"The poem you are referring to is not part of the original Statue of Liberty. It was added later.”
-- Stephen Miller, White House spokesman, dismissing "The New Colossus" poem about immigrants

To paraphrase the great Molly Ivins when she wrote about Pat Buchanan's culture war speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention, Stephen Miller's press conference yesterday probably sounded better in the original German.

A quarter century later, they haven't changed, still battling against immigrants.  Not even illegal immigrants, but in this case, legal ones!  Just as a starter, this position he made above trying to rewrite reality about the Statue of Liberty is one taken by many white supremacists and passed along on their websites.  Just a very quick historical note to Mr. Miller and any of his like-minded friends on the point of the words being "added later." So too was "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.  

(The words "Under God" were "added later" to the Pledge of Allegiance nine years after it was adopted.  So, perhaps by the standards of Stephen Miller and pals, God can be ignored in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Almighty has no meaning to its intent.)

And as long as Mr. Miller and his white supremacist followers -- unless it's the other way around -- are so concerned about the lack of importance for anything "added later," it's worth noting that the Bill of Rights and all 27 Amendments were "added later" to the United States Constitution.  These include the Second Amendment which so many on the far right and white supremacists swear by, and also the First Amendment which allows them to say such stupid things without fear of incarceration or being thrown into the loony bin.  Moreover, as the inveterate Chris Dunn pointed out, 37 of the 50 states were "added later" to the United States  As was Washington, D.C. as capital of the nation.

By the way, so is water when you make Cup o' Soup.  Man, if Stephen Miller thinks the concept of "added later" means you can dismiss its importance, I'd like to see him try eating that dry mixture on its own.  Maybe in white supremacist world, but not in any delicious culinary universe I know.

Of course, given that the Statue of Liberty was a gift from France, its "intent" is not from the Founding Fathers or the U.S. government in the first place, but rather...France.  When the words of Emma Lazarus were added to the Statue, that in and of itself is a specific act and absolutely clear intent of the government.  Besides, why do Miller and his merry band of white supremacists think it was put on the water's edge to greet incoming ships in the first place?  If it wasn't to welcome immigrants, they could have just put it in Nebraska, which needs a tourist attraction a whole lot more than New York.

And as long as we're dealing with history, reality and facts, the poem "The New Colossus" was written as a donation of artworks at an auction raising funds that would allow for constructing the pedestal under the Statue of Liberty -- three years before the the Statute itself was dedicated.  So, in fact, it is part of the history of the Statue of Liberty pedestal on which it is engraved, before the pedestal even existed!!

Alas, all of this is really pretty much for naught.  For all the Sturm und Drang from the White House and the belligerent Stephen Miller yesterday on this anti-immigrant bill, reporter Sam Stein of the Huffington Post commented on The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell that the proposal has NO chance of passage.  And every other panelist agreed.  But at least the administration got its dog whistle out to the base, and its white supremacist wing.  However many dwindling dogs there are.

But still, just as a reminder --

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Over in another venue, I was explaining a bit why I often write the way I do, and it brought up a story that I don't think I've told here, and figured it was worth repeating.

The background is that I was politely challenged for bringing up the thoughtless, inappropriate political argument of "the other side."  That even though I refuted the argument, the person didn't think I should have even have brought it up, though knowing I was trying to be fair.

What I said is that it's how I've written probably most of my political articles for years (and some others).  For years, I've had people tell me, "You're wasting your time, you'll never convince them" -- and my response is always that I'm not trying to. I'm not writing to the other side, nor am I writing for my own side.  Rather, I'm trying to convince the people in the middle who are reading the piece and don't know yet, who are undecided and might be convinced by the other argument.  So, I bring up the other side's argument, and then do what I can to knock it down. That then opens the field wide for me to make my point as unimpeded as possible.

All of which brought up one of the most hellish experiences I've had is because of writing like this. It's a very LONG story (and good because of the details), but that's best in the in-person telling, rather the reading, so I'll keep as short as possible.

