Sherlock Holmes: Sign of the Four, an Intro

 

All right, so Sign of the Four.  It appears that I will once again have to do an intro before getting into the meat of the story.

First observation is that the second novel shares a number of themes with the first.  Both involve a rather stupid police detective who Holmes easily outwits, murder by poison with a "vegetable alkaloid" that causes severe contraction of the muscles, Holmes using his tracking powers to give a description of the killer, an extensive back story that could never be ascertained by the clues in the novel (although the second novel offers at least some clues), and a frustratingly unnamed accomplice (although this time Holmes has a good guess).  Also, both murders have a mysterious writing that could be either an important clue or a red herring.  Last time the police took the clue seriously, while Holmes dismissed it as a red herring.  This time, their interpretations are reversed.  Naturally Holmes is right both times.

The second novel also contradicts some things in the first.  In A Study in Scarlet, Watson describes Holmes as lying motionless on the sofa for days on end, with a dreamy, vacant look in his eyes that would lead Watson to suspect he was addicted to some narcotic "had not the temperance and cleanliness of his whole life forbidden such a notion."  Sign of the Four indicates that Watson's suspicion is correct.  When his work does not keep him busy, Holmes regularly takes cocaine an possibly morphine, much to Watson's disapproval.  In the previous novel, Watson mentions a wound to his arm.  In the second, he has a wound to his leg.  

In the first novel, Watson is shocked that Holmes has never heard of Thomas Carlyle and doesn't even know that the earth travels around the sun!  In itemizing Holmes' accomplishments and limits, Watson lists his knowledge of literature (and philosophy and astronomy) as nil.  That is clearly not true. Holmes as heard, at least of Edgar Allen Poe's August Dupin (the original detective hero) and Emile Gaboriau's Lecoq -- a French imitation of Poe's original.  But maybe Holmes has a particular interest in detective fiction.  In any event, he dismisses the solar system, saying he sees no need to clutter his brain with useless information.  Sign of the Four is a different matter altogether.  This time Holmes refers to Jean Paul Richter, a popular German novelist and frequently quotes Goethe.  When animated he holds forth on "miracle-plays, on mediæval pottery, on Stradivarius violins, on the Buddhism of Ceylon, and on the war-ships of the future."  It seems a reasonable assumption that miracle plays, medieval pottery, Buddhism in Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and possible future warships have nothing to do with his detective work and are merely useless clutter in his brain.  So are violins, but that was introduced in the first novel, showing that even Sherlock Holmes has a life apart from his work.

We also get some faint glimpses into Watson's military career.  The first novel, written in 1887, says that Watson got his medical degree in 1878 and promptly joined the army. From there he goes directly to the battle that put him out of action.  What happened in the intervening nine years?  We don't learn much, other than that Watson had "an experience of women which extends over many nations and three separate continents."  So he appears to have had extensive assignments throughout the empire during that time, but we learn no more about it, other than the wound to his leg.  Well also that, "[A] musket looked into my tent at the dead of night, and . . . I fired a double-barrelled tiger cub at it."

But most importantly, Watson starts out by assuring us that he has neither kith nor kin in England.  Not true, it turns out.  He has an older brother who died shortly before the second novel and definitely lived in England before that.  Watson inherits an expensive watch from his brother, who, in turn, inherited it from their father who died a long time.  Holmes deduces from the value of the watch that the family must originally have had some wealth. Apparently none of it descended to John Watson, MD, or else his brother squandered all of it.  Holmes deduces from the dents to the watch that his brother was careless, and from scratches around the key-hole that he wound it with an unsteady hand and was probably a drunkard.  Holmes sees four pawn brokers' numbers scratched into the case, which he identifies as a thing done in England.  Watson's brother's financial situation was so bad that he had to pawn his watch four times, though each time his situation improved enough for him to buy it back.  I suppose that would explain why John Watson did not seek out his help when he first arrived in England!

By way of continuity, Holmes is referred to as "young" in this novel as well.

One last comment.  As I understand it, Arthur Conan Doyle got tired of writing Sherlock Holmes stories and tried to get out of it, but was always brought back in.  He tried killing Holmes off, but later brought him back.  He also tried having him retire.  But fictional characters can never be truly killed off.  Killing a fictional character, even if successful, only cuts off future sequels.  That still leaves the option of prequels. 

Sign of the Four looks like Doyle's first attempt to end the series.  It ends by marrying Watson off.  He will now establish his own household and drift away from Holmes.  It turns out that doesn't stop Watson from dropping in on Holmes now and then.  Nor would it prevent prequels.  Watson says that Holmes has been taking cocaine "for many months" and speaks of  "all the years" he lived with Holmes at Baker Street.  Clearly, then, there is plenty of room for prequels set between A Study in Scarlet and Sign of the Four.

Trump or Vance? Pick Your Poison

 

I know some people think there is something in the Epstein files that will end Trump's Presidency.  

Color me skeptical.  If inciting an insurrection that put Congress's lives in danger wasn't enough to persuade Republicans to impeach and convict, it is hard to imagine anything that could.

Still, I will concede that the chances of Trump being impeached and convicted have gone from impossible to highly implausible, so I suppose you never know.*  And besides, Trump appears to be losing his mind, so there is always the possibility of him being sidelined for incapacity.  So it is time to give some serious thought to a JD Vance Presidency.

So, what do I make of JD Vance?  In picking a Vice President, Trump had a strong incentive to pick the worst possible candidate to make himself impeachment proof (and even 25h Amendment-proof).  I go back and forth between whether Vance is an opportunist with no principles, or a dogmatic ideologue.  Everyone I have asked says opportunist.  I can only hope so, because at least an opportunist can change his mind when it is to his advantage.  But at the same time, these two things may not be as different as they seem.  Someone who is dogmatically rigid about one principle -- in Vance's case, xenophobia -- can be extremely unprincipled and opportunistic about everything else so long as they serve the one goal.  So Vance may actually combine the worst of both traits.  He seems just as authoritarian as Trump, but a whole lot smarter and more disciplined.

Nonetheless, I want to compare the two men point by point.

Personality.  No matter how slimy Vance is, he simply is not pathological in the same way Trump is.  Vance is immoral rather than amoral.  While Trump has the ethical standards of a tapeworm -- not only none, but self-evidently absurd to even ask -- Vance at least knows what ethical standards are.  Likewise, while I do not trust Vance to respect the rule of law, I expect him at least to understand the concept.  Vance may have a grossly warped sense of the national interest, at least he knows how to distinguish the national interest from his personal interest.  And I don't expect Vance to be as personally vindictive as Trump.  Advantage: Vance.

Cult following.  Vance does not have Trump's charisma.  No one trusts him.  He simply is not going to attract the sort of cult following that Trump does.  There is a high probability that the MAGA movement will split under him.  Advantage: Vance.

