Tag-Archive for » Rick Perry «

What to expect from a Rick Perry administration: active suppression of science

Regular readers know I am no fan of Republican Presidential candidate Rick Perry. The reasons for this are legion, including his stance on evolution and global warming.

Now there’s evidence it’s even worse than I thought: The Guardian is reporting that Governor Rick Perry’s administration in Texas is actively suppressing science. A report about the environmental impact of global warming on Texas was apparently edited by officials, "… deleting references to climate change, sea-level rise and wetlands destruction."

This action smacks of scientific suppression and censorship. And before you accuse me of overreacting, the scientists involved in writing the report felt this editing was so bad that the original authors of the report asked for their names to be removed from the final version. Yegads.

This story was originally reported in the Houston Chronical, and Mother Jones has an example of the changes made. It’s starting to pop up in other venues as well like Climate Progress and Climate Science Watch.

Looking it all over, the charges that science is being suppressed hold up pretty well. John Anderson is a researcher at Rice University, and author of a chapter of the report heavily redacted by the agency in question, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). His opinion is clear:

That state of denial percolated down to the leadership of the [TCEQ]. The agency chief, who was appointed by Perry, is known to doubt the science of climate change. "The current chair of the commission, Bryan Shaw, commonly talks about how human-induced climate change is a hoax," said Anderson.

Terrific. I’m not terribly surprised by this; after all, Perry nominated creationists to head up the Texas State Board of Education not just once, but three times. Putting a climate change denier in charge of an environmental commission is par for his course.

When Bush was President, science suppression was rampant when it disagreed with political ideology (which was very, very common). If Perry is elected, we can expect more of the same. I’m very glad to see Perry sinking in the polls right now, but as far as science goes, the other options aren’t much better.

As I’ve said before, if you’re a Republican and you support science, you need to make your voice heard. It’s now long-since become de rigeur for GOP candidates to deny all manners of science if they want to get elected. It may not be too late. Speak up… or forever be denied your peace.


Related posts:

- The increasingly antiscience Republican candidates
- Republican candidates, global warming, evolution, and reality
- Next up for Congress: repeal the law of gravity


What to expect from a Rick Perry administration: active suppression of science

Regular readers know I am no fan of Republican Presidential candidate Rick Perry. The reasons for this are legion, including his stance on evolution and global warming.

Now there’s evidence it’s even worse than I thought: The Guardian is reporting that Governor Rick Perry’s administration in Texas is actively suppressing science. A report about the environmental impact of global warming on Texas was apparently edited by officials, "… deleting references to climate change, sea-level rise and wetlands destruction."

This action smacks of scientific suppression and censorship. And before you accuse me of overreacting, the scientists involved in writing the report felt this editing was so bad that the original authors of the report asked for their names to be removed from the final version. Yegads.

This story was originally reported in the Houston Chronical, and Mother Jones has an example of the changes made. It’s starting to pop up in other venues as well like Climate Progress and Climate Science Watch.

Looking it all over, the charges that science is being suppressed hold up pretty well. John Anderson is a researcher at Rice University, and author of a chapter of the report heavily redacted by the agency in question, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). His opinion is clear:

That state of denial percolated down to the leadership of the [TCEQ]. The agency chief, who was appointed by Perry, is known to doubt the science of climate change. "The current chair of the commission, Bryan Shaw, commonly talks about how human-induced climate change is a hoax," said Anderson.

Terrific. I’m not terribly surprised by this; after all, Perry nominated creationists to head up the Texas State Board of Education not just once, but three times. Putting a climate change denier in charge of an environmental commission is par for his course.

When Bush was President, science suppression was rampant when it disagreed with political ideology (which was very, very common). If Perry is elected, we can expect more of the same. I’m very glad to see Perry sinking in the polls right now, but as far as science goes, the other options aren’t much better.

As I’ve said before, if you’re a Republican and you support science, you need to make your voice heard. It’s now long-since become de rigeur for GOP candidates to deny all manners of science if they want to get elected. It may not be too late. Speak up… or forever be denied your peace.


Related posts:

- The increasingly antiscience Republican candidates
- Republican candidates, global warming, evolution, and reality
- Next up for Congress: repeal the law of gravity


Michele Bachmann needles Perry on vaccinations

The antiscience stance of the Republican candidates for President is getting so chaotic I swear I need a scorecard to keep it all straight. The latest: Michele Bachmann goes antivax.

