Republican leaders opposed to Trump are unleashing 100-day campaign beginning with the Wisconsin primary.

The NYT reports.

I'm glad to see that Wisconsin looks important, but I don't understand what these people think they can do. Spend a lot of money on ads? Ads don't seem to be working.

Here's Frank Luntz making that point — the ads don't work — and showing an ad:



And here's an ad that came out recently that seemed to enthuse some people (whether it works within the range of those who might vote for Trump is another matter):

"For hours, the protesters — about two dozen in total — parked their cars in the middle of the road, unfurling banners reading 'Dump Trump'..."

"... and 'Must Stop Trump," and chanting 'Trump is hate.' Traffic was backed up for miles, with drivers honking in fury. Protesters were also chanting, 'Donald Trump, shut it down, Phoenix is the people's town.'"

The anti-Trump protesters remind me of the anti-Walker protesters I saw here in Wisconsin in 2011. They seem so close to their own grievance and anger that they have lost track of how it looks and feels from farther back, and they unwittingly strengthen the target of their protest.

"I thought we were going to die. I really did. And I didn’t care if I died..."

"... as long as I could save her and get her out of there, that’s all I cared about... I’ve lived [in Framingham] my whole life and I never imagined anything like this could happen just walking down the street....”

Donald Trump "doesn’t like invidious comparisons but he’s cool with being called an authoritarian," writes Maureen Dowd...

... paraphrasing her own question to Trump. He answered: 

"We need strength in this country... We have weak leadership. Hillary is pathetically weak. She got us into Libya and she got us into Benghazi and she’s probably got 40 eggheads sitting around a table telling her what to do, and then she was sleeping when the phone call came in from the ambassador begging for help. You know, the 3 a.m. phone call?"

Trump also told Dowd that "Hillary is the one disrupting my rallies. It’s more Hillary than Sanders, I found out," and...

He said he would soon unleash the moniker that he thought would diminish Hillary, the way “Little Marco” and “Lyin’ Ted” torched his Republican rivals; “I want to get rid of the leftovers first.”

Other shots taken:

About Elizabeth Warren: "I think it’s wonderful because the Indians can now partake in the future of the country. She’s got about as much Indian blood as I have. Her whole life was based on a fraud. She got into Harvard and all that because she said she was a minority."

About Mitt Romney: "He’s a jealous fool and not a bright person.... He’s good looking. Other than that, he’s got nothing."

About Obama: "Obama, who is African-American, has done nothing for African Americans." (That came in response to a question from Dowd which she paraphrases as asking "if he realized that, in riling up angry whites, he has pulled the scab off racism.")

"[Adam] LaRoche’s abrupt decision to leave behind his baseball career because his employer wanted to limit the time his 14-year-old son could spend at the ballpark..."

"... has reverberated well beyond the White Sox’s spring training headquarters in Glendale, Ariz. LaRoche’s conclusion, that he would rather abandon his $13 million salary than go through a year without his son by his side, has been featured on TV’s morning talk shows and been the subject of debate and discussion in baseball clubhouses and corporate board rooms, not to mention across social media: About children in the workplace. The demands of modern-day parenting. The value of formal education vs. time together as a family. And, in LaRoche’s unique case, the wisdom of having his child with him for almost every one of 162 regular season games, not to mention the entirety of spring training...."

From "How Adam LaRoche’s decision to quit quickly became bigger than baseball" in WaPo (which you can read without a subscription if you use private browsing).

I haven't read any of the debate and discussion, but it seems obvious to me that bringing a child to work should be a some-time thing, not an everyday practice. I think it's insane to present LaRoche as a great dad for what he did and insisted on continuing to do.

LaRoche and his wife, Jennifer, always have removed their two children from school in their home state of Kansas and received educational help from a tutoring service to keep the family together during the baseball season. LaRoche not only believed having Drake with him at the ballpark didn’t hinder his son’s education, he felt it enhanced it.

