McCain gets Endorsement from Anti-Catholic Hagee

This week, Bob spent several hours discussing Louis Farrakhan's endorsement of Barack Obama. Bob demanded Obama repudiate Farrakhan. Obama did, saying, "I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan."

Now, John McCain has picked up a controversial endorsement from Pastor John Hagee. Unlike the Obama-Farrakhan endorsement, this is an endorsement that McCain actively sought out. McCain stood next to Hagee to accept the pastor's blessing.

What's so controversial about Hagee? Quite a bit. His anti-Catholic stance is the most revealing. Catholic League president Bill Donohue said, "for the past few decades, [Hagee] has waged an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church. He likes calling it ‘The Great Whore,’ an ‘apostate church,’ the ‘anti-Christ,’ and a ‘false cult system.’"

Will Bob now demand that McCain repudiate the anti-Catholic statements of John Hagee? Will he spend hours discussing this and invite listeners to call in?

I'm not holding my breath.

Prove me wrong, Bob.

Darwin was a Racist?

Last Monday, Bob had Ken Ham* on to pimp his new book in which accuses Charles Darwin of being racist. Bob and Ken want to imply that Darwin was a racist, so we dismiss Evolution through Natural Selection. Bob and Ken may have a point. After all, just look at this quote:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position to the white race.

Wait a second! That isn't from Charles Darwin! It's Abraham Lincoln.**

Should we discount the accomplishments of Lincoln because of his not-so-enlightened beliefs?

Should we knock down the Lincoln Memorial?

Should we strip his face off of Mt. Rushmore and replace it with Jimmy Carter?

Should we collect and melt down all the pennies that bear his image?

Of course not.

We revere and honor Lincoln because he refused to allow the Christian practice of slavery to tear the United States apart. Was he as enlightened in his view of the "races" as we are today? Obviously not. The same goes for Darwin. We should not discount his positive contributions to our understanding of the development of life on Earth merely because we don't share his 19th Century political viewpoints. Evolution and Natural Selection are judged on their merits, not based on any "racist" tendencies that Darwin had.

Pitifully, this is a further attempt by Bob to discredit a scientific fact withstood the test scrutiny.

The ironic thing is that this is coming from a man who claims "intellectual honesty."

Pathetic.

*I guess there's no hard feelings about Bob's scathing review of the Creation Museum. I guess they're letting bygones be bygones. After all, Ken's got books to $ell and Bob's gotta fill-up four hours per day to keep the advertisers happy!

** Interestingly, Darwin and Lincoln were born on the very same day: February 12, 1809. Who knew?

Do as Bob Says, Not as Bob Does

Hey Bobbo;

I'm still waiting for you to respond to my invitation to "Taxi to the Dark Side." I know you're probably working your schedule to free up some time, but RSVP soon, okay?

Anyway, I think this is the third day in a row that you've been humping this World Net Daily story about Barack Obama working with "terrorist" Bill Ayers to give funds to Professor Rashid Khalidi.

We know Ayers is a terrorist because served over two years in prison for conspiring to blow up a San Diego abortion clinic.

Wait. My mistake. Ayers was never convicted of that crime. That was Cheryl Sullenger, whom you interviewed in the very next segment.

Let me see if I have this straight: You're bothered that Obama worked with someone never convicted of terrorism to donate money to an association dedicated to helping arab immigrants while you, Bob Dutko, speak with and encourage a women who has served time for conspiring to blow up doctor's office.

Bobbo, doesn't it seem like you're holding Obama to a standard that you yourself do not abide?

Wouldn't that make you a hypocrite?

You know, Bobbo, in thinking about it, I don't want to see "Taxi to the Dark Side" with you. I've decided to heed Psalm 26:4: I do not sit with deceivers, nor with hypocrites do I mingle.

Yours in Integrity,

Irl

Radiometric Dating

On Monday, as part of his never ending quest to "prove" that the Earth can't be 4.5 billion years old, Bob was trying to credit the science of radiometric dating. Bob said:

One hundred percent of every single rock on the entire planet dates to be ages in the hundreds of thousands to millions to billions of years old. Every single one, including the ones when we saw and watched the rock be formed. There is not one time that a rock has ever been dated to be a young age, an accurate age, when we know the age.

Wow! 100% of every single rock on the entire planet. Bob sounds so sure! He couldn't be wrong! Could he?

Of course Bob is wrong! Scientists have dated the rock deposited by the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius to within 7 years of the date recorded by history. The scientists used the Argon-Argon dating method, which allows dating that is more accurate than Potassium-Argon dating.

