On striking while The Celtic is Not

I'm a child of unions. My mother has worked for unions for almost the entirety of her career. First the state employees union, then the teachers union. She is a true devotee. Whenever I lamented the selfishness of professional athletes when the threat of players association strikes loomed large, my mother was quick to remark, "But they make nothing compared to the owners..."

GRRRRR...

Still, I'm a good union girl. Though I think a few have outlived their true purpose and need, I don't see them as a mass negative the way some do. After all, I walked my first picket line at 6 years old in support of paper mill workers in Maine. I've been to so many rallies I can't begin to count them. I was such a quick study that my friends and I had our own "strike" outside a summer bar-b-que we were attending with our parents, all employees of the union, when they wouldn't take us to the area carnival after the BBQ. We made signs, we marched, we chanted..

They took us to the carnival.

The writers' strike has touched my life in a very strange way. In addition to being a fan of tv and particularly bummed that House, The Office and other favorites are all in repeats, my boyfriend and I had Daily Show tickets for a show scheduled just before Christmas. Obviously, we weren't able to go as our show was cancelled due to the strike. Oddly enough, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report return tomorrow, sans writers, so those "lucky" ticket holders still have something to see. Still, had the arrangement been made in time for our own show, that is, the return of the hosts but no writers, I fear I wouldn't have wanted to see it just the same. After all, what is a show without its writers? We would have seen something, but we would not have seen The Daily Show for which we requested tickets. There just wouldn't have been a point.

Now all the talk has switched to the Golden Globes. The Golden Globes, as many of you are aware, kick off my own personal holiday season. To me, there is simply nothing like the Golden Globes and Oscars. The glitz, the glamour, the recognition, the competition, the life changing moment of a win for the awarded. It makes me giddy.

The actors, however, are opting to skip the party and not cross the picket line. I certainly support the decision, even if the structure of the Globes itself makes it a little silly. I certainly don't wish to downplay the importance of introducing a category, why it's important and the nominees, but in the grand scheme of messaging, it feels a bit odd. The Globes have no host, no musical performances... just the category, the presenter and the nominees.

What I'm trying to figure out is if this makes the actor protest all the more impressive or all that more ridiculous.

Don't misunderstand... I support the writers through and through and hope that the effort and cost of the strike can somehow be made up when terms are finally agreed to and the whole thing comes to an end.

So I'm sad the Globes won't be the show I usually look forward to this year. And, no, I won't waste my time watching it if they do, in fact, broadcast them without the stars, as they're indicating they will do. Like the Daily Show, there would be no point. While the writers don't necessarily make the Globes, the nominees do, and that's a fact.

Of course, maybe they could take the cost savings of not broadcasting the damn thing, donate it to the guild and give the writers the extra 4 cents they're looking for and we could just be on our way.