Jesus Had a Penis!

Bob's lead story on today's show was about the "My Sweet Lord" sculpture, a 200 pound crucifix made of chocolate, scheduled to go on display at the Lab Gallery in New York City.

Bob was deeply offended. But for all his offense, he never explained why this was offensive.

Maybe Bob was rancorous that the sculpture depicted Jesus as nude on the cross?

But Jesus was nude on the Crucifix. That's how the Romans did it.

Maybe Bob was offended because the sculpture was anatomically correct?

But Jesus had a penis, right? If Jesus was fully human, he had a penis.

So why is a completely accurate sculpture of the crucifixion offensive?

Maybe it's the chocolate. Is there something offensive about chocolate? Maybe Bob would have been happy if white chocolate was used instead.

So why exactly is Bobbo offended? Probably because being in a constant state of offense allows him to climb up on his soap box, point at others, and declare them evil.

Being constantly offended gives Bob someone to hate.

UPDATE: The exhibition has been canceled. Now Bob has a chance to denounce those Christians who decided to call the gallery and make death threats. Anybody believe that Bob is even going to mention the death threats? Nope, he'll just go on about the victory and how Christians have finally won a single battle.

Wikipedia v. Conservapedia

Today, Bob did his duty as a religious conservative and promoted the Conservapedia, an "alternative" to the allegedly "liberal" Wikipedia. Bob used his familiar style of pretending to hold a call-in debate on the issue. To start, Bob basically read the "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" provided by the Conservapedia. Then he "opened up" the phone lines asking whether there really is a liberal bias in the Wikipedia. Of course, all the callers (3 of them) agreed that there was a liberal bias. Apparently, for Bob, this is "evidence."

Naturally, Bob failed to talk about the core feature of the Wikipedia (and wiki's in general), that anyone can edit content. There isn't a staff of people who write the articles; it's all done by volunteers. Since anyone can edit, inaccurate information can be easily fixed. Furthermore, additional information (i.e., both sides of a debate) can be added. Wikipedia policy provides for a Neutral point of view that is free of bias and a detailed procedure for resolving disputes.

The Conservapedia, on the other hand, is merely a religious conservative propaganda outlet. For example, compare Wikipedia's article on abortion to that provided by the Conservapedia. The Wikipedia article starts with detailed definitions and information, then recites health information, history of abortion, a summary of the debate, and notes on abortion law. In contrast, the Conservapedia starts right out by saying that Hippocrates was against abortion, then moves right into the discredited claims of an abortion-breast cancer link, followed with more health risk scare tactics. While any registered user can edit Wikipedia's abortion entry, only "sysops" can edit the Conservapedia's version.

Of course, if you want a non-biased, neutral point of view opinion about the Conservapedia, you can just check Wikipedia's entry...

Bob Doesn't Evolve, He Just Re-treads the Same Tired Crap

There's an old aphorism: Repeat a lie enough times and it becomes the truth.

Repeating a lie over and over is, for Bob, a form of "proof."

On Tuesday, Bob spoke with Bruce Chapman of the Discovery Institute. Bob had Bruce on his show to talk about those mean scientists who want to "censor" the Discovery Institute. The reason for this bitch-and-moan session is that the Discovery Institute has been invited by SMU's Christian Legal Society to hold a conference entitled "Darwin vs Design." DI is going put on an event that claims that the universe is too complex to have arise through natural forces and the mean scientists who work at the university don't want the event to occur.

But before Bob and Bruce began bitching, Bob took to reassuring his audience. Bobbo told his listeners of a rule he discovered when it comes to debate. It's simple: If one side wants to censor the other, it's because they censors have weaker arguments than the censored. Evolutionists want to censor Creation "scientists" because they know that Creationism is better science. Bob called it "common sense."

I call it circumstantial ad hominem. Just because scientists are protecting the integrity of scientific ideas doesn't make them "censors." Nor does it invalidate evolution. It means that they are taking a position that Bob, in his ignorant way, fails to understand.

And the ignorance kept flowing, like the waters of the mighty Mississippi.

In starting the conversation, Bob and Bruce asserted that evolutionists are afraid of the Discovery Institute because their motives are "atheistic." And since atheism is an inherently religious idea, creationists should be allowed to counter their claims.

Liars!

Evolution is not an "atheistic" position. It is not a "religious" position. It is a scientific position.

Evolution is the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms. It is the description of a process. Evolution is not inherently anything but a description of the forces through which species survive and adapt to their environment.

