Homicide Rewatch: Closet Cases

 

Every so often I'll read a post about TV from an organization involving African-Americans or LatinX or any other group of identity politics which will rank the number of TV shows that have characters with major roles of that group. The pattern is always the same. If it has dropped by two to three percent, it's condemned; if it goes up four or five percent it's met with something like 'improving but we've got a long way to go."

My reaction every time I read one of these pieces is that the people who are currently making these rankings are 30 or younger if they are truly nitpicking like this. Because as someone who came of age in the 1990s I'm fully aware that when it came to television those were the bad old days for every minority group that existed. It said a lot about where TV was that during that period Homicide was by far the biggest cause for minority representation when it came to African-Americans – and it's now understood that was the reason it struggled to survive each season as well as never getting adequate recognition by the Emmys. This was true every part of the 'Rainbow Coalition' during that period. So it says something that arguably the most controversial storyline it did during its entire run began in this episode.

I remember 90s TV and if you were a gay man there were exactly three characters that were represented: AIDS victim, drag queen or serial killer. In all of those versions you had to play into the notion of being camp. And the idea of having a series where one of the main characters was gay. The networks wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole. And the few shows that allowed gay character – well on Melrose Place we had Matt Fielding, who was playing by a straight man and who was in many relationships but never once was allow to have a sex scene. That was it.

What's more there was no sign the viewers wanted gay character. One of the biggest events in TV history had happened in the spring of 1997: 'The Puppy Episode' of Ellen. It is one of the most groundbreaking episodes in TV history – but by the end the year the ratings were lower than they were before Ellen had come out and the show was going to be cancelled the following spring. And to be clear it's always been easier for women to explore their sexuality in America than men on TV and film.

So the fact that Homicide was going to have one of its male characters openly explore his sexuality was, in 1998, the equivalent of putting a blindfold before venturing across a minefield. And even more dangerous was that this character was Bayliss.

Now I have to get somewhat personal. Like every fan of the show I was always drawn to Kyle Secor's work. Bayliss was always the heart of the series as well as its moral conscience. He was our way into the squad when the show debuted and no matter how many new detectives joined the unit, he still seemed that way five years later.  So I won't lie: the idea of him rejecting the heterosexual norms that he himself has been embracing for his entire life, it made me uncomfortable at 18. I can imagine many long-time viewers felt the same.

Because the idea of a character being bisexual was somehow harder to accept in 1998 then just being a gay man or a lesbian. I had a lot of trouble accepting it in TV characters for a very long time – if I'm being honest, I openly accepted it as a reality in maybe the 2010s. I could accept the gay or lesbian characters far easier than bisexuality.(That's the term that was prominent until fairly recently and since that was what Bayliss himself used later on I'm going to do the same for clarity.) It very well might have been as groundbreaking when Bayliss called himself 'bicurious' as it was when Will & Grace came out in the fall of 1998 and became the first TV show of any era to become a cultural and commercial hit with gay characters as the leads.  Secor's arc in the final seasons of Homicide was less noted than the successes in comedies but there's an argument its just as important for TV dramas down the road.

And in keeping with how the show works that storyline basically comes up in the denouement of an episode that has spent the better part of forty-five minutes showing all of the horrible obstacles gay men face in 1990s Baltimore in almost every incarnation, not the least of which is the Baltimore PD itself. The storyline itself is groundbreaking enough; that it comes during an episode that is showing Bayliss every single bad thing that can happen if he goes down this path and that at the end of the episode he's still taking tentative steps to do so is among the bravest work Secor has done or will ever do on this show.

The episode begins with a anonymous man being found nude with his face nearly beaten off and left in a dumpster  behind the Zodiac, a restaurant prominently known for a gay clientele. We learn quickly that Bayliss and Cox's long-simmering romance broke up the moment it met reality. Cox thought it was a Christmas thing and is more concerned with what it will look like if her relationship is discovered. (She basically confirms this in a conversation with Meldrick during the episode.) After that they have a discussion with the proprietor Chris Rawls. Pembleton sees the aftermath of what's going on between him and Cox and its clear he's stunned not only that they had a relationship but now its over. This in itself shows how their partnership has shifted. Bayliss was always trying to get Frank to open up before and Pembleton refused to share anything. Now Bayliss is being closed mouth and Frank almost seems heartbroken. "You don't tell me anything," he says in a Bayliss like tone.

I remember looking at Rawls and thinking that this isn't the kind of gay man I'm used to from 1990s TV. He goes against the flamboyant nature that was sadly common, asks if this is a hate crime or sex crime and is remarkably calm given the circumstances. In one of the best lines of the episode he's asked if he has any enemies. "Besides Jesse Helms?" Rawls says with a deadpan that would do Munch proud. He asks whether this could be related to the murder of a gay bartender that was similar.  And in a portent of a later scene he offers to tell him that certain aspects of his community don't hold the police in high regard but his clientele does. We're going to see examples of both sides before this episode is half over. And before he leaves Rawls compliments Bayliss on his tie.

Its Pembleton who notes that Rawls was flirting with Bayliss and says he handled it well. For Frank this is a comment of professional courtesy as he remembers just how badly Bayliss handled the murder of Zeke Lafeld in Hate Crimes which took place in a similar neighborhood and where he was incredibly uncomfortable to the point of homophobic.

There are no identifying marks on the body so the victim is initially a John Doe. Bayliss and Pembleton are forced to go to missing person with a description of "a well-tanned muscular white male who liked linguini." Bayliss puts his foot when he asks: "Was there any indication he was gay?" Cox: "I don't think they have a test for that." Clearly she's an ally.  This leads them to Higby, who has been transferred to Missing Persons and longs for the days of Homicide when he was disguising murdered hookers as OD's. (That's what was going on the last time we saw him.) And the moment Higby learns that the victim is gay. "I'm here after quitting time busting my hump for some (fag)!"  Higby's bigotry is deep in the roots (maybe he learned it from Gaffney when they worked the same shift) Immediately afterwards we see a group of protestors outside the squad saying that familiar chant: "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!" Again its hard not to see that there's been some progress in America these days that many people of a certain age consider this a statement of Pride and not one demanding action. Giardello, interestingly, seems somewhat more on Higby's side. He's clearly annoyed that the bosses are leaning on him because of the protestors and let's not kid ourselves, if there were no protestors the bosses wouldn't care

Eventually they figure out that the food in the stomach was served at the Zodiac and Rawls identifies the victim as Allan Costello a regular who owns a nightclub. Allan was there the previous night with one of his 'hustlers' – a young man he was trying to help. He was reported missing by his 'brother' Sam – and we quickly learn Sam was his lover and the two of them live together. Sam is still afraid of what will happen if people learn his sexual identity. (Again a sign of how far we've come that this makes this story almost  a period piece.) Pembleton thinks that Sam lied about his relationship. Rawls points out he probably did it to make sure people would look for him and he doesn't trust the police. Rawls actually comes with the detectives to the nightclub where Sam does the books in order not to scare him.

