If thereÂ’s any benefit to reading a left-leaning newspaper, surely the letters-to-the-editor section makes it all worthwhile. And no wonder: Ever gleeful to take in delightful examples of sanctimonious fatuity, we savor the little bursts of reader nonsense that appear in such organs as The New York Times, The Guardian, and The Washington Post.

Here’s a perfect exemplum of what we mean. The October 14 number of The Boston Globe, the Gray Lady’s New England satellite, contains a missive from one Brother Mark Brown, who is described as “a member of the Society of St. John the Evangelist, an Episcopalian monastic order, and…a frequent visitor to Israel.”

Br. Brown’s epistle is a response to Elaine McArdle’s column “I Was Lobbied by the ‘Israel Lobby,’” which must have been as ham-fisted as its title suggests. Br. Brown’s letter reads as follows:

McArdle mentions the daily Israeli newspaper HaÂ’aretz. On the left side of the Israeli political spectrum and frequently critical of the powers that be, the paper provides ample evidence of the impassioned, uninhibited debate that characterizes Israeli public discourse.

The sheer complexity of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, not to mention the high stakes, naturally generates a wide range of opinions about the situation. At least in Israel.

We have to wonder how it is that Congress is miraculously of a single mind on this critical and complex issue when this body can otherwise be so fractious. It is precisely the absence of vigorous and uninhibited debate in Washington—the kind that Israeli democracy can rightly be proud of—that makes it difficult to dismiss claims that the Israel lobby has indeed had too much influence on US foreign policy.

If that is so—if we have the best Congress money can buy—it will eventually become clear that we have been false friends of Israel. True friends offer something sturdier than unquestioning acquiescence.

Ah, what a delight! One moment Br. Brown is piously intoning about the “sheer complexity of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict,” and the next he’s myopically trashing the Jewish Lobby for subverting American democracy! Oh, the complexity!

Naturally, Br. Brown’s take on the so-called Israel lobby is arrant nonsense. The idea that Congress is in lock-step with Israel should be news to such folks as John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich, both of whom seem strikingly unfriendly to Israel. If this is a miraculous “single mind,” we’d love to see Br. Brown’s assessment of complete agreement.

But clearly the most disgusting—and morally obtuse—portion of Br. Brown’s missive is his unreflective assumption that Jewish money is purchasing Congress and forcing it to do its bidding. Perhaps Br. Brown has never heard of Saudi Arabia. If so, allow us to inform him that this country is rather oil-rich, and, as a result, tosses around millions and millions of dollars in its lobbying efforts in the United States.

As anyone but a complete simpleton realizes, the Israel lobby is not the only lobbying group in Washington, DC interested in the Middle East. But, to the deeply complex Br. Brown, only the Jews can subvert American democracy.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 520 words, total size 4 kb.

Boy, Columbia University sure has had a few good weeks of publicity. The storied Ivy League institution is turning into a latter-day Duke lacrosse team, for crying out loud.

Perhaps you heard, dear reader, that a delightful chap called Mahmoud Ahmedinejad spoke at Columbia. As it turns out, Mr. Ahmedinejad is the president of a country called Iran and harbors some views that are a bit—how to put it?—extreme.

For instance, he isnÂ’t quite certain that the Holocaust happened and appears to aim to make sure a contemporary Holocaust occurs via the utter elimination of Israel. In addition, Mr. Ahmadinejad denies the existence of homosexuals in his fine nation, even though his government executes people for same-sex inclinations.

We know what youÂ’re thinking, dear reader: What a charming fellow to have speak at your local university. And the bigwigs at Columbia fully agreed with your fine sentiment. Thus President Lee Bollinger invited Mr. Ahmadinejad to campus, only to browbeat him in his introduction, as a way of lamely saving face.

Oh, but it gets worse. As you undoubtedly read, an African-American professor at Columbia’s teachers college arrived at her office and was greeted by a noose hanging on her door. Very, very nice, eh? Perhaps force-feeding students all that moralistic blather about “enforcing diversity” is paying off?

As if this weren’t bad enough, now a local television station reports that anti-Semitic graffiti has been found in a bathroom at Columbia—with swastika and all. Yes, yes: The trifecta of hate at dear old Columbia!

This made us wonder: How do the authorities know that the graffito in question isnÂ’t merely preliminary notes of one of ColumbiaÂ’s famed Middle East Studies professors? After all, pretty much everything Joseph Massad writes is tantamount to a swastika. Perhaps Professor Massad likes to use shorthand when heÂ’s on the john?

Any minute now, the diversity police at Columbia University are going to use the noose and swastika incidents to their own devious, bureaucratic ends. Soon enough all students will be forced to memorize Maya Angelou poems and wear pink armbands.

No one will give a moment of thought to the notion that force-feeding claptrap about “embracing differences” may trigger some of these disgusting incidents. Nope: We’ll just get more pushy sessions rapping about “oppression,” more dismal lectures from dubious radicals, &c.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 396 words, total size 3 kb.

The other day, dear reader, an interesting thing occurred: The New Republic arrived in our mailbox. We call this interesting because in previous incarnations TNR showed up about as regularly as Charles Manson alimony payments. (Yeah: We knew we shouldnÂ’t have married him.)

In recent months, it seems, the staff at TNR has gotten a bit better at putting the finishing touches on their magazine. Perhaps thereÂ’s a new German editor?

The particular issue to which we refer, the October 8 number, came with a piece by Todd Gitlin, who holds an unofficial left-wing sinecure at Columbia University. Entitled “World War V: My Battle with Norman Podhoretz,” the article amounts to a frivolous ad hominem attack on Commentary’s editor-at-large.