Even if it was good for the child, why should one child have complete access to what is a shared workplace? The father and son had side-by-side lockers. I see that the players all say they supported LaRoche, but how is any player supposed to come out and oppose this man who's dug in so deeply in the fatherhood game? Objecting to what seemingly loving parents are doing with their kids is a fool's errand.

ADDED: An underlying problem here is the designated hitter.  That occurred to me as I was reading the NYT article, which quotes Dwier Brown, who acted in the movie "Field of Dreams" and wrote a book titled "If You Build It." He said: "Most other sports don’t have that opportunity for contemplation and time... When you’re sitting at a ballpark with your dad, you have time to talk. It’s not like a Raiders game." Time to talk? Sitting? There's a lot of sitting when you're the DH, as LaRoche was.

Scott Adams talks to Reason TV about the way Donald Trump is a "Master Wizard."

"Humans are essentially robots that are made of meat. In that world, emotion and influence and all the techniques that Trump uses are really the only things that explain what's happening in the world. Reason will never be a satisfying explanation of what you see," he says — funnily — to the journal that calls itself Reason.

Here's a Reason interview with Adams from last fall. And here's his book "How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life."

"For some in the US This Land is Your Land is an alternative national anthem. And when you’re faced with a threat to democracy and liberty like Donald Trump..."

"... to find out that the guy who wrote it was on to this shit 70 years ago, it gives you the sense that we are right to take a stand. There’s a connection here between Trump Sr and Trump Jr, and that connection is the exploitation of working people. And at the moment Trump Jr is exploiting working people’s fears. He’s a classic blowhard."

Said lefty songster Billy Bragg, talking about Woody Guthrie, who, long ago, was a tenant in a building belonging to Donald Trump's father Fred. Well, just about nobody loves his landlord, and now we're seeing Guthrie’s "series of bitter missives, which have only just come to light, accusing his landlord of having encoded in his contracts regulations evincing not just a cynical treatment of the working class but a bigotry towards black Americans." I'm quoting that from The Guardian, which gives us no actual quotes from what Guthrie wrote in what I take it are songs about his landlord, not "missives" in the sense of letters to the landlord.

That makes me think of "Dear Landlord," which sounds like the beginning of a letter, but is a song lyric, by Bob Dylan, who seems to be the one person who did love his landlord, the landlord in question being — if I'm reading this thing right — God.

Anyway, here's a NYT piece about the Woody Guthrie/Fred Trump connection, and we are talking about songs, songs with lyrics like: "I suppose/Old Man Trump knows/Just how much/Racial Hate/he stirred up/In the bloodpot of human hearts/When he drawed/That color line/Here at his/Eighteen hundred family project...."

Comedians have been trying to wreck Trump with mockery, but it doesn't work.

And that's terrifying, explains Scott Timberg at Salon, using this bit from "The Late Show," when Stephen Colbert got the real Donald Trump on the telephone. Colbert had an opportunity "to skewer Trump hard."

Somehow, Trump has found a way to inoculate himself from criticism....

He makes fun of his own tie, he praises the state where he’s appearing, South Carolina, in his usual vague language (“It’s a great, great place”), and drops his comically familiar campaign slogan (“We’re gonna make America great again.”). Colbert brings up Trump’s tendency to work blue, and the billionaire developer explains, coolly, why he sometimes uses sharp language. And it makes utterly no sense....

When the two discuss politics, Trump mentions that he would, if he were president, push for a new Supreme Court justice to replace Antonin Scalia even if it was an election year — and then contradicts himself by saying that President Obama should wait for the next president to do it. (Colbert doesn’t call him on it the fact that this makes no sense, either.) Alright, sounds good!

The audience had its laugh and Colbert got some good lines across. But the strange thing is that Trump won the exchange. He was mocked, laughed at, and booed by the audience. “You’re not making any friends here, Donald,” Colbert said as the crowd groaned. He may not have convinced the liberals and progressives gathered in the studio. But for a lot of people watching on television, this came across as just riffing. For them, this was just fun. For Trump it certainly seemed to be....

