Graham Platner Has No Chance of Winning in Maine. Here's Why, What Needs to Happen And Why All of this Only Helps Susan Collins

 

A month ago after Ada Mills dropped out of the Democratic primary in Maine I made it crystal clear that Platner was absolutely the best thing to happen for Susan Collins chances for reelection. I knew that his social media history as well as his own record with his campaign staff had basically written the opposition research for the Republicans before he'd officially become the Democratic nominee.

I didn't need to know any more about Platner to know how toxic he was going to be and the last two weeks have, if anything, made it clearer just how many self-inflicting wounds he's giving himself and the Democrats.

Time Magazine in a front page article on him published a story that while it sung his praises acknowledged a sexting scandal that had already come to light. By the time that issue had hit the newsstands The New York Times – which had written many favorable articles about him in the months prior to the primary – published an in-depth story of no less then three former girlfriends who have claimed that they were abused by him.  The Atlantic has published multiple articles over the last week including one titled 'Maine Has A Graham Platner Problem'. And the day before the primary The Washington Post ran an op-ed by Platner's former campaign manager making it clear just how bad a choice he was for the Senate.

I need to emphasize that none of these publications could remotely be described as part of the conservative media. The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal have published similar articles pointing out Platner's flaws but they all basically came within days of the earlier publications, none of which could be mistaken as close to pro-Trump.  These are all the bastions of the so-called liberal media and they couldn't make it clearer that Platner is not the kind of candidate the Democrats should endorse.

And as I've mentioned the party is increasingly becoming split on what to do about him. The progressive wing – Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders the most prominent members – have stood by him and have continued to stand by their endorsements. They have no choice because they're the ones who have done everything to back him in the first place and the progressives have long made it clear they'd rather lose elections with one of their own then win with a moderate. This is not the case for many other members of the coalition, including critically women's groups who rescinded their endorsement on Thursday.

And the thing this is all before Platner became the nominee. It is one thing to win the Democratic primary in Maine. But now Platner has go into the general election and try to defeat Susan Collins who has won reelection four times and ran ahead of Trump in Maine in the 2020 election. Collins managed to get over 417,000 votes in 2020. Platner is going to need more than that to beat her in the general.  This was going to be a tough fight with a moderate candidate: for a man who already has the kind of baggage going into it then compares to Ken Paxton, its as if he's purposely putting sandbags on before an uphill run.

Right now the Democrats biggest argument is that it is more important to get Susan Collins out of the Senate, even with a horribly flawed Democrat candidate like Platner. This is essentially the same argument that so many Republicans who were frustrated with Trump during his first term were: the other side is much worse. That never struck me as a powerful argument for Republican voters; to use it in terms of a moderate Republican in Maine – who Trump has not officially even endorsed during this cycle -  strikes me by far as the worst kind of hyperbole.

It doesn't help matters that so much of the chatter trying to defend Platner seems to be based on the idea that he's trying to do better and that his major defense has been that he has suffered from PTSD when he made the majority of his 'mistakes'.  Basically the defense seems to be he's not guilty by reason of mental defect. That barely flies in defending serial killers; it's not a plus for someone you want to be in the U.S. Senate.

And to be clear this election was a mandate on whether Susan Collins deserved to win reelection. Now it's a mandate on whether Platner is fit to serve in the Senate at all. If you think the establishment is trying to undermine Platner because 'they're scared of him' (a common online defense of any progressive) then wait until the Republicans start in on him. As I've said multiple times and will keep emphasize, the last thing you want to hand the GOP in any battle is the moral high ground.

 Collins, on her worst day, was never a MAGA extremist; the most damning indictment the left has been able to throw against her is that she has endorsed Trump's agenda without blinking. To be very clear so has every Republican in Congress at this point, something that the Democrats have made very clear in every election for the past decade. The problem is, particularly in the Senate, it has rarely been the kind of dealbreaker for most voters that the left believes it should be. If anything, it keeps helping Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz and Rick Scott winning elections. Collins is not unique in that regard and honestly she's much milder then all of the Senators when it comes to their voting record and overall demeanor. Lauren Boebert and Nancy Mace she is not.

It was never going to be enough to just say Collins was in favor of Trump to beat her in Maine. It wasn't in 2020 and there was no real reason to assume it would be that simple this time around.  But the left did what it does so many times before; it made the assumption that a loud, left-wing candidate would be able to win over the masses in a general election. As always they mistook popularity in the Democratic primary for how it would play in the general election. That has never worked for the Democrats before in the last decade: we saw how badly it failed Jaime Harrison against Lindsey Graham in 2020 and Sara Gideon who ran against Collins that year was far milder. Both lost in what amounted to landslides in two of the most expensive Senate races in the cycle that year.

The other major argument in favor of Platner is that he represents a new vision for Democrats. It's not a new vision: it is almost exactly the same kind of argument that Bernie Sanders failed twice to win with in his Presidential runs and that Elizabeth Warren failed at in hers; it's the vision that Harrison and Gideon ran on and lost with; it’s the vision Paula Jean Swearngin lost with twice when she trying to run for the Senate in West Virginia; it’s the same vision that Annie Andrews is trying to defeat Lindsey Graham with this cycle and that Jamie Davis is trying to run on in Louisiana. The pattern never changes; its works with Democratic primary voters, and in the general election the candidate get trashed because Republicans and independents don't buy it. The only reason it had a chance with Platner in the first place was because Maine isn't South Carolina or Louisiana or West Virginia.

And in all the examples that I've given involved infinitely less flawed candidates then Graham Platner is. In a primary you can run as far as you want to the left but in the general you have to move to the center.  This is counterintuitive to how the left believes anything should be done, and it's never paid off in any Senate race in the last decade or even further back. Platner is now going to have to win over independents and moderates who might have had doubts about Collins. That was going to be a tough fight just on his platform alone; with all of the scandals already following him it may be impossible.

To be clear if you don't think the RNC, the GOP and every dark money organization connected with the Republican party hasn't been created anti-Platner ads since November, you clearly have forgotten who your opponents are. The big difference is, up until now, they haven't had to start digging up false scandals to plague their opponent; he's basically acknowledging many of them and the 'liberal media' has been pointing them out for the last several weeks. Platner is going to be on the defensive from day one of  the general campaign. He had to acknowledge as much in his 'victory speech' last night.  And all of this is before the Republicans start digging for more skeletons in his closet. I don't exactly think they'll need a steam shovel to unearth them.

This all comes before what is now the biggest difference between now and when Platner announced his run for the Senate last November. The map has shifted dramatically in favor of the Democrats. It was going to be an uphill battle at the end of 2025 but now in large part because of Trump's presidency as well as his spending much of the primary campaign taking revenge on many of his opponents within the GOP, the odds have begun to shift in favor of the Democrats taking the Senate back. As I mentioned Race to the White House has shifted the odds in favor of the Democrats doing so for the first time last week. Roy Cooper looks certain to win in North Carolina, Sherrod Brown and Mary Peltola look like they will gain seats in Ohio and Alaska, and for the first time in decades James Talarico has an excellent chance to win a seat in Texas. In addition Iowa is increasingly beginning to look like it may be in play after Joni Ernst's retirement.  Winning Maine was critical to the Democrats taking back the Senate as recently as May. Right now, it might just be icing on the cake.

