CBEB’s

No, this isn’t my new pet. I was going through some old photos and thought I’d share this one.

Thanks to the South Texas humidity, we’ve got tons of cockroaches down here. In the summer, if you’re outside after sundown, they’ll fly straight at you from out of nowhere. I know several people who are terrified of the little suckers; they creep me out, but I don’t think I could live down here if I was phobic of cockroaches.

You won’t be seeing this guy at Cute Overload, but someone
from AtBC will inevitably be putting him through the Lolcat Builder.

I found this little guy on my front porch a couple of years ago. At first, I thought it was some sort of cocoon, but then it started crawling… I got this photo before I busted out the can of Raid. Roaches are bad enough, but I didn’t want this bastard breeding. If you let one mutant cockroach slide, the next thing you know, they’re developing opposable thumbs.

<grumpy old man>

You atheist kids have got it so easy these days. When I was your age, we didn’t have some new-fangled Blasphemy Challenge. We didn’t have no fancy YouTube, neither. If we wanted to watch a video of someone using a Bible to clean up a pile of dog shit, we had to order some shitty 8mm film out of the back of a porno magazine. The dogshit and the Bible were usually fake, and the actors would be speaking either German or Swedish. What a gyp.

When I was your age, if I wanted to piss off Christians and scare the beejesus out of my friends, I had to do it the old-fashioned way by cranking up the stereo and blaring the Feederz’ “Jesus Entering From the Rear”.

</grumpy old man>

In 1981, my older brother brought home the classic (and now long out-of-print) Alternative Tentacles compilation, Let Them Eat Jellybeans. Featuring some legendary punk bands (Dead Kennedys, Flipper, Black Flag, Circle Jerks, Bad Brains, and more) the Feederz track always got the biggest reaction, which usually went something like this: “TURN THAT SHIT OFF! DO YOU WANT TO GET STRUCK BY LIGHTNING???” We couldn’t even understand all the lyrics, but the parts that mattered were perfectly audible.

A lot of the early punk bands went for shock value, but the Feederz went the extra mile. If you don’t believe me, listen for yourself. This is the original version (from vinyl) of “Jesus Entering From the Rear”:

The original recording featured Art Nouveau (a.k.a. John Vivier) on drums; Nouveau would eventually go on to join Killer Pussy of “Teenage Enema Nurses in Bondage” fame. His replacement for the Feederz first album, Ever Feel Like Killing Your Boss?, would be none other than Dead Kennedys drummer, D.H. Peligro. Here is the cleaner-sounding album version of “Jesus”:

Personally, I prefer the original recording; it’s raw and rough, just like a good punk song should be, although I do like the little “Hark the Herald Angels Sing” intro of the album version…

Though they went through a lot of personnel changes, it never mattered much, as the Feederz was the brainchild of guitarist/vocalist/songwriter Frank Discussion.

I’ve never bought into the whole “Smash the State” rhetoric behind a lot of punk music. I can appreciate the sentiment, but I always preferred the gloom-and-doom of Discharge to the Utopian leanings of Crass. However, one can’t help but to be impressed by Frank Discussion’s conviction to the cause. Though not many people have actually listened to Ever Feel Like Killing Your Boss?, the album is famous for its packaging: the original vinyl release had an actual piece of sandpaper glued to the cover so that it would fuck up all your other album covers. The CD reissue has the sandpaper glued to the jewel case.

Discussion’s lyrics are richly influenced by Situationist politics. If you’re not familiar with Situationists International, I’m afraid I can’t be of much help. I’ve read a lot of Situationist literature, but like sex, I’ve found it’s something better experienced than discussed. Two classic examples of Situationist philosophy can be found in the slogans from the Paris Riots of May, 1968 and the music of Negativland.