The Epstein files.  Vance did not rise to national prominence until after Epstein's fall, so he cannot possibly be in the Epstein files.  He will no doubt be happy to release the files, seeing every powerful figure of either party ruined as a result as a rival eliminated.  Advantage: Vance.  I think.

Corruption.  Trump is running his entire administration as a giant bribe-fest.  I don't expect Vance to operate in those terms.  I expect Vance to operate according to principles -- specifically, principled xenophobia.  Again, I think this is advantage Vance, but I wouldn't swear to it.

Weaponization of government.  Trump's attempts to prosecute his political opponents have been notable failures.  His attempts to coerce by withholding federal funds are moderately successful.  Federal courts have frequently ruled against him, but the Administration has resisted and the Supreme Court has generally backed them up.  The results of Trump's attempts to use the IRS, RICO, surveillance, or terrorism law to target his opponents remain inconclusive.  I think that Trump's effectiveness has been somewhat stymied by his tendency to think solely in terms of personal friends and foes, rather than in terms of the Republican Party.  I expect Vance to be a lot smarter at this -- to seek to establish a Republican one-party state and target opponents more with administrative and financial penalties that outright criminal investigation.  Advantage: Trump, who is more malevolent, but too petty to really pull it off.

Corrupt pardons.  I expect both men to order subordinates to commit crimes and then pardon them.  I don't expect Vance to take outright bribes to give pardons.  So advantage Vance.

Respect for election outcomes.  Tough to tell.  Trump has made himself clear.  He considers any election that he loses to be fraudulent by definition.  He is dropping very broad hints that he will treat the midterms as fraudulent of the Democrats win.  He attempted to use force in the form of an angry mob last time and I fully expect him to be ready to resort to the Deep State this time.  Vance duly said that he did not consider the 2020 election to be fair, and that Congress and the Vice President could overturn the results.  He has remained non-committal about future elections.  While he will no doubt do all he can to rig future elections, I think he will consider staging an outright coup to be to unsubtle, although I could be wrong.  Advantage: Vance, who might accept defeat over Trump, who definitely won't.

Immigration.  If Vance is not a dogmatic ideologue on this one, he is giving a good imitation of one.  Trump occasionally wavers when he fears that his crackdown will cause economic damage.  Vance shows no such hesitations and seems determined to proceed with the program of ethnic cleansing regardless of the costs.  Thus do we see the advantage of an opportunist over an ideologue.  Advantage: Trump.

Foreign policy.  Trump's foreign policy is all about him.  He wants a Nobel Peace Prize. He favors anyone who bribes or flatters him.  This is easier for an authoritarian to do than a democratic leader, so the effect is one of favoring authoritarians, but more by accident than by design.  Vance, by contrast, has a clear ideological goal -- the destruction of liberal democracy in favor of blood and soil nationalism.  Thus Trump favors Russia over Ukraine partly because Putin is better at flattering him and has more resources to bribe him, partly because he wants the Nobel Peace Prize for ending the war and thinks the easiest way to achieve it is by coercing the weaker party into submission, and partly because he instinctively sides with strength.  Vance, by contrast, favors Russia because he wants Putin to win and impose his vision on as much of Europe as possible.  He also wants to coerce Europe into putting the most rightwing leaders into power as possible, who can be trusted to halt all immigration and undertake something like our regime of mass deportations.  Advantage: Trump.  I prefer the unprincipled opportunist over the dogmatic ideologue.

Economic policy.  Honestly, I want this to be as bad as possible, on the theory that economic hardship is the best way to undermine Trump/Vance and we can survive economic hardship, since we have many times before.  Trump's policy seems to be one of protectionism with the goals of (1) restoring a manufacturing economy, (2) circumventing Congress's power of the purse and having his own personal slush fund, and (3) extorting as many bribes as possible.  A fourth goal is probably to be able to announce all sorts of trade deals, whether they materialize or not.  The result is a flighty policy that ruins small business with uncertainty, but can be very advantageous for big business, since they can buy any favors they want.  Vance is most likely to focus on goal (1), building a manufacturing economy.  This is unlikely to succeed and will doubtless cause great hardship along the way, though it will be less corrupt than Trump's approach and also cause less uncertainty.  Advantage: Vance, I think, but I could easily be wrong.

Healthcare.  I would expect Vance to keep RFK, Jr. on, but reign him in.  By all means, feel free to talk a MAHA game, but don't interfere with actual vaccines or other useful health developments.  I would also expect Vance to understand much better than Trump when his policies were stripping people of their health insurance and to avoid such actions.  Here, Vance is the less doctrinaire of the two.  Damaging our healthcare system and stripping people of their insurance does nothing to promote his Fortress American plan and violates Rule Number One of Smart Authoritarians (don't do unpopular things unless they promote your power).  So advantage Vance if you care about people's healthcare and Trump if you want things to get as bad as possible.

Energy policy.  I expect Vance to be more rational here than Trump.  Sure, he will no doubt denounce renewables as "woke," tout fossil fuels as manly, remove environmental regulations restricting fossil fuels, and boast about our oil and gas boom.  But actually suppressing renewables will raise people's electric bills, so I expect him to drop Trump's vendetta against renewables and quietly allow them to grow.  Yes, rising energy prices will hurt the incumbent party, but given that the survival of the Earth is at stake here, I would say advantage Vance.

Succession.  Trump will undoubtedly seek to circumvent the 22nd Amendment and be President for life. On the other hand, he is 79 years old and getting less coherent all the time, so "life" will probably not be all that long.  Vance is easily young enough to be in power for 30 years if he could get away with it, but I don't think he can.  My guess is that instead he will attempt something like Mexico under the PRI -- a one-party state, with each Republican President serving two four-year terms and then stepping down for a chosen successor.  Doubtless Vance will want to manipulate things from behind the scenes, but more likely he will fail and just establish a de facto one-party system that will become increasingly corrupt and sclerotic.  This one is tough. Trump's dictatorship will inherently be shorter than Vance's one-party system, but also more arbitrary and lawless.  And thoroughly undermining the rule of law in his own lifetime is apt to cause damage that will continue long after he is gone.  So advantage Vance here, probably, but maybe not.

But there is one advantage inherent to impeachment, which some people offered as a reason to impeach GW Bush even if it meant getting Cheney as President.  It smacks down the executive and establishes legislative supremacy.  It gives JD Vance a warning that he, too, can be impeached if he steps too far out of line.  And for that reason, I suppose, advantage impeachment regardless.

_________________________________________

*I will also give a word of advice to any Democrats who want to impeach Trump and are looking for something that might persuade Republicans.  Go with the Qatari jet, or maybe Trump's dealings with the Saudis.  The reason is obvious.  First, these reek of a bribe, and bribery is expressly stated by the Constitution to be grounds for impeachment.  Furthermore, bribery is paired with treason, implying (though not expressly stating) that this refers in particular to foreign bribery.  Of course, Trump's foreign policy in general looks like a bribery game.  But impeachment is most likely to succeed if it caters to MAGA prejudice by focusing on bribery by a Muslim nation.  Even MAGA diehards like Laura Loomer are outraged by that.

