Thursday, November 5, 2026

Drama or Comedy Elsbeth Is Still A Masterpiece

 

 

Last year Robert and Michelle King decided to move Elsbeth for consideration as a drama in most awards into comedies. The result was predictable: the Emmys continued their decade long tradition of pretending that no show the Kings make is worthy of awards and numerous other groups such as the Critics' Choice Awards and the Astras nominated Carrie Preston and Elsbeth in the Comedy category where the previous year it had contended for dramatic awards.

In hindsight moving Elsbeth into the comedy category was honestly something the Kings should have done all along and not merely to give Carrie Preston a chance at an Emmy to go with her Emmy for hear more than fourteen years of playing this extraordinary character.  Given the way that Carrie Preston has always put in brilliant gestures and facial expression every time she's on screen combined with all the wonderful outfits she wears (no one rocks a scarf like Elsbeth Tascioni) it should really have been competing in this category the whole time. And let's be honest: the always sunny, relentlessly cheerful, ridiculous about of empathy even for those she knows committed murder really puts her up there with Ted Lasso and Janine Teague for the kind of optimistic, kind people that have been delighting us on TV during the 2020 a bit more than it does with so many of the best dramas. (Though I'd love to see Elsbeth try to work her relentless charm on Jackson Lamb who might appreciate how she does what she does even if he'd never acknowledge it.)

It never fails that every time I just see Carrie Preston do anything on Elsbeth I start smiling knowing that I will be chuckling if not laughing out loud in a moment. In hindsight I should have figured out this was a comedy long ago but the Kings have been so brilliant at melding genres ever since I started watching The Good Wife that I just figured it was their impish sense of humor leading the day. This is very much the case as Season 4 continues on its merry way as Elsbeth now continues her brilliant professional capacity with increasing personal issues.

We all know just how good Elsbeth is at what she does and the Kings know we know. So they've found new ways to mix it up that surprise us.  The second episode dealt with the aftermath of getting the work of a famous playwright being workshopped to an avant-garde artist who clearly didn't respect it. This was done with the disapproval of both the mother and the son of that playwright and when the avant-garde playwright met his end we assumed the son did it but for once we didn't see it. The show unfolded with the viewer being led to believe this with the son continuously having visions of his disapproving father (John Doman) tormenting him from beyond the grave. The son had no alibi, asked his mother to lie for him, but when confronted the mother gave him up. This led us to believe that the case was closed – but that was over in only the third act. Then there was a remarkable twist that revealed the mother had actually killed him to the shock of all involved – but not Elsbeth who'd figured it out. The episode actually had a happy twist which I won't spoil here.

Elsbeth is dealing with some issue of her own. In a wonderful segment last season Teddy (Ben Levi Ross) proposed to his boyfriend and he accepted leading to their nuptials. But around that time it was revealed that Elsbeth hadn't been talking to her mother who to this point on the show had never been mentioned. The second episode ended with her talking to her and in the third episode we finally met her. Played by that exceptional stage actress Christine Ebersole Lily clearly has so many of the gestures and mannerism of her daughter but is the completely polar opposite. She's ridiculous passive aggressive to Elsbeth at her apartment while clearly favoring Teddy. When she gets locked out of her apartment she goes to the police station where Elsbeth works (while she's on a case) and when the chief (Wendell Pierce) sees her and offers to help she says she's just going to wait for her daughter on the bench, refusing to go into the office Elsbeth has staked out. She then completely reorganizes the clutter that we all know Elsbeth loves and endears herself to the Chief, and then makes it clear she neither understands what her daughter does nor thinks she's very good at it. Elsbeth does everything she possibly can to try and reach out to her mother at the end of the episode but she just keeps meeting that brick wall. Our heart, as always, goes out to this goofy redhead who we now understand even more both in terms of her personality and as a parent. (For the record Elsbeth, you're a much better mother than yours in.)

As always Elsbeth continues on her merry way through the billionaire class of New York City who are always toxic in what they do and yet somehow you really get why they commit their crimes most of the time. This was particularly true in the most recent episode when we met Summer and Winter Redgrave who were performing for an American Idol type reality show which Summer advanced and began a rock star career and Winter was rejected and began a Gwynneth Paltrow type wellness career. (Jemma Kirke played Paltrow as if she were Margot Tannenbaum.) Summer had clearly managed to build an enormously successful business which had the product names I would dream of spoiling here and that argued for ethical business but in fact were just as unethical as anything else. (Winter was brought down because she'd been dealing in illegal bugs for her nail polish.) Cream was designed in order to make you feel inferior – the detective's words not mine – and that's clearly what Summer did when she strolled into Winter's place and demanded that she take a sale from a Walmart type chain, something she was forced to do because of a drag along clause Summer's lawyers had figured out. (Elsbeth of course knew this from her previous job when she investigated.) Winter rightfully saw that this was her sister ruining something that was hers and even though she was killing her sister, we could see – as of course did Elsbeth – both sides of it.  We were led to the fun of watching Elsbeth give her spirit animal as a unicorn and find that she couldn't stand a sensory deprivation tank, but at least she got to pick her swimsuit.

Elsbeth fills several needs in me as a viewer even beyond the obvious of its genius in writing, directing and comedy. With Cupertino coming immediately after the Kings have finally achieved what the Dick Wolfs and Ryan Murphy have: a block of network programming on them on a given night. (Of course because this is TV it's all on Thursday which is 9-1-1 on ABC and Law & Order on NBC.) To have two hours of King Size programming on a network has been on my bucket list and I've been hoping for it since Elsbeth debuted. That it may only last until Kathy Bates Matlock returns is something I can live with: those two shows balance them out just as neatly.

Also for those of you still mourning the cancellation of Poker Face Elsbeth now fills this void perfectly. It's a comedy series that shows the guest star of the week committing a murder in the first act, a redhead with a unique sense of style shows up and knows the killer is lying, and then she spends the episode figuring out who did it. The difference is when Charlie Cale did it, it usually ended with a lot more chaos and violence and she left before things got rough. When Elsbeth does it she's so sweet and polite, the killers do face justice and some of them actually ask them what they did wrong. Don't get me wrong: I loved Natasha Lyonne and Poker Face as much as anyone else and I'm fully aware of the similarities but honestly I'd rather hang out with Elsbeth Tascioni then Charlie Cale any day of the week. I kind of get the feeling Charlie would too.

And of course Elsbeth is an hour long comedy just as Poker Face was. I don't know if a new version will ever get greenlit but if you needed a reason to watch this show (though to be fair a lot of people already are) Elsbeth will fill that void too.

 

My score: 5 stars.

 

Wednesday, November 4, 2026

Early Takeaways From The Seismic Earthquake That Is The 2026 Midterms

 

 

I think the clearest indication as to how good a night the Democrats had came from when the New York Times interview our President last night.

He told them he would accept the results of the election. No deflecting, no rigged system, no steal. He just said he'd accept the results. To be sure he then wrote a long tirade on Twitter that said that this wasn't his fault but everyone else's but the thing is for the first time in a long time Republican elected officials – the few that are left – aren't having it. They've been clearer on how bad things were going to be for them of weeks and now they're in the position that I suspect Steve Scalise and Jim Jordan are going to be looking over the House map the way FEMA looks for survivors after a natural disaster. Every time a Republican emerges they'll go: "We found one!"

I'm actually going to leave the House out of my recounting because nearly a full day after voting we're still not sure how massive the Democratic majority in the House will me. (That phrase looks very strange even after I wrote it down.) We've already won 231 seats and there are still over 60 left to call. MSNBC thinks it might be at least 250 seats that go Democrat which if it were to happen would be a margin that is very close to JFK-LBJ era House numbers. So I'm just going to wait about that and talk about what we know in statewide races. And having watched CNN and MSNBC as well as most of the major networks the seasoned panelists who'd been there for decades were astonished by some of the results and even more by some of the margins.

As well as they should be. Increasingly I was bullish on the Democrats taking the Senate back as well as us winning a majority of governorships. And I knew as a result a lot of history would be made. But even I underestimated just how big last night was – or for that matter how much bigger it could. So let's look at some of the biggest takeaways just from the Senator and Governor races alone.