What’s dangerous is that Trump can get in and out of an interview with someone as sharp as Colbert without being demolished. Colbert fans came out of this thinking their guy won, but Trump fans have every reason to think the same thing.

This really shouldn't be a surprise. Trump should be most comfortable with comic entertainers. How many hours has he gone back and forth with Howard Stern? There's no comic interviewer sharper than Stern. Trump is comfortable walking into comic abuse, so he's playing Colbert, et al., for free media coverage. If these leftish comedians think they're laying a trap for him, they are fools. But they get their ratings, and the in-house crowd laughs with them, so they don't feel the pain.

"Like Dylan, he writes his own songs, so of course he will write a wonderful book."

Said the literary agent for Prince, whose book deal was just announced. The publisher was garrulous: "Prince is a towering figure blah blah blah..." The 5-foot-2 rock star was laconic: "You still read books, right?"

Rock memoirs have proved a lucrative niche for publishers as baby boomers snap up books by their favorite performers. The gold standards in terms of both sales and literary qualify include “Life” by Keith Richards (776,683 print copies sold, according to Nielsen), “Chronicles” by Bob Dylan (560,706) and “Just Kids” by Patti Smith (466,635).

I've read all 3 of those — and Eric Clapton's book too — so I guess I'm in the niche. And I love Prince. But the author needs to tell good stories on himself — like Richards, Smith, and Clapton — or have an endless assortment of interesting things — like Bob Dylan. I don't know if Prince is up for any of that. He seems so secretive and enigmatic. But it's surely not enough to "like Dylan" write ones own songs. Song lyrics are song lyrics for a reason. They go with singing and lots of instrumentation. When read, what seemed sublime is often stupid.

I did a chapter-by-chapter series of blog posts when I read Dylan's "Chronicles" in 2004. Sample:

Dylan seems to have gotten some ideas from Harry Truman, whom his parents took him to see when he was a kid: "Truman was gray hatted, a slight figure, spoke in the same kind of nasal twang and tone like a country singer. I was mesmerized by his slow drawl and sense of seriousness and how people hung on every word he was saying." Pp. 230-231....

A Bob Dylan political opinion: "I wasn't that comfortable with all the psycho polemic babble. It wasn't my particular feast of food. Even the current news made me nervous. I liked the old news better." P. 283.

UPDATE: Meade and I are discussing the meaning of "Just look for the purple banana til they put us in the truck." I say it was what was a typical Prince message: Live it up because you're going to die. The banana is obviously the man's penis and the truck is the hearse that takes you away. Meade says the truck is the vagina. He agreed about the banana. 

"Hulk Hogan Awarded $115 Million in Privacy Suit Against Gawker."

The NYT reports.

Samantha Barbas, a law professor at the University at Buffalo whose research focuses on the intersection of the First Amendment, media and privacy, said... “For a jury to say that a celebrity has a right to privacy that outweighs the public’s ‘right to know,’ and that a celebrity sex tape is not newsworthy, represents a real shift in American free press law”...

The top-rated comment tops the lawprof:

This decision will have a chilling effect on the dissemination of private sex tapes involving professional wrestlers. A sad day for America.

"The effect of population density on life satisfaction was therefore more than twice as large for low-IQ individuals than for high-IQ individuals."

"[M]ore intelligent individuals were actually less satisfied with life if they socialized with their friends more frequently."

"They were stuck together like two hot dogs… so I poured a little hot water on them and help them out."

"They’ll be alright. It was just a little hot water."

"Hipsters are an uptight bunch. They like dance music, but they lack the sense of abandon that made raving so much fun...."

"Organised and particular, hipsters know to detest big business. Instead, they fetishise the authenticity of an independent operator. Yet they expect a level of service that can only be delivered by a multinational corporation.... Perhaps the most depressing trend of all is the introduction of the ‘safe space’ policy.... Once, the rave was supposed to feel like a distinctly unsafe space, even if the danger was illusory.... Under the hipsters’ watch, dance music has become tedious and diluted... I’m out."

