I just want to take a moment and for posterity note some very deceptive, borderline lies from Bob Dutko from yesterday. Dutko doesn't make his show available for download after the fact, and that's probably good for his credibility because if we went back and listened he'd have a lot of problems. We can't listen to past shows and document everything, but at least I can put down what I catch.
Apparently there's a new George W Bush presidential library opening, so Dutko wanted to "remind" people of the historical facts because there's so much "revisionist" history from the left. Dutko is here to correct the record.
Even the Democrats said Saddam had WMD, he says. That much is true. Actually, it's even worse than that. People like Bill Clinton worked behind the scenes to make this war happen. But Dutko went beyond that. "Even Ted Kennedy thought Saddam had WMD and needed to be disarmed."
Check the speech from Kennedy from which Dutko gets this. An impassioned denunciation of this march to war, a war that will swell the ranks of Al Qaeda and increase terrorism. Sure, lots of people need to be disarmed. Pakistan, N Korea. But that doesn't mean we should march to war and wreck these countries which will have the effect of putting Americans in greater danger. What Dutko says is technically true, but he enlists it as if Kennedy agreed with this war, which he certainly did not.
Dutko proceeded to tell us that Saddam had an operational link with Al Qaeda and provided Al Qaeda with training camps. Take a look at the Wiki discussion on this which uses the 9-11 Commission Report as it's source. It would be one
thing to say that "some people believe" that Saddam provided training
camps for Al Qaeda. Even that is irresponsible since this claim has
very little credibility. But it was more than that. Dutko stated it as
a fact, as if it was uncontroversial. What's uncontroversial really is to say there was no operational link.
Dutko says that you can't fault Bush because Americans supported the war too, only shifting after it began to go bad. That's not really true. Americans opposed a war if it were to lack UN support. After the war was launched they supported it like they do all wars. That's more just patriotism. Now that we are in we want to get behind it and support our troops. But to evaluate what Americans thought about Bush's decision you have to look at the opinion of Americans prior to the war.
Regarding the collapse of the economy, of course that was all the Democrats fault for requiring risky home loans via Fannie and Freddie. This is not dishonesty from Dutko I guess because at least I know conservatives do honestly believe this sort of thing, but it's also a claim that cannot be supported by the evidence as I discuss here and here. Dutko had the gall to add that right wingers were offering dire warnings whereas it was the liberals that said everything was fine. As far as I know you had some from both groups on both sides of the fence on this question. But my sense is that more people on the left were concerned. Assertions that things are great from right wingers are abundant. I collated economist Mark Perry of the right wing corporate front group "The American Enterprise Institute" here. Here's Bill Kristol. On the left were people like Paul Krugman, who has likewise been right about what has been happening recently. Of course few can be expected to know how bad this could be because deregulation prevented us from even knowing about the magnitude and details associated with derivatives and credit default swaps thanks to right wing demands that these items remain deregulated. Democrats were involved too, but the problem here is the right wing ideology that free markets are best. That's not a liberal claim.
Dutko emphasized revisionist history throughout this monologue, and also his belief that ultimately Bush's approval ratings would continue to climb and he would be regarded as a success. With spin like this he may be right.
Showing posts with label Bob Dutko. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bob Dutko. Show all posts
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Bob Dutko and I Talk Tax Policy
I caught just a bit of Dutko today just prior to free for all Friday. Tax cuts will slow economic growth, Bush's tax cuts caused an increase in government revenue. A variety of other points. So I gave a call and you can download here. Left click that link and it will take you to a new page where you can download or stream.
A couple of interesting things. He bragged about Bush's tax cuts because revenues went up after they passed. So I pointed out to him that they sure did, but taxes go up every year. They went up less under Bush than they'd gone up in prior administrations. His response is now "I'm not saying Bush was the best in terms of raising revenue, only that revenue did go up after he cut taxes." In other words he's not willing to defend the frequent false right wing assertion that tax cuts lead to more tax revenue. They actually produce less revenue than would otherwise exist. We agree right, Bob? Nope. He does not agree. He does think tax cuts lead to more revenue. Which is it? He's flipping back and forth between arguments, sometimes pretending the Bush tax cuts were great for revenue generation, then switching away from it, and finally switching back.
The thrust of his argument prior to the call in segment was that tax hikes harm an economy. So I just stated the obvious. There is no evidence that this is true. The best economic performance in our nation's history corresponded with the highest tax rates on the rich. What Bob says in response is he once again completely abandons the argument he had been making. It's not about what works and doesn't work. That's irrelevant. He just has a philosophical problem with high taxes. Somehow it offends his moral sensibilities.
OK, fine. That's pretty arbitrary and not a great basis for policy in my view. What matters is what works, not some arbitrary line in the sand. But as I said for Bob it had been all about what works. Suddenly that's irrelevant. He's forced to abandon his bad arguments that can't be sustained in light of the data we have and he must run to new arguments. That's progress.
A couple of interesting things. He bragged about Bush's tax cuts because revenues went up after they passed. So I pointed out to him that they sure did, but taxes go up every year. They went up less under Bush than they'd gone up in prior administrations. His response is now "I'm not saying Bush was the best in terms of raising revenue, only that revenue did go up after he cut taxes." In other words he's not willing to defend the frequent false right wing assertion that tax cuts lead to more tax revenue. They actually produce less revenue than would otherwise exist. We agree right, Bob? Nope. He does not agree. He does think tax cuts lead to more revenue. Which is it? He's flipping back and forth between arguments, sometimes pretending the Bush tax cuts were great for revenue generation, then switching away from it, and finally switching back.
The thrust of his argument prior to the call in segment was that tax hikes harm an economy. So I just stated the obvious. There is no evidence that this is true. The best economic performance in our nation's history corresponded with the highest tax rates on the rich. What Bob says in response is he once again completely abandons the argument he had been making. It's not about what works and doesn't work. That's irrelevant. He just has a philosophical problem with high taxes. Somehow it offends his moral sensibilities.
OK, fine. That's pretty arbitrary and not a great basis for policy in my view. What matters is what works, not some arbitrary line in the sand. But as I said for Bob it had been all about what works. Suddenly that's irrelevant. He's forced to abandon his bad arguments that can't be sustained in light of the data we have and he must run to new arguments. That's progress.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Follow Up Email to Dutko on Global Warming
I sent Bob this email just now regarding the phone call I made into his program earlier:
I want to document one more of your errors in our discussion on global warming. I said NOBODY in the scientific community denies that we are in the midst of a warming trend. You said they do and asked me to look up "global cooling". I've done so. You're wrong again. Here's a fairly comprehensive list of scientists that disagree with the main IPCC findings. NONE OF THEM deny that the earth is warming. They deny that man is the cause, think the consequences aren't large, etc. None deny the obvious fact that we are in the midst of a serious warming trend. If you are going to claim that your views are based on science, logic, and intellectual reasoning and yet you are going to reject the UNANIMOUS conclusions of the scientific community I think you have to admit you have to drop the "science" part in your "science, logic, and intellectual reasoning." You do not follow science. Feel free to ignore science. Just don't pretend your views are based on science.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Bob Dutko and I Talk Global Warming
Download here or listen below. Another fun one.
We had some disagreement over sources. I sent the following email after the discussion to Bob.
Sources as promised. Your claim from Science Digest is apparently from George Will. I was thinking Science Digest was a peer reviewed source but apparently not. It looks like Science Digest quoted the Christian Science Monitor, who was quoting someone else, and ultimately we end up with this claim. So OK, glaciation was claimed in a magazine. I will grant your point. The challenge though is to find the claim in the scientific literature, which can't be done. This link addresses the Science Digest quote and gives an overview of what was contained in the scientific literature at the time.
Will in another article based a glaciation claim on another source and failed to point out that the ice age wasn't expected for 20K years. See this link. I was conflating you quote with the one addressed below.
My claim regarding 98% of climate scientists comes from here.
Regarding my claim that the hockey stick has been repeatedly confirmed, see here. The full article is worth the time if you are interested in understanding the issues.
I do appreciate how you gave me a good amount of time and enjoyed the discussion, so thanks for that.
Jon
Update: Interestingly regarding glaciation Bob initially referred to a 1976 document. Check the link from Real Climate. That's the very article that said an ice age was coming in 20K years, which is exactly what I said.
We had some disagreement over sources. I sent the following email after the discussion to Bob.
Sources as promised. Your claim from Science Digest is apparently from George Will. I was thinking Science Digest was a peer reviewed source but apparently not. It looks like Science Digest quoted the Christian Science Monitor, who was quoting someone else, and ultimately we end up with this claim. So OK, glaciation was claimed in a magazine. I will grant your point. The challenge though is to find the claim in the scientific literature, which can't be done. This link addresses the Science Digest quote and gives an overview of what was contained in the scientific literature at the time.
Will in another article based a glaciation claim on another source and failed to point out that the ice age wasn't expected for 20K years. See this link. I was conflating you quote with the one addressed below.
My claim regarding 98% of climate scientists comes from here.
Regarding my claim that the hockey stick has been repeatedly confirmed, see here. The full article is worth the time if you are interested in understanding the issues.
I do appreciate how you gave me a good amount of time and enjoyed the discussion, so thanks for that.
Jon
Update: Interestingly regarding glaciation Bob initially referred to a 1976 document. Check the link from Real Climate. That's the very article that said an ice age was coming in 20K years, which is exactly what I said.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Why Jesus Was Pretty Awesome
Jesus would have been a product of his time, so naturally there are some things about him that a liberal atheist like myself would object to. But set aside his opinions on slavery or eternal hell fire, views that he probably held more due to culture than conviction. Take a look at what really made him different. It's pretty damn impressive.
Who is it that is subjected to Jesus' most scathing criticism? It's the Pharisees. Read Matthew 23. It's an absolute tirade. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees. Hypocrites. You give money to the temple and neglect justice and mercy. You travel the world to make converts and they become twice the sons of hell that you are. You are whitewash tombs, beautiful on the outside but inside full of dead men's bones. You snakes. You brood of vipers. You kill the prophets sent to you to help correct your ways. How can you possibly escape hell fire?
Here's what's amazing about this tirade. There are plenty of people in the world worth criticizing. How about pagans? How about the Roman leaders? Jesus never criticizes them. From Jesus' perspective they are awful people worthy of hell fire. Jesus says virtually nothing of either. He's repeatedly asked to weigh in on Roman matters, like the legitimacy of the Roman tax or the restriction Rome imposes on Jewish religious practice. He sidesteps it. He doesn't care. Why?
Because he understands something that Republicans today don't get. Who cares what the pagans do? Who cares what the Romans do? I am a Jew. I care what Jews do. I care what our leadership does. That is what I will focus on.
Turn on Bob Dutko today and all you hear is "Muslims are bad. Oprah is bad. Atheists are bad." And when you even try to get Bob, an American Christian, to talk about American atrocities, he says "I don't want to talk about it. That's bashing America. That's unpatriotic. What about Ahmadinejad? What about Fidel Castro?"