In essence, Mr. Gitlin, of SDS fame, charges Mr. Podhoretz of being embarrassingly pro-American and insufficiently nuanced in his views on foreign policy. This is, we think, the typical New Republic and Dissent line: Some of the anti-war folks are crazy, but the neocons are just as batty.

One particular sentence in Mr. GitlinÂ’s screed struck us as revealing:

Unable even to define war aims, let alone articulate a strategy for attaining them, incoherent even in naming the enemy, let alone defeating its successive incarnations, ever self-immunized from doubt, the passionate dogmatists who were responsible for the catastrophe in the first place are prone to explain their failure at the fronts as the result of betrayal behind their backs.

Thus does Todd Gitlin excoriate Norman Podhoretz.

And this leads us to wonder: Did Mr. Gitlin read even the title of Mr. Podhoretz’s new tome? After all, he charges Mr. Podhoretz and his neoconservative pals with being “incoherent even in naming the enemy.”

Mr. PodhoretzÂ’s new book is called World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism. Mr. Gitlin quotes this title at the start of his article, but he appears oddly incapable of remembering it. We mean, come on: You might have other bones to pick with Mr. Podhoretz, but a failure to name the enemy isnÂ’t one of them.

TheyÂ’re called Islamofascists, Todd. And if you hated them as much as you detest Norman Podhoretz, you might not be so wishy-washy about the War on Terrorism.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 372 words, total size 2 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

It’s confession time, folks. We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” read The New York Times. Yes, yes: Banish us from the hallowed halls of hardcore, gun-toting, chaw-spitting, latte-hating, Wal-Mart-shopping Republicans, if you must. Still, despite its (myriad) flaws, we can’t stop checking up with the Gray Lady.

Strange, isn’t it? Well, perhaps not when you recognize the wonderful (and free) options that folks at the self-proclaimed Paper of Record offer to their dutiful readership. Don’t believe us? Why, just check out the delightful “weblogging” the Gray Lady staff presents.

Here, for your edification, is a title from one of these luminous Times “posts”: “Giuliani’s ‘Electability’ Doesn’t Make Him More Electable.” Boy, really draws you in with its stupidity, eh?

In essence, the “post’s” author, someone called Chris Sullentrop, merely reports Bill Kristol’s contention that Giuliani isn’t more electable than a conservative Republican. Well, gee: That’s a real shocker. We’ll have to call home and tell them the good news.

But just in case this sort of diligent and crucial reporting isn’t your cup of tea, you can also savor the careful commentary of New York Times’s readers. Ah, the people who enjoy “All the News that Prints to Fit” are real highbrows.

Why, just take a gander at a reader’s response to the aforementioned “post”:

All these “thoughtful” analyses are missing a crucial point. Rudy is crazy. Not the funny kind of “life of a party” crazy either, more like the “lonely man muttering to himself while he sharpens his knives” kind of crazy. If I was [sic] a Democratic candidate I’d love to debate him. “OK, Rudy, we admit Israel to NATO. They re-invade Lebanon, and Syria counter-attacks. What do we do then?”
— Posted by A. L. Flanagan

Ah, there’s some real thinking. Too bad the sagacious A.L. Flanagan isn’t running for president on the Democratic ticket. If he ever gets through the primary (which is, we think, a likely scenario, given his preternatural intelligence), he’d sure make hash out of that crazy—and non-funny kind of crazy—Rudy Giuliani.

Since—alas for our nation—he’s not too busy with the vicissitudes of a political campaign, perhaps dear old A.L. Flanagan could study up on the use of the subjunctive in English. But perhaps we’re just being the non-funny sort of crazy?

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.

We begin today’s humble “post,” dear reader, with a confession. We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have recently not been keeping up with the Huffington Post. Yeah, yeah, we know: We’re an embarrassment.

And why wouldn’t you want to keep abreast of the ole’ Huffy Po, Arianna Huffington’s e-orgy of e-self-celebration? As far as we can intuit, writing for that “website” is tantamount to jury duty for various C-List celebrities. Rip Torn; Alyssa Milano; Idi Amin; Garfield the cat; Billy Joel—has any irksome pseudo-celebrity not crafted a poorly-worded essay for Ms. Huffington?

The other day, however, we attempted to make up for our lapsed attentions and tune in to the Huffy Po once more. As you might imagine, we were not disappointed. In point of fact, we thoroughly enjoyed the dimwitted carping of all and sundry. A good time was had by all.

Toward the end of our Huffing (if you will), we discovered something rather interesting. Amongst the official list of potential topics for Huffy Po writers is one called the “Israel Lobby.” Yep: In addition to carping on “Rush Limbaugh,” “Donald Rumsfeld,” and other official inanities, Huffy Posters can also feel free to excoriate the “Israel Lobby.” Further, readers can troll around all the “posts” that refer to this nefarious Hebraic outfit.

And this, dear reader, got us to thinking. It seems to us that one of the cardinal arguments of the Mearsheimer and Walt crowd is that people are frightened to discuss the ominous power of the “Israel Lobby” (a.k.a. the “Jewish Lobby,” the “Zionist Lobby,” or “Jews”). Apparently, folks are petrified—petrified!—that any mention of this dreaded cabal will ruin one’s life.

After merely uttering the words “Israel Lobby,” apparently, one is tossed from polite society. One loses one’s job (especially if it’s at a bank), one’s girlfriend, one’s clothing, and is forced to join some sort of neo-Nazi cover band.

