Bumper Stickers

Greetings, loyal readers of The Hatemonger’s Quarterly. It is your Maximum Leader of Naked Villainy starting day one of his week-long stint as guest “weblogger.” Why it seems like only yesterday that your Maximum Leader was guesting at the HMQ while the Crack Young Staff was moving into their new, and well-appointed, corporate offices. In a way, your Maximum Leader is beginning to feel like David Letterman to the Crack Young Staff’s Johnny Carson. (Or would your Maximum Leader be Joan Rivers in that equation? Humm…)

But your Maximum Leader digresses…

The other day, while driving around in the Villainmobile, your Maximum Leader chanced to observe some thought provoking bumper stickers on various and sundry cars sharing the road with your Maximum Leader. He thought he would share his thoughts about them with you, the readers of The Hatemonger’s Quarterly.

The first observation is this, drivers from Maryland with bumper stickers on their car that read “Jesus said ‘Love your enemies.’ I don’t think that he meant to kill them” are neither good nor polite drivers. Okay… Perhaps this is a bit of hyperbole and your Maximum Leader using potentially faulty inductive reasoning to cast aspersions on all drivers from Maryland with insipid bumper stickers on their cars. On the other hand, if he were to conduct a scientific study of the phenomenon he believes his initial reasoning would stand.

Maryland drivers with insipid stickers on their cars, according to your Maximum Leader’s observations, tend to swerve erratically within their lane as well as change lanes suddenly and without signaling. They also seem to like to cut you off as you are getting into a left turn lane. They seem to completely disregard the fact that you are driving a 5000lb, V-8 powered, 4-door, 410 horsepower, leather interiored uber-sedan; and they are driving a 14 years old 2000lb, 2 cylinder, 80 horsepower hatchback with a faded cloth interior.

But your Maximum Leader digresses…

You see, your Maximum Leader, while peeved by the behavior of said Maryland driver, was sure that in the end the Maryland driver would be weeded out of the human gene pool by some process of natural selection.

Why you ask?

Well… It is the bumper sticker that is the “tell” in this hand of cards so to speak. Jesus might have admonished his followers to love their enemies and turn the other cheek, but sensible Christians have for centuries understood that the Lord was not above pulling out the whip and driving the ne’er-do-wells from the Temple when the occasion required it. In our modern world strict and literal adherence to a faulty interpretation of scripture tends to lead people to a bad end.

Your Maximum Leader wonders how this Maryland driver would react to their home being katushka rocketed by their fundamentalist neighbors in Delaware. He suspects that the Maryland driver would turn the other cheek and fervently hope that their house was katushka-proof. In the end, your Maximum Leader doubts that the Maryland driver would last long against the fundamentalist Delawareans.

In any case, your Maximum Leader would prefer to stay close to the SUV-driving mom with the NRA Life Member window decal, the Marine Corps license plate, and the bumper sticker which read “Note to self: Pillage THEN Burn.” She’s a survivor.

Carry on.

Posted at 06:56 AM | TrackBack

A Vacation and a Treat

For over two years, dear reader, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have been providing you with oodles of yuks and tons of insight. If you have been tuning in to this “weblog” with regularity, undoubtedly our uproarious animadversions have compelled you to change your life. Or, barring that, your underwear. (Unless you’re French, of course.)

It is without much in the way of self-loathing, then, that we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” humbly declare that the week of Monday, July 31 to Friday, August 4 is our Official Vacation Week. Yes, on those days, we’ll be collectively heading to the beach in our fleet of Honda Civics for days replete with sun, fun, and frivolity. Just think: A staff of well over 250 people will party like it’s 1998. It’ll be just like Woodstock, only without the music, druggery, or fornication.

We know what you are thinking, dear reader: What am I going to do without the crack young staff? Sure, they can work on their tans whilst sipping spritzers to their hearts’ content—but what about me?

Naturally, we figured that it would prove very difficult for our regular reader(s) to go an entire week without our cheerful musings. Resorting to Sudoku or other forms of Asian torture just isn’t liable to cut it.

As a result, we wanted to soothe our savage readers into surviving a whole workweek without us. And we think we have just the thing: For July 31 to August 4, we have recruited the talents of one of the Internet’s prime “webloggers.”

No, not Glenn Reynolds. That ne’er-do-well wouldn’t know “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” if it hit him on the head all night. Believe us: We’ve tried to spread the word to him. It’s been about as successful as Howard the Duck. And who the heck wants one-word “posts” like “Heh” on their “weblogs”? Not us, not us.

Rather, we refer to that storied e-eminence the Maximum Leader, proprietor of Naked Villainy. The Maximum Leader, for those of you who are foolish enough not to take in his “posts” regularly, possesses a twofold genius: He runs a dynamite “weblog” and he sports a stunning bejeweled floppy hat.

Devotees of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” may recall that the Maximum Leader was kind enough to serve as our guest “weblogger” last year, during the move to our Official New Headquarters. He was so deliciously good, in fact, that—partly as the result of fan pressure—we named him an Official Honorary Member of the Crack Young Staff.

Yeah, dear reader, he’s that good. Why, just take in this lovely “post,” which the Maximum Leader contributed to last year’s festivities.

Ah, yes: You are going to enjoy our vacation, aren’t you? If you like it enough, you—like many of us—can purchase Naked Villainy thongs. Is there a better way to demonstrate your appreciation?

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

Slow Jews Day?

As all of earth (and portions of Mercury) must know, violence has erupted in the Middle East, as Israel tries to ward off the provocations of Hezbollah, the charming Shi’ite terrorist group. It seems to us, dear reader, as if this recent conflict has well nigh eclipsed any and all other news stories worldwide.

Now, don’t get us wrong: The Israeli struggle to demolish the capabilities of this delightful Iran-backed terrorist outfit is most assuredly an important conflict. It is so important, in fact, that our friends on the radical Left have yet again joined sides with the Islamic fascists against civilization. Apparently radical lefties love anti-Israeli terrorism about as much as they savor Sharia law and abortion on demand. We wonder how that interesting congeries of desires will work out for them.