And while Democrats have gaining a better chance of winning the Senate everywhere else Graham Platner's chances of winning in Maine have been dropping. Race to the White House had his chances as high as 70 percent and had moved the state into Lean Democrat back in March. Now they have it ranked as toss up and his odds have dropped to 63 percent. Kalshi, the major prediction market, once had Platner's odds as high as 72 percent. They currently have it at 57 percent in his favor.

The polls reflect a similar downward trajectory. As late as May 27^th Platner had a nine point led in the general: 51 percent to 42 percent. A poll released Monday showed his lead had shrunk to 51%/49% with some polls showing the two tied or Collins with a slight lead. Other Democrats, such as Talarico and Brown, have been gaining ground and moving ahead in their races. Platner is the only one going backwards.

And keeping this all within the state of Maine, where it’s the only place that matters, all of the controversy around Platner will know doubt solidify Republican support around Collins in a way a more moderate candidate wouldn't have the same issues. This has been true as a general rule for Republicans across the board; when the Democrat has such obvious flaws it can only help. Its worth remembering Maine has ranked choice voting and I find it difficult to believe that a state with such an independent streak, as well as a district that has voted for Trump in multiple elections, is going to find Platner as convincing a sell as so many progressives believe he will be.  And I find it infinitely plausible that many voters might be so frustrated with either choice that they might choose not to vote at all and low turnout generally favors Republicans. I believe progressives have reminded us of that fact more then once.

For all of this pessimism, its worth noting that in Maine the Democrats do have an off-ramp. According to the election laws the nominated candidate can still choose to withdraw by a deadline. This year it's July 13^th.  So if Platner can be convinced for the good of the party to withdraw his name from consideration another candidate, whether it is Janet Mills or someone else from the Maine Party, could run in his stead. We'd look incompetent for doing so, of course, and there's no guarantee it would end up leading to a victory in Maine but as anyone who's been a Democrat as long as I have, incompetent is basically our go-to look. And in this case I think the Party would prefer  looking incompetent and having a chance of victory then embracing a candidate this toxic and almost certainly losing and whatever collateral damage is does to our already tattered brand.

To be clear it is in the best interest of the Democratic Party and any chance they have in Maine to convince Platner to step down. If he doesn't then I need to be blunt. I will be endorsing Susan Collins for reelection. This wouldn't be a hard choice most times: Collins is as much a centrist as many of the Democrats I've endorsed in my column before and we very clearly need more of them in the Senate, not less. And considering Platner has no business being anywhere near the halls of Congress, no matter which party he chose to be a party of, it's an even easier choice for me. I suspect it will be far easier for the good people of Maine who are the only ones whose opinion matters in this discussion.

Season 42 Update: Five Weeks Spent With Three Superb Jeopardy Champions

 

 

On May 13^th 2022 Ryan Long would begin an impressive 16 game winning streak that marked him the fifth and last of five Jeopardy greats who achieved super-champion status that incredible year. What few noted – certainly not me – was that something equally remarkable would happen over the next six weeks. Ryan Long would eventually be defeated by Eric Ahasic who win six games of his own before losing to Megan Wachspress who would also win six games.

Last year I remarked on the phenomena known as 'clusters of Jeopardy champions' where several five or six game winners appear within days of each other's appearance. What I didn't realize until this week was that Ryan, Eric and Megan had done something in its own way equally impressive. It was the first time in Jeopardy history that three players had won five or more games back to back to back.

The reason I didn't notice was because it really did seem like a statistical anomaly and until it happened again there was no reason to talk about it. Cut to four years later – almost four years to the day in fact -  when on May 9^th Tristan Williams would begin a ten game streak until he was defeated by Chris D'Angelo who won eight consecutive games until he was beaten by Peter McFerrin who managed to win six games before he finally lost in heartbreaking if far from unprecedented fashion for any Jeopardy champion. It's not as perfect symmetry as with Season 38  - Ryan, Eric and Megan managed to 28 straight games where as these three won 'only' 24 – but its impressive nonetheless, especially when you consider just how good all three of them were.

As I wrote in regard to Tristan's original run he was pretty comparable to the kind of super-champion Ryan was: a lot of runaways but also a lot of incorrect Final Jeopardys which led to very low paydays as a result. Tristan did better overall then Ryan during his period – he managed to win $221,902 in ten games, a total that it took Ryan 12 in order to get that high -  but Tristan was able to do better when it was a clutch situation then Ryan. In the last three games of Tristan's run he managed to get Final Jeopardy right every single time and since none of them were even close to runaways that was vital. But he never managed very impressive paydays during his streak –  he managed to top $30,000 twice and he ended up getting more Final Jeopardys incorrect then he did correctly.

Chris was better than Eric in that he won more games then him but not much better. In his six victories he managed $160,601, much less than Chris's $124,201 during his first six games. It helped immensely that on his seventh win Eric managed a $50,000 payday something that Tristan never even came close to getting in his entire run. But he had his share of troubles both with Daily Doubles and Final Jeopardys during that period and that combination came to bring him down against Peter McFerrin last Monday.

It's not really fair to compare Peter to Megan, considering that on his second game he won $50,000 which is very close to what Megan managed in her entire run. (Sorry Megan but you did win only $60,603 in six games.) For Peter, however, nothing came easy and I'm not just talking about in terms of the competition. Throughout the run it really did appear that Peter was playing in some kind of physical pain that may have been hampering his ability to play at his best.

That said, credit must be given to his competitors as one could make a great argument for a Second Chance player in every game he was a part of.

When he defeated Chris Camryn Bell managed an impressive $10,200 with 14 correct answers and no mistakes. Considering she came between two impressive players that usually gets you an invite no questions asked.

Peter's second win was a great runaway but Alex Reyes and Savanah Madeira kept his honest until Double Jeopardy.

In Game 3 Gil Hamel and Gabriel Berkowitz were masterful with both finishing with impressive figures at the end of Double Jeopardy: $11,000 and $9000 to Peter's $16,000. It came down to Final Jeopardy and all three responded incorrectly. Peter kept enough behind so that he could move on.

By all marks it should have ended the following day when Webster Guan took the lead in Double Jeopardy and never relinquished it. Peter finished behind him with $11,400 to Webster's $13,600. Fortunately Peter was the only one to get Final Jeopardy correct and he moved on.

Game 5 was another runaway but that was mainly because of bad luck by Seth McElroy. He found all three Daily Doubles and missed all three. By the very definition of the term he's earned a second chance. On a side note, no one responded correctly on Final Jeopardy that day either.(Stumped me at home too)

Yesterday Alejandro Sobalvarro kept close to Peter in the Jeopardy round until he found the Daily Double. Early in Double Jeopardy he got both Daily Doubles back to back and took the lead away from him. Unfortunately for Alejandro he only got one correct answer the rest of the round while Peter went on a tear to finish with $24,800 to Alejandro's $15,600.  This time Peter needed to get Final Jeopardy correct to ensure his victory and he did winning another $31,201.

 

Peter, while not being the inspiration for an Emmy winning TV movie due to his efforts to get on the show, nevertheless comes from good Jeopardy stock himself.  As he mentioned in his first interview he was on a pub quiz team with Tournament of Champions and reigning Jeopardy Masters winner Yogesh Raut and attended the same high school with James Holzhauer. That will make for interesting stories when the 2027 Tournament of Champions occurs – as well as a wonderful storyline matching up him and Chris. (I think I see the plot for the next film in the franchise.)