You see, Potassium-Argon dating has its limitations, which Creationists like Bob like to exploit in to attempt to discredit radiometric dating techniques. Radioactive potassium decays to Argon with a half-life of 1,260,000,000 years. That's 1.26 billion years. With such a long half-life, it's impossible to use it to accurately date a rock that is less than 100,000 years old.

Please remember, Bob has no scientific credibility. He has never studied geology. He has no training in any scientific subject.

Bob simply regurgitates nonsense from "creation science" websites like Answers in Genesis.

He expects you to nod your head in agreement.

Bob Asks, I Answer

Hey Bobbo;

Today, after talking about how "Taxi to the Dark Side" won the Oscar for Best Documentary, you asked a question:

"What is it about left-wing types that look for the worst in America while looking for the best in our enemies?"

Bobbo, what makes you think these "left-wing types" are looking for the worst in America? Have you ever considered that the voice of dissent is, first and foremost, the voice of a patriot?

What bothers me most about your question is that it assumes that you, Bob Dutko, know what's best for this country. You don't.

Here's why: It's not your country. It's our country.

People have a right to criticise this country. The premise of the First Amendment allows people to participate in Government and scream at the top of their lungs when they see injustice. Just because you disagree with what they say doesn't give you the right to question their loyalty or patriotism. And, by the way, you know what's concomitant with the right of Free Speech? The duty to listen.

That's your greatest sin, Bobbo: You don't listen. To be a decent citizen, hell, to be a decent human being is listen to others, empathize, and seek ways to make this county better for everyone. But no. You've surrounded yourself with an impenetrable wall of pride that would never permit you to honestly listen.

So I'll tell you what, Bob. "Taxi to the Dark Side" opens this weekend. I'm inviting you to come watch it with me. We can discuss it over coffee afterwards. I'll buy the movie tickets and you can buy the coffee.

Yours in America,

Irl

P.S.: Left-wing types aren't "looking for the best in our enemies." They're listening to the voices of the suffering and questioning whether this war was worth it.

Bob is Pro-Choice!

Hey Bobbo;

Do you actually listen to yourself? Or do you just make it all up as you go along?

You speak of abortion frequently, and, recently addressed the story of Jennifer Strelnik McKendree, who pleaded guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of her newborn child. McKendree's sentence was 2 to 9 years.

You thought McKendree should go to jail because she murdered her newborn. You then compared McKendree's child with a child in the womb. You believe that just as a McKendree murdered her infant, a woman who gets an abortion murders her child. You believe that abortion should be made illegal because there is, categorically, no difference between a fetus and an infant. Therefore, you argue, it follows that, once abortion is made illegal, women who get abortions should go to jail.

Then you said something interesting. You said that once abortion is illegal, only those women who get abortions should go to jail. There should be no retroactive prosecutions of women who have had abortions, because they obtained the procedure while it was legal.

But, Bobbo, isn't abortion was always murder? If I follow your line of reasoning, abortions obtained between January 22, 1973 and today are categorically not murder. By arguing that there are some abortions that aren't murder, you've become pro-woman. Congratulations on the sea change!

Let me know when you start making donations to Planned Parenthood. I'll match any donation you make.

Yours in choice,

Irl

Locking up the Christians!?!?

Today, talking about a potential Barack Obama presidency, a caller said:

"I honestly believe that, you know, um, you know, people are going to be going to jail for saying homosexuality is wrong, you know, ah, ya know. That's the one thing that concerns me the most."

Bob replied:

"Well I think that will eventually happen. I don't think that will happen quick enough within his term, but I think Obama will kind of lay the ground work to eventually usher in that day with some of this hate crimes legislation and such."

I thought:

"What the hell is he talking about!?!?

Where do Bob and his acolytes get evidence for believing that the government is going to be able to imprison you for speaking out against homosexuality. Let's delineate why this is completely absurd:

1. The U.S. federal government has had hate crime laws on the books since 1969. These laws don't cover sexual orientation bias. They do cover race, color, religion, or national origin. Has the government been imprisoning people for simply saying they hate blacks? Or that Jews are the devil? Or that illegal immigrants should be rounded up and deported? NO! So why does Bob think if federal hate crime laws are extended to include sexual orientation, he's going to go to jail for saying speaking out against homosexuality?

2. The vast majority of crime prosecution is done by the individual states and not the federal government. Thirty-two of those states have hate crime legislation that covers sexual orientation. Have these state governments been imprisoning people for speaking out against homosexuality? NO!

