As regular reader(s) of this humble “weblog” well know, not much changes around the comfy purlieus of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly.” We’ve had only one aesthetic tune-up during the course of our more than three-year history. And we’ve never so much as featured one picture on the “website”—that being beyond our admittedly limited technical capacities.

The content of this “weblog” hasn’t changed one iota either. Devoted reader(s) of this humble Internet outfit can always delight in our semi-humorous takes on semi-important semi-news stories or life’s little semi-irritants. In short, you can expect the same stuff on this “website”; we’re like the Internet version of death and taxes. (Provided, of course, you’re not an illegal immigrant; illegal immigrants don’t pay taxes and they never die.)

It is with some trepidation, therefore, that we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” announce potentially big changes to come for this “weblogging” outfit. Yes, we know, we know: That’s a hard sentence to take in. Perhaps we’ll establish some sort of psychological telephone-line for our reader(s), to help them cope with the possible changes.

You see, dear reader, Rupert Murdoch and his evil News Corp. are attempting to buy “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly.” As was recently not featured in the news, the Australian tycoon put up a hefty bid for this humble “weblog.” And this was surprising, insofar as “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” utterly lacking any advertisements, isn’t exactly a cash cow.

Clearly, the evil Mr. Murdoch wants to get his talons on “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” for the prestige factor. Once he owns The Times of London, The New York Post, and “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” he pretty much has the trifecta of media classiness. In truth, then, we are but a likely pawn of this megalomaniac’s desire to run the world.

We must mention, however, that this is not a done deal. Right now, our buddies in the mainstream media are preparing scabrous reports about Mr. Murdoch’s shenanigans, which are clearly aimed at soiling his attempt at a “weblog” takeover. In addition, we hear that Al Franken may put up an alternate bit, thereby saving the crack young staff from slaving for the only non-Jew who runs the universe.

But what if it doesn’t work? Well, then you can bet our “weblog” will contain nothing but fawning praise for Rupert Murdoch, Australia, and Fox News. It won’t be pretty.

WhatÂ’s more, we bet that Mr. Murdoch will also attempt to get his hands on Naked Villainy and the Llamabutchers, to add to his fancy Internet fiefdom. Clearly, the future of Al GoreÂ’s World-Wide Web is at stake.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, it’s now official: Everyone is running for president. Mike Bloomberg; Fred Thompson; Ralph Nader; Al Gore; Newt Gingrich; Shirley from “What’s Happening”; Jared from Subway—they’re all taking the plunge and campaigning for the highest office.

Or so it seems. We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” realize full well that we are very early into the 2008 presidential election, but we’re already growing tired of it. There are too many candidates as it is, and more keep signing up.

We mean, come on: Pretty soon Martin Luther will announce his candidacy. And heÂ’s been dead for half a millennium. On top of that, heÂ’s German.

(In addition, would the American public vote for a Lutheran for president? And did Martin Luther have per-marital sexual relations? What, moreover, is his view on polygamy? Perhaps Newsweek will run a cover story devoted to these vexing questions.)

Enough already. Pretty much the only folks interested in amassing more presidential candidates are Chris Matthews and Tim Russert. After all, any time they corner someone into appearing on their television programs, they immediately ask them if theyÂ’re going to run for commander-in-chief.

In fact, the constant barrage of “Are you going to run?” queries from the chat shows almost makes us wish that everyone were running for president. That way, they couldn’t irk us all with that stupid question.

Quite frankly, if everyone were a candidate for president it would suit our Democratic pals just fine, since it would mean that their beloved illegal immigrants (excuse us, Harry Reid: Undocumented patriots) could be elected to the top job.

Perhaps what most bothers us about the upcoming everyone-but-the-kitchen-sink election is that so much of it is obviously media driven. Although Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have far more legislative experience than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the latter are deemed “frontrunners” and the former “long-shots,” in part because the media don’t take Senators Dodd’s and Biden’s runs seriously.

And the Republicans? They donÂ’t take any of them very seriously.

John McCain’s stance on the Iraq War has forfeited his erstwhile shining reputation amongst the journalists. No longer is he the safe bet for what our dispassionate mainstream media types most love in the primaries—the farthest left of the Republicans.

Instead, they are chomping at the bit for a Chuck Hagel run—even though most Republicans (ourselves included) would prefer to see a G.W.F. Hegel run.

Finally, weÂ’d have a Republican candidate who understands the dialectic. No intellectual lightweight, he. But weÂ’re not sure if heÂ’s a particularly articulate English-speaker. In addition, maybe heÂ’s a little too close to Bush to win the publicÂ’s favor. And didnÂ’t Karl Marx quite fancy him?

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

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” consider ourselves rather well versed (if you will) in the realm of bad poetry. As hosts of our famous annual Horrible College-Student Poetry Competitions, we’re pretty much experts in the land of atrocious balladry.

It was with great delight, then, that we spied a story in the June 20 number of The Wall Street Journal called “The Prison Poets of Guantanamo Find a Publisher.” Penned by one Yochi J. Dreazen, the piece amounts to free publicity for what could be one of the most horrendous examples of collected versification in recent memory.

As the article relates, a defense lawyer love-struck with the odious terrorists in Gitmo called Marc Falkoff has collected their poems and had them translated into English. The result is the University of IowaÂ’s forthcoming collection Poems from Guantanamo: The Detainees Speak.

From what we can tell from the meager excerpts provided in the article, the poems are clumsy and artless. That’s no surprise. As the report informs us: “According to Mr. Falkoff, most of the poetry he is aware of was written by prisoners who had not written poetry before being arrested.”

Gee, then it must be just wonderful. Yet the quality—or its obvious lack—is clearly not the point.

Rather, these poems—presuming they aren’t filled with secret messages to al Qaeda leaders—are merely aimed at convincing bien pensant fools of their political prejudices. They’ll allow the NPR crowd to pretend that, say, Jumah al Dossari, a Gitmo detainee and newfound poetaster, is just a poor fellow mistreated by the evil American government—instead of a fiery Islamist with connections to the Lakawanna Six.

It all reminds us of a humorous Firesign Theater bit about a famous writer visiting a condemned man in prison. The author says to the inmate: “Oh, you poor brute of a killer without a conscience.”

This, clearly, is the message the useful idiot Marc Falkoff hopes to instill in the audience for his odious edited collection. After all, as a lawyer, Mr. Falkoff personally represents 17 Gitmo prisoners, and, according to the Journal piece, describes them in the book’s inscription as “my friends inside the wire.”

Oh, puh-lease. What a bunch of drivel. Naturally, you won’t be surprised to learn that the University of Iowa Press “website” advertises for the book with the obligatory Audre Lorde reference and the obligatory fawning blurb from Adrienne Rich, the arch-feminist-cum-pseudo-poetess.

Well, maybe it’s too late to get it in the collection, but we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have a poem for Marc Falkoff. Unlike the loveable scamps at Gitmo, we are not his “friends inside the wire,” or even his pals at all. But surely we write as well as his ever-suffering terrorists in Cuba.

