"This budget buster did not have a single republican vote in the house, and do you want to know why? 600 million dollars to buy green cars for bureaucrats, 50 million dollars to subsidize more obscene art through the NEA. 400 million dillars to study sexually transmitted diseases.... "I'm just not sure what Republicans are going for with these attacks... the idea of the stimulus is to stimulate the economy, right? And the way to stimulate the economy is to inject cash into it. That can be done one of two ways -- either the government gives the money directly to taxpayers, or the government spends money.
Non-partisan economic research has shown that the latter provides more stimulus to the economy than the former. (See Mark Zandi's 1/21/09 report here, specifically Table 2: Fiscal Bang for the Buck, which shows tax cuts providing "Bang for Buck" rates in the 0.25 - 1.28 range, and spending in the 1.38 to 1.73 range). Government spending also has the added benefit of getting things done for the country
Let's look at some of the projects that have been mocked...
"Buying green cars for bureaucrats..." I have the final text of the stimulus bill as passed by congress and signed by the president. I searched for this (contrary to what Rush Limbaugh told his listeners, a PDF file is searchable), and found $300, not $600, million in a section called "ENERGY-EFFICIENT FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE FLEET PROCUREMENT." The section provides money to the GSA to replace older vehicles in it's huge fleet with new, energy efficient (commercially available hybrid, electric, and plug-in hybrid) vehicles. That sounds like a good idea, right? Higher fuel economy, lower emissions, and lots of BUYING CARS which will stimulate the auto industry and the thousands of people it employs. I've driven and/or ridden in dozens of GSA vehicles due to my military travel... I wonder if that makes me a bureaucrat.
"More Obscene Art Through the NEA..." The National Endowment for the Arts makes grants to a wide range of programs, including after-school, summer, and in-classroom programs for schoolchildren, public gardens, art and music festivals, independent film festivals and theater groups, and the creation of various fellowships in the arts. Some of the works that have been funded (directly and indirectly) by the NEA have offended some people. A number of years ago, the late Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) attacked the National Endowment for the Arts over what he called obscene and anti-religious artwork. I remember the works in question, and agree that some were quite critical of religion, and others featured adult themes and even (GASP!) nudity. These projects made up a tiny fraction of the overall NEA budget, and many were presented by theatre and performance groups who got general startup or support money from the NEA, not specific grants for these projects. Do Republicans really think that because a few artistic works offended some people's religious sensibilities, we shouldn't spend money putting people to work in the arts, or teaching the arts to children?
"400 million dillars to study sexually transmitted diseases..." I actually couldn't find this in the final version of the bill that was signed by the President. I know that earlier versions did have $400 million "for the screening and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV." I've heard complaints about that amount on two different fronts: First, that "sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV," shouldn't get research funding because people who contract them are to blame, and don't deserve to be helped. This is obviously absurd... I work in pulmonary research, and don't see anyone trying to eliminate funding for the myriad other diseases that are preventable via behavior modification. Lung cancer? COPD? Adult onset diabetes? Also, plenty of people are living with HIV today who contracted it without sexual contact.
The second argument against this research funding is that it wouldn't create jobs. I'm not sure if that's based on any logic, or just sounds good to angry mobs of conservatives. I sat in a research meeting this morning where we discussed staffing. Our research is almost entirely NIH (National Institutes of Health) funded, and when we learned that there was money in the stimulus for our field, we realized that more grants on the edge of the funding threshold would be approved. People whose positions would have otherwise been eliminated are now more likely to have jobs in the future. Our director actually said, "Depending on how much comes down to us from the stim, we'll figure out how many new staff we'll be able to hire." Republicans like to yell and scream that government doesn't create jobs, but what do they call that?
Oh, and speaking of projects that Republicans are quick to mock, I was equally furious about Governor Bobby Jindal's (R-LA) comments earlier this week about "something called volcano monitoring." That something is exactly what it sounds like: monitoring deadly geological features of our planet to provide early warnings to populations of Americans at home and abroad, all the while, employing scientists and support staff at an agency that faced layoffs during the Bush administration. More jobs and increased homeland security... that, my friends, is what Bobby Jindal mocked on national TV this week.
