CBEB’s

Over at Evolution News & Views, BPSDB poster boy Casey Luskin points readers to Men’s News Daily and this fabulous article spewed forth from the imagination of Mike LaSalle, entitled, “Darwin Ist Tot: Intelligent Design is Not Creationism“.

LaSalle kicks off his argument by linking to an opinion piece in the Daily Observer penned by the Reverend Eric Strachan. A word of advice to Mr. LaSalle: When you’re trying to make the argument that Intelligent Design is NOT repackaged creationism, it helps if you don’t reference articles containing stuff like this:

Who can improve upon the wonder of a sunrise, the majesty of a sunset, the awesomeness of a baby coming forth from the womb, trees clothed in a garment of wintry white glistening in the early morning sunshine, a golden eagle soaring upon the wings of the wind?

Yet, often the moment we add the human touch, creation loses its pristine beauty.

The Good Reverend Strachan might want to look into how the human touch has made babies coming out of wombs a little more awesome; thanks to science, a lot less stillborn babies are springing forth from wombs.

“Intelligent Design is not creationism” has become the bumper-sticker slogan/talking point of the ID crowd as of late. I’ve got to wonder if this is nothing more than a weak attempt at running interference on behalf of the next supposed nail in evolution’s coffin, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

With the host of Expelled talking like a creationist,

Stein apparently even went into the project with the idea that it might ultimately be titled “From Darwin to Hitler.”

and the producers of the film using creationist tactics to get interviews with academics, the words “ID is not creationism” ring hollow. As it turns out, the filmmakers had to go with another title because there’s already a book entitled From Darwin to Hitler, which has been promoted by both creationists and ID proponents.

Are you confused yet? Don’t worry, it gets worse. It’s been a few years since ID’s Dover fiasco, so the revisionists at the Discovery Institute are hoping the public has forgotten about the “cdesign proponentsists” transitional that was found in early drafts of Of Pandas and People.

Furthermore, most of us are familiar with William Dembski’s famous quote:

Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

In other words, Intelligent Design is NOT creationism, it’s just a bunch of stuff from the Bible made to sound sciency. I’m glad we could work that one out.

What I find more interesting than the increasing claims of “ID is not creationism” is the dearth of headlines exclaiming “Intelligent Design is Science”. Sure, they wish it was science, but as a wise man once said, “Wish in one hand, shit in the other, and see which hand fills up first”.

I’d like to be Ring Magazine’s Middleweight Champion, but I don’t necessarily want to do things like, oh, I dunno… train or have to step into the ring with someone like Kelly Pavlik. I guess I could redefine the phrase “Ring Magazine’s Middleweight Champion” to mean something entirely different, but there’s a slight drawback to that approach: no one in their right minds would take me seriously.

And so it is with Intelligent Design, with one minor difference. The leading lights of Intelligent Design most certainly wish to redefine science in terms that will allow ID proponents to say that ID is, indeed, science. Like my futile fantasy of becoming middleweight champ, ID proponents want to be scientists without having to do all that messy science. The difference between my dream and theirs is, there are people who earnestly support ID’s effort to turn the word “science” into a meaningless term that would make astrology a legitimate scientific endeavor. As I’ve previously mentioned, there is no idea too ridiculous or offensive that can’t be made respectable by dressing it up with religion.

Let us momentarily put aside all that pesky evidence and pretend that “Intelligent Design is not creationism” is a factual statement. Even if that was true, ID is still pseudoscience. It’s still anti-science. That’s the issue which creationists ID proponents need to be addressing, but instead choose to ignore.

Plenty of bloggers have written about logical fallacies, so I’m not going to do a detailed series on the subject. I would, however, like to address one of my favorite fallacies (if it’s at all possible to have a favorite): The Special Pleading Fallacy.

Imagine you’ve signed up for a course on American History. On the first day of class, the teacher begins lecturing on the benevolent aliens who rose up from Atlantis to secretly guide the Founding Fathers during the course of the Constitutional Convention.

Of course, your natural reaction would be, “What the hell?!? This is bullshit!”, to which the professor replies, “Unless you really love America, none of this will make any sense”.

That, my friends, is the Special Pleading Fallacy. I’ve always found the use of the Special Pleading Fallacy by Christians to be odd, especially those Christians who claim to be in possession of some sort of “Absolute Truth”.

