This humble “weblog”—humble as it is—has never gone on hiatus. Until, that is to say, now. We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” find ourselves up to our armpits in work, and thus we simply cannot keep up with our quotidian musings. Let us hope, however, that we can return to form soon.

To those who read our ridiculous animadversions, we thank you for your support.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh, itÂ’s getting to be that time of the year, dear reader. You know what we mean: For countless undergraduate students at American colleges and universities, crunch time is soon upon us.

Yep, itÂ’s final examination time, and our dipsomaniac collegians probably donÂ’t like it one bit. ItÂ’s putting a cramp in their acquaintance rape schedule, which is a real downer.

We mean, come on: The poor parents of the college-aged child didnÂ’t very well pay thousands upon thousands of dollars for their little Johnny or Suzie to work, did they? The university life shouldnÂ’t be devoted to higher learning, should it?

Not as far as most undergrads are concerned, of course. Thus the typical sophomore is currently in something of a tizzy, since he simply canÂ’t fathom completing all the mounds and mounds of work that have piled high during the course of the semester. (He never bothered to do those mounds and mounds of work when they were actually due, of course, but thatÂ’s another matter.)

Oh, the humanity! Little Steven has two five-page papers to write! How the heck is he going to manage that Herculean task?

Has anyone ever accomplished so much in such a short period of time? Sure, Truman Capote wrote In Cold Blood in something like two weeks, but that book isnÂ’t terribly long, was it?

Nope: As far as theyÂ’re concerned, no one in the history of the world is as busy as the typical undergrad at exam time. And, naturally, no one would dare trade places with him.

ItÂ’s far better to be, say, a coal miner than a college student, after all. Hey: At least coal miners neednÂ’t write any papers. And they get those helmets with the lights on them, those lucky bastards.

So, parents, we urge you to treat your collegiate son or daughter with great kindness in the days ahead. Sure, you may have 80-plus hours of work to do a week, myriad financial commitments, and lots of annoying errands.

But, hey, you don’t have a two-page history paper to write at the last minute—you lucky, lazy jerks.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 2 kb.

Thanks to the hard work of the level-headed folks at CNN, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have finally determined that there is one presidential candidate for whom we shall not plump. No matter how compelling his arguments about taxation and foreign policy may be, we just can’t vote for him.

Now, by referring to said candidate as “him,” you already recognize that we cannot be speaking about Sen. Hilary Rodham Clinton (D-Pants Suit), since she is—seemingly—female. Nor, we suppose, could we be referring to former Sen. John Edwards (D-Hair), for the selfsame reason.

And itÂ’s true: Both Hilary and Johnny are still officially in the running. But Fred Thompson (R-Trophy Wife) canÂ’t get our vote. No way, no how, as he might say in his folksy manner.

Why, you may reasonably wonder, can we not vote for former Sen. Thompson? He was awfully good on “Law and Order.” And he was pretty decent in a few two-star films as well. Heck, he’s a better actor than Ronald Reagan was, and the Gipper turned out to be a political success, eh?

Well, we wish it were that simple. But, not to put to fine a point on it, it isnÂ’t.

You see, dear reader, the geniuses at CNN have just informed us of one important datum about oleÂ’ Freddie that doesnÂ’t sit well with us one bit. Fred Thompson (R-Aw Shucks) doesnÂ’t have a hunting license.

Shock of all shocks! How could this happen? Fred Thompson looks like his mother wrapped him in Smith & Wesson diapers, for crying out loud. HeÂ’s the personification of an ammunition belt.

Yet itÂ’s true. Fred sheepishly admitted it to CNN. And, as you might well imagine, no hunting license means no vote from the crack young staff.

As far as weÂ’re concerned, if you donÂ’t have a hunting license, we canÂ’t trust you at all. Our president need only be a few things: American flag lovinÂ’; snuff sniffinÂ’; big game huntinÂ’; chaw spittinÂ’; and New Criterion readinÂ’.

Is that too much to ask?

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, isnÂ’t that a bit of a change? Thanks to our friends responsible for this yearÂ’s National Intelligence Estimate, Rip Torn is more of a threat to America than Iran is.

Not exactly, of course. Yet, as has oft been mentioned in the press of late, the NIE folks now believe that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. If we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” had any faith in American intelligence, we’d be overjoyed.

Hooray, hooray! Iran isn’t attempting to build nuclear weapons anymore. We always guessed that this was the case: We don’t mean to jump on the bandwagon, but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has always struck us as a man of peace. (Or is that “man of piece”—piece of Israel?)

Surely Lee Bollinger owes President Ahmadinejad a few words of apology—if he didn’t already. Boy, there’s egg all over President Bollinger’s face, eh? It turns out that the brutal dictator Bollinger excoriated is actually a Muslim Mother Theresa.

In addition, Israel must finally be able to get a little rest and relaxation. No need for vigilance now: Iran doesnÂ’t have the bomb, and thus canÂ’t wipe the dreaded Zionist Entity off the map.

