November 03, 2004
The WorldÂ’s Most Muddleheaded Idiot
The September/October number of Foreign Policy, dear reader, features a section entitled “The World’s Most Dangerous Ideas.” The editorial staff of Foreign Policy, it seems, asked eight famous intellectuals to discuss what they considered the most toxic notions currently floating around what R. Buckminster Fuller once labeled Spaceship Earth. This way, we suppose, readers can collect all eight of the world’s most pernicious conceptions, and trade them with their friends.
A few of the articles offered little more than public intellectual boilerplate: Paul Davies informs us about the dangers of denying free will, and Martha Nussbaum offers another in her never-ending series of articles dedicated to proving that Martha Nussbaum is morally superior to you.
Yet one contribution to “The World’s Most Dangerous Ideas” struck us, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” as particularly inane. And that, dear reader, was the brief piece penned by Eric J. Hobsbawn, entitled “Spreading Democracy.”
For those of you blissfully unaware of the oeuvre of Mr. Hobsbawm, let us inform you that he is to this day an unrepentant Communist. ThatÂ’s right, dear reader: This impressive emeritus professor of economic and social history at the University of London feels little in the way of remorse, it seems, for the good old days of Stalinist purges.
It seems to us, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” that anything Mr. Hobsbawn excoriates should be practiced by all sane people. By virtue of his love affair with one of the most murderous ideologies the world has ever known, he should certainly be excluded from the realm of moral seriousness.
After all, would you take music advice from an unrepentant booster of Michael Bolton? Of course not. Then why, dear reader, would you take political advice from a popinjay who looks back with affection at Soviet pogroms? Even Kenny G is superior to the gulag—though just barely.
As a result, dear reader, knowing that Mr. Hobsbawn was firmly opposed to “Spreading Democracy,” we decided that we earnestly support it. Our instincts were only further strengthened after reading Mr. Hobsbawn’s piece—a sloppy piece of anti-neoconservatism composed by a man with a striking hostility to democracy. Indeed, Mr. Hobsbawn appears to be one of the many lefty intellectuals who loves “the people,” but loathes people. For people, it appears, have the pesky predisposition not to be killed. The bastards.
All of this made us, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” pause for reflection. How could the editors of Foreign Policy ask this moral cretin what he considered the “world’s most dangerous idea”? Was David Duke not answering his ‘phone, and thus they were compelled to pick Hobsbawm’s name from their Rolodex?
We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” believe that if one is going to ask Eric Hobsbawn what the “world’s most dangerous idea” is, one might as well go all out and offer a series of articles such as:
“The World’s Most Dangerous Ideas and People” as Presented by Various Nutters, Ideological Stooges, and Kindred Chuckleheads
Featuring:
Pat Buchanan, “Jews”
Houston Baker, “Whitey”
Ann Coulter, “Those Treasonous Bastards Known as Democrats”
Judith Butler, “(Re)contextualization(s) of Queering the Boundries: Why I (H)ate Men”
Cornel West, “The Jews”
bell hooks, “People Who Capitalize Their Names”
The WorldÂ’s Most Muddleheaded Idiot
The September/October number of Foreign Policy, dear reader, features a section entitled “The World’s Most Dangerous Ideas.” The editorial staff of Foreign Policy, it seems, asked eight famous intellectuals to discuss what they considered the most toxic notions currently floating around what R. Buckminster Fuller once labeled Spaceship Earth. This way, we suppose, readers can collect all eight of the world’s most pernicious conceptions, and trade them with their friends.
A few of the articles offered little more than public intellectual boilerplate: Paul Davies informs us about the dangers of denying free will, and Martha Nussbaum offers another in her never-ending series of articles dedicated to proving that Martha Nussbaum is morally superior to you.
Yet one contribution to “The World’s Most Dangerous Ideas” struck us, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” as particularly inane. And that, dear reader, was the brief piece penned by Eric J. Hobsbawn, entitled “Spreading Democracy.”
For those of you blissfully unaware of the oeuvre of Mr. Hobsbawm, let us inform you that he is to this day an unrepentant Communist. ThatÂ’s right, dear reader: This impressive emeritus professor of economic and social history at the University of London feels little in the way of remorse, it seems, for the good old days of Stalinist purges.
It seems to us, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” that anything Mr. Hobsbawn excoriates should be practiced by all sane people. By virtue of his love affair with one of the most murderous ideologies the world has ever known, he should certainly be excluded from the realm of moral seriousness.
After all, would you take music advice from an unrepentant booster of Michael Bolton? Of course not. Then why, dear reader, would you take political advice from a popinjay who looks back with affection at Soviet pogroms? Even Kenny G is superior to the gulag—though just barely.
