May 31, 2006

Europhiles of the States, Rejoice!

Back in the Clinton years, many a left-winger could be found wagging his finger about the purportedly puritanical peevishness of American conservatives. After all, our liberal friends announced, the Europeans have a far more enlightened attitude toward sexual matters. If we were in France, shagging an intern would offer a healthy boost to your popularity.

According to numerous lefties, then, Americans needed to loosen up and act more like…the Germans. And, for some odd reason, they believed that this made some sense.

In fact, you can still feel the reverberations of this lefty-wing American Europhilia: On darn near every social issue, liberals in the USA hope our country will move closer to the positions of Western Europe. Euthanasia whether you want it or not; homosexual polygamy; state-sponsored illicit druggery—these are the things that make an American lefty pine to be a European.

Even so, we couldn’t help but notice that some things about our pals across the pond leave much to be desired. And, no, we’re not talking about hygiene. Rather, we mean more nugatory matters. For instance—and we may be wrong about this—it appears to our untrained eyes that there’s a bit of an immigration problem in Europe.

More to the point, it seems as if the Europeans can’t capitulate to the Islamofascists fast enough. If the population prognostications about Europe are to be believed—e.g., 18,000 Somalis born in the UK for every one Caucasian—it will be about three years until Paris is renamed New Medina. (Or maybe, in an homage to Tone Loc, Funky Cold Medina.)

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” hate to burst Europhiles’ bubbles even more, but a recent report from Reuters that crossed our desks leaves us with the impression that Western Europeans may not be the best role models for our left-wing friends.

The title of the article gets to the heart of the matter: “Pedophiles to launch political party.” Curious, isn’t it? Reuters comes right out and uses the P-word; apparently, it’s okay to call people pedophiles. Why not use a more neutral locution—like “militants”?

Anyway, here’s the delicious start of the report:

Dutch pedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalization of child pornography and sex with animals, sparking wide outrage.

The Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party said on its Web site it would be officially registered Wednesday, proclaiming “We are going to shake The Hague awake!”

The party said it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether.

“A ban just makes children curious,” Ad van den Berg, one of the party’s founders, told the Algemeen Dagblad (AD) newspaper….

“We want to get into parliament so we have a voice. Other politicians only talk about us in a negative sense, as if we were criminals,” Van den Berg told Reuters.

Oh, this is simply heavenly! We hope our country’s enlightened Europhiles have a brilliant explanation for this.

We savored the new party’s name: Charity, Freedom and Diversity. Clearly Mr. van den Berg and his minions have learned a thing or two from the vacuous doublespeak of American multiculturalists.

But perhaps the end of the Reuters piece offers the greatest delight:

The party also said everybody should be allowed to go naked in public and promotes legalizing all soft and hard drugs and free train travel for all.

We know what you are thinking, dear reader: Free train travel? Are these people nuts?

Posted at 12:00 AM | TrackBack

May 30, 2006

Another Friendly E-Mail

As you might well expect, dear reader, this humble “website” has myriad fans. Accordingly, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” receive a variety of delightful e-missives from all kinds of e-boosters.

Why, just recently, for example, we happened upon a particularly cheery e-epistle in the old in-box, which came with the subject line: “Who cares what you think.” As you might imagine, we were filled with joy to get such a letter—naturally, if this fellow doesn’t care what we think, we sure care a whole heck of a lot about his cogitations.

Below we have affixed the entire contents of this e-mail, which was sent from the e-address

Stumbled upon your lame blog by accident whilst searching for a site to give praise and thanks to Jean Sara Rohe. Just wanted to let you know that JEAN SARA ROHE ROCKS!! Not going to engage in argument with you. Why, because I don't value you nor your opinions. Btw: Always knew you people are "hate mongers".

[Turning my back on you]

Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved. ----Aristotle

Yep, that’s the entire contents of this charming missive. As those of you who keep up with our humble ‘weblog” religiously well know, it pertains to our demolition of the doofus Jean Sara Rohe. Clearly, the letter was sent by a complete boob, and we hardly know where to begin. (Incidentally, we assume that a male male composed it, although we’ve been incorrect about such a supposition before.)

Perhaps we most savored the quotation from Aristotle. As it lacks a specific textual reference, we couldn’t track down the Greek and piece together an adequate translation. Even so, the nincompoop who sent us this epistle doesn’t appear to realize that liberalism in the contemporary Democratic Party sense is not what Mr. Aristotle likely had in mind. It turns out that he actually antedates today’s US liberals by some time.

We must also say that we found it hilarious that this fellow seems to have desired to get in a cheap shot at us, but then informs us that he doesn’t want us to reply. Ah, yes: How much nicer it is to argue with someone when you can stop the argument whenever you want.

Further, may we humbly suggest that this petulant dope does “value our opinions”? If he did not, we think he wouldn’t have troubled himself to respond our “post.”

But let us not engage in a moronic tit-for-tat with this knuckle-dragging imbecile. In regard to the pathetic Jean Sara Rohe, there isn’t much to argue.

We think it’s in bad manners to excoriate a graduation speaker—any graduation speaker—in front of his face and a large audience. We think it is classless to do so. There are plenty of other forums through which one may show disagreement, and this isn’t an appropriate one. We also believe that Jean Sara Rohe, by speaking to a crowd overwhelmingly in favor of her opinions, did not demonstrate courage; rather, she is an ill-mannered ass.

The author of this e-missive disagrees. Presumably, he would favor student speakers who ripped into all kinds of left-wing graduation speakers. If not, of course, he is a hypocrite. Which, naturally, is quite a charge, in addition to being a barely-literate ass.

But, hey: We have to hand it to him. He thinks that the ill-mannered Jean Sara Rohe is a hero, and he himself is ill-mannered. So we have to give him points for consistency there.

So, in the spirit of warmth that is “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” let us simply say that we value And we don’t turn our backs on him, either. Moreover, we value his opinions. Clearly, it has taken nanoseconds of education to fire off this dimwitted e-epistle, and that alone ought to invite our attention.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

May 26, 2006

The Gray Lady’s Madness

Someone famous or other once said that madness was doing the exact same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Or something like that. If you ask us, this means that The New York Times, in offering its unsolicited advice to President Bush and Israel, presents a quintessential display of madness.

Don’t believe us? Well, one need only gander at their staff editorial “A Viable Palestinian State,” which appeared in the May 25 number of the paper. For starters, check out this annoying line:

…Mr. Bush should not punish the Palestinian people by endorsing any unilateral proposal—doing that would punish them for exercising their democratic right to vote.

Oh, for the love of all that is holy. How many times must we repeat this? When polities vote, they make choices. If other polities don’t like these choices, they may legitimately respond to the outcomes in a variety of ways. This is not related to threatening democracy per se.

For instance, if (say) Germany voted for another Hitler, and this Hitler started a war, we think the US would be duty bound to stop this guy. We suppose the Times might say, if it were to be consistent, “The USA should not punish the German people by endorsing any unilateral policy of war—doing that would punish them for exercising their democratic right to vote.”

Obviously, this is complete insanity. Thus, just because the Palestinians vote for fanatical terrorists, this does not mean that they should suffer no repercussions for doing so. Can’t someone inform the knuckle-dragging idiots at the Paper of Record of the dimwittedness of their argument?

Apparently not. For, as the “Viable Palestinian State” editorial continues, it becomes crystal clear that the Times rejects a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank because it does not allow the Palestinians to “have a say in creating a state that can function.”

And there’s the crazy part: After umpteen Palestinian rejections of peace offerings, after incessant Palestinian intransigence and violence, the morons at The New York Times want President Bush and Israel to try the exact same thing over again. That is to say, they believe that doing the exact same thing can lead to different results.

