Rick Perry = Bachmann with Male Genitalia

The signs of incurable madness keep appearing, yet his popularity continues to grow. We’re speaking, of course, about Texas Governor Rick Perry — the champion of not one, but two successive chairmen of the Texas State Board of Education (the SBOE) who were rejected by the Texas Senate.

The more recent failure was Perry’s selection of creationist Gail Lowe, whose rejection we wrote about here: Gail Lowe To Be Out as Chairman? That post also reminds you of Perry’s previous choice as chairman of the SBOE — Don McLeroy, the creationist dentist. After McLeroy’s rejection by the Senate and then his defeat in a primary election, Perry honored him at a GOP event with the group’s Patriot Award, about which we wrote Is Texas Governor Rick Perry Insane?

Well, dear reader, having flopped twice before, Perry has just named another new chairman of the SBOE. Fortunately for him there were still plenty of creationists and theocrats on that venerable board from which to choose. They’re conveniently identified for us by WorldNetDaily in an article we wrote about last year (WorldNetDaily: Still Promoting Theocracy) which praised the Texas SBOE and described the “Magnificent Seven” — Terri Leo, David Bradley, Don McLeroy, Ken Mercer, Gail Lowe, Barbara Cargill and Cynthia Dunbar. (McLeroy and Dunbar are no longer on the board.)

Another description of the SBOE members was provided by the Austin Chronicle, about which we wrote Texas SBOE Election: Great Summary. The Chronicle article described the SBOE members as either “Sane” or “Not Sane.” In the “Not Sane” category were Ken Mercer (that’s “cat-dog” Mercer, who defeated Rebecca Bell-Metereau in the 2010 election), Terri Leo, David Bradley, Barbara Cargill, and Gail Lowe (the recently rejected acting chairman). McLeroy had been defeated in an earlier primary, or he would have surely appeared in that illustrious grouping.

Okay, with that lineup of creationists and theocrats from which to make his selection, and with the whole nation wondering whether he’s going to run for the GOP presidential nomination, who is Perry’s choice to succeed Gail Lowe as SBOE chairman?

The answer to that question, dear reader, can be found in this headline, Perry appoints The Woodlands’ Cargill as SBOE chair, which appears in the Conroe Courier located in Conroe, Texas — that’s near Houston. To spare you the effort of checking, Cargill is one of WorldNetDaily‘s “Magnificent Seven” and she’s in the Austin Chronicle‘s “Not Sane” category.

We found another article about this in the Texas Tribune: Perry Appoints Cargill Head Of State Education Board. Here are a few excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Since the governor appointed Cargill during the interim, she will not go through the Senate confirmation process until lawmakers return in 2013. Her term is set to expire in February of that year.

The former science teacher consistently votes with the board’s socially conservative bloc and is a proponent of teaching the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution.

There’s not much else to be said. The science and theocracy wars will continue in Texas public schools. If we needed any further evidence of Perry’s stand on such issues, now we have it.

We’ve already discussed Michele Bachmann’s creationism (see Michele Bachmann in New Orleans: Insanity), so you understand our post’s title. Perry is the same as Michele Bachmann, but with male genitalia.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

25 responses to “Rick Perry = Bachmann with Male Genitalia

  1. It’s a choice between creationist insanity, and insanity of this type

    [T]here are some structural issues with our economy, where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate. So all these things have created changes in the economy. And what we have to do now, and that’s what this job council is all about, is identifying where the jobs of the future are going to be. How do we make sure that there’s a match between what people are getting trained for and the jobs that exist? How do we make sure that capital is flowing into those places with the greatest opportunity? We are on the right track. The key is figuring out, how do we accelerate it?

    Presidents aren’t in charge of school curricula and have little influence over it. Presidents DO have the power to cause massive economic disruption by implementing policies based on the economic equivalent of creationism.

  2. @Gabriel Hanna

    While I can’t bring myself to vote for a Perry or Bachmann, I realize the dillemma. What if the alternative is worse in terms of indirectly making it easier for local anti-science activists to misled students? As with the promotion of Biblical literalism (all of the popular mutually contradictory versions) by a mere “strengths and ‘weaknesses’” approach, I think that indirect effects are generally underestimated.

