Skip to content

Author: digby

MIA or AWOL?

by digby

I’ve mentioned several times over the past few days that the Democrats have no presence on the news networks defending the stimulus plan or their president. And since the Republicans are dominating the debate, their lies and misrepresentations are reverberating through the beltway echo chamber.

Think Progress ran the numbers which show that I’m not hallucinating. This is ridiculous:

On Sunday, conservatives began an all-out assault on President Obama’s economic recovery plan, with House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) both announcing that they would vote against the plan as it stood. Despite Obama’s efforts at good faith outreach, congressional conservatives have continued to attack the stimulus plan with a series of false and disingenuous arguments.

The media have been aiding their efforts. In a new analysis, ThinkProgress has found that the five cable news networks — CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business and CNBC — have hosted more Republican lawmakers to discuss the plan than Democrats by a 2 to 1 ratio this week:

The Republicans obviously have a media strategy. Why don’t the Democrats?

Update: Barney Frank was on Larry King (hosted by John King)and was effective. Perhaps he could write up some simple talking points for his colleagues.

Update: On a related issue, here’s Dana Milbank trying very, very hard to be as bitchy, shallow and sophomoric as Maureen Dowd. I’m afraid he fails even by those low standards. Dowd actually has a clever way with words, however destructive and mean they may be, and assassinates characaters with her own original cruelty. Milbank is just a sad wallflower, desperately trying to be one of the popular girls but destined to be the object of their derision and the butt of their jokes.

I’ll look forward to Somerby’s thorough takedown of this tired and bizarrely anachronistic column.

.

Trust

by digby

From Kagro:

Special “F. You” Note: To Blue Dog Jim Cooper (D-TN-05), who back in December extracted from the Obama team the promise of the convening of a “fiscal responsibility summit,” which he wanted to be included in the stimulus. Instead, Obama agreed two weeks in advance of the stimulus vote to convene such a summit in February, and I said Obama should have waited to see that Cooper and the Blue Dogs pony up on the stimulus before agreeing. Well, Obama didn’t wait, and Cooper (and five other Blue Dogs) didn’t show. What a surprise. There’s still time to disinvite them, of course. Think that’ll happen?

I guess all the Clintonites in the Obama administration forgot about Old Jim’s proclivities on these things. They should have called Mike Lux, who raised the alarm a year ago when the Obama campaign started using Cooper as a spokesman on health care policy:

I was part of the Clinton White House team on the health care reform issue in 1993/94, and no Democrat did more to destroy our chances in that fight than Jim Cooper. We had laid down a marker very early that we thought universal coverage was the most essential element to getting a good package, saying we were to happy to negotiate over the details but that universality was our bottom line. Cooper, a leader of conservative Dems on the health care issue, instead of working with us, came out early and said universality was unimportant, and came out with a bill that did almost nothing in terms of covering the uninsured. He quickly became the leading spokesman on the Dem side for the insurance industry position, and undercut us at every possible opportunity, basically ending any hopes we had for a unified Democratic Party position. I was never so delighted to see a Democrat lose as when he went down in the 1994 GOP tide.

Unfortunately, he came back, like a bad penny.

Perhaps the administration thinks that not playing the blame game with Cooper on this stimulus bill will buy them his loyalty on health care down the road (as the ever so perspicacious Chuck Todd predicts.)

Considering his history, I sure wouldn’t bet on it …

.

Who’s Your Daddy?

by digby

Republican Phil Gingrey made a big, big boo-boo. He criticized Chairman Rush. One simply doesn’t do that and expect to remain in good standing in the Party:

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) apologized Wednesday to “my fellow conservatives” for comments critical of talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh – saying he sees “eye-to-eye” with Limbaugh and that his remarks defending House Republican leadership came across more harshly than intended.

He also took issue with a headline on a Politico story about his comments, saying he never told Limbaugh to “back off,” as the headline read.

“I regret and apologize for the fact that my comments have offended and upset my fellow conservatives—that was not my intent,” Gingrey said in a statement. “I am also sorry to see that my comments in defense of our Republican Leadership read much harsher than they actually were intended, but I recognize it is my responsibility to clarify my own comments.”

