Good morning, Morons. As before, I'm tmi3rd, and we're live at Moron Central's Weather Desk, which this morning means hanging out with tmi4th and having just changed the overnight Diaper Of Doom.

So let's get you up to date with this morning's advisory and some other little tidbits of info. More below the fold... more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 07:00 AM | Comments (323)
Post contains 879 words, total size 6 kb.

I read a book years ago by James Lawrence Powell called Night Comes to the Cretaceous. It dealt with the competing theories regarding the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. In short, the Chicxulub asteroid impact theory was not immediately accepted. And, indeed, it still has not been accepted by a few. It appears that geologists like to think volcanoes cause everything under the sun and are resentful when physicists like Luis and Walter Alvarez set them straight. Anyway. It was an interesting book for that discussion, but it was even better for what it said about the evolution of science generally.

To illustrate his point about how science evolves, the author used the long-running debate regarding the revolutionary theory of plate techtonics--the theory that the Earth's crust drifts on top of the next layer, the mantle, in seven or eight gigantic plates. When Alfred Wegener first proposed the theory, it was ridiculed. Many years later, when it was generally accepted, it had far-ranging consequences for many different scientific disciplines.

Powell's point was that there was not some magical "aha!" moment when everybody suddenly changed their minds, despite the considerable evidence that accumulated quickly. Instead, the process was slow. The most important factor was that proponents of competing theories died off. His point was that sometimes competing theories do not die out until their proponents die out, and it was the recognized leaders the field who offered the most resistence. These were people who had staked their entire careers on a certain way of viewing things and who were not about to just let it go and admit they were wrong.

Big-government nanny-statism is similar in this respect. Those who are heavily staked in its success will never just "see the light," no matter how much evidence accumulates right in front of their faces. They have spent their lives and careers with the firm conviction that the anointed few can and should be running things for others. (And, of course, they regard themselves as members of the class of The Anointed.) They will continue to fight and push their brand of statism as long as they can. Failing to do so would be to admit error and to allow a deep narcissistic wounding. And because of this investment, they would sooner bring down whatever institution they belong to or represent--whether a news organization, a government agency like the DoE or the EPA, a business or corporation like NPR, or a special interest group--than abandon those religiously held views.

There are many examples. A while back, Ace quoted from an essay by Daniel Greenfield who was critical of ABC's decision to hire Christiane Amanpour:

Her hiring is only the latest manifestation of a media that is too radicalized to save itself. Bringing in a personality from the sinking ship that is CNN was obviously a bad idea on commercial grounds alone. Amanpour left CNN, for the same reason that Campbell Brown did. And ABC News taking Amanpour in, demonstrates that they share CNN's bad judgment.
. . .
Lenin called on Communists to seize the telegraph offices, telephone stations and post offices in order to control the means of communication. The American left has seized the means of cultural communication, hijacking the media, the educational system and entertainment, and turning them into vehicles for their brand of political indoctrination. And they've managed to badly devalue all three. The American educational system is a shell of what it used to be, the media is imploding and the entertainment industry keeps hitting new lows. Just as in the USSR and Venezuela and everywhere else, what the radical left controls, it also destroys.

(Emphasis added.) Another quick example would be the "No Pressure 10:10" environmental video short, the one that had people exploding in a bloody mess if they didn't wholeheartedly adopt reduced carbon emissions dogma. The makers of that short were completely caught off guard by the negative reaction it generated. They were attempting to increase awareness of what they regard as anthropogenic climate change. Instead, they only increased negative feeling toward their organization and disregard for their point.

There won't be a point when liberals suddenly change their minds about big government, no matter what evidence appears before their eyes. Think of all the left-leaning, high-tax, big-regulation, big-government states and countries that are suffering right now. In fact, one would think Obama would be somewhat of a catalyst. He has been busily creating a better, more effective case for smaller government than conservatives could have on their own--and more quickly.

Although Obama is the left's asteroid, as with Chicxulub, he will not become their "aha!" moment. As we have seen, there are rarely such moments--even when something as clear as a strike by a six mile wide asteroid is revealed. As in the case of the opponents of plate tectonics, the proponents of big government will slowly die out as the evidence accumulates. That's my statement of faith, anyway. In the short term, cultural inertia, not mere stubbornness, and the philosophical momentum behind socialism is enough for it to weather even Barack Obama's failure.