I was reading Ray Comfort’s blog, and found this bit of “wisdom” from the master of the Argument from the Banana:*

As we have seen in the previous chapter, atheists approach the Bible with a “darkened understanding” (see Ephesians 4:18) and try to make sense of it. But just as the Bible says, they cannot understand it (see 1 Corinthians 2:14). The only way the Scriptures can make sense to us is for us to read them with a humble heart that is searching for truth. God promises to resist those who are proud.

In addition to being a Special Pleading Fallacy, this is thinly veiled circular reasoning, as Comfort is essentially saying, “These Bible passages prove that you pretty much have to believe that the Bible is true before you can see that it’s true.” I’m sure there’s three or four other fallacies hiding in there somewhere, but the special pleading rings loud and clear; in Comfort’s beady little eyes, skepticism is good when it’s applied to science, but asks that you put it aside when reading about talking snakes and zombified Jewish carpenters.

The Special Pleading Fallacy is also a popular way to CYA: Cover Your Ass. All too often, people use special pleading as an excuse for their actions, when in reality, they are giving reasons they should have never acted in the first place. Common example: Someone has posted a controversial topic at a blog or message board. The first response to the post is something unbelievably stupid, and several people immediately post scathing rebuttals, causing the initial commenter to concede that his opponents are indeed correct. 300 comments later, someone who’s never before posted at the site replies to the first comment, rebutting the claim that has already been retracted. When it’s pointed out that he should have read the entire thread - or at the very least, read enough of the comments to see that his input was no longer relevant - the newbie might say, “Sorry guys, I’m too busy to read the entire thread. Unlike you losers, I have a life.” It stands to reason that if you’re too busy to properly follow a discussion, you’re too busy to offer anything useful to the discussion.

To a certain extent, we all fall back on the Special Pleading Fallacy at times. (How many of you have ever said, “you really need to see [insert band name here]’s live show in order to fully appreciate them”?) It’s easy to overlook special pleading when it comes to someone defending their favorite band or TV show, but it’s a very poor way to argue for religion (or against atheism). When someone tells you that their argument will make more sense if you’d only be so kind as to set aside the rules of logic, it’s a strong indication that they know what they’re selling doesn’t pass the sniff test.

*One might argue that it’s not fair to continue raking Comfort over the coals because of the infamous Banana video, seeing that he has since admitted that it’s a bad argument. But so long as he keeps making other bad arguments, the Argument from the Banana will serve as the prime example of Comfort’s inadequate argumentation methods.

I’ve got to start consuming my requisite amount of coffee before making the rounds at my favorite blogs. This morning when I checked out Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Ed had an article about Alan Keyes’ possible third-party presidential campaign. Even though the post clearly states the Alan Keyes is considering a run for the White House, in my caffeine-deprived mind, I only parsed the following:

…declaring himself a candidate for president for the openly theocratic and horribly misnamed Constitution Party. John Lofton says he’s gonna do it, and he apparently held a conference call…

The thought of a John Lofton presidential campaing brought tears of joy to my eyes… until a few more cups of coffee made me realize that I had read the article wrong. Oh well, I can still dream, can’t I?

If you’re unfamiliar with John Lofton, you’re in for a real treat. Combine the D-list credibility of Debbie Schlussel with the glaring insanity of Larry Fafarman, and you’ve got John Lofton. To put it another way, he’s too crazy for Worldnet Daily, but he has enough friends in high places that he’s been given a platform at The American View. I realize that having a regular column at The American View isn’t exactly a sign of prestige, but Lofton is so tinfoil-hat crazy that he’s got to have some friends who are enabling his delusions of relevance.

The term “far right” doesn’t begin to describe John Lofton. He is so far outside the spectrum that he eulogized William F. Buckley the way many atheists spoke of Jerry Falwell’s passing.

Reading Lofton’s piece on Buckley makes one thing obvious: John Lofton isn’t very good at couching has statements. I get the impression that by omitting any mention of Buckley’s death, Lofton thinks he can dismiss any charges of “speaking ill of the dead”, but if you don’t want to come off as if you’re gloating over someone’s death, a few days after their funeral isn’t the time to denounce them as morally bankrupt cretins.