 

Much of the Democrats gains are because of Trump.

The most obvious example of this in Texas. After the runoff with John Cornyn and Ken Paxton both surviving the GOP establishment wanted Trump to endorse Cornyn to ensure they'd hold it instead of Paxton who everyone knew was a weak candidate. Trump was in his retribution mode and endorse Paxton who won the primary in a landslide. And as we've seen James Talarico managed to do something no Democrat has done in Texas since 1988 and win a Senate seat – in a landslide.

In South Carolina Trump did as much damage when he encouraged Darline Graham, who was the caretaker for her brother's seat after he tragically passed away this July, to run for the nomination in her own right. She did but even as she won she demonstrated weakness in foreign policy and was ineffective on the campaign trail. Pundits foresaw a close race but thanks in large part to the biggest turnout in South Carolina history for a midterm, Annie Andrews won fairly comfortably.

Trump's pressure on GOP Senators who he considered insufficiently loyal to him in the early days of his second term caused Thom Tillis in North Carolina and Joni Ernst in Iowa not to seek reelection. Roy Cooper had such a big margin that the GOP pulled money out of North Carolina in October and Josh Turek managed to win a narrow victory over Ashley Hinson. Both are the first Democrats to win in these states since 2008.

 

There's now a New South.

Much of the focus this cycle has been on James Talarico in Texas for good reason but this midterms mark the best performance by the Democrats in the South since the late 1990s. Talarico, Andrews and Cooper flipped three Southern states. Jon Ossoff who was considered the most vulnerable Democratic senator this cycle won reelection in a landslide that has led many to consider him a Presidential frontrunner in two years.

As I speak the Mississippi Senate race – which not even I dared think we had a chance in hell of winning – is basically too close to call with Scott Colom and Cindy Hyde-Smith separated by less than a hundred votes as of this writing. What's more Democrats overperformed even in states they lost. Julia Letlow in Louisiana barely managed to hold off a challenge by Jamie Davis and Tom Cotton, though still easily winning election in Arkansas, won by just 14 points instead of the 33 last time.

We all this play out in two historical gubernatorial wins for America. Keisha Lance Bottoms became the first African-American woman to win a governor's race in history when she managed to win governor of Georgia. Even more ground-shaking was Gina Hinjosa's landslide victory over Greg Abbott in Texas in which she won by more than 8 points to become the first LatinX female governor of that state. (More on that later)

 

What's the Matter with Kansas? Very Little.

Even more seismic than Talarico's win in Texas was Adam Hamilton's landslide win in the Kansas Senate seat where a Democrat hasn't won since 1932. Like Talarico Hamilton is a pastor and both of them sounding very much like preachers in their early appearances on TV this morning. I mean that in a good way.

 

Is Florida a swing state again?

In the last decade Florida has been increasingly a ruby red state. Last night it showed signs that it might be coming back in play.

To be sure both Angie Nixon and David Jolly did both lose the Senate and Gubernatorial races last night. But both came much closer than any Democrat has for either in the last twenty years. Nixon's race is even more impressive, considering no one expected her to win the primary and she had almost no money to go into this campaign and yet she only lost to Ashley Moody by 3 percent which is astounding. Moody will have to seek reelection for a full term in two years and there's now a convincing argument Nixon should be her opponent again that not even I would have said a week ago.

I must also give Byron Donalds congratulation for the history he made becoming the first African-American governor of Florida. Though he won't be alone because…

 

The Midwest is Under Democratic Control

I mentioned in an article in September how essential for the Democratic Party that we do well in the Midwest, not just in the Senate races but in gubernatorial ones. Well we managed to do just that.

All four of the Democratic governors I paid tribute to: Rob Sand in Iowa, Jocelyn Benson in Michigan, David Crowley in Wisconsin and Amy Acton in Ohio all won last night, many by margins greater than some of the Senate candidates running in each state. With JB Pritzker easily winning reelection we now have the kind of control Democrats haven't had at a state level in that region of the country since the 2006 midterms.

Pritzker is currently a contender for the Democratic nomination for President in 2028 and I could see scenarios where Sand and Acton would be down the road. But that's for much later.

 

As Maine Goes, So Does Susan Collins

Who would've thought Susan Collins losing reelection in Maine, one of the biggest Democratic desire for nearly two decades, would practically be an afterthought on election night? By the time Collins conceded to Troy Jackson around midnight, the entire media apparatus, not to mention the Democratic establishment, had spent the night dancing for joy on the rest of the country. That's how good a night it was for Democrats. We finally get something we've been chasing for 20 years and when we finally got it, it's icing on an already ridiculous frosted cake.

 

As of this writing this has been one of the great nights in Democratic Party history already. We have flipped 7 senate seats and there may be two more by the time this is all over. (Fingers crossed for Mary Peltola.) We've won 28 governorships and there may yet be two more. (It's looking good for JKT too.) But there may be one last big lesson that the Republicans have to take away from this.

 

As of last night, there's no such thing as a safe seat for the GOP.

The Republicans have managed to do much to create Congressional gridlock because of a combination of gerrymandering giving them a big base in the House and a reliance of rural red states over blue urban ones. The gerrymandering clearly backfired badly in the House and the Democrats just pretty much demolished their power in the Senate. I suspect, by the way,  the argument that small states have too much power is going to take a major hit going forward mainly because we just showed how much you can win in those states if you make the effort. (More on that when the final House count is in.

The Republican Party was never going to magically discover its morals one day; they sold those out a bit before Trump arrived. Political survival as a party, however, that's going to have to scare even the most far-right Republicans straight – or at least to the center. (Did I mention that as I write this Lauren Boebert may lose reelection? More on that as it develops.) They've clung to Donald Trump believing that he was the only way they could hold on to political power but that was always going to have an expiration date – and that date seems to have been yesterday. At this point they have not to consider what their future is after Trump but to make sure they have a future at all. This election was bad enough. The next one is almost certainly going to be worse for them – and at a certain level they have to know it.

As of this moment Election Day 2026 is a watershed event. Perhaps it will be the moment, after a decade of chaos and insanity, when America finally regained its senses. My faith in democracy and the system has never wavered once in the last two years  And yesterday the electorate rewarded it tenfold at least. Try to hold on to that hope. It is a good thing.

Monday, November 2, 2026

Lost Character Study: Sayid Jarrah A Different Kind of Antihero

 

Like so many of the best shows during this period Lost took incredible swings for the fences, in terms of character as well as plot. One of the most incredible then and now has to be with Sayid Jarrah, played brilliantly and soulfully by Naveen Andrews.

Fatigue over the War in Iraq had already set in by the time the Pilot of Lost was being written and in a post 9/11 America bigotry against Islam was becoming increasingly excused. So it was astounding to have a character such as Sayid Jarrah who was not just Iraqi but who when asked in the Pilot said he served in the Republican Guard. That Sayid was a devout Muslim was something that the show frequently illustrated (we saw him praying on multiple occasions both on the island and in flashbacks) though his faith was never the focus the way it was for so many other characters.

In a way when it was revealed that Sayid had been a torturer less then a third through Season 1 it was actually less of a creative risk: 24 had already become part of the Zeitgeist and Battlestar Galactica had already been willing to use similar methods on Cylons during its first two seasons. The difference was we never saw Jack Bauer feel any regret when he beat up suspected terrorists. By contrast the first time Sayid tortured anyone – Sawyer when he was suspected of having Shannon's inhalers – he felt such remorse that he actually decided to exile himself from the camp to map the island, with the full intention of never returning.

If Lost had been a more political show it could have easily used Sayid as a victim of the American military and our own worst impulses. In 'One of Them' we saw that Sayid had learned his skills from the American military in order to extract information from a superior without them getting their hands dirty. But Sayid always had an awareness of himself as he said in what is arguably the most famous monologue he ever gave on the show. He tells 'Henry Gale' about his military career about the things he wishes he could erase from his memory, but that he came to realize he was always capable of them:

My name is Sayid Jarrah and I am a torturer.

