Question: Seriously, who does Stockard Channing have embarrassing photos of? She gets nominated for the Emmys every year even if she wasn't actually on television.

Answer: Amen, sister. This is probably a good time for me to point out that the majority of my beef is not with the Academy. I applaud them for revamping the voting system in an effort to try to spread the Emmy wealth. I think the changes made perfect sense, and I had every reason to believe it would fix what continually ailed the whole process. No, my problem is with this special blue-ribbon panel. The folks who sat in that screening room on June 24 and 25 and watched Hugh Laurie work his magic on House and still deemed him unworthy of a nomination. Geena Davis is a fabulous actress, but even her best episode of Commander in Chief doesn't hold a candle to Edie Falco's heart-wrenching breakdown scene after Tony got shot. And although I don't agree with Lauren Graham's decision to submit the deeply unsatisfying GG season finale to the panel, her work in that episode eclipsed anything Stockard Channing did on the abysmal Out of Practice. Some Emmy voters themselves are aghast at their peers' extraordinary bad taste. Just hours after the nominations were announced, I received an e-mail from an Academy member who admitted to being "totally ashamed" and "embarrassed" by the outcome. "There is so much wrong with the nominations, I can't wrap my head around it," wrote the NATAS member, who asked that her name be withheld because she's not stupid. "This isn't just a case of conflicting taste, this is like the Golden Globe nominations during the Pia Zadora era. I just can't apologize enough for this debacle." There is a glimmer of hope amidst all this gloom and doom. Rumor has it, the Academy is seriously considering an idea put forth by yours truly that would call for an independent blue-ribbon panel composed of only Matt Roush and myself to determine the nominees next year. What do you guys think?