Lofton isn’t very good at hiding his racism, either. Take a look at this article, where he bitches about - of all things - an ad for employment opportunities at KFC, featuring a clean-cut Caucasian:

…let’s just say it’s been a long time since I saw young man like this working at KFC. Most folks who work there (my experience) look differently, which is fine; no problem (John 7:24). And they speak a different language - which is a problem - but only if you’d like your order to be understood.

I find it odd that he can find a Bible quote to confirm that it’s okay for people who look different to work at KFC, but provides no justification as to why it’s not okay for people who speak differently to handle his order of Original Recipe. Lofton goes on to complain about the ad, saying:

As for the “Customer Maniacs!” bit, I, again personally, have experienced no one at KFC so eager to serve me.

I seriously doubt that poor customer service is an issue exclusive to fast food joints in the world of John Lofton. Shit, I’m guessing that there are people in his immediate family who aren’t exactly eager to come into personal contact with such a raging nutbag.

Nothing, however, underscores the sheer lunacy of John Lofton than his article, “I Most Certainly Will NOT Send Koko’s ‘Love’ To Anybody On ANY Day!“. I’m not even going to bother quoting from the piece; it’s merciful in its brevity, but you’ve got to read the whole thing to appreciate the “get offa my lawn!” crankitude of it all. I’m rather impressed that a human being can be reduced to a blubbering idiot over a Valentine’s Day card.

In the near future, I’ll be blogging about some PMRC-era punk, so this video will help set the mood. Ed posted this at Dispatches a couple of years ago, but the link in his post is dead and this video should be seen by all. It’s not fair to say Frank Zappa makes John Lofton look like an idiot in this clip, because it’s John Lofton who makes John Lofton look stupid; Zappa is just there for the ride. The video is on the longish side (as a commenter at Ed’s blog noted, “…in the time it took to complete that debate Zappa released 3 albums.”) Without further ado, here is Frank Zappa vs. John Lofton on CNN’s Crossfire.

Get the Flash Player to see this player.
When Robert Novak thinks you’re a kook, it’s time to give up.

In the few months since this blog’s inception, I’ve thus far been blessed with a surprising lack of trolls. Funny… one would think that the upstanding gentlemen at Uncommon Descent would want to come over here and take me to task for some of my assaults on Denyse O’Leary. She is, after all, an important writer and the kidz, like, love her, yo.

Instead of trolls and angry creationists, the commenters at CBEB’s are a delightfully smart-alecky bunch. While I appreciate any and all feedback, two recent comments deserve to be singled out. If I handed out “Post of the Week” awards (which I might, one of these days), we would have a tie this week.

My “I Hate Led Zeppelin” post generated some good comments, but Erasmus, FCD saw an opening and took it, with:

Carbon Monoxide: Greatest. Molecule. Ever

Let’s all be thankful that Erasmus didn’t use the <falsetto> tag.

Taking his cue from my thoughts on Youth Pastors in my “Pet Peeves” post, RoaldFalcon had this to say:

So you think you have pet peeves? There was another man once who had pet peeves. His name was Jesus Christ. It’s right there in Matthew 23….

Hey guy, good job! I know another guy who did a good job… he was the Roman soldier who nailed Jesus to the cross.

Keep up the good work, friends. It’s snark like this that keeps me going.

By the way, I apologize if there’s been a shortage on posts dealing with some of our favorite cdesign proponentsists. In spite of adding Overwhelming Evidence to her ever-growing list of only two blogs, Denyse O’Leary has been strangely silent as of late. Slimy Sal has been kinda quiet, too. I think they’re all busy trying to wrangle up dates for the premiere of Expelled.

There’s been some really good movies coming out of South Korea over the past few years. From intelligent thrillers (Joint Security Area, Memories of Murder) to whacked-out conspiratorial sci-fi movies (Save the Green Planet), Koreans are exporting movies replete with an adventurous spirit rarely seen in the unimaginative pabulum coming out of Hollywood these days.

South Korea’s contribution to the Monster Movie genre is Joon-ho Bong’s 2006 film, The Host.

In 2000, an American civilian employed by the US military dumped over 20 gallons of formaldehyde down a sink, a move that led to the chemical being released into the Han River. The Korean government tried to put the culprit in prison, but the United States claimed jurisdiction, leading to a lot of protests outside embassies and military installations throughout Korea.