Why Charlotte?

 

When Donald Trump first threatened to deploy the National Guard to Chicago and state and local authorities went to court to stop him, it occurred to me that delay was our ally, at least temporarily.  If only deployment could be delayed for long enough, winter would set in and disrupt operations.  It certainly occurred to me that Greg Bovino and his Border Patrol goons might redeploy to warmer climates as winter set in.  And, indeed, we are getting confirmation that it is not a good idea to invade the Midwest in the winter.  So I am not surprised that Bovino and his thugs have taken their show on the road.

But why Charlotte, of all places?

I assume that Charlotte was chosen over some comparable target because of the video showing a fatal stabbing on a train that was much circulated in rightwing circles and convinced Trump of the need for a crackdown.  Actually, the video showed a natural born citizen killing an immigrant, but it showed a Black citizen killing a White immigrant, but I don't imagine that mattered much to Team Trump.  The important thing was that it showed one of Them killing one of Us, and who cares about parsing fine distinctions among Them.*

But why Charlotte was chosen in particular is less important than the general reasons.  

First, as discussed above, Bovino and his gang presumably wanted to go somewhere warmer during the winter.

They may also have concluded that Los Angeles and Chicago were too big to subdue and decided that a smaller city with a smaller foreign-born population would be a softer target.

Both suppositions appear confirmed by the choice of New Orleans as the next target.  New Orleans is also southern, of course.  And, though more famous than Charlotte, New Orleans actually has a smaller population.

But above all, I assume, the goal is to choose a city that is not particularly well-known and not an obvious target for that very reason.  To make clear that no one, anywhere, is safe.**

_________________________________________
*Donald Trump's mobilizing of the National Guard and immigration crackdown in Washington, D.C. was apparently inspired when a DOGE staffer was injured in a carjacking -- also committed by natural born citizens, but that didn't stop Trump from blaming immigrants for crime.

**Although if Miami has the audacity to elect a Democrat as mayor, I would expect them to be high on the target list.

Sherlock Holmes: A Study in Scarlet: The Mystery

 

So, on to the first Sherlock Holmes mystery -- A Study in Scarlet.  Besides seeing the extent to which the story relies on clues available to the audience, I also want to see the broad cross section of London society who are Holmes' clients -- and other characters.

In this case, the clients are two police detectives who call Holmes to the scene of a murder they cannot make sense out of and assure him nothing has been moved.  Given that they are detectives themselves, that seems a mark of high respect.

A man has been found dead in an empty building, contorted in horror, with blood all over, but no wound or other mark of violence on the body.  The word "Rache" -- German for revenge -- is written on the wall in blood.  In the man's pockets are cards identifying him as Enoch J. Drebber of Cleveland, Ohio and indicating that he and Joseph Strangerson are about to take a ship back to New York.  As they move the body, a woman's wedding ring falls out.

Holmes first notes wheel marks from a cab in the mud from the rain the night before -- the sort of detail that modern mysteries would have taken care to mention in an offhand way.  Neither detective arrived by cab, so Holmes concludes that the victim and killer must have arrived by cab.  Since there is no wound to the victim, the blood must have come from the killer.  Looking at the stride and height of writing, Holmes deduces the killer's height (about six feet), his shoe size (small, for his height), his age (young and vigorous, based on his strong stride and easily stepping over a puddle), and his cigar type (based on the ashes).  He smells poison and also deduces that the killer was red-faced, though he declines at the time to say how he knew.  The detectives made general inquiries to Cleveland, but no particulars.

Holmes dismisses the "Rache" as a red herring, designed to throw them off the scent, and believes the wedding ring shows the true motive -- a romantic rivalry.  Talking to the constable who first found the body, Holmes gets confirmation when the constable reports he ran off a tall, red-faced drunkard from the scene.  Clearly the killer, so why did he come back to the scene?  Holmes says, to retrieve the ring.

In order to catch the killer, Holmes runs and ad, describing the ring and asking for the owner.  To his surprise, a little old lady shows up, saying the ring belongs to her daughter Sally.  She gives her name as Mrs. Sawyer and also gives an address.  Holmes follows her into the street and observes her hailing a cab and asking for the address mentioned.  He perches on the back of the cab, and when they arrive the passenger has vanished and the owner of the house never heard of Mrs. Sawyer.  Holmes concludes that the old woman was an actor in disguise -- young and vigorous enough to jump out of a moving cab undetected.  Embarrassing!  Holmes makes inquiries and finds what he was looking for, but does not say what.  He dispatches street urchins on an unspecified errand.  

Soon afterward, Detective Gregson announces he has made an arrest.  Checking the victim's hat, he was able to find the hatter, and the hatter had an address for the victim.  He traced the victim to a boarding house and found that the victim was a supremely obnoxious drunkard who was always harassing the landlady's daughter.  The girl's brother was understandable protective of her, hated the boarder, and went out around the time of the murder.  Dum ta da!  

Just then, Detective Lestrade comes in.  He was investigating Drebber's companion and personal secretary, Joseph Strangerson as the most likely suspect, when Strangerson turns up dead, fatally stabbed, with the same word "Rache" written on the wall in blood.  With him was a box containing two pills that looked identical, but one was poison and the other harmless.*  The landlady's son is cleared!  At this point, one of the street urchins says he has summoned a cab.  Holmes tells him to send the driver up to help with his luggage.  When the cab driver arrives, Holmes handcuffs him and introduces him as Jefferson Hope, the killer.

There is then a long digression giving Jefferson Hope's back story, which no clue has so much as hinted at up till then.**  And we get some clear disappointments, and signs that not all Holmes' calculations were right.  The killer is not as young and vigorous as Holmes thought.  He is avenging a wrong done 20 years ago, which places him in his 40's, and he is not as vigorous as he seems -- he is dying of an aortic aneurysm.  He confesses to the murders, including saying that he wrote "Rache" on the wall to mislead, but declines to name his accomplice who impersonated the old lady.  We never do find out.

After Jefferson Hope is remanded into custody, Holmes explains his deductions to Watson.  I can only say that some of them would pass muster in a modern mystery and some would not. He deduced that the blood at the scene was the result of the killer having a spontaneous nose bleed from stress (confirmed by the killer), leading to the deduction that he must have had an abundance of blood and been red-faced.  I don't know if this would occur to a Victorian reader.  It certainly would not occur to me, and I have no idea whether it is accurate.  Since the cab driver who took the pair to the scene would be a dangerous witness, Holmes concludes that the killer must have been the cab driver.  He also concludes that a stalker seeking out a particular victim could do so very effectively as a cab driver.  That seems logical enough based on the clues we have and would probably pass muster in a modern mystery.