It’s idiocy of this magnitude that nearly makes us pine for the good old days of Jayson Blair. Hey: At least he knew he was a fraud.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

May 25, 2006

Patriotism Is Alive and Well

Well, we’ve just past college graduation season, dear reader. You know: That time during the year when university faculties can demonstrate their deep regard for intellectual diversity by boycotting and hectoring conservative speakers. Ah, you can smell the tolerance for miles.

At the recent Boston College graduation, for instance, sundry students and tenured radicals were dismayed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was the speaker. According to The New York Times one-third of BC’s faculty signed a petition against her participation in the event.

Thankfully, the audience was generally respectful—unlike the ill-mannered crowd that heard Senator McCain at the New School. (That twit Jean Sara Rohe still has us fuming.) And yet Ms. Rice’s appearance brought out the traditional cavalcade of lame protesters.

According to the Times, outside the ceremony, numerous people—unshaven and un-showered, we’d bet—held signs reading “No Blood for Oil” and “We’re Patriotic Too.” “No Blood for Oil”: Gee, does it get any more unoriginal than that? Come on, you stupid hippies—stop ‘phoning it in. Condoleezza Rice supposedly works for the most evil regime since Genghis Khan’s; this is no time to lapse into lazy protest clichés.

But perhaps the “We’re Patriotic Too” sign is even more pathetic. Why is it that the radical Left is always vouching for its patriotism? Dissent is the highest form of patriotism, says radical-cum-millionaire Howard Zinn. Why the heck does he care?

If you ask us, people on the political Right seldom question the patriotism of others. In fact, it seems to us that the Left uses the patriotism card, if you will, to stifle debate—not the other way around.

So let’s just get this over with, shall we? We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” hereby declare that everyone—every last person—is patriotic. To the whole world, love of country is paramount. It’s a beautiful thing.

Do you think America is chock-a-block with “Little Eichmanns”? If so, you and Ward Churchill have a deep love affair with America. Do you find a George W. Bush speech as horrifying as the events of 9/11? If so, you and Eric Foner are ultra-patriots.

So there. As Richard Nixon might have said, we’re all patriots now. Congratulations, leftists.

Now can we discuss the fact that your ideas are dimwitted without your incessant recourse to Francis Scott Key?

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

May 24, 2006

The Worst Magazine in the World?

When Christopher Hitchens parted ways with The Nation, he famously declared that he could not work for a magazine whose staff believed that John Ashcroft was a greater threat to America than Osama bin Laden. It was, we think, a very telling remark, demonstrating the failure of the Nationistas to make rudimentary distinctions.

We thought of Mr. Hitchens’ quip anew when flipping through the May 15 number of the New Statesman, Britain’s ideological equivalent of The Nation. For this particular issue of the rag offers a classic example of this brand of left-leaning obtuseness.

The cover presents a close-up shot of the current head of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz, which clearly intends on portraying him as evil and menacing. The accompanying caption reads: “The worst man in the world? Paul Wolfowitz: the World Bank boss and his secret regime.”

Without so much as reading a word of the magazine, you can already determine that it is the work of complete loons. Paul Wolfowitz—the “worst man in the world”? What kind of dolt would even ask such a question?

Last we checked, the following people still inhabit what R. Buckminster Fuller labeled Our Spaceship Earth: Kim Jong-il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro, Osama bin Laden, Gerard Depardieu. And then there’s the likes of Hamas, Bashir Assad, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Tamil Tigers (and the Detroit Lions), &c. In the sane person’s list of “worst men in the world,” Paul Wolfowitz shouldn’t even crack the top million.

So what bombshell of an article is behind this overwrought, morally obtuse query? Why, a pathetic piece penned by one Robert Calderisi, a disgruntled former World Bank employee.

In the course of his mercifully short and painfully inept article, Mr. Calderisi shares a few quotes he’s supposedly recorded from interviews with what seem to be around five anonymous World Bank workers. They characterize Mr. Wolfowitz as a bad manager and a bit secretive. And…that’s it.

Uh, come on, New Statesman. What the heck is going on? This boring review from a handful of people at a huge organization is grounds for “worst man in the world” status?

Kofi Annan would love to get this kind of press. Hey, at least Mr. Wolfowitz hasn’t gotten rich off of an impotent organization that coddles dictators and offers cover-ups for the rapes of 14-year-old girls in the Congo!

For its patent imbecility, we feel as if the New Statesman deserves the “worst magazine in the world” award. Perhaps the real worst person in the world can thumb through it. We refer, of course, to Keith Olberman.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

May 23, 2006

Jean Sara Rohe—An Insult to Folk Music

As you can tell from our title, we are hopping mad at the subject of today’s excoriation. “An insult to folk music”? Given that we think folk music is itself an insult to folk music, clearly this Jean Sara Rohe garners none of our esteem.

Who, you may be asking yourself, is Jean Sara Rohe? Well, she was the student speaker at the recent graduation of the New School who took it upon herself to offer an angry, moronic diatribe at Senator John McCain’s expense.

Mr. McCain had been chosen as the school’s graduation speaker, and Ms. Rohe didn’t like it one bit. Like many students and faculty members in attendance, she found his opinions too odious to be respectful human beings. As such, in the course of her pathetic, cliché-ridden rant, Ms. Rohe claimed that Mr. McCain’s ideas don’t reflect the values upon which the New School was founded.

As if this weren’t sufficiently awful, she began her screed with a rendition of a folk tune. Frankly, we would have cut off her microphone at the first warbled note. If you ask us, “Where Have All the Flowers Gone?” is a weapon of mass destruction.

We wrote all about this brouhaha in our most recent Sunday essay for Wizbang, highlighting the event as an example of left-wing intolerance. After all, Ms. Rohe’s ill-mannered diatribe was merely the most infamous example of an organized campaign to get Senator McCain banished from then New School campus. The brats at the New School had endured four years of left-wing indoctrination, and they didn’t want to sully it with an opposing view.

Humorously, a dimwitted “commenter” on our Wizbang “post” took us to task for linking the intolerance demonstrated by many at the New School to intolerance for conservative positions at our nation’s universities more generally. According to him, the push to remove a conservative speaker from the New School had nothing to do with a problem with intellectual tolerance.

Sounds like an uphill battle? Well, just take a gander at the fellow’s “comment”:

Why is smugness so often a feature of so-called conservative commentary? Try some honesty instead. Like, for example, the "translation" of a simple declarative sentence, "The senator does not reflect the ideals upon which this university was founded," to "Anyone who deviates from my core political views should not be allowed at the New School." If you're considering a career move to translator or metaphor-interpreter, keep your day job. What Rohe said is perfectly plain: that there are certain tenets on which the university was founded, and that the speaker doesn't hew to them. It does NOT ask that he be banned, or be denied the opportunity to speak. To take a remark from Chomsky, can you at least *pretend* to be serious?

Ah, we get it now: Ms. Rohe’s claim that McCain does not reflect the values upon which the New School was founded—combined with the organized effort to remove him as graduation speaker—has nothing to do with opposing his presence on campus. How dare we link an example of left-wing intolerance to left-wing intolerance! Does an argument get any more foolish?

(Well, we suppose it does: Taking Noam Chomsky’s advice to “be serious” is even more laughable: He’s serious about cozying up to various dictators, terrorist groups, and Holocaust-deniers. If that’s “serious,” we think everyone could use a sense of humor.)

But perhaps this pathetic effort pales in comparison to that put forth by Jim Rohe, the lame folk-singing father of the aforementioned folk-singing, ill-mannered dipstick. Mr. Rohe was strolling around Al Gore’s Internet and came upon the report of her daughter’s speech at The New York Observer political “weblog.”