Further, we imagine that President BushÂ’s domestic political critics are crowing. Aha, they think: Our Moron-in-Chief oversold the threat the mad mullahs pose, just like he exaggerated the evils of that charming and enlightened philosopher-king, Saddam Hussein.

Another victory for Harry Reid’s brand of “aggressive diplomacy”? More evidence that America should come up with more “diplomatic surges,” and fewer of the bellicose variety?

Hardly. After all, according to this year’s NIE, Iran halted its nuclear ambitions in 2003. If this is true—if—it strikes us that the date that this happened is somewhat significant.

But what other foreign policy decision also occurred in 2003? Gee: Nothing comes to mind.

Oh, wait: The US and its allies liberated Iraq then. Huh: We wonder if thatÂ’s connected to the Iranian governmentÂ’s decision to forgo its typical pugnacity.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 2 kb.

CNN has just reported it. We hope, dear reader, you are sitting down when you read this news. ItÂ’s a real shocker. Hold on to your hats.

Iran, it turns out, refuses to cave in to pressure to abandon its incipient nuclear program. Yep: We told you it was mind-blowing news. We hope youÂ’ll recover soon. (Of course, if you believe the latest NIE report, Iran is nothing but rainbows and smily-faces anyway.)

After all, the Europeans, the UN, Russia, and the United States have been attempting to halt IranÂ’s dangerous progress in nuclear technology for years now. And somehow those loveable mullahs in Iran just wonÂ’t give in. Crazy, isnÂ’t it?

Accordingly, once every two weeks, it seems, CNN bestows upon us a resplendent new headline that reads “Iran Refuses to Budge on Nuclear Plan,” or some such. And, to the realist establishment, this must be some surprise. They refuse to budge? How very odd.

We mean, come on: Our anti-neocon friends canÂ’t stop bleating about the cardinal virtue of diplomacy, soft power, and the like. And yet, when we try our best to rein in Iran through a variety of carrots and sticksÂ…nothing happens.

Gee, itÂ’s as if a horrible despotic regime doesnÂ’t bargain like democratic nations do. ItÂ’s as if a horrible despotic regime partially backed by Russia and China doesnÂ’t fear the sorts of watered-down sanctions the UN can throw at it.

Who would have seen this coming?

Now, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” don’t pine for conflict with Iran. It would be hunky dory with us if there were some massive uprising in the country, which overthrew the mad mullahs.

But we shouldnÂ’t allow our disdain for military conflicts drift us into un-reality. Barack Obama appears to believe that a nice Oprah-style chat with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will clear everything right up.

And heÂ’s a fool. Tyrannical regimes do not uphold agreements. They must be dealt with forcefully.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.

Albert Einstein once said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Well, according to that plumb definition, we’ve happened upon a prime example of insanity—in the letters to the editor section of The New York Times of all places.

We know, we know, we know: The New York Times? How can that offer a prime exemplum of madness? Especially the letters to the editor section, which is normally chock-a-block with carefully grounded sanity?

Well, somehow it happened, dear reader. We canÂ’t explain it either.

DonÂ’t believe us? You donÂ’t have to, since weÂ’ve taken the liberty of reproducing this fine missive to the editor below:

To the Editor:

Re “Israel and Palestinians Set Goal of a Treaty in 2008” (front page, Nov. 2 :

Imagine what might have happened if, after the attacks of Sept. 11, President Bush had dedicated his administration to peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians with the vigor he is displaying now.

Imagine if he had recognized then, as he appears to now, that a peaceful settlement of that dispute, more than any issue, is essential to stamping out the root causes of Al Qaeda and the forces of extremism.

Imagine if, rather than invading Iraq, he had only gone after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and departed after eliminating it as a threat.

Seven years after mocking President Clinton’s “nation building” and peace efforts, President Bush has pushed aside the protests of his vice president, and is perhaps sheepishly beginning to throw himself into these efforts.

With luck, perhaps itÂ’s not too late for President Bush and the world to build something from the ashes of his failed policies.

Philip M. Berkowitz
New York, Nov. 28, 2007

Can you spot the insanity, dear reader? Never mind the obvious tendentiousness of the letter. Only monocausal loons of the Michael Scheuer variety believe that Israel is the key issue driving Islamist terrorism. If so, what compelled the jihadis to wage war against the Russians, who were by then no friends of the Jewish state?

All one must do is read the speeches of Osama bin Laden to recognize that Israel is not his only whipping boy. The man yearns for an Islamic caliphate, sharia law, theocracy. Only a boob would think that an equitable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would stop al Qaeda in its tracks.

Furthermore, to bin Laden and his ilk, an “equitable solution” would be the utter annihilation of Israel. Anything short of this wouldn’t appease the Islamist nutters. (That we ought to be appeasing folks who engage in brazen acts of anti-American terrorism is yet another problematic assertion, but we can leave that to one side.)

According to the genius of Philip M. Berkowitz, George Bush should have done what Bill Clinton did regarding the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and everything would be hunky dory. And herein lies the insanity: If we recall our history correctly, President ClintonÂ’s attempt was a big fat failure.