That's probably what the Pharisees told Jesus. "But look at the pagans!! Look at Rome!! You are anti-Israel. You are unpatriotic. You shouldn't criticize us."
That's probably what they said to Elijah or Jeremiah. "How dare you bash Israel!! That's unpatriotic. You shouldn't shine light on Israel's mistakes. You should only talk about the crimes of enemies of the state." Jesus knew that these people who stood up to the Jewish leadership at the time were the real heroes. They were hated for standing up against wicked Jewish behavior. They were killed for it. And that persecution was enabled by the prophets that flattered the king and told him he was so great. They probably told him that he was right to kill that prophet on his own authority, as Dutko praises Obama for killing US citizens on his authority.
I've seen the most committed Christians express extreme revulsion at the idea that we should follow the Golden Rule, just as Ron Paul was booed for suggesting we follow it as well. Republicans literally find Jesus' teachings repugnant and outrageous. That's because Jesus seems to have really cared about the poor and weak. He also seems to have recognized that if you really want to improve the world you should talk about what your own people are doing wrong. Those are the ones you can influence. Because this is actually effective it is demonized by totalitarians. The Soviets called dissidents "anti-Soviet" and those that take Jesus seriously in the US are called "anti-American." And we are called that by the very people that pretend to follow Jesus.
Who is it that is subjected to Jesus' most scathing criticism? It's the Pharisees. Read Matthew 23. It's an absolute tirade. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees. Hypocrites. You give money to the temple and neglect justice and mercy. You travel the world to make converts and they become twice the sons of hell that you are. You are whitewash tombs, beautiful on the outside but inside full of dead men's bones. You snakes. You brood of vipers. You kill the prophets sent to you to help correct your ways. How can you possibly escape hell fire?
Here's what's amazing about this tirade. There are plenty of people in the world worth criticizing. How about pagans? How about the Roman leaders? Jesus never criticizes them. From Jesus' perspective they are awful people worthy of hell fire. Jesus says virtually nothing of either. He's repeatedly asked to weigh in on Roman matters, like the legitimacy of the Roman tax or the restriction Rome imposes on Jewish religious practice. He sidesteps it. He doesn't care. Why?
Because he understands something that Republicans today don't get. Who cares what the pagans do? Who cares what the Romans do? I am a Jew. I care what Jews do. I care what our leadership does. That is what I will focus on.
Turn on Bob Dutko today and all you hear is "Muslims are bad. Oprah is bad. Atheists are bad." And when you even try to get Bob, an American Christian, to talk about American atrocities, he says "I don't want to talk about it. That's bashing America. That's unpatriotic. What about Ahmadinejad? What about Fidel Castro?"
That's probably what the Pharisees told Jesus. "But look at the pagans!! Look at Rome!! You are anti-Israel. You are unpatriotic. You shouldn't criticize us."
That's probably what they said to Elijah or Jeremiah. "How dare you bash Israel!! That's unpatriotic. You shouldn't shine light on Israel's mistakes. You should only talk about the crimes of enemies of the state." Jesus knew that these people who stood up to the Jewish leadership at the time were the real heroes. They were hated for standing up against wicked Jewish behavior. They were killed for it. And that persecution was enabled by the prophets that flattered the king and told him he was so great. They probably told him that he was right to kill that prophet on his own authority, as Dutko praises Obama for killing US citizens on his authority.
I've seen the most committed Christians express extreme revulsion at the idea that we should follow the Golden Rule, just as Ron Paul was booed for suggesting we follow it as well. Republicans literally find Jesus' teachings repugnant and outrageous. That's because Jesus seems to have really cared about the poor and weak. He also seems to have recognized that if you really want to improve the world you should talk about what your own people are doing wrong. Those are the ones you can influence. Because this is actually effective it is demonized by totalitarians. The Soviets called dissidents "anti-Soviet" and those that take Jesus seriously in the US are called "anti-American." And we are called that by the very people that pretend to follow Jesus.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Occupy Wall St with Bob Dutko
It's been a while since I bugged Dutko, so I gave him a call Friday. I listen to him a bit and it's the same nonsense you hear all the time regarding OWS. These people are just jealous of the success of others. Why don't they protest Hollywood celebrities? Why don't they get mad at Obama? Here's the downloadable link or listen below.
It was a fun call. It was kind of spur of the moment once again, so I didn't prepare a lot. I was hoping I wouldn't be the first caller so I could think about what I wanted to say during commercial, but I was the first, so I just had to go. So there's a bit of hesitation from me at some points. But it went well anyway.
Here's an annoying part. Bob says "Why don't they protest in Washington? That's the real problem." I said that they are in Washington. He says "But not at the White House." I say who cares. They are there. That's the point. So he chuckles like that's absurd. Turns out, there at McPherson Square and Liberty Plaza, which is just about as close to the White House as you can get with a crowd like that situated permanently. What the heck does he want? I really think he just makes it up as he goes along and really has no idea what the facts are. And since I didn't happen to know where they were located while I was on the phone nobody is the wiser.
Fortunately we at least have the internet where a record of the lies can be stored. It's not much, but better than nothing.
It was a fun call. It was kind of spur of the moment once again, so I didn't prepare a lot. I was hoping I wouldn't be the first caller so I could think about what I wanted to say during commercial, but I was the first, so I just had to go. So there's a bit of hesitation from me at some points. But it went well anyway.
Here's an annoying part. Bob says "Why don't they protest in Washington? That's the real problem." I said that they are in Washington. He says "But not at the White House." I say who cares. They are there. That's the point. So he chuckles like that's absurd. Turns out, there at McPherson Square and Liberty Plaza, which is just about as close to the White House as you can get with a crowd like that situated permanently. What the heck does he want? I really think he just makes it up as he goes along and really has no idea what the facts are. And since I didn't happen to know where they were located while I was on the phone nobody is the wiser.
Fortunately we at least have the internet where a record of the lies can be stored. It's not much, but better than nothing.
Monday, July 25, 2011
White Blonde's Aren't Terrorists
What a scoop Bob Dutko had today. It turns out he was interviewing Robert Spencer. Well, Robert Spencer is in the news. The Norwegian.....terrorist...apparently regards Spencer and other right wing Muslim bashing pundits, as intellectual mentors.
So I turn on Dutko and he says "Robert Spencer joins me know." Wow, what great timing. So they start talking about this book that supposedly shows Obama is some sort of Muslim lover, and the interview is going on long enough that I'm wondering if he's replaying an old interview. Nothing about the terrorist incident in Norway.
But finally Spencer raises it. "See they're trying to tie me to this incident, which is about as silly as blaming the Beatles for Charles Manson when he heard instructions to murder in their song "Helter Skelter."
Well at least somebody raised the issue. So Bob finally starts talking about it and of course it's all ridiculous. Further he's not even really sure this is terrorism, because a terrorist is motivated by his ideology. But Spencer corrects Bob. "That's just it. That's what's so insidious about the media spin. He does have an ideology that he shares with me, and so they can paint me as some sort of villain."
Well at least Spencer understands what's happening. Spencer then had to leave, but Bob took calls regarding his belief that 1-in fact this wasn't terrorism and 2-Breivic isn't really a Christian.
Unfortunately I wasn't able to record the audio, but I did call in and speak with Bob about this. I said his double standard is becoming crystal clear. He had said earlier "Let me remind you of these various terrorist incidents" and he listed various things that killed typical a handful of people. One that he described was the Ft. Hood attack. I asked Bob to think about the Ft. Hood attack. This guy attacked members of a military that presently is illegally occupying Muslim lands. Bob had defined terrorism for me in the past. He had said it involves attacks on civilians. So when a non-Muslim attacks civilians that's not terrorism, but when a Muslim attacks military targets that's terrorism?
I was barely able to get that out, or maybe I got it out in a few bits, because Bob was interrupting me immediately to dispute every side claim. "I don't agree that we are occupying Muslim lands." "Ok, our military is present in Muslim lands attacking Muslims." "I don't agree to that. We were invited." "Libya invited us?" "I'm not talking about Libya." "WTF." I'm going from memory here, but it was something like this.
The guy at Ft. Hood said "Allah Akbar". He had an ideology, Bob said. I replied that Robert Spencer knows that Breivic did as well. But Bob says he doesn't agree with Spencer. If the Ft. Hood guy attacked our military IN AFGHANISTAN, then it wouldn't be terrorism, but these military people aren't actively involved in combat. Breivic didn't shout Allah Akbar.
This is just plain convoluted in my mind. What is the criteria for terrorism? "So you have to say Allah Akbar to be a terrorist." No, if a Christian shouted Jesus is Lord he'd be a terrorist. Why would you say that I wouldn't think someone is a terrorist if they shouted Jesus is Lord, Bob asks.
I said I just don't understand what constitutes terrorism so I'm trying to ask the question. They have an ideology, Bob says. 20% of Muslims think the use of terrorism is a legitimate response to Americans. That is a very high percentage, Bob says. Sure, it's not a majority. But that's still a lot of people.
But, I said, you support terrorism. When Israel engages in terrorism by attacking Palestinian civilians you support that. "Now you're changing subjects. You want to call me on Open Line Friday about that we can talk about that, but that's not what this is about."
Anyway, that's sort of my best recollection. Might not be perfect. Not written great. I just wanted to try and capture it for my own benefit. Bob was more irritable than he's ever been with me, constantly interrupting, even pontificating on how I was losing the debate. I think he's just on very shaky ground here and that discomfort made him irritable.
Here's the bottom line. In the real world Bob wants Muslims to be the only terrorists. He wants to allow non-Muslims theoretically, but contrive a definition that generally excludes non-Muslims. It used to be about attacks on civilians. Not any more. That's no longer working. Now it's attacking members of a military that aren't presently engaged in combat, but maybe if they are located in their home country, and you have to sort of shout in a way that informs us that you have some sort of ideology that's motivating this violence. And "ideology" needs to be defined in such as way as to exclude this blonde haired Norwegian. Make sense? It does to Bob Dutko.
So I turn on Dutko and he says "Robert Spencer joins me know." Wow, what great timing. So they start talking about this book that supposedly shows Obama is some sort of Muslim lover, and the interview is going on long enough that I'm wondering if he's replaying an old interview. Nothing about the terrorist incident in Norway.
But finally Spencer raises it. "See they're trying to tie me to this incident, which is about as silly as blaming the Beatles for Charles Manson when he heard instructions to murder in their song "Helter Skelter."
Well at least somebody raised the issue. So Bob finally starts talking about it and of course it's all ridiculous. Further he's not even really sure this is terrorism, because a terrorist is motivated by his ideology. But Spencer corrects Bob. "That's just it. That's what's so insidious about the media spin. He does have an ideology that he shares with me, and so they can paint me as some sort of villain."
Well at least Spencer understands what's happening. Spencer then had to leave, but Bob took calls regarding his belief that 1-in fact this wasn't terrorism and 2-Breivic isn't really a Christian.
