To all of Salon's readers: You're some of the most engaged and outspoken readers on the Web, and my writing has benefited from both your criticism and your encouragement. I genuinely appreciate your support over the years. Please feel free to drop me a line via Twitter, keep up with my latest work through my website, the rabbit blog, and look for my memoir, "Disaster Preparedness," on Dec. 30 from Riverhead Books.

Few writers ever get the chance to enjoy a job that's as creatively fulfilling as this one, or to write for an audience as smart and as insightful as Salon's. Although it's time for me to move on to new challenges, I will look back fondly on my years at Salon and feel grateful for them.

 

While the old familiar faces of late night don't do much more than make us chuckle ourselves to sleep at night, one man has been calmly and quietly upping his game: Jimmy Kimmel. Despite his distance from the action, it was Kimmel who took some of the most direct shots at Leno during the late night wars. In addition to imitating Leno on "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" and then appearing on Leno's show and insulting him to his face, Kimmel has been more outspoken than Conan himself about Leno's sneaky strategy to take back "The Tonight Show" (although Bill Carter's new book, "The War for Late Night," seems to suggest that Leno wasn't quite so calculating as Kimmel and others seem to assume). When asked in an interview with GQ this month what he learned from the late night dust-up, Kimmel replied: "The lesson is, it pays to be sneaky. I think that's the main thing I learned. That, and don't trust Jay Leno."

It's this frank talk that sets Jimmy Kimmel apart from his peers. Throw in the sharpest and funniest opening monologue on late night, an incredible knack for improv, and liberal use of off-kilter gimmicks and skits, and it's no wonder that Kimmel has risen to the rank of late night king. Whether he's launching a multitiered attack on Facebook idiocy with his National Unfriend Day, finding creative new ways to insult Matt Damon, or shooting an entire episode during a power outage using only his webcam, Kimmel has always had that combination of swagger and imagination that separates the good talk show hosts from the great ones. Like Johnny Carson and Letterman in his heyday, Kimmel has the bluster and the quick wit to make every moment watching him on the air feel dynamic and exciting.

That's no small feat, of course, but it's what real late night heroism demands. Kimmel tackles pop culture with more sharp wit and weirdo flair than any of the other late night hosts, whether he's addressing the new Spider-Man musical ("I've been working on a superhero show myself, it's called 'Aquaman on Ice.' Aquaman on skates, trying desperately to speak to his friends who are trapped under the layer of ice. That's a musical!"), rumors that Snoop Dogg will play at Prince William's bachelor party ("I'm excited for His Highness, and by His Highness, I mean both of them"), airline security pat-downs ("We freak out if a TSA agent touches us on the outside of our pants, but Black Friday, we will hump each other's heads to get at Walmart to save 8 bucks on a PSP"), or even the plans to have Lindsay Lohan appear on "Dancing With the Stars" ("I would love to see her vomit on Len Goodman").

When he's interviewing guests, Kimmel is arguably better on his feet and more ready with unexpected quips than any other host. On a recent episode when Ben Affleck waxed sympathetic about hard economic times in America, Kimmel soon hinted that no one wants to hear a megastar fake emotion for the little people.

Affleck: I don't think there's anybody in the United States that hasn't been affected (by the recession) in some way or another.

Kimmel: Oprah hasn't been affected at all.

On another recent episode, Kimmel took an otherwise bland interview with Kate Bosworth and livened it up. (And let's face it, the real test of good late-night hosting lies in finding some way to spice up interviews with dull, self-involved young actors and actresses. In addition to Kimmel, only Letterman and Craig Ferguson manage it with any regularity.)

Bosworth: (on her Korean co-star) He literally is the Brad Pitt of Korea. It's pretty wild.

Kimmel: Really? 'Cause I was told I was the Brad Pitt of Korea. That's disappointing. I feel like I was lied to. (pause) He's the Brad Pitt of Korea. And so does that mean he adopts a whole bunch of white kids, or how does that work?

He even managed to save an interview with Paris Hilton from the bowels of hell:

Hilton: (on her current boyfriend) Right now, I'm just so happy. He's my best friend.

Kimmel: Wait a minute, now. I saw a television show in which you picked a best friend and he wasn't it. Are you telling me that was not your real BFF?

