Coming out of the woodworks.

I'm happy for Lorne Michaels and the gang at Saturday Night Live. I really am. I fell in love with the show when I was in junior high, about the time when Will Ferrell was beginning to find his way in the topsy-turvy world of sketch comedy. The world that SNL created for 90 minutes on Saturday nights made a strong impression on my young brain. And yes, I consider it a world unto its own because it definitely was an escape I looked forward to during the week. In a lot of ways it established the guidelines for the type of humor I enjoy. Going through my "Best of [Insert Cast Member's Name Here]" DVDs usually welcomes a certain sadness because I've yet to come across another character with the brilliant absurdity of a Suel Forrester (played by Chris Kattan) or the inimitable comic sensibilities of Will Ferrell impersonating Robert Goulet.

I'm glad I persevered through the meager talent of both writers and performers over the past few years because it's so thrilling to see the show reinvigorated once again.

Lately, the show's been killing in the ratings due to the wild popularity of Tina Fey's interpretation of media-pariah Sarah Palin. The show has also garnered some less-publicized cameos from former cast members Chris Parnell and Bill Murray, as well as spots from Hollywood royalty like William Shatner, Alec Baldwin and Mark Wahlberg.

But Will Ferrell's reprisal of George W. Bush on Thursday night affirmed what was already openly known: Saturday Night Live is back.

View the video here: http://www.hulu.com/watch/40684/saturday-night-live-weekend-update-thursday-1023

Allow me to qualify that statement: SNL isn't back because Will Ferrell made a cameo. SNL is back because Will Ferrell, whose recent films have been terrible, capitalized on the resurgence of SNL. Now, I'm not hating on Will. As you can tell from what I already wrote, I will always have a soft spot in my heart for his comedic genius. But let's take a step back and think about his last few films. Talladega Nights and Semi-Pro are films which merit a comparison to light beer: they leave a bad taste in your mouth and when you wake up the next morning, you find yourself wishing that you had done something else the night before.

So, my long-winded point is that Mr. Ferrell probably noted the fact that everyone was buzzing about SNL's consistently funny sketches this election season, figured (correctly) that he needed to score a few points with the hockey moms and the Joe Six-Packs, and lined up his spot on their Thursday night special. And I'm also saying that it's okay with me, because it's wonderfully, wonderfully funny.

The gang at SNL probably won't have the Palin punching bag after November 4, but hopefully this resurgence will carry over into the new presidency.

Lipstick on an insane person.

NBC Nightly News ran a fluff piece tonight about the parents of special needs children (read: children with Down’s syndrome) and their outpouring of support for Sarah Palin. I’m actually sort of convinced that it was a tongue-in-cheek piece, because earlier in the same broadcast Brian Williams presented us with the latest CBS News poll which has Obama absolutely destroying the Republican ticket by 14 percentage points.

Originally I was going to use this space to write about how hypocritical Palin is, as I had heard somewhere that she had actually slashed the budget for the Special Olympics in her first year as governor (before she gave birth to her Trig, her son with Down’s). However, I stand corrected on that issue, as it was apparently a false claim levied by the Daily Kos. According to http://factcheck.org she’s actually tripled the budget allotment since taking the reins in Juneau.

Nevertheless, the buzz surrounding this extraneous issue continues to irk me. Those on the right have stalwartly defended Palin’s decision to bring a fetus with Down’s syndrome to term, citing her as a modern day hero in the pro-life initiative. On the flipside, I’m shocked that the sheer irresponsibility of Palin and her husband would be lauded by so many. Far be it from me to dictate people’s procreative rights, but wasn’t four children enough? Especially with the rigors of governing a whole god damned state? And to not consider contraceptive measures in your mid-forties? That’s just playing Russian roulette, as countless medical studies have shown a correlation between birth abnormalities and older mothers. And don’t you dare pull the religion card in this debate. If you have a problem with the pill or condoms, there are several alternatives. Among these is abstinence, of which I’ve heard the governor is quite fond.

So Palin’s failure to grasp the fundamentals of sex education is conveniently overlooked, and in its stead is the charming campaign prop that is her special needs son. Palin seized the spotlight at the RNC and Vice Presidential debate by playing the compassionate, caring mother. When the inanity of her VP acceptance speech concluded and again when the furor of debate with Senator Biden subsided, she took a hold of Trig and thrust him before the lens of the cameras to show us all that she is a card-carrying member of the “culture of life” and that, above all else, she is a saint because her baby has Down’s syndrome.

In the arena of professional politics, admittedly a sport in which every action taken and word spoken is ultimately self-serving, has there ever been a stunt as shameless as this? I think you’d be hard pressed to top it.

So, with three short weeks until Election Day, the Republican strategists will continue to paint Barack Obama as the candidate of inexperience; the “elitist” out of touch with reality.

But, my friends (to borrow the disarmingly friendly rhetorical style of John McCain): Sarah Palin’s ignorance of the things most of us learned about in tenth grade has been spun into a campaign prop. To me, that emphatically shows us that she’s the inexperienced politician existing in her self-constructed reality.