In a front-page, above-the-fold story in yesterdayÂ’s Gray Lady, Jad Mouawad and Steven Erlanger quote Fouad Siniora, the Lebanese Prime Minister, from a meeting with foreign diplomats. Naturally, Mr. Siniora harped and harpied on IsraelÂ’s response to the recent machinations of Hezbollah. Amongst his remarks at this gathering was the following query:

Is this the price we pay for aspiring to build our democratic institutions?

On the face of it, that seems to us a reasonable question, and so we have prepared a reasonable answer. Darn nice of us, isnÂ’t it?

Well, Mr. Prime Minister, here goes: No, the bombardment of the southern portion of your country is not the price you are paying for trying to build your democratic institutions.

Rather, it is the price you are paying for failing to take steps to disarm the terrorist organization Hezbollah, and allowing it to join your government instead. Further, it is the price you are paying for proving unable to control this terrorist organization from attacking Israel.

Gee, you would think that this was obvious. Perhaps the Good Prime MinisterÂ’s question was actually a pathetic rhetorical query, designed to push the buttons of a democracy-promoting United States? But, hey, that would mean that an Arab government was engaging in bitching, which is really quite uncharacteristic.

To be honest, dear reader, we find Mr. SinioraÂ’s question quite dim. ItÂ’s so obviously obtuse that it boggles the mind.

In fact, it’s much like Hitler, towards the end of World War II, asking: “Is this the price we pay for sporting such smashing military fatigues?” To which one should respond: No, you dolt; it’s the price you’re paying for launching an insane war on two fronts and enacting a genocidal campaign. We’re actually agnostic about the uniforms.

Or maybe it’s much like Saddam Hussein, newly captured from his spider hole, asking: “Is this the price I pay for winning 100 percent of the popular vote?” To which we’d respond: Relax, Al Gore. No, you fool, it’s the price you’re paying for being an evil Stalinoid tyrant.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 351 words, total size 2 kb.

Many conservatives are having a field day with anti-Zionist arguments regarding the current clashes between Israel and Hezbollah. And rightly so: The anti-Israel forces are bleating about IsraelÂ’s killing of innocent civilians in Lebanon, without troubling themselves to mention one key fact: The terrorist organization Hezbollah purposefully hides itself among the Lebanese civilian population in order to force its enemies to harm innocents.

Not that this is the only pertinent omission detectable in their Islamist agitprop. On the contrary: They either dismiss or somehow skirt around the fact that Hezbollah started this entire brouhaha by illegally treading into Israel and kidnapping Israeli soldiers. This, say our anti-Zionist pals, was merely a “pretext” for Israeli aggression, as if this heinous act of war was mere child’s play.

And we can point to more dishonesty. The anti-Israel forces love to harp on the damage Israeli rocket fire is causing in Lebanon without mentioning the daily barrage that Israel has been compelled to endure—both from Hezbollah and Hamas forces in un-occupied Gaza. Without mentioning the fact that neither Lebanon nor Gaza is controlled by Israel (though Syria, clearly, has much power in Lebanon, thanks to Hezbollah), they speciously claim that this whole matter pertains to the horrors of “occupation.” And thus they pine for the release of all Lebanese prisoners—i.e., all captured members of Hezbollah.

Wow: Talk about chutzpah. We donÂ’t know whatÂ’s more brazen: Ruthlessly attacking a militarily superior enemy, or immediately and incessantly whining about the unsurprising response you receive.

Even so, we must admit that there is a certain (deadly) consistency to some of the anti-Zionist positions. After all, from their caterwauling about the Israeli response, it is clear that the professional Israel-haters wish that Israel would do nothing. That is to say, they hoped that, having been attacked on two fronts by terrorist organizations, and having soldiers captured, they would sit idly by.

Now, naturally, this is absurd. But, insofar as anti-Zionists by definition aim to eradicate the state of Israel, it makes perfect sense. If a country doesnÂ’t respond to terrorism, it is much more likely that it will eventually cease to exist. Thus, in counseling Israel not to retaliate, anti-Zionists are merely suggesting a response that will quicken the demise of the Jewish state.

WhatÂ’s more puzzling, we think, is the anti-ZionistsÂ’ expectation that proponents of Israel will listen to their arguments. After all, if you actually desire Israel to exist, why would you take heed of those who pine for its demolition?

And this makes us wonder about the feculent pronouncements of many European leaders. What exactly does a cry for a “proportionate” response mean, when it comes from Vladimir Putin, not exactly a man known for his “proportionate” responses to Islamic terrorism—or anything else, for that matter?

Why donÂ’t Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac, et al. simply admit that they are anti-Zionists? That way, we wonÂ’t have to bother listening to their inane opinions, since weÂ’ll know definitively that they are not in IsraelÂ’s best interest.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 508 words, total size 3 kb.

Surely one of the great pleasures of running an esteemed (if little known) “weblog” is the batch of mail we receive from esteemed (if little known) correspondents. “Your writing brightens up my otherwise dark nights,” write sundry e-fans. Or words to that effect. This sort of missive, dear reader, is the stuff that keeps us going. It’s our veritable e-nectar.

We would be remiss if we did not mention, however, that every once in a brew moon (as our beer-loving Chinese friends say), we receive a slightly less flattering epistle. In fact, some of these e-mails can be downright intemperate. If we didnÂ’t have such peculiarly high self-esteems, we might even find them a tad upsetting.

Case in point: One fine Saturday night we were on the receiving end of an e-missive sent by someone with the intriguing nom de web Fatugleeebich@aol.com. Although one might reasonably infer that a character with a “Fat-Ugly-Bitch” tag would be pleasant, she actually turned out to be less-than-hospitable.

The following amounts to the entire contents of her e-mail:

Fatugleeebich@aol.com
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 20:35:40 EDT
Subject: (no subject)
To: hatemongersquarterly@yahoo.com

you people are scum for kissing Israels butt

Peculiar, is it not? We donÂ’t quite know what strikes us the most: The rancor or the lack of punctuation. Yeah: Probably the punctuation.

