Feeling the Nader

It may be temporary, since the big primaries are coming up that may decide the Democratic presidential nomination, but at the moment things look to be veering towards disaster because of conflict between the two candidates and their campaigns.

By all accounts the most recent debate was loud and acrimonious, with Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders shouting at each other simultaneously.  Can you even imagine Barack Obama shouting at someone in a debate?

As embarrassing as that behavior was, the sharpness of attacks and the stories coming out of the Sanders campaign in particular are alarming some observers with the possibility of a split party going into a fateful election, where pretty much the only possibility of losing it would be Democratic voters staying home.

In particular the Sanders campaign is making the argument that Hillary's delegate lead is based on primary wins that don't reflect the will of the party because they were in the red states South.  Or as Ed Kilgore ended his review of the debate:

Sanders seems to be trying out an argument that Clinton's nomination-contest victories are irrelevant because they happened at the wrong time (early in the process), the wrong place (the South), or with the wrong supporters (old Democrats rather than young independents).

If he goes over the brink into a claim that a pledged-delegate victory by Clinton is illegitimate, the Democratic convention could be nearly as divisive as the Republican confab looks sure to become. After tonight, the superior unity of Democrats is at least partially in question for the first time.

(Kilgore followed up with a piece dissecting this argument, finding the argument strange in that Hillary didn't win white southerners so much as African Americans, and one of her biggest wins was in Florida, a swing state.  The argument seemed to be saying that the young white voters Sanders was winning counted more than older and non-white voters Hillary was winning.)

Beyond this argument there were charges that Sanders supporters were getting a little too enthusiastic, making unfortunate metaphors about "corporate whores" and at least making noises about harassing delegates.

Paul Krugman for one saw Sanders righteousness turning into self-righteousness.   After evaluating Sanders' statements on the Big Banks as lacking realistic solutions, he wondered if this increasingly angry tone and Trumpish behavior was moving towards a schism in the party:

Is Mr. Sanders positioning himself to join the “Bernie or bust” crowd, walking away if he can’t pull off an extraordinary upset, and possibly helping put Donald Trump or Ted Cruz in the White House? If not, what does he think he’s doing?

The Sanders campaign has brought out a lot of idealism and energy that the progressive movement needs. It has also, however, brought out a streak of petulant self-righteousness among some supporters. Has it brought out that streak in the candidate, too?

The real problem then would be the feedback effect of Sanders encouraging the rigidity of his supporters, so that if he loses the nomination they won't vote for the Democratic nominee.

In other words, a number of observers are starting to feel the Nader.

Ralph Nader ran for President several times, but most notoriously in the year 2000 as the Green Party candidate.  Nader was a well-known public figure, an effective speaker who began his career as an heroic advocate.

 Meanwhile, the Green Party was growing, nowhere more conspicuously than here in far northern California.  Shortly after our arrival in Arcata, the Green Party actually took majority control of the city council.

So we heard a lot of the Green arguments for Nader, and against the Democratic candidate, Al Gore.  Apart from their ecological and economic issues (with which I had no major disagreements), they argued that there was no essential difference between Gore and Bush.  Or, as their bumper stickers declared, Gush and Bore.

I remember literally being in a fever sweat the night before election day, feeling helpless to effectively warn people about the mistake they were making in believing this.  I knew George W. Bush was dangerous, I could see it.  And I knew from experience that failing to elect the lesser of two evils meant that the greater evil took power.  (In that case it was Nixon.)  But I didn't see Gore as an evil--I saw past the media stereotypes--though I did see Bush that way.

And sure enough, the debacle of the first President dictated by a partisan Supreme Court could likely have been avoided if Nader voters in Florida had voted for Gore.

Later I attended a local meeting of Democrats and Greens who were attempting to reconcile.  I don't remember exactly when it was, but it was far enough long that everyone understood what a catastrophe Bush was.  The Greens were defensive and the Democrats were angry.  Eventually the meeting agreed to pursue common goals etc.

But after the 2000 election, the Green Party hereabouts and in California began a slow but precipitous decline.  As far as I know, there are no Greens on the Arcata city council now (their official biographies don't mention political affiliation) as the council has moved to the right.  In 2015, only five candidates endorsed by the Greens (though not all party members) were elected to any offices in Humboldt, and they were minor offices.  In the rest of California, the number was six.  The Green Party's influence was always greatest on the local and sometimes the state levels.  Not so much anymore.

Today, Bernie is very popular here.  At the last North County Fair I noted a buzz around the Sanders booth, and dead quiet at the Clinton table.  I see Bernie bumper stickers and signs, and none for Hillary.  But just what does that mean?

Some of it is obvious.  Like the campaign sign in the video store on H Street: Free College Tuition, Vote Bernie.  But in political terms it can be more complicated than support for a candidate based on whatever positions, or on attraction to a personality or belief in an individual.

Ed Kilgore has yet another pertinent post. He quotes a liberal journalist who posted on Talking Point Memo to say he backed Bernie, but wasn't sure he would continue to do so if Bernie looked like he actually could win the nomination.

Kilgore suggests this liberal isn't alone.  I've been hearing this for at least a couple of years: "Back Elizabeth Warren in the primary, vote for Hillary in the general."  Except Warren didn't run and Bernie did.

There are three reasons people take this approach.  First, the assumption that a farther left candidate wasn't going to win the nomination, but it was important to send a message, to influence Hillary and prep for the future.  Second (and not everyone who holds the first reason would agree with this) is that Bernie is great for representing these issues, but he hasn't shown he's ready for the Presidency.  The third reason is that if he were the Democratic nominee, he would lose.

The Sanders campaign is touting poll numbers that show that this last reason is not valid--that indeed, Bernie polls stronger than Hillary against the likely Republican candidates.  But there are strong reasons for not believing those numbers will hold up.  First, Sanders is still a kind of symbol, and otherwise an unknown quantity.  Which means that, second, the Republicans have not yet tried to define him, to run against him.

Their quiet is ominous.  Bernie Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist.  It's pretty remarkable that someone calling himself a socialist has gotten this far, and while that might be a good reflection on the times, it is probably also because the Republicans haven't said a word about it.  If he actually won the nomination, their currently whispered prayers would be answered.

The sludge they are preparing to throw at Hillary is nothing compared with what they would attempt to do to Bernie.  It used to be that Socialist meant Communist, and people felt about Communists about the way they feel about ISIS terrorists today.

After the success of McCarthyism in eradicating socialism from legitimate public dialogue in America, the rabid right has been so successful in moving that dialogue farther and farther to the right that since the Reagan 80s, the word "liberal" has taken on much of the sinister taint of the word Communist or at least socialist in the 50s.