After seeing the wedding ring, Holmes concluded that the murder was the result of a romantic rivalry.  He then made inquiries about the circumstances of Enoch Drebber's marriage.  It turned out that he had sought protection of the law from a romantic rival named Jefferson Hope. and that Hope was present in Europe.  So he sent the urchins out to find a cab driver by that name.

Since the inquiries took place completely outside the audience's knowledge, they would never be allowed in a modern mystery.  The audience would have to know about the inquiry and what it found.  So how would the author avoid giving the whole game away?  Presumably by strewing the ground with more red herrings.  "Rache" is one such red herring, intended to make the audience/investigators suspect secret German societies.  In the novel, Holmes dismisses it out of hand.  In a modern mystery, there would be plenty of investigation of secret societies to throw the reader off track.  

The landlady's son is a perfectly good red herring.  In a modern mystery, he would be better developed.  We would learn more about Dreber's harassment of the landlady's daughter and the son going missing on the day of the murder.

Strangerson is also not a bad red herring.  It is made quite clear that Dreber is a thoroughly unpleasant person to work for.  It is also explained in the back story that, although they two men were originally peers, Dreber ended up rich and Strangerson poor and dependent on him -- a thing that tends to lead to resentments.  The resentment increases if one drops hints that Dreber may not have come across his wealth honestly, but gained at Strangerson's expense.

And no doubt the inquiry can be made to yield other red herrings as well.

Then there is the matter of the old lady, which is really inexcusable.  No modern mystery would allow something so important to go unresolved.  And besides, why didn't Holmes subject her to the Sherlock scan, figure out that he had been slipped a ringer, and learn at least something about the impersonator -- if not enough to reveal him, at least enough to know something about him.  That is even less excusable than the offstage inquiry.

Nonetheless, this was a first attempt.  I look forward to future mysteries that help us see where many of the present-day conventions originated.  Next up -- Sign of the Four.

________________________________

*Holmes tests them on a dying dog.  Presumably he could have learned the contents from lab tests as well.

**To be brief, an old man and his little daughter are dying of thirst in the Utah desert when the Mormons rescue them, on condition that they become Mormons.  The man agrees, but secretly vows never to take part in a polygamous marriage or to allow his daughter to be given into such a marriage.  When the girl grows up, she falls in love with Jefferson Hope, a prospector from outside the Mormon community.  The Mormons demand that Lucy (the daughter) marry a Mormon, and their secret police spy on the house, making clear that she has one month to choose -- or else.  Jefferson Hope helps Lucy and her father to escape, but when he goes off to hunt a deer for them to eat, the Mormons attack.  The father is killed and Lucy is forced to marry Drebber.  She dies of a broken heart.  Hope steals the wedding ring from her finger and vows revenge.

Where Are We Now?

 

I have given what I take to be the signs to look for to see if Donald Trump's power is truly on the wane, or merely suffering a setback -- has democracy won a skirmish, or the actual war?

In escalating order of importance, I would say we should be on the lookout and see whether:

1. Media outlets bought by Trump allies are willing to criticize or oppose him;
2. Republicans in Congress splinter and Trump cannot bring them into line;
3. Attempts to target opposing organizations through taxes or RICO are thrown out, or never materialize;
4. Universities, high power law firms, and other institutions targeted by Trump start consistently defying him;
5. The Supreme Court makes a meaningful attempt to reign Trump in;
6. Democrats win control of the House and Trump cannot stop them;
7. Democrats win control of the Senate and Trump cannot stop them;
8. Growing numbers of state and local jurisdictions reject cooperation with ICE, putting more strain on the organization;
9. ICE starts losing personnel faster than it can recruit them and begins shrinking;
10. Trump supporters stop making death threats and harassment against people who he criticizes;
11. Big money interests start standing up to him.

So, looking at these eleven signs, where would I say we are now?

1. Media outlets bought by Trump allies are willing to criticize or oppose him.  Well, Paramount bought out CBS and fired Stephen Colbert but kept South Park, and let it hit Trump hard.  And new CBS editor Bari Weiss claims that she wants to create a serious center-right station and shut out the lunatics.  I guess we will see.  And certainly many people feared that Patrick Soon-Shiong, owner of the LA Times would turn it into a pro-Trump rag, but it has been absolutely unsparing in publicizing ICE outrages.  The Washington Post has a mixed record.  So I think it is best to say we are well short of a MAGA takeover of media, although it still could happen.
2. Republicans in Congress splinter and Trump cannot bring them into line.  There are certainly signs that this is happening.
3. Attempts to target opposing organizations through taxes or RICO are thrown out, or never materialize.  Way too early to tell.
4. Universities, high power law firms, and other institutions targeted by Trump start consistently defying him.  Also too early to tell.
5. The Supreme Court makes a meaningful attempt to reign Trump in. The Supreme Court appears to intend to reign in Trump's tariffs and keep him from firing members of the Federal Reserve.  These probably fit in the category of protecting Trump from himself, rather than reigning him in.
6. Democrats win control of the House and Trump cannot stop them.  The election is a year off.  We will get a better picture of just how far Trump is willing to go to rig or overturn it by next June or so.
7. Democrats win control of the Senate and Trump cannot stop them.  Ditto.
8. Growing numbers of state and local jurisdictions reject cooperation with ICE, putting more strain on the organization.  Not so far, although the election for Mayor of Miami is looking -- interesting.
9. ICE starts losing personnel faster than it can recruit them and begins shrinking.  No sign of it.
10. Trump supporters stop making death threats and harassment against people who he criticizes.  Definitely not.
11. Big money interests start standing up to him. Don't be ridiculous.

In short, I would say numbers 1 and 2 are showing some promise. Numbers 3, 4, 6 and 7 are too early to call. Numbers 5 and 8 could go either way. And numbers 9, 10, and 11 -- the real signs that Trump is losing power -- show no signs of materializing.

PS:  To anyone who thinks the mainstream media, or even media owned by Trump allies have capitulated, consider the Washington Post story about Hegseth's order to kill the survivors of a boat strike.

Despair is Dangerous. So is Complacency

 

Something feels different.  It feels as if Donald Trump's attempt to undermine US democracy are failing and his presidency is on the downslope.  People who were deeply pessimistic before are looking up.

Of course, throughout August, September, and October, it felt as if we were reaching an irreversible tipping point toward dictatorship and nothing could stop it.  

All of which just goes to show that feelings are not facts.  When things look bad, it is good to remember that hope is no guarantee of success, but despair means giving up and guarantees defeat.  But when things start to look up, it is a mistake to declare mission accomplished too early because that, too, means giving up the fight and letting Team Trump make a comeback.

Signs Trump's power is waning

Certainly there are signs that Trump's power may be waning.

Most obviously, the November elections went poorly for Republicans, and Trump has accepted the outcome as valid.