As a result, dear reader, knowing that Mr. Hobsbawn was firmly opposed to “Spreading Democracy,” we decided that we earnestly support it. Our instincts were only further strengthened after reading Mr. Hobsbawn’s piece—a sloppy piece of anti-neoconservatism composed by a man with a striking hostility to democracy. Indeed, Mr. Hobsbawn appears to be one of the many lefty intellectuals who loves “the people,” but loathes people. For people, it appears, have the pesky predisposition not to be killed. The bastards.
All of this made us, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” pause for reflection. How could the editors of Foreign Policy ask this moral cretin what he considered the “world’s most dangerous idea”? Was David Duke not answering his ‘phone, and thus they were compelled to pick Hobsbawm’s name from their Rolodex?
We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” believe that if one is going to ask Eric Hobsbawn what the “world’s most dangerous idea” is, one might as well go all out and offer a series of articles such as:
“The World’s Most Dangerous Ideas and People” as Presented by Various Nutters, Ideological Stooges, and Kindred Chuckleheads
Featuring:
Pat Buchanan, “Jews”
Houston Baker, “Whitey”
Ann Coulter, “Those Treasonous Bastards Known as Democrats”
Judith Butler, “(Re)contextualization(s) of Queering the Boundries: Why I (H)ate Men”
Cornel West, “The Jews”
bell hooks, “People Who Capitalize Their Names”
Posted by: Chip at
12:01 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 557 words, total size 4 kb.
November 02, 2004
Either Vote, or DonÂ’t Well,
Well, dear reader, today, if you did not realize it, is election day. As we speak, millions of American citizens and illegal aliens will head to the poles and plump for the candidate of their choice.
We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” don’t want to sully ourselves by endorsing a particular candidate for President of these here United States of America. After all, just like Jim Lehrer (or is that Tom Lehrer?), we’re professional journalists, and we wouldn’t want an official endorsement to hinder our humble “weblog’s” veneer of objectivity.
As a result, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” will simply tell you for whom not to vote. And then we’ll let you draw your own conclusions. Over the past few days, we here at “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” have set up an informal straw poll regarding the ineptness of various politicians running for the Presidency. In addition, we collectively decided which candidates we hate.
We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” officially recommend that you, dear reader, not vote for the fellow who shares Jay Leno’s good looks, Sam the Eagle’s genial comportment, and a curious inability to move his forehead.
We also suggest that you not cast a ballot for that one-eyed borderline megalomaniac who is ineluctably nattering on about how great the world would be if it weren’t for the great evils known as “businesses.”
In addition, we do not suggest you vote for any other third-party candidates—whether they be a creepy libertarian, whose life-long wish is to starve little children, or the representative from the Christian Falangist Party. The fellow from the American Burqa Party seems pretty good to us, but we're not sure about him either.
Now that we have cleared this up, dear reader, we can move on to the topic of today’s edition of our humble “weblog”: Voting. It seems as if this year everyone in America is compelling you to vote. Nary a mildly retarded rock-n-roll “musician” or “rap artist” fails to weigh in on the crucial import of heading to the polls.
As far as we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” are concerned, these people are far too pushy. Why is it that so few people are bothered by adultery, thievery, and kindred peccadilloes, but are deeply upset about a fellow citizen’s lack of desire to vote? Which is worse: Cuckolding your spouse or staying home on November 2? Are we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” the only people who would vote for the former?
These days, dear reader, it seems so. Now, diligent readers of our humble “weblog” will note that we have dilated on this subject before. To be more specific, we took issue with the degenerate cable station MTV for its pathetic “Rock the Vote” campaign.
Frankly, we thought that one post on this subject would have been enough. But no: In the last few weeks, everyone from Sean “P. I-Never-Voted-For-Diddily” Combs to Lambchop has somberly informed you of the import of voting. And we thought that the mastermind behind Lambchop was dead.
So, dear reader, at the risk of repeating ourselves, we shall repeat what to us is mind-numbingly obvious: Vote if you want to do so; if not, donÂ’t.
It’s not that we here at “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” are a passel of dirty hippies who believe that anyone can do whatever he wants. Dude. But we just can’t stand morons exhorting pinheads to vote.
Many might say that we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” are attempting to disenfranchise the poor, who are less likely to head to the voting booths than others. Or, perhaps, they are blathering on about our desire to disenfranchise the young, who are too lazy to head to the poles.
To which we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” respond: Not so, not so. We just hope that we restrain most idiots from voting.