Unfortunately I wasn't able to record the audio, but I did call in and speak with Bob about this. I said his double standard is becoming crystal clear. He had said earlier "Let me remind you of these various terrorist incidents" and he listed various things that killed typical a handful of people. One that he described was the Ft. Hood attack. I asked Bob to think about the Ft. Hood attack. This guy attacked members of a military that presently is illegally occupying Muslim lands. Bob had defined terrorism for me in the past. He had said it involves attacks on civilians. So when a non-Muslim attacks civilians that's not terrorism, but when a Muslim attacks military targets that's terrorism?
I was barely able to get that out, or maybe I got it out in a few bits, because Bob was interrupting me immediately to dispute every side claim. "I don't agree that we are occupying Muslim lands." "Ok, our military is present in Muslim lands attacking Muslims." "I don't agree to that. We were invited." "Libya invited us?" "I'm not talking about Libya." "WTF." I'm going from memory here, but it was something like this.
The guy at Ft. Hood said "Allah Akbar". He had an ideology, Bob said. I replied that Robert Spencer knows that Breivic did as well. But Bob says he doesn't agree with Spencer. If the Ft. Hood guy attacked our military IN AFGHANISTAN, then it wouldn't be terrorism, but these military people aren't actively involved in combat. Breivic didn't shout Allah Akbar.
This is just plain convoluted in my mind. What is the criteria for terrorism? "So you have to say Allah Akbar to be a terrorist." No, if a Christian shouted Jesus is Lord he'd be a terrorist. Why would you say that I wouldn't think someone is a terrorist if they shouted Jesus is Lord, Bob asks.
I said I just don't understand what constitutes terrorism so I'm trying to ask the question. They have an ideology, Bob says. 20% of Muslims think the use of terrorism is a legitimate response to Americans. That is a very high percentage, Bob says. Sure, it's not a majority. But that's still a lot of people.
But, I said, you support terrorism. When Israel engages in terrorism by attacking Palestinian civilians you support that. "Now you're changing subjects. You want to call me on Open Line Friday about that we can talk about that, but that's not what this is about."
Anyway, that's sort of my best recollection. Might not be perfect. Not written great. I just wanted to try and capture it for my own benefit. Bob was more irritable than he's ever been with me, constantly interrupting, even pontificating on how I was losing the debate. I think he's just on very shaky ground here and that discomfort made him irritable.
Here's the bottom line. In the real world Bob wants Muslims to be the only terrorists. He wants to allow non-Muslims theoretically, but contrive a definition that generally excludes non-Muslims. It used to be about attacks on civilians. Not any more. That's no longer working. Now it's attacking members of a military that aren't presently engaged in combat, but maybe if they are located in their home country, and you have to sort of shout in a way that informs us that you have some sort of ideology that's motivating this violence. And "ideology" needs to be defined in such as way as to exclude this blonde haired Norwegian. Make sense? It does to Bob Dutko.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Bob Dutko and I Talk Israel and the 1967 Borders
Download here or listen below.
It was a bit of a spur of the moment call, so I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about what I wanted to say and how it would go. So if I could do it again I'd do it a little differently. He wants to argue about whether or not he really thinks the Arab states or the Palestinians would honor a peace agreement. That's a bit speculative, so it kind of devolves to "No they wouldn't, yes they would, etc". If I could do it again I'd say regardless of whether they would honor it the fact remains that our support of them harms us. 9-11 is a consequence. The wars are a consequence and corresponding deficits. The $3 billion annual support harms us. So where is Bob's allegiance and concern? Does he want what's best for the US or Israel.
But again, I'm happy to have called in because I figure his listeners are still getting some fresh perspective.
It was a bit of a spur of the moment call, so I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about what I wanted to say and how it would go. So if I could do it again I'd do it a little differently. He wants to argue about whether or not he really thinks the Arab states or the Palestinians would honor a peace agreement. That's a bit speculative, so it kind of devolves to "No they wouldn't, yes they would, etc". If I could do it again I'd say regardless of whether they would honor it the fact remains that our support of them harms us. 9-11 is a consequence. The wars are a consequence and corresponding deficits. The $3 billion annual support harms us. So where is Bob's allegiance and concern? Does he want what's best for the US or Israel.
But again, I'm happy to have called in because I figure his listeners are still getting some fresh perspective.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Obama Illusions Fading with Torture of Bradley Manning
For expressing some mild criticism of the treatment of Bradley Manning by the military, treatment which amounts to mind destroying torture and for which Amnesty International is calling for protests, State spokesman PJ Crowley has essentially been fired by Obama. This seems to be a turning point for many on the left. Many of Obama's supporters can no longer stomach this. Obama's support now is largely on the right.
I tried to explain this to Bob Dutko on the air. Why do you pretend Obama is such an awful person? He's surveilling us without any restraint. Assassinating US citizens with no judicial oversight. Expanding wars. Torturing people. He's a dream come true for Dutko. You don't like that he's pro-choice. Fine. But beyond that, what more do you want? He's as violent and dictatorial as you could ask for.
I tried to explain this to Bob Dutko on the air. Why do you pretend Obama is such an awful person? He's surveilling us without any restraint. Assassinating US citizens with no judicial oversight. Expanding wars. Torturing people. He's a dream come true for Dutko. You don't like that he's pro-choice. Fine. But beyond that, what more do you want? He's as violent and dictatorial as you could ask for.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Bob Dutko Falsities on Behalf of Wealth Exposed
Today I called Bob out on his massive propaganda on behalf of wealth and privilege and gave a little bit of voice to the poor and middle class with regards to the Wisconsin union struggle. Click below to hear or download here.
I routinely follow up in the body of these posts with some sources on Bob's various false claims, and this post will be no different. He's wrong on the average teacher salary in Wisconsin as I document here. He's also wrong about the amount of taxes paid by the rich as I document here.
But I have to concede an error as well. I said that for the bottom 80% of the population wages over the last 30 years are flat to declining. That may be true when you account for the increase in working hours, but it's not true overall. Wages are up slightly for the bottom sectors, but the growth is far slower now than it was before the mid 70's. And it's certainly true that the income gains since 1980 have been heavily skewed to the wealthy.
I routinely follow up in the body of these posts with some sources on Bob's various false claims, and this post will be no different. He's wrong on the average teacher salary in Wisconsin as I document here. He's also wrong about the amount of taxes paid by the rich as I document here.
But I have to concede an error as well. I said that for the bottom 80% of the population wages over the last 30 years are flat to declining. That may be true when you account for the increase in working hours, but it's not true overall. Wages are up slightly for the bottom sectors, but the growth is far slower now than it was before the mid 70's. And it's certainly true that the income gains since 1980 have been heavily skewed to the wealthy.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Info on Wisconsin Teacher Salaries
I caught just a few minutes of some financial planner guy on Christian radio near me by the name of Russ Jalbert. His advertisements regularly appear on the Dutko show. It appears to be non-stop class warfare at WMUZ as he tells us that teachers in Wisconsin make $89K/year. Well that sounds pretty high, right? Scott Waker is being really fair, right?
Where is this figure coming from? I'd seen a pretty reasonable presentation of teacher salaries here. Quite a bit different from Jalbert's claim.
So I was curious where this $89K figure was coming from. Perhaps it was Rand Paul on Lettermen. You can see why he's mistaken here.
I'm sure Jalbert just didn't know. But it's interesting that the frequent errors on WMUZ always serve the interest of the wealthy owners and advertisers.
Update: 3/10/11
Today Bob Dutko in the first hour pointed out that total compensation for Wisconsin teachers in Milwaukee was more than $100K. He referred to this PolitiFact review which deemed this claim to be accurate. This same page refers to the above Rand Paul error. Total average compensation for teachers, according to PolitiFact and the link I have above is $74,843. $49,093 in salary and $25,750 in benefits.
In the 3:00 hour though Bob went off on teachers again. He said that the AVERAGE TEACHER COMPENSATION in Wisconsin was slated to be $101,091 next year. Now, he knows that's false. If he read the PolitiFact article he knows that this is unique to Milwaukee, which apparently is an outlier. But he used this assertion to hammer away at the teachers again expecting them to make concessions.
Where is this figure coming from? I'd seen a pretty reasonable presentation of teacher salaries here. Quite a bit different from Jalbert's claim.
So I was curious where this $89K figure was coming from. Perhaps it was Rand Paul on Lettermen. You can see why he's mistaken here.
I'm sure Jalbert just didn't know. But it's interesting that the frequent errors on WMUZ always serve the interest of the wealthy owners and advertisers.
Update: 3/10/11
Today Bob Dutko in the first hour pointed out that total compensation for Wisconsin teachers in Milwaukee was more than $100K. He referred to this PolitiFact review which deemed this claim to be accurate. This same page refers to the above Rand Paul error. Total average compensation for teachers, according to PolitiFact and the link I have above is $74,843. $49,093 in salary and $25,750 in benefits.
In the 3:00 hour though Bob went off on teachers again. He said that the AVERAGE TEACHER COMPENSATION in Wisconsin was slated to be $101,091 next year. Now, he knows that's false. If he read the PolitiFact article he knows that this is unique to Milwaukee, which apparently is an outlier. But he used this assertion to hammer away at the teachers again expecting them to make concessions.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Fox News Lies
Watch this hilarious video of Fox News reporter Mike Tobin dealing with Wisconsin protesters. They're holding signs that say things like "Bill O'Reilly is a Sexual Predator" and "Walker is a Koch Whore." Awesome. In another interview the "Fox News Lies" chants start again. During this interview he tells us "Somebody hit me." Those violent union thugs!!
So Fox News is now spending lots of time talking about the violence Tobin has been subjected to. This is being repeated by the right wing flak machine. I heard Dutko talking about it yesterday. He's pretty outraged. One thing they don't do is show us any footage of Tobin being hit.
Turns out there is some footage. Here it is. Looks more like a tap on the shoulder to me. For Fox this is an attack. Fox does this kind of thing regularly because Fox News Lies.
They've gone to court to defend their right to lie. And they've won. When investigative reporters Steve Wilson and Jane Akre did some digging on Monsanto they discovered that there were serious health risks associated with their Bovine Growth Hormone. They intended to produce a 4 part series on the story. Fox directed them to alter their story by adding what Wilson and Akre knew was false information coming from Monsanto representatives. For refusing to run the false story they were fired. They sued. Fox didn't dispute that they were directed to lie. What they argued is that they have the right to direct their employees to lie.
Canada has laws preventing this sort of news. I suppose Canada won't be getting Fox News any time soon. Or right wing radio.
But they can continue to lie here. Here they are altering footage to make it appear that Ron Paul was booed after winning the recent straw poll at CPAC. Their goal is deception, which is their legal right. Keeping people ignorant is profitable for some, but it makes democracy tough.
So Fox News is now spending lots of time talking about the violence Tobin has been subjected to. This is being repeated by the right wing flak machine. I heard Dutko talking about it yesterday. He's pretty outraged. One thing they don't do is show us any footage of Tobin being hit.
