody is because I can picture the sketch of questions by incredibly uninformed people being answered in pompous fashion by our president.

This whole stunt (http://www.whitehouse.gov/OpenForQuestions/) reeks of an attempt to ignore the questions of people with some background who might have enough knowledge to ask something intelligible and go for the babble of someone who is clueless.

IT ALSO WILL allow the president’s handlers too much control over deciding which “questions” represent the concerns of the people, thereby making them worthy of the president’s response.

Admit it. The stunt is little more than an appeal to people who spend far too much time on their computers, rather than trying to understand the real world around them. I can’t help but wonder if Obama learned of Mayor Richard M. Daley’s use of YouTube videos to spread the city’s “message,” and decided he wanted to try to one-up Hizzoner?

And this sketch literally would not be original.

I remember a sketch that first aired more than three decades ago, back when the program was still known as “NBC’s Saturday Night.” It was an attempt to portray then-President Jimmy Carter as a somewhat pompous know-it-all.

IN THAT SKETCH, Bill Murray portrayed legendary news anchor Walter Cronkite as the host of a radio call-in show, who interviewed Dan Ackroyd’s Jimmy Carter impersonation and took calls from (as I recall) a postal worker who couldn’t understand how to properly work mail-sorting equipment, an obnoxious person (voiced by Garrett Morris) who made crude comments about first lady Rosalyn, and a stoned person who needed to be talked down from his drug-induced “trip.”

This would be a case where I doubt the current crew of writers could top the spirit and humor expressed in that original sketch.

And that one was humorous because it was such a parody of Carter’s desire to be intimately involved in the most minute details of the federal government operation.

An Obama sketch based on the “Open for Questions” session would be too literal to be funny.

-30-

If Obama looks ridiculous on SNL, will we still hear rants about "liberal" media?

I’m debating whether or not “Saturday Night Live” (I’m old enough to remember when the program’s official name was “NBC Saturday Night”) is worth watching in upcoming weeks. For we could be in store for some of the most ridiculous political sights imaginable.

It appears the program is trying to interject itself into the presidential campaign – whether we want to see it or not.

REMEMBER EARLIER THIS year when Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama complained that the sketch comedy show was favoring primary opponent Hillary R. Clinton? Well now I’m wondering how long until Republican nominee John McCain will start complaining that the show is favoring his opponent.

For Obama is set to be a co-host of the show on Saturday, paired up with Olympic medal winner Michael Phelps. Does this serve as a highlight for Phelps that he gets to appear with a potential president?

Or is it a symbolic blow to Obama that he has to appear with an athlete whose gold medals mean he has already lived the highlight of his life, and can only go downhill from here? Will winning the Democratic nomination for president be the greatest achievement Obama can reach in life?

Now throughout the years, the program has gone out of its way to use political activity in its humor. Chevy Chase is still remembered for his Gerald Ford impressions that weren’t really impressions, and Phil Hartman was the ultimate Bill Clinton impersonator.

AND FOR SOME people, Will Ferrell’s “vapid frat boy” take on George W. Bush is more real than the real thing.

That’s why I think it kind of sad that the show has done a terrible job of coming up with a Barack Obama impersonator. The guy they have had doing it in recent weeks doesn’t seem to have a handle on his target. In fact, the big gag behind his routines appears to be that he is a white guy impersonating a bi-racial man.

So could Obama wind up doing himself on the show when he appears? It wouldn’t be the most ridiculous thing. Former presidential press secretary Ron Nessen played himself in a sketch where Chase’s President Ford stapled himself and knocked over a U.S. flag.

There’s even the potential for some humor in the fact that one-time Saturday Night Live writer and performer Tina Fey is being asked to consider coming back to the show for a few weeks to be a Sarah Palin impersonator.

SOME PEOPLE THINK the two look a lot alike.

I say some because I don’t see the resemblance, unless we want to think that Fey (a one-time member of the Second City comedy troupe here in Chicago) looks like every single woman with glasses.

Will she smear herself with lipstick to get into character? Or have I just libeled the reputation of the Republican vice presidential running mate by bringing up the “L” word?

Could we literally be treated to the sight of Obama as himself beating up on Fey as Palin? Or will the star of “30 Rock” wind up whomping on Obama - perhaps even giving him a lipstick pasting? It could wind up being one of the most surreal sights ever seen in American politics.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Saturday Night Live is trying to bolster its own ratings by playing off the great public interest in this year’s presidential election, the same interest that (http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2008/09/12/SNL_wants_Fey_to_play_Palin/UPI-82521221231642/) resulted in record-high television ratings for the broadcasts of the nominating convention speeches given by both Barack Obama and Sarah Palin.

Publicists literally had Bernie Mac recovering from illness until after death

I was shocked to learn this weekend that comedian/actor Bernie Mac was dead, literally because everything that was released publicly about his health condition stressed the notion that he was on the verge of a full recovery.

Of course, my shock should not be interpreted as surprise at the notion that officials would be less than honest when addressing the medical condition of a person of some prominence to whom the general public might have some interest.

I HAVE NO doubt that Chicago’s Northwestern Memorial Hospital was barraged with constant calls from reporter types who were seeking updates on the medical condition of the late Bernard McCullough.

