Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Did Bob Cheat On His Wife?

Do you ever wonder if Bobbo lives up to his own moral standard?

I do, so I decided to do a little investigation.  In my search I discovered this article about Bob.  It's an recollection of a guest on Bob's show and isn't favorable towards Bob.

But this article has two comments that piqued my interest.  The first:
You have a lot of great points about Bob Dutko.... I bet he never admitted one serious and very true fact about his life; he had an affair with my friend's wife! Yes that's right an affair about four years ago! I'm sure he never mentioned that on your show. Of course not! Yeah, he and his wife figured they could push it off like it's no big deal and just move on like nothing happened. They were so nieve that the church he was attending at the time revoked his membership. They have legal documents of the whole affair that I'm sure you could find if you some digging(hint the church is Rockpointe in Sterling Heights, MI). How did he get caught? Well, there's a tape recording of the affair.

The second:
Bob is a fraud. He had an affair with [REDACTED] a few years ago and covered it up.. Were you successfull Bob? How does it feel to have such a secret hidden no one else knows about except you and a handful of people? Does that make you a man? 
I know what you're thinking:  This is unfair!  This is just anonymous commentary on the Internet targeting Bob.  This is just rumor or innuendo.

You might be right.  But, because I'm an judicious, evenhanded guy, I decided to ask Bob if these rumors are true.  This is our on-air conversation:

Did you hear me ask my question?  No?  The reason is obvious:  Bob cut me off, refused to answer my questions and and accused me of using profanity.

Since you can't hear what happened, I'll tell you:  When Bob took my call, I  asked him if he ever had an affair with a woman breaking his marriage vows, a holy covenant.  A faint, shocked Dutko replied, "Nooooo," and hung up on me.

The question remains:  Did Bob Dutko cheat on his wife?

So I'm looking for answers.  In my search, I invite people to do two things:  First, call Bob on free-for-all Friday and ask him if he broke his marriage covenant.  Second, if you have first hand evidence proving that Bob is incapable of living up to the moral standards he espouses, share it with me.  I'm curious to see it and share it with the world. 

You can reach me at Irlhudnutt at gmail dotcom.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Nobody is Afraid of the Big Bad Bobbo!

Bobbo likes to play up the idea that his beliefs are supported with common sense.  He pretends that he is so full of sound, practical judgment that formal training or expertise isn't necessary.  Have a listen:


Bobbo makes three major points in his invective.

First, he thinks that evolutionary scientists are "afraid" to let creationists present their bullshit.  I've covered this issue before, so there's no need to address it again.
Second, Bob believes that evolution is "unproven."  But here's an important question that Bobbo is never asked, nor will he respond to:  What evidence would Bobbo accept that demonstrates the evolution is scientific fact?
  • Would Bobbo accept the observation of the London Underground Mosquito, which evolved from a different type of mosquito to become a distinct species?
Bobbo won't answer these questions, so I'll answer them for him:  No, no and no.  Realistically, Bobbo will never accept any evidence that demonstrates the veracity of evolution.  He doesn't approach the subject scientifically by examining hard data, he approaches it the way a four year old approaches eating his vegetables:  He screams, throws himself on the ground and cries until someone listens.  Bobbo has made up his mind, so he's lying if he pretends to be impartial on the subject.

As for Bobbo's third point, that Creationists have "mountains" of "scientific" evidence, but it's "censored" by evolutionary scientists, I challenge him to produce one scientifically verifiable observation in support of the Biblical account of creation.  This observation must be on par with the three I've cited above, observable and falsifiable through the scientific method.  Hint:  Bobbo won't do it, because he can't do it.

Finally, Bobbo thinks that because actual scientists don't want to deal with superstitious buffoons that they are hiding from a fight, and "common sense" demonstrates the weakness in evolution.

Hardly.  Scientists aren't "censoring" anything.  They are just unwilling to humor superstitious buffoons who refuse to deal in hard evidence.

Finally, Bobbo's appeal to "common sense" is specious.  Bobbo's idea of common sense is just his collection ignorance and prejudice.  Honestly, Bobbo's appeals to "common sense" is an admission that his tiny, flaccid arguments lack the fecundity to educate all but the most ignorant of minds.

In other words, Bobbo is an insufferable dolt.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Bob Dutko, The Pied Piper of Fucktardington!

Bobbo has the intellectual depth of a Hallmark card.  If you want simple, easily digestible bits of flotsam wrapped up in Christian colors, Bob is a good source for you.  I have to warn you though; A diet filled with Dutko flotsam will lead to intellectual malnourishment and starvation.

