Trump Liquefaction

liquefaction
noun. [lik-wuh-fak-shuh n]

  1. the act or process of liquefying or making liquid.
  2. the state of being liquefied.

Geology: The process by which sediment that is very wet starts to behave like a liquid. Liquefaction occurs because of the increased pore pressure and reduced effective stress between solid particles generated by the presence of liquid. It is often caused by severe shaking, especially that associated with earthquakes.


I first learned of liquefaction by having an example of it quite literally shaken into me. Though I was “safely” on the bedrock of North Beach when the Great Quake of 1989 struck, the bruised cloud of the fires that burned in the Marina District of San Francisco were visible from my window. Why did the Marina burn? Well, turns out the Marina District of San Francisco, like the Back Bay of Boston, are landfill. Just… sand. Lots of it. Manufactured land that is there not by the Grace of God but by the hand of man. We built it. To make extra room. Which is all fine and good until there’s an earthquake. Then all that cemented over sand acts like, well, sand. And gives way.

The cement roads in North Beach looks just like the cement roads in the Marina. You can’t tell just by looking at them that beneath the former is bedrock and the latter is sand.

Until something destructive happens.

In the political arena, that’s Trump. We’ve found out the hard way who’s bedrock and who’s sand. I opined on this the other day, but Did They Ever Believe? says it better.

Enjoy.


Townhall.com 4/21/2016
Did They Ever Believe? by Derek Hunter

To hear TV personalities and pundits who’ve espoused conservative values and policies for years abandon them for an egomaniac incapable of the most basic discussion of policy makes you wonder if they ever meant it.

Is the desire for relevance so strong that principle can be cast aside? Or did they ever hold those principles in the first place?

Are they so beholden to ratings and money they’re willing to betray all they’ve presented themselves as for access?

Either they’ve been lying all along, they’re lying now, or they never had any idea what conservatism is about.

Trade wars, government intervention in the economy, ordering businesses around about how to operate, health care mandates, whining about rules, etc., etc., … Republicans have espoused all of them in the past. But that doesn’t make them conservative.

Truth can’t be situational. Principle is not dependent upon circumstance. Yet these “leaders” swept aside reality in Colorado, which held a caucus on May 1, and embraced the “voterless victory” lie. To do anything else would risk their access to Trump, who won’t return to interviewers who ask real questions and call him out on his non-answers.

Did they fall for a bumper sticker? Is it all that simple? Are they that open to suggestions written on hats? Do they follow people home to ask them about their grandchildren because they read it on the back of a minivan?

“Make America Great Again” reads well, as long as you don’t ask the only follow-up question that matters: How? Does citing poll numbers wipe the section of the brain containing the fact Social Security and Medicare have 100+ trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities and Donald Trump said straight out he doesn’t want to reform them at all?

These pundits and hosts have become unwatchable. They’ve betrayed all they’ve done to this point. So much so, you have to wonder if they were this awful all along. Did they pull the greatest hoax in history?

Like the “GOP establishment” they decry, they’ve been selling one thing but became something else when the chips were down. After years of demanding accountability from squishy Republicans in Congress, they’ve become John Boehner.

They plead neutrality, but they embarrassingly badger other candidates to justify playing by the rules because Daddy Trumpbucks whines about a “rigged system.” If the system is so corrupt, and he’s winning, what’s that say about him?

The throne-sniffing media “conservatives” know not to bother with difficult questions on complex issues. Substantive discussions with Trump are like throwing a newborn into the deep end of a pool. So they don’t happen, no matter how many times they interview him.

When not kissing Donald’s ring, these establishment media types can be heard sucking up to his children. It is embarrassing.

No, they couldn’t have switched on everything overnight. They must’ve been playing a role. Conservatism sells, especially on radio and in cable news. So you just have to say a few buzzwords, go “rah-rah” for this or that cause, feign outrage at all the right times, and boom – job security.

When that security is threatened by the most powerfully addictive drug America has seen since Heisenberg’s blue meth – a celebrity – a course adjustment becomes easier if your highest principle always has been yourself.

