10 Minutes with Bob Dutko

Did Bob Cheat On His Wife?

2011-02-22T15:16:00.001-05:00

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.

Nobody is Afraid of the Big Bad Bobbo!

2010-10-27T21:32:00.001-04:00

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 results of an experiment which forced E. coli bacteria to adapt or perish showed that, in a pinch, they were capable of improvising a novel molecular tool to save their skins?

Would Bobbo accept observations of an adaptation that allowed tropical blue moon butterfly to develop a way of fighting back against parasitic bacteria?

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.

Bob Dutko, The Pied Piper of Fucktardington!

2010-10-19T14:19:00.001-04:00

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.

Bob Needs Democracy Training

2010-09-29T13:15:00.057-04:00

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.

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

2010-09-16T16:58:00.001-04:00

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.

Simple Plus Stupid Divided by the Bible Equals Bob Dutko!

2010-09-14T14:05:00.000-04:00

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 infancy! The 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?

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

2010-09-08T16:36:00.007-04:00

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.

Bob's "Blending" Claim Ignores the Constitution!

2010-09-01T14:22:00.011-04:00

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?

Bob Dutko: Whoring for Republicans!

2010-08-30T12:17:00.004-04:00

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.

Bob Dutko: All Sunshine and Bullshit!

2010-08-25T12:09:00.006-04:00

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.

Bob Loves Guns! Just like Jesus!

2010-08-23T13:15:00.009-04:00

Bob makes it clear that his political positions are informed by the Bible. If Jesus taught something, it is paramount that those teachings be incorporated into the politics of today's world.

Among Jesus' teachings, you'll find various statements about peace. In Luke 6:27-32 Jesus taught

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.

The Gospel of Matthew is even more explicit. In Matthew 5:9, Jesus taught "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God."

Because Bob is such a good Christian, you would expect him to take every opportunity to promote peace as the correct political view.

However, when Bob was asked about people openly carrying guns at the Art, Beats and Eats festival, Bob said:

Let's review: For the Children of God to be peacemakers, Jesus taught his followers to be willing to turn the other cheek and give away more than what is taken from them. Bob, on the other hand, is comforted in knowing that some people are willing to carry guns and shoot "bad guys."

Beyond the fact that Bob is ignoring Jesus' explicit teaching, Bob is making several revealing assumptions. First, Bob assumes that there are people around him that are "bad" and carrying guns. Second, Bob assumes that the "good" guy carrying the gun has the noble intentions of protecting Bob and his family. Finally, Bob assumes that the police and local government (made up of We the People) are unwilling or incapable of protecting him at a public event.

In summary, Bob has no faith that God or the Government can or will protect him, making guns in public absolutely necessary. Bob also distrusts absolute strangers.

Need I remind you that Bob prostitutes the Bible to make a buck?

Bob's Endorsements are Worthless

2010-08-18T14:30:00.003-04:00

There is one underlying thing I want you to take away from this blog: The fact that Bob Dutko is making a living by selling you lies. Not just lies about science and history, but lies about the goods and services he sell.

This is Bob doing an endorsement for the law firm of Goodwin and Scieszka:

Among the areas of practice that the Goodwin firm specializes in is medical malpractice.

So you'd think that when Bob has a cause of action in this area of law, he'd rely on the fine attorneys of Goodwin & Scieszka, right?

Wrong.

Sadly, Bob's daughter Colleen passed away in Bob's arms, apparently of an inherited heart defect. Rather than accept that Colleen's heart anomaly was the work of a loving God, Bob sued his daughter's doctor for medical malpractice. Bob retained not one, but two law firms to prosecute his claim. Strangely, neither firm was Goodwin & Scieszka.

The first firm was Zausmer, Kaufman, August Caldwell & Tayler, P.C. They worked on the case until they requested to withdraw in March of 2007.

After the withdrawal was granted, Bob retained a second firm, Sommers & Schwartz P.C. Sommers & Schwartz were the attorneys of record until they were granted a withdrawal in July of 2007.

At no point did Bob retain the firm of Goodwin & Scieszka to pursue his claims, despite the fact that they advertise on his show and medical malpractice is an area of law they specialize in.

Don't believe me? Go to the Macomb County Court Explorer, search for the name "Robert Dutko" and read the docket entries.

Thus, an underlying question arises: Why would Bob Dukto endorse a law firm that he refused to use when he sued someone?

I offer an answer: Bob doesn't need to believe his own endorsements, he just needs you to believe his endorsements. Bob's endorsements exist for the sole purpose of providing a profit to Crawford Broadcasting, based on the ratings that Bob generates. At no point does this guarantee that Bob must be sincere in his endorsements.

What do we call someone whose actions don't match his claims? Hypocrite.

God, Bob and Dermatobia hominis

2010-08-16T13:10:00.010-04:00

Bob is a young earth creationist, and believes that the creation of account found in Genesis is a word-for-word description of how the universe came to be. Bob believes that the book of Genesis is fact:

If evolution isn't true, and God personally crafted each species for a particular niche on this planet, then what does this tell us about God?

It tells us that God has a sick mind.

Examine the family of insects that fall in the order Oestridae. They are commonly known as botflies, a group of large stout bodied flies that resemble bumblebees. They have an interesting characteristic: They are true parasites. If you don't know, a parasite is an animal or plant that lives in or on a host, another animal or plant, and obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host.

Among the 150 known species of botflies is Dermatobia Hominis, also known as the human botfly. The life cycle of a human botfly is, in a word, revolting. An adult botfly ambushes a mosquito in mid-flight. While holding the mosquito captive, the botfly lays eggs on the underside of the mosquito's wings. Once the mosquito is freed, it goes on its merry way, looking for a human blood supply. If you are fortunate enough to be bitten by a mosquito carrying Dermatobia's eggs, your body heat causes the eggs to release from the wings and land on your skin. The eggs hatch and release a maggot, who promptly burrow into your flesh, surviving by eating your skin and muscle. The maggot will live inside a human being for six weeks.

Does the very thought of the Botfly make your skin crawl? Probably.

Here's the rub: In Job 38:4-5, God states that He determined the size of the earth. God took measurements, laid pillars and sank cornerstones. But if Job is to be taken as literally as Bob believes, then God designed, planned, and implemented the existence of the human botfly.

Why would God do such a thing? Why would God create the botfly, who can only survive by eating the living flesh of human beings? And it gets worse: Human beings are host to far more than 100 parasite species, with quite a few of these only found in humans. Isn't it the sign of a disturbed mind to create something so horrific?

So if Bob is going to claim that God created the universe as-is, he must argue that God created all the parasites, including blood flukes, tape worms, and Guinea worms. But Bob won't, because he is selling a super-happy-fun version of God, unwilling to give facts and account for the horror God allegedly created.

Bob's Conspiracies about the Prop 8 Ruling

2010-08-06T13:58:00.005-04:00

Bob, like every right-wing paranoid, demands his listeners believe in conspiracies. These aren't elaborate or fantastical conspiracies, they are simple, unsubstantiated claims that demonstrate that everyone except Christian Republicans have ulterior motives.

This is Bob talking about the recent ruling from the Federal District Court, in which the court overruled California's Proposition 8:

Bob makes 3 points:

1) The will of the people is the final determination of what is "constitutional."
2) Judge Walker, placed on the Federal bench by George H. W. Bush, isn't a proper Republican because he is "liberal."
3) Finally, because Judge Walker is a homosexual, he has an inherent conflict of interest.

Did you notice that Bob provided absolutely no evidence for any of his claims?

Beyond the fact that Bob provided no evidence for any of his points, he's also wrong on all three points. Let's examine them in order:

First, Bob asserts that the will of the people is the final word on what is Constitutional. If this is true, then all rights are determined by mob rule. Think about it: Could a popular vote revoke your First Amendment right to Free Speech? Could slavery be reinstated by a majority that votes to revoke the Thirteenth Amendment? Could a majority of Americans pass a Constitutional amendment that requires the death penalty for all red-headed people?

If you answered "no" to any of these questions, then human rights are not determined by popular vote. Bob provides no reasons why it's proper for rights to be determined by the mob.

Second, how does Bob know that Judge Walker is not a proper Republican? And, more importantly, what authority does Bob have to determine what the correct Republican position's is? What standards does he apply? Apparently, it's as simple as Bob not approving your point-of-view. If Bob doesn't like your position on a particular issue, you don't get to be in his club. This puts Bob on a witch hunt for the party disloyal, and he gets to play judge, jury and executioner.

Finally, why does Bob assume that because Judge Walker is homosexual he is incapable of properly applying the law? Why does sexual orientation give rise to a conflict of interest? Further, has Bob presented any evidence to support his accusation of a conflict of interest? No, Bob provides no answers. He just makes accusations and draws wild conclusions.

And note the rhetorical trick that Bob is using: Bob doesn't comment on the substance of the ruling. Bob doesn't examine the Court's finding of facts or legal conclusions. In fact, Bob fails to take up the actual issues that the parties to the suit presented. Bob would rather convince you that Judge Walker is corrupt, and, that because "the people" voted on Proposition 8, it is now sacrosanct.

Conspiracy theories work in a particular way: The proponent of the theory laces a few facts with unprovable conclusions to convince you of some absurdity. For a guy who insists that he provides scads of evidence, Bob's reasoning is sloppy, worthy of an uneducated, paranoid mind.

Bob Trivializes Violence Against Abortion Providers

2009-06-02T20:45:00.006-04:00

Bob went on the offensive at the beginning of his Monday (6/1) discussion of the heinous murder of Dr. George Tiller. Specifically, Bob trivialized the violence against abortion providers as some sort of fringe problem. Dutko said:

I am not going to just sit back and let pro-life voices be weakened, or silenced, or intimidated into silence, by some sort of false association with these nut-case murderers. There have been, since Roe v. Wade, over 30 years ago, there have been now four, a total of four abortion doctors killed. ... But the bottom line it's only four.

"It's only four." How sickening. Ask the families and friends of Dr. David Gunn, Dr. John Britton, Dr. Barnett Slepian, and Dr. George Tiller if they would agree that these people are "only four."

But Bob's "it's only four" figure is ridiculously deceptive. First, Bob has conveniently chosen to omit the non-physician murders attributable to "pro-life" violence. These include James Barrett, a clinic escort, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, who were clinic receptionists, and Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard. So now, we're up to eight deaths.

Still not a big enough number for Bob? Well, let's add in the 17 attempted murders since 1977. Now we're up to 21 acts of violence by "pro-life" forces. Still not enough violence for Bob? Let's add in the 41 instances of bombing, 175 instances of arson, and 96 instances of attempted bombing/arson. Now we're up to 333 acts of violence. I could go on like this all day, but when you add in all the other categories of violent crimes, you get a grand total of at least 6,143 acts of violence since Roe v. Wade was decided.

6,143 acts of violence by vs. "it's only four." That's more than a few "nut-jobs" like Bob suggests. If Bob can't see the association between the "pro-life" community and these acts of violence, then there truly is no hope for him.

Kansas City Terrorism-It Gets Even Worse

2009-06-01T19:12:00.003-04:00

We’ve been harping on Bob for years to stop giving air time to terrorists like Cheryl Sullenger and the rest of Operation Rescue for years now.

Turns out that Scott Roeder has a strong relationship with Cheryl Sullenger. When he was arrested, her phone number was found in his car.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that there was likely involvement on the part of Operation Rescue in the terrorist attack against Dr. Tiller. Operation Rescue supplied all the personal information needed to carry out the job. The only thing they didn't supply was a guy with a gun.

These are the people that Bob invites onto his show.

Even more on Dr. Tiller

2009-05-31T21:20:00.005-04:00

Bob,

Dr. George Tiller was assassinated today.

I'm sure you already know that, having watched the news. And make no mistake, he was assassinated. Tiller was a high profile person, specifically targeted because of who he was and what he did for a living.

The person responsible hasn't been identified yet, but would you care to guess the religion of the assassin? Do you think he was a Muslim? Maybe an atheist?

Of course not. He was a Christian.

I can already hear your bleatings: The assassin wasn't a Christian because "true" Christians don't kill people. "True" Christians are the ones legally protesting and "protecting" the fetuses. "True" Christians should be shocked and appalled that someone would kill in Christ's name.

But your all your whining is meaningless, Bob. The reason is simple: Because every single day, you advocate violence. You support the torture of people suspected of being terrorists. You support the going to war on people that had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. You support the death penalty. So let's be honest, Bob. You're satisfied with Tiller's assassination, aren't you?

You're satisfied with Tiller's assassination because you are well practiced in the fine art of moral equivocation. You don't believe that the Bush administration advocated torture because you define torture as anything but what the Bush administration did. You don't mind the death of innocent civilians in Iraq because, honestly, no Muslim is innocent, right? And Tiller's assassination is acceptable because he's killed so many "babies."

And I'm not just speculating here, Bob. You've invited violent people to be guests on you show. As DJ pointed out, you've given airtime to Cheryl Sullenger, a woman convicted of conspiring to blow up an abortion clinic. You've had Randall Terry on your show, who, in reacting to Tiller's assassination, said "George Tiller was a mass murderer and we cannot stop saying that...He was an evil man - his hands were covered with blood." I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I could find others.