So Bob and Brucie are perceiving evolution as atheistic even though it's makes no claim about the existence of God. Bobbo and Brucie are answering a question that evolution doesn't ask.

Which takes us to their second point.

Bobbo and Brucie always "welcome debate." They welcome debate because they claim to be presenting scientific arguments. Should this debate occur, creationists would be victorious, and evolutionists would crumble from the force of their arguments.

Liars!

Why should scientists debate creationists when creationists fail to even understand or represent evolution accurately? Hell, Bruce isn't even a scientist! He's a politician! Scientists can and will debate, provided the debate is scientific. But again, Creationists have to misrepresent their agenda because it's distinctly non-scientific. They want make the argument about religion and then claim that it's science!

But don't be fooled. Creationism has no basis in science.

In the seminal case Kitzmiller v. Dover, the Federal bench had to determine if creationism is, in fact, science. Creationism was found wanting. The Court concluded, "[W]e have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

So if Creationism isn't science, why should scientists debate creationists? The answer is that they shouldn't have to. But if creationists did actual science, I'm sure the scientists would welcome the debate. Until then, real scientists don't owe creationists the time of day.

All of which explains why the scientists at SMU are angry about the Discovery Institutes's campaign of misinformation.

Finally, Brucie and Bob claimed that this issue is, ultimately, about the nature of logic.

I have to say I agree.

The issue is whether people should accept the truth of evolution based upon the mounds of evidence the supports it, or to surrender logic and believe two people who can't be honest enough to represent evolution accurately.

But you should always know, that no matter how many times Bob lies, dissembles, or outright misrepresents evolution, its still true.

Because the science says so.

Bob is Disturbed

Shorter Bob Dutko today:

Bob is disturbed by the report that debris used to fill potholes and repair roads in New York City may contain human remains from the September 11 attacks.

But he's not disturbed about the lives paved over in the failed war in Iraq.

You're a beautiful human being, Bob.

Black Preachers

On Friday, Bob spent some time talking about the "problem" with Black preachers.

Bob thinks that Black preachers are not teaching their flock that the only path to salvation is belief in Jesus Christ. Bob claims that Black preachers are teaching that good works were sufficient to gain entrance to Heaven. Bob analogized black preachers to a bad doctor who recommends you eat Twinkies for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. As "evidence" Bob referenced Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, et al., because they are Black preachers. And Democrats.

But how does Bob know what Black preachers are teaching their flocks? When was the last time that Bob sat through a service by one of Detroit's prominent Black preachers? Has Bob ever attended a service by Pastor Marvin L. Winans of Perfecting Church, Pastor Jim Holley of Historic Little Rock Baptist Church, or Dr. H. Michael Lemmons of Ebeneezer A.M.E. Church?

If I was running a radio talk show and decided to badmouth Black preachers, I would educate myself.

But that's one of the many differences between me and Bob.

Bob is the Bottom of the Barrel

I've listened to WMUZ since the days of Al Kresta. Kresta was always an intelligent interviewer, respectful of his guests and callers.

I listened to WMUZ when Kresta left for Catholic radio and was replaced by Mark Gilman. I thought Gilman was a little less talented than Kresta, but at least he had enough decency to be respectful to those he disagreed with.

But then Gilman stepped down, Bobbo took over, and respect went out the window.

I know that Bobbo has no respect for anyone with whom he disagrees because of yesterday's show.

Yesterday, Bob was upset because Democrat Pete Stark declared himself an atheist. Bob got all huffy and indignant. But instead of making an argument to support his theism, Bob just said that he looks at the universe and finds God. And because atheists aren't capable of this exact same act, they must be "stupid."

So anybody who doesn't believe in God is stupid?

Was Richard Feynman, the 1965 Nobel Prize winner for his work in quantum electrodynamics stupid?

Was David Hume, the philosopher who articulated the problem of induction stupid?

Was Thomas Edison, famous inventor and creator of the electric light bulb stupid?

What about Marie Curie? Or Kurt Vonnegut? Or Bertrand Russell?

Are they all stupid, Bob?

I could continue, but you see my point. It has something to do with pots, kettles, and the color black.

Sure, I could easily end this post by calling Bob stupid. But that would be too obvious.

Instead, I want to ask a couple of questions: Why didn't WMUZ hire a talk show host that understands that being a decent Christian includes being respectful?

Why did WMUZ have to hire such a narrow little bigot?

Bob Loves to Gossip

Have I ever told you the story of when I met Bobbo? I remember it like it was yesterday.

