Being a follow-up to Karl’s excellent post from earlier today, involving the other PW. It’s an outrage, he tells ya! Temerity! As if!!
Glenn Greenwald, who established himself as one of the leading leftie bloggers in the blink of an eye, is building a body of substantial published work almost as quickly. Crown is about to publish his new book, Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics, and big-time bloggers like Firedoglake and the Great Orange Satan are giving it a big push. The great thing is that this is an opportunity to get behind quality, not just ideology. As anyone who read his blog or reads his Salon column already knows, Greenwald’s writing is the ideal combination of passionate anger and clinical precision; instead of flailing away at his targets, he applies himself to laying out the facts with nearly surgical exactitude. In a world where the New York Times lets Jonah Goldberg off with an aw-ain’t-he-cute whiffleball review, and Publishers Weekly has the temerity to liken Greenwald to Ann Coulter, the idea of a blogospheric push to get Great American Hypocrites onto the bestseller list is something we can all get behind.
Great American Hypocrites: Toppling All of the Great Myths of the Republican Party
Glenn Greenwald. Crown, $24.95 (320p) ISBN 978-0-307-40802-0With this provocative book, Greenwald, a former constitutional lawyer and author of A Tragic Legacy and How Would a Patriot Act, purports to expose the “rank myth-making and exploitation of cultural, gender and psychological themes†by the Republican Party. The author begins his attack by targeting John Wayne, whom he sees as a template for right-wing notions of “American courage and conservative manliness.†Wayne’s avoidance of military service and his string of divorces, both at odds with his public image, are emblematic in this account of a fundamental hypocrisy implicit in conservative mythologies. Greenwald goes on to argue that prominent Republicans from Ronald Reagan to Mitt Romney display the same hypocrisy in their public ideologies and personal lives. Shouldering much of the blame are the press and the media, including Matt Drudge, Ann Coulter, Chris Matthews and even Maureen Dowd, all of whom propagate popular attitudes about virile Republicans and effeminate Democrats. Despite the antipathy the author feels for Coulter, his writing is much like hers. More a partisan screed than a reasoned argument meant to persuade undecided readers, this repetitive text frequently devolves into personal attacks and vast generalizations. (Apr.)
Gleen(s) respond: I am not an Ann Coulter; you are an Ann Coulter!
Bonus blurb from Amazon.com:
“The peerless Glenn Greenwald.”
â€â€Josh Marshall
Perhaps he hasn’t met Ellensburg?
At least he got someone else to write the review this time.
I think.
And someone ought to let Mr. Marshall know that ‘peerless’ may not be the good thing he thinks it is.
Oh come on! John Wayne was an actor named Marion for Pete’s sake. Does someone actually think that “John Wayne” was real? Does anyone CARE? Can’t we be large minded enough to be grateful to Marion for giving us John Wayne?
– “Despite the antipathy the author feels for Coulter, his writing is much like hers. More a partisan screed than a reasoned argument meant to persuade undecided readers, this repetitive text frequently devolves into personal attacks and vast generalizations. (Apr.)”
– Wait. How did this last bit of reality slip past the Ed.’s? Sock heads will roll!!!
I’m gonna wait for the movie.
I get the feeling Coulter ought to be insulted by this.
OK, this is parody, right? Satire? I mean “surgical exactitude” fer cryin’ out loud? Fess up, who wrote this? One of the SNL scribes? Jib/Jab in anticipation of a gleen’s video? Wait, wait I know! Chappell’s making a comeback??!! Or, maybe, a new Police Academy movie?
Cuz, come on, nobody could seriously write something like that about gleens without paying their dues to the Screen Writer’s guild.
Right?
Anyone? Bueller?
I’m no Coutler fan, but she should be insulted to be compared to Greenwald.