Also consider that some Republicans continued to call Barack Obama a socialist, a radical, and unAmerican.  (That indeed was the establishment candidate Marco Rubio's claim.)  Consider then what they would do with a candidate who actually is--or at least who actually calls himself--a socialist.

There is no doubt that capitalism is coming up against its fatal flaws, which are its addiction to growth and its need to push costs off on the helpless in order to make a profit.  They do it with "cheap" or slave labor (just as they used to with actual slaves), and by benefiting from government spending on the infrastructure and the regulations that keep them in business, and by forcing costs onto future generations while depleting the ability of the planet to sustain life, through profligate use of natural resources, and the damage they cause to the planet's natural systems, to water, soil, air and climate.  Some of which others have to pay to clean up (usually in the future) while much of it everyone pays for with their health, their planet's bounty and its character, and with the depleted lives of their descendants.

Capitalism as it is now constituted is unlikely to be up to the challenges of the future, the climate crisis in particular.  Our economics will have to change.  Whether that is a large change to something like socialism (and of course, we already have many of the features that socialists have advocated for more than a century, and some other countries have even more) remains to be seen.

Though Sanders talks about a "revolution," his proposals are not quite worthy of the name.  Still, there is obviously a hunger for addressing the issues of economic inequality and economic injustice that Sanders has focused, and that's good.  Somebody has to be talking about these things, and somebody should keep alive such notions as a carbon tax.

So if Bernie Sanders can convince a majority of Democratic voters in New York, Pennsylvania, etc. to California sufficient to a plurality of delegates that he should be the nominee, then perhaps the "revolution" he speaks about is real. (Though it falls far short of what a revolution might be.)  But these attempts to delegitimize the outcome of prior primaries, to intimidate superdelegates and to demonize the opponent won't prove it.  Quite the opposite.

Susan Surandon, supporting Nader in 2000, supports
Sanders now--and refuses to say she'd vote for another
Democratic nominee.

And with the confrontational nature of this campaign--between, it must be said, two candidates who seem to lack a sense of humor--threatening to damage the eventual nominee's chances in November, it's getting into Naderite territory.  The result of which could again be the election of a disastrous President--and we may not be able to afford another one--as well as a serious setback for the very issues and politics that Sanders and his supporters advocate.

Hillary Clinton is hardly the ideal candidate, in any number of ways.  But at least her campaign is locked into supporting and continuing the policies and approach of President Obama.  Up until recently, Sanders was effectively focusing her attention on his issues as well.  Lately, as he attacked her, she has become defensive on these issues in a way that is the opposite of the desired effect.

Maybe this phase will be over by Tuesday night.  But the longer it continues and the more extreme it gets, the more dangerous it becomes, and the more likely to spiral out of control.

#24 and #73

What an amazing night for basketball fans.  Especially in California.

It was the wonder of the past and of the future, both dazzling in the present moment.

After 20 years, Kobe Bryant played his last NBA game Wednesday night at home in LA. An old guy near 40 and coming off injuries, his farewell tour performances were often cameos, in the worst Lakers season in their history. But in several games late in the season, there were flashes of the old Kobe. He scored in the 30 point range a few times.

Wednesday the Lakers were playing Utah, a team that until game time was hoping for a playoff berth, but Houston had nabbed it. The Lakers players fed Kobe the ball and urged him to shoot just about every time down the court. But these advantages mean nothing unless you make the baskets. And Kobe did. Drives to the hoop, steals and one-man fast breaks, and three pointers. He hit two three pointers in the last minute and a half of the game, to give the Lakers their first lead. And improbably, they won.

Even more improbably, Kobe Bryant had scored 60 points in his last NBA game, 23 in the fourth quarter alone. Nobody his age had ever scored even 40 in their last NBA game. Kobe, who once scored 81 and had a string of 50 plus nights, hasn't scored 60 since 2009. He retires as the NBA's third leading scorer. He was praised before the game by Magic Johnson. He even hugged Shaq, who was one of Kobe's former teammates on hand for the occasion.

I remember those 3 championships with Kobe and Shaq.  I still have tapes of Kobe's later two (all with Phil Jackson as his coach.)  And I watched every game I could of Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls in the 90s (which was alot since I had cable TV then, and in Pittsburgh the package included the Chicago station that broadcast the Bulls) when they set the NBA record for most wins in a season at 72. (The old record had been 69.)

Kobe's career had a storybook ending Wednesday night. Now Kobe is past, and so is that Bulls record.   Because the future is at Golden State.

On Wednesday night, the Golden State Warriors won their 73rd game, breaking the single season record for victories nobody thought would ever be broken. They had to win their last four games to do it, including two against another team having a remarkable year, the San Antonio Spurs.

Steph Curry scored 46 points, including 10 three pointers. The record for 3 pointers in a season was set last year (by Curry) at 289. Earlier this season Curry became the first NBA player to hit 300. And Wednesday, he became the first to hit more than 400. He finished the regular season with 402.

This storybook season ended where it should have, at home at Oracle Arena in Oakland, California.

Next weekend the Warriors begin the playoffs as the top seed, beginning their quest for a second championship in a row. That's their immediate future, with a pretty bright future as a team.

What a night for basketball.

The Future of the Climate Crisis is the Climate Crisis Future

It's finally beginning to sink in.  The future is going to be very different, because of the climate crisis.

Global heating is going to have consequences for the near future, since it is caused by past greenhouse gases pollution.  We should be preparing to address the effects, but apparently we're just starting to understand the breadth and depth of those effects.

From Reuters last week:

Climate change can be expected to boost the number of annual premature U.S. deaths from heat waves in coming decades and to increase mental health problems from extreme weather like hurricanes and floods, a U.S. study said on Monday.

"I don't know that we've seen something like this before, where we have a force that has such a multitude of effects," Surgeon General Vivek Murthy told reporters at the White House about the study. "There's not one single source that we can target with climate change, there are multiple paths that we have to address."

Heat waves were estimated to cause 670 to 1,300 U.S. deaths annually in recent years. Premature U.S. deaths from heat waves can be expected to rise more than 27,000 per year by 2100, from a 1990 baseline, one scenario in the study said. The rise outpaced projected decreases in deaths from extreme cold.

Extreme heat can cause more forest fires and increase pollen counts and the resulting poor air quality threatens people with asthma and other lung conditions. The report said poor air quality will likely lead to hundreds of thousands of premature deaths, hospital visits, and acute respiratory illness each year by 2030.

