Rick Perry: More Fossils Fuels Means Fewer Rapes

440px-Rick_Perry_official_portrait$With the expanding allegations of sexual assault against Harvey Weinstein and others, Energy Secretary Rick Perry appears to have the answer: fossil fuels. That’s right, more fossil fuel less sexual assault.

Perry was at an energy policy event in Washington hosted by Axios and NBC News when he was asked about the benefits of bringing power to African villages.  Perry described how much he learned on a recent trip to Africa.  According to The Hill, he described how “a young girl told me to my face, ‘One of the reasons that electricity is so important to me is not only because I’m not going to have to try to read by the light of a fire and have those fumes literally killing people.'” He then added:

“But also from the standpoint of sexual assault, when the lights are on, when you have light that shines, the righteousness, if you will, on those types of acts. So from the standpoint of how you really affect people’s lives, fossil fuels is going to play a role in that. I happen to think it’s going to play a positive role.”

It is not clear how “righteousness” will shine with having power in villages.  Rapes occur in fully electrified areas. India for example is fully powered but has an ongoing epidemic of rape.  Rape certainly can be fueled by culture, religious, poverty, and other influences, but this is the first suggestion that it is fuel but a lack of fuel.


46 thoughts on “Rick Perry: More Fossils Fuels Means Fewer Rapes”

  1. I’m guessing this sounded better in his head, and ran something along the lines of it’s scarier in the dark when you can’t see an attack coming. There is an instinctive fear of the dark when you suspect a predator, animal or human, is out there.

    Lost in translation or inception…

  2. It’s too bad there aren’t any energy sources other than fossil fuels. (Sarcasm)

    China’s population enjoys the beneficial effect of fumes from fossil fuels, which makes it difficult to explain the nation’s infrastructure move toward alternatives. (Sarcasm)

    1. Why not quit subsidizing any particular energy source, institute excises on effluvia to render internal to producers certain costs, and let the market sort it out? No need to have some guy like Steven Chu play venture capitalist to a mess of firms connected to the Democratic Party.

      1. Aren’t venture capitalists part of the economic market directed by the invisible hand?

        Since the U.S. is an oligarchy, why draw a distinction between capitalists – Dem, Repub, Walton’s, Gates, Mercer, Adelson, Koch’s, etc.?

  3. Jack the Ripper killed at night.

    “The canonical five murders were perpetrated at night, on or close to a weekend, either at the end of a month or a week (or so) after.” – Wiki

    1. Wilber Ross, another stellar selection for policy-making, like Amway’s DeVos and Trump’s daughter Ivanka, who described food as an “investment” in the poor similar to “Mommy and Me” classes. The latter two are tone deaf, out of touch, and clueless like Trump. Ross is another matter, with his quick resignation and his financial dealings under review.

  4. Well Rick Perry will never be confused with brilliant SCOTUS Justice Louis Brandeis who famously wrote that “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman,” but I guess that’s sort of what Perry meant. You know, sort of.

  5. The Governor makes the connection: fossil fuels >> electricity >> more security in public places. It’s a forced argument, but not an invalid one. The complaints are, of course, status-signalling. Progtrash have nothing else in their stock-and-trade anymore.

      1. slohrss29 – we are talking specifically about rape. How many times have you heard that the rapist grabbed the girl while she went through a poorly lighted section of the park, etc. Or driving them to some secluded unlighted spot to rape the girl. This won’t stop rapes in the home but it will cut down on the rape on the way to home. Except where rapists work in teams, I have never heard of rapists liking an audience.

  6. At least he reminds us how much of a fool he is..and not as deceptive as another one of the shady characters in the Administration, including Wilbur Ross, “….