The nightclub scene is interesting: while its somewhat stereotypical for the era it's less offensive then the overwhelming majority of shows on the subject would be at the time. More interesting is that Bayliss actually seems more at ease then we've seen him  in a very, very long time. And for a man who called Bayliss out on his homophobia and will call out racism time and again, its fascinating to see how uncomfortable Frank is seeing two men dancing together. Does he not have the open mind we've always believed?  Well, when asked if the two of them are together he jokes "We're joined at the hip." (Ain't love grand?)

Sam is very reluctant to come in, he pointedly doesn't want to ID  his lover's body and he resists Chris's entreaties. He makes it clear he didn't know who Allan was seeing and its clear he long lost patience with his lover's interest in saving these boys whether they wanted saving or not. Sam's instincts, unfortunately, are dead on. When he identifies the body he says something even more shocking for 1990s audiences: "I want you to find the sonofabitch who killed my husband!"

Bayliss then points out that 12 years together is longer then most marriages. He actually says that maybe these gays have the right idea, actually suggesting that two men might be able to get along better then couples of the opposite sex. "They got the same anatomy, the same hormones, they wash the same body…Same with the conversations they'd be easier, more direct." Of course immediately afterward he compares that to the relationship he and Frank have which hysterically undercut his entire argument and undoes his own argument by saying with a woman "You've got to censor yourself." Then he goes even further saying two men can borrow each other clothes as an advantage to same sex relationships. (Yes Timmy that's exactly why couples of the same sex want to get married. They want to save money on wardrobes.) I'm not going to reveal how Frank ends the conversation, because it's just too good a line.

Then we get to see the gay hustler culture in Baltimore and its just as unpleasant as with female prostitutes. They end up running into the new guy who says "Things are so much better in San Francisco" named Peter Fields at the club Floss who even the owner thinks could be dangerous. Fields was wanted as a material witness for a murder in Venice Beach and he was arrested in Baltimore for solicitation a few weeks earlier but somehow the old warrant never came up. It turns out Hoskins ran the check but California wouldn't pay to extradite him. He released Fields because he had nothing to hold him on – and more importantly California considered it a low-profile case. (Again I can't imagine this happening as often today.) Fields is rousted at Floss and the clientele doesn't bat an eye – I imagine this kind of thing happens more often then they want to admit, though not for these reasons.

Fields is unrepentant. When Frank asks what Costello's watch and wallet were doing in his apartment and doesn't bother to talk about the hammer. Bayliss asks why he dressed him up in lingerie and he admits it. Finally after endless pressing Fields basically says that Bayliss is only doing this because he finds him attractive. You can see the disgust going through Bayliss's eyes: he's had to do some difficult things to get a confession but to tell this narcissistic prick that he likes his 'nice, hard ass' – and then have to endure his laughter – clearly turns his stomach. And why did Fields kill him? "Because he was a flaming f----t. A queer!" And he is very clear that he is 'not like those freaks. I'm a red-blooded, heterosexual man!"  There will be no answers for Bayliss here then out of any other murder and its painful.

 

We're not allowed to forget what's going on in Mahoney-land. Lewis encounters Stivers in the squad and the two of them can barely talk. (How far we've come since the two of them were flirting over a stakeout.) Then Lewis goes to Kellerman and demands to talk. That Kellerman seems so untroubled – his dismissive "Oh, that again?" – justifiably pisses Meldrick off and he all but drags him into the box for a private conversation. Lewis actually says: "Maybe you're too stupid to panic!" which makes sense because he's been ducking even talking to Meldrick ever since he told him about the tape Georgia Rae had at Christmas. Kellerman doesn't want to tell her because Stivers has never been onboard with either the killing or the cover story and in his mind that makes her weak.  In addition to everything else there's now a distinct misogynistic streak developing in Mike that's going to become all the more prevalent in the rest of the season. Lewis, like Cox, reminds Mike that Stivers is in this as deep as the two of them.  Despite what Mike says he is panicking; it's just coming out as angry bluster more than terror.

Meldrick ends up telling Stivers the truth about the tape. Stivers reaction is perfect: "For all you know the videotape will show Kellerman executing Luther and the two of us standing by doing nothing?" She refuses to believe the delusion that Kellerman has been telling himself: she knows what she saw and the viewer did too. Stivers is justifiably pissed Kellerman's been holding out on her for weeks and has no use for Lewis's deflecting. She demands the three of them meet to know how they're going to handle Georgia Rae.

It’s the first time the three detectives have been in the same place for an extended period since the immediate aftermath of the shooting and the tension is thick. Kellerman is more concerned about being turned into Internal then the fact he's being blackmailed by Georgia Rae or for that matter having killed Luther. To Kellerman losing his job is as bad as facing criminal charges. When Kellerman says that he'd never compromise his badge he is thinking solely of being on the take of Georgia Rae. The possibility that he compromised himself when he shot Luther down and then relied on the blue wall to keep him safe is not considered the same thing  is as close to copaganda as Homicide has yet gotten. He makes it clear he plans to force Georgia Rae's hand. That Kellerman can't conceive Georgia Rae could outsmart them shows a combination of naivete and arrogance that makes you wonder if he learned anything from all the times Luther outsmarted them.

Kellerman's solution is to confront Georgia Rae and dare her to show the videotape. The problem is how: "As long as your bastard brother is still dead, its worth it." He thinks this means he's called her bluff. He's forgotten how the Mahoney's work. "Killing him meant that much to you?" Georgia Rae says. Kellerman: "Yeah. I guess it did." He practically dares her to do whatever she's going to do next. Though he's right: the two of them never see each other again.

In a smaller storyline Falsone is upset his wife took his son away for him over the holidays. He brought his old train set in to work and he wants to drive over to drop it off. He's still considering suing for custody with Janine. As with Meldrick Ballard tries to urge him as his wife to talk it out. He assures they don't know his wife – and today we're finally going to meet the former Mrs. Falsone. Paul knocks on the door and seems territorial about the man's his ex is seeing. And its clear within one minute exactly why this marriage ended. Janine then heads back inside before Paul tries to course correct. They agree to meet for lunch and we see an awkwardness we're not used to from the ultra-confident detective. Falsone wants to discussed increased custody – he only sees him every other weekend  - and immediately the meeting turns into them spitting at each other. It turns out Janine had an affair with another man who she's not seeing anymore and it degenerates to him deciding to sue for joint custody.

 

The real confrontations come in small moments. Kellerman has a conversation with Lewis and asks him if he was wrong. "I'm not saying you were wrong," he admits. "I'm just saying I wouldn't have done it."  To Kellerman this somehow cuts deeper that what happens in the final scene.

Bayliss has a conversation with Rawls at the end of the episode and decides to go on a date with him that night. When Tim tells Frank this his partner is baffled considering just a few days ago he broke up with Juliana. (Frank goes out of his way to make sure the two of them are alone before they talk.) Tim admits something very clear. He doesn't know what he's doing. "I don't know if you've noticed this Frank, but I haven't really been happy for a very long time. So I'm going to have dinner with Chris Rawls who I find it intelligent and funny and we're going to drink some wine and we're gonna laugh…and talk…enjoy ourselves…be happy. There something wrong with that?"