Donald Trump and Russ Vought encouraged the government shutdown, intending a power grab.  They were not notably successful at it, and took a significant political blow that maybe, just maybe, may discourage them from seeking any future government shutdowns.

Congressional Republicans openly revolted over the Epstein files.  

Trump has proposed a healthcare plan that would replace subsidies to buy insurance with direct payments.  Maybe Republicans will all line up behind it when he cracks the whip, but somehow it seems unlikely.

Senate Republicans are refusing to end the filibuster or blue slips (allowing Senators a de facto veto on judicial appointments in their own states).

Indiana Republicans are refusing to redistrict.

Trump is starting to withdraw some tariffs to lower prices.

Elite universities are rejecting his favored funding-for-control proposals.

His proposed 50-year mortgage went over like a lead balloon.

He appears to be quietly backing away from plans to deploy the National Guard in Portland and Chicago.

Greg Bovino and his Border Patrol thugs, after vowing to stay in Chicago till their mass deportations were complete, are moving on, mission not accomplished.

The politically motivated prosecution of James Comey is facing dismissal by the judge and possible disciplinary sanctions.

And the Adam Schiff investigation is facing an actual DOJ investigation!

All of which clearly shows that (1) Trump has not consolidated complete power yet and (2) he has experienced a setback in the attempt.  But let there be no mistake.  His attempt is far from over, and he will be back.

But he has plenty of cards left

There is plenty of room for foot-dragging or selective release on the Epstein files, as well as the prospect of the whole thing becoming an all-out moral panic.  And if documents addressing Trump ever do come, the whole thing will probably be anticlimactic.  (See Russiagate).

His popularity will no doubt improve now that the shutdown is over.  Withdrawing the tariffs may boost the economy and further improve his standing.

The Supreme Court may grant him unbridled discretion in deploying the National Guard.

ICE is receiving a massive increase in personnel, budget, surveillance capability, and thuggishness.

Federal money remains a powerful tool of coercion.

Trump allies are buying up ever-growing shares of media.

RICO and tax investigations of opposing organizations are just beginning.

But scariest of all is the upcoming midterm election.  Attempts are already well underway to rig the midterms through gerrymanders, control of media companies, and various voter suppression laws.  A large enough landslide can overcome these obstacles, but that leaves scarier options -- ICE raids on Democratic gatherings, or on voting places, pressure on Republican election officials to change results, seizing ballot boxes to "recount" and look for "fraud," and who knows what else.  

How to know if we have won

So, what would I take as more than just a setback, but an actual sign that Trump has lost and democracy has won?

I list the following in roughly escalating order of significance.

If media outlets bought by Trump allies remain critical of him.

If Republicans in Congress splinter and Trump cannot bring them into line.

If attempts to target opposing organizations through taxes or RICO are thrown out, or never materialize.

If universities, high power law firms, and other institutions targeted by Trump start consistently defying him.

If the Supreme Court makes a meaningful attempt to reign Trump in.

If Democrats win control of the House and Trump cannot stop them.

If Democrats win control of the Senate and Trump cannot stop them.

If growing numbers of state and local jurisdictions reject cooperation with ICE, putting more strain on the organization.

If ICE starts losing personnel faster than it can recruit them and begins shrinking.

It Trump supporters stop making death threats and harassment against people who he criticizes.

And finally, we will know Trump has truly and decisively failed if big money interests start standing up to him.

So What Do I Recommend?

With that said, assuming US Democracy survives and Democrats can regain power, what do I want to do about immigration?  

Well, keep Trump's border closing.  He seems to have been highly successful, and like it or not, there is no going back.

I belong to the "Feed ICE into the woodchipper" school. 

But feeding ICE into the wood chipper runs into one problem.  It appears that the worst offenses are not being committed by ICE, but by Border Patrol, now acting far away from the border, but with the same rough and ready lawlessness they show toward recent border crossers.  And if we want to control our borders, we really do need a border patrol. So what do we do about that?

Well, go ahead and disband ICE.  They have shown themselves to be a bunch of lawless, racist thugs even if Border Patrol is not in the picture.  At present, Border Patrol is given essentially unlimited power to do immigration searches within 100 miles of any border.  This includes ocean borders.  Their jurisdiction includes about 2/3 of the US population.  And they are not barred from searches in the interior, only place under the same restrictions as any law enforcement.  

Clearly, we need to limit the Border Patrol to activities connected with, you know, patrolling the border.  Start with a clear law barring them from any activity outside the 100 mile zone.  Strictly limit their activity along ocean barriers, and impose reasonable restriction along land borders, with a clear focus us on turning back crossings and fighting smuggling.  I will admit to not knowing enough to offer anything more specific.  And, yes, granted, there are serious problems with any laws under a fundamentally lawless administration, but we should be able to pare back personnel and infrastructure to what is actually needed to secure the border.

I am hesitant to go so far as to prosecute, and for several reasons.  The first is quite simple -- if Team Trump ever does allow Democrats into power again, it will undoubtedly issue a blanket pardon to everyone involved in immigration enforcement, making the whole matter moot.  The second is outright fear.  If Team Trump responds to a Democratic victory by launching a coup, ICE and Border Patrol are most likely to act if they anticipate criminal charges with a change in administration. The transition from dictatorship to democracy often requires an amnesty.  Otherwise the dictatorship would never give up power..  And finally, while I was disappointed that there were no prosecutions of human rights violations in the case of GW Bush's War on Terror, I was also impressed at how unnecessary prosecutions turned out to be.  Adverse publicity was enough.  I recommend something more like a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to expose the prior administration's worst abuses.  Admittedly that will not stop state prosecutions, but that is a different matter for a different day.

So how to we deter unauthorized immigration if we halt internal enforcement?  Institute E-Verify to allow employers to check job applicant's legal status and penalize employers who don't use it.  The trouble with E-Verity is two-fold.  First, given that there are approximately 10 million people in the US today who would not qualify, the result would be to throw some 10 million people out of work, a prospect that could lead to serious upheaval.  That seems less alarming now in light of what is currently going on, but I agree, mandating E-Verity will have to be accompanied with some sort of amnesty.  Prior to Trump 2.0, I would have said that if pathway to citizenship is an insurmountable obstacle, fine, make it a two-year work visa with option to renew. But that gets a lot harder to endorse now.  What is to stop Republicans from cancelling all the work visas next time they come to power?  The other problem, as I understand it, is that the administrative burdens of applying for and approving work visas are more than small employers can meet.  Again, without claiming the expertise to offer specifics, I would say streamline and simplify work visas and make them more responsive to employment needs.