Apparently, he didn’t much care for the “comments” of some of the readers. Why, they were actually critical of his little daughter! How dare they! His response is so delicious it merits reprinting:

I attended the event and strongly disagree with my daughter's speech being characterized as rude. It was nothing of the sort. You've misled your readers to feed their animosity towards those who respectfully disagree. TO NOLA- you've called the speaker an airhead. This is a young person whose intellect has propelled her to the top of her class. Please think before you make irresponsible comments like that.

Okay, so his daughter is free to rip into Senator McCain whilst he sits politely beside her, and no one ought to criticize her at all. Even more obtusely, Mr. Rohe characterizes his daughter’s vituperation as polite. Yeah: We hope that he’s treated as politely every day of his life.

So let’s get this all straight: To our liberal friends, a largely unrepentant spokesman for the Taliban makes for a hunky dory Yale student, but a distinguished American senator is beyond the pale. Does anyone else find this crazy?

Not to mince words, we’ll get right to our point: Jean Sara Rohe is a mal-educated ignoramus. If your college selects a graduation speaker you don’t like, you should still be respectful. Write an angry letter to him; compose a thoughtful response to his arguments for your campus newspaper. But don’t demonstrate your intolerance and your idiocy like Jean Sara Rohe.

If Mr. Rohe finds our thoughts nasty, we can do him one better. With the characteristic class of her daughter, we’ll agree to compose a nasty personal excoriation of her, which we’ll be delighted to deliver at Mr. Rohe’s dinner table, complete with an audience of rowdy conservatives. Let’s see if she can take a bit of her own medicine.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

May 22, 2006

The Dumbest Sportscaster

Americans are pragmatic people. When they rack their brains to think of a suitable answer, you can bet that the question that troubles them pertains to some no-nonsense topic. Like “What’s the best kind of car insurance that doesn’t feature appalling and appallingly regular advertisements?” Or “If Darwin is correct, why can Nancy Grace walk erect?”

But no query vexes Americans quite like the following: “Who is the world’s dumbest sportscaster?” For sports fans from coast to coast (and even in Hawaii), this brain-teaser may not have an answer.

After all, there are so many responses that seem correct. How about Joe Morgan, for crying out loud? All this genial lamebrain does is spout nonsense that a complete baseball novice can utter. When someone strikes out, Joe Morgan will say, “Well, players strike out sometimes. That’s how the game goes.” Oh, gee, thanks, Joe. We never could have figured that out on our own.

Yet maybe Joe Theisman is even more obtuse. If you ask us, this guy has had his hairdryer on stun one too many times. Listening to him makes one pine for the genius that is John Madden.

Even so, a comment one of our senior editors—let’s just call him “Chip”—heard the other night sealed the deal. It made it crystal clear as an azure sky who is the most addlebrained sportscaster. In fact, we don’t even think it’s a close call.

Now, don’t get us wrong, dear reader. We realize that it isn’t easy to talk on television or radio for a few hours and not say something dimwitted. The life of a sportscaster may not be as trying as that of a coalminer, but it’s probably no walk in the park either.

Still, this single remark is so jaw-droppingly dumb that we simply can’t help but conclude that its utterer is a nincompoop. This sportscaster is to stupid what Billy Packer is to mean-spirited. If you catch our clever analogy.

On the evening of May 12, 2006, when offering color commentary on the Los Angeles Clippers versus Phoenix Suns game, Bill Walton offered the following remark:

Elton Brand represents everything that’s good in the NBA—and in the world.

Oh, dear. Now, the first part of this statement may well be true. But it ain’t much of a compliment, when your competition for goodness is Ron Artest and Alan Iverson. Still, we’re willing to believe that Elton Brand is the Mother Theresa of the National Basketball Association.

But the world? What the heck is Bill Walton talking about? Geez: Elton Brand is a college dropout. So, we suppose, is Bill Gates, but should we really be encouraging such behavior in our children? We collectively think not.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

May 19, 2006

Still an Imperial Dipstick

Devotees of this humble “weblog” know that we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” offer up a delightful essay each Sunday on Wizbang. Devotees of this humble ‘weblog” also realize that we have spent a few of our Wizbang lucubrations excoriating Michael Scheuer, the former CIA analyst with conspiratorial views on Israel.

We found discussing Mr. Scheuer’s work particularly fun because Mr. Scheuer himself deigned to respond to our Wizbang “posts.” And yet his reply to our most recent criticism of him struck us as so inept that we simply must mention it today.

In short, our “post,” cleverly titled “Imperial Dipstick, Part Deux,” offered Mr. Scheuer’s assessment of Osama bin Laden’s writings, and demonstrated why it was entirely wrong. In fact, we argued that it was so incorrect that one may reasonably suspect malign motives on Mr. Scheuer’s part. Either that or he’s a complete boob.

Here’s Mr. Scheuer’s assessment:

Bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging a war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty and democracy, but have everything to do with US policies and actions in the Muslim world.

By offering examples of bin Laden’s own writings and sayings, we demonstrated that this is utter nonsense. To be sure, bin Laden is no fan of “US policies and actions in the Muslim world,” but only a nincompoop would suggest—as Mr. Scheuer suggests—that this is the only thing motivating him. To this end, we quoted bin Laden’s irritation at the Muslim loss of Andalusia and his vitriolic denunciation of Jews. Such passages, we suggested, can be found throughout bin Laden’s writings.

This, we claimed, proves that numerous things have served as an impetus to bin Laden’s evil. And thus Mr. Scheuer, by focusing on American foreign policy alone, fails to understand bin Laden. Rather, he simply forces his own proclivities—hatred of American foreign policy and hatred of Israel—on bin Laden, and assumes that only they motivate him. Simply put, Mr. Scheuer fails to understand bin Laden because he insists that bin Laden is Mr. Scheuer.

To these arguments, Mr. Scheuer offered the following response:

Dear Sir,

Thank you again for mentioning my work. As it happens, the publishers of the volume of bin Laden's works that you mention took the so-called blurb from my writings without my permission or that of my publisher. You can check this point with my publisher, Potomac Books, Dulles, Virginia.

On the larger point, I believe that anyone who helps give Americans easy access to the speeches, interviews, and statements of bin Laden and Zawahiri performs a public service. Reading those words will help Americans to understand that the threat posed by al-Qaeda and its allies is much greater than our politically correct Republican and Democratic leaders have led us to believe. It will require the application of much more military power, as well as much greater policy cleverness to annihilate this enemy -- as we must. The will to take these actions seems to be resident in neither of our parties.

We are at war with al-Qaeda and its allies because of what we do in the Islamic world, not because of who we are or what we think. If we were at war for the latter reasons, we would be confronted by a lethal nuisance not a national security threat. What we do now is the problem, and victory in this war will hinge on how we react to that reality -- a reality which is simply a fact, and not anything like a value judgment. If we want to keep our policies as they are, so be it; prepare for a long and bloody war and get on with it, just stop our half-assed bipartisan governing elite from telling Americans that we're being attacked because we have elections and women in the work place.

On a final note, the publication in accessible Enlish-language volumes of the messages of bin Laden and Zawahiri, ought, I think, to be seen in the same light as the publication of similar volumes of the writings of Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Stalin. Publishing the Bolsheviks' writings allowed us to understand and ultimately defeat the threat posed by USSR. I often think that had a book called Mein Kampf been widely available in English in the 1930s, Americans might have focused on the Nazi threat much earlier.