Even though the situation in Israel is of crucial import, we can’t help but notice that numerous other stories appear to be getting short shrift at this time. Last we heard, illegal immigration was something of a concern, as was the liberation of Iraq. Aren’t some folks dying there? We’ll have to peruse Bob Herbert’s 45,692 vitriolic rants about that.

These trifles used to matter to us. Not any more, we guess. Rather, the country must take in the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict alone, as if we have nothing better to do than enjoy a useful idiot of a journalist get a special guided tour from some lovely Hezbollah toadies in Beirut. Come on, CNN: How gullible do you have to be?

For crying out loud: The Israelis could bomb a missile factory, and Hezbollah would claim it’s a high school. (To be honest, though, given Hezbollah’s propensity for suicide bombing and its anti-Semitic propaganda for children, perhaps they see little distinction between a missile factory and a high school.)

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have the faint impression that Martians could take over the planet, force the world’s human population to become their slaves, and this would receive second-page treatment. Or third-page, if George Bush recently made some sort of linguistic gaffe. After all, how does the enslavement of us all rate against the situation in Israel? Not very well, we’d wager.

So, for the near future, dear reader, we suppose you’ll have to get used to wall-to-wall coverage from Lebanon, as everyone but Katie Couric travels to that land to offer their two cents. Meanwhile, you’ll be forced to endure umpteen op-eds by anti-Israel terror-apologists, who demonstrate their bias by incessantly referring to Israel as “Palestine.” And they’ll use the word “occupation” slightly more than they employ the word “the.”

Further, you’ll have to listen to a cavalcade of Congressional Democrats carp about President Bush’s reaction to the situation, without offering any ideas as to how to resolve the conflict. Other than to suggest, of course, that Israel cease its operations and allow Hezbollah time to rearm.

If you enjoy the antics of our country’s professional losing party and the outrageous arguments of pro-terrorist lefties, you’re in for a delightful few weeks.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

Must Blame Bush, Must Blame Bush

As we’ve mentioned a couple of times, dear reader, we have greatly enjoyed perusing The New York Times as the crisis in Israel unfolds. Not, we dare say, because of the Gray Lady’s coverage, with its implicit moral equating of Israel and Hezbollah. No: The whole tired “cycle of violence” shtick doesn’t do much for us.

Rather, we mean because some of the Times most truculently anti-Bush op-eders have been bizarrely silent about the matter, even though it is surely the most pressing story of the day. It’s strange, but it’s true.

Now, perhaps such Times geniuses as Maureen Dowd recognize that they haven’t the requisite knowledge to opine on Israel and its terrorist enemies. But this doesn’t make much sense: After all, Maureen Dowd doesn’t have the requisite knowledge to opine on anything, and yet, as far as we can determine, she opines two times weekly for the Paper of Record. Again, it’s strange but it’s true.

Surely, then, the problem lies elsewhere. And, as we’ve suggested in earlier “posts,” we think we know just where. These regular leftist op-eders simply can’t figure out a way to blame Bush for the whole fiasco. As a result, they’re completely stymied. Having penned umpteen attacks on President Bush, they don’t know how to do anything else.

Of course, they could simply take the “Bush Is Doing Nothing” route, which is the favored editorial line at the Gray Lady. Still, there’s a problem or two: First, it isn’t true, and second, it isn’t sufficiently juicy.

We mean, come on: The Democratic Party has done nothing (save complain) since the War on Terror began. If you’re going to blame Bush for inaction, you aren’t going to make your own political heroes look that great. In fact, Joe Biden enjoys doing nothing in between his long bouts of pontificating.

Nice lads and lasses that we are, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have decided to come to the rescue. That is to say, we’ve devised a list of ways to blame President Bush for the current Israel-Hezbollah fracas. No longer will Maureen Dowd have to pen columns about being a menopausal coquette. (Although we’re sure she still will.)

The Official “Hatemonger’s Quarterly” Blame-Bush-for-the-Israeal-Hezbollah-Conflict List

1) According to Michael Moore, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr., thanks to their oil ties, used to be card-carrying members of Hezbollah. Accordingly, as with every conflict in world history, this one is all about oil. And all about religion—the Christian religion, of course.

4) Lebanon’s prime minister IS Dick Cheney.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

One-Track Ponies?

Longtime reader(s) of this humble “weblog” most assuredly know that we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” thoroughly enjoy discussing all and sundry. In fact, our unofficial Internet slogan is “Bring It On.”

Thus, in marked contrast to, say, a “website” entirely devoted to monkeys, “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” finds no topic either too small or too grand to warrant our avoidance. In short, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” are jacks-of-all-trades, masters of golf.

Recently, however, the careful reader may have noted that we’ve become distressingly mono-focused. You might even say we’re myopic. Yeah: You probably wouldn’t, but you might.

Ever since those horrid Israelis had the temerity to defend themselves from terrorist attacks, we’ve devoted most of our energies to this particular matter. This is, interestingly, not the case with the lefties at The New York Times op-ed page; apparently Maureen Dowd hasn’t come up with a cute lil’ nickname for Ehud Olmert a la Rummy and Bushy. Our loss, eh?

To be downright honest, dear reader, we really don’t want to send so much time offering our views on the terrorists of Hezbollah and Hamas. We’d much prefer to wax judgmental about the horrors of, say, Enya, or, say, Whole Foods. After all, a little variety adds spice to life. Or something.

But we simply can’t help ourselves. The left-wing position on the current Israel-Hezbollah brouhaha is so outrageously stupid that it positively begs for comment. We mean, come on: A bunch of atheistic, abortion-crazy, feminist libertines warmly embracing militant Islamic fascists who aim to oppress everyone with Sharia law—does it get any crazier than this? If you ask us, not much.