Finally, there is the issue of asylum claims.  I think that Trump 1.0 had essentially the right approach, that Biden rather belatedly began to copy -- arrange a safe haven for people to apply from abroad and admit them only after asylum claims are approved.  That might have worked politically if the Biden Administration had kept Remain in Mexico in place and limited itself to making it more humane.  After letting the border be overrun, a whole lot of people are permanently soured on any sort of asylum claims.  Team Trump offers a simple answer -- no asylum claims, ever, under any circumstances.  And, unfortunately, that approach is probably quite popular.

So what would I propose as an alternative?  I think we are going to have to admit that the US can never admit everyone who has a plausible claim.  I think we will also have to admit that asylum is a hotly contested political issue that does not lend itself to technocratic resolution, and that giving the President (whether Biden, Trump, or any other) unilateral power to decide is too much power for one person.*  Instead, have Congress set the asylum limits for each year.  Failure to act means that the last number remains in place.  And to anyone who objects that Congress will just set the number at zero, I can only say that if Congress sets the number at zero, that is strong evidence that the American people want the number to be zero.  If we want to admit more asylum cases, then it is incumbent on us to persuade the American people to do so.  Otherwise will be just end up with another Trump promising another draconian crackdown.

______________________________________________

*I do think that the President should have the power to expand the limit in cases of emergency such as natural disaster, civil war, etc.  I hope to write more on the subject of emergency powers later on, but I believe that Donald Trump has amply proven that these will have to be reigned in.  Emergency will have to be more stringently defined, and in general I favor requiring the President to seek an advance court ruling that an emergency exists.  We can apply that restriction in this case as well.

In Which I Strongly Take Issue with Matthew Yglesias on Immmigration

I have been reading what Matthew Yglesias has to say on what policies Democrats should take on immigration if they come to power again (assuming such a thing is even possible), and while he makes some worthwhile points about the problems Democrats would face, I cannot agree with his prescription.

It does seem that Democrats have learned an important lesson -- the US must control its borders.  Certainly I believe that Biden made a huge unforced error in abandoning Trump's "Remain in Mexico" policy for asylum seekers and instead letting anyone in who made an asylum claim.  It appears to be consensus among Democrats that if we ever come to power again, we should keep Trump's policies on closing the border, but not on internal enforcement, or on legal admissions.  

Yglesias makes a reasonable point in saying that these things are not as separate as we might thing.  The number of people seeking to come here is, after all, related to the sort of reception they can expect.  He reasonably points out the the reason illegal border crossings were relatively low during the Obama presidency was that unemployment in the US was high, so not many people were coming here looking for work.  But tanking your economy to deter immigration is not a winning proposition!  He does, nonetheless, approve of Obama's overall approach to deportation -- push out new arrivals and deport people arrested by local authorities for non-immigration offenses who turn out also to have immigration violations.  This met with opposition by immigration activities because people were being deported for quite minor non-immigration offenses, and to deportation of people who were only arrested but not convicted.  Sanctuary jurisdictions stopped reporting arrests to federal authorities.

He is also convincing in discussing the problems with Biden's asylum policies.  The plan was to admit Cuban, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan asylum seekers who applied from abroad to show that largescale admissions could be done in an orderly fashion, and also in hopes that his policies would be supported by the generally Republican Cuban, Nicaraguan and Venezuelan communities in the US.  The problem was that (1) this happened only after extensive border chaos and so the admissions were lumped together in most people's minds and (2) giving legal status to recent arrivals that was denied to people who had been living and working in the US for many years was mightily resented by long-term bur unauthorized residents and their citizen relatives/friends/neighbors, who supported Trump at least partly over these resentments.  (Cue the leopards eating faces jokes).  He is also somewhat persuasive in arguing that any time you give legal status to people who come here illegally, you encourage more people to come here.

So what does Yglesias suggest?  I find his proposal appallingly short-sighted and wishy-washy.  It is, in effect, to return to an informal policy of non-enforcement.  Don't actually reverse Trump's massive expansion of ICE, just repurpose it to border enforcement and crime fighting.  Don't give anyone here a legal status, just quietly stop internal removals except as part of criminal investigations.

The problem here is obvious.  I think Yglesias seriously underestimates how difficult it will be to reign in an organization of racist thugs who like beating up on brown people and have been give the clear message that they are above the law.  And if we assume that it is possible for Democrats to come to power, then presumably power will also return to Republicans again some day.  What is to stop Republicans from pushing Yglesias' argument to its logical conclusion.  If giving unauthorized immigrants a legal status just encourages more illegal immigration, doesn't the same apply to non-enforcement?  Or really, to any humane policy at all?  What is to stop the next Republican administration from repurposing federal law enforcement back to mass deportations and proclaiming that only relentless harassment and persecution and ever truly deter illegal immigration.  Given just how vicious and lawless our immigration enforcement has become, I don't see how we can stop sort of large-scale structural reforms to prevent a recurrence.  In short, I belong to the feed ICE into the wood chipper faction.

Yglesias makes an analogy to the Democratic base's opposition to the war in Iraq.  Democrats could only run against the war in Iraq by assuring voters that they were nonetheless tough on terrorism.  He urges Democrats to seek a more humane immigration policy while convincing voters they are tough on crime -- for instance, by insisting on deportation for any crime, no matter how minor, or by arguing that involving the regular police in immigration enforcement makes crime victims and witnesses afraid to come forward.  And he points out -- correctly -- that although Trump is currently under water on immigration, it remains his strongest issue, and the issue that the public is most likely to trust Republicans over Democrats.

I would make a different Iraq War analogy.  The planes hit the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.  GW Bush spend much of 2002 dealing with the Taliban in Afghanistan, which actually did harbor the hijackers and refused to turn over their backers.  He invaded Iraq early in 2003, expecting a quick and easy victory.  The decision to invade was broadly, though not universally, popular among a population still angry and traumatized by the 9/11 attack.  As it became clear that invading Iraq was not leading to a quick and easy victory, but to a long, grinding insurgency, the war started losing popularity.  But it did not become unpopular overnight.  In 2004, the war was losing popularity, and the Democratic base was eager to run on opposition to the war, but the war was still not a priority with the general public.  In fact, a survey taken of voters supporting Bush in 2004 found that their top concern was "moral" issues -- in particular, opposition to gay marriage.

GW Bush's popularity began to slide soon into his second term but not, at first, because of the war.  The first issue to really hurt him was his attempt to privatize Social Security in 2005.  Next came his poor management of Hurricane Katrina, also in 2005.  It was only in 2006 that war-weariness became the leading issue to most voters.  It remained the leading issue in 2007, only to be eclipsed in 2008 by the economic crisis.  And by now it is settled wisdom that the Iraq War was a mistake, and to have supported it is seen as seriously discrediting.

In other words, public opinion is not fixed and immutable.  Trump's immigration policies may be only a minor liability for him now, and a bigger liability for Democrats, but we are still in the first year of his presidency, and who knows how public opinion may shift in the face of continuing outrages.