Climate change also threatens mental health, the study found. Post traumatic stress disorder, depression, and general anxiety can all result in places that suffer extreme weather linked to climate change, such as hurricanes and floods. More study needs to be done on assessing the risks to mental health, it said."

These effects include more widespread disease borne by insects whose warm-weather range is increased, which may include the increasingly worrisome Zika virus.

Science Daily offers more details from this multi-agency, peer reviewed report, particularly about the mental effects.  But it also includes this interesting key to the future:

Emerging evidence also shows those who are actively involved in climate change adaptation, or mitigation, might experience considerable health and well-being benefits, the report adds.

Translated into human, it means that people who work at addressing the causes and effects of the climate crisis  are likely to benefit themselves as well as others.  But doing good--and doing something--may well provide more than better health.  Either gradually or suddenly but pretty certainly eventually, a lot of the economy is going to be devoted to addressing the effects and the causes of the climate crisis.  That means more jobs--and what may well be seen as more vocations, more calls to service--in areas like clean energy, public health and new infrastructure.  (See the efforts for 1 million climate change jobs.)

The barriers to understanding and accepting all this are due partly to the climate inside.  In addition to denial, this commentator suggests dissociative behavior in response to predictions and now the realities of the climate crisis are due to societal trauma going back generations.  (He even uses the authentic version of a widely misquoted Jung quotation.) He suggests this trauma must be recognized and dealt with before society can really face up to the climate crisis future.

That future of dramatic effects may be coming soon.  In addition to last week's news about the possible effects of faster polar melting, there's this new study that suggests the cooling effect of clouds has been overstated. "If the findings are borne out by further research, it suggests that making progress against global warming will be even harder," notes the NY Times.

There is a range of uncertainty in all these figures.  But they can safely be regarded as minimums.  That's only prudent.  While scientists and statisticians do their research, leaders and parents ought to be facing up to the general outline of this future, dominated by the climate crisis and its effects.  People will live and work in this future, and how to do that constructively, to minimize suffering and try to prevent even worse outcomes, is the work of the future that starts now.

Your Moment of Swing

Ready for a time out from whatever angst's ya?  Here's a treat from 1941--the Glenn Miller Orchestra doing "Chattanooga Choo Choo" from the movie "Sun Valley Serenade."  But don't stop when the song seems to be over, because the second half is a special treat--the fabulous Nicholas Brothers dance team, and a very young Dorothy Dandridge.  It was nominated for the Best Song Oscar and became the first certified Gold Record.  Hermes Pan staged the movie's dances--he worked with Fred Astaire on almost all of his movies.  It's got great music, charming singing and dynamite dancing---how could you keep from smiling?

And yes, that is a young Milton Berle, who plays the band's manager (he does his own skiing stunts, too.)  Besides being one of only two movies Glenn Miller did, it was a Sonja Henie vehicle.  Her act was skating, which she does especially at the end of the movie. Not long after the movie was released, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor brought the U.S. into World War II and shortly afterwards, an over-age Glenn Miller joined the army.  Just three years after this movie, he was entertaining troops in Europe when his plane went down crossing the English channel and was never found.

Tonight's Notes

CNN: Keystone pipeline leak estimate grows to 16,800 gallons of oil

New York Times: New York Moves on Restricting Costumed Characters in Times Square



And the big news around here is the deal to remove Oregon dams to help the health of the rivers and especially the salmon.  Bloomberg:

The Obama administration, the governors of California and Oregon and PacifiCorp will instead pursue decommissioning of the dams administratively through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell and others said at a signing ceremony held at the mouth of the Klamath River.

Meanwhile, federal and state agencies, the company, Native American tribal governments, the Klamath Water Users Association, environmental groups and others who negotiated the expired agreement continued to collaborate to move the dam removal project and restoration forward, Jewell said.

“Tearing out the four dams on the Klamath will be a huge leap forward for the river,” Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) said in a written statement. “It will open up hundreds of miles of salmon spawning habitat, get rid of shallow reservoirs that trap warm water and cause algae blooms, and help finally repair a long stream of injustices to the tribes and communities along the river.”

Today's Notes

The average temp here for April 6 is 56 degrees.  The highest recorded temp was 70.  Yesterday---April 6, 2016--it got to 80.  We're close to today's record as well, but probably won't surpass it.

The current spat between Bernie Sanders and Hillary is a bit troubling.  Hillary challenged Bernie's qualifications, though she never in fact said he was "unqualified." Bernie has however made headlines by saying Hillary is unqualified.  This is a rhetorical exercise that he will probably walk back in the next debate.  But even in the furor of Hillary's famous 3 am in the White House ad challenging Senator Barack Obama's experience in 2008, Obama never said she was unqualified, nor as far as I recall did she say that of him.

 "Unqualified" is making headlines, mostly because one of Hillary's prime arguments is that she is more qualified, and because "qualified" is a major deal, and because the charge puts her in the company of Trump as unqualified, and lastly because she's a woman.  Bernie has gone too far this time.

Other matters: President Obama on the threat to the judicial integrity central to American justice because of the blatantly partisan political refusal by Senate Republicans to consider the appointment of Garland to be Supreme Court justice.

Jonathan Chiat on how Ted Cruz is a terrible candidate for President, even if he is less terrible than Donald Trump.  And Chiat yesterday--pretty interesting piece on the pragmatism of black voters over the years (and why they aren't supporting Bernie in the primaries.)

News Flash! We Have an Actual President, and He's Doing Stuff

Lost in the flow of desperate nonsense called the 2016 primary campaign are some real achievements by the actual President of the United States.

President Obama's trip to Cuba for instance will have lasting consequences for that country, the US, and relations with the rest of the Latin countries.  His address to the Cuban people alone was historic and influential.  His visit and all that followed broke some of Cuba's isolation, and is already having political as well as cultural consequences there.

At the start of his presidency, Obama started work on enacting a grand vision of a nuclear free world.  But it's been a little forward and maybe more back in recent years.  Russia continues to bandy about the possibility of  nuclear war, and has developed new nuclear weapons and delivery systems.  Its military operations in Syria, and especially its bombing missions, have fit the classic profile of a test-run of new technologies.

All of this was evident at the recent nuclear summit, which Russia did not attend.  But the good news perhaps is that the partnership Obama has forged with China on addressing the climate crisis has involved that country in at least talking about the need to limit and reduce nuclear weapons in the world.  The Summit focused on keeping nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists, and ended with an agreement.

And while GOPers prattle about torture and demonizing Muslims as their response to terrorist acts, President Obama has led an effective effort against ISIS that in recent months has depleted its leadership.  His recommendations for the future are reality-based and practical, such as better international information-sharing.