We don’t mean to be snooty, but we feel that this is a particularly pathetic exemplum of hate mail. And hate mail is already a pretty pathetic genre of writing on its own. Can’t our detractors up the ante a little? Isn’t anyone going to have the decency to send us a real childish, hate-filled rant? We think this “Fat-Ugly-Bitch” is really ‘phoning it in.

We mean, come on: We’re “scum” because we support Israel against its terrorist nemeses? How dull. Where’s the loony anti-Semitic carping? Where’s the miring in conspiracy theories? In short, where’s the passionate craziness?

If you are going to take the role of a mean-spirited crank, you ought to do a better job than this. The writer of this sad letter isnÂ’t so much a fat, ugly bitch as she is a lazy, fat, ugly bitch. Perhaps sheÂ’ll have to take some lessons from Deb Frisch. Now thereÂ’s someone who can make an ass of herself with a little gusto.

Besides: ArenÂ’t fat people supposed to be jolly?

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 3 kb.

There’s nothing quite like a disturbance in the Middle East to let loose the anti-Israel crazies. Of course, even without any problems in Israel you aren’t exactly hard pressed to find the maniacal ravings of Islamofascists and their dunderheaded supporters. The unhinged wacko Alexander Cockburn, for instance, runs a “website” called Counterpunch, which, it seems, is dedicated to worldwide revolution through the catharsis of anti-Semitism.

Still, our recent peregrinations around Al GoreÂ’s Internet have led us to believe that the anti-Zionist nutters are out in even greater force than usual. And they have a lock on all the best arguments. For instance:

1) If terrorists invade a country, kidnap a few of its soldiers, and bomb its cities, this country is duty bound not to respond in any way. After all, boys will be boys.

2) Occupation causes all the problems in the Middle East—not the ongoing Syrian occupation of Lebanon, but the non-existent, former occupation of southern Lebanon by Israel for reasonable security purposes.

Boy, itÂ’s tough to argue with those solid bits of genius. No wonder so many people have such profound respect for James Zogby.

So, if you’re a fan of the ravings of anti-Zionist kooks, these must surely be halcyon days for you. From the comments page of The Guardian to the aptly named Angry Arab, there’s a treasure trove of anti-Western cant to enjoy. Ah, how happy Ken “The Red” must be.

Perhaps this isnÂ’t much of surprise. After all, itÂ’s not as if thereÂ’s a shortage of nimrods out there. And Al GoreÂ’s World-Wide Web has a way of attracting a whole lot of viciousness.

But maybe the recent op-ed pages of The New York Times have been a bit more of a shocker. In the past few days, of course, the world has turned its attention to the conflict in the Middle East. As have a couple of its regular columnists: Notably David Brooks and Thomas Friedman.

Oddly, however, a few infamous columnists at the Gray Lady havenÂ’t troubled themselves to comment on the conflagration much. Good oleÂ’ Nicky Kristof, of course, canÂ’t stop reflecting on his role as personal savior to three Third World women a year, so he hasnÂ’t spilled any ink over Israel recently.

Yet the truculent left-wing trio of Krugman, Herbert, and Dowd haven’t said much either. And we think we know why: Try as they might, they simply can’t come up with a way to blame Bush for Hezbollah’s evildoings. Sure, they can say something vacuous like “Bush isn’t doing enough.” But enough of what, precisely? Diplomacy? Of what sort, exactly?

Ah, thereÂ’s the rub. Pace John Stewart, it isnÂ’t really easy to run a superpower. (Oh, and Stephen Colbert: We get it; youÂ’re not really a conservative. Great gag, great gag.)

As a result, Kruggles, Bobby, and Dowdy (as Maureen would call them) come across as op-ed writers in a time warp. They keep on carping on the usual stuff: The horrors of the free market, the horrors of the Iraq War, or, from Ms. Dowd’s pen, the horrors of being a ginger-haired, sexagenarian, radical feminist, pseudo-humorist who can’t—mirabile dictu—find a mate.

At least the anti-Zionist cranks are actually discussing the most pertinent issue of the day.

UPDATE: Well, wouldnÂ’t you know it: Good oleÂ’ Mr. Kristoff decided to discuss the Israel-Lebanon-Hamas crisis in todayÂ’s Gray Lady. Yet, given his dismal understanding of the matter, he winds up offering useless pseudo-evenhanded fluff. (See Taranto for a demolition.) Maybe he should stick to his Saving-Third-World-Prostitutes theme.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 596 words, total size 4 kb.

One of the senior editors here at “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly”—let’s just call him “Chip”—was perusing the July 9 number of The New York Times Book Review. In said issue, he came across “Something About Mary,” a snarky review of Mary Cheney’s new book Now It’s My Turn, penned by someone named Alexandra Jacobs. Although “Chip” had no intention of reading Ms. Cheney’s work, he was struck by the nastiness with which Ms. Jacobs attacked her target.

One particular sentence struck a chord:

Only in passing does Cheney—who has a longtime companion, Heather Poe—confront the inherent contradiction of working for a party whose attitude toward homosexuality runs the gamut from mild intolerance to out-and-out hostility.

We know what youÂ’re thinking: ThatÂ’s quite a gamut. And thus, with this broad brush, does Ms. Jacobs tar and feather everyone in the Republican Party. To this dimwitted journalist, about half the voting population is homophobic.

Now, “Chip” thought to himself, I support gay marriage. In fact, the whole crack young staff does—especially Ted, who’s into guys. But “Chip” was shocked that the Times would print such a cavalier claim.

After all, there are these fellows and lasses who call themselves Log Cabin Republicans. And they’re highly unlikely to be homophobes. And, “Chip” would wager, there are some Republicans who are enthusiastic about gay marriage, or at least civil unions. What about libertarian-minded Republicans?

Yet what most interested “Chip” was Ms. Jacobs’ unsubstantiated claim that merely voting Republican amounted to—at best—“mild intolerance” for homosexuals. This labeling of all Republicans de facto homophobes struck him as particularly intriguing when compared with charges of anti-Semitism.

By now, we all know the old saw: Zionists purportedly mean-spiritedly label opponents of Israel anti-Semites in order to shut them up. This helps silence the opposition in what is, we imagine, the most cacophonous silence in history—one hears more about this horrible silence more than one actually notes the non-existent silence.