The Epstein Saga Continues

 

My initial thought on the Epstein files was that there was unlikely to be much there.  After all, if the files were truly inflammatory, they would presumably implicate Trump's enemies along with himself and his allies.  His failure to make selective releases suggested that there was really not much there.  

Besides, Trump presumably knows what his association with Epstein consisted of.  If there was anything there that could seriously hurt him, he would presumably have known about it and not campaigned on releasing the files!

And who knows?  Maybe it will turn out that way.  But Donald Trump and Mike Johnson sure as hell aren't acting that way!

Why I am (Mostly) OK with Democrats Caving on the Shutdown

 

One provision in the continuing resolution is completely unacceptable -- a provision allowing Senators to sue the government if their phone records were subpoenaed during the January 6 investigation.  This is part of the ongoing effort to ensure that Republican office holders are above the law -- unless the run afoul of Trump, of course.

As for the rest of the bill, I know it is an unpopular view on my side, but I really don't think it is so bad.  I do understand the argument that you should never reward a hostage taker or you will just encourage them.  At the same time, I also at least partly agree with JV Last that the Democrats are really better off losing this fight than winning it.

Last goes further than I am willing to go.  He says that the real issue at stake is not policy but power -- specifically, Trump's outrageous authoritarian power grabs.  I agree.  But I don't think the American people broadly understand that.  Trump's power grabs are just too remote and abstract for the average low information voter to get too excited about.  What does excite a low information voter is skyrocketing insurance premiums.  

Last proposes that Democrats refuse to open the government unless Congress admits Washington DC as a state.  Needless to say, that is not going to happen.  It will just make Democrats look like outrageous extortionists and sway public opinion heavily in favor of Republicans.  If DC statehood is too extreme, Last suggests some sort of measure to reign in ICE.  While I am all in favor of that, I still don't think it would command the sort of public approval that would translate into support for a government shutdown.  Alternately, he suggests releasing the Epstein files.  That just might sway some voters, Trump supporters included, but still probably not enough to make them support the Democrats in the shutdown.  But saving voters from skyrocketing insurance premiums -- now that is the sort of thing that

 lines up public opinion behind the Democrats.  And it did.  The only problem is that Democrats can only win politically by losing.  In other words, if Republicans had actually agreed to extend the subsidies, the result would have been that people's insurance premiums would not go up and no one would see what the big deal was about.  Voters will never give you credit for averting a disaster if things basically stay unchanged.

So Democrats lost substantively, which means that they won politically.  And we should not underestimate what they gained in the exchange.

The government is only open until January 30.  That means that if the Democrats really want to, they can do a shutdown all over again.

There are exceptions for the Departments of Defense, Veteran's Affairs, and Agriculture which are funded for the fiscal year.  That means if the Democrats do decide to do another government shutdown, Trump will be deprived of some of his most valuable hostages.  The country will not face the prospect of the troops going unpaid, veterans being denied benefits, or people losing their food stamps.  These were all factors in the Democrats' decision to back down.  They will not be issues in January.  Furthermore, the holidays will be over in January, so air traffic snarls will not be as bad.

Furloughed employees will receive back pay and fired employees will be reinstated.  This is highly significant because the whole reason for the shutdown was, quite simply, that Donald Trump and OMB Director Russ Vought wanted the shutdown as cover for a major power grab.  Vought made clear that he intended to use the shutdown to cancel widespread programs, most of them benefitting Democrats, and to engage in widespread firings of federal employees.  Actual number fired: 4,000.  The fact that they are being reinstated and that Trump is signing off on it effectively means that the power grab failed.  Senate Democrats, by shouting and waving their arms about healthcare subsidies and keeping quiet about the power grab gave Trump space to very quietly back down on it.  Of course, this victory will only be successful if people refrain from talking about it!

This just might sour Trump on government shutdowns.  After initially welcoming the shutdown, Trump has become increasingly eager to end it, once it became clear that it was hurting him, and Republicans in general.  Again, this shutdown appears to have been largely orchestrated by Russ Vought, who has been described as a competent version of Elon Musk.  I am not sure he is quite as competent as advertised.  Vought's 4000 firings included 1000 CDC employees monitoring infectious disease, from measles to Ebola.  Once word got out, federal officials assured employees that this had been an error and the firings would be reversed.  That sounds just like Musk.  In any event, Vought's power play appears to have backfired on Trump.  While it is no doubt asking too much to hope that Vought is going anywhere very soon, we can at least hope that Trump will be slower to take his advice in the future.

Trump has clearly violated Rule No. One of Smart Authoritarians, which is to save the unpopular stuff until you have consolidated complete power.  Trump has been doing so many unpopular things lately that I was beginning to be concerned that might be a sign he was confident that he had fully consolidated power.  I think recent events are clear evidence that he is not there yet.

The filibuster survived.  I know there are people on our side like JV Last and Matthew Yglesias favor ending the filibuster.  I agree on the sole issue of continuing resolutions.  It should not require the President, the House of Representatives and a super majority in the Senate to keep the government open.  The last thing we need in our government is the opportunity for the minority party in the Senate to make government shutdowns a routine way of doing business.  Last and Yglesias favor allowing the Senate to pass legislation by a simple majority so that if the dominant party wants to pass something unpopular it will have to live with the results.  Under normal circumstances, I would agree.  Passing legislation by a simple majority of the Senate should not be a radical, extraordinary, shocking measure.  Under normal circumstances, it should be routine.  

But circumstances are not normal.  We have a dangerous authoritarian in the White House and spinelessly compliant party in control of both houses of Congress.  If they want to pass unpopular measures and face a public backlash, I am fine with that.  What I am afraid of is procedurally authoritarian measures that are too abstract and obscure to attract public outcry, but pose a serious threat to democracy and the rule of law.  This threat is not hypothetical.  The One Bonkers Barbaric Bonanza originally contained provisions that would have prevented courts from enjoining government actions that was fortunately rejected by the Senate Parliamentarian as subject to filibuster.  Ted Cruz has proposed a bill that would add "riot" to the list of offenses that could result in RICO prosecutions.  The implications are truly alarming.  For instance, the October "No Kings" protests were almost entirely peaceful -- almost.  In Los Angeles after the bulk of the marchers had gone home, small crowds caused disturbances.  Under Ted Cruz's law, that alone might open every group involved in the "No Kings" protests to prosecution as a criminal enterprise.  The only Republicans I trust to vote against such legislation are Thomas Massie and Rand Paul.  We need to keep the filibuster alive to block such things.

Winning the shutdown give Republicans a Huge Political Headache.  Simply put, Republicans know that soaring insurance premiums will be wildly unpopular and have no idea what to do about it.  The vote is set for December.  That will give plenty of time for the public to see its premiums go up an pressure to build.  And if the vote to extend subsidies fails, Democrats have made completely clear who is to blame.  