Almost 11 years ago to the day (May 4, 2006), I wrote an article on the Huffington Post praising Al Gore -- An Inconvenient Truth had just been released, and I wrote about it, and about how Gore would still make a great president if he ever wanted to run again, which he'd said repeatedly that he didn't.  But though it was an article of high praise, it began it with all the slams about him -- how he invented the Internet, how he was dull and wooden, how he was a political loser -- which I then explained in specifics why none of them were remotely true. And with those three criticisms out of the way, I spent the second half of the article explaining how terrific he was. Jump forward a couple years --

I was in a hotel room, being interviewed by Al Gore about being the writer of a proposed, syndicated daily radio series he'd do with Westwood One Radio (the company that among many other things syndicates NFL football). I brought along samples of my work...including that piece about how good he was, and that he would be a terrific president if he ever decided to run . He asked to see what I'd brought, which he said he'd read later. I handed them over...but for whatever satanic reason, that article about him ended up on top. And so when he saw it, he decided to read it right then and there, in front of me. While I sat there waiting.  An article that goes on for a page-and-a-half bringing up all his supposed flaws -- that he lies, is wooden and is a loser (before knocking them down and then praising him).

All I could do was sit there, in hell, as he read.  Knowing that, among many other things, I was going to reference the then-famous, hyperbolic insults lashed out against him by the conservative press after he had delivered a scathing speech about George W. Bush -- among them a quote from New York Post columnist John Podhoretz who wrote, "Gore’s speech is the single craziest political performance of my lifetime."  And then suddenly, as I was looking everywhere around the room except where he sat, I heard Gore read out loud in a knowing voice of remembrance, "'...the single craziest political performance of my lifetime,' HA!!!" and I knew I'd likely be okay. And then he finally finished, and silently read the last line of the article which summed up his career, his current activities, and the impact of his new galvanizing movie, and ended with, "And that's the point.  Whether or not Al Gore runs for President again; in fact, whether or not he should, make no mistake: there is substance here. And passion. And outspokenness. And now he’s got an 80-foot high soapbox."  And having finished, he put the paper down, looked up at me and said, "Thank you."

There's much more to the story.  Including that a 15-minute interview turned into 45 minutes.  But the short ending is that I got the job. And we recorded half a dozen shows. And we got 200 radio stations to sign up. And raised a lot of money. But -- it wasn't enough for the syndicator Westwood One and Al, who both wanted to bigger landscape to make it worth their time, and so alas it all fell through. And I regularly sing, "This Nearly Was Mine"...

And that's what I mean when I say it's how I often write.  I think it's a good way.  But at times if you're not careful, it can be a living hell.  Until you come through on the other side alive...

This week on the 3rd & Fairfax podcast from the Writers Guild of America, the guests are Robert and Michelle King, who talk about their shows The Good Wife and The Good Fight, as well as other good things.

I've known Robert and Michelle for a couple of decades.  In fact I served on a couple of Writers Guild committees with Robert (the editorial board and the committee to select candidates for the Guild's governing board), and was also business partners with him in an online venture that about a dozen Writers Guild members started, called the PAGE BBS -- back in the days when "bulletin board services" predated online chat groups which were just coming into prominence.  It was an online meeting place for professional writers, not just WGA members -- indeed, the acronym stood for The Professional Authors Group Enterprise.  (We had decided on a different name, but for some reason, PAGE, popped into my head just before the final approval vote.  Everyone loved it -- except the guy who had suggested the other name -- and it was passed.)

My funniest memory of the time with PAGE is that as we were developing the site before it went online, we did a lot of testing, and Robert was always our guinea pig.  That was because he was basically a technical Luddite, and we knew that if Robert could understand how to maneuver throughout the site, anyone could.  To put this in perspective, Robert at the time was working more in feature films than creating TV shows, and very successfully so:  he'd written the movies, Clean Slate, Red Corner, Speechless, Cutthroat Island and a lot more -- and for all that success, the way he typed his screenplays bewildered the rest of us, to the point of hysterics.  It wasn't that he didn't use the normal touch-typing  with all 10 fingers-- he didn't even use the old "hunt-and-peck" style, where you use both your two index fingers to tap across the keyboard.  No, Robert typed all these major studio movies with a single index finger on his right hand.  Single letter-by-single letter.  It was hilarious to watch in action.  But the screenplay results he ended up with were sure awfully good.

Eventually, Robert moved into television, wrote some TV movies, and then his wife Michelle collaborated with him to develop the TV series, ​In Justice.  Here's the interview.
​

First things First, this is above all a Media Alert.  