Domestically, while Obamacare is a success that surprises even its supporters, and the U.S. economy is adding jobs and finally income to the less than wealthy, President Obama took another big step towards economic justice with rules that penalize companies for various practices that allow companies to avoid US taxes and move profits overseas.  Despite GOPer grousing, he made the case Tuesday.

And there is likely more to come in what Jonathan Chiat called Obama's Last Lap. It's unfortunate that the momentarily outrageous sucks up all the attention, but then again, maybe it's a good thing that all these accomplishments with lasting consequences are being effected without turmoil, hiding in plain sight.

Meanwhile, President Obama is providing some of the most trenchant evaluations of ongoing campaign rhetoric, from the rise of Trump to the harm that cockeyed proposals by Cruz and Trump is doing to American credibility in the world.  Plus he's had some words for media responsibility, which didn't go down too well among the pundits.

The Trump Card is the Joker

It's been wishful thinking so far, but now it may be happening.  Donald Trump is self-destructing, and his nomination by the Republican party is slipping away.

After so many have said so and been wrong, E. J. Dionne was brave enough to say it now, and I'm sure many more are thinking it.

Gabriel Sherman's insightful profile of the Trump for President operation suggests two reasons why this is happening, or maybe three.  Trump has been skillful and mesmerizing, and as Sherman writes, many of the outrageous positions he's taken have been the result of research--though that research was of the issues that most resonated on rabid right talk radio.

Sherman also reports what many have suggested--that Trump's political operation is very small and very inexperienced.

But three things have been happening.  Sherman writes that Trump seems very tired, and I've noticed this as well.  He's never been through anything like this, and it's wearing him down.

Second, at this stage of the campaign he's in over his head, or, to put it in today's jargon, outside his comfort zone.  He's being questioned, and he's answering, on topics not only beyond his experience or knowledge, but outside the rabid right radio-tested set of issues.

So now he's making pronouncements in his patented aggressive style that baffle everyone.  Tired, over his head and outside his core issues, he isn't resonating--he's just raving.

Some of his extreme assertions have some supporters, though few and fringe.  Others are just lunatic ravings.  And dangerous.

The test of this premise will be in the next several primaries.  The conventional wisdom is giving the Wisconsin primary to Cruz.  If Trump wins it, his chances for the nomination become strong again (and naysayers will be wrong again), especially since this is likely to buttress support in New York and other big states that follow.  If Cruz wins Wisconsin, he has the momentum, and Trump will have to stop him in New York, or his situation becomes dire.

The fractures in the Republican party have become so deep and open that in the last candidates forum, none of the three remaining candidates sounded like they would support the nominee if it wasn't them.  Trump has since said as well that if denied the nomination he might run anyway.  Somehow I don't think he will.

Few dispute that with Trump at the top of the ticket, the GOP will lose many congressional races and maybe governorships. They will most likely lose the Senate.  And judging by some of the extreme numbers against Trump summarized last week in the Washington Post ("Three-quarters of women view him unfavorably. So do nearly two-thirds of independents, 80 percent of young adults, 85 percent of Hispanics and nearly half of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.") he will lose the presidency.

Trump has triumphed by being the Joker, the wild card.  But he's in danger of becoming the joke.  Many Republicans are completely open about wanting to stop him.  They will however need the cooperation of voters. And if Trump loses the protection of his mystique and people start seeing him as a dangerous loudmouth crank, they may get it.

Update: I hadn't realized when I wrote this that Adam Gopnik at the New Yorker had even more pointedly referred to Trump as the Joker, more specifically the one in Batman (which I'd hoped was implied as a doubled image in my use.)  But Gopnik's piece is a fun read, especially as it begins with the saga of the prank petition to allow guns to be openly carried into the Republican National Convention.

The New Normal

The calendar says our rainy season is just about over, but the weather says it's been over for at least a week.  After all the El Nino hype and the weeks when the storms came one after another, this winter averaged out to be...average.

January and March were about 50% above normal each.  But February was dry, and December was only moist.  The lines of storms in March replenished many of the major reservoirs, and the Sierras got snow.  But when they measured the Sierras snowpack, it turned out to be average, or a little below.

Average is of course a vast improvement over last year, or the past several years.  That all this wasn't enough to bust the drought isn't too surprising.  But it brings up some uneasy questions.

For instance: if it took a very strong El Nino to bring us average rainfall, what's going to be "average" in the future?  We tend to associate "average" with "normal."  Both might denote a range of what's normal for our climate.  But what's next year going to be like, without an El Nino, and perhaps with the opposite?

"Average" has already changed, as each year's rainfall, or lack of it, gets added into the statistics from which an average is taken.  The nagging thought is that the new normal is going to be dry compared to what it used to be, and maybe too dry for this environment to remain the same.

In the long run, the North Coast was going to suffer the consequences of sea level rise, as much or more than other places.  (They say our sea level rise is already the highest in California.)  But in terms of climate, the foggy coast and other factors were said to protect the North Coast from extreme temperatures.  I'm not sure where rainfall fits into that.  But some say even the fog is declining, and therefore the redwoods and the ecosystem in general is vulnerable.  We're not getting a pass from global heating or the climate crisis.

And according to future averages, this past winter may turn out to have been a rainy one after all.

But a glance at the google news page (from New York: "Forecast: Extreme Weather on the Way," "UK Weather: Britain To Be Hotter Than Ibizza as temperature soar," Washington "Weather Alert: Extreme Winds, Cold Temps," "Severe Storms Spawn at least 20 Tornadoes From Plains to South")  reaffirms we are still blessed.

Meanwhile Back on Planet Earth...

The news is not good.

And no, this is not an April Fool's joke.

Little more than a week ago, a new study suggested that the planet is already heating to the point that an abrupt climate shift could be triggered, leading to enough sea level rise in fifty years--not centuries as most climate science says-- to force evacuations from coastal cities.  The New York Times summary included:

Their idea is that the initial melting of the great ice sheets will put a cap of relatively fresh water on the ocean surfaces near Antarctica and Greenland. That, they think, will slow or even shut down the system of ocean currents that redistributes heat around the planet and allows some of it to escape into space. Warmth will then accumulate in the deeper parts of the ocean, the scientists think, speeding the melting of parts of the ice sheets that sit below sea level.

The study, based in part on historical data, was immediately controversial not only for conclusions that contradict consensus climate science but for one of its chief authors: James Hansen.  When he was at NASA he was the gold standard for climate, but since he has left his job to become an advocate and critic of efforts to address the climate crisis, he's sometimes seen as the new James Lovelock--the pioneer who becomes an alarmist and maybe a bit of a crank.  However, as the Times story concludes, this study will be examined seriously and may well inspire more thorough examination of past and present climate data.