Either Vote, or DonÂ’t
Well, dear reader, today, if you did not realize it, is election day. As we speak, millions of American citizens and illegal aliens will head to the poles and plump for the candidate of their choice.
We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” don’t want to sully ourselves by endorsing a particular candidate for President of these here United States of America. After all, just like Jim Lehrer (or is that Tom Lehrer?), we’re professional journalists, and we wouldn’t want an official endorsement to hinder our humble “weblog’s” veneer of objectivity.
As a result, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” will simply tell you for whom not to vote. And then we’ll let you draw your own conclusions. Over the past few days, we here at “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” have set up an informal straw poll regarding the ineptness of various politicians running for the Presidency. In addition, we collectively decided which candidates we hate.
We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” officially recommend that you, dear reader, not vote for the fellow who shares Jay Leno’s good looks, Sam the Eagle’s genial comportment, and a curious inability to move his forehead.
We also suggest that you not cast a ballot for that one-eyed borderline megalomaniac who is ineluctably nattering on about how great the world would be if it weren’t for the great evils known as “businesses.”
In addition, we do not suggest you vote for any other third-party candidates—whether they be a creepy libertarian, whose life-long wish is to starve little children, or the representative from the Christian Falangist Party. The fellow from the American Burqa Party seems pretty good to us, but we're not sure about him either.
Now that we have cleared this up, dear reader, we can move on to the topic of today’s edition of our humble “weblog”: Voting. It seems as if this year everyone in America is compelling you to vote. Nary a mildly retarded rock-n-roll “musician” or “rap artist” fails to weigh in on the crucial import of heading to the polls.
As far as we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” are concerned, these people are far too pushy. Why is it that so few people are bothered by adultery, thievery, and kindred peccadilloes, but are deeply upset about a fellow citizen’s lack of desire to vote? Which is worse: Cuckolding your spouse or staying home on November 2? Are we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” the only people who would vote for the former?
These days, dear reader, it seems so. Now, diligent readers of our humble “weblog” will note that we have dilated on this subject before. To be more specific, we took issue with the degenerate cable station MTV for its pathetic “Rock the Vote” campaign.
Frankly, we thought that one post on this subject would have been enough. But no: In the last few weeks, everyone from Sean “P. I-Never-Voted-For-Diddily” Combs to Lambchop has somberly informed you of the import of voting. And we thought that the mastermind behind Lambchop was dead.
So, dear reader, at the risk of repeating ourselves, we shall repeat what to us is mind-numbingly obvious: Vote if you want to do so; if not, donÂ’t.
It’s not that we here at “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” are a passel of dirty hippies who believe that anyone can do whatever he wants. Dude. But we just can’t stand morons exhorting pinheads to vote.
Many might say that we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” are attempting to disenfranchise the poor, who are less likely to head to the voting booths than others. Or, perhaps, they are blathering on about our desire to disenfranchise the young, who are too lazy to head to the poles.
To which we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” respond: Not so, not so. We just hope that we restrain most idiots from voting.
Posted by: Chip at
12:01 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 674 words, total size 5 kb.
November 01, 2004
College Op-Eds Redux Some time
Some time ago, dear reader, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” discussed the ridiculousness known as the college student op-ed. Anyone who has perused a given campus’ student newspaper knows that it is ridden with feculent, blustery “essays” penned by moronic 19-year-olds who are under the delusion that they have important insight into, say, international relations.
Naturally, these op-eds are ineluctably atrocious—the kind of writing you wouldn’t put underneath your parakeet.
We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” inexplicably gave more thought to the subject of college op-eds, and decided that we had more to say about them. As this is a free country (the ACLU has yet to scare us into believing that this isn’t true), we figured we would use today’s post to excoriate a particular brand of collegiate op-ed.
Before we discuss this topic, however, we had to mention yet another irritating feature of many a college-student op-ed: We refer, of course, recourse to WebsterÂ’s Dictionary as a means to solve a problem.
Nothing quite says “I’m an inept ignoramus” quite like genuflecting to the authority of Webster’s Dictionary. And yet this does not stop the intrepidly moronic college op-eder. As a result, students opining on the horrors of state-sponsored terrorism offer their readers the Webster’s definition of “terrorism.”
Normally, the op-eder in question does this with a snooty air of authority, as if quoting a source that is one step up from the Encyclopedia Brittanica were somehow deeply serious. This, after all, is the dictionary that offers such mindless translations as “Premeditation: an act or instance of premeditating.” Gee, that ought to suffice.
But let us return to the real focus of today’s excoriation: The “I’m in the Middle” column.