It'll be the president's problem or the messaging or the packaging, not the philosophy. Never the philosophy. But maybe over time newer generations with less of a stake in big-governmentism will see the Obama failure and move away from it.

Follow me on Twitter.

Posted by: rdbrewer at 06:38 AM | Comments (147)
Post contains 908 words, total size 6 kb.

FRIDAY!!! more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:51 AM | Comments (369)
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

Pam Gellar, relying on a hot tip from, um, Salon, thinks Rick Perry's a dhimmi.

Salon wrote:

Perry is a friend of the Aga Khan, the religious leader of the Ismailis, a sect of Shia Islam that claims a reported 15 to 20 million adherents worldwide. Sprouting from that friendship are at least two cooperation agreements between the state of Texas and Ismaili institutions, including a far-reaching program to educate Texas schoolchildren about Islam. ThatÂ’s a partnership that has already prompted a bit of grumbling in far-right corners of the blogosphere and could conceivably become a primary issue if, as expected, Perry enters the presidential race.

Gellar echoes:

Perry has been sucked into the propaganda vortex, and is now wielding his enormous power to influence changes in the schoolrooms and in the curricula to reflect a sharia compliant version of Islam. He is a friend of the Aga Khan, the multimillionaire head of the Ismailis, a ShiÂ’ite sect of Islam that today proclaims its nonviolence but in ages past was the sect that gave rise to the Assassins.

Oh I like that just fine. In the 1100's, this sect gave rise to the Assassins, so... yeah. Watch out. They've had 900 years to get even more bad-ass.

Perry has concluded at least two cooperation agreements between the state of Texas and the Ismailis, including a comprehensive program to feed children in Texas public schools and taqiyya nonsense about how Islam is a religion of peace.

So... what of it?

I am about to direct you to what I think might just be the greatest rejoinder in the history of blogdom.

Now, because I have an ego, and don't want to fully admit how good this is, better than I've ever managed, I will console myself with the notion that he has the facts on his side, and ergo, is almost cheating.

I strongly, strongly urge you to read this. Now, if it seems long, skip to the part of it -- the last half -- wherein the actual curriculum used to teach Texas students about Islam is presented.

I know what you're thinking. Shit, I thought so too. Religion of Peace. We must stop attacking them. Israel is mean.

Oh no. Oh no no no.

The "dhimmi" curriculum that was actually produced by Texas teachers consulting with Aga Khan is...

...Well, I don't want to get your expectations up, because once expectations are raised, they can never be met, can they?

But actually reading this curriculum (which I trust Ms. Geller did not), my honest reaction? My real reaction reading it?

This is going to hurt Perry, because this is so biased against Muslims it will reinforce perceptions he is some kind of rootin'-tootin' six-gun shooting cowboy yahoo.

Okay, I've raised your expectations. But you read it yourself. Read what the Aga Khan (and his apparently really non-violent fellow Muslim moderates) worked out with Texas teachers to inform kids about Islam.

And then you tell me Perry's a "dhimmi."

(START OF EXCERPTS)

Because Islamic society is in a different state of development than Western society, conflicts naturally arise.

1. Countries of Western Civilization have secular governments, which means great toleration of cultural and religious differences.

What? Did he just praise the West?

2. Countries of Islamic Civilization for the most part either have religiously dominated governments or demands to make them more religious, which mean less toleration of cultural and religious differences.

Wait, didn't he just knock Islam?

3. Muslims often lack respect for Western traditions and points of view. The Muslim relationship to the West is colored by the belief that Western beliefs [whether Christian or atheist] are defective and therefore inferior to Islam.

Did he just say Muslims lack respect for Western traditions?

From its early days, Islam reacted aggressively toward its civilized neighbors the Byzantines and the West. Muslim attacks against the West can be viewed as occurring in three waves...

Wait, what?

Modernity developed in the West and made the West so powerful that any civilization that did not imitate the West in this regard was at a extreme disadvantage. Modernism featured three characteristics:

1. High levels of technology, integrated into society, along with modern science.

2. The creation of much wealth, which, with technology, makes the state more powerful militarily.

3. An openness (in its most developed form called the Open Society by Karl Popper), which features tolerance, pluralism, and has a secular governance.
The failure of Islam to adopt modern ways and adapt them to Islamic values, put Islam at a great disadvantage when dealing with the West.

Anyone feeling the attitude of dhimmitude yet?