Imagine my surprise when I'm in a local Meijer's store and see a guy that looks like Bob Dutko. I know what Bobbo looks like because he has his picture on the WMUZ website. Being curious, I approached this stranger.

"Excuse me," I started, "Are you Bob Dutko?"

His response was shocking. Bob looked at me and sneered, "What the h--l do you want?"

"Well," I said, "I listen to your show and just wanted to introduce myself."

Then the obscenities started. "I don't give a flying s--t who you are, just leave me the f--k alone!"

"Excuse me?"

"You c--k suckers are always approaching me, bothering me, wanting to talk to me! Just because I'm on the G-d d--n radio doesn't mean I'm your friend! F--k off and get your faggoty a-- away from me!"

Stunned and feeling like I was in an episode of Deadwood, I could only walk away. I never thought that someone who puts on a Christian face in public could be so offensive in private. So I left the store, disillusioned, understanding that Bob needs only to be Christian in public and his private life can be entirely different.

By the way, I've never met Bob Dutko. I made the entire story up.

Offensive, isn't it?

But I do have a point: I manufactured this story to demonstrate the technique that Bob uses when attacking Hillary Clinton. Last week, Bob has recounted all sorts of personal anecdotes to prove that Hillary Clinton is "unfit" for the office of the President. He repeated the same claims on today's show. This is nothing more than Bob attacking a sitting U.S. Senator by spreading gossip.

Of course, Bob defends the people spreading these stories by appealing to honor. Bob approves of gossip if it comes from a person who carried the nuclear football. Bob approves of gossip if it comes from a former Presidential bodyguard. Bob approves of gossip if comes from someone who worked in the White House kitchen.

However, it doesn't matter where the stories come from because gossip is a sin.

The Bible defines gossip is idle talk about someone else behind their back, usually with malicious intent. It's wrong for Bob to spread these stories because they have no other purpose but to destroy reputations. It's also really important to note that Bob is quoting from books, where people are making money trading in this trash. The fact that these stories are told with the profit margin in mind should raise serious questions about trusting any of them.

The Bible is clear in condemning gossips. Sirach 28:13 states, "Cursed be gossips and the double-tongued, for they destroy the peace of many."

And what of those who listen to gossip? Sirach 28:16 states, "Whoever heeds [gossip] has no rest, nor can he dwell in peace."

So Bob Dutko is not only actively sinning, he's spreading discord among his listeners.

I just hope Bob is a Christian in private, because he he sure isn't one in public.

Who Needs Facts?

On Monday's show, Bob (once again) railed against stem-cell research.

Bob major argument against stem-cell research is that embryonic cells are "human."

Note that Bob never develops this idea. He never gives reasons that demonstrate the proposition that the 100-150 cells that make up an embryo are human. Bob just assumes it. So this is just another fine example of Bob's slip-shod reasoning skills. (I guess being on the radio means you don't have to prove anything. All you need is to claim to love Jesus and hate liberals.)

But Bob's lack of argument about what is or isn't "human" isn't what I want to address here.

I want to talk about Bob's assertion that embryonic stem cell research is something that "John and Mary Lunch-bucket" shouldn't have to pay for. Bob wants the "Hollywood Liberals" to pony up the dough.

You see, Bob wants to exorcise the government and prevent it from spending money on programs he disagrees with.

Sounds nice in theory. The problem?

Taxpayers have no standing to protest how the government disburses funds. You and I, as taxpayers, cannot sue the government to prevent it from exercising its spending powers unless the spending directly violates the Constitution. The Court's reasoning for this decision is simple: With such a variety of opinion in the United States, people will be constantly suing the Government to support their pet causes. And because the courts aren't equipped to deal with the possible flood of suits, it's best if the Federal Government is immune from these lawsuits.

There is an exception, however. The Supreme Court has found Taxpayer Standing in cases where the Government is spending money in violation of Separation of Church and State. In Flast v. Cohen, the The Secretary of Health authorized an allocation to a religious school. A taxpayer sued to prevent it. The court found that such disbursements are beyond the enumerated powers of the Government, and to prevent the harm, a taxpayer should have standing to prevent it.

So Bob is content only when the Government supports his slip-shod, inarticulate views.

Not that Bob knows any of this. So once again, he is arguing from ignorance. It's always easy to gripe when you're unencumbered by facts.

