The Year I Actually Watched the Emmys

It's been 22 years since I last watched the Emmy telecast. And that year I only watched (or rather "taped") the event because I was in attendance, having actually earned a nomination. When I got home to watch the program--after not winning--I only asked the Unseen Showbiz God that my name be spelled correctly if it was displayed onscreen. It was displayed. Incorrectly. So I haven't watched since.

It's not that I don't appreciate the TV awards show. In fact, I am one of those people who actually votes, year after year. But after screening and rescreening so many episodes, all of which I had already seen during the fall or spring, I usually suffer from video exhaustion. Just like the years I worked in my local polling place for 15 hours and couldn't devote one iota of interest in the actual election returns of the evening. But yesterday a neighbor asked to watch the show with me, so I politely acquiesced.

Usually the only awards shows I can tolerate are the Oscars, for their marquis value, and the Tonys, for a taste of the New York theater. But to my surprise this Emmy show was up to them if not in epic scope, then in pace and wit. In fact, the whole program was cleverly and carefully scripted, especially the quickie intros of the winners as they climbed to the podium.

For the two categories in which I voted--I'm not supposed to be more specific publicly--I chose the winner each time. (Hint: I went with the favorite). This did not make me feel particularly smug, though it did afford me the right to yell at the TV screen "You're welcome!" the two times the executive producer accepted his award and did not mention me on stage.

But I'm not bitter.

I appreciated the pacing of the show, which kept it at precisely three hours. Various thoughts: all the winners were given their proper due without lingering. The only exception was Matthew Weiner's snarky reaction to being cut short in one of his speeches. I have a feeling he is not a wonderful person. Temple Grandin's sincere enthusiasm was amusing and touching. I realized how much I was going to miss "Lost" when they showed Hurley--I mean Jorge Garcia--joining the "Glee" opening number. I wondered about the absence of Chris Lloyd, co-creator of "Modern Family" and the only current writing winner I'd ever worked with. Especially when the annual Death Reel included his legendary father, David Lloyd, who scripted "Chuckles Bites the Dust" on the Mary Tyler Moore Show. I also cringed at the applause-o-meter reactions to each dead person as their face appeared. Please withhold your reactions to the end, folks!

And then there was Betty White, looking great in her front-row placement, though by now we kind of expect a throne, or the Kennedy Center Honors. She was amusing as ever in the opening sequence, and managed to avoid an awkward standing ovation possibility by having her Emmy win for SNL awarded last week. I don't mean to sound snide here. Full disclosure, I have had the experience of working with her a couple of decades back, and I recall her as being funny and tart and professional, close to her public persona. My two major memories are of her graciously coming to congratulate me after a successful taping of one of my shows; also, of a less successful table reading at which I was impressed at how hard she tried to make the material funny. The number of quality people I have known in Hollywood I can count on one hand, and she's one of the fingers.

Add to these qualities her dedicated work for animal causes, and I find her National Aggrandizement quite edifying and cheery. Rather the way George Burns was celebrated in his latter years. And what's also remarkable is that you will not be able to find anyone who disagrees. In this contentious and polarized national climate, her late success is a phenomenon which every American--aw shit, everyone everywhere-- can unanimously applaud. Someone 88 can be pretty and smart and active. How cool is that. And she is still funny.

So I guess this is one time a standing ovation--rather than the de rigeur, stuttering audience rise for Ubermensch George Clooney--would actually not be an embarrassment.

But for the actual awards, come Friday I will have no recollection of who won.

Pleading the First

Samuel Johnson famously wrote, and I'm sure I have repeated it here, that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." I would like to add the corollary that citing the First Amendment may be the next-to-last, but I need to equivocate slightly, given the recent controversies that have dominated the news this silly summer season.

First there's that reprobate faux-psychologist Laura Schlessinger (she of the Ph.D. in physiology) who generated a storm by her strange tone-deaf rant that included the repetition of the "N" word--even I can't write it here--ten times to a bewildered caller, and all the attendant listeners who actually think she has something worthwhile to add to our social discourse. Dr. Laura eventually decided to get off the stage, or the mike, and blamed the critics for her decision, as though she was without fault (must be a Republican).

She ultimately defaulted to the argument that her First Amendment rights were being violated because she was not allowed to say politically incorrect things. This was wrong on more levels even than Rush Limbaugh's debunking of Climate Change based on a Washington D.C. blizzard last year. First of all, she was not fired. Secondly, she seems to imply that others had no right to criticize her--forgetting that they live under the constitutional guarantees of fee speech as well.
Thirdly, her argument represents a misunderstanding of the actual wording of the First Amendment, which says that the Government can pass no laws that would abridge the right of free speech. Now if the Federal Government shut down her program, yeah, she'd have an argument. But even that overreaching Fascist Communist Socialist Moslem, Kenyan-born President has made no such efforts, nor has any other government agency.

Of course Idiot Sarah Palin offered her illiterate support of Laura's battle to keep her "First Amendment" rights in Sarah's blog. Yeah, like Sarah has any idea what's in the Constitution. No need for further comment, except for an agreeable irony that two years ago Dr. Laura strongly criticized the selection of Sarah Palin as Vice Presidential candidate because she was so underqualified and intellectually lacking. So at least in that one instance Dr. Laura was correct, and Sarah's current knee-jerk support only confirms it. Tra-la.

Then there's the sad current wedge issue created by right-wing bloggers concerning the "appropriateness" of building a Muslim community center a couple of blocks from Ground Zero. I guess I should weigh in, with the full disolosure that I am not a big fan of Islam, of how it treats women, of how the Arab's invaded Israel on Yom Kippur, how the Egyptians made a popular miniseries of the bogus anti-Jewish tract "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," how Hamas still wants to drive Israel into the sea, etc. But given all that, my only reaction to the so-called controversy was "The First Amendment! Freedom of Religion!" And that's that.

Yet my own counterargument clouds the issue. There is no threat here of the government trying to abridge the right of Imam and other Muslim community leaders to erect this center. Even most Republicans have backtracked and relented on the constitutional rights of the Muslims. (Except for Newt Gingrich, who wants to somehow prevent the building of mosques anywhere in this country so long as their is similar intolerance to churches and synagogues in many Arab countries). The argument instead becomes one, essentially, of "good taste" and "appropriateness," and not hurting the feelings of those who lost loved ones on 9/11.

Perhaps I am too emotionally distant to appreciate that argument, though I'd understand it more if there was actually a tribute to Islam or Al Qaeda on the actual site of the destruction. That would be somewhat problematic. But the underlying issue is Islamaphobia, and the painting of every Moslem as being associated with the attack, as opposed to the radicalized group which is as much a fringe group as the John Birch Society used to be. And the building itself, sort of an Islamic YMCA or YMHA, is pretty innocuous, even benevolent. The Imam has worked with the two administrations, including Bush's, as a bridge-builder to moderate Muslims, and this affair is not likely to encourage him to continue that useful pursuit.

The bottom line is that the Republicans and conservative bloggers have tried to use this issue as a political football, though I don't see how many more votes they will gain simply from Arab-baiting. But much worse, the image of America among the billion Arabs in the world, which was finally recovering from the Bush double-war "Crusade" thanks to Obama's diplomatic efforts, has taken a serious hit. Sure, Sarah, Newt and Rush, drumming up race and religious hatred is a really effective tool to generate political activism. But it also helps to bring down tall buildings and destroy millions of innocent lives.