So I'm asking you to be intellectually honest, Bob. I want you to plainly state what you really think: Tiller's assassination was justified, and that thousands of lives will be saved by the killing of this doctor.

I do have a few of lingering questions, though. If you take the position that Tiller's death was unjustified, immoral, anti-Christian and illegal, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to denounce Sullenger and her ilk for their violent past? Are you going to advocate for the cessation of all violence as anti-Christian? Or will you do nothing, as I expect you to?

By the way, did you know that Kansas reinstated the death penalty in 1994? When the assassin is caught and sentenced to death, will you support the conviction and sentence?

Should Tiller's assassination be compounded by another death?

How much death are you willing to settle for, in order to bring about the Christian nation you long for?

Irl

The Hypocrisy of the Obama-Notre Dame Protests

2009-05-14T23:15:00.006-04:00

Today, Bob talked about the kerfuffle regarding Obama giving a speech to the 2009 graduates at the University of Notre Dame*. As most people know, Notre Dame is a Catholic university, and therefore at least nominally under control of the Catholic Church.

This "controversy" stems from Barack Obama's political position on abortion. Obama is pro-choice, which means that he doesn't want to use the power of the government to regulate whether or not a woman has an abortion. Well, the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is against God's law and should be outlawed by the state. As the two positions are seemingly in opposition, some Catholic Bishops (less than 30%), as well as serial kooks Alan Keyes and Randall Terry, are now protesting Obama's speaking engagement.

But there is more to Catholic theology than just abortion. For example, the Catholic Church also teaches that capital punishment is against God's law and should be outlawed by the state. Now, some of you may remember the previous President's position on capital punishment: he was all for it! As Governor of Texas, George W. Bush approved over 150 executions and as President, he pushed for an expansion in the use of the death penalty in capital cases.

So, where exactly was the outrage when Bush addressed the 2001 Notre Dame graduating class? Well, there was none. This makes no sense, as the Catholic Church does not differentiate between abortion and capital punishment as sins. Their position is that they are both against God's law and both should be outlawed by the state. Therefore, it's blatantly hypocritical to protest one President (Obama) while giving the other a pass (Bush), when they both have positions that are antithetical to teachings of the Church.

Of course, I didn't hear Bob address this hypocrisy, which is par for the course. Just another day at the Bob Dutko Show!

*What continues to amaze me about Bob is his ability to get even the simplest facts incorrect. For instance, several times today he referred to Notre Dame as the largest Catholic university in the United States. Of course, Bob is wrong; DePaul is the largest with over 24,000 students. Georgetown, with 14k students, also beats NDs 11.6k students. If Bob can't get the simple stuff right, what makes anyone think his other "facts" are correct?

Bob's Latest Justification of Torture is Utterly False

2009-04-24T19:40:00.004-04:00

Yesterday, and again today, Bob talked about the "Christian perspective" in justifying the torture of terror suspects utilizing waterboarding techniques. In his rants, Bob said that the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) yielded information that led to the disruption of a 9/11-style attack on a building in Los Angeles.

But, as usual, Bob is completely wrong. KSM was captured in March 2003. The LA attack was foiled in 2002, BEFORE the U.S. captured KSM. Bob's justification of torture was that it saved lives. But clearly, it did not.

But don't take my word for it. Just ask George W. Bush!

The fact of the matter is that the torture of KSM likely revealed no useful information and did not "disrupt" any planned attacks. All it did was show the world how backwards and barbaric Americans can be. Again, don't take my word for it. Bush's FBI Director, Robert Mueller says the same thing...

Bob Doesn't Like The Shoe Being On The Other Foot

2009-04-15T14:30:00.006-04:00

Today, Bob was outraged! Outraged over the Department of Homeland Security releasing a report saying what I’ve been saying for years: There is a growing right-wing terror threat in this country.

"Right-wing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning," the assessment reads.

"The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when right-wing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.," it continues.

Bob is crying that the report is saying that ANYONE who has a conservative viewpoint is now being accused of being a terrorist.

No, Bob. You know that’s not what it’s saying.

What it’s saying is that the groups long ignored by the Bush administration, like The Army of God, are now using the election of Barack Obama as an excuse to carry out acts of terrorism.

Bob, now you know how the Muslims felt when you made them out to all be terrorists. (And I know: You’ll claim that you never said they were ALL terrorists.)

But remember you did say that most Muslims are either terrorists or supporting terrorists.

Oh, ye hypocrites....

Bob is crying that Bush didn’t do this to liberals. Sure he did. Remember the Earth Liberation Front? A left-wing terrorist group that was described as “the most serious threat to the nation.”

Quitcher cryin’, Bob. You’re getting what you had coming to you.

EDIT: Bob just brought up ELF, saying it wasn't the same because liberals weren't painted with such a "broad brush". Oh c'mon, Bob! You love painting Muslims with a broad brush! Welcome to their world!

Also, Bob, it might help if you didn't have terrorists like Cheryl Sullenger on your show.

BTW-I tried calling Bob to tell him this. The phone rang 50 times before the line went dead. Maybe they have my number blacklisted:).

An Anniversary of Church-State Separation

2009-02-28T15:42:00.005-05:00

Bob feels that the Framers of the Constitution wanted a "blending" of church and state, not a separation. However, on this day in 1811, James Madison set an important precedent on church/state relations.

Congress tried to give some land away to a Baptist Church. The then-President, James Madison, author of the First Amendment, knew this land-grant was in violation of the Establishment Clause. Madison vetoed the bill and stated:

Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land of the United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment."

So much for Bob's "blending" claims!

Three cheers for Madison and his convictions in keeping taxpayer dollars from supporting religions that one may not agree with.

Bob Dutko: Defending the Untruth

2009-02-17T08:15:00.004-05:00

If you routinely listen to Bob Dutko, you know that he claims that his beliefs are backed up by "science, logical, and intellectual reasoning." This is the phrase he uses when promoting his syndicated show Defending the Truth. However, Bob's recent statements regarding immunizations and autism show that what he really is doing is defending lies.

On Friday, Bob discussed the recent court ruling confirming that there is no link between immunizations and autism. Curiously, Bob admitted that there is no scientific evidence to support his claims that immunizations cause autism. However, he said that he can't ignore the anecdotal evidence!

I nearly fell off my chair at this point. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence! It is the opposite of scientific evidence and a logical fallacy!

Bob went on to quote a "paper" by a psychologist named Bernard Rimland. Dr. Rimland, now deceased, was the parent of an autistic child. The "paper" that Bob quoted made some fantastic claims, such as "thousands of parents report with their home videos" that their children have autism after getting a vaccine.

As I noted in a previous post, there have been many scientific studies performed to show that there is no causal link between receiving immunizations and developing autism. One of those studies looked at the health records of 537,303 Danish children. When comparing the vaccinated children to unvaccinated children, researchers found no correlation between vaccination and the development of an autistic disorder.

Whose word am I to trust on this matter? A dead man, whose own child has autism, who claims to have viewed thousands of videotapes from other distraught parents or the comprehensive study of over the medical records of a half million children?

I'm gonna go with the latter. Why won't Bob rely on actual evidence?

A Letter to Bob

2009-02-11T21:29:00.004-05:00

Reader Audioguy64 recently sent a letter to Bob. That letter is copied below. Of course, Audioguy64 is patiently awaiting an answer.....

Bob,

I heard you mention the existence of an exhibit of a giant human femur in the Kentucky creation museum. This seemed highly unlikely to me but since I have never been to that museum and I know that you have talked about going there before, I thought that I would give you the benefit of the doubt and do a little digging on the subject. Unfortunately, I found no mention of such an exhibit on the Kentucky museum's website http://www.creationmuseum.org/, but I did find two other creation museums that boast of such an exhibit.

The first is Kent Hovind's Dinosaur Adventure Land http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/ in Florida and the other is Joe Taylor's Mt. Blanco Museum http://mtblanco.com/index.htm in Texas. The reason I found this interesting is because Kent Hovind's exhibit contains a "replica" of the giant femur that is on display at the Mt. Blanco Museum in Texas. In fact, Mr. Hovind can be seen on videotape stating this fact in Part 2 of his Creation Seminar Series available on his website. So there is no actual "bone" on display at his museum, which by itself is not uncommon in the museum business. The bigger problem is that Mr. Taylor's exhibit in the Mt. Blanco Museum is a "sculpture" that he created based on a description found in an anonymous article sent to him by someone named Jack Wagner in 1996. The statement regarding said article was reprinted on http://www.stevequayle.com/ and reads:

From Joe Taylor

Mr. Jack Wagner sent me the following article in 1996 and asked me to sculpt a human femur the size of the one found in Turkey. As a guide for this model, I used the femur of one of the Malachite Man females.

What we know about this find is from a letter by the man who found it.

The article:

Dear Christian Friends, I was born and lived in the Middle East from 1938 to 1968. I was Ain-Tell and Euphrates water works Engineer and was very interested in archaeology and history and had some very interesting findings, some of which may sound unbelievable. I have brought with me a few silex arrow heads, etc., from the very battle-field where King Nebuchadnezzar and Pharo-Necho's armies fought. And what about the giants mentioned in Genesis? In south-east Turkey in the Euphrates Valley and in Homs and at Uran-Zohra, tombs of about four meters long once existed, but now roads and other construction work has destroyed the spots. At two places, when unearthed because of construction work, the leg bones were measured about 120 cms (47.24 inches). It sounds unbelievable. I have lived with my family at Ain-Tell for more than 14 years at the very spot where King Nebuchadnezzar had his headquarters after the battle of Charcamish, where I dug the graves of kings' officers and found their skeletons like sponge, and when you touch them they become like white ash, with spears and silex and obsidian tools and ammunition laying by.

So, what I did find out is that Mr. Taylor sells "replica" casts of a "sculpted" femur at his museum and website for $450 that comes with a "to-size drawing of a giant human skeleton from its toes to its wrists" and is apparently where Mr. Hovind obtained his "exhibit." In addition, this "sculpture" is based on bones from the Malachite find and as documented on http://paleo.cc/paluxy/moab-man.htm Malachite man is also known as Moab Man and the Moab Man/Malachite Man bones represent a number of intrusive burials in the Dakota Sandstone. The bones evidently represent intentional or accidental entombments of native Americans in a mining environment. As reported by a number of conventional workers and even some creationist authors, the bones are largely unfossilized, of normal size and of essentially modern appearance, except for the greenish stain. Mr. Taylor's sculpture is not even based on written measurements of the supposed Middle East find which creates a whole host of problems in itself. But I'll ignore those for now. Not surprisingly, I cannot find any evidence of the existence of an actual "bone" giant human femur that can be viewed anywhere in the world or has been written about by an actual archaeologist in any type of scientific journal or even a lay magazine like Discover for that matter. So my question to you is, Does the creation museum in Kentucky have a "real" giant human femur or a copy of Mr. Taylor's sculpted femur? If it is a casted exhibit, do you have any credible documentation of the existence of the actual artifact that can be viewed anywhere in the world? If not, I must conclude that you have simply regurgitated more undocumented "creationist baloney" instead of citing actual documented hard evidence to support your belief in pre-flood giants.

Anxiously awaiting the evidence,

Audioguy64

Bob Lies About the Stimulus

2009-02-09T20:13:00.007-05:00

Today, Bob outright lied regarding the economic stimulus bill, currently pending before Congress. Here's a small portion of his rant. Bob stated that the bill will prevent public colleges and universities from allowing Bible study or "private prayer time" in the dorms, if that institution were to take stimulus money for building renovation. He even asserted that the ACLU would be able to prohibit "any kind of religious expression going on, even during private time."

What a load of horseshit.

The language in question reads as such:

No funds awarded under this section may be used for ... modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.

That language says nothing about prohibiting religious expression in any way, shape, or form! In fact, this language has been standard in federal education spending bills for nearly 50 years. Don't believe me? Here's some excerpts from statutes going back to 1963.

Has this language prevented Bible study in public universities? Has it prevented religious expression during "private time"? Has it prevented religious groups from using university facilities?

OF COURSE NOT.

Campus Crusade for Christ meets in buildings all over the MSU campus. The Muslim Students Association at Wayne State assembles every Thursday in the library. Hillel at Michigan makes ample use of the university's facilities.

This SAME provision has been used in spending bills for decades and doesn't do ANY of the things that Bob says it's going to do.

The truly insane thing is that Bob should be happy about the language of this bill. Since he is opposed to Mormonism, he should be pleased that the University of Utah can't use taxpayer money to build a Mormon Temple. Since Bob thinks Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult, you'd think he'd be tickled pink that the State University of New York can't build a Watchtower learning complex. And since Bob thinks that Muslims are all going to hell, why would he oppose language that keeps Wayne State from building a Mosque on the center of campus?