    The far-left types on these boards (mostly the other ones) are startting to worry me as much as the anti-evolution activists. Lately they only seem to care about the religious aspect of the anti-evolution movement (which would be every bit as misleading about science if “secular” like other pseudosciences), and suggest that all problems would be solved by voting for Democrats. And that’s the pro-science segment of the far-left, most of which is either ambivalent about science or just as opposed to it as evolution-deniers.

  3. Gabriel Hanna says:

    Presidents aren’t in charge of school curricula and have little influence over it. Presidents DO have the power to cause massive economic disruption by implementing policies based on the economic equivalent of creationism.

    This is the dilemma I’ve been wailing about — each party is crazed, one being anti-science lunatics, the other being maniacally opposed to free-enterprise. In 2012, we may be presented with what I regard as a nightmare choice. The only decision we can make — other than leaving (but to where?) — is trying to figure out which set of morons will do us the least amount of damage.

    Life was easier in the days of William Jennings Bryan. The creationists like him were all in the Dem party. Now the creationists have switched, and the two parties seem to offer no sane political choice. It’s truly a situation where all we can do is pick the poison that might not kill us immediately.

  4. comradebillyboy

    I have yet to see an elected republican do anything to create jobs since the 2008 crash. For the last 2 years all the Rs have done is try to push religion, eradicate abortion and even contraception, attack working men and women for actually wanting to have a living wage and health insurance and destroy any sort of social safety net so that their financial backers can prosper at the expense of the nation. Now they are prepared to crash the US economy in the hope that it will hurt the present administration in next years elections.

  5. I thought Bachmann already had male genitalia.

    @comradebillyboy:
    Now they are prepared to crash the US economy in the hope that it will hurt the present administration in next years elections.

    I agree. B.O.’s lunatic spending, power grab of private businesses, war on free enterprise, war in Libya and economically suicidal Healthcare package that no one wants are all the Republican’s fault. The poor guy can’t even golf in peace.

  6. Who is on the anti-free-enterprise ticket? I haven’t heard any politician oppose free enterprise on either side of the aisle.

    In our country’s history, free enterprise has thrived through both Democratic and Republican administrations. Dems generally believe in a more “public” and egalitarian society, while Republicans tend to favor the “every man for himself” ethos. The country works best when it finds the right balance between the two. However neither party opposes free enterprise and there is absolutely no risk of this country becoming a socialist nation. That view is just the insane scare tactics of the far right, as heard on talk radio.

  7. Dems generally believe in a more “public” and egalitarian society, while Republicans tend to favor the “every man for himself” ethos.

    What a fair summation! Dems believe in sharing, Repubs believe in selfishness.

    However neither party opposes free enterprise

    Right, and the government is not suing Boeing for building a new plant in SC instead of in Washington.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/15/opinion/la-ed-boeing-20110615

    And it never took over GM either, and never awarded GM stock to UAW at the expense of GM’s other creditors.

    And I didn’t quote the President accurately about his view that the government should make sure capital goes where it is supposed to and figure out for us what the jobs of the future are going to be.

  8. Gabriel Hanna says:

    What a fair summation! Dems believe in sharing, Repubs believe in selfishness.

    I love all my regular readers and commenters, but I have come to the reluctant conclusion that there is far more confusion and misinformation about economics than there is about evolution. Such confusion about economics is common even among intelligent, science-literate people. Those who naively think the Dems’ policies are benevolent and will create prosperity are just as misguided as those who think the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a solid argument against evolution.

    I’ll continue to be straightforward about such things in my posts, but I don’t have the ambition to engage too much on economic issues. So I just let the comments flow. I can’t save the world.

  9. Curmudgeon: “…I have come to the reluctant conclusion that there is far more confusion and misinformation about economics than there is about evolution.”

    Exactly. It’s at least a “messier” science if a science at all. The only thing that makes it even partly predictable is that a large number of “particles” with free will can be (usually) expected to behave according to the “chance and regularity” that the Discoveroids pretend is mutually exclusive with “design” aka “free will.”

    While I suspect (for several reasons) that less Govt meddling is usually better, or at least the lesser of 2 evils, I am increasingly annoyed with how advocates on both sides sound like creationists. That is, clinging to their position regardless of evidence that might not support it. And devoting much more effort to whining about the other position than supporting their own. And rarely deferring to the ones who do the actual work in the field (economists) when in doubt.