Viewing Democratic tactics, a cynic might wonder whether the party, which failed to make the enhanced Obamacare credits permanent during the Biden administration, laid a trap for Republicans on an issue their rivals always failed to solve, especially under Trump.

To which I can only say, "Ya think?" 

PS:  In further good news House Republicans are just as outraged over Senators' giveaways to themselves as anyone else.  Though not prepared to continue the shutdown over this particular provision, they plan to move to strike it in separate legislation.  At last, a measure that will command overwhelming bipartisan support!

Sherlock Holmes: A Study in Scarlet -- The General Layout

When the Russians first invaded Ukraine everything else seemed trivial by comparison.  How could I post about anything else as we faced the prospect of WWIII, or even global thermonuclear war?  For some time, I felt paralyzed by fear, unable to post at all.  But, in the end, life goes on.

It has felt much the same this time, as I watch democracy turn into a dictatorship.  But all that notwithstanding, life goes on and so must I.  In order to distract myself from watching democracy end, I have started reading the Complete Works of Sherlock Holmes.  Why?  

Mostly, because I want to compare Sherlock Holmes to modern mystery writing.  After all, Holmes was written before the clear convention arose that you must be able to solve the mystery with only the clues that the author has provided.*  Arthur Conan Doyle frequently breaks this not-yet-invented rule by have Holmes bring in all sorts of revelations that the reader had no way of knowing about.  But at the same time, the Sherlock Holmes cannon, especially the short stories, do show the beginnings of that rule -- most famously in the case of the dog that did not bark. 

In fact, Doyle can be said to introduce that convention in his very first novel when we first learn of Holmes profession.  He is a detective, but neither a police detective nor a private detective.  Instead, he is a "consulting detective."  When the police or a private detective agency are unable to resolve a mystery, they refer people to Sherlock Holmes to resolve it.  Watson is astonished.  “But do you mean to say,” I said, “that without leaving your room you can unravel some knot which other men can make nothing of, although they have seen every detail for themselves?”  To which the egotistical Holmes responds, "Quite so."  

If Holmes can unravel a mystery without leaving his room based on what other people tell him, then it would seem to follow that the reader should also be able to do the same, having, after all, the same clues that Holmes does.  Or rather, that might work in a movie.  In the written word, Holmes invariably subjects his visitors to the Sherlock scan and picks up all sorts of details that Watson as narrator invariably misses.

We first meet Holmes in A Study in Scarlet.  Watson gives a brief and decidedly incomplete rundown on his own background. He got his degree in medicine at the University of London in 1878 and became an army surgeon.  He served in Afghanistan and took a bullet that shattered his shoulder bone and grazed the subclavian artery.  When recovering from his wound, he came down with enteric fever, had a long and life-threatening illness, and was discharged to England.  He arrived with his health in ruins, not knowing anyone who could take in him in, and getting by on eleven shilling and sixpence a day.  That was presumably a pension for invalid army veterans.   Watson does not explain anything about his background before he got his medical degree and, if he knows no one in England, where his family is.  Presumably his father was in imperial service in some capacity and the family went from one posting to another and never put down roots.

Unable to afford a hotel, Watson looks for a roommate and is referred to Sherlock Holmes.  A comment on Holmes, here. I think of his age as about 45.  This may be because of the age of actors who play him, but it also fits well with the character -- young enough to be physically vigorous, but old enough to have mastered all the fields of study and written all the monographs that Holmes lays claim to.  When we first meet Holmes, the author seems to assume someone significantly younger.  He spends much of his time in the chemistry lab and dissection room, so Watson at first thinks he is a medical student.  His young age is also confirmed toward the end of the novel when the killer refers to Holmes as "this young man."

Watson's situation is a difficult one -- his health too poor to go out, not knowing anyone to drop in, his whole existence caught up in his morose and uncommunicative roommate.  Holmes spends much of his time at the chemistry labs or dissection rooms, or on long walks.  When not active, he is prone to fits of near-catatonic inactivity.  (The modern reader might suspect that Holmes is bipolar).  The two men share an apartment with a sitting room and two bedrooms.  Holmes receives frequent visitors, but invariably asks Watson to withdraw when they arrive.  The visitors, it should be noted, represent a wide cross section of London society although, of course, all of them can afford to pay a detective.  

Watson learns of Holmes' line of work after reading an article he wrote about the science of deduction.  Soon after, they receive a call from Lestrade and Gregson, two Scotland Yard detectives who are among Holmes' most frequent visitors asking him to investigate a very strange murder.

The first Sherlock Holmes mystery ensues.  I plan to write an extended series about Sherlock Holmes, primarily the extent to which one can resolve his mysteries by the clues in the story, but also about the wide cross section of London society that he meets.

_________________________________________________

*Also before the convention that there always has to be at least one murder in the story.
 

At Least Two Encouraging Developments

 

Naturally our side is thrilled at the latest election results -- a mini-blue wave, and a hopeful harbinger for 2026.  And that is all fine and good so far as it goes.  But to me the question was never about election results but how far Trump will go to overturn them.  

By that standard, I was not too concerned about this election.  I expected it to be fair and honest and the results to stand.  Not that much is at stake, after all.  It is 2026 and 2028 I am worried about.  The most reassuring development in our country since 2020 is the clear pattern that Republicans not named Trump running for an office other than President will accept defeat.  And it appears that at least this time around, Trump will also accept defeat.  After all, no federal offices are on the line this time, and unwelcome development in state and local elections do not really threaten his power.  Instead of crying fraud and seeking to overturn the outcome, he dismissed it as the result of himself not being on the ballot and the shutdown, which Trump himself orchestrated but naturally refused to accept responsibility for.

This is not to say we are out of the woods by any means.  Trump has taken a narcissistic injury from this election and will no doubt do something really bad in response.

The other encouraging development is that the Supreme Court seemed skeptical of Trump's claim to unlimited tariff power.  This is encouraging in more ways than one.  I was originally not too alarmed about Trump's tariffs, seeing them more as a matter of policy than power, and expecting that they would hurt the economy in ways that undermined, rather than enhanced, Trump's power.  Well, I was wrong.  Tariffs are clearly a power issue, both in terms of Trump using them to evade Congress's power of the purse and in his using them to bully the rest of the world, especially allies.  

Up till now I have assumed that the Supreme Court was giving the President unlimited power in the assumption that it would never be a Democrat again.  Donald Trump would do whatever was necessary, up to and including the use of military force, to ensure that such a thing could never happen.

But a less alarming interpretation is possible.  It may be that the Supreme Court is merely granting powers that it is confident a Democrat would never want to use, such as the power to fire federal employees and refuse to spend duly appropriated funds.  These are asymmetrical powers that a Republican president would freely wield and a Democrat would not.*  But the power of the tariff is one that a hypothetical future Democrat might also want, so the Supreme Court is skeptical.  

_________________________________
*Although that is no longer so clear, at least where ICE is concerned.