But since sauce for the goose is good for the gander, I'll make my own suggestion about how the Government should spend money: I don't want the Government spending money on Faith-Based Initiatives. The televangelist millionaire elite should sell off their jets, mansions, and real estate holdings to support these initiatives. Because I think it's immoral for people to make millions of dollars from the redemption found in Christ.

How about it, Bob? Wanna fight over this one? Because I've got better legal and philosophical arguments than you do.

(Note: I fully expect the Supreme Court to butcher the holding of Flast.)

Bob Dutko: "Republicans Deserve God's Grace. But Not Democrats."

There are some days when Bob’s exploitation of Christianity for the benefit of the Republican party has me so mad that I almost want to rip my car stereo out of my car just so I can find Bob and beat him over the head with it. I know it’s not what Jesus would do, but it would make me feel better.*

Today Bob explained why Bill Clinton’s infidelities were of grave consequence, while those of Newt Gingrich were A-OK.

Bill Clinton’s infidelities are a big deal is because Clinton "committed perjury.” On the other hand, Newt Gingrich didn’t lie under oath. Plus, since Newt is a “repentant sinner, as we are all sinners” so we shouldn’t judge him.

This is an obviously lie. In the late 1990’s, the news didn’t make a huge story about whether Clinton was lying. It was all about the sex. Even in the churches (at least the ones I attended) Christians weren’t outraged over the perjury charge. They were rightfully outraged that he cheated on his wife. Conservatives don’t make fun of Clinton by accusing him of perjury. They just call him “BJ Clinton.” For Gingrich to be making an issue out of it while having an affair himself is hypocritical and evidence of partisan politics.

And another thing: Clinton was found not guilty of committing perjury. Under the impeachment proceedings, 46 Democrats and 9 Republicans voted Not Guilty of perjury in the Senate. In the House, the not guilty verdict followed party lines.

Thus, because Clinton was acquitted, Bob is lying. You cannot accuse someone who was adjudicated as not guilty of committing a crime and still claim he did it. However, Bob takes the opposite tack with republicans as demonstrated by Bob’s glowing defense of Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

As for being a “repentant sinner," I do not know if Newt asked God for forgiveness in accordance with the Christian faith. I did a Google search and couldn’t find anything. If you saw something I didn’t, let me know in the comments and I’ll edit my post.

However, Bill Clinton did ask for forgiveness in accordance with the Christian faith for committing adultery. The speech at the link is long, so I won’t quote it here. Just read it.

So while Clinton was found not guilty of perjury and apologized for his infidelity, Bob doesn’t think he should be shown any mercy. But Newt Gingrich should be.

Bob is a hypocrite.

Bob frequently uses the sins of Democrats to cover for the sins of Republicans. But this is different. Now he’s saying that not only are the Democrats worse people than Republicans, but Republicans are not as guilty of sin as Democrats. Jesus didn’t qualify his mercy, offering it to the few. He said it belongs to all.

This makes Bob a partisan hack and making a massive scriptural error. And I'm pretty sure he's going to hell for it.

*To Bob’s lawyer: It’s a joke. Get over it.

Wealth Only Relevant if you're a Democrat

On Monday, Bob took a little dig at Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards by saying that he has a really big house and that he is the richest of all presidential candidates. I'm guessing that Bob was implying that since Sen. Edwards has achieved success, he is somehow not suitable to be President of the United States. Or maybe Bob was implying that Sen. Edwards is somehow hypocritical since he champions the poor. I don't know, I've stopped trying to understand Bob long ago.

But, if it's wrong to be rich, like Bob implies, then what does that say about George W. Bush and Dick Cheney? After all, Bush had assets estimated at $20.9 million in 2005, including his Texas ranch, worth as much as $5 million. Cheney's assets were estimated at $94.6 million.

Did anybody hear Bob make a dig at George and Dick over their wealth? Anyone?

Bob Defends Libby, Ignores Justice

Today, Bob threw a hissy fit over the Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial.

The first lie Bob spouted was that the whole affair is “dirty politics at its worst.” He didn't elaborate on that claim. He couldn't, because it’s simply not true. Anyone who does their homework on Patrick Fitzgerald knows that he’s a prosecutor appointed by Bush in 2001! Further, he’s prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans for corruption since his appointment!

Bob’s second lie was that no crime was committed when Valerie Plame’s identity was leaked. He said that Valerie Plame wasn’t a covert operative within the CIA at the time, so there was no crime committed when her name was put in the papers. But a google search will demonstrate that Bob is lying. Valerie Plame was listed as a Non Official Cover agent.