And that is what makes Sayid different from Jack Bauer as well as so many other of the antiheroes will meet during the era (with one exception I'll get to below). Like Tony Soprano, Jack Bauer and Walter White he is capable of doing horribly violent things to men and even defenseless women but the actions drain him emotionally. He doesn't want to be a violent person, he doesn't like himself when he does it but as we see there are so many points in his life, on and off the island, in the past and in the future, where he has a choice to inflict violence or not do so. And as Nikki Stafford points out in her own analysis: "As much as we love Sayid he is weak…He never chooses that option."

Noel Murray points out that Sayid 'spends an awful amount of time in Lost in shackles'.  Stafford is aware of this fact in Finding Lost but in her books she makes the argument its symbolic of a condition Sayid has been throughout his entire life – even when he's physically free he's always emotionally imprisoned. This decision plays out by far the most effectively on the Ajira flight: Sayid is the only one who has been physically restrained by another in order to return to the island. And it's the idea that Sayid has always felt like he has always been doomed his entire life in which I argued the greatest parallel upon characters of this era is not a torturer like Jack Bauer but rather Dexter Morgan:

Like Dexter, Sayid Jarrah knew even at a young age he was capable of great violence. Both men were influenced by their father’s behavior – Sayid’s encouraged violence in his son, Dexter’s tried to help him channel it -  but both knew at an early age of the darkness in them.

Both Dexter and Sayid followed in their father’s footsteps. We don’t know much about Sayid’s father’s background except he was ‘a great hero’ but Sayid may have gone into the military to win his approval just  as Dexter went to Miami Metro to earn his. During the First Gulf War Sayid learned his potential under the instruction of the U.S. Army. Unlike Dexter, Sayid initially refused to engage his dark side and the first time he did so, he was so horrified he swore he would never do it again. But that was an oath he broke and he ended up working as a ‘communications officer’ for the Republican Guard. Here we see the first critical difference: Dexter spent much of the first half of the series hiding his capacity for violence because he knew how much it would horrify the world. Sayid received advance in his career because his capacity was useful.

Like Dexter Sayid feels there are two sides of his nature: the torturer and the caring one. The difference is Dexter spent the entire series hiding that nature and pretending he was, to paraphrase Nadia about Sayid, someone he knew he wasn’t. He only showed his darkness under the cover of night and protecting himself. Sayid, however, has always been able to turn off his emotions and inflict violence when he needed to – he was even capable of doing it to the woman he loved before he helped free her.

Dexter started the series believing that human connection was part of his cover: he initially started his relationship with Rita Bennett and her kids because he thought they were safe. He was surprised when they became real over the first few seasons and more surprised to learn he was capable of love. But he always feared what would happen if his dark side ever came to interact with the cover. He spent much of the first four seasons making human contact and trying to find friendship only to find out his human side could lead him astray.

By contrast Sayid wants to belong to that world of humanity but it has always gotten him into trouble. He spent eight years searching for Nadia and when the CIA dangled her in front of him he sold part of his soul to do so. There is a parallel between Sayid and Essam’s story in ‘The Greater Good’ and Miguel and Dexter’s storyline in Season 3. In the latter, Miguel spent much of the season manipulating Dexter into a position of trust just as Sayid did with Essam. But when Essam learned of his friend’s betrayal, he committed suicide and his last words summed up so much of Sayid’s story: “I hope she makes you whole.” Sayid has never been whole and he knows that.

When the plane crashed, his skills as a communications officer made him useful – as did his capacity for violence. On the island his growing relationship with Shannon made him torture Sawyer and seriously wound him. He chose to exile himself from the group but when he got caught in Rousseau’s traps, he found a kindred spirit – perhaps one more kindred than anyone he ever knew. When Sayid learned of the Others he returned to the camp to warn them and swore he would never torture another person. He began a relationship with Shannon, only for her to be accidentally killed by Ana Lucia. He resisted an urge to kill her, and we thought he had grown – but it would turn out he only would direct his violence towards  ‘people who deserved it’, much in the same way Dexter sought his targets.

The first target was Henry Gale and despite the fact he never broke Sayid was certain he was ‘One of Them’. It was the start of the long relationship between him and Ben Linus, a man who was his nemesis even more than Locke’s because he always brought out the worst in him with his manipulations. He spent much of the next season and a half focusing his rage on the Others and while that didn’t play out as much in Season 3, in the season finale he stayed behind on the beach. It was in part to secure rescue to be sure, but you can’t help but wonder how much of it was to help kill off so many of the people who had tormented him.

Sayid’s story had always been filled with violence throughout the first three seasons but it turned truly tragic once he left the island. He found Nadia and the two of them quickly married. He thought he was getting his happily ever after, but less than nine months later she was killed in a hit and run. It’s never clear if this was the action of Charles Widmore, a manipulation of Jacob, or just an accident but the result was the same: the day Nadia died, the best part of Sayid did to and it made him vulnerable to the manipulations of Ben Linus.

Sayid spent the next two years as Ben’s personal hitman, killing Widmore’s men. Sayid was manipulated by Ben into doing his dirty work because it was supposedly to protect his friends, much as Dexter killed people he thought were dangerous to society at large. When it came to an end in the cold of Russia, Sayid blamed Ben but Ben told him: “You didn’t do it for me.” And there’s a certain truth to this: like Dexter, Sayid needed something to channel his darkness into and the list was as good a reason as any.

Sayid tried to walk away from his violence and did humanitarian work. But yet again Ben found him and convinced him that his friends were in danger. This was a pure manipulation on Ben’s part – he claimed his murder of Locke was an action of Widmore to get Sayid back to Los Angeles – but he also knew it was bait he couldn’t resist. In one of the last lines he said to Sayid told Ben that “whenever you’ve made the choice, whether to torture or to kill, it hasn’t really been a choice at all. It’s in your nature. You’re a killer.” This could just as easily apply to Dexter except he wouldn’t have bothered to deny it.

And just as with Dexter, the more effort Sayid tried to become human, usually through his romantic connection, it always ended up hurting him. Every time he made himself vulnerable to a woman – whether it was genuine as with Shannon or under false pretense as with Elsa or Ilana – it always comes back to hurt him. In the last case, Ilana did a con to get him into her hotel room, gave a different con (she was there to get him back to the island) and Sayid was brought on to the plane in handcuffs.

I could add that at the end of Season Five Sayid is shot and is on the verge of dying until he's brought to the Temple.  There he's brought to a pool that may have the power to heal him but now that Jacob is dead (something that the viewer knows but critically no one at the Temple does) it's no longer running clear. Sayid drowns in the pool but two hours later returns with his wound closed. Dogen later tells Jack that there is a 'darkness growing inside him'. In effect Sayid now has his own 'Dark Passenger' as Dexter famously described what was inside him for most of the series.

The critical difference between Sayid and Dexter, at least on the island, is that Sayid was always accepted as a critical member of the group. We should never forget that in Tabula Rasa Sayid stepped up and made a speech about not surrendering hope and leadership two full episodes before Jack made his famous speech. I can't really argue that racism didn't play a role in everyone following Jack but its worth noting that Sayid himself, much like the soldier he was, always seemed more comfortable following orders then giving them.

For that reason he was always considered a valuable member of the leadership. Jack always took Sayid's counsel seriously and while the two disagreed it was never at the same level of his arguments with Locke. Locke also got along with Sayid well (at least until they went to rescue Jack); Kate always seemed willing to listen to him far more easily then she did Jack and while Sawyer inflicted him with horribly racist nicknames there was a measure of grudging respect that built over the years. Sayid was considered almost universally trustworthy by everyone of the castaways as well as many of those we met over the years and I've often had time to wonder if Sayid ever had been a leader, maybe fewer people would have died.

Sayid at his core was a pragmatist and practical when it came to dealing with so many crises. Rousseau kidnaps Aaron: he doesn't try to understand logic he just goes across the island with Charlie to find him. The computer in the Hatch needs to be fixed, he doesn't ask if Desmond is telling a believable story, there's a timer counting down and he knows nothing good happens at the end of it.  Michael tells him he's not welcome in the rescue mission for Walt. He takes the no calmly and only in private tells Jack that he's sure Michael has been compromised.

