October 10, 2005
Criminally Stupid We, the crack
Criminally Stupid
We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” pride ourselves on offering the world—or that huge part of the world that will listen, at least—uncomfortable truths. We’d like to think of ourselves as impassioned truth-tellers. Well, we’d also like to think of ourselves as debonair lady-killers, but it appears as if the only way that will come true is if we invest in a 44 Magnum.Anyway, whilst strolling that chuckle-fest known as The New York Times the other day, one of the senior editors here at “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly”—let’s just call him “Chip”—came upon another batch of stupid letters to the editor. Since this was the umpteenth time that such missives were appallingly obtuse, an uncomfortable truth hit “Chip” like the knuckles on a pig’s fist: The New York Times is read by idiots. In fact, “Chip” would go so far as to suggest that the majority of the Gray Lady’s audience is imbecilic.
Strong words, those. And, we might add, completely uncorroborated by masses of data. But, hey, if it’s good enough for postmodernist professors, it’s good enough for us. We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” on the basis of our perusal of the Times’s op-ed page, herewith declare that the self-proclaimed Paper of Record is read by un-self-proclaimed drooling dipsticks.
Allow us to offer some anecdotal evidence that should prove our point lock, stock, and barrel. On October 2nd, the Times offered a longish piece entitled “To More Inmates, Life Term Means Dying Behind Bars.” In addition to the typical ridiculous musings of an “Oh, You Poor Brute of a Killer Without a Conscience” variety, the piece presented a few interesting arguments.
Given the topic at hand, it should come as no surprise that the Gray Lady’s minions sent oodles of insipid letters to the editor. Take, for instance, the start of an epistle from one Pam Kulig, who resides in St. Charles, Illinois:
To the Editor:
If I read your article correctly, Timothy Kane was given a life sentence for watching a murder happen when he was 14, for not running away with the other kids, for not participating in the murder and for being curious. This sounds like fairly normal 14-year-old behavior.
To which we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” respond: Um, we seem to have met a different caliber of 14-year-olds. Now, disregarding the apparent harshness of the sentence involved—for we certainly wouldn’t put it past Pam Kulig to read an article incorrectly—we must heartily disagree with the notion that eagerly taking in a murder is typical early teen behavior.
In fact, informal polling—and poling—around the office water-cooler suggests that not one of the crack young staff has witnessed a murder at the tender age of 14 without offering a cry for help. Perhaps we’re a passel of good Samaritans whose conduct is utterly at odds with the brutal world that surrounds us. But, quite frankly, we doubt it.
We’re glad, though, that the moronic Ms. Kulig fully expects her own 14-year-olds to enjoy a murder without attempting to aid the victim in any way. That’s the kind of good parenting we expect of dribbling ignoramuses such as herself.