For the record in chronological order  here are the eight players who have officially qualified so far for next year's Tournament of Champions:

 

Harrison Whitaker, 14 wins, $373,999

Will Riley: 4 wins, $77,403

James Denison, 4 wins, $99,400

Jamie Ding, 31 wins, $882,605

Tristan Williams, 10 wins, $221,902

Chris D'Angelo, 8 wins, $194, 201

Peter McFerrin, 6 wins, $147,399

Mina Kimes, Celebrity Jeopardy All-Stars Winner

 

And here are the 3-game winners who are not yet officially qualified but based on Jeopardy's track record in the last few years we will almost certainly see again:

Ron Lalonde: $52,501

James Hirsh, $67,418

Greg Shahade, $74,602

Greg and Ron are shoo-ins because of what their Jeopardy track record in regards to super-champions. Ron is the twin brother of super-champ Ray Lalonde and Greg managed to defeat Jamie Ding.

So even though there have been barely 100 games of eligibility for the 2027 Tournament of Champions since last November we have a formidable roster already in place. I'll admit it is fairly testosterone heavy but we do have another six weeks left in Season 42 to play but anything can happen on Jeopardy and this season, practically anything already has.  When it does, I'll be there to keep you informed.

 

 

 

How Four Groundbreaking Television Shows Played The Role in Gay and Lesbian Representation, Introduction and Part 1

 

From A White Cis Male

Who Loved TV

 

I've always been incredibly open-minded when it comes to television shows even if I as a white, cis male am not always the intended demographic.  My problems with Shonda Rhimes have nothing to do with her being an African-American woman, its because she's a terrible writer and her shows demonstrate it. Conversely in the past decade I've found characters I recognize in series I as a white cis male should not, whether they are in Ramy, Reservation Dogs or Pose.  Yet I've ranked all of these shows among my ten best of the years they aired because I truly believe great storytelling is universal.

Those of you who've read my reviews over the last few years in particular know how inclusive I've been to series that should, by any definition, be outside my comfort zone. These include such extraordinary limited series as Fellow Travelers, Capote Vs. The Swans and Ripley.  But while I've talked a lot about how much gay and lesbian representation in current TV can lead to extraordinary television, I've rarely looked backward.

So in celebration of Pride Month I thought I would do just that and take a look at how four series that helped usher in the Golden Age of TV were groundbreaking because they looked at something that America had never seen before – and who many had a lot of trouble adjusting to.

It's said that the era of Peak TV was one of Difficult Men. As those of us who came of age during that period (I was one) one of the most radical things they did was make many of these difficult men homosexuals and in many cases complicated – and in several cases, truly monstrous. This could not have been a pretty picture for the gay and lesbian community. It was one thing to want representation on film and TV but I remember how so much of it was trying to prove they weren't a threat. It could not have been fun to suddenly get representation and then wonder: "This is gonna confirm everything the Moral Majority thinks of us."

Perhaps that was true. I'd argue that these characters were a vital step forward. If representation matters it is important to illustrate that you can be more than the model minority. This has always been true, even if in recent years some shows like Euphoria and Scandal have taken it to an extreme few would willingly follow. But they are necessary, not just to paint a fuller picture but to tell truer and more real stories.

So let's begin in the beginning. And that starts in the darkest place imaginable.

 

Part 1

"OZ Didn't Make You A Bitch"

Dealing With Queerness and Love in the Darkest of Places

 

Everyone wants to argue that the era of Peak TV began with The Sopranos in January of 1999. I have always argued that it really began in June of 1997 when OZ debuted. Critics like Matt Sepinwall and Matt Zoller Seitz acknowledge that shows like The Sopranos couldn't happen without OZ but they still insist that didn't begin there.

Because I was there I understand why. Critics and awards shows immediately responded to the later show. The reaction to OZ was decidedly mixed. Some magazines like Entertainment Weekly always had it on their ten best list; TV Guide never really liked it at all. But considering that by the time OZ came to an end in 2003 and so much of what critics found repulsive at the time – the horrible, brutal deaths usually in graphic detail, the endless horrible profanity, no characters to root for, no real sign of progress – would become the kind of things that were praised in The Wire and Deadwood and to an extent in The Shield, I still can't understand why so many critics look down on it even now.

Now with the benefit of the time I think I know what one of the biggest issues was. The nudity and the openly gay relationships that dominated every episode. I mean the media of TV criticism was dominated, even more so then today, by straight white males. And in the dim dark days of the 1990s  - which trust me were far more homophobic then today – to have a show where in the Pilot you see Beecher, who Tom Fontana said represented the HBO viewer, getting raped by a member of the Aryan brotherhood – well, let's just say it might have been easier for them to deal with a mobster who yearned whatever happened to Gary Cooper as the show that brought on the Golden Age.

For the record I don't blame those critics one bit: OZ wasn't an easy watch even if you could somehow removed the gay undertones that were present in almost every episode. I won't lie: the open nudity for someone in college on a regular basis was disconcerting in the first season and Fontana and the cast kept pushing it with each new one. (Lee Tergesen would say in the commentary that the cast would start to work out more when they realized just how much nudity they were going to have to do.)

But based on what I read at the time (which wasn't much) OZ's willingness to put homosexual relationships so front and center was something that was immensely respected by what was then called the gay and lesbian community. And I honestly don't think Shonda Rhimes or any of the many LGBTQ+ series that have followed in the past decade in particular could have happened without OZ showing these kinds of relationships in the most brutal and horrible way imaginable.  Who knows? Maybe it even helped. Once you've shown the twisted love story of Beecher and Keller, any other gay relationship has to look like a Harlequin romance.

I need to be clear that on OZ there was a division between openly gay men and those who didn't admit even to themselves they were gay, if not sexual predators. There were quite a few examples of the former during the series but understandably they got buried under the latter who were the series regulars. Still I respect Fontana for what he did.

Early in Season 2 we meet a character named Richie Hanlon (Jordan Lage). He's overheard a conversation about the rape of Leo Glynn's daughter. He goes to see Father Mukada. This is how it opens:

Hanlon: I like to take it up the ass. Some people think it's perverse. But it's my choice so fuck them.

Ray is puzzled by this.

Hanlon: I choose to take it up the ass. But rape…that's something else.

In what is almost a throwaway exchange Ray asks Richie if he was raped. Hanlon says  casually. "Yes. But that's not why I'm here." There's an entire saga told in that line, not the least of which is Hanlon's resignation. He knows that there's nothing to be gained by telling the horrible thing that's happened to him; it’s a reality the warden and the hacks are unwilling to even try to solve.

Just as tellingly Hanlon is seen as inferior to the Aryan brotherhood who we know regularly rape and sodomize other prisoners and feel no disconnect when they say they're not f---ts. This is particularly true for Vern Schillinger who we will see sodomize the brain damaged Cyril O'Reilly later than season and completely deny it years after the fact.

