.
Feedback

Emmy Nominations: Who Was Snubbed? [POLL]

Whether its 'Downton Abbey' or 'Modern Family,' small screen favorites get their due

If you hang on to Rodger Sterling's every quip, gnash your teeth at the nefarious King Joffrey or fancy Jesse Pinkman's naivety, Thursday is an important day.

Not for Sterling-Cooper-Draper-Price, Westeros or Albuquerque, NM—but for the actors and actresses that inhabit these settings once a week on the small screen.

Emmy nominations are out, and nods include the obvious ("Mad Men" snagging 17 nominations) and some surprises (What's "American Horror Story?" It nabbed 17, too.)

(For a full list of categories of nominees, click here.)

From posh English estates to lumbering zombies in America's south, dozens of television shows, actors, directors and writers are up for accolades. So, cast a vote for your favorite in the Patch poll below. And if the Emmy committee (or Patch, for that matter) snubbed your darling, leave your impassioned diatribe in the comments section.

Lisa Buchman (Editor) July 19, 2012 at 05:51 pm
Definitely going through Matthew Crawley withdrawal!
Kevin Zawacki (Editor) July 19, 2012 at 06:06 pm
And I doubt anyone is saying the same about Thomas.
Josh Semendoff July 19, 2012 at 06:25 pm
Sons of Anarchy!!!
Michael Woyton (Editor) July 19, 2012 at 06:25 pm
I really enjoyed "Downton Abbey" (I tore through both seasons in about a week), but "Mad Men" is still my favorite, only because "Walking Dead" wasn't nominated for best drams series.
Josh Semendoff July 19, 2012 at 09:24 pm
Sons of Anarchy is the Rodney Dangerfield of Dramatic Series...
Mitch Horn July 20, 2012 at 12:48 pm
I agree with the Sons of Anarchy Snub. the show s extremely well done and Katy Sagal rocks the screen as Gemma. Hollywood just can't deal with a show that doesn't cowtow to their broken system.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Nyack-Piermont Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Lisa Buchman (Editor) June 13, 2013 at 11:09 am
Congratulations to Nyack Boat Club and member Justin Coplan! Would love to see photos of the team inRead More action!
Aerial of United Water's proposed water treatment plant location
Caleb June 13, 2013 at 10:23 pm
Untrue. Perhaps if United Water wasn't sending over 2 million gallons a day from Deforest Lake toRead More they're customers in Bergen County we would not have this shortage. Hydrologists have shown that there is enough water regularly collected in Rockland's reservoirs and aquifers for our current and growing needs. Many of the "facts" that United Water is putting forward are outdated, and are based on they're own mismanagement of our water basin. Lets remember that United Water has repeatedly been removed as a water provider of major cities throughout this country (6+ last time I checked, notably even from Camden NJ) for mismanagement of water resources. I think its a prudent choice to look into a plant that we will be stuck paying for for the next 4 years from a company that has repeatedly lied and provided water with toxin levels high above legal limits to they're customers. Better safe than sorry.
John Taggart June 13, 2013 at 11:59 pm
Rockland has grown to the point that it needs more water. Terminating the flow of a river and takingRead More the water resources away from other communities (stealing what we need) isn't going to happen.
drostan June 19, 2013 at 03:13 pm
A Response to the Response Mr. Michael Pointing, writing on behalf of United Water, opined in theRead More Journal News (June 7) and the Nyack Patch (June 11) that an Issues Conference on the pending desalination project is unnecessary. When it is so greatly to his personal and professional benefit to support this project, how can he expect to be taken seriously? Comments on the "desal" plant have only rarely mentioned that the radioactive tritium, which each day leaks into the Hudson from Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant - just 3 miles upstream from the plant - will end up, in diluted form, in our drinking water. Problem is, although highly diluted, there's no way to filter out tritium since it is chemically identical to water. Worse, there's no known safe exposure level. Like "normal" water, tritium goes into your body as fast as you drink it. Good news: about half of the tritium you do drink is filtered out by the kidneys within about ten days. Bad news: When your kitchen faucet keeps providing you with small amounts of tritium day after day, it tends to keep whatever levels you have in your body elevated. Welcome to your future, Rockland. Say, how about cracking open a nice plastic bottle of Deer Park for mixing up that baby formula? Why does United Water want this project to go forward so quickly as to necessarily preclude a thorough public education process in which all the variables and all the options can be openly discussed? What if one day you decided you don't like UW anymore and you wished the water utility was still owned by the government and not the private sector, because at least that way through your vote, you could democratically elect new people who would shut the plant down (whereas you can never "vote out" a private corporation from owning the pipes that carry your drinking water)? Let's just say arbitrarily that for the first ten years following completion of this more or less irreversible project there was an average of 500 additional picocuries of tritium per liter showing up in drinking water in Rockland County that was not there before. Even the NRC says Indian Point emits tritium into the ground water and presumably into the Hudson as well, since Hudson water is what flows - 24 hours a day - into and out of the power plant, cooling the atomic reaction that creates electrical power). In 1976 the EPA decided (more or less arbitrarily) that 20,000 picocuries of radioactivity would be roughly the "safe" upper limit for human consumption (due to drinking tritium or any other radionuclide). I say "arbitrarily" because I am aware of no one who has actually tried this since then, to see if it really turned out to be safe. Whose insurance policy would make Rockland homeowners whole again if at some future point tritium (or other radionuclide) levels skyrocketed while property values plummeted? Maybe something so terrible could never, ever happen. I certainly hope it couldn't. But why are we residents the guinea pigs, and how come we pay more - not less - for our water just so UW can do more business and, of course, collect more in utility bills? By the way, Fukushima was also never ever supposed to happen. Human health is not something you go back and study all over again once you realize you've lost it. Doesn't Rockland County have enough cancer already? Dan Rostan Nyack