Bob should love RU486!

Bob pretends to care about the health of women. Take a listen to his screed from last Monday against mifepristone, also known as RU486, the prescription drug that's been used by millions of women around the world to induce an abortion.

Did y'know here here in the U.S., there have been at least seven women that it's confirmed that their deaths have been linked to taking RU486, the abortion drug...that's basically just about one person minimum per year dying from taking this. Now I want you, just try to imagine for a moment: what Asprin company do you think, just pick your Asprin, or Tylenol, anything like that, what over the counter drug, could anyone take, we'll say for headaches, where you would have an average of a minimum of one person die from taking it, that the FDA wouldn't be yanking that stuff off the shelf? You have that right now with RU486.

First of all, a recent study by University of Michigan researchers shows that misuse of the drug may be related to deaths from mifepristone. Apparently, some women were using the drug vaginally instead of orally.

But let's take a look at Bob's assertion that mifepristone is somehow a dangerous drug that should be yanked off the shelves. This article in the New England Journal of Medicine pretty much lays waste to this assertion. Basically, the death rate of using mifepristone is about 1 in 100,000 (or .01%). The death rate for carrying the pregnancy to term is 8 to 10 times higher than that!

Why isn't Bob warning women against the risk of death of getting pregnant? The fact of the matter is it's safer for a woman to have an abortion than to carry the child to term!

And Bob's wrong again about mifepristone's safety in comparison to other drugs. Acetaminophen (Tylenol) causes over 400 deaths per year due to liver failure. Sildenafil (Viagra) has been linked to hundreds of deaths.

Why isn't Bob warning his audience against the risk of taking Tylenol or Viagra?

Because this isn't about women's health issues. No, Bob simply wants to criminalize abortion in all cases, no matter what the circumstances. Rape, incest, birth defects... none of that matters to Dutko.

What's truly odd is Bob's feigning compassion for women taking mifepristone given that, if he applied some logical reasoning, he should support these deaths. Look:

1. Bob believes abortion is murder.
2. Bob believes that a woman having an abortion is guilty of murder and should be punished accordingly.
   
3. Bob believes in the death penalty.

Therefore, if Bob had his way, a woman who has an abortion could be put to be death for committing a murder. Using Bob's own standards, therefore, it seems that mifepristone is simply saving a lot of time and expense by killing the woman without the bother of a trial.

So spare us the false concern, Bob. We know that you're a misogynist.

Bob Lies About Barack Obama

I'm starting to think that Bob can't present any story without working a lie into the narrative. Even in situations where a lie isn't needed, Bob flops one down anyway.

Today Bob brought up Barack Obama's voting record in the Illinois Senate concerning a piece of legislation known as the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act." Here's what Bob said:

There were only two senators in the entire Illinois State Senate. Only two senators that were so brazen that they actually voted against that. They voted that that baby has to be left there to die! Writhing in pain to die! Only two senators were so cold hearted that they voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. One of those two senators was, you guessed it, Barack Obama.

Wow, Obama is quite the monster! That legislation must have just soared through the Illinois General Assembly on the first pass. After all, only two senators voted against it!

Well, it turns out that Bob is lying. Actually, three different versions of this bill came up while Obama was an Illinois State Senator. (If there was overwhelming support for this bill, why did it have to come up three different times?) The first was Senate Bill 1095 in 2001. The vote was 34 Yes, 5 No, and 15 Present, with Obama voting "present." The next version was Senate Bill 1662 in 2002. The vote here was 30 Yes, 12 No, and 10 Present, with Obama voting "no." Finally, a third version came up as Senate Bill 1082 in 2003. This one never got out of committee.

So you see, there is no "brazen" pair of senators who voted to kill babies like Bob implied. In fact, this bill apparently got worse as it was revised! Of course, every version of this bill was simply another anti-choice measure to a non-existent problem.

For a guy who wants the Ten Commandments displayed outside city buildings, I honestly can't understand why Bob has so much trouble obeying God's Commandment against lying.