    Andy Rain/European Pressphoto Agency
    The Forbes article accusing the commerce secretary of inflating his net worth has been the talk of Wall Street and Washington. Here’s how declarations of Mr. Ross’s net worth have evolved over the past two years:
    • $2.9 billion, according to a Forbes estimate in 2016
    • Less than $700 million, according to Mr. Ross’s financial disclosure forms after his nomination to lead the Commerce Department
    • $3.7 billion, Mr. Ross told Forbes last month, arguing that the bulk of his assets were in a trust
    Dan Alexander of Forbes pulls no punches in asserting that the financier has been dishonest about his assets, and the magazine has pulled Mr. Ross from its list of the richest people in America. From the article:
    It seems clear that Ross lied to us, the latest in an apparent sequence of fibs, exaggerations, omissions, fabrications and whoppers that have been going on with Forbes since 2004. In addition to just padding his ego, Ross’ machinations helped bolster his standing in a way that translated into business opportunities.
    A former Ross colleague told Forbes, “Wilbur doesn’t have an issue with bending the truth.” A spokesman for the Commerce Department, responding to the FT, pointed to the Forbes article’s use of several anonymous sources.
    In related news: A Trump administration official says that Mr. Ross will sell all of his holdings in shipping companies tied to associates of Vladimir Putin, which were disclosed in the so-called Paradise Papers. (CNBC)

    1. At least he reminds us how much of a fool he is..

      You’re a classic progressive: people without accomplishment (or people living in handsome little cocoons, like arts-and-sciences faculties) declaiming on the stupidity of others.

      Be sweet if any of you were not otherwise vacuous.

  7. Look, folks. . .no one is ever going to accuse Perry of being silver-tongued, well-spoken or articulate; however, as clumsily as his thoughts and beliefs may have been presented, and as offensive and strange as JT may have found the use of the word– righteousness–in this particular statement, Perry’s thoughts and beliefs do not, in fact, come out of left field. While there are conflicting studies pertaining to whether increased lighting actually serves to decrease crime, read what specialists, with a concentration in personal safety–across the board–consistently advocate and admonish us to follow. Specialists who don’t have a dog in the fight. Specialists who aren’t attempting to push some veiled agenda regarding our overuse or abuse of fossil fuels. Specialists who just want to keep the public safe. That’s it. Safety. Personal safety and the small steps that we can all take to increase our odds and chances of remaining safe. We are instructed, time and time again–by these experts–to, if at all possible, park our cars in the areas of parking lots which contain the greatest amount of light. Yes. That’s right, JT. The experts, who live, eat and breathe personal safety, strongly and vociferously advocate for employing and using well-lit, public spaces as a means of increasing our chances of remaining safe and unharmed. Shocking, I tell ya. Just, shocking. The very same experts also instruct us to leave lights burning, in our homes, even when we are not present, as a means of deterring those who may believe that a dark home, without lights, is uninhabited and an easy target. Astounding. The very same experts implore us to, if at all possible, avoid walking down dimly or poorly lit streets. You don’t say! The very same experts encourage homeowners to buy and install lights, outside of their homes, which are activated, at night, in the dark, by any sort of motion or activity. . .again, in an attempt to frighten or discourage burglars from viewing the homes as potential targets.

    Got a bone to pick with them, JT? Are you ready to discredit their experience and knowledge with regard to the various ways in which light affects our safety?

    Perry wasn’t so off-base as a JT has declared. Not at all. Perhaps JT will prove me wrong? I wonder whether he will, in fact, encourage and implore his loved ones–especially his loved ones, who happen to be female–to park in the most abandoned and dark sections of parking lots, since the additional light, found in certain areas of said lots, is useless with regard to safety? I wonder if JT will encourage and implore them to refrain from the wasteful and impractical tendency to leave lights burning, at home, when they depart said home at night? After all, what’s the use? The lights offer no additional security and are nothing but an example of our misuse and overuse of precious fossil fuels. I wonder if JT will remove any sort of outdoor lighting fixtures, which he installed, to give the family home an extra bit of security and safety? Let me know. Let’s just see how ludicrous JT perceives Perry’s statements to truly be, or, is it that the same rules and concerns regarding safety don’t apply to those strangers, so far away, in some forlorn and desolate area of another country?