  10. Gabriel Hanna says:

    And I didn’t quote the President accurately about his view that the government should make sure capital goes where it is supposed to and figure out for us what the jobs of the future are going to be.

    You left off the /sarcasm/ tag. Hey, I just remembered I said it all before: Creationism or Socialism: Which is Dumber? The comments were almost unanimously opposed to my opinion. That’s okay, I just soldier on.

  11. Frank J says:

    I am increasingly annoyed with how advocates on both sides sound like creationists. That is, clinging to their position regardless of evidence that might not support it. And devoting much more effort to whining about the other position than supporting their own.

    I gave evidence for my position in Creationism or Socialism: Which is Dumber? As with creationism debates, there is no evidence on the other side — well, one can always say: “We’re confiscating and redistributing, and no one’s died yet!” But I gave examples of side-by-side societies taking opposite paths, and the evidence is rather striking.

  12. @Curmudgeon:

    I only skimmed it the first time so I’ll read your “..Which is Dumber” post again. For now I must comment on your sentence: “There is also evidence that creationism — as a stand alone belief system — is utterly goofy: the world is older than 6K years, there’s no evidence of a recent global flood, etc.”

    There you seem to define “creationism” as IDers define it when they pretend that ID is something else. Indeed ID is not any “belief system,” let alone one that includes only the YEC interpretation. If “creationism” is to include ID, it is first and foremost a strategy to promote unreasonable doubt of evoluion. And secondly one that encourages any design-based belief, from a 5-minute old Flat-Earth, to an infinite age universe, to panspermia, and more. That most fans of ID are YECs (and I’m not even sure of that) is but a historical accident, due in part to Henry Morris. AIUI, most well-read creationists before then were OECs.

    Back to reading about the “dismal science.”

  13. I have yet to see an elected republican do anything to create jobs since the 2008 crash.

    Which is a good thing. The only jobs that politicians create are bureaucrats, who create no wealth or progress. That’s why the biggest job boom since 2008 has been in DC.

    To SC’s post, as a practical matter here in Texas, our schools are fine, no one tries to teach my son about 7 days of Creation or have him read biblical passages. He gets taught math, reading, science, and history, and the curriculum is much more rigorous than the eco-pseudoscience and PC history twaddle he was getting in California.

  14. Gabe, et. al; I stand by my comment that Dems tend to push policies that lead to a more egalitarian society, and with the exception of their “social values”, Republicans tend to push policies that place a greater emphasis on individual freedom.

    I also stated that the country works best when a balance is found between the two. When the Dems held both houses of congress and the presidency, they pushed through their health reform without bothering to either explain it adequately to the people or deal at all with the republican objections. Bad move. My fear is that the republicans, might capture both houses and the presidency and want to get even, in which case a theocracy will be the least of the evils.

    Government intervention in the GM deal kept the company afloat, and it is currently working its way out of government ownership. Is that a bad thing? Would this country be better if GM had folded completely?

    The Boeing deal is a result of their union claiming that the new plant was built in SC rather than WA in retaliation for several strikes over the past few years. The NLRB apparently believes the union has a case. I predict it will be settled in court in the company’s favor, some years from now, but who knows what facts will come up during the process. The NLRB is staffed with civil servants, not socialist goons – they made their decision based on their evaluation of the facts, not some political agenda.

    That the president believes we should be smart in educating people for the jobs that will become available in the future, and making investments in the areas where opportunities will arise, is just common sense. Being smart about where we put resources is not socialism. Even, gasp, republicans want to put money and training where it will do the most good.

    The greatest danger to the country now is the polarization of our elected representatives. We have a government that cannot work together at a time when we really need government to work. Being a creationist is a big negative, definitely, however if someone has creationist leanings but is known for consensus building and working “across the aisle”, I would vote for him. Holding my nose, maybe, but we desperately need consensus seekers in office.

  15. Ed says: “we desperately need consensus seekers in office.”

    I prefer to have people who know what they’re doing. If one party wants another $trillion stimulus, it’s difficult to imagine how to reach a consensus. Some ideas are simply wrong.