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” politely contend that this is not the case. In fact, if you ask us, the incessant blather about the danger of invoking the “Jewish Lobby” demonstrates this argument’s utter fatuousness.

Think about it: How many times have you heard some anti-Zionist nutter complain about the “fact” that people are frightened to criticize Israel? If this is so, why do we hear this complaint so much? Why does the brave Huff Po add “Israel Lobby” to its official list of evils?

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

“You guys are too negative.” So reads the opening line to a missive we recently received in our e-mail box. “The world isn’t as bad you think.”

Well, well, well: Pardon us for our un-rosy disposition. Wouldn’t you think that a “website” with the name “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” would be really, really cheery? We’re not certain about you, but we assuredly would.

And so, dear reader, it appears as if a few amongst you consider us a bit of a downer. Not, we daresay, a colossal downer—an Al-Gore-just-showed-up-at-my-party-and-can’t-stop-nattering-on-about-climate-change downer—but a downer nonetheless.

Perhaps these readers—who, we must note, are a bit of a downer to us—are correct. Maybe we offer an unfairly curmudgeonly take on the contemporary world. Maybe you’d have to check out a “website” with a title like “The Lovemonger’s Quarterly” to make up for our somber whining.

Now, normally, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” take such criticism and throw it directly into the trash. Well, first we scoff at it knowingly, and then we give it a good toss.

In this case, however, weÂ’re willing to make amends. Not, we should add, major amends, but a minor movement in the direction of pleasing our relentlessly negative critics.

That is to say, dear reader, in today’s humble “post,” we aim to be sickeningly saccharine. We’ll be mindlessly jubilant. We’ll be uproariously upbeat. In short, we’ll make Kelly Ripa seem like Vincent van Gogh. (Minus the talent, of course.)

Many moons ago, as our ancestors used to say, we pioneered a bit of a break from our usual negativistic high jinks. To this end, we offered an extremely intermittent series of “posts” with an un-humorously longwinded title. Said series was indebted to discussing a few things that made life worth living.

And, of course, grumps that we are, we let that sorry series die. But, in today’s humble “post,” we revive it. Yes, sir: In this humble installment of our “weblog,” we discuss one of life’s little joys.

What, you may be asking yourself, deserves this uncommon honor? Why, Bachman Pretzel Rods, of course. DonÂ’t laugh: To our minds, Bachman Pretzel Rods are one of the great products of Western civilization. You know, like the printing press and the discovery of germ theory.

If you haven’t had these little tasty devils, allow us to inform you that you are most assuredly missing out. These are not just ordinary pretzel rods you happen upon in your local supermarket. Nope: For some reason, Bachman products can only be found in extremely run-down shops—the type of places that make you lose your appetite and worry about your wallet.

Yet theyÂ’re fully worth the trip to the nearest murder-mart. We canÂ’t quite explain it, but nothing else tastes like them.

So, there you go, party poopers. WeÂ’ve collectively taken a gander at the sunny side. Life may be unremittingly miserable, but thereÂ’s always Bachman Pretzel Rods.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 3 kb.

Okay, things are getting serious. Perhaps, dear reader, you know about the horrible government in Myanmar. If you donÂ’t, thereÂ’s a good chance you overdosed on Britney-Spears-lost-her-kids bunk, and you ought to feel mighty bad for yourself. Loser.

So, to keep you up to speed: Apparently, someone renamed Burma “Myanmar.” Frankly, we, like George Orwell, very much prefer Burma; if you ask us, it has a ring to it. But, heck, we still refer to Upper Volta. We like to glottal click it old school.

As it turns out, the folks in charge of this Myanmar are real bastards—tyrants, kleptocrats, fascists, &c. Perhaps even neocons. To demonstrate their evil bona fides, in fact, they’ve been busy beating the garbage out of monks. Man, isn’t that a bitch?

Well, as we mentioned at the start of our humble “post,” things just got one major step worse. As a fellow named Seth Mydans reports in some disreputable intelligence-gathering rag called The New York Times:

It was about as simple and uncomplicated as shooting demonstrators in the streets. Embarrassed by smuggled video and photographs that showed their people rising up against them, the generals who run Myanmar simply switched off the Internet.

We know what you are thinking, dear reader: What? They switched off Al GoreÂ’s Internet? Oh, the nerve!

And this gets us to a far more crucial point. It recently occurred to us that, by switching off the World-Wide Web, the ruthless thugs in Myanmar have deprived their unhappy subjects of one of lifeÂ’s great pleasures.

We refer, of course, to this humble “weblog.” That’s right: Thanks to the machinations of these insidious generals, every citizen of Myanmar (and a few Burmese folks, to boot) can’t get their daily fix of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly.”

No “Chip,” no chuckles, no rapier wit. Are you thinking what we’re thinking? Yep: It’s high time for a revolution!

Accordingly, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” want to declare our full support for an impending popular revolt against the Myanmar junta. These evil generals have kept our Burmese readers from this humble “weblog” for far too long. Talk about a gross violation of human rights.

Gosh, we hope that the United Nations will do its level best to aid the oppressed, “Hatemonger’s Quarterly”-deprived folks in Myanmar. Given the UN’s track record, we suppose we ought not to worry.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 399 words, total size 3 kb.

Longtime readers of this humble “weblog” (if such creatures, like unicorns, actually exist) undoubtedly recognize that “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” is a rather special outpost on Al Gore’s World-Wide Web. And, by “rather special,” we do not mean in a “short bus” kind of way, if you catch our drift.