Gingrey said he issued the statement because of a high volume of calls and correspondence to his office after the Politico article and wanted to speak directly to “grassroots conservatives. Let me assure you, I am one of you. I believe I was sent to Washington to fight for and defend our traditional values of smaller government, lower taxes, a strong national defense, and the lives of the unborn.”

“As long as I am in the Congress, I will continue to fight for and defend our sacred values. I have actively opposed every bailout, every rebate check, every so called “stimulus.” And on so many of these things, I see eye-to-eye with Rush Limbaugh.”

[…]

Limbaugh had earlier responded to Gingrey’s critique, telling Politico in an email, “I’m sure he is doing his best but it does not appear to be good enough. He may not have noticed that the number of Republican colleagues he has in the House has dwindled. And they will dwindle more if he and his friends don’t show more leadership and effectiveness in battling the most left-wing agenda in modern history. And they won’t continue to lose because of me, but because of their relationship with the grass roots, which is hurting. Conservatives want leadership from those who claim to represent them. And we’ll know it when we see it.”

Limbaugh has been one of the top leaders of the conservative movement for a very long time and the conservative movement owns the Republican Party. He had veto power over any legislation he didn’t approve of under a Republican president. We saw it in action on the immigration bill. He’s just exerting his authority as political leadership is wont to do. I don’t see this as being particularly new or surprising.

Update: Howie has the full rundown on the Limbaugh controversy.

And can I say how much I love Rep. Alan Grayson?

“Rush Limbaugh is a has-been hypocrite loser, who craves attention. His right-wing lunacy sounds like Mikhail Gorbachev, extolling the virtues of communism. Limbaugh actually was more lucid when he was a drug addict. If America ever did 1% of what he wanted us to do, then we’d all need pain killers.”

I can hear the keening and shrieking beginning already….

Update: Jamison Foser reminds us of the fact that Limbaugh was called a mainstream conservative by none other than beltway CW maven Howie Kurtz.

And does everyone remember this call to arms, just a little over a year ago?

Battle lines are drawn over conservative radio
By Alexander Bolton
Posted: 10/03/07 07:41 PM [ET]

House Republicans are threatening to launch a discharge petition on legislation that would ensure the future prosperity of conservative radio talk-show hosts but is expected to face opposition from Democratic leaders. On Monday evening, Republicans filed a rule with the House Rules Committee laying the groundwork for a petition that would force action on protecting radio from government regulation later this fall.

The move comes at a time when Democrats have launched a coordinated attack on conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, accusing him of disparaging American troops critical of the Iraq war as “phony soldiers.”

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has said broadcasters should be required to give listeners both sides of political issues so voters can make informed decisions.

Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so severely that radio executives would choose to scale back on conservative programming to avoid rising costs and interference from the government.

Republicans’ concern has grown as Democrats have waged a battle against Limbaugh in recent days. On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) sent a letter to the chief executive of Clear Channel Communications, Mark Mays, calling on him to denounce Limbaugh’s remarks.

“If anyone ever doubted that there is enmity between Democrats and American talk radio, they need look no further than the personal attacks leveled on Rush Limbaugh on the floor of the Senate,” said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the sponsor of legislation shielding broadcasters from government interference. “I thought it astonishing that members of the U.S. Senate would engage in repeated and distorted personal attacks on a private citizen. It gives evidence of a level of frustration with conservative talk radio that is very troubling to anyone who cherishes the medium.”

Pence, a former professional talk radio host, and Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), a radio station owner, on Monday sent letters to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) demanding a vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act.

In their letters, Pence and Walden cited broad support for their bill as well as a vote on an appropriations amendment earlier this year showing that many Democrats are wary of angering politically influential radio personalities such as Limbaugh. The Republican lawmakers gave Democratic leaders a deadline of the end of next week.

“Over 200 of our colleagues have joined us as co-sponsors of this important measure,” Pence and Walden wrote.

“Considering the significance associated with protecting free speech, we respectfully request that you schedule floor action on H.R. 2905 by Friday, October 12, 2007. While we may not always agree with those who are on the airwaves, as members of Congress and freedom-loving Americans, we should never back down from an opportunity to defend their rights or speak their piece.”

Of course, Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP. In fact, he was apparently the lader of the Democrats too — after all, these “Republican lawmakers gave Democrats a deadline” when the Democrats were in the majority.