We call our poem “Marc Falkoff: A Twin Evil.” Without further ado, here it is:

Marc Falkoff: A Twin Evil by the Crack Young Staff

Marc Falkoff, you are many things.
A dupe.
A fool.
A lover of violent anti-American, anti-Semitic Islamist fascists.

But letÂ’s not forget
That you are two things above all—a Twin Evil.

For you are a lawyer
And a lover of bad poetry.

Hardly can a more dreadful combination be imagined. (Nazi and Billy Joel fan?)

So maybe, Marc, as a lawyer
And a lover of bad poetry—a Twin Evil,

You will love this poem too.

Really moving, is it not? We hope that the University of Iowa Press, in its double assault on Western civilization, will see fit to publish it in some new terror-supporting collection of wretched doggerel.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 605 words, total size 4 kb.

This humble “weblog”—humble as it is—prides itself on offering commentary on more remote subjects. Whilst everyone on Al Gore’s World-Wide Web is busy blathering on about, say, Alex Rodriguez’s new medically enhanced girlfriend, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” spread the word about Stephen Harper, the charming Prime Minister of an utterly insignificant country to our north. (Hint: It’s not Greenland.) Which do you think will prove more popular?

To be honest, dear reader, our penchant for pontificating on such out-of-the-way topics is likely a contributing factor to this humble “weblog’s” humble status. Surprising as you may find it, as it turns out more people care deeply about A-Rod’s stripper than the Canadian Prime Minister (or, as we call him, the leader of the country to the north of the leader of the free world). Who would have thunk it?

It is with the sincerest regret, then, that we announce the subject for todayÂ’s discussion: The recent jailing and media fracas surrounding heiress Paris Hilton. Yeah, we know, we know: Upon typing those words, a little bit of us died inside.

Now, before we get under way, allow us to inform you what we won’t mention. Unlike, say, Sean “Boilerplate Conservative” Hannity, we won’t blast the American populace for caring more about Paris Hilton than illegal immigration—and then lead in to a story on Paris Hilton. If we’re troubling ourselves mentioning Paris Hilton’s woes, it seems a bit churlish to reprimand people for caring about them.

And, to be downright honest, Ms. Hilton’s recent travails have been mightily entertaining. Sure, not as entertaining as Ms. Hilton chirping a rousing chorus of “Nobody Knows the Trouble I’ve Seen.” But pretty entertaining nevertheless.

For one, the (Ir)Rev. Al Sharpton has decided to poke his “good hair” into the mess. Naturally, this is simply delicious: If Sharpton earnestly believes that Paris Hilton’s sentencing has deeply important ramifications for blacks in America, we think he’s even dumber than we previously supposed. And, believe, us, we formerly thought he was plenty dumb.

Further, we recently heard about Ms. HiltonÂ’s confiding in Barbara Walters about the ways in which a few days in the clink have changed her life. Paris, like Mike Tyson, appears to have found religion. We wonder if this will end with a face tattoo and the assault of Robin Givens. (One can only hope.)

Ah, yes: Paris Hilton has found religion. Good for her. Maybe she can spread it to Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins? Those guys are getting a little bit irritating with their whole “proselytizing for atheism” shtick.

Call us a bunch of softies, but we think that people have given Ms. Hilton something of a bad rap. For crying out loud, she was forced to be a jerk on “The Simple Life,” or that flabby show would never have worked. A dutiful Paris Hilton fastidiously cleaning up cow droppings wasn’t likely to draw in viewers. (We haven’t the vaguest reason why.)

So, to Ms. Hilton, we say “You go, girl.” If this whole Christianity thing doesn’t pan out, you can always make another porn tape.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 525 words, total size 3 kb.

We know, we know: You, dear reader, are highly likely to be deeply alarmed by the title of this humble “post.” After all, Muslims are amongst the most laid-back and pacifistic people on the face of the earth. And thus the fact that various Islamists are seething of late must come as quite a shock.

If you hadn’t heard by now, the latest shock was the knighthood Britain bestowed upon Sir Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses, amongst other books. The Satanic Verses, you see, supposedly mocks the Muslim prophet and thus the same Danish-cartoons Islamic rent-a-mobs are out in force. “Death to those who call us violent!” Blah, blah, blah.

To make matters worse, as The Wall Street Journal reported, PakistanÂ’s religious affairs minister claimed that RushdieÂ’s knighthood was so abhorrent that it justified suicide bombings. Pakistan, mind you, is the country run by a devious thug who claims to be a US ally in the War on Terror. YouÂ’d think that his supposedly friendly government would care more about catching Osama bin Laden and less about killing Salman Rushdie.

But wait: Another thing just occurred to us. (Wow, that’s two things in one day—a new record.)

Thanks to addlebrained anti-Semite-cum-incompetent CIA failure Michael Scheuer, we have long since learned that Islamist terrorism is entirely the fault of two things: American foreign policy and the pesky existence of Israel. If we just remove our troops from the Middle East (thereby allowing al Qaeda a clear shot at taking control of the worldÂ’s most important oil-supplying countries) and allow the Arabs to commit a second Holocaust in Israel, all would be great with the world.

And, of course, charming humanitarian that he is, Mr. Scheuer is quite prepared to make those sacrifices.

Yet—mirabile dictu—this whole Salman Rushdie brouhaha seems to work against Mr. Scheuer’s carefully reasoned argument. We mean, come on: Al Qaeda isn’t angry about Salman Rushdie! The terrorists hate American foreign policy and Israel—that’s it!

So what gives?

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” earnestly wonder how many crazy Islamist examples of violent overreaction must occur for our lefty pals to face up to reality. As much as our fringe lefties—and paleo-righties, such as Michael Scheuer—want to blame America and Israel for everything, they’re just plain wrong.

The Islamists want to destroy Western civilization, root and branch. TheyÂ’re mad about Israel; America; the fall of the Ottoman Empire; the existence of America; the existence of any non-Muslims; Jews; Christians; their societiesÂ’ manifest failures; Western civilization; the Crusades; the successful European ceasing of Islamic imperialism; &c. You name it, it pisses them off.

Naturally, radical Muslims routinely refer to Christians and Jews with all sorts of slurs. And yet you donÂ’t see us justifying suicide bombing in response.

As frustrating as all this is, we must admit that itÂ’s a bit humorous too: ItÂ’s always fun to see the new way in which a left-wing nutter will blame America and Israel for sins of which they are obviously not guilty. ItÂ’s sort of like mental Twister, only a lot funnier.

Let the next round begin.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 530 words, total size 4 kb.

Well, well, well: Those peaceable Palestinians have gone ahead and inaugurated a civil war. Who would have seen this coming? Certainly not us, given the inestimably high regard accorded to pacifism amongst the Palestinian community. Clearly the Hamas version of Mickey Mouse wouldnÂ’t favor such uncouth intramural violence.