Bob and Vaccinations

2009-02-08T08:06:00.006-05:00

Bob has a paranoid distrust of vaccines, and stated that he has not vaccinated his children. Frequently, he allows anti-vaccination quack Mary Tocco on his show. (Mary sells her lectures on DVD for a profit, just like Bob. Who could have guessed?)

Much of the modern anti-vaccination furor was supported by a 1998 study published in the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet. The study purported that a link existed between the MMR vaccine and autism. Well, surprise surprise, the Times of London is now reporting that the data used in the study was completely faked. Of course, for people in the reality-based world this isn't a surprise at all, as numerous other studies have failed to show any link between vaccination and autism.

So, will Bob comment on this latest refutation of the anti-vax crowd? Nope.

For some strange reason, Bob wants to keep his listeners in a state of ignorance so they'll forgo vaccinations, and endanger the health of the population as a whole.

Bob Dutko: fearlessly endangering the public health!

(h/t Pharyngula)

Bob Responds Part II: The Bobbo Strikes Back!

2009-02-04T13:34:00.006-05:00

After my last post, Bob wrote me back! Again, here is his original, unedited reply followed by my response. Enjoy!

--------------------

If I weren't such a slow non-typist, it would be easier for me to address all your points by e-mail, but I'll take just one. I've never said Catholics (or anyone for that matter) "must" accept Creation over Evolution, or that it is, as you say "necessary to salvation". Of course, that doesn't change the fact that I do honestly believe Darwinian Evolution to be false, as I repeatedly state. When I have read the arguments and counter arguments and debates between Creation scientists and evolutionary scientists, I sincerely believe the Creationists arguments are more sound, so that's the opinion I speak and promote. My original e-mail to you was referencing the fact that I know there are plenty of talk show hosts, celebrities, etc., who are on the other side. People like Bill Maher, Alec Baldwin, Al Gore, etc. These people make dogmatic (and some could say "arrogant") claims that what they believe is "absolutely true" according to what they consider "common sense, science and logic". I disagree with these people and attempt to debate their claims, but I don't feel anger or hatred towards them, as it seems you do for me. That's the main point I was making.

Take care,

Bob

--------------------

Bob,

It was my mistake in thinking that you valued my opinion. You asked me why I dislike you, so, naturally, I assumed you would read my letter and take it seriously. I see now that it was a silly assumption. I don't know why I'm bothering to reply.

Let's cut to the chase: It's your arrogance that makes you so unlikeable. You are a puffed-up pseudo-intellectual who fails to understand most of the subjects you opine about.

Let's go back to my original example: Evolution. You claim to have studied the arguments and counter-arguments, and come down firmly on the side of creationism. Really? Where did you complete your course of studies in the biological sciences? You've never been a college student, yet you can successfully refute evolution? You don't even have a basic understanding of how science works, let alone the talent to refute evolution. If you believe that "science" should be redefined to include the paranormal, then you aren't speaking from authority, you're speaking from profound ignorance. Science is an empirical method for discovering and understanding how the physical world works. If you redefine it to include the paranormal, you're engaged in promoting superstition, not science. So you'll forgive me if I doubt your authority on science.

Laughably, you make the claim that that belief in creationism isn't necessary for salvation. Seriously? You, personally, accept the Bible as literally true, including the idiotic notion that the universe is a mere 6000 years old. You reject theistic evolution, dismissing any interpretation of Genesis that allows for God to use evolution, because it can lead a person to "throw out the whole Bible...If interpretation of Scripture can be twisted that far from what it really says, you can twist anything in the Bible to say whatever you want it to." If the Bible cannot be "twisted" to deny the literal truth of Genesis then my question still stands: Is accepting the Bible and its creation myth as literally true necessary for salvation? If not, then why do you care if Christians believe in evolution? If it is, then you must denounce the Catholic church as promoting unchristian teachings. So which is it, Bob?

But I digress. Not only do I find you arrogant, I find you to be opportunistic and selfish. When it comes right down to it, you're nothing more than a marketing rep selling a product. Your product is conservative politics wrapped in a gloss of Christianity. Crawford Broadcasting is a for profit company, instilling brand loyalty and selling ad space through the promotion of Jesus, Inc. Tell me, which transmission shop would Jesus have endorsed? What chapter and verse of the Bible permits plastic surgery? I can't seem to locate any passage in John's Gospel that says "Do thy breasts sag? Verily, I say unto thee, lift them! Fill them with saline, and lift them unto the Lord!"

You spend a significant amount of time attacking the "liberal Christians" who dared vote for President Obama. Yet, you spend precious little time correcting the the con artists who spread the prosperity gospel. Pat Robertson is worth between $150 to $200 million dollars. John Hagee makes around $1.25 million per year. Joyce Meyers lives in a 10,000-square-foot Cape Cod style estate home with a guest house and a garage that can be independently heated and cooled and can hold up to eight cars. Tell me, is it the mission of Christ to make some people enormously wealthy while the poor suffer?

Which leads me back to one of my original points in my first e-mail, namely, that you lack compassion. Your theology emphasizes correct belief over correct action, causing you to be more concerned with pseudo-intellectual games rather than confronting the suffering of people. Honestly, which would you rather be: Right or compassionate? If a 15-year-old girl is seeking an abortion because her step-father raped her, are you more concerned for the 15-year-old or the embryo? Isn't it a cause for celebration if two people love each other enough to commit their lives together, regardless if they're homosexual? Does it matter if Muslim children in Iraq are killed by American bombs?

But you're not going to change your mind. Because, really, you're not curious about why I dislike you. You're so full of self-righteousness and self-satisfaction that you can't possibly conceive that I have a valid point to make. And, of course, you have to get back to selling CDs and face lifts.

After all, you're praying God will make you rich, right?

Irl

Bob and Atheists - Part I

2009-02-01T00:44:00.004-05:00

I'm an atheist. I don't make a big deal about it, because my lack of a belief in gods (including the Abrahamic God of Christianity) has nothing to do with the fact that Bob is either lying or fundamentally wrong on a whole host of topics.

Well, it turns out that Bob is also wrong about why the vast majority of atheists are atheists. Here's Bob's opinion on the topic from January 27:

My theory has always been that ... there's really no such thing as an atheist. That most of these people are angry at God about something or they emotionally don't like something about God, so the way they lash out is to deny his existence. Of course, atheists would be offended by that notion...

Personally, I wouldn't say that I'm "offended" by Bob's "thoughts." It's better described as a general amazement as to how any somewhat "rational" person could reach a profoundly stupid conclusion!

First, we're all born as atheists. Newborns and children don't have any belief in gods and must be taught the existence of God. In my case, I was never taught to believe in God, therefore I never developed any belief in any god. So, Bob's assertion that I'm "angry" at God is ridiculous, because I can't be angry at someone/something that I've don't believe in! Saying that I'm angry at God is the same as saying that I'm angry at the Easter Bunny. And I've never been angry at the Easter Bunny because he brings me chocolate.

Second, to a certain extent, we're all atheists. Most people do not believe that Zeus and Thor are gods with supernatural powers. Therefore, most people are atheists with respect to Zeus and Thor. Surely, Bob isn't a non-believer in Zeus and Thor because he's angry at them. He just doesn't believe in them! Why can't Bob just realize that the difference between atheists and followers of Abrahamic religions is that our disbelief simply extends one god further?

Bob: Please stop trying to demonize atheists as some sort of unreasonable, anger-filled heathens. It's simply not a logical conclusion and, of course, not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

More Terrorism

2009-01-22T21:13:00.007-05:00

To commemorate the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, some nutjob decided to drive his SUV into a Planned Parenthood clinic in Minnesota.

When [spokesperson] Di Nicola arrived at the clinic, she said the man had gotten out of the SUV and was pacing around it, holding a crucifix and chanting. "He was agitated and he was saying, 'shut down this Auschwitz,' " she said.

I can't say I'm surprised. Bob Dutko and his ilk are won't stop repeating that "abortion is murder" and that it must be eradicated. If I believed murders were actually occurring in a building, I might try to stop them, too.

However, abortion is not murder, no matter how many times Bob and his ilk say it is. Luckily, no one was hurt in this instance of domestic terrorism.

Bob Responds!

2009-01-20T16:08:00.005-05:00

Responding to this post, Bob wrote me an email. I am posting his full, unedited letter as well as my response. Enjoy!

-------------

Irl,

I get e-mail from plenty of people who disagree with me on any host of issues, and most of them are from just regular folks who disagree with me, saying basically, "Bob, I disagree with you and here's why". I'll level with you, I've never been able to understand the mindset of people like yourself who seem to be driven by hatred. I mean, it's obvious you hate me, and that's fine. I mean, I'm a big boy and I can certainly take it, but what causes you to have such hatred toward some talk show host you disagree with?

Just being honest with you, that's all.

Take care,

Bob

----------------

Bob,

It's taken me some time to write back because I find your letter a bit incredulous. Honestly, I wasn't sure of what to say, and I've spent a good amount of time thinking about how to respond.

I could have not responded at all, because my instincts are that you are not sincere in seeking to understand me. It's not that you are incapable of understanding me, but you have already pigeonholed me into the "unsaved anti-Christian" and are convinced I am fated to hell.

I could respond by pointing out that you didn't actually deal with any of the points I raised, and observe that accusing me of hatred is avoiding the issue. I would still love to hear the scripture and verse where Jesus advocates the torturing of people. I've always thought Jesus was quite clear when he quoted Hillel, demanding his followers obey the dictum, "That which is hateful to you, do not do unto others." But since you don't find torture hateful, you can easily slither around Christ's commandment.

So, in as few words as possible, I'll try to explain why I have such problems with you.

First, I find you arrogant. You assert that your show is from a "Christian" perspective, and that you are "Fearlessly Defending the Faith." More often than not, your show is from your perspective and you generalize your beliefs to be the proper, true "Christian" stance. This makes you the arbitrary governor of what is or isn't proper Christian dogma, and I don't recall you ever being appointed to the position.

Further, I find your arrogance unwarranted. The "arguments" you stake out are fueled by profound ignorance. What technical training do you have to opine on subjects like evolution, medicine or thermodynamics? You have a basic understanding of these subjects, yet act as if you have are expounding from a full and comprehensive education. It is clear that you are not!

But I want to keep this discussion grounded, so let us discuss an example: Evolution. You dismiss evolution as being unscientific, yet you have never spent any time deeply researching the subject at a accredited university! You can point to no scientific studies that conclusively disprove evolution, yet you act as if there are! Further, you dismiss evolution as being "un-biblical" and demand that every Christian fall in line behind you and do the same. Yet there are Christians who accept evolution without denigrating their beliefs. Catholics are the biggest example of this, when, in 1950, the Catholic Church took a neutral position on evolution and allowed Catholics to believe in evolution. Provided, of course, that their belief in evolution does not take away from God's revelation through Christ!

Now, I know what you're thinking at this moment. You're cranking up your arguments in your Top Ten CDs and preparing to state that you are simply following the dictates of the Bible and being a good Christian. But that doesn't solve the true problem I am pointing to: That you are unwilling to take on the established churches and hold them accountable. If dismissing evolution and accepting the "factual truth" of the story of Genesis is necessary to salvation, then you must denounce Catholics and demand that they repent. But you won't do this, will you? You really aren't willing to rock the boat when there are advertisers on the line, are you?

This letter is going on longer than I intended. My first few observations are but the beginning of my complaints, though I will bring this to a close by stating this: I think Christ's teaching are broader than your theology. Your theology makes God a cosmic blackmailer who holds a gun to my head and says "Believe in me or you will suffer forever." Your theology denies compassion, leading you to believe adherence to the Bible is more important than treating others well. This is evidenced by your willingness to deny abortions to rape victims, your willingness to deny marriage to homosexual couples, and by your continued stereotyping of all Muslims into terrorists.

In short, I find you loud, ignorant, and cruel.

But you're a big boy and can handle my opinion, right?

Irl

Bobbo Loves the Torture!

2009-01-13T17:35:00.009-05:00

Bobbo,

I imagine you spend a great deal of time in masturbatory glee at your presumed brilliance. But I find you to possess a vile little mind, filled with hatred and paranoia for anything you cannot understand.

First you you commit the intellectual sin of post hoc ergo propter hoc by making the spurious claim that torture has protected us from further terrorist attacks. Then you go on to justify the torture of prisoners at Guantanmo by claming its a great place to be! For good measure, you debase the American justice system by claiming that "slick" defense attorneys "like O.J. Simpson's" would be lining up to free Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

None of this compares the Grand Whopper of Ignorance you laid at the end of your bullshit parade! You all summed it all up by claiming that only Americans have rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.

What an amazing mixture of racism and ignorance you are Bob! The abuse you suffered at the hands of your father sure has lasting effects, doesn't it?

I'll try to be as plain as I can so even your feeble mind can understand: By your own admission our rights are granted to us by God. If God granted us our rights, did he grant them to everyone or just believers? If God granted rights to everyone, then the terror SUSPECTS are due the protections of the Constitution, right? Or does your God make exceptions for the scary brown people?