Just as the atom bomb inspired Japan’s classic Godzilla franchise, this incident serves as the impetus behind The Host, so fair warning: if you’re looking for some gung-ho “America, fuck yeah!” jingoism, maybe you should watch Red Dawn instead.

The Host isn’t your typical monster movie. In spite of the obvious Godzilla comparison, the movie has more in common with Jaws and Tremors. Furthermore, unlike most films in the genre that spend the first two acts teasing the audience before revealing the monster in all its glory, The Host reveals its creature in Act One, spending the remainder of the film dealing with the aftermath of the destruction caused by the creature.

In addition to the monster, The Host follows the exploits of the Park family; patriarch Hie-bong (Hie-bong Byeon) and his slacker son Gang-Du (Korean mega-star Kang-Ho Song) operate a concession stand on the banks of the river Han, while Gang-Du’s daughter Hyun-seo (Ah-sung Ko) attends a nearby middle school. Hyun-seo is so embarrassed by her father that she gets her unemployed, drunken uncle Nam-il (Hae-il Park) to visit her class for career day. After school, she and her grandfather watch her aunt Nam-Joo (Du-na Bae) compete in a televised archery competition.

The otherwise tranquil day is interrupted when tourists relaxing on the banks of Han River notice something strange dangling beneath the Wonhyo Bridge. Far too many horror movies rely on People Doing Stupid Things as a plot device, but The Host uses stupid behavior to great effect. Without giving anything away, I’ll just say that the creature’s introduction is dependent upon People Doing Stupid Things, but it’s done in a manner that makes perfect sense, much like the way people will slow down to see the aftermath of an auto accident.

I can has cheezburger?

When young Hyun-seo gets swallowed up by the monster, the Park family gathers to grieve their loss at a makeshift vigil/shelter set up by the authorities. Hyun-seo’s apparent death hits the family hard, as she represented the family’s future; everyone had hoped that she would be the one who succeeded. While many movies aim for tragedy and wind up with unintentional comedy (and vice versa), the memorial scene in The Host tries to be simultaneously tragic and funny… and succeeds.

Therein lies the rub with The Host. Fans of traditional monster flicks might be bothered by The Host’s disregard for the genre’s constraints, but those of you who are tired of the Same Old Thing will be pleasantly surprised. It’s funny, sad, playful and serious, often all at once.

Once the Korean authorities and the US Center for Disease Control get involved, the surviving members of the Park clan must follow Gang-Du to quarantine. But when Hyun-seo finally manages to get a signal on that shitty cell phone dad bought her, the Parks become Seoul’s Most Wanted and must contend with the police, the military, secretive medical organizations, corrupt contractors, greedy black marketeers, and treacherous friends.

The acting is great across the board, but the standout for me was young Ah-sung Ko. She had to play entire scenes on her own, and her acting was crucial in selling the monster to the audience.

Something slimy this way comes.

The monster effects are spotty in some areas, but the filmmakers made a good decision by introducing the creature in the first act. Its initial rampage is both convincing and impressive. By giving us sympathetic characters with a tangible mission instead of a bunch of self-absorbed idiots wandering aimlessly through darkened corridors, the viewer actually invests in the movie by rooting for the protagonists instead of hoping to see them devoured by the monster.

All in all, The Host is great, mindless fun if you just want to watch a monster movie, but there’s plenty of subtext for those of you who want a little more. Repeated viewings reveal inside jokes, too. Kang-Ho Song and Hie-bong Byeon were in Bong’s Memories of Murder, and there’s a scene in The Host featuring a cameo by another actor from Memories; if you’ve seen both films, the casting makes more sense.

Although the DVD comes with an English dub, I’d recommend watching it in Korean. There’s a major scene that operates under the assumption that none of the characters speak English, so it plays out a lot differently in English.

I haven’t seen Cloverfield, but I’ve heard it compared to The Host. I’ll just say that if you liked Jaws, Tremors, and the old Godzilla movies, chances are, you’ll get a big kick out of The Host.

Here’s a 30-second clip of the creature’s riverside rampage to give you an idea about the SFX. The view from the train really captures the “Holy shit!!!ELEVEN!” spirit of the first act.

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

When I blogged about Dan K. Thomasson’s wasteful griping the other day, I mentioned that there are plenty of legitimate things about which a person can complain, but what’s on television isn’t one of those things. I then started thinking about stuff that makes me piss and moan. Here’s a list of some of my Pet Peeves, in no particular order… although the first one will be the biggest one.

