Homicide Rewatch: Blood Ties, Part 3

 

Teleplay by Anya Epstein & David Simon ; story by Tom Fontana, Julie Martin and James Yoshimura

Directed by Mark Pellington

 

The conclusion of Blood Ties is critical for multiple reasons. The most basic is the conclusion of the investigation into Melia Brierre's murder, how it reveals the rot at the center of the Wilson family and how while it reveals the killer there is no closure. The 'B-Plot'  is as important because it gives us a sense that Georgia Rae Mahoney is just as bloodthirsty as her brother and more importantly, for the first time we get a sense just how the Mahoney's have been able to get away with their criminal enterprise for so long. And most importantly it concludes by rounding out the three new series regulars for Homicide and establishing them in a way that the show really has done as good a job with since it introduced Kellerman two years ago.

The open scene where Frank and Mary at home watching Felix and Regina Wilson being interviewed about their shock at Melia's murder is fascinating because of many subtleties. Even in the 1990s Americans were used to the idea of wealthy people who were related to suspicious deaths going on TV and making clear how shocked they were and how determined they were to the killer be brought to justice.(During 1997 we were seeing in regard to the parents of Jon Benet Ramsey, something that will be referred more directly later this season.) The difference is something incredible subtle – both the married couple on TV and the one watching at home are African-American. And just as has happened many times race is not mentioned once by anyone involved.

The second is something subtler. It's clear that the estrangement between Frank and Mary did teach him where to place his values. When Frank said that robbery was relaxing at the start of the season Tim mocked it. But here we see that he was being sincere: he could keep regular hours and get home to his (very pregnant) wife and daughter. It's clear Frank still loves the job but it's just as clear he loves his family as much and this undercurrent will be referred to more often in his final season on Homicide then it ever has before, even as he kisses her goodbye and heads off to work. There's also the fact that Mary is asking him about his job and he's sharing in a way we've never seen before in their interactions: he's clearly talking with her now.  And she knows that when he says he wants to play hooky he really wants to go back to work.

Ballard's discussion of the press in regard to the Wilson murder doesn't seem to bother Frank and we know at the end of the day it only matters in his ability to his job. Bonfather calling everybody on the carpet only bothers him slightly more – though I wonder if he experiences some schadenfreude seeing that Ballard and Gharty who earlier this week the bosses were singing their praises to the press are called on the carpet as well.  It's when Barnfather starts attacking Giardello because of his friendship to the Wilsons that Frank speaks up. (Interesting that Barnfather is the first person outside of Gharty who actually brings up the idea that the department is protecting the family because of their wealth and race. We know all too well under other circumstances he'd be the first to do that and he has.) But it's clear despite their own posturing about Wilson's affairs Frank and Al aren't pretending they don't have to do this. Pembleton makes it clear they have to investigate the Wilsons; Giardello authorizes warrants for the blood and hair of Felix and Hal Wilson. Nevertheless he's still trying to put his hands on the scale, going to see Regina 'as a friend' and telling her that by calling the attorneys they've done the worst possible thing. Al saying he can't control what happens and protect them is fairly upsetting.

He's actually taken off the hook when Regina tells him that it was her instinct to call the lawyers. She talks about the bad old days when black men were railroaded into false confessions – something that was much closer and more frequent when Al and Regina were much younger (even if the consequences were far more often more immediate and mortal then the 1990s or today) and even though Al tries to assure her otherwise, he himself knows differently. Regina tells him that she has one job and he has another.

When the detectives talk with Danvers he helps them find a way for a search warrant but its trickier for blood and hair.  They also find a way by using fingerprints and figuring that will lead them to blood and hair. If the prints from the Wilson women are there it's meaningful because they're not supposed to be in the men's room (Gharty) and if they happen to be Felix and Hal, it might be enough probable cause for blood and hair on Hal (Ballard) This leads to the search of the Wilson home and its telling just how quickly the sympathies of the Wilsons have turned. Thea, who seemed so sympathetic to Melia for two episodes, is so outraged by the invasion of the cops that she actually says: "This is all her fault. I wish I'd never brought that bitch here! Everything was perfect before she came!" If nothing else this basically shows that black liberal guilt only goes as far as white liberal guilt: when it hurts you personally, you're just as much a bigot.

Eventually Bayliss finds love letters in the house that are unsigned from Hal to Melia. Frank shows it to Giardello and the detectives all gathered, agreed that theirs a motive in this house. Finally Al tells Frank to go to the Wilson house, alone. He tells him to go in soft – "but if you see any opening at all, take your best shot."

The scene at the Wilson home is basically what the entire story has been building towards.  The fiction of having Frank talk to Hal if nothing they say is admissible in court is clearly unrealistic but the viewer lets that go because we get the truth – and though we don't know witness one of the first examples of an actor who will dominate television in the 21^st century.

Frank shows the letters and puts them on the table. Hal says he never gave them to her. "Never gave them to who?" Hal is quiet. Then Felix says: "Mind if I have a look?" And then Jeffrey Wright, whose spent much of the last two episodes, seeming like an overprivileged blue blood snatches them from the hand of his father. He says, 'let the detective leave'.  "No" Felix says. Frank asks him about what's happening. Felix is apologetic and Hal is quietly angry. "What are you gonna do, send me to my room?! Cut off my allowance? Take off your belt and give me a good ass-whupping?!" Felix unloads on his son as a privileged whine; Hal calls his father a sanctimonious prick. "You deny me nothing? You deny me everything! I'm a twenty-eight year old man. I don't need you to tell me what to do any more."

You have to be a great actor to be able to trade blows with a man who was already one of the greatest actors of all time. Wright absolutely nails every line out of his mouth, years of resentment being spit out, making it very clear his father has no moral high ground to judge him for his actions. When Felix lifts his son up he makes it clear for the first time despite everything that has happened in the last few days he could never believe his son was capable of murder.  Then James Earl Jones brings all the fire we know he can, saying that he can't let this search continue for an innocent man if the guilt in his house. Finally Hal admits it. Only then does Frank say anything.  Hal said he thought Melia knew how she felt. He came home the day of the benefit by mistake and saw Melia coming out of her father's bedroom. He threatened to fire her and tell the whole family. On the day of the benefit Hal saw Melia on the way to the bathroom, hysterical. He pulled her into the bathroom. "She hurt me. I wanted to hurt her."

Frank then wants to read him his rights. And then Felix tells him no. You have the truth. Melia is dead and he's going to protect his son. When Pembleton brings this to Giardello Danvers is blunt. There's no physical evidence tying Felix to the murder and the love letters are 'entertainment'.  And when Frank wants to hold him in pretrial judgment Danvers tells him its futile.  No matter how long they have the evidence will still be ruled inadmissible. Frank is genuinely angry for the first time – and Danvers says: "it happens all the time."