But just today (March 31) a completely different study came to a startlingly similar conclusion.  As the Washington Post led:

  Sea levels could rise nearly twice as much as previously predicted by the end of this century if carbon dioxide emissions continue unabated, an outcome that could devastate coastal communities around the globe, according to new research published Wednesday. The main reason? Antarctica.

Antarctic melting has largely not figured in previous calculations, but with new climate models that take current understanding of the Antarctic into consideration, sea level rise doubles--and faster as well.

The difference between the two studies is maybe a few decades and that it's less inevitable in this study than in Hansen's.  To coin a phrase, it's not dark yet--but it's getting there.

If emissions continue at a high rate, however, the outcome is basically the same.  Sea level rise will become serious in the next fifty years, and thereafter become catastrophic:

“Under the high emissions scenario, the 22nd century would be the century of hell,” Strauss said. “There would really be an unthinkable level of sea rise. It would erase many major cities and some nations from the map … That century would become the century of exodus from the coast.”

In terms of the political impact of these new studies, Jonathan Chiat's column title put the baseline succinctly: New Antarctic Melting Study Confirms Voting Republican Would Trigger Worldwide Catastrophe.  The column itself is a decent summary of the current situation, both in terms of positive steps to address the climate crisis, and how the challenge just got bigger with the finding of these studies, should they hold up.

Elizabeth Kolbert at the New Yorker provides context for this second study, but comes to the same political conclusion as Chiat.

Chiat may well be too optimistic in his suggestion that current policies set in motion will be sufficient to avoid global catastrophe.  But it's pretty certain that denying the climate crisis or refusing to address it will guarantee global catastrophe.  And some of the people who will experience it are alive right now.

Jim Harrison

Writer Jim Harrison is dead at the age of 78.  He is one of the great American writers of his generation, and unique in his evocation of non-urban America.  His poems, fictions, essays and interviews pulsed with a lively and engaged intelligence and humor.

 His most famous fiction is Legends of the Fall, but I believe his greatest achievement will prove to be his late 90s novel The Road Home, interlaced with an earlier work, Dalva, to form an 800 page epic that qualifies as much as any to be a Great American Novel.

There was a certain quality of elegy to The Road Home, and it seemed like the work of a lifetime in several senses.  Yet he kept writing for nearly another 20 years. And he was aware of what those years meant. The NPR story that ran on All Things Considered Sunday quoted one of his poems:

Before I was born I was water.
I thought of this sitting on a blue
chair surrounded by pink, red, white
hollyhocks In the yard in front
of my green studio. There are conclusions
to be drawn but I can't do it anymore.
Born man, child man, singing man,
dancing man, loving man, old man,
dying man. This is a round river
and we are her fish who become water.

I've written about several of his books for several publications over the past 18 years, but I couldn't begin to summarize what I've learned and what I've taken from his words.  On Saturday, the day he died (though it wasn't announced until Sunday), I watched a video of the late psychologist James Hillman (someone who Harrison often quoted) saying that as humans, our job in the world is to fall in love with it.  The New York Times obit quotes Will Blythe reviewing Harrison:  “His books glisten with love of the world."

(I didn't think of this until long after I chose the image for this post, but several times in interviews, Harrison expressed the wish, that if he were to be reincarnated, he would like to spend a few thousand years as a tree.)

Where the Terror is

Another horrible terrorist attack in Europe, and another round of panic from American media and politicians.  Trump wants to seal the borders and resume torture, Cruz wants to occupy American "Muslim neighborhoods."  Nobody seems worried about American toddlers, who killed more people last year than terrorists did.

No--Trump can dribble uninformed nonsense about fighting terrorism (according to the pros), after unveiling his set of foreign policy experts that no actual foreign policy experts have ever heard of.

Meanwhile, as Jonathan Chiat explains, Cruz's remedies will create the conditions in the U.S. (where Muslims are mostly assimilated) that pertain in Europe (where Muslims are segregated) and give us the terrorist problems they have: "In Europe, ethnically homogenous Christian populations have been unable to assimilate immigrant populations, with disastrous results. The Republican Party now appears doctrinally bound to replicate that failure."

But what about those toddler terrorists?  How do we get weapons out of their dangerous hands?  Don't ask the National Rifle Association, and its frothing at the mouth opposition to any gun regulation.  It is too busy vetoing a Supreme Court nominee.  In this crazy atmosphere, that one seems to have largely gotten a pass, but it shouldn't: the Senate majority leader said on Sunday that a Justice to the Supreme Court can't be confirmed because the NRA opposes him.  Gee, I missed that part of the Constitution, where the Senate cedes its responsibility to advise and consent to a organization representing gun makers.

I am not terrorized by ISIS. They're evil and hateful, but I have more chance of being hit by lightning (and we had a hell of a lightning storm last night) or shot by a toddler than hit by a suicide bomber.  But these guys, these Republicans, they terrorize me.

I'm not alone. Donald Trump is the most unpopular presidential candidate since the former head of the Ku Klux Klan says the Fix headline in the Washington Post.  He is viewed unfavorably by two thirds of the American public, with more than half registering extreme disapproval.

A study of a North Carolina Senate race suggests the Republican incumbent loses 26 percentage points--and his seat--if he endorses Trump.  But it's not just Trump.  That Senate majority leader McConnell is viewed favorably by just 15%---in his home state.  Some 60% of Republican primary voters say they are embarrassed by their own candidates and their campaign.  Hillary is not winning any popularity contests, but an overwhelming proportion of Democrats would be happy with her as President.

Trump's weekend session with the Washington Post proved once again that he is ignorant and unequipped for any national office--nobody with his lack of qualifications (he makes Sarah Palin look like an expert) has gotten this close to the presidency in at least a century. Trump and Cruz are counting on panic over terrorism to deprive voters of their sanity.  Trump thinks it worked for him last time, after Paris.  We'll see if it works now.  A terrifying thought all right.

Will Merrick Garland Be the Next Supreme Court Justice?

Update 3/21: With Illinois GOP Senator Kirk advising that the Senate should "man up" and not only hold hearings but vote on Garland, the Senate Majority Leader doubled down on his obstructionism on Sunday, stating categorically that Garland will not be confirmed, before or after the election.  It used to be that Senators at least pretended they were approving Supreme Court appointees solely on the basis of their judicial qualifications and not for partisan or ideological reasons.  But on Sunday the majority leader actually gave as his reason why Garland would never be a Justice that the National Rifle Association opposes him.