While Westerners studied Islamic culture, Muslims showed almost no interest in Western culture, remaining ignorant of modernity and its impact.

Obviously pro-Islam propaganda.

Now here comes something that is to my mind way too politically biased... against Islam and in favor of the West, again. I would not include this.

Wiltse approvingly quotes from a Wall Street Journal op-ed, “Speaking Truth to Muslim Power,” by former CIA officer Reuel Marc Gerecht: “The Egyptian press has never been as free as when the British ruled over the Nile valley.”

See what I mean? Is this how they do "dhimmitude" in Texas? Because if this is dhimmitude Texas-style, sign me up.

(WILTSEÂ’S ENTIRE SEGMENT ON ISRAEL):

The conflict continues because the West, and the United States specifically, support Israel (an outpost of Western Civilization surrounded by Islamic Civilization), which Muslims generally dislike or hate.

Islamic enmity toward Israel is complicated, but hatred of Jews and Israel can be traced at least to the success of Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda starting in 1933.

Are you shitting me?

Gellar's attacking this?

This reads like her fucking blog for fuck's sake.

In Texas, they're fucking reading "Atlas Shrugs" to the kids, and Geller's complaining. Maybe it's because she thinks she's owed royalties.

A small 1800s movement, Zionism, began seeking a Jewish-controlled state. After rejecting the island of Madagascar, Zionists settled on Palestine, the historic homeland of Jews until they were chased away by the Roman government in AD 70. At the time, Palestine was in the (Turkish Islamic) Ottoman Empire. The movement was not popular among European Jews, who had in the 1800s became increasingly accepted by fellow Europeans.

Since the end of World War One Palestine had been under the control of Great Britain, who at first welcomed the hardworking Jewish settlers. They made the most of the harsh conditions, bringing economic success to an area that had for a very long time been poor. Arab natives also welcomed the newcomers. But as the number of Jewish settlers increased and their economic success contrasted sharply with the economic backwardness of the Palestinian Arabs, the Arab attitude began to change.

That's enough excerpting. Read the thing.

"Backwardness."

What does it take, exactly, to avoid being called a dhimmi? This curriculum seems pretty tough and even-handed to me. Maybe even a little too tough on our friends in the Religion of Peace.

"Anti-Jihadism" cannot simply degenerate into a guilt by association lunacy where the only real "goods" you have on someone is that they seem to know Muslims.

By the way, this Aga Khan? At the link you'll see Robert Spencer of JihadWatch saying, in a discussion about whether moderate Muslims exist, that yes, indeed, his sect is actually moderate and non-violent. See, their sect actually tends to get persecuted by bigger sects, so they're not so big on violence. And he also says there that Aga Khan is in fact a philanthropist.

Update: I'm very late to this particular dispute.

Robert Spencer actually already responded to the blogpost I quote, arguing against it. You can read that reponse here, as well as Counter-Contempt's response to his response.

I think Counter-Contempt continues filleting them, but you be the judge.

Further Damage: Well, suffice to say I won't be reading this crap any more.

Gellar desperately tries to connect Rick Perry to Radical Islam via Perry's... association with American non-Muslim anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist.

Yes, all Perry did was give a speech in partnership with Grover Norquist, and promote it on his website. Norquist heads up Americans for Tax Reform, and Perry’s tax-cutting message is redolent of Norquist’s influence. But Norquist also has deep and extensive ties to Islamic supremacists and jihadists, as I showed in the first commentary. That raises legitimate questions about whether or not Perry knows about, or cares about, or even endorses, that activity by Norquist. I certainly would refuse to speak at the same event in partnership with Grover Norquist – let alone promote it on my website. Shouldn’t Rick Perry have, too?

Now, Norquist is widely known himself to be pro-Muslim; he believes they're a natural Republican constituency, and urges we make a move for them like Bush and Rove urge with Hispanics.

But Geller is trying to shore up her pathetic "Rick Perry's a Pro-Sharia Islamist Enabler" bullshit by linking him to the guy that everyone in DC is linked to in some way (fuck, even I was at his house five years ago).

Ummm... we're not allowed to talk with Grover Norquist anymore, Pam? Can't sign his anti-tax pledges? I guess all those conservative pols and wonks going to the Blankday Morning Meetings are, what? Jihadis, now?

Yeah. I'd say that just about takes care of all that.