And surely weÂ’re not the only ones who are aghast to discover that the lovely chaps in Hamas are capable of such skullduggery. The Hamasters also appear to have confused our friends in the mainstream media, who are currently grasping at ways to blame Israel and America for the conflagration. Maybe Seymour Hersh could give us some way to shift the responsibility, they must be thinking.

“The international community cut off funds,” say our Palestinian shills. “Obviously they’re responsible for this escalation of violence.”

We suppose that these anti-Israel zealots believe that handing over lots of money to a group of terrorists hell bent on genocide would be a far better thing to do. Sure, there would be no problems if that happened. At least we canÂ’t think of any complications.

Those even mildly familiar with the ranks of Palestinian apologists will be unsurprised to learn that The Guardian demonstrated its typical obtuseness in reaction to the current civil war. The Guardian, for those of you blissfully unaware of it, is LondonÂ’s answer to Al Ahram. ItÂ’s the kind of rag that gives plenty of column space to the loveable scamps in Hamas, to let them dribble their odious propaganda for the UKÂ’s bien pensant morons.

Its first editorial sally into the latest Palestinian perfidy is called “A Pyrrhic Victory,” and can be found amongst its Sunday leaders. (Perhaps this means that it’s officially a staff editorial from The Observer, the Sunday version of The Guardian. But no matter: They’re both owned and run by the same folks.)

The caption underneath this leader says it all:

Hamas: Without unity between Hamas and Fatah, there is no chance of ending the occupation and achieving an independent Palestinian state.

To which we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” respond: Well, gee. Do you really think it bursts the dreams of Hamas to learn that they have less of a chance at “achieving an independent Palestinian state”? If you think this, you are officially an idiot.

As everyone living in reality recognizes, Hamas—like Fatah under Yasir “She’s My Baby” Arafat—doesn’t want an independent Palestinian state. It wants all of Israel. It wants genocide. That’s what the Oslo peace process demonstrated. And that’s what the Hamas charter demonstrates.

But the boobs at The Guardian simply can’t help but believe that Hamas wants exactly what they want. For some reason, this delusion is sufficiently strong that no new event will compel them to change their minds. It’s as if they really believed that the powers-that-be in Hamas didn’t realize that their bloody coup in Gaza would make gaining an “independent Palestinian state” less likely.

Well, gee: You donÂ’t say.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 504 words, total size 3 kb.

The other day, dear reader, was magical: The sun was shining, a light breeze was blowing, and there was no sign of Billy Joel anywhere in sight. In fact, there was no soft rock within earshot. It was, as we have previously mentioned, magical.

One of the junior editors here at “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly”—let’s just call him “Chip”—was enjoying this blissful day by taking a charming post-prandial walk round the neighborhood. And, on his way back to “Hatemonger’s Quarterly” Headquarters, he spied the darndest thing.

What was it? Well, we’re glad you asked. A gal of college age was walking past “Chip,” bedecked in those ugly bug-eye sunglasses the Paris Hilton set fancy. She was heavy-set and a bit plain looking.

Not, to be sure, the oddest sight. But here’s the kicker: Said girl was bedecked in a T-shirt emblazoned with the following logo: “I (heart) FRAT BOYS.” Yup, you read that right: This coquettish lass was positively advertising her esteem for fraternity fellahs.

Now, “Chip” thought, given this girl’s weight and countenance, the more interesting question is whether frat boys (heart) this girl. Further, “Chip” wondered how many Milwaukee’s Bests these Lambda Sigma Delta boys would need to be bowled over by the nugatory charms of this marginal damsel.

But never mind that. Rather, imagine what’s going on—or isn’t going on—in this sorry girl’s head. She’s blithely informing the world—in broad daylight, no less—that she loves the loathsome, inebriated acquaintance rapists who attend her university. Not terribly classy, is it?

In fact, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” are happy to suggest a few different T-shirt slogans, which this poor lass can wear with a little more pride. How about these winners…

“I AM NOT VERY ATTRACTIVE, BUT I MAKE UP FOR THAT BY BEING VERY, VERY EASY”

“I’VE BEEN PUT ON THIS EARTH TO HAUNT GLORIA STEINEM”

“I AM HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO PRESS CHARGES AFTER YOU SEMI-FORCE ME TO PERFORM VARIOUS SEXUAL ACTS”

“SELF-ESTEEM ELUDES ME”

Now there are some wholesome slogans for a little college hussy.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.

Okay, so Tom Lantos, a Democratic Congressman from California, went on Nancy Pelosi’s dubious foreign policy trip to Syria. (“The road to perfidy and fecklessness goes through Damascus.”) That, we need hardly mention, was stupid. But, hey, we all make mistakes.

And Rep. Lantos has more than made up for this silly blunder in a recent speech at the dedication of a monument honoring the victims of Communism. The Associated (with Terrorists) Press reports:

A leading Democratic lawmaker lashed out at the former leaders of Germany and France, calling former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder a “political prostitute.”…

“I am so glad that the era of Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder in Germany is now gone," Lantos said to applause.

He said when the United States asked Schroeder to support its decision to go to war in Iraq "he told us where to go."

"I referred to him as a political prostitute, now that he's taking big checks from [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. But the sex workers in my district objected, so I will no longer use that phrase," Lantos saidÂ….

Lantos said Chirac "should go down to the Normandy beaches. He should see those endless rows of white marble crosses and stars of David representing young Americans who gave their lives for the freedom of France."

If that doesnÂ’t make you greatly esteem Rep. Lantos, dear reader, youÂ’re probably in a coma.

Now, we must say that weÂ’ve always taken something of a shine to Rep. Lantos. A Hungarian-born Holocaust survivor, Lantos has always been supremely good on Israel. But, in taking aim at the defrocked former leaders of Old Europe, heÂ’s surely outdone himself.

Not that everyone enjoyed Rep. LantosÂ’ candor. Again according to the AP:

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, once Schroeder's chief of staff, said Lantos' comments overstepped "the limits of political decency."

Well, boo hoo, Herr Steinmeier. Forgive us if we’re wrong, but we don’t seem to recall the German establishment getting all up in arms when Hugo Chavez took to the podium at the United Nations to call President Bush “the devil himself.” Was the German ambassador to the UN chuckling at these remarks? We don’t remember his truculent reaction to Mr. Chavez’s overstepping of “the limits of political decency.”

Perhaps this is the case because bien pensants in Old Europe have swum in anti-Bush rhetoric for years now. And at least Bush isnÂ’t aiding Vladimir PutinÂ’s totalitarian takeover of Russia. Would that we could say the same thing for haughty former Chancellor Schroeder.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 3 kb.

It’s a horrible admission to make, but we simply have to face the music and be honest: We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” don’t often think of Canada. Now, don’t get us wrong, dear reader. We don’t harbor any disdain for Canadians—or at least not for the non-French-Canadians. Well, or at least not for the non-French, non-America-bashing Canadians. You get our drift.