Turns out there is some footage. Here it is. Looks more like a tap on the shoulder to me. For Fox this is an attack. Fox does this kind of thing regularly because Fox News Lies.
They've gone to court to defend their right to lie. And they've won. When investigative reporters Steve Wilson and Jane Akre did some digging on Monsanto they discovered that there were serious health risks associated with their Bovine Growth Hormone. They intended to produce a 4 part series on the story. Fox directed them to alter their story by adding what Wilson and Akre knew was false information coming from Monsanto representatives. For refusing to run the false story they were fired. They sued. Fox didn't dispute that they were directed to lie. What they argued is that they have the right to direct their employees to lie.
Canada has laws preventing this sort of news. I suppose Canada won't be getting Fox News any time soon. Or right wing radio.
But they can continue to lie here. Here they are altering footage to make it appear that Ron Paul was booed after winning the recent straw poll at CPAC. Their goal is deception, which is their legal right. Keeping people ignorant is profitable for some, but it makes democracy tough.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Bob Dutko and I Talk Wikileaks
Friday, December 10, 2010
Immorality of War in Iraq
I made an argument regarding the war in Iraq a while back and I thought I'd run it by Dutko for fun. Here's the audio.
Truthfully it was hard during the latter half because I was having a lot of trouble hearing him, but still a good call. It's obvious he's unaware of basic facts about the world, going instead with his own intuitions about what is going on in his enemies' minds, disregarding actual evidence.
Note the various responses he offers which have so little contact with what I'm saying. Should Iran regard us as a threat he asks me? I say that we did impose a dictator on them and we did support Saddam's invasion in 1980. His response: "Well, we had to because Iran was regarded as a graver threat." OK, but that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Would Iranians naturally regard us as a threat in light of Saddam's invasion? The answer is yes.
I sent a follow up email afterwards, which is below.
Sorry about the cross talk. I was having trouble hearing you. I heard you talking but I thought you paused to let me talk because I couldn't hear well.
Regarding Ahmadinejad, what I probably should have said is that it is debatable that he said "Wipe Isreael off the map." I've so often heard people say that he THREATENED to wipe Israel off the map that I took you to be saying that. He is not threatening Israel and to do so would be silly because if he were to try an attack he'd be annihilated rather quickly. His statement has been translated "Wipe Israel off the map" but that's been disputed. His statements on the whole show that yeah, he'd like Israel to disappear, but he doesn't intend to act violently towards them. He may be a wicked person but he doesn't seem to have a death wish.
He does recognize the right of Israel to exist though. He votes for a peaceful settlement and secure Israeli state every year. You can pretend it's a ruse, but it is his voting record.
The Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 goes even further and says that they are ready to normalize relations with Israel, which is a step beyond the UN resolution. Iran is a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference which supports the initiative.
And I don't think you ever answered my question. You say we are a danger to Iran if they continue to pursue nukes. Fine, we're a danger to them. The principle you advocate doesn't change. If (America/Iran) regards (Iraq/America) as a threat they are entitled to attack. That's your view, right? But you say Iran is doing dangerous things, building nukes, etc. That's very much debatable, but let's suppose it was true. The US does dangerous things as well, right? The US defense budget is about the same as the defense budgets of the rest of the world combined. The US is building all kinds of weapons to a much greater extent than Iran and has a much more aggressive history. So Iran has a moral right to attack the United States on your view, right?
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right? That's the principle you need to consider.
Update:
I have to admit that when talking to Bob I really didn't understand where he was going in his argument and so my response was not exactly what it should have been. Honestly I regard his response as convoluted. I think I'm able to make sense of it after listening to it a second and third time. On the phone I really wasn't following him.
My claim is clear I believe. If the US is entitled to attack a state it regards as a threat then Iran is as well. Bob says no. His argument? Iran is a threat to Israel, a US ally, so the US is entitled to attack Iran. I was truly lost at this point. How does that change what I said? It's almost as if he's affirming the very principle that he just told me he denied. He's repeating the principle I already attributed to him. A state can attack another state if it regards it as a threat.
In the end he sort of admits that yes, Iran is entitled to attack the US in the sense that Hitler was entitled to attack Britain. Hitler was doing bad things and so Britain was moving towards war and I suppose Hitler would then have a right to repel Britain. But I would say this analogy doesn't apply. We're talking about something very different from an imminent attack. We're talking about an attack on a state that is not poised to strike us. That's the crux of the issue. We already know that attacks are permissible in order to repel an imminent attack according to international law. What's at issue is this new doctrine which says you can attack a state if you anticipate that at some point in the future they may be a threat to you. That's not the situation Hitler was in.
And also, by the way, Hitler had invaded and occupied various countries and this is why repelling him violently was justified. Which state is the world's leading invader and occupier? It's not Iran.
Truthfully it was hard during the latter half because I was having a lot of trouble hearing him, but still a good call. It's obvious he's unaware of basic facts about the world, going instead with his own intuitions about what is going on in his enemies' minds, disregarding actual evidence.
Note the various responses he offers which have so little contact with what I'm saying. Should Iran regard us as a threat he asks me? I say that we did impose a dictator on them and we did support Saddam's invasion in 1980. His response: "Well, we had to because Iran was regarded as a graver threat." OK, but that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Would Iranians naturally regard us as a threat in light of Saddam's invasion? The answer is yes.
I sent a follow up email afterwards, which is below.
Sorry about the cross talk. I was having trouble hearing you. I heard you talking but I thought you paused to let me talk because I couldn't hear well.
Regarding Ahmadinejad, what I probably should have said is that it is debatable that he said "Wipe Isreael off the map." I've so often heard people say that he THREATENED to wipe Israel off the map that I took you to be saying that. He is not threatening Israel and to do so would be silly because if he were to try an attack he'd be annihilated rather quickly. His statement has been translated "Wipe Israel off the map" but that's been disputed. His statements on the whole show that yeah, he'd like Israel to disappear, but he doesn't intend to act violently towards them. He may be a wicked person but he doesn't seem to have a death wish.
He does recognize the right of Israel to exist though. He votes for a peaceful settlement and secure Israeli state every year. You can pretend it's a ruse, but it is his voting record.
The Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 goes even further and says that they are ready to normalize relations with Israel, which is a step beyond the UN resolution. Iran is a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference which supports the initiative.
And I don't think you ever answered my question. You say we are a danger to Iran if they continue to pursue nukes. Fine, we're a danger to them. The principle you advocate doesn't change. If (America/Iran) regards (Iraq/America) as a threat they are entitled to attack. That's your view, right? But you say Iran is doing dangerous things, building nukes, etc. That's very much debatable, but let's suppose it was true. The US does dangerous things as well, right? The US defense budget is about the same as the defense budgets of the rest of the world combined. The US is building all kinds of weapons to a much greater extent than Iran and has a much more aggressive history. So Iran has a moral right to attack the United States on your view, right?
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right? That's the principle you need to consider.
Update:
I have to admit that when talking to Bob I really didn't understand where he was going in his argument and so my response was not exactly what it should have been. Honestly I regard his response as convoluted. I think I'm able to make sense of it after listening to it a second and third time. On the phone I really wasn't following him.
My claim is clear I believe. If the US is entitled to attack a state it regards as a threat then Iran is as well. Bob says no. His argument? Iran is a threat to Israel, a US ally, so the US is entitled to attack Iran. I was truly lost at this point. How does that change what I said? It's almost as if he's affirming the very principle that he just told me he denied. He's repeating the principle I already attributed to him. A state can attack another state if it regards it as a threat.
In the end he sort of admits that yes, Iran is entitled to attack the US in the sense that Hitler was entitled to attack Britain. Hitler was doing bad things and so Britain was moving towards war and I suppose Hitler would then have a right to repel Britain. But I would say this analogy doesn't apply. We're talking about something very different from an imminent attack. We're talking about an attack on a state that is not poised to strike us. That's the crux of the issue. We already know that attacks are permissible in order to repel an imminent attack according to international law. What's at issue is this new doctrine which says you can attack a state if you anticipate that at some point in the future they may be a threat to you. That's not the situation Hitler was in.
And also, by the way, Hitler had invaded and occupied various countries and this is why repelling him violently was justified. Which state is the world's leading invader and occupier? It's not Iran.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Why The War In Iraq Was Immoral
A couple of weeks back Bob Dutko spent some time justifying the invasion of Iraq. This was prompted by the publication of Bush's new book. In response I'd like to lay out a basic case for why I think it was wrong, and also respond to Dutko's arguments.
I see two main reasons for why it was wrong. First, it was illegal. Second, it was immoral. I'll justify these claims in turn.
The UN Charter is the supreme law of the land. It was ratified by our government and is therefore binding. People like Dutko don't really like the UN, but I don't know why that matters. Most people agree that following the law is almost always the moral course of action. Sometimes it is right to break the law, but that is a position that carries a strong presumption against it. If you don't like a law the solution is not to just go out and break it. You must persuade your fellow citizens and your government and attempt to change it. If Bush wanted to violate the UN Charter he needed first to pass a Congressional resolution saying we no longer adhere to it. To simply go out and violate the law, and then after the fact just say that you don't like a law so it doesn't matter, is almost always wrong.
The UN Charter provisions for war under 2 conditions: 1-When authorized by the Security Council and 2-In the case when it is necessary to repel an imminent attack (Article 51). Since neither of these conditions obtained, the war was illegal.
The US government attempted to claim that the Security Council did authorize war because Resolution 1441 called on Saddam to disarm or face "serious consequences." The US interpreted "serious consequences" to mean an invasion. France and Russia had made clear that they did not regard this phrase as an authorization for war, and at the time it was adopted this was the same interpretation held by US ambassador John Negroponte. So the US case seems dubious. The solution to figuring out what was intended would have been easy. Put it to a vote at the Security Council. The US knew it didn't have the support, so it didn't allow a vote. To my mind this is just contempt for the rule of law and so the war was illegal.
But this leads to the second argument against the war, which is relevant to the first argument. The war was immoral. Here's why.
A fundamental moral principle, a foundation of every moral theory as far as I know, is the principle of universality. That is, if it's wrong for you to do it then it is wrong for me to do it. This is something that is the key to Jesus' moral philosophy just as it is key to everyone else. Jesus reserved his harshest criticism for the hypocritical Pharisees. He tells us to do unto others as we would have them do unto ourselves. Do we want them to treat us poorly and in a way that grants them special privileges? Obviously not. We must treat them in a way that does not grant special privileges to ourselves if we want to follow Jesus' maxim. War supporters like Dutko must reject the principle of universality and the golden rule.
As best as I was able to understand, this was Dutko's argument. In light of 9/11 it was necessary to look at terrorism differently and recognize that the world is very dangerous. This enormous danger had to be neutralized. We believed Saddam was dangerous because all intelligence agencies believed he had a WMD program and WMD's. He'd used them on his own people. Though the inspectors hadn't found anything Saddam wouldn't allow full access. Keep in mind that even the Democrats urged Bush to invade. Clinton himself had ordered military strikes and a resolution to remove Saddam from power.