Indeed one of the more uncomfortable truths about OZ – which have to make it tough watching even now – is just how clearly so many of the prisoners are not just sexual predators but how freely they abuse much younger men. This is true of both Schillinger and Adebisi, who we will see multiple times molesting teenagers. We never see it as graphically (OZ had almost no sex scenes and the few that were televised were heterosexual) but the viewer saw just enough. It's hard to forget a scene where Adebisi has tied a naked Kenny Wangler (JD Williams) to the bed and unties him every morning, only to tie him back up the next night.  Kenny is just eighteen at the time and its very important to note he's far from innocent. In fact in the episode prior to this he's ordered the murder of his wife for stepping out on him and has laughed about it to his friends before going to her funeral. Nevertheless seeing him during this scenes is horrifying in its implications.

During the third season Adebisi has started to work at the AIDS ward for an elaborate plan of revenge. He's drawn the blood of a dying man so he can infect one of his tormentors with it, which is honestly horrible enough. During it the man he's infected (though he doesn't know it) asks why he wants to leave the cafeteria to work with a bunch of "f—s".

Adebisi: "Out there, I hate them. But in here, sometimes you need your dick sucked."

You get the feeling this compartmentalizing is far from uncommon in OZ and that Adebisi and Schillinger have just taken it to an extreme. Sister Pete (Rita Moreno) will make it clear to Beecher that there are some men who do this.

Beecher, of course, is a special case by this point. I actually remember the first episode he and Keller met: it was the first episode of OZ I ever saw.  It was the episode that introduced Keller – or as Augustus Hill put in the narration: "Boy meets boy."

When they first start sharing a cell this is their first exchange:

Beecher: Are you a f--?

Keller: I do what I have to do.

By the end of that episode we know that Keller knows Schillinger and that he's working a plan to manipulate Toby so that he and Vern can destroy him emotionally and then physically.

During the first season and a half of their, shall we say, complicated love story we're not sure if Keller is the first man Beecher had sex with. We know that Schillinger saved Keller previously and while its assumed they had a similar relationship Fontana never tells us one way or the other. Keller has been married three times ("Four if you count Bonnie, who I married twice") and during the first season we see all three of his exes. We're honestly not sure that Keller was even bisexual before he came to Oz.

And then in Season 4 we learn about his past. He is the suspect in the killings of three homosexual young men in the year before he was arrested and sent to prison. (This storyline will form the backbone of Beecher and Keller's relationship in the final two seasons.) It's only later in the season that he confesses he killed those three men after he had sex with them. Mukada asks why. "I didn't want them to tell," he says simply.

Chris Meloni's work on OZ is one of the three or four best performances on the entire series. He would start work on Law & Order: SVU while OZ was still on the air but the producers were more than willing to allow Meloni to keep acting on as Keller. (There's a certain irony in this as you can see that this is exactly the kind of case that Eliot Stabler would be trying to solve on the show at any time during its run.) What's fascinating is that for much of his tenure Keller was a man tormented by some of the horrible things he did. At one point he would tell Sister Pete that "We don't choose God. He chooses us." And he made it very clear that it was too late for him. After that decision he promptly decides to kill two men that Beecher has slept with, theoretically to upset the applecart under the new management but mostly out of revenge.

Beecher spent the entire series knowing that his love for Chris Keller was by far the best and worst thing that ever happened to him. He didn't want to love him, not just because he knew what a horrible person Keller was, but because the two constantly brought out the worst parts of each other.

Complicating things was Beecher's spiritual journey during this same period. In one of the more inspired storylines of OZ during Season 3 Beecher would form a friendship with Kareem Said that was very close to a conversion to Islam. The decision would temporarily cost Said his leadership of the Muslims in Em City but neither man regretted it. But because homosexuality is against the preaching of Islam Said disapproved and made this very clear.

There were many inspired discussions of this between the two men on the subject. At one point Said told Beecher that this 'thing he has for Keller' was hurting his growth. Beecher was painfully honest: "I don't want to love him but I do. And as for Allah, I'll deal with him when the time comes." It is a measure of both men's growth that this was not a dealbreaker for Said and he would try to lead Beecher through it.

The sad part is Said was right: Beecher's relationship with Keller was toxic. The most horrible touch came in the final season. Keller would be convicted of the murder of Bryce Tibbits, one of the gay men he was accused of killing and sent to death row. Beecher, who was paroled earlier that season, worked pro bono and got him off. But Keller was so jealous of Beecher's freedom that he ended up tricking Toby into picking up an illegal drug that would violate Toby's parole – and then called the cops to make sure it happened. When Beecher returned he said: "Same old story. I got fucked in the ass."

And yet when the show is over, when the bodies have fallen, one of the last scenes is of Beecher talking to Sister Pete about love:

"When God was making the Universe why did He make something so wonderful so fucking painful?"

Sister Pete, who's had her own struggles with the question says: "I think He thought we could handle it."

It's an exchange that could just as easily serve so many queer relationships beyond TV – maybe even being gay itself.

And I've never forgotten one of the earliest episodes of Six Feet Under. David and Keith are sitting at home watching OZ with a kind of fervor. During it Keller recites one of his most famous lines and both Keith and David mouth it:

OZ didn't make you a bitch. You were born one.

Considering that Six Feet Under debuted just a few weeks after Season 4 ended in the wrong hands this could have seemed like selfless promotion of the network. I never looked it at the way.  Alan Ball, it's worth remembering was a gay man himself perhaps the first openly gay man to become a showrunner in TV history. And given how much of his real life would influence that show I find it easily to believe that there were watch parties like this among his community for much of the late 1990s.

Of course it was because of Alan Ball that gay men would have a more realistic and slightly healthier relationship to see on HBO in the near future. That will be the subject of the next article in this series.

Hollywood Has Spent A Century Playing A Part. I've No Sympathy That They Thought It Was Real Life

 

Ever since Hollywood was founded at the start of the 20^th century it has always been a business first and everything else second. The talent is aware of this as a basic level – they make money, have unions and go out on strikes – but they've always mistaken their  value to the rest of society.

They truly believe at some basic level that they are artists firsts and business should always be a secondary consideration. They've always fought with the heads of studios, executives and the people who only consider their precious films and TV a commodity that they are using to generate revenue for their business – a business that, despite what the talent thinks, is not a vital industry to Americans. They don't need it the way they need food or shelter or clothing or anything else. It's  something they want to see if they have free time and that they don't want to pay a fortune for.

The talent has never truly understood where they fit in society and because they are all far wealthier than the average American they either don't comprehend or don't care how little their product matters to anyone besides themselves, the critics who review their work, the people who is responsible for promoting and the studios who finance it. To them their product and its artistic purity means more to them then whether it makes money for the people who invest in it or if the people who they are ostensibly make it for actually want to pay for it. Because they get paid regardless of those factors – far more than most of their audience will make in a lifetime – that's the least of their concerns and therefore should be irrelevant to everybody else involved. Business doesn't work that way and never has.

I've recently come to think that the reason Hollywood believes it is more important not just in America but the world at large has to do with the fact that, ever since Fox News and every major Republican politician I know of has made a talking point of attacking them, they believe that the right must be afraid of what they have to say. Combined with their natural distaste for Republicans that dates as far back as Nixon and their already inflated sense of self-importance they've come to believe that the entire country revolves around them.

They seem unwilling or unable to accept a basic truth: the right only cares about what they say or do as long as helps them maintain their power.  They are essentially just another in a long line of straw men argument Republicans have used to help win over working class voters since the 1970s. They are just a means to an end and anything that they can do to help them maintain their power is welcome. And in the past decade in particular Hollywood has been more than willing to give them ample material to hold on to their power.