(And I didn’t know that Pence was an ex-radio talk show host, but now it all makes sense.)

.

Dick

by digby

Huzzah to Joan Walsh who has far, far more patience than I would have had in dealing with that misogynist moron, Dick Armey. What a piece of garbage:

Former Rep. Dick Armey (R-Texas) still needs some lessons in etiquette.

Armey, who once referred to fellow Rep. Barney Frank as “Barney Fag,” lost his temper during an appearance with Salon Editor-in-Chief Joan Walsh on MSNBC’s Hardball Wednesday, and lashed out, saying:

I am so damn glad that you could never be my wife, ’cause I surely wouldn’t have to listen to that prattle from you every day.

Joan responded, “Well, that makes two of us.” She’ll have more to say in her blog later on. Video of the appearance is below; the exchange comes about 9:42 in.

.msnbcLinks {font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;} .msnbcLinks a {text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px;} .msnbcLinks a:link, .msnbcLinks a:visited {color: #5799db !important;} .msnbcLinks a:hover, .msnbcLinks a:active {color:#CC0000 !important;} Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

If you are unfamiliar with Dick Armey’s bizarroworld discussion about the economy, where the “income redistributonists” have screwed up the economy by not giving enough tax cuts to the rich, you will understand why we are in this mess today. (And you will understand why my head explodes when I see the Republicans on television sanctimoniously lecturing everyone about economics.

Dick Armey is one of the foremost conservative economic gurus in the land and is one of the guys they turn to for serious policy advice. I’m not kidding.

Joan, you are my hero.

Update: John Cole has more on Dick Armey’s insanity.

.

Not One Republican Vote

by dday

Post-partisanship lives. The stimulus package just passed the House, with the billions in corporate tax cuts, without the money to re-sod the National Mall, without the money for family planning for poor people, and without one Republican vote. Without one. Final vote was 244-188 as 11 “Democrats” crossed over. According to Rep. Pete Hoekstra’s Twitter feed, that means they win!

Interesting! The bi partisan vote on stimulus was no. It wasn’t the winning vote but the only vote that received both R and D votes.

During the debate, Republicans offered a substitute amendment which had flat tax cuts (including for the wealthy) and eliminated a good portion of the spending. Earl Blumenauer:

“I’m glad, however, that they’ve offered this alternative because it puts in clear relief what their priorities are – take money away from 95% of the American public and invest in the few who need it the least. Take money away from 4 million students who would have this tax relief. And my favorite, is actually continue to game the alternative minimum tax to purposely push more people into it, with tax gimmicks -rather than work with us in fundamental tax reform that doesn’t subject more people, and give us this biannual charade.”

I don’t know how you can come away from this sideshow thinking anything but that Republicans are determined to have their Great Depression and that they openly wish failure upon the United States, or at least no economic recovery for anyone who needs it. Americans seem to have gotten that message too; it’s why Democrats have a 24-point generic ballot lead at this point for the next election.

Of course, that won’t hold forever. And that’s especially true if the economy is still sour in 2 or 4 years. Ultimately that will be the final judge, not if some random re-sodding of the National Mall feature is in or out of the bill. So pre-compromising to attract non-existent Republican support was, in a word, insane. Now Obama had better hope those Republican ideas (which aren’t overwhelming, but they’re still there) baked into the package work. I’m not holding my breath.

And let’s hope that, in the future, the only people who sill listen to the ideas of Republicans are cable news talent bookers.

.

Comic Timing

by digby

We noticed the other day that there were no comics anymore in our little local rag. Since they were the main reason we often picked it up, we probably won’t pick it up anymore. Now I find out that the alt-weeklies of Village Voice media are dropping all their syndicated comics as well, which includes the great Tom Tomorrow. That is a very, very bad business decision.

Tom Tomorrow suggests that we nicely contact our local weekly and request that they change their minds.

I would suggest that you all buy Tom Tomorrow’s latest book:

You need it. And we all need Tom Tomorrow to help us understand our politics. We really do.

.