Frank says: "No."

Tim: I don't think so either.

I would argue, in a more ambiguous but no less crucial way, that this statement of Bayliss is as important to the idea of a portrayal of bisexuality on TV as the Puppy Episode was for gays and lesbians a few months earlier. Even braver we never see Rawls again and this is just the start of an ongoing discussion that continues for much of the remainder of the series. Homicide is too simple a show to argue that anything has been resolved by this decision and it will emphasize just how much trouble Bayliss will get on the job for taking it. That's brave, too.

At the end of the episode Kellerman gets a videotape in the mail that is delivered to him. He goes into the next room to look at it. Georgia Rae is on it. She's made a videotape to tell him there is none. Georgia Rae gave her brother the surveillance system but he never turned it on. He didn't like the idea of being recorded. (Which…kind of makes him the sensible one on the family tree.) Georgia Rae put him through all this because she wanted to see what Kellerman would do: to know if he really killed her brother. Now she knows because Mike told her. And she makes it very clear she will avenge her brother's death.

"I will have my revenge" are the last words of the episode. And she will. Not even she knows yet how much it will cost Kellerman, her and everyone in both their orbits.

One last thing: the next time you read a story from someone in the LGBTQ+ community about how America is descending into a fascist states because of the rights its taking away from part of this community (I read at least one at this site every other day) you'd do well to show them Closet Cases. This is an episode that aired on January 2^nd 1998 yet so many elements are so anachronistic it almost feels like a period piece. Are things bad for the gay and lesbian community today? Of course. But consider this. Back then a story like the one that the writers did for Bayliss was so controversial NBC was skittish about even airing publicity about it. Today stories like this are almost considered old-hat on shows like Grey's Anatomy and Will Trent. Characters of all sexual preferences are allowed to be on TV and be defined not by who they sleep with but how good they are at their job. (I can't imagine a show like Brilliant Minds where a character was openly gay would have been greenlit on NBC even five years ago, much less in the 1990s on HBO.) More people are allowed to just be happy and more of us say there's nothing wrong with that then they would in 1998. If that isn't progress, I don't know what is.

 

 

 

 

NOTES FROM THE BOARD

'Detective Munch': Discussing the Philip Robson murder Munch makes it clear that in fact it was a straight-up robbery. When Giardello says Robson was gay, Munch responds: "I don't think the shooter knew that."

If you're wondering about the reference to the laptop and the argument Giardello is having its actually an in0joke. In another of the way's Homicide was groundbreaking there was actually an online spinoff of the show called Second Shift which unfolded as a web-based serial and frequently used characters who were online personas as well as cameos from regulars such as Reed Diamond and Erik Todd Dellums. Walter Neal, the lieutenant on that show, appears as Lt. Neal. We'll actually be dealing with this in later seasons as actual crossovers take place.

Hey, Isn't That… Peter Gallagher who plays Chris Rawls had broken on to the scene as John in the classic Sex Lies and Videotape. He had primarily worked in TV before that most notably as Leo Frank in the miniseries The Murder of Mary Phagan and  the ABC version of An Inconvenient Woman. For much of the 1990s he was a major figure in indie films such as The Player, Bob Roberts, Short Cuts, The Hudsucker Proxy and Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle. He was never quite able to become a leading man and by the end of the decade was back to character actor status and was working in TV.

He would eventually achieve mainstream success when he took the role of Sandy Cohen, the patriarch on the hit 2000s series The OC. From that point on he was a fixture in TV in cable and streaming playing Dean Stacy Koons on Californication in 2009, Father Phil in the penultimate season of Rescue Me and Arthur Campbell on the USA spy drama Covert Affairs. He played Larry on Togetherness, Benedict Ryan on The Gifted, Deputy Chief Dodds across five seasons of Law and Order: SVU and Mitch, the Parkinson's afflicted father in Zoey's Extraordinary Playlist. He played Nick, Grace's billionaire boyfriend and eventual husband on Grace and Frankie and David Hamilton on Season 17 of Grey's Anatomy. His last major role as Axel on The Beauty.

On the Soundtrack: At the night club where Bayliss and Pembleton meet Sam Patti Labelle's New Attitude can be heard playing.

 

 

I Try to Predict theh 2026 Astra TV Awards, Part 2: Drama

 

As always the Astras really hears the beat of a different drummer when it comes to drama and your mileage of respect for them will vary depending upon your tastes.

If you think shows like The Boys, Outlander and From receive too little recognition then the Astras are your cup of tea. If, however, you like The Gilded Age and Slow Horses and believe Pluribus is a brilliant show then the Astras may leave you a bit cold.  I'm in the happy medium because there's recognition for Matlock and The Audacity and nothing for Your Friends & Neighbors and Knight of the Seven Kingdoms.

So here we go.

 

BEST DRAMA SERIES

I'm guessing this will go to one of the four nominees that overlap with the Emmys picks for Drama: The Diplomat, Paradise, The Pitt and Pluribus. For the record last year the Astras picked Severance over The Pitt so I can't say with confidence they'll pick it this time.

My personal preference is for The Pitt and it will do very well here. But don't rule out Pluribus prevailing in this category: in their short history the Astras have given Best Drama to an Apple TV show three different times: Servant in their inaugural awards and Severance both seasons it was on the air. Personally I'd be fine if Pluribus were to win.

Should Win: Pluribus/The Pitt.

Will Win: The Pitt.

 

BEST ACTOR IN A DRAMA SERIES

A very strong field with four of the five nominees for the Emmys in this category along with some deserving nominees. Always glad to see Walton Goggins and Ramon Rodriguez here.

My personal preference at this point is that Sterling K. Brown should get it for Season 2 of Paradise. But I have no problem with Noah Wyle winning for The Pitt. He's absolutely going to go back to back at the Emmys this year and I'm fine with that.

Should Win: Brown.

Will Win: Wyle.

 

BEST ACTRESS IN A DRAMA

This field did pick all five nominees for the Emmys, including Chase Infiniti. And much as I'd like to see Kathy Bates win for Matlock or Carrie Coon win for anything this is going to be a showdown between Keri Russell for The Diplomat and Rhea Seehorn for Pluribus.

I think Seehorn wins this by a hair and it's not just because of the Golden Globes. The Astras like her a lot: Seehorn won Supporting Actress in a Cable Drama for the final two seasons of Better Call Saul when the Emmys were falling all over Julia Garner and Jennifer Coolidge.  I'll be pulling for Seehorn at the Emmys but we'll see where it starts. (Of course the Astras has also given Keri Russell a win in this category the first season this show was one the air…but I'm still comfortable with my pick.)

Should Win/Will Win: Seehorn

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A DRAMA

The Astras only nominated two cast members from The Pitt and no one from Pluribus. On the plus side they did nominate Jason Ritter for Matlock and Bill Skarsgard from Welcome to Derry. It balances it out.