Michael Scheuer

A rather longish and polite reply, to be sure, but not at all convincing. In fact, we think it’s the work of a man who is a surprisingly sloppy thinker.

As far as we can intuit, these are Mr. Scheuer’s main arguments:

1) The quote from my work you mention was used as a blurb without my authorization.
2) It is good that Osama bin Laden’s writings and statements are available in English.
3) American foreign policy is to blame for Osama bin Laden’s wrath.

This is pathetic. As any schoolboy could tell you, arguments 1 and 2 are irrelevant. Mr. Scheuer does not dispute that he wrote the words we quoted, and we never argued that bin Laden’s words shouldn’t be available in English.

Argument 3 is merely a restatement of the position we originally criticized. And—significantly—Mr. Scheuer offers no response to our criticism. Presumably, this is because his argument is extremely weak. As another “commenter,” OregonMuse mused: “So instead of attempting to answer or refute the proffered evidence, Mr. Scheuer just repeats his original assertion. How disapppointing.”

That’s reason enough, we think, for Michael Scheuer to be treated like an unserious thinker.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

May 18, 2006

The Newest Neo-Con

Strolling around Al Gore’s World-Wide Web, as we are wont, we happened upon Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s letter to President Bush. Mr. Ahmadinejad, for those of you as clueless about terror-supporting states as terrorism “expert” Michael Scheuer, is the current Nutter-in-Chief in Iran.

Recently, this loon sent a strange missive to the Leader of the Free World, and Britain’s left-wing Guardian helpfully printed a version of it in their comments section. Since we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” read the epistle on-line, we had the opportunity to take in various reader responses, which are affixed to Mr. Ahmadinejad’s opus.

Naturally, The Guardian has a very high percentage of left-wing twits among its readership. In fact, we’d wager that the average Guardian reader thinks that the world ought to be governed entirely by Robert Fisk and Noam Chomsky.

As such, we particularly savored the responses to Mr. Ahmadinejad’s palaver that offered the typical “Okay, he’s a bit daft, but he’s got a darn good point” sentiment. And this was particularly delightful given that Mr. Ahmadinejad plumbs the depths of Holocaust denial in his missive. Ah, denying the Holocaust: Is there anything more progressive?

But one particular comment really stuck out. A reader named Nasser refers to Mr. Ahmadinejad as a "neo-conservative." Yep, that’s right; we didn’t make that up. To some dimwit, the President of Iran is a neo-con.

We found this delicious for a few reasons. First and foremost, we have noted that numerous British press outlets—The Guardian chief among them—throw the term “neo-conservative” around as if it’s merely a highfalutin synonym for “bad.” Anytime something awful happens, Polly Toynbee and her fellow unhinged dolts believe that “the neo-conservatives are at it again.”

Accordingly, we thought it was simply divine that some ignorant Guardian enthusiast came to the conclusion that Mr. Ahmadinejad is a card-carrying neo-conservative. After all, he’s unsavory. How much more proof do you require?

Does anyone else find the image of Mr. Ahmadinejad studying at the feet of Irving Kristol, Daniel Bell, and Norman Podhoretz humorous? Not any Guardian readers, we suppose.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

May 17, 2006

Let’s Not Go Out to the Movies

Recently, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” figured that we’d treat ourselves to a movie. We’ve been working harder than the woman who does Robin Williams’ bikini waxing, and we needed a bit of a treat. And what’s a better treat than a $43 mediocre film and an inedible $67 box of popcorn? We can’t think of anything either.

But before we warmed up our fleet of gray Honda Civics and headed to the local multiplex in fuel-efficient style, we needed to agree on a picture to see. Thus we all eagerly scanned copies of the local newspaper, hoping to find an advertisement for a suitably attractive movie.

And then it hit us: Most film ads are horrifying. In fact, the large majority of them ensured that we would never watch the movies they were plugging.

For example, we spied a large advert for RV, a cinematic production starring Robin Williams. Naturally, we already weren’t enticed; after all, it’s called RV and it features Robin Williams. Anyone who thinks Mr. Williams is a surefire ticket to movie magic needs to recall these two words: Patch Adams.

Yet the advertisement miraculously made the film seem even worse. Featuring a picture of a recreational vehicle balancing atop a large number 1, it read: “Still America’s #1 Comedy!” Uh, come on, guys: That’s the best you could do?

It’s almost as if you can’t believe that this piece of trash has managed to last so long in the top spot. Gee, you must be thinking, Americans sure like pap.

Or how about the ad for a picture called Hoot? In big letters atop the advert is the slogan “Give a Hoot!” Wow: Three words and we already hate your movie.

Even the quotation used to draw in an audience is awful: “‘Hoot’ tells kids they can make a difference in this world. And that’s worth a hundred ‘Ice age 2’s,” gushes Ty Burr of The Boston Globe. Hmm. Apparently no one told the marketing geniuses behind Hoot that a hundred Ice Age 2’s aren’t worth watching.

But surely our favorite was the ad we saw for United 93, the made-for-television film that somehow wasn’t made-for-television. Almost as a dare, it quotes an unnamed critic for Time magazine: “Unmissable.”

Oh yeah? Watch us.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

May 16, 2006

The UK: The Right Kind of Police State

Ever since rap sensation-cum-actor-cum-ne’er-do-well Ice-T lauded the murder of cops, violence aimed at the Men in Blue has been heralded in our country’s popular culture. Humorously, perhaps, Ice-T now plays a police officer in a television drama; presumably, he doesn’t himself pine for a brutal beating.

Not only must our policemen endure the ravings of debased entertainers who glory in the potential harm done to “pigs,” they must also tolerate Cynthia McKinney. And don’t even mention those horrid Police Academy movies. Talk about a rough line of work.

We mention this, dear reader, because we worry that our popular culture’s rabid “F- the Police” mentality will cause some sort of malaise among working Men in Blue. Not only would this mean the end of the program “Cops” on the boob tube; it may also signal the demise of law and order. (No, not the show “Law & Order.”)

This would obviously be a disaster. As such, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have taken it upon ourselves to spend today’s “post” offering inspiring stories for police officers. You know: The sorts of tales that make you yearn to grab a nightstick and start busting hippies about the noggin. Having taken in our “post,” our dedicated law enforcement officials can return to holding their heads up high, protecting, and serving.

Our tales all come in the form of news items pertaining to British coppers. Culled from The Weekly Telegraph (the expatriate version of the famous Torygraph), we think they’d induce the most crooked fellow to become a model police officer.

Here’s the first bit:

Offenders ‘arrest’ graffiti sprayers

Two hooligans spraying paint on a building in Sheffield were seized by a gang of offenders doing community service by cleaning graffiti. The team detained the pair until police arrested them on suspicion of causing criminal damage.

Talk about a citizen’s arrest! Clearly, this story teaches us we can all do our part to aid our Men in Blue. With a little bit of help, we can all make sure that others don’t get away with crimes for which we ourselves were committed.

If you found that story delightful, feast your eyes on number two:

Fined for snowman attack

A drunken youth who walked into a 10-year-old girl’s garden and knocked down her snowman in Salford last month has been given an 80 Pounds fixed penalty fine.

Aha! Take that, thief! As we always say: Messing with Frosty’s going to cost ye.

And savor this little piece:

Just when its [sic] safe to come down

Police rescued a suicidal man from a 100 ft-high railway viaduct in St Austell, Cornwall, then arrested him for burglary.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

May 15, 2006

The Third Annual Horrible College-Student Poetry Competition: And the Winner Is…

Oh boy, oh boy. So today’s the big day—it’s time for the announcement of our winners for the Third Annual Horrible College-Student Poetry Contest. This is surely the moment every person who’s ever dreamed of writing like a moronic college junior has been waiting for with bated breath.