Sayid was always to put his own life ahead of a greater good. At the start of Through the Looking Glass, just before Jack leads his mission to the radio tower he tells Jack not to come back no matter what. "I'm willing to give my life in order for rescue to be achieved," he makes clear to Jack. And I suspect for that reason Jin and Bernard are fully willing to do the same, despite their respective wives entreaties. When it came to the greater good he demonstrated a clarity that so many of the other Oceanics rarely had.

The same was not true of the Others – or specifically Ben Linus. The two men were basically mirrors of the same kind of monster. Sayid physically tortured people; Ben did so emotionally. We'll deal with that in Ben's own article but for now we'll just say that much as they hated each other, there seemed to be a part of them that sensed each other. On more than one occasion Sayid seems to have sensed Ben's presence in a way that bordered on the supernatural though it's clearly a power he absolutely didn't want.

One of the great ironies of Lost came in The Economist when Sayid tells Locke: "The day I trust that man is the day I sell my soul'. And the flashforward reveals that Sayid has done just that. His soul, as Nikki Stafford pointed out, was Nadia and once she was dead Sayid had lost all of the hope he had left. Ben was always capable of manipulating Sayid by arguing that people he cared about were in danger while withholding the fact that they were likely in danger because of him more than anything.

Sayid was at some level aware of that fact, even when he was working for Ben, but he had no purpose other than that. This is made clear when we see him with Ilana in 'He's Our You'. Ilana doesn't know anything about Sayid other then that he's a candidate and she clearly doesn't know anything about Ben. So even though she's there to con Sayid she knows what she has to do.

So its got to be sad when Sayid tells her that he just quit his job. She never asks what it is, though she does know he was responsible for the murder of Peter Avellino. So when Sayid tells her: "The only thing I was ever really good at," he genuinely means it. He doesn't know who he is without his violence or Nadia.

I am reminded of a similar scene nearly thirteen years later. In what turns out to be his final scene in Better Call Saul, we see Gus Fring going to an expensive restaurant he hasn't been to in a while. He's just gotten away with the murder of Lalo Salamanca and he clearly wants to celebrate with someone who clearly knows him. It's clear he wants to connect but when the sommelier leaves his expression darkens and he leaves before he comes back. The viewer knows where Gus's path leads – he will manage to get the revenge he's wanted for twenty years only to have it end in his death as a result.

It's not difficult to see a connection between Gus and Sayid: both men engage in great amounts of violence in order to revenge a loved one that they lost and that has defined who they are. The scene in Saul is remarkable because for the first time we see that Gus, for all his efficiency, violence and rage, really does just want to connect. Unlike Sayid Gus knows well enough to walk away. Sayid doesn't – and the path brings him back to the island in handcuffs. The critical difference is that Sayid spends the entire series wrestling with the better angels of his nature whereas Gus gave up on them decades ago.

I would make the argument that by the time Sayid finds himself being held prisoner in 'He's Our You' that he considers himself doomed. He never wanted to come back to the island and even if he leaves he's got nothing to go back to. In that I see his decision to kill a teenage Ben Linus not so much an effort to fix the past but out of his own need for vengeance. When we see a tear run down Sayid's cheek and he runs into the darkness, I think the metaphor is fitting as to where Sayid is as well as his inevitable fate:

By the time he shoots a young Ben Linus in 1977, the only hope he has left in that by blowing up a hydrogen bomb, there is the false hope that all of this will save them and, at worst, it will end his suffering. When Ben’s father shot him, the last words he said in Season Five were: “Nothing can save me.” And it was clear before he was brought to the Temple, he had no hope for the afterlife either.

It's real sad watching Sayid during the final season of Lost. After he makes his deal with The Man in Black he has fully embraced the killer within. When Ben finds him and says: "There's still time." Sayid's response of "Not for me" is so blank that Ben is genuinely terrified and leaves without a word. Sayid spends the second half of the season saying he can't feel any emotions and has become just a pawn to kill for the Man in Black.

It's impossible not to think of the comparison to Dexter, particularly in the aftermath of Rita's death at the hands of Trinity. Immediately after this Dexter sends Rita's children to live with their grandparents, essentially thinking he's tainted them for live. He spends the rest of the series watching Harrison hoping he's not irreversibly tainted by this but he spends the second half of the show more or less the killing machine he was when we first met him.

And while it doesn't strictly fit the metric of these articles, it's worth remembering the original controversial ending of Dexter. (Which was just as polarizing as Lost's.) After the actions of Dexter lead to the death of his foster sister Dexter leaves Miami forever and fakes his death, only to be found living a completely solitary lifestyle of a lumberjack where he can't hurt anyone any more – and he's lost his sense of humor as well as his narration.

But there's an obverse of this too. Dexter truly believes that he must be a lone wolf because of the collateral damage that comes when he tries to be normal. Like everyone else in Lost Sayid thinks he's a monster but his friends believe in him – and at the end of the series, he proves that he is more than what he thought of himself.

 

Sunday, November 1, 2026

Haley Stevens: A True Profile in Political Courage.

 

 

Ever since Donald Trump became the face of the Republican Party back in 2016 the far left as well as too many mainstream Democrats have been stunned as to why the GOP would get behind a candidate that they consider morally disgusting.  To them the question seems to be "For what shall it profit a political party if they gain power but lose their souls?"

The GOP has never directly answered that question mainly because it seems implicit. They get political power and that's what a political party is supposed to care about.  The media and the left – to whom everything is a moral question – either refuse to accept this as a legitimate answer. To politicians  -particularly the GOP - it’s the only answer that matters.

Over this same period the left has increasingly come to idolize so many Republicans – many of whom they loathed over the bulk of their career prior to 2016 – when they publicly broke with Trump, from Jeff Flake to Liz Cheney to Mitt Romney and so many others who chose not to seek reelection as a result. None of them seem to have realized the cost of doing the right thing is the end of their political lives and that as a result they no longer have the power to make policy and serve the public. Doing the right thing, particularly in politics, almost always comes an enormous cost and in the era since Trump took office the left has observed this and praised these people while ignoring the fact that they're no longer able to serve the public good. That these people have served as a voice against Trump and might have able to do good within in the party and America as a whole is irrelevant.  Thomas Reed, a  Congressional Republican famously said: "A statesman is a politician who is dead" and he might as well have argued politically dead applies just as well.

And it has to be noted this has only gone in one direction. Increasingly during the Trump era many left-wing Democrats have made pariahs of their own who choose to go across the aisle and work with Republicans. They've long accused the GOP of renouncing bipartisanship under Democratic administrations yet when members of their own party do likewise they have almost to one referred to as traitors. This was true of Jared Golden of Maine a Blue Dog Democrat who crossed the aisle multiple times and who chose not to run for reelection when he made it clear that the current tenor of politics had made it harder to do his job.  And the left turned on John Fetterman when, immediately after running as a progressive, he chose to work across the aisle and among other things chose to work with his Republican colleague in the Senate Dave McCormack for the common good of Pennsylvania. He has now become such a pariah among the left that it's frequently rumored he'll switch parties despite his saying he has no intention of doing so and his track record of voting with Democrats ninety precent of the time.

Much of this is being driven by the extreme left flank of the Democratic Party which has increasingly been far more of a weight on it then it will ever admit. They've spent much of the primary season of the 2026 midterms getting a lot of attention but not winning many critical races as they want, in large part because of the level of their candidates. This was true of Graham Platner's implosion in Maine earlier this summer where the left chose to stand stubbornly by him until a second accusation of sexual assault finally forced him to withdraw from the race. This led to Troy Jackson stepping in and while the Democrats may yet manage to pull out a win there Tuesday it nevertheless shows the toxic nature of so many of their candidates as well as what the left wants to accept.

The biggest example of this, and one that has drawn national attention, was the Democratic primary race in Michigan. In what came to be a bloodbath between former Justice Democrat Abdul El-Sayed and the more moderate Haley Stevens the polls suggested El-Sayed would win in a landslide. Instead the race wasn't called for El-Sayed until the following morning with El-Sayed winning by little more than a percentage point.