We’ve been duped by a marketing gimmick akin to “Batman vs. Superman,” which left us thirsty, holding cases of “New Coke.” These weathervanes of the right are the father who went out for a pack of smokes and never came back.

If Donald Trump doesn’t reach 1,237 delegates before Cleveland, count on these mic’d up megaphones to maintain their silence as Donald’s goon squads make good on their promise to threaten and harass delegates to get their way.

Be it by stalking them in their rooms or preventing them from even getting to the convention, this subject will remain a blow-off topic in their sessions with The Donald. They’ll mention it, and he’ll say those people have no connection with the campaign. Since Trump’s company is private, and he won’t release his tax returns despite not actually being under IRS audit (another no-go topic for interviews), we’ll never know if they’re getting money from him or how much.

We’ll be left to wonder why these people are so devoted to a man they’re willing to work tirelessly for him for free.

Then again, that’s what these “titans” of conservative media have been doing, so maybe it’s not so farfetched.

In the end it doesn’t much matter if they ever believed. It’s clear they don’t now, and now is all there is. Well, now and tomorrow. After November, the tomorrows for these soothsayers of victory will run as dry. Their audiences will wonder how “the man who was going beat Hillary” lost. To paraphrase the mythical Pauline Kael quote, they won’t know how Trump lost … everyone they listened to said he was the only one who could win.

###

Trump’s Stepford Wives: Palin, Carson, & Hannity

Endorsed Trump

Chris Christie’s conservative bona-fides fell away years and years ago, and O’Reilly’s just an ass, but the rest of them? WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU PEOPLE?

There’s been an Invasion of the Body Snatchers. A Stepford Wife transformation in Tea Party Land. There are humans among us who look normal (“normal” as in the same as they always were) but aren’t… Like really, REALLY aren’t.

We conservatives have experienced a kind of human earthquake. Fellow conservatives we thought were terra-firma conservatives have revealed themselves to be subject to liquefaction when nudged by a Trump on the richter scale. Think of it this way:

Having lived in San Francisco for five years, I can tell you one of the phrases you don’t want to hear, but is uttered too often for comfort is, “Did you feel that?” One of the most profound betrayals there is is an earthquake: when the earth itself betrays you. Where do you go? Aside from the superficial advice about doorways, you’re still, quite literally on earth. Terra-Not-So-Firma. You can’t FLOAT. You can’t all of a sudden DEFY GRAVITY. That’s why it’s so terrifying, on a primal, indeed cellular level. I’ve been through a big earthquake and I can tell you, it’s a transformative experience.  There’s your life before the earthquake and your life after. You don’t ever feel quite the same about the brown on our little blue dot on the Milky Way. You don’t ever trust it – the very ground beneath your feet – with the same confidence ever again.

Thus has been the great culling of conservatives lo these last months. People we thought were solid, bedrock conservatives, have given way.  Sarah Palin was one of the first, and the hardest. Many of us have spent years defending her. Until a few months ago, I can’t think of a single thing she ever said I disagreed with on the merits. Sure, you can mock her God-awful speaking voice, but the substance of what she said was true, in the truest sense of the word: she meant it, and it was consistent with the conservative principles she articulated, well, consistently! That’s the thing about principles: they don’t require a degree, or noble birth. They’re free. Accessible to all. If only you will claim them. And she did, bravely. There were millions of us who were horrified at how she was treated by the media (and even fellow conservatives) and came to her aid on blogs, social media, and comments sections, etc.

Then she endorsed Trump. To be stringently accurate, the first tremor was when she endorsed Newt in 2012, a progressive Republican. We hated it when she endorsed McCain for Senate in 2010 but we understood it. She was being loyal to the man who plucked her from obscurity and made her a household name, such as it was. But Trump…? What? Why? When she endorsed and campaigned for Cruz for Senate in 2012? With full-throated support, having clearly thought about it, and articulated her reasoning? She knows him. Knows him well. What happened to her?