What, you may be asking yourself, is the “I’m in the Middle” column? Well, dear reader, we’re glad you asked. Simply put, the “I’m in the Middle” column is an all-too-common subspecies of the collegiate op-ed, according to which the writer identifies two sides of an argument, and then triumphantly places himself in the middle, thereby dubiously casting both sides as extremist. By this means, the op-eder in question can falsely trumpet himself as a beacon of reason—the only man who (at the ripe old age of 20) can see how foolish it is to have an opinion on an issue.
Let us offer you an example of such a column. Take the instance of composing an ill-considered “essay” on terrorism. The “I’m in the Middle” columnist notes that there are those who support terrorism, and those who oppose it.
But here, the chuckleheaded op-eder offers his own opinion: Both sides are wrong; it is bad to support terrorism, but condemning terrorism can stifle free speech, blah, blah, blah.
Thus, avers the swashbuckling columnist, I neither support terrorism, nor am opposed to it. Only ideological stooges take sides on such important matters. But not me. IÂ’m right in the middle. And IÂ’m a jackass.
As far as we can tell, there are collegiate op-eders who base their entire pseudo-journalistic career on this kind of moronic reasoning. It’s their one irritable mental gestation that resembles an argument—and it’s not even original.
We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” suppose some support the murder of progenitors of the “I’m in the Middle” column. And there are those who think that such a position is ghastly.
We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” don’t want to put ourselves in either camp: As far as we’re concerned, it’s foolish to kill such noxious op-eders, but equally foolish not to.
College Op-Eds Redux
Some time ago, dear reader, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” discussed the ridiculousness known as the college student op-ed. Anyone who has perused a given campus’ student newspaper knows that it is ridden with feculent, blustery “essays” penned by moronic 19-year-olds who are under the delusion that they have important insight into, say, international relations.
Naturally, these op-eds are ineluctably atrocious—the kind of writing you wouldn’t put underneath your parakeet.
We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” inexplicably gave more thought to the subject of college op-eds, and decided that we had more to say about them. As this is a free country (the ACLU has yet to scare us into believing that this isn’t true), we figured we would use today’s post to excoriate a particular brand of collegiate op-ed.
Before we discuss this topic, however, we had to mention yet another irritating feature of many a college-student op-ed: We refer, of course, recourse to WebsterÂ’s Dictionary as a means to solve a problem.
Nothing quite says “I’m an inept ignoramus” quite like genuflecting to the authority of Webster’s Dictionary. And yet this does not stop the intrepidly moronic college op-eder. As a result, students opining on the horrors of state-sponsored terrorism offer their readers the Webster’s definition of “terrorism.”
Normally, the op-eder in question does this with a snooty air of authority, as if quoting a source that is one step up from the Encyclopedia Brittanica were somehow deeply serious. This, after all, is the dictionary that offers such mindless translations as “Premeditation: an act or instance of premeditating.” Gee, that ought to suffice.
But let us return to the real focus of today’s excoriation: The “I’m in the Middle” column.
What, you may be asking yourself, is the “I’m in the Middle” column? Well, dear reader, we’re glad you asked. Simply put, the “I’m in the Middle” column is an all-too-common subspecies of the collegiate op-ed, according to which the writer identifies two sides of an argument, and then triumphantly places himself in the middle, thereby dubiously casting both sides as extremist. By this means, the op-eder in question can falsely trumpet himself as a beacon of reason—the only man who (at the ripe old age of 20) can see how foolish it is to have an opinion on an issue.
Let us offer you an example of such a column. Take the instance of composing an ill-considered “essay” on terrorism. The “I’m in the Middle” columnist notes that there are those who support terrorism, and those who oppose it.
But here, the chuckleheaded op-eder offers his own opinion: Both sides are wrong; it is bad to support terrorism, but condemning terrorism can stifle free speech, blah, blah, blah.
Thus, avers the swashbuckling columnist, I neither support terrorism, nor am opposed to it. Only ideological stooges take sides on such important matters. But not me. IÂ’m right in the middle. And IÂ’m a jackass.
As far as we can tell, there are collegiate op-eders who base their entire pseudo-journalistic career on this kind of moronic reasoning. It’s their one irritable mental gestation that resembles an argument—and it’s not even original.
We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” suppose some support the murder of progenitors of the “I’m in the Middle” column. And there are those who think that such a position is ghastly.
We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” don’t want to put ourselves in either camp: As far as we’re concerned, it’s foolish to kill such noxious op-eders, but equally foolish not to.
Posted by: Chip at
12:01 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 611 words, total size 4 kb.
24kb generated in CPU 0.0184, elapsed 0.0669 seconds.
33 queries taking 0.0551 seconds, 103 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
33 queries taking 0.0551 seconds, 103 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