And it was a big fat failure for the same reason it would be a big fat failure today: Only one side—the Israeli side—actually wants peace. The other still pines for the destruction of its enemies. A quick examination of Memri.org will ably demonstrate that.

So, Philip M. Berkowitz wants President Bush to do the same thing over again, and expect different results. If you ask us, that “M” from his middle name must stand for madness.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 577 words, total size 4 kb.

Well, our pals on the far Left have yet another gleaming example of liberal media bias to scoff at or ignore. As you undoubtedly know by now, dear reader, CNN flew in a fellow named Keith H. Kerr to ask a question about gays in the military at the recent CNN-Youtube Republican presidential debate.

And, as it turns out, Mr. Kerr is something of a shill, since he had been part of Sen. Hillary ClintonÂ’s steering committee on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues. Thus he wasnÂ’t exactly the sort of undecided Republican who ought to have been asking questions of the prospective Republican presidential nominees.

Nor, as it turns out, was Mr. Kerr the only ringer. According to Michelle Malkin, pretty much every questioner was either a John Edwards operative or Dennis Kucinich. One of them might even have been Joe BidenÂ’s hair plugs.

Now, don’t get us wrong, dear reader. We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” consider ourselves firm supporters of gay marriage, and believe that gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the military. In fact, we’d even contemplate a special draft exclusive to lesbians, if they’d allow it. As such, we’re sure entirely agree with Mr. Kerr’s perspective on these matters.

Yet he obviously ought not to have been asking a question at a Republican primary debate. Such an event, after all, offers an opportunity for registered Republicans to get a sense of the candidate they most esteem for the presidency. It ought to be geared toward those who would actually plump for one of the men on the stage.

The same is true of a Democratic debate. At a Democratic debate, Alan Keyes shouldn’t be asking questions about “Castro’s tyrrany” or “the radical homosexual agenda.” Ann Coulter ought not query candidates on “treason,” or whatever silly topic gets her dander up.

How can a reputable news network not do a little Googling before allowing this to happen? More to the point, how in the good LordÂ’s name did they think they could get away with such sloppiness?

We’re fully prepared to buy the notion that the lefty CNN folks picked out questions that suited their anti-Republican prejudices. Yet we didn’t think they’d be so stupid as to fail to discover whether these “gotcha” queries stemmed from real undecided Republicans or not.

“The most trusted name in news”? Oh, puh-lease.

Sure, Fox News is horribly titled to the Right. Worse yet, they simply wonÂ’t own up to it. But clearly CNN doesnÂ’t shoot straight either. Eric Alterman may never admit it, but that shouldnÂ’t stop sane people from doing so.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 450 words, total size 3 kb.

Much like sundry other Americans, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” never watch beauty competitions. They are, in a word, boring. All they seem to accomplish is making upper-middle class women more anorexic and all men more despondent. And, we hasten to add, we consider both of these things bad.

Sure, sure, sure: There are plenty of pretty women on display at the typical beauty pageant. Except, of course, for Miss Massachusetts, who is invariably a total schnauzer. Why is it that every Miss Massachusetts must be a spitting image of Kitty Dukakis?

Anyway, we have recently heard news about a recent beauty pageant that made us potentially change our minds. Sure, we still hate the odious “talent” competitions and the unparalleled stupidity of the interviews with the ladies (“I hunger for world peace!). Still, if future contests run much like the 2008 Miss Universe, we may tune in to a few beauty pageants in the future.

Now, allow us first and foremost to register a complaint about the whole Miss Universe thing. As far as we can tell, the name for said contest is entirely bogus: WeÂ’ve never even spied an entrant from Venus, let alone a winner. And Miss Mercury hasnÂ’t arrived either.

In essence, we consider the Miss Universe contest a horrid example of knuckle-dragging geocentricity. Copernicus would be ashamed.

And yet, can one really detest a concert at which the following occurs:

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - Beauty pageant organizers were investigating Sunday who doused a contestant's evening gowns with pepper spray and spiked her makeup, causing her to break out in hives.
Beauty queen Ingrid Marie Rivera beat 29 rivals to become the island's 2008 Miss Universe contestant, despite applying makeup and wearing evening gowns that had been coated with pepper spray, pageant spokesman Harold Rosario said.
Rivera was composed while appearing before cameras and judges throughout the competition. But once backstage, she had to strip off her clothes and apply ice bags to her face and body, which swelled and broke out in hives twice.
"We thought at first it was an allergic reaction, or maybe nerves," Rosario said. "But the second time, we knew it couldn't have been a coincidence."
Rivera's clothing and makeup later tested positive for pepper spray.

Finally, a little excitement at the oleÂ’ Miss Universe. If this pageant turned into some sort of dirty tricks convention, you can be darn sure weÂ’d watch it with our eyes glued to the set.

Even if Jimmy Kimmel were the host.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 3 kb.

Every day, it seems, the presidential campaign trail offers up new news. Mike Huckabee has lost even more weight; Barack Obama is an empty suit; Dennis Kucinich has seen yet another UFO—these are the sorts of important stories those attuned to the presidential struggle learn.