For some reason, earnest critics of specific Israeli policies never make these charges; rather, it’s a claim routinely bandied about by radicals whose hatred for the lone Jewish state is fishy, to say the least. “I don’t hate Israel, I just want it destroyed, and will lie like a pig in order to attain this goal,” thinks the anti-Zionist kook. “What’s anti-Semitic about opposing only one nationalistic movement—that of the Jews alone?”

Anyway, the distinction in the leftistÂ’s discussion of homophobia and anti-Semitism is telling. To the leftist, merely voting Republican is homophobic. Yet extreme, un-reasonable, myopic, ahistorical, foolhardy, vitriolic, incessant criticism of the lone Jewish state in an attempt to deligitimize it isnÂ’t anti-Semitism.

Boy, the Left sure has an interesting understanding of prejudice.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 451 words, total size 3 kb.

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have followed recent news from the Middle East with nervous interest. For some reason, this usually calm area of the world has become—mirabile dictu—a tinderbox of sorts. Who knew that Arab leaders would prove so hot-headed and intransigent? Certainly not us.

Naturally, the governments of Greece and Russia have put in their two cents. (Presuming that their currency is currently worth that much.) And, fountain of civilization that it is, Greece condemned the reaction of the Israeli government. Ah, yes: That pesky Israel and its petulant desire to exist. Whatever shall we do?

Not to be outdone, Russia opined that the Israeli retaliation was disproportional. Yep, you read that right: Vladimir PutinÂ’s quasi-authoritarian kleptocracy castigated Israel for overreacting to the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and the incessant bombing of Israeli territory.

Um, forgive us if we remember incorrectly, but we seem to recall this incident in a Russian school in which an inept attempt to foil the machinations of Muslim terrorists led to the killing of all and sundry. Wouldn’t this be a locus classicus of overreaction? As such, taking advice on dealing with terrorism from Russia is much like chastity tips from Nicole Ritchie—they ain’t going to get you that far.

It is curious, is it not, that the world ineluctably treats Israel in this way. Before Ehud Olmert even troubled himself to respond, you could already hear the faint condemnation of Kofi Annan. Apparently, Kofi took some time off of his busy grafting schedule to stand up for human rights—like the kind on display in Darfur. Excuse us if we prefer our UN officials corrupt, not morally obtuse and corrupt. Is this too much to ask?

Now, let’s see if we can get this all straight: After unending bombing and kidnapping, Israel should…do nothing? Perhaps this would stop the “unicycle of violence” that is the Palestinian people. Or maybe this would take us one step closer to a world without a Jewish state.

Hmmm: We wonder how many of IsraelÂ’s critics would savor such an eventuality. Perhaps weÂ’d better ask David Duke. Or maybe Walt and Meirsheimer. TheyÂ’re among IsraelÂ’s expert detractors.

We know what youÂ’re thinking: Israel suffers an outrageous attack and yet, in the eyes of much of the world, it canÂ’t do right. Which country does that remind us of?

And people wonder why the US feels such a close kinship with Israel.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 415 words, total size 3 kb.

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” don’t tend to discuss celebrities. Frankly, Sadie already does such a wonderful job of it; we’d only look bad by comparison.

And we must say that we find gushing over assorted A-Listers and B-Listers a tad sordid. WeÂ’d much prefer to take on, say, inept collegiate op-eds. Yeah, thatÂ’s much classier.

Today, however, we decided to drop our usual shtick and mention a recent article that pertains to one Paris Hilton, perhaps the most famous woman in the world for doing nothing. (SheÂ’s kind of like the Calvin Coolidge of female heiresses. Only not from Massachusetts.)

Now, given how little we keep up with celebrity culture (we use that word in the anthropological sense, of course), you must forgive us, dear reader, if we are making a fuss about old news. No, we’re not going to wax distraught over the break-up of Genesis—our news isn’t that old. (And we surely wouldn’t be distraught about that.) Still, we may be a bit behind the times. So bare with us (as Paris herself might).

A recent on-line story in the gossip pages of The Sun informs us that Paris Hilton made a fairly interesting claim on the feculent “Regis & Kelly” television program. According to Beci Wood, the Sun “author” responsible for this puff-piece, Ms. Hilton “has put herself on a one-year sex ban.”

You see, Ms. Hilton believes that “steering clear of all sexual activity will help her to ‘rediscover’ herself.” Apparently, she claims that her previous lasciviousness has hindered her development.

Naturally, a couple of things come to mind:

1) Paris Hilton isnÂ’t a virgin? Darn, you could have fooled us. Next youÂ’ll tell us that Britney Spears puts out. What a shame. We weep for the future.

2) A year without sex? We speak for most of the male crack young staffers when we say: Uh, that isnÂ’t exactly news. If it is, we should be on the A-List. And most of the distaff staffers are at least B-Listers.

3) Ms. Hilton’s drive to “rediscover herself,” if that isn’t a synonym for something untoward, is certainly noble. But, given what she has to “rediscover,” she may just want to go back to fornicating like a rabbit.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 3 kb.

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have been so wrapped up in sundry scandals du jour—illegal immigration, the situation in Gaza, Tom Cruise’s existence—that we haven’t even taken note of an important milestone. No, we’re not referring to the continued—and impressive—vitality of Art Buchwald, though we do wish him well.

Rather, we mean that recently our humble “weblog” passed a semi-important marker of sorts. That is to say, we’ve reached the 150,000 “hits” mark. This puts us in the storied 150,000 Club, which is much like the Mile High Club, only not as lascivious and without the membership of John Elway. Double drat.

As you might imagine, dear reader, we’re pretty pleased with ourselves. When we started this humble “weblog” many moons ago, we never dreamed of this kind of vitality. Of course, we’ve never had particularly outrageous dreams.

Sure, Glenn Reynolds—Al Gore’s famed Instapundit—may receive more than 150,000 “hits” per day. (Or, as we like to say, per diem. Mighty classy use of the Latin, isn’t it?) Although we’ve made our way past 150,000, this doesn’t mean that we’re exactly shining stars in the World-Wide Web firmament.