The normal path of every primary win is that El-Sayed was supposed to become a more moderate candidate, bury the hatchet with the other side and shore up where he was struggling, particularly with African-American and Jewish voters, in order to win in the fall. El-Sayed, by contrast and against all good sense, has basically chosen not to do that. His efforts to reach out to the African-American community and Jewish community are considered half-hearted at best, he's basically chosen to soft speak much of his past rhetoric rather then uniformly denounce it and time and again he chose to essentially refuse to campaign with Stevens on the trail.

Considering the narrowest of his win as well as the fact that the GOP was going to be laser focused on trying to pick off a Democratic seat in a race they were playing defense in as well as the fact that Michigan had gone for Trump just two years ago this approach to running was tantamount to political suicide. One can campaign as anti-establishment in a primary but once you're running in the general you need the whole party behind you. Instead El-Sayed has behaved like so many left-wing candidates have before: he assumes winning the primary is the same as winning the general. This works in deep blue districts; running for a Senate seat in a swing state is taking your life in your hands.

El-Sayed has time and again rejected multiple overtures to try and go anywhere near the center that Stevens clearly won. It was clear her willingness to stand by him was getting increasingly harder for her to deal with in October and the two never appeared on the same platform despite the efforts of multiple people in both Michigan and national Democrats to intervene. Despite all of the national criticism against him as well as the very real problems he had in the primary as well as a much closer race in the polls then a Democrat in Michigan should face – particularly compared to the nominee for governor Jocelyn Benson -  El-Sayed has run the campaign as if he had 'all the votes he needed' and he didn't need to bother with such things as 'party unity'.

I suspect while the Democratic Party and all of the major names associated with it, left and center, have come to campaign and endorse El-Sayed it is done out of the necessity of party unity as well as the political calculus that any political institution has to endure in an election year. Democrats want to win elections and hold political power because that is the only way you can get things done. Much as the Michigan primary exposed fissures in the party that they will have to deal with down the road, the critical phrase is 'down the road'. I suspect many Democrats are repulsed by El-Sayed's rhetoric as they are many of their own more far-left members then and now. I expect all of them wish their candidate for a state-elected office would make some effort to try and moderate his rhetoric and they can't be thrilled that Tucker Carlson chose to more or less endorse him. Nevertheless the Democrats have taken the approach that has basically been the standard the Republicans have: "He's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch."

In the case of Haley Stevens it’s a different story. It's genuinely not clear what future she had in Michigan politics after losing the primary but it has to have hurt immensely to have lost by so narrow a margin.  She also did better with the voters who are more typical of the Democratic base, the kind of voters El-Sayed needs to win on Tuesday. So that the nominee has made it clear at every level that he doesn't think he owes her anything, even when it comes to making the most token efforts, should be considered offensive to good political standards. And its been clear that El-Sayed doesn't think he needs her. There was going to be a unity breakfast on Sunday when the two candidates appeared on the same platform. Yesterday El-Sayed made it clear he didn't want her there, which wasn't just an offense to Stevens but to all of the Democrats who had been trying so hard to paper things over before Election Day.

My feelings about El-Sayed aside I truly believe he has treated many people on the campaign trail shamefully, particularly his defeated opponent. It is the kind of arrogance and spitefulness I'm honestly more used to from our current President, never mind a man who is, to be reminded, running to be the junior Senator from Michigan.  So I truly think the decision Stevens made this afternoon was not merely incredibly brave but inevitable.

She chose to endorse Mike Rogers for Senate.

Just Rogers. Not John James for Governor, not any of the Republicans running for Congress in Michigan and she certainly isn't in favor of Trump.  She said she expected Chuck Schumer to become the majority leader and that she was still a Democrat. She just said she couldn't support a man who'd campaigned brutally against her and had done nothing to accept any olive branch she tried to offer.

The reaction from the Democratic party was frankly stunning in its speed. Within hours from Nancy Pelosi to AOC and Mamdani they all chose to pile on Stevens and call her  very close to a traitor. Her campaign manager resigned along with half her campaign staff. And Curtis Hertel, the chair of the Michigan Democratic Party essentially chose to excommunicate her saying "she is not a current member of the Michigan Democratic Party, nor will she be in the future." El-Sayed himself tried to downplay it saying:" None of this matters." To be fair it may not.

When Stevens said that she believed Democrats would flip the Senate Tuesday, she's not talking out of school. She made it clear that this was about a referendum on 'hate in politics' all of which is a legitimate argument considering much of El-Sayed's rhetoric. She had been counseled to remain quiet and out of the news cycle. In other words she's condemning the exact kind of hateful rhetoric that people like the President should do publicly with nothing to gain from it. The stakes are far lower than the Democrats truly want it to be: the Democrats were already favored to win take back the Senate before her announcement and that will likely happen even if Mike Rogers wins. And honestly if the Democratic Party believes everything – not just Michigan – but the entire blue wave will dissolve because of Stevens' actions, they're as dumb as everyone says they are.

What all of this lays bare is something far more simple: For all the morality and garment rending the Democrats, progressives and so many on the left have  made about the Republicans condoning a morally bankrupt candidate for the sake of political power, they are just as willing to do the same when it meets their political ends – and honestly when the stakes are much less important by comparison. I don't find this nearly as hypocritical as Fox News and the right absolutely will: they lost the moral high ground well before Trump showed up.

But it's part of a pattern that's always been just beneath the surface when it comes to so many on the left about basically everything: the way that they will throw out everything they've said about those they despise for years when they say something against a newer enemy. Rachel Maddow deciding to publicly attend Dick Cheney's funeral because he'd chosen in 2024 to endorse Harris is just the most public equivalent of this.

On a personal note I truly find that so many seemingly intelligent people have chosen to make Abdul El-Sayed either an existential threat or potential savior to the Democratic Party, if not America itself, demonstrating the same kind of silliness that I found with everything involving Graham Platner. Again, El-Sayed is running to be the junior senator from Michigan, full stop. He's not going to have any more power in the Senate if elected then any of the other freshman Democrats who will win office. He'll have the same influence that James Talarico, Roy Cooper and Sherrod Brown all do if they win: one Senator, one vote.  If you truly believe that him winning is the  equivalent of the destruction of the Republic, you watch too much Fox News. If you believe that it can bring about the instant realization of a socialist utopia, you don't understand how Congress works.

Now at my core, I don't think El-Sayid is any more qualified to be in the Senate then Ken Paxton is and for the same reasons. And I also understand why the Democrats lined up behind El-Sayed after the primary the same way the GOP did with Paxton: "He's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch."  But whatever my personal feelings are the decision isn't up to me: it's up to the voters in Michigan and Texas and I believe they are perfectly capable of making up their own minds without having to be told what the entire world thinks they should do. I have my opinions about it, I know what the polls are telling me about both men's chances but in either case, I don't think the voters will listen to me so I'm not going to hit them over the head with it.

Haley Stevens, however, does live in Michigan and does have a reason to care about this as well she should. Now it is still possible, even likely, that El-Sayed will still win election on Tuesday.  Early voting has been going on for two weeks and the most it may do is influence some Stevens voters to either stay home or vote Republican. To be honest I think they might have done so even if Stevens had said nothing and I suspect Stevens knew this too. So her decision was about her future in politics. The choices were simple: be quiet and possibly have one or take a stand and lose everything. Stevens chose the latter – and I truly do find that brave even if that is not the opinion of so many in America today.

Like every major political website I think that a blue wave, perhaps a tsunami, will happen Tuesday. Perhaps it will be enough to sweep El-Sayed to victory; I suspect it will. But no matter what I think I respect and admire Haley Stevens's decision. It was a true Profile in Courage, the one that Democrats say they want to see more often – but of course, only by Republicans.

Homicide Rewatch: Secrets

 

Written by Yaphet Kotto

Directed by Ed Bianchi

 

Secrets is the second episode written by Yaphet Kotto and a completely different beast than his previous episode Narcissus. In fact of the three episodes Kotto will pen for Homicide this is the most atypical as it doesn't put his own character front and center the way other two will.