 

The major story is the murder of a face we saw two episodes ago – Wilkie Collins ("Wilkie, Wilkie, Wilkie" as Meldrick puts it) has been murdered at his home, along with his wife Lydia. Lewis and Falsone are pretty certain that he and his wife have been killed as repercussion for Collins ratting out Junior Bunk and leading to Georgia Rae Mahoney's arrest. They have a witness – though it turns out horribly to be Jack, the terrified five year old son who they find locked in the bathroom terrified. This is one of the most disquieting scenes of the aftereffects of the drug war on Baltimore, seeing a terrified child throwing toys as detectives before running into the arms of Falsone.

Lewis knows immediately what this is about and he pushes off the fact that the two of them are in lockup from Falsone. The only difference between the two is how: Lewis wants to shake the trees of the Mahoney family, Falsone thinks its better they find the shooter first. Giardello says the latter and also says they should talk to Jack. Falsone thinks that Jack heard everything and is told by Giardello to be gentle. When Falsone says: "Aren't I always?" the viewer is inclined to laugh it off because of what we've seen of him to this point. This is the first time we see Falsone's layers.

The series then does one of its most unsettling cuts in a long time showing Lewis as he walks Jack through the squad room. While he tries to strike up a rapport with the kid we see the world from his perspective and see just how much it terrifies him as he begins to spiral first figuratively and then literally, finally seeing and hearing what the murders looked like from his point of view.  Finally when he is screaming and crying Falsone embraces him and offers to leave – and the way Jack says "I wanna go home" will absolutely break the heart of even the most hardened TV viewer.

Falsone then takes Jack to a playground and tries to talk to him with a combination  of awkwardness and genuine affection, trying to get him to open up. Finally when he starts going down the slide and Jack tells him its not a police care that he sees an opening. When Jack can tell the model Cavalier he's driving Paul gives a genuine smile. "I happen to know a little something about automobiles myself." There's something sweet about how Paul gets Jack to smile by showing him how to hotwire a car – as well as the fact that his father taught him how to do the same thing. (It's not clear if Falsone's father was a criminal himself but it would explain a lot.) That's what gets Jack to admit what happened to his parents and Paul is sympathetic, telling him the truth he would any scared witness but in the language a five year old can understand. He gets him to tell him that the man knew his father and that he called them the night his parents were killed. This leads them to the answering machine, which Jack says has the voice of the man who killed his parents.

And its here that the first cut comes deep to the detectives, particularly Lewis and Stivers. Because they know the voice and so does the viewer, though we could be forgiven for forgetting.  Its Detective Robert Castleman who worked narcotics. We met him back in The Damage Done which was our first official introduction to Luther Mahoney. (And now that we know that he was on Luther's payroll since 1993 we have every reason to believe he might have had a role in making sure all the people who were killed in the drug war that started this whole mess ended up not having any attachment to his boss.)

After Jack identifies Castleman as the shooter he asks: "Is he going to jail?" Falsone says succinctly. "You bet he is." Castleman ended up at sex crimes because of the rotation and he's perfectly open at first, saying Wilkie Collins was a quasi-informant for Luther. He doesn't seem to know how Wilkie ended up dead and that he hasn't talked to him. This is our first time seeing Falsone interrogating a homicide suspect and we can see the righteous anger when he brings it out on a dirty cop who calls Collins 'scum'. Lewis holds back for a bit but then makes it very clear he wants him to make a deal. Castleman folds like a cheap suit and says Georgia Rae said if Castleman didn't kill Collins he'd out him. Falsone and Lewis want to go after Georgia Rae immediately but Giardello says that won't work without corroborating evidence. Meldrick's reaction is telling but Al says: "If it were Luther would you say the same thing?" He tells them not to worry; Georgia Rae isn't going anywhere. He's wrong but we won't know that for a bit.

The biggest stuff we learn about Falsone at the end. Lewis talks about Falsone getting married and having kids of his own. Falsone takes out his wallet. Daniel three years old. He mentions that he and his wife had an ugly divorce and the two of them would never be in the same room if it wasn't for Daniel.

The final scenes between Al and Regina are heartbreaking as we learn that the two of them were childhood friends. The Wilsons have decided to leave Baltimore, all of it behind. Regina seems more concerned about her family then the law; Al, however, now realizes the truth. Frank goes to see Hal to understand why. Frank quotes Bob Dylan's The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll. "Two hotels, two black servants, two privileged young men whose parents raised them not to deny them anything." Felix says. Frank the detective's response is simpler. "Two senseless deaths." Frank, who spent the first two episodes excusing everything the Wilsons did, makes it very clear he feels contempt for not only what Hal did but how the father is more than willing to cover it up.

And the most important scene comes when Ballard tries to make amends with Frank.  Ballard asks Frank to look at her "not through me". And then Frank turns a Pembleton glare on her. "How's that?" Ballard defends her turf and makes it clear she's not going to run away. That means she wants to keeps things civil. Frank says: "I agree."  Ballard thinks that's it.

And then Frank says something that in five seasons we've never heard Frank say, not even to Bayliss. "You were right. Your instincts were dead on. Mine, for once, were not." For Frank Pembleton to admit this is pretty close to the pope saying he is fallible. Even Ballard wasn't expecting that.  The fact that Giardello admits as much to Frank in the final scene, that Frank has made it clear that he's notified the San Diego police that Hal Wilson will kill again, is almost anticlimactic compared to this simple revelation.

There is new blood in the unit. And they clearly know what they're doing.

 

 

 

NOTES FROM THE BOARD

Mahoney PTSD: Kellerman goes to the morgue for a write up on the Elefante murder.  Julianna asks him about the Mahoney shooting and Georgia Rae and Kellerman makes it clear that she's a psycho and insane. When Cox says Falsone was asking about the shooting and that she might have let her guard down on the autopsy because they were sleeping together Kellerman's immediate reaction is to accuse her of sleeping with Falsone now.  Cox becomes cold in a way towards Kellerman in a way we've never seen before and the two leave in a huff.  Later Falsone shows up in the bar where Cox is drinking. She tells him that everything about the Mahoney shooting was clean on paper, mentions what happened with Mike but before she can say anything else she shuts up. "Vino makes me chatty." .

Get the DVD: During the search of the Wilson home, Lauren Hoffman's 'Strange Man' is used with incredible power.

Hey, Isn't That…Jeffrey Wright is one of the greatest actors of my generation. Just the year prior to Homicide's release he'd made an impression in the title role of Basquiat but he was still relatively unknown that it was easy to get him to play Hal. He'd appeared on TV quite a but before, most notably as Sidney Bichet in the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. He spent a while working in independent movies such as Woody Allen's Celebrity, Crime and Punishment in Suburbia and Peoples Hernandez in Shaft. Then in 2001 he appeared as Martin Luther King in Boycott on HBO and with that appearance one of the greatest collaborations between network and actor began.