It's no secret that Hollywood has been struggling immensely in the last decade for multiple reasons, some of them beyond the industry's control, some of which almost certainly has to be the responsibility of the talent. How much their political posturing in the last decade has been a result of the industry's economic shortcomings is impossible to quantify; how much their own labor stoppages did to affect it is not. But for Hollywood, all of this has been irrelevant. They've always thought that regardless of their own actions they should be allowed to carry on exactly as they always have, no matter how much the industry is shrinking and suffering do to the bad economic times. Their needs must always come first; their projects, their royalties, their salaries. And if the industry can't afford to make it because so many studios are being forced to merge or have to deal with political headwinds, well, that's the corporations fault not theirs.

Hollywood has to be aware how much revenues are shrinking, how many businesses are being forced to merge, how much the internet is taking over their world and shrinking their opportunities. But they don't seem to comprehend that these are decisions made of economic necessity and certainly not anything they had to do with it. And even if they did realize that they seem unwilling to acknowledge that they have no real power to fight the tide.  They're not an industry that the government is going to bail out like it did the auto industry and the financial industry after the economic meltdown of 2008. While they may think that because they are activists and say the right things they have more influence they do, none of that counts for political or economic power, which are the only two things that can help them in this situation. And they certainly can't count on the masses of Americans for support in their time of need – which is the point of this article.

I've been vaguely aware of how during the last year there has been a corporate battle for Warner Brothers and its holding by bigger companies, first Netflix, then Paramount.  The industry has been fighting tooth and nail to stop this with all the power they have – which is to say they've been posting on social media and protesting, doing everything they can to convince us that if either deal happens it will be the first domino that will trigger the apocalypse that will destroy the world as we know it.  I haven't weighed in on this for a very basic reason.

I couldn't care less. I know that as someone for whom TV and movies is a vital part of his life, both professionally and personally I should feel something – anger, despair, frustration at how capitalism is destroying anything. I feel absolutely nothing. At all.

And if you asked ten, a hundred, even a thousand people about this, I'm pretty sure none of them would be aware of this deal or why it bothers Hollywood. And even if you could explain why, I'm willing to argue every single one of them would say the same thing: "So what?"

Because I've been over this a couple of times and I really can't see how this will affect the live of the average American or anyone who doesn't work in Hollywood. And just to be clear all of the people it will affect – they already make more money in a month then most of us will in a lifetime. They're not going to starve any time soon. And the world will not suffer because there are fewer movies or TV shows coming from fewer sources. The industry might but I fail to see how it will affect American politics or the price of gas or bring about peace in the Middle East.

Earlier this year I discussed the difference between a necessity and a convenience. In the case of movies and TV I can't call them either. Even for me it is  as best an indulgence, something that makes your life richer in some way but that if you had to, you could live without.

That, I hate to break it to the industry, is what every single film, TV show or anything else does, is to the average American. Some of us are glad its here, many of us will utilize it, but none of us really need it. If the apocalypse that half of the films and TV shows are telling us is inevitable does come, the last thing most of us are going to care about is that we'll never be able to see the most recent spinoff of The Walking Dead or hear Chris Hardwick explain what it meant for the story. Sadly this is true even coming from yon author.  I don't think I could survive an apocalypse but I don't think my first priority would be that I'd never be able to see the most recent season of Slow Horses. 

So when I read as I did last night about a town hall that the industry had about how much this merger was going to be a death knell for it my first reaction was: did they all drive limos to get to this meeting of the people? Because increasingly every time I hear Hollywood taking swings at the evil corporate overlords I'm honestly getting out of touch conservative vibes from them. Oh lord, these studios are merging. How will I ever be able to sell my limited series adaptation of Anna Karenina with Vronsky as a biracial transgender and Anna throwing herself in front of a Tesla?

Ever since the 2024 election I've increasingly come to believe that Hollywood has lost the narrative thread of their own behavior. They've completely failed to convince the masses that a white billionaire that they spent much of the thirty years prior to his running for President was a complete monster who was against everything that good people stood for.  They still hold some kind of belief that they are like the average American, making 20 million dollars a year with a crowd of paparazzi and social media following their every move.  And they can't seem to get why so many things are bad in the world, even though they've been wearing pins and ribbons on red carpets and shouting out causes when they receive awards. You know, like you and me.

Very few people in the industry are willing to admit they have failed in their mission and even fewer are willing to blame the public directly for their failures. So they've turned their ire on the corporations and studios which have made it possible for them become wealthy and famous in the first place, saying with a straight face that you shouldn't trust billionaires (Colbert) and that millions of people are watching us (Kimmel) That raw numbers have made it very clear this is not the case – just 6.7 million people watched Colbert's final episode – have done nothing to convince them of the belief that the people are with them. In truth when Kimmel or any late night host says that they have millions of views on the internet, I get serious vibes of POTUS claiming how big his crowd sizes are.

But the difference between them is, ten years after he entered the arena, the President's followers have made it clear they will still show up to vote for him or vote against his perceived enemies. That is a staying power that I just don't see in the industry for anyone during this same decade. If the masses were on the side of Hollywood, as so many of the talent insists, there would be some mathematical proof of it in the ratings or the revenues or the box office to back this up. Everything that I've seen during this period only indicates that this is not the case.

Hollywood is a business first and anything else second. Those who argue otherwise are also in a business and have a different set of standards then the bosses do. Part of the problem with the talent is that most of them seem to believe the latter far more then they listen to the former. If they'd been more willing to do this, their industry almost certainly wouldn't be in the economic trouble its in.

So no, I don't feel sorry for those people in Hollywood worried about the health of their industry.  That is, as they say, a rich person problem and its not one that the majority of America has. You'd think considering how much time they've claimed to talk for the average American they'd have realized this. But considering how many of them were willing to move to another country after the 2024 election and how many still talk about it, I think they'll just be fine.  They'll still be getting royalties from those evil corporations, after all. That's why they went on strike during 2023, right? So that they could get their fair share like every other working stiff who gets money from a TV show they made in 1998 that no one watched.

 

Why I've Voted for Chuck Schumer Before And Will Again

 

 

As my readers know I'm a resident of New York State. The first election I could cast a ballot in was in 1998, the first time Chuck Schumer was running for the Senate to vacate the seat held by long time Republican Al D'Amato who was retiring.

I voted for him that year and every time he's been up for reelection ever since I've always cast my vote for him. I acknowledge Schumer is phlegmatic rather than charismatic but that's never been a disqualifier for me. Schumer has always met the benchmark I have for an elected official: he's a good public servant because he fulfills the only three masters any elected official should: the Democratic Party, the voters of the state of New York and the American people. I ask no more of my leaders then that nor should any voter.

During the 21^st century Schumer has moved up the rankings of leadership within the Senate, finally becoming minority leader in 2016 – not a great time for any Democrat to be in charge of anything. In my opinion in what has been a very turbulent time for all three of the constituencies an elected official should Schumer has served all three with as much distinction and grace as humanly possible – and with far fewer rewards then at any time in American history. He became a prominent name in the establishment at the exact time both parties were becoming as virulently anti-establishment as possible and for that reason he has become the target of horrific personal attacks not just from the Republicans and conservatives – something any Democrat who came to Washington in the era of Fox News has to be used too – but by voices within his own party. To the point that even though he has done everything that any elected leader can reasonably be expected to do there are many who think that, if the Democrats regain the majority this November, his reelection to an office he held as recently as two years ago is far from assured.

