Rick Perry’s worst marks

Trigonometry (D), organic chemistry I (D), organic chemistry II (F!), organic chem lab (D), Shakespeare (D), economics (D), Keats (D), “writing for professional men” (D)…

How did he ever get a Bachelor’s degree in animal science?

Drawing connections

It’s no surprise Governor Perry denies evolution (“a theory that’s out there”) and global warming (“a contrived phony mess”). The lack of training in economics might also explain his ridiculous stance towards the role of an independent Federal Reserve and its chairman.

Given his educational record, one might speculate that his lacklustre efforts in university translate to his cost-cutting approaches to public/higher education in the state of Texas. 61.3% of high school students graduate? That’s terrible! One shudders to think of what might occur if he were president.

Organic chem must have been a requirement for his program of study. One wonders why he didn’t switch to a program a little more appropriate for his aptitudes.

Dawkins’s rebuttal

Elegantly and poignantly written:

There is nothing unusual about Governor Rick Perry. Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. (Richard Dawkins, emphasis mine)

Dawkins is the author of several titles, such as The Greatest Show on Earth and The Selfish Gene. Part of his rebuttal to Perry’s mis-characterization of evolution as “just a theory” is an observation that is unfortunately true: while the United States is home to millions of intelligent beings, some of whom are undoubtedly the geniuses of today, some voters inexplicably seem to prefer unqualified, anti-intelligent candidates!

New York Times editorial

Krugman of the New York Times points out in “Republicans Against Science” that “the G.O.P. [...] is becoming the ‘anti-science party.’” I highly recommend reading this article, if only for the brilliant realization at the end: (recall that The Wall Street Journal is a conservative media outlet operated by Murdoch’s News Corp, which is also responsible for Fox News)

Lately, for example, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page has gone beyond its long-term preference for the economic ideas of “charlatans and cranks” — as one of former President George W. Bush’s chief economic advisers famously put it — to a general denigration of hard thinking about matters economic. Pay no attention to “fancy theories” that conflict with “common sense,” the Journal tells us. Because why should anyone imagine that you need more than gut feelings to analyze things like financial crises and recessions?

Now, we don’t know who will win next year’s presidential election. But the odds are that one of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti-science, indeed anti-knowledge. And, in a time of severe challenges — environmental, economic, and more — that’s a terrifying prospect. (emphasis mine)

That having been said, enjoy this video of the American Vice Presidential debate yesterday evening, in case you missed it.

Many of us may be wondering, how could Obama possibly be elected to the White House with this less-than-rudimentary understanding of the world? Clearly, this is not an issue with Hillary Clinton, who has travelled to more than a hundred nations, or John McCain, who has decades of experience in politics and the military.

The answer isn’t that he is well-balanced. The answer isn’t that he was less involved in politics prior to his campaign.

The answer is simply that people are disregarding this sort of mistake. They don’t care that a presidential candidate doesn’t know of the political system of the second largest country in the world. They don’t care that this presidential candidate has an unrealistic view of American politics.

What they do see in Obama is:

• youth and energy
• inexperience
• “a [short] history of right choices”
• geek-friendly

He is definitely inexperienced, and that cannot be refuted by anyone on any side. How long has he been in politics? Only since the husband of Jeri Ryan (Seven of Nine on Star Trek: Voyager) lost when his divorce records with Jeri Ryan were involuntarily publicized. In other words, Obama’s sole opponent was involved in a scandal. In such a case, how could Obama have lost?

His short history of right choices doesn’t show that he will make more right choices in the future. This is an illogical connection which he is making, and which he is pushing to his supporters. Simply because he has made some right choices in the previous 5 or so years doesn’t mean that he will deal with the stresses of the Presidency, and does not demonstrate that he is qualified to lead the United States. Certainly, he isn’t the sort of person who would ordinarily be elected to the Supreme Official with Veto Powers.

But what appeals to a lot of younger voters is that he’s geek-friendly. He actually understands technology and the Internet, and supports the net neutrality argument. I’m not going to say much more about this.

You should listen to the LSAT Logic in Everyday Life podcast. A recent episode, “No ‘There’ There” includes analysis of the Spitzer scandal, Ferraro’s comments about Obama’s race, and also offensive remarks from Rev. Wright (with whom Obama is associated).