And may we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” humbly say that it wasn’t easy to take home the gold this year? We received even more entries than in contests past. Clearly, sundry readers of our musings took it upon themselves to dig deep, find their inner 19-year-old, and write some wretched collegiate verse. Naturally, we thank them for it.

Unfortunately, however, this means that many who entered the contest won’t earn any prizes. If this is the case for you, dear reader, we humbly suggest that you take it out on our Official Contest Judge, that poet of the ages, Anonymous. Obviously, this guy wouldn’t know non-talent if it hit him in the face. (And we believe it did.)

Okay, you say: Enough of the hand wringing. Show us the big winners. Your wish is our command. We’ll start with our coveted 4th Runner-Up, which is actually a tie between two submissions. (All of the errors in the poems, we presume, are intentional.)

4th Runner-Up: Tie

“My sole is a frayed sock” by Rick Bagley

My sole is a frayed sock,

Worn and made holey by

Those who call themselves "Holy".

Pious preachers of morals

Where are the Ethics?

Where are there Ethics!

Afraid of the Body

They see only the shoddy

And not the pure Beauty of

The human bootie.

Pious preachers of morals

Where is the Compassion?

Where is there Compassion!

They want holy masses

And can’t see the hungery masses

Yearning to be free?

The Statute of Liberty was a gift of the French

How soon we forget?

Ah, that’s some wonderfully awful stuff. We particularly enjoyed the line about the Statue of Liberty—the addition of that irrelevant factoid struck us as appropriately asinine for collegiate balladry.

“If Only” by Phoenix the Good

If only we could all be
One with the universe,
And sea.

If only we could all stop
Driving our SUVs and
Emitting greenhouse gasses,
So that the ozone would not pop.

Our lust for the open road
Leads to wars,
And blood for oil,
All Halliburton Bestowed.

If Only we could all have a vagina,
Peace and love
For Mother Earth and Mankind,
Instead of this Societal Angina.

If Only there weren’t a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Committed to World Destruction
We’d all be hugging third world tyrants to our breasts
And drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon, you see.

Blame it all on the phallus
Of G-Dub and that Cheney Dick,
Seeking world domination
Spreading disease and malice.

Can’t we all just get along?
Hugo Chavez can’t be all wrong.
Saddam is misunderstood.
He’s a rich man’s Robin Hood.

Al Gore’s World Wide Web Spreads Lies
Bird Flu, AIDS, and Syphilis too
What’s a Womyn to do?
Spit in a NeoCon’s eyes.

Now, just in case it isn’t clear:
My tongue-in-cheek entry is here,
To show how “with it” and chi-chi
A Security Mom can be.

Oops, that probably lost me the award,
I’ve violated the tenets, and run off Chuck Schumer
flashed my ideological hoo-ha and bloomers
but I couldn’t help it, I was bored.

Who doesn’t enjoy a line like “Blame it all on the phallus”? Isn’t that a Michael Cain picture? All in all, Ms. Phoenix did a good job, but we feel that her work is a little too, in a word, literate.

3rd Runner-Up:

“W A R” by Quincy

W (for bush)
I, like bush, between legs,
butt… I can’t like bush,
chimpy(mC)hitler evil.
am I gay? maybe…
don’t like bush…

A (for Amerikka)
bush is Amerikka,
if M gay,
then can hate bush,
‘cause gays hate bush,
chimpy(mC)hitler evil.

R (for rights)
my rights,
to hate bush,
he a cock!
if M gay,
then must love a cock,
butt must hate bush!
no! confused!

chimpy(mC)hitler evil!
evil! evil! evil!

We delighted in this poem’s pathetic structure. But maybe it’s a bit too self-doubting for a pertinacious college junior?

2nd Runner-Up:

“Ode to an Undocumented Worker” by Cam

They call you illegal
but that makes me ill.
Legal or not you are
the backbone of our workforce.

You, who sweeps the floor
and shine the door
knobs in our McMansions
you are my hombre. Mi amigo.

I wanted to join you in your marches
but I had a paper on Peak Oil
due the next day.
I thought about you and drank a Corona in solidarity though.

You are not illegal.
Marijuana is illegal.
But even if you were illegal, you wouldn't be bad
like marijuana isn't bad.

Just because something is illegal doesn't make it bad.
And the same holds true for someONE as well.
You, my illegal friend, my hombre, mi amigo.
My human marijuana

Simply marvelous! The use of third-grade Spanish in faux-solidarity with the oppressed is a brilliant touch! And we love the fact that this deeply committed collegian didn’t even trouble himself to attend a march. Darn good, darn good.

1st Runner-Up:

“A baby seal walks into a club” by Mojo

A baby seal walks into a club
squealing and bleeding,
and orders a drink.
"Whadda ya want?" asks the neocon slavemaster
behind the boards
giving the baby seal a fishy look.
"SANCTUARY!" screams the baby seal
trying hard to look like Quasimodo
in a nice white fur coat.
But the bartender beat it to death
because he'd heard that joke before.
The murdering bastard.

Oh, what a delight! The very title of the verse is magical. This is the kind of pseudo-clever drivel that some boob in your Psychology 101 class could pen.

Given this kind of fearsome competition, the winner of our humble contest would have to offer a preternaturally wondrous poem. And Michael E. Lopez most certainly did.

In fact, Mr. Lopez, who has taken home the gold in both of our previous contests, came up with three heavenly verses, and it was hard to choose among them. But Anonymous particularly savored the following poem, and thus we are pleased to crown it our winner:


“Privilege” by Michael E. Lopez

i m happy
the way i am
but wish sometimes

i was called on in class

i had my vote count and
not have stolen elections

i could see myself in important places
president or scientist

to be told i m smart

(im on the deans list)

to enjoy
privilege like them

i m happy
the way i am
but wish sometimes

i didnt have to wear a skirt

i didnt have to bleed

i didnt have to be afraid

i didnt have to endure
professors learing glares

i didnt have to wear my boyfriends
diamonds like a prize

or wear prada just to fit in

or be called a slut

or have the janitor
call me "miss" and open the door

(i can do it myself)

i m happy
just the way i am
but wish sometimes
i wasnt outside everything, alone-
its not like slavery, not like being gay

(but almost)

i sometimes wish i had a penis
and sometimes it makes me cry to know
i will never enjoy


Oh, man! Does it get any better than this? Mr. Lopez has drunk deep from the well of inscrutably bad undergraduate balladry. It’s simply spot-on. And thus we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” wish to congratulate him for his victory in the Third Annual Horrible College-Student Poetry Contest.

Can anyone snatch the crown from Mr. Lopez’s crowded brow? One very short year from now, we’ll find out.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

May 12, 2006

One-Upping David Horowitz

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” are sick and tired of David Horowitz’s overly dramatic portrayals of American academia. Don’t get us wrong, dear reader: We’re largely sympathetic to Mr. Horowitz’s cause. We believe, for instance, that intellectual life in American academia is replete with myopia and intolerance.

And we also feel as if many professors use their classrooms as bully pulpits, instead of allowing students to think for themselves. Moreover, we think that entire academic disciplines—women’s studies, cultural anthropology, culture studies, peace studies, &c.—are nothing but left-wing propaganda machines.

Accordingly, we greatly appreciate Mr. Horowitz’s efforts to bring some modicum of intellectual diversity on campus. His efforts may not yield any fruit, but he’s certainly fighting the good fight.

But then there’s the matter of his irksomely overwrought books and articles on the academy. And, as much as we’re behind David Horowitz, we cringe when we watch him take ridiculous—and unnecessary—positions.