I've had many reasons to reflect on why this is the case and I believe that much of this reasoning is because, during his tenure as minority leader or majority leader, he has not been to Senate Democrats what his counterpart to Mitch McConnell has been for Republicans: an obstructor, a destroyer of every norm the Senate was known for in the two centuries before McConnell was elected. One might find it paradoxical that a man who the left in particular has famously considered the biggest Congressional boogeyman long before the 2016 election would want someone like that as one of their leaders but it makes perfect sense when one considers that at its core the far left has had as little use for institutions as McConnell and the overwhelming majority of Congressional Republicans in the 21^st century have. They never had much use for institutions when they were working properly; now that they've become ossified so thoroughly that have no use at all.

This would go against everything Schumer is, both as a Senator and as a Democrat. Unlike most progressives he remembers a time before McConnell. When he entered the Senate Trent Lott and then Bill Frist served as leadership for Republicans and Tom Daschle and Harry Reid as leadership for Democrats. None of these men were perfect but in my lifetime McConnell by far has been the biggest outlier as a Senate leader of either party. Considering that John Thune took over leadership when Trump won reelection its clear he's not the same kind of leader I've been used to as a Republican in a long time. It remains to be seen if he will become the kind of obstructionist McConnell was if and when the Democrats regain the majority and the Presidency but there have been signs – small but still present – that he does represent a different kind of leadership then I've been used to from Senate Republicans.

After the 2024 election Schumer was where he was in 2016: Senate Minority Leader. The major difference was that the Democrat voter seemed to be engaged in the kind of election denialism that puts anything Republicans did to shame. Despite Trump winning with the biggest margin of his three candidacies and the GOP gaining control of both Houses of Congress, a poll in January said that nearly two-thirds of Democrats did not want Congressional Democrats to go along with the White House. In other words regardless of the verdict of the voters and the fact that the Democrats really had no power to do anything, the Democratic voters wanted men like Schumer to act like McConnell did when he said: "Our job is to make Barack Obama a one-term President." Never mind McConnell had failed at that or that Trump could not for reelection.

So Chuck Schumer chose to do the one thing absolutely guaranteed to piss off the left. He ignored them and chose to act like a grownup. This has infuriated many Senate Democrats such as Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland both of whom have been listed as wanting Schumer's job if the Democrats win the majority.

They can afford to this because their state's Congressional delegations are almost entire made of Democrats and are far more blue in elections then New York is. For a man whose state has at least four swing districts in the last two elections, it's not a position that Schumer is comfortable taking. The fact that his state had until last year Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elise Stefanik among its Congressional delegation, it’s an approach that is reasonable – something you can never accuse either Murphy or Van Hollen of being.

Schumer spent the first half of 2025 under fire from the Democrats for refusing to shut the government down. He then gave into his base and let them shut it down until after the 2025 elections led to victory for Democrats in off-year elections. Then he let members of his delegation vote to reopen the government when it was clear his party had gotten all the political juice they could out of him. The left was infuriated when he reopened the government, most clearly because they didn't want to acknowledge that they'd been outmaneuvered by the establishment.

Schumer has spent much of 2026 so far patiently waiting for the President to do his work for him. This basically involving sticking a sock in his mouth and saying nothing publicly during the Iran War. I have no doubt behind the scenes he has been supporting the vote for the War Powers Act and waiting for the President to do what he does best and go after those people he found insufficiently loyal during the Republican primaries for Senate.

The President, as always, lived up to his expectations and as a result Bill Cassidy and John Cornyn are lame ducks who owe the President nothing and will be in the Senate for another six months. In the last few weeks we've seen how the Senate has increasingly been rebelling against Trump's policies, first by passing the War Powers Act in both houses of Congress, then by making it very clear that they had no intention of voting for reconciliation if either his supposed 'revenge' fund was part of the budget. Both times this was seen as Congressional Republicans standing up to the President but there's no doubt that Schumer's hidden hand was involved as he made sure his caucus would be willing to support them. This was a loss for the President that will almost certainly help the Democrats in their battle for control of the Senate in six months.

Its not clear how big a role Schumer has played in recruiting candidates to run this year and how much is the DNC but having spent so much time working with Sherrod Brown it's hard to imagine that didn't play a factor in Brown choosing to run for his seat in Ohio one years after losing it or helping such possible red state Democrats as Mary Peltola running for Alaska. With the added bonus of Roy Cooper running in North Carolina, the odds were looking up for the Democrats going as 2026 began.

He has been helped, I should add, by the fact that the left's efforts to try and recruit progressive candidates for red states has basically come up short. (There is one exception which I'll be dealing with.) Jasmine Crockett was trounced by James Talarico in Texas and combined with Ken Paxton defeating Cornyn in the primary the odds in winning this seat have increased dramatically. This past Tuesday a kind of shadow proxy battle took place in Iowa where Zach Wahls, a progressive candidate who made it clear he was not going to vote for Chuck Schumer if elected to the Senate ran again Josh Turek who Schumer endorsed. Turek trounced Wahls in the primary by nearly 25 percent and as a result Iowa has now moved to Leans Republican. That either state would be in play would have been unthinkable even a few months ago.

This brings me to what was considered just a few weeks ago as the major impetus for the death knell of Chuck Schumer's career in the Senate: the race to replace Susan Collins in Maine.

During that race Schumer had endorsed Janet Mills, the former governor of Maine who was immensely popular. Almost from the start in the polls she trailed the problematic Graham Platner whose campaign started with his staff all resigning within weeks even before the revelation of his unawareness of a Nazi tattoo on his chest.

Schumer, who had been in the Senate as long as Collins has been there knows just how difficult it is for the Democrats to beat her in Maine. He knew just six years earlier the Democrats had nominated Sara Gideon, a very progressive candidate who had led in every poll all the way up to election day but who Collins had beaten by nearly 9 percent. He knows the history of how many Democrats have managed to win seats in the Senate because of flawed Republican candidates. And he had to know that even if Maine Democrats were willing to overlook these flaws in the primary the Republicans and Collins almost certainly wouldn't. Considering that they'd been making remarks about Platner's flaws for public office as early as November of 2025, he knew the knives were going to come out the moment Platner won the primary and never stop until election day.

For whatever reason, perhaps because of the huge lead in the polls Platner had over Mills, he backed down and Mills withdrew from the race a month ago. This was seen as a mortal blow to Schumer's leadership.

A week before the primary it’s a very different story. Just a few days ago the New York Times ran an article about how multiple ex-girlfriends of Platner made very clear what a toxic personality he was. Platner's campaign has denied it and the left is rallying behind him. The problem is these stories aren't going away. Earlier today The Atlantic have a Graham Platner problem, infuriating the Democratic party. While many progressives such as Ro Khanna are reiterated their support, others such as Robert Zimmerman have said "Democrats who defend him sound like Republicans defending Donald Trump after the Access Hollywood state." Cheyenne Hunt, who'd organized against Eric Swalwell over allegations of sexual assault, rescinded her endorsement of Platner Thursday.  Brian Romick, president of Democratic Majority for Israel, made it very clear "people need to answer for this."