That doesn't make it a bad episode. Indeed Secrets plays very much like an episode any of the other writers during the show's run could have turned out and I mean that as a compliment. Kotto manages to put several of the critical storylines that have been playing out throughout Season 6 with perfect precision, continues the trend of the season for having the unit investigating cases that don't fit the traditional mantle of what Homicide has done in the first five years and centers it on a plot that as it unfolds is fascinating both in the nature of what the villain at the crux of it is doing and the grayer area of just how horrible it is. Indeed nearly thirty years later the question at its center is even more fascinating then it was back then, even though we now live in an era where it is increasingly difficult for anyone to hide their secrets from the world – and increasingly there are no consequences when they come out.

Munch and Ballard are called in on what is clearly a suicide: Josephine Dalton, 46 who's killed herself via carbon monoxide poisoning. She's clearly very wealthy – the car is a BMW and the house is mansion. What's more she's married with two young kids who discovered her when they came home from school. Not the type to kill oneself but they have to do the paperwork. Dalton is Vice President of Fayette Securities and the kids knew something was wrong when she was there when they get home: she's always at work. They say she was fine until the previous night when she was crying in her room and wouldn't say why.  Ballard wants to know what could have inspired Dalton to kill herself but first Munch and then Giardello make it very clear that if it’s a suicide move on. "It's hard enough understanding why people kill each other. Why they kill themselves, that's not ours to answer."  Considering Al is no doubt still unable to understand why Crosetti killed himself four years later, he speaks from experience.

Meanwhile Bayliss and Pembleton are dealing with Kenneth Alden who has shot himself. He left a note: "I'm sorry. Love, Ken." Pembleton is somewhat more philosophical considering that Alden is the President and CEO of another prominent Baltimore business. He shot himself in his office while his secretary was bringing him coffee. He has a wife and a son. Its only when Scheiner shows up and is told that a middle-aged man of the corporate variety killed himself that the detectives put it together. (Scheiner: "Must be contagious.") This causes Bayliss and Frank to wonder if there's a connection.

It is a suicide and Ballard still wants to know why. Munch wants to move on and he very likely would have until Pembleton and Bayliss come in and ask if there was a connection.  The two of them were prominent in the Baltimore financial community, which isn't that big. Bayliss is more sanguine saying that two suicides in one day is plenty. They might have been inclined to let it go except the 'widow Alden' wants to have a word with them.

The widow knows what "I'm sorry" means because she received a similar envelope, one that has photos she's very reluctant to share.  They are photos shot from a distance of Kenneth with another woman and Mrs. Alden believes he killed himself out of fear of exposure. Pembleton finds this a bit extreme – he's had his share of murders involving infidelity – until Mrs. Alden tells him that suicide might be the easy way out. The women is Jesse Mesker, Kenneth's half-sister.  The two have the same mother. Pembleton posits that Alden killed himself not because of guilt but because he was afraid of being exposed. Ballard and Munch realize that these photos might indicate that blackmail was involved – and part of the Homicide detail's mandate is to investigate extortion.  Giardello orders an investigation to find out who might have took the photos. Munch, to his credit, now realizes that Dalton's suicide fits the same profile and Alden and that an investigation might have merit.  Bayliss is more philosophical: he knows that no matter what secrets these two people had they didn't have to kill themselves. "Time passes on, people can forgive anything," Bayliss says. The viewer knows he's talking about what happened in his family. "People can forgive anything."

Jessie tells Bayliss and Pembleton that the two of them had been having an affair for 25 years, longer then his marriage. They'd been meeting at lunch at the Ambassador for decades. The detectives are more perfunctory then usual but its worth noting that Jesse doesn't feel the least bit ashamed about what she and her half-brother were doing and wonders more about her brother's own guilt. Mr. Dalton is very reluctant to let Munch and Ballard go through her things until Munch reveals that Alden committed suicide and the link's established – the two victims were members of the same country club, Fairglen. There's no evidence the two knew each other but Mr. Dalton reveals that before she died his wife also received photographs of his wife having an affair with their children's babysitter.

There follows a hysterical sequence where Bayliss and Pembleton interview a clerk at the Ambassador Hotel where despite not being able to tell about the tenant's privacy she tells them everything they need to know about Alden renting the place, that he and Jesse saw each other their repeatedly and the visitor one Brenner Jones. It becomes more serious when Frank and Tim bring Jones into the box and show him his photos. They can connect him to the apartment and a fight that was heard, and once they reveal the truth – particularly that the subjects of the photos he took have committed suicide – he's genuinely shocked.

Then the case takes the turn that makes it interesting. Jones admits he took the pictures and made delivers but not to blackmail.  He was told to do this by an old money, old society member of Fairglen named Remington Hill. He told them where and when Alden and Dalton would be having their affairs and was right both times. Jones tells them he did this because he needed the money – but that's a lie too.

The scene between Bayliss, Pembleton and Hill is a highpoint of the season. After a short discussion in which Bayliss and Pembleton talk about Jones he barely puts up a denial and then says about Jones: "He's a weak man, don't you think?"

He admits he hired Jones to do some 'research' – which he calls the 'proper term'  But then he says he didn't blackmail the two of them despite behavior he considers disgusting. Hill said that the two of them were behaving like animals and he wanted them to stop what they were doing.  He says he never threatened to expose them. He went to them directly, said that if they didn't change their ways, he would reveal the truth and that they chose to kill themselves instead.  Furthermore he tells them that he was doing this to give themselves a chance to reform. While he is brazen saying "I'm not responsible for the weakness of others."

He's momentarily shaken when Bayliss points out that both Alden and Dalton left children behind and spouses to grieve – but only momentarily saying: "Then they were sacrificed for the greater good." This would be frightening until he tells them that there were others that he photographed and threatened them with exposure. He has been compiling information for over a year for those who needed 'intervention' . This week he sent photos to eight other people and made the same demands – and they all promised to stop. He says that if 8 out of ten made the right decision, the moral ledger shows a balance.

When the two leave the club Frank immediately wants to go back and doesn't like the idea of Bayliss saying we have nothing on him.  Frank doesn't like that Hill passed judgment but Bayliss reminds him Dalton and Alden made the choice to kill themselves. Bayliss actually seems to be on Hill's side – and then he points out what has been the subtext: "If someone had taken pictures of me and my uncle, I might have been better off. I would have been better off."

I have to say, now that we live in a world where society takes pictures of what it considers the worst behavior of strangers and holds them publicly guilty, Remington Hill's actions almost seem benign. He privately took the pictures, told no one else but those involved and only said he'd tattle – as Danvers puts it – if they didn't stop. By the standards where TMZ and Twitter are almost the mildest versions of this Hill's behavior almost seems merciful and certain utilitarian. (I actually agree with Ballard when she says tattling should be a crime.)

And as Frank and Tim find out there's no real crime to charge Hill with and not even Jones. The matter would be closed – except Gharty then comes in and tells them Fairglen has one less member – Remington Hill.  The detectives assume he killed himself but Dyer points out his trigger finger is clean. He's been killed and its been staged as a suicide. They look at the list of the eight people he blackmailed. Three of them were at the club but they have iron clad alibis. However Brenner Jones was in the club too.

Jones makes it very clear that he killed Hill when it was clear the detectives weren't going to do anything to stop him. He also says that he wasn't doing it for money; Hill had a secret on him as well. He's willing to go to jail for murder but he won't tell his secret no matter what.

 

 

The title is accurate because it also refers to the Mahoney storyline and all of the secrets that are starting to spill out. It starts on an optimistic note when Falsone asks about Meldrick's trial board and asks if Giardello can do something to 'grease it'

Al's response is hysterical: "Are you suggesting that a trial board can be manipulated? That there's no integrity in the process?" Falsone doesn't hesitate. "Pretty much."  Al: "I'm shocked, very shocked, by the very notion of such a thing." We already knew that in fact Giardello has done exactly that because he more or less implied it to Lewis last week and as we see very clearly in the trial board it plays out exactly like Giardello said it was and Meldrick knows as much.  He doesn't contest the findings and indeed he gets the exact punishment.  Giardello then says he called in more favors then Meldrick wants to know.

