We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have oft remarked on the moronic letters to the editor that appear in the storied New York Times. In fact, we have discussed this with such regularity that regular readers of this humble “weblog” may have inferred that some nefarious additive in New York water has rendered its inhabitants mentally incapacitated. If there’s a stupid point to be made, you can bet a member of the public will express it in the Gray Lady.

Although we firmly believe this to be true, we would be remiss if we did not also mention that sundry other newspapers print insipid letters to the editor. In fact, rebarbative epistles in sundry papers appear with such frequency that we are beginning to suppose that most Americans are stupid. Naturally, such a sentiment does not live up to the great traditions of populism associated with the crack young staff, but it has the unfortunate benefit of being true.

Take, for example, a recent letter from The Boston Globe, the slightly-more-northern manÂ’s New York Times. Said missive was a response to a column by Jeff Jacoby, which detailed the disgraceful calumnies directed at Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele. Penned by Don Coolidge, who resides in the tony precincts of Palo Alto, California, in part it reads as follows:

The first item—and it’s the main point of Jeff Jacoby’s “Slurs fly from the left” (op ed, Dec. 2 asserts that “liberals” are issuing racial slurs against Michael Steele because he’s black. A simple reading of the facts puts the lie to this assertion: Steele is not being damned because of the color of his skin; he’s being vilified because he routinely supports and advocates policies that attack the African-American community politically, economically, and socially. In short, Steele’s policies reek of hypocrisy as he acts much like an oldtime minstrel, selling out his heritage in order to advance himself in the eyes of people who look down on persons of color. It would be an abdication of moral responsibility for Steele’s opponents to fail to point this out to the electorate. The truth, however unpleasant, is never a slur.

Rather impressive, is it not? Thus does a Palo Alto resident cast malignant taunts of “Uncle Tom” at a black conservative as a demonstration of deep regard for the truth. Sure, Michael Steele deserves to be pilloried with offensive racial epithets because he’s conservative. No liberal racism here. Not to mention Democratic Party operatives illegally obtaining a copy of his credit report. All’s fair for this “Uncle Tom.”

What’s particularly humorous about Mr. Coolidge’s obtuse epistle is the fact that it argues all black conservatives deserve to be called “old-time minstrels” because of their political views. To the dunderheaded Mr. Coolidge, only those who favor preferential treatment for blacks are authentically black. All others are “Uncle Toms.” How charming.

But we particularly savored this bit: “A simple reading of the facts puts the lie to this assertion: Steele is not being damned because of the color of his skin; he’s being vilified because he routinely supports and advocates policies that attack the African-American community politically, economically, and socially.”

Now, letÂ’s see if we can get this straight. ItÂ’s merely due to Michael SteeleÂ’s views that he is being labeled a modern-day minstrel act? It has nothing to do with his black skin?

Well, then, we suppose that numerous “truth-telling” liberals of Mr. Coolidge’s ilk are busy labeling white conservatives “old-time minstrels.” Where can one find all the charges of “Uncle Tom” hurled at Bill Frist? Does “a simple reading of the facts” put the lie to Mr. Coolidge’s assumptions? We think so.

In short, dear reader, Don Coolidge is a genuine half-wit. His pathetic letter perfectly proves Jeff JacobyÂ’s original point. And to think: J. S. Mill called the Conservative Party the stupid one.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 658 words, total size 5 kb.

Well, dear reader, it’s officially 2006 AD (or CE, if you prefer). Although we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” will still sign our checks 2005 for about three months, the New Year has arrived.

And, if you are anything like us, dear reader, you are wondering one thing: Will 2006 treat Tom Cruise better than did 2005? You may not admit it, but youÂ’re stuck pondering that brain-teaser. ThatÂ’s one of the things that makes you, like Clement Greenberg, a highbrow.

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” hate to say it, but we have the sneaking suspicion that 2006 will not be any kinder to our beloved diminutive homosexual film star than 2005. In fact, Mr. Cruise, upon hearing the following news, may very well jump on a couch out of anger.

A dutiful reader of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” who may or may not have preferred to remain nameless sent us word of an Associated Press report regarding the Most Irritating Star of All Time. As the AP informs us, the British magazine Empire conducted a survey of ten thousand film fans, and they overwhelmingly ranked Mr. Cruise the most annoying.

Yep, thatÂ’s right: Moviegoers found Mr. Cruise the most irksome actor ever. Which, if we recall correctly, is a long, long time. That, we feel, is an insult.

Ponder, if you will, the myriad film stars who have bothered you in the past: Queen Latifah, Hugh Grant, Peter Lorre, Eric Roberts, Al Jolson, et al. ItÂ’s a pretty irritating parade of people, isnÂ’t it? And, if the undoubtedly deeply intellectual readers of Empire magazine are to be trusted, Mr. Cruise outflanks all of them in irksomeness. We bet L. Ron Hubbard didnÂ’t see this coming.

We must note, however, that moviegoers—even moviegoers as cosmopolitan as Empire magazine’s readership base—tend to be a little “presentist” in their choices, if we may employ a recent academic coinage. That is to say, asked to name the best singer of all time, contemporary audiences are likely to choose Diddy. This, quite naturally, demonstrates an appalling lack of historical knowledge: Don’t these buffoons know that he was previously Puff Daddy and P-Diddy?

So, our words of consolation to Mr. Cruise are the following: You may not, in fact, be the most irritating film star of all time. That may be Martin Lawrence. Rather, you are merely the most irritating film star of recent memory, which, quite frankly, isnÂ’t very long.

There, there, Mr. Cruise, donÂ’t you feel better? Or perhaps the news will drive you to take some prescription medication?

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.