--Updated on 6/18/2008 to fix the link and expand Bob's quote

Another Unhinged Fact-free Dutko Moment

As long-time listeners of Bob realize, he often goes on rambling, nonsensical tirades, especially when discussing the things he doesn't like: Democrats, atheists, gays, etc. Here's a little sample from one of Friday's outbursts:

But I can tell you, as a proud American, if I have a terrorist on one side and a U.S. General on the other side, and I don't know which one's telling the truth, my default is to give the benefit of the doubt to the United States military and the general. That is my default position. But it seems like the default position of many on the left in this country is to give the benefit of doubt to the terrorists. And so since we see that, already, commonly, from the left in this country and the flag burners and everyone else, is it really that much of a stretch that the most liberal senator in the United States Senate, that's right, officially the most liberal senator according to the actual voting records of the senators, the number one most liberal senator, Barack Obama, when he runs for President, if he represents the most liberal left-wing fringe of the Democratic Party, is it really that much of a stretch to be suspicious and question whether he may have anti-Americanism running through his veins?

Let's try to unpack this mess.

First, Bob asserts that people on "the left" favor terrorists over the U.S. military and its leaders? But, of course, this characterization of "the left" is yet another straw man/bogey man created by Bob to demonize Democrats. Can Bob name one elected Democrat who favors terrorists over the U.S. military? Of course not.

Next, Barack Obama is not the "most liberal senator," no matter how many times Bob repeats it. The actual voting record proves.

Then, Bob gets ridiculous by saying that it's not a stretch to question Sen. Obama's patriotism because he's a liberal. That's the crux of his "argument."

How can any sane person assert that someone is "anti-American" because his views fall on the left of the political spectrum? Over 3.5 million people in Illinois voted for Sen. Obama in 2004. Are these voters also "anti-American" for voting for this man from the "liberal left-wing fringe of the Democratic Party"? And would somebody please tell me why someone who is "anti-American" would run for President of the United States?! People who don't like America don't run for President; they run airplanes into buildings.

So yes, Bob, to answer your long, rambling question, it definitely is a stretch to question whether someone has "anti-Americanism" running through their veins merely because they're a Democrat. In fact, it's downright asinine and ridiculously insulting.

Gays and Lesbians Can't Be Cops?

Today, in his never ending quest to show how much he "loves the sinner, but hates the sin," Bob dispensed some of his patented truth, facts, logic, and "intellectual" reasoning to show why gay men can't be police officers.

Bob's premise is that straight male police officers are not permitted to frisk or pat down a female suspect. According to Bob, this is done because the male police officer might "get his jollies"* from the frisking process. Therefore, Bob reasons that gay men might also take some liberties when patting down a male suspect.

But let's go back to Bob's original premise. In Bob's own words:

Should a male cop be allowed to frisk and pat down a female suspect? Should they? Right now they're not allowed to. Thats where a female police officer has to come in and do that. Right?

Wrong. What Bob apparently doesn't understand is that male police offers pat down female suspects and vice-versa all the time. In fact, here's an article describing the procedure.

So Bob's argument falls completely apart because it rests on a false premise. That's nothing new. Bob has a long history of not understanding (or lying about) science, history, and a whole host of other topics.

And I have some shocking news for Bob: There are gay men serving right now as police officers. Really! They pat down male suspects every day without incident and without "getting their jollies" from the procedure. What Bob apparently doesn't understand is that the vast majority of male cops, straight or gay, are not sexual predators who see every frisk as an opportunity to, pardon the pun, "cop a feel". The frisking procedure is done not to humiliate the suspect, but to protect the police officer and the public at large.

Bob should really be ashamed of even presenting this whole argument. But he won't be.

*Bob's words

Let's Watch Bob Demonstrate His Cowardice!

Bobbo,

On Friday, you rehashed your tired old hyperbole, attacking the Catholic Church for stating that it was God's will for humans to evolve from hominids.