In 2003 he played Belize and Mr. Lies in the groundbreaking HBO adaptation of Angels in America which swept all four acting awards, along with Best Mini-Series, Best Director and Best Teleplay. Wright would win his first Emmy for Best Supporting Actor in a Limited Series. He has since been nominated for four more acting Emmys all of them in conjunction with HBO, three for Westworld, one for Best Actor in a Drama, two for Best Supporting Actor and Best Guest Actor in The Last of Us. In between he has starred in Emmy winning and nominated HBO movies such as Lackawanna Blues, Confirmation and OG and played Valentin Narcisse in the final two seasons of Boardwalk Empire. He will recreate his role of Isaac Dixon in the third season of The Last of Us…that is if he has time off from playing Henry Ogletree in Showtime's The Agency.

He has been part of two of the most famous franchises, playing Felix Wright in the Daniel Craig bond movies and Beetee in The Hunger Games. He's starred in the work of Jim Jarmusch and Wes Anderson, most recently in The Phoenician Scheme. He finally got his first Oscar nomination for playing Thelonious 'Monk' Ellison in American Fiction. Oh and he'll be recreating the most recent incarnation of Commissioner James Gordon in The Batman II. Did I mention he also has received two Emmy nominations for his voiceover work in What If?

Why The 250th Anniversary of Our Country Is A Big Deal: (An Alternative to Every Single 'Think Piece' That's Been Published on the Subject)

I don't know why it needs to be said but I'm going to say it anyway. It is a big deal that America is turning 250 this year.

Think about it. (I know most people don't and I'm going to deal with them.) How many countries 250 years after they came into formal existence are still around in basically the same form? Siam, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire? No longer around. Most of the countries that are still around from that period, they sure as hell don't have the same form of government: France and Italy doesn't have a king, China doesn't have an emperor, there isn't a sultan in Egypt. And the Soviet Union didn't survive the twentieth century. (Russia has changed a lot and not at all in two hundred fifty years.)

Basically the same form of government exists that started in 1789. I'm not talking about it working perfectly or as it should, I mean its still here. Many of the countries that are not Western are frequently unstable, and let's not talk about colonialism or intervention by the West because there's an expiration date. At a certain point the reason that governments in Africa keep falling apart can't be blamed on colonialism and I don't think we should be thrilled at the 'stability' of Saudi Arabia or North Korea.

America still functions. It may not be the ideal country that we sing about or write about in so many books but there's a reason that there are so many people risking their lives to come here, illegally or otherwise. (Perhaps when refugees come to this country they should do exit interviews. "Reason for leaving Venezuela?" might have some enlightening things to say to those who would have voted for Hugo Chavez.)

And yet this entire 250^th anniversary celebration is not getting the attention or cheers it should, and that is overwhelmingly coming from the same people: those who are too rich, too educated, and have too much time on their hands. I admit to being among group three, I don't think I'm in group 2 and I sure as hell am not in group 1. So I'd like to believe my opinion might count for something.

Now the majority of those people will tell you its because of who is President that they have 'issues' with patriotism.  Let me assure you like almost everything else in the last decade Trump is just an excuse, their latest in a seemingly endless line of them.

I've seen a lot of them firsthand. They were on display during W's administration when they argued that patriotism was being used to do horrible things in their name (back then those people were firm believers in the Constitution and everything it stood for). Before that the Chomsky's and Zinn's and Vidal's of the world were arguing about the 'myths of American exceptionalism' and making a lot of money and prestige about how the country had no real value. Before that they mocked the idea of Reagan and his believe of America as a shining city on a hill.  And that's just in my lifetime.

Ever since the time of abolition – not long after our country was founded – there have always been a group of wealthy, educated and overwhelmingly white people who spend their time and energy arguing that the country they live in has no value in it and that the people who believe in it are by far the biggest suckers of all. Many of their colleagues, to be clear, spent their time in politics trying to end slavery, trying to bring about women's suffrage, trying to bring about rights for the working man, battling for civil rights and trying to push America forward. And at every stage you could find people further to the left who argued that those people were wasting their time and the best thing to do was burn the whole country down and…well, they never got that far as to what the next step was.

The AOC's and the Nikole Hannah Jones and so many of the other 'thinkers' of today who write for publications like The New Yorker or Harper's or if you want to go further left, The Nation or Jacobin, going out of their way to write that the American dream is for suckers. Its one of those deep ironies that the people for whom America has certainly worked out for the best for feel free to write to other like minded people to say that every institution has failed the less fortunate. Personally I would love to be in a business where you could write a few thousand words every month on how late-stage capitalism has failed and draw $10,000 an article. It seems quite lucrative.

Perhaps these people are bitter about the fact that the masses, who work two jobs or are trying to send their kids through college, are too busy trying to pay the bills to overthrow the system and put them in charge. Because I hate to tell them this but spending your time and energy concerned about just how badly America has failed everybody is the kind of thing that only the wealthy and privileged can spend time doing. You may claim to speak for the 99 percent but at worst you're in the top five percent. Rich people can afford to spend time worrying about the problems of society – and more importantly are among the few who can do things to fix them. That you seem to spend so much of your time only doing the latter – and more importantly looking down on the people who hold dear to the institutions you despise – is a contrast the left hasn't realize in two hundred years and I don't expect them to learn it now.

But the thing is as someone who has studied history – something I'm pretty sure most of these latter day leftist have only seen on TikTok at best – I take a longer view and a different one. And that's why I'd like to discuss certain parts of the document those 'dead white men' the left so scornfully refers to as the founders of our country wrote. Because I'm pretty sure they haven't read it themselves and if they did, they were only looking for their names.

First of all, let's remember that thing that the left always forgets: time and place. 250 years ago, there was no running water, no air conditioning, no indoor plumbing, no antibiotics, no way of preserving food, no electric lights and the only way to get from a town (calling it a city would be ridiculous) such as Boston to Philadelphia was on horseback. All of those who look down on the Founders and say they could have come up with something better need to be remind that to a person, they think it’s a hardship to have no wi-fi for five minutes.

Now to be clear, yes these were a bunch of white men. But make no mistake: they didn't have the benefit of hindsight the left always chooses to use. Many of them were not comfortable with the idea of armed combat against what was the greatest force on earth in 1776. For all of their anger they weren't idiots. They were in the midst of plotting a revolution. A revolution in which the enemy had the biggest navy and biggest army in the known world. Many of them had seen what they could do twenty years earlier in the French & Indian War.  And yes they knew that their actions were absolutely going to send many young men to die.

They also knew the consequences if they failed. If they lost, they would be executed for treason and brought back to Britain to hang if they were lucky. And no one was even clear what would happen if they succeeded. There was not a model democratic state to use as an example before them and they didn't have a lot of examples ahead of them. If they failed, their deaths as well as those of their families were certain and just as important America would continue to be the subject of the British crown, possibly forever. Certainly no one would be lining up to do it for a very long time.

And this involved trying to unite thirteen colonies whose citizens didn't like each other and who the only thing they all had in common was they were on the same continent.  That was meaningless: European conflicts had gone on for centuries before that. Trying to get 'all thirteen clocks to chime at the same time' as Ben Franklin put it was not going to be a small accomplishment, and after that they were going to have to find a way to unite hundreds, if not thousands of small militias together to form an army and a navy to fight, again, an Empire that was going to stop them. That's a real revolution, not a bunch of protestors in a street.