Of course, as civilized people, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” hope that the Israelis defeat their terrorist enemies, and ensure that they will remain safe and sound. In addition, we also hope, dear reader, that some other things will pop up in the news, and thus we’ll have a few more things to discuss.

You know: Can’t some stripper lie about being raped by a gaggle of lacrosse players? That would make for some compelling television and much liberal hand-wringing. Nothing beats listening to a room full of academics discuss such things: The ultra-moronic Houston Baker is worth the price of admission alone.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

The Word “Belly”

Many moons ago, as our ancestors used to say, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” discussed an English word that really bothers us: Moist. Although we understood that this made for a comparatively nugatory subject of excoriation, we found “moist” suitably irritating to deserve the full “Hatemonger’s Quarterly” treatment. If we may get technical here, we must relate that we officially find the word “moist” yucky.

It has been some time, however, since we’ve taken aim at a common item in the dictionary. Until, that is to say, now. In today’s humble “post,” we wax indignant about another troubling—nay, disturbing—locution: Belly.

What, you may or may not be asking yourself, so irks us about the word “belly”? Isn’t it a fairly harmless term in comparison with, say, “genocide,” “oleaginous,” and “Peter Cetera”?

Well, to be frank, dear reader, no. In our collective mind, “belly” is one of the most unappealing words to be found in the entire Funk & Wagnalls. Unabridged. It’s a horrendous term, and we’d like people to cease using it.

“Look at my fat belly”—does English get any more repellent than this? We think not. In fact, it’s so ugly you’d think you were speaking German. The very word “belly” immediately conjures up pictures of grossly obese women in jog bras. Either that or Roseanne Barr. And neither makes for fetching mental images.

In fact, pretty much the entire vocabulary associated with the midriff profoundly disturbs us. (Other than “midriff,” actually, which for some reason strikes us as peculiarly inoffensive.)

For instance, there’s “navel,” the most excruciating synonym imaginable for the excruciating term “belly-button.” “Navel gazing”—what could be more sick? Perhaps “belly-button lint,” but that’s about all.

And then there’s “paunch,” which magically conjures those same morbidly obese women in jog bras. That and the old television staple “Chips.” Even the comparatively un-troubling “abdomen” calls to mind a nasty swarm of ants.

So, dear reader, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” humbly implore you to refrain from discussion of the midriff. Maybe if we all wear pants like Ed Grimley they’ll be nothing to discuss anyway.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

The Wages of Dim

In a front-page, above-the-fold story in yesterday’s Gray Lady, Jad Mouawad and Steven Erlanger quote Fouad Siniora, the Lebanese Prime Minister, from a meeting with foreign diplomats. Naturally, Mr. Siniora harped and harpied on Israel’s response to the recent machinations of Hezbollah. Amongst his remarks at this gathering was the following query:

Is this the price we pay for aspiring to build our democratic institutions?

On the face of it, that seems to us a reasonable question, and so we have prepared a reasonable answer. Darn nice of us, isn’t it?

Well, Mr. Prime Minister, here goes: No, the bombardment of the southern portion of your country is not the price you are paying for trying to build your democratic institutions.

Rather, it is the price you are paying for failing to take steps to disarm the terrorist organization Hezbollah, and allowing it to join your government instead. Further, it is the price you are paying for proving unable to control this terrorist organization from attacking Israel.

Gee, you would think that this was obvious. Perhaps the Good Prime Minister’s question was actually a pathetic rhetorical query, designed to push the buttons of a democracy-promoting United States? But, hey, that would mean that an Arab government was engaging in bitching, which is really quite uncharacteristic.

To be honest, dear reader, we find Mr. Siniora’s question quite dim. It’s so obviously obtuse that it boggles the mind.

In fact, it’s much like Hitler, towards the end of World War II, asking: “Is this the price we pay for sporting such smashing military fatigues?” To which one should respond: No, you dolt; it’s the price you’re paying for launching an insane war on two fronts and enacting a genocidal campaign. We’re actually agnostic about the uniforms.

Or maybe it’s much like Saddam Hussein, newly captured from his spider hole, asking: “Is this the price I pay for winning 100 percent of the popular vote?” To which we’d respond: Relax, Al Gore. No, you fool, it’s the price you’re paying for being an evil Stalinoid tyrant.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

Israel, Hezbollah, and Anti-Zionism

Many conservatives are having a field day with anti-Zionist arguments regarding the current clashes between Israel and Hezbollah. And rightly so: The anti-Israel forces are bleating about Israel’s killing of innocent civilians in Lebanon, without troubling themselves to mention one key fact: The terrorist organization Hezbollah purposefully hides itself among the Lebanese civilian population in order to force its enemies to harm innocents.

Not that this is the only pertinent omission detectable in their Islamist agitprop. On the contrary: They either dismiss or somehow skirt around the fact that Hezbollah started this entire brouhaha by illegally treading into Israel and kidnapping Israeli soldiers. This, say our anti-Zionist pals, was merely a “pretext” for Israeli aggression, as if this heinous act of war was mere child’s play.

And we can point to more dishonesty. The anti-Israel forces love to harp on the damage Israeli rocket fire is causing in Lebanon without mentioning the daily barrage that Israel has been compelled to endure—both from Hezbollah and Hamas forces in un-occupied Gaza. Without mentioning the fact that neither Lebanon nor Gaza is controlled by Israel (though Syria, clearly, has much power in Lebanon, thanks to Hezbollah), they speciously claim that this whole matter pertains to the horrors of “occupation.” And thus they pine for the release of all Lebanese prisoners—i.e., all captured members of Hezbollah.

Wow: Talk about chutzpah. We don’t know what’s more brazen: Ruthlessly attacking a militarily superior enemy, or immediately and incessantly whining about the unsurprising response you receive.

Even so, we must admit that there is a certain (deadly) consistency to some of the anti-Zionist positions. After all, from their caterwauling about the Israeli response, it is clear that the professional Israel-haters wish that Israel would do nothing. That is to say, they hoped that, having been attacked on two fronts by terrorist organizations, and having soldiers captured, they would sit idly by.

