Posted on 08/20/2011 8:56:05 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Gov. Rick Perry, pressed for his views on evolution, characterized it as “a theory” with “some gaps” in it. He went on to say that, in Texas, both conventional evolution and creationism are taught. He told a boy whose mother asked him about the subject: “In Texas, we teach both creationism and evolution in our public schools — because I figure you’re smart enough to figure out which one is right.”
This is the sort of thing that drives a certain kind of person nuts. Likewise, Perry’s joking about secession after being asked a question about it — and explaining that “when we came into the nation in 1845, we were a republic . . . and one of the deals was, we can leave anytime we want” — has caught on as a kind of shorthand for all of the cultural friction that is going to make Perry a tough sell to suburban moderates.
I’ll get into the question of tossing around these kinds of cultural hand grenades in a second, but first, let me note something that in my view is more important: Neither of Perry’s statements is true. Texas does not, as a matter of statewide policy, teach creationism alongside evolution. The state board of education has rejected creationist materials and adopted a rather conventional curriculum on the subject. And Texas did not retain a legal right to secede from the Union in 1845, though there is a cherished myth to the contrary. Texas’s annexation was a slightly complicated affair: An annexation treaty was proposed, and the secession myth is usually traced back to it. The treaty did not in fact contain such a provision, and, in any case, it was rejected by the U.S. Senate, and Texas was brought into the Union by a joint resolution of Congress (which seems kind of flimsy to me, but it’s worked out alright). Before the governor goes wading into such troubled waters, he ought to be in full command of the facts.
The broader question, however, is: Why would anybody ask a politician about his views on a scientific question? Nobody ever asks what Sarah Palin thinks about dark matter, or what John Boehner thinks about quantum entanglement. (For that matter, I’ve never heard Keith Ellison pressed for his views on evolution.) There are lots of good reasons not to wonder what Rick Perry thinks about scientific questions, foremost amongst them that there are probably fewer than 10,000 people in the United States whose views on disputed questions regarding evolution are worth consulting, and they are not politicians; they are scientists. In reality, of course, the progressive types who want to know politicians’ views on evolution are not asking a scientific question; they are asking a religious and political question, demanding a profession of faith in a particular materialist-secularist worldview.
Take the question of global warming: Jon Huntsman was quick to declare his faith in the scientific consensus on global warming, and Rick Perry has been openly skeptical of it. Again keeping in mind that nobody really ought to care what either Huntsman or Perry thinks about the relevant science, both are making an error, and a grave one, in conceding that the question at hand is scientific at all. It is not; it is political. One might be convinced that anthropogenic global warming is a real and problematic phenomenon, and still not be convinced that the policies being pushed by Al Gore et al. are wise and intelligent. (Some more thoughts on that here.)
Progressives like to cloak their policy preferences in the mantle of science, but they do not in fact give a fig about science, which for them is only a vehicle to be ridden to the precise extent that it is convenient. This is why they will ask what makes Rick Perry qualified to disagree with the scientific establishment, but never ask the equally relevant question of what makes Jon Huntsman qualified to agree with it. So long as they are getting the policies they want, they don’t care. If you want to see how dedicated a progressive is to dispassionate science, spend two minutes talking about the heritability of intelligence. You’ll be up to your neck in witchcraft and superstition and evasion in no time at all. (If you want to test a progressive’s faith in rigorous scholarship more broadly, ask him about gains from trade and comparative advantage, realities that are as solid as anything social science has to offer.)
Perry is making an error by approaching these questions as though they were scientific disputes and not political ones. The real question about global warming isn’t whether one computer simulation or another is the better indicator of what our climate will be like a century hence, it is whether such policies as envisioned by the environmentalist-anti-capitalist green coalition are wise. They are not. Evolution is a public question not because politicians have anything intelligent to say about the science, but because the question provides a handy cudgel to those who wish to beat the Judeo-Christian moral tradition into submission in the service of managerial progressivism. Perry should talk about that, not about alleged “gaps” in the scientific evidence, about which neither he nor his questioners nor the great majority of his critics nor the great majority of his supporters knows the first thing.
— Kevin D. Williamson is a deputy managing editor of National Review.
I stop responding when the name calling starts so bye.No you didn't. Neither did you show either honesty or integrity in naming YOUR choice. Just a TROLL like nastiness.
That's fine and dandy, as long as he does not aspire to turning Barack back into electable.
You know Herr...this forum is about ideas and opinions. It is your opinion that I need to answer your question. I disagree. I don’t care what you think of that it’s just the way it is. Have a good night, I’m outta here.
Gotta have some fun once in a while.
It is your opinion that I need to answer your question.
Suit yourself South40, but I really think that you have the smarts, and the cojones, to make a choice(s), state it here on FR, and fight the battle for your candidate(s). You will have a lot more credibility if you do.
Suit yourself South40, but I really think that you have the smarts, and the cojones, to make a choice(s), state it here on FR, and fight the battle for your candidate(s). You will have a lot more credibility if you do.Unless you are say a Ron Pauler - then attacking everybody and hiding your choice makes a semi sense.
This throwaway line is the tip of an iceberg which consumed the interest of Freepers as well as the academic community some years ago upon the publication of The Bell Curve which departed political correctness and published government data which sought to graph intelligence on a bell curve according to race. The uproar was deafening.