And here comes a new—and positively shocking—tidbit: Bill Clinton didn’t exactly tell the truth when he recently stated, in the course of cheerleading for his wife’s candidacy, he opposed the Iraq War from the very start. Even The New York Times, the unofficial booster of all things Clintonian, couldn’t quite bail the former president out of this remark.

After all, it isn’t quite—to use a word with which Bill Clinton shows little familiarity—true that he was dead-set against the Iraq War, though he did hope for a longer period of time for weapons inspectors to do their job. And thus—perish the thought!—it turns out that the former president was playing a little fast and loose with the truth.

As you might well imagine, the television chat shows are all abuzz about this tidbit of information. And, as you also might imagine, the folks at Fox News are the most enthusiastic about pushing this story. Bill Clinton lied! Bill Clinton lied!

Well, gee: Color us completely surprised. Bill Clinton isnÂ’t a beacon of veracity? What will they tell us next, that he also isnÂ’t a dedicated monogamist?

Now, donÂ’t get us wrong, dear reader: We firmly believe that Bill Clinton was, overall, a decent president when it came to matters of domestic policy. The 1996 welfare reform bill was a grand success, and the economy was good.

Sure, Slick Willy wasn’t as effective on the foreign policy front. Yasir “She’s My Baby” Arafat single-handedly demolished his Herculean efforts to solve the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Further, Bill Clinton quixotically treated Islamist terrorism as a law enforcement issue—which led to its great escalation during his tenure.

Still, President Clinton did remove Milosevic from the Balkans, and he did so without turning to the UN Security Council for a vote. So he wasnÂ’t all bad.

But news that he isnÂ’t exactly a latter-day George Washington? Oh, come on! That isnÂ’t news at all.

Pretty soon, theyÂ’ll tell us that Rudy Giuliani has had a few wives. Boy, wonÂ’t that startling revelation turn a few heads.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 389 words, total size 3 kb.

As everyone who doesnÂ’t read frighteningly right-wing magazines such as Newsweek, Time, and The New Republic well knows, Jews run the world. ItÂ’s unfortunate, perhaps, but itÂ’s true: In this day and age, only Zionist-approved people and products succeed.

Hence the career of Pauly Shore—surely one of the most disgusting examples of Israeli control imaginable. Have you seen one of this clown’s insipid movies? Man, they make Carrot Top look like Orson Welles.

Of course, dear reader, we’re not telling you anything that fancy researchers at fancy schools such as Harvard and the University of Chicago haven’t said. And, unlike us, said researchers have done so with copious footnotes referring to such fancy “websites” as Counterpunch. Heck: If you can’t trust Alexander Cockburn, whom can you trust?

Yet, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” do not intend to leave you with the (erroneous) impression that our Hebrew friends run the universe without any competition. There are, it seems, numerous other Lobbies out there (note the insidious capitalization), which give the Jews a proverbial run for their non-proverbial money.

And weÂ’re not just talking about Gore Vidal.

Allow us to offer you one small example. Thanks to the efforts of a charming “weblog” called “The Colossus of Rhodey,” we learned of the following story, which appeared in the august pages of The New York Post:

November 16, 2007 -- In calling pigeons "flying rats," City Council Speaker Christine Quinn might as well have used "the n-word," an animal-rights group charged yesterday.

After Brooklyn Councilman Simcha Felder this week proposed fining pigeon feeders $1,000, Quinn said she had "no use" for the "flying rats."

Urban Wildlife Coalition founder Johana Clearfield wrote Quinn, slamming her as "clueless," since "pigeons have nothing in common with rats" - and calling her comment an "epithet . . . much like the n-word."

Behold the power of the Pigeon Lobby. Refer to our fine feathered friends as rats, and someone will liken you to a Klansman.

We wonder if Ms. Quinn had black pigeons in mind. That sickening racist.

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

Ah, Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s scrappy and garrulous President, is a gift that keeps on giving. Without fail, we love to return to his nefarious antics, because they—time and time again—demonstrate the rank hypocrisy of far leftists who complain about President Bush’s eroding of civil liberties.

Simply put, Hugo Chavez makes George W. Bush look like democracy itself. Hence the difficulty for our far Left pals: They pretend to support civil liberties and to loathe the quashing of dissent, and thus they must twist themselves into mental pretzels in order to cheerlead for the odious President Chavez.

Amongst the complaints of our far Left friends, surely the one most commonly heard relates to right-wing charges of insufficient patriotic fervor. The Right, claim our far Left friends, is incessantly questioning our patriotism. And this is disgusting.

Well, take a look at the latest news on Hugo Chavez, the far LeftÂ’s peerless democrat:

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez warned his supporters on Friday that anyone voting against his proposed constitutional changes would be a "traitor," rallying his political base before a referendum that would let him seek unlimited re-election in 2012 and beyond.

Brandishing a little red book listing his desired 69 revisions to Venezuela's charter, Chavez exhorted his backers to redouble their efforts toward a victorious "yes" vote in the Dec. 2 ballot.

