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.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Bob Asks: I Answer
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.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Bob Reveals his True Nature!
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
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
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Hacking History
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?
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
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:
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."
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."
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Bob Wrong About Neanderthal DNA
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:
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!
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
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
Monday, December 1, 2008
The War on the War on Christmas - 2008
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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)