Later, when Hilton called her new perfume "my tenth fragrance," Kimmel countered, "That seems like too many fragrances to me."

This is where the fans of Jimmy Fallon, who have been rallying lately to crown their contagiously giddy leader the supreme ruler of late night, really must admit defeat. While Fallon's antics try our patience in all the right ways (Zach Galifianakis' recent appearance, followed by a skit the very finest flavor of stupid, marked a recent high point), Fallon is a pretty bland interviewer, sometimes resembling Chris Farley's guffawing yes-man talk show host of "SNL" legend. Nonetheless, Fallon is undoubtedly in the groove lately, with such sure-footed oddball gimmicks and quirky enthusiasm that it makes you wonder if "The Chris Farley Show" itself wouldn't have morphed into something deliciously strange, if given enough time. And let's face it, anyone who makes Helen Mirren play beer pong deserves at least an honorable mention, if not an Emmy.

While he might be the best Neil Young impersonator on late night (or anywhere else), Fallon has none of the subtle snideness that made Carson, Letterman and now Kimmel masters of the craft. Sure, the kind folks down at the local elementary school's bake sale might find such a tone distasteful, but the rest of us, who've been marinating in a toxic mix of "The Love Boat," People magazine and celebreality shows for years now, need a healthy dollop of scorn to make the celebrity promotional appearance go down a little more smoothly.

Fans of Craig Ferguson will point out that he shares the requisite doubting tone in his interviews, and also scores very high for sheer courage of conviction. And it's true that to watch half a second of Ferguson's show is to love him, from his googly-eyed knowing looks to his perverse but genius rambling asides. His self-effacing charms make his perhaps the most unpredictable and unruly of the late night shows. However enchantingly strange Ferguson's monologues and interviews may be, they just don't stack up to Kimmel's.

And like Letterman, Kimmel carries the torch of bemoaning his network overlords, lamenting the dumb stuff ABC makes him promote. The imbedded advertising -- Bud Light signs on the stage, Old Navy promotions at the start of the show, constant appearances by "Dancing With the Stars" contestants -- isn't all that easy to ignore, but Kimmel makes the best of it. He's taken to calling himself "the three-headed dog the stars must pass on their way to no-dancing hell," and after that show's big finale, he told his audience, "I tell you something, I had a good morning. I woke up this morning, and for about three minutes, couldn't remember who won "Dancing With the Stars" this year. It felt great, it really did."

But Kimmel should wake up feeling great every morning. After all, who would've thought that this guy would be the big winner of the late night debacle of 2010? When you flip from Conan to Leno to Letterman, or stay up for Carson Daly or Fallon or Ferguson, even though you might appreciate Ferguson's bizarro self-deprecating digressions or Fallon's raw enthusiasm, Kimmel is the only host who will make you laugh out loud more than a few times per episode. He's got the sharpest monologue, the most interesting digressions and skits, and the best interviewing skills. Now that the dust has cleared, "The Tonight Show" doesn't look like a prize worth squabbling over, because, with or without the Cheesecake Factory backdrop, Jimmy Kimmel is the new Johnny Carson.

"OK, have a great weekend!" I replied.

Old people are a little checked out, it's true. But we're amiably comatose. This friendly state of autopilot is the only way we've found to manage our dashed dreams, our growing contempt for the culture, our creeping disappointments, our fibromyalgia. We grind our teeth at night and have vivid dreams about screwing cheerleaders. We resent the unflattering shape of matchstick jeans and daydream about gigantic claw-foot bathtubs we can't afford. Our elbows hurt and our hair always looks bad and we secretly think all electropop sounds like Kraftwerk.

Recognizing the defeat in each other's eyes, we smile warmly and say things like, "Of course! We'd love to," and "Fantastic! I can't wait!" because we recognize that everyone is flawed and just barely able to accept their own mediocrity or tolerate the frustrations of advancing age. The least we can do is be nice about it.

Youngish (under 35) skeptics will tell you that the men of "Men of a Certain Age" (premieres Dec. 6 on TNT) don't talk like men at all, they talk like post-menopausal book club members. This show isn't made for those youngish people, though. It's made for the oldish (over 35) among us, who recognize the self-doubting, second-guessing, pot-bellied guys on their TV screen as a painfully palpable embodiments of the humiliations and tiny little ego victories of middle age.