"He who says he supports Chavez but votes 'no' is a traitor, a true traitor," the president told an arena packed with red-clad supporters. "He's against me, against the revolution and against the people."

His speech followed the recent high-profile defection of his former Defense Minister Gen. Raul Baduel, a longtime ally who called the president's proposed reforms a "coup." Others have also broken with the Chavista movement in recent months, including politicians of the small left-leaning party Podemos.

Chavez's opponents accuse him of concentrating power and seeking to be president-for-life like his close friend Fidel Castro of Cuba. Chavez insists he will only stay on as long as Venezuelans continue to vote for him.

"If you don't approve (the referendum), maybe we'll have time for a parachute jump in five years," Chavez, a former paratrooper, told the crowd. "But if you wish—if you approve the referendum—I will stay as long as God wills! Until the last bone of my skeleton dries out!"

The proposed revisions would do away with presidential term limits, extend terms from six to seven years, let Chavez appoint regional vice presidents and eliminate Central Bank authority, among other changes.

What a delight: If you vote against his obvious power grab, you are a “traitor” to your country. Now there’s somebody who really understands the meaning of encouraging dissent. To our far Left friends, apparently, “dissent is patriotic,” provided it’s not aimed at a fledgling left-wing tyrant.

Just imagine if dumb ole’ George Bush informed voters that a failure to vote for a favored referendum made you a “traitor.” Would Katha Pollitt ever shut up about that? No. But our friends on the far Left will do their best to ignore Hugo’s shenanigans; it’s the only thing that’ll stop them from severe cognitive dissonance.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 531 words, total size 4 kb.

As every literate American knows, The New York Times bills itself as the Paper of Record. In fact, this datum is so well known that even a few non-literate folks (i.e., college students) recognize it.

Accordingly, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” turn to the Gray Lady with great regularity for rousing reflections on the sober and important stories of the day. This ain’t The New York Post or The Sun, after all, and thus we can expect serious coverage of serious topics.

The November 23 number of the Times carries a perfect example of what we mean. The irrepressible (yet often repressed) Jodi Kantor offers a report in said issue that sports the appealing title “Where the Votes Are, So Are the Calories.”

A very useful piece, don’t you think? The dedicated editors and editrixes at the Times sure thought so, and thus offered it prominent placement on their paper’s “website.” Clearly, this is the sort of thing that the Paper of Record needs to record.

DonÂ’t believe us? Then take in the first few paragraphs of Ms. KantorÂ’s crucial election coverage:

Running for president is like entering a competitive eating contest and a beauty pageant all at once. Candidates are expected to eat local specialties often and with gusto, yet still look attractive and fit.

So it is no wonder that many of this year’s candidates have what might be called food issues — the same kinds that plague the rest of us, especially at this time of year, but exacerbated by the brutal demands of campaign life.

The Democratic contenders include Gov. Bill Richardson, a veteran of the Atkins and liquid diets who wears a double chin despite daily workouts. Senator Barack Obama, who was chubby as a child, refers to himself as skinny in speeches and barely touches fatty foods — except at events like the Iowa State Fair, where he ate caramel corn, pork and a corn dog for the cameras. At one campaign event, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said she prayed to God to help her lose weight.

We know what youÂ’re thinking, dear reader: Thanks, New York Times, for such serious coverage of important political matters. Personally, we donÂ’t give a darn where the candidates stand on the important issues of the day; rather, we care only about their weight loss strategies.

After all, Ms. KantorÂ’s article is of potentially great use to the millions and millions of us who are planning to run for president but who hadnÂ’t contemplated the ways in which such a candidacy might effect our waistlines. If that isnÂ’t helpful, we collectively donÂ’t know what is.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 453 words, total size 3 kb.

By now, dear reader, you have undoubtedly heard the news: Sen. Barack Obama (D-Sidney Poitier) has been making up lots and lots of ground on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-Philandering Husband). For the umpteen members of the mainstream media who have clearly favored Obama all along, this is most certainly delightful news.

Now, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” must admit that we were originally a tad upset by this recent turn of events. After all, as far as the Democratic presidential hopefuls are concerned, we consider ourselves Biden men and women.

Sure, sure, sure: We have a far better shot of winning the presidency than this hair-plugged, plagiarizing gaffe machine. But, come on: The fellow knows a thing or two about foreign policy, which strikes us as somewhat relevant in this day and age.

Accordingly, good news for Obama is certainly bad news for Sen. Biden. And it ainÂ’t too pleasant for Dennis Kucinich, either, whose UFO sightings outnumber his non-Nation-reading supporters.

But we must say that the recent surge (if you will) in support for Obama troubles us because we far prefer Sen. Clinton to the other two leading Democratic candidates (Obama and some keen-looking fellow with really, really nice hair). We know, we know: Sen. Clinton leaves a lot to be desired. Her views on the Middle East seem to change more often than her pants-suits.