And if God only grants right to believers, then would you advocate the imprisonment and water boarding of atheists? Those mean, nasty atheists have the temerity to not be afraid of your mythical big scary man in the sky, so they deserve what they get, right?

Which is it Bob? Why don't you use you big brain to cut the Gordian knot of this little dilemma?

And while you're at it, why don't you do an in studio demonstration of water boarding? If it's not torture, a big strapping guy like you would have no trouble being water boarded, right? If you're too afraid of the demonstration, why don't you bring in one of your kids to be water boarded? If it's not torture, they won't be harmed, right?

Bobbo, you can redeem yourself by two simple acts: First, host an in studio demonstration that proves water boarding isn't torture, and, second, try practicing the compassion that Christ displayed.

Oh, my mistake, you don't believe Jesus of compassion. You believe in Jesus, Lord of War.

Irl

Bob Lies About Terrorism. Again.

2009-01-13T12:30:00.006-05:00

Today, Bob repeated the right wing lie said that Bush was in a lose-lose situation on the Global War On Terror. He started by saying that Bush kept us safe for seven years from terrorist attacks.

Ummmm….not so much.

When you include domestic terrorist attacks, we’ve had well over 100 terrorist attacks since 9/11. This includes the anthrax attacks that occurred just after 9/11, a shooting of a Unitarian church, a shooting spree from a white supremacist, hoax anthrax letters being sent, attacks from the Army of God and others against abortion clinics, and several others. And we always love to remind people of Bob's love for domestic terrorists who praise God for 9/11.

But Bob and other right-wingers like him think that the only terrorist attacks that count came from brown people. There was one of those, too, when in 2002 a man shot up LAX.

Then Bob said that if another terrorist attack did happen on 9/11, we’d be saying Bush didn’t do enough to protect us by taking away our civil liberties. Bob said that if another terrorist attack happened, we’d all be screaming: “You better waterboard the guy!”

Last I checked, waterboarding someone to extract a confession wasn't exactly something Jesus condoned.

If you’re a Christian, that’s not exactly something you want to hear from someone who claims to be “fearlessly defending the faith."

Dinosaurs and Man

2009-01-12T21:04:00.006-05:00

Last week, on the continuing adventures into stupidity with Bob Dutko, Grady McMurty proclaimed that the "last known dinosaur" was killed in 1887 in Bolivia. I was, of course, skeptical of this claim. Irl found the "source" of this information, a Creationist website called "Genesis Park":

At the end of the 19th century Scientific American recorded the following remarkable events: "The Brazilian Minister at La Paz, Bolivia, had remitted to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Rio photographs of drawings of an extraordinary saurian killed on the Beni after receiving thirty-six balls. By order of the President of Bolivia the dried body, which had been preserved in Asuncion, was sent to La Paz." The "monster" was reported to be twelve meters long (39 ft) from snout to point of the tail, which latter was flattened. It's head resemblance the head of a dog and its legs were short, ending with formidable claws. The legs and abdomen sported a kind of scale armor, and all the back is protected by a still thicker and double cuirass, starting from behind the ears of the anterior head, and continuing to the tail. The neck is long, and the belly large and almost dragging on the ground."

So the "evidence" that Grady and Bob were hanging their hat on is a short blurb in a 100 year old magazine that reports that photographs of drawings of a dinosaur were taken. Got it.

After reading this, I thought: Why didn't they take photographs of the dead dinosaur itself, instead of drawings of the dinosaur? Has anybody seen these photographs or the drawings themselves? It says the body was preserved. What happened to it? Where is it now? Of course, Grady didn't think to ponder these questions before stating this tall tale as fact.

But wait, it gets better. The "Genesis Park" story goes on to say: "One of the odd things about this report is that the saurian creature had multiple heads." (emphasis added) So not only did they kill a living dinosaur, but this dinosaur had more than one head, which is a true oddity of nature.

Folks, if someone came up to you and said they just killed a dinosaur with multiple heads, you'd probably ask them for evidence. And if the evidence they provided was photographs of drawings that you had made of the dinosaur, you'd laugh at them and walk away. But Bob and Grady don't do this. They accept the evidence because it's what they want to believe. More importantly, it also what they want you to believe.

For extra credit reading, check out this article at the blog Stupid Dinosaur Lies. The author dissects Genesis Park (and other Creationist mumbo jumbo) with more accuracy and detail than I could ever achieve.

Grady and Bob Capitalize on Public Ignorance

2009-01-10T12:37:00.006-05:00

Tuesday, Grady told us the nature of sediments do not indicate an old earth as shown by research done at Colorado State University’s Sediments Lab

Looking for more detail, I got the following from Grady’s website:

Research conducted in sedimentation laboratories at Colorado State University and in France proves conclusively that in nature sedimentary layers do not form slowly one on top of the other as evolutionists claim; but, rather that sedimentary layers form by growing sideways as the result of sorting by size and velocity as they are extended by water deposition flowing in a specific direction. This is well documented revolutionary research refuting evolutionary thinking.

Note that Grady did not describe or post a reference to a paper or an author of said “research.”

To those masses unfamiliar with the ways of science and research, this raises no “red flag.” (No surprise, since only about 50% of the adults know the earth circles the sun every twelve months and 72% of the same cannot properly describe a molecule.) This means that the general public and Dutko’s audience are hopelessly uninformed about the fundamental ways of science, and Grady & Co. get away yet again with blatant and deliberate and selective disclosure.

If Grady, really, truly, had “proof conclusive,” would he not shout the names and specifics of all relevant and supportive findings? Anyone else would.

But Grady and Bob make nonsense assertions about the “fossilized” cowboy boot, complete with remains of the owner’s foot. If this was on the level, someone would have presented at the annual meeting of the full membership of the American Geophysical Union for its amazement and wide-eyed endorsement.

Why has this not happened?

Because it’s not on the level, that’s why.

Refutations of Bob

2009-01-10T00:05:00.012-05:00

On Friday, Bob criticized a listener who sent him an email for failing to refute any of his so-called "evidence." He then went on to accuse evolutionists of failing to refute him. (Actually, it's just simpler to point and laugh.)

Well, in the past two years, this blog has specifically refuted Bob's statements many, many times. These refutations are not limited to evolution, but science, history, politics, and other topics. I've assembled a partial list of these refutations below.

Therefore, I refute Bob's accusation that evolutionists never refute him.

Science

Politics

Law

History

Mystere (Edward Endo) is off his medication.

Other

Grady McMurtry: January 6, 2009

2009-01-06T22:11:00.009-05:00

I love it when "Doctor" Grady McMurtry is on the show. He brings a fresh bag of crazy every time he is on. A few months back, Bob and Grady couldn't agree on which radiometric dating methods work and which don't. Then Grady went on to analogize gravity with evolution.

But on Tuesday, the good doctor threw out this whopper:

The last known dinosaur that can be documented living with people was in 1887. This was down in Bolivia, when a small armored dinosaur was killed.

Well, that's a new one for me! I scoured the Internets (OK, I just did some mild searching), but couldn't find anyone else making this claim. Perhaps Grady is confusing "small armored dinosaur" with an armadillo.

So, I hope Dutko and McMurtry fans will please point me towards this "documentation." I'm dying to see it.

Overwhelming Majority

2008-12-23T06:15:00.005-05:00

On Monday, Bob stated that the Democrats had an "overwhelming majority in both the House and Senate."

In reality, the Democrats maintain the tiniest of majorities in the U.S. Senate. In the current 110th Congress, prior to to the resignation of Barack Obama, the Democrats had 49 members, the Republicans had 49 members and there were two independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman). The two independents caucus with the Democrats to give them a 51% voting share, just enough to make Harry Reid the majority leader, instead of the minority leader.

Now, 51% doesn't sound like an "overwhelming majority" to me. But I, unlike Bob, have had training in math past the high school level.

Also, keep in mind that because of the Senate's rules regarding debate, you often need a minimum of 60 votes to pass contentious legislation. This rule has made it possible for the Senate Republicans to block numerous pieces of legislation over the last two years, most recently the auto company loan package.

So Bob, please get your facts straight. Otherwise, you sound like a liar.

Bob Asks: I Answer

2008-12-16T20:57:00.005-05:00

Today, Bob asked:

What have we done against the ... peaceful Muslim people in Iraq that is so wrong that it should cause President Bush to be hated like this?

I answer:

We invaded their country and continue to occupy it today;
This invasion destroyed their government and resulted in a civil war;
Our invasion and the resulting civil war have resulted in about a hundred thousand deaths of Iraqi civilians; and
Our invasion and the resulting civil war have also resulted in over 4 million displaced Iraqis.

And Bob, no matter how many times you say it, the belligerents in the Iraqi Civil War are not "foreign terrorists" that the U.S. had to drive out. The belligerents are overwhelmingly Iraqi nationals.

Bob Reveals his True Nature!

2008-12-09T14:09:00.006-05:00

Bobbo,

Not that you realize it, but you revealed yourself today.

It was during your interview with Karl Giberson. You had Dr. Giberson on to discuss his recently published book, Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and believe in Evolution. And it's not so much what you did as much as what you didn't do.

Normally, when you have a guest on to discuss evolution, you have very specific lines of attack. One of your favorites, which I have discussed in the past, is to bring up the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. You'll spew out some long-winded question about either of the laws and then challenge your guest to refute your "logic."

But you didn't do this with Dr. Giberson. And I know why. You see, Bobbo, Dr. Giberson has a PhD in physics from Rice University. Had you attempted to ambush him with your bullshit ideas about physics, Dr. Giberson would have, simply put, kicked your stupid ass up and down the airwaves.

Oh, you put up the facade that you are the last intellectually honest person in the world. You have your conspiracies about academia and how they censor the truth and avoid real debate, all in an effort to deny Christ. But when it comes to you challenging an academic and true expert with your silly-assed notions, you don't have the balls to do so.

So let us be intellectually honest Bob. Why don't you admit to your cowardice and let everyone know exactly what you are.

Irl

Hacking History

2008-12-07T11:55:00.005-05:00

Bobbo,

You replayed your interview with that hack David Barton, and I just can't let it pass without commenting.

You see, Barton is not a historian. He's a former science teacher at a fundamentalist high school with no formal training in history. Further, actual historians (people with advanced degrees in history) think very little of Barton's work. One historian described Barton thusly: "He's not a trained historian. He can be very convincing to an uninitiated audience. He's intelligent. He's well-spoken. But a lot of what he presents is a distortion of the truth..."

So Barton is a hack, but he's right up you alley, because you're a typical loud-mouthed, ignorant doofus.

Anyway, I want to take up a couple of your "logical" points.

First, you railed against the attempt to strike down California's Proposition 8 on the basis that it is unconstitutional. You figure that if a provision is in a constitution, then the people have spoken and the provision is constitutional. Wow, what sloppy reasoning! Beyond begging the question, your "argument" would allow for the tyranny of the majority!

If a proposition is Constitutional merely because the proposition is in the Constitution, then a majority of citizens can alter the Constitution in extremely problematic ways. This would allow the majority to run roughshod over the rights of the minority! Think about it this way: If the electorate of Michigan ratified a provision to the Constitution that stated all pregnant women under the age of seventeen must have an abortion, would you agree that the provision is Constitutional merely because it was in the Constitution?

Next, you proposed to test the intent of the Founding Fathers by looking at the actions they took at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. You paraded out your regular list of horribles, all in an effort to support the claim that the Founders somehow supported Christianity. But what about the other actions of the Founders that demonstrate that they were antireligious?

Why did many of the early State Constitutions have provisions banning Clergy from holding public office? (BTW, the Tennessee Constitution of 1870 contained an exclusion of clergy provision, but this provision was made into a dead letter by a United states Supreme Court decision. This means Constitutional provisions can be unconstitutional!)

Why did the 1797 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, ratified by John Adams, begin with the words, "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..."

Why did President Madison veto a Bill entitled "An Act incorporating the protestant Episcopal Church in the Town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia?"

Why did the Federal Government, in 1810, refuse to honor the sabbath by refusing to stop Sunday mail delivery?

Why is there clause in the U.S. Constitution that states that no religious test can be required as a qualification to hold office?

Bobbo, you like to pretend that you are somehow protecting and educating you listeners. But really, you're just spreading ignorance, fear, and disinformation. Why don't you repent so you can have even a modicum of respectability?

Irl

Bob and the Fairness Doctrine

2008-12-07T09:33:00.005-05:00

For some time, Bob has been talking about how "the Democrats" are going to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

For those of you not familiar with the term, the Fairness Doctrine was an attempt by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to "ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair." As radio and television stations are using the public airwaves, the FCC reasoned that they had the "obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view." The Doctrine was eliminated by the FCC in the 80s.

I guess Bob is worried that if the Fairness Doctrine be reimposed, he would be out of a job, as his extreme right-wing bias will no longer be tolerated by the government. Now, Bob isn't alone in his ranting and raving about the Fairness Doctrine; most of the far right wing on the Republican Party is in on the act.