So eventually those men made a Declaration of Independence. And they had to spend a lot of time and energy coming up with the right words to say to George III and more importantly, a message that would manage to unite thirteen colonies. This was a deadline in a near literal sense and I'm astonished under all of these conditions they came up with exactly the right thing to say.

And I'd like to deal with what is deservedly the most quoted line of that Declaration, something that in 250 years despite being more educated and learning from all the trial and error in our history none of these incredibly educated men and women have managed to top:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

As Aaron Sorkin says in The West Wing: "Strangely enough, this was the first time it had occurred to anyone to write this down."  So perhaps its best not to think of this so much as gospel from up high but a rough draft for future generations.

The left is a big believer in deconstruction. So let's break this down, section by section:

We hold these truths to be self-evident

To be clear in all the thousands of years of civilization previous – which the Founders had all studied and I doubt the naysayers today have – no one had ever said that they were.

That all men are created equal.

No this wasn't about the patriarchy or about white men. It was a direct line at King George III. They were telling the King of England, who ruled over not only their country but 2/3 of the world, that his subjects were his equal. Remember all those people who went to 'No Kings protests" and thought they were being brave?" These guys were going further to an actual king. Back then if you said that kind of thing Kings had a habit of locking you up without a trial. (Due process was still in its foundational stage as well.)

They were saying that these men who lived their lives in another country were the equal of someone of royal birth.  The British didn't see it that way, to put it mildly. That line alone was enough to be  a charge of treason and they all knew it.

That they are endowed by their creator.

This line is somewhat misunderstood by the religious right. Like the previous one it has more to do with a swing at the man who was the head of the Church of England and who had his power in part by 'divine right'. To say that God gave the same rights to men like Jefferson and Ben Franklin would have been considered heresy in some parts of England. They might not have burned at the stake if things had gone south, but only because the previous line meant they'd have been hanged first.

Now let's get to those unalienable rights because I'm pretty sure its those that the deep thinkers on the left absolutely get wrong or take for granted. Specifically let's look at them in America today.

Life.

Relatively speaking America's a pretty safe country. I'm aware there's something of a breakdown depending on race, gender and sexual preference, but I have to tell you even by that standard, in far more countries then you think, that's far less of a guarantee than the United States.

Because in a lot of countries – far more than the left will ever acknowledge – living at all is far from safe.  And in many cases the government is actively working to make sure the life within the borders of their country is not safe, whether it comes to civil or religious fighting within the country or wars with neighboring countries that will almost certainly lead to the average citizen dying when they go out on the street or even if they stay in their homes. Say what you will about America – and the left will say a lot – but we don't have to listen to the news every night to know if roving militias are roaming the street or whether another countries may bomb our homes.  That's one of the main reasons so many people are risking their lives to get here.

 

Liberty

I realize we take so many of the things in the first amendment for granted but again its worth pointing out then in far too many countries in the world, those freedoms are not only guaranteed but trying to express what we take for granted could at best get you thrown into prison. Actual prison.

These freedoms include the right to protest and dissent, which the right is always angry about and the left seems to think is the only good thing about America. They always forget that in many of the countries around the world – including all of the one's that they claim are the victims of 'Western imperialism' – people are jailed or killed for doing much milder things then they do on a nearly daily basis with the government's blessing.  So don't tell me that being censored on social media or being unable to tell a joke that offends certain people is a sign that America is a dictatorship. There are far too many examples of what actual dictatorships are for me to hold up.

 

The pursuit of happiness.

Again I think we need to pay attention to the word 'pursuit' because that's really the critical one. In America there are far less restrictions on your pursuing your own bliss then there the overwhelming majority of countries on Earth today. In most of them there so concerned with preserving the first two that the third rarely, if ever, is a consideration for them.

And again the Founders used the right word. You can 'pursue' happiness. That's not the same thing as a guarantee. A certainty. The left is very big on changing the meaning of words to things they didn't mean. It's their superpower.

But in the original text the Founders were clear. People can pursue happiness in whichever form, whether it be financial, political or any other definition. Yes they were talking about primarily white men but that part was more revolutionary then you think because, again, in 1776 you did every at the pleasure of a man across the ocean.

 A small part of this revolution was because they felt this right was being impugned. The people in Philadelphia wanted to pursue their happiness without having to ask the permission of the King to do so. In America today you can do that without having to ask anyone's permission and we'll basically let you.

I focused on those last three in particular because in countries in the Middle East, Africa, South America and a lot of places in Asia, you're lucky if you can manage your existed with one out of three.  Trust me when I tell you women in Saudi Arabia and members of the LGBTQ+ in Yemen are not focused on breaking glass ceilings or being able to get jobs in the film industry.

 

I don't think America's a perfect country and we can debate the things that its done wrong. That's a large part of the freedom this country has, by the way. We can engage in debate about these things.  And I will admit that based on race, gender and sexual preference it can feel less free to many of its citizens.

But the fact that so many people on the left – and this is something that is basically only something they do – spend so much time and energy essentially arguing that all of the rights that take for granted don't exist, that they owe nothing to the country that gives them to that and think the ones who think has values are suckers and losers,  who actually seem disappointed that America has lasted as long as it has, well, I have another modest proposal.

When in the course of humans events you produce document that expresses what you believe all the people are entitled too in clear, concise language, when you are willing to assemble an army, rather than just protestors, to fight for them, when you are ready to declare your independence from this country rather than just angrily demand it do what you tell you and actually pledge your life, liberty and your sacred honor to fight for it, then I'll take you seriously.

In the meantime happy 250^th birthday America. Ignore the haters. The founders would be proud you made it this far. And so am I.

 

My Predictions (And Hopes) For the 2026 Emmy Nominations Conclusion: Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Limited Series (TV Movie)

 

Have we saved the best for last? Not really. But this category is the kind I love – no frontrunners, no one with an award to call them the favorite. Just six incredible actresses, many of whom I've loved watched for years, if not decades, none of them with a single previous award and all giving the performances I love.

So here we go.

 

Linda Cardellini, DTF St. Louis

Ever since she first graced our TV screens in the still-mourned Freaks & Geeks Linda Cardellini has been one of the most versatile actresses in 21^st TV. It doesn't matter whether it’s the drama of ER or Mad Men or the dark comedy of Dead to Me, she is one of our greatest actresses and it’s a crime she has only received three Emmy nominations to this point.

Her work as Carol Smernitch is one of the most wonderful performances she's done. We spend much of the series thinking that she's the femme fatale, the woman pulling the strings of the men in her orbit, a woman who is neither a good wife or a good mother. The way she behaves to the detectives, constantly asking them to speak up, makes her seem like just another bullying femme. And then like her male co-leads we learn that she's not any of those things. She does want the best for her son; she is worried about her husband and is  sexually unsatisfied (with good reason) and she even wants to be a good Little League umpire. All of the secrets she's appears to have are just the kind of little things we all go about our lives. And the series finale we realize she does love her husband and her son so much that she's willing to throw away a financial payoff so that her son doesn't think his stepfather hated him.