Change From The Bottom Up On Transit

by dday

The passage of the Nadler amendment restoring $3 billion in transit funds into the stimulus is a big deal, and not because of the amount. There are still more funds for corporate tax cuts in the bill than transit, which is pathetic. But in this case, the online community (led by Chris Bowers at Open Left and leaders on this issue in the Congress like Peter DeFazio used a public/private strategy to get this passed. In public DeFazio went on Rachel Maddow’s show and others to decry the pittance given to transit in the bill. In private Congresscritters and constituents whipped members of the Rules Committee to get the amendment placed on the calendar for the full House. It was a true citizen lobbying effort, and it had nothing to do with “Obama’s list” or any other such thing. It was engaged citizens, mature enough to navigate the corridors of power, identifying and working toward a progressive goal. We also see progressive House members willing to buck their leadership on battles they can win, and drive successful policy.

Thing is, spending on infrastructure like rail and transit cannot end with the stimulus package. Indeed, mass transit projects require long-term funding and not random moments like an economic crisis to get a quick infusion of funds. The latest report by the American Society of Civil Engineers is out, showing historic neglect to our nation’s infrastructure, and massive funding needed to fix it:

Because decades of underfunding and inattention have endangered our nation’s infrastructure, $2.2 trillion in repairs and upgrades is needed over the next five years to meet adequate conditions. That’s the conclusion of ASCE’s new 2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, released today, which assigns an overall grade of D to the nation as well as individual grades in 15 infrastructure categories. Since ASCE’s last assessment in 2005, there has been little change in the condition of America’s roads, bridges, drinking water systems, and other public works. With the nation’s infrastructure receiving renewed attention from the White House, Congress, and the public as a vital part of an economic stimulus package, the Report Card offers informed guidance from professional engineers on where funds would best be spent.

I would modify that to say “decades of conservatives telling you that ‘your money’ shouldn’t be spent on waste,” not “decades of underfunding and inattention,” but I like to be specific. The report card is here, and the assessment is stark.

If we’re going to both provide a long-term boost to the economy and create a more sustainable and clean energy infrastructure, we’re going to need more than $3 billion dollar amendments. We need to create a National Infrastructure Bank to ensure attention is paid to this crucial sector over time. And we need to use the transportation fund and rework the formula, so that more than 20 cents on the dollar from the fund goes to transit. There are a host of things we can do, and I think the progressive movement is learning how to do it.

Postscript: Just to clarify, in reference to Digby’s earlier post: I’m not sold that the stimulus will work like a charm, I was assessing what some other people were saying about it. I heard Dean Baker this morning say it’s good but not enough, which is a real problem, especially given this new information about PAYGO. Ultimately it will be judged not on its bipartisanshi but its perceived effectiveness, so now would be the time to make sure the damn thing works.

One bite at the apple would be very bad. The thing about PAYGO, though, is that the biggest champion of it in the Congress, probably, is Russ Feingold. In one sense PAYGO can restrict progressive spending; in another it can force taxes on millionaires. I believe there was a vote last year where substantial amounts of Blue Dogs in fact voted for taxes on millionaires. So I’m not totally freaked out by that… yet.

.

Shameless

by digby

Can someone explain to me why I’m seeing Republican after Republican on television advising Americans on the right way to run the economy? Is there any reason why we should listen to them sanctimoniously lecturing us on “what’s worked in the past” and telling us that the only way to cure the problems they themselves created are to do more of the same? They’ve always been known for chutzpah, but this takes the cake.

If a few Democrats could bother themselves to challenge their standing to make these assertions, that might be helpful. Or maybe one gasbag or spokesmodel could ask them why no matter whether the country is economically doing well or doing badly, their advice is always tax cuts. It would really be great if somebody, somewhere, could ask them why they think anyone should take them seriously on these issues considering the mess we are in today. I know that’s a lot to ask during this time of reconciliation but honestly, it’s infuriating to see them swarm the television and have to watch the media listen to their “analysis” and swallow it whole. If I didn’t follow politics closely, I would think these people are the ones who won the election.

.

Howlin’ Dogs

by digby

I hope what dday writes below is true and that the stimulus works like a charm because if it doesn’t, it looks like this is going to be the only clean shot. The Republicans may be all over TV flexing and posing, but like the WWF wrestlers they imitate, they are all for show.

The real problem is, as we should have known, with the Blue Dogs:

Obama budget promise wins Blue Dog support

House Democrats won a key procedural vote Tuesday on the stimulus after a last-minute promise from the Obama administration to return to “pay-as-you-go” budget rules after the stimulus is approved.