1) People who feel they’re obligated to be rude to “the help”: Anyone who’s ever worked in the service industry will know what I’m talking about. There’s a certain type of customer who feels that just because they’re spending their hard-earned money on a meal, they’re not just entitled to be obnoxious, they’re required to act like assholes. As a youngster, I worked in bars, restaurants and coffee shops, so I’ve had to deal with these people up close and personal. I’ve never quite understood the mentality behind this behavior, but my guess is that it stems from some sort of irrational elitism. Elitism isn’t always a bad thing, but people who to the philosophy of “if you don’t like being treated this way, you should have become an investment banker” are more irrational than they are elitist.

I never spat in anyone’s drink or otherwise sabotaged anyone’s meal or beverage. I think that’s just as wrong as being rude, if not more so. My way of dealing with it was to always give the customer the bare minimum of service. A customer at a bar ought to be able to get the hint when the bartender is taking the time to measure his shots to ensure that an extra splash of bourbon doesn’t wind up in a drink.

I learned that trick while working at a coffee shop in San Francisco. The place also sold ice cream, and one night an unruly customer came in and immediately started in with the overbearing asshole routine. The manager of the place was serving her, and he was being completely professional towards her behavior. The woman demanded a sample of almost every flavor before settling on a small scoop of strawberry. In a voice oozing with sincerity, the manager asked, “Are you sure you wouldn’t prefer the vanilla?” She stuck with the strawberry, and when the manager served it to her, she started accusing him of ripping her off. A small scoop is four ounces of ice cream, and she demanded that he weigh it. With the utmost courtesy, he placed the ice cream on the scale, and it weighed something like 4.2 ounces. “I’m terribly sorry about that, ma’am,” said the manager as he removed the extra two-tenths of an ounce from her ice cream. Before he could hand it back to her, the customer had stormed out the door without saying a word. We laughed about that for days.

Even worse than working at a job and having to deal with rude customers is going out to eat with people who are uncivil to waiters. I’ve gone to restaurants with seemingly well-mannered people who turned into sociopaths as soon as they picked up a menu. It’s really unnecessary and embarrassing.

2) Music as a social status indicator: There’s only one valid reason for listening to any particular music, and that’s because you like it. Someone might like a band because a friend or relative is in the group, but that shouldn’t really obligate anyone to like a band.

If you think you’re sticking it to the man because you listen to Rage Against the Machine, you’re an idiot. If you think you’re part of some underground scene because you listen to Linkin Park, you need to die. Now. If you think your favorite punk singer sold out because he’s made enough money to buy a house, you’re a selfish prick.

The worst of all, however, is the middle-aged hipster who thinks he’s on the cutting edge of the music scene because he’s bought an album by a “new” artist. A few years ago, every balding father of three who crossed my path thought they were the shit because they had just bought a Norah Jones CD. Nothing against Norah Jones, but if you think owning a Norah Jones CD makes you cool, you’ve probably never been cool in your entire life.

3) The “if you don’t vote, you can’t complain” myth: This one really annoys me, especially when I hear it coming from an atheist. It’s a special pleading fallacy, much like a Christian saying that you can’t criticize Christianity or the Bible unless you’ve read the Bible in the original Hebrew or Greek. I realize that most people who don’t vote are simply apathetic, but not voting is also an effective way of protesting against the political process. I vote on occasion - mainly on the local level - but I long ago came to the realization that the overwhelming majority of candidates place the interests of the voters far below the interests of whatever political party they serve. When your dinner choice is a plate full of hot shit, or a plate full of cold shit, the logical choice is to go without dinner.

4) Youth Pastors: I’ve met several bona fide ministers in my life and most of them were decent, interesting people. Without exception, however, every “youth minister” I’ve ever met has been an irritating dickhead. They refer to everyone as “guy” or “bro”, and they make all these clumsy attempts to convince you that Christianity is “rad”: “Hey guy, I see you’re wearing a Jimi Hendrix t-shirt. I guess you think dying young is cool. Let me tell you about another rocker who died young; his name is Jesus Christ”. You know who else is going to die young? You, if you don’t shut the fuck up, asshole.