[Cross posted from Eric's Occasional Outburst]
All of the Harvard Democratic clubs were having a combined party at Tommy Doyle's, and
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
99catsaway were hoping to meet there. She had arrived hours earlier, and had staked out some territory near the bar. Unfortunately, by the time I got there, the line was huge.She met me outside and we and made our way to Whitney's. In all my years in the area, I had only been there once before, but I'm going to need to go again. It's right in the square, but so easy to miss. As the reviews on Yelp suggest, it's one of the few places remaining in the Square that isn't a shopping mall/chain store place or feel "too trendy for the room."
Whitney's was full, but not overcrowded, but since they were showing ABC News, we made our way over to Cambridge 1 after one round of drinks. Once inside, we realized that while there was CNN on the screens, there was no audio! The bartender fielded many requests to switch, but explained that there was no way for him to do so.
Even without sound, though, I was able to see CNN anchors talking to a freakin' hologram. I think I actually cried out, "Holy crap! Anderson Cooper is talking to a freakin' hologram! The future is here!"
Anyway, right as I finished off my pizza, the CNN Breaking News sweeper graphics come up on screen. CNN called Virginia for Obama... and I think at that point everyone in the restaurant knew that an Obama victory was inevitable. Sure enough, almost immediately after, we saw the sweeper again, and CNN called the election for Obama.
The reaction where we were at was pretty subdued... people cheered a bit, then got quiet, many enjoying an introspective moment with friends or a loved one. There was hugging, kissing, sighing, and teary eyes. We knew we had to settle our bill and find our way somewhere with sound for the speeches.
We walked through the Square to people cheering at each other, car horns honking in celebration, two guys running shirtless through the streets screaming cheers. It really was great.
We ended up back at Whitney's, where we watched McCain's concession speech from just outside. The TV was visible through the window, an there was a speaker mounted over the door facing out. It was a beautiful night, weather-wise, and there was something great about standing in a crowd on the sidewalk of John F Kennedy Street watching history. I personally think that McCain's speech was exactly what needed to be said, and well delivered, too.
By the time Obama spoke, we had made our way into the bar, but stayed close enough to the door that we could see the crowd outside, the cars that had pulled over, double parked, so that drivers and passengers could watch out their windows. Crummy cell phone pics:
Obama's speech was amazing, of course, and I wasn't the only one in the place who got a bit teary eyed several times. After we left, I said to my dad on the phone that, "If a speech like that can't get the process of reuniting the country started, then I don't know what will."
- Mood:
hopeful
Anyway, I recently read a blog post lauding a National Review article in which Michael Novak blasts sophisticated, educated, big-city folk for dismissing people who talk like Sarah Palin... or, as he calls them, "most of America."
I wrote a response, but Blogger isn't letting me post a comment over there, so I'm going to post it here:
My frustration with Michael Novak's comments (and many of Sarah Palin's) stems from his implication that there's something wrong with urban/metropolitan America or with being highly educated. He describes the "truer instincts" and the "common sense" that he sees in "most of America," those in cities and towns of less than 100,000.
That is offensive to those who live in big cities and/or consider themselves to be sophisticated or highly educated. Should they not feel put-off by the sentiment that they're not humble enough, or that their instincts are somehow not true enough, to be like "most of America," or even "real America?"
I don't think that there's anything wrong with the people and places that Novak and Palin refer to, and there's certainly nothing wrong with the way they speak. However, I also don't think there's anything wrong with metropolitan culture, big-city values, or being highly educated. We're ALL Americans.
I'm frustrated, too, by the claims that Novak and others make about where most of America lives. He writes, "more Americans live in such environments [fewer than 100,000 people] than in the large 'sophisticated' cities."
Let's see how that claim holds up: I took the 2007 US Census estimates for metropolitan areas. I filtered for only those with more than 5 million people, and got 9 "sophisticated" metro areas, comprising 24% of the US population.
Areas with more than 1 million people make up 54%.