The charms of "Men of a Certain Age," like the charms of growing old, are lost on the common whippersnapper. While youngish people tend to reevaluate and reappraise their oldest friendships constantly, questioning whether this or that old friend is up to speed with just how advanced and mature and evolved the new "me" is, old people recognize that they haven't actually advanced or matured or evolved much over the years. Thus do they humbly turn to each other, all rumpled feathers and matted fur, and sigh deeply. Less important than how far you've come, to old friends, is how far you haven't come -- and also, where you were before you got old. The fundamental importance of old friendships, plus that peculiar flavor of shared, comfy nastiness that bounces around between old friends -- these make up the soft center of "Men of a Certain Age." We grow old, we fail, we reproach the gods and grimace in pain, and then we meet to eat pie and complain at the same diner each week.

"Everybody's like, 'Oh, don't give up on your dream, Terry!'" Terry (Scott Bakula) tells lifelong friends Joe (Ray Romano) and Owen (Andre Braugher) of his acting career. "What would've been so bad if I had, huh? We're at this place in our lives, we've come all this way, and I've got nothing to show for it. You've got something -- families, careers ..."

"Families suck," Joe replies. This harshness, which of course we don't expect and don't believe entirely (even from a divorced guy with an anxious teen son and a moody teen daughter), is what balances out the vulnerability of "Men of a Certain Age." As hand-holdy as the talk can get, these guys are still just guys.

And if you think their confessional, supportive tone with each other comes out of left field, tell that to the wood fence contractor who volunteered to me last week that he'd been "journaling a lot" about his dad's death, or the plumber who, apropos of nothing, discussed the struggles of raising teenagers. Middle-aged strangers tell each other emotional stuff out of the blue, and middle-aged friends tell each other everything. (The only exception may be certain varieties of hipster intellectual, who could literally chat about Sufjan Stevens' latest album on their deathbeds instead of confessing the hopes, fears and regrets of their final hours.)

But the utter lack of hipness of "Men of a Certain Age," the total lack of concern for what's deemed cool and what isn't, the complete disregard for matching the breakneck pace, the action, the swooning romances, the spitty outbursts, the shiny thrills of other TV shows, is exactly what makes this drama so lovable. Where other dramas would pack in more zaniness and intrigue in every available second of airtime, "Men of a Certain Age" rolls out the familiar, the ordinary, and locates poetic folds and sweet pockets of emotion therein: Joe's employees are two pure-intentioned teenagers who are genuinely confused by his old-guy ways, and one slow-moving old Spanish-speaking guy, Carlos, who sleeps on the job but Joe still can't stand to fire him (he lays him off then hires him back at the end of the first season). Owen works at a car dealership owned by his dad, a thoroughly mundane job that Owen dislikes most of the time, but also occasionally excels at. When he breaks away to work for another dealership at the start of the second season, his father is angry, but his respect and investment in his son finally start to emerge out of the fog of his constant hectoring. Even Terry, with his acting career, has encounters with the film industry that will strike anyone who's actually worked production as hauntingly authentic, less focused as they are on stars and perks and glamour than on a steady flow of deeply humiliating interactions with the most unsavory sorts of egomaniacs imaginable. The big promises and untrustworthy allegiances Terry forms with one director (who refers to him, tellingly, as "T-bag"), only to have the rug pulled out from under him on a whim, echo some essential Hollywood experience that's rarely portrayed with quite as much clarity and empathy.

But the big impact of this drama comes in its quietest moments: Joe and his son, Albert (Braedon Lemasters), are driving home from the movie theater after Albert has had an anxiety attack and insists that they leave. Suddenly, Albert wants to know if Joe is embarrassed by him. "Embarrassed? No, man. Never," Joe says, his eyes starting to well up a little. "You're my hero. I mean that. You're doing great, man. I'm proud of you." It's simple dialogue, nothing fancy, nothing too clever or provocative, but that's what gets you in the throat sometimes.