Even before the year 1984 had arrived, I got pretty sick of punks singing about it; especially after watching that shitty movie, Breaking Glass. The Feederz, however, did one of the few decent songs on the subject with the aptly titled “1984″:

During the infamous PMRC hearings, the record industry was also engaged in a plan to put a tax on blank cassettes in order to recoup losses caused by the insidious activity known as “home recording”. Long before music piracy became cool, Frank Discussion proudly displayed the following statement on the back of the Feederz’ albums:

HOME RECORDING IS KILLING THE MUSIC INDUSTRY. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

It’s not just lip service, either; after a long absence from the music scene, the Feederz returned in 2002 with the album, Vandalism: Beautiful As A Rock In A Cop’s Face. Like a true punk, Frank Discussion made the entire album available for download at the Feederz website. (Note: I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the Official Feederz Website is NSFW, unless your boss is cool with the suggestion that he be brutally sodomized.)

There’s also a video from the album for the song, “Taking the Night”. Even if you don’t like the song, the video is excellent. Did you know that there’s beer hidden in the walls at your place of employment?

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

As a bonus tribute to Frank Discussion and the Feederz, here’s their cover of Olivia Newton-John’s smash hit, “Have You Ever Been Mellow”:

Below the fold you will find the lyrics to “Jesus Entering from the Rear”. Trust me on this: you don’t have to be a Christian to find the lyrics offensive. Consider yourself warned.
(more…)

I got a flyer in the mail today from a neighborhood church. On the front was a picture of Jesus hanging on the cross with the words, “an Easter Love Story”, below the image. On the back of the flyer was this:

For God SO loved the world… We’ve probably all heard the start to that verse, but what does it really mean in our daily lives? Come join us this Easter at Parkdale Baptist Church as we discover the type of practical, everlasting and sacrificial love God has for us. It’s a story that offers guidance for life’s challenges, encouragement in life’s difficulties and hope for eternity. It can be your story too!

As Tina Turner would say, “What’s love got to do with it?” Seriously, I just don’t get any sort of “Love Story” vibe when I read the Bible, especially the crucifixion stories. Instead of your typical “Boy Meets Girl” story, we get this:

• Omnipotent Being meets girl
• Omnipotent Being uses magic to impregnate girl
• Thirty some-odd years later, child of Omnipotent Being and girl gets nailed to a cross
• After being dead for three days, child of Omnipotent Being and girl comes back to life and ascends to Heaven

I guess one might say that’s a happy ending… if one is willing to overlook the whole “everyone who doesn’t believe this shit gets thrown into a Lake of Fire in the sequel” angle to the story.

I realize I’m grossly oversimplifying the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, but the details don’t really help. The whole “Jesus died for your sins” concept doesn’t sound like love to me. In fact, it reeks of overkill. It’s really arrogant to think you’re so important that you’ve done something which merits a human sacrifice in order to make things right again.

Furthermore, “Jesus died for your sins” doesn’t make much sense in light of the fact - according to the Bible - He didn’t really die. I guess “died for your sins” carries a little more impact than the more truthful, “Jesus gave up Spring Break for your sins”.

Christianity has always been one of those things that the more I think about it, the less sense it makes. I feel I’m not alone in thinking that way, seeing how so many youngsters are getting disillusioned with the Jesus Fan Club.

Some of you might think what I’m about to do is tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy, but I’ve been reading a lot about young people leaving the church, and I’d like to offer Christians some friendly advice on how to get the kids interested in Jesus once more.

The solution is not only simple, it’s Biblically sound: Zombies.

Something on which we can all agree: Churches could use more brains.

It’s a well known fact that kids love zombies. If you’ve got children, ask your son or daughter which they’d rather have at their next birthday party: clowns or zombies? If your child says “clowns” (or even worse, “a magic show”) memorize this phrase: “I had no idea my child would grow up to be a serial killer”; it will come in handy someday.

It’s beyond me why churches haven’t latched on to Zombies as a marketing tool. Some Christians might deny there are zombies in the Bible, but it’s right there, in Matthew 27, verses 45 through 53:

Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him. Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Those are just about the coolest verses in the Bible, but you never hear preachers talking about zombies running around Jerusalem. I realize some Biblical literalists might point out that the word “zombie” doesn’t actually appear in the Bible; my response is, “so what?”. The word “dinosaur” doesn’t appear in the Bible, yet Ken Ham built a multi-million dollar museum dealing with Dinosaurs and the Bible. The word “homosexuality” occurs exactly zero times in the King James Bible, but to listen to some preachers, you’d think that’s the only subject the Bible covers. If creationists can extrapolate the word “plesiosaur” from the Biblical Leviathan, then surely Christians can agree that Dead People Coming Out of Their Graves = Zombies. This is ain’t rocket science, people.