But here's what Bob isn't telling you about the Fairness Doctrine: Nobody is calling for its reinstatement! Marin Cogan of The New Republic went out looking for proponents of the Doctrine:

I looked at Obama's position--and it turns out that he doesn't want the policy reinstated. Then I called the array of Democratic congressmen who had been tagged by conservatives as doctrine proponents. But they all denied any intention to push for its reinstatement.

Steve Benen has also been providing excellent coverage of this issue.

So, why is Bob always talking up this upcoming "doomsday" scenario? My guess is it helps feed the persecution complex that Bob likes to spread among his listeners. Nothing keeps right wing anger alive better than the idea that the government is coming to get your Bible, your guns, and, of course, force Bob Dutko off the air.

Now, nothing would please me more than having Bob retired from radio and moved into a position more suitable for his talents. (Used car sales sounds about right.) However, the Fairness Doctrine simply will not be his undoing. Furthermore, it is important to note that even if the Doctrine were to be reinstated, Crawford Broadcasting wouldn't have to fire Dutko. They'd simply have to balance his content.

I for one, would welcome a daily four hours of "The Irl Hudnutt Show."

Bob Wrong About Neanderthal DNA

2008-12-03T22:28:00.010-05:00

Like Irl, I too had the misfortune to hear Bob's massacre of science today in an ongoing effort to claim that the Earth and the Universe are only a few thousand years old.

This is just a rehash of the same old bullshit. Bob repeated his lie about how radiometric dating of recently erupted volcanic rocks always yields an age in the millions of years, despite the scientific evidence, including this study of rocks from Mt. Vesuvius, which shows accurate dating of recent volcanic eruptions. The Mt. St. Helens "study" that Bob routinely mentions has also been thoroughly debunked.

But what caught my attention today was Bob's discussion of Neanderthal DNA:

"Even the evolutionists have been mapping the neanderthal genome. And guess what? So far, it's coming up identically human. ... Right now 99.5% human. And all humans alive today on the planet have a 1 degree variance in them, so the neanderthal genome is coming in right smack in the middle of the variances that exist among the human beings walking the Earth today."

First of all, like Irl mentioned, Bob doesn't give any sources for his assertions, such as the"99.5% human" figure or the "1 degree variance" issue. I guess we're just supposed to take his word for it. But that's a bad idea, because a recent scientific study of neanderthal DNA says just the opposite.

"A complete mitochondrial (mt) genome sequence was reconstructed from a 38,000 year-old Neandertal individual with 8341 mtDNA sequences identified among 4.8 Gb of DNA generated from ~0.3 g of bone. Analysis of the assembled sequence unequivocally establishes that the Neandertal mtDNA falls outside the variation of extant human mtDNAs, and allows an estimate of the divergence date between the two mtDNA lineages of 660,000 ± 140,000 years."

Folks, Bob is just making this stuff up as he goes along. He'll throw out some official sounding terms (e.g., 99.5 percent and 1 degree variance), but there's no actual facts or evidence to back it up. Remember, just because Bob says he uses "science, logic, and intellectual reasoning," doesn't mean he really does!

And the Bullshit Continues!

2008-12-03T21:07:00.005-05:00

Bobbo,

Today, I listened to your spiel about the earth being a few thousand years old. Beyond being thoroughly unimpressed by your claims, I am left with a small question: What are your sources?

You see, when scientists make claims about a phenomena, they clearly lay out their experimental apparatus and their data in order to ensure that others can verify their claims. This information is vital to ensuring accurate and truthful dissemination of information.

Let me give you an example:

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) is a satellite designed to map the Universe, detecting microwaves coming from the most distant source there is: the cooling fireball of the Big Bang itself.

The results of the five year study is conclusive: The age of the Universe is 13.73 billion years, plus or minus 120 million years. And if you don't believe the scientists, Bobbo, you can go here, check their findings, examine the experiment's parameters and prove them wrong.

But you can't do that, can you, Bobbo? Because you don't have the science education to intelligently comment on their experiment, do you?

Which, of course, brings me back to my original point: You don't list your sources because they just won't stand up to scrutiny. You make bold assertions about the truth of this, that, or the other thing and then claim that if "all" the evidence was put forward, you would be heralded as authoritative. But that just makes you a bullshit artist, doesn't it?

So if you wouldn't mind, point me to the scientific papers that explain how a cowboy boot came to be "rapidly" fossilized, or how the Bible is a trustworthy scientific source, or to a scientific paper that backs up any of your bullshit claims.

You won't, will you? Because you're a bullshit artist and you know it, don't you?

Irl

The War on the War on Christmas - 2008

2008-12-01T22:38:00.007-05:00

Well, Thanksgiving has come and gone, which means only one thing: It's time for Bob and the rest of the religious right to ramp their persecution complex into high gear and be personally offended if merchants (as well as the public at large) fail to wish them a Merry Christmas. Of course, Bob was covering this topic in depth today.

If I'm not mistaken, the crux of this whole manufactured controversy revolves around the alleged replacement of the phrase "Merry Christmas" with the phrase "Happy Holidays." Isn't the phrase "Happy Holidays" simple shorthand for "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year?" It's not nefarious at all! And if by using "Happy Holidays" you are inclusive to those who celebrate Hanukkah, then so much the better.

Could it be that the religious right has it all wrong? Could it be that the merchants aren't really trying to alienate gift-buying Christians in favor of Jews, militant Muslims, and baby Jesus-hating Atheists? What would be the point in that?

Oh, and Happy Holidays everyone...

Bob loves Sodom and Gomorrah!

2008-11-20T22:25:00.008-05:00

Bobbo,

Do you ever listen to yourself? You know, tune in to "best of" shows just to check your logic?

Probably not. You're too arrogant for that.

Anyway, today you "explained" the election of Barack Obama. First, you said that Barack Obama would be elected in Sodom and Gomorrah, so you weren't surprised. Next, you also said that a conservative wouldn't be elected in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Bobbo, I have some questions.

In your analogy, America is, obviously, Sodom and Gomorrah. On other occasions, you've expressed your deep and abiding love of America. Does this mean that you love America even though it's Sodom and Gomorrah? Being a Christian, isn't that inconsistent?

Next, when did America become Sodom and Gomorrah? And how do you explain the election of George W. Bush? If a conservative can't be elected in Sodom and Gomorrah, then either Bush isn't a conservative or American has become Sodom and Gomorrah in the last eight years. Which means, of course, that a conservative oversaw America as it became Sodom and Gomorrah.

I guess that either your analogy sucks or you don't know what you're talking about.

Hey, I could be wrong. It could be both.

Irl

Poor Bob: Everyone is Being Mean to Him!

2008-11-15T18:48:00.008-05:00

On Friday, Bob whined that Obama supporters were being mean to him because of his non-stop attacks on the President-Elect over the past year. Bob couldn't seem to understand why there was so much vitriol directed towards him. After all, he was just expressing his opinion and producing some "facts," right?

Bob, let me help you understand: People aren't upset that you were attacking Obama. People were upset that you were ruthlessly and unfairly attacking Obama. Here's a short summary:

Bob asserted that Obama wasn't qualified to be President even though he was.
Bob questioned the patriotism of Obama and questioned whether he may have "anti-Americanism" running through his veins.
Bob said Obama will "lay the foundation" for legislation to lock-up people who say that homosexuality is wrong.
Bob accused Obama of associating with a terrorist for serving on a charity board with William Ayers, while repeatedly inviting a convicted felon and would-be clinic bomber on the show.
Bob spent hours discussing the endorsement of Obama by Louis Farrakhan, even though Obama repudiated the endorsement.
Bob tried to tie the actions of Obama supporter Larry Lessing to the President-elect, even though Barack had absolutely no control over such things.
Bob lied about Barack Obama's voting record in the Illinois State Senate.
Bob questioned the patriotism of Michelle Obama when even Laura Bush said she obviously misspoke.
Bob constantly challenged any Christian who planned to vote for Obama and pretty much said that you couldn't be a real Christian and still vote for Obama.
Bob said that while he didn't think Obama is the anti-Christ, he let his callers assert that he. Repeatedly.
Bob spent about an hour discussing the significance of the Illinois lottery drawing the numbers '666' on the day after the election.
And, of course, in addition to all of the above, Bob wanted people to find Obama guilty of hating America because he attended the church where Jeremiah Wright was the preacher.

So Bob, if you can't find the line that you've crossed in your treatment of Barack Obama, then you're beyond hope.

Feel free to add any other examples of Bob's ruthless attacks in the comments...

In Terrorists Bob Trusts

2008-11-13T22:18:00.004-05:00

On Wednesday, Bob pimped a story about a political adviser for Hamas (the Palestinian terrorist group that is also the de facto government in Gaza) that claimed that Hamas had been "in contact" with "aides" to Obama.

Obama's senior foreign policy advisor, Denis McDonough, stated that the "assertion is just plain false."

Bob didn't have any details about these allegations.

We don't know who these Obama "aides" allegedly were, where they allegedly met, what they talked allegedly about, when they allegedly met, or why the alleged talks took place.

But the lack of any relevant information is of no matter to Bob Dutko. To Bob, this is a solid news story and that we should "do with this information what we will." He even stated that he "was having a hard time coming up with a motive for...Hamas to make this up."*

Just a few months ago, Bob went on a tirade saying that "the default position of many on the left in this country is to give the benefit of doubt to the terrorists." Isn't that precisely what Bob is doing now? Instead of giving the benefit of the doubt to the President-Elect future Commander-in-chief, Bob is siding with the terrorists! Why does Bob trust terrorists more than Obama? Is it because he holds terrorists in higher regard than Democrats?

So once again, Bob Dutko proves he is a true master of hypocrisy. Nice work!

*It seems to me that antagonizing Israel is an excellent "motive" for Hamas to lie about meeting with Obama's "people."

From the Comments!

2008-11-12T10:12:00.005-05:00

A very sharp and articulate fellow named Matt frequently contributes here. This is one of his recent comments, which, in my opinion, is very salient. It's so good that Jeff and I are promoting it to the front page so everyone can enjoy it. It's an e-mail that Matt sent to Bob, which Bobbo probably won't be reading on air.

Matt's email to Bobbo:

Hey Bob,

I enjoyed your program yesterday. Especially when you pointed out the fact that President-elect Obama must be a Marxist because some of his policies reflect those of the Communist Party U.S.A.

Following your very own logic, I have determined that you are, in fact, a White Supremacist as your stated beliefs are an exact match for many of those held by the Ku Klux Klan (http://www.kkk.bz/program.htm) who believes in:

The recognition that America was founded as a Christian nation;

The abolition of ALL discriminatory affirmative action programs;

The abolition of all anti-gun laws;

The outlawing of abortion except to save the mother's life or in case of rape or incest;

Everyone who can work should work;

A return to parental authority without government interference in the raising of our children;

A strong defense department to safeguard American citizens;

Supporting all U.S. veterans.

You can--and probably will--choose to deny it, but I'm sure President-elect Obama would also deny being a Marxist. And since, according to you, beliefs held in common with a political group must necessarily identify one with that group, then you are, whether you choose to admit it or not, a racist just like the Klan whose beliefs you hold so dear.

Matt.

Bob's Callers Help Reinforce the Ignorance

2008-11-09T22:48:00.005-05:00

On Election Day, a caller to Bob's show stated that Hillary Clinton "wasn't vigorously campaigning" for Barack Obama. Bob agreed, and opined that Hillary was readying herself for a campaign against Sarah Palin in 2012.

Either Bob lives in a right-wing fantasy land of his own creation or he's lying.

Here's a USA Today story, from October 5, about Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail for Barack Obama. The money quote:

Clinton has hit 40 campaign events for Obama in battleground states from New Hampshire to Nevada in the past two months.

I guess 40 campaign events in two months isn't "vigorous" enough for the caller and Bob. If anybody thinks they're getting accurate news and information from The Bob Dutko Show, I recommend they reconsider.

Dumb or Lying?

2008-11-08T07:16:00.006-05:00

Here's a little Dutko inconsistency that Irl and I were discussing last night.

Before the election, Bob repeatedly said that he wouldn't vote for the Constitution Party candidate because, even though this candidate more accurately represents his Christian beliefs, there was little to know chance that this candidate could win.
Instead, Bob has stated that he, and good "Christians" like him, should vote for the Republican candidate, John McCain, even though McCain is wrong on such "Christian" issues like embryonic stem cell research.
After the election, Bob stated that he absolutely knew that McCain had no chance of winning Michigan. But, Bob went to vote for McCain to show God that he's voting with His interests.

So this begs the question, if Bob knew that McCain couldn't carry Michigan, then why didn't he vote for the Constitution Party candidate? There are three options as I see it:

Bob is lying when he said he knew that McCain had no chance of winning;
Bob is lying about his rationale for not voting for the Constitutional Party candidate (e.g., Bob is just an advocate for the Republican Party no matter what); or
Bob is too dumb to realize the logical inconsistency in his reasoning.

Remember: Bob is a self-proclaimed master of "logic."

Bob Shows His Racism Again

2008-11-05T12:44:00.005-05:00

Today, Bob declared that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will have to get new jobs. From this point forward, they will have nothing to complain about because of Obama's win was elected to the Office of the President.

