It is with great consternation, dear reader, that we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” reluctantly turn to a minor excoriation of Al Gore. After all, as we have noted with chirpy regularity, Mr. Gore is the American hero who invented the Internet. Without his self-effacing smarts, this very “weblog” you are reading wouldn’t exist. It’s sad, but it’s true.

Naturally, any sentient being would be loath to criticize such a laudable man. And one, we need add, who has such a sensible wife: We donÂ’t care what other people say, TipperÂ’s crusade to apply warning labels to foul-mouthed pop albums was eminently sensible. You go, girl.

Yet, as unenthusiastic about criticizing Al Gore as we undoubtedly are, criticize him we must. If he reads these words—and we have every reason to believe that he will, of course—he ought to know, however, that we are chastising him out of love. And lust.

By now, dear reader, you know all about Mr. GoreÂ’s rather steep electric bills. Some conservative think tank did a charming hit job on Mr. Gore, demonstrating that this global warming pontificator personally wastes more electricity than most African nations.

Frankly, we find this really depressing. And for good reason: Unlike many of our pals on the political Right, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” consider ourselves environmentalists. Not, we daresay, of the Paul Ehrlich “We’re All Going To Die in a Fiery Apocalypse” variety, but environmentalists nonetheless.

And thus we find it irksome that Mr. Gore, in between bouts of hectoring the public about energy conservation, appears to spray aerosol cans in the air whilst chewing on large amounts of coal.

Sure, Mr. Gore claims that his financial support for various earth-friendly endeavors (which he calls “carbon offsets”) makes up for his profligacy. As James Taranto highlights in his “Best of the Web” column, however, this “offsetting” essentially amounts to financial contributions to himself (he is the chairman of the company benefiting from his “offsetting”).

Oh, dear. This just isnÂ’t good.

Yet the pro-Gore police had to come up with some sort of argument that made the former Harvard roommate of Tommy Lee Jones who invented the Internet seem okay. And here it is: Those criticizing Al GoreÂ’s energy consumption are merely shooting the messenger. TheyÂ’re engaging in ad hominem fluff.

Well, well, well: We suppose thatÂ’s true, up to a point. But itÂ’s much like saying that criticizing Jim BakkerÂ’s moral lapses merely amounts to shooting the messenger. Or criticizing Bill BennettÂ’s gambling fancy merely amounts to shooting the messenger. And we have the sneaking suspicion that those rushing to defend GoreÂ’s blatant hypocrisy didnÂ’t clamor to save Messrs. Bakker and Bennett.

All in all, Al Gore must have some pretty big shoes. He has, after all, a colossal “carbon footprint.” And, given his mammoth hypocrisy, we’ll bet his feet aren’t the only thing big about him.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 496 words, total size 3 kb.

Ah, Eric Alterman—one of the hard Left’s most inspiringly twisted performers. Mr. Alterman, who serves as The Nation’s ineluctably enraged media critic, has long bothered anyone with the slightest grip on reality.

After all, Mr. Alterman’s chief thesis—which he repeats in his columns ad nauseam—is the idea that the mainstream media are…conservative. ABC, CBS, NPR, The New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post—you know, that conservative stuff.

Naturally, being famous for such a notion is much like being famous for asserting that the world is flat. Which, come to think of it, a certain pundit from a scorchingly right-wing newspaper has already claimed.

We had reason to reflect anew on Mr. Alterman’s studied idiocy upon taking in a “post” from his “weblog.” In it, Mr. Alterman discusses the fact that Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief of the moderately Left New Republic, has sold his shares of the magazine to some Canadian company or other.

Regarding this turn of events, Mr. Alterman opines:

Does it matter that Marty Peretz has sold off his entire interest in The New Republic? Hard to say ... The New Republic under Peretz has long been an interesting, often exciting magazine but a horrible burden to liberalism and -- if you're smart about these things -- really, really bad for the Jews.* Going biweekly after nearly a century as a weekly is both an admission of failure but also a perfectly rational response to an Internet-driven media world. The magazine will improve as its influence wanes -- both good things in my book.

Okay, so The New Republic has been “really, really bad for the Jews.” This has been the case, foams Mr. Alterman, because the magazine routinely stands up for Jewish and Israeli interests, and refuses to capitulate to anti-Zionist fanatics and terrorists.

Perhaps Mr. Alterman believes that his own rag, The Nation, is far better in regard to these matters. If so, he is completely bonkers.

After all, The Nation publishes regular columns by Alexander Cockburn, a Stalinoid hack who, we related recently, uses his editorial perch from Counterpunch to support bizarre conspiracy theories that blame Israel for 9/11. And Mr. AltermanÂ’s rag also delights in publishing the anti-Semitic ravings of Gore Vidal.

Oh, yes: That’s much better for the Jews. Praising Jimmy Carter’s anti-Israel apologetics and ignoring Palestinian terrorism—what could be more fruitful for our Jewish friends?

One wonders if Mr. Alterman would ever conclude that a magazine that resolutely defends African-American interests is “bad for blacks,” or a periodical that staunchly supports homosexual concerns is “bad for gays.”

Nope: We have the feeling that Mr. Alterman merely believes that Jews ought to work against their own people. What a buffoon.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 462 words, total size 3 kb.