  16. Neither party wants another expensive stimulus. Both are talking cuts. The only real difference at this point is where the cuts come from and whether the cuts are accompanied by a minor amount of tax reform to eliminate some special interest tax breaks (another form of stimulus spending) or not.

    I agree, if one of the parties decides to pursue a trillion dollar stimulus, they would be unable to reach a consensus – or be reelected. It’s hard to imagine either party being that crazy.

  17. Gabriel Hanna

    @Ed: I stand by my comment that Dems tend to push policies that lead to a more egalitarian society, and with the exception of their “social values”, Republicans tend to push policies that place a greater emphasis on individual freedom.

    Except that WASN’T your comment, you said Republicans “tend to favor the “every man for himself” ethos.” That is not at all the same as “a greater emphasis on individual freedom” and your reading comprehension is good enough to know that.

    Is that a bad thing? Would this country be better if GM had folded completely?

    YES. GM’s plants and workers wouldn’t pop like soap bubbles. They’d be available for better-managed companies to use more effectively, and most likely at a discount. That would result in more cars made cheaper, a good for our country. The government takeover is crony capitalism. If I start a business and it fails the government isn’t going to step in and save me, nor you; we don’t have any juice. Besides the economic inefficency of using taxpayer money to kepp a badly run business alive, there is also moral hazard–other companies can see that if they get in good with the government they can screw up and get bailed out too.

    The NLRB is staffed with civil servants, not socialist goons – they made their decision based on their evaluation of the facts, not some political agenda.

    Then why is the remedy they seek is forcing Boeing to shut down the SC plant and build a new one in WA, instead of paying some kind of compensation? How is that REMOTELY consistent with supporting free enterprise? But SC is a right to work state, there’s no union campaign cash to be got there–and only Democrats get THAT money.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270897/labor-unions-biggest-political-donors-veronique-de-rugy

    Incidentally, I actually WOULDN’T say that Republicans are loyal to free enterprise either, they just work harder at pretending to be.

  18. SY: “To SC’s post, as a practical matter here in Texas, our schools are fine, no one tries to teach my son about 7 days of Creation or have him read biblical passages.”

    As you might know, most anti-evolution activists do not demand that a 7 (or 6) day Creation be taught. Why risk having students finds out that there’s not a shred of evidence to support it? No, these scam artists do something much worse, which is to demand that students be taught long-refuted “weaknesses” of evolution “designed” specifically to promote unreasonable doubt. Without the refutations of course. Are you sure your son is free from that strategy too?

  19. Yes, he is. Nothing in his school materials about “weaknesses” in evolution. It’s not covered in particular depth, but neither is any other kind of science.

    Of course, he gets science taught at home as well, which is the curse of being a child of a scientist (my dad was an artist, so my at-home training may have been more fun).

  20. @SY:

    That’s reassuring. Though I fear that the “lack of depth” that we dislike is in part due to the relentless efforts of anti-evolution activists and paranoid evolution-denying parents.

  21. No, the “lack of depth” is because science education in general is pretty poor. At the school level, as opposed to PR, there’s no more “anti-evolution” than there is “anti-relativity” or “anti-thermodynamics.” The teachers and administrators don’t understand it, they were all pretty bad at it when they were in school (that’s why they were Ed majors), and it shows.

    Remember the old saying about not attributing to malice that which can be explained by incompetence?

  22. Gabriel Hanna

    @SY:No, the “lack of depth” is because science education in general is pretty poor.

    Have I mentioned how many college freshmen I have taught that do not know how to add fractions? I plan to collect some statistics this year.

  23. No need to mention it, I’m sadly aware. When I was teaching freshman chemistry, I had any student who wanted to use a calculator first pass a test of basic arithmetic- by that I mean adding fractions, long division, finding least common denominator…

    Despite the high quality of the school, my freshmen had a pass rate of 5% on my little incoming test. I had many complaints but refused to budge. The incident which triggered my draconian attitude was a student who, when given an estimation problem, “How many molecules are in a glass of water?” answered, “2.45936178 x 10^-9.”

    My son is 10 and we’re working on complex numbers this week.

  24. Gabriel Hanna

    @SY: I’ve seen freshmen use a calculator to multiply by 1.

  25. Gabriel Hanna says:

    I’ve seen freshmen use a calculator to multiply by 1.

    Most admirable. It’s always good to check one’s guesses.