Nope: For well over three—count ‘em, three—years, we’ve been offering up a simmering brand of ersatz humor each and every weekday (except for the occasional holiday, of course). We get more yuks than Rosie O’Donnell’s body.

Accordingly, you will not be surprised to hear that this humble “weblog”—humble as it undoubtedly is—has been a finalist for “Best Humor Blog” in both the 2005 and 2006 installments of the Weblog Awards. A few people, it seems, have fully recognized our e-talent.

And what, you may reasonably wonder, was the result of these storied nominations? Well, as it turns out, our status as finalists did not enable us to bring home the e-bacon. More to the point, we went down in a blaze of abject futility. Twice, we might add.

Yes, itÂ’s sad, but itÂ’s true. (Kind of like your credit score.) Although in the 2006 Weblog Awards we fared slightly better, we figuratively got our posteriors handed to us both times.

Why, dear reader, do we mention this? Well, weÂ’ll tell you.

WeÂ’ve just discovered that itÂ’s now time for the nominations for prospective finalists for the 2007 Weblog Awards. Exciting, is it not? Yeah, we thought so too.

As such, we figured that weÂ’d urge you to aid us go for the trifecta, if you will. If weÂ’re going to get our bottoms kicked in two Weblog Awards, why the heck shouldnÂ’t we aim at getting trounced a third time? CanÂ’t kids dream?

All you must do to help our unofficial striving for mediocrity is nominate us for a category here. With a little luck, pretty soon youÂ’ll be the reader of a three-time loser.

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

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” enjoy comedians. And occasionally, we might add, comediennes. Although our high regard for stand-up comedy may bring about visions of a fellow circa 1987 clad in an ugly sweater, acid-wash jeans and clutching a microphone, we don’t much care. Some of these wise-crackers are funny.

Even so, dear reader, we must admit that most political comedians rankle. For some reason, their political yuks usually serve only to demonstrate their failure to grasp nuances in matters of policy and government. Further, these political gags tend to be less funny than comediansÂ’ non-political material.

Take Bill Maher, for instance. We submit that he isnÂ’t exactly a deep thinker. (A daring conclusion, that.) In addition, we must say that, despite his truckloads of smugness, heÂ’s about as funny as War and Peace. In Russian. And a heck of a lot less insightful regarding the human condition, we might add.

Now, we must hasten to inform you that this is not some lame Left-Right issue. If you ask us, Dennis Miller was funny before he turned to political comedy.

Though a few folks do a comparatively good job with political gags—one thinks of John Stewart and Stephen Colbert—their jokes soon tend toward the ponderous. We might laugh at one Lewis Black line, but we eventually find ourselves bored by his dimwitted political hectoring. Yes, yes, Lewis: We get it—you’re the only smart person in America.

All the above reflections—although, you’ll note, not funny in and of themselves—led us to some frightening soul-searching. After all, “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” is typically a humor “weblog” (as difficult as that may be to recognize at times). Further, much of our humor—such as it is—pertains to matters political.

Uh, oh: This is what you might call a pickle. Are we Bill Maher without the relief pitcher haircut? Gosh, we sure hope not.

Perhaps itÂ’s time for us to start warming up our Polish jokes?

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

Usually, this humble “weblog” discusses the higher things in life. You know the sort of stuff we mean: Peter Handke novels; Mark Rothko paintings; Billy Joel; American cheese; &c. The classy, highbrow things.

Our regular reader(s) may be somewhat perplexed, therefore, to discover the topic of todayÂ’s lucubration: A judgeÂ’s ruling that popular music sensation Britney Spears must hand over her young children to her ex-husband, one Kevin Federline. Not, we must freely admit, the sort of thing that typically inspires the crack young staff.

So youÂ’ll pardon us, dear reader, if we stop pontificating about the finer points of chiaroscuro to slum it a bit. Although, like all people who possess both ears and a brain, we thoroughly despise the anti-music of Britney Spears, we simply canÂ’t help ourselves from discussing her latest woes.

And you must admit that Ms. Spears has just been hit pretty hard. We mean, come on: She has to give her kids up to Kevin Federline because sheÂ’s insufficiently responsible to take care of them! Have you ever seen Kevin Federline? The guyÂ’s one part Ed Grimley and two parts oily beauhunk. HeÂ’s the un-thinking manÂ’s townie, for crying out loud.

If you lose custody to a fellow like that, itÂ’s pretty much time for your intervention. ThereÂ’s a Betty Ford clinic with your name on it somewhere, for ChristÂ’s sake.

To make matters even more painful, we thought that Ms. Spears was finally turning a corner. After all, she had gained some much-needed weight for her slutty outfits and was partying at all hours with the likes of Paris Hilton.

Who would have thought this would lead to trouble? Not us, not us.

If you ask us, the Britney vs. K-Fed baby saga is the sort of dust-up in which one hopes that neither parent gets custody. WeÂ’d prefer that Osama bin Laden raise their kids. Hey, at least Osama doesnÂ’t seem to party all the time.

Soldiers; teachers; witchdoctors; pedophiles—these are just a few of the people who would do a better job raising Britney’s kids than would she and K-Fed.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 361 words, total size 2 kb.

Remember Jean Sara Rohe? SheÂ’s the arrogant little college graduate-cum-pseudo-folk singer who briefly became a left-wing hero last year. At her graduation ceremony at the Eugene Lang New School for Social Research, Ms. Rohe memorably used her role as senior class speaker to lambaste Sen. John McCain.