Now, naturally, this is absurd. But, insofar as anti-Zionists by definition aim to eradicate the state of Israel, it makes perfect sense. If a country doesn’t respond to terrorism, it is much more likely that it will eventually cease to exist. Thus, in counseling Israel not to retaliate, anti-Zionists are merely suggesting a response that will quicken the demise of the Jewish state.

What’s more puzzling, we think, is the anti-Zionists’ expectation that proponents of Israel will listen to their arguments. After all, if you actually desire Israel to exist, why would you take heed of those who pine for its demolition?

And this makes us wonder about the feculent pronouncements of many European leaders. What exactly does a cry for a “proportionate” response mean, when it comes from Vladimir Putin, not exactly a man known for his “proportionate” responses to Islamic terrorism—or anything else, for that matter?

Why don’t Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac, et al. simply admit that they are anti-Zionists? That way, we won’t have to bother listening to their inane opinions, since we’ll know definitively that they are not in Israel’s best interest.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

We Get Mail

Surely one of the great pleasures of running an esteemed (if little known) “weblog” is the batch of mail we receive from esteemed (if little known) correspondents. “Your writing brightens up my otherwise dark nights,” write sundry e-fans. Or words to that effect. This sort of missive, dear reader, is the stuff that keeps us going. It’s our veritable e-nectar.

We would be remiss if we did not mention, however, that every once in a brew moon (as our beer-loving Chinese friends say), we receive a slightly less flattering epistle. In fact, some of these e-mails can be downright intemperate. If we didn’t have such peculiarly high self-esteems, we might even find them a tad upsetting.

Case in point: One fine Saturday night we were on the receiving end of an e-missive sent by someone with the intriguing nom de web Fatugleeebich@aol.com. Although one might reasonably infer that a character with a “Fat-Ugly-Bitch” tag would be pleasant, she actually turned out to be less-than-hospitable.

The following amounts to the entire contents of her e-mail:

Fatugleeebich@aol.com
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 20:35:40 EDT
Subject: (no subject)
To: hatemongersquarterly@yahoo.com

you people are scum for kissing Israels butt

Peculiar, is it not? We don’t quite know what strikes us the most: The rancor or the lack of punctuation. Yeah: Probably the punctuation.

We don’t mean to be snooty, but we feel that this is a particularly pathetic exemplum of hate mail. And hate mail is already a pretty pathetic genre of writing on its own. Can’t our detractors up the ante a little? Isn’t anyone going to have the decency to send us a real childish, hate-filled rant? We think this “Fat-Ugly-Bitch” is really ‘phoning it in.

We mean, come on: We’re “scum” because we support Israel against its terrorist nemeses? How dull. Where’s the loony anti-Semitic carping? Where’s the miring in conspiracy theories? In short, where’s the passionate craziness?

If you are going to take the role of a mean-spirited crank, you ought to do a better job than this. The writer of this sad letter isn’t so much a fat, ugly bitch as she is a lazy, fat, ugly bitch. Perhaps she’ll have to take some lessons from Deb Frisch. Now there’s someone who can make an ass of herself with a little gusto.

Besides: Aren’t fat people supposed to be jolly?

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

Out of the Woodwork

There’s nothing quite like a disturbance in the Middle East to let loose the anti-Israel crazies. Of course, even without any problems in Israel you aren’t exactly hard pressed to find the maniacal ravings of Islamofascists and their dunderheaded supporters. The unhinged wacko Alexander Cockburn, for instance, runs a “website” called Counterpunch, which, it seems, is dedicated to worldwide revolution through the catharsis of anti-Semitism.

Still, our recent peregrinations around Al Gore’s Internet have led us to believe that the anti-Zionist nutters are out in even greater force than usual. And they have a lock on all the best arguments. For instance:

1) If terrorists invade a country, kidnap a few of its soldiers, and bomb its cities, this country is duty bound not to respond in any way. After all, boys will be boys.

2) Occupation causes all the problems in the Middle East—not the ongoing Syrian occupation of Lebanon, but the non-existent, former occupation of southern Lebanon by Israel for reasonable security purposes.

Boy, it’s tough to argue with those solid bits of genius. No wonder so many people have such profound respect for James Zogby.

So, if you’re a fan of the ravings of anti-Zionist kooks, these must surely be halcyon days for you. From the comments page of The Guardian to the aptly named Angry Arab, there’s a treasure trove of anti-Western cant to enjoy. Ah, how happy Ken “The Red” must be.

Perhaps this isn’t much of surprise. After all, it’s not as if there’s a shortage of nimrods out there. And Al Gore’s World-Wide Web has a way of attracting a whole lot of viciousness.

But maybe the recent op-ed pages of The New York Times have been a bit more of a shocker. In the past few days, of course, the world has turned its attention to the conflict in the Middle East. As have a couple of its regular columnists: Notably David Brooks and Thomas Friedman.

Oddly, however, a few infamous columnists at the Gray Lady haven’t troubled themselves to comment on the conflagration much. Good ole’ Nicky Kristof, of course, can’t stop reflecting on his role as personal savior to three Third World women a year, so he hasn’t spilled any ink over Israel recently.

Yet the truculent left-wing trio of Krugman, Herbert, and Dowd haven’t said much either. And we think we know why: Try as they might, they simply can’t come up with a way to blame Bush for Hezbollah’s evildoings. Sure, they can say something vacuous like “Bush isn’t doing enough.” But enough of what, precisely? Diplomacy? Of what sort, exactly?

Ah, there’s the rub. Pace John Stewart, it isn’t really easy to run a superpower. (Oh, and Stephen Colbert: We get it; you’re not really a conservative. Great gag, great gag.)