Areas with over 500,000 people... 65% of the US population.
Areas with over 100,000 people... 82% of the US population.
Turns out, most of America does not live in Michael Novak's small towns or in Sarah Palin's "real America." That's why I get so upset when I hear Sarah Palin speak. It's not the words she uses, or her accent, or her level of sophistication. It's the implication that huge numbers of Americans live in places that aren't American enough for her.
I'm so ready for the entire country to move forward when this is all over. I sincerely hope that no matter the outcome, our nation will find some sense of unity.
- Mood:
sleepy
Obama (Dem) is in 57% agreement with you
McCain (Rep) is in 29% agreement with you
Baldwin (Cst) is in 37% agreement with you
Barr (Lib) is in 23% agreement with you
McKinney (Grn) is in 43% agreement with you
Nader (Ind) is in 51% agreement with you
No real surprises there, huh?
- Mood:
bored
(NSFW Language click here for bleeped out version)
Guess who's not coming to dinner
"I do not like you, John McCain. My feeling has nothing to do with issues. It has to do with common courtesy. During the debate, you refused to look Barack Obama in the eye. Indeed, you refused to look at him at all. Even when the two of you shook hands at the start, you used your eyes only to locate his hand, and then gazed past him as you shook it...."
Palin: wrong woman, wrong message
In the piece, Steinem points out something that I managed to miss in the storm of info about the Alaska Governor:
She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular, and she's won over Alaskans mostly by using unprecedented oil wealth to give a $1,200 rebate to every resident. Now she is being praised by McCain's campaign as a tax cutter, despite the fact that Alaska has no state income or sales tax.That's a fairly important point. If Palin was elected governor of a state that already did not collect sales or income taxes, then the tax cuts she's being lauded for can't possibly have been tax cuts to individuals.... and those rebates weren't really rebates... they were just distribution of profits that the state made on oil.
(emphasis mine)
Steinem also has a great message for any Hillary Clinton supporters who still feel that voting for McCain/Palin is the right move:
Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."
Meanwhile, Bill Kristol is writing in the NYT that Liberals need to “Stop speaking for us and start listening to us.” Mickey Kaus writes in Slate that "Lecturing the public on what's 'true" and what's a "lie" (when the truth isn't 100% clear) plays into some of the worst stereotypes about liberals--that they are preachy know-it-alls."
Where were Kristol and Kaus when the vast majority of US Citizens and a narrow majority of Congress (you know, the branch of government that authorizes war?) wanted to end the war in Iraq, but Bush and McCain were lauded for having the "courage" to completely ignore the will of the people and do what they thought was right?
Poll #1258492 Are You Registered?
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: None, participants: 12
Are you registered to vote?
Yes
12 (100.0%)
No, but I plan to register soon. 0 (0.0%)
No, I don't plan to register. 0 (0.0%)
Did you vote in this year's presidential primaries?
Yes 9 (75.0%)
No 3 (25.0%)
Did you vote in the 2004 presidential election?
Yes 12 (100.0%)
No 0 (0.0%)
Have you voted in any election SINCE 2004?
County or Municipal Government 5 (71.4%)
State Government 7 (100.0%)
US House or Senate 5 (71.4%)
Proposition or Referendum 4 (57.1%)
Other 2 (28.6%)
Larry "How Important is the Board?" King opens the clip by asking a great question about McCain's VP selection: "Are you saying that this is the most qualified Republican he could have picked?"
In response, Bachman cites Palin's highlights:
- "She has come up, she's become Governor."
- "The former governor of Alaska, she took his plane, sold it on eBay."
- "She said no to the bridge to nowhere."
- "This is a woman that's actually done something other than just run for president all her life."
Bachman replies: "That's demeaning to women! It's demeaning to women, those comments.... It's demeaning to women because Sarah Palin didn't get to where she is on anyone else's coat tails. She put on her own coat!.... SHE HAS MORE EXPERIENCE THAN BARACK OBAMA! She's a heartbeat away, but he is the heartbeat!"