Says George Hull.

The new Emerson poll has Trump way up in New York, at 69%, with Cruz at 25%, and Kasich at a ridiculous 1%.

What was the point of winning Ohio if not to show that he could do well in places like New York? 1%!

But Trump has a long way to go if he's to beat Hillary in New York, which he's bragged he can do. The poll has Clinton up 55% to 36%. (She beats Cruz 61% to 30%.)

"Are you white?"

That's from the NYT, which seems to be forefronting whiteness these days. (I wonder why. Trying to get the jump on Trump? Isn't this unhealthily racial? Trump never mentions white people, does he? It's the people who are worried about Trump who talk about white people. Should they be doing that? I know they must feel it's okay because they're known to be so solidly liberal, but there's something wrong with that feeling, in my book.) 

Here's the article, "'Bro'-liferation," which begins:

Are you a young or youngish man who prefers the company of other men? Platonically, platonically. (For the most part.) Are you currently wearing — or have you ever worn — baggy shorts? A baseball cap? A polo shirt? White sneakers? Sunglasses on your head? All at the same time? Are you white? And these other men whose company you enjoy, do you guys drink and watch sports together? Are they white, too?...

Then there's "As Hillary Clinton Sweeps States, One Group Resists: White Men," by Patrick Healy. The article is illustrated with a photograph of what I assume is the NYT's idea of a typical Hillary-resistant white man. Is he old? Is he sitting at a bar? Is he alone? Is he drinking a beer? Is he wondering where's his America? I inferred the last question. The answer to all the other questions is, naturally, yes.

In dozens of interviews in diners, offices and neighborhoods across the country, many white male Democrats expressed an array of misgivings, with some former supporters turning away from her now.... [M]ost said they simply did not think Mrs. Clinton cared about people like them.

“She’s talking to minorities now, not really to white people, and that’s a mistake,” said Dennis Bertko, 66, a construction project manager in Youngstown, Ohio, as he sipped a draft beer at the Golden Dawn Restaurant in a downtrodden part of town. “She could have a broader message. We would have listened. Instead, she’s talking a lot about continuing Obama’s policies,” he said. “I just don’t necessarily agree with all of the liberal ideas of Obama.”

I can't tell if Bertko brought up whiteness or if he said "white people" because he was asked. It seems as though he's saying he doesn't like racial politics, the appeals to subgroups, and would prefer a "broader," inclusive message that grouped everyone together, not that he wanted special attention for white people.

Mr. Bertko said that he rarely crossed party lines but that he voted for Donald J. Trump, who is making a strong pitch to disaffected white men by assailing free-trade agreements that Mrs. Clinton once supported. “I know a lot of guys who are open to Trump,” he said.

Again, see my point? Did Bertko bring up a "strong pitch to disaffected white men," or did the NYT insert that amplification into the center of what Bertko did say, which is that he and guys he knows are "open to Trump"? I'm guessing it's the latter, and that's unfair to Bertko, and it feels to me like intentional anti-Trump propaganda.

[S]ome Democratic leaders say the party needs white male voters to win the presidency, raise large sums of money and, like it or not, maintain credibility as a broad-based national coalition. To win a general election, Mrs. Clinton would rely most heavily on strong turnout from blacks, Hispanics, women and older voters. Though she won among white men in Arkansas, Alabama and Tennessee, and tied in Texas, some Democratic officials and pollsters say they fear that without a stronger strategy, Mrs. Clinton could perform as poorly among white men as Walter Mondale, who drew just 32 percent in 1984, or even George McGovern, who took 31 percent in 1972.

“Her most serious relationship problem is with white men, on a policy issue front but also stylistically, and she is at real risk for running worse than the average Democrat with white males,” said Peter Hart, a veteran Democratic pollster.