As a result, Kruggles, Bobby, and Dowdy (as Maureen would call them) come across as op-ed writers in a time warp. They keep on carping on the usual stuff: The horrors of the free market, the horrors of the Iraq War, or, from Ms. Dowd’s pen, the horrors of being a ginger-haired, sexagenarian, radical feminist, pseudo-humorist who can’t—mirabile dictu—find a mate.

At least the anti-Zionist cranks are actually discussing the most pertinent issue of the day.

UPDATE: Well, wouldn’t you know it: Good ole’ Mr. Kristoff decided to discuss the Israel-Lebanon-Hamas crisis in today’s Gray Lady. Yet, given his dismal understanding of the matter, he winds up offering useless pseudo-evenhanded fluff. (See Taranto for a demolition.) Maybe he should stick to his Saving-Third-World-Prostitutes theme.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

Homophobia vs. Anti-Semitism

One of the senior editors here at “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly”—let’s just call him “Chip”—was perusing the July 9 number of The New York Times Book Review. In said issue, he came across “Something About Mary,” a snarky review of Mary Cheney’s new book Now It’s My Turn, penned by someone named Alexandra Jacobs. Although “Chip” had no intention of reading Ms. Cheney’s work, he was struck by the nastiness with which Ms. Jacobs attacked her target.

One particular sentence struck a chord:

Only in passing does Cheney—who has a longtime companion, Heather Poe—confront the inherent contradiction of working for a party whose attitude toward homosexuality runs the gamut from mild intolerance to out-and-out hostility.

We know what you’re thinking: That’s quite a gamut. And thus, with this broad brush, does Ms. Jacobs tar and feather everyone in the Republican Party. To this dimwitted journalist, about half the voting population is homophobic.

Now, “Chip” thought to himself, I support gay marriage. In fact, the whole crack young staff does—especially Ted, who’s into guys. But “Chip” was shocked that the Times would print such a cavalier claim.

After all, there are these fellows and lasses who call themselves Log Cabin Republicans. And they’re highly unlikely to be homophobes. And, “Chip” would wager, there are some Republicans who are enthusiastic about gay marriage, or at least civil unions. What about libertarian-minded Republicans?

Yet what most interested “Chip” was Ms. Jacobs’ unsubstantiated claim that merely voting Republican amounted to—at best—“mild intolerance” for homosexuals. This labeling of all Republicans de facto homophobes struck him as particularly intriguing when compared with charges of anti-Semitism.

By now, we all know the old saw: Zionists purportedly mean-spiritedly label opponents of Israel anti-Semites in order to shut them up. This helps silence the opposition in what is, we imagine, the most cacophonous silence in history—one hears more about this horrible silence more than one actually notes the non-existent silence.

For some reason, earnest critics of specific Israeli policies never make these charges; rather, it’s a claim routinely bandied about by radicals whose hatred for the lone Jewish state is fishy, to say the least. “I don’t hate Israel, I just want it destroyed, and will lie like a pig in order to attain this goal,” thinks the anti-Zionist kook. “What’s anti-Semitic about opposing only one nationalistic movement—that of the Jews alone?”

Anyway, the distinction in the leftist’s discussion of homophobia and anti-Semitism is telling. To the leftist, merely voting Republican is homophobic. Yet extreme, un-reasonable, myopic, ahistorical, foolhardy, vitriolic, incessant criticism of the lone Jewish state in an attempt to deligitimize it isn’t anti-Semitism.

Boy, the Left sure has an interesting understanding of prejudice.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

Preliminary Thoughts on Israel

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have followed recent news from the Middle East with nervous interest. For some reason, this usually calm area of the world has become—mirabile dictu—a tinderbox of sorts. Who knew that Arab leaders would prove so hot-headed and intransigent? Certainly not us.

Naturally, the governments of Greece and Russia have put in their two cents. (Presuming that their currency is currently worth that much.) And, fountain of civilization that it is, Greece condemned the reaction of the Israeli government. Ah, yes: That pesky Israel and its petulant desire to exist. Whatever shall we do?

Not to be outdone, Russia opined that the Israeli retaliation was disproportional. Yep, you read that right: Vladimir Putin’s quasi-authoritarian kleptocracy castigated Israel for overreacting to the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and the incessant bombing of Israeli territory.

Um, forgive us if we remember incorrectly, but we seem to recall this incident in a Russian school in which an inept attempt to foil the machinations of Muslim terrorists led to the killing of all and sundry. Wouldn’t this be a locus classicus of overreaction? As such, taking advice on dealing with terrorism from Russia is much like chastity tips from Nicole Ritchie—they ain’t going to get you that far.

It is curious, is it not, that the world ineluctably treats Israel in this way. Before Ehud Olmert even troubled himself to respond, you could already hear the faint condemnation of Kofi Annan. Apparently, Kofi took some time off of his busy grafting schedule to stand up for human rights—like the kind on display in Darfur. Excuse us if we prefer our UN officials corrupt, not morally obtuse and corrupt. Is this too much to ask?

Now, let’s see if we can get this all straight: After unending bombing and kidnapping, Israel should…do nothing? Perhaps this would stop the “unicycle of violence” that is the Palestinian people. Or maybe this would take us one step closer to a world without a Jewish state.

Hmmm: We wonder how many of Israel’s critics would savor such an eventuality. Perhaps we’d better ask David Duke. Or maybe Walt and Meirsheimer. They’re among Israel’s expert detractors.

We know what you’re thinking: Israel suffers an outrageous attack and yet, in the eyes of much of the world, it can’t do right. Which country does that remind us of?

And people wonder why the US feels such a close kinship with Israel.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

Can You Rediscover Nothing?

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” don’t tend to discuss celebrities. Frankly, Sadie already does such a wonderful job of it; we’d only look bad by comparison.

And we must say that we find gushing over assorted A-Listers and B-Listers a tad sordid. We’d much prefer to take on, say, inept collegiate op-eds. Yeah, that’s much classier.

Today, however, we decided to drop our usual shtick and mention a recent article that pertains to one Paris Hilton, perhaps the most famous woman in the world for doing nothing. (She’s kind of like the Calvin Coolidge of female heiresses. Only not from Massachusetts.)