Most tellingly many Democrats are researching the mechanism to replace Platner should he withdraw from the ticket. A senior Democratic operative said: "The calculus here is that this is a must win seat and the safer-bet candidate is the best bet when the Senate is on the line. I don't say this often but I think in this case some people owe Chuck Schumer an apology.

Schumer has been silent on the subject but multiple Democrats are very concerned about losing Maine then they were before. It basically breaks down along party lines: progressives have doubled down while more mainstream Democrats are getting angrier. As well they should. Just last week Platner was beating Collins 51 percent to 42 percent. A poll on Thursday showed the lead had dropped to 48 percent to 43 percent. Simultaneously last month prediction markets gave Platner a 70 percent chance of beating Collins. It's now down to 57 percent – and that's before the primary.

It's impossible to think that Janet Mills could have generate this kind of controversy had she run against Collins. While she withdrew from the race her name is still on the ballot – and its clear that if the voters either stay home or don't give Platner as much of a margin there will be room for a move.

In either case as much as Platner and his supporters want to pretend otherwise its impossible to argue that had they listened to Schumer and backed Mills their chances of taking the Senate back would be much easier. And if they do take the Senate back – which sites like Race to The White House have this week tilted that in the Democrats favor for the first time – it will be because voters prefer candidates like Josh Turek and Sherrod Brown more than the populist rhetoric of Graham Platner.

And even if Platner manages to beat the odds and win – which in a post- Trump America no one can rule out  - he will be more isolated in whatever Democrat senators are elected. He was always an outlier among the Democrats that have been running for Senate this cycle, certainly among those who have the best chance of making them the majority party. Left wing candidates have always had far more difficulty winning statewide offices then moderates have: this is something Schumer knows but that the progressives who loathe him have ignored – and the party has suffered immensely as a result.

Schumer will be on the ballot again in 2028. He'll be 77 then and he might very well want to retire at that point, perhaps deciding to jump rather than be pushed. However if he does stand for reelection I will gladly vote for him yet again and support him if he is primaried. He is a good public servant, the kind of senator the Democratic party, the state of New York and the country need now more than ever. That may not be enough for many of today's Americans or today's Democrats. That's always been enough for me. Schumer, as the left loves to crow, is on the right side of history and that's because he's lived through a lot of it.

Homicide Rewatch: Strangers & Other Partners

 

Written by David Simon, James Yoshimura and Tom Fontana

Directed by Kenneth Fink

 

In the 1990s the finales of broadcast dramas were increasingly coming to end on cliffhangers which would put one or more characters in mortal jeopardy only to return to the status quo in the fall. Homicide had done as much at the end of Season 4 with Frank Pembleton but as we've seen the status quo didn't return for him at the start of the season and he's been struggling with the losses ever since.

During May of 1997 the biggest successes in network drama were taking this to increasingly ludicrous extremes. Perhaps the biggest came with The X-Files which ended with Dana Scully claiming to the FBI that Mulder had killed himself  - despite the fact that a feature film was about to be greenlit at David Duchovny was going to be one of the leads. As we shall see when we begin Season 6 cable would begin to change how these finales came out across the board but network TV would remain late to the party for a few more years. It was not until such shows as 24 and Lost debuted in the 2000s that broadcast television would embrace the season finale when  they teased game changers and would follow through when the season began.

Homicide operated in a grey area during its entire run. In large part this was because as a series that was always on the bubble major changes were born out of necessity rather then any sustained plan. When it had been granted a two season renewal in the spring of 1996 it had been allowed breathing room in a way it never had during its run. This has been seen perhaps the most clearly during Season 5 and its still unclear if the cast changes that were to follow in the summer of 1997 were by its own design or outside factors. But nevertheless the way that it chooses to reveal what is by far the biggest existential change to the show as we know it is keeping with how Homicide has always operated. It allows the entire season finale and several major story arcs that span not only this season but the show's history to wrap up, ending all of the major drama of the season. And only then does it choose to make us spend the entire season wondering the effect of a bureaucratic change in department policies is going to have on our cast.  This isn't  "Who Shot J.R?"

The electricity in this episode starts moments after Giardello brings Gharty into his office and tells them that Felton was working undercover with IID. Internal Affairs was never going to make Gharty popular with the squad but the moment Russert hears his name she instantly places him. Hoffman's righteous fury the moment she says "I guess you decided not to take that pension" as well as her laying out Gharty's very real dereliction of duty completely vindicates the decision to bring her character back. When Howard and Russert realize the full scope of the fact that a man they considered guilty of cowardice has been responsible for the death of their friend, there's no way they can trust them. And when Falsone hears that Gharty is essentially trying to lay the leak on him he's even angrier and nearly takes a swing at him on their first meeting and when Gharty is foolish enough to tell him to go hell, Pembleton has to physically restrain him. Its only because of Giardello's doing everything he can to make this about Felton that he stops the unit from flying apart at the seams but Bayliss makes it clear he has no desire to work with Gharty and Pembleton looks at him as if he smells bad.

It doesn't help that Howard immediately decides to go over Frank's head and start doing her own thing. Pembleton makes it clear he understands the reasons why Howard and Russert want to get involved but he also makes it clear that he wants authority over this case. Frank can be a bastard but he's not wrong – and Howard's decision to erase Felton's name from the board and give herself and Russert priority is the most blatant abuse of power she's done since she became sergeant. Al is absolutely right when he calls her into his office.

In The Unofficial Companion Kalat writes about the perceived double standard by pulling two women off the case and sending them to handle Beau's funeral. However this is another example of Homicide being authentic. Giardello refused to let Bayliss get involved when his cousin was being investigated for murder and he knew he was wrong when he let Meldrick meddle in the investigation of Crosetti's suicide. Howard is in the wrong here and it is because she's taking it so personally that she doesn't see it as the episode progresses. Russert, who was a shift commander, can see it and even as she deflects that she was shift commander for long, she acknowledges that she sees it when Al points it out. And when you consider that in death Beth Felton has no more use for her husband then she did in life, it's fitting – if sad – that the two people who cared about him the most have to prepare for his death.

Howard proves it when she demands to be put on this case and basically tells Giardello that there's a double standard and he doesn't know what he's talking about. Howard and Giardello have a superb relationship throughout the series and her attitude towards her boss is very clearly that of someone demanding special treatment. It's not a good look even if you know where she's coming from.

The scene with Russert and Howard at Felton's last known address is beautiful. The two women were never friends and they never worked together that well and that they're together in this setting is incredibly awkward for both of them. Leo plays it with awkwardness and clumsiness as if she doesn't know the right thing to say or do in front of the mistress of her partner; Hoffman goes through the entire scene as if she is clearly in mourning, having to look at the last place of the man she loved and see his blood on the wall. Its only when Russert mentions that the suit is pointless because it will be a closed casket that Howard says the right thing.

To his credit Frank immediately takes charge of the investigation and settles the squabbling between Falsone and Gharty early. He starts giving assignments to his fellow detectives – and really doesn't like it that Gharty ends up with him.

