God bless our computer’s spell-checker. For some marvelous yet inexplicable reason, it fails to recognize both “Gwyneth” and “Paltrow.” Of course, it also knows nothing of “postcolonialism” and “neoconservatism,” so perhaps our spell-checker was originally designed for use with an abacus. It seems more behind the times than a Chia Pet.

Regardless of the reason, our spell-checker delightfully professes ignorance about one of the most irksomely self-obsessed of American entertainers. We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” wish we could say the same for us.

Oh, how charming life would be if Gwyneth Paltrow—the full-time anorexic who moonlights as an actress—failed to register on our collective radar screen! How beautiful that would be!

By now, dear reader, you have undoubtedly heard that Ms. Paltrow is currently making amends for putting her extremely slim foot in her extremely slim mouth. In an interview quoted on the Drudge Report (so you know it has to be true), Ms. Paltrow claimed that the “British are much more civilized and intelligent than the Americans.”

To which we respond: Uh, Gwyneth, that’s “civilised.” If you’re going to come down with a case of Anglophilia, you might as well get the British spelling right. You bloody fool.

Apparently, some of America’s rabid right-wing “webloggers” are in a huff over Ms. Paltrow’s slight (if you will). We’re sorry if we’re not as jingoistic as our angry fellow citizens, but forgive us if we fail to get enraged at this nincompoop’s insult.

We mean, come on: She dated Ben Affleck, for crying out loud. She was in Shallow Hal, pound for pound (if you will) the most insipid movie of all time. And she married some Neanderthal pop star who has made a decent living off of a passable Bono impression.

Not, we dare say, real intellectual material. We have the sneaking suspicion that Ms. Paltrow doesnÂ’t read back issues of Partisan Review before bedtime. After all, those George Orwell articles donÂ’t have any pictures.

And letÂ’s not even mention the fact that starving yourself to death in order to look sexy as a rail isnÂ’t exactly fiendishly clever. For someone who can claim to have helped girls worldwide generate eating disorders, sheÂ’s really not in a position to judge other peopleÂ’s smarts.

So, dear reader, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” are fully prepared to allow Ms. Paltrow to excoriate these here United States of America. Sure, the US may have horrid dental care in comparison with the UK. It may also boast distinctly inferior pudding. And thank the Lord that Ms. Paltrow has the right to express her opinion.

But, this being a free country, we possess that right as well. So here goes: Gwyneth Paltrow is a stuck-up, no-talent moron who only became a film star because of her parentsÂ’ connections. Gee, Gwyneth: How do you like a little freedom of speech, American style?

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 498 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, dear reader, December 5 is the day we have all been waiting for. And by “we” we mean “pathetically self-obsessed ‘webloggers’ who pretend to be more down-to-earth than mainstream journalists but are actually as sickeningly narcissistic as they.” Yeah: You know who you are.

You guessed it: On December 5—a very short day away—the official finalists for the “2006 Weblog Awards” shall be announced. Since a number of kindly readers of this humble “weblog” have nominated “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” for a category or two, you can well imagine that we’re extremely nervous, full of anticipation. We’ve got more butterflies than a guy with lots of butterflies.

After all, this year’s “Weblog Awards” could mark our triumphant comeback from last year’s fiasco. As longtime enthusiasts of this “weblog” well know, the “2005 Weblog Awards” didn’t treat us terribly well. Although we landed a nice spot as an official finalist for the “Best Humor Blog” category, we were pretty much outgunned from the start.

As you can well imagine, this was well-nigh mortifying for the crack young staff. Whilst something called Jesus’ General basked in all manner of votes, our humble “weblog” fared worse than a Hitler for President campaign. Thank God we didn’t spend too much of our retirement money on television advertising.

Now, in our own defense, we must add a few important details: The clever lads and lasses behind the “2005 Weblog Awards” failed to spell our “weblog’s” name correctly on its roster of “Humor Weblog” finalists. That certainly didn’t make things any easier. We mean, come on: Do you think we would have had the same results in 1992 if “Bill Clunton” were on the ballot? We collectively think not.

Secondly, we would be remiss if we failed to mention that nobody seems to read this humble “weblog.” By this, we’re not inferring that nobody famous takes in our musings—Lindsey Lohan, say, or the lead singer of Loverboy. No: We mean that absolutely no one appears to like us. Not even our mothers.

It’s sad, dear reader, but it’s apparently true. Unless, of course, we find ourselves nominated for a prestigious “2006 Weblog Awards” category—like “Most Scintillating Use of Fecal Matter and a Cat Stevens Album”—and we spank the competition like a red-headed step child. That, as our old pal Steve Windwood would say, would put us back in the highlife again.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.

Lots of people write their own “weblogs,” the Internet equivalent of a semi-public diary. We’ve long said that “weblogging” is one of Al Gore’s greatest gifts to humankind. All a prospective “weblogger” must do, it seems, is happen upon a marginally clever title for one’s musings, learn a handful of “html” commands, and start typing away.

Pretty soon, you’re darn near guaranteed to have around three readers, all of whom accidentally stumbled upon your “website” whilst searching for “on-line” pornography. (That’ll teach you to name a “post” “Three Cows and a Midget.”) It’s an exhilarating feeling: Penning feckless barbs for five people, three of whom hate your guts. Naturally, we heartily recommend it.

Now, since we heartily recommend the life of a “weblogger” (apt phrase, that), we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” figured that we’d offer a bit of advice for the World-Wide-Web novice dying to get started. Yeah: We’re that magnanimous. You don’t need to thank us: We do it for the intrinsic satisfaction.

So, what kind of help can we offer? That’s a darn good question. First, we suppose we should mention that you shouldn’t name your “weblog” “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly.” Obviously, we’re not dissuading you from this for entirely altruistic reasons: If you Sununu the title of our “weblog,” we’ll be mighty peeved.

Also, though, if you entitle your “weblog” “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” you’re likely to receive all manner of e-mails limp-wristedly chiding you for your choice. Take our collective word for it.

This takes us to a more important bit of e-advice. If you aim to write a “weblog” that lasts longer than the lifespan of a fruit fly, then don’t ask us for a “link.” As far as we can intuit, winding up on our “weblogroll” is tantamount to a one-way ticket to Failure Town (population: 5,576,478,894,103).

If Edward Hopper could see our “weblogroll,” he’d surely call it an e-boulevard of broken dreams. We’re not particularly proud of this, of course, but that doesn’t stop it from being painfully true.

It’s as if earning a spot on our “weblogroll” immediately alerts some odd Russian Internet mafia, which manages to bump off everyone listed on “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly.” Time after time, we “link” to a “website” only to find out that its author mysteriously vanished the moment we noticed him.

To add insult to injury, the only “weblog” for which we’re the “weblog father” lasted all of two days. Sure, it was a pretty good run. But a sixteen-year-old boy has more stamina, for crying out loud.

Sure, sure: There are a few gems on our “weblogroll,” whose authors have managed to stave off the Russian Internet underground. But they are few and far between. So, unless you desperately desire to “weblog” but have only one “post” in you, we suggest you stay clear of us.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 483 words, total size 3 kb.