President Obama's appointment of Merrick Garland to fill the Supreme Court vacancy was greeted by the media as a solid, "sensible" and excellent choice, a judge who is more qualified than any in a generation and has had wide bipartisan support before, but an appointment that seems to have little or no chance of succeeding.

That's because the Senate Republican Majority Leader immediately announced there would be no hearings and no vote on this appointment in this Congress.  This is a continuation of what GOPer leadership has been saying since virtually the moment that Justice Scalia's death was announced.

The alternative, some speculated, might be that if a Democrat were elected President in November, and especially if Democrats became the Senate majority again, that a "lame duck" session of Congress (a name for the period between the election and inauguration of a new President) might conceivably vote to approve Garland, partly due to GOPer fear of Hillary appointing a more liberal (and younger) Justice.  However, most concluded, this was still unlikely, and Garland is an extremely well qualified sacrificial lamb.

But on "All Things Considered" Wednesday evening, veteran Supreme Court reporter Nina Totenburg--probably the most respected journalist covering the Court and certainly the one I consider most credible-- said at least twice that Republican leaders have by "back channels" assured the White House that if a Democrat is elected President in November, they will vote to confirm Garland in the lame duck session.

Nobody else I've seen has confirmed this story.  But if it's correct, and if the GOPer leadership is true to its word (and I tend to believe the former before the latter), then Merrick Garland is no "sacrificial lamb" but more probably the next new Justice of the Supreme Court.

Rain Reign

Those of you closely following the narrative of rain on the North Coast must be pining for an update, yes?  Considering how active, extreme--and actively tragic--the weather has been in other parts of the country and the world, this seems a bit self-indulgent but here goes.

The rains have stopped this week, and it's sunny and warmer.  But we did get considerable rain on the North Coast, though here in Arcata it really didn't feel like that much.  Maybe because a lot of it was at night.  It was often localized, though.  Eureka--less than 10 miles away--got rain on days we didn't (until Tuesday, Eureka got it every day in March except one.)  Southern Humboldt also seems to have gotten a lot more from the last couple of storms.

Still, our precip is officially at 6.85 inches for the month that's half over, and the average for all of March is 5.30.  And the news is better for the big reservoirs like Lake Shasta (reaching 79% of capacity) and Lake Oroville (70%,) both higher than this time of year for the past three years.  On March 6, Lake Oroville saw its biggest one day increase in 12 years.  Other reservoirs are also higher than normal, though not at capacity.

Also importantly for the summer, the Sierra snowpack grew, though it is only slightly above average for the date.  But in these drought years, that's very welcome.

Fateful Tuesday, the Day After

The day after Fateful Tuesday--which, most agree, was pretty fateful-- a number of media analysts had at the exit poll data.  The most interesting I saw was Alexander Burns in the New York Times.  His basic conclusion:

"Democrats and Republicans can now confidently predict which candidates will have the most delegates at their conventions in July: Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton each hold large and growing delegate leads. It would take an upset of staggering proportions for a rival to pull ahead of either one by the time the primaries end in June.

But the two front-runners are not on equal footing. Mrs. Clinton has assembled a formidable majority coalition within the Democratic Party that has resisted Senator Bernie Sanders’s appeals.

Mr. Trump has achieved something less than that. He has locked down a large plurality of voters on the right, but not enough to guarantee that he will win a majority of Republican convention delegates. And his position appears to be weakening."

Trump is winning, he writes, "but at a terrible price. The intensifying attacks on his personal character and business record, and the scenes of violence at his rallies, appear to be taking a toll, exit polls show. In no state did a majority of Republican primary voters say they believed he was honest and trustworthy. In every state that voted on Tuesday except for Florida, about two in five Republicans said they would consider voting for a third-party candidate over Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton in November."

While the numbers bear out Trump's popularity among working class white men, other figures suggest to Burns that "If Mr. Trump became the nominee, Republicans might risk a large-scale defection by upscale whites who voted willingly for Mitt Romney four years ago."

Hillary Clinton on the other hand has a clearer path to the nomination while Bernie Sanders has almost none.  But analysis by others points to the continuing trend in which Republican turnout is much higher and Democratic turnout much lower (although the big discrepancies in individual states tend to skew the averages.)  Ohio in particular had half the turnout of 2008, and so Clinton's support among unions and the Ohio Democratic party suggest reasons for her surprising margin of victory.

Clinton's sweep, by the way, is not yet official.  Apparently the Missouri vote has not yet been actually certified, and there are uncounted ballots that could change the outcome.  But the state is proportional, and the Sanders campaign said that even if they officially lose, it's unlikely that they would ask for a recount since it wouldn't matter much or even at all in number of delegates.  Update Thurs. p.m.: It's now official: Hillary won Missouri and it's a sweep of 5.

GOPer turmoil over Trump continues, but so does evidence that the party is reaping what it sowed, as New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer reminds us with a trip down Koch Brothers lane.

Deadblogging Fateful Tuesday: Hillary Sweeps, Trump All But Ohio

The winners of the night are Hillary Clinton and secondarily Donald Trump.

Hillary won three states, including the very important Ohio, and lost none in EDT prime time.  She gave a prime time speech which at least one commentator called one of her best.  Either she or Bernie Sanders will get bragging rights when Missouri and Illinois are decided, but they are both so close that each candidate is likely to receive about the same number of delegates from those states.  Which again is a win for Hillary, who is well ahead.

Donald Trump won Florida early, and so it was Goodbye Rubio Tuesday, who could hang a name on you-- when you changed with every new day, still they're gonna miss you. Now he can do what he may well be aching to do--cash in on his brand and get rich.

  But it looked like Trump might miss the rest of prime time until suddenly he was declared the winner in North Carolina and Illinois.  He made a short but rambling speech and reportedly looked tired.  He complained that his day on the golf course with other rich guys was ruined by overhearing ads against him.  Poor guy. Another reason for his working class devotees to get angry.

John Kasich won his home state of Ohio.  His victory speech began with being introduced as the next President of the United States and ended with confetti dropping from the ceiling.  So he got a taste of The Show that most politicians don't, worth all his time away from actually being governor while spending other people's money.  Remember this moment, John.  

Tail Gunner Ted made his usual softly vicious speech, and since he came in second in several states, will reap some delegates, with Missouri still undecided. If Cruz and/or Sanders win Missouri, it will be after the late news.  But that's when St. Louis reports, which is probably good for Hillary and Trump.

 Kasich winning winner-take-all Ohio is pretty good news for Trump, as it means that with Kasich staying in the race, Trump can keep winning in remaining states with 40% but under 50% of the votes cast.   But it's also bad news in that it makes it much more difficult for him to achieve a majority of delegates before the convention.  So it wasn't the best night for him.