Let's look at Bachman's claim that Palin has more experience than Obama:
| Obama | Palin |
| 3 years in the US Senate representing Illinois (pop. 12,852,500) 9 years in the Illinois Senate representing 13th District (pop. 781,000) Senior Lecturer in Constitutional Law President of his law school's prestigious legal journal JD (doctoral law degree) magna cum laude BA in Political Science w/ specialization in International Relations | 2 years as Governor of Alaska (pop. 683,500) Director of Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc., Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska Wasilla, Alaska (pop. 5,500) city council Brief stint as a sports reporter BS in Communications-Journalism with a minor in Political Science |
- Mood: amused
I found a really interesting interactive map that lets you see a breakdown of electoral results for every presidential election all the way back to 1789.
Check out this map at 270toWin.com. For an interesting look, I recommend clicking the "Select year" drop down at the top, and using your keyboard's arrow keys to scroll through history.
Lately, everyone from columnists to bloggers seems to have noticed that John McCain's strategy is a bit more complex than Guiliani's. When his campaign builds a sentence, they put together a noun, a verb, a dismissal of the matter at hand, and prisoner-of-war.
It was recently revealed that McCain wasn't actually in a "cone of silence" for Obama's portion of the Rick Warren forum. His spokesperson replied: “The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous.” [NY Times]
When Obama hit McCain for not knowing how many houses he owns, another spokesperson hit back: "This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years -- in prison."[Washington Post]
Instead of showing up for the debates in person, maybe McCain he should just send a POW-MIA flag and his service photo. That should remind everyone that his POW experience makes it unpatriotic to question his judgment, abilities, or positions.
PS: I like how the McCain camp is still disparaging fancy lettuce and education. The same McCain spokesperson who responded to the houses issue had this to say:
"In terms of who's an elitist, I think people have made a judgment that John McCain is not an arugula-eating, pointy headed professor-type based on his life story."That line is more than a personal attack on Obama, it's a personal attack on the many Americans who enjoy arugula! It's an attack on the many Americans who are or who aspire to be professors! It's an attack on the Coneheads!
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 10
Will you be watching either/both of the nominating conventions?
Have you already decided who you'll vote for?
Do you think that either of the conventions might influence your vote?
View Answers
Definitely Not 6 (60.0%)
Probably Not 2 (20.0%)
Unsure 2 (20.0%)
Probably 0 (0.0%)
Definitely 0 (0.0%)
Which convention do you plan to watch at least some of?
In fact, it seems to me that when McCain became the presumptive Republican candidate, he started to become more and more like the Republican Party. On the flip side, it seems that when Obama became the presumptive Democratic candidate, the Democratic Party started to become more and more like him.
Does it look that way to anyone else out there?
Citing the religious history of marriage, the societal benefits of two people being legally attached, and the fact that our constitution separates church from state, Thomas advocates that every couple who ask the state for a joining be granted a civil union. Same sex or not. Those couples would then have the option to continue on to a religious ceremony (a wedding or marriage, if you will) depending on their beliefs and that of their church.
It seems to make such perfect sense to me, but judging from the comments on the piece as well as some hubbub around the web, it seems that it's meeting pretty strong opposition from both sides of the debate.
For the most part, it looks like the anti-gay-marriage camp is responding with a fairly predictable message: Thomas "doesn't get it" -- (our) god said same-sex marriage is wrong, so it must be illegal because the separation of church and state either (a) doesn't really exist or (b) doesn't apply to this.
Members of the pro-gay-marriage camp have also weighed in that "Thomas doesn't get it." Their argument, however, is that they don't want civil union. They want to get "married," without catches or limitations -- "equality," they cry. For some, equality is only achieved when churches to no longer disallow same sex marriage.
I don't think anyone making either of those arguments "gets it." We live in a society that permits religion, but must not legislate it. The legality of joining two people should only consider civil concerns, not theological ones. "Marriage" is a somewhat subjective (even arbitrary) term, invented by religion, the meaning of which varies from one faith to another. Legislating the definition of it may feel like equality, but it's actually limiting freedom of religion.