Further, we suppose we ought to mention that around 149,000 of those 150,000 “hits” come from the crack young staff itself, as we’re very fastidious about checking our “website.” In fact, you might want to call us a bit self-impressed. Others do. And, yes, we self-impress easily.

Still, we suppose that we ought to take a moment to thank the handful of people who have e-wended their e-way to our humble “weblog” and chosen not to send us hate mail. It is for you, precious friend, that we have begun this “weblogging” enterprise in the first place. Without you, our “website” would answer a famous Zen query: If no one reads a “weblog,” does it exist? (Perhaps we’ll have to ask Sullywatch that.)

Frankly, esteemed reader, we canÂ’t thank you enough. You have made your way through mountains of glaring grammatical errors, poorly-wrought arguments, and clunky prose, all to take in the vaguely useless animadversions of the crack young staff. And, boy, it was well worth it.

What can you expect in the next round of 150,000? To be honest, probably more of the same: Vapid commentary, tasteless yuks, and barbs hurled at Phil Collins.

Ah, yeah: ThatÂ’s just what the doctor ordered.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 402 words, total size 3 kb.

For anyone unaware of its existence, Cambridge, MA is home to some of the most snotty, self-righteous folk this side of Berkeley. A long-time confidante of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” once referred to residents of Cambridge as the equivalent of breakfast cereal: Once you are done with the fruits and the nuts, you are left with the flakes.

As befitting a locale with a large quotient of holier-than-thou radicals, Cambridge has declared itself an official sanctuary for illegal immigrants. The councilmen of Cambridge have apparently taken time away from their grueling schedule of condemning President Bush and other things that are obviously beyond its purview, and decided to wax sanctimonious about immigration.

Naturally, Cambridge is a fancy-pants town that must be home to very few illegal immigrants: ItÂ’s too darn expensive for the average $3 an hour worker. After all, who hops across the border for better access to soymilk? Not many, weÂ’d wager.

It was with great joy, then, that we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” spied a story in The Boston Globe pertaining to this typical display of Cambridge sanctimony. As Yvonne Abraham reports, a group called Project USA plans to set up billboards countrywide that lure illegal immigrants to Cambridge. Ms. Abraham tells us:

The proposed billboard would read: ``Attention: Illegal Aliens. Cambridge, Mass. is a sanctuary city. For help getting there, contact projectusa.org/NJ-mass transit."

We know what you are thinking, dear reader: What a gas! Even though this is obviously a joke—we’re sure that illegal immigrants won’t overrun Cambridge—it’s nice to see someone humorously calling Cambridge’s bluff.

Naturally, though, the deeply serious folks in upscale Cambridge donÂ’t see it this way. The Globe reports the following:

[Cambridge Vice Mayor and State Representative Timothy] Toomey derided [the Project USA] initiative, saying he is motivated by racism.

“It would almost be comical if it wasn't so scary," Toomey said. “These people have an agenda, and it doesn't include people of color, and it's as simple as that."

Ah, yes: The racism card. Pardon us if weÂ’re not shocked that Rep. Toomey has sunk so low.

Should we remind Rep. Toomey that Project USA is troubled by illegal immigration, not immigration per se?

This all calls to mind the famous definition of a racist: Someone who is winning an argument with a liberal. And, sadly, it is ToomeyÂ’s phony charges that sully legitimate charges of racism.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 3 kb.

The July 3 number of The New York Times contains a full-page advertisement from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Although such an ad may seem like an extraordinary expense for a non-profit organization, donÂ’t worry: WeÂ’re pretty sure the Carnegies can afford it.

Titled “Immigrants: The Pride of America,” the full-page spread is clearly aimed at influencing the current debate on immigration in this country. To this end, it offers the following sentiment:

The United States of America remains a land of immigrants. Andrew Carnegie, who founded the Carnegie Corporation of New York in 1911, was an immigrant from Scotland. We at Carnegie Corporation salute his legacy, along with the contributions of the millions of other immigrants who have made, and continue to make, our nation strong and vibrant.

And on it goes in this fashion. Naturally, this is all pleasant yet specious: Our nationÂ’s elected officials are debating the proper policies regarding illegal immigrants; no one outside of Pat BuchananÂ’s lunatic fringe has a beef with legal immigrants. But, hey, whatÂ’s a little grandstanding when it makes you look magnanimous and open-minded?

All of this, you might well imagine, is pretty typical fare for a non-profit advert. But it gets odd: In order to hammer home their message about the essential greatness of immigrants in the USA, the folks at the Carnegie Corporation also offer a series of little pictures in the ad, each presenting the head-shot of a famous (or semi-famous) American who is an immigrant.

So, whatÂ’s odd about this, you may be asking yourself? Well, just take a gander at a few of those selected from the line-up: Madeline Albright, Deepak Chopra, Iman, Isabel Allende, George Soros, Gene Simmons.

This list is supposed to warm up the American people toward immigrants? Did the fellows at the Carnegie Corporation think this through properly?

We mean, come on: A former secretary of state who resembles a penis more than most penises do, a pseudo-intellectual guru, an obnoxious model, a couple of radical nutters, and the self-important, sex-offending doofus from Kiss? Is the Carnegie Corporation attempting secretly to turn us into a bunch of nativists?

All thatÂ’s missing is Wehrner von Braun. That great American.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 371 words, total size 2 kb.

As the entire world must know by now (save, of course, Paris Hilton), Kim Jong-il, the authoritarian nightmare in charge of the failed police state known as North Korea, fired off a few test rockets, including one technically possessing the range to land in the western United States. The talking heads, naturally, have been all abuzz over this, and much ink has been spilled regarding how to handle the latest bad deed of this pint-sized kleptocrat.

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” magnanimous lads and lasses that we are, decided to forgo the typical braying about the menace of North Korea, in favor of offering a little unsolicited advice to this Joe Pesci of world leaders. As we always say, if you can’t help ruthless maniacs, whom can you help? Oprah?