My personal preference is for Tom Pelphrey for his extraordinary work in Task. But I think Patrick Ball will pull out a win for The Pitt, mainly because they'll be less division then there's going to be at the Emmys. I'm pretty sure Pelphrey will prevail at the Emmys but that's later on.

Should Win: Pelphrey.

Will Win: Ball.

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A DRAMA

No Karolina Wydra or Julianne Nicholson. On the plus side we do have Christine Baranski for The Gilded Age and Emilia Jones for Task. Balance.

My personal preference among those wonderful actresses from The Pitt is Taylor Dearden and her incredible work as Mel. Now Katherine LaNasa didn't win in this category last year; it went to Isabella Merced for The Last of Us who was even nominated. This is a category the Astras could go for someone who won't show up at all – and Baranski has won in this category before.

I think it'll go to Baranski or Allison Janney for The Diplomat. But either way it’s a great group.

Should Win: Baranski/Dearden.

Will Win: Janney (?)

 

OUTSTANDING GUEST ACTOR IN A DRAMA

Since Jeff Kober wasn't nominated (no one from The Pitt was) I think this one will go to Bradley Whitford for The Diplomat. He's one of the only Emmy nominees in this category.

 

OUTSTANDING GUEST ACTRESS IN A DRAMA

Easy. Shailene Woodley wins for Paradise on her way to her first Emmy.

 

BEST BROADCAST NETWORK ENSEMBLE

Will Trent has dominated this category for a while. But I'm giving the edge to Matlock.

 

BEST CABLE DRAMA ENSEMBLE

No Emmy nominees. I'll go with Welcome to Derry.

 

BEST STREAMING ENSEMBLE

The Pitt, no question.

 

BEST DIRECTING IN A DRAMA

All right. This is going to come down to The Gilded Age, Pluribus or The Pitt. And since Pluribus involves by far the most elaborate direction for its success I'm betting they go for this. (For the record the Emmy in this category last year went to Slow Horses and the Astras didn't even nominate the show. In fact they gave Best Director to Will Trent which makes me love them all the more.)

 

BEST WRITING IN A DRAMA

Much as I'd like to see Task or High Potential win, it's the same showdown as above. The Pitt won in this category last year but the momentum is building for Pluribus. I'm going to give the barest of edges to Pluribus but this is a category where anything can happen. (And remember the Emmy ended up going to Andor in this category.)

 

And that's it for Drama. Tomorrow I deal with Outstanding Limited Series/TV Movie as well as other ephemera. (For the record I think the Astras did better here than the Emmys overall in terms of nominations.)

Hold On To Your Seats As I Try To Predict the 2026 Astra TV Awards Part 1: Comedy

 

One of the great joys for me as a critic over this past decade has been the rise of the Astra TV Awards. Just as eclectic as the Critics Choice Awards when it comes to nominations and far more so when it comes to the actual awards themselves I have always deeply admired them even though it is frequently difficult for me to watch them. There've been extenuating circumstances the last three years (though in the last year's case the error was clearly mine) but this year I intend to watch and celebrate as much as I predict.

The depth in which they've evolved with each new year has led to more interesting quirks that I find entertaining as well as occasionally infuriating but I've always respected them more for charting their own path. I mean, they're willing to nominate Elsbeth and Will Trent season after season; how can I not love them?

So I intend to break this down over three articles leading up to the Astras themselves this Saturday where hopefully I can see how accurate I am and not really care if I'm wrong.

Let's begin with Comedy.

 

First of all I need to tell there are two major omissions in the Astras that you won't see on Emmy night: the Astras chose to completely shutout Season 4 of The Bear and the current sensation of audiences and critics alike Widow's Bay.

In the former case the Astras were absolutely correct and the Emmys were wrong when they gave it the seven nominations they did. In the latter, well, there's no way to hide this: the Astras screwed up big time, particularly when they chose to give so much love to I Love LA. (Their other choices are valid.) On the plus side it will make for a fascinating group of awards this cycle.

So let's begin.

 

OUTSTANDING COMEDY SERIES

On the plus side I think the omission of Widow's Bay would lead to an easy choice for Best Comedy Series. Hacks is by far the overwhelming frontrunner to win at the Emmys and I see no reason it won't prevail here too. I know the Astras does march to the beat of its own drum so don't rule out Shrinking being an upset but I think they've got this in the bag.

Should Win/Will Win: Hacks.

 

BEST ACTOR IN A COMEDY

Well with Matthew Rhys not here this race is wide open and it’s a big field filled with pretty good choices.

My personal preference would be for Jason Segel for his incredible work for Shrinking, which is criminal that it has gone unrecognized to this point. But I think that it's going to go to one of the men from Only Murders in the Building and having seen Season Five I'm going with Martin Short.

Should Win: Segel.

Will Win: Short.

 

BEST ACTRESS IN A COMEDY SERIES

I want to assume Jean Smart has it locked up but last year she lost to Natasha Lyonne for Poker Face who wasn't even nominated. And in 2022 she lost to Selena Gomez who wasn't nominated by the Emmys that year.

My personal preference (isn't it always?) is for Carrie Preston finally nominated in the comedy category. But I really do want Smart to get everything that's coming to her and that means taking the prize for the final season of Hacks. As for everybody but Lisa Kudrow, there's always next year.

 

SHOULD WIN: Preston/Smart

WILL WIN: Smart.

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A COMEDY

I won't lie there are a couple of nominees I'd like to see prevail. Paul W. Downs is more than worthy for his work in Hacks. John C. McGinley should really win something and I'm glad he was nominated for Rooster. And Nick Offerman's work was a masterclass in Margo's.

But come on, this is Harrison Ford's the lose for the second straight year. He did win in this category last year and I missed it so I want to see him get a standing O here.

Should Win/Will Win: Ford.

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A COMEDY

Now Hannah Einbinder has done well winning the first two Supporting Actress in a Streaming Comedy Awards in 2021 and 2022. And I suspect she'll win the Emmy. But last year when she did win the Emmy the Astras gave the prize to Catherine O'Hara. So in the case I'm going to go off the reservation slightly.

It's a formidable group but in my case it comes down to two choices: Janelle James for Abbott Elementary or Michelle Pfeiffer for Margo's Got Money Troubles. James did win the Critics Choice Award earlier this year and she has won before in this category. My personal preference is Pfeiffer by an eyelash but I'll give the edge to James.

Should Win: Pfeiffer/James.

Will Win: James.

 

BEST GUEST ACTOR AND ACTRESS IN A COMEDY

I've seen the majority of the nominees in both categories so here are my picks.

I'd personally love to John C. McGinley win for recreating his iconic Dr. Cox in Scrubs but Michael J. Fox has this locked up. And I think Kaitlin Olson will finally get what's coming to her for playing DJ in Hacks.

 

BEST BROADCAST NETWORK COMEDY ENSEMBLE

Very tough call. My personal preference would be Abbott Elementary or Scrubs but I suspect it will go to Ghosts.

 

BEST CABLE COMEDY ENSEMBLE

None of the nominees are nominated in the Emmys so I'll just go with my personal preference The Lowdown.