I think Geller and Charles Johnson deserved each other. While Johnson called everyone a "fascist," Geller just calls everyone a "jihadist" or "dhimmi."

Look, it's the exact same goddamn thing. Sometimes relationships must end not because people are too different but because they are too alike.

Thanks very much to Jarid Foster for tipping me to that.

Plus: Let me say this. This is a general philosophical point. I thought this before I even knew the facts here.

There is a real danger of people coddling up to "moderate Muslims" who are nothing of the sort. We saw this repeatedly with Bush; we will see more of it.

There are good points to be made about such "moderate" Muslims, and our leaders' stupidity in elevating them.

However. However.

If the claim is now being made that to be properly "Anti-Jihadist" you really now do simply have to be anti-Muslim, period, and cannot attempt any overtures or any sort of goodwill gestures towards Muslims you actually believe are moderate (and seem to be so), then sign me down because I'm not part of that.

I think that is where people are driving this bus. It's easier to just dismiss them all than try to make distinctions.

Robert Spencer gets nailed with this here, as in a previous statement, having nothing to do with any of this, he confessed the moderation of Aga Khan and his sect generally.

Now, Geller digs up some weak guilt-by-association stuff on him. Could actually mean something -- honestly, I have learned to strongly distrust "moderate Muslims" myself. But my point is, the evidence is tenuous and weak.

Anyway, Stein at Counter-Contempt makes the point that if even Robert Spencer, gold-star anti-Jihadist, gave Aga Khan a clean bill of health and vouched for him, why should Rick Perry be blamed for similarly thinking he checked out?

Now, Aga Khan might actually still check out. There's no actual proof he doesn't. But let's say he does turn out to be just as Geller now alleges.

Stein asks Spencer, "How can you blame Perry for making the same error you did?" To which Spencer just says something like "He's the governor, he should have known."

Why? How? Should he just have assumed he was a bad actor? Even if he were a reader of Robert Spencer and could see Robert Spencer giving him a clean bill of health and endorsing him as a genuine, peaceful moderate Muslim philanthropist?

This is what is driving me crazy. If there was an error here (and I don't know that there is), Geller and Spencer both want to hang Perry for making an error they themselves did.

Because now Perry has that taint of association.

This will not do. This will not do.

This is anti-Jihadism quickly shading into anti-Americanism.

Posted by: Ace at 10:27 PM | Comments (325)
Post contains 2048 words, total size 13 kb.

Will Be Rescheduled

ABOVE THE POST UPDATE.

Party cancelled. Sorry.

Even though the storm won't hit until Sunday, most everybody is going to be using Saturday prepping for several days without power, or mitigating the effects of a possible flooding.

A party is nice, but having dry clothes, ice, and good food, and pumping the water out of your basement is better, in the long run.

Again, sorry guys! We will reschedule. And hey! September/ October on Newport is more fun, anyway. Fewer witnesses.

__________________________________
Original post:
Possible Cancellation

If Hurricane Irene wants to be difficult this weekend, she'll be difficult.

There's no talking to an angry storm. We just have to wait her out.

Too early to tell, but keep your eyes open for updates or a reschedule plan.
BAH.

Sucks.

Pull in your lawn chairs and stuff. Prepare for loss of power. Beer, charcoal, batteries, beer, candles, booze, gas, beer, etc.

Bungee cords. Forceps. A large sheet of vinyl. Thirty feet of 1/2" clear tubing. A dead rabbit, two pairs of black pantyhose, a quart of corn oil, a large pumpkin, and a fully charged cordless drill with a size-variety of wood boring bits.

You will need these things. Survival is the word. And, undetectable perversion in early natural darkness. Those are also. Some words.

But anyway, the storm might cancel the RI Meetup. Stay handy to this site for updates, please, thanks.

Posted by: LauraW at 08:04 PM | Comments (94)
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.

NC Governor Declares Every CCW Permit in East NC Invalid Due to Hurricane Irene

In his defense this probably wasn't his her intent - NC recently passed a law that automatically suspends all CCW permits whenever the governor declares an emergency in an area.

Thanks to a brain-dead state law foisted upon us by a Democratic state legislature (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.7), every time the governor—in this instance, Democrat Beverly Perdue—declares a state of emergency, it is illegal from that moment onward to carry a concealed weapon until the state of emergency has been declared over.

Muammar ♡'s Condi

A lot. So much so that he had a very special scrapbook full of pictures of her.