3. The U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has held that this right includes the ability to burn a cross!

But Bob believes that liberals are going to lock up Christians for saying that gays are sinners. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So don't worry, Bob. After the 2009 Congress passes revised hate crime legislation that is signed into law by President Obama, you'll still be able to be be an ignorant little bigot on the public airwaves. You'll be able the spread fear and loathing by announcing that the Bible prohibits gay sex and non-closeted homosexuals are going to straight to hell.

I promise I won't turn you in to the thought police!

Bob Lets His Listeners do the Attacking, Part II

A while back, I noted that Bob lets his listeners attack interviewees once they're off-air. This strategy of letting the callers do the attacking isn't limited to post-interview situations. Bob's listeners have carte blanche to attack any of Bob's bogeymen at any time.

For example, take this caller from back on February 11. The topic was why born-again Christians are trending towards the Democratic Party. She couldn't understand why it was occurring. After all, the Republicans speak "with calm and with peace" and have more "answers and resolutions." Conversely, the Democrats are the group that "is radical, they're angry, they're mean, they're mean spirited, they're nasty, they're liars..." (emphasis added)

Bob didn't interrupt or challenge her. Bob didn't try to temper her comments by claiming that not all Democrats are as bad as you describe them. Nope. Bob simply allowed the caller to lump all Democrats into a group and demonize them as amoral heathens.

The reality is that her characterization of Democrats is not applicable to even a minority of members of either party. Sure, members of both parties, at times, can show anger and be vicious, nasty and lie. But to paint millions of Americans with such a broad brush is childish. For Bob to not correct the caller is just plain immoral.

But it's really no wonder why the woman has this perception. If you listened to Bob, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or Michael Medved, without ever doubting what they say, your false perceptions would become fact.

Bob Doesn't Understand What's Going On In Iraq

On Monday, Bob got rude to a caller when discussing about the war in Iraq. She wanted to know why he kept bringing up al Qaeda when talking about Iraq. So he started screaming at her:

Because al Qaeda, right now, is in Iraq. They are the people that we're fighting in Iraq. The insurgents and the people that we're fighting are al Qaeda themselves. That's who we're fighting. That's who is killing our troops. And they're fighting us in Iraq.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Ridiculously, Bob is trying to oversimplify the situation in Iraq and blame everything on "al Qaeda."

However, the on-going carnage in Iraq is not the doing of a single group. Rather, the violence stems from a complex mix of dozens of groups, of which al-Qaeda in Iraq is a bit player. These groups are currently engaged in a sectarian civil war comprised primarily of Sunnis versus Shiites.

But don't take my word for it. In 2007, Anthony H. Cordesman of the bipartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies, said:

"[n]obody knows how many different Islamist extremist groups make up the insurgency [in Iraq]. Even when you talk about Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the idea of somehow it is the center of the insurgency is almost absurd." (emphasis added)

Furthermore, "al Qaeda in Iraq" is simply not the same "al Qaeda" group led by Osama bin Laden that attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001. When Bob says that "we're fighting al Qaeda in Iraq," he's being thoroughly dishonest.

Even if you were to believe Bob's lies and accept that al Qaeda is the enemy in Iraq, then does that mean that the war is over and we can bring our troops back home? After all, last October, the U.S. military claims it has "dealt devastating and perhaps irreversible blows to al-Qaeda in Iraq ... leading some generals to advocate a declaration of victory over the group."

Bob doesn't know what is going on in Iraq, and more importantly, he doesn't care. Bob is incurious regarding the real situation and actual reasons as to why thousands of fellow Americans are dead and trillions of our dollars have been flushed down the drain.

For those who want extra credit, here's an article all about how the Bush Administration has perpetuated the Myth of al Qaeda in Iraq.

Jesus Commanded Prayer, Right?

Hey Bobbo,

I think it's really nice that everyone over at WMUZ prays for the troops.

But here's what I don't get: Jesus specifically commanded us to pray for our enemies. How come you don't?

Luke 6:27-36 states:

But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic. Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same. If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit (is) that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount. But rather, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Bobbo, I've heard you pray for the troops, listeners, the and President. But I've never, ever heard you pray for the terrorists. Why don't you want to follow Christ's commandments?