“As anyone who read his blog or reads his Salon column already knows, Greenwald’s writing is the ideal combination of passionate anger and clinical precision; instead of flailing away at his targets, he applies himself to laying out the facts with nearly surgical exactitude”
Somewhere there’s a cabana boy with lime in his coconut. Hardened into a thick caustic cement paste.
surgical exactitude and the gleeeeeens? That is a recipe for a malpractice lawsuit.
The author begins his attack by targeting John Wayne, whom he sees as a template for right-wing notions of “American courage and conservative manliness.†…Greenwald goes on to argue that prominent Republicans from Ronald Reagan to Mitt Romney display the same hypocrisy in their public ideologies and personal lives…all of whom propagate popular attitudes about virile Republicans and effeminate Democrats.
I’m confused. Did The Five Faces of Glenns write this book, or did Perez Hilton? Will he dish on some more “virile” stars???!! Who’s gay? Who’s not?
And if the left are looking for someone to dispute the assumption of Democrats being effeminate (which, on its face, is a sexist statement by Greenwalds, as there is not one of us who would ever call Rosie O’Donnell “effeminate”), I’m not sure that a gay lawyer who moved to Brazil would be the ideal mouthpiece.
Watch it, bub!
Either “big-time bloggers” just took a major hit, or someone’s way overstated the importance of FDL. And, Great Orange Satan: WTF?
My one-sentence book review: one of the greatest strawman massacres of all time.
– “I’m not sure that a gay lawyer who moved to Brazil would be the ideal mouthpiece.”
– They say ita all in the breath control.
Nice. Publishers Weekly didn’t give him a glowing review and Gleen’s head explodes. He doesn’t refute what they say, just claims they have a bias against liberal writers to limit and control political dialogue.
How about presenting some of their reviews of conservative books for comparison Gleen?
Oh, I completely didn’t think of Kos as “The Great” anything, except for maybe “Dickhead”.
Ribbed Exercise Mat on a (third) message from a massive purple bruise I picked up over the weekend
Yeah, at least Coulter can bring the funny now and again.
I have no idea what that means. Does that make me a homophobe?
– The Frisco Marxocrat collective is preparing to burn down the city with the Olympic torch, but only to happy to abandon millions of Iraqi’s to secular/insurgent/Iranian genocide.
– Has any living being figured out the Rosetta stone to Lefturd “selective outrage”?
LIMEAPHOBE!
McGehee BECAUSE OF THE FEAR! FEAR OF CARRIBEAN DRINKS WITH FESTOONED STRAWS!
“Lime in the coconut”
“bats in the attic”
“cracks in the pumkin”
“unexpected bits of chitin in the biscuit”
“Weevils in the cotton ball”
“Beverly hillbillies in the penthouse”
&etc.
Also Lime has a dual meaning, it’s not only a tangy citrus fruit, but a traditional binder in cement which is so alkaline you had better wear gloves if you are repointing the front stoop.
Harry Nilsson.
Also, Pub. Weekly is hardly amember of the VRWC, which is another indicator of how muuch GiGi is marginalizing himself. Left out of this morning’s post — one week ago, his upcoming book was near the top of the Amazon chart; now it’s more like #270. Once the sycophants pre-ordered, the thing began to sink like a stone.
As anyone who read his blog or reads his Salon column already knows, Greenwald’s writing is the ideal combination of passionate anger and clinical precision; instead of flailing away at his targets, he applies himself to laying out the facts with nearly surgical exactitude.
Any fact that should lose its way and end up in a Greenwald screed is there purely by happenstance and does not reflect the author’s intent.
It’s a fair cop. I can’t stand limea beans.
Put the lime in the coconut, then you’ll feel better.
You know, I was pretty disillusioned, too, when I found out Sally Fields did NOT ACTUALLY FLY, and that Chad Everett had never stood up to challenged the establishment at a Major Medical Center.
Not to mention Lassie…was a lad, and was two or three dogs, and, not only not on a last desperate leg of her journey through Tennesse ( when I kept a lookout through the Chrylser tailgate window on a trip to grandmas), but actually HAD A HOME.
challenged – challenge, of course.
as in – I CHALLENGE YOUR HYPOCRISY!