 

BEST STREAMING COMEDY ENSEMBLE

I think Only Murders in the Building wins this one but don't rule out Hacks pulling it out. Both have great guest casts.

 

BEST DIRECTING AND WRITING

I don't know which episodes have been nominated in each category but for the moment I'm giving the edge to Hacks in Writing and Abbott for directing. Hacks has always done very well in the writing category (It's won the last two years) and Abbott Elementary has done just as well for directing with the Astras.

That's it for comedy. Tomorrow I take up drama which will be slightly easier and more difficult at the same time.

My Problem With Left Wing Candidates Is I'm Not Convinced They Want To Win. And This Year That's Increasingly Becoming A Problem for the Democrats

 

A couple of years I wrote an article arguing two questions that various identity groups always bring up and how it bothers me when it comes to politics. They are: "Are you electable?", followed quickly by: "Would you ask a white man that same question?"

At this point I've thought of a glib but telling response to anyone who in the future puts these two questions together. "Why don't you put that on a bumper sticker: 'You're A Racist If You Don't Vote for Me'."  Now I do realize this is stated so bluntly by members of the Squad that I'm kind of shocked it has yet to appear in the Justice Democrat platform. And it would shock me if in a future Presidential campaign AOC actually puts it on a button. I look forward to her trying to win over New Hampshire voters with it; it's certainly got as good a chance as winning as her policies.

And more directly the race card falls apart when you realize that these people are only asking it in regards to Democrats running for the Presidency. I don't remember any of the same people who said asking Jesse Jackson of his electability was racism saying the same thing for either Allan Keyes or Herman Cain when they ran for President and all the people who used sexism as code for Hilary or Elizabeth Warren didn't use it for Michelle Bachman or Carly Fiorina. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz's runs for the Presidency in 2016 were historic and yet I don't remember seeing any members of the LatinX community being particularly willing to credit them for it. It's even clear in runs for the Senate in the same state; Jamie Harrison was the epitome of black excellence when he challenged Lindsay Graham in 2020 but no one seemed interested in Tim Scott in that same state.

That is one of my problems with identity politics: it only seems to count if Democrats do it far more than Republicans do. But since I've written about that part before, it's time to get to the first question. The one of electability.

A huge part of the reason I take the far left in American politics far less seriously then everybody in the media and both parties do is because the last decade has done much to convince me that to them the one issue that is the only one that counts to both parties – can they win? – is at the bottom of priorities for the overwhelming majority of left-wing voters. Given their attitude has always been that once you become part of 'the establishment' you have sold out and that they view both parties as equally corrupt then you constantly get the feeling that for most of the candidates who've been running under this banner since the 2016 election that policy and governing really don't interest them and most of the time get in the way. To them being an elected representative is a hobby and running for office is a temp job, something they do between posts on social media make their issues and giving loud speeches to the faithful.

This has been borne out by everything I've seen Sanders do in the last decade and the Squad since they took office in 2018. To them governing interests them less then performing before the faithful. The work of making policy interests them far less than making a speech at a college campus where they speak for an hour telling how corrupt the establishment that they are now a part of truly is. It really begs the question as to why they ran for public office since they have little interest in serving the public or their party.

This attitude makes them popular with the young, college educated voters which are, as they've always been, the biggest supporters of progressives. This group think that all problems are a moral issue and can be solve if everyone just does the right thing. What's troubling is that these elected officials have served in Congress or the Senate for years and should at least in theory know that the world is more complicated than it is in a stump speech – and yet they've done nothing to enlighten their supporters on this fact during the last decade.

 They've managed to escape scrutiny from it most of the time because the Democrats were using them against a common enemy. What the Democrats forgot is that most of the people who have been Bernie Bros and love the Squad prefer the kind of chaos Trump has been more than willing to provide. Governing and policy bores them because it's more complicate then their binary world view allows them to see things.

The left has always believed far more in principles as a litmus test for candidates then electability. There's a joke in there about because they've never managed to have any real political power, the principles are all they have. The bigger issue – and the one that over the last year is increasingly becoming clear – is that their increasingly forcing this point of view on an electorate at large who has made it just as clear that they have no use for the left's principles. This would bother me less if they weren't holding the Democrats hostage and more importantly,  potentially costing us seats that are tough enough to win with moderates and impossible to win with the kinds of doctrine the left has been demanding their candidates follow.

This can be problematic when they run under their own field for Congress. But when you're trying to run for statewide office, particularly in territory that on multiple occasions has proven it doesn't want the left is selling; it's almost certainly going to lead you to an electoral defeat. And as someone who realized pretty much when it was grade school you can only put your principles into law if you're elected I find it horrifying that so many supposedly intelligent candidates for office on the Democratic side are, at best, indifferent to the idea this might be a problem.

That was the biggest flaw of the campaign that led to Graham Platner being tapped to run for the Senate in Maine.  It was clear after the 2024 election that the Democratic Party needs to win white working class voters. The far left doesn't like working class voters, in large part because it's overwhelmingly made up college educated white people who by their nature look down on the working class. And the people behind the Platner campaign weren't really trying to run a working class platform or candidate.

In a view of the electorate so cynical the Heritage Foundation would reject it the plan was to basically put working class lipstick on a progressive candidate and call him working class. At no point did anyone even consider the possibility of putting in issues that would appeal to working class voters in Maine, only to come up with someone who could pass for working class in the eyes of the public well enough so that no one would notice his stump speech was almost word for word out of the Squad's playbook. Obviously they did it a horrible job vetting Platner but it's not clear that they were that picky – one of their earliest choices was Troy Jackson, who is now the nominee for Senate after Platner spectacularly imploded.

The sole evidence that Platner was going to be a man of the people was based entirely on crowds at his appearances and how well he was doing in the polls against Janet Mills. No one even seems to have considered at any point during the months leading up to Mills' dropping out that the polls might be painting a picture that was different from reality; as the scandals mounted against Platner, no one connected with his campaign seemed to even consider the possibility they could be a problem in the general election. And no one even seems to have considered that all Platner was really doing was giving the exact kind of stump speech that so many progressive candidates had given before to voters who were going to vote in the Democratic primary.

The fatal flaw in the Platner campaign – and one that I'd argue Jackson is now facing -  is that it's still being taking as a given that voters fundamentally want what progressive candidates are offering; it's just the messenger that's the problem.  Jackson is essentially making the same sales pitch to rural Maine voters that has been made by left-wing Democratic candidates for years and which they've made very clear across the country they don't want.  And because the progressive refuses to accept the problem is not politically sound Jackson will face the same brick wall that every progressive running for statewide office keeps hitting. These views are popular with the far-left primary voters but not the electorate at large.

But say what you will about Jackson or even Platner at least they had a basic understanding of the office they were running for. I'm not sure the same can be said for Abdul Al-Sayid, who on Tuesday became the Democratic nominee for Senate for Michigan and faces a whole different sort of problems.