Yours in the Republican Party,

Irl

More Climate Change Craziness

We've talked about climate change on this blog before. But take a look at how Bob began last Thursday's latest screed on the topic:

First of all, one of my concerns about the whole global warming movement is that the movement seems to align itself with a lot of un-Godly positions. For example, they intend to align themselves with, uh, a lot of what I would call liberal-type positions: abortion, ACLU, evolution, pro-gay, I mean a lot of these types of positions seem to be very consistent with the people that are on the pro-global warming bandwagon. Not all, of course.

What?

Really? That's his argument? He's claiming that if a person agrees with the consensus of scientists that the Earth is warming because of human-made effects, that person is an ungodly liberal. Wow, that's some intellect. It's amazing this guy can tie his shoes in the morning.

Does if follow that Catholics are ungodly? After all, the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops have said opined on climate change and said, "we believe that the atmosphere that supports life on earth is a God-given gift, one we must respect and protect." That doesn't sound very ungodly to me! Of course, numerous other religious groups are on this ungodly global warming "bandwagon," too. So they must not subscribe to the "One True Religion," as defined by Bob Dutko.

Bob went on:

But you have other issues as well. By buying into the whole global warming scare you're giving more clout, more credibility to the United Nations and giving them more potential power to infringe upon the United States sovereignty. [You're] buying into global warming tends to boost the forcing of the U.S. government to obey world sentiment.

Where does Bob get this nonsense? Is he making it up or does he subscribe to "talking points for the insane?

Could someone explain how agreeing with climate scientists gives the UN power over U.S. sovereignty? (HINT: It doesn't!)

International agreements aren't imposed on the U.S. by the UN or some overpowering "world sentiment." International agreements are approved by our elected officials who act on behalf of their constituents. The U.S. doesn't automatically cede any power, just because the UN has "credibility."

Bob's lucky to have a job with Crawford Broadcasting. With his complete lack of intelligence, I'm sure he be living out of a shopping cart and collecting bottle returns to support his family.

Transitional Stupidity

Hey Bobbo,

It's me, Irl. Are you listening? Can I ask you something of you?

I heard your spiel on transitional fossils and how you believe they don't exist. You claim that if evolution is true, the fossil record should contain lots of examples of transitions between one species and another. You think that evolution should provide examples of "freakish" fossils that show, for example, a horse becoming a cow. But since there are no fossils showing a horse/cow, you agree with the creationists and claim there are no transitional fossils and creationism is true.

You even go as far as quoting evolutionary scientists that seem to admit that transitional fossils don't exist, and claiming that evolutionary scientists are making things up when they point to extinct animals and claim they were evolving.

Oh, Bobbo, when are you going to stop lying?

First of all, you can't even be honest in how scientists define the term. A transitional fossil is does not show how a horse becomes a cow, as you claim, but shows a sequence of similar... families, linking an older group to a very different younger group. Each step in the sequence consists of some fossils that represent a certain genus or family, and the whole sequence often covers a span of tens of millions of years. In other words, transitional fossils show how prehistoric animals became modern animals.

An you know what Bobbo? There are examples galore of transitional fossils. Here's the transitional lineage for the horse. Here's the transitional lineage for the cetaceans. Here's Lagomorphs. Here's amphibians to reptiles. And here's reptiles to birds.

So, Bobbo, transitional fossils don't show, as you claim, a horse becoming a cow, they show similarities along a species' family tree. Scientists have plenty examples to prove the phenomenon.

By the way, Steven Jay Gould absolutely believed in transitional fossils. Here's Gould in his own words:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether though design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

I guess I just want to ask you to stop lying. If you're going to try to prove the intellectual farce that is creationism, first, be honest about what scientists actually say. When you make stuff up and misrepresent the science, it shows just how ignorant and petty you are.

Keep in touch,

Irl

Hypocrisy

Today I realized that Bob holds different definitions for common words. Maybe this is the reason there appears to be a logical disconnect between Bob and the normal world.

On the show, Bob's guest (not sure who she was) was complaining about the hypocrisy of some people. Bob replied that we're all hypocrites because hypocrisy was falling short of the standards that you've set for yourself. Bob also mentioned that he didn't care for those who didn't set standards for themselves (I'm really not sure who these alleged people are).

But Bob has the definition of hypocrisy wrong. Merriam-Webster defines "hypocrisy" as "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not." So, you see, hypocrisy is not "falling short" of some standard; hypocrisy is lying that you actually hold the standard in the first place. This is especially heinous when you try to impose that standard on others.

Bob has conveniently taken the bad element, i.e., the lying, out of the definition. No wonder Bob has such tolerance for the hypocrites of the Religious Right.