Still, ensconced in the comfier purlieus of these here United States of America, we seldom reflect on our neighbors to our north, unless, perchance, they rename one of their provinces some vaguely unpronounceable Native American word. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

But we have had plenty of reason to reflect on Canada of late. And, no, not because it allowed us some respite from the constant drone of Paris Hilton the Convict related hubbub. And, we must add, not because some new Rick Moranis vehicle has hit the theaters.

No, dear reader, we have pondered our little Maple Leafs to the north for another reason entirely. As someone called Matt Drudge “posted” on his Internet “website,” Conservative Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has refused to call Bono, the tonsorially-challenged rock star who moonlights as the self-obsessed personification of a panacea for world hunger.

According to a dubious outfit named Reuters, Bono aimed to speak with the Prime Minister in order to browbeat him into carting off donkey loads of cash for corrupt governments in Africa, to ensure that few starving Africans eat anything, but lots and lots of brutal dictators get their hands on AK-47s. And, as it turns out, Prime Minister Harper would have none of it.

To which we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” can only respond: Bravo, bravo, bravo, Prime Minister Harper! We knew there was a reason we esteemed you more than your predecessor. Like us, you recognize that nothing irks a good man quite like a maddeningly rich rock star forcing other people to fork over their money—in between bouts of shagging supermodels, no doubt.

The end of the Reuters report, however, sends Prime Minister Harper crashing back down to earth. Did he agree to a colloquy with Elton John? Does he speak regularly with Billy Joel?

Nope. ItÂ’s even worse:

For the record, though, Harper said he liked the music of BonoÂ’s band, U2.

Boy, and they say that the Canucks care more about culture than we troglodytic Americans.

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

Well, itÂ’s already wending its way round Al GoreÂ’s World-Wide Web. The Washington Times has recently reported that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has experienced an incredible decline of members.

As Audrey Hudson reports:

According to tax documents obtained by The Times, the number of reported [CAIR] members spiraled down from more than 29,000 in 2000 to less [sic] than 1,700 in 2006, a loss of membership that caused the Muslim rights groupÂ’s annual income from dues to drop from $732,765 in 2000, when yearly dues cost $25, to $58,750 last year, when the group charged $35.

Thus does The Washington Times, a paper with circulation figures even lower than the number of card-carrying CAIR members, attempt to hammer in the last nail in the coffin for the odious terror-supporters at the Council on American-Islamic Relations. And, let’s be honest, the folks at Rev. Moon’s paper do a pretty good job on CAIR—which, given its paltry membership, has no claim to being deemed the quasi-official voice of American Muslims.

Still, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have the sneaking suspicion that the lazy hacks who make up the American journalistic establishment will continue to call up CAIR whenever it wants a pseudo-official Muslim-American response to any given issue. CAIR could have three members—which, come to think of it, is distinctly possible in the year 2014—and our mindless reporters will still run to them for responses.

Further, we assert that CAIRÂ’s obvious low standing in the American Muslim community wonÂ’t harm the disgracefully anti-Semitic organizationÂ’s goals one jot. After all, CAIR is an Islamist front group with known links to terrorist organizations. It pulls in all sorts of dirty money from Saudi Arabia and other financiers of global jihad.

Last we checked, those terror-loving OPECers had more than a bit of cash to spare. Thus CAIR doesnÂ’t exactly require a bake sale to remain in the black.

Okay, okay—so the odious CAIR, like Gloria Gaynor, will survive. Despite its terror ties and dubious actions, it will remain on CNN’s Rolodex, just as do Al Sharpton and other disgraced race-baiters. Yet we can’t help but see some positives from the Times’ recent revelation.

We mean, come on: Only 1,700 American Muslims are members of CAIR! IsnÂ’t that slightly inspiring? Especially after the brouhaha regarding that recent Pew poll, which demonstrated that nine out of every eight American Muslims wholeheartedly support suicide bombing?

We earnestly wish that this report would signal the death knell for the frightening radicals who run CAIR. But we wonÂ’t hold our collective breath.

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

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” receive a brand-spakin’ new copy of The Wall Street Journal at our official headquarters six times a week. Frankly, dear reader, we’d prefer to check out the Gray Lady, but since it began charging somewhere in the neighborhood of $583 per month for a subscription (in an obvious concession to the poor people it cares so much about), we headed over to the Journal instead.

Naturally, having given up our New York Times subscription, weÂ’re missing a few things. And, no, we donÂ’t mean Maureen DowdÂ’s ineluctably foolish drivel. Rather, weÂ’re referring to the larger smattering of stories that pertain to non-economic issues.

Still, the Journal, as a national paper aimed both at the news and financial worlds, keeps us abreast of the major stories each day. And, it must be said, the writers for the Journal are of generally high quality, and make the Paper of Record seem like dross by comparison. Perhaps this partly makes up for the JournalÂ’s rather monochromatic editorial page.

We mention all of this for an important reason: It is through the eyes of The Wall Street Journal that we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” first see the big stories of the day. Among other charms, this allows us to take in each day’s body count from Iraq, which the reporters never fail to mention. Further, this keeps us up with the casualty count in Israel and Palestine, which is dutifully mentioned in each issue.

And yet, oddly, the powers-that-be at the Journal show far less concern about the ongoing Lebanese military operations at the Nahr al Bared refugee camp in Tripoli, Lebanon. As you may well know, the Lebanese army has engaged in a prolonged campaign to root out an al Qaeda-inspired terrorist group in this Palestinian refugee camp, and have taken to methods far less discriminating than those used by the Israeli army in similar circumstances.

Last we heard, the casualty count in this Palestinian refugee camp was rather high—which is unsurprising, given the comparative disregard for civilian casualties shown by the Lebanese forces. And yet readers of the Journal would hardly know about this crisis, since it’s reported on it only a few times, and fails to keep a running tab of deaths. How curious that spats in which Israel is engaged receives so much more attention!

But this is nothing in comparison with the duplicity of the anti-Israel “weblogs.” Take a gander at a vehemently anti-Israel “website,” and nine times out of ten you won’t see much at all about the ongoing conflict in Lebanon. When Israel engages in a careful surgical strike, they trump up nonsense about non-existent Jenin “massacres.” When Lebanon proves far less fastidious in its use of military force, they clam up.

This is merely typical of Islamist apologists. They incessantly bleat about American and Israeli killings of Muslims, but care not a jot about the far more common instances of Muslims killing Muslims.

In short, they care more about scoring propaganda points than in human life.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 3 kb.

By now, dear reader, you undoubtedly know that Dr. Jack Kevorkian—a.k.a. “Dr. Death”—has been released from prison. Dr. Kevorkian, of course, became infamous for his work on behalf of and spirited defense of euthanasia. Before heading to the slammer, Dr. Kevorkian lent his hand in a large number of so-called assisted suicides.

To be honest, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have always found Dr. Kevorkian a mite troubling. We mean, come on: If he cares so much about euthanasia, why doesn’t he seem concerned about, say, youth in Africa? (Boy, that was a lame joke—and it doesn’t even translate well on the computer screen.)