The fact she has to do all this while doing some of the most bizarre sexual fantasies and much of it completely deadpan adds a depth to her performance I'm in awe of. She has already been nominated by the Astras for her work and I expect to see her fighting it like a tiger (tiger) with the nominees below.

 

Dakota Fanning, All Her Fault

The Fanning sisters had an incredible year and its worth noting Dakota started it out far stronger then Elle. Dakota has been slowly but surely becoming one of the biggest forces in television over the last few years: this is the third limited series in as many years that she's appeared in that has been considered for awards and the second where she certain to be nominated.  And Jenny is a different woman then her interpretation of Margie Greenwood in Ripley: confident and bold in the world of work but still living in the complicated world of mother.

Jenny's role is the most different from Mara's original novel. In adapting it to television Jenny is made a far bigger working mother, whose life is destroyed when she learns her nanny has used her to get close to Milo. She reaches out to Marissa against the advice of everybody and as the series develops the two of them form an unlikely and true bond as Jenny does everything to get to the center of what happened to Milo. And she is given a story that parallels Marissa as her husband goes out of the way to put the burden of caregiving on her now their nanny is gone and then does his own bit of lying that, while less monstrous then so many around them, is no less a betrayal.

Her moment in the sun comes in an incredible monologue in the sixth episode when she learns her husband has been spending his days watching TikTok When Jenny unloads on him with the ferocity of how horrible it is to be a both a mother and a breadwinner it is the kind of speech that is more emotional resonant with any woman in America if not the world. Jenny is mostly absent from the final two episodes but the fact the series chooses to end with the two women and their children together is one of the great things about the entire series.

Fanning  finally received her first award nomination from the Astra this past summer (I'll get to a nominee later below). I'm beginning to think she's overdue a victory herself and I would be fine if she took the prize.

 

Grace Gummer, Love Story

Grace Gummer has been one of the quiet forces in television in the last decade. She was incredible in her stint in the criminally under-recognized (by the Emmys) Mr. Robot as an FBI agent who wants to expose the Dark Army and ends up doing things she never thought she could do in order to survive. She was superb Claire in the sadly cancelled too zone Let the Right One in as a scientist who tries to save her brother from his affliction and becomes as big a monster as he is. Now she takes on one of the most difficult roles in her career – one that led to significant controversy because Caroline Kennedy is still alive and was not happy about it.

But like her mother before her Grace manages to inhabit the role of a famous member of a family by not trying. She clearly cares for her brother very much but she thinks he's not being serious enough. She clearly loves her mother (see below) but she finds it hard to avoid the questions. When her mother dies the two of them realize that yet again they have to bare up under tragedy because its their job. And yet during everything John does she seems more interested in protecting her privacy and her families and what he does as a reflection of it. She is cold both to her brother and the few times she and Caroline interact.

But the power comes, as we know it must, after her brother dies. Once again she finds herself dealing with tragedy and she spends that time trying not to talk to the people involved. This leads to one of the most powerful moments in the entire series where she and Mrs. Bessette are in the same room perhaps for the first time since John and Carolyn's wedding. In it she tells a story about how it truly feels to live in a family which seems to be cursed by tragedy and yet keep coming away surviving. She tries her hardest to reach across a divide that may have been insurmountable and for the briefest of moments does so. With respect the real-life Caroline Gummer did more then enough respect to her and her family.

Gummer was nominated for an Astra Award for her work in Love Story. It's hard to know what her odds are of winning but the big draw is to see if her acceptance speech would be as good as her mother's.

 

Brittany Snow, Beast in Me

Brittany Snow had a great 2025. First she achieved newfound sexual status for her work in The Hunting Wives and then she followed it up with a different kind of wife in The Beast in Me. Now I'd be fine if she was nominated for the former but I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen so why not nominate her for a performance in which she shows a side of her we don't see that often: her more dark and dramatic one.

Considering she spends the overwhelming majority of her time onscreen with two of the greatest actors in TV today it says something about Snow that her works as the most recent Mrs. Jarvis that she can hold her own with either of them. She thinks she knows the secrets of her husband and she's aware of his reputation when we meet her but she doesn't seem clueless or the other woman. And we also see that she's trying to find a way for herself beyond being Nile's wife and that ends up making her be a pawn in so much of what is going on between them, something she chafes at as much as anybody. There's an inner toughness to her that frequently seems missing from Danes's Aggie at times as well a nuance and subtlety that Nile can barely maintain. She's far from innocent in this story but you root for her despite that.

Snow was nominated ahead of Naomi Watts by the Astras but her work is more than worthy of the nomination. I don't know what the odds are of her being picked but I'd be more than fine seeing her compete.

Callie Spaeny, Beef

Of all the four leads in the second season of Beef there's a strong argument that Spaeny's Ashley is the one who is the root cause of everything that follows. We do want to feel sympathy for her: she needs health insurance; she seems to be on the outs with her father and Josh does seem to bully her when he confronts her after the fight. But Ashley also seems to have the worst aspects of every millennial: she wants to do things through shortcuts, she only thinks of herself ahead of Austin and when she ends up getting her promotions its clear she has no idea what she's doing and thinks that because she's blackmailing Josh she should get a pass from doing the hard work and yet be given more responsibility. Josh and Lindsey see absolutely no problem in using her to achieve their own ends and her behavior keeps showing a cluelessness that makes her increasingly hard to sympathize with even as things spiral. The fact that she and Austin come out the winners of this just shows how much they are compromised – and there's an argument that Ashley's learned nothing from this experience at the end of the series.

In lesser hands this could be a problem. But Spaeny who in her brief career has a pretty good track record of playing frail seeming characters with who seem both deep and shallow makes it sing more often then it doesn't. She'll almost certainly be the youngest nominee in this category but she's also one of the most deserving.

Naomi Watts, Love Story

Naomi Watts has literally been here before. Two years ago she was deservedly nominated for Best Actress for playing an iconic famous wife whose dying of cancer most of the series" Babe Paley in Capote Vs. The Swan. Now not two years later she's her for playing perhaps the most famous widow in the 20^th century who is also dying of cancer. But this time it's a role that by this time has been played by just about every other actress of note, from Katie Holmes to Natalie Portman. What could Watts add to it, particularly being in just three episodes?

Well because she's Naomi Watts, a lot. Watts's performance shows Jackie O in a role we never see her as: a mother. And the thing is, she's not particularly warm to her son. She seems more interested on what he does in life and more importantly who he's romantically attached to, as a reflection on the family name and her.  You get the feeling she was closer in life to Caroline and that she seemed perfectly fine to treat anything her son did as withholding affection or respect, the one thing he craved. Most of what we know about the lies of Camelot comes from Jackie herself. In scenes with Caroline (Grace Gummer adds to her increasingly brilliant list of performances) her daughter asks if she ever wished she'd married another man.  Jackie looks at her and tells her that she was forced to live her mother's dream: "I was supposed to be the most famous accessory to the most powerful men." She admits she created the myth of her husband which she could have punctured but chose not to. In what is a powerful but almost certainly fictionalized sequence when she is taking her last rites she tells her confessor she wanted to die that day, that she knew of her husband's indiscretions and a part of her has hated him ever since.