Yep, Bob thinks Obama's election cured America of its race problems.

Bob, realizing what he said, tried to cover his admission by claiming that he's glad Obama broke the race barrier.

Bob, you ignorant jackass: Racism isn't dead in America. We're going to see many, many examples of it, now that Obama's elected.

None of it Worked

2008-11-04T23:11:00.007-05:00

Over the past year, Bob has done everything he could to denigrate Barack Obama.

Bob questioned Obama's qualifications to be President.

Bob hypothesized that Obama would lay the ground work for imprisoning Christians.

Bob tried to impose the sins of Jeremiah Wright onto Obama.

Bob lied about Obama's voting record.

Bob questioned Obama's patriotism.

Bob questioned the patriotism of Michelle Obama.

Bob implied that Obama was a cult leader.

Bob accused Obama of being a terrorist sympathizer.

Bob asserted that Obama would raise the taxes of all Americans, even though Obama has promised otherwise.

But none of it worked.

Today, Michiganders and a majority of America rejected the politics of Bob Dutko and the far right Republican Party.

For that, I am cautiously optimistic.

The Callers are Starting to Wise Up

2008-11-03T22:13:00.005-05:00

Today, Bob's plan was to dedicate 40 minutes to the Christian members of his audience to call in and tell why they're supporting Barack Obama, then another 40 minutes for supporters of John McCain to call in and make their case.

But a surprising thing happened when Bob came back to start the segment. There were no Obama supporters on the line.

Bob was perplexed about the lack of Obama supporters.

Hey Bob, let me tell you why your phone lines weren't all lit up: It's because your listeners have figured out your game. They know what's in store for them if they call in: You ridicule their reasoning and accuse them of not being Christian because the support a pro-choice candidate.

Why would anyone want to call in and have some flunkie with a a high school education tell them how their beliefs are not "Christian" enough?

Bob Wants The Left To Stop Playing The Race Card

2008-10-20T00:35:00.004-04:00

On Friday, Bob complained that he’s sick and tired of liberals playing the race card when discussing politics. He was talking about immigration, but accused the Obama campaign of playing racial politics in the past.

I know that incidents of “subtle” racism such as Obama waffles and food stamps with Obama’s face on them (featuring fried chicken and watermelon) would go right past Bob’s head. So here’s a few incidents where the racism is about as subtle as a boot to the face:

1. Mike Lunsford, of Fairfield, OH, hung an Obama ghost in a tree. When asked about it, he openly admitted that he didn’t want to vote for a black person.

2. Obama billboard has Obama in a turban.

3. Lady tells McCain she’s worried about Obama because “he’s an Arab.” (Sometimes people on the right are so ignorant that they can’t even get the race right.)

4. White supremists are saying that if Obama is elected, there will be a race war.

5. A man sold “Obama in 08!” T-shirts that displayed Curious George eating a banana.

I could keep going, you can learn about this yourself. Googling “Obama Racism” will turn up much more.

Here's what Bob won't comprehend: If you want liberals to stop bringing up racism, stop being racist. It’s pretty simple.

Bob Brings Back Terrorist Sympathizer

2008-10-17T12:47:00.005-04:00

Bob just wrapped up an interview with Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue.

As we've already brought up in the past, Troy Newman:

A) Has worked with the terrorist group "Army of God".

B) Is employing Cheryl Sullenger (who is also a regular on Bob's show). Sullenger was convicted for conspiring to blow up an abortion clinic (i.e., she's a domestic terrorist).

C) Said that 9/11 was God's punishment for abortion.

These are the people that Bob likes to have on his show. Says a lot about Bob's character, doesn't it?

I know there's some people out there saying to themselves "Bob must not know they're terrorists."

He does.

We've emailed him about it. Many times.

Yet he still gives these domestic terrorists a platform to share their views.

Bob Jumps On The Anti-ACORN Bandwagon

2008-10-15T12:58:00.004-04:00

You can always count on Bobby to spin the issues the way the right-wing wants him to. Today, Bob just finished up bashing ACORN, the group that conservatives are accusing of voter fraud by turning in false voter registration cards.

Bob said that these are only the ones that got caught, and that we'll never really know how far this thing goes.

Of course what Bobbo didn't tell you was that the reason why the people turning in voter registration forms got caught was because ACORN reported them.

When ACORN received voter registration cards that looked suspicious, they flagged them before turning them into election officials. They're required by law to turn them in, even if they think they're invalid. You cannot throw away a voter registration card just because YOU think it's not right. Had ACORN done that, they would've been accused of throwing away legitimate voter registration cards.

This is all an attempt by conservatives like Bob Dutko to claim that the 2008 election was stolen when it's obvious that Obama's going to win. They don't want to admit to themselves that people aren't buying into the false ideas of conservatism, so they'll lie and say it was stolen.

Well too bad. When your opponent is leading by 15 points in the polls, you can't be taken seriously when you say the election was stolen. If Obama and McCain were neck and neck, you could give the conspiracy theory some traction. But when Obama's leading by double digits, Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for losing.

More About Bob's Condoning of Terrorists

2008-10-09T14:17:00.006-04:00

Bobbo,

You pegged the irony meter today. Today you ran a repeat, rebroadcasting your scurrilous lies against William Ayers calling him an "unrepentant domestic terrorist."

But what you don't know, Bobbo, is that in doing so, you revealed something about yourself. You revealed that you don't believe in a basic tenet of our American justice system.

You see, every person in the United States is given the presumption of innocence, which means that they are innocent until proven guilty. American citizens are not guilty of a crime until the the Government establishes proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person has committed the crime alleged.

But you don't care about that, do you? You know how I know that you don't care? Because you bluntly state William Ayers is guilty of a crime that he has never been convicted of.

Follow me, Bobbo, because I know logic is hard for you: If William Ayers has never been convicted of terrorism in a court of law then HE IS NOT A DOMESTIC TERRORIST. But you, in an act of pure douchebaggery, have convicted a man solely in the court of public opinion in order to attack Barack Obama. I guess the question then becomes whether or not you believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Do you, Bobbo?

And here's the ironic thing, Bobbo: You know who has been convicted of conspiracy to kill American citizens? Cheryl Sullenger, a senior policy advisor for Operation Rescue and member of the Republican party. You remember Cheryl Sullenger and Operation Rescue don't you? The woman and organization that you've freely given air-time to on more than one occasion?

So, Bobbo. You've decided that you don't care for the American Legal system, you pal around with convicted terrorist, and you've routinely failed to denounce your association with those convicted terrorists.

Would you care to explain this hypocrisy and dishonesty, Bobbo?

Irl

McMurtry vs. Dutko

2008-09-26T01:12:00.006-04:00

Bob and Grady need to get their stories straight. On Thursday, when talking to a rightfully beligerant caller, Grady repeated the old Young Earth Creationist canard:

"Carbon dating doesn't work. None of the radiometric processes work."

Less than three minutes later, Bob tries to convince the same caller that dinosaurs and humans living together. In doing so, he gives out this evidence:

I bet you have no idea that the evolutionists' own carbon dating has been done on dinosaur bones and according to their own dating, only dates dinosaur bones to be in the thousands of years."

So which is it? Does carbon dating work or doesn't it? Oh wait, let me guess. Carbon dating is accurate and reliable when it can be used to show a 6000 year old Earth but it is inaccurate and unreliable when it can be used to show a 4.5 billion year old Earth. Got it.

Morons.

Grady McMurtry

2008-09-25T21:10:00.014-04:00

Whoohoo! Thursday was Grady McMurtry day on the show! You know what that means: pure, unfiltered idiocy!

Just listen to Grady pontificate to a caller who wanted tips on how to debate the sensible people in his life who can comprehend the science of evolution...
Boomp3.com

The last question I asked myself before I actually became a Creationist was, "could the Law of Gravity ever evolve?" ... Could that law, which is a law of science, and therefore immutable -- gravity exists everywhere in the Universe, it acts the same way everywhere -- could it have evolved from something less to be what it is? And the answer is no, it had to come into existence whole and complete. If it came into existence whole and complete it had to be created. The same thing is true -- the Laws of Thermodynamics, the laws of genetics, the laws of motion -- all scientific laws had to come into existence whole and complete and could not have evolved from anything less. Therefore, they all had to be created.

The stupid is extraordinary! Grady is actually trying to analogize various laws of nature to the biological evolution of the various species on Earth. This makes absolutely no sense. Biological evolution refers to "the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. These changes are produced at the genetic level as organisms' genes mutate and/or recombine in different ways during reproduction and are passed on to future generations."

Read this very carefully and very slowly: Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of the universe or how scientific laws came into existence. The scientific Theory of Evolution is not even SLIGHTLY interested in these concerns. Evolution is all about BIOLOGY and how the various species came to be via the process of NATURAL SELECTION.

To put it simply, Grady wants you to think that human beings were created "whole and complete" by God. But the fact of the matter is that human beings are not natural laws and therefore his analogy is completely nonsensical.

Bob Dutko: Ignorant of History!

2008-09-17T23:11:00.007-04:00

Bobbo,

Do you hold anything higher than a high school diploma? Because for a guy who claims to have an IQ of 160, you are amazingly ignorant.

You did your pre-packaged spiel about how America has a Christian heritage, and I'm stunned at how little you actually know about history. So let's play a little game. Let's assume for the moment that you are correct and America's heritage is of pure Bible-believing Christians just like yourself. Now answer me these questions:

Were Christians responsible for chattel slavery that treated Africans as property?

Were Christians responsible for the wholesale slaughter and subjugation of Native Americans?

Did Christians ever form radial groups to promote racial intolerance?

The answer is "Yes" on all three counts, Bobbo. Christians were more than happy to participate in slavery:

Slavery in the United States, by the European Christians, in the name of Christianity, was the development of the worst form of slavery in world history; "chattel slavery." In other words, Afrikans were not considered human but property or animals, with absolutely no type of human rights at all. This was justified through the misinterpretation of Bible stories, particularly about Afrikan people being cursed and turned black.

Christians also justified their treatment of native Americans as a way of promoting Christianity:

Immediately upon hearing of Columbus' "discoveries," King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain dispatched the news to Pope Alexander VI (a notable reprobate), who issued a Bull, Inter Caetera...[giving] the new territories to the Spanish king and queen, with the sole condition that no other Christian monarchs had previously held such a dominion. For anyone who might happen to oppose this authorization, Alexander stated: "Should anyone presume to do so, be it known to him that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul."
The slaughter of Native Americans that then commenced was chronicled by Father Bartholomé de las Casas, in his Destruction of the Indies, and other works. Entire peoples were exterminated;

And finally, Christians formed the KKK:

The largest Christian Identity movement has traditionally been the Ku Klux Klan which was reorganized in 1915 by William Simmons, a Christian pastor. He had been inspired by the film The Birth of a Nation which portrayed the KKK as a champion of white civilization. The KKK slid into obscurity by the second World War, but was revitalized in the mid 1950's as a reaction to enforced racial integration in the southern US.

So, Bobbo, if your so damned insistent that America has a Christian heritage, why don't you educate your listeners to the whole truth?

I'll venture a guess: You're a hypocrite and a liar.

Irl

Bob is an Ignorant Scumbag

2008-09-15T13:22:00.007-04:00

Bobbo,

Do you believe your own bullshit?

Today you spent time blaming liberals for the mean and evil things Randi Rhodes says on her radio show. This is what Rhodes said:

She’s the woman who shows up at the kid’s birthday party and starts opining about everything from politics to lawn care. This is the woman that knows it all. Will shout you down, will get revenge on you. That’s who she is.
She's friends with all the teenage boys. You have to say no when your kids say, 'can we sleep over at the Palin’s? No! NO!'

From this, you magically know that Rhodes is calling Palin a pedophile.

Beyond your statement being downright ignorant, I have a question for you: Why don't you ever spend time policing right wing radio?

You want to excoriate liberals for being “guilty of the things they accuse Conservative of being,” while failing to point out the log in your own eye.

Here's a recent statement from Michael Savage:

Cops are getting knocked off all over the country because of the rules of engagement, written primarily by the scummiest class in America, the vermin of vermin, which are the left-wing lawyers who should be put in Abu Ghraib with hoods over their head, as far as I'm concerned."

Here's a gem from Neal Boortz:

For instance, or for goodness sakes, jump in and I'm gonna say -- I'm gonna start out with something controversial. I saw Cynthia McKinney's new hair-do...[s]he looks like a ghetto slut.

And here's a goody from Glen Beck:

OK, so anyway, I was talking about ugly people. Ugly people, if you're a guy, you can get past it. I don't think you can as an ugly woman. I don't -- no, I don't. If you're an ugly woman, I apologize. Oh, you've got a double cross, because if you're an ugly woman, you're probably a progressive as well.

So Bobbo, why do you never call out right-wingers for hate speech? Maybe because you worship in the temple of Republicans and only care about vilifying people to win elections.

You're no Christian, Bob. You're a fucking coward and hypocrite.