Perhaps you also realize that Dr. Kevorkian has announced that he will no longer take part in the assisted suicide racket. Go figure: maybe he couldnÂ’t make any money in it, because all his clients insisted that they reimburse him after the procedure.

By the by, this leads us to the topic of today’s humble “post”: What will Jack Kevorkian do for the remainder of his (living) years on earth? He could, we suppose, push some sort of diet pill, since he appears to have the kind of figure we’ve only seen on Nichole Ritchie and a corpse. But, to be honest, he’s probably not sufficiently telegenic to serve as a spokesmodel.

And this brings us to our brilliant idea: Dr. Kevorkian, having hung up his assisted suicide cap, should start his own nationally syndicated advice column. He could be the next Abbey—or, failing that, the next Basilica. (Wow, that was an even lamer gag.)

Just think of it. On the back page of your local paper, jammed up against the dull “This Week in History” section, you’d read “Ask Dr. Death.” Really draws you in, doesn’t it? What’s more, it would allow Dr. Kevorkian the opportunity to help people—without giving them cyanide. We all win.

In order to offer you the full effect of our clever idea, we’ve decided to present a sample version of the “Ask Dr. Death” column. In this little preview, we’ll produce Dr. Kevorkian’s answers for him, since—try as we might—we couldn’t get in touch with him directly.

Further, we couldn’t think of any good queries for Dr. Kevorkian, so we purloined some from the “Your Problems Solved” section of the June 2 number of The Spectator. As the Speccie is a British rag, we hope you’ll pardon the limey-tinged questions. And the bad teeth, for that matter.

Okay, without any further ado, here goes:

ASK DR. DEATH—with Dr. Jack Kevorkian

Q: I have a boyfriend, of whom I am very fond, for some time now. There is, however, one slight problem. On special occasions when he comes to visit my family, he always dons his best pair of shoes of which he is extremely proud. Unfortunately these are not of the gentlemanly variety. They are of a particularly common style and colour and would perhaps better appeal to a Sicilian waiter out on a Sunday jaunt. I thought this would be a matter of little impediment but my boyfriend only has to enter the room for the eyes of all my family to become incurably transfixed on his shoes. What should I do?

A: You must kill your boyfriend.

Q: Around these parts one regularly runs into a particular dinner-party know-it-all. He speaks about the topics of the day with an air of terrific authority and no one challenges him, but quite apart from him boring people’s pants off I sense he is actually quite uninformed, and once or twice have found out too late that some pronouncement of his was quite wrong. Help, Dr. Death! He is due to come to dinner soon and I’d like to arm myself with some solid facts about, say, green issues—dismissing the greenhouse effect is one of his favorite hobby horses.

A: You are obliged to murder this dinner-party know-it-all. In addition, I recommend that you do in the rest of the party attendees. Or at least maim them.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 676 words, total size 4 kb.

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” are nothing if not nice. That’s why, in fact, we named our “weblog” as we did: We feel it well fits our pleasant—nay, chirpy—demeanors.

Even so, we must admit that a handful of folks prove consistently capable of getting our dander up. ItÂ’s embarrassing, but true: A few people just rub us the wrong way, and there seems little we can do about it. Short of killing them, perhaps. Well, short of maiming them, we suppose.

To be honest, these irksome lads and lasses make for an uninspiring list of irritants: Michael Moore; Hugo Chavez; Billy Joel; et al. We mean, come on: Add Paris Hilton to the list and youÂ’ve pretty much mentioned every humanoid God-fearing Americans disdain.

We would be remiss, however, if we failed to add one name that isnÂ’t as well known to our grand Tallying of the Obnoxious. We refer, dear reader, to Eric Alterman, the incessantly enraged media critic for The Nation.

Longtime readers of this humble “weblog” know that we’ve taken aim at the odious Mr. Alterman in the past. And for good reason: Not only is he an unreflective dunce who shills for any militantly left-wing idiocy, he’s also clearly an obstreperous jerk. Anyone who’s seen Mr. Alterman on Book TV can attest that, despite his quixotic “progressive” politics, he’s no happy, peaceful lefty. On the contrary: He comes across as a deeply unhappy man.

Accordingly, we were unsurprised to learn that Mr. Alterman was arrested at the recent Democratic debate in New Hampshire; apparently, he was trespassing and acting like a—mirabile dictu—complete ass. Although, as company policy, we do not engage in bouts of Schadenfreude, we must say that Mr. Alterman’s misfortunes have tested our limits.

Overall, Mr. Alterman’s un-sunny disposition makes his obtuse commentary in The Nation even harder to stomach than would otherwise be the case. And, given that The Nation has long been—to alter their slogan ever so slightly—a source of conventional un-wisdom, that’s really saying something.

But you needn’t take our collective word for it. Why, you could get an idea of Mr. Alterman’s outrageous hackery from “Potemkin Paper?”—a recent hit job appearing in The Nation. In said piece, Mr. Alterman ridicules The New York Sun, the fledgling conservative daily. According to Mr. Alterman, the paper—horror of horrors!—doesn’t have many readers, and merely exists to influence public debate and Washington politicos.

Oh, dear Lord! How blasphemous! We suppose the SunÂ’s situation is wholly different from, say, The Nation, which has squillons of readers and whose staff has no interest in changing the hearts and minds of the powerful.

Amongst other purported sins, Mr. Alterman flogs the staff of the Sun for inveighing against the blatant anti-Semitic agitation of faculty members at Columbia University—a noble cause that Mr. Alterman counts among the Sun’s “wild charges.”

But never mind this typical lack of regard for intellectual diversity and educational fairness. Just take a gander at the peroration of Mr. AltermanÂ’s dubious screed. HereÂ’s a charming sentence for you:

But I don't want to harp on the Jewish-media-moguls-supporting-Israel angle, which hews a little too close to traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes for my taste.

Yeah: You read that right. Mr. Alterman doesn’t want to “harp on the Jewish-media-moguls-supporting-Israel angle,” because it’s a tad “too close to traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes” for his taste. Just a little.

This leads us to wonder: Exactly how close must one hew to “traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes” to gain the approval of Mr. Alterman? How much “traditional anti-Semitism” accords with his “taste”?

It is a horrid reminder of how unhealthy the political Left in this country has become that ravings such as Mr. Alterman’s are given the label “progressive.”

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 635 words, total size 4 kb.

Perhaps, dear reader, you have heard of John Pilger, an Aussie left-wing writer and documentary filmmaker. To be honest, weÂ’d only vaguely heard of Mr. Pilger, though we must admit we correctly recalled that he somehow got the impression that David SpadeÂ’s haircut in Joe Dirt was attractive.

Based in London, Mr. Pilger is essentially EuropeÂ’s answer to Michael Moore. He is, then, a stuffed shirt who produces detestable propaganda for bien pensant morons. In addition, much like Mr. Moore, Mr. Pilger has a huge crush on Hugo Chavez. Naturally, Mr. Pilger doesnÂ’t believe that his esteem for Dear Old Hugo damages his supposed regard for human rights.

