Those who listen to Bob for any length of time realize that he has several "news" sources that he likes to reference.
These include the far-right websites WorldNetDaily and NewsMax.
Bob also makes frequent reference to stories in The Washington Times which publishes a daily paper version. Now, the Times isn't some ancient newspaper that was founded in the 1800s and just happens to carry a conservative slant. No, it's origin is a lot weirder then that.
The Times was founded in 1982 by Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Moon is the leader of the Unification Church, founded in 1952 in South Korea. The Times is a money losing newspaper that requires a daily influx of cash from Moon and the Unification Church. In fact, over $3 billion dollars have been spent by Moon and the Unification church since its founding to keep the up and running. As such, the Times is really nothing more than a propaganda arm of the Unification Church.
Moon is a lunatic. He has described himself as the "Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord," has used a Federal office building for a coronation ceremony, and has claimed that he helped Hitler and Stalin "be reborn as new persons." Moon is also a convicted tax cheat and a money launderer.
It may just be me, but Rev. Moon certainly doesn't sound like a Christian to me. He sounds delusional.
Bob attacks Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, calling them cult organizations. But I've never heard Bob say anything negative about Rev. Moon, the Unification Church, or the Times.
Why?
To do so puts Bob in kind of a sticky situation. Because the Times provides the religious right with all sorts of "news" stories that assist them in delivering the message of extreme social conservatism. Without the Times, Bob loses a source that sounds credible and provides him with an extreme-right Republican point-of-view.
But Bob Dutko is a professed Christian.
So why does he constantly and consistently cite a newspaper that is run by a cult-leader who believes that he is the Messiah?
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Demonization
This blog isn't about demonizing Bob Dutko. This blog points out out his errors, bias and willful ignorance.
To find a true example of demonization, one must look to The Bob Dutko Show and see a true master at work. These are quotations from Bob's interview with Ravi Zacharias, that aired earlier this week. The topic of discussion was the "new atheists," like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Bob and Ravi did a very thorough job on these guys:
Well played, Bob Dutko. Well played.
To find a true example of demonization, one must look to The Bob Dutko Show and see a true master at work. These are quotations from Bob's interview with Ravi Zacharias, that aired earlier this week. The topic of discussion was the "new atheists," like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Bob and Ravi did a very thorough job on these guys:
RZ: They [new atheists] are really the new hate priests. It [atheism] is similar to the philosophy of terrorism.All these negative words attached to the "new atheists" and "atheism" in order to destroy these people.
...
RZ: They [new atheists] absolutely want a totalitarianism of belief; an ideological demagoguery...
...
RZ: That tells you the bigotry of this kind of thinking.
...
BD: Isn't this fear driven?
...
RZ: The bigotry of relativism and radical liberalism.
...
RZ: Relativism is so intolerant and radical liberalism is so intolerant; it may be fear driven...
...
RZ: Without resorting to the same vitriol [as the atheists], without resorting to the same hate mentality...
...
RZ: When you listen to Dawkins...the hate that comes through...
...
BD: They're [atheists] very angry and hateful...
...
BD: Hitchens ... is very hateful in the things that he says. R: And that's in keeping with their world view. Love is not at the center of their world view. Human value is not at the center of their world view.
...
BD: Y'know doctor we were discussing the hatred that seems to exist in this new crop of atheists. ... You can almost see the veins popping out of their foreheads with the anger that the feel toward a belief in God.
...
RZ: He [Sam Harris] ought not to be in such vitriolic attack...
Well played, Bob Dutko. Well played.
Bob is Upset!
Today, during the "News" Hour, Bob expressed some frustration about the 2008 Presidential campaign. No, Bob wasn't upset that the lack of discussion on the substantive issues, like the endless war in Iraq, rising gas prices and their effect on consumer prices, or the stagnant job market.
Those are things that Bob would prefer to ignore.
No, Bob was upset that the constant barrage of attacks on Barack Obama are failing to resonate or effect in his campaign for President.
Specifically, Bob is really upset that statements and actions by persons who are not Barack Obama are failing to make Barack Obama look bad. For example, since Obama supporter Larry Lessig presented an off-color video at a 2006 seminar, Bob wants you to conclude that Obama is anti-Christian. This completely ignores the fact that Obama is a Christian. Bob also wants you to think that Obama hates America because he went to Rev. Wright's church and that Obama is a "terrorist" like William Ayers.