Tonight (Tuesday), the scheduled guests on Stephen Colbert's show are Jon Stewart, Samantha Bee and John Oliver, as well as Ed Helm and Rob Cordry.  As the the expression goes, set your DVR.  If you've got one of those coal-driven models, start cranking it up now to get it all warmed up.

That's CBS at 11:35 PM on the West Coast and in the East.  10:35 PM in the Midwest.  And for all I know there are still some places where they don't try to eke out that extra five minutes of commercial time from their newscasts.  

It's especially good timing -- and does seem a matter of kismet, since bookings are made many weeks, if not months in advance.  And given how the Colbert fellow has been in the news the past few days, the schedule couldn't have worked out better.  I'm guessing that ratings will do quite nicely.

As you may have read, it was announced over the weekend that the FCC will be "investigating" Colbert for an off-color joke he make about Trump and how his mouth serves another function for a part of Vladimir Putin's anatomy.  Just to let you know, this couldn't not be further from the truth.  But don't take my word for it, Mark Evanier wrote about that here, when he wrote about how the FCC does not "investigate, but rather just reviews a matter when they get complaints -- and they get complaints all the time.  But don't take Mark's word for it.  After all, just yesterday, the FCC itself corrected remarks made by its chairman when a spokesman told CNNMoney, "We review all consumer complaints as a matter of standard practice and rely on the law to determine whether action is warranted. The fact that a complaint is reviewed doesn’t speak one way or another as to whether it has any merit.” And another spokesman said the same thing to Vanity Fair.

There are a few things about the outrage over the joke that strike me as loopy.

For starters, the FCC has very different broadcast standard during the day and during Prime Time than it does afterwards during late night, when it's presume most children are long-since in bed.

Also, if you've seen video of the joke, it got bleeped by CBS.  Which means that absolutely nothing went out over the air to the ears of Americans.  People can guess what was said, or presume it, and they're probably right.  But maybe not.  Maybe he said that Trump's mouth serves as a "cop's holster" for Vladimir Putin.  I serious doubt it, and I wouldn't take any bets, but the point is that it got censored by the network and nothing got heard.

In addition, what the continued outrage and protests to the FCC has done is keep the joke in the news long after its Use By date.  Gotten it shown repeatedly and discussed relentlessly, bring more and more attention to what was (presumably) said.

Moreover, it's more more attention to Colbert's show which has been getting its best ratings ever.  All of which, as fate would have it, brings the show to a peak tonight with its guests.  I wonder if anyone will bring up off-handed mention of the joke...?

Now, stepping back, I think it's safe to say that the joke was crude.  It was well-written and pretty funny, but it was definitely off-color.  Even at that, though, it could easily be said by a comic in a nightclub, and the FCC and most people wouldn't blink an eye, and you probably wouldn't ever of it.  So, it's not a matter of the joke not being allowed to be said, but just whether it should have been said on television, even having gotten bleeped.  Given the very late hour, the answer may well be "Yes, sure, not a problem."  Or not, we'll find out.  But -- the worst that will happen if it does get reviewed by the FCC and determined to have been against broadcast standards, even having gotten bleeped is...CBS will get fined and pay whatever the amount is, which likely won't be much, considering that it's coming from CBS's pockets, and considering that they'll be thrilled by all the free publicity their top-rated late night show is getting that's driving ratings even higher.

So, that's the result of all the continued outrage over the bleeped joke on late night TV.

By the way, I do understand why some people were bothered by the joke, wherever it was said, bleeped or otherwise.  It was, as I noted, crude.  It's not a joke I'd make, though I found it well-crafted, pointed and funny.  And I have no problem with people complaining about something they understandably don't like.  That said, I suspect most of those complaints were more political rather than semantic, given that the joke was said late at night, long after Prime Time and got bleeped.  But beyond that, I also reiterate what I said above, that for all the outrage and complaints to the FCC, they've been counter-productive and only served to keep the joke in the public ear.

I was very glad to see my guild, the WGA, speak out with a very strong defense and support of Stephen Colbert, who is a Guild member, saying the real outrage is not the joke, but that "What is obscene is not what Colbert said but any attempt by the government to stifle dissent and creativity.”