A friend of mine had an encounter with a tag team of youth pastors, and they kept rattling off the names of all these Christian metal bands who supposedly blow Slayer out of the water. My buddy had a great response: “All those guys ever sing about is Jesus; at least Slayer break up the devil stuff with songs about Nazis and serial killers”.

The youth ministers I’ve dealt with tend to be raging control freaks, too. In a group setting, it’s like they have to constantly be the center of attention, even if it means butting into private conversations. You might be talking about some obscure foreign film that hasn’t yet been released on DVD, and Joe Youth Pastor hears nothing but the word DVD and interrupts the discussion with, “Hey guys, you should come down to the Worship Center and watch The Passion of the Christ on the big screen… it’s awesome!”

The whole center-of-attention thing is a really primitive recruitment technique. They’re simply gambling that someone in the room lacks any sense of belonging, and will interpret the youth pastor’s affectation of friendliness as, “this guy cares about me and thinks I’m an interesting person”. Luckily, it only works on people who are too stupid to realize that someone who genuinely cares about you will usually make a sincere effort to actually listen to what you’re saying. Unfortunately, there are a lot of stupid people.

5) Profanity as “bad” language: I’ve got no problem with people who don’t use profanity and don’t like to read it or hear others use it, but if you’ve got a problem with profanity, be smart about it. There’s nothing inherently “bad” about profanity; “bad” language is saying “irregardless”, “that’s a mute point” or conflating “imply” and “infer”. If you don’t like others swearing at your dinner party, tell your guests not to use vulgar language. If you don’t want anyone swearing around your children, tell people not to use inappropriate language around the toddlers. To say profanity is “bad language” implies that it should never be used, and that’s just not true. When the lights go down, your girlfriend doesn’t want you to perform cunnilingus, she wants you to suck her pussy. Don’t be a prude about it.

Bonus Grammar Pet Peeves: I’m generally willing to overlook misspellings, but if English is your native tongue, there are some errors that are inexcusable. Overall, I try to take a forgiving attitude towards typos. There are some people with disabilities who have a hard time spelling, even with a spell-checker installed on their computers. On the other hand, some people ought to know better.

• Typo Pouncing: It’s one thing to correct another person’s spelling, but when you act like someone’s argument falls apart because they misspelled the word “Wednesday”, you come off looking like a nitpicking douchebag. This was the main reason I quit posting at the old Internet Infidels Discussion Board - this seemed to be a standard debate tactic used by otherwise intelligent atheists. It’s really petty, and it’s a hell of a lot more immature than a misspelled word.
• It’s “its”, not “it’s”: It’s one of the simplest rules in the English language: if it denotes possession, there’s no apostrophe in the word “its”. If you want to remember the rule backwards, the only time there’s an apostrophe in those three letters is when you’re contracting “it is” or “it has”.
• “Freedom of Speach” is “Bad Grammer”: Since I frequent a lot of blogs dealing with First Amendment issues, this one is quite common. If you value “Freedom of Speach”, please take the time to learn how to properly spell the word “speech”. Simple mnemonic device: You don’t ever see it misspelled as “Freadom of Speech”, do you?
  If you’re going to complain about the way other people write, your complaints will have a little more credence if you don’t gripe about “bad grammer”. If your coke dealer is putting his thumb on the metric scales, he’s a bad grammer; if he can’t form a coherent sentence, he might have bad grammar.
• Don’t be rediculous: I guess the common “re” prefix trips up a lot of people, but if someone is acting “rediculous” were they merely being “diculous” the first time?

This is, of course, only a partial list. There’s all sorts of crap out there that pisses me off… I’ll get to it eventually, I’m sure.

This story has been circulating around the blogosphere, although I forget where I read it first. Some of you may already be aware of Wesley Crawford, the Mississippi high school student who wrote a letter to his local paper complaining about religious assemblies at his school. As one might expect, the situation has only gotten uglier since the letter was published.

The Mississippi Atheists blog is soliciting letters of support for Mr. Crawford, as the threats have already started. If you’d like to offer some encouragement to this brave young man, he may be reached at this address: wesleycrawford *at* tds *dot* net. Be polite, and keep in mind that he’s not an atheist (although that soon might change once he’s received enough of that “Christian love”).

Also - and readers might like this - The Hattiesburg American has a message board, and Mr. Crawford’s letter has become a hot topic. The first several pages are pretty reasonable, but the last 5 or so pages have some good stuff. The thread has already provided a new addition to the RTQG.