Now, given how little we keep up with celebrity culture (we use that word in the anthropological sense, of course), you must forgive us, dear reader, if we are making a fuss about old news. No, we’re not going to wax distraught over the break-up of Genesis—our news isn’t that old. (And we surely wouldn’t be distraught about that.) Still, we may be a bit behind the times. So bare with us (as Paris herself might).

A recent on-line story in the gossip pages of The Sun informs us that Paris Hilton made a fairly interesting claim on the feculent “Regis & Kelly” television program. According to Beci Wood, the Sun “author” responsible for this puff-piece, Ms. Hilton “has put herself on a one-year sex ban.”

You see, Ms. Hilton believes that “steering clear of all sexual activity will help her to ‘rediscover’ herself.” Apparently, she claims that her previous lasciviousness has hindered her development.

Naturally, a couple of things come to mind:

1) Paris Hilton isn’t a virgin? Darn, you could have fooled us. Next you’ll tell us that Britney Spears puts out. What a shame. We weep for the future.

2) A year without sex? We speak for most of the male crack young staffers when we say: Uh, that isn’t exactly news. If it is, we should be on the A-List. And most of the distaff staffers are at least B-Listers.

3) Ms. Hilton’s drive to “rediscover herself,” if that isn’t a synonym for something untoward, is certainly noble. But, given what she has to “rediscover,” she may just want to go back to fornicating like a rabbit.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

Eat Our Dust, Bitches

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have been so wrapped up in sundry scandals du jour—illegal immigration, the situation in Gaza, Tom Cruise’s existence—that we haven’t even taken note of an important milestone. No, we’re not referring to the continued—and impressive—vitality of Art Buchwald, though we do wish him well.

Rather, we mean that recently our humble “weblog” passed a semi-important marker of sorts. That is to say, we’ve reached the 150,000 “hits” mark. This puts us in the storied 150,000 Club, which is much like the Mile High Club, only not as lascivious and without the membership of John Elway. Double drat.

As you might imagine, dear reader, we’re pretty pleased with ourselves. When we started this humble “weblog” many moons ago, we never dreamed of this kind of vitality. Of course, we’ve never had particularly outrageous dreams.

Sure, Glenn Reynolds—Al Gore’s famed Instapundit—may receive more than 150,000 “hits” per day. (Or, as we like to say, per diem. Mighty classy use of the Latin, isn’t it?) Although we’ve made our way past 150,000, this doesn’t mean that we’re exactly shining stars in the World-Wide Web firmament.

Further, we suppose we ought to mention that around 149,000 of those 150,000 “hits” come from the crack young staff itself, as we’re very fastidious about checking our “website.” In fact, you might want to call us a bit self-impressed. Others do. And, yes, we self-impress easily.

Still, we suppose that we ought to take a moment to thank the handful of people who have e-wended their e-way to our humble “weblog” and chosen not to send us hate mail. It is for you, precious friend, that we have begun this “weblogging” enterprise in the first place. Without you, our “website” would answer a famous Zen query: If no one reads a “weblog,” does it exist? (Perhaps we’ll have to ask Sullywatch that.)

Frankly, esteemed reader, we can’t thank you enough. You have made your way through mountains of glaring grammatical errors, poorly-wrought arguments, and clunky prose, all to take in the vaguely useless animadversions of the crack young staff. And, boy, it was well worth it.

What can you expect in the next round of 150,000? To be honest, probably more of the same: Vapid commentary, tasteless yuks, and barbs hurled at Phil Collins.

Ah, yeah: That’s just what the doctor ordered.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

Calling Their Immigration Bluff

For anyone unaware of its existence, Cambridge, MA is home to some of the most snotty, self-righteous folk this side of Berkeley. A long-time confidante of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” once referred to residents of Cambridge as the equivalent of breakfast cereal: Once you are done with the fruits and the nuts, you are left with the flakes.

As befitting a locale with a large quotient of holier-than-thou radicals, Cambridge has declared itself an official sanctuary for illegal immigrants. The councilmen of Cambridge have apparently taken time away from their grueling schedule of condemning President Bush and other things that are obviously beyond its purview, and decided to wax sanctimonious about immigration.

Naturally, Cambridge is a fancy-pants town that must be home to very few illegal immigrants: It’s too darn expensive for the average $3 an hour worker. After all, who hops across the border for better access to soymilk? Not many, we’d wager.

It was with great joy, then, that we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” spied a story in The Boston Globe pertaining to this typical display of Cambridge sanctimony. As Yvonne Abraham reports, a group called Project USA plans to set up billboards countrywide that lure illegal immigrants to Cambridge. Ms. Abraham tells us:

The proposed billboard would read: ``Attention: Illegal Aliens. Cambridge, Mass. is a sanctuary city. For help getting there, contact projectusa.org/NJ-mass transit."

We know what you are thinking, dear reader: What a gas! Even though this is obviously a joke—we’re sure that illegal immigrants won’t overrun Cambridge—it’s nice to see someone humorously calling Cambridge’s bluff.

Naturally, though, the deeply serious folks in upscale Cambridge don’t see it this way. The Globe reports the following:

[Cambridge Vice Mayor and State Representative Timothy] Toomey derided [the Project USA] initiative, saying he is motivated by racism.

“It would almost be comical if it wasn't so scary," Toomey said. “These people have an agenda, and it doesn't include people of color, and it's as simple as that."

Ah, yes: The racism card. Pardon us if we’re not shocked that Rep. Toomey has sunk so low.

Should we remind Rep. Toomey that Project USA is troubled by illegal immigration, not immigration per se?

This all calls to mind the famous definition of a racist: Someone who is winning an argument with a liberal. And, sadly, it is Toomey’s phony charges that sully legitimate charges of racism.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

Encouraging Xenophobia

The July 3 number of The New York Times contains a full-page advertisement from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Although such an ad may seem like an extraordinary expense for a non-profit organization, don’t worry: We’re pretty sure the Carnegies can afford it.