So what's Bob's solution to this crisis of people caring about the issues instead of being seduced by smear campaigns? Bob thinks we need to come up with a better nickname for Obama. Really! Take a listen:
On a slightly different subject, have you noticed how Bob has taken to characterize Obama supporters? He's now calling them "worshipers," as is evidenced by the quote above.
Why?
Because Bob wants you to equate Obama supporters with delusional, personality cult members.
Of course, there's no basis for such a comparison. Just because Obama has positions that are very popular and draws a large number of people to hear him, doesn't mean that Obama's supporters are delusional.
It means they want him to be President.
Those are things that Bob would prefer to ignore.
No, Bob was upset that the constant barrage of attacks on Barack Obama are failing to resonate or effect in his campaign for President.
Specifically, Bob is really upset that statements and actions by persons who are not Barack Obama are failing to make Barack Obama look bad. For example, since Obama supporter Larry Lessig presented an off-color video at a 2006 seminar, Bob wants you to conclude that Obama is anti-Christian. This completely ignores the fact that Obama is a Christian. Bob also wants you to think that Obama hates America because he went to Rev. Wright's church and that Obama is a "terrorist" like William Ayers.
So what's Bob's solution to this crisis of people caring about the issues instead of being seduced by smear campaigns? Bob thinks we need to come up with a better nickname for Obama. Really! Take a listen:
Yet again something that will apparently not stick to Barack Obama. I'm telling ya, this guy is Teflon. I'm going to start calling him 'Teflon Barack'. We gotta come up with some kind of a name here. Teflon. I don't know how to take 'Teflon'... In other words, no matter what bad thing he does, says, or associates himself with; doesn't matter; won't stick; just slides right off; everybody keeps worshiping at the feet of Barack Obama. So, I don't know. There's got to be a way to take Teflon and Barack or Obama and merge them together in some way to get that point across. Cause I gotta wonder if anything, anything that this guy does, says, associates with, supports, approves, condones; if ANYTHING will actually stick to him and be considered a negative among the Obama worshipers.Poor Bob. He sounds absolutely frustrated with the current state of affairs! Maybe he'll come up with a good nickname and he can turn this thing around!
On a slightly different subject, have you noticed how Bob has taken to characterize Obama supporters? He's now calling them "worshipers," as is evidenced by the quote above.
Why?
Because Bob wants you to equate Obama supporters with delusional, personality cult members.
Of course, there's no basis for such a comparison. Just because Obama has positions that are very popular and draws a large number of people to hear him, doesn't mean that Obama's supporters are delusional.
It means they want him to be President.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Fun with Trilobites
On Friday, Bob ranted about the alleged lack of evidence of what Trilobites evolved from.
Trilobites are the extinct arthropods that are so common in the fossil record of our planet. They went extinct about 250 million years ago.
I'm supposing that Bob's argument is that God created the Trilobites when He created the Earth about 7000 years ago, they promptly went extinct (faulty design, maybe?) and that the various dating techniques used by scientists to establish when Trilobites existed are faulty.
Bob's arguments never make much sense to me, so I did a little bit of Internet searching. A few seconds on Google was all it took for me to find this ridiculously comprehensive website dedicated to the study of Trilobites. As you might have guessed, there are several pages devoted to discussing the origins of Trilobites and how they evolved, including this one. The answers aren't conclusive, but it sure makes more sense than what Bob's selling.
You can rest assured that Bob didn't do any independent research into Trilobites before making statements about them on our public airwaves. Nope. Bob merely parrots some YEC arguments to fill up his 4 hour time slot.
The fact is Bob cannot do any independent research into most of the things he discusses because that might pierce the veil of willful ignorance that he has established over time.
Trilobites are the extinct arthropods that are so common in the fossil record of our planet. They went extinct about 250 million years ago.
I'm supposing that Bob's argument is that God created the Trilobites when He created the Earth about 7000 years ago, they promptly went extinct (faulty design, maybe?) and that the various dating techniques used by scientists to establish when Trilobites existed are faulty.
Bob's arguments never make much sense to me, so I did a little bit of Internet searching. A few seconds on Google was all it took for me to find this ridiculously comprehensive website dedicated to the study of Trilobites. As you might have guessed, there are several pages devoted to discussing the origins of Trilobites and how they evolved, including this one. The answers aren't conclusive, but it sure makes more sense than what Bob's selling.
You can rest assured that Bob didn't do any independent research into Trilobites before making statements about them on our public airwaves. Nope. Bob merely parrots some YEC arguments to fill up his 4 hour time slot.
The fact is Bob cannot do any independent research into most of the things he discusses because that might pierce the veil of willful ignorance that he has established over time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)