Like the oldish and crumpled and vaguely resentful among us, "Men of a Certain Age" casts aside sophistication and witty banter for the comfort of what's real -- even when what's real is disappointments, missed connections and inadequate attempts to reassure. In accepting our frailty, we locate our souls.

You're doing great, "Men of a Certain Age." We're proud of you.

Oh, and have a great weekend! 

The answer to that question, of course, is zero. Or as Lebowitz herself puts it when speaking to a roomful of young people, "There are too many books, the books are terrible, and it's because you have been taught to have self-esteem." This is Lebowitz's distinct talent: making elitist contempt sound charming.

Toni Morrison, a friend of Lebowitz's, puts it a little differently. "You seem to me almost always right," she tells Lebowitz. "But never fair."

"That's why," Lebowitz responds. "I'm always right because I'm never fair."

Most of us secretly wish that we could be as right and as unfair as she is. But the world has changed a lot since "Metropolitan Life" was first published in 1974. Being unfair isn't nearly as acceptable as it used to be. Today, people demand prose that is polite, respectful, nonjudgmental, and that never employs terms, phrases, suggestions or hints that could offend any segment of the population. People demand prose that isn't prose, in other words.

Contrast that with almost any assertion made by Lebowitz in "Metropolitan Life" or "Social Studies": Jews make good stand-up comedians. Sports are "dangerous and tiring activities performed by people with whom I share nothing except the right to trial by jury." Communism is unpleasant because "I do not work well with others and I do not wish to learn to do so." Children "tend to be sticky" and "respond inadequately to sardonic humor and veiled threats."

"Public Speaking" (premieres 10 p.m. Monday, Nov. 22, on HBO) is also packed with Lebowitz's clever observations, the most gratifying of which may be her reflections on the ways our culture has changed since her books were first published. "An audience with a high level of connoisseurship is as important to the culture as artists. That audience died in five minutes," she says, referring to the AIDS epidemic. These days, Lebowitz says, "everything has to be broader, more blatant, more on the nose." The problem? "Too much democracy in the culture, not enough democracy in the society."

Lebowitz's real strength, though, lies in explaining the different social classes to each other, either in her books or in Scorsese's film. In "Social Studies" she includes a "Glossary of Words Used By Poorer People" including meatloaf ("A gloriously rough kind of pate") and overworked ("an overwhelming feeling of fatigue, exhaustion, weariness. Similar to jet lag"), and outlines the trivializing effects of the international jet-setter ("What, after all, is London to a man who thinks of the whole Middle East as just another bad neighborhood and the coast of South Africa as simply the beach?").

In "Public Speaking," it's clear that, although Lebowitz might mingle with elites, her underlying affections lie with the common man -- as unsuitable as she might find his pants or his penchant for installing wall-to-wall carpeting in bathrooms. When the topic of how New York City has changed over the past two decades arises, Lebowitz says, "When a place is too expensive, only people with lots of money can live there. That's the problem. You can like people with money, hate people with money. But you cannot say that an entire city with people with lots of money is fascinating. It isn't."

Even if her writers block continues for another three decades, Lebowitz herself remains undeniably fascinating. Scorsese's documentary offers us a long overdue taste of her unique, queasily accurate perspectives on our culture -- always right, never fair and never disappointing. 

Over the years, while the depraved reality three-ring circus of surgically reconstructed housewives, striving entrepreneurs, C-listers and ladies who want to marry Flavor Flav has collapsed in on itself, "Survivor" still survive -- thrives, even. After a few scattered bad seasons, the show has been on a roll lately, thanks to some well-timed twists and casting stunts (All-Stars! Race wars!), hitting a high point in the colliding self-righteousness and open hostility of "Heroes vs. Villains."

Now that the show's loyal audience has grown accustomed to these gimmicks, though, each new season requires a new stunt. While the "Old vs. Young" teams that launched the current season of "Survivor: Nicaragua" (8 p.m. Wednesdays on CBS) looked promising at first -- how would hot youngsters with brawn match up against unhot oldsters with brains? -- the formula caved in when the Youngs proved to be beautiful, strong and at least functionally smart, while the Olds turned out to be every bit as whiny, arrogant, vindictive and pathetic as … well, actual old people. Oldster Dan brought along a pair of bad knees to match his $1,600 pair of Italian leather shoes (huh?). Oldster Holly stole and buried Dan's shoes in the sand (why?), then rolled out the extra-large crazy guns by confessing her crime to Dan and everyone else. Meanwhile, oldster Marty indulged in an all-too-familiar "I am the puppet master" routine, even as he demonstrated that he had about as much strategic finesse and self-knowledge as a sock puppet. One with googly eyes and really bad hair.