As such, we decided to send the following missive to Kim Jong-il (and, yes, we have his address—that’s one of the perks of being Internet bigwigs):

Dear Kim Jong-il:

Your recent missile-launching stunt has caused quite a stir, and we presume that this makes you very pleased. At last, no one’s talking about the Mad Mullahs in Iran—those B-List terrorists! No, the Western world can’t stop discussing you, your evil cronies, and your impoverished country. We imagine that your mother must be proud.

We must respectfully submit, however, that you really could have done a better job. And we don’t just mean the fact that your “long-range” rocket essentially failed its test and had a shorter range than Tori Spelling.

Rather, we’re referring to the name you gave this missile: Taepodong 2. Now, never mind the whole “2” part, since it’s irrelevant; we presume the Taepodong 1 was an even greater failure. Its the “Taepodong” part to which we draw your attention.

You see, to Americans, “Taepodong” sounds much like another way of saying “kind of penis.” We know, we know: It’s crazy. But it’s true, and you needn’t be a diehard Freudian to recognize this. All you require is passing familiarity with English, which even most American high school students possess.

Frankly, no one’s going to take you seriously with this kind of weaponry. If you want to shed your ersatz Asian Elvis impersonator image in order to appear tough, “Taepodong” just isn’t going to cut the mustard. You might as well name the rocket “Kind-o-shaft,” “Big-old-cock,” or, worse yet, “Elton John.”

In short, “Taepodong” just isn’t Axis-of-Evil caliber. It’s more like a Mozambique-level menace. Get a cool name—like “Chuck Norris 2”—and you’ll really cause some heads to roll.

Cordially,

The Crack Young Staff of THMQ

PS: Also, KimÂ’s kind of a girly name. Just thought you ought to know.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 459 words, total size 3 kb.

As regular readers of this humble “weblog” undoubtedly know, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” consider ourselves fans of The New Republic, one of the most reasonable outposts for responsible liberal commentary. And recent scandals on Al Gore’s World-Wide Web certainly haven’t altered our view of TNR one iota: After all, they’ve been busy chiseling away at the Daily Kos, one of the most unreasonable outposts for irresponsible liberal non-thought.

Add to this Martin PeretzÂ’s recent excoriation of Nannerl Keohane, the vapid, self-promoting academic administrator angling for the top position at Harvard:

When Nannerl Keohane was elected a fellow of Harvard College, she told some press flack that she was “enthusiastic about the prospects of working with President [Larry] Summers.” But it took her hardly more than a half-year of membership on the Corporation before she began to maneuver to put an end to Summers’s presidency.

But who is Nannerl Keohane? In the mean Cambridge game…of electing people to “the academy of the overrated,” Keohane will always win by a landslide. She is known as a scholar, but I am not sure why. She displays nothing resembling erudition about anything. The book to which she owes her reputation—I think it was her Ph.D. dissertation—was published 26 years ago. But she is a recognizable type in the academic cosmos: the professor who disguises mediocrity with status. She is not an intellectual; she is a dignitary.

Oh, how delicious! And how true! Mr. Peretz need only add that Keohane, who managed to land gigs as the president of Wellesley and Duke, is a believer in virtually all the shibboleths of the academic Left. Clearly, sheÂ’ll try to sell herself as the un-Summers in order to become HarvardÂ’s next leader.

But, general enthusiasm for TNR aside, we would be remiss if we didnÂ’t mention that the magazine sometimes gets things quite wrong. Like that whole backpeddling on the liberation of Iraq thing. It really left us with less respect for their spirited call for intervention in Darfur.

But surely we can point to other errors. In the June 26 number of the magazine, one Christine Rosen offers the article “Technobabble,” a hit piece on Glenn Reynolds, the Internet’s famed Instapundit. In the course of her excoriation—in which Ms. Rosen likens Mr. Reynolds to Edward Bellamy, of all people—she offers the following sentence:

In fact, techno-utopianism is the one sentiment that unites both left and right in the blogosphere.

To which we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” respond: Not true, not true.

Sure, our humble “weblogging” outfit may be slightly outgunned by the likes of Glenn Reynolds, but we must inform you nonetheless that we are not “techno-utopians.” Far from it.

Actually, we pine for a return to feudalism—the kind of simpler, agrarian world that delights Roger Scruton and Victor Davis Hanson. Butter churners, stocks without the stock market, chastity belts: What’s not to like?

After reading the works of Noam Chomsky, we’re entirely convinced that capitalism can’t work and that America is the most malignant “failed state” of them all. (We wonder why he still lives in the US, though. Doesn’t he have enough money to flee to a less troubled country, like Rwanda?) Since Communism seems not to work either (sorry, Perry Anderson), obviously feudalism is the only answer.

As such, we hope that Goodie Rosen will take back her vile slander against the greater “weblogging” community. Some of us don’t dream of hovercrafts and smell-o-vision. On the contrary: We long for catapults and cannonballs. In fact, if we could get our hands on Ms. Rosen, we’d invite her to a duel.

Or, failing that, the local Renaissance festival.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 616 words, total size 4 kb.

A long-time confidante of the crack young staff—who considers himself a man of the Left—once referred to New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof as a moron whose heart was in the right place. Mr. Kristof’s July 4 column in the Paper of Record does nothing to gainsay the moron characterization, but it does cast doubt on the location of his ventricles.

In this installment of the Gray Lady, Mr. Kristof takes time off from his busy schedule of writing columns dedicated to showing off his good deeds. Giving money to Thai prostitutes to change their lives; rescuing young girls from Third-World hell holes—what good are these things unless you advertise them? As far as Mr. Kristof is concerned, it seems, none at all.

Naturally, if Mr. Kristof takes a break from self-publicizing his own virtue, the matter heÂ’s discussing is a big one. And, in this particular column, it is rather weighty: ItÂ’s another pathetic attempt to exonerate the Times for publicizing the SWIFT story.

Now, to be fair, Mr. Kristof’s piece contains this bit of semi-reason: “The more recent disclosure about bank transfers seems to me a harder call. The program seems both legal and sensible, and it would be a setback in the unlikely event that bankers backed off in the glare of publicity.” But this, alas, is as far as Mr. Kristof gets with rationality at his side.

In fact, in the very next bit, Mr. Kristof informs us:

So, I might have made that decision [i.e., about publicizing the SWIFT program] differently. But so far there is no evidence that the banking story harmed national securityÂ….