So the logic is that if you have good reasons to believe a state is dangerous and a threat to you, you are entitled to attack them without UN authorization. So let's apply this reasoning to others. I'll use Cuba as an example.
Cuba is a state that not only has good reason to fear the United States for future attacks. Cuba has in fact been attacked via terrorism for many years, and according to Chomsky is a state that has been subjected to more terrorism than any other. Chomsky has a good article detailing some of these operations here. Consider Operation Mongoose. Consider Orlando Bosch, a man that admits to bombing a Cuban civilian airliner among many other terrorist crimes. He lives comfortably today in Miami where he plots more terrorism and enjoys a gift from President George H. W. Bush - a presidential pardon for his crimes.
Consider The Cuban Five. A group of Cubans infiltrated terrorist groups in Florida and provided the FBI with evidence of their long record of terrorism, including audio tapes of conversations implicating the terrorists. The FBI responded. By arresting the five Cuban's that had successfully infiltrated the terrorist cell. Today they rest in jail. That's absurd enough, but the point is terrorism directed at Cuba based in the United States is ongoing.
Saddam has used WMD on his own people (with US weaponry and support at the time). But the US has the distinction of being the only country to use nuclear weapons on members of a foreign country. The US is the only country to be convicted of state sponsored terrorism at the International Court of Justice due to action in Nicaragua. The United States undoubtedly possesses WMD. And the US imposes a crippling and illegal embargo on Cuba, making it even more susceptible to violence
Cuba can very plausibly argue that the United States is a threat to itself. I don't think there can be any doubt about it. So by that reasoning we must ask Dutko and those that think like him a question. Does Cuba have the moral right to bomb Washington? Forget whether they have the capacity to do it. Obviously they do not. But morally, are they entitled to do it? For Dutko to say that they are not entitled to attack is to reject the principle of universality, which is the foundation of all moral theory.
The conclusion follows in a straightforward manner. Nations do not have the moral right to attack others merely because they believe they are a potential threat. The US should not be attacking Iraq or Cuba simply due to a perceived threat. And Cuba should not be attacking the US due to a perceived threat. Both nations should follow the law. Because if you are going to affirm the principle of universality, which you must in order to have any kind of coherent moral worldview, you cannot allocate to one nation the right to attack others due to a perceived threat without granting all that right. And so the war was immoral.
I see two main reasons for why it was wrong. First, it was illegal. Second, it was immoral. I'll justify these claims in turn.
The UN Charter is the supreme law of the land. It was ratified by our government and is therefore binding. People like Dutko don't really like the UN, but I don't know why that matters. Most people agree that following the law is almost always the moral course of action. Sometimes it is right to break the law, but that is a position that carries a strong presumption against it. If you don't like a law the solution is not to just go out and break it. You must persuade your fellow citizens and your government and attempt to change it. If Bush wanted to violate the UN Charter he needed first to pass a Congressional resolution saying we no longer adhere to it. To simply go out and violate the law, and then after the fact just say that you don't like a law so it doesn't matter, is almost always wrong.
The UN Charter provisions for war under 2 conditions: 1-When authorized by the Security Council and 2-In the case when it is necessary to repel an imminent attack (Article 51). Since neither of these conditions obtained, the war was illegal.
The US government attempted to claim that the Security Council did authorize war because Resolution 1441 called on Saddam to disarm or face "serious consequences." The US interpreted "serious consequences" to mean an invasion. France and Russia had made clear that they did not regard this phrase as an authorization for war, and at the time it was adopted this was the same interpretation held by US ambassador John Negroponte. So the US case seems dubious. The solution to figuring out what was intended would have been easy. Put it to a vote at the Security Council. The US knew it didn't have the support, so it didn't allow a vote. To my mind this is just contempt for the rule of law and so the war was illegal.
But this leads to the second argument against the war, which is relevant to the first argument. The war was immoral. Here's why.
A fundamental moral principle, a foundation of every moral theory as far as I know, is the principle of universality. That is, if it's wrong for you to do it then it is wrong for me to do it. This is something that is the key to Jesus' moral philosophy just as it is key to everyone else. Jesus reserved his harshest criticism for the hypocritical Pharisees. He tells us to do unto others as we would have them do unto ourselves. Do we want them to treat us poorly and in a way that grants them special privileges? Obviously not. We must treat them in a way that does not grant special privileges to ourselves if we want to follow Jesus' maxim. War supporters like Dutko must reject the principle of universality and the golden rule.
As best as I was able to understand, this was Dutko's argument. In light of 9/11 it was necessary to look at terrorism differently and recognize that the world is very dangerous. This enormous danger had to be neutralized. We believed Saddam was dangerous because all intelligence agencies believed he had a WMD program and WMD's. He'd used them on his own people. Though the inspectors hadn't found anything Saddam wouldn't allow full access. Keep in mind that even the Democrats urged Bush to invade. Clinton himself had ordered military strikes and a resolution to remove Saddam from power.
So the logic is that if you have good reasons to believe a state is dangerous and a threat to you, you are entitled to attack them without UN authorization. So let's apply this reasoning to others. I'll use Cuba as an example.
Cuba is a state that not only has good reason to fear the United States for future attacks. Cuba has in fact been attacked via terrorism for many years, and according to Chomsky is a state that has been subjected to more terrorism than any other. Chomsky has a good article detailing some of these operations here. Consider Operation Mongoose. Consider Orlando Bosch, a man that admits to bombing a Cuban civilian airliner among many other terrorist crimes. He lives comfortably today in Miami where he plots more terrorism and enjoys a gift from President George H. W. Bush - a presidential pardon for his crimes.
Consider The Cuban Five. A group of Cubans infiltrated terrorist groups in Florida and provided the FBI with evidence of their long record of terrorism, including audio tapes of conversations implicating the terrorists. The FBI responded. By arresting the five Cuban's that had successfully infiltrated the terrorist cell. Today they rest in jail. That's absurd enough, but the point is terrorism directed at Cuba based in the United States is ongoing.
Saddam has used WMD on his own people (with US weaponry and support at the time). But the US has the distinction of being the only country to use nuclear weapons on members of a foreign country. The US is the only country to be convicted of state sponsored terrorism at the International Court of Justice due to action in Nicaragua. The United States undoubtedly possesses WMD. And the US imposes a crippling and illegal embargo on Cuba, making it even more susceptible to violence
Cuba can very plausibly argue that the United States is a threat to itself. I don't think there can be any doubt about it. So by that reasoning we must ask Dutko and those that think like him a question. Does Cuba have the moral right to bomb Washington? Forget whether they have the capacity to do it. Obviously they do not. But morally, are they entitled to do it? For Dutko to say that they are not entitled to attack is to reject the principle of universality, which is the foundation of all moral theory.
The conclusion follows in a straightforward manner. Nations do not have the moral right to attack others merely because they believe they are a potential threat. The US should not be attacking Iraq or Cuba simply due to a perceived threat. And Cuba should not be attacking the US due to a perceived threat. Both nations should follow the law. Because if you are going to affirm the principle of universality, which you must in order to have any kind of coherent moral worldview, you cannot allocate to one nation the right to attack others due to a perceived threat without granting all that right. And so the war was immoral.
Monday, November 8, 2010
The Constitution and Prayer In Schools
Listening to Bob Dutko inspires me to address various issues. I disagree with him most of the time and would love to argue with him, but obviously I can't call in every day. My next couple of posts will address some of his recent claims I've heard from him.
Dutko tells us that the Constitution permits teacher lead prayer in schools. It is obvious that the founders of our country had no problem merging church and state. Depictions of religious figures are all over Washington. The 10 Commandments were always displayed prominently at various places. Congress opens with prayer. Prayer was common in schools until only a few decades ago. Why are we suddenly realizing the Constitution forbids this behavior? Our early founders didn't object to this behavior so obviously they didn't regard these actions as a violation of the first amendment.
Atheists reply with various arguments, including the fact that the 14th amendment changed things. They point out that the Treaty of Tripoli asserts that the US is not a Christian nation. They talk about Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, where you get the "separation of church and state" language for the first time (it's not in the Constitution).
Bob is well aware of all of these arguments and comes back at them hard. I think his replies sound plausible. But on the other hand I'm not a Constitutional lawyer. I think it would be useful for Bob to admit his own limitations and concede that he may not have the training required to know. Constitutional law is probably more complex than simply reading the Constitution. The fact is fallible men write laws and sometimes they are inconsistent. It is the job of the courts to work out illogical and inconsistent laws as best they can. Are you really so sure that the Supreme Court has done it wrongly?
Because what follows if Bob is wrong about the law? Does that mean we shouldn't as a country permit a teacher to lead a prayer to Jesus in school? Does Bob believe that all laws are correct? Forgetting Roe v Wade, what was the law in various states concerning abortion prior to 1973? Abortion was legal in many states. Does that make it right in Bob's world? Obviously not. So the issue is not just "What is the law" but more importantly "What is right"?
But when it comes to the founders of our country there's a sense in which people think that the laws they enact are like the Bible. As if everything they say is ideal. When the 1973 Roe court determines that the law says abortion must be legal in 50 states Bob dismisses that because it's just wrong. When Obama passes health care legislation Bob does not presume that this is the way it ought to be because it is the law. He opposes it vigorously. But for some reason if a law has the approval of founding fathers we pretend that this makes it more worthy of support. Why think that?
There's this third grade mentality people have of our founders. It's like the Simpsons and the founder of Springfield, Jebediah Springfield. He said "A noble heart embiggens the smallest man." So inspiring. Tall and handsome, he's a god like figure, while the founder of the neighboring and evil Shelbyville was an incestuous, short, fat scumbag. That's the propaganda we're offered in elementary school, but at some point you should grow up. Not everybody does.
There are plenty of good things that can be said of our founding fathers. But, like most leaders of a state, there's plenty awful that can be said of them too. George Washington may have done the right thing by limiting himself to 2 presidential terms. Good for him that he didn't want power concentrated in that manner. But here's something that he did that was not so good. He slaughtered Iroquois in a genocidal fashion. Consider some citations from David Stannard of the University of Hawaii.
“In 1779, George Washington instructed Major General John Sullivan to attack Iroquois people. Washington stated, 'lay waste all the settlements around...that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed'. In the course of the carnage and annihilation of Indian people, Washington also instructed his general not 'listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected.'" (Stannard, David E. AMERICAN HOLOCAUST. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. pp. 118-121.)
In 1783, Washington's anti-Indian sentiments were apparent in his comparisons of Indians with wolves: 'Both being beast of prey, tho' they differ in shape', he said. George Washington's policies of extermination were realized in his troops behaviors following a defeat. Troops would skin the bodies of Iroquois 'from the hips downward to make boot tops or leggings'. Indians who survived the attacks later re-named the nation's first president as 'Town Destroyer'. Approximately 28 of 30 Seneca towns had been destroyed within a five year period. (Ibid)”
Here's an interesting description of the reaction the Iroquois still had to the name Washington 11 years after the destruction.