Despite their physical, mental and emotional handicaps, the old tribe had one thing going for them: former Dallas football coach Jimmy Johnson. Although "Survivor" producers had never cast a celebrity on the show, it was instantly clear why they'd break their own rule with Johnson. Not only is he a longtime "Survivor" fan, but he epitomizes the strengths, wisdom and charisma that come with age. From the first day, he was a magnetic presence on his team whose natural leadership couldn't be denied. He made tough calls, he rallied the team, he calmed them when they were disappointed; this was the kind of leader that every "Survivor" player, squatting in the cold and the rain, might've dreamed of. Using only his words, he made shivering in soaked clothes while the TV cameras rolled seem like a deeply valiant and enviable act. Even better, he even made it clear that he didn't want to win at all, he simply wished to enjoy the experience and be the best team member that he could possibly be.

So what did the old team do? They voted him out almost immediately. Then they lost, and lost, and lost, and kept losing.

Now, if you're an old (old starts at 40 here), whiny know-it-all with creaky joints and a bad attitude like I am, the last thing in the world you want is to watch other old, whiny know-it-alls hobbling around on the beach, cradling their creaky elbows, moaning about their bad knees, complaining about how cocky or unstable or weak everyone else on their stupid team is. "He thinks he knows everything, but he's wrong!" the old people said of each other. "I'm the one who knows everything! Me! Owww, my back." If I wanted to hear pathetic old people whimper about other pathetic old people, I'd attend more neighborhood zoning meetings.

Meanwhile, the youngsters were frolicking about, their supple young parts bouncing in their bikinis, their awe-inspiring meat Chiclets bronzing nicely in the Nicaraguan sunshine. Of course they weren't getting along well or anything like that -- but young people are used to hating each other for no good reason. South Central bad girl NaOnka hated long-haired Spicoli-style dude (whose real name I don't remember because he was instantly renamed "Fabio" when he hit the beach -- they even use "Fabio" in the opening credits). Stranger still, everyone seemed to dislike Kelly, a great athlete with a prosthetic leg, unfairly targeting her as a threat to win the "sympathy vote" early on, even though she wasn't remotely the type to pander for a jury's sympathy. The young team was playing by mean-girl high school rules, cavalierly booting whoever seemed uncool or out of sync with the majority. And who was at the center of it all? Mean girl Brenda and her sharp metrosexual boy sidekick, Sash.

Depressingly enough, it soon became clear that Brenda was the sort of effortlessly confident popular girl who barely had to lift a finger to make the tribe do her bidding. Gigantic, gorgeous country boy Chase followed her around like a puppy dog enforcer. NaOnka made an early alliance with her and silently backed her every move. Even though Sash seemed capable of striking out on his own, he stuck close to Brenda, with her casually dismissive, insidiously passive demeanor. Like all quiet but powerful popular girls, Brenda insisted that no one yammer on about strategy or get paranoid or negative around her. Rather than playing the game outwardly, Brenda wanted everyone to mirror her calm overconfidence and follow her lead. Brenda was the anti-Jimmy Johnson: no apparent strategy, no words of wisdom, no comforting assurances for her closest allies, just shrugging and sighing.

In other words, "Survivor: Nicaragua" was really starting to suck.

But then, on Thursday night, the tide start turning. Holly says that Brenda is a threat, and she wants her gone. Benry also wants Brenda gone. Dan, wincing and grabbing his bad knees, agrees. The big surprise, though, is that NaOnka, former Brenda ally, takes her own former enemy Fabio aside, and tells him that everyone else wants Brenda gone.

Loyal puppy dog Chase tells Brenda that everyone wants her gone. And what does she do? She shrugs and sighs and basically says that campaigning to save herself is beneath her and against her personal philosophy, which amounts to something along the lines, "I rule, therefore I should continue to rule."