We mention Mr. Pilger because we recently spied an article he wrote for the May 28 number of the New Statesman, the UK’s premier left-wing weekly. His article made up half of what this issue of the NS advertised as “Gaza: The Jailed State.” As such, we fully expected to be treated to a cornucopia of anti-Israel cant.

And treated we were. In fact, from this sorry article alone, we got a great sense why Auberon Waugh—son of the great Evelyn Waugh—coined the verb “to pilger,” which, according to Wikipedia, means “to present information in a sensationalist manner to reach a foregone conclusion.”

Mr. Pilger’s rancid piece is given the laughable title “Children of the Dust.” Apparently, this buffoon thinks that he’s Stephen King.

As you might imagine, the article contains the sort of palaver youÂ’d expect from an overheated apologist for Palestinian terrorism. As far as Mr. PilgerÂ’s concerned, Hamas yearns for peace, yet evil Israel refuses to play their peaceful game. This is such nonsense, that one wonders whether Mr. Pilger is obtuse or sinister. (From our vantage point, he appears to be both.)

WhatÂ’s most pathetic about his sordid piece of agitprop, however, is the fact that itÂ’s not even effective propaganda. Instead, itÂ’s self-contradictory garbage.

On the one hand, we get this ridiculous assessment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

There is no war. There is resistance among the poorest, most vulnerable people on earth to an enduring, illegal occupation imposed by the worldÂ’s fourth largest military power, whose weapons of mass destruction range from cluster bombs to thermonuclear devices, bankrolled by the superpower.

Leave aside for the moment the insipid characterization of the Palestinians as “the poorest, most vulnerable people on earth.” How little about the world does Mr. Pilger know to offer such an unintentionally humorous description?

Now, letÂ’s take a look at another choice bit from the selfsame article:

A censorship by omission runs deep in western journalism on Israel, especially in the US. Hamas is dismissed as a “terrorist group sworn to Israel’s destruction” and one that “refuses to recognise Israel and wants to fight not talk.” This theme suppresses the truth: that Israel is bent on Palestine’s destruction.

Forget the fact that this passage amounts to a giant non sequitur: Even if Israel did pine for Palestine’s destruction—which is absurd—this would in no way “suppress” any “truth” about Hamas’ genocidal intent.

But never mind that. Notice how pathetically self-contradictory these two passages are. In the first, the fourth most powerful army—swimming in US dollars—fights against “the poorest, most vulnerable people on earth.” In the second, “Israel is bent on Palestine’s destruction.”

Um, come on, Mr. Pilger. Get your propaganda straight. Israel has had close to 60 years to destroy Palestine. And, by your reckoning, it has an amazing advantage: An army of well-funded Terminators against a flock of Bambis.

So what gives? Why canÂ’t this brutal fighting force destroy these baby seals in 60 years? YouÂ’d think it would be awfully easy, wouldnÂ’t you?

ItÂ’s sad when propaganda this inept finds its way into print.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 624 words, total size 4 kb.

You remember Francis Fukuyama—the public intellectual whose pre-9/11 breakout work, The End of History, argued that a liberal democratic Valhalla was nigh, and who has since been busy fudging his thesis, since, as it turns out, a liberal democratic Valhalla is not nigh. Even though Mr. Fukuyama’s work was little but Hegelian nonsense, it landed him a comfy job at Johns Hopkins University. Not bad for someone whose chief claim to fame is being wrong.

More recently, Mr. Fukuyama composed a work called America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy. In said tome, Mr. Fukuyama marks his definitive break from neoconservatism and highlights his more wishy-washy and nebulous approach to Islamist terrorism.

As you may well know, dear reader, Mr. Fukuyama’s book landed him in a bit of hot water, because in it he claimed that he attended a speech by Charles Krauthammer to the American Enterprise Institute in which Mr. Krauthammer lavishly praised the success of the war in Iraq. As it turns out, Mr. Krauthammer did no such thing—and an on-line copy of his remarks makes this crystal clear.

We mention all this, dear reader, because we have recently been plowing our way through America at the Crossroads. And though we find it an interesting book—which offers a nice retort to conspiracy theorists opposed to neoconservatism—it seems to contain another example of Mr. Fukuyama’s curious misreading of Mr. Krauthammer’s work.

Below we have quoted a passage from Mr. Krauthammer’s article “In Defense of Democratic Realism,” which Mr. Fukuyama quotes on pages 70 and 71 of his book. To this we have affixed Mr. Fukuyama’s comments on said passage, which we think you’ll find more than a mite troublesome.

First, hereÂ’s the Krauthammer passage:

Disdaining the appeal of radical Islam is the conceit also of secularists. Radical Islam is not just as fanatical and unappeasable in its anti-Americanism, anti-Westernism and anti-modernism as anything we have ever known. It has the distinct advantage of being grounded in a venerable religion of over one billion adherents that not only provides a ready supply of recruits—trained and readied in mosques and madrassas far more effective, autonomous and ubiquitous than any Hitler Youth or Komsomol camps—but is able to draw on a long and deep tradition of zeal, messianic expectation and a cult of martyrdom. Hitler and Stalin had to invent these out of whole cloth. Mussolini’s version was a parody. Islamic radicalism flies under a flag with far more historical depth and enduring appeal than the ersatz religions of the swastika and hammer-and-sickle that proved so historically thin and insubstantial.

Okay, here are Mr. FukuyamaÂ’s remarks on this passage, which we have interspersed with our own running commentary:

Krauthammer, in other words, argues that the political threat comes from a version of the religion Islam, that is thoroughly unappeasable and anti-Western, and that is deeply and broadly rooted among the worldÂ’s more than one billion Muslims.

Already Fukuyama is dead wrong. Mr. Krauthammer did not argue that radical Islamism is “deeply and broadly rooted among the world’s more than one billion Muslims.” Rather, he asserted that radical Islamism is grounded in the Muslim faith, and this provides it with numerous potential adherents. The notion that all Muslims are radical Islamists is Mr. Fukuyama’s unfair gloss.

Each of these assertions is debatable and together vastly overstate the threat that the United States faces in the post-September 11 world. We are not fighting the religion Islam or its adherents but a radical ideology that appeals to a distinct minority of Muslims.

Nothing Mr. Krauthammer argued gainsays the idea that the US is “not fighting the religion Islam or its adherents but a radical ideology that appeals to a distinct minority of Muslims.” Mr. Fukuyama is now setting Mr. Krauthammer up as a straw man, refuting words Mr. Krauthammer never said.

That ideology owes a great deal to Western ideas in addition to Islam, and it appeals to the same alienated individuals who in earlier generations would have gravitated to communism or fascism.

Again, Mr. Fukuyama offers an argument supposedly antithetical to Mr. Krauthammer’s remarks—but it actually agrees with the spirit of what Mr. Krauthammer wrote. After all, Mr. Krauthammer never asserted that radical Islamism has no Western intellectual influences, since that would be a foolish argument.

Rather, Mr. Krauthammer stressed the Muslim roots of radical Islamism, and argued that these roots—which are not necessarily the only roots—make it more attractive to followers than communism and fascism. The notion that these ideologies have the same sort of appeal—as Mr. Fukuyama notes—only strengthens Mr. Krauthammer’s argument.

This sort of unfair parsing would be troublesome from the pen of an undergraduate essayist. From a distinguished professor, they are loathsome.

If this is the sort of fluff Francis Fukuyama offers, we think the neoconservatives should applaud his departure from their ranks. Who needs such flabby arguments?

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 821 words, total size 6 kb.

Regular reader(s) of this humble “weblog” well know that we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have oft excoriated the authors of dimwitted letters to the editor of various high-profile newspapers. There’s something delightful about ripping on a sanctimonious missive, and we consider it one of the great joys of our humble e-outfit to demolish a really lame epistle. (For those unaware of this portion of our e-oeuvre, here’s a charming example.)

Given our penchant for ridiculing letters to the editor, it will come as no surprise to you that we regularly troll around the “websites” of sundry newspapers, in search of frighteningly obtuse missives. As you might well imagine, dear reader, The New York Times proves to be a locus classicus of horrid letters: The Gray Lady appears to bring out the pertinacious self-puffery in us all. Or, at least, in tofu-swilling, Volvo-driving, NPR-listening popinjays.

But surely another prime location for jejune letters to the editor can be found on the comment page of The Guardian, a left-wing UK rag seemingly dedicated to enabling a Muslim jihad against the West. (So far, so good, fellahs.) The typical Guardian reader likes Noam Chomsky only slightly more than Tariq Ramadan—and esteems them both only slightly less than his BMW. The newspaper is, then, a veritable Twit Central.

Imagine our collective surprise, then, upon finding a genuinely brilliant missive in this disreputable British rag. Before we reproduce it below, allow us to set the scene.

As you may know, numerous British academics have again sullied their reputation by supporting an official boycott against Israeli scholars. In so doing, our professorial pals have demonstrated their grand regard for collective punishment—harming all Israelis for the perceived sins of their government, whether the Israelis in question support their government’s actions or not.

Naturally, our limey academic buddies arenÂ’t concerned about the manifold injustices of other governments: Iran; Syria; North Korea; Cuba; Sudan; China; Russia; &c. Or, at least, they havenÂ’t established any myopic boycott against the citizens of these countries. Only Israelis have received their official scorn. How curious.

Naturally, these pious professors disesteem what they see as the collective punishment of Muslims. They detest, for example, racial profiling at airports, since it forces a feeling of collective guilt on the part of Muslims.

Ah, but theyÂ’re not so careful in regard to the Jews, now are they? And the professorsÂ’ knavery has compelled one Gunter Lawson of London to write the following delicious letter to the editor:

The government is supposed to want university lecturers to spy on students and report those exhibiting signs of political extremism. It seems they may have got this the wrong way round.

What can you say? Brilliant! Simply brilliant!

Congratulations, Mr. Lawson, for restoring our faith in readers of The Guardian. At least a few of them arenÂ’t incorrigible nincompoops.

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

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” don’t exactly run the most esteemed “weblog” on Al Gore’s World-Wide Web. Or even, we hasten to add, the second-most esteemed.

This may be the result of our fearsome reliance on a one-post-per-diem format. In addition, our well nigh “governmental” attitude to holidays could also influence our charming lack of e-popularity.

By this we mean that we enjoy taking a break from our “posting” schedule on holidays. Any holidays. Ash Wednesday; Sukkot; Ramadan; Arbor Day—you name it, we, like Britney Spears with her underwear, take it off. Heck, we’d even skip out from our e-job on Joseph Stalin Day, if it meant a few hours of rest and relaxation.

(Have our friends in the Ivy League failed to promote an official Joseph Stalin Day? Why not? It could replace that wretched Columbus Day—where Alger Hiss Day hasn’t already done so.)

It is with some consternation, then, that we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” recognized something: We “posted” on Memorial Day. We know, we know: How the heck did that happen?

Quite frankly, dear reader, we’re not that sure. We always figured that our friends on the political Left—ardent patriots that they are—forgot about Memorial Day. After all, it valorizes the human tools of Western imperialism. Or so we’re told.

But fear not: We aim to make up for our horrific lapse.

How so? Well, we’re glad we made you ask. By offering a half-assed “post” on a day we normally offer our typical e-genius.

If you havenÂ’t already guessed, dear reader, that day is today. Enjoy.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly”—like all other followers of American politics—know that Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the United States. And we realize this, we should add, because it’s a statement that is constantly dripping from the mouths of our lefty pals.

With glee, these folks incessantly inform us that nine out of every eight Republican voters believed that Saddam Hussein masterminded the World Trade Center bombing. According to our liberal friends, the maniacal Bush administration duped the American public into believing there was a direct and strong Saddam-9/11 connection.

Quite frankly, dear reader, weÂ’ve always found this particular left-wing talking point a bit curious. After all, donÂ’t our lefty buddies believe that George W. BushÂ’s cardinal flaw is stupidity and a lack of nuance? If so, how do they explain President BushÂ’s seemingly paradoxical ability to fool the public via carefully-wrought misleading statements? It just doesnÂ’t make sense.

But hereÂ’s another thing that doesnÂ’t make sense: Some of the very people who harp and harpie about the clear absence of any Iraq-9/11 link now appear to believe it. Our proof? The current liberal love affair with fringe Republican presidential candidate-cum-libertarian nutter Ron Paul.

In the June 4 number of The New Republic, senior editor Michael Crowley contributed a largely laudatory discussion of Congressman Paul entitled “The Crank: The Surprising Relevance of Ron Paul.” Needless to say, with a title like that, it’s a highly dubious piece of hackery.

For example, Mr. Crowley puts stock—albeit somewhat hesitantly—in Ron Paul’s numbers in Internet polls:

Paul won several instant polls after the [May 15 Republican presidential] debate, including one at the conservative Newsmax.com and a Fox News text-message poll. Incredibly, Paul’s name began beating out “Paris Hilton” as the number-one query on the popular blog-searching website Technorati. (Granted, it’s possible that Paul’s fervent supporters are manipulating such online metrics.)

It’s “possible” that rabid Paul supporters have manipulated these metrics? Well, we suppose so, if by “possible” you mean “completely clear.” We mean, come on: The guy currently polls off-line a bit lower than Adolf Hitler and Kenneth Lay.

But here’s the interesting part. Toward the start of the piece, Mr. Crowley disparages Rudy Giuliani’s retort to Ron Paul’s foreign policy idiocy in the debate; he characterizes Giuliani as “ever-macho” (not a compliment at the TNR office, we’d wager).

Ah, yes: That pathetic testosterone-filled Giuliani—how dare he excoriate Ron Paul!

But wait: What did Ron Paul say to earn Mayor Giuliani’s ire? Mr. Crowley helpfully quotes him: “They [Islamic terrorists] attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for ten years.”

ItÂ’s more than a bit pathetic that a responsible organ of left-wing opinion finds anything to esteem in Ron PaulÂ’s odious comments. Notice that Congressman Paul did not argue that American foreign policy was amongst the factors contributing to Islamist violence. Nope, heÂ’s much more specific: To him, the former bombing of Iraq is to blame, and therefore the US must engage in a completely isolationist foreign policy.

This is mono-causal madness: If you read the statements and writings of Osama bin Laden, you’ll note that they concern themselves with far more than contemporary American foreign policy. They cast their terrorism as part of a jihad to convert the world to Islam, and a little tussle with Saddam wasn’t likely to alter their view of “crusaders” and “Zionist pigs” very much.

But note Congressman PaulÂ’s and, implicitly, Michael CrowleyÂ’s support for an Iraq-9/11 connection: Al Qaeda attacked the US on 9/11 because it was fed up with American treatment of SaddamÂ’s regime. Well, well, well: There is a Saddam-9/11 connection after all.

Hold on a second: Don’t our lefty friends love to argue that—despite some evidence to the contrary—al Qaeda and Saddam had nothing in common, no bonds that would make them work together? Yet it seems that Osama bin Laden was so bothered by American treatment of Saddam that he decided to attack on 9/11.

ItÂ’s a dark day when TNR is buying into such nonsense.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 679 words, total size 5 kb.

Understandably, sundry Americans wonder what we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” think about Cindy Sheehan’s recent decision to pack up her slew of T-shirts emblazoned with radical messages and give up her cause. Given our enviable metaphorical perch on the metaphorical tree of e-punditry, our opinion on America’s erstwhile “Peace Mom” likely has particular resonance.

And, to be honest, dear reader, we’re pretty emotional about the whole matter. In fact, we found her parting column, “Good Riddance Attention Whore,” so difficult that we couldn’t even make our way through it all. That wasn’t, moreover, merely due to Ms. Sheehan’s dubious grasp of grammar—her title, for instance, should have read “Good Riddance, Attention Whore.” Does this woman not recognize that her authority to use commas is absolute? Apparently not.

Although we may be forced to endure jeers from our fellow “webloggers,” we don’t mind saying that we’ve enjoyed the Cindy Sheehan Anti-War Circus. First, Ms. Sheehan surely possesses the most humorously inapt voice in the history of protest movements. Quite frankly, she sounds like a dilapidated California sorority girl—nay, more like the female Muppet in Animal’s band. “Fer sure.” You don’t get too much more ridiculous than that.

Further, we savored Ms. Sheehan’s dramatic plummet from grace. Remember when the knuckle-dragging Maureen Dowd declared that “Peace Mom’s” “moral authority” was “absolute”? Gosh, that seems like hundreds of years ago.

And no wonder. The mainstream media originally positioned Ms. Sheehan as a reasonable grieving mother forced into the reasonable role of reasonable anti-war activist. That certainly fell apart, didnÂ’t it?

One can only endure so many hugs for Hugo Chavez and denunciations of the evils of Zionism before one is ready to label Ms. Sheehan a raving radical. Hence Ms. Sheehan’s tumble into comparative obscurity: The mainstreamers could no longer portray her as anything other than a fringe figure—a radical nutter.

So, Cindy Sheehan, we hope you recognize that we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” aren’t taking this opportunity to hurl taunts and epithets your way. We merely wish you had retained your platform, so more folks could hear the sort of raving anti-Western madness that the big media attempted to label mainstream.

You neednÂ’t be upset about the way you were criticized. In food co-ops and faculty lounges across the country, youÂ’ll always be deemed a hero. Oh, and in Syria too.

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

The other day, one of the senior editors here at “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly”—let’s just call him “Chip”—was busy perusing The Boston Globe, Beantown’s answer to the lefty bias of the Gray Lady. Whilst flipping through the broadsheet, “Chip” happened upon a curious exemplum of liberal media tomfoolery.

A front-page (below-the-fold) story in the May 27 number of the Globe is called “GOP Rivals Embrace Unproven Iraq-9/11 Tie.” Penned by a slipshod journalist called Peter S. Canellos, this piece is little more than a dubious hit-job on the Republican candidates for president.

Essentially, the article quotes the Republican frontrunners discussing the War on Terrorism, and then offers responses by liberal foreign policy analysts that ridicule the Republicans’ positions. The title given to the piece on its continuing page—“GOP Rivals Reinforce Misleading View of Iraq Role in 9/11”—aptly demonstrates that it is an attack masquerading as news.

Take, for example, the opening paragraphs of the sordid article. They read as follows:

In defending the Iraq war, leading Republican presidential contenders are increasingly echoing words and phrases used by President Bush in the run-up to the war that reinforce the misleading impression that Iraq was responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, [sic] attacks.

In the May 15 Republican debate in South Carolina, Senator John McCain of Arizona suggested that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden would “follow us home”—a comment some viewers may have taken to mean that bin Laden was in Iraq, which he is not.

Oh, for crying out loud. What complete hogwash.

How dumb does Peter S. Canellos believe that the American people are? Does he earnestly think that readers of The Boston Globe didnÂ’t recognize that Osama bin Laden is not, in fact, in Iraq?

Obviously, Senator McCain did not mean that Osama bin Laden would personally take the next Air Saudi Arabia flight to New York City (first class, we presume). He was speaking more generally: If we retreat from Iraq, terrorist organizations ideologically linked to al Qaeda are likely to target the US itself. Peter S. Canellos would know this is true if he ever troubled himself to read the words of the terrorists themselves—who routinely discuss their desire to wreck havoc in America, Israel, and, more generally, the West.

Instead, Canellos merely quotes—wait for it—Michael Scheuer, the anti-Semitic former CIA analyst with an odious crush on Osama bin Laden. Curiously, Canellos never gets around to mentioning that Mr. Scheuer has argued that the Holocaust museum in Washington, DC plays a role in the nefarious Jewish Lobby’s attempt to hijack American foreign policy. That might cast some doubt on his ability to offer reasonable commentary on the Iraq War.

Rather, Canellos pretends as if he understands nothing about Islamist terrorist groups. He treats bin Laden like the official CEO of al Qaeda—anything not explicitly approved by him is not the handiwork of his organization. Obviously, these terrorist organizations are far more amorphous associations. But Canellos can’t admit this, because it would sully his pathetic attempts at smearing the Republicans.

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” can’t wait until the Globe publishes a piece called “Democrat Rivals Embrace Defeat in Iraq,” which highlights the views of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton—and then offers conservative foreign policy experts’ ripostes to their assertions.
Well, maybe we ought not to hold our collective breath.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 561 words, total size 4 kb.