Watts role is considerably less significant than Gummer's and indeed other female performers in the series, most notably Constance Zimmer's work as Mrs. Bessette which many could argue deserves recognition as much, if not more, then Watts. I myself wouldn't object if that were to happen. But Watts has been one of our most underrated actresses in any medium for even longer then the rest of them and while I don't per se think she was robbed two years ago all the arguments I made for her then apply now. I mean, why should her husband keep getting all the awards?

 

FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

Sophia Lillis, All Her Fault

When the Critics Choice Awards nominated Lillis for her work as Josie, the nanny who abducts Milo at the start of the series it might have seemed like an odd choice to choose her over such prominent names as Dakota Fanning and Molly Gordon. And relatively speaking Josie's role is smaller than the more prominent supporting nominees.

But you can't take your eyes of Lillis whenever she's on the screen. We see her watching TV from far away, we see her trying to take care of Milo, we know that her mother knows what she's up to but isn't telling the truth. And when Milo is returned to the Irvine with three episodes to go in the series we think her character's done – until she shows up at the Irvine home with a gun. Then in the penultima episode we see the story from her perspective and we realize she is the biggest victim of them all, the daughter of parents who didn't love her, suffering from a mental condition that has troubled her from birth, seeing her boyfriend go to prison, believing her son is dead – and then finding out that he's not. To this point we've been led to believe she's the crazy one, suffering from the worst kinds of delusion. It's only in the final minutes of the penultimate episode – and in the final scenes of the last one – that we realize she is the sanest one of the bunch and horribly ends up the victim of the man who destroyed her entire life. It is a tragic story.

It's nearly certain that Fanning will be nominated in this category and she deserves to be. But Lillis deserves recognition as much, if not more then her. In a sense the title refers to her as much as anyone – and just like Marissa and Jenny, it's completely inaccurate.

 

And that, as they say, is that. On Wednesday we'll see how well I did and then get ready for the leadup to the awards itself.

My Predictions (And Hopes) For the 2026 Emmy Nominations, Week 3, Part 4: Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Limited Series (tv movie)

 

We are coming down the stretch and with only six nominations for category (at least according to submission guidelines) I will have to make some hard choices. This time I am going to be going for at least two nominations in several series, some of which are a given by the Emmys, some less so. But they were by far some of the best performance of the year in my opinion.

 

Jason Bateman, DTF St. Louis

Jason Bateman has been pretty active in the world of prestige TV: earlier this cycle it seemed likely he would be nominated for his work in the Netflix series Black Rabbit. But his work as Clark, the small town Missouri weatherman who finds himself at the center of the investigation into his best friend, is some of the best work I've seen him do.

Bateman is no stranger to playing comedic roles as if they're serious and serious roles as if they're comedic. Here Steven Conrad writes a story where it clearly seems like a comedy but everybody is playing it dead straight. Clark starts out as the kind of person who's setting his best friend up to have an affair so he can cheat with his wife guilt free, seems capable of both being a manipulator and manipulate and ends up revealing himself to just wanting to be the best friend possible to Floyd at such a basic level he almost seems willing to go to prison for murder rather than ruin the man's memory in the mind of his son. This is done with some of the most hysterical moments I've seen all year including a heavy rap son among 'acing the motherf---ing insurance physical' that all limited series should have from this point on as well as some of the most hysterical sexual roleplays I've seen on any show, all done with incredible deadpan delivery.

I've always known Bateman to be a man who has no ego and will do anything for his character. And honestly if you're willing to perform bizarre hand gestures and mock tai chi to 'Let the Sunshine In' over the opening credits you deserve a special prize for that.

 

Stuart Campbell Half Man

Like Mitchell Robertson, Campbell was a virtual unknown when he was cast in Half Man as the young Reuben. However because this category allows for more nominees then the Best Actor category I think he has a better chance then Robertson in being nominated. There's a joke about how Reuben is the lead character in Niall's life but I'll deal with that below.

Personally Campbell's work was astounding in the first three episodes, arguably more impressive then Robertson or even some of the grownups. I've seen performances by young actors who are seen as bullies and trying to be alpha males but looking at just how much of a force Reuben clearly is in school, laying waste to those who threaten Niall, having sex with his girlfriend in their shared room and then basically being an active observer as Niall loses his virginity to her, and then seeing him wage a path of destruction through all those in Niall's life at university – climaxing in the brutal beating of Albie that sets him on a course he will never get out of – I kept thinking that Reuben was the kind of teenager who could eat all the kids in Euphoria, vomit them up and then eat them again. Stuart Campbell plays him as the kind of kid who would have no use for the interior monologues of Rue before the final disastrous season.

And yet at every stage you can see the damaged person Reuben clearly is, the trauma he's carrying his whole life even if we don't learn the source of it until he's an adult. His Reuben is a monster, a bully who lays waste to everyone in his path, but every so often you can see that there's a good person struggling to get out, even though he keeps beating it down. It's through Campbell's performance we see the full tragedy of Reuben more than anyone else.

There are other, better performance who may be more worthy that Campbell's but I'm comfortable pushing for him. This is a kid with a future.

 

Richard Gadd,  Half Man

This is how humble Richard Gadd is. Though an argument could be made that his character is as much a lead as Jamie Bell's, when the time came he chose to have Bell be nominated as lead actor and he went in supporting. Granted Gadd has already got his share of Emmys and other prizes from Baby Reindeer and he may well win more for writing and producing Half Man. But considering that at one point his Reuben points out that he's basically the lead character in Niall's life, there's a good argument he could be in the lead category as much as Bell.

What is not in dispute is how extraordinary Gadd's work was the adult Reuben. Gadd has made it clear in his discussions of Reuben's character that he is always a performer, whether to the outside world or to himself. And considering that by the time we meet his adult version we're inclined to see him as the monster that Niall does it's amazing just how good Gadd is at making us every so often feel sympathy for him. Gadd's bulking up and incredibly toxic masculine talk will almost certain remind those inclined of Andrew Tate and others in the manosphere. We know that Reuben is a man not only capable of violence but whom the threat is almost always likely to be carried out, it's gotten him in prison before, it will again. And yet we can always see there's someone brutally damaged behind the beast, somehow who knows he can never live up to what he's said he is, someone who is a genuine failure despite all he tries to be. And the more we see how Niall has done everything possible to destroy him by the end of the series we have a difficult time not feeling sympathy for him – even in the final moments when he ends up killing Niall, he seems surprised – and we already know what's waiting for him.

Gadd has proven himself to be one of the greatest hyphenates in television today and that he can include performing as much as everything else makes him a force of nature much in the same way Reuben is. That this is the same man who just two years ago stunned the world as Donny – a very different man then Reuben in appearance but in his own way just as damaged – makes it clear there's nothing he can't play.