Bob then had on Andrew Rackowski, former Republican candidate for Senator and former State Representative. That’s right: Bob brought out a Republican operative to defend Libby. How unbiased! Other than being an echo chamber for Bob, he said little more than making ensuring everyone knows about a fund raiser event for the Republican party. Would Bob will let a Democrat do that?

After Rackowski hung up, Bob talked about the possibility of Bush pardoning Libby. Unsurprisingly, Bob made fun of Democrats for telling Bush that a pardon would be wrong. He even made fun of Democrats for being happy about the verdict! That’s Bob for you: He thinks it’s wrong that people should be happy when justice is served. Bob hates justice, but he sure loves them Republicans!

As a justification for a pardon, Bob did what all conservative pundits do when they have to give a good reason for being evil: He blamed Bill Clinton. Bob’s defense was that Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, so it should be no big deal that Bush pardon Libby. I’d like to ask Bob: Is it right when Clinton does it? If so, shouldn't you stop bashing him?

Of course, Bob didn’t provide all the facts into Clinton’s pardoning of Marc Rich. Rich was pardoned only after Israeli government officials sought clemency, and the prosecutors who investigated never found enough evidence to indict him.

Thus, Marc Rich had never been convicted.

However, Lewis Libby was.

Nevertheless, even if Marc Rich was found guilty, pardoning Libby still would be wrong! A Presidential pardon isn't justified simply because past Presidents have pardoned others! Jesus never said "If your predecessor sins, everything you do is forgiven." Then again, Bob doesn't really care what Jesus has to say, anyway.

Lastly, Bob tried to make it look like Libby's defense "a lapse of memory," was determinative. Bob said “If he really was lying, fine, convict him. But if he just had a bad memory you have to feel bad for the guy.”

The jury didn’t buy the “I don’t remember” excuse. Libby knowingly outed a Non-Official-Cover agent of the CIA and then covered it up. Libby was found guilty by a jury of his peers!

Deal with it, Bob!

Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark? Can You Say Fraud?

Today, Bob started railing about evolution. Again.

Bob's rant was prompted by the discovery of a early ancestor of triceratops. This new dinosaur, named Albertaceratops nesmoi, was discovered in the badlands of Alberta, Canada, and provides evidence that triceratops were related to other centrosaurs. Bob moaned that all this talk of transitional fossils "makes his eye twitch" because it's just evolutionists deceiving people.

But then Bobbo made a promise.

He promised to prove that Noah took dinosaurs aboard his ark and that dinosaurs existed until a few centuries ago.

Bobbo said he won't act on his promise until tomorrow, so you would have to tune in then.

But I don't want to wait, so I turned to Google. I pulled up the free sample from his product page to review his arguments. I wasn't surprised to find the Bobbo's understanding of dinosaurs is as weak as his understanding of Christianity.

Bobbo's makes several claims to support his argument. First he states, "[D]inosaurs were nothing more than reptiles that continued to grow."

Wrong!

Dinosaurs didn't display the same growth characteristics as other reptiles. Reptiles grow slowly over time, taking many years to reach maximum size, while dinosaurs grew very large in a relatively short length of time. To quote Discover Magazine:

“They did not grow like typical reptiles,” says Kevin Padian, a paleontologist at the University of California at Berkeley. Tyrannosaurus rex, for example, took only 20 years to reach full size. But the biggest dinosaurs were off the charts. Apatosaurus also called Brontosaurus), one of the long-necked plant eaters known as sauropods, needed only 15 years to reach 25 tons. “They’re just growing faster than anything on land today,” says Padian.

Not only do they not grow like typical lizards, dinosaurs display characteristics of warm-blooded mammals. This means that dinosaurs are much more than Komodo dragons that live to 500 years, as Bobbo claims.

Bob next asserts that "[d]inosaurs on Noah's Ark is actually much simpler prospect that people assume" because not only were dinosaurs small, God sent Noah "a couple of cute Tyrannosaurus lizards" with which to repopulate the entire planet. So Bob is claiming that God sent a breeding pair of every single species of dinosaur to protect on the ark.

Really?

Science has identified 527 different species of dinosaur, with predictions stating we'll find 1300 more.

So if Bob is correct, Noah had 3654 dinosaurs aboard the ark (or 1827 breeding pairs) plus a breeding pair for all the other species of animal in the world. It is just not physically possible to construct a boat large enough to contain a breeding pair of every animal in the world. It's just not possible.