I have to tell you that immediately afterwards Gaffney chooses to weigh in. "If it was up to me, you'd be back in a radio car for that stunt you pulled. He then faults Al on his problem being a 'lack of discipline."  This is the broken clock occasion. Still its hard to resist their final exchange:

Gaffney: "If I were running his shift, I'd be offering you a transfer out."

Meldrick: "Respectfully speaking, sir, if you were running his shift, I'd be taking it."

Giardello doesn't say anything at all; just smiles beatifically. He has no idea how soon he will regret his decision.

When Kellerman, Falsone and Stivers see Meldrick their reaction is 'the football's back'. None of them seem overjoyed Meldrick is back from suspension and there's a real awkwardness between them that the tossing of the football – Lewis's bonding exercise for the entire series – doesn't erase. Stivers is uncomfortable she's at Meldrick's desk but Lewis doesn't want to talk about it. Critically no one wants to toss the ball to Mike and when they do no one wants it back. Mike's hopes that this will be over soon are dashed almost immediately.

Meldrick has no desire to partner with Mike when he makes the offer in the weight room  and when Mike tries to 'thank him' for helping clear the Barnes murder – a murder, it's worth remembering Mike had no interest in closing on his own – Meldrick denies any involvement. It's also clear given how bloodthirsty Kellerman is when he asks Meldrick how he got the Mahoney crew to turn on each other that Lewis really does want to move forward. When he reveals what's going on with Judge Gibbons and says Meldrick should "ease up" whatever he's doing. The fact that Mike plans to go to jury selection on the civil suit in order to make Gibbons sweat and that Lewis has no interest in it basically shows how far apart the two are. Meldrick genuinely just wants to forget everything he's done; Mike wants to dance on the graves of every last bit of the Mahoney organization as it falls apart.  Lewis is genuinely upset when Mike leaves.

And there are signs that things are getting worse. Falsone and Stivers have caught the murder of Tonio Cornell who'd been in line to replace Luther if Georgia Rae hadn't stepped in. At this point Stivers knows that if he's dead they're can't be much left of Georgia Rae's crew. Falsone then says that they should talk to Meldrick directly. Stivers has been living in denial that Meldrick did this but Falsone enlightens her and tells her his part in giving him the information on the Mahoney crew.

In doing so he officially takes off any shine that was left on his halo at the start of the season.  He admits his role and what was happening to the Mahoney crew. When Stivers asks why he helped him he just says: "He's my partner. He asked." And when Stivers asks why he was so interested in Luther's shooting to the point we thought he was on a mission for some higher calling Falsone makes it clear that his problem was that half the shift  was carrying some big secret. He wanted to know what the dirt was, so he could transfer out if the shit hit the fan.  Everything he did about the Mahoney shooting was simply so he could avoid working with Kellerman so if IID came down he wasn't dirty. And the fact that Stivers is clearly willing to tell him about the shooting and Falsone says he knows enough makes it clear he has no desire to make a mess. He doesn't want the truth revealed. He just wants to stand clear when the dirt hits.

The bigger problem is Lewis didn't ask for Cornell's name. Now that he's dead things are out of control. Meldrick may have started a drug war but he has no way to stop it – something he will find out at the end of the episode.

Lewis finds that out when he catches his first call back on the job the murder of one Nate Bihari, a supplier vital to the Mahoney organization. He doesn't understand why someone would kill someone who's officially neutral and who they'd need after the war was over. Munch is partnering with him (and is one of the few members of the squad still on the outside of all this) says, making sense of a drug war is like making sense of cancer. He doesn't know he's working with the man who started it when he says: "Violence is a contagion that feeds on itself." Munch is absolutely right on this.

And as if Mike has lost any pretense of being a detective his scene at the courthouse shows him basically at his most disgusting. He shows up there for jury selection, saying he's there to give Gibbons a friendly wave. Then when Gibbons sees Kellerman he all but turns white and immediately dismisses the case. Then Kellerman smirks, all but dances out of the courthouse,  and then hurries up after Gibbons to taunt him about what he's done, actively telling him with the Mahoney organization very much still around that the Feds have him dead to rights and he'd better give up Georgia Rae. When he turns and sees Mahoney's representatives leaving the courthouse himself, he doesn't even seem that concerned. We'll see that he shouldn't have shared that secret.

The episode ends with Bayliss and Ballard at the Waterfront the first time they've had dinner since "their disaster of a date" as Ballard puts it. Apparently it ended with performance anxiety on Bayliss's part. He tells Ballard that he never talks that much about his personal life, not even Frank. He comes about it very clumsily but then he confides something that's been on the backburner for the last half of the season.  He confides about his failures in relationship and for the first time to anyone he confides – vaguely but still directly for 1990s audiences – that he's bicurious.

Ballard takes it better than Frank. Bayliss confides that he was always terrified about telling anyone this because it would scare them off. And Ballard tells him: "I'm not running away." In an episode full of secrets Bayliss has chosen to share his biggest one. And in a series where the darkest truths only come to bear in the box, there's something brave and hopeful about it.

 

Notes From The Board

It was the 1990s: Gharty is suffering from a cold (that's why Munch was partnering with Ballard but comes in anyway. "After 30 minutes of Regis and Kathie Lee, I had to get out of there." Not even watching Montel Williams?"

"Detective Munch" While Munch has his own great line there's a lot of fun watching Ballard react to partnering with him. In the teaser when Munch is talking about the safest place in America to live – Stearns, Minnesota – and that Baltimore is the city with the third shortest life expectancy he tells Ballard he plans to move there and become a farmer. Ballard's reaction by the end of the teaser: "I thought you'd be milking a cow by now." Asked what would be so bad you'd have to end your life Ballard's response: "A date with John Munch." One moment later Munch walks by: "Ready to roll, partner?"

The best line comes when Lewis says Nate Bihari was like Switzerland and Munch reacts with fury: "Hey don't go trusting the Swiss. Turns out they spent World War II skimming money from my dead relatives." When Lewis is baffled Munch unfolds: "I don't like their chocolate. I don't like their cheese. I don't like that little knife that folds out into cutlery. Don't go talking up the Swiss to me!"

It's rather strange considering that she's the main client in this civil suit Georgia Rae Mahoney isn't in the courtroom. Maybe she didn't want to be seen in the same place as the judge that was on her payroll. Or maybe she's dealing with the fallout with her crew falling apart. (Or maybe Hazelle Goodman just wasn’t available that day.)

This is the first episode where all three recurring medical examiners: Scheiner, Lausanne and Dyer appear in the same episode. I guess now that Michelle Forbes is gone they can afford to free up time for these characters which honestly isn't a bad thing.

Remak Ramsey, who plays Remington Hill, was a Baltimore native who had roles in The Stepford Wives, The Front and played Richard Bissell in the NBC miniseries Kennedy, Justice John Campbell in Lincoln and the War Within and Dean Acheson in Truman. He also played Thomas Hutchinson in the TV miniseries Liberty! The American Revolution and John McWilliams in Julie & Julia. Better known as a stage actor he appeared in Half Sixpence, Private Lives, The Devil's Disciple, Saint Joan and The Heiress all on Broadway. He was twice nominated for the Drama Desk Award (Off Broadway plays) for Outstanding Actor in a Play for The Winslow Boy and Quartermaine's Terms. It is unknown if he is alive or dead as of this writing.

Saturday, October 31, 2026

Constant Reader October 2026: My Sister Rosa by Justine Larbalestier

 

    I first saw My Sister Rosa in my local library a couple of years ago and I checked it out but never got around to reading it. I returned and checked it out following the same pattern quite a few times but didn't get around to actually reading it until last month.

The idea is a brilliant one. Justine Larbalestier, an Australian-American author who wrote My Sister Rosa back in 2016, tells the story of seventeen year old Che Taylor. He's convinced his sister, only ten years old, is a psychopath. As the novel progresses there's plenty of evidence to back up Che's theory – but as the novel progresses you increasingly wonder if Che is perhaps hyper-focused.