Dan, that video link is going to cost you a fine of about…woo, 75 HUNDRED dollars, and your superdelegate status.
At least there were no interior shots of monkey bars.
Sorry, Sarah. I can’t watch video from work.
Next from gleens – Exposing the true story behind June Cleaver’s question, “Ward, weren’t you a little hard on the Beaver last night?”
I doubt the Beav is on teh Gleen(s)’s radar. ;-)
Sorry, Sarah. I can’t watch video from work
Yeah, tell that to the tribunal at your hate-speech trial. A Gorillas wall kept you from reviewing the intellegence you gathered. RIiiighgggt.
After reading Glenns’s whiny “Leave Greenwalds Alone!” rant, I am actually embarrassed for him. My six-year-old takes criticism better. He’s already shown he’ll be dishonest to defend himself. Now he tramples most standards of logic and reason so he can make his (for lack of a better word) point: Any criticism of Glenns is unfair and biased.
It’s unseemly and a bit creepy. I’m fairly certain he’s even unaware of the ludicrous-ness-ity-hood of saying that since book critics sometimes, well, criticize the most radically leftist elements of liberals’ books, then they are biased toward centrism. This is especially odd reasoning in light of Glenns’s main point that the Bush Administration is so radical and dangerous that they must be criticized in the harshest possible terms! So to sum up: Criticizing the radical left is prima facie bias, and criticizing the radical right (conveniently) is a moral duty. No wonder he’s cracking up under the strain of his responsibility.
If one even assumes Gorillas can provide meaningful Intelligence related to national security.
Oppressor.
“#Comment by McGehee on 4/9 @ 11:11 am #
LIMEAPHOBE!
It’s a fair cop. I can’t stand limea beans.”
Me niether.
Nor Brussels sprouts.
Evil little mutant cabbages, plotting to take over the world.
YUCK.
# 35,BBR
Who is radical left?
And who is making the argument that criticizing them is “prima facie bias” ?
sashal: Go to the link above and read how the gleens poops all over Pub. Weekly by showing all of the other poor radical lefties who have been besmirched by the horribly biased reviewers. (the “gleens responds” link.)
It’s to laugh!
I see. So Glenn is radical.
And he is whining that all he is criticized for is that he does not bash equally left as he does right, and he should wish the bombing of Washington Times building and poisoning of Scalia.
It is all big BS, my friend, false dichotomy.
If something is bad in Florida with hurricanes, should I level my arguments by saying that something is bad in Minnesota with with snow storms?
WTF?
Are you reading the same material the rest of us are, Sashal? Because that’s not the point of this at all.
Sahal, that depends. Do you pretend to be some sort of National Weather Service?
Rob, that is the point Glenn makes
SarahW, I pretend
But that’s not the point Karl’s making.
I know you’re a Gleen fanboi, but, really, try to keep up.
sashal: I’m sorry, my friend, but you completely missed the point.
When Greenwald receives a less than stunning revciew from Publisher’s Weekly (as pointed out above, not exactly a right wing thought machine) rather than answer the review by toughing upon and refuting the points of contention he attempts to show how they are without merit do to systematic bias against far left positions by other authors.
Virtually all other authors don’t attempt to argue with reviewers because of that whole “don’t pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel” truism. Glen’s ego is so inflated and so committed to outright dishonesty that not only does he have to answer, he also has to smear the reviewer as a partsan hack.
Again I say: It’s to laugh!!
I can buy that:
Virtually all other authors don’t attempt to argue with reviewers because of that whole “don’t pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel†truism. Glen’s ego is so inflated ….
Installment #2 is the heart-stopping expose’ behind, “June, I’m going upstairs to pack some fudge with the boys.”
It’s a weaselfight!
Iago Girl
Suppression of androgen