Irl

Sarah Palin

2008-09-03T23:48:00.010-04:00

Today, Bob spent the vast majority of the day attacking "the liberal media" for talking about the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's unmarried, 17-year old daughter. Bob threw around words like "despicable" and "sleazy" to describe the media. I would estimate that Bob devote about 3 hours of his 4 hour program to talking about how horrible the media is for talking about Gov. Palin's daughter's behavior that is clearly sinful in the eyes of God.

I actually agree with Bob in this regard. The fact that Bristol Palin can't keep her panties on until after she's married is frankly none of my business. I could care less what she does with her vagina and uterus.

But, of course, this outrage at the "media" is simply a smokescreen to divert your attention from the real issues surrounding Gov. Palin. Here's just a sample:

Palin is under investigation for firing of public safety commissioner Walter Monegan. Monegan maintains that he was let go for refusing to fire her ex-brother-in-law, a State Trooper.
While Palin was mayor of tiny Wasilla, Alaska, she racked up a debt of over $20 million. That's about $3,000 per resident. (So much for fiscal conservatism!)
As mayor of Wasilla, Palin asked all managers of the city to resign as a "test their loyalty". No kidding!

But I think the most damning charge against her revolves around her ties with the Alaska Independence Party. The AIP's primary goal is to secede Alaska from the United States. Her husbaned was a member of the party and Palin herself delivered a videotaped speech to the party just six months ago! Bob says its alright to question Barack Obama's patriotism because he doesn't wear a U.S. flag lapel pin. I have to assume that her involvement with the AIP makes it OK to question Sarah Palin's patriotism!

Hey, Bob: Barack Obama himself says to lay off Sarah Palin's family. Why don't you stop talking about it as well and take some time to look at the real ethical problems with this candidate?

Universal Health Care

2008-08-23T15:33:00.010-04:00

Bob went off the deep end last Friday when talking about universal, publicly funded health care. Bob was all upset that a recent poll of Michiganders showed that 65% supported such a system. (I couldn't find a link to this, but I'll take Bob's word for it.)

Let me summarize his "argument" against such a healthcare system:

Universal, publicly funded health care is not compassionate because giving something to someone isn't always the most compassionate thing to do. For example, giving an alcoholic a drink might make them happy, but it's not the right thing to do.

Really, folks, that was his argument in a nutshell! It's got to be the stupidest "analogy" I've ever heard of. Take a listen:

Boomp3.com

Bob, listen very carefully: HEALTH CARE IS NOT ADDICTION. IT'S A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN NECESSITY.

Did you notice that giving the alcoholic a drink is what "liberals" would do? Bob doesn't give any facts or evidence to support his assertion, it's just another demonization technique. But I digress...

So why does Bob has such a fear of publicly funded, universal health care? The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized country that does not ensure that all of its citizens have health care coverage. Are Canada, Japan, Great Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Israel, and countless others all wrong on this issue? Furthermore, Americans end up paying more for their health care and getting less treatment then other western nations.

So what, exactly, is the "Christian Perspective" for being against universal, publicly funded health care? My guess, is it's more of a "GOP Perspective" since pharmaceutical companies give more to Republicans by a 2-to-1 margin.

Bob, let me give you a clue: People are rather fed up with paying more and more every year for health insurance premiums while deductibles and co-pays also skyrocket. It's clear that the "competition" between the insurance companies is failing to provide the cost saving efficiencies that the Republicans have promised over the last few decades.

In short, working Americans are tired of getting screwed over.

Bad Tax Advice

2008-08-18T22:38:00.006-04:00

Being a skeptic, I distrust every word that comes out of Dutko's mouth. When I heard Bob casually giving out income tax advice, I knew it was wrong. The bad tax advice occurred as part of an advertisement promoting a classic car raffle by Grace Centers of Hope. Listen:

You know they are only twenty bucks a piece. And keep in mind, best thing that happens: you help the homeless and you win a car. Worst thing that happens: you help the homeless and you write it off your taxes.

That is awful tax advice and could get someone in trouble with the law. IRS publication 526 makes it pretty clear: "you cannot deduct as a charitable contribution amounts you pay to buy raffle or lottery tickets or to play bingo or other games of chance."

Bob should skip giving out tax advice and stick to what he knows best: demonizing Democrats and pimping for the Republican Party!

Bob Dutko: Islamophobe

2008-08-06T22:47:00.008-04:00

Today, I tuned in to hear Bob ranting and raving about the work schedule of a Tyson poultry processing plant in Tennessee. Now, why would Bob care about such a trivial matter?

Well you see, a large percentage of workers at the plant are Somali immigrants who practice the Islamic faith. The union representing the plant's workers recently negotiated a new contract which switches one of the plant's eight paid holidays. Specifically, the union and management agreed to swap Labor Day for the Muslim holiday of Id al-Fitr.

Bob was outraged. He went on and on about how immigrants to the U.S. need to respect our traditions and conform to the way things are in this country. Bob opined that if he was a worker at that plant, he would be "irritated" that he couldn't take Labor Day off to celebrate with his family.

Guess what? That Tyson plant historically requires its employees to work on Labor Day, despite it being a paid holiday. In fact, they've worked on Labor Day in that plant for the previous 23 years! So you see, the workers aren't really giving up Labor Day as a holiday, because they didn't get it off anyway. Instead, they're gaining a day off!

But even if Labor Day was a true "day off" to workers in the past, I still can't see any reasonable justification for Bob's outrage. This is simply a group of employees getting the religious holiday that they want off with pay in exchange for a secular holiday that isn't that important to them. The company is honoring their freedom to practice their faith as they see fit. Sounds like a textbook example of religious freedom in action to me. But perhaps Bob doesn't really believe in religious freedom. Maybe he only believes in "freedom" for Christians so long as those Christians conform to his standards of what should and shouldn't be a paid holiday. But I digress...

Plus, Bob's whole assertion that Labor Day is a sacrosanct "day off" for all is preposterous. Millions of Americans work on Labor Day every year from Denny's waitresses to clerks at Bronner's CHRISTmas Wonderland. If Bob's not worried about Christians being asked to work on Labor Day, why is he worried about Muslims volunteering to do so?

So what was Bob's purpose in all this? My guess is that he wants to demonize Muslims, present them as a "threat" to the American Way of Life, and thus promote division and animosity among Americans. That way, you'll vote Republican... out of fear for the dangerous Muslim "threat." After all, we're kicking Muslim ass in Iraq, aren't we?

Another Day, Another Display of Hypocrisy

2008-08-05T22:54:00.006-04:00

A couple of years back, Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard appeared on Bob's show to drum up support from Bob's flock during his disastrous run for U.S. Senate. Before the "interview" began, I emailed Bob and reminded him to ask Bouchard if he's ever cheated on his wife and how that relates to his Christian faith.

After the interview, Bob wrote to me and said that he considered it "a matter between him, his wife, and God." But without prompting, Bob launched into a defense of his numerous on-air discussions about Bill Clinton's sex life. In the email, Bob argued that he only talked about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky because of the perjury charge. Well, why not let Bob do the talking:

If he [Bouchard] did what Bill Clinton did by committing the felony of perjury in an attempt to deny a fair trial to another citizen (Paula Jones), then Bouchard's affair WOULD become public business, not because he had an affair, but because he broke the law. That's always been my position, without change. That's why when there have been news stories about Democrats having affairs, I have always ignored them, every time. I didn't even criticize Jesse Jackson for his affair a couple of years ago. He broke no laws and so I considered that a personal issue that was none of my business. I assumed he repented and asked forgiveness and that's always been good enough for me. As a matter of fact, you are not able to come up with one example ever of me criticizing a Democrat for having an affair. Not one. Why? Because I have always been consistent on what the Bible says about forgiveness for the repentant sinner.
(emphasis added)

So imagine my shock when I tuned in today to hear to hear Bob talking to some woman about allegations, by supermarket tabloid National Enquirer, that John Edwards had an extramarital affair.

Huh? What happened to all of Bob's rhetoric about "always" being "consistent" and "always" ignoring news stories about Democrats having affairs? Bob, I thought you said this type of thing was "a personal issue that was none of [your] business"? How did John Edwards' alleged infidelity suddenly become your business? Where's the law breaking in the case of Edwards? Heck, Edwards doesn't hold any public office and is no longer running for any office! So why is this "news" story even on Dutko's show?!

So here we are with another shining example of Bob's hypocrisy. His discussion today was merely another instance of his never-ending demonization of Democrats. Bob won't talk about how Republican presidential candidate John McCain cheated on his wife. Furthermore, there's no shortage of other Republican sex scandals that Bob could talk about. But he won't. Because he's a liar, a hypocrite, and a GOP shill. Nothing more.

Bob: Good Works are a Form of Idolotry

2008-07-29T23:44:00.007-04:00

If Bob Dutko didn't exist, you couldn't make him up.

Fresh back from his "mission" trip, Bob spent a considerable amount of time on Tuesday criticizing Pastor Rick Warren for his so-called "P.E.A.C.E. Plan".

Bob apparently thinks that Warren is devoting too much time to helping the poor and healing the sick. You see, Bob thinks these good works are getting in the way of what Bob thinks should be his number one mission: converting people to Dutko-brand Christianity. Bob claims that Warren isn't pushing Christianity in this initiative and is (God forbid!) working with non-Christians to achieve the goals of the initiative. Bob prefers the "Compassion International" model of charity where if you don't receive the lecture about Jesus and eventually proclaim that you're a True Believer, you don't get the food, clothing, and education paid for with Bob's money.

Wow.

Now, first off, I think Bob's dead wrong about Warren not pushing the Christianity. One of the features of his initiative is to "Plant Churches." That sure sounds like Christianity promotion to me!

But more importantly, I have to wonder just how calloused is the heart of Bob Dutko? Does he not have the ability to show compassion and be charitable without demanding a measure of fealty from the recipients?

Bob's idea of compassion is completely opposite of mine. I routinely give my time and money, as well as donating my blood, without demanding that the recipients of this charity have religious beliefs that match my own. In fact, these religious beliefs never even crossed my mind. The only thing that's important to me is that I'm helping the recipient(s) survive and prosper. That's what makes me feel good about doing it.

Bob's Iraq News Bubble

2008-07-17T23:24:00.006-04:00

I have to wonder how Bob keeps him insulated from the reality of what the United States has done to the people of Iraq as a result of our invasion and occupation.

Today, Bob decided to berate American Muslims for not supporting George W. Bush and the Republicans after they launched the disastrous war in Iraq. Bob called this "a problem that exists even among moderate Muslims in America." Bob wanted these Muslims to self-examine their thoughts on this issue. After all, look at all the great things that Bush and the Republicans accomplished:

Removed Saddam Hussein
Went to war with (and defeated!) al-Qaida and "the terrorists"
Wiretapped telephone calls from "terrorists"
Profiled Muslims getting on planes

Bob thinks moderate Muslims should be cheering on Bush for all these "accomplishments".

Well, Bob, let me give you my thoughts why Muslims, as well as reasonable, compassionate persons of all beliefs, might not be so super duper happy with George W. Bush and the Republicans:

In short, the U.S., under orders of George W. Bush, took a stable, functioning state (Iraq) made up primarily of Muslims, and turned into a non-stop, hell-like war zone. Sure, Iraq was no paradise under Saddam Hussein. But at least the vast majority of people had a decent existence and didn't fear for their lives and future at every moment. Let's look at George W. Bush's actual accomplishments in Iraq and the "war on terror" in general:

Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.
1.4 Million Iraqis that are displaced from their homes.
Over $600 billion spent for the Iraq War alone.
Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the men behind the 9/11 attacks, have still not been captured or killed!

Our invasion of Iraq utterly and irreversibly screwed up Iraq and shattered the lives of millions of Muslims. And of course, all Americans, including the Muslim ones, will end up paying for this debacle for decades to come.

Does that clear things up for you Bob?

Bob Almost Says The Right Thing. Almost.

2008-07-17T15:41:00.005-04:00

On Tuesday, Bob showed we have one thing in common: We both can't stand Fred Phelps.

For those of you who might not know, Rev. Phelps is the pastor of Westboro Baptist Church and is so against homosexuals, he goes to military funerals to protest His reason? He believes that troops are dying in war because America has become tolerant of gay people.

Yeah, he's a scumbag. And even Bob thinks so.

Problem with Bob is that in countering the arguments of Rev. Phelps, he decided to read off Bible verses saying that we should love our enemies and do good to those who persecute us (Christians).

But Bob doesn't believe the rules apply to him. He believes it's fine to demonize people (even other Christians) who have different political opinions than him. When it comes to the war in Iraq, he believes that instead of withdrawing and putting troops into the just war in Afghanistan, we should continue an unnecessary war in Iraq. And while I haven't heard him say it (I don't listen to Bob as much as I used to), he probably feels the same way about Iran.

If only Bob agreed with his own words, his world view would be much better.

Sorry, but the Obama Attacks Must Continue

2008-07-09T01:49:00.006-04:00

A couple weeks back, during "free-for-all-Friday," a loyal listener called in and asked that Bob lay off Barack Obama just a bit. This listener was a Christian and a conservative. His humble request was that Bob take simply one day and make it Obama-free because it was getting hard to listen every day to the constant attacks.