Huh? There’s “no evidence”? And what kind of evidence does Nicholas D. Kristof expect there to be in two weeks time? This isn’t like rescuing a Third-World sex slave, for crying out loud.

As if this weren’t bad enough, Mr. Kristof then goes off to Tangentland, the official locale of pathetic Gray Lady apologists. He offers a tired retread of the usual “Oh yeah, well other people did it” argument.

Dear reader, please note that when you tout the “Oh yeah, well other people did it” rationale, you have lost the fight. It should be obvious that a thief who excuses his actions by noting the existence of other burglars has not presented strong exculpatory evidence.

Yet this does not stop Mr. Kristof from raging at Senator Pat Roberts, whom Kristof claims has also damaged national security. To which we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” respond: That’s irrelevant, you dolt.

Overall, Times staffers have engaged in umpteen pseudo-apologias for the SWIFT disclosure. And all of them have been laughable. IsnÂ’t it time to stop?

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 454 words, total size 3 kb.

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” are oft told that those of the political Left are more capable of nuanced thought than their opponents. Whereas, apparently, right-wingers are a bunch of knuckle-dragging Neanderthals uninterested in examining matters beyond the black and white, leftists revel in more sophisticated political analysis.

If you ask us, this is complete nonsense: Most people seem to follow politics in the same way they root for baseball teams. That is to say, they are unflagging partisans, capable of spitting back whatever knee-jerk arguments “their side” is currently spewing. Hence the manifest irrationality of so many political conversations between those of opposing views.

Not so, thunder our “progressive” friends. To them, goons on the Right show their intellectual inferiority by clinging to dunderheaded turns-of-phrase like “the axis of evil.” Leftists, on the other hand, realize that Iran, Saddam’s Iraq, and North Korea are actually Valhallas; the US and Israel are the real sources of all evil.

We know what you are thinking: Boy, thatÂ’s a heck of a lot more nuanced.

We contemplated the speciousness of left-wingers’ self-advertised political sophistication anew upon reading a particularly inept “post” penned by a progressive “weblogger.” Joseph Hughes, the “web” proprietor of Hughes for America, likely believes that he’s a serious thinker whose intellect is far superior to that of conservatives.

And yet, a gander at his entry “They’re all Ann Coulter” demonstrates that he’s about as sophisticated as a John Hughes movie. He may believe that he’s the Citizen Kane of the Internet, but he’s a lot more Pretty in Pink. For, in this particularly dimwitted rant, the 27-year-old Mr. Hughes opines:

Try as some Republicans might to halfheartedly distance themselves from Coulter, her cancer has completely overtaken their party. They're all Ann Coulter.

Hmmm. Ann Coulter is routinely pilloried (and rightly so) for failing to view contemporary American politics with even a modicum of nuance. To her, liberals are all treasonous weasels.

And Mr. Hughes brilliantly highlights the errors of Ann Coulter’s oversimplification—by suggesting that there’s no difference between Ann Coulter and anyone else in the Republican Party. Uh, can someone please stop Mr. Hughes from aiming that gun at his foot? He’s going to wind up hurting himself.

One can almost see Mr. Hughes make a mental checklist of Republicans:

Charles Krauthammer? Just like Ann Coulter. Edward Luttwak? Dead ringer for Ann Coulter. Alan Keyes? The black Ann Coulter. George Will? Ann Coulter with a penchant for Brooks Brothers ties. Frederick Kagan? A heavy-set Ann Coulter.

Ah, yes: WeÂ’re glad that Mr. Hughes has fully learned the errors of Ann CoulterÂ’s ways. Surely heÂ’ll never be guilty of gross oversimplifications. Or splitting infinitives.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 464 words, total size 3 kb.

In our latest “post” for Wizbang, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” mentioned that we were currently printing secrets about Bill Keller’s homosexual love trysts on our humble “weblog.” As we said in our “post,” although we seriously considered the harm that the exposure of such secrets may bring, we figured we’d print them anyway.

After all, Mr. Keller doesnÂ’t seem too keen on aiding civilization against its enemies. If al Qaeda has a right to know about our secret operations designed to ensnare its members, why donÂ’t ordinary Americans have a right to know about Mr. KellerÂ’s same-sex marital indiscretions?

At the eleventh hour, however, we received an e-mail from a distraught John Murtha. “Please don’t embarrass Bill Keller,” he pleaded. And so we have decided to comply: Who would be so stupid as to ignore Congressman Murtha’s entreaties?

We canÂ’t think of anyone either.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.

When the Israeli-Palestinian conflict heats up (as it is so often wont), what does a reasonable person hoping to learn about recent events in the Middle East do? Why, he rushes to The Guardian, of course. To what else would one turn other than to this beacon of anti-Israeli cant? Sundry anti-Zionist propaganda “websites,” maybe. They’ll offer about as fair a perspective as al-Guardian.

Accordingly, as the current situation in Israel escalated, we rushed on over to the beloved Guardian “website,” wondering what the apologists for terrorism and anti-Westernism would have to say. This drew us to the leader “Storm over Gaza,” a rather lifeless version of the typical anti-Israel palaver with which The Guardian is typically replete.

Ah, yes: All the telltale signs of militant anti-Zionism were present—a failure to put the recent Israeli incursion into Gaza in a reasonable historical context, the obligatory references to Gaza as an Israeli “prison,” &c. We know what you’re thinking, dear reader: Ho hum.

In fact, the predictable pap from the eminences at The Guardian pales in comparison with the delightful reader comments found underneath this staff editorial. This is where things really heat up. Typical Guardian readers opine that Israel is worse than Nazi Germany, that there’s no such thing as anti-Semitism, and other spine-tingling “arguments.” If you’re anything like us, you find this unadulterated lunacy far more entertaining than the semi-lunacy of Britain’s left-wing press.

Take, for example, this charming example of argument, penned by a fellow whose nom de guerre is “AntiCensorship” (all of the numerous errors are his):

Â…You are very right, Americas umbilical relationship with Israel will be Americas undoing. Condi Rice often seems no more than a spokeesperson for Israel. The amount of money and tiem Americans spend worrying about Israel is immense. What benefit does Israel bring America. None whatsoever. Yet a majority of Americans symathise with Israel and condemn palestinais as sand niggers towelheads etc.