Still, Sen. Clinton strikes us as pragmatic and comparatively moderate on foreign policy, which seems decent enough for us. SheÂ’s no Lieberman or Ben Nelson, but she sure beats the heck out of John Edwards.

And thus we originally found ourselves a bit miffed that Sen. Obama has improved his fortunes so much. After all, as far as we can determine, the junior Senator from Illinois has distinguished himself for only two things: Uttering mind-numbing platitudes that would make the average politician blush and speaking ill-advisedly on matters of foreign policy.

This, for example, was the guy who claimed he would blithely chat up Iran with no preconditions, right after he bombed Pakistan into the Stone Age. Well, that sounds pretty reasonable, doesnÂ’t it? Tell us more about your deep-seated political wisdom, Sen. Obama.

Can Hillary beat this empty suit? We donÂ’t know, but we hope she has the audacity to hope so.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 2 kb.

A wise man once said that timing is everything. We’re not sure if said wise man particularly referred to the “rhythm method” so popular—and effective—in Latin American countries, but his apothegm is helpful nevertheless.

And why not? We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” can think of plenty of things that require good timing. Hand grenades, for one. Tennis, for another. The aforementioned rhythm method, for yet another.

We mention this, dear reader, because our timing (or e-timing, if you will) tends toward the impeccable. Without fail, we refer to people and events only when the American public no longer cares about them.

For instance, whilst everyone else is talking about, say, Britney Spears, we’re busy gabbing about Christopher Cross. Whatever happened to him? Nobody wants to know but we—or so it seems.

We make note of this unfortunate particularity, dear reader, because we have managed—as if by magic—to do it again. Yes, the topic for today’s demolition is already old news, since the baseball season is good and over.

Our “post,” therefore, will read much like a savage demolition of Sen. Paul Simon. Geez: Didn’t Cicero say something about speaking well of the dead? And why not rip on the musician Paul Simon instead? Clearly Garfunkle was the talent behind that operation. And his hair was far superior.

But we digress—and rather un-entertainingly, if we must say so ourselves. The topic of today’s serious lucubration is Tim McCarver, a baseball analyst for the Fox Television Network.

Perhaps, dear reader, you have caught a bit of the MLB playoffs. If so, congratulations: YouÂ’re a prol just like us. In addition, you should be doubly congratulated for enduring the scabrous nonsense dribbling from the mouth of Mr. McCarver, the color commentator from hell.

Now, donÂ’t get us wrong. Although it seems easy, the ability to serve as a color commentator and not irritate the snot out of us appears to be the most difficult gig in all of professional sports. Have you ever heard Joe Morgan? That guy may have been a great player, but heÂ’s a complete boob.

At least Joe Morgan is a genial guy, however. But not Tim McCarver, baseball broadcastingÂ’s answer to Billy Packer. HeÂ’s incessantly obnoxious, regularly ridiculing players, managers, and umpires for failing to live up to the heady standards of the great Tim McCarver.

To which the proper response is: Oh, shut up. If you were such a baseball genius, you wouldnÂ’t be stuck in a little booth dangerously close to Joe Buck, now would you?

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.

As even The New York Times and its less deranged cousin, The Washington Post, have reported of late, the “surge” in Iraq has thus far proved a remarkable success. Deaths in Iraq are down dramatically; attacks are down; areas previously disastrous are in far better shape.

It appears as if the efforts of American and allied troops, led by a general whose name we forget but which rhymes with “Betray Us,” have been rather effective. The Iraq War, previously the albatross of the Republican Party, may not be such a dreaded issue for conservative hopefuls in the upcoming presidential election.

And how has this affected our friends on the political Left? Well, it appears as if not much has altered the worldview of those who sanctimoniously deem themselves members of the “reality-based community.” Reality, it seems, isn’t very, for lack of a better word, real.

For one thing, the Democratic presidential hopefuls appear to be engaged in endless one-upsmanship over the supposed horrors of the Iraq War. “My opponent hates the Iraq War, whereas I really hate it,” says one left-wing candidate or other. Seldom do these professional panderers make nods to the situation on the ground, other than to kick up a fuss about how quickly they’d remove the troops—and to chastise Hillary Clinton for making delicate nods toward reality.

Nope: It seems as if our Democratic hopefuls, despite their dangerously expensive haircuts, are busy doing their best Jack Murtha impressions.

And the Angry Left? How are they managing? Well, gee: WeÂ’re glad you asked.

Naturally, these beacons of “social justice” are committed to the same anti-Iraq platform that animated their hemp T-Shirts from the get-go. If by “anti-Iraq platform” you mean freeing Mumia, destroying Israel, and fighting the purported evils of worldwide capitalism.

At capitulation rallies all across Blue America, one sees the same “Impeach Bush-Hitler,” “Love Your Fellow Man, Kill the Jews,” and “Give Islamofascism a Chance” placards. And, yes, they still warm our little hearts as much as before.

One wonders when such folks will bow to reality and recognize that their hated conflict isn’t such a disaster after all. Will they finally carry signs that read “No Mildly Successful War for Oil”?

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 381 words, total size 3 kb.