As when we first met him Gharty is chatty and talkative and Pembleton has no more use for it then Russert did. He makes it clear he has no problem with IID. His issue is with the fact that based on his history he completely doubts Gharty would back him up if he needs it.  Pembleton chews Gharty out and talks about his fellow detectives having his back and being willing to fight for him. (As always the case with Pembleton he says his most respectful remarks for his colleagues when they're not around.)

We are unprepared for what follows as Gharty tells us a monologue of a brutality complaint he did four months ago that he had to go following a cop's response. This leads him to chase down a felon right into a Baltimore crack house – a dope fiend's convention where he makes it clear how scared he was. He tells Pembleton he took a beating so bad he had to spend eight hours getting stitched up and a broken rib. He knows the beating was bad but he acknowledges the fear was worse. Gharty says he needed to prove himself. Pembleton is willing to trust him here but as we'll see in the following season he'll never truly respect him. And as we'll see Gharty will give many reasons for this impression to be correct.

Its clear in this episode that Fontana and Simon are doing the work that will lead to Falsone and Gharty being regulars the following season. Both Seda and Gerety are more than up to the task. Seda has the more difficult job as we just met him and we don't have much experience with detectives from other units. It helps that he's initially partnered with the more open-minded Bayliss who is always good at smoothing over rough spots. Falsone genuinely seems curious about how Homicide works and treats him with respect and admiration. Bayliss's casual remark: "A lot more people care about their cars then dead relatives" is both cynical and admiring of what Falsone does.

The scene between Megan and Frank is wonderful as Megan, using the same tact she did when she was shift commander, gently talks to Frank about his marriage. Throughout the episode Pembleton treats Russert with a respect and kindness he doesn't treat Howard or real anyone else as he knows all too well where she's coming from – and confides a secret he hasn't even told Bayliss: Mary is currently six months pregnant. It is this conversation that leads Frank to, in the midst of a red ball, do something he would never have done even a few months ago: call his wife.

And when the interrogation begins and Mary shows up in the squad room Frank does something he wouldn't have done before: let his marriage come ahead of his job. It's a beautiful scene between Brabson and Braugher as we see the considerate, loving husband. When Frank tells Mary that he doesn't have a single good thing in his life without his wife and daughter, its sincere in a way we're not used to from him. When the man who spent half this season just trying to be a detective again tells Mary that he will give it all up if she'll just come home, it’s a side of Frank the show's never let us see in five seasons, as is the joy as he realizes why she's here. And I love how the man who's never been at a loss for words lets his wife half the last one.

Fittingly the investigation into Felton's murder ends up being brought down by the two men who have no connection to Homicide: Falsone and Gharty. It turns out that the man Gharty used to get Felton into the squad was none other than Eddie Dugan, Falsone's informant. Dugan was playing both ends against the middle. The confrontation between Falsone, Gharty and Dugan in the box  is a powerhouse and all the more remarkable because it involves two men who, as of yet, we have never seen interrogate anyone.

Falsone and Dugan start with a friendly conversation as if they were old friends, Falsone butters him up – and then without a word Gharty walks into the box. The look of shock on Dugan's face is incredible, particularly as he starts to squirm realizing every story he's told has no value. And when he makes one of the dumbest lies imaginable, saying the pager on his belt isn't his Gharty walks out dials the number they've found and immediately traps him.

Of course because this is Homicide the show gives us nothing. Dugan gives up Cantwell and when they raid his shop – with Frank giving the warrant to Howard and Russert – no one's there. Cantwell has fled the jurisdiction and Beau's murder will remain in red forever. They console themselves with the fact that Dugan will go to prison but there's no closure for the death of one of their own. There's a memorial service where Al has to speak for Felton because his family hasn't shown up.

If the episode has a failing its one that is only apparent in retrospect. Kellerman and Cox's relationship ends up falling apart by the end of it, in part because its clear that the relationship has only brought out the worst in both of them.

This truly seems like a cheat. Its understandable why this is the case for Kellerman; the episode shows that the aftermath of the Mahoney shooting is causing him to drown his sorrows in alcohol and its now affecting his work relationship. The writers are super in showing this as the catalyst for the following season where Lewis will essentially end his two year partnership with Mike.

What's harder to understand is why Juliana rejects it. The second half of the season has shown that she's been making more of an effort during Mike's struggles and was open to him even as recently as the previous episode. It seems like the writers, yet again, have failed a character who isn't a detective. We already know Cox's story of drinking too much and falling in love with the wrong men from her introduction but the writers have tried so hard to put her front and center with the detectives in a way they haven't with characters like Brodie when it comes to her professional life, you'd think they could try harder with her personal life. This was not the case – and it may have been one of the factors that led to Forbes deciding to leave the show the following season. 

So by the end of Season Five we've wrapped up every loose end that has been part of the show and all the detectives from Season 4 are having coffee and talking about what's next, while bitching they couldn't arrest Felton. And its after all of that that Al comes down with the real cliffhanger.

As his parting gift before he ends up leaving the series Deputy Commissioner Harris has announced a change in policy known as rotation. Every three months some detectives will be moved from one unit to another. Meaning when the series returns the following fall 'none of us may be here'.

This bureaucratic policy (which had a basis in reality) hits the unit harder then any death ever could. And as we'll see the ramifications will be felt almost immediately when the show returns.

 

NOTES FROM THE BOARD

 

This is the final episode for Melissa Leo and Max Perlich during the series run and the final appearance of Isabella Hoffman in any form.

The mayor of Baltimore Kurt Schmoke makes his third appearance as himself in the final scene as does the then governor of Maryland Paris Glendening. Glendening served as governor between 1995-2003 and Schmoke would serve as mayor from 1987-1999.

The policy in question was a real one, one that Simon had reported on in Baltimore Magazine. Thomas Frazier became commissioner of police in 1994 and instituted a four-year limit on assignments to specialized units, Frazier believed that by rotating officers through departments it would lead to greater sharing of knowledge and skills. But he reckoned without the fact that detectives would have little time to develop specialized skills before moving to a different department. The quality of drug investigations would plummet when inexperienced detectives took over while many top Homicide detectives chose to retire rather than leave the elite squad. Frazier would eventually leave when Martin O'Malley was elected mayor and the policy was reversed in 2000 (which is no doubt why Simon doesn't use as a story line in The Wire.)

 

"Detective Munch: John is fittingly serious during the investigation. The closest he comes to snark is when he reads the toxicology report and "Believe it or not, Beau Felton left this earth clean and sober, no drugs, no alcohol."

 

MAHONEY PTSD: Kellerman comes in to the squad room late and Lewis tells him he's been wearing 'whiskey as last night's cologne' for the last ten days. When Lewis tries to ease Mike's conscience, Kellerman says they're even. Lewis saved him on the boat and he saved his ass from Mahoney. They're saved from brawling when they go out on a call. At the murder scene Kellerman is interviewing  a witness and while he's doing so she wonders off.  He also fails to take her name or vital information.  Meldrick, who's the primary on this case, is justifiably enraged at Mike.  After ascertaining he's 6 foot 1 he says: "I didn't know they piled crap that high."

Get The DVD: One of the very best mixes of music on Homicide can be found in the opening sequence as Soul Coughing's 'Super Bon Bon' is used to show the entire process of how Cantwell's crew steals a car on the street and ships it overseas. In the Waterfront where Juliana is  playing pool while heavily intoxicated we can  hear "Trepidation' and 'Only Onions' by Civil Tones.