The US media reports everything froma Jewish perspective and allows the terminology suitable to Tel Aviv. When 911 happened no country benefited more than Israel. I can well imagine the delight at the Knesset as this would mean a synthesis of foreign policy. Finally the US and Israel and preferabley all western countries would unite to destroy Israels enemies. Saddam , Iran , syria, Hamas, Lebanese militias etc.

They were dancing on the tables at davids Bar and Grill and giving High Fives no doubt ( or perhaps trying to keep a straight face while considering the benefits) I think the Arabs have just cause to blame America because America allowed the Israel lobby to dominate the US foreign policy agenda. Anybody who disagrees will be demonized. Pat Buchanan, Michael Moore, Senator Byrd etc The Zionist attack dogs like Mr viagra Limbaugh and Blonde strumpet Coulter can be let loose. US media is cowardly and corrupt. An oath to Israel is de rigeur at Fox News and often it seems at Guardian towers

Now that, dear reader, is the product of a real nutter! And, we suppose we should mention, it is also the product of a man who has some real difficulties with the English language. Perhaps he would have been better served to write it in Arabic? Or maybe German, circa 1942?

With such a ridiculous, illiterate rant, it seems unfair—and unnecessary—to pick it apart. Thus we’ll only mention its more revealing bits.

“AntiCensorship’s” statement “US media reports [sic] everyting froma [sic] Jewish perspective and allows the terminology suitable to Tel Aviv” perfectly gives the lie to the notion that the anti-Israel cause is anti-Israel alone. Rather, this benighted fellow believes that all Jews have the same view on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and there is one monolithic—and evil—“Jewish perspective.” The enemy, you see, isn’t Israel; it’s those nefarious Jews. Nothing like some blatant anti-Semitism, eh?

We also savored the notion that the Israelis were “dancing on the tables” when 9/11 occurred. Oh, boy: That’s about as ineffective an argument as anti-Israeli apologists can proffer.

After all, if we recall correctly, large numbers of Palestinians rejoiced at the 9/11 attacks. This caused sufficient consternation for Yasir “She’s My Baby” Arafat that he futilely attempted to cover this up. As it is, “AntiCensorship’s” point is about as effective as a suicide bombing that only manages to kill the bomber. Which, we suppose, is effective, but not as it was originally intended.

But, hey, who would be foolish enough to expect wisdom from a pro-Palestinian devotee calling himself “AntiCensorship”? The PA isn’t exactly known for its great regard for intellectual tolerance and civil liberties, now is it?

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 773 words, total size 5 kb.

Sundry “webloggers” on Al Gore’s World-Wide Web are in a tizzy about a speech Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean offered to a religious conference in the nation’s capital on Tuesday. As has been reported in the press, Dr. Dean declared his desire for America to return to the 1960s, a time in which presumably we could all turn on, tune in, drop out, and vote Democrat.

To be sure, Dr. Dean’s hagiographical take on the purple decade is a bit laughable, coming as it does from the chairman of a national party that advertises itself as far more nuanced than its opposition. Ah, yes: Heralding the excesses of the drug culture, the Black Power movement, and libertinism—what’s more nuanced than that?

Now, to be fair, it appears as if Dr. Dean’s discussion of the 1960s wasn’t entirely laudatory. He actually mentioned a few “mistakes” made during those heady years. Yet he still set up a cartoonish contrast between the evil 1950s, which he likened to Bush Administration, and the glorious 1960s. Of course: Those horrid 1950s, in which such trifles as Brown v. Board of Education were decided. How square, man!

Although there was obviously much to chuckle at in Guru Dean’s paean to the 1960s, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” particularly savored the following line, which, we presume, was delivered without even a soupcon of irony:

We know that no person can succeed unless everyone succeeds.

Uh, come on, Guru Dean: That isnÂ’t just sappy pro-60s rhetoric. ItÂ’s also patently false.

For example, letÂ’s take the matter of the most recent election for president of these here United States. If we recall correctly, you ran for the Democratic nomination, and you did not succeed.

John Kerry, however, did succeed this far. He did so—and this is the important bit—despite the fact that you did not succeed. In fact, not to put to fine a point on it, he actually succeeded in part because you failed.

Perhaps you donÂ’t think that this one example proves much. Well, then, weÂ’ll be happy to proffer another, one that also hails from the realm of American politics.

After winning the Democratic nomination for president (as a result, in part, of your lack of success), John Kerry then went on to face George W. Bush in the final contest for the office. And, despite President Bush’s much-mentioned difficulties with the English language, he succeeded in being reelected. John Kerry, one the other hand—and this again is the important bit—failed.

In short, Dr. Dean, if you hope to be the next Charles Reich or Norman O. Brown, you really ought to take more care in crafting your remarks. Or maybe, in the manner of 1960s radicals, you think that logic is “patriarchal” and “bourgeois”?

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

For some time, dear reader, it appears as if thereÂ’s been some sort of hullabaloo surrounding a trio of country musicians who call themselves the Dixie Chicks. Perhaps you know that a few years ago one of the groupÂ’s members lashed out at President Bush, claiming that she was embarrassed to be from the same state as he. Fans of country music, it seems, lean conservative, and they didnÂ’t like this galÂ’s commentary one bit.

Thus began the Dixie Chicks’ nightmarish saga of criticism, death threats, and storied record sales. This experience was so traumatic for them that, on their most recent album, they decided to cash in on the horror once again by warbling a little ditty called “Not Ready To Make Nice,” or some such. Thus did the airbrushed trio hope to inflame more passions, garner lots of media attention, and hear the pleasant ringing of cash registers as a reward.

But we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” kindly gents and lasses that we are, hope that we can ameliorate this nasty situation. The Dixie Chicks—or at least the heavy-set one in the group—may not be ready to make nice, yet we are. Instead of trying to help them make a buck off of some more free publicity from this ye olde scandale, we decided to offer the first apology.

