Where to start, where to start? Always the question when the Emmy noms are announced--locked in a perpetual dead heat with the Grammys for the Least Credible, Most Laughable Awards Show Award.

Let's start with Desperate Housewives. I had a great time with this show, enjoyed it more than almost any other, so I sure, it deserves to more or less lead the pack of noms, especially in the comedy category.

But I'd hardly say the acting was the reason. So nomiate three of the four featured actresses and leave out the most talented? Eva Longoria, that tiny little chick playing the oversexed latin leaves the other three in her dust.

Most appalling, though, the best actor/actress by a country mile on the show all season, with a good shot at the title of best acting on all of TV all season, was left out as well. That would be Harriet Sansom Harris, who was nearly as good--and equally overlooked?--for years as Fraiser's ruthless agent Bebe. She can be both bloodcurdling and hysterically funny as Mrs. Huber's sister. The way she can deliver a "Have a cookie?" line with such finesse should get her an award all by itself.

Speaking of best actresses on TV, Kelly Bishop continues to be overlooked for the wondrous Emily Gilmore. As did the whole show, which has never gotten a single nod, and deserved a few again this year.

Lots and lots more artistic abominations--like the actor playing Will on Will & Grace nominated again--but I'll leave it there. Download full list in pdf here. (It runs 36 pages.)

If you're thinking of checking out Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Slate has a really interesting piece subtitled The inspiration for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, that fills in the background on author Roald Dahl, and his brushes with the connivers in the chocolate industry.

Well told, never dull. And I had no idea.