Even I might consider attending this church.

Even one of the great minds of the Enlightenment, Thomas Paine, knew the zombie issue warranted more investigation. In The Age of Reason, he wrote:

The writer of the book of Matthew should have told us who the saints were that came to life again, and went into the city, and what became of them afterward, and who it was that saw them — for he is not hardy enough to say he saw them himself; whether they came out naked, and all in natural buff, he-saints and she-saints; or whether they came full dressed, and where they got their dresses; whether they went to their former habitations, and reclaimed their wives, their husbands, and their property, and how they were received; whether they entered ejectments for the recovery of their possessions, or brought actions of crim. con. against the rival interlopers; whether they remained on earth, and followed their former occupation of preaching or working; or whether they died again, or went back to their graves alive, and buried themselves.

Strange, indeed, that an army of saints should return to life, and nobody know who they were, nor who it was that saw them, and that not a word more should be said upon the subject, nor these saints have anything to tell us! Had it been the prophets who (as we are told) had formerly prophesied of these things, they must have had a great deal to say. They could have told us everything and we should have had posthumous prophecies, with notes and commentaries upon the first, a little better at least than we have now. Had it been Moses and Aaron and Joshua and Samuel and David, not an unconverted Jew had remained in all Jerusalem. Had it been John the Baptist, and the saints of the time then present, everybody would have known them, and they would have out-preached and out-famed all the other apostles. But, instead of this, these saints were made to pop up, like Jonah’s gourd in the night, for no purpose at all but to wither in the morning.

Chances are, at least one church in your town puts on an annual Passion Play (except when YHWH sends unfavorable weather), but do they include Zombies in their production? With Hell Houses becoming a popular method of “witnessing” these days, adding Zombies to your church’s Passion Play only seems like the next logical step.

For that matter, any filmmaker wanting a prefab “cult” audience can kill two birds with one stone by making a new, improved “Greatest Story Ever Told” by adding Zombies to the mix. As The Passion of the Christ demonstrated, the MPAA has no problem at all with snuff films, as long as Jesus is the star of the picture. That means you could make the goriest Zombie movie ever made, and not only would the diehard gorehounds be lining up to see it, church leaders would command their flocks to see it as many times as they can.

The really cool thing about a Zombie Jesus Movie is that they didn’t have guns back in the Bible days. Since it’s a scientific fact that Zombies can only be killed by destroying the brain, Bible Zombies would be especially hard to kill, bringing a fresh perspective to a genre that’s gotten stale over the years. Plus, Bruce Campbell would make a badass Jesus.

Christians love to parade one of the central contradictions of their religion with silly “Buddha and Mohammed are dead, but Jesus lives!” arguments. If Jesus lives, how could he have died for our sins? If he died, but now is no longer dead, then he’s a freakin’ Zombie. There’s no need to explain away this paradox; it should be celebrated and exploited.

Via Yahoo News:

A former drummer for the Swedish pop band ABBA was found dead with cuts to his neck in the garden of his house on the Spanish island of Mallorca. Police said Monday an autopsy showed it was an accident.

Alas, it wasn’t a “Bizarre gardening accident“. Apparently, Ola Brunkert hit his head on a glass door in his dining room before stumbling into the garden.

Anyway, rest in peace, Ola Brunkert. The next time William Dembski says “Waterloo!” (which, according to my calculations, should be about 10 minutes from now), I’ll bust out the ABBA Gold CD in your honor.

It’s not often a genuine celebrity shows up at CBEB’s. In fact, it’s never happened… until today. Sorta. I mean, if making an ass out of oneself on The Daily Show and getting pwned by Frank Zappa on Crossfire qualify one for celebrity status, then yes, we have a confirmed celebrity sighting.

The one and only John Lofton showed up in the comments of my John Lofton for President! post to, predictably, say something stupid.