Bob refused.

I recently found this blog post from a listener to the show. He warns Bob that his continuous attacks on Barack Obama will alienate Bob's black, Christian audience.

I hate to break it to these gentlemen, but the attacks on Obama will continue unabated until the election. Every day. Several times each day. Why? Because Barack Obama is a Democrat and has a different view on a few social issues (i.e., abortion) than Bob. Really, that's it in a nutshell. It doesn't matter that Obama wants to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home from that meat grinder. It doesn't matter that Obama wants to ensure healthcare is available and affordable for all Americans. All the initiatives that Obama wants to help out working families -- well, they don't matter either. Because Obama is a Democrat, and as should be self-evident to anyone who listens to Bob for any period of time: Democrats are bad. Oh, and if Obama wins, you can count on four long years of attacks on President Obama. Unless, of course, God is merciful and Bob's shows are finally canceled.

As we've said on this blog countless times before: Bob is simply a shill for the GOP. He may profess to be a Christian, but he certainly doesn't speak for all Christians. He says he is "pro-life", but supports a war that has killed over 4,100 U.S. service men and women and tens of thousands of Iraqis. He says he employs "logic and intellectual reasoning", but, as we've shown so many times, Bob really just trades in lies and deception.

Bob should love RU486!

2008-06-19T22:22:00.003-04:00

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:

Bob believes abortion is murder.
Bob believes that a woman having an abortion is guilty of murder and should be punished accordingly.
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

2008-06-16T23:11:00.007-04:00

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

2008-06-14T01:10:00.007-04:00

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?

2008-06-13T23:16:00.007-04:00

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!

2008-06-07T13:07:00.005-04:00

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

2008-06-04T01:31:00.004-04:00

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?

Survey Results that Bob can be Proud Of

2008-05-22T21:49:00.004-04:00

It turns out that Coral Ridge Ministries performed a survey of its members. One of the questions was, "how dangerous are the following to the spiritual health of America?" The results won't be shocking to Bob Dutko listeners, as these are all the things that he rails against on a daily basis.

How dangerous are the following to the spiritual health of America?

	Very	Somewhat	Not very
The ACLU and similar groups	96	3	1
Pro-homosexual indoctrination	95	4	1
Abortion	93	6	1
Islamic terrorism	91	8	1
Hollywood	89	10	1
News Media	87	12	1
Darwinism/evolution	85	14	1
Cults and false religion	82	16	2
Atheism	82	16	2
Courts	81	18	1
Apathetic/uninformed Christians	79	20	1
Colleges and Universities	78	21	1
Public education (K-12)	69	29	2
Congress	63	35	2

These are the result of preaching fear. Can someone explain to me how the ACLU or other civil liberties groups are "dangerous to the spiritual health of America?"

Has the ACLU ever attempted to suppress the rights of Churches to preach to its members?

Of course not.

And exactly what is "pro-homosexual indoctrination?" I've been around for 30 some years now and have never had a "pro-homosexual" attempt to "indoctrinate" me.

Aaaargh!

Guest Hosts

2008-05-20T16:34:00.004-04:00

Has Bob used a guest host before? I haven't heard Bob using a guest host before this week. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

Bobbo on Science: The Wonders of Ignorance!

2008-05-14T21:42:00.005-04:00

Hey Bobbo,

Sorry I haven't written in a while. I haven't been able to listen to your show for quite some time, but today I made time. I know you've missed me, because of all the plaintive e-mail you've sent, asking me if I'm okay. Your caring is touching. It's very Christian of you.

Anyway, in listening to todays show, I heard you explain that because the story of Genesis lists the order in which God created the objects in the universe, that theistic evolution is wrong. You also said that science and the book of Genesis are compatible.

Um, what?

Here's the thing Bobbo: Science doesn't care what the Bible says about creation. Mainly because the Bible is not, and never was, a treatise on science.

But I understand why you think they're compatible. You don't understand science!

It's strange, Bobbo. In all your blathering about science I've never heard you once explain the scientific method!

And you know something? I don't think you can. So here's my challenge to you Bobbo: Explain, in detail, the scientific method. And once you've expounded on the step-by-step process that is the scientific method, explain your design for a scientific experiment that demonstrates the existence of God.

I bet you can't.

Your in Dawkins,

Irl

Former Pastor

2008-05-11T02:03:00.007-04:00

Last week, while arguing with a caller, Bob stated that Rev. Jeremiah Wright should not be referred to as the "former" pastor of Sen. Barack Obama.

As usual, this is wrong and an outright lie.

First of all, go ahead and Google "former pastor." You'll get hundreds if not thousands of news stories which all use the term "former pastor" to describe Rev. Wright. Here's one that states that "Obama, 46, has split with his former pastor, denouncing Wright's comments..." Seems pretty clear to me. Obama no longer considers Wright his pastor and is therefore is his former pastor.

But wait! You might point out that Obama still goes to that church, Trinity UCC, where Wright was the pastor. That may be true (although I doubt while being in Washington, D.C. and on the campaign trail, Obama gets back to Trinity a lot). Regardless, Wright is no longer the Pastor at Trinity. He retired earlier this year and gave his last sermon on February.

So exactly where does Bob get off saying that Wright is not Obama's former pastor? Is there some special, secret ritual that Obama must perform for Wright to be granted former pastor status?

Bob just refuses to let go of this "issue" (even though he said he'd be happy to do so weeks ago). Bob wants to firmly affix Wright to Obama in order to provide guilt by association. But people aren't buying this nonsense anymore. A man is not judged by the words of his pastor. He is judged by his own words and his own actions.

Guest Lies about Obama; Bob Agrees

2008-05-10T00:42:00.006-04:00

Another day in Dutko land!

Bob had some anti-choice person on who threw out this whopper about Barack Obama:

"A couple of weeks ago, he [Obama] made the comment about those that are 'weak' and 'need religion.'"

Bob agreed along quietly, muttering, "oh, right."

Not true! Barack Obama made no such comment! It's another lie on top of the of the other lies, served up fresh by Bob every day!

Who could believe this statement, anyway?

Obama is a Christian who attends church on a regular basis. In his speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he specifically mentioned worshiping an "awesome God." In fact, between him, Clinton, and McCain, I would argue that Obama is the most religious of the three! Why would Obama characterize religious people as "weak," when he himself is religious?!

The stupid burns.

The Washington Times

2008-04-30T01:33:00.005-04:00

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?

Demonization

2008-04-23T22:54:00.006-04:00

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:

RZ: They [new atheists] are really the new hate priests. It [atheism] is similar to the philosophy of terrorism.
...
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...

All these negative words attached to the "new atheists" and "atheism" in order to destroy these people.

Well played, Bob Dutko. Well played.

Bob is Upset!

2008-04-23T18:34:00.009-04:00

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:

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.

Fun with Trilobites

2008-04-13T09:19:00.005-04:00

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.

Bob Dutko's Guy Hung Up On Me!

2008-03-05T13:59:00.005-05:00

Today, Bob talked about a recent symbolic ballot initiative, passed in Vermont, ordering George Bush and Dick Cheney indicted for "crimes against the Constitution."

Bob dismissed it as a bunch of liberals who "can't even describe what the crimes against the Constitution are."

I called Bob and let him know about warrantless wiretapping. In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that tapping the phone of an American citizen without a warrant it a violation of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. I thought Bob should know.

When I called, a man (not Bob) answered. I began explaining to him that warrantless wiretapping was a violation of the 4th amendment.

That's when I heard the click.

He hung up.

Here's more information on Bush's crimes against the Constitution.

Enjoy!

According to Bob Dutko, Black People Are A Bunch of Lazy, Dumb Sluts

2008-03-05T13:35:00.006-05:00

Today, Bob recited The Heritage Foundation's alleged debunking of a study done by The Eisenhower Foundation.

The Eisenhower Foundation released a poverty study to show how well the anti-poverty policies of the Johnson administration worked. According to TEF, we still have a lot of work to do to eliminate poverty, inequality, racial justice, and crime.

I think that most people would agree with this. I think that most Americans believe that this country still has too many people living in poverty, and that minorities make up a higher percentage of people living in poverty.

But The Heritage Foundation, putting their two cents in found that blaming the victim explains inequality:

Robert Rector, senior research fellow on poverty and family issues at the Heritage Foundation, says the Eisenhower Foundation may claim to be nonpartisan, but in fact comprises a small group of "extreme left-wingers."

According to Rector, the report completely ignores the three major causes of poverty. "One is that 69 percent of black children are born out of wedlock and those children are raised without a father in the home," he says. "The second is lower levels of work and more welfare receipt; if you're on welfare, [it] doesn't pay enough for you to get out of poverty. The third is low levels of actual educational attainment -- real math and verbal skills."

I'll translate: The Heritage Foundation thinks that black people are poor because they all just sleep around and are too busy sucking off of welfare to get a real job or education.

Bob repeated this word for word, without even reading the study!

Let's take a look at The Heritage Foundation:

The Heritage Foundation was created by racist beer baron Joseph Coors. The Coors family has an extensive history of racism, as can be documented here. Joseph Coors hired Roger Pearson to be co-editor of The Hertiage Foundaton's Policy Review. Pearson wrote a number of racist works, including the book "Race and Civilization." The racism of THF is evidenced in their reports on racism, in which everyone of them seeks to claim that racism doesn't exist, or isn't a problem. The real problem, according to them, is that black people are lazy and dumb. Here's a quote from one of their articles:

"So blaming racism for our lack of achievement is, at best, a misplaced focus and is, at worst, what I call social insanity. Now, let me tell you what I mean by social insanity. If you believe that racism prevents you from achieving any particular goal, then inherent in that belief is the granting of the power to succeed to the partisans of racism."

In other words, pretend racism doesn't exist and it'll simply go away!

But back to Bob.

Bob has knowingly quoted a racist organization that seeks to make black people look lazy and stupid. And he did it with a quote that is designed to do just that. By giving credibility to the organization through quoting such rubbish, Bob has decided to put into the minds of his white listeners that:

1) Racism isn't a problem in America.
2) Black people are in poverty because they're lazy, slutty, and dumb.

Remember this the next time Bob wants to bring up the racism of people he seeks to demonize.

Prayer in the Public Schools

2008-03-01T15:47:00.011-05:00

I don't think it's a stretch to believe that if Bob had his way, there would be Christian prayer in every public school at just about every imaginable time. There would be prayer at the start of every school day, before athletic events, and at graduation ceremonies.

I, on the other hand, am opposed to public schools being used as a platform to impose the religion of the majority on the minority. It's cases like this out of Delaware that remind me why:

Mrs. Dobrich, an Orthodox Jew, grew up in Sussex County. Though often the lone Jewish student in school, she said, she did not have problems with Christians or others. For years, while her daughter, Samantha, now 21, attended local schools, Mrs. Dobrich said, she listened to Christian prayers at school potluck dinners, award dinners and meetings of parent-teacher groups.

At Samantha’s high school graduation in 2004, a minister’s prayer proclaiming Jesus as the only way to the truth nudged Mrs. Dobrich to ask the school board to consider more generic and less exclusionary prayers, she said.
As news of the request spread, many local Christians saw it as an effort to limit the free exercise of religion, residents said. Anger spilled onto talk radio, in letters to the editor and at school board meetings attended by hundreds of people carrying signs praising Jesus.
...

Her son, Alex, then 11, had written a short statement that said in part: “I feel bad when kids in my class call me ‘Jew boy.’ I do not want to move away from the house I have lived in forever.”
After the family received threats, Mrs. Dobrich said, she and Alex moved to Wilmington.

This is a shining example of why public schools must be secular institutions, free of interference by religion. Here, the mother here didn't ask that prayer be removed from schools. She only wanted the "Jesus is the only way" rhetoric toned down and a less exclusionary approach implemented.

How did the so-called Christian townspeople react?

They drove her family out.

It's also an excellent illustration of not only why church/state separation is necessary, but also an example of antisemitism.

But Bob hasn't mentioned this story.

Bob will imply that Barack Obama is antisemitic because Louis Farrakhan endorsed him.

Why doesn't Bob speak out about the antisemitism of Christians in Delaware?

McCain gets Endorsement from Anti-Catholic Hagee

2008-02-28T22:41:00.007-05:00

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?

2008-02-27T23:15:00.006-05:00

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

2008-02-27T14:16:00.006-05:00

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

2008-02-26T21:10:00.002-05:00

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

2008-02-26T14:48:00.007-05:00

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!

2008-02-22T13:36:00.003-05:00

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!?!?

2008-02-20T23:13:00.007-05:00

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

2008-02-18T00:23:00.009-05:00

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

2008-02-14T23:13:00.003-05:00

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?

2008-02-14T21:25:00.011-05:00

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

2008-02-11T22:15:00.004-05:00

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

2008-02-10T20:51:00.003-05:00

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

2008-02-09T06:07:00.002-05:00

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.