“Rock” the Vote? No Thanks.

“Rock” the Vote? No Thanks.

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have never been devotees of MTV, the cable television station with the uproariously ill-suited name “Music Television.” Whether it plays “music videos” or Generation-Y “reality shows,” we find it a noxious eyesore (and earsore).

Every four years, however, MTV proves particularly irksome. And why, you ask, is this? Well, in addition to the network’s usual glorification of teen-age fornication, MTV offers its platitudinous “Rock the Vote” campaign.

This exercise in foolishness attempts to browbeat youngsters into voting in the upcoming presidential election. Although MTV is not so gauche as to mention this explicitly, the network would clearly prefer its viewers to vote Democrat.

Though MTV labels this ridiculous campaign “Rock the Vote,” perhaps “Stone the Vote” would be more appropriate, if you catch our oblique reference to recreational druggery.

In order to make sure the drooling, bong-clutching neÂ’er-do-wells who watch MTV actually head to the polls, the station presents numerous commercials starring manifold rock music stars who pretend to care if the viewing audience votes.

Those tuned in to MTV, we presume, believe that the rock stars in question are paragons of civic responsibility: Directly after they destroy their hotel room at the Hilton by burning a goat alive, they dutifully head to the polls, like any good American.

Some of our dear readers may be saying to themselves: What’s wrong if MTV tries to get a few more people involved in the political process? To which we respond: Anyone who needs to be prodded into voting by Sean “P. Diddily” Combs ought not vote in the first place.

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” do not believe that we are going too far out on a limb by suggesting that many MTV viewers are chuckleheads. In fact, many of the entertainers who appear on the network are probably even dimmer.

It is, we think, highly unlikely that a youngster who headed to the polls thanks to the efforts of Kid Rock has a firm grasp on political affairs. We can imagine such a fellow saying to himself: “I am deeply concerned about America’s increasing reliance on President Musharraf in the War on Terrorism—especially since Musharraf has autocratic tendencies, and is unlikely to hand over his control of the Pakistani army to someone else. And Kid Rock says voting is cool. So I ought to do it.”

Sounds rather far-fetched, doesn’t it? We think so. As a result, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” will go on record today as being staunchly opposed to “Rocking the Vote.” We are also against “Swinging the Vote.” And, just in case our friends on the Left want to pull another Florida fiasco, we’re against “Tampering with the Vote,” too.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 3 kb.

Any Comments? Of all the

Any Comments?

Of all the e-mails that we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” receive each day, surely the largest number of them pertain to one subject: Our humble “weblog’s” lack of a “comments” section. According to many “webloggers,” eschewing “comments” on one’s “website” is well nigh un-American. Or, according to our friends on the Left, un-Iranian.

Recently, as impressive an e-eminence as Gordon, the proprietor of the mordantly witty “website” Cranky Neocon, has suggested that we open our “weblog” to reader comments. Obviously, with such impressive members of the e-community weighing in on the issue, we have had to ponder a “comments” section seriously.

Ever since we founded the Internet version (a.k.a. “Al Gore version”) of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” we have had a distinct aversion to reader comments. And this is not because the general reading public is a gaggle of slack-jawed yokels. (Or at least that isn’t entirely the case.) Nor are we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” like professors in Black Studies departments, intent on merely “preaching to the converted.”

Rather, the Official “Weblog” Perusal Team of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” has examined manifold “weblogs,” and has discovered that many of them have become sullied by the odious rants of idiotic readers. The “weblogger” in question serves up an exquisite, thoughtful piece on, say, the novels of Peter Handke, and he receives the following “comment”:

Hay, fascist. you donnot know nothing bout handke. stop killing those babies. I hope you blead in hel.

Naturally, the commenter gives himself an elusive nom de guerre, such as “Peacemonger,” “Trotsky69,” or “Howard Dean.” This way, he can feel free to present the most ridiculously ungrammatical, nonsensical rant without any fear of reprisal.

Just imagine if Marcel Proust presented the first volume of Remembrance of Things Past on his “weblog.” (Yes, it would be an awfully long post.) He probably would have received diligent exegeses such as:

this writing suks. You are tottaly an idiot. And a fascist. Why are the sentences soo long, you dufus? You should get the heck out of your room some time and learn to write. You queer.

Or what if the Marquis de Sade wrote for the World-Wide Web? HeÂ’d be the recipient of such comments as:

You suck. You should eat poop, Frenchie. Wait: YouÂ’d probably like that.

Or how about if James Joyce offered Ulysses on his “weblog”? (Naturally, Joyce’s URL would have been riverrun.blogspot.com.) He would have been the beneficiary of comments such as:

You are such a Jew-lover. You drunken potato-farmer.

Or how about if Virgil gave the world his masterful Aeneid on his “website”? (Naturally, Virgil would get in some sort of legal tussle with The New Criterion for the armavirumque tag.) He might have gotten such feedback as:

This whole thing sucks. No one writes in dactylic hexameter anymore. Homer pretty much wrote this whole story before—except he did it better. You fascist.

So, dear reader, we think you can get an idea as to why we are hesitant to allow “comments” on our humble “weblog.”

ItÂ’s not that we donÂ’t love you dearly. And itÂ’s not that we donÂ’t use double negatives. Both of those things arenÂ’t not untrue. On the contrary: We have the feeling that such a section might degenerate into a bunch of ungrammatical screeds. And, frankly, if anyone is going to write ungrammatical screeds, itÂ’s going to be we.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 579 words, total size 4 kb.