A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days

And he lives to tell the tale. I will admit that I never found Greenwald to be as impressive as Barnett finds him to be. His schtick consists of whining when people on his side get called names while vociferously engaging in name-calling of his own, making him the very hypocrite that he styles himself as denouncing. Barnett goes into Greenwald's tendencies to engage in insults before argument at length and he points out that many of Greenwald's insults are based--to put matters charitably--on lies. Read his article to see why it is that I won't be taking lessons in being polite and gentlemanly from Salon's favorite attack blogger.. I know that we have all had our moments of ill-tempered commentary, but most of us grow out of the habit after the fifth grade or so. Greenwald makes ill-tempered commentary a calling card and then whines incessantly when the same medicine is dished out towards him.

Hysterically and preposterously, Greenwald has annointed himself the High Protector of Journalistic Ethics, a position he uses to attack the media for focusing on issues that don't benefit his side of the partisan divide (and make no mistake, Greenwald most certainly is a partisan with a partisan ax to grind) while complaining that the media doesn't spend enough time covering issues Greenwald wants covered (again, many times for partisan reasons). To be sure, I would like it if more attention was paid to the rise in protectionism here in the United States and abroad, but I don't make it a point to attack the media on a regular basis for not catering to my every whim. And to be sure, there are issues Greenwald brings up that deserve more attention because they are indeed important. But unlike Greenwald, I understand that many of the "trashy" stories he blames the media for giving too much airtime to get that airtime because they are stories about famous people. Additionally, I understand that various weightier stories don't get as much attention because they involve characters who are not as famous. That tendency on the part of the media cuts both for and against each partisan side. I don't like that tendency on the part of the media, but there it is and no one particular side profits from it. But Greenwald sees it as some kind of conspiracy to cut out of public discussion issues that Greenwald thinks are important and he uses the issue as an excuse to be sanctimonious and insulting towards those who don't deliver All Greenwald News, All The Time.  

Greenwald expends more verbiage covering paltry ideas than any blogger around. Every post is War and Peace and basically regurgitates the above lines of attack and whining. War and Peace is wonderful to read. But only if the writer is Tolstoy. When posts of epic length are written by manifestly untalented writers to convey empty and shallow arguments, reading them not only gets tiresome, it gets neuron-destroying. I am always on the lookout for good left-of-center blogs because I like being challenged. But once Greenwald's schtick is discovered, one stops being challenged and starts being bored. And of course, it is fundamentally impossible to maintain any degree of respect for someone who would do this. Here's a hint: If a blogger has to invent dramatis personae in order to spread his fame and glory far and wide, that blogger is full of hot air and ought not to be read or listened to.

Thus it is with Greenwald. Dean Barnett reminds all who need reminding that we have better things to do than to concern ourselves with him. For that matter, Dan Drezner does as well, with evidence that should put the lie to any contention that Greenwald is a worthy or impressive intellectual adversary. Before I get accused of not having listened to Barnett's and Drezner's wise counsel, I shall go ahead and take their advice. Starting . . . now.