The most ridiculous argument on the thread is the “he didn’t follow proper procedure” argument. There’s no chain of command for public school students; was he supposed to report the Church & State violation to his homeroom Student Council representative? The hall monitor, perhaps? I also like the “a 9th grader couldn’t write such an eloquent letter” arguments. If you’re an adult who lends any credence to creationism, then it might boggle the mind to think that a high school freshman can write a coherent letter to the editor, but the rest of us know that there’s some pretty smart young’uns out there.

This case promises to be interesting, and it looks like it might get ugly. I certainly hope that young Mr. Crawford doesn’t back down in the face of threats and harassment. Crap like this is common throughout the American South, so maybe his bravery will inspire other students to make a stand.

Yesterday I used the phrase “three thumbs up”, a phrase that I’ve heard before, but it might have a different meaning to other people. In my family, the phrase “three thumbs up” holds special meaning…

Here’s the deal: my maternal grandfather was born with two thumbs on his left hand. Not two fully opposable thumbs, but a full thumb with the extra digit sprouting out of the second joint of his proper thumb. As kids, we would express satisfaction by saying, “Grandpa would give that three thumbs up”.

My brother met his first wife in England, so when she moved to the states we had to warn her about Grandpa. Not that he was some sort of lunatic letch, but Grandpa was definitely a grouch. For example, the mere mention of Nacogdoches would for some reason send my grandfather on a rant about what a shitty singer George Jones is. The family’s favorite Grandpa quote occurred when a commercial for a Jim Nabors album aired on TBS:

You know, he might be as queer as a three-dollar bill, but goddamn! that sonofabitch can sing.

But I digress… my brother, his fiancée and I were driving around looking at Christmas lights, and my brother was giving his future wife the lowdown on Grandpa. When he told her about the two thumbs on his left hand, he added, “Grandpa used to hitchhike around the country, and when he stuck out his thumb, two trucks would pull over”. I had to think about it for a few seconds, then I nearly passed out from laughing.

The next day I told the joke to my little brother and he got really pissed. It was sick and wrong and in really bad taste, and I had better not tell that joke to mom. Of course, I immediately told the joke to mom, and she laughed. She even told her mom, who loved the joke. I don’t know if Grandpa ever heard it, but he probably would have laughed, too.

A few years ago, I was walking to the corner store and a neighbor pulled over his car and was about to ask me if I needed a ride when my brother drove by and pulled over, too. I opted to take a ride from my brother, and as I got in the car I said, “Damn, now I know how Grandpa felt when he hitchhiked”.

The next time I use the phrase “three thumbs up”, I’ll include a link to this post so that people will know what I’m talking about.

I have a confession to make. I love me some “Scariest Police Videos” shows. I especially love riot footage. I have a preference for programs that take a more forensic approach to the footage, but sadly, most of the shows are pure sensationalism, and no one brings the hyperbole like Sheriff John Bunnell, host of Fox’s World’s Wildest Police Videos.

Bunnell made his debut on COPS, then hosted the short-lived series, American Detective. He’s also appeared in the films Ghost World (he’s Steve Buscemi’s boss) and Bad Santa (he’s the cop who arrests Billy Bob Thornton). However, it’s on World’s Wildest Police Videos where Sheriff John Bunnell really shines.

Known for his flair for alliteration and his use of the phrases “the next time” and “in jail!” in close proximity to one another, the typical Bunnell narrative goes a little something like this:

During my career as a cop, I’ve seen countless crazy criminals casually cruise communities casing kitchens and cafes for cold cash… like these ruthless robbers who recklessly raided a Red Robin restaurant. When a fast-thinking fry cook fought these felons, the fists flew fast and furious. And when brave boys in blue broke through the burglars’ blockade, they found these bungling bandits had already been battered by the belligerent burgermaker. These crooks might have been hungry for some cold, hard
cash, but instead, they got served a side order of hot justice. The next time these lawbreakers enjoy a hot meal will be… in jail!

If over-the-top narration was Bunnell’s only crime, he could easily be forgiven… but he’s also full of shit. It’s not an oversimplification to say that in Sheriff John Bunnell’s eyes, law enforcement officers can do no wrong.