We mean, come on: Universities in this country are so rife with intolerance and politically correct nonsense that one doesn’t need to exaggerate. Left-wing McCarthyism is a major problem on college campuses; it’s an open-and-shut case.

So, then, why does David Horowitz write books such as The 101 Most Dangerous Professors, or whatever it’s called? This unsavory collation is just what conservatives don’t need; the book’s casual linking of real professorial problems (e.g., Ward Churchill) with simple leftists (e.g., Jonathan Kozol) is ridiculous. And it may very well lead the reader to believe that Mr. Horowitz would expunge all non-conservatives from universities.

Need we say that this is not the correct message to be sending? In addition, need we say that this isn’t what intellectual diversity is about? We hope we need not.

But then it struck us. David Horowitz is not an academic, and thus his ranting and railing does not cause him much consternation. After all, he doesn’t have to be on the hallway with tenured radicals; if they hate conservatives, what’s it to him?

Yet his partisan screeds on academia make the big bucks. There’s a real audience for works of the Academia Slouches Toward Gommorah type. So Mr. Horowitz is making the big bucks—without any whammies—by writing this pap. And if it undercuts his noble crusade—so what?

And that’s where we hope to come in. We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” aim to beat David Horowitz at his game. If he can make a ton of money with overheated arguments about the professorate, then we can make even more with even more overheated claims.

Our only problem? What to name our first jeremiad, of course. After all, the title for such a polemic is very important. How do the following possibilities grab you:

1) “Berkeley Professors Are Eating Your Children”

2) “Mandatory Lesbianism at Wabash College”

3) “Warning: If You Send Your Kid To College, He May Start Reading”

4) “Impregnate Martha Nussbaum 101 and Other Outrageous College Classes”

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

May 11, 2006

More Annoying College Students

Anyone who’s anyone knows that college students are among the world’s most annoying people on the globe. After all, what’s to like about these self-important, coddled twits? Yeah: We couldn’t think of anything either.

Most of them enjoy reveling in the fiction that their lives are horrifyingly hectic. Ah, yes: Two full classes a day and an hour of skipped homework; that should earn you the skills necessary to take on a far less demanding job—like secretary of state. You’ve got one five-page paper to write this semester, Karen: Don’t overwork yourself.

And then there’s the disgusting sense of entitlement these 19-year-old nitwits exude. Their daddies and mommies are flipping the bill for their introduction to what we call “The Three Ds”: dipsomania, druggery, and date rape; accordingly, they feel as if they deserve stellar grades simply for making an appearance at a few classes and keeping from vomiting on the desks.

If you ask us, all American college students should be forced to work in a coalmine for a year before being allowed to step on campus. That’ll teach those pampered dimwits.

Since the average university student is so irksome, it may be difficult to pinpoint particular sub-species of them that especially enrage. It’s kind of like determining the worst among a gaggle of Taliban enthusiasts. (Actually, if you are picking college students at Yale, it’s just like determining the worst among a gaggle of Taliban enthusiasts.)

Even so, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have recently found ourselves especially bothered by one sort of college kid. He may not be the worst of the bunch, but he’s horrid nonetheless.

We refer to the stupid white kid with curly hair who, midway during his sophomore year, decides to cut loose, and, as a semi-joke, lets his hair bush out into a ridiculous looking white-boy afro. You know the kind of guy we mean: The fellow who turned up on orientation day wearing Hush Puppies and a sweater vest, and now wants to demonstrate how “cool” (read: Drugged-out) he has become since his freshman year.

Gosh, how stupid can you get? These idiots are always around 6’5” and weigh about 125 pounds. This, naturally, ensures that their ridiculous haircut makes them look like a novelty pencil.

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” hope to God that this pathetic tonsorial scheme to seem hip fails wretchedly with the ladies. In fact, if such a desperate attempt to land a chick actually works, we think it’s a sign of the approaching apocalypse.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

May 10, 2006

"Peace" for Genocide

The May 15 number of The New Republic devotes much of its space to essays lamenting the crisis in Darfur. And for good reason: We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have long believed that military force should be used to stop the Sudanese genocide. As a result, we fully support those—liberals and conservatives alike—who clamor for a military response.

And yet we cannot help but be irked by the clarion call for action on the part of sundry anti-war liberals. They seem not to realize the obvious: Their constant denouncing of the Iraq War has aided and abetted isolationist fervor in this country. If Americans are wary of committing US troops to Darfur, these liberals have themselves partly to blame.

Now, don’t get us wrong, dear reader: There were—and are—many reasons to question the wisdom of liberating Iraq. Personally, we supported the war, and we hope that the situation improves there. But opposition to Bush’s Iraq venture does not entail turning the other cheek about genocide.

Still, honest liberals would admit that some of the shrill anti-Iraq War sentiment has helped fuel a rising isolationism in America. After all, plenty of leftists carped about the Iraq War with such vehemence and irresponsibility that they seemed to be questioning any use of American power at all. In some circles, you can’t even refer to the War on Terrorism without obligatory scare quotes.

Many opponents of the administration’s Iraq venture have denied the very idea of a just war and concluded that American foreign policy is all about imperialism and Israel. Well, gee: If this is true, why, then, should our evil, rapacious country send troops to the Sudan? Won’t we just invade for Halliburton?

Actually, we think it’s rather pathetic that the anti-war left didn’t see this coming. Clearly, in their excoriation of the very concept of the War on Terrorism, they failed to realize the likely outcome of their actions. If they could galvanize public opinion against a war that was presumed to be in America’s security interests, how in heck did they think their pet projects—which aren’t in America’s strategic interests—would fare? Answer: Not very well.

Honestly, there’s something rather pathetic about a guy screeching about the death toll in Iraq one minute and screeching about a failure to act in Darfur the next. Gee, dipstick: What if US troops die there? How many casualties can we handle? When is enough enough? And why should America act “unilaterally” in the Sudan, since it appears as if the UN is again dragging its feet? Aren’t anti-war leftists militantly opposed to unilateralism?

So, if you ask us, the Cindy Sheehans, Michael Moores, and Noam Chomskys of the world bear a bit of the blame for our current predicament. You can only scream about the evils of American power so long until people begin to believe you. This is what you get for being a “peace activist,” you stupid hippies.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

May 09, 2006

A Change of Pace

Quite naturally, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” despise all sorts of things. The objects of our un-affection are legion: Dick Durbin, the word “moist,” overwrought adulation of Tom Hanks, &c.

Accordingly, we figured that in today’s humble “post” we’d showcase a side of our collective personality that you wouldn’t expect. You know: Change things up a bit. To this end, we have decided to forgo our usual farrago of scorn in favor of a different kind of lucubration.

As such, dear reader, in today’s installment, we’re focusing on things we ought to detest, but don’t dislike all that much. It’s the reverse of what you’d expect, and we, like a cock-eyed Parisian whore, like to keep you guessing.

So, without much in the way of further ado, why don’t we begin? Yes, let’s.

The Official “Hatemonger’s Quarterly” List of Things That Ought To Get Our Dander Up, But Don’t

1) Kofi Annan: Sure, he’s an obvious incompetent. He’s also odiously corrupt, disgracefully venal, and sickeningly adept at moral preening. This guy’s so shady you’d figure that “Annan” is Swahili for “graft.” But we simply can’t hate him: His accent is so cute.

2) Starbucks: Sure, they’re the industrialized world’s equivalent of fungus. The coffee isn’t good and their foodstuffs are abominably priced. But, for crying out loud: Detesting Starbucks is about as interesting as hating athlete’s foot. And it isn’t that bad, is it? No one’s forcing you to go there.