Sen. McCain, youÂ’ll recall, would deliver his own address at the ceremony, and the arrogant Ms. Rohe decided to fill the auditorium up with moronic platitudes about peace, brotherly love, and likeminded sophomoric nonsense. In addition, Ms. Rohe lit into Sen. McCain, who gracefully refused to strike back at her in his own speech.

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” mention this, dear reader, because the Left’s reaction to Ms. Rohe’s antics is in striking contrast to its treatment of another ill-mannered collegiate speaker: Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia University. Whereas Jean Sara Rohe became a folk hero on the Left, Mr. Bollinger is ridiculed for his purportedly gauche behavior.

As everyone on GodÂ’s green (and rapidly warming) earth must know, Mr. Bollinger recently excoriated Iranian whacko Mahmoud Ahmadinejad before the Nutter-in-Chief offered some dubious remarks to an audience at Columbia University. Mr. Bollinger took issue with President Ahmadinejad for, among other things, denying the Holocaust, maltreat gays, offering material support to terrorism, radically curtailing free speech and freedom of expression, and holding political prisoners.

Now, one might have thought that our buddies on the political Left would applaud such talk. After all, they supposedly donÂ’t esteem those who, say, deny the Holocaust, hang homosexuals, and support theocratic terrorists.

If they cheered when Jean Sara Rohe ridiculed an American senator who supports the Iraq War, then, surely theyÂ’ll delight in the excoriation of an anti-Semitic, theocratic fascist who blithely supports terrorists who kill American troops.

Oh, but no. It turns out they believe that John McCain doesn’t deserve the sort of mannered, respectful treatment that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does. Executing homosexuals and declaring a desire to “wipe Israel off the map” appears not to rankle as much as hoping for an American victory in Iraq.

Accordingly, our buddies on the Left—at The Nation, Counterpunch, the Daily Kos, &c.—are in a virtual e-tizzy over Lee Bollinger’s bad manners. How horrid!

To be honest, dear reader, it is difficult to take such people seriously. They pretend offense when you say that they support any odious government, providing itÂ’s sufficiently anti-American. And thenÂ…they support any odious government, providing itÂ’s sufficiently anti-American.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.

Ah, The Nation, one of America’s foremost political weeklies printed on toilet paper. Is any magazine—other than Soldier of Fortune and Highlights for Children, of course—a better read? We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” collectively think not.

And why should we? With every passing political controversy, The Nation manages to come across as increasingly unhinged. ItÂ’s rather amazing, actually: Just when you think the writers at this storied rag canÂ’t get any worse, as if by magic they do.

Here’s a delightful case in point. Jayati Vora, a 2007 graduate of Columbia University and a current intern at The Nation, recently penned “Debating Ahmadinejad at Columbia,” a scintillating “Web”-only exclusive.

The kicker The Nation offers to the piece ably demonstrates its almost preternatural fatuity:

Columbia University President Lee Bollinger's combative remarks tarnish an otherwise illuminating event.

Oh, of course: Surely it was Lee BollingerÂ’s pugnacious commentary that sullied President AhmadinejadÂ’s thoughtful lucubrations. Naturally, it was in bad taste for Mr. Bollinger to point out that President Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust-denying supporter of terrorism. How very gauche.

In pure Nation fashion, Ms. Vora pronounces herself horrified, not by the odious remarks of an unstable tyrant, but by the truth-telling of Mr. Bollinger. Allow Ms. Vora to explain:

Matteen Mokalla, an Iranian-American student at SIPA studying the Middle East, spoke of the mood on campus. "Before the talk, the entire campus was electrified," he said. "Everybody was talking about it. When we were standing in line, we joked, 'Is this the line for the Rolling Stones?' Because it felt like that."

But that pride and excitement was tarnished by the opening remarks of Columbia President Lee Bollinger. In his statement, combative and unduly vicious, Bollinger accused his invited guest of being nothing more than a "petty and cruel dictator," of having a "fanatical mindset." He claimed that this exercise was valuable in knowing one's enemies and understanding "the mind of evil."

According to Ms. Vora, Mr. Bollinger committed the grave sin of uttering “Bushisms.”

Coming from a magazine of the Left, this is laughable. After all, these are the folks who consider Christian fundamentalists guilty of possessing “fanatical mindsets.” And here they are defending Ahmadinejad—the president of a country that hangs homosexuals—from the purportedly outrageous slings and arrows of Lee Bollinger.

Some commitment to gay rights! Some commitment to secularism! What do these people stand for expect for tyrants opposed to America?

Naturally, had Lee Bollinger accused George W. Bush of being a “petty and cruel dictator” possessing a “fanatical mindset,” the morons at The Nation would be cheering with glee. But, since he’s only a genocidal, anti-Semitic Muslim fanatic who rules a police state and not the president of the United States, The Nation is willing to give Ahmadinejad a pass.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 475 words, total size 3 kb.

On the evening of Monday, September 23, one of our senior editors—let’s just call him “Chip”—made a rather big mistake. What was this gaffe, you ask?

Tasering the garbage out of a college student? Nope. Agreeing to manufacture Dennis Kucinich plush dolls for the holidays? No, sir.

Rather, “Chip” found himself watching “Hardball,” a feculent television program hosted by the uproariously irksome Chris Matthews. Ah, yes: “Chip” committed quite a faux pas indeed.

Now, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have blathered on about the odious Mr. Matthews in the past. Simply put, the guy’s a blowhard. His staccato voice rankles and he incessantly interrupts his guests. He is, we suppose, a sort of blue-collar Charlie Rose.