The comment almost didn’t see the light of day. It’s only because of this post at Bitch Spot that I checked my Askimet filter; something I rarely do. It turns out that even non-sentient spam filters think of Lofton as an insufferable douchebag.

Also, an apology to commenter Iggy - Askimet prevented one of your comments from getting through, but I marked it as “Not Spam”. I think it was your choice of homepage that caught Askimet’s attention…

“B.O.L.O.” is law enforcement jargon meaning, “Be On the Lookout”. Seeing that Denyse O’Leary just loves to trot out analogies using the field of criminology to prop up the non-starter known as Intelligent Design, she might already know about the B.O.L.O. acronym. Then again, she might not.

Another common law enforcement acronym is “MMO”, which stands for “Means, Motive & Opportunity”. Judging by Granny Spice’s latest episode of CSI: Imaginary Kingdom, it’s pretty obvious that she thinks “MMO” means something entirely different.

In an awkward attempt to show there’s some sound reasoning behind the vacuous enterprise known as “design detection”, O’Leary uses an example of a man stabbing his dinner companion:

Harry and Jack are having a somewhat tense conversation over a beer and steak at the local pub.

Harry seizes a steak knife and tries to plunge it into Jack’s ribs.

Pub regulars overpower him and the police are called. He is charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

That’s intent.

I’m fully aware that saying “Denyse O’Leary is wrong” is entirely redundant, but in this case, she is wrong on so many levels, it hurts to even think about it. Most damaging to her premise, however, is the fact that intent can really only be established once the suspect is identified. In some cases - for example, a body is found with its head blown off by a shotgun blast - the intent is obvious, but it’s useless in determining a suspect. This is where “Means, Motive & Opportunity” come into play. Since Intelligent Design is a science-stopper, Denyse O’Leary is apparently satisfied with the outcome of her little mystery. Being such a super-duper writer and all, maybe she’ll pen an Agatha Christie-style thriller utilizing her amazing crime-fighting know-how.

I can see it now… Private Detective Michael “Bill” Behembski cracks the cases that the materialist cops are afraid to touch. In Chapter One of “Pinched, Purloined and Pilfered”, gumshoe Behembski arrives at the mansion of real estate mogul Arnold Tromp, who has had his collection of rare jewels stolen.

Behembski: It looks to me like the burglar’s intent was to steal your collection of rare jewels.
Tromp: No shit, Sherlock. I’m interested in finding out who stole them.
Behembski: I’m afraid that’s beyond the scope of this investigation. After all, it’s obvious those jewels were designed in a manner that would attract thieves, so it could be anyone. There might even be those who say that aliens stole your gems, but that’s mere speculation. Judging from the way your elaborate alarm system was disarmed, I’m guessing it was someone reasonably intelligent, but that’s the most I can say.
Tromp: You’re fired!
Behembski: Case closed. Another satisfied customer.

Being colossally mistaken has become the norm in Denyse O’Leary’s career as an ID apologist. Her articles touting the truthfulness of Intelligent Design are often nothing more than Mad-Libs, the blanks filled in with the ID talking points du jour: Blah blah blah “materialism”. Yadda yadda “design inference”. Boo hoo hoo “buy my book”, and so on.

Just in case readers are unconvinced of how utterly wrong she is, O’Leary hammers the point home, adding:

No one knows his motive, but no one needs to know his motive. What he intended was obvious. And it is a crime

In O’Leary’s example, the perpetrator’s intent could mean the difference between 15 years in prison and 15 to life. Regardless of motive, was the man’s intent to merely see his victim bleed, or did he want to kill him? What if the heated discussion involved the victim bragging about how he was going to set off a bomb in a densely populated area after he finished his steak? It doesn’t matter to Saint Denyse of Leary; a roomful of witnesses saw a guy stab someone in the ribs with a steak knife. End of story, no further investigation needed. We all know that ID is a science-stopper, but it doesn’t look like “design detection” would ever be of any use as a crime-stopper. Is it any wonder that the field of criminology still relies on good old-fashioned science?

I’m sure Ms. O’Leary doesn’t want anyone to consider the subtleties - or lack thereof - of her analogy. After all, if she doesn’t spend more than two seconds thinking about the validity of her arguments, why should we?

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.