Kasich's victory speech and Rubio's concession speech were both interrupted by a Trumpophyte.  Sign of things to come?

Clinton's largest margin of the night is Florida--where the majority of Dem voters were not white.  Bodes well for the general.  While most of the noise is about the working class white male vote, as it was at this point in 2008, it was not decisive in 2008 even in the general, and has declined proportionately since.

  However, if anything about this primary season can be seen as positive, it is the focus by Sanders and awkwardly but apparently with effect by Trump on the working class as victims of income inequality, allegedly from trade policies.  Maybe in the rest of the campaigns we'll get substantive on this.  You know, accidentally.

After midnight....(EDT time anyway) Bragging rights in Illinois go to Hillary. After midnight (everywhere): Margins in both races in Missouri are so thin that the loser can ask for a recount, but the Missouri secretary of state has declared Hillary and Trump as the winners.  For Clinton, it completes a clean sweep.

What's interesting though is that with most of the votes counted in Ohio, how large Hillary's margin is: 57% to 43%.  That's about equal to her margin in North Carolina, long conceded as more friendly to her.  (Her monster win is Florida, which she took by more than 30 points.)  Michigan now looks like a special case.

Meanwhile in the Real World

Meanwhile in the real world (quite literally), the planet Earth had its biggest one- month temperature spike in modern history in February, according to NASA.  This follows the news that there was also an unprecedented spike in CO2 levels in 2015, which does not bode well for future years.  Nor does a study which finds that the planet is likely to get hotter sooner than is conventionally believed.

A National Academy of Sciences report provides strong links between extreme weather outbreaks and the climate crisis.  Another study of climate crisis effects on food production suggests that they could be responsible for half a million deaths by 2050.  Yet another says that more than 13 million Americans living along coastlines will face being displaced by the end of this century because of rising sea levels.

So naturally, the topic of what to do, both to lessen future heating and cope with climate crisis effects that are on their way in the much nearer term, is front and center in the presidential primaries.

Not.

It took a Republican mayor in Florida whose city is being regularly flooded begging that the question be at least asked, that the topic even came up at a Republican debate. And all he got was a river in Egypt.  You know, denial. But it hasn't come up much in Dem debates or campaign speeches either.

Others however are thinking out loud about it, and more.  Doctors are beginning to confront the public health challenges ahead.  The Obama Administration is paying out a half billion dollar installment on its pledge to support the global Green Climate Fund to help poorer countries confront the climate crisis.  And so on.

The irony perhaps is that this denialist silence actually makes the whole thing scarier.  It's not happening and nothing can be done about it anyway! is the self-contradictory GOPer position. Those actually confronting the facts and beginning to act have positive evidence of progress.

Like this guy, who got half a million more votes for President than the epic disaster the Supreme Court elected in 2000. Al Gore is confronting the issue that President Obama acknowledges is the primary existential threat of our age.  Gore's recent TED talk is worth the time, not only for its big picture content but as an antidote to the current and tragic political madness.

Another Perishable Post: One Day to Fateful Tuesday

Tomorrow there are primaries in five state. Weekend polls showed Trump far ahead in Florida, and Rubio in third place behind Cruz, who isn't even campaigning there anymore.  So it seems pretty likely that Rubio is toast, and he will suspend his campaign this week.

Those polls show Kasich and Trump are virtually tied in Ohio.  For the final push Mitt Romney is campaigning for Kasich, and John Banal has endorsed him.  My instincts tell me both of those will backfire, and the momentum will return to Trump--and with early voters often going to him, he's still most likely to win this winner take all.

 If Kasich wins Ohio, there's at least a moment of hope for anti-Trump GOPers, however illusory it might turn out to be.  If by dint of a weekend backlash he also wins another state, like Illinois (which according to polls is extremely unlikely), then Kasich actually becomes a factor.

If Kasich loses Ohio, where as Governor he pretty much commands the state Republican infrastructure and the state's voting machinery as he obviously will nowhere else--then he's done.

Meanwhile Cruz needs to win somewhere--Illinois seems his best shot, but Missouri would be more impressive.  Trump's lead in both states has fallen in recent polls.  If Trump loses Missouri, and late deciders went elsewhere, then there's some evidence that this weekend's troubles have hurt him because Missouri has no early voting.  In any case, Cruz may well be the last man standing against Trump when Wednesday rolls around.

With the Democrats, Bernie Sanders has a shot at Illinois, which is possible if a late surge breaks big enough for him (though the incredible polling swing in one week--from Hillary up 46 points to Bernie leading--suggests we don't really know anything) and maybe Missouri, but there I doubt it.  Except for a kerfluffle over Nancy Reagan, Hillary has engendered no new controversy, so her support should hold, and unless there's a big demographic surge of young voters, I feel Missouri voters will be put off by the participation of Sanders partisans in clashes at a couple of Trump events.  Ohio has gotten closer, but a Bernie win there would be regarded as a serious upset.

 In any case, polls show Hillary is way ahead in North Carolina and Florida, more narrowly ahead elsewhere. She's almost certain to come out of Tuesday with more delegates, and she could sweep.

But you know, this is Monday, and who knows what the day will bring.

Mon. p.m.: A detailed piece in the New York Times about the last days of campaigning suggest how demographically driven the Dem race has become.  The Clinton campaign is either trying to lower expectations by signaling that Bernie has the upper hand in three midwestern states, or...that campaign is in more trouble than it should be. Ed Kilgore at New York pretty much agrees with the distinct possibility of Bernie winning all three, though for different reasons in each state.

  Other stories emphasize delegates--that unless Bernie not only wins these states but wins them big, the victories won't cut into Hillary's lead because she's get a large share of the proportional delegates.

In this story I also flag the ad campaign targeting Trump on the basis of his manifold insults to women.  How well this works could be key to Hillary's campaign in the general, if such were to happen.

The story also repeats a quote going around that may be a little out of context but seems accurate that Hillary said of clean energy plans "we're going to put a lot of coal miner and coal companies out of business," which is not only an utterly needless, gratuitous statement (coal companies are clearly doomed, so why crow about it?) it's as tone-deaf and heartless as it seems possible for a politician to make who is running for President.  

Trumpocalypse Now (Updated)

Sunday Updates: Chas Danner updates what Trump and Sanders said on Sunday talk shows, in the context of the weekend's events.  Trump accused the Sanders campaign of organizing disruptive protests at the Chicago rally, Sanders denied it.  Trump referred to Sanders as "our communist friend," and threatened to send his followers to disrupt Sanders events.  He offered to pay the legal expenses of the man who sucker punched a black protester as he was being removed by police from a Trump event, and was subsequently charged with assault.  (The man also threatened to kill the protester.)