But on the particular installment of “Hardball” “Chip” watched, Mr. Matthews seemed particularly irritating. And his program was dedicated to discussing the recent appearance at Columbia University of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s Nutter-in-Chief.

This is not, we dare say, a particularly contentious matter. After all, only a complete buffoon would submit anything resembling support for the genocidal terrorist-supporter from Iran.

Even so, Mr. Matthews managed to offend even in the course of a discussion on this tepid controversy. If “Chip” remembers correctly, his guests for this particular segment were two Columbia students, both of whom found themselves markedly unimpressed with the Iranian despot.

Mr. Matthews, in one of his usual bursts of interruption, asked one of the students if he was “impressed” by Ahmadinejad’s purported disinclination to deny the Holocaust. When said student said he was not, Mr. Matthews was surprised. Obviously, he thought that the Iranian nutter’s hemming and hawing about the possibility of the Holocaust being an actual historical event was a revelation. As such, he said he was impressed.

Well, gee, Mr. Matthews: You sure do impress easily. If this sort of thing serves to impress you, you ought to wonder about the character of the man youÂ’re discussing. After all, belief in the existence of the Holocaust shouldnÂ’t exactly put you up for the Nobel Prize, now should it?

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.

Another day, another milestone. Or so it seems for the storied “Hatemonger’s Quarterly.” Although we, the crack young staff, are but a few years old, our humble “weblog” has already attained great heights.

For example, weÂ’ve lost two straight Weblog Awards. Not so shabby, eh? We thought so too.

Truth be told, it’s been a pretty nice run. We’ve received praise and “links” from such heavy-hitters as John Podhoretz, Andrew Sullivan, and a guy whose “website” is entirely devoted to the discussion of monkeys.

It’s not surprising, under such circumstances, that “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” has become an official member of the 300,000 “Hits” Club. No: That doesn’t have anything to do with Wilt Chamberlain, Ike Turner, and a DC-10.

Rather, it’s the reward one receives for reaching such an impressive “hits” count. 300,000 “hits,” to be specific.

Sure, for Glenn Reynolds and some other world-famous “webloggers,” 300,000 “hits” is what one calls Wednesday. Still, given all the detritus on the Internet, a solid 300,000 “hits” is pretty nice.

From informal calculations around the office water cooler, we’ve even concluded that well nigh 5,000 of those “hits” come from people who are not staffers here at “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly.” Yep: That means that at least a few folks actually read our humble “weblog” for something resembling entertainment.

Pretty soon, weÂ’ll have outlasted all of AmericaÂ’s one-term presidents. Especially that odious Jimmy Carter. And unlike the pseudo-peanut farmer, weÂ’ve never caused a jot of stagflation.

So what, you may reasonably wonder, can you expect from “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” in the months and years to come? Well, you may very well see us lose yet another installment of the Weblog Awards.

In addition, we, like Philip Glass, will try to keep it simple. As they say, if it isnÂ’t broke, thereÂ’s no reason why anyone should call the repairman. More tasteless yuks, more uninspired animadversions.

WeÂ’ll see you at 500,000, folks.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” always figured that politicians were pound for pound the most obnoxious folks on the planet. After all, they’re rich buffoons who tell half-truths for a living.

But events of the last year or so have led us to rethink our previously stated position. Perhaps itÂ’s not the politicians who so rankle, itÂ’s the fancy-pants types in the world of university administration. That is to say, the presidents of the United States may be bad, but the presidents of your local colleges are far, far worse.

Just take the higher education headlines of the last few months as a guide. Few men, of course, are more self-righteously obnoxious than Duke University president Richard (“Dick”) Brodhead. After all, this is the man who, when not whitewashing a Palestinian terrorist powwow he allowed on his campus, is busy making the Duke lacrosse non-rape case into an utter fiasco.

ItÂ’s hard to imagine, in fact, that a college president could be more incapable of leadership than Dick Brodhead. The guyÂ’s a master of equivocation and self-exonerating nonsense. HeÂ’s a jellyfish with a moustache. (And it ainÂ’t that nice a moustache, either.)

Ah, but of course another president of a world-class university could give Mr. Brodhead a proverbial run for his money. We mean, naturally, Lee Bollinger, the head of Columbia University.

Other “webloggers” have already spilled much e-ink over the recent visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the hallowed halls of Columbia. So you likely know of Mr. Bollinger’s hypocrisy in all it’s glorious splendor: This is a fellow who’ll let a Holocaust-denying, genocidal, terrorist-supporter on his campus, but won’t countenance ROTC. Some things, we guess, are just beyond the pale.

And then there’s the matter of Mr. Bollinger’s rather toothless punishment for those students who stormed a speech at Columbia from a leader of the Minutemen. They broke up the event, destroying this fellow’s free speech rights—but Mr. Bollinger didn’t seem terribly exercised about it. This was the case even though Mr. Bollinger played the free-speech card as his way of excusing his invitation to the odious terrorist from Iran.

We could go on all day. ItÂ’s pretty clear that the nutter from Iran was an acceptable speaker for Mr. Bollinger because his racist commentary pertains to the Jews. If Ahmadinejad made some appalling remarks about, say, African Americans, you can bet no fancy-pants college president would come anywhere near the guy. For such administrators, free speech only goes so far.

The list of college president nonsense must be endless. So, if everyone hates politicians and lawyers so heartily, why do these obnoxious, self-important twits seem to get a break? If you ask us, John Edwards isnÂ’t half as annoying as Dick Brodhead.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 472 words, total size 3 kb.