No, seriously. Generally associated with the far left, antivaccination rhetoric reared its head at the latest Republican candidate debate. In 2007, Governor Rick Perry of Texas — and current front runner of the cohort of White House contenders — issued an Executive Order mandating the Gardasil vaccination for girls. This vaccination prevents girls from getting the human papillomavirus, or HPV, a virus that is a major factor in contracting cervical cancer later in life. This cancer has a greater than 30% fatality rate once contracted, and is a horrible, horrible condition. 20 million people in the US alone carry the virus.

Mandating vaccinations is actually something of a difficult topic, and my stand on it is somewhat nuanced (though I do lean towards saying "yes, they should be under most circumstances").

Representative Bachmann is not quite so subtle. During the recent debate, she tried to hammer Rick Perry on this issue, saying it’s wrong to mandate vaccines, saying that Gardasil "can have very dangerous side effects".

That’s pretty misleading. Gardasil’s dangers are minimal, and have been grossly exaggerated by the media. But Bachmann is going for broke with her claims; she’s now saying this:

"There’s a woman who came up crying to me tonight after the debate," Bachmann said after the debate, where she had told Perry on stage that she was "offended" by his decision. "She said her daughter was given that vaccine. She told me her daughter suffered mental retardation as a result of that vaccine."

There has never been a single confirmed case of anything like this happening (in fact, a bioethicist has offered Bachmann $10,000 if she can come up with some evidence for her statement; no word from her campaign so far). Some people do have adverse reactions to vaccinations, but they are rare (like a girl who had an extraordinarily rare mitochondrial disorder which might — mighthave caused a vaccine-related problem). But mental retardation from Gardasil is totally unheard-of.

The source is incredibly suspect, too. A unnamed woman came up to Bachmann and told her this unsubstantiated story? And Bachmann goes on national TV to score points with it? The line of evidence breaks down at every step here. Bachmann saying this during a nationally televised debate is nothing short of shameful. And reckless.

She’s not the only one making hay of this, either. A PAC backing Ron Paul has a video that calls Gardasil "an STD vaccine". That a pretty cynical spin on it; the issue of vaccinating against HPV is not about sex, it’s about health. However, because HPV is contracted through sexual contact, this also plays into the far-right’s morality issues.

Generally speaking, antivaxxers tend to be to the left of the political spectrum. I doubt Bachmann is sincerely trying to woo that vote. More likely, she is just displaying more of her antiscience predilections like creationism and global warming denialism.

I also doubt Bachmann would’ve gotten the Republican nomination even before she said something like this, but mirroring the thinking of the far-left could very well sink her once and for all inside her own party. We’ll see. But don’t forget: even if and when she’s gone, we’ll still have a coterie of antireality candidates to deal with on that ticket.


Related posts:

- Mainstream scaremongering over Gardasil
- How safe is Gardasil, and a new antivax FAQ
- Antivaxxers and the media
- Antivaxxers must be stopped, NOW
- Vaccines on the left, vaccines on the right


A Letter From Rick Perry (repost)

Introducing PerryCare™

Dear American,

For the last few weeks I’ve been under constant attack.  My opponents would have you believe that if I’m elected, you’ll be stripped of your Social Security benefits and will be scrounging for food in dumpsters with all the desperation of a feral cat.

Read

Not like other politicians

Paul Burka – Senior Executive Editor of Texas Monthly
God Talks to PerryI used to teach a course at the Lyndon B. Johnson school of Public Affairs, for first-year students, called “Policy Development.” The metaphor for the course was a cauldron of soup, into which all the issues of the day were dumped. Sometimes these issues floated to the top; sometimes they sank to the bottom, but together they formed the principal concerns of government.

Academics, bureaucrats, and elected officials studied these issues looking for indicators–numbers that suggested that this issue or that one was undergoing change. The unstated premise was that the bureaucracy was the real government–that they knew what was going on, more than the elected officials did, because they knew the numbers. Once the numbers were known–that, say, illegal immigration was increasing, or the number of homeless people–government would address the problem, or, at the very least, make the public aware of it. Together, these issues created a policy agenda on which, presumably, politicians would take action.