"When he met with Washington 11 years after the devastating campaign, Chief Cornplanter, who headed the Seneca tribe of the Iroquois, stressed the durability of "Town Destroyer" as the commander in chief's nickname. "And to this day when that name is heard, our women look behind them and turn pale, and our children cling close to the necks of their mothers," Cornplanter said. But the title stuck even tighter than the Seneca chief could have imagined. To this day, "Town Destroyer" is still used as an Iroquois name for the president of the United States."
This was not an isolated example of the treatment afforded to the natives. And it's not as if the settlers didn't know what they were doing. Here's a comment from John Quincy Adams in his later years when he was no longer in a position to do anything about the atrocities. He deplored:
"the fate of "that hapless race of native Americans, which we are exterminating with such merciless and perfidious cruelty … among the heinous sins of this nation, for which I believe God will one day bring [it] to judgement."
Bob wants the children of Hindus, Atheists, and Muslims to be subjected to teacher lead prayers to the Lord Jesus Christ. He doesn't seem to mind whatever impacts would result on these children. OK. I don't want it. Suppose our founders would have sided with Bob. So what? These are not just imperfect people. In many cases these are deplorable people. If this is what they intended then they were wrong and the law should change. The courts have ruled, based on what is probably inconsistent laws, that teacher lead prayer in school violates the establishment clause in the Constitution. Truthfully I find the legal wrangling to be confusing and I'm just not sure who is right based on my limited understanding of the law. I think it's reasonable to side with the experts. But if those experts are wrong all that means is that the law should change. It doesn't make teacher lead prayers right.
To presume that the imprimatur of the founders gives additional credibility is to adopt a third grade Simpsons mentality that says politicians from long ago were god-like while politicians today are just ordinary people that can be readily ignored. The founders are probably not better than modern politicians when the third grade mythos is discarded.
Dutko tells us that the Constitution permits teacher lead prayer in schools. It is obvious that the founders of our country had no problem merging church and state. Depictions of religious figures are all over Washington. The 10 Commandments were always displayed prominently at various places. Congress opens with prayer. Prayer was common in schools until only a few decades ago. Why are we suddenly realizing the Constitution forbids this behavior? Our early founders didn't object to this behavior so obviously they didn't regard these actions as a violation of the first amendment.
Atheists reply with various arguments, including the fact that the 14th amendment changed things. They point out that the Treaty of Tripoli asserts that the US is not a Christian nation. They talk about Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, where you get the "separation of church and state" language for the first time (it's not in the Constitution).
Bob is well aware of all of these arguments and comes back at them hard. I think his replies sound plausible. But on the other hand I'm not a Constitutional lawyer. I think it would be useful for Bob to admit his own limitations and concede that he may not have the training required to know. Constitutional law is probably more complex than simply reading the Constitution. The fact is fallible men write laws and sometimes they are inconsistent. It is the job of the courts to work out illogical and inconsistent laws as best they can. Are you really so sure that the Supreme Court has done it wrongly?
Because what follows if Bob is wrong about the law? Does that mean we shouldn't as a country permit a teacher to lead a prayer to Jesus in school? Does Bob believe that all laws are correct? Forgetting Roe v Wade, what was the law in various states concerning abortion prior to 1973? Abortion was legal in many states. Does that make it right in Bob's world? Obviously not. So the issue is not just "What is the law" but more importantly "What is right"?
But when it comes to the founders of our country there's a sense in which people think that the laws they enact are like the Bible. As if everything they say is ideal. When the 1973 Roe court determines that the law says abortion must be legal in 50 states Bob dismisses that because it's just wrong. When Obama passes health care legislation Bob does not presume that this is the way it ought to be because it is the law. He opposes it vigorously. But for some reason if a law has the approval of founding fathers we pretend that this makes it more worthy of support. Why think that?
There's this third grade mentality people have of our founders. It's like the Simpsons and the founder of Springfield, Jebediah Springfield. He said "A noble heart embiggens the smallest man." So inspiring. Tall and handsome, he's a god like figure, while the founder of the neighboring and evil Shelbyville was an incestuous, short, fat scumbag. That's the propaganda we're offered in elementary school, but at some point you should grow up. Not everybody does.
There are plenty of good things that can be said of our founding fathers. But, like most leaders of a state, there's plenty awful that can be said of them too. George Washington may have done the right thing by limiting himself to 2 presidential terms. Good for him that he didn't want power concentrated in that manner. But here's something that he did that was not so good. He slaughtered Iroquois in a genocidal fashion. Consider some citations from David Stannard of the University of Hawaii.
“In 1779, George Washington instructed Major General John Sullivan to attack Iroquois people. Washington stated, 'lay waste all the settlements around...that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed'. In the course of the carnage and annihilation of Indian people, Washington also instructed his general not 'listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected.'" (Stannard, David E. AMERICAN HOLOCAUST. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. pp. 118-121.)
In 1783, Washington's anti-Indian sentiments were apparent in his comparisons of Indians with wolves: 'Both being beast of prey, tho' they differ in shape', he said. George Washington's policies of extermination were realized in his troops behaviors following a defeat. Troops would skin the bodies of Iroquois 'from the hips downward to make boot tops or leggings'. Indians who survived the attacks later re-named the nation's first president as 'Town Destroyer'. Approximately 28 of 30 Seneca towns had been destroyed within a five year period. (Ibid)”
Here's an interesting description of the reaction the Iroquois still had to the name Washington 11 years after the destruction.
"When he met with Washington 11 years after the devastating campaign, Chief Cornplanter, who headed the Seneca tribe of the Iroquois, stressed the durability of "Town Destroyer" as the commander in chief's nickname. "And to this day when that name is heard, our women look behind them and turn pale, and our children cling close to the necks of their mothers," Cornplanter said. But the title stuck even tighter than the Seneca chief could have imagined. To this day, "Town Destroyer" is still used as an Iroquois name for the president of the United States."
This was not an isolated example of the treatment afforded to the natives. And it's not as if the settlers didn't know what they were doing. Here's a comment from John Quincy Adams in his later years when he was no longer in a position to do anything about the atrocities. He deplored:
"the fate of "that hapless race of native Americans, which we are exterminating with such merciless and perfidious cruelty … among the heinous sins of this nation, for which I believe God will one day bring [it] to judgement."
Bob wants the children of Hindus, Atheists, and Muslims to be subjected to teacher lead prayers to the Lord Jesus Christ. He doesn't seem to mind whatever impacts would result on these children. OK. I don't want it. Suppose our founders would have sided with Bob. So what? These are not just imperfect people. In many cases these are deplorable people. If this is what they intended then they were wrong and the law should change. The courts have ruled, based on what is probably inconsistent laws, that teacher lead prayer in school violates the establishment clause in the Constitution. Truthfully I find the legal wrangling to be confusing and I'm just not sure who is right based on my limited understanding of the law. I think it's reasonable to side with the experts. But if those experts are wrong all that means is that the law should change. It doesn't make teacher lead prayers right.
To presume that the imprimatur of the founders gives additional credibility is to adopt a third grade Simpsons mentality that says politicians from long ago were god-like while politicians today are just ordinary people that can be readily ignored. The founders are probably not better than modern politicians when the third grade mythos is discarded.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Polls Schmolls
When people don't like the implications of polls the response is frequently that polls can be made to say anything. Sort of like saying you've got your sources and I have mine and I guess it's too difficult to determine who is right. Is that fair?
So for instance yesterday Bob Dutko interview a guy by the name of Mickey Huff who contributed to this book. Huff and I see the media very much the same way. Corporate media naturally offers a product that is intended to maximize profits. This results in various skewing of the stories we hear. Dutko conceded that corporate interests are a factor but he said the media also has a left wing ideology. Huff said that's just inconsistent. Left means anti-corporatist/anarchist, which is fundamentally incompatible with being pro-corporatist. He said that studies show that in the mainstream media guests skew to the right according to studies done by media matters. Maybe he had in mind something like this.
Bob tries to blow that off by claiming that since media matters is a left wing source it is not to be trusted. He likewise has studies done by right wing groups such as the Media Research Center. Huff wouldn't accept those so Bob won't accept the claims coming out of media matters.
Huff's reply was interesting and something I agree with. No, he doesn't necessarily disagree with the studies done by MRC. Let's have a look and see. I find that it's a very rare study that I would just assert is flat out wrong. If proper scientific methodologies are followed then studies from right wingers can be trusted.
Bob was vague in his description of the so called studies, so I wasn't sure what he had in mind. But I went to MRC to see what it might offer, and they do have some polling data here. As I look through it I find I have no problem with it. I don't dismiss it because it's being reported by a right wing group. I think it's probably true.
Take this poll as an example. The public generally thinks the media is too liberal. I suspect they do. Doesn't mean they are right, but this probably is what the general public thinks. To determine if they are right you actually have to look at the content of the news. That's what the Media Matters study does. So both of these claims are correct. The majority of guests on the Sunday talk shows are conservative, but public perception is that the media is too liberal.
Just to pick another poll at random, this one shows that the public thinks media coverage of the war in Iraq is too negative and too liberal. I have no reason to doubt that this is what the public thinks.
Again, the implications of the poll can be wrongly extracted. The classic example involved New Coke. Taste tests indicated that the new flavor was preferred. But sales did not reflect that. Was the poll wrong? Not necessarily. One of the reasons the poll was misleading was that the sample size was too small. People did prefer the new Coke in small dosages because it was sweeter. But when you drink an entire bottle you might not prefer it.
Bob can't imagine that there is sometimes a sense in which the media does tilt to the right. So when presented with solid evidence he just wants to dismiss it, and he does so by pretending studies can be made to say anything. He probably rationalizes his positions on health care in a similar way. But while it is true that polls and studies can be misleading I think there is much to be learned from them and they shouldn't be dismissed so cavalierly. Bob should consider first that his intuitions are wrong before pretending that the result of any given study must be wrong.
So for instance yesterday Bob Dutko interview a guy by the name of Mickey Huff who contributed to this book. Huff and I see the media very much the same way. Corporate media naturally offers a product that is intended to maximize profits. This results in various skewing of the stories we hear. Dutko conceded that corporate interests are a factor but he said the media also has a left wing ideology. Huff said that's just inconsistent. Left means anti-corporatist/anarchist, which is fundamentally incompatible with being pro-corporatist. He said that studies show that in the mainstream media guests skew to the right according to studies done by media matters. Maybe he had in mind something like this.
Bob tries to blow that off by claiming that since media matters is a left wing source it is not to be trusted. He likewise has studies done by right wing groups such as the Media Research Center. Huff wouldn't accept those so Bob won't accept the claims coming out of media matters.