In a spirit of comity, we shall send the Chicks the following missive, which we earnestly hope will diffuse tensions, let cooler heads prevail, and allow them to warble their tunes without any fear of reprisals:

Dear Dixie Chicks (especially the heavy-set one),

We recently heard your gyno-pop anthem “Not Ready To Make Nice” on the radio, and we thought we’d try to be, in the inimitable words of Stokley Carmichael, part of the solution instead of part of the problem. We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” are not only ready to make nice, we’re going to make nice right now.

We, for one, are sorry that this whole brouhaha erupted in the first place. In fact, had it not occurred, we would have remained blissfully unaware of your “music.” Oh, how wonderful that might have been!

You see, Chicks, we don’t have any problem with your statements about President Bush. As far as we’re concerned, you can give him the full “Music Man” treatment: Cover him in tar and feathers and ride him out on a rail.

Instead, it’s the syrupy crap you call your music that really offends. If you ask us, commercial country music is simply un-listenable aural detritus. Enjoying that feculent sub-genre of pop palaver is tantamount to wearing a T-shirt with the slogan “I have an IQ of 73” emblazoned on the front.

In fact, though you may be embarrassed that President Bush hails from your home state, weÂ’re embarrassed for humanity that your brand of saccharine garbage earns you enviable salaries. As H.L. Menken once said, no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. You, ladies, are a perfect example of the late Mr. MenkenÂ’s adage.

The sewage you play sounds like music for people who think Tori Amos is a bit too ballsy. It’s the audio version of “Steel Magnolias.” In short, it’s loathsome garbage.

So, since we’re nice enough to let you let ‘er rip against the President, we figured we could ask a favor of you in return. Could you please never perform again? We can certainly handle your controversial statements; it’s your lousy songs we can’t stomach.

Cordially,
The Crack Young Staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly”

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 608 words, total size 4 kb.

Undoubtedly some of you are wondering about the subject of today’s excoriation. Who is this John Tierney fellow? And why does the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” disesteem him?

Well, weÂ’re glad that you asked. For those of you blissfully unaware of The New York TimesÂ’ editorial page, which, in a typical display of left-wing generosity, is only available online for a fee, allow us to inform you that John Tierney is one of its regular columnists. In fact, Mr. Tierney replaced William Saffire, the libertarian-esque writer who has retired from his op-ed duties to pen uninteresting linguistic pap.

Now, readers of this humble “weblog” must know that we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” aren’t big fans of many Times columnists. After all, the page is home to Maureen Dowd, the un-thinking woman’s Ariana Huffington. And let us not forget Bob Herbert, who has, at last count, re-written the same vitriolic article about Iraq 5,348 times. Tell us, Bob: Are you for the war, or against it?

But Mr. Tierney, although nominally a conservative counterbalance to Dowd, Herbert, Krugman, et al., is somehow equally deplorable. Not that weÂ’re the first to notice this. In fact, The New Republic ran a piece on how downright unreadable is Mr. Tierney, which struck us as dead-on.

What, you may or may not be asking yourself, is so irksome about Mr. TierneyÂ’s oeuvre? Well, first things first, we ought to admit that weÂ’ve long harbored a hostility to libertarianism. Except for Ted; heÂ’s even a member in good standing of the Ayn Rand fan club, which promotes a philosophy that makes libertarianism seem kindly by comparison.

Yet our aversion to Mr. Tierney is not merely ideological. Rather, he offers predictable—and predictably uninteresting—views on pretty much everything. Without fail, you can anticipate Mr. Tierney’s argument in each of his columns merely from reading the first sentence or so. Virtually every one of these things is the same.

And then one might add that Mr. Tierney routinely inflates the importance of his beloved libertarianism. For instance, you might want to take a peek at “Free And Easy Riders,” his piece in the June 17 number of the Gray Lady.

The pull quote to the column says it all: “A helmet law libertarians could live with.”

Oh, great: Finally a helmet law that will appeal to the four people in the country who voted for Harry Browne! Libertarians can tolerate massive economic inequality, starving poor people, and watering down any measures designed to stop terrorism. Now they can live with a helmet law too! Say it isnÂ’t so, John!

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 441 words, total size 3 kb.

Ah, itÂ’s summertime. Or, as resident(s) of Buffalo, NY know it, the Great Thaw. Everyone dons their seersucker pants, clutches their mint juleps, and sits on their rocking chairs, watching the day pass into night. Either that or they sweat to death.

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” must admit that, in our humble experience, “weblogging” in the summer isn’t the bucket of roses you might think it to be. In fact, we’ve routinely found the summer months the sleepiest, least interesting time in the “weblogging” year.

For one, in the dog days of summer our “hits” tend to get lower than Courtney Love. Apparently, people are off sunning and funning. If they’re going to spend time on the beach, it’s much easier to clutch the obligatory copy of The Da Vinci Code than your laptop. After all, it’s really tough to get Coppertone out of your keyboard. A week at a Nerd Resort may teach you nothing else, but it’ll teach you that.

Now, to be sure, our comparatively light e-traffic can also be attributed to the sorry state of our “trackback” apparatus. It seems as if our “trackbacks” work about as much as the average Frenchman—that is to say, seldom, and often with griping. As such, if you desire to “trackback” to one of our humble animadversions, you’ll have about as much fun “sharing the hate” as you would “sharing the love” at a NAMBLA rally. Which is to say, we hope, not much at all.

Still, this technical difficulty with “trackbacks” appears to be a recurring plague for our Official Technical Difficulty Department, and thus we can’t blame it for our summer lag. But we’d like to: After a few years on Al Gore’s Internet, we feel we have the requisite experience to shudder at our lowly status in the (admittedly unreliable) Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem.

We mean, come on: This was previously the land of the “Marauding Marsupial”! How far have the mighty fallen! It was bad enough when we had to read the ungrammatical tag “I’m a Adorable Rodent” at the bottom of our “webpage.” But now? We’d kill be a rat, for crying out loud.

Perhaps there’s an upside to our June through August unpopularity. Maybe this means that our humble “weblog” attracts the academic crowd, which is busy during its summers avoiding the work it doesn’t do during the year.

Did we say that this was an upside?

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 420 words, total size 3 kb.