Curmudgeon Slays Barney the Dinosaur

Barney

We beg your indulgence, dear reader, as we digress a bit to bring some current news into this humble blog. We promise to swiftly return to our usual subject matter, but we couldn’t resist doing this.

Everyone knows about the American dentist who recently killed Cecil, the African lion who lived in the Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe. The dentist allegedly lured Cecil out of the sanctuary and then shot him with an arrow.

The incident has aroused global outrage. Even the Discovery Institute has posted about it — see From the Perspective of Intelligent Design, Killing Cecil the Lion Was an Act of Egregious Vandalism. David Klinghoffer, the Discoveroids’ journalistic slasher and poo flinger, says:

What the Minnesota dentist did was a most egregious act of vandalism. Acknowledging the evidence of intelligent design means recognizing the purpose and artistry in nature. … No human artist will ever outclass [lions]. Imagine seeking to DNA-engineer an improved lion! Perhaps with enhanced nobility?

Verily, only the intelligent designer — blessed be he! — could create a lion. Of course the Discoveroids are furious at the dentist’s act of blasphemy. Well, if the Discoveroids can digress from their usual material to discuss Cecil, we can do the same.

The fury over Cecil is nothing compared to what will happen when the news breaks about what your Curmudgeon has just done. Everyone knows about Barney the dinosaur, the beloved character who has been entertaining children for more than 20 years. But in our humble opinion, Barney had to go.

Why? It’s because your Curmudgeon is an evolutionist. We know that the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, and therefore couldn’t allow Barney to live. His existence contradicted Darwinism!

So your Curmudgeon stalked the beast. When we spotted him in a television studio, we lured him away with candy and children’s songs. He followed, smiling and dancing. Stupid beast! Then, when we had him to ourselves, we raised our weapon, shouted “Die, Barney, die!” and let loose the fatal arrow.

We did it for Darwin, and we’re glad.

Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

26 responses to “Curmudgeon Slays Barney the Dinosaur

  1. Mary L. Mand

    Psst! That arrow isn’t in his head.

  2. Oh noooooooooooooo!!! Not Barney!

  3. Mary L. Mand says: “Psst! That arrow isn’t in his head.”

    We selected a frame from just before it penetrated. We didn’t want to offend anyone.

  4. michaelfugate

    The Rancho Cucamonga Quakes minor league team have a dinosaur mascot “Tremor” who used to a routine beating up Barney to Michael Jackson’s “Beat it” – this was some 15 years back that I saw it.

  5. I just minutes ago dealt with a Young Earth Creationist who believed he had absolute proof positive that those evil evilutionists (Trademarked?) wantonly destroyed the Paluxy River Track evidence which debunked The Theory of Evolution because a human footprint inside of a dinosaur footprint was too dangerous to the continuation of their religion of evolution!

    Apparently the vandal left intact the poor quality and ambiguous tracks. So the fiend was very “strategic” in his dastardly deed.

  6. Mary L. Mand

    “We didn’t want to offend anyone.” Since when?

  7. Derek Freyberg

    Perhaps you could do one of those old Steve Martin photo type pictures, with the arrow head on one side of Barney and the feathering on the other.

  8. No human artist will ever outclass them. Imagine seeking to DNA-engineer an improved lion!

    The old argument: “design cannot do this, therefore it must be designed”
    (Cf. Joyce Kilmer’s Trees.)

  9. Holding The Line In Florida

    Congrats! Barney needed to go! Something’s are just an offense to good taste and decency!

  10. Great Scot!

    offend away! I lol’d!

  11. Steven Thompson

    Regarding Klinghoffer’s statement, aren’t cows and pigs designed as well? For that matter, aren’t potatoes and apples? The Designer seems to have designed us to be unable to survive without vandalizing His creations. Would Klinghoffer care to do a follow-up article on the implications of this?

    Or did the Designer lavish first-rate work on only a few creatures, with the rest being inferior works that it’s okay to kill and use (and if this is the case, wasn’t it careless of Him to let the exceptionally noble T. rex go extinct before we could do more than marvel at its splendid bones?)?

  12. Reggie Rolltide

    Curmy, You did your part for humanity today! Good shot, old chap.

  13. Charles Deetz ;)

    The battle isn’t over, CS. My wife had out today a stuffed triceratops with a “Happy Easter” tag. Yes, an Easter dinosaur. Oh, the wrong needs to be corrected.

  14. I never expected to hear that S.C. had bumped off the dear Barney (not to be confused with the deer, Barney.) I was anticipating something more along the lines of S.C. framing Barney with some crime so it that would sabotage the dinosaur’s career. (Ya know: so that Barney would have to give up entertaining children and go back to eating them, just like Barney did right after Adam’s fall. That’s when the soon-to-be carnivorous dinosaurs could no longer live off of a steady diet of cracking coconuts with their sharp teeth, exactly as Ken Ham has always claimed.)

    What crime would S.C. have set up for Barney? The very same frame-up S.C. uses with irritating creationists: He plants a tiny hidden camera in the nearest bathroom’s potpourri dish.

    That explains why S.C. always likes to follow the progress of those very strange cases as they go to trial.

  15. Ahhh, that also brings back some old memories. (Sorry.) I had a one year appointment with the Linguistics Dept. at a very large state university on the west coast. The department secretary rings me in my office and says, “l’ve got the Dean of the Law School on the line and he needs help with some Latin but says nobody could help him over at the Classical Studies Dept because they’re all at some consortium lecture. Could you take the call?” I said yes so the Dean comes on the line and explains that he has to deliver final proof of his article for the Law Review by 5pm. He needed to know how to modify the wording of a traditional Latin legal phrase in order to extend it to include an additional circumstance as well as make it plural. I did so—and the rest is history.

    So, those memories came to mind today when I considered how scholars of the law might have to craft a new Latin legal term to describe the S.C.’s devious and really quite original, camera-in-the-restroom frame-ups directed at those innocent Young Earth Creationists in order to make them look bad. After all, their empirical evidence and arguments for a young earth are so airtight and irrefutable! So the only way evilutionists can destroy their arguments is to convince the general public that they are icky little preverts!

    [If you don’t know YEC vernacular, a “prevert” is like a “pervert” but they look sneakier and much creepier! All of them have hesta teedees which they bring back with them from Mexico. No, that’s not a Tex-Mex fast food item that you can get at Taco Bell “for a limited time only.” Well, I suppose you could get hesta teedees at a Taco Bell if you tried, or any other fast food place for that matters, but, anyway, it’s a long story and an unnecessary but interesting tangent.]

    Anyway, you can see how SC’s very original scheme of planting cameras in restrooms in order to frame creationists will mean that a lot of judges’ decisions will need a Latin term to describe the nature of the crime those little preverts did [Wink! Wink!] when they hid away “their” cameras! Surely the framed creationists would be accused of In camera in situ in loo.

    But suppose one of those YECs who got framed by that camera-in-the-loo stunt got wise to it and decided to retaliate in kind against SC. The law professors would have to come up with a Latin phrase to describe that situation also for their legal textbooks. So they would surely call that retaliation a case of In camera in situ in loo tu quoque—to you too!

    Now, if some lady happened to visit both restrooms in that last case and her privacy was violated by both parties, it would be a clear case of the defendants’ In camera in situ in loo I see you resulting in her filing civil suits against both under state statutes recognizing it as In camera in loo so I dusu abota you. (A legal scholar can pronounce Latin very quickly to where it sounds very impressive. So technical.)

    Of course, if the retaliation by the second defendant was carried out by planting a camera in some other location than a restroom, it would be a case of In camera in situ in lieu of the loo tu quoque.

    Yet, if that retaliator did so just before fleeing the country in order to avoid prosecution—and he wrote a polite but somewhat snarky note to his target just to let him know that he did it, and just so he could get in the last word—it would be an especially egregious case of In camera in situ in lieu of the loo ibid yu adieu so scru yu.

    So don’t say that a linguistics background does not have practical value!

  16. Professor Tertius says: “In camera in situ in lieu of the loo ibid yu adieu so scru yu.

    Be advised that Homeland Security has been tracking your purchases of potpourri. All is known. It is therefore an appropriate time for our first oration:

    Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina Terti, patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? Quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?

  17. Discoveroids all of a sudden animal rights activists? It does run counter to the stereotype. But when you dig deeper, it makes perfect sense. Unlike YEC peddlers, who target a small, reliable market, Discoveroids want as many on their side as possible – liberals, atheists, anyone who will parrot any of their sound bites and pass them on. Almost no one wants to hurt animals (except in the bug “kind”), so this bleeding-heartism sells to a big market. So does the bogus “fairness” line that they use in demanding taxpayer handouts to teach what has not earned the right to be taught in science class.

  18. But isn’t everything designed? Not only lions, but also dandelions? Even Satan?

  19. Good shooting, Curmie!

    But how did he taste?

  20. Should I die tomorrow, my legacy would be raising two kids who’ve never said “I want to watch Barney.”

    And I’m okay with that.

  21. longie asks: “But how did he taste?”

    Like chicken, of course. Wasn’t that obvious?

  22. “Like chicken, of course. Wasn’t that obvious?”

    Only to an evolutionist.

  23. The SC (interesting be he) wrote:
    Be advised that Homeland Security has been tracking your purchases of potpourri. All is known.

    Yikes! Sto in excelsum stercora!

    (Yet, for most of us, that’s just a place we whimsically visit now and then—but David Klinghoffer chooses to live there. And to add to its altitude!)

  24. Professor Tertius says: “Sto in excelsum stercora!”

    Yes, you stand in deep doo-doo.

  25. “But how did he taste?”
    Like chicken, of course.

    Dibbies on the drumstick!

    All I can say is, “Thank God my kids grew up before Barney hit the airwaves.” Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers were easy to watch with them; I don’t think I would have been able to take much of Barney. (Except the drumstick.)

  26. Its a beautiful day in the neighborhood SC. Button front sweaters allowed.
    Its a no no however to appear in a purple dino suit and damage little minds.
    Or a big yellow bird suit too. ….How has Big Bird survived so long??