Huff's reply was interesting and something I agree with. No, he doesn't necessarily disagree with the studies done by MRC. Let's have a look and see. I find that it's a very rare study that I would just assert is flat out wrong. If proper scientific methodologies are followed then studies from right wingers can be trusted.
Bob was vague in his description of the so called studies, so I wasn't sure what he had in mind. But I went to MRC to see what it might offer, and they do have some polling data here. As I look through it I find I have no problem with it. I don't dismiss it because it's being reported by a right wing group. I think it's probably true.
Take this poll as an example. The public generally thinks the media is too liberal. I suspect they do. Doesn't mean they are right, but this probably is what the general public thinks. To determine if they are right you actually have to look at the content of the news. That's what the Media Matters study does. So both of these claims are correct. The majority of guests on the Sunday talk shows are conservative, but public perception is that the media is too liberal.
Just to pick another poll at random, this one shows that the public thinks media coverage of the war in Iraq is too negative and too liberal. I have no reason to doubt that this is what the public thinks.
Again, the implications of the poll can be wrongly extracted. The classic example involved New Coke. Taste tests indicated that the new flavor was preferred. But sales did not reflect that. Was the poll wrong? Not necessarily. One of the reasons the poll was misleading was that the sample size was too small. People did prefer the new Coke in small dosages because it was sweeter. But when you drink an entire bottle you might not prefer it.
Bob can't imagine that there is sometimes a sense in which the media does tilt to the right. So when presented with solid evidence he just wants to dismiss it, and he does so by pretending studies can be made to say anything. He probably rationalizes his positions on health care in a similar way. But while it is true that polls and studies can be misleading I think there is much to be learned from them and they shouldn't be dismissed so cavalierly. Bob should consider first that his intuitions are wrong before pretending that the result of any given study must be wrong.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Is Obama Liberal?
I spoke with Bob Dutko Friday to let him know that he's mistaken to equate Obama with liberalism. Download link is here. I'm going to also embed it just for fun. Listen below.
My last interaction with Bob was modestly hostile, so this time I thought I'd call about a subject that was maybe less likely to provoke hostility. So I went with politics. It was good and friendly.
I didn't win in this situation in terms of the way it comes across, but I'm totally fine with that. It's tough when he dominates the microphone by spinning the issue and I just don't have time to correct. For instance I pointed out that Americans generally support single payer style health care while Obama nixed it. He says something like "I would argue that this only shows that single payer is a liberal policy and the American people are liberal on that. This doesn't mean Obama isn't liberal, it means the American people are liberal." What the? What's needed here is a definition of what I mean when I say someone is liberal. I'd have loved to do that, but I have to apportion my time.
When I point out that Obama is expanding the war in Afghanistan, the surveillance state, and he's enacted an assassination policy, Bob interrupts to say "But you get no argument from me on that because I agree with him on all of that." Yeah, I know you do. That's not the point. The point is this is not liberalism. But I didn't get a chance to say that.
Notice also that I barely get started even describing why I'm saying what I'm saying and he interrupts to offer a long opening salvo rebutting my position, which I haven't even yet set forth. Obviously he sees "Jon in Commerce" in queue and he went and formulated an argument during the first commercial to offer a pre-emptive strike. Which is fine, but I just think it kind of shows why it's going to be tough, because this cuts in to time.
But really I'm happy about the call because I think it's the kind of call that can provoke thinking by Bob and his listeners. Bob lives in the Fox News cocoon where everybody hates liberalism. He knows that he holds many minority views, but I don't think he understands the full extent of how contrary his views are to the bulk of the American people. So he thinks people don't really want European style care. They do.
After my call Bob talked more about our call after the break. That's good because I know it's provoking thinking. Here's the audio of that discussion. He discovers that yes, there are indications that single payer is popular, though he says other polls show it's not supported by majorities. That's cool. I think he's gotten a little perspective that he didn't have before. Hopefully some of his listeners have as well.
Update:
Just wanted to provide some sources on the public support for single payer health care. In addition to polls that I discuss here another good source for a variety of polling data is here. Great info also at wikipedia.
Update II:
Bob claimed that Obama was rated the most liberal senator by National Review. I suspect he meant to say the National Journal. But that claim is misleading. Factcheck has the details here. In sum he was the most liberal according to the 2007 rankings. He was ranked 16 and 10 the prior years, meaning he was not the most liberal during his entire Senate career. Also the way the rankings are done may have skewed the 2007 ranking. The value is based on the % of time a Senator voted on the liberal side of an issue. In 2007 Obama missed a lot of votes. This probably affected the ranking. Details here. I stand by my argument though even if Bob's claim was accurate based on Obama's actual policy contrasted with public opinion, but it's worth noting the basis for Bob's claim.
My last interaction with Bob was modestly hostile, so this time I thought I'd call about a subject that was maybe less likely to provoke hostility. So I went with politics. It was good and friendly.
I didn't win in this situation in terms of the way it comes across, but I'm totally fine with that. It's tough when he dominates the microphone by spinning the issue and I just don't have time to correct. For instance I pointed out that Americans generally support single payer style health care while Obama nixed it. He says something like "I would argue that this only shows that single payer is a liberal policy and the American people are liberal on that. This doesn't mean Obama isn't liberal, it means the American people are liberal." What the? What's needed here is a definition of what I mean when I say someone is liberal. I'd have loved to do that, but I have to apportion my time.
When I point out that Obama is expanding the war in Afghanistan, the surveillance state, and he's enacted an assassination policy, Bob interrupts to say "But you get no argument from me on that because I agree with him on all of that." Yeah, I know you do. That's not the point. The point is this is not liberalism. But I didn't get a chance to say that.
Notice also that I barely get started even describing why I'm saying what I'm saying and he interrupts to offer a long opening salvo rebutting my position, which I haven't even yet set forth. Obviously he sees "Jon in Commerce" in queue and he went and formulated an argument during the first commercial to offer a pre-emptive strike. Which is fine, but I just think it kind of shows why it's going to be tough, because this cuts in to time.
But really I'm happy about the call because I think it's the kind of call that can provoke thinking by Bob and his listeners. Bob lives in the Fox News cocoon where everybody hates liberalism. He knows that he holds many minority views, but I don't think he understands the full extent of how contrary his views are to the bulk of the American people. So he thinks people don't really want European style care. They do.
After my call Bob talked more about our call after the break. That's good because I know it's provoking thinking. Here's the audio of that discussion. He discovers that yes, there are indications that single payer is popular, though he says other polls show it's not supported by majorities. That's cool. I think he's gotten a little perspective that he didn't have before. Hopefully some of his listeners have as well.
Update:
Just wanted to provide some sources on the public support for single payer health care. In addition to polls that I discuss here another good source for a variety of polling data is here. Great info also at wikipedia.
Update II:
Bob claimed that Obama was rated the most liberal senator by National Review. I suspect he meant to say the National Journal. But that claim is misleading. Factcheck has the details here. In sum he was the most liberal according to the 2007 rankings. He was ranked 16 and 10 the prior years, meaning he was not the most liberal during his entire Senate career. Also the way the rankings are done may have skewed the 2007 ranking. The value is based on the % of time a Senator voted on the liberal side of an issue. In 2007 Obama missed a lot of votes. This probably affected the ranking. Details here. I stand by my argument though even if Bob's claim was accurate based on Obama's actual policy contrasted with public opinion, but it's worth noting the basis for Bob's claim.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Bob Dutko's Chutzpah
Bob Dutko likes to make this argument with regards to evolution and information. Evolution must be false because you never have a generational increase in information, and this is required for evolution to take place.
This is all false as I discuss here. As I document at the prior link I tried to call Bob and challenge this claim but he basically wouldn't allow it.
In my view Bob was basically caught off guard with my question. All he's doing is repeating an argument he's heard elsewhere but probably doesn't understand. I can certainly understand why he doesn't want to put me on the air, though I don't think it's very decent of him. If however he'd like to retain even a modicum of decency he should in my mind at least refrain from making this argument.
Nope. Today in the 2 o'clock hour he went right through the same old talking points on evolution. You never have a generational increase in genetic information, but only a reshuffling of existing information. He'll peddle this line, but anybody that would call in and challenge that on what he calls "Open Line Friday" will be blocked.
He also continues to assert that on the evolutionary view the majority of fossils discovered should appear to be freakish transitional animals. I corrected him on this before as well on the air, informing him that since the vast bulk of animals that have ever lived are extinct in fact what we should expect to find is mostly creatures that look like nothing that presently lives. He babbled and dissembled in reply.
But I think this point I made to him a year and a half ago may have in fact sunk in slightly. Bob's evolution discussion is apparently something he wrote up a while back and whenever he discusses evolution he uses the same material. I suppose this is why he made the argument regarding information. It's in the talking points he wrote way back when. So while that didn't change he did add something that was new this time. He did say that evolutionists claim that the things in the fossil record should be extinct animals. This is a new part of his talking points to my knowledge and in fact contradicts his earlier claim that evolutionists expect the fossil record to reveal a slew of transitional forms. Is the bulk of finds transitions or extinct animals? Is it supposed to be both? But with regards to the claim that they are extinct, his response was simple. Deny it. Say that no, in fact when you look to the fossil record it looks just like stuff that exists today. This is a blatant falsehood that is easily exposed with minimal research.
The fact that the bulk of the fossils in the ground were of creatures that would be regarded from our perspective today as extinct was so obvious to early Christian geologists and scientists that they were led propose creation events prior to Adam and Eve not described in the Bible. As the evidence mounted they moved to propositions that involved multiple pre-Adamic creation events.
Dutko is apparently unaware of all of this and is content to rebut with assertions to the contrary.
This is all false as I discuss here. As I document at the prior link I tried to call Bob and challenge this claim but he basically wouldn't allow it.
In my view Bob was basically caught off guard with my question. All he's doing is repeating an argument he's heard elsewhere but probably doesn't understand. I can certainly understand why he doesn't want to put me on the air, though I don't think it's very decent of him. If however he'd like to retain even a modicum of decency he should in my mind at least refrain from making this argument.
Nope. Today in the 2 o'clock hour he went right through the same old talking points on evolution. You never have a generational increase in genetic information, but only a reshuffling of existing information. He'll peddle this line, but anybody that would call in and challenge that on what he calls "Open Line Friday" will be blocked.
He also continues to assert that on the evolutionary view the majority of fossils discovered should appear to be freakish transitional animals. I corrected him on this before as well on the air, informing him that since the vast bulk of animals that have ever lived are extinct in fact what we should expect to find is mostly creatures that look like nothing that presently lives. He babbled and dissembled in reply.