Ah, another day, another vapid bumper sticker slogan. Or so it seems. As if by magic, one of our senior editors here at “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly”—let’s just call him “Chip”—manages to spy more dimwitted bumper stickers than you can shake a stick at.

Or, if youÂ’re a real grammar stickler, more dimwitted bumper stickers than those at which you can shake a stick. (Yeah: ThatÂ’s better.)

It should come as absolutely no surprise, then, to learn that a recent prowl of a nearby parking garage left “Chip” staring at yet another exemplum of the tired left-wing bumper sticker. For “Chip,” it sort of goes with the territory.

You know: Some guys date lots and lots of attractive women, and others see all manner of obtuse bumper stickers. Even Steven, eh?

And what, you may be asking yourself, did this particular bumper sticker say? Well, dear reader, weÂ’re glad you asked. Its text in full read:

Think. ItÂ’s Patriotic.

That’s it. No bells, no whistles, no Noam Chmosky quotes. Just “Think. It’s Patriotic.”

Clearly, the owner of said bumper sticker aimed to demonstrate his superior cognitive abilities by claiming that his version of patriotism—unlike that of stupid yokels—requires thought. No flag-waving, mindless jingoist, he.

We hate to rain on this fellow’s parade, but we are pretty certain that his bumper sticker not only fails to display its owner’s intellectual prowess, but also makes no sense. We mean, come on: “Think. It’s Patriotic.”

What if youÂ’re thinking about destroying your own country? Does the cognitive process involved in this odious activity amount to patriotism? We collectively think not.

What if youÂ’re thinking about cheating on your taxes, to the distinct detriment of good oleÂ’ Uncle Sam? That wouldnÂ’t make you a lodestar of patriotism, now would it?

Clearly, itÂ’s the character of your thoughts and not the thoughts themselves that demonstrate your patriotism. And so, as an exercise in snooty faux-intellectual superiority, this particular bumper sticker is an utter failure.

But we could almost see why the owner of this slogan thought it might prove true. After all, Katha Pollitt canÂ’t think, and she isnÂ’t very patriotic, either.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 368 words, total size 2 kb.

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” got a card in the mail today. Its contents read as follows:

Dear Crack Young Staff,

As a representative of the United States government, I am writing to you because you are proprietors of a Web site. As such, I must inform you that you have to discuss OJ SimpsonÂ’s recent legal wrangling as soon as possible and as often as possible.

Every other media outlet is engaged in a discussion of OJ’s antics, and I cannot very well have any outliers failing to comply with our unofficial “All OJ” policy—however insignificant the source may be.

I expect that you will touch upon the OJ fiasco soon, so that my office need no longer monitor your telephone calls. All true Americans (read: Republicans) would begin discussing OJ posthaste, because that is what our founding fathers would have wanted.

Sincerely,
Dick Sheister
Assistant Director
US Department of Shifty Flacks

We know what you are thinking, dear reader: Wow—a bona fide letter from the US government! Pretty impressive, is it not? Clearly, though, the evil goons who make up the Bush junta are trying to scare us into discussing the recent OJ business.

Like any card-carrying member of Moveon.org, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” remain brutally frightened of the Bush regime. After all, Bush and his Jewish cronies have wrecked all kinds of havoc: They killed Ernesto “Che” Guevara; they neutered Lassie; and they eat fuzzy bunnies for brunch. We’re not bloody likely to anger this set.

It is with great reluctance—but undying patriotism—then, that we deign to discuss the media’s latest obsession: OJ Mania, part two. Quite frankly, we haven’t got anything grand to say about this mess, but that hasn’t stopped anyone else from pontificating, now has it?

So hereÂ’s our collective first impression: IsnÂ’t it odd that a stand-up character such as OJ would find himself in more legal difficulties? We consider it hard to believe ourselves.

We mean, come on: This is a fellow who has dedicated his life—yes, his life—to finding the real killers of Nicole Brown Simpson and that other fellow. Does someone on such an admirable quest seem like the type of guy who’d rob a memorabilia store at gunpoint? Not to us. Not to us.

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

As usual in these hectic times, dear reader, there are oodles of interesting stories in the news. OJ is once again in hot water; Britney Spears finds herself in a gripping custody battle; and, for those of you who still havenÂ’t gotten their fill, something called the Iraq War still appears to be ongoing.

But one particular tale has grabbed our attention more than all the others combined. We refer, dear reader, to the recent brouhaha at the University of Florida.

A Massachusetts Senator named John Kerry addressed a crowd at this semi-storied institution of semi-higher learning, and, during the question-and-answer portion of the festivities, some far Left student would not stop hogging the microphone. Instead, said student, a fellow named Andrew Meyer, pontificated to all and sundry about the “stolen” 2004 presidential election, &c.

Since Mr. Meyer resolutely refused to hand over the microphone, a couple of campus security guards shot him with a taser gun. In the midst of these festivities, the partially subdued Mr. Meyer shouted “Don’t tase me, bro.”

The results of this action were entirely predictable: John Kerry remains tone-deaf regarding the whole situation; a bevy of irate University of Florida students gathered to protest the campus police’s “brutality”; and the media have eaten it all up like porridge. Although, as the time of this writing, it is unclear whether Mr. Meyer was really pulling a prank, it is certainly true that he has garnered more press than he could have imagined.

To many folks, the whole University of Florida brouhaha shines a spotlight on one important question: Should campus police have recourse to taser guns? As far as numerous University of Florida students are concerned, the answer to that query is a resolute No.

Ah, but we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” must quibble with this point of view. Hence today’s “post.” In our collective minds, it would be a travesty—yes, a travesty—if campus police could not taser unruly undergraduates.