You spewed your standard crap, saying that evolution can't be true because it "waters down" the authority of scripture and if God used evolution he could have mentioned it to Moses, etc. Blah blah blah.

I don't want to argue evolution with you Bobbo. Nope, no discussion of evolution with you because you're far too ignorant to have an intellectually honest discussion of the topic. So instead, I need you to do something else.

I need you to call out all Catholics and demand that they denounce and renounce the Catholic Church.

You see Bobbo, you recently made yourself guardian of the Christian belief system. You did that when you publicly stated that Barack Obama needed to denounce and renounce his church. You said that it was irresponsible for Barack Obama to belong to a church that had a "racist" pastor.

So, since you have appointed yourself to the position determining who should belong to what church, you need to make sure that all the Catholics who accept the church's position on evolution leave the Catholic Church.

Bobbo, in your own words, the Catholic Church has "watered down" the authority of scripture by accepting evolution. If the church refuses to accept the literal truth of the Bible and reject evolution, aren't they putting souls at risk? If they see the Bible as something less than literally true, aren't they practicing apostasy?

So as I see it, Bobbo, you have one of two choices: Call for all members of the Catholic Church to reject the Church and its teachings in order to save their eternal souls, or, you can be shut up about this issue and be proven a coward.

I'm guessing that you're going down the "coward" route.

Yours in bravery,

Irl

Liberals are Bad

Last week, Bob came back from vacation and got down to business.

In the first fifteen minutes of his show, he got down to the business of bringing up irrelevant, issues for the purpose of attacking liberals based on the logo of a search engine. He's done this multiple times before.

But first, yesterday was Memorial Day ... Well, enter the search engine 'Google'. (deep sigh) Boy, it's the same thing, Google, y'know year after year. They 'dis' our veterans with their Memorial Day snub.

Stop right there. According to Merriam-Webster, the slang word 'dis' means "to treat with contempt or disrespect; insult". So, Bob is saying that by not changing their logo for Memorial Day, that Google is insulting and treating veterans with contempt. Does this logo from last Veteran's Day look like contempt?
I'm no expert in 'dissing,' but this looks more like honor and praise than insult and contempt. So, Bob is being dishonest.

Bob continued by saying that Google is a bunch of liberals and named a bunch of "lesser" events that Google did change their logo for. Bob ran down this list so you can fully appreciate the horror of the people who run that horrible, horrible search engine.

Bob concluded by saying this isn't about Google at all. It's really about the America-hating liberals in general:

The thing that I look at here, with Google. This isn't necessarily about ooooh, 'look how horrible Google is.' It's a window into liberalism and liberal mindset. I'm telling you, what is it about left wing people that causes them to see, y'know, the Chinese boat festival as 'hey, that's something to celebrate'? But Memorial Day is a time to, 'well, lets just turn off the lights and treat it as business as usual, there's nothing special about that day.' That is beyond me. Why is it that so many liberals tend to think that way. And then, if you dare to question their patriotism or dare to suggest that they're not as supportive of our military as they ought to be, they get all offended, they get indignant, they get all 'how dare you make such a suggestion.' Well, alright. It's what we see. It's what we see.

Let me see if I can get this straight: Google doesn't change their logo for Memorial Day, so therefore, liberals don't think there's anything special about Memorial Day. Furthermore, since Google doesn't change their logo for Memorial Day, it's OK to question the patriotism of liberals and their level of support for the military. That's the gist of Bob's logic, isn't it?

That's just stupid! I can't even start to contemplate all the logical errors that Bob made in reaching his conclusion! Bob is simply being illogical and repeating the same old propaganda: liberals, i.e., Democrats, hate America and are BAD. Voting for them is therefore also BAD. This Google "news" is yet another way to get across this overarching message. Bob simply repeats the "liberals are bad" message over and over in a variety of ways. Unfortunately, people believe him.

By the way, Blogger is owned by Google and Bob uses Blogger to host the notes from his shows. Since Bob is using a Google service to host the notes from his shows, he must not be patriotic and must hate the military. Right?