In a 224-199 vote, the House approved a resolution allowing the stimulus bill to come to the floor for debate. Twenty-seven Democrats – 24 of them members of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition – bucked their leadership and voted against the measure.

But according to Democratic leadership sources, the number was almost much higher – and could have been high enough to hand the Republicans a monumental victory – had it not been for a letter from President Obama’s budget director Peter Orszag.

The letter addressed to House Appropriations Committee Chairman David promised to return to “pay-as-you-go budgeting,” and stressed that the stimulus was an “extraordinary response to an extraordinary process” and thus subject to different rules.

“It should not be seen as an opportunity to abandon the fiscal discipline that we owe each and every taxpayer in spending their money – and that is critical to keeping the United States strong in a global, interdependent economy,” the letter stated.

Orszag also emphasized that Obama’s support for paying for any temporary tax cuts in the stimulus that he would like to make permanent. The budget director said Obama would detail those offsets in his budget.

“Moving forward, we need to return to the fiscal responsibility and pay-as-you-go budgeting that we had in the 1990’s for all non-emergency measures,” Orszag continued. “The President and his economic team look forward to working with the Congress to develop budget enforcement rules that are based on the tools that helped create the surpluses of a decade ago.

“Putting the country back on the path of fiscal responsibility will mean tough choices and difficult trade-offs, but for the long-term health of our economy, the President believes that they must be made.”

Though addressed to Obey, Democratic sources said copies of the letter were distributed in a last minute flurry to Blue Dogs, many of whom were already on the floor and ready to cast their votes. The centrist group already was ruffled by the fact the package included far more spending than Obama had called for, and were prepared to vote as a block against the resolution, Democratic sources said.

If eight more of the 52-member Blue Dogs had voted against the resolution, it would have been defeated, ending any hope that Democratic leaders had of passing – or even finishing debate on – the stimulus bill this week.

The Orszag gesture did not arrive in time for some, but it did for some others, including Blue Dog Co-Chair Charlie Melancon (D-La.).

“In his letter, Dr. Orszag’s reference to restoring the pay-as-you-go requirements we had in place in the 1990’s is a clear and direct signal that President Obama is willing to make the tough decisions necessary to put our country back on a path to fiscal responsibility,” Melancon said after voting for the resolution. “After years of reckless deficit spending, the members of the Blue Dog Coalition are very encouraged to see that our new administration is serious about bringing responsibility and accountability to the federal government.”

Gosh, all we need is another dot-com bubble and the deja vu economic recovery will be perfect.

The Blue Dogs are conservatives who consistently vote on the deficit issue, whether against tax cuts or government spending. This is their main distinction from the Republicans who actually want to take money from working people and give it to corporations and the wealthy. But mostly, they are simply intellectually lazy people who I suspect find that it’s always a purple district crowd pleaser to make the anti-debt argument. It is one of those things you can say in a mixed political crowd that everyone can agree upon. Who likes debt? But it’s a governing cop-out. Sometimes debt is necessary to survive or invest for the future — a point which they have no problem making when it comes to military spending.

Unfortunately, we are in very difficult economic times which require that the government be free to act with some dispatch and creativity in order to keep this thing from turning into a catastrophe. This is not the time for their simple minded brand of fiscal discipline. As I’ve said before, it’s like telling the patient he needs to jog and go on a diet while he’s in the middle of a heart attack. It’s good advice, but not particularly relevant at that moment.

If things get demonstrably worse, I assume that the congress will have to act. But it’s instructive that these people are seen as principled, upstanding guardian’s of the nation’s well being, while the rest of the Democrats who are struggling to pass a bill that injects needed cash into this ailing economy to save it from depression are widely derided as corrupt, incompetent boobs. It’s a testament to how deeply conservative indoctrination still holds in our political discourse. And it shows just how toxic it is to the nation’s health.

I’m not crazy about Obama’s post-partisan schtick, because I think there is a villain in this piece and I think people need to know who it is. (That’s why I like Roosevelt’s line about “I welcome their hatred” and some of Obama’s sharper lines in his inaugural address.) But his rhetoric of “we are all in this together” is a step in the right direction to create an alternative narrative of politics besides the Randian vision of the brave individualist up against the evil government monopoly. If his policies succeed, and he cares to take up the task of reorienting people’s thinking seriously, it could begin to turn that around.