Hospital officials, as they usually do, deferred to the wishes of publicists who were more interested in keeping alive the image of a man who would be back at work in weeks, rather than the truthful one of a man whose health was seriously at risk the entire time of his hospital stay.

Bernie Mac was admitted to the hospital about three weeks ago after experiencing respiratory problems and soreness, and the reports in those early days went out of their way to refer to the hospitalization as a precautionary measure. He’ll be going home in a day or two.

For what it's worth, this is my favorite film featuring the acting abilities of Bernie Mac.

When he didn’t go home in a day or two, reports went out of their way to stress that it was doctor precautions that were keeping him there – as though any real person would have been able to walk into his hospital room and see a fully functioning Bernie Mac – joking with nurses and doctors and signing autographs for every orderly in sight.

AS RECENTLY AS one week ago, we were given reports indicating that Bernie Mac would be out of the hospital and back home by now.

He’s out of the hospital all right, but only because he died in the early minutes of Saturday. Of course, to read reports that came out Saturday morning, officials were going out of their way to denounce as “irresponsible rumor” reports that Mr. McCullough had died.

It wasn’t until late morning Saturday that officials confirmed what had already worked its way into public knowledge – Bernie Mac, 50, of southwest suburban Frankfort, died due to complications from pneumonia, made worse by the fact that he had a recurrence of sarcoidosis – a lung disease that he had previously suffered from decades ago.

It’s not like one medical condition caused the return of the other. But the fact that Bernie Mac was fighting two serious medical conditions at once meant that he was seriously ill, and it is nothing but completely truthful to say that all the people who were spewing the talk that Bernie Mac was on the verge of recovery were flat out lying.

I COULD HANDLE it better if I thought the family of Bernie Mac was somehow being told a different account, and was kept in the loop on what his condition really was. But after reading an Associated Press account of an interview with the comedian’s daughter, it was clear they were given the same lie in those early days.

Je’niece Childress told the AP that she and her mother gradually came to the realization that he could die. “As the weeks (of hospitalization) went on, I kind of knew,” she said.

So how should we remember the man from Chicago’s South Side who grew up to be a nationally-known comedian who got what seems to be the ultimate reward for an entertainer – a television program named after himself.

The Bernie Mac Show was never a big hit during its time on the air (2001-06) on the Fox network, although it took its share of awards both for the quality of its writing and for its non-negative portrayal of African American people. In short, it was one of several quality programs that most people never watched.

BUT IT HAS become one of the staples of syndicated television, airing here on WCIU-TV. I wouldn’t be surprised if it becomes Channel 26’s signature program. With many of the scripts based on Bernie Mac’s comedy routines, it could easily be the vehicle by which Mr. McCullough’s humor lives on for years – if not decades.

Of course, Bernie Mac also did Hollywood, appearing in various films throughout the years.

Most people want to remember him for his participation in the “Oceans Eleven” series by which George Clooney tried to turn himself into a modern-day version of Frank Sinatra (does that make Bernie Mac another Sammy Davis Jr.?). Others will note his involvement in the “Charlie’s Angels” series of films by which he was surrounded with multitudes of scantily clad women.

Personally, I will remember him for two films.

TO ME, BERNIE Mac’s role as the store detective who matched wits with Billy Bob Thornton’s drunken (and crooked) Santa Claus in “Bad Santa” is part of what makes that film a guilty pleasure for me.

There also was his role as an aging former major league baseball player who tries to come back with the Milwaukee Brewers to reach one last statistical achievement in the film “Mr. 3000.”

The question I always had about that film is why – if Major League Baseball is the entity that ultimately controls licensing of logos of all teams – did Bernie Mac’s character not play for the Chicago White Sox.

At a time when most Hollywood types who feel the need to take a stand on Chicago sports say they’re Cubs fans (and John Cusack feels the need to root equally for everybody), Bernie Mac was always true to his South Side roots in publicly supporting the White Sox.

ULTIMATELY, THE DVDs and syndicated reruns of Bernie Mac’s films and comedy show will be what allows us to feel like he truly never left us, similar to how we still “love Lucy” all these decades later – even though Desi Arnaz’ Ricky Ricardo is somewhere in the afterlife being hounded by his loveable wife’s ditzy antics.

It may even help us overcome what turned out to be Bernie Mac’s last moment of significance in the public eye – when he was the opening act for a political rally featuring Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

Bernie Mac’s jokes about sexual promiscuity and menopause may have been tame by some standards, but Obama felt the need to “bust down” Bernie before the far right would have started to tar the politician with the comedian’s jokes.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: A public memorial service for Bernie Mac will be held at Chicago’s (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-berniemac,0,7189379.story) House of Hope at week’s end.

As recently as the day before his death, publicists were still trying to peddle the notion that (http://justjared.buzznet.com/2008/08/08/christina-apple-gate-breast-cancer-treatment/) Bernie Mac was “responding well” to his medical treatments and would be going home. For awhile, they were even trying to deny that he was in (http://www.koin.com/entertainment/entertainmenttonight/story.aspx?content_id=4d8a283d-66c8-4198-971e-aabf54c3e17f) the hospital.

In one of his final public appearances, Bernie Mac became a potential political issue (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/07/at_chicago_fundraiser_for_obam.html) for Barack Obama.