They can conquer who believe they can.
Virgil
Perry and Controversy
No faithful reader of this blog will be surprised President Obama, once again, would annoy me. His unmitigated gall, arrogance lack of professionalism and incivility don't really surprise me any more; I think what surprises me is the fact that almost no other commentator I've seen to date is making similar observations. This quote from a CNN program on Perry's suggestion that the military would be more appreciative of a President whom has worn a military uniform::
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You know, Mr. Perry just got into the presidential race. I think that everybody who runs for president, it probably takes them a little bit of time before they start realizing that this isn't like running for governor or running for senator or running for Congress, and you've got to be a little more careful about what you say. But I'll cut him some slack. He's only been at it for a few days nowBy any objective standard, this is unbelievably condescending, arrogant, and TRULY unworthy of someone claiming to be a President of the United States: this incompetent chief executive thinks that Perry doesn't realize the difference between running for Congress vs. running for the Presidency; he also think he's the self-appointed judge of the behavior of other Presidential candidates. "Be more careful about what you say"? What's the allegation here? What's so bad about military personnel preferring a veteran as a Presidential candidate?
Then there's the suggestion that Fed Reserve chief doing a third quantitative easing would be treasonous. Perry's logic is easy to understand. The White House decided that Perry was attempting to intimidate the independent Federal Reserve and Perry's behavior was not Presidential. Oh, please! We have a President attacking the Supreme Court at the State of the Union over the Citizens United decision and constantly refusing to accept responsibility by scapegoating his predecessor, and he's going to lecture Perry? Give me a break! In the Obama Administration's Alice in Wonderland view, Perry is threatening the independence of the Fed Reserve but Perry is really putting that argument on its head: the Fed by injecting liquidity into the market is, in fact, trying to manipulate the economy, yes, for political reasons (i.e., to the extent that a President is held responsible for the economy). Do you really think that the Obama White House is defending the "independence" of the Federal Reserve or the fact they have been the political beneficiary of massive injections of phantom dollars into the economy and Bernake has made it clear he's willing to open the faucet to stoke the economy? In effect, this is a backdoor approach to stimulating the economy.
There has been a strange inversion of political pressure on the Fed in the past couple of years. [i.e., conservative pushback against potentially inflationary, ruinous loose money supply policies]. For most of its history, political authorities of both parties [including Nixon, Reagan, and GHW Bush] have pressed the central bank to keep interest rates low and expand the money supply as much as possible, with the aim of invigorating economic growth.
Finally, there's the New Hampshire kerfuffle about evolution, where Perry clearly questions evolution and suggests that Texas also teaches creationism in the schools. The latter is a materially false statement; Texas schools do allow discussion of the evidence behind the theory of evolution, but do not teach creationism as an alternative, something he should know given the fact it's a hot topic in the state; I've made it very clear in my posts that I have zero tolerance for populist attacks on science, especially evolution. [As for pathetic parents using kids as props to gotcha attacks on Presidential candidates, such as the loser mother of the young son overheard prompting her son, e.g., "ask him why he doesn't believe in science": can we all agree that this breaches the bounds of civility? But fine, she wants to play this game, how she thinks this is a fair question simply because he questions the evidence presented in favor of evolution--which is only one scientific theory, he can respond how scientists failed to police themselves in the ClimateGate scandal (see below).]
In ClimateGate, what bothered me most was the fact that that many scientists were engaging in groupthink, suppressing other points of view, participating in public policy advocacy, and not quashing sensationalized claims going beyond the limitations of current models, e.g., Al Gore's doomsday predictions. Legitimate scientists do not need to push on a string and are unafraid of the free market of ideas, including challenges to existing paradigms: "come, let us review the evidence". I despise scientists in public policy advocacy for the same reasons I dislike progressive backdoor judicial activism: we expect independence of scientists or judges and require the separation of their roles from advocacy. When scientists engage in advocacy, it undermines the credibility of their independence.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH PERRY? Say after me: it's the economy, stupid! Don't get involved in issues of little if any merit and do little more that chase moderates and independents back towards Barack Obama.
Political Humor
"Obama said the housing market may not pick up again for another year or longer. On the bright side, President Obama now has nine people interested in his house." - Conan O'Brien
[If you thought the credit ratings on mortgage-backed securities were questionable, just try getting approval on a $14.6T mortgage...]
"Perry was a Democrat at one time, but only once, when he was experimenting in college." - Jimmy Kimmel
[Once you go conservative, you never go back.]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Bread, "It Don't Matter To Me". The second of 6 top 10 songs.