    1. Bam Bam, I cannot believe Turley fell for this total misrepresentation of Perry’s remarks. It reminds me of how everyone thinks “I can see Russia from my house” proves Sarah Palin’s stupidity, when she actually never said that. It was Tina Fey mocking her on SNL.

      And, of course, those infected with TDS will lap this up like a kitten with warm cream.

      1. Perhaps, FFS, more than anything, JT has displayed–however unwittingly, unintentionally or unconsciously–his adherence to the motto regarding the disparity between the rules for me and the rules for thee. Those nameless, faceless strangers, located a half a world away, are just that–nameless, faceless strangers, and, as such, there is a disconnect. They’ve lived hundreds, if not, thousands of years without the luxury of electric lights. They can continue living that way. They are used to that way of life. Satisfied with the status quo. They enjoy it. After all, the more that these “others” use in resources, the less there will be for us. Yes. I suspect that there is a great deal of that mentality involved, regardless of whether JT cares to acknowledge it or not. How we conduct our personal lives. . .how we instruct our loved ones. . .how we live our day to day lives. . .is often separate and apart from the manner in which we believe and assume that others have a right to live. Unfortunate, but oh so true. A drastically different take on what we, along with our families, need and expect in our own lives, as opposed to what we perceive as the needs and expectations of people, a world away, who don’t look like us or speak the same language. Quite telling, if you ask me.

      2. I cannot believe Turley fell for this total misrepresentation of Perry’s remarks.

        It’s not surprising given JT’s one Achilles’s Heel on policy and the law; the Environment. He is consistently straight up rule of law, separation of powers in his posts, but when it comes to anything that he perceives has the potential to negatively impact the environment, he drops the legal argument and becomes a full-throated environmental activist.

        1. Oh, that’s right. I had forgotten about that aspect of his foundational worldview.

  8. Ya’ll remind me of someone else who ran for President, Pat Paulson. Paulson correctly stated that the main cause of forest fires are trees. Trump, Perry, Paulson, Schulte, Olly, et al. Let’s argue for fossil fuels by bringing rape in underdeveloped countries into the equation. Yup, Yup, Yup…..

    1. issac – are you supposed to be making a point? I don’t get it, you are way to subtle for me. Please restate your main argument, if there is one.

      1. Paul

        Paul has two eyes, a cow has two eyes, Paul is a cow. It’s kind of like that level of logic where you and Paulson, and Trump, and Perry reside. If you missed the point, argument, reality, then get out of the sun, now.

        1. issac – I am about to go out into the sun, it is beautiful here now. 66 degrees. Let me walk you through it again. Fossil fuels create oil, oil creates energy, energy creates light, light creates safe places, safe places create fewer places for rapists to operate. A = F

          1. Oh stop it Paul. You’re completely eliminating the fact fossil fuels exist because a giant meteor hit the earth and all the plant and animal life died…then the fossil fuels. The sun came before the meteor and then the big bang came before the sun and then…oh no! What came before that? Anyway, human nature happened somewhere in there and that hasn’t changed, ever. So of course we should consider what has changed in the millions of years that man has existed to guide human nature away from crimes against humanity.

            I’m going with bacon. Then electricity.

            1. issac – is it you or the Canadian educational system that needs to be improved?

  9. Perry stays in close communication with Trump. More guns and less restrictions lowers the death toll. More fossil fuels lowers the likelihood of rapes. It has nothing to do with common sense, responsibility, policing, electricity, Africa/sun/solar, that ‘arms’ have morphed into weapons of mass destruction, etc. Yup, Trump and Perry, two of the smart ones.

    1. issac – try critical thinking sometime, I know it will be a change and it will probably give you a headache at the beginning, but when you think it through, he and she are right. The problem is that you cannot make the logical jump from A to F without having someone lay out all the steps for you. I have done that upthread.