As you undoubtedly recognize, dear reader, lots and lots of Americans attend college. If youÂ’re a card-carrying member of the upper-middle class, youÂ’re pretty much obliged to head to a university. Fail to do so, and itÂ’s safe to say that youÂ’re the official black sheep of the family.

Accordingly, oodles and oodles of colleges and universities are positively chock-a-block with students. And not only fancy-pants schools such as Andover Tractor Trailer, which teaches you how to ride the big rigs. Nope: Even lesser esteemed liberal arts colleges pull in their fair share of undergraduates.

Naturally, this has amounted to the great democratization of the liberal arts. Thanks originally to the GI Bill (and GI Joe, that great American hero), such schools are not only the provenance of Cotton Mather-esque elites. Nowadays, any oleÂ’ schlub can head to a liberal arts school, provided heÂ’s willing to shell out lots and lots of cash.

This has led numerous parents to ask the quintessential question about the value of liberal arts education: What the hell are you going to do with that degree? Ah, if only Matthew Arnold could have phrased it so mellifluously.

Yes, yes, yes: As we all know, “liberal arts” is merely a fancy term for “pre-professional education.” And thus the typical knuckle-dragging soccer mom is quite right to wonder what sort of career her little Johnny or Suzie will embark on after her four years prostrate to the higher keg.

Well, wonder no longer. After literally minute of painstaking research, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have determined the best uses for a liberal arts education—given the current interests and talents of the typical undergraduate.

So, just take a gander at our exquisitely impressive list of employment opportunities, and wonder no longer about the great value of American higher education:

An Official List of Potential Employment Opportunities for the American Liberal Arts College Graduate as composed by the Crack Young Staff

1) Trust-fund baby

2) Dirty hippie

3) Alcoholic beverage taster

4) Illiterate hobo

5) Cheech or Chong

6) Acquaintance rapist

7) Squatter

Well, there you have it, dear reader: An intriguing panoply of job options for the typical liberal arts college graduate and his brown banana of a liver.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 391 words, total size 2 kb.

As of this writing, dear reader, the Democratic contenders for the presidency of these here United States of America are soon to take their podiums and begin some high-minded partisan mud-slinging. And we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” think that this is desperately unfair—at least in one particular case.

Allow us to elaborate, if you will. Perhaps you know that Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-Whitewater) finds herself amongst the Democratic candidates. Further, you may well recognize that her rivals’ purported “ganging up” on Sen. Clinton in a previous debate caused a fair amount of feminist hand wringing.

Gee: Feminist hand wringing. That must be the only example of that phenomenon in recent memory. After al, feminists are always so blissfully content.

The men are treating Hillary unfairly, claimed Geraldine Ferraro, who graciously poked her head out from the rock she lives under in order to make this useful remark. Clearly, according to Ms. Ferraro (D-DidnÂ’t Help Mondale), grilling the Democratic front-runner was tantamount to virulent sexism.

And we want to take things one giant step further. If you ask us, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and those other inveterate males are nothing but a gaggle of modern-day Andy Capps. How dare they challenge a woman!

As a result, we have come to the reasonable conclusion that it is deeply unfair for Sen. Clinton to take part in any debates. After all, sheÂ’s a woman: She shouldnÂ’t very well be treated with the same lack of decorum one associates with male political rivals.

Forthwith, we call upon the Democratic National Committee (and Howard Dean, if we recall correctly) to put a stop to this Hillary-Is-Debating nonsense. ItÂ’s blatantly misogynistic and absurd.

Sen. Clinton—as a woman—should have the right to wend her way to the White House without being forced to dodge the slings and arrows of outrageous candidates. Such misfortunes are the lot of white men, not women and minorities.

Nor, in the case of Dennis Kucinich, slightly off-kilter elves.

If you donÂ’t agree with us, dear reader, never fear: ItÂ’s only because youÂ’re a sexist bastard.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 2 kb.

A recent perusal of the television dial compelled us to note something surprising: There are a whole lot of shows these days that feature the word “naked.” As far as we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” could intuit, the following programs can be seen in your living room: “The Naked Chef,” “The Naked Architect,” “The Naked Greengrocer,” “The Naked Jai-Lai Enthusiast,” &c.

Now, we arenÂ’t normally ones to get all hot and bothered about such lascivious titles. After all, television is pretty much a lowest-common-denominator genre, and it would be foolish to get oneÂ’s dander up about a few programs with prurient names.

But here, we think, is the rub: Of all the umpteen shows that sport the “naked” title, not one of them features nudity. You read that right, dear reader: Not one of them.

This strikes us as militantly annoying. You can’t very well title your show “The Naked Plumber” and then fail to parade this particular blue-collar craftsman without his proverbial blue collar! You can’t put “The Naked Hairdresser” on the air and then cut out the pictures of her in the buff.

ItÂ’s just not bloody fair, now is it? WeÂ’re talking about nudity, after all. This is not the time to get all metaphorical on us.

We mean, come on: At least have the decency to label the show “The Scantily-Clad Chef.” Sure, the appearance of a fully-clothed cook will still rankle, but it won’t be as galactically upsetting as it is with “The Naked Chef” moniker.