You see, Bobbo likes to claim that he's all about the "free exchange of ideas."  But if, and only if, the ideas being exchanged benefit Dutko Approved! idiocy.

Take a listen to this bit of nonsense:

Do you see what Bob did there?  If you don't pay close attention, it could easily slip by.

First, Bob claims that he's so open-minded that he thinks evolution should be taught in public schools.   But he would also like Ignorant-Design taught alongside evolution, because that's the "free exchange" of ideas!  Finally, if you don't encourage the teaching of Ignorant-Design, you are being a censor!

At this point, Bobbo throws himself on the ground and starts sobbing "Mommy!  Those mean lefties won't let me babble incoherently and spread lies!  They're mean poopyheads!  Make them stop!"

Here's the problem with Bobbo's little fantasy:  His idea of the "free exchange" of ideas is no such thing.  Bobbo is demanding that the non-scientific idea of Ignorant Design be taught along an actual scientific idea, Evolution.

The Union of Concerned Scientists have a lengthy explanation as to why Ignorant Design isn't science, with the greatest reason being that a scientific theory [nee Evolution] is supported by extensive research and repeated experimentation and observation in the natural world. Unlike a true scientific theory, the existence of an “intelligent” agent can not be tested, nor is it falsifiable.

So, to Bobbo, the "free exchange" of ideas is being able to attack a sure-fire scientific idea with made-up nonsense.  That's some Grade A horseshit!

But here's the thing that's really insidious:  Bobbo insults and demeans promoters of science with the slanderous term "censor."

Censorship is the suppression of speech, not the refusal to dilute actual science with superstitious bullshit.  Scientists have examined the arguments that ID creationists have offered (because they sure as hell don't offer actual science) and found them wanting.  Wanting in a coherent testable, scientific idea that makes ID even remotely plausible.  So it's completely understandable why scientists don't want to teach Ignorant Design in the schools!  ID isn't science!

And another thing:  If Bobbo wants to demonstrate how dedicated he is to the "free exchange" of ideas, he should advocate for allowing GLAAD into the schools to speak out against the bullying of gay students. But the day Bobbo advocates for gay activists in the public schools is the day ID creationists proffer a falsifiable scientific theory:  It's never going to happen.

So Bobbo should save the "free exchange" of ideas bullshit and just admit that he he's a petty little moron that spreads ignorance like the Pied Piper of Fucktardington.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Bob Needs Democracy Training

Bob is constantly blathering that the Founding Fathers created the government to promote Christianity.  Take a listen:

So, according to Bob, Jefferson "needed biblical training," yet still wanted to promote Christianity.

This is the same Thomas Jefferson, who, in his Notes on Virginia, wrote, "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."

So Jefferson, who was hostile to Christianity, wanted to "blend" the Church and State?  Does Bob believe his own bullshit?

If the Founding Fathers wanted to "blend" Church and State, why didn't they say so?  Why didn't the Founding Fathers simply compose the First Amendment to read "While Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a national church, Congress shall make law promoting the Christian religion?"

The answer is obvious:  The Founding Fathers believed that the authority of government is not found in religious belief, but rather, in the consent of the governed.  A person's beliefs are irrelevant to governmental authority, as long that person is committed to democratic ideals.

Furthermore, Bob has never provided any evidence that the Bible contains democratic ideals.  According to the Bible, God's approved form of Government is a divine monarchy, where God anoints a king and the people must submit.  If anything, the Bible is anti-democratic!

Ask yourself:  In which Gospel does the word "democracy" appear?  What Biblical passage expounds on a tripartite government, consisting of executive, legislative and judicial branches?  In which parable does Jesus explain that good government results from the consent of the governed?

Bob will never answer these questions.  No, Bobby will only offer twisted history and pseudo-evidence in an attempt to achieve his true goal:  A Government that requires its citizens to submit to the Dutko Approved! form of Christianity.

What a dick.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Bob Isn't a Historian, He Just Plays One on the Radio!

I think that if Bob ever uttered the words "I am wrong," his head would explode.

Keep this in mind as you listen to Bob talk about Christopher Columbus:

So, according to Bob, Columbus was on a mission trip to save the heathens.  All is good with the founding of this nation because Christopher Columbus was a good and noble Christian, just like Bob!

Want to know what else Columbus did when he met the Native Americans?  He concluded that they would make fabulous slaves!
On October 12, 1492 (the first day he encountered the native people of the Americas), Columbus wrote in his journal: "They should be good servants .... I, our Lord being pleased, will take hence, at the time of my departure, six natives for your Highnesses." These captives were later paraded through the streets of Barcelona and Seville when Columbus returned to Spain.