The novel is divided into four sections, each named after Che's four goals that he does every time the Taylor moves. The first one is called 'Keep Rosa Under Control' In it Che lists how he's convinced even at 2 years old Rosa has been able to manipulate and control everything around her environment. "No sooner did Rosa start talking then she started lying.' He details Rosa's history at a child of killing ants, of being able to manipulate people around her, especially 'the parentals' as both Che and Rosa call their parents, the way she may have manipulated a friend in Bangkok to kill a guinea pig which convinced Che that Rosa has the traits of a psychopath.

Because in typical fashion his parents, who insist on being called Sally and David instead of Mum and Dad, refuse to believe there's something wrong with Rosa David has taken it upon himself to put the goal of controlling Rosa all on him. The Taylors live a jet-setting lifestyle in which they move around as social do-gooders, raising money for notable causes. The Taylors are incredibly left wing, given the names of their children, and haven't bother to put Che and Rosa in public school. They have been moving from place to place for the last five years around the world and they end up going to New York City where the bulk of the novel takes place.

Each time they relocate Che writes down a list of goals in each city, each of which form a section of the novel:

1. Keep Rosa under control.

2. I want to spar.

3. I want a girlfriend.

4. I want to go home

 

Every day Che types this into a journal, then deletes because he's convinced that Rosa is breaking into his room and reads his journal. This is incredibly paranoid but also accurate.

My Sister Rosa is a brilliant novel not just because of the obvious possibility that we are looking at a ten year old psychopath. The idea of children being devilish has been the subject of horror increasingly in both great films and bad ones in the last half century, going back to The Bad Seed which is clearly the most direct inspiration of this novel.

However once you get to the climax of the novel you look back at everything far differently and while I wouldn't dream of giving away that revelation I will say that Larbalestier has done a brilliant job hiding it in plain sight the whole time.

Some of it is hidden by the fact that Che loves Rosa more than anyone else in the world. This is because his parents seem far more in love with each other and have less regard for their children throughout and when they do, understandably, they worry more about their youngest. Early in the novel Rosa disappears in the city and leads their parents to call the police only to find that Rosa has been playing chess all this time. After initially being terrified Che takes it to believe that is a sign Rosa has been manipulating their parents and is upset that she isn't treated more harshly.

But there's also a different factor. Rosa is very much smarter than Che. She's brilliant at math and is a very chess player, and she clearly handles education far better than Che, who struggles at everything and is only focus on studying the brain. (As you'd expect he's only interested in becoming a neurologist because he thinks it'll help Rosa.) Che seems to believe because Rosa says she loves him that he can extract promises out of her to be good and do the right thing even though he is aware and can see just how good Rosa is at telling 'the parentals' exactly what they want to hear. It's clear to the reader as early as the second section that Che has no chance of controlling Rosa but somehow it hasn't occurred to him yet.

There's also the fact that Che himself doesn't seem quite normal either. Time and again when he's told something by his friends back in Australia and they ask him if it bothers him he's slow to figure it out.  When they move to New York and meet the McKnight's, who are friends of the Taylors and are backing his latest venture, the first time he meets their daughter Leliani he can't pick up on her sarcasm which is obvious to the reader. He has no idea how rich the McKnight family is, nor even that Leliani is a famous teenage model until his friends tell him to Google her. Part of this can be blame on being an average teenager and his focus on Rosa, but it's rather unsettling that in all these travels Che never seems to ask any follow up questions -or for that matter any questions at all.

Che likes fighting and has wanted to be a professional boxer. His parents haven't wanted him to spar so when he goes to a gym and decides to do it, it's as close to rebelling against the parentals as he's gotten. It's at the gym that he meets Sojourner, an attractive African-American girl with two mothers, one of whom is very sick, one of whom is a preacher and who is religious. This deeply bothers Che because he's been raised an atheist and understandably there's a fair amount of humor as he tries to figure out how much to lie about going to church in order to impress Sojourner.

As you might expect Sojourner fills out part 3 of Che's wish list. The problem is Che is understandably terrified that if Rosa finds out about Sojourner she will do something to hurt her -  a threat that becomes increasingly valid as the novel progresses. But critically he never bothers to tell a woman he increasingly falls in love with just how dangerous he thinks Rosa truly is.  He's convinced that Rosa has fooled Sojourner like she's fooled everybody else but as we learn late in the novel that even before things took a tragic turn Sojourner was more observant than Che could imagine.

And that's the other thing throughout the entire book Che's focus is so much on Rosa that he's basically been ignoring so many other normal social behaviors around him. When Leliani welcomes him into her friend circle because she's never met anyone quite like him, he doesn't know that he's being brought to an exclusive clothing store in New York and just what it takes to get in. He has no idea how famous a model she is and he doesn't understand what it's like to function in her friend circle.  Time and again, he can't pick up on normal social cues that are does among the friend group around them. It's only when Leliani picks up on that fact that Rosa isn't quite normal that he takes her into his confidence – and tellingly she believes him without much argument.

By this point Rosa has been manipulating Leliani's twin sisters to the point where their normal cheerful manner has been subverted and they are becoming snappish at each other. Halfway through the novel one of them nearly dies from an allergic reaction at the Taylor home and has to be hospitalized. Che is sure this will convince his parents that this was Rosa's fault and David seems to acknowledge it.

It's then we realize that for all his efforts to make it clear who Rosa is Che has no idea what to do once the truth is revealed. It’s at that point David reminds Che of the family history which Che has noted to be part of the factor. When Che asks him if empathy can be taught David reminds him just how well Rosa can game the doctors.  He thinks the only thing that can be done is to keep trying to teach Rosa to pass as normal and that pretending can change you. He wants to take her to a professional and then David puts it into plain speaking:

"You can't call a ten-year old a psychopath. How do you think people will treat her once they know? What school will take her? Will she have to go to a school for other disturbed children? What will she learn from other schools like her?"

All Che can say is "I don't know." In the final section David confronts a horrible truth: "If Rosa doesn't make any trouble for next ten years, will I believe she's changed?" The fact that not long after this the final horrible moments of the novel reveal everything doesn't change the reality that Che never had a plan at any point.

It doesn't help that Rosa is clearly far more aware of the realities around the Taylors then Che is. Halfway through the book Rosa tells Che that the reason they moved to New York is that they've gone broke and that the McKnight family, while an old friend, has given them one last chance before they won't fund them anymore. Che doesn't believe Rosa but this is very much the truth. He has no idea exactly what kind of do-gooding his parents have been a part of  and late in the novel Leliani asks Che what David must have on her parents to keep them close. There's a clear implication that the McKnight's have been throwing money at their problems for years and are just as neglectful as the Taylors are – and Che is clueless to this.

Throughout this book it was impossible for me not to be reminded of Dexter and yet it was impossible not to compare pop culture's most famous serial killer to David, not Rosa. Like Dexter in the early seasons David never picks up on verbal cues, is always hungry and eating something, knows far too much about psychopathy and has been trying to control his violent urges, which when they come out become terrible. When he – as well as the reader – learns the real truth about his entire family it comes as a bigger shock to Che then it does to reader. Not long after that Rosa and Che have their first honest conversations at which point Rosa is by far the bluntest about just how much Che has been lying himself his entire life – and honestly still is by the time the novel finishes.

While ultimately bleak My Sister Rosa can also be savagely funny at times. Because we only see Rosa from Che's perspective and because she always seems to mix both literal dialogue with childlike behavior, you get the impression that Rosa is toying with everybody around her, including Che. Rosa is a brilliant chess player and it is clear just how good she is at moving the pieces around the board and constantly running rings around Che. Late in the book it's clear she knows exactly what her brother thinks of her and has for a very long time and that she's been messing with him as effectively as everyone else – but Che doesn't take the hint.

It's also funny to see Che as the fish out of water in New York itself, unable to deal with such things as churches in warehouse, so many nightclubs and getting his head around the idea of someone who's 'not a boy or a girl'. He spends a lot of the novel getting drunk for the first time as well as getting high and like every teenager he just wants to lose his virginity – while make sure his sister doesn't push her down a flight of stairs, of course.

At the end of My Sister Rosa Che has finally realized that he'll never be able to control Rosa. What's unclear at the end of the book is if he's realized that he ever had a chance of doing it. Yet somehow I think Rosa Taylor has a better future in the world then Che ever does. She's learned from her mistakes. I can't say the same for her brother.