If one wants to discuss immigration policy would one not want to know what kind of immigrants might be more intelligent than others? If one wants to address the problems of crime, would one not want to know whether there is a correlation between crime and intelligence and race?
If our government has money to spend to find out about how to get prostitutes in China to drink alcohol prudently, why have we no money to investigate these questions about issues which are profoundly affecting our culture?
This is a good article which demonstrates how science, like race, is perverted by the left and deployed against us as a weapon. Time after time we have been victimized in this fashion whether it is about homosexuality and AIDS, global warming, or race and intelligence, the left has imposed their politically correct version of science upon us.
I congratulate you, sir. You appear to be the only person on this thread that actually read the article. The article is clearly a warning to all of us, not just conservative politicians.
Perry environmental stance would transform EPA ....>>>>>Perry "approaches the issues from a very libertarian bent," said Jim DiPeso , policy director of Republicans for Environmental Protection. "The EPA would be in for some significant budget reduction. There would be no new intiatives, no regulatory programs that would be initated. There'd be litigation from environmental groups that believe he's not enforcing the Clean Air Act and Water Act as robustly as the law provides."
"Any regulatory programs would be really throttled back," he said. "He has shown no interest in climate policy at all. He doesn't accept the science."
With the governor's blessing, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is challenging at least six EPA greenhouse gas-related regulations. The state's underlying argument: The fundamental finding that greenhouse gases are a public health threat is scientifically flawed.
The federal government is pushing "hastily enacted, cascading regulations" on states and businesses, Abbott argued in a June brief filed on behalf of nine states in federal court.
Perry's approach to energy, DiPeso said, "would be to produce more," rather than discourage the development of energy projects, such as coal plants, that emit greenhouse gases associated with global warming.
"In terms of energy, (Perry) would pursue what many Republicans call the 'all of the above' strategy, with more energy development offshore and onshore," DiPeso said. <<<<<
Finding middle ground on EPA-Texas electric squabble [EPA doesn’t do “middle” ground] “Texas' grudge match with the Environmental Protection Agency is getting nastier and riskier, with the fallout threatening to reach the state's power grid. Want another reason to worry about the lights staying on? Or how about another hit to the economy? You've heard lots of political posturing about Texas' way of life being threatened by an overreaching federal government. This time, Gov. Rick Perry has a point. …………..
Don't be surprised if the attorney general jumps in after Perry slammed the rule for threatening Texas jobs and families and putting reliable, affordable electricity at risk. Late last week, 31 members of Congress from Texas, including eight Democrats, signed a letter to the White House asking for relief. The utility commission also filed objections with the EPA.
MONTANA: Legal gamesmanship threatens our energy future “Texas Gov. Rick Perry is able to boast about job growth under his watch, noting that over 265,000 jobs, or nearly 37 percent of the jobs created nationwide since the summer of 2009, have been created in the Lone Star state.
Recent headlines highlight two major resource development projects slogging through endless legal and regulatory challenges. Investment flees this kind of uncertainty, so Montanans interested in the future economic stability of this state should be wary of the signals we send…” --- [relates short history of 2 outrageous examples] --
“The common experience for Tongue River Railroad and Tonbridge Power is this: Even if you play by the rules, even if you follow the letter of the law, even if you engage with the public during a planning process, even if you get formal approval from the regulatory authorities, you are certain to face organized opposition whose sole intent is to frustrate project development to the point of financial starvation…...................”
CALIFORNIA: …..“Texas Gov. Rick Perry has become a folk hero for people like Stewart as he's marketed his state as a low-cost and business-friendly alternative to California, which is fertile job-hunting ground for Perry.
Texas has added 929,000 jobs since 2001, while California has lost approximately 635,000 manufacturing jobs in that same time, Stewart said.
Answering questions after his speech, Stewart told the story of Perry sending programmed cellphones to CEOs in California with a simple message: "If you're interested in growing your business, please call me. I'm here to help."
"They're doing something right down there," Stewart said of what he dubs the "Texas miracle." "Gov. Perry will go anywhere, any time, to try to recruit companies into Texas."
Perry has taken the state's regulatory process and managed it himself, Stewart said………
[CA Economic Development Corporation President Mark] Lascelles emphasized that it does no good to belabor California's regulatory environment.
"Unfortunately, we can't avoid it. We have to deal with it," he said. Speaker focuses on job creation
There sure are a lot of LIARS on FR lately.
Certainly. Go ahead and copy, or else hotlink to it (makes it easier to use since you don’t have to store it someplace yourself).
waus:
Tell us what the fact that Perry is an Aggie has to do with anything at all.
(Disclaimer: I'm not pushing Gardasil. I'm just saying that little girls get pregnant. They also get sexually abused but adult males. We have a set of twins going into 7th grade who were abused by mama's boyfriend during their elementary school years. The world out there is ugly.)
You mentioned him. I have no interest.
I’m busy working to get Sarah Palin elected president.
Mud slung has covered big business ties, hypocrisy charges, land deals, gardasil, illegals, infidelities with women and men, budgets, jobs, his college grades, ethics, education, global warming view, his religion, "anti-science," evolution, stem cells, his own medical treatments, guns, border, the stimulus, big oil, big pharma, minimum wage, college classmates, his parents, his farm, subsidies, al gore …
In ONE week it's as if he's been vetted more than Obama. Incredible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.