El-Sayed's first problem is that he is a one-issue candidate and that issue is Gaza. To the average progressive this is the most important issue facing America, if not the world today, if not in all of human history and they can't seem to understand why the average American doesn't feel as strongly as they do about a conflict have a world a way where America doesn't have troops on the ground.

I'm not trying to negate the level of feeling this conflict has inspired in a certain amount of the population but the reality is Gaza is not in America; therefore the average voter doesn't care about it with the intensity that those who feel strongest about it do. Indeed in a poll run by a Michigan pollster it was made clear that Gaza was not in the top ten of issues facing the voters sampled.

But for El-Sayed, this is the only issue that he cares about, regardless of whether he can do anything about it if he is the Senator of Michigan. Which brings me to his next problem: to El-Sayed, winning election to the Senate is simply a means to an end. He has been very clear that his main priority for winning is so that he can have influence over who becomes the Democratic nominee for President in 2028 as the Michigan primary is scheduled to be early in the calendar. In other words his run for the Senate is basically a shadow campaign to get inside the corridors of the Democratic power structure and the interests of the people of Michigan are secondary, if that.

To the average progressive, perhaps even more strongly in Michigan, this is all they care about which if nothing else shows that they don't even care about the electorate at large at all. And outside of Gaza, El-Sayed has had great difficulty giving a message that connect to any other part of the electorate, even the progressive stump speech. When asked to explain how his campaign would help the working class he answered: "I think a custodian who makes $14,000 a year is sick and tired of his tax dollars going to Israel."

It's one thing not to be able to connect with a working class voter; it's another to not even be able to parrot back one of the key points of the progressive stump speech since at least 2016. He couldn't even be bothered to say: 'eat the rich' or "the top 1 percent."

This actually leads in to the next issue: in the final weeks of the campaign multiple polls showed El-Sayed winning by anywhere from 10 to 15 points against Haley Stevens. Instead, he barely managed to eke out a victory with 48.5 percent to Stevens' 47.5 percent. This argues that so much of the support that was for Al-Sayid was soft to begin with and that the primary was divided.

All of this is difficult enough before you consider that El-Sayed is running in a state that went for Trump twice. Michigan is not a hotbed of progressivism; it's a swing state that has been more red than blue recently. And Mike Rogers, El-Sayed's  Republican opponent, is no fresh-faced rookie. Two years ago he barely lost to Elissa Slotkin by little more than 3 tenths of a percent out of over 5 million cast.  Rogers carried all but 10 of Michigan's districts and it took two days to call the election. Slotkin was a far more moderate candidate than El-Sayed is.

And in all the polls that were run in the months leading up to the primary not one showed Al-Sayid ahead of Rogers while multiple polls showed Stevens with a slight lead over him. Indeed on the eve of the election a poll that showed El-Sayed with a sixteen percent lead over Stevens in the primary saw him trailing Rogers by ten points going into the general.

None of this seems to have troubled any of the people who voted for El-Sayed on August 4^th.  For all I know it doesn't seem to have trouble the candidate. But it's now not just his problems but the Democratic Party's who will have to spend a lot of time and money propping up a defense of a seat when they're trying to take back the Senate. That they now have to do so while trying to fight a damaged campaign against Susan Collins in Maine – another problem the far left has saddled them with – is an issue that they will spend the next three months struggling with and Rogers and the GOP will spend every minute making sure they have to.

I'm deeply skeptical that El-Sayed will be of much help in this regard. If he wants to win the election – which I'm not convinced he cares much about – he will now have to spend the next three months convincing the 47.5 percent of the Stevens voters that he doesn't hold her or the people who voted for her in the visceral contempt he made little attempt to hide when he was running in the primary. The only way he can do this is to move to the center, which the left has defined as moving to the right and they have always lambasted Democrats for doing when they won elected office.  They will consider any movement he does as remotely conciliatory as an unforgivable sin and consider it tantamount to treason.

 And there is a halfway decent chance that many Stevens voters will either stay at home or when they go to vote choose to vote the Democratic ticket but leave El-Sayid's name off the ballot.  One saw this playout in the Maine primary when Platner received fewer votes than the Democratic candidates for governor so its easy to see it happening on a larger scale here. Considering that El-Sayid did best with young college educated voters but struggled with rural voters and African-Americans in the primary that is a double burden as he will need both on his side if he hopes to win.

If any of this was a factor in the minds of the nearly 1.2 million Michigan voters when they voted for a candidate who as of now stands an average of 4.4 percent behind Mike Rogers and who overnight shifted Michigan by ten percent to the GOP it doesn't seem to have bothered them. It pales compared to what nearly happened in the Wisconsin governor's race this year.

Now to be fair while what is happening in Maine and Michigan is completely the left-wing of the party's fault the same can't be said in Wisconsin which has been a clusterfuck ever since the incumbent Tony Evers chose not to run for a third term. The primary race has been a mess for almost the entire cycle with candidates getting in, then getting out, then getting back in again.

This speaks to the larger disorganization of Democrats in Wisconsin overall. Wisconsin is very much a swing state at Michigan is and the Republican presence in the 21^st century has been bigger than in Michigan with Ron Johnson and Scott Walker winning Senate and Governor's races, respectively in 2010.  The Democrats have been unable to unseat Johnson in two reelection attempts and while Evers won the governor's race in 2018 and then was reelected, as with Michigan, the state went for Trump two years ago.

The governorship reflected the unsteady nature of knowing who the nominee was, while it leaned Democrat it was always closer to toss-up. Then just to put the cherry on the crap sundae two weeks ago Mandela Barnes the lieutenant governor during Evers' first term and the prohibitive front runner, dropped out of the race when allegations of his treatment of young women came to light.

Barnes had been the only Democrat option with a lead in the general over Tom Tiffany, who has represented the 7^th district since 2020 and serves in the Freedom Caucus. His withdrawal was just the latest in an endless series of problems. Sara Rodriguez, the current Lt. Governor, dropped out in July because of inaccuracies in the campaign's financial reporting.  This led to Milwaukee County Executive David Crowledy, who dropped out of the race a few days earlier to reenter the race.

This led to the rise of Francesca Hong has been part of the Wisconsin State Assembly since 2021. She's a Democratic Socialist but Wisconsin has always been more willing to accept this then other places. Hong is running on the same kind of media strategy and messaging as Mamdani did running for Mayor of New York City. But there's a difference between running for mayor of one of the most Democratic cities in the country and governor of a swing state that just went for Trump. It's one thing to argue Thanksgiving is a 'colonizer holiday' and defund the police as a socialist in a deep blue district; another to do so when you're running for governor in a state that is more conservative then it looks on the outside.

Were the Democrats in Wisconsin less chaotic Hong would not have been in a position to be a nominee at all and that's not really her fault. Her bigger problem is one I noted in an earlier article. Hong, like most socialists, has a huge approval with young voters in Wisconsin  To them the biggest issues are health care, affordability, social issues and ICE. There are thirteen issues that impacted their vote. Hong led on 12 of them, most notably AI data centers and affordability. There's only one she didn't lead in: electability.

