“Hamas’s triumph in last week’s Palestinian elections is the best news from the Middle East for a long time.” Thus begins a jaw-droppingly stupid column. But where did it appear? Egypt’s state-run Al-Ahram? The repellently-named anti-Israeli “website” “The Electronic Intifada”?

Nope. It was a featured piece in the British LeftÂ’s daily beacon of anti-Westernism, The Guardian. The Guardian, for those of you not keeping score, is neck-and-neck in its race with BritainÂ’s Independent to see which outfit can capitulate to radical Islam first. Penned by a fellow named Jonathan Steele, the op-ed demonstrates a failure to make the most routine political and moral discriminations.

After all, who in his right mind considers the Palestinians cheerfully electing a terrorist group as their rightful leaders wondrous? Haven’t there been a few pieces of “better news” from the Middle East?

We mean, come on: The murderous tyrant Saddam Hussein was deposed. Syria has left Lebanon after years of illegal occupation (an occupation that, interestingly enough, our anti-Israeli friends have failed to acknowledge). Egypt has taken a few baby steps toward democratic governance, as has Saudi Arabia. Israel has departed from the Gaza Strip. Does a vile terrorist groupÂ’s victory really trump all of these things?

Not, we think, to a serious political commentator. Unless, of course, that political commentator is merely “serious” about Israel’s destruction. But at The Guardian, this kind of nonsense is par for the course.

The very title of Mr. Steele’s piece (as it appeared in the ex-pat version of The Guardian) says it all: “Trust the Palestinians’ Choice.” Ah, yes: They’ve never made any errors in judgment in the past.

And it makes us wonder: If HamasÂ’ victory is really Jonathan SteeleÂ’s Middle-Eastern wet dream, to what else in the political realm does he look forward? What would make Mr. Steele a happy radical dolt?

Well, we wonder no longer. The Official Wondering Department here at “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” has spent well over an hour cogitating these very questions. And it has helpfully compiled a list of past, present, and future events for which Mr. Steele has or will cheerlead. It has even put this list in the form of sentences from Mr. Steele’s feculent oeuvre.

Trust Jonathan SteeleÂ’s Acumen: Past and Future Sentences from This ChuckleheadÂ’s Columns:

1. “The tsunami is the best thing to happen to the East for a long time.”

2. “We should all cheer the Muslim takeover of New Jersey.”

3. “What would Zimbabwe do without Robert Mugabe, that humanitarian genius?”

4. “Kristallnacht may seem bad on the face of it, but it will ultimately lead to racial comity.”

5. “I expect a lot more great things from Idi Amin.”

6. “The gorgeous photograph of Michael Dukakis in a tank will help catapult him into the White House.”

7. “I, Jonathan Steele, am not an idiot.”

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 482 words, total size 3 kb.

Like darn near all God-fearing Americans, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” don’t spend much time thinking about Maine, the state that appears to excel in lobster and Klan rallies. (Or maybe it’s just lobster—the Klan doesn’t take too kindly to red crustaceans.)

Although Maine is likely every bit as ethnically diverse as New Hampshire and as clement as Wisconsin, we just donÂ’t find ourselves pondering it very often. Until, that is to say, now.

An article in the chattering class’ Paper of Record has left us deeply worried about this self-proclaimed “Vacationland.” It appears as if the state may degenerate into an uninhabitable tundra.

No, this doesnÂ’t have anything to do with global warming, or global cooling, or even global staying-the-same-temperature. Rather, it is much more severe. Take a gander at some snippets from the piece in question:

Live Lingerie Show Stopped After a Model Is Threatened

Live lingerie models are no longer luring customers to downtown Augusta, Me.

The models, clad in thong underwear, feather boas or figure-hugging dresses, had appeared in the window of a lingerie store there, Spellbound, since September.

The display prompted debate between those in the city who thought it creatively drew attention to the store and others who saw it as risqué and indecent. A Christian group protested outside the store on Feb. 11, when it held a Valentine’s Day open house.

The owner of the shop, Felicia Stockford, said she stopped the display about a week ago after one of the models received a threatening phone call and the tires on her car were slashedÂ….

Ms. Stockford said she planned to sell the store in Augusta, a city of 24,000 in central Maine, and hoped to open another in Portland, Me., or Salem, Mass., places she said were “more liberal.”

We know what you are thinking, dear reader: What will become of the thriving metropolis known as downtown Augusta? The beloved state capital will be a veritable desert if Ms. Stockford packs up and heads elsewhere. What will the hip resident(s) of Augusta do without such climate-appropriate gear as thongs? Perhaps theyÂ’ll have to travel all the way to Abercrombie & Fitch to get them! Heaven forbid!

Still, we must say that Ms. Stockford has potentially made an excellent choice for her backup city. If we recall our American history correctly, Salem, Mass. is a real liberal hotbed. We wonder how pleased Goodie Stockford is when she finds out the local penalty for indecent exposure isn’t as niggling as tire-slashing—it’s an old fashioned hanging.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 431 words, total size 3 kb.

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have oft remarked on the unfathomably low quality of letters featured in The New York Times. If you ask us, the missives in the Paper of Record are so awful that they make Maureen Dowd’s columns seem like unadulterated genius. And that, friends, is saying something.

Under these circumstances, we suppose that it isnÂ’t terribly surprising that the February 22 number of the Times features the typical smattering of dunderheaded letters. Yet one of these struck us as so feeble, so obtuse that it warrants quoting in full.

The epistle reads as follows:

To the Editor:

That Israel has suspended tax money due the Palestinians leaves me incredulous. I was under the false impression that both the United States and Israel wanted democracy in the Middle East.

When a people make a choice at the ballot box, who has the right to challenge that vote if it is democratic? No one!

It reminds me of Henry Ford’s proclamation on giving customers a color choice for the Model T. Ford famously said, “You can buy it in any color, as long as it’s black.”

The Palestinians can choose any government they want, so long as Israel and America approve! So much for democracy! So much for hypocrisy!

Frank A. Walter
Chicago, Feb. 20, 2006

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” don’t mean to be impolite, but Frank A. Walter is a moron. His short letter makes so many mistakes, we hardly know where to begin.

First, we suppose we should note that the United States and Israel have vehemently denied any rumors—such as those printed in the Times itself—that they are interested in toppling the new Palestinian government. So the idiotic Mr. Walter is dead wrong in suggesting that they are subverting democratic elections.

Rather, Mr. Walter appears to suggest that a given polity need not suffer any ramifications of its own actions, provided those actions were the result of a vote. Thus any Palestinian decision—provided it came about as the result of Palestinians heading to the polls—should never be criticized. In fact, other states have no right to take action against these decisions at all.

This, of course, is simply ludicrous. The Palestinians have a right to vote for a terrorist organization as their government. But other states have a right to react to that decision. There is no reason to think that the world should act otherwise.

After all, what if, say, the citizens of Poland voted to kill all of its Jewish inhabitants? Should no one bother to complain, since the decision was based on voting? This is madness.

(And let’s simply skip over the bit about no one having the right to challenge decisions if “a people make a choice at the ballot box.” Perhaps Mr. Walter has never heard of something called the judiciary. Undemocratic as it might seem to Mr. Walter’s small brain, judges actually overrule decisions determined as the result of popular votes.)

We suppose, then, that Mr. Walter, following his own dictates, has never criticized George W. Bush, because he is the democratically elected president of the United States. Oh, thatÂ’s right: Mr. WalterÂ’s letter does criticize President Bush.

So much for democracy! So much for hypocrisy!

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 558 words, total size 3 kb.