ItÂ’s a crime, if you ask us. And the FCC should drop its whole Janet JacksonÂ’s Boob thing and get on it pronto. ShouldnÂ’t the government enforce truth in advertising?

Perhaps we, taking a page out of the sordid book of television executives, should call ourselves the crack young naked staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly”? Or we can go one better: The crack young naked and nubile staff.

Or, even better: The crack young naked, nubile, and frightened staff. That all may be completely bogus, but, if it drags in a few extra perverted goons, apparently itÂ’ll all be worth it.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 2 kb.

Perhaps, dear reader, you have heard the news that Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-Frosted Bangs) recently found herself in a bit of hot water. In addition to performing poorly in a Philadelphia debate amongst Democratic presidential hopefuls, Sen. Clinton angered most of the non-Andrea-Dworkin-loving populace by blaming her troubles on her gender.

To make matters worse, a little “website” called the Drudge Report broke the news that the Clinton campaign has at least once employed students as plants for speaking events in Iowa. Now, when we say “employed students as plants,” don’t think we’re going to make some lame gag about ferns.

Nope: At least one young woman was compelled by the Clintonistas to offer some pre-screened question, which Sen. Clinton presumably (and figuratively) hit out of the ballpark. Like any pro, it seems, Sen. Clinton has gained a wide following by rehearsing and rehearsing and rehearsing her spontaneity.

This has, naturally enough, got us to wonder: Why aren’t we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” asked to be plants for Sen. Clinton? Why must her campaign stoop to the level of Iowa collegians (a very low level indeed) in order to find a few people willing to offer a phony question?

Not to toot our own collective horn too loudly, but we think that weÂ’d make phenomenal plants. After all, weÂ’re very good at pretending as if a question we have is heartfelt, rather than entirely forced. Perhaps thatÂ’s the only benefit weÂ’ve ever gotten out of bad first dates.

Further, we think that we could come up with some really dazzling pro-Hillary queries. In fact, we consider ourselves so capable of producing such questions, that weÂ’ll hit you with a couple of them forthwith.

Official “Hatemonger’s Quarterly” Pre-Screened Questions for Hillary Clinton as envisioned by the Crack Young Staff

1) You seem far more informed—and of a far lighter complexion—than your opponent Barack Hussein Obama. Does this make him a terrorist?

2) All your policies are simply fantastic. I think I agree with all Americans when I say that you are completely correct about everything. How did you manage to get so much so right?

3) How long has Dennis Kucinich been an elfin Mexican? Do you think this disqualifies him from the presidency?

4) Many Americans are worried about electing a female president. Do you believe that this is a good reason for John Edwards to drop out of the race?

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

As the project to spread democracy in some of the most autocratic nations continues apace, some of our liberal friends find themselves incapable of offering their support. Muslims, they might say, arenÂ’t ready for democracy. Thus do our lefty pals demonstrate their unflinching anti-racism.

Yet not all criticisms of AmericaÂ’s newfound democracy-promotion hinges on such charmingly enlightened view of our Islamic brethren. Rather, some folks offer other dubious rationales.

Take Thomas Friedman, for example. Mr. Friedman, the New York Times columnist with the grandest moustache, is famous for having discovered that the world is actually flat—to the curiously intense fanfare of most literate Americans.

These days, however, Mr. Friedman spends his time finger-wagging about Iraq. Ah, if only we had listened to Mr. FriedmanÂ’s sage counsel. Then the Middle East would be like a playground: Happy, happy, happy.

For a charming exemplum of Mr. Friedman’s glorious ideas for Iraq, one can take a gander at “Democracy’s Root: Diversity,” which appeared in the November 11 number of the Gray Lady. Even before turning our collective eyes toward the piece, we were highly skeptical. After all, ancient Athens wasn’t highly “diverse,” and yet its residents got a handle on democracy just fine.
Just in case you thought our concern was misplaced, the eminent Mr. Friedman hits us with this unintentionally hilarious quote:

A senior French official suggested to me that maybe we in the West, rather than trying to promote democracy in the Middle East — a notion tainted by its association with the very Western powers that once colonized the region — should be focusing on promoting diversity, which has historical roots in the area.

ItÂ’s a valid point.

Yes, yes, yes: We shouldn’t be troubling ourselves with democracy. We ought to be promoting “diversity” instead. What a fantastic idea.

Perhaps we can get a bunch of professional “diversity” apparatchiks to head to Saudi Arabia and offer their delightful “diversity” seminars for the country’s benighted populace. If these “diversity”-mongers are the same folks who run orientation programs at our nation’s colleges and universities, we have a sense that such seminars will work wonders.

After all, whatÂ’s more salubrious than informing Saudi Arabian fanatics that white people, qua white people, are ineluctably racists? That ought to help the Middle East.

There’s only one problem: What happens when the Saudis note that America’s “diversity” police are more totalitarian than their own autocratic rulers?

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 410 words, total size 3 kb.