EDIT: This reminded me of a conversation I had a while back with someone who opposed same sex marriage (and civil unions) on religious grounds. She told me that in her mind, marriage was a contract with "God," and that was that. I asked her how she felt about heterosexual couples in the US getting married who weren't of a Judeo-Christian or Muslim faith, whether they be wiccan, hindu, atheist, or whatever. I also asked her how she felt about my grandparents, who were of two different faiths, and married years after each widowing their first spouse, by a judge, in a catering hall. Her response was that in all of these cases, since the couples weren't same sex, it wasn't really an abomination, but also contended that none of them were really married.
I'm glad that someone did the math to check on that claim. Here's what Newsweek found:
If we stack all the ballots cast for the candidate named "Hillary Clinton" (17,916,763, including the caucus estimates) alongside all the ballots cast for the candidate named "Barack Obama" (17,723,200), the New York senator leads by 193,563. But again, that tally includes Michigan, where "Barack Obama" technically received zero votes. In other words, to believe that Clinton is "winning the popular vote," you must accept the exact results of a flawed election in which voters could choose only one of the two competitive candidates.
Also, I've just about had it with Obama supporters who insist they'd rather vote for McCain than for Clinton, and Clinton supporters who say they'd rather vote for McCain than for Obama. That's quite possibly the most absurd thing I've ever heard (and I've heard a lot of things).
- Location:Alllston, MA (Home)
At the time, Clinton claimed that it was "unnecessary" to withdraw from the primary since it would not count anyway.
Here's what Clinton told Newsweek when asked about her recent claim that the Michigan delegates should be seated at the convention:
"He had a choice to be on the ballot. He chose not to be. I chose to stay on the ballot. So that was a choice he made. His campaign then ran a very vigorous effort to try to defeat me with uncommitted delegates, and he lost. So it wasn't as though there wasn't a contest. There was a contest. And I won."
EDIT:
99catsaway linked to this article which explains how Senator Clinton did against "Uncommitted" in Michigan:Among men, for example, the battle was neck and neck. Clinton got 47 percent and the anonymous/non-existent opposition got 43 percent. (Clinton did substantially better among women, winning 58-37.)...
Among black voters, Clinton was crushed by "uncommitted," 26-70....
Clinton ran poorly among young voters of all races, losing those under the age of 30 by 39-48 percent; splitting voters from 30 to 44 by 46-48 percent; solidly carrying the 45 to 56 age group by 54-34 percent; and winning voters 60 and older by a landslide 67-31 percent.
The only name on the ballot, Clinton won Michigan by a mere 15%.
Last week, on CNN's morning news program, Senator Clinton said, "I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland."
This past weekend, former First Minister of Northern Ireland David Trimble, responded. Mr. Trimble, who along with John Hume, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work towards peace in the region, had this to say:
"I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around... I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."
CNN did some fact-checking of Clinton's foreign policy claims, which revealed another questionable claim:
"I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo," she said on CNN's American Morning.... It's not clear how much she helped since CNN reported at the time that Macedonia reopened its border to Kosovar refugees before Clinton's visit.
Some may find it interesting that, for the most part, I haven't been very outspoken about the Democratic Primary up until this week. That's because for a while, the dialogue was (mostly) about issues, policies, and plans. I had my preferred candidate, but no animosity towards the other. In the past few weeks, however, Senator Clinton's campaign has really taken a turn for the mean, nasty, and negative.
She publicly mocked Obama and his supporters for having hope! Her sarcastic routine in Rhode Island really pissed me off. It's not often anyone criticizes me for being an idealist -- but I actually do believe that our country needs unity. I do believe that our next leader needs more than just the right ideas, but also must come to the White House with the charisma necessary to sell those ideas to detractors. No, Senator Clinton, I don't expect the "sky to open up," the "light to shine down," or "celestial choirs" to sing. But a quick look at our nation's history will show that when we have a well-liked, charismatic leader, the United States has been incredibly productive.
From disparaging a charismatic message of hope, to the trumped-up resume, to the fear-factor advertising, to suggesting that pledged delegates (the ones that we all voted for in the primary) could change allegiance at the convention, Clinton seems to be in full-on desperation mode, and has no qualms about bringing the party down with her. It's pretty upsetting.