Best of all, the immunity challenge requires players to support their weight by holding onto a longer and longer rope, testing their strength and endurance. The final two to battle it out? Huge young country boy Chase and little 56-year-old country woman Jane. Finally, Chase falls, and Jane is the winner! A victory for unpathetic old people everywhere!

At tribal council, Brenda tells Sash to give her the immunity idol using only her big brown eyes, but instead Sash gives her the Heisman. Almost everyone, including Chase and Sash, votes Brenda out. Now we see how far shrugging and sighing gets you in this game.

Episodes like this one demonstrate exactly why "Survivor" has survived all these years. After weeks of predictable, depressing developments, there's an unexpected uprising, and the whole season is transformed. Next week, a whole new game begins, because all of the preexisting alliances have been tossed out the window in one fell swoop. Meanwhile, all of our prejudices have been overturned: Oldster Holly turns out to be sane, sidekick Sash turns out to have a mind of his own, dimbulb Fabio turns out to be much smarter than he at first appeared, and oldster Jane turns out to be the toughest of them all.

This is what we want from reality TV: We want to be surprised by real people. We want to think we have them figured out, only to peel off new layers and discover new strengths, new weaknesses, new peculiarities, and new charms. Somehow, against all odds, "Survivor" delivers.

 

You would think that the remaining sitcoms would be really good, but no. What's truly remarkable is that almost every sitcom in existence is bad in one way or another. Even if there are plenty of decent jokes ("Better With You"), an original (if obnoxious) premise ("Outsourced," "Raising Hope"), a great creator and cast ("Running Wilde"), there are still so many bad moments that they practically erase the good ones, leaving viewers queasy and ambivalent as the credits roll. Even though we can recognize, objectively, that the work of being funny and original is hopelessly difficult, even though we not-so-secretly envy and identify with those insecure narcissists in their writers' room, since we're all insecure narcissists these days and we'd all rather get paid 10 times more to paste Fiji bottle labels to the wall than do actual work, that doesn't change the ugly truth: These new sitcoms that we struggle to rally around each fall are just not that entertaining, let alone that funny.

The comedies that are firing on all pistons these days -- "30 Rock," "Parks and Recreation," "The Office," "Community" -- are working because the writers don't mistake the show's premise for its stories. Watch "Running Wilde" or "Raising Hope" or "Outsourced," and in every single scene you're reminded of the main idea of the whole show. Guy uncertain how to woo girl. Guy uncertain how to raise baby. Guy uncertain how to manage stereotypical foreign peoples. After three or four episodes of this, no matter how witty the writing is, we don't care anymore. There just aren't enough great characters or intriguing situations to keep us hooked.

All of which makes the continued supremacy of ABC's "Modern Family" (9 p.m. Wednesdays) as king of the current sitcom lineup all the more impressive. Against a backdrop of haphazard, unremarkable shows and a handful of reasonably consistent standouts, "Modern Family" demonstrates the enormous comedic possibilities that spring out of simply honoring your characters, and adding new, believable layers to those characters as your show matures. In its second season (which easily stands up to the brilliance of the first), each character on "Modern Family" is idiosyncratic but still real, and show creators Steven Levitan and Christopher Lloyd work hard to find new ways to reveal each character's particular quirks. Take patriarch Jay (Ed O'Neill) and his much younger Colombian wife, Gloria (Sofia Vergara). Instead of dwelling on their most obvious traits -- her hotness and their age difference -- the writers locate the cultural disconnect between Jay and Gloria and exploit it brilliantly. In a recent episode, when the neighbor's constantly barking dog disappears, Jay becomes suspicious that Gloria might have done something brutal to the animal.

Jay: (to camera) Gloria's grandfathers and uncles were butchers, so she's always had a certain comfort level when it comes to ... killing. One time we had this rat ...

We cut to Gloria, wearing a pretty white lace dress, holding a shovel, as Jay cowers nearby.

Gloria: Whaaat? First you smash it (slams shovel to the ground on unseen rat), then you cut the head off. (Turns shovel and makes cutting motion while Jay flinches.)

Jay: (voice-over) It was like nothing to her.

Gloria: (handing Jay the shovel) I go to church now.