Titled “Immigrants: The Pride of America,” the full-page spread is clearly aimed at influencing the current debate on immigration in this country. To this end, it offers the following sentiment:

The United States of America remains a land of immigrants. Andrew Carnegie, who founded the Carnegie Corporation of New York in 1911, was an immigrant from Scotland. We at Carnegie Corporation salute his legacy, along with the contributions of the millions of other immigrants who have made, and continue to make, our nation strong and vibrant.

And on it goes in this fashion. Naturally, this is all pleasant yet specious: Our nation’s elected officials are debating the proper policies regarding illegal immigrants; no one outside of Pat Buchanan’s lunatic fringe has a beef with legal immigrants. But, hey, what’s a little grandstanding when it makes you look magnanimous and open-minded?

All of this, you might well imagine, is pretty typical fare for a non-profit advert. But it gets odd: In order to hammer home their message about the essential greatness of immigrants in the USA, the folks at the Carnegie Corporation also offer a series of little pictures in the ad, each presenting the head-shot of a famous (or semi-famous) American who is an immigrant.

So, what’s odd about this, you may be asking yourself? Well, just take a gander at a few of those selected from the line-up: Madeline Albright, Deepak Chopra, Iman, Isabel Allende, George Soros, Gene Simmons.

This list is supposed to warm up the American people toward immigrants? Did the fellows at the Carnegie Corporation think this through properly?

We mean, come on: A former secretary of state who resembles a penis more than most penises do, a pseudo-intellectual guru, an obnoxious model, a couple of radical nutters, and the self-important, sex-offending doofus from Kiss? Is the Carnegie Corporation attempting secretly to turn us into a bunch of nativists?

All that’s missing is Wehrner von Braun. That great American.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

Unsolicited Advice to a North Korean Tyrant

As the entire world must know by now (save, of course, Paris Hilton), Kim Jong-il, the authoritarian nightmare in charge of the failed police state known as North Korea, fired off a few test rockets, including one technically possessing the range to land in the western United States. The talking heads, naturally, have been all abuzz over this, and much ink has been spilled regarding how to handle the latest bad deed of this pint-sized kleptocrat.

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” magnanimous lads and lasses that we are, decided to forgo the typical braying about the menace of North Korea, in favor of offering a little unsolicited advice to this Joe Pesci of world leaders. As we always say, if you can’t help ruthless maniacs, whom can you help? Oprah?

As such, we decided to send the following missive to Kim Jong-il (and, yes, we have his address—that’s one of the perks of being Internet bigwigs):

Dear Kim Jong-il:

PS: Also, Kim’s kind of a girly name. Just thought you ought to know.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

Luddite “Webloggers”

As regular readers of this humble “weblog” undoubtedly know, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” consider ourselves fans of The New Republic, one of the most reasonable outposts for responsible liberal commentary. And recent scandals on Al Gore’s World-Wide Web certainly haven’t altered our view of TNR one iota: After all, they’ve been busy chiseling away at the Daily Kos, one of the most unreasonable outposts for irresponsible liberal non-thought.

Add to this Martin Peretz’s recent excoriation of Nannerl Keohane, the vapid, self-promoting academic administrator angling for the top position at Harvard:

When Nannerl Keohane was elected a fellow of Harvard College, she told some press flack that she was “enthusiastic about the prospects of working with President [Larry] Summers.” But it took her hardly more than a half-year of membership on the Corporation before she began to maneuver to put an end to Summers’s presidency.

But who is Nannerl Keohane? In the mean Cambridge game…of electing people to “the academy of the overrated,” Keohane will always win by a landslide. She is known as a scholar, but I am not sure why. She displays nothing resembling erudition about anything. The book to which she owes her reputation—I think it was her Ph.D. dissertation—was published 26 years ago. But she is a recognizable type in the academic cosmos: the professor who disguises mediocrity with status. She is not an intellectual; she is a dignitary.

Oh, how delicious! And how true! Mr. Peretz need only add that Keohane, who managed to land gigs as the president of Wellesley and Duke, is a believer in virtually all the shibboleths of the academic Left. Clearly, she’ll try to sell herself as the un-Summers in order to become Harvard’s next leader.

But, general enthusiasm for TNR aside, we would be remiss if we didn’t mention that the magazine sometimes gets things quite wrong. Like that whole backpeddling on the liberation of Iraq thing. It really left us with less respect for their spirited call for intervention in Darfur.

But surely we can point to other errors. In the June 26 number of the magazine, one Christine Rosen offers the article “Technobabble,” a hit piece on Glenn Reynolds, the Internet’s famed Instapundit. In the course of her excoriation—in which Ms. Rosen likens Mr. Reynolds to Edward Bellamy, of all people—she offers the following sentence:

In fact, techno-utopianism is the one sentiment that unites both left and right in the blogosphere.

To which we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” respond: Not true, not true.

Sure, our humble “weblogging” outfit may be slightly outgunned by the likes of Glenn Reynolds, but we must inform you nonetheless that we are not “techno-utopians.” Far from it.

Actually, we pine for a return to feudalism—the kind of simpler, agrarian world that delights Roger Scruton and Victor Davis Hanson. Butter churners, stocks without the stock market, chastity belts: What’s not to like?

After reading the works of Noam Chomsky, we’re entirely convinced that capitalism can’t work and that America is the most malignant “failed state” of them all. (We wonder why he still lives in the US, though. Doesn’t he have enough money to flee to a less troubled country, like Rwanda?) Since Communism seems not to work either (sorry, Perry Anderson), obviously feudalism is the only answer.

As such, we hope that Goodie Rosen will take back her vile slander against the greater “weblogging” community. Some of us don’t dream of hovercrafts and smell-o-vision. On the contrary: We long for catapults and cannonballs. In fact, if we could get our hands on Ms. Rosen, we’d invite her to a duel.