"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House, I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House, and Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."
This, of course, completely ignores the fact that Obama has spent more years in elected office than she has, and implies that her years as First Lady of Arkansas and of the United States should be considered as the experience that makes her more fit to lead the country.
Someone over at Daily Kos decided to take a closer look at one of the examples of experience Clinton lists on her web site:
"As First Lady, she helped pass the Family and Medical Leave Act"
A quick check of the congressional record reveals that the FMLA, written by Chris Dodd, first passed the congress in 1990, but was vetoed by George H.W. Bush. Override vote needed 2/3 in the house, but only got about 54%. FMLA passed congress again in 1992, but was vetoed yet again. This time, the override failed the house with 60%.
A 1992 (Bill) Clinton campaign brochure promised that if elected, Clinton would sign FMLA into law. Once he was was elected, Congress acted quickly to pass it a third time. On his 16th day in office, President Clinton signed the bill, the first of his presidency.
FMLA had strong support in the legislature before Clinton was even elected. It passed three times, and nearly survived a veto the second time. All he had to do was affix his signature to it. Can someone please explain to me exactly what Hillary did to "help pass" it?
Senator Clinton touts 35 years of experience. She spent 20 (yes, twenty) of those as either First Lady of Arkansas or of the United States. She also spent several of them practicing corporate law, and even sat on the board of Wal-Mart.
Her opponent has worked as a community organizer, practicing civil and voting rights law, lecturing on constitutional law, and has spent 8 years as an elected member of legislature.
If supporters of Senator Clinton don't like Obama's healthcare policy, that's fine. If they disagree with his vote against the war in Iraq, or don't like his thoughts about ending it, that's fine too. But if they support their candidate making the absurd claim that she has a lifetime of experience but Obama has only made a speech, they're being duped.
Both candidates have sponsored and/or co-sponsored legislation in the US Senate. Both have served on important committees. Both have fought hard for the rights of underrepresented Americans. Both Senators Clinton and Obama have comparable experience when it comes to answering the doomsday phone that rings at 3am in Clinton's campaign ad (not much - like anyone who has not been President).
I don't however, think that Clinton is doing the Democratic Party, or the country, any good by breaking what Gary Hart describes as the "Final Rule" of politics: "Do not provide ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party's nominee."
By repeatedly telling the public that McCain, the candidate who was proud to support and receive the endorsement of George W. Bush, is better suited to be Commander-In-Chief than Obama... well, I'll let Gary Hart say it:
"For her now to claim that Senator Obama is not qualified to answer the crisis phone is the height of irony if not chutzpah, and calls into question whether her primary loyalty is to the Democratic party and the nation or to her own ambition."
Brownback starts out by referencing the debate in which the Republican presidential candidates were asked who among them did not believe in evolution. He writes that "as one of those who raised his hand, I think it would be helpful to discuss the issue in a bit more detail and with the seriousness it demands."
He talks about how science and faith shouldn't be used to drive a wedge between people, and how they don't answer the same questions. He says "people of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that God has given us." He also makes like he's open to the idea of evolution, and gives an example of the definition of evolution that he's comfortable with. If you read it too quickly, it almost sounds like open mindedness. It could be accepted by some as a willingness to accept science, so long as it doesn't go to extremes to fight off faith. Well, Mr. Brownback's version of evolution is this: "Small changes over time within a species." Last time I checked, that's NOT what people talk about when they use the term evolution in this context.
By the end of his essay, Brownback is still trying to give the illusion of open mindedness. He starts his concluding paragraph with the advice that "no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins."
Of course, he then goes on to list exactly which stones are off limits:
"We can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science."Did everyone catch that? He basically says that he'll start with creation, and accept any scientific theories compatible with it. On the other hand, any theories that don't agree with it are to be rejected as athiestic theology posing as science.
How do you like that? It's only science if it confirms his faith. Otherwise, it's theology posing as science.
Dizzying, huh?