 

David Harbour, DTF St. Louis

David Harbour is the only nominee I've picked who already has a prize to his credit. Earlier this year he took the Gotham TV Best Supporting Performance in a Limited Series for his work as Floyd. And honestly while there are better performances in this category there's an argument he should win because of his work as Floyd.

How many TV  limited series in the 21^st century have you watched where one of the lead characters is one of the nicest people imaginable and the deeper you go they're still the nicest person imaginable. Floyd is the kind of guy who never wants to let anybody down, who quit his job on Wall Street to do work in sign language, who has been doing everything possible to be the best husband and stepfather imaginable, who goes on dates with gay men because he doesn't want to disappoint them, who is fine with his best friend having an affair with his wife because he can't sexually satisfy her (I'm not going to tell why here) who interrupts watching Clark and Carol having an affair because a blind and deaf kid is near drowning and he doesn't want him to get hurt. Floyd Smernitch is a man who's just too nice for this world. The fact that we meet him after he's died in a horrible way just makes it all the sadder. And while one can debate whether the ending spoiled the mood of the series, it's hard to deny the fact that Floyd died as he lived.

Harbour has managed to go the entire run of Stranger Things with nary a win for his wonderful work as Roy Harper and he's been a part of Peak TV even before that. There are other nominees I think are more deserving of the prize but I'll be honest, Harbour winning would give me the most pleasure. I think it would for a lot of people.

 

Jake Lacy, All Her Fault

There's an argument that Jake Lacy has been one of the most underappreciated actors in the decade so far. He's been at the center of no less then four remarkable limited series and to this point has only gotten one Emmy nomination: for his most famous role in The White Lotus. I've always been fascinated how the nice guy appearance that Lacy clear has is often used as a mask for someone who is ruthless and utterly cutthroat. And never was that used to greater effect then as Peter in this series.

At the start of All Her Fault Peter is seen as the model citizen, the good husband and father and the brother to a family that seems broken, his younger brother is physically disabled, his sister a drug addict in an out of rehab. He has built his entire life on taking care of people and seems want to do the best. But by the time the series is half over, its clear that Peter was a monster even before he married Marissa, someone whose actions thirty years ago destroyed his brother's life and who he put the blame on his sister. He feels no remorse when confronted on it and seems content to bully everyone afterwards. Then in the penultimate episode we learn that in the aftermath of a tragedy he substituted his dead child for another live one, leading to all of the horrors that the Irvines have just undergone. And in the series finale we see that he's pushed his wife into not only lying for him but put her in a situation that she has no good options left. In the final episode its clear that Peter is the definition of a sociopath, feeling no remorse for his actions, completely content to bully every one even knowing their remorse. When he meets his fate at the end of the series, the viewer is completely on Marissa's side and we understand why she did what she did.

Because understandably all of the focus in All Her Fault is on the extraordinary actresses at its center Lacy yet again has not gotten the appreciation he deserved. I think it more then deserves recognition ahead of many other contenders and I'm more than willing to push for it.

 

Charles Melton, Beef

One almost wonders how much Charles Melton looks at Austin, the male millennial half of the couple, and thinks to himself "There but for the grace of God." His rise to fame has been meteoric – a critical role in Riverdale, consideration for an Oscar in May December – but one knows all too well that for many celebrities from teen dramas there's only one brief moment before you're filming Cameos for birthday gifts. Austin could be seen as the other side of Melton, a young man who was once a major prospect for professional glory as an athlete and who an injury has reduced him to a minimum wage job as an athletic pro at a country club. Of all the characters in Beef his is the closest to an innocent at the start of the series: he's happy with Ally and basically his lot in life, he wants to do the right thing with the video, he doesn't go along with the idea of blackmail. Of all the protagonists in Season 2 he spends most of the series uncorrupted, still believing in doing the right thing even after the horrors of the final episode. Only in the last moments does he give in to the basic levels of corruption though even there he believes its for a higher purpose. At the end of the second season his fate is almost the saddest: he truly believes he's realized what he wants but he doesn't know what his wife is doing when he's not at home.

Melton has been a heavy favorite since the show debuted and the Astras rewarded him with a nomination this past summer. He will be a formidable contender.

 

FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

Jonathan Banks, The Beast In Me

I had my share of choices for this pick – I considered Nick Offerman for Death by Lightning for the synchronicity of it (and I'm a fan of anyone who plays Chester Arthur) and I also was very impressed by Michael Pena's work as the dedicated cop who wants to get to the truth as he deals with a personal situation that mirrors what Marissa is going through.

But it was perhaps inevitable I went with Jonathan Banks for his role as Nile Jarvis's father, a man whose every moment onscreen makes you wonder why Nile didn't kill his father instead because he had better uses. Banks's work in first Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul showed an ultra-competent professional who was very good at violence but who didn't like that he carried it out. You can tell he's having the time of his life as a man who is malevolence personified, who loves making everyone, including his young children, compete for affection he will never give, who sees everyone, including his eldest son, as an obstacle, who at times makes Logan Roy look like father of the year.

Banks is always glorious to watch in everything he does and its still criminal he never got a single Emmy for his work with Vince Gilligan. Here's what the Emmys are gonna do: they're gonna nominate him in this category.

 

Tomorrow I wrap it all up with Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Limited Series. This is going to be a showdown in the Wild West.

Activists Make Horrible Elected Officials. Justin Pearson Is About To Learn That Lesson (Though He'll Never Admit It)

 

In 21^st century America with electoral politics almost always dysfunctional and a media that has always rewarded spectacle over substance activism has taken center stage as never before – and more and more the people at the center have completely and total misread how it's supposed to work.

Activism is all about the immediate: drawing attention to a problem in as attention gathering away as possible to raise awareness. Whether or not it actually makes things better for the cause at the center of it is almost never the point: it is about the rage that the young feel about the unfairness of the world.  And in a world increasingly lived on social media these activists translate the number of cameras at events or the crowd sizes or the number of followers on the internet as a sign that the world is on their side.

But in the 21^st century none of the social movements have led to any changes in policy which are the only way to resolve these issues. From the marches against the War on Terror and the War in Iraq, Occupy Wall Street, the marches against policing in across the country, whether Defund the Police or Black Lives Matter or all of the protest movements done regarding anything that Trump or the Republicans have done, these movements have objectively changed nothing for the American people, let alone globally. Because the media only cares about the story at the moment and because social media focuses on the bubble, these elementary facts are essentially ignored by all involved. 

The only way to bring about lasting change is through electoral politics. And here is the fundamental divide: while activism is popular among the left-wing of the Democratic Party at a national level, it rarely brings about electoral success for those involved. This is particularly true for those who try to serve in deep red states where the cause of conservatism is fertile for attention by the national media but almost never leads to political success. Wendy Davis drew much attention for her filibuster in the Texas Statehouse against limited abortion rights in 2013 (a speech that only delayed the vote until a later session) but when she ran for Governor against Greg Abbott she lost by nearly twenty points.