      1. Paul,
        issac’s comment is an absolute classic example of just how weak his critical-thinking skills are; others down-thread as well. Bringing electricity into a culture provides endless opportunities for that culture to advance. These idiots are looking for only the direct correlation between electricity and sexual assaults; as you implied A to B. Man’s sinful nature doesn’t change by flipping a switch. That’s something progressives fail time and again to understand in their support for the administrative state.

    2. So you believe city streets would be safer without power. Fossil fuels have vastly improved our lives, only a fool would argue otherwise.

    3. The stupider US leadership and policies, the faster other regions rise above the US in international status, respect, survivability, and sustainability.

      1. The stupider US leadership and policies, the faster other regions rise above the US in international status, respect, survivability, and sustainability.

        Did it ever occur to you to test that thesis empirically? It’s not as if ‘you stupid American’ is a novel theme of Eurotrash discourse, or that among Eurotrash wannabe’s in the United States.

        The ratio of West European per capita incomes to that in the United States is lower than was the case in 1980. They are more affluent than they were in 1980, but their relative position has not improved at all – quite the contrary. Canada and the Antipodes have done better, but neither neither have improved their production levels appreciably faster than the United States. Japan has lost ground against the United States since 1990.

        Eastern Europe has been on a wild ride over the last generation. Some (e.g. Poland) have improved their relative position a great deal. However, there is no gross indication that improvements are derived from aught but applying technology developed elsewhere and process improvements to be had from replacing command economies with market economies.

        The periphery of the Far East has seen rapid improvement in its production levels over 60 years or more. Trouble is, you come to a point where you’re on the technological frontier and you hit that wall, which Japan did in 1990. South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao, and Singapore are also facing the same demographic imbalances which have bedeviled the Japanese economy and made for anemic growth for a generation.

        As for Tropical and Southern Africa, forget it. They’re performing adequately in context if standards of living aren’t declining. Latin America? No, Latin America and the non-Latin Caribbean improve pari passu with the United States, with only the most glacial relative improvement. Uruguay and Chile have done better, but they’ve yet to reach the relative position they held in the 1920s (which they lost over succeeding decades.

        As for the Arab World and points adjacent, Latin American performance is about as good as it gets absent a natural resource bonanza. Where you do have such bonanzas, you have chronic failures in the nurture of the skill set of the indigenous labor force.

        Well, there’s India and China. India has had fine economic performance in the last 40 years and its demographic indicators are healthy. China has had superlatively fine performance; its demographic indicators are problematic but better than Japan’s. Still, there isn’t any glaring indication that they won’t hit the same wall Japan has hit (though perhaps less abruptly because Indian and Chinese women have more than 1 kid). India, while quite successful in its recent experience, is still 19th century poor.

        And then there’s Israel, which has methodically caught up with the west over 70 years, though is still 2d rank as regards its productivity and affluence. The left and the alt-right agree in their loathing of Israel.

        Maybe Chris P. Bacon is hoping China will breeze past us and then stomp on us militarily. The left are like that.

  10. Turn the power of in Chicago an see how pleasant it becomes. Of coarse the streets are safer with power.

  11. Apparently Mr. Turley thinks Africa is a pristine paradise that should not be tampered with by adding modern lighting, heating and cooking. I agree with Paul C Schulte, and besides that the woman Mr. Perry talked to also said ‘One of the reasons that electricity is so important to me is not only because I’m not going to have to try to read by the light of a fire and have those fumes literally killing people.’” That is a very reasonable statement, why not focus on that?

  12. How many rapes do you know take place in brightly lighted areas? The more light there is, the less likely the rape. So, the more fossil fuels, the more energy, the more energy, the more light, thus fewer rapes, assuming some parks put in more lighting, etc.

  13. Is this man for real? Somebody should tell him that are we almost at the end of 2017. I know he is a political figure which makes it more incredible. My 6 year old grandchild speaks more intelligently than him.

    Light avoids rapes and fossil fuels can solve the problem. I had to repeat it because by repeating it I hoped I could find some sense to it. But still it is INCREDIBLE!

    1. Let’s see you or your six year old grandchild run the Texas state government.

Comments are closed.