But I think this point I made to him a year and a half ago may have in fact sunk in slightly. Bob's evolution discussion is apparently something he wrote up a while back and whenever he discusses evolution he uses the same material. I suppose this is why he made the argument regarding information. It's in the talking points he wrote way back when. So while that didn't change he did add something that was new this time. He did say that evolutionists claim that the things in the fossil record should be extinct animals. This is a new part of his talking points to my knowledge and in fact contradicts his earlier claim that evolutionists expect the fossil record to reveal a slew of transitional forms. Is the bulk of finds transitions or extinct animals? Is it supposed to be both? But with regards to the claim that they are extinct, his response was simple. Deny it. Say that no, in fact when you look to the fossil record it looks just like stuff that exists today. This is a blatant falsehood that is easily exposed with minimal research.
The fact that the bulk of the fossils in the ground were of creatures that would be regarded from our perspective today as extinct was so obvious to early Christian geologists and scientists that they were led propose creation events prior to Adam and Eve not described in the Bible. As the evidence mounted they moved to propositions that involved multiple pre-Adamic creation events.
Dutko is apparently unaware of all of this and is content to rebut with assertions to the contrary.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Bob Dutko on Information and Evolution
When I did my in studio interview with Bob Dutko one question he posed related to a challenge regarding evolution. He says that the information content of a DNA molecule has never been observed to increase, and evolution requires that increase. This means evolution is wrong. This is at about the 50 minute mark.
I replied that certain bacteria had been observed to mutate and develop an ability to consume nylon, which is a recently invented substance. Why isn't that an increase in information?
Bob's answer was something like "I'm afraid you're incorrect. You do not have new genetic information you only have a reshuffling of existing information. That does not produce new genetic information." I admitted my ignorance and said I'd look into it.
And so I did and what do I discover? Bob is completely wrong. Mutations can and do increase information content. Also a reshuffling of existing DNA can increase the information content. It's pretty easy to see when when you understand what information is.
"Information" is a field of study related to computer science and electrical engineering. The definition can be somewhat technical, but here's a basic overview. Take a Word file as an example. Within your computer the file is represented as a string of 1's and 0's. Suppose a file is 1000 kilobits when saved. That can actually be reduced with compression. WinZip is a program that can compress files. Basically WinZip can recognize patterns and can represent repeating patterns with a reduced quantity of 1's and 0's. The fully compressed file might be 500 kilobits. That's the quantity of information for that Word file. The fully compressed # of bits required to describe the file.
What this means is that in fact something can be less coherent but have more information. A book with letters in a random sequence will have more information than an encyclopedia of the same length with English words. Real words form patterns that can be compressed into a reduced string of data. Random sequences of letters wouldn't have those patterns. So ultimately the number of bits required to describe the random book would be greater than the number of bits required to describe a book of the same length with real words.
So let's apply this to DNA. Suppose a mutation occurred and the new string produced a sequence that was more random. It could be that nothing but a reshuffling of existing information has occurred, but if it's more random it has more information. On the other hand it might produce a more repeatable pattern in which case the information content could reduce. But this really doesn't matter for evolution anyway. A more random sequence might express itself physically in a manner that produced a selective advantage or it might not. Natural selection doesn't care if the DNA sequence can be expressed with a large or small quantity of bits. All it cares about is whether the physical expression makes the organism more or less capable of reproducing successfully.
So now I'm annoyed. Bob Dutko knows that an average person doesn't know this stuff, so he can spring this on an unsuspecting person knowing that they'll just have to defer to what they think is his informed opinion. Of course I suspected he didn't understand what he was saying, but since I didn't either there wasn't much I could say.
Soon after my interview Bob Dutko interviewed Kenn Hamm where he made the same argument. I also had recalled that Bob makes the same argument in his Top 10 Proofs Evolution is Scientifically Impossible. It's obviously an argument he thinks is very important. So I thought I'd call in on open line Friday and discuss it.
So I did. I called in and told the screener Jan that I wanted to talk about Bob's argument related to evolution and information. The first time I tried I thought I was early in the queue, but he never got to my call. So I called again the following Friday and described my call the same way. This time Bob spoke with me during commercial. He wasn't going to take my call. He said something like "You probably got some obscure stuff from talkorigins and I'm not going to let you ambush me in this way." So I said to him "How about I do this. I'll send you my question in an email, send you any related links, you can look it over and I'll call you at a later date." He said OK.
So I sent him my question. There was some miscommunication as I tried to get the right contact information. Before Bob received my question he told me that he'd allow this kind of thing just this once, but he wasn't going to let me turn open line Friday into some sort of semi-regular debate between me and him where he has to run around and do a bunch of research. He's a busy guy and can't be doing that. He also told me that he wouldn't be able to discuss it for this upcoming Friday. Anyway, here is what part of what I wrote:
I like this question because it demands that Bob know what information is. And I don't think he does know what it is. This is obviously very bad for him. When you see what it is you see his argument that he's been pushing, and in fact selling in his CD series, is just completely wrong.
So I didn't hear back for a while and I also was swamped at work and couldn't even listen to his show. Finally this week things have eased up, so I emailed him to ask if it's a good time to call in about this.
Nope. He hasn't looked at it, doesn't know when he might have time to. And frankly he thinks I should just call in as a regular caller instead of expecting him to do a bunch of work preparing for my calls. I'm playing games that put him at an unfair advantage since I'm researching a topic he's not prepared for, and he's not going to allow me to come on and pull a fast one. If I'm all bent on talking about this particular topic and demanding he prep for a debate it will be a long wait.
These types of replies came over the course of a couple of emails. This obviously makes no sense whatsoever. I'm calling about an argument he makes routinely. Isn't this what open line Friday is for? And I'm submitting my question in advance. How is that pulling a fast one? He repeatedly criticized me for preparing with research. So what if I've prepared? Isn't that what reasonable people do? But it was clear to me that this is not getting through to Bob.
What's weird is I really think Bob believes what he's saying. He really thinks I'm being extra demanding of him. By submitting my question in advance so that he can have the opportunity to prepare if he so chooses this is somehow me being demanding. But obviously rationality is out the window here because the alternative is looking bad on the air by revealing the fact that he's basing an argument on a subject he doesn't understand.
I replied that certain bacteria had been observed to mutate and develop an ability to consume nylon, which is a recently invented substance. Why isn't that an increase in information?
Bob's answer was something like "I'm afraid you're incorrect. You do not have new genetic information you only have a reshuffling of existing information. That does not produce new genetic information." I admitted my ignorance and said I'd look into it.
And so I did and what do I discover? Bob is completely wrong. Mutations can and do increase information content. Also a reshuffling of existing DNA can increase the information content. It's pretty easy to see when when you understand what information is.
"Information" is a field of study related to computer science and electrical engineering. The definition can be somewhat technical, but here's a basic overview. Take a Word file as an example. Within your computer the file is represented as a string of 1's and 0's. Suppose a file is 1000 kilobits when saved. That can actually be reduced with compression. WinZip is a program that can compress files. Basically WinZip can recognize patterns and can represent repeating patterns with a reduced quantity of 1's and 0's. The fully compressed file might be 500 kilobits. That's the quantity of information for that Word file. The fully compressed # of bits required to describe the file.
What this means is that in fact something can be less coherent but have more information. A book with letters in a random sequence will have more information than an encyclopedia of the same length with English words. Real words form patterns that can be compressed into a reduced string of data. Random sequences of letters wouldn't have those patterns. So ultimately the number of bits required to describe the random book would be greater than the number of bits required to describe a book of the same length with real words.
So let's apply this to DNA. Suppose a mutation occurred and the new string produced a sequence that was more random. It could be that nothing but a reshuffling of existing information has occurred, but if it's more random it has more information. On the other hand it might produce a more repeatable pattern in which case the information content could reduce. But this really doesn't matter for evolution anyway. A more random sequence might express itself physically in a manner that produced a selective advantage or it might not. Natural selection doesn't care if the DNA sequence can be expressed with a large or small quantity of bits. All it cares about is whether the physical expression makes the organism more or less capable of reproducing successfully.
So now I'm annoyed. Bob Dutko knows that an average person doesn't know this stuff, so he can spring this on an unsuspecting person knowing that they'll just have to defer to what they think is his informed opinion. Of course I suspected he didn't understand what he was saying, but since I didn't either there wasn't much I could say.
Soon after my interview Bob Dutko interviewed Kenn Hamm where he made the same argument. I also had recalled that Bob makes the same argument in his Top 10 Proofs Evolution is Scientifically Impossible. It's obviously an argument he thinks is very important. So I thought I'd call in on open line Friday and discuss it.
So I did. I called in and told the screener Jan that I wanted to talk about Bob's argument related to evolution and information. The first time I tried I thought I was early in the queue, but he never got to my call. So I called again the following Friday and described my call the same way. This time Bob spoke with me during commercial. He wasn't going to take my call. He said something like "You probably got some obscure stuff from talkorigins and I'm not going to let you ambush me in this way." So I said to him "How about I do this. I'll send you my question in an email, send you any related links, you can look it over and I'll call you at a later date." He said OK.
So I sent him my question. There was some miscommunication as I tried to get the right contact information. Before Bob received my question he told me that he'd allow this kind of thing just this once, but he wasn't going to let me turn open line Friday into some sort of semi-regular debate between me and him where he has to run around and do a bunch of research. He's a busy guy and can't be doing that. He also told me that he wouldn't be able to discuss it for this upcoming Friday. Anyway, here is what part of what I wrote:
OK Bob. I'll tell you what I intended to say.
"You argue that evolution is not possible because it requires an increase in genetic information. I have two questions. How do you measure information? In other words how do you know if information has increased from one generation to the next. And second, how do you know that there has never been a generational increase in information?"
That is the totality of my question. I've looked in to what information is and as I understand it information content does increase with mutations. There is evidence here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
Contact me if you would like any of my further thoughts.
I like this question because it demands that Bob know what information is. And I don't think he does know what it is. This is obviously very bad for him. When you see what it is you see his argument that he's been pushing, and in fact selling in his CD series, is just completely wrong.
So I didn't hear back for a while and I also was swamped at work and couldn't even listen to his show. Finally this week things have eased up, so I emailed him to ask if it's a good time to call in about this.
Nope. He hasn't looked at it, doesn't know when he might have time to. And frankly he thinks I should just call in as a regular caller instead of expecting him to do a bunch of work preparing for my calls. I'm playing games that put him at an unfair advantage since I'm researching a topic he's not prepared for, and he's not going to allow me to come on and pull a fast one. If I'm all bent on talking about this particular topic and demanding he prep for a debate it will be a long wait.
These types of replies came over the course of a couple of emails. This obviously makes no sense whatsoever. I'm calling about an argument he makes routinely. Isn't this what open line Friday is for? And I'm submitting my question in advance. How is that pulling a fast one? He repeatedly criticized me for preparing with research. So what if I've prepared? Isn't that what reasonable people do? But it was clear to me that this is not getting through to Bob.
What's weird is I really think Bob believes what he's saying. He really thinks I'm being extra demanding of him. By submitting my question in advance so that he can have the opportunity to prepare if he so chooses this is somehow me being demanding. But obviously rationality is out the window here because the alternative is looking bad on the air by revealing the fact that he's basing an argument on a subject he doesn't understand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)