3) The Mormon Tabernacle Choir: Although admittedly a tad creepy, it’s actually quite listenable.

4) Al Gore: Okay, so he’s become an unhinged lunatic, ranting and raving about the horrors of America to folks in Saudi Arabia. Obviously, that’s deeply offensive. He’s also alarmingly self-important. But, hey, he invented the Internet. So lay off him, will you?

5) Sting: It’s interesting that this guy first came to fame by instructing Roxanne not to “put on the red light,” since he’s basically prostituted himself his entire career. What’s more, he appears to insist that he’s some sort of artiste, as if “Di-Doo-Doo-Doo, Di-Dah-Dah-Dah” is really a landmark work of Western culture. Yet he isn’t all bad. After all, he’s a balding sex symbol. What’s not to love?

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

May 08, 2006

Don’t Call Us Ishmael; Ishmael Calls Us

As the routine reader of this humble “weblog” knows, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have a regular gig as Sunday essayists for Wizbang. Since Wizbang is quite a popular e-destination, this allows us the delightful opportunity to compose essays read by more than three people.

But this is not all it offers. As we found out recently, Wizbang also numbers among its readers a few eminences. (Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that it’s picked up by Google News?) Accordingly, when we excoriate some public intellectual or other, he’s liable to write a response.

To this end, the former CIA analyst turned loony conspiracy theorist Michael Scheuer deigned to comment on our Wizbang “post” that denigrated his feculent tome Imperial Hubris, Honestly, dear reader, we were rather surprised by this. After all, we offered evidence of Mr. Scheuer’s creepy crush on Osama bin Laden, and maintained that he was dumber than a pinecone.

This is not, we would have thought, the kind of criticism that positively begs for a rebuttal. But apparently Mr. Scheuer’s got a bit of free time. Maybe he’s on vacation from blaming Israel for all the world’s sins.

Nor is Mr. Scheuer the only semi-famous loon who has seen fit to respond to us. A few weeks prior to our discussion of Imperial Hubris, we took aim at an article by Ishmael Reed.

Ishmael Reed, for those of you pleasantly unaware of this fellow, is an angry black radical author who shares Don King’s good looks, but none of his good sense. Which, we might add, is saying something.

In response to our drubbing, Ishmael Reed sent us a personal missive with the following message:

you guys are about as accurate as fox news. ishmael reed

Huh. Apparently, Mr. Reed is stealing a page from bell hook’s book. Or is that e.e. cummings' book?

Anyway, we found it an uninspired retort. After all, we had just mercilessly criticized his article. If memory serves—and, like McDonalds, memory serves a lot—we ridiculed his overwrought arguments, his manifest distortions, and his sloppy writing. We concluded by suggesting that “Mr. Reed ought to drop the giant chip on his shoulder and replace it with a spell-checker.”

Surely that is worth more than a shopworn mention of Fox News? And, gee: Now we know that Ishmael’s capitalization skills are a bit shaky.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

May 05, 2006

This Isn’t a Pajama Game Anymore

Some weeks ago, dear reader, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” came up with what we considered a rather brilliant idea. As sentient beings, we naturally loathe Harry Connick Jr.’s music: his sappy crooning and also-ran-Sinatra schmaltz are detestable.

Accordingly, we thought up a way to halt Mr. Connick’s music career. As we announced in our regular Sunday Wizbang “post,” we aimed to start a Keep Harry Connick Jr. Acting Foundation. We figured that the more time this lamebrain spent on stage, the less time he’d have for the studio. In short, our idea would ensure that those with ears would win.

As we reported in this space, however, our idea was met with a fair amount of scorn. It seems as if many Wizbang readers have demotic taste in music, and they took great offense to our “post.” Apparently, in this country you are free to criticize the President, lambaste the Secretary of Defense, and ridicule the Supreme Court, but you better not lay a finger on horrible pseudo-jazz players. Go figure.

Well, a perusal of the April 27 number of The New York Times has informed us that those who criticized our Keep Harry Connick Jr. Acting Foundation may just get what they’re hoping for. In this installment of the Paper of Record (or 8-track), Campbell Robertson reports:

First, for fans of Harry Connick Jr….the bad news…

If you’re anything like us, dear reader, you simply delight in this phrase. There’s bad news for Harry Connick Jr. fans? That’s kind of like announcing bad news for Goebbels devotees.

But, alas, the piece doesn’t live up to its introduction:

the Roundabout Theater Company revival of “The Pajama Game” will end its limited run at the American Airlines Theater on June 17. Now, for fans of Richard Adler and Jerry Ross, who wrote the music and lyrics, the good news: after the show has a summer hiatus, Jeffrey Richards, James Fuld Jr. and Scott Landis will take the Roundabout production to Broadway again. “The Pajama Game,” slated for early fall at a theater to be announced, has not been cast. But the stars will not necessarily include Mr. Connick….

Okay, you detractors of our Keep Harry Connick Jr. Acting Foundation. The noxious crooner will soon end his stage gig, and we’ll bet he’ll be in the recording studio in a heartbeat, butchering a new set of classic tunes. This, we take it, is what you wanted.

So enjoy your beloved crap. And thanks for doing your part to destroy Western culture.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

May 04, 2006

Reverse “Punk’d”

Boob-tube aficionados are undoubtedly aware of the program “Punk’d,” which appears on an al-Qaeda training network called MTV. The host of the show, who we believe is Demi Moore’s wife, sets up all sorts of shenanigans for unwitting celebrities to walk into.

In short, it’s a vaguely updated version of Alan Funt’s “Candid Camera.” Except the victims of the pranks are usually inveterate B-Listers. And the host seems eerily incapable of controlling the volume of his voice.

In a typical “Punk’d” stunt, some rap star you’ve never heard of—preferably named something like “Chingy-Wingy-Dingy”—is stopped by a truculent police officer, who forces the entertainer to undergo all sorts of minor indignities. The audience laughs at the prank, the rapper is let off the hook, and all is well with the world.

As such, for audience members who like to see celebrities in various uncomfortable situations, but can’t afford those Paris Hilton tapes, “Punk’d” is a mild amusement.

Yet we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” think it could be much, much better. In fact, if we owned MTV, we’d start our own rival “Punk’d” program, which would become America’s favorite faster than you can say “Bob Saget getting hit with a hammer.”

(Actually, that’s not technically true: If we owned MTV, we’d shut it down immediately. Or, at least, we’d place a complete ban on the screening of any Nick Lachey videos.)

What’s our idea for a fantastic show on the MTV? Well, dear reader, we’re glad we made you ask.

It’s really quite simple—it’s sort of a reverse “Punk’d.” For, on “Punk’d,” various stars think they are in some sort of sticky situation, only to discover that it was just a gag.

Why not flip the formula around? It would make it much more interesting. In our version of the show, celebrities believe they are the victims of a prank, but they are actually in deep, deep trouble.

Imagine how entertaining that would be! Billy Joel thinks he’s being “Punk’d,” but he’s really about to spend 12 years in a maximum-security prison! Now that’s TV magic!

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

May 03, 2006

The Gentile Lobby

Like darn near all Americans, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” love reading academic working papers. In fact, we find them quite satisfying: If professors hardly trouble themselves to show up to the office now and again, at least their essays are doing a bit of working.

As such, we took delight in perusing “The Israel Lobby,” the now infamous working paper by one Stephen M. Walt and one John J. Mearsheimer, a shortened version of which was printed in a rag called The London Review of Arab Propaganda.

If we recall correctly, Mr. Mearsheimer serves as the outgoing Dean of Harvard’s Bin Talal School of Public Policy, and Mr. Walt is currently the David Duke Distinguished Professor of Semitic Studies at the University of Chicago. But, to be honest, we may not recall correctly.

