THMQ commentary - January 31, AD 2006.

We believe that The Hatemongers Quarterly (hereinafter "THMQ") ought to be one of the premier and most-visited blogs. Their humor is quite amusing (and sounds quite sophistocated) while their commentary, their point, is always spot-on. They describe issues in words that are ethereal and succinct. This is, without any doubt, one of Our favorite blogs. Ever. Anywhere. (If We were God, We would command all people to visit it every weekday. (Not the weekends because THMQ does not post on weekends. Verily, We would be the Most Merciful.))

An example of their skill, wit, and spot-on-edness, to coin a word/phrase, is this: "After all, what’s more progressive than infantilizing Palestinians? There, there, little Achmed: We know you can’t help yourself. Did the big bad hyper-power upset you again?" ("Those Peaceable Palestinians") In these few sentences, THMQ has been able to exemplify Leftist patronization of Arabs, while at the same time rightfully mocking it. This has been something that has bothered Us: while ostensibly promoting Arab people, the Left errs greatly in coddling Arabs and patronizing them. This also does a disservice by reinforcing inaccurate perceptions, beliefs, and propaganda by the Arabs, mainly that Western powers (mainly The United States and Israel) are responsible for their suffering. Not to mention, such coddling and patronizing is utterly demeaning.

In today's post ("The Official 'Hatemonger's Quarterly' January Academic of the Month"), THMQ posted a review by Augustus Richard Norton (THMQ's academic of January) of a book by Robert Fisk (whose name We shall not include). To show just how off Norton was, THMQ included a review by someone more astute: the second reviewer pointed out a number of glaring inaccuracies by Fisk in his book. Although it may seem that some of them are trivial, many of these inaccuracies are quite significant in import. This deeply concerns Us: it is well known to Us that the Left skews history, indeed, even reality in order to make it fit their deranged paradigms.

As one political science professor once said in a class We took, academics tend to believe that their theories are not wrong, but rather the world is. If, say, one has an economic theory that has not proved to be congruent with reality (just for a random example, let one consider Marxism), the academic would be wont to analyze why the world did not comply with the theory rather than analyzing how the theory ought to be modified or how it is wrong.

inna naHnu a'lamuun.