But right now in Washington, it’s still a Republican/Blue Dog world and we just live in it. And because of that “what works” apparently means what works to keep Blue Dogs on the team.(And when I say Blue Dogs, I ‘m not just referring to the House, but also to the insanely overbearing egos in the Senate as well. I suspect the show is about to get even more surreal when it moves over there.) Without these bizarre Democratic figures, the Democrats don’t have a majority.

Luckily, they were able to appease them enough to keep them from defecting on the stimulus in the House, but they will continue to hold a gun to the president’s head while the Republicans are out spinning like dervishes to the same end. They make quite a tag team.

.

Creationism: The Very Bad Idea That Just Won’t Die

by tristero

There isn’t enough time left in the history of the universe to untangle this truly awful post by “Jeffrey Dach MD” in support of creationism. I’ll pick just two examples. Here’s the first sentence:

If you asked me if I believe in evolution, I would say yes, of course.

Sigh. Right off the bat, Dr. Dach (our time seems to be blessed with wonderfully funny Dickensian names – Madoff, Drudge, Haggard) irresponsibly mixes the colloquial with the technical, the personal with the objective. Sure, I’ve said, “I believe in evolution” when speaking informally; I’m sure even evolutionary biologists have. But when I’m trying to persuade, or explain to someone what evolution is, I know that my belief in a theory is completely irrelevant. What matters in a substantive conversation is the efficacy of the theory, not whether I have faith in it so I never bring that up. But for Dr. Dach (I’ll never tire of that name!), faith trumps reason. Later he will preface several assertions with “in my opinion,” “as for myself” and so on without, in any way establishing his credentials for holding an opinion (his medical degree does not qualify him to opine on things evolutionary any more than my degree in music does).

The second one truly makes me wonder whether Dr. Dach skipped every class that required reason and logic in order to pass:

In my opinion, “Intelligent Design” is not a scientific theory and does not compete with other scientific theories about the universe and life in it. Rather, “Intelligent Design” is a way of thinking about the questions which Science leaves unanswered. As stated above, Intelligent Design can be regarded as a presupposition to the activity of Scientific Investigation. The subject of scientific discovery and investigation is the order or “design” of the universe. The subject of scientific discovery and investigation is the order or “design” of the universe.

Gaaaaaaah! First of all, if “Intelligent Design” is not a scientific theory, how can it compete – or not – with “other scientific theories?”

Secondly, if, as Dr. Dach writes, “Intelligent Design” addresses questions science leaves unanswered, then Dr. Dach is saying that “Intelligent Design” suffers from a classic case of God of the Gaps. As science provides explanations for those unanswered questions, “Intelligent Design’s” discursive space shrinks. In other words, “Intelligent Design” is simply a misnamed garbage pail. It should be labelled “We don’t know. YET.”

Finally, notice the sleight of hand in the last two sentences where the undisputed existence of design in the universe – say, the shape of a galaxy – is conflated with Dr. Dach’s unsupported belief in the existence of an intelligence that created that design. A universe with a design does not necessarily have to be an “intelligently designed” universe, but Dr. Dach’s thinking is so muddled that he fails to discern this elementary logical distinction.

There is much, much more wrong with this unbelievably bad post, not the least of which is his shameful invocation of Sean Carroll’s brilliant book, Endless Forms Most Beautiful as some kind of “alternative” to Darwinian evolution. If he had taken the trouble actually to read “Endless Forms,” Dr. Dach would have learned that evo-devo confirms and refines Darwin’s basic theory of evolution by natural selection in the most extraordinary ways. In no way does anything in “Endless Forms” serve as an alternative theory to Darwin – Carroll simply said that the astounding discoveries of evo-devo might make a better pedagogic tool than an approach that emphasizes abstractions.. Furthermore, nothing in Carroll’s book – which is a wonderful read, btw – provides a scintilla of positive evidence for “intelligent design” creationism. PZ Myers addresses some other whoppers, but by no means all. There’s plenty more.

It is a genuine mystery to me how creationists like Dr. Dach manage to get so much so utterly wrong in so little space.