That said, I have the sense that the Guild's response was directed (rightly) by the erroneous reports that a government agency would be "investigating" Colbert, something that is chilling. If the first comments by the FCC commissioner Ajit Pai had accurate and said merely that the FCC review all complaints, it's probable that the Writers Guilds' response would have been muted, if not non-existent.  But when the FCC commissioner himself says his government agency will be "investigating" someone for joke, that does require a blunt response.

I also appreciate the notice that many have made of the irony of people on the far-right up in arms at Ann Coulter not being allowed to speak on a college campus, having her First Amendment rights abridged, but themselves outraged at Colbert's joke and calling for government involvement.  Never mind that Ms. Coulter was invited back to the campus, has countless opportunities to speak and the First Amendment only pertains to government making laws against speech, not private colleges -- and that the FCC actually is a government agency, making their involvement far closer to a real First Amendment violation.  Though for all that, I must say that I don't think the situations are the same, as much as some are trying to make them.  Forgetting that neither outrage may be appropriate, broadcasting does have a long history of FCC review oversight of standards since TV and radio operate on government licenses.  So, the comparisons don't really overlap.  But stepping back, and laws and standards and amendments aside, the imbalance of outrage from the far-right on two similar issues is, if not fully ironic, then delicious...

If you want to hear more about this, then you should probably tune in to CBS tonight, when Stephen Colbert's guests will be Jon Stewart, Samantha Bee, John Oliver, Ed Helm and Rob Cordry.  I'm guessing someone will bring it up.

The guest on this weeks 3rd and Fairfax podcast from the Writers Guild of America is playwright and showrunner Eric Overmyer.  He developed the Amazon series Bosch, and HBO's Treme, as well as served as executive producer of The Man in the High Castle and (for two seasons) Law & Order.  His many other shows include seasons on The Wire (for which he won a Writers Guild Award), Homicide: Life on the Street, Boardwalk Empire and more.  In addition, Overmyer has written 11 published plays.

It is with somewhat bewildered pleasure that Elisberg Industries reports that the oft-mentioned around these parts and inveterate Chris Dunn is once again Emmy-nominated for his work on daytime drama.  But that doesn't do it justice, since it turns out that the fellow actually received two ​nominations for writing on two separate shows.  Yes, really, two!

See.  I ain't lying.

While some people might look at this as impressive, I prefer to consider it further evidence of my theory that he's sort of an unlikable guy who others simply don't seem to want to be around, specifically because he is a fan of the St. Louis Cardinals.  And so he is forced to switch shows.  Mind you, I have no empirical evidence to prove this, it's just based on personal experience. 

Still, it's worth noting that The Young and the Restless received the most Emmy nominations this year of any daytime program, 25, and I like to think that's all because of Mr. Dunn's writing.  Sure, there were other writers on the show, but it's not for nothing that the two programs he wrote for both got nominated.  Coincidence?  Oh, no, I think not.

Of course, it's also possible that - despite being nominated in two of the four slots and having a 50% chance of winning -- he could still lose.  Perhaps he will split the all-important Dunn Vote.  Maybe some will find him being too greedy.  Possibly the "Making Daytime Drama Great Again" crowd will be able to amass enough voters to unexpected win.  Or perhaps professional jealousy will simply rear its ugly head.  But in the end, the cliche is true -- it's an honor to just be nominated.  And nominated.

If he does manage to win, though, I wouldn't be surprised if over six million people show up outside his house to celebrate.

It is also my expectation that Mr. Dunn is mortified by this attention.  That's okay.  After all, if he didn't want the acclaim he should never have written that tsunami sequence where Miranda can't find Jake after their big argument about whether Crystal should keep her baby or let Bryce know after he comes out of his coma that he's the father.  And yes, he used this storyline on both shows.

P.S.  I should update this with a note that the household has an additional chance of Emmy gold on awards night, as Chris's wife, the even-more talented and far-more decent Cathy Sedwick, is nominated, as well, in her case for directing as part of the Bold and the Beautiful team, which is perfectly appropriate since she is both.  Not to mention that the Lady Sedwick is deserving on general principal for being married to Chris Dunn and sticking with him.

On this week's 3rd & Fairfax podcast from the Writers Guild, the guest is writer Tracy Oliver, who wrote the film Barbershop: The Next Cut,  and upcoming has Girls Trip,