From his very first contact with native people, Columbus had their domination in mind. For example, on October 14, 1492, Columbus wrote in his journal, "with fifty men they can all be subjugated and made to do what is required of them."
These were not mere words: after his second voyage, Columbus sent back a consignment of natives to be sold as slaves.
So for Bob, being a good Christian missionary includes taking slaves!  How fucking noble!

But I'm not concerned with a debate about the historical context of slavery.  What I want Bob to explain is whether or not Columbus was being a good Christian missionary in taking slaves.  In other words, under what circumstances does the Bible permit the taking of slaves and, if it doesn't, does the taking of slaves take you out of the realm of Christ?

For that matter, I want Bob to explain how, if the United States was founded by "Christians" then where does the Bible justify passage of the Maryland Toleration Act, which required death for anyone who denied the divinity of Christ?  Where does the Bible require that chattel slavery be protected by the Constitution?  Where does the Bible require suffrage, which denied women the right to vote?  How does the Bible justify passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882?

My point is simple:  Bob simplifies history into a struggle between the good (Christians) and the sinners (everyone else).  In this narrative, Christians are always noble, seeking to "save" a "lost" world.  Thus, Bob simplifies history into a fantasy, and refuses to acknowledge contrary evidence, no matter how demonstrably wrong he is.

Bob is spreading bullshit, but you'll never hear him admit it.  Because being wrong is more than Bob can handle.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Simple Plus Stupid Divided by the Bible Equals Bob Dutko!

For all of Bob's bluster, there are some things Bob just can't do.  He won't challenge a theoretical physicist on how the laws of thermodynamics work.  He won't challenge a epidemiologist on the efficacy of vaccines.  He won't challenge a practicing evolutionary biologist on how epigenetics influences natural selection.

Bob won't do these things because he can't.  For all of his bluster, Bob is an amateurish, simplistic man whose lack of formal training prevents him from dealing with complex issues.  For example, this is Bob explaining why, for him, "life" begins at conception:


So Bob has two reasons that a fertilized egg is "alive" at conception:  First, it has  complete, unique genetic information, distinguishing it from all other fertilized eggs.  Secondly, Bob has the Bible.  Specifically, Isaiah 46:3.

Examining Bob's first argument we can see the claim is straightforward:  Because the genetic sequence is complete and unique, all it needs to do is develop to be a complete human.  The lack of arms and legs and blood and heart doesn't detract from the fact that it is "alive," and because it's alive, it is a person.  Therefore abortion should be outlawed.

Now, personally, I don't know of anyone who claims that a fertilized egg isn't "alive," so Bob is starting with a straw man.  Nevertheless, and more importantly, note that Bob's claim is inherently reductionistic:  To be a person, all you must possess is unique DNA.  It's not DNA plus anything else, it's simply unique DNA.

Following Bob's logic, abortion should be permitted in pregnancies involving identical twins. Remember, identical twins occur when a fertilized egg splits into two separate embryos with each embryo possessing identical DNA.  Thus, aborting one of the embryos is completely permissible because it would cause no loss of unique genetic information.  Thus, using Bob's own argument, we have found an instance in which Bob must agree that abortion is completely acceptable.

Another massive flaw in Bob's reasoning are instances of embryos with damaged genetic information.  Down syndrome is congenital disorder caused by having an extra 21st chromosome.  In other words, an embryo with Downs syndrome has extra, albeit unique, DNA.  Using Bob's argument, does having more DNA make a person more "alive?"  What, exactly, is the relationship between DNA and being "alive?"  Now much damage to the DNA can occur before the fertilized egg isn't "alive?"

(Yes, I'll grant that my Down syndrome example is absurd.  But all I'm doing is testing Bob's claim.  These conclusions are the consequences of Bob's argument, which is not only absurd, it's simplistic and stupid.  Bob can't see the problems inherent in his claims because he denies the true complexity of the issues he babbles about.)

As for his second claim, that Isaiah 46:3 somehow proves that God instills person-hood upon conception, Bob is clearly distorting the text!  Isaiah 46 is God's statement to the Israelites in which He claims to have protected and cared for them since their infancyThe word "conceive" doesn't appear in a proper translation of the text!

Not only is Bob's argument completely ridiculous, he has to distort the Bible to achieve his goals!

Doesn't it make you wonder what kind of company Crawford Broadcasting is when they employ such a shyster?

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Evidence! Evidence? Bob Isn't Familiar With the Term!