In fact, we can express our opinion even more frankly. Without any risk of hyperbole, we can tell you that we positively live for police officers tasering annoying college kids. Each morning, the possibility of some cop somewhere tasering the garbage out of an undergrad is the only thing that gets out of bed.

We mean, come on: What is more irksome than the typical rowdy college student? He thinks he works really, really hard, but he really spends more time on acquaintance rape than homework. To make matters worse, he acts like a know-it-all, as if his 19 years on planet earth have bestowed him with preternatural wisdom.

No wonder we detest these brats. Geez: If you set up a “website” entirely devoted to tasering such morons, we’d happily subscribe. It’d be our honest-to-goodness favorite.

Yes: In our humble opinion, if you fail to allow police to taser the crap out of these folks, youÂ’ll make life that much worse for all of us.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 502 words, total size 3 kb.

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” recently caught wind of the fact that sundry witless radicals staged a pro-capitulation rally in Washington, DC on Saturday, September 15. And by “caught wind of the fact,” we mean it: Although our headquarters aren’t anywhere near the storied District of Columbia, we could smell those mephitic hippie from here.

Ah, yes: Another in the long line of pathetic Stalinoid protests. Our lives under so-called “late capitalism” would be less rich without the moronic antics of young trust-fund radicals, who blithely do the dirty work for Islamofascists.

A few pictures from said rally demonstrate that this was merely the latest in a long series of by-the-books tantrums. All the usual signage was on display: “Impeach Bush”; “No War for Oil”; “Free Palestine”; “Sammy Davis Jr. Was My Great Uncle”; &c.

As usual, the idiotic far leftists who gather at these powwows couldn’t discipline themselves sufficiently to stay on message. Though this was a pro-capitulation in Iraq rally, pictures show all sorts of placards about “freeing Mumia,” destroying Israel, &c. It’s as if the rally was one giant meeting of the Attention Deficit Disorder Club.

Still, these latest antics from the pro-capitulation movement—humdrum as they appear—got us to thinking a bit. Not, we dare say, major-league reflections, but some careful examples of cogitation nonetheless. And, after some serious thought, we have decided that various things about the pro-capitulation movement make no sense.

First, we must discuss a group calling itself Code Pink. How, we wonder, does a cabal with such an interesting and attractive name turn out to be such a downer? Frankly, we think itÂ’s criminal to call yourself Code Pink and be this lame and boring.

If you donÂ’t know anything about the so-called Code Pinksters, allow us to inform you that theyÂ’re a gaggle of die-hard feminists who shill for hardcore anti-feminist Islamists. Makes sense, huh? It does to them, apparently.

To make matters even worse, even though Code Pink has a nice, cutesy name, its members seem to be nothing but dilapidated old farts. As such, when they invariably sponsor some “naked protest” or other, the proper response is to run in fear. Unless, of course, you are in great need of an emetic.

But surely the bit about the pro-capitulation movement that most troubles us is the fact that pretty much everyone refers to it by the moniker “anti-war.” This, of course, is insufficiently specific. These morons aren’t “anti-war” per se; rather they’re opposed to Western participation in wars. They haven’t got any problem with Osama bin Laden, Iran, the Palestinians, or Hezbollah starting a conflict, they just want the West to capitulate immediately.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 471 words, total size 3 kb.

Perhaps, dear reader, you watched the Emmy Awards this year. If so, you can be sure that we were not among your number. Nope: Although we’re certainly familiar with the term “Emmy Awards,” for some reason we need to be reminded that this is the television industry’s orgy of self-celebration and not, say, the music industry’s.

As such, we have no cotton-pickinÂ’ clue who took home this yearÂ’s Emmys. Nor do we know who was up for an award. With one niggling exception: Someone called Sally Field appears to have won a best actress award for a television program of which we have never heard.

The only reason we found out about her prestigious medal for Best Hat Design, or some such, dear reader, is the fact that Ms. Field decided to use her acceptance speech as—wait for it—an exercise in dimwitted left-wing political hectoring. And Fox, the network broadcasting the Emmys, decided to delete the audio portion of her moronic diatribe, ostensibly because it was expletive-laden.

In said rant, Ms. Field prayed that women would run the world, so that thereÂ’d be no more wars. Or some arrant nonsense to this effect.

Boy, Ms. Field has sure studied up on her history. SheÂ’s well aware of the fact that female leaders such as Margaret Thatcher have proved entirely peaceable. If only old Boudica were in charge of the UK again!

The mainstream media, naturally, has had a field day (if you will) with Ms. Field’s lame anti-Iraq War blather. Oh, oh: She’s just so bold—what courage it must take to offer an anti-Bush pontification in Hollywood! Talk about a career risk.

Frankly, dear reader, we just can’t get exercised over Ms. Field’s dimwitted claptrap. She’s just another cranially-challenged actor with hard Left leanings—add her to the pile. She’s a diminutive Susan Sarandon, for crying out loud.

Okay, Ms. Field. You donÂ’t like the Iraq War. In fact, you hate it so much that your speech on the topic got censored. Big deal.

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” hated that horrible movie about stand-up comedy you did with Tom Hanks. You know the one we mean—the film in which the writers for some reason thought your lame hausfrau yuks were bearable. “Punchline,” was it? Yeah: That was “Smoky and the Bandit” awful.

Not only do we loathe that film—and your lame performance in it—we detest it so strongly that we need to censor ourselves from commenting on it fully. Aha! We’re even. You hate the Iraq War; we hate your lousy acting.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 432 words, total size 3 kb.