It's true that some activists have in recent years managed some electoral success as members of the Justice Democrats but it happens infrequently even there. Cori Bush needed two tries to win the Democratic Primary in Missouri and while she managed to serve two terms by her second term she'd become such a controversial figure on so many issues that the party actually primaried her in 2024 – and she was defeated. She was unbowed by that defeat and made it very clear she learned nothing from it – and she's currently trying to win her seat back this year.

For all the increasing numbers of the Justice Democrats victories this past election cycle its worth remembering that for all their efforts they've only managed to win in deep blue districts in Democratic states. They've yet to flip a district from red to blue in five cycles. And that brings me to Justin Pearson, their candidate for the Tennessee 9^th.

Pearson was born in 1995 in Memphis. Even as a child he was an activist in the student government. In 2020 he co-founded the environmental advocacy group Memphis Community Against pollution. A campaign to stop the Byhalia Pipeline from being built in Memphis he was joined by Justin Timberlake and Al Gore in successfully stopping the pipeline. In January of 2023 he won a special election to the Tennessee House of Representatives. At 28 he was the third youngest lawmaker serving into that body. It should be noted he was running unopposed in that district.

Not long after Tyre Nichols was killed by the Memphis police during a traffic stop. Pearson stated that he intended to introduce a bill to prevent police officers with criminal records from transferring across departments. He said he would serve on the Criminal Justice Committee in the chamber – a big claim in a body that had a supermajority of Republicans.  While being sworn in he wore a dashiki.  House Republican David B. Hawk commented on dress norms for the House, saying a tie was expected. This should have been a sign that Pearson was more interested in being an activist then a politician.

After the Covenant School shooting in Nashville Pearson joined a March 30 protest for gun control reform at the state capitol alongside Gloria Johnson and Justin Jones who would soon become known as the 'Tennessee 3'. Not long after there was a vote to expel all three members and Pearson and Jones were. Johnson was spared by one vote.

Regardless of what one things of the Tennessee lawmaker's actions or the movement to expel them Pearson's comparison of his removal from the chamber to the crucifixion of Christ is the kind of hyperbole one is far more used to POTUS whenever he claims something is 'the worst thing that ever happened to him'. By contrast this was the best thing that could have happened to Pearson: immediately afterwards Vice President Harris voted them in Memphis and President Biden personally called them.

Pearson was unanimously voted back by the commissioners and went on to win the general election. He was reelected in 2024, against an independent not a Republican. Pearson in March of 2025 presented a bill to repeal Tennessee's permitless carry policy. Again the heavily Republican Body this was going to be a non-starter. Pearson has also referred to ICE as a 'domestic terrorist organization' and a 'tool of white supremacy'.

In four years Pearson had introduced several bills of legislation in the house including increasing minimum wage for state employees, restoring voting rights of convicted felons and increasing healthcare coverage for individuals below the federal poverty level. None of them even got close to out of committee. (He is on several committees, none of which is criminal justice.) None of that stopped Pearson's star from personally rising and his speaking at the DNC on August 20^th, which did nothing to help Tennessee from going to Trump.

To be a good representative in the past one must work with one's colleagues and compromise in order to get things done. The ideal elected official has a utilitarian philosophy, believing in doing the most good for most people. Activists reject this approach in favor of raising awareness to the cause – and just as often, themselves. In Pearson's short term he has favored a confrontational approach which would always be problematic even if the Tennessee statehouse did not have a Republican supermajority. In short he was one of the Justice Democrats ideal choices to run for elected office.

In October of 2025 Pearson announced that he was going to campaign for the Tennessee 9^th districts with the full support of the Justice Democrats and Leaders We Deserve. This committee was headed by David Hogg who'd been fired as Vice Chair from the DNC for refusing to sign a pledge to stop primarying incumbent Democrats. A poll taken in February of 2026 showed him and the incumbent Steve Cohen in a virtual tie.

Then on April 29^th Senator Marsha Blackburn posted her support of redistricting Tennessee's congressional map, following the Supreme Court decision that partially overturned Section 2 of the voting rights act. Two days later Governor Bill Lee signed a proclamation that called for a special session of the Tennessee General Assembly to review the state's Congressional maps. In two days the new map was approved. One of the key decisions was to turn Cohen's district from D+ 23 to R+11. Immediately afterwards Cohen withdrew his candidacy.

In a future article I will be writing about the Voting Rights Act and the recent Supreme Court decisions that have followed. What I want to deal with here was how Pearson dealt with it. Understandably he was angry about it and gave the usual buzzwords about what a blow this was to democracy and race relations. In Pearson's case, perhaps more than any other elected official in America, his anger had to contain a very specific self-interest. Because rather than being guaranteed a seat in Congress like so many of his colleagues who had already won their primaries and the one that followed Pearson now has to do something that no Justice Democrats has ever done: flip a red district blue.

In previous articles I've written about how for all the publicity about the Justice Democrat and the Squad representing the progressive fighters of America they have been very selective about where they pick their battles in the last two elections. Because every time they try to run in a district that is anything other than deep blue, they lose and usually lose badly. The same year that Pearson was first elected to the statehouse Odessa Kelly was running under the Justice Democrat label in the 7^th district. She only received 38 percent of the vote.

That doesn't bode well for Pearson who to this point has never had to run against a Republican in his entire, albeit brief career. And considering that's he running in a state that Trump carried with 64 percent of the vote two years ago and where  only three counties went for Harris at all; to say this is an uphill battle is an understatement. 

Justice Democrats utterly stink at general elections, mainly because they almost never make it there in the first place and when they do they're in such familiar territory that they don't have to worry about the Republicans. All of the things that would have been an asset to Pearson in a Democratic primary are going to be a liability in the general in a way they just aren't  for Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez.  And that's before you consider that everything in Pearson's behavior has been designed entirely to inflame Republican voters, who he's now going to have to convince that he's on their side – something he's never done in four years in politics.

Pearson, without intending to, has become the litmus test for all of the Justice Democrats in a way that none of the others who've won this year can be. Pearson may not be as radical as some of the more recent members of this party but his positions are so much more out of the mainstream then the voters of his state that his election is now more significant than those who are. A victory here would be more impressive and groundbreaking that even Chevalier's primary win because it would argue that the message of the progressive can cross ideological boundaries – something that so many progressives have claimed for decades before this despite no electoral evidence to the contrary.

However if he loses – and more likely how large the margin of defeat is for Pearson  – it will confirm to Democratic leadership in a very conclusive way that the message of the Squad and their colleagues does in fact have limits beyond the deep blue circles of progressives.  This combined with how many swing districts end up going Democratic this November – which as I've written involve many states where the left has scored victories – will give the clearest argument yet that a centrist path forward is possible for the Party and will likely buttress any argument going forward in future elections.

For a man who has spent his life being a proud activist one would think Pearson would be up to this fight and there is a part of me that wants him to succeed. The realist in me, however, thinks that Pearson will meet the fate of so many of his colleagues who've tried this way before and lost badly  - and like so many of them, will only take away the message that they're on the right side of history and the rest of the world is wrong.