A bizarre photograph album filled page to page with pictures of Condoleezza Rice has been found at the compound of Colonel Gaddafi.

...Perhaps the most surprising, however, was the album, filled with glossy pictures of America's former Secretary of State.

Colonel Gaddafi had previously hinted at a serious admiration for Mrs Rice.

...'I support my darling black African woman,' he said at the time. 'I admire and am very proud of the way she leans back and gives orders to the Arab leaders. ... Leezza, Leezza, Leezza. ... I love her very much. I admire her, and I'm proud of her, because she's a black woman of African origin.'

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:15 PM | Comments (571)
Post contains 830 words, total size 8 kb.

I don't know for sure this woman is a liberal, but her question seems to be Kos-like, in claiming that government spending of all types must be defended at any cost to keep... emergency services during hurricanes.

And she does what the previous hecklers did -- she won't let Romney answer her alleged question.

If it's a question, why isn't Romney permitted to speak three words before she begins to re-harangue him again?

Romney deals with it like he did the last one-- asking her to let him speak, which she refuses to do. I suppose he does okay, with the proviso That no one does well when a heckler is determined to not even let you answer.

This seems to be the liberals' strategy. They may be trying their own version of the Tea Party town halls (but there, the Democrats were in fact permitted to answer -- the Tea Party patriots did jeer at the answers... after they were given).

All candidates, and not just Romney, have to figure out how to deal with this. It may become necessary to simply eject questioners who refuse to let the candidate answer a question.

Candidates should perhaps begin announcing the ground rules up front: You will be permitted to ask a question. You will even be permitted to ask a follow up. But if you attempt to talk down the candidate, you'll be ejected.

That might look bad the first few times it's done, but if this is a concerted, choreographed liberal strategy, it might be the best resolution.

Oh: People really need to turn on their cell phones and cameras and pictures of these people. Would be fun to ID them as plants.

Posted by: Ace at 05:05 PM | Comments (76)
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.

You may recall recent posts about CERN looking into this cosmic ray/cloud cover deal. These initial stories focused on the CERN mucky-mucks warning their researchers not to get involved in the political aspects - that is, this research could make the Global Warming guys look even more stupid.

Well Hey. They published the results today. Real official like - in Nature and everything. Guess what? The research makes the Global Warming guys look even more stupid.

Super-Short summary if you want to get back to worrying about Hurricane Irene. Do Cosmic Rays help create high-altitude clouds that reflect sunlight - which has a big impact on the Earth's temperature? And have we been seeing fewer Cosmic Rays lately which means fewer clouds and more warming? Yes.

Now more details for everybody else.

more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 04:57 PM | Comments (68)
Post contains 1100 words, total size 8 kb.

Dan-O says look what happens when you search for SCOAMF on Bing.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 04:24 PM | Comments (142)
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

FoxNews just noted that Mitt Romney has been keeping his focus relentlessly on where he's long kept it -- squarely aimed at Barack H. Obama.

That's all well and good. I sort of like that.

But I don't think he'll be able to maintain that. Perry isn't exactly hammering Romney with attacks, and he's not hitting him with anything new. But he is hitting him.

Romney's strategy made sense as long as he was the front-runner. By ignoring his rivals, and only getting into arguments with his would-be general election opponent Obama, he could propagate the idea that all this primary business was a formality and the real headliner of Romney v. Obama was set in stone.

I have given Romney props on this before. If there is one thing I have liked about him, it was his combination of hammering Obama only, and dismissing his rivals as pretenders to the Alpha Dog throne. (His best Alpha Dog moment came when Pawlenty made that scripted semi-joke about mowing only one acre of Romeny's lawn, and the debate moderator asked if he wanted to respond, Romney just smiled and said "That's just fine." As in, "I need not stoop.")

But that was a different situation. Well ahead of his rivals, and the only candidate the Establishment was even halfway confident in, he could use his front-runner status to further his front-runner status.

But he's not the front-runner now.

I really don't want him beatin' up on my boy Perry, but I don't see how he can avoid doing so.

Of course the trap in that, now, is the media's new headline becomes Desperate Romney forced into campaign re-think of that kind of thing. Still, that's a one day story, and it doesn't say much more than we already know (i.e., Romney is no longer the front-runner).

Posted by: Ace at 03:07 PM | Comments (252)
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.