Person after person after person has given way, so when I read this post at Red State, I thought I’d post it here as a kind of plea to her and all the victims of Trump liquefaction.  It’s addressed to Sean Hannity but is applicable widely. If you call yourself “conservative” or “Tea Party” please spend a few minutes with it take it on bravely and fairly and honestly.

We’re supposed to be better than this…


RED STATE: Dear Sean Hannity: Are You REALLY a Conservative?

Consider me your conscience. Your real conscience, not the one in which you are temporarily blinded by the campaign of one Donald J. Trump.

First of all, you claim you are a conservative. In fact, I don’t doubt that you are, and have been all of your life. In fact, you are a member of the Conservative Party, which means you are a practitioner of its tenets. You have professed you want a limited government, strong national defense, lower taxes, real spending cuts, and a return to American values through individuals, not mandated by government. That type of government can only be presided by a limited government executive. The last such chief executive was Ronald Reagan, and you have constantly wished for someone like that to run and win in the primaries.

You have also espoused a strong dislike for the GOP Establishment. You, just like I and every other conservative that I know, have been horrified to see the leadership of the GOP sell out to the Democrats. You are tired of special deals being given to some corporate cronies of both the left and the GOP establishment, and you want it to stop, starting from the top.

So during the current campaign, we have two candidates running in the GOP primary who are left with a chance at the nomination. One of those candidates has stood out, displaying the conservative tenets that you yourself have craved. A candidate who has stood up to the establishment, not just rhetorically but through his actions. He is running against a candidate who, by any objective manner, is more in line with Establishment cronyism, shows a preference for making deals rather than using his core convictions to guide his decisions in line with his ideology.

In short, you have a no-brainer decision. One that you, a conservative, should not hesitate to make. And certainly not one that you can show ambivilance.

So why in heavens name are you promoting Donald J. Trump, a candidate with no core beliefs, a candidate who espouses not just moderate positions, but positions from every point of the political spectrum? And how can you NOT promote Ted Cruz, a man who checks EVERY box that a constitutional conservative could want?

To be honest, I am flummoxed. I don’t know if it’s your personal association with Donald Trump, your feeling that if you support Cruz that you will suffer a loss of ratings, or other reasons. But one thing I do know: You are NOT true to your professed conservative beliefs if you actively promote Donald Trump over Ted Cruz.

How do you do this? First, you let Donald Trump set the agenda for your interaction with Ted Cruz. When you interview Trump, you defer to his agenda, you don’t hit him hard on many issues as you would other candidates, you don’t call him out on his many flip-flops, and you aren’t even concerned about his lack of decorum.

Do this. Picture Donald Trump as a liberal. You would be constantly reminding the voters how we cannot elect such a candidate who has absolutely no core beliefs. One who constantly demeans his opponents. One who is ABSOLUTELY AFRAID of debating with his primary opponent without the filter of at 7 other people on stage. Seriously, Sean. Step back out of the fog and seriously rate Trump not as an anti-establishment champion of the “little guy,” but as someone who cannot even converse in a manner without sounding like a repetitive macaw.

So why are you dissing Ted Cruz? He matches your positions, every single one of them, more than Donald Trump, based upon your historical conservative position. In addition, you usually don’t fall for the diversional trick of callers claiming to be an independent, then trashing the conservative position. Donald Trump callers have mastered this art. They argue by criticizing everything Cruz has done, without arguing substance, and you fall for it. Every time. But when Cruz supporters try to call you out, you come out with that tired, worn out reply: “Well, if you lose, will you support Trump over Hillary? You won’t? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?”

Finally, your ignorance of how the GOP convention with regard to the nomination of the party reprentative for president is disappointing. Very disappointing. You don’t understand that nominating a president is a process that is not just about the popular elections. Yes, popular elections are important, but just as important is knowing the rules of all 57 states and territories with regard to delegates. You listen to Trump’s claim that Cruz is stealing delegates that Trump “won,” which is an ABSOLUTE falsehood. All (well, most) delegates are bound to the delegate allotment on rules for the first round, and Donald Trump has all of them. What he doesn’t have is the subsequent round support of those delegates. And you don’t think it’s fair that Cruz is getting them to vote for him if Trump doesn’t have the majority on the first round.