Case in point: I had watched a show that discussed in detail the 1991 Sacramento hostage crisis. It featured cops and criminilogists talking about many mistakes made by the police officials, primarily in the negotiation process. When the same footage was shown on World’s Wildest Police Videos, the criminals became “terrorists” and the cops, of course, became heroes. Bunnell even said something like, “and then a quick-thinking sharpshooter saw his opportunity and took the shot - his fellow officers then rescued the terrified hostages and put an end this dramatic situation”.

The problem with that is… it’s not anywhere near being true. What Bunnell failed to tell the audience is that the “quick-thinking sharpshooter” missed his shot which sent the hostage-takers into a frenzy. They immediately started shooting hostages and the cops had to prematurely rush the store in an attempt to defuse a disastrous situation. Three hostages died and fourteen were wounded. Three of the four hostage-takers were also killed in the incident, but Bunnell doesn’t mention any of this. What an asshole.

As much as I love these cop shows, I’ve learned from Bunnell’s example to be skeptical of the claims made by “experts”. I’m also a big fan of Forensic Files, but I’ve seen at least one episode that was bogus. There was a show that profiled Sandra Anderson and her cadaver-sniffing dog. Anderson was later caught planting evidence at crime scenes, and eventually admitted to planting evidence in the case that had been aired on Forensic Files.

Unfortunately, it’s unrealistic to expect any accountability when it comes to police shows. COPS revolutionized the way law enforcement deals with the media. Ever since Dragnet went off the air, if a cop show was remotely realistic, it tended to be unflattering. In COPS, Fox found a hit show that didn’t need writers… something every network dreams of. Had COPS shown police officers engaging in brutality and corruption, other agencies would be less inclined to participate in future episodes. Sadly, this principle has spread across non-fiction cop shows, so there are rarely any programs dealing with police brutality, prosecutorial misconduct and junk forensic science. That’s a shame, because there’s no shortage of source material.

But back to Sheriff John Bunnell. I’ve always thought he was a ripe target for parody, but I’ve never seen a comedy show tackle the subject. After Dennis Miller and Rush Limbaugh lost their Monday Night Football gigs, I had hoped Saturday Night Live would do a skit with Bunnell auditioning for a commentator spot. I could picture him calling a play with something like, “This ditzy Dallas defender thought he could run interference on this Packers’ powerful pass, but a quick-thinking referee corralled this crooked Cowboy. Instead of an interception, this offending defender gave the Packers an automatic first down! The next time he sees a half-time show, he’ll be in jail!” Okay, I’m sure a professional could funny it up in post-production, but you get the idea…

Strangely enough, the Brits have taken a shine to Sheriff John Bunnell. Here’s a pretty decent parody of World’s Wildest Police Videos done by our friends across the pond. I love the running “Alabama” gag and the “every day, people like you and me break the law… except for me, because I’m John Bunnell!” bit. I should warn those of you who are in your little office cubicles that there’s profanity in this one, so it may be considered NSFW.

And here’s a very well-made clip using scenes from GTA: San Andreas:

A tip of the headgear to Cephus at Bitch Spot for this one.

I’ve been a fan of Scarlett Johansson ever since I saw Ghost World. She was also in a sweet little indie film I liked, Manny & Lo. For some reason, she’s always reminded me of Lauren Bacall, and anything that reminds me of a Big Sleep-era Lauren Bacall is a Good Thing.

Now I have even more reason to appreciate Scarlett Johansson. It’s been rumored that the Church of Scientology held “casting calls” in order to find a bride for their batshit crazy poster boy, Tom Cruise. Ms. Johansson briefly considered the offer, but once she realized that church membership was part of the package, she gave them the ol’ “Thanks, but no thanks“. Good on you, Scarlett!

Those of you who share my absolute loathing of Scientology might also be interested in knowing that actor Tom Berenger gets three thumbs up* from The Church Burnin’ Ebola Blog. Supposedly, Tom had no problem with his wife’s involvement in the Church of Scientology, but once she tried to convert their children, he kicked her to the curb faster than you can say “clear“:

According to papers Berenger filed in divorcing his second wife, his marriage ended when she became “totally involved” in Scientology and tried “brainwashing” their children into the cult.

So pop that copy of Platoon in the DVD player (or better yet, The Substitute), put some popcorn in the microwave, and do like Scarlett Johansson does: Tell Scientology to go get fucked.

* remind me to explain this later. It’s an inside joke in my family…