Live from New York...

Ask anyone when they think Saturday Night Live "jumped the shark" and I'm sure you'll get a variety of answers. Generally, the answer will depend on which cast the person grew up watching. And for a show that's been on television since 1975, that's a lot of ground to cover and a lot of cast members to consider. In fact, I think that SNL has jumped the shark so many times, the shark doesn't even show up anymore.
The reason I'm writing about the show is because the first season is set to come out on DVD in December; unedited, complete with musical guests. It's been years since I've seen an entire show from that era and it will be interesting to see how the episodes have stood the test of time.
The basic format of the show hasn't changed much over the years. The show opens with a sketch, usually something topical, followed by a monologue by the host, then maybe a commercial parody and a few more sketches. A musical performance is usually after about 4 or 5 sketches, followed by Weekend Update. After that point, the laughs drop off considerably, although some characters have grown from those late program sketches. And while the format stays the same, it's the eclectic aspect of the program that's changed, not necessarily for the better.
Argue all you want about which cast is the best, but I prefer the early years and not just for the cast. Back in the late 70's, there was nothing like this on television. Variety shows were basically safe and family-friendly, from Carol Burnett to Donny & Marie. SNL offered the only real alternative, a slap-to-the-face of network programming. It was also event television, something people talked about Monday morning. Occasionally SNL will inspire that kind of conservation now, but not like the early days. And the eclectic choice of hosts and music provided a spark. Unlike today, when the host is someone usually plugging a movie, television program or record, the hosts in the early days seemed to people the cast wanted the opportunity to work with. Such comedians as George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Lily Tomlin and Robert Klein wound up as hosts in the first season, while Steve Martin would host the show five times in season two and three. In fact, the first show, which was hosted by Carlin, contains a lot of his stand-up as well as an odd performance by Andy Kaufman.
The musical guests in the early years were generally an odd mix, consisting of folk/singer-songwriter types, with appearances by Paul Simon, Gordon Lightfoot and Leon Redbone, but also unlikely groups like ABBA and the Preservation Hall Jazz Band. SNL, though did tap into the new-wave music trend in seasons three and four, boasting appearances by Elvis Costello, Talking Heads, DEVO and Kate Bush. Occasionally SNL will still book a group considered "cutting edge", but they generally venture into the commercially-safe territory.
I know I'm looking forward to this boxed-set. Not just as a reminder of this television institution got started, but also as a way to remember my youth. When staying up late was cool and you couldn't wait until Monday to recite the sketches to your classmates. Also, the only shark the show had to worry about was a landshark.

Is it November 8 yet?

I've just wanted to hide under the covers until this current political season is over. While I enjoy the freedom we have to exercise the democratic process, this year has been overkill as the two parties fight for control. And it seems that no matter where you turn, you're getting bombarded with political adds. Television has been a non-stop parade of ads, although it's mostly been about three things: Claire McCaskill vs. Jim Talent, Admendment 2 and Admendment 3 (for those outside Missouri, McCaskill/Talent is a Senate race, Admendment 2 is stem cell research and Admendment 3 is a cigarette tax). The McCaskill/Talent race has gotten ugly at times (who am I kidding, most of the time) as they spend their ad space telling us what the other candidate isn't doing in their current position instead of telling us what they're actually going to do if elected.
Of course, the adds don't stop there. On Saturday, we received four(!) political mailings, although it was really two sets of the same mailings. And the barrage has also occurred on the phone as I now live in fear of phone calls. Thank goodness I don't listen to the radio, because I'm sure it's there as well.
But the big question is, do these ads really help? I can't see a Republican voting for a Democrat, or vice versa, simply based on these ads. And while they may be targeting the undecided, how many people really are undecided? I've had a clear picture of who I'm going to vote for some time ago and these ads aren't going to sway me. Do people say they're undecided as a way to taunt the pollsters? Is an attack ad that is void of facts really going to change your mind?
What we really need are ads for the lesser known races, like some of the propositions or judges. These are races/decisions that are important to a community but get lost in the shuffle of the bigger races. Or better yet, how about taking that money from political advertising and use it to help people. I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to compile a list of charitable organizations, government programs, etc. that could use the money. And even though I work in an industry that relies on political ads, what's wrong with politicians actually giving back to the community.
So until November 7, I'll turn off my television, won't answer the phone and stay away from the mailbox. And as far as the McCaskill/Talent race is concerned, I'm just going to vote "No."