To her credit Hong seems to have realized that while this might not bother her strongest supporters the rest of the electorate in her state probably will have a problem with it. She's spent the last week backing away from some of her most controversial social media posts in the kind of backpedaling that would do a generation of conservatives proud. On Monday she said her positions have evolved but Thanksgiving is a time that's 'incredibly painful for many people in our communities." Two days later she told Politico Thanksgiving is her favorite holiday.

She's also distanced herself from much of the DSA platform, saying in the only televised primary debate, she doesn't support defunding the police, abolishing prisons or the Senate. Many people believe that some voters won't like Hong's past rhetoric and it's clear that the DSA is already pissed that she's not fully endorsing it. Critically AOC and Sanders who were upfront of their support of Platner and Al-Sayid  refused to endorse Hong. Interestingly AOC herself seems to have moderated her point of view on defunding the police in a recent interview, which means I expect her to be primaried in 2028 rather than trying to run for higher office.

Once again polling vastly overestimated the appeal of the left-wing candidate in a Midwest state. The overwhelming majority of polls showed Hong with a huge lead over David Crowley, with anywhere from a 19 to 22 percent margin. And just as in Michigan the results vastly overestimated the support for Hong with her not even able to get 40 percent of the vote. And unlike in Michigan this time it made a difference as Crowley managed a remarkable upset to win the nomination.

That actually leads to the major issue I have with so many left-wing candidates running for office this cycle, whether it is in ads they've run in primaries in my home state of New York or whether in primarying incumbents at large, whether it be the Connecticut governor's race or running for the Senate in Minnesota. It’s a talking point they've been using for a decade: that they will 'stand up against Trump'.

The thing is while I know all too well what this looks like for an activist or a celebrity I still have no idea what it would mean for an elected official, particularly a Senator or representative. No one has ever explained how one Democrat, alone, in either house of Congress can do something more than any current representative against an incumbent President.

The best case scenario is that this is just done to rouse the base during primary or general elections. They were still using during Biden's term so I could see that. But the worst case is more troubling because it mirrors so much of Trump itself. Essentially so many of these candidates are using one of his classic arguments: Washington is broken and I alone can fix it. That argument makes a certain sense if you're running for President; if you running for a House Seat in New York or Senate in Maine or Michigan, it's a delusion of grandeur and I find it beyond troubling that so many of Platner and El-Sayid's supporters seem to believe it.

What's more after the last decade we've seen countless examples of the fallacy in that statement in the Republican Party. This election cycle alone, with Trump's popularity at its nadir, we have seen in primary after primary how much the base thinks of Republican officials who stand up to Trump. In the Indiana statehouse election, with Thomas Massie in Congress and Bill Cassidy in the Senate, it is very clear that standing up against Trump costs you votes, not the other way around. I've made this argument how helping Trump's agenda hasn't cost the Republicans who stood with him and how standing against him has hurt incumbent Democratic senators. It's always been true about the Republicans who were against him since he took office; it's just as true now.

And even that argument has an expiration date: its November of 2028. Whatever (very) limited success far left candidates have had in the last decade has been entirely based on Trump being the opposition that has managed to unify the Democratic Party. In the majority of the Senate and Congressional primaries that have taken place this cycle the electorate has by and large embraced centrist candidates in deep red states to win in the Senate and gubernatorial races and in swing districts. They'll unify against Trump and MAGA in the general, of course, but that's because he's still President and that will be the main argument for them going into 2028.  Once he's gone from power, the main reason for keeping the progressive wing of the party with relative kid gloves will be gone forever and the Democrats will have to look at their track record – which must be measured by  how many general elections they've won during that period and how many elections they've cost the party over that same period. That will lead to a reckoning with the left and I'd argue it has to start after the midterms.

For candidates like Jackson and El-Sayid for Senate, these elections will play a far bigger part in that accounting then their earlier primary wins. The question "Are you electable?" has never been rhetorical ; the voters always make it very clear what they think and there is only a yes or no answer to that question. That their strongest supporters consider this is a non-issue but it’s a very real one for the Democrats and perhaps America at large. And in this case I hope that the Democrats will in the aftermath take no for an answer  - and mean it.

How Is It Celebrities Are More Passionate About Their Causes Then Ever Before… Yet Are Somehow Doing Far Less To Help Them?

 

When I was six or seven I remember when 'We Are The World' was recording and how big a deal it was in order to raise awareness about the AIDS crisis which Reagan's administration was basically ignoring. More important then that was that the recording was there to raise money for it, stepping in where the government was clearly failing those who were suffering the most.

During their decade we had some of the most memorable charity based concerts in history: Live Aid, which I vaguely remember and Farm Aid, which I don't.  Every Labor Day weekend Jerry Lewis was doing a forty-eight hour telethon to help the victims of MS and every year for much of the eighties and nineties Billy Crystal, Whoopi Goldberg and Robin Williams would have Comic Relief where comedians and Hollywood types from all over would get together and do routines in order to raise money for whatever cause was prominent.

I don't know if celebrities were more genuine about their beliefs back then or if this was built out of some version of liberal guilt. What I do know is that there was something admirable about them being willing to give time and energy and using their platforms to raise money for a good cause far more then just to raise awareness of it. In fact during that period it was considered gauche by celebrities to use your platform at award speeches to draw attention to political causes (Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins at the Oscars were one of the biggest offenders) with the understanding that it was better to help either in subtle ways or direct, by using your platform to raise money for them.

In the 21^st century celebrities are more political then they ever were back there. And given how much the conservative revolution under Republicans has done much to erode, if not eradicate much of the safety net we had for so many of the downtrodden both here and abroad you'd think they'd be more willing to do something to raise money for these causes. Instead as we reach the middle of the second Trump administration the opposite has become the case. Celebrities are focused entirely on raising awareness but doing anything else is by and large, not their responsibility.

There are individuals who are exceptions, of course, and there are sometimes exceptions. We still have annual telethons for the victims of 9/11 and there are Red Nose Days for Breast Cancer on TV. But increasingly the celebrity culture when it comes to supporting major causes begins and ends with wearing a pin on an awards show or making a speech on social media.

Objectively I'm baffled as to why this has become the norm among the Hollywood left. At a certain level I get why the current generation of left does it: to them raising awareness is all they feel that they owe society with posts online and the occasional protest making them feel like they've done their part. At their core they practice the same selfishness doctrine that they mock those on the right who are loyal to Ayn Rand's philosophy: it's our job to point out the flaws in our system, it's society's job to step in and do the work. They've always argued the system is irrevocably broken and that it is the system's job to fix itself. They don't feel they owe society anything else then that.

But even if the Hollywood culture is effectively taking its cues from the millennial/Gen Z generation of left and they are so isolated from the general public because of their wealth and fame (both of which are legitimate possibilities) you'd think that they'd been willing to use their platform in order to do more than harangue people about their moral failures, which is now what passes for so many of them as 'raising awareness'.  This makes them look very much like they are rich and entitled but it also makes them look lazy.  It's though they feel their obligation to society is no more than the conservatives they spent most of their time haranguing. And since in the last decade they've argued that we are in a 'post-shame world' then their approach seems pointless.