I bring this up to make the point that Rick Perry is just plain different from other politicians. He never lived in the world of policy agendas as it was described in “Policy Development.” In that world, politicians identify problems and seek solutions. I can’t recall Perry once urging legislators to improve education and health care, the state’s two main services. In the middle of a crippling drought, his policy response was to ask Texans to pray for rain, rather than to support funding for the state’s water plan. He has never been the kind of politician who tackles problems, unless an issue gets under his skin, such as the rising cost and lackluster graduation rates of higher education have done recently. Texas government is full of indicators that are blinking red–danger! danger!–from dropout rates to families without health insurance, and year after year they go unaddressed. That’s not the way it was supposed to happen, according to Policy Development 101.

The point is, Rick Perry is not like other politicians. He doesn’t think about politics in terms of problems and solutions. He thinks about politics in terms of ideology and power. Perry is saying things in this campaign that no presidential candidate has said in decades, not the least of which is an unrelenting attack on social security.

Far from avoiding the third rail of American politics, he is jumping onto it. He wants to do away with Medicaid. He wants to repeal the income tax. He opposes the direct election of U.S. senators and wants to return their election to state legislatures. When was the last time you heard a politician advocate taking away the right of the people to vote?

This seems to me like an enormous–and unnecessary–gamble. Perry already has the best talking point of any candidate, which is his record of job creation in Texas, certified by the Dallas Fed. I would say that he is running a risk of becoming a caricature of himself, except that it’s not much of a risk when he has a double-digit lead over his rivals.

The increasingly antiscience Republican candidates

A lot of folks on the web are buzzing about Paul Krugman’s NYT OpEd today about the antiscience convictions of the current cohort of Republican candidates running for President of these United States. I find little fault in what Krugman wrote. Each candidate on the right is simply scrambling to be even more antiscience than the next.

Of course, if that "next" is Rick Perry, then I doubt anyone could sprint away from reality more than he does. He’s a dyed-in-the-wool creationist who apparently has no problem narrowing or stepping well over the line with separation of Church and State, and when it comes to denying climate change he also apparently had no problem with simply making things up (Krugman calls his statements "vile", and the Washington Post blog The Fact Checker rated his claims as "whoppers"). Perry’s stance on other big issues is similar.

And he’s far and away the front runner, which leaves me shaking my head.

Where Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum stand is obvious. Newt Gingrich — who claims he’s a fan of science — equivocates when it comes to ...


The increasingly antiscience Republican candidates

A lot of folks on the web are buzzing about Paul Krugman’s NYT OpEd today about the antiscience convictions of the current cohort of Republican candidates running for President of these United States. I find little fault in what Krugman wrote. Each candidate on the right is simply scrambling to be even more antiscience than the next.

Of course, if that "next" is Rick Perry, then I doubt anyone could sprint away from reality more than he does. He’s a dyed-in-the-wool creationist who apparently has no problem narrowing or stepping well over the line with separation of Church and State, and when it comes to denying climate change he also apparently had no problem with simply making things up (Krugman calls his statements "vile", and the Washington Post blog The Fact Checker rated his claims as "whoppers"). Perry’s stance on other big issues is similar.

And he’s far and away the front runner, which leaves me shaking my head.

Where Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum stand is obvious. Newt Gingrich — who claims he’s a fan of science — equivocates when it comes to ...


Rick Perry’s Political Inspiration

YouTube Preview Image

Did Rick Perry just admit to violating the US Constitution?

To say I am not a fan of Rick Perry, Republican Presidential candidate, is to seriously underestimate my antipathy toward him. He is anti-science in almost every sense of the word, and his stance on nearly every issue on which I’ve heard him speak is the exact opposite of where I stand. But then something like this comes along, and shows just how far outside of reality he is. In this video, a little boy asks him how old the Earth is, and Perry then gives an astonishing answer:

After equivocating about the age of the Earth, Perry — a man who, if elected President, will swear to uphold the U. S. Constitution — says, "In Texas we teach both creationism and evolution in our public schools." This is a jaw-dropping assertion. I find it difficult to interpret this as other than him saying he supports blatantly violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by teaching religion in public schools. Gawker does take a different tack saying, " Texas does not, in fact, teach creationism, or anything like it." But even if that’s true, it means Perry is — ...