Then let me ask you this: Why even HAVE a convention? Why even have delegates? Well, you ignore the obvious reason: That a plurality is NOT a majority. For instance, Cruz split the vote with Rubio, Carson, Bush, and Kasich, of which added with his votes constituted 65-70% of the entire vote. So why does someone with a large minority of votes get the nomination? In addition, some voters aren’t even Republican, yet their votes factor in the delegates. How can that even be FAIR? Finally, the delegates are the epitome of grass roots activists.

Now, Sean, I can see your confusion. Since Ronald Reagan, we’ve not had a primary where the Establishment candidate was not the runaway choice as the nominee starting from March 15. Therefore, the Establishment candidate usually got his delegates to be selected or voted on by the state conventions, and those delegates were on the rulemaking committee. In turn, those delegates usually worked with the National GOP leadership, which was establishment.

But make no mistake: The DELEGATES are the rulemakers. And Cruz has been working the hardest to EARN…NOT “steal”…those delegates, while Trump has been sitting on the sidelines. Again, this is the epitome of grass roots activism, and in fact results in a candidate that is more conducive to all the voters at convention time.

For you to be ignorant of this process, Sean, is inexcusable for a constitutional conservative. There is so much more, and I’m sure others will add to this list of observations.

I doubt you will be making any changes, but this letter will be here after the convention. Then, after the general election. It will be here for me to remind you of your own ignorance. At least until the FCC shuts RedState down.

One word of advice: Have a long, long talk with your friend Mark Levin. Listen to his reasons. You’ve had countless meetings and discussions with him before, but you and he are as far apart as Levin is with Bernie Sanders. Well, now I’m being rhetorical, but seriously: Play the audio of your show and compare it with Mark. The contrast is stunning.

Sean, please come back. Before it’s too late.

Earthquake Scientist BULLSH*T

I lived in San Francisco for five years.  Lucky me, I’d been there all of 5 stinking weeks when the Great Quake of 1989 hit.  I was on the top floor of a 3 floor wooden walk up in North Beach when it hit.  I’ve made a casual, non-scientific study of them ever since.

Let me tell you something about earthquakes these geniuses that are supposedly experts deny – The butterfly theory is in play with them. (The theory says, basically, that if a butterfly flaps it’s wings in Australia, it effects the air in America because the simple act of pushing the air around, in the aggregate, travels.)  Earthquake scientists insist that because different quakes are on different tectonic plates that one does not necessarily precipitate another but that’s BULLCR*P.

Oklahoma just had a major quake over night, 5.6.  Oklahoma! What was it, two weeks ago, that Turkey had one?  This happens over, and over, and over again.  These plates shift and slosh like duckies on bathtub water.  It’s just an economy of scale, but they are floating on the same liquid surface.  One duckie gets nudged, and, eventually the duckie furthest from it is going to feel it, isn’t it?

UPDATE Sunday, November 6, 2011, Noon Eastern:  Evidently FRACKING is being blamed for the OK earthquake.  *Sigh*  And conservatives are conspiracy theorists? We’re anti-science? Good grief… Gang!  Stop it!  Such a theory is not only utterly untethered to reality, it’s yet another extension of your gargantuan narcissism.  It’s not all about you, okay?  The world, the climate, the frickin’ tectonic plates, are l-i-t-e-r-a-l-l-y unmoved by your fabulousness or in the inverse, conservative un-fabulousness, okay? The world does not revolve around you, no matter what your mother told you or how many trophies you got just for showing up – and being fabulous!  Jeezuz. This fracking theory is yet another indication of your insufferable, over-weening, liberal-paternalism egos. Knock it off.

UPDATE II Sunday, November 6, 2011, 12:36 Eastern: I just realized the irony to my update.  I eviscerated the Left for their unproven theory that fracking led to the OK earthquake as an appendage to a post on my unproven theory that Turkey’s earthquake led to the OK earthquake. Not wanting to be accused of lacking self-awareness, like I regularly accuse the Left of doing, I thought I’d better own up to that… but I think my theory could beat up their theory 😉