Finally, Bobbo argues that man and dinosaur lived side-by-side because of "countless artifacts, drawings, carvings, statues, mosaics and depictions throughout history...re-create these beasts." And because we have these artist's rendering, it proves that man and dinosaurs existed together. We just didn't call them "dinosaurs" until 1841, when Richard Owen coined the term. Before then, they were "dragons."

What? What the hell is Bobbo talking about? This claim is so broad and nonsensical it's hard to even understand the claim. But I'll try.

First, there are lots of historical renderings that look like dinosaurs. But that doesn't mean they are dinosaurs. These ancient depictions are the product of folklore, of human imagination. Human beings created these images to support children's stories, teach tribal morals, or simply to scare the bejesus out of their enemies. None of them prove man and dinosaur lived side-by-side.

Look at it this way: If I found a 5000 year old pictogram depicting a pig with wings, does it mean that pigs at one time had wings? Of course not. I would have to produce physical evidence that demonstrated pigs had wings.

So is there any physical evidence that human beings lived alongside dinosaurs? No. There are no human fossil remains are found in proximity (both physically and chronologically) of dinosaur remains. In fact, artifacts that claim to prove coexistence are frauds.

Frauds, much like Bob's arguments that Noah had dinosaurs on his ark.

But you can't tell Bob this. Because facts never get in the way of his beliefs.

Abortion and Breast Cancer

Bob just had a guest on and the two of them proceeded to assert that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer. The guest said that certain cells turn carcinogenic after an abortion and that leads to cancer. Bob did not identify the guest as having any kind of medical or scientific credentials and, as we know, Bob also has no such credentials.

Of course, cancer is a serious health issue and hundreds of millions of dollars are spent every year in research and treatment. But Bob's handling of this issue, and this alleged abortion link, is a very unserious endeavor whose only purpose is to confuse and obfuscate.

The National Cancer Institute, and other organizations of actual doctors and scientists have addressed this issue time and time again. In short, "having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer." So who should you believe, Bob and his guest or actual doctors and scientists who have actually studied cancer in-depth?

Bob talks about this issue a lot, but I never hear him mention that the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the Karmanos Cancer Institute, etc., have refused to appear on the show. You know why? Bob doesn't invite them. Why would he possibly want an educated guest who specializes in breast cancer come on to present the issue? If he did that, he couldn't advancing his agenda, which is utilizing the government to restrict the freedom of women to have an abortion, should they choose.

Bob is a Whitewashed Tomb

If you listen to Bobbo long enough, you'll start to see patterns in how he handles these things. He has a grab-bag of tried-and-true rhetorical devices, all designed to divert attention away from the bile being spewed by the moonbat wing of the Republican party.

On today's "Newshour," Bob showed us one such rhetorical devices. It's best understood as "Remembering Democratic Sins." To use this device is quite easy: Read a list of "sins" committed by Democrats, compare them with the conservative sin, and announce that Democrats are far more evil that anything Republicans do.

Bobbo demonstrated this rhetorical device in his coverage of the controversy surrounding Ann Coulter's remarks at CPAC. As you know, Ann Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot" and managed to get condemned by the John McCain, Rudy Guliani, and Mitt Romney. After mildly condemning Coulter, Bob took a different tack.

Bob enlisted the help of the the "Reverend" Pat Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition and cranked up this device to full power. After Bob and Mahoney talked about how funny and smart Ann Coulter is, they started to list all the sins of Democrats. We got to hear about how Bill Maher said bad things about Dick Cheney, how Howard Dean called Republicans names and how the media doesn't want to report about the bad things that Democrats say.

But there's a problem here and Mahoney alluded to it. Ann Coulter is a professing Christian. If that's true, Bob has a responsibilty to hold his Christian sister to account for her transgressions. Galatians 6:1 is quite clear: "Brothers, even if a person is caught in some transgression, you who are spiritual should correct that one in a gentle spirit, looking to yourself, so that you also may not be tempted."

Instead of correcting Coulter, Bob downplays and dismisses her transgressions by listing the supposed sins of Democrats and saying "See, Ann's not so bad! She's funny and a sister in the Lord! She's OK!"

By weakly rebuking Coulter and downplaying her transgressions, Bob proves that he is more concerned with the outward appearances and maintaining political power, not with ensuring the Christian community actually follows Christ.

If you look up Matthew 23:27-28, you can see how Christ described people who are concerned with outward appearances. He called them "whitewashed tombs." Christ said they are "beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men's bones and every kind of filth. Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing."

Sounds like a decent description of Ann Coulter and Bob Dutko.