So, the analysts speak frankly and openly about the need to win over white people. Somehow that's still socially acceptable. How different the commentators would sound if they didn't feel free to talk about everyone's race!

Do the candidates ever openly talk about white people? I think that's not socially acceptable. Even Donald Trump, who flouts "political correctness," doesn't say "white people." He may brag "Muslims love me" or "The Hispanic people love me," but I don't think he ever says "White people love me." I mean, if he did, a huge deal would be made of it.

Anyway, apparently, Hillary's people know she needs to get white men, and the NYT wants to help her. Lord knows what will get written in this effort. Let's notice.

I was wrong.

I don't often use my I was wrong tag, but I was distinctly wrong about something that 2 commenters helped me see.

In a post 2 days ago, I took 2 commas out of a sentence written by Scott Adams. He wrote "Trump is well on his way to owning the identities of American, Alpha Males, and Women Who Like Alpha Males." For what I thought was clarity, I changed it to "Trump is well on his way to owning the identities of American Alpha Males and Women Who Like Alpha Males."

I missed the first commenter who showed my mistake, but noticed, just now, Kristo Miettinen, who said: "Ann, by taking out the commas you changed Scott's meaning. In Scott's taxonomy of identities 'American' and 'alpha male' are two separate things."

I still thought I was right and said:

... I think, in one sense, "male" is the noun and "American" and "alpha" are adjectives, which would make putting a comma between "American" and "alpha" the conventional punctuation. But, like you, I see "alpha male" as a single entity, really a noun. Then "American" modifies "alpha male." Taking out the comma makes that clearer. The picture were supposed to have is of one of the alpha males of America. Think of the animal called the American Water Spaniel. You wouldn't even consider writing "American, water spaniel." 

I noticed the earlier commenter, frose, who'd said:

Professor,

You're usually spot-on with grammar and punctuation questions, but I think you erred this time in removing the commas in the Scott Adams statement. I believe Adams is using Oxford commas to delineate three distinct "identities" -- American[s], Alpha Males, and Women Who Like Alpha Males. I believe Adams erred in leaving off the "s" in "Americans" and that "Americans" is in contrast to "immigrants," which is one of the identities "owned" by Clinton."

Adams quote: "Trump is well on his way to owning the identities of American, Alpha Males, and Women Who Like Alpha Males. Clinton is well on her way to owning the identities of angry women, beta males, immigrants, and disenfranchised minorities."

Because I didn't reread the full Adams quote, I still thought I was right and said:

I understand that idea, but I don't think that's what Adams meant to say. He's got 2 groups, not 3. One group is male and the other is female. The males are alpha and the females are the females who love them. There's no reason to dump "Americans" into that discussion. And the idea makes so little sense that I'm contemplating whether you're doing humor. If so, I get it. 

Finally, reading that second sentence — "Clinton is well on her way..." — I said:

Okay, I looked back at the context, and I can see that both of these commenters are making the same point.

"Trump is well on his way to owning the identities of American, Alpha Males, and Women Who Like Alpha Males. Clinton is well on her way to owning the identities of angry women, beta males, immigrants, and disenfranchised minorities."

"American" is one of the identities that Trump "owns." And he owns 2 others: Alpha Males and Women Who Like Alpha Males.

The identities Clinton owns are people who may be American citizens, but they don't have "American" as their identity.

I concede the point. I think you are right and didn't see it that way before.

Thanks for commenting!

Seriously, thanks. And thanks to all readers who've been interested enough in commas and meaning to read this whole post. Hello to all who've come this far — all you commas-and-meaning enthusiasts.

AND: Was an "s" was needed on "American"?, as frose said. The identity is "American." But everything else Adams lists is put in the plural. Parallelism would have helped me see "American" as a separate identity. And, of course, "Americans" could not be mistaken for an adjective, which was my original mistake. I think I'd like the 2 sentences best if all the identities were singular, so that each thing on the list calls up a specific archetype — the Angry Woman, etc.