Jay: (to camera) She left the head out there to send a message to the other rats.

Likewise, gay couple Cameron (Eric Stonestreet) and Mitchell (Jesse Tyler Ferguson) keep us interested not by spewing a steady stream of "we're gay!" jokes like they might on other shows, but by taking pains to politely tolerate each other's flaws and sidestep conflict like all couples do. When Mitchell gushes about building their adopted daughter, Lily, a princess playhouse, Cameron explains to the camera that Mitchell has a bad habit of injuring himself and others when power tools are involved. "If an accident does happen, I hope he kills me," Cameron tells the camera, "because I don't think I would be a very inspiring disabled person." Later, Mitchell enlists his dad Jay's help in building the castle.

Mitchell: Remember how much fun we had putting that bookshelf together?

Jay: (to camera) That was my Vietnam. And I was in Vietnam.

Of course the show's writers take plenty of comedic advantage of the fact that Cameron and Mitchell are gay -- they just do it with relatable or familiar situations, or by highlighting the generation gap between Jay and his son. And almost any scene with Jay and his son-in-law Cameron is memorable, simply because Stonestreet's depiction of Cameron's very gentle awareness raising is so sweet and spot-on, while O'Neill's grumpy straight patriarch walks the perfect line between macho buffoonery and a very earnest desire to get up to speed with the changing times.

The couple also presents the perfect opportunity to deconstruct the precious, oppressively p.c. realm of liberal parenting while simultaneously underscoring the ignorance that's still afoot. In a recent episode, Cameron and Mitchell are told that being gay dads with a Vietnamese adopted daughter will make Lily a shoe-in at the prestigious Billingsley Academy preschool. They're feeling pretty smug about their chances while waiting for their interview, until they spot their competition: a lesbian couple, one of whom is in a wheelchair, with an adopted son from Africa. "Disabled interracial lesbians with an African kicker!" Cameron gasps.

During their interview, Cameron pretends he's an American Indian out of desperation. "The tribe elders foretold that, though I lay with fire-haired man," he says, gesturing toward Mitchell, "the Giving Hawk would bring us baby, with her skin the color of sweet corn, which my people call maize." Stupid and goofy, sure, but this is the flavor of stupid and goofy that, against a backdrop of sharp cultural commentary, hits the spot.

In another episode, though, Cameron gets Lily a spot in a TV furniture ad, only to find that there's a woman doing a cartoonish Japanese voice-over every time she and another Asian child appear on-screen. "Lily is Vietnamese, not Japanese, but you wouldn't know that," Cameron tells the director, "because you're only interested in seeing these children as interchangeable stereotypes, not human beings!" Then Cameron marches over and picks up the wrong kid.

The show's most traditional family, the Dunphys, might seem relatively pedestrian compared to Jay and Gloria and Manny (Rico Rodgriguez) or Cameron and Mitchell, but Ty Burrell is so absurdly good as self-congratulatory loser-dad Phil Dunphy that there's a built-in safety net with any of their storylines. Likewise, every time Haley's (Sarah Hyland) hapless boyfriend Dylan (Reid Ewing) enters the picture, things liven up. One day when Claire (Julie Bowen) is sick with a cold, Phil warns Dylan, "Don't get too close to my wife." Dylan responds in shock, "Haley told you about that? It was just a dream!"

Just as the writers use Cameron and Mitchell to capture the absurdities of hothouse-flower parenting of small children, they use Phil and Claire not only to demonstrate the perils of raising bigger kids, but also to capture the existential dread that creeps in once your kids get older.

Claire: A minute ago, they were babies. Now they're driving. And soon, we'll be dead.

Phil: Whoa! You're leaving out a few great minutes there! Retirement, old age, a cool chair that goes up the stairs!

Claire: I'm sorry, I'm being ridiculous.

Phil: Don't apologize! I love you when you're human.

Even though "Modern Family" features imaginative storytelling and vivid, layered characters that hold our attention week after week, every one of its characters is human, first and foremost. Rather than delivering up cartoonish stereotypes, "Modern Family" offers us thoughtful characters whose flaws and prejudices are balanced out by a glimpse of their big-hearted urges and pure intentions. They're hapless, smug, confused, pathetic and human -- and we love them for it.