It's almost as if the internet has led to a breakdown between both the left-leaning public and the celebrity. Those on the left demand, if not insist, that the average celebrity take a stand on causes that are important to them – ICE, defund the police, the rights of women and the LGBTQ+ community – and judge them for not saying anything even more harshly then taking the side of the right. This culture almost seems to have a delusion about how power works in our society and the role that we have in it.

Consider JK Rowling or Dave Chappelle. One is an author; one is an entertainer. Neither holds elected office or has the power to make, enforce or carry out laws. Their positions  towards the transgender community, regardless of what it is, has no effect on the policy of government in either America or the United Kingdom.  It might draw support in conservative circles but no politician has ever made policy based solely on what a public figure says in history.

Now turn it around. If either Chappelle or Rowling were to offer complete and full-throated support to the transgender community, would it change anything for that community? All the laws that were restricting them the day before would still be in place and Nigel Farage or Mike Johnson would not come running to their constituencies to reverse their positions because of it. That's not how the world works.

In either case I find it difficult to believe it would make a difference from those who are bullied and beaten most of their lives and face restrictions from the laws one bit if they changed their opinions. Can you really see if there was a meeting of an alliance of them in Mississippi and this came out? "Well the state has passed more restrictive laws in bathrooms and women's sports and three more of our members were beaten up in hate crimes. But things are sure gonna turn around now that Harry Potter's on our side!"

In 2026 just as in 1986 or 1996 celebrities don't have the power to introduce bills in Congress, sign laws or enforce them. What they can do – and I'd argue they should be doing – is using their platform to try and raise money to help all those who are suffering under this administration. And in the decade since Trump first won they've fundamentally failed that test.

Oh I grant you they'll show up at No Kings protests or anti-ICE protests and make dozens of social media protests a day about all of the horrible things that the administration is doing, has done or will do. But I can find that out if I look at the news or really anywhere.  John Oliver telling me how bad things are in America isn't giving a message any different then Rachel Maddow or Anderson Cooper are and I'd argue it helps less when a man whose one of the richest men in Hollywood comes to us once a week to tell us how much the wealthy and powerful are screwing the average citizen. It has done wonders for the career of John Oliver but it hasn't helped the average American or indeed anyone else in the world.

To be very clear I'm not denying how horrible the world is today and that the problems we face don't need help. So I ask the question: in the nearly three years since the attacks of October 7^th what exactly have Hannah Einbinder or Mark Ruffalo or Susan Sarandon done to help the people of Gaza?

Take it at its most objective: if there is a crisis of the level that these celebrities are saying is happening in that section of the world, what exactly have those in Hollywood done to abate it? This isn't entirely a trick question: I'm fully aware that the only people who can bring about a resolution to this crisis are the Israeli government and Hamas and as recent news has told neither side seems to show any interest in doing so in the immediate future.  Multiple presidents and other governments  have tried to solve the problem of threading  this needle; I fail to see how a man whose last job was to play Tom Brandis in Task would be able to make a difference in foreign policy.

That's fine because it's not his job. That being said how on Earth is raising a stink on  a red carpet or passing petitions at foreign film festivals helping resolve the crisis? It doesn't even pass the stink test of 'raising awareness' anymore, we're all painfully aware of what's going on because people like Ruffalo will never stop reminding us of it. But there's nothing that people at the Golden Globes or Berlin Film Festival can do to influence Netanyahu or Hamas's leadership either and you'd think Ruffalo and his colleagues would have at the very least, realized this after three years of doing exactly that.

So if the people of Gaza are suffering so badly, if you'd wanted to do something constructive you could raise money for food and medicine and blankets and basic needs. You could have a mini-special somewhere or do a charity drive. God knows there are enough prominent people who care about this cause. And yet in nearly three years no one is willing to go that far beyond symbolic efforts that seem designed to draw attention to the presenters then to actually solve the problem.  (I won't name names.)

And that's basically how the celebrity culture is with every problem facing America today. Worse in more cases then I can count they seem more intent on shaming the people they see as responsible rather than doing anything to actively help. When John Leguizamo says on social media that if you're a Trump voter don't go to his films or buy his albums then he's throwing a tantrum on social media that costs him nothing. How would he know if that were to happen, by the way? Does he think that people show voter ID cards before going to see The Odyssey?

But that's keeping with a Hollywood and celebrity culture that is more about performance even in the raising awareness culture. Shouting "No one is illegal on stolen land' at the Grammys or cosplaying against the One Percent at the Met Gala doesn't help those who are being detained by ICE or those struggling to make ends meet. I'd actually argue those who celebrities claim to be 'supporting' are completely unaware of the 'stands' these men and woman are making.

Celebrities are less interested in giving back to those in need then taking away from it. You can make a speech at an awards show, you're not helping those in need, you're making it about you.  They're not even bothering to use their platforms to say to their fanbase to give money or charity to those suffering in places. I should know. I've seen hundreds of posts on social media pointing out 'the oppression of Israel', I've seen nothing arguing what they want us to do to help the people of Gaza. What would it cost them to put in a link to some kind of charity drive or food drive in all those words arguing of post-colonialism or Western oppression?

But that's basically the way both Hollywood and the left has become these days. These days those who raise money or work to give their fortune to causes are considered suspect because they are in a position to raise money or give their fortune. And those who make private efforts, whether in charity drives or Go Fund Me pages are praised not for their willingness to do the work for a worthy cause but instead held up as a sign of how the government has failed its job. It is the government and the government's responsibility alone to solve the problems of today and since they are corrupt and owned by the special interests they can't be trusted to do so.

I'm baffled by this culture among Hollywood in particular. Here are some of the richest and most famous people in the world, who if they were willing to do the work for a common cause their fans would gladly be willing to follow.  They know that the only way to solve these problems is through a combination of time, effort and money, something that the current generation has made it clear it doesn't want to give. But rather than use their platform to argue otherwise the vast majority spend their time and energy in complete agreement with their fans.

All of this just reminds me of the 21^st century equivalent of the public service announcements I remember growing up in the 1980s and 1990s. Celebrities would go on TV, speaking in favor of causes involving a Drug-Free America or AIDS or everything else. It might have had the same effect as those celebrities who made endorsements for Toyotas or Maytag but at least most people knew it was a lie. Now Mark Ruffalo or Billie Eilish makes speeches on red carpets that have the same level of sincerity as those long ago PSAs – and yet this exact same audience seems to believe it’s a genuine expression of sincerity and belief, despite never believing it when the same words come from elected officials.

Is that all celebrities feel they owe the causes they stand for these days? A post on Instagram and a hashtag? And what does it say that for so many teens and 20 something's that counts more then giving money to that same cause? I honestly don't have an answer.

What I do know is that I'll accept that these celebrities are serious about what they stand for when they get together to record an album in which not only will they not be paid but all the proceeds will be giving to that cause. It might not be as instantly validating as a social media post but trust me the people who need will appreciate it far more.