Also on a Sunday show, Trump was asked about his accusation that the protester who rushed the stage in Ohio had allegiance to ISIS.  He based this accusation on a video posted to YouTube (since taken down) that was doctored to make the protester appear to be an ISIS sympathizer.  Told of this, Trump refused to recant his charge.  "All I know is what's on the internet," he said.

The ABC story about this also quotes a former CIA analyst pointing out the obvious: "It's disturbing to me that Donald Trump will take things at face value," she said. "If he's [president and] reading intelligence that comes to his desk ... that's imperfect information. How is he going to discern what's true and what's not?"

Jonathan Chiat posted an essay entitled Donald Trump Poses an Unprecedented Threat to American Democracy.  Early in it he mentions something I hadn't been aware of--Trump in a 1990 interview praising the Chinese government for its bloody massacre of democracy advocates in Tiananmen Square, a day that lives in infamy.

But Chiat's essay is less about Trump's outrages than some responses to them: "His campaign has dominated the national discourse. Millions of Americans who have never heard of [declared white supremacist]Steve Scalise are seized with mortal terror of Trump, whose ubiquity in campaign coverage makes him seem larger and more unstoppable than he is. And terror is corrosive."

Chiat is especially worried about a phenomenon he has criticized before: the penchant for some on the left, particularly in universities, to attempt to silence those they disagree with, or who make them feel 'uncomfortable.'  He cites a petition to silence Trump at the University of Illinois as well as the actual protests.

He concludes that "there is simply no evidence that the country that elected Barack Obama twice, and which is growing steadily more diverse, stands any likelihood of electing Trump. He can and must be defeated through democratic means. He is spreading poisons throughout the system that could linger beyond his defeat. Anybody who cares about the health of American democracy should hope for its end as swiftly as possible." 

On Sunday evening CNN reported: Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both accused Donald Trump of inciting violence, with the former secretary of state calling him "bigoted" and alleging he had perpetrated "political arson," while the Vermont senator labeled him a "pathological liar" at a town hall on Sunday night.
[end of updates]

A crescendo of sorts hit Saturday in the matter of violence at Trump events.  After police arrested a Trumpmaniac last week for assaulting a protester at a rally, protests themselves got larger for subsequent events.  There were so many protesters at a Chicago rally than Trump cancelled it, but fighting broke out anyway.  In Ohio Saturday, Secret Service agents removed a man rushing the stage where Trump was speaking.  Meanwhile protesters were gathering outside a Trump venue in Kansas City.

Update: Police used pepper spray to disperse Kansas City protesters. Trump called for protesters to be arrested.

While Trump blamed the Sanders and Clinton campaigns, several of his Republican rivals blamed him. (Trump reportedly said the Ohio man was "probably an ISIS supporter.")  Meanwhile the chorus from major media really became loud.  A report by several Washington Post top political reporters began "An already ugly presidential campaign has descended to a new level — one where the question is no longer whether Donald Trump can be stopped on his march to the GOP presidential nomination, but whether it is possible to contain what he has unleashed across the country."

Similarly, another long-time political reporter, Dan Balz, wrote in the Post: "Friday was an ugly day on the campaign trail, perhaps the worst of the year. What erupted in St. Louis and fully boiled over later in Chicago, however, was no aberration. Donald Trump has built his candidacy on long-festering resentment and grievance. It is a poisonous combination, for the Republican Party and for the country.

Trump’s slogan is Make America Great Again, but his campaign for president continues to call out dark forces that divide a polarized America. Fueled by acrimonious rhetoric, he has sparked an angry movement that has now created an angry backlash. Campaign 2016 is on a downward and dangerous descent."

(Points for alliteration, Dan, but downward is the only direction a descent can go.)

A CBS report acknowledges that crowds for Trump are more hostile. A personal report by a New York Times reporter graphically tells of the sense of danger and violence that disturbs even some Trump supporters.  It's clear that Trump's bullying words and exhortations against peaceful protesters began this cycle, but now the protests have become more militant and confrontational:

"To witness the crowd turn on the protesters in its midst is to watch a feverish body, bucking and writhing as it tries to eject an invading virus. I have talked to protesters who still don’t quite have the words to describe what they felt when they were singled out and turned upon, often by their communities. Mr. Trump says he condemns violence. But he also shouts at his crowds to “Get ’em out!” And even when he urges them not to hurt the protesters, a hard edge of menace bullets his words.

Yet the protesters, too, have sometimes instigated the clashes. They fling themselves to the ground, forcing law enforcement officers — often outmanned and overwhelmed — to drag them away. They also shout and curse, making obscene gestures as they are led from events. And Friday night in Chicago, in perhaps the best-organized effort so far, they came not to simply stand quietly but to utterly halt Mr. Trump’s ability to deliver his speech."

The LA Times reports that the Chicago protest was organized by black, Latino and Muslim students.

It appears as if a cycle of escalation has begun, both of potential violence at these events and among Trump supporters and detractors.  Trumpies are doubling down on their support, while opponents get angrier (New York Daily News calls Trump "the hooligan in chief ") and more or less neutral observers are aghast.

And all this is happening while the witnessed assault by Trump's chief aide on a reporter continues to roil, particularly as it was a reporter for a very right wing website that supports Trump and now appears to be backing off defending its own reporter from the Trump campaign's denials and insinuations.  Update early Mon.: the reporter and her editor at this site--Breitbart News--have resigned over the site's handling of this situation. 

All of this the weekend before the GOPer big states primaries (including several winner take all) on Tuesday.  Trump's opponents have exercised a containment strategy, dividing the states where they will make their stands--Kasich gets his Ohio, Rubio his Florida, and Cruz gets three states where he might have the best chance.  Yet if feelings running high cancel each other out, Trump could sweep and pretty much assure himself of the GOPer nomination.

 Hillary Clinton, who also could go a long way in Tuesday's Dem elections towards securing her nomination, spoke about the Trump trouble:

“The ugly, divisive rhetoric we are hearing from Donald Trump and the encouragement of violence and aggression is wrong, and it’s dangerous,” Mrs. Clinton told supporters Saturday morning at the O’Fallon Park recreation complex here. “If you play with matches, you’re going to start a fire you can’t control. That’s not leadership. That’s political arson.”

“The test of leadership and citizenship is the opposite,” Mrs. Clinton said. “If you see bigotry, oppose it. If you see violence, condemn it. And if you see a bully, stand up to him.”