Or, failing that, the local Renaissance festival.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

More Palaver from the Gray Lady

A long-time confidante of the crack young staff—who considers himself a man of the Left—once referred to New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof as a moron whose heart was in the right place. Mr. Kristof’s July 4 column in the Paper of Record does nothing to gainsay the moron characterization, but it does cast doubt on the location of his ventricles.

In this installment of the Gray Lady, Mr. Kristof takes time off from his busy schedule of writing columns dedicated to showing off his good deeds. Giving money to Thai prostitutes to change their lives; rescuing young girls from Third-World hell holes—what good are these things unless you advertise them? As far as Mr. Kristof is concerned, it seems, none at all.

Naturally, if Mr. Kristof takes a break from self-publicizing his own virtue, the matter he’s discussing is a big one. And, in this particular column, it is rather weighty: It’s another pathetic attempt to exonerate the Times for publicizing the SWIFT story.

Now, to be fair, Mr. Kristof’s piece contains this bit of semi-reason: “The more recent disclosure about bank transfers seems to me a harder call. The program seems both legal and sensible, and it would be a setback in the unlikely event that bankers backed off in the glare of publicity.” But this, alas, is as far as Mr. Kristof gets with rationality at his side.

In fact, in the very next bit, Mr. Kristof informs us:

So, I might have made that decision [i.e., about publicizing the SWIFT program] differently. But so far there is no evidence that the banking story harmed national security….

Huh? There’s “no evidence”? And what kind of evidence does Nicholas D. Kristof expect there to be in two weeks time? This isn’t like rescuing a Third-World sex slave, for crying out loud.

As if this weren’t bad enough, Mr. Kristof then goes off to Tangentland, the official locale of pathetic Gray Lady apologists. He offers a tired retread of the usual “Oh yeah, well other people did it” argument.

Dear reader, please note that when you tout the “Oh yeah, well other people did it” rationale, you have lost the fight. It should be obvious that a thief who excuses his actions by noting the existence of other burglars has not presented strong exculpatory evidence.

Yet this does not stop Mr. Kristof from raging at Senator Pat Roberts, whom Kristof claims has also damaged national security. To which we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” respond: That’s irrelevant, you dolt.

Overall, Times staffers have engaged in umpteen pseudo-apologias for the SWIFT disclosure. And all of them have been laughable. Isn’t it time to stop?

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

Joseph Hughes: The John Hughes of the “Weblogosphere”

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” are oft told that those of the political Left are more capable of nuanced thought than their opponents. Whereas, apparently, right-wingers are a bunch of knuckle-dragging Neanderthals uninterested in examining matters beyond the black and white, leftists revel in more sophisticated political analysis.

If you ask us, this is complete nonsense: Most people seem to follow politics in the same way they root for baseball teams. That is to say, they are unflagging partisans, capable of spitting back whatever knee-jerk arguments “their side” is currently spewing. Hence the manifest irrationality of so many political conversations between those of opposing views.

Not so, thunder our “progressive” friends. To them, goons on the Right show their intellectual inferiority by clinging to dunderheaded turns-of-phrase like “the axis of evil.” Leftists, on the other hand, realize that Iran, Saddam’s Iraq, and North Korea are actually Valhallas; the US and Israel are the real sources of all evil.

We know what you are thinking: Boy, that’s a heck of a lot more nuanced.

We contemplated the speciousness of left-wingers’ self-advertised political sophistication anew upon reading a particularly inept “post” penned by a progressive “weblogger.” Joseph Hughes, the “web” proprietor of Hughes for America, likely believes that he’s a serious thinker whose intellect is far superior to that of conservatives.

And yet, a gander at his entry “They’re all Ann Coulter” demonstrates that he’s about as sophisticated as a John Hughes movie. He may believe that he’s the Citizen Kane of the Internet, but he’s a lot more Pretty in Pink. For, in this particularly dimwitted rant, the 27-year-old Mr. Hughes opines:

Try as some Republicans might to halfheartedly distance themselves from Coulter, her cancer has completely overtaken their party. They're all Ann Coulter.

Hmmm. Ann Coulter is routinely pilloried (and rightly so) for failing to view contemporary American politics with even a modicum of nuance. To her, liberals are all treasonous weasels.

And Mr. Hughes brilliantly highlights the errors of Ann Coulter’s oversimplification—by suggesting that there’s no difference between Ann Coulter and anyone else in the Republican Party. Uh, can someone please stop Mr. Hughes from aiming that gun at his foot? He’s going to wind up hurting himself.

One can almost see Mr. Hughes make a mental checklist of Republicans:

Charles Krauthammer? Just like Ann Coulter. Edward Luttwak? Dead ringer for Ann Coulter. Alan Keyes? The black Ann Coulter. George Will? Ann Coulter with a penchant for Brooks Brothers ties. Frederick Kagan? A heavy-set Ann Coulter.

Ah, yes: We’re glad that Mr. Hughes has fully learned the errors of Ann Coulter’s ways. Surely he’ll never be guilty of gross oversimplifications. Or splitting infinitives.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

A Note to Wizbang Readers

In our latest “post” for Wizbang, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” mentioned that we were currently printing secrets about Bill Keller’s homosexual love trysts on our humble “weblog.” As we said in our “post,” although we seriously considered the harm that the exposure of such secrets may bring, we figured we’d print them anyway.

After all, Mr. Keller doesn’t seem too keen on aiding civilization against its enemies. If al Qaeda has a right to know about our secret operations designed to ensnare its members, why don’t ordinary Americans have a right to know about Mr. Keller’s same-sex marital indiscretions?

At the eleventh hour, however, we received an e-mail from a distraught John Murtha. “Please don’t embarrass Bill Keller,” he pleaded. And so we have decided to comply: Who would be so stupid as to ignore Congressman Murtha’s entreaties?

We can’t think of anyone either.

Posted at 12:01 AM | TrackBack