Anyway, we found “The Israel Lobby” an interesting piece. And by “interesting,” of course, we mean “completely wrong.” In short, the longwinded essay is a locus classicus of anti-Israel animus, which aims at stopping America from supporting the lone Jewish state. Apparently, Mr. Walt and Mr. Mearsheimer would delight in the slaughter that would result from such an American about-face. Well, as we always say, to each his own.

Others have noted the shoddy arguments and distorted facts that make up “The Israel Lobby.” But that’s not what we want to discuss. Rather, we think that Walt and Mearsheimer are totally off-base in their assessments. In fact, we think they got things entirely backward.

Allow us to explain. After much careful research and a working paper of our own, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” are ready to tell the truth about America and the Middle East. To this end, we want to inform you about what we have delicately labeled the “Gentile Lobby.”

If we may be bold, we think that it is this insidious cabal—and not a handful of Jews at the American Enterprise Institute and AIPAC—that is really controlling our country. In fact, we think it’s high time that someone spoke up about this pernicious non-Jewish conspiracy. Non-Jews have hijacked American foreign policy, and we simply must put a stop to it!

Our proof? Oh, we’ve got oodles of it.

First, need we mention that every American president—every single last one of them—is not Jewish? Simply breathtaking, isn’t it? And, Alexander Cockburn ravings notwithstanding, this is also true of President George Bush. Actually, he’s a notorious gentile.

But we can continue. The current secretary of defense is not a Jew. The current secretary of state is not a Jew. The current vice-president is not a Jew. The list goes on and on and on.

To be honest, we think it’s really amazing that no one has noticed it before. But this merely demonstrates the power of the Gentile Lobby: Simple mention of its existence ruins careers, ruins lives.

Think about this: Non-Jews have a virtual lock on the American electoral system. With the exception of a few areas in New York and Florida, the entire country is teeming with non-Jewish voters. In fact, gentiles are the most powerful electoral block in the United States. They essentially decide national elections all on their own.

And consider the number of non-Jewish organizations that help tilt American foreign policy in a distinctly gentile direction: The Christian Coalition; the Teamsters; AARP; the Girl Scouts; the John Birch Society; the Rainbow Coalition. These are just a few of literally thousands (perhaps millions) of groups that ensure non-Jewish dominance in American affairs.

Clearly, we are talking about a very weighty problem. Perhaps George Soros and Stephen Spielberg will fork over some cash to rectify this dire situation? And maybe we can enlist Michael Moore or Oliver Stone to do some sort of even-keeled documentary about it?

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

May 02, 2006

A Profound Intellectual Disagreement among Scholars, or “Me shut up? No, you shut up!”

If you are anything at all like us, you savor those blessed four times during the year when The American Historical Review hits the newsstands. Nothing makes our hearts skip a beat quite like the arrival of the good ole’ AHR. (Well, to be honest, a steady diet of circus peanuts might do it, but that is neither here nor there.)

We would be remiss if we did not mention that the delicious articles in the rag aren’t the immediate focus of our attentions. Obviously, we look forward to diving in to such landmark works of scholarship as Alon Rachamimov’s “The Disruptive Comforts of Drag: (Trans)Gender Performances among Prisoners of War in Russia, 1914-1920.” That ought to be a page-turner.

But it’s the storied “Communications” section of the AHR that really draws us in. For those (few) among us who don’t regularly peruse the magazine, allow us to inform you that this section allows various academics to lash out at one another, usually as a result of withering book reviews in previous numbers. As you might imagine, it’s a veritable cornucopia of fun.

Take, for example, Professor Y. Michal Bodemann’s letter in the April 2006 issue of AHR. It pertains to Professor Lynn Rapaport’s nasty review of his work, A Jewish Family in Germany Today: An Intimate Portrait, copies of which, we presume, are flying off the bookshelves.

Most of Mr. Bodemann’s letter deals with substantive issues, which are naturally of no concern to us. But the end of the missive makes it all worthwhile:

I should like to stress that I welcome critical reviews of my work. Indeed, some years back, I reviewed Professor Rapaport’s own book on German Jewry quite critically. But I believe I did provide solid evidence to back up my critique.

Slam! Take that, Ms. Rapaport! We don’t know about you, dear reader, but we found this simply delightful.

Note the use of “indeed.” It makes it seem as if Mr. Bodemann’s second sentence has a logical connection with the one that precedes it. “I love criticisms of my work; indeed, I criticized your work.”

Might we be bold enough to suggest that Mr. Bodemann offered this sentence in order to take an un-subtle dig at Ms. Rapaport, and to suggest that she had a sordid motive in panning Mr. Bodemann’s tome? We may have gone out on a limb with that assertion; but perhaps not.

If you think that’s good stuff, just get a load of Ms. Rapaport’s reply. Again, we haven’t the slightest interest in the substance of her response; we merely love the polemic. And here it is:

Finally, Bodemann gratuitously brings up his long-forgotten review of my own work, Jews in Germany after the Holocaust: Memory, Identity, and Jewish-German Relations (Cambridge University Press, 1997). He should be informed that my book won the 1998 Best Book Award in the Sociology of Religion from the American Sociological Association.

Take that, smarty-pants! How do you like ‘dem apples?

To be honest, we have the sneaking suspicion that Ms. Rapaport actually remembers Mr. Bodemann’s “long-forgotten review” of her book. Perhaps his mention of it caused Ms. Rapaport to engage in a little self-puffery?

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

May 01, 2006

Pump Us Full of Lead—or Unleaded

Well, dear reader, as hard as it may be to imagine, we’re in a terrible mood today. But, we must add, there’s a darn good reason. Just this morning, we took our fleet of gray Honda Civics to the local petroleum dispenser to fill them full of what we call gasoline, and what Kitty Dukakis calls brunch.

Perhaps we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” are the only ones who’ve noticed this, but it’s true nevertheless: Gasoline prices are outrageous these days. In fact, they’re so awful that, when we were filling up our cars, we had the peculiar feeling that we were in some God-forsaken country with horrid petrol prices. Like France.

A quick perusal around Al Gore’s World-Wide Web has informed us that Americans of different political persuasions cite different causes for the obscene cost of gas. Our liberal friends blame President Bush and his dubious relations with various oil barons and Saudi sheiks. Our conservative friends blame the US government, which apparently adds a hefty tax to our gas bill, driving up the price.

It seems as if we have to choose who’s the cause of this mess. Is it the likes of Halliburton? Or is it the fault of the likes of the Democrats in Congress, who probably use our beloved gasoline tax to buy heroin for illegal immigrants?

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” don’t want to burst anyone’s bubble (except, of course, for John Travolta’s), but we simply don’t feel like taking sides on this one. After all, why must we choose between odious Saudi sheiks and tax-loving mis-managers as the objects of our contumely? We can’t think of a reason either.

In fact, we hereby declare that we loathe everything about this mess. And we blame absolutely all parties involved: OPEC; Pat Riley (who uses all that oil in his hair); Ryan Seacrest (isn’t Vaseline made from petroleum?); &c.

But let’s not allow our newfound disgust at this situation keep us from expanding our umbrella of hate, if you will. There’s no reason to stop here. We think gas stations in general need a good drubbing.

We mean, come on: Their attached convenience stores are normally an even bigger rip-off than the gasoline. And why the heck do the owners of these things think that Slim-Jim’s make suitable decorations for them? Doesn’t anyone else realize that they taste disgusting?

Don’t get us started about the magazines in gas station convenience stores. The periodicals rack at such establishments are for the type of people who think People is just a tad highbrow.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack