It’s so easy to make him mad!

Ken “The Squealing Piglet” Ham is irate again. The Louisville Courier-Journal ran an article today (a print-only exclusive, so I haven’t been able to read it) in which they had independent experts review Ham’s claims about prospective attendance at his silly theme park. The headline is “Ark park attendance claims exaggerated, theme-park experts say”, so I can guess at the gist of the analysis.

Ham is complaining about how the newspapers dare to question his estimates.

Mark Looy, our CCO, has sent me a report on how the two state newspapers have been misrepresenting the project and are determined, apparently, to move it out of the state and take millions of dollars in revenue and thousands of jobs with it. How is that for responsible journalism when they not only horribly misrepresent the Ark Encounter, but do so in a time with a shaky economy and so many people unemployed?

And then he accuses the newspapers of being on a vendetta.

Today a terrible anti-Ark Encounter article (actually, a “non-story”) has appeared in the Louisville Courier-Journal newspaper, Kentucky’s largest-circulation paper. They just don’t let up in their anti-Christian agenda driven vendetta against this phenomenal project. We are preparing a response that will be our lead article on the website. As we are composing the rebuttal now, we’ll take my blog item from Saturday and update and adapt it as our response to a newspaper that seems to want to have the Ark be built in another state — and apparently doesn’t care about the thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars that would end up elsewhere. Not very pro-Kentucky, is it, for a Kentucky paper?

He keeps insisting that the people who oppose his theme park are doing it because they’re anti-Kentucky. They aren’t. The writers at the Courier-Journal are pro-Kentucky. I’m pro-Kentucky. I’ll even agree that Ken “The Squealing Piglet” Ham is probably pro-Kentucky. Where we differ is that we think ideas about economic improvement for the state ought to be based on sound, objective financial estimates rather than surveys of dubious value authored by a close friend of the benificiary and relying entirely on conflating pro-religion values with the likelihood of attending his folly, and that maybe a putative educational and entertainment attraction build around the disproven premise that the earth was destroyed by a god 4,000 years ago isn’t the best use of state money, even if it were profitable.

If anyone has read that newspaper today, a brief summary in the comments would be appreciated!