Evidence, evidence, evidence.  Bob is always claiming that he gives you the evidence.   But when you scratch the surface of Bob's "evidence," you'll discover that Bob is polishing turds.

Let's begin by asking a seemingly simple question:  What is evidence?

One standard definition is rather broad: Evidence is that which is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

But how can you be sure of the connection between your evidence and your assertion?

As it turns out, justifiable connections between your claim and your evidence is a matter of considerable debate.  One line of thought argues that one's views should be guided by the evidence, with the evidence examined objectively, not through the distorting lens of dogma, prejudice or bias.  This view believes that evidence is a neutral arbiter, collected prior to the theory, with its accumulation leading to a consensus.

As you have probably guessed, this is the is the scientific method.  For a consensus to considered scientific, you collect evidence through observation and testing.  The evidence is compiled and presented objectively, accumulating into a specific explanation of a particular phenomenon.      

With that in mind, listen to Bob's claim about miracles:

Thus, Bob is claiming that prayer has made tumors disappear.  Bob believes that prayer can have a tangible effect on the sick, healing them of devastating diseases.  This is very important, because Bob gives us an observation that can be tested.  Once we start the objective testing, data about Bob's claim can be compiled.  And the data provides us with a conclusion about Bob's claim concerning the effectiveness of intercessory prayer: Intercessory prayer is a big ol' turd.

A few years back, the Templeton Foundation dropped 2.5 million pounds to determine if intercessory prayer is worth anything.  As it turns out, [t]he study found no appreciable difference between the health of those who did not know they were being prayed for and those who received no prayers.  In fact, 59 per cent of those who knew they were prayed for went on to develop complications.  If anything can be gleaned from this study, its that you shouldn't pray for the sick because you might make them sicker!     

So how can Bob make this wild-eyed claim that prayers have healed tumors?  Obviously, he's not resting his claim on a scientific study.  Essentially, Bob's evidence between prayer and healing is "someone somewhere is claiming something I believe in and you should too."

But when you hear Bob make silly-assed claims like this, ask five important questions:  Who?  What?  Where?  When?  How?

Who is the doctor that Bob talked to?

What is the evidence that the doctor is using to make the claim?

Where and when did this miracle occur?

How do we know that the person with the tumor isn't also receiving effective medical care?

If Bob is pushed into a corner and forced to answer any of these questions, you discover what every rational person knows:  Bob's evidence is shit, polished with a glossy coat of God's Varnish! 

Do yourself a favor:  Stop buying what Bob is selling.  His products are forged with Grade A feces, suitable only for flushing.
If you're interested, here's some further reading on the philosophical problem of evidence.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Bob's "Blending" Claim Ignores the Constitution!

If you spend any time listening to Dutko, you know that he wants a "blending" of church and state. Bob believes that the Establishment Clause merely prevents the federal government from creating a national church, making it permissible for the government to require Bibles as textbooks, put up Christian displays on public property, and force Christian prayer in public schools.

Bob supports his thesis with the following nonsense:

As you can hear, Bob uses the closing of the Constitution as support for his claims. His claim is simple: The authors of the Constitution closed the document with "In the year of our Lord." Therefore, they clearly wanted a "blending" of Church and State. Because the ratifiers of the Constitution were Christians, only Christian iconography is properly allowed in public spaces. Football coaches should be allowed to lead Christian prayers, the Christian version of the Ten Commandments should be on the Courthouse walls, and Christian memorials should be at roadsides.

But realize that Bob is being extremely selective with the Constitution. Bob is distracting you with the Constitution's closing because he does not want you paying attention to the actual body of the Constitution.

In the body of the Constitution, you'll find Article VI, Section 3, which states:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
If the signers of the Constitution wanted a "blending," then why would they ensure that there should never be a oath requiring a person be a Christian before they can hold office?

There's an interesting history lesson behind this clause, learned in calling that England had a state church. When James II became king in 1685, he dedicated himself to reestablishing Catholicism as a recognized sect. (His goal was to reestablish Catholicism as the official religion.) The Parliament responded by passing the Test Act, which required all military and civil leaders to be members of the Church of England. The tension between hostile Christian sects led to the Glorious Revolution, an English Civil War and the overthrow of James II.

This history lesson is important, because it demonstrates what the Constitution's authors knew when creating our government. Those authors knew that religious beliefs were so volatile that some people were willing to go to war to enforce their opinions. Further, the Constitution's authors knew that a person's religious opinion is irrelevant to creating and running a good government.

However, rather than addressing the problems inherent in having government favoring a particular religion and dealing with the clearly expressed intentions of the ratifiers, Bob would rather play semantic games to exclude non-Christian from public spaces. Bob doesn't care that there are four million Jews living in America. The million Muslim citizens? According to Bob, they can suck it. The million Buddhists? They should stop worshipping idols and convert to the Dutko Approved! version of Jesus!

Clearly, Bob is less concerned with Democratic ideals than creating and enforcing a theocracy.

Why is Bob so unpatriotic?

Monday, August 30, 2010

Bob Dutko: Whoring for Republicans!

Bob needs to convince you that he's taking a principled stand on every issue. When an issue arises, Bob has parsed every argument, thoroughly researched and applied the most rigorous logic. So when Bob attacks the patriotism of a fellow American, you can be assured that this fellow American has done something so vile as to warrant massive opprobrium.

So here is Bob questioning the patriotism of liberal pundit Ed Schultz:

According to Bob, it is perfectly acceptable to question the patriotism of an American citizen because they don't like the Lee Greenwood song "God Bless the USA."

Bob has offered no evidence or argument on which he can accuse Schultz of be unpatriotic!

This is typical Dutko whore-mongering for Republicans. And if you read your Bible, Bob's slandering of liberals contradicts the Word of God.

In Paul's letter to Titus (3:1-2), Paul instructed Titus to "Remind [Christians] to be under the control of magistrates and authorities, to be obedient, to be open to every good enterprise. They are to slander no one, to be peaceable, considerate, exercising all graciousness toward everyone."

Further, in 1 Timothy 2:1-4, Paul commands that "supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone, for kings and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity. This is good and pleasing..."

Clearly, Bob by slandering Ed Schultz, Bob has disobeyed God's Word. But ask yourself: Have you every heard Dutko offer prayers for President Obama? Has Dutko ever offered any prayers for any Democrat? Of course not.

Dutko is playing a political game, continuously attacking "liberals" and questioning their patriotism in order to get Republicans elected. These personal attacks stem from Bob's belief that Republicans are better aligned with God and only they should lead this nation. But realize, for Bob to attack liberals the way he does, he must disobey God.

Ultimately for Bob, political goals trump God's will. Bob is a Christian in the way Dr. Pepper is a doctor: It's all marketing, designed to sell you something. Just know that Dutko's show is as nutritious for you mind as sugar water is for your body.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Bob Dutko: All Sunshine and Bullshit!

Bob works hard to convince you that his analysis of an issue is generated from pure logic and he has a complete understanding of the topic discussed. However, anyone who has successfully completed a basic course in logic recognizes Bob for what he is: A used car salesman, all sunshine and bullshit with hints of authoritarianism.

This is Bob's understanding of the law:

Bob believes that laws are based in morality. Because laws and morals are equivalent, it's perfectly acceptable to restrict a woman's right to choose through laws.

We can see how full of shit Dutko is with a few easy questions:

Question 1: If Bob speeds and receives a ticket, has Bob committed and immoral act? No! Civil infraction laws are not a question of morality, they are a matter of regulating public safety.

Question 2: If Bob decides to start cheating on his wife, carrying on an adulterous sexual relationship with a married woman, has Bob broken the law? No! Bob's cheating is considered immoral, but it is not a basis to have him arrested and prosecuted.

Question 3: If Bob reads this blog and becomes so enraged so as to murder me, has Bob committed both and an immoral and illegal act? Yes! But understand the claim underlying this third example: When Bob is arraigned for my murder, the charges levied aren't based in a claim to morality, they are based in a violation of my rights! When Bob is put on trial for murder, he is being held accountable for his actions in violating a property right, namely, my right to continue living unmolested by Bob Dutko.

Criminal laws aren't based on moral claims, they're based on claims about rights. Criminal laws are a recognition that people don't have the right to assault others or steal their property, or otherwise threaten public order. If a person has committed an illegal act, its morality is coincidental and irrelevant to its legality.

As it concerns abortion, Bob wants to equate legality with morality because it eliminates the one big concern that he is afraid to address: What interest does the government have in restricting abortion? In other words, how is abortion such a threat to public order that the government must outlaw the act?

Bob won't address the underlying right to abortion because he is incapable of doing so. To be clear, Bob cannot demonstrate that a woman's right to choose affects him in the slightest degree. Bob would rather argue the from a false equivalency about law and morality because it allows him to enforce his narrow little view of the world.

At heart, Bob is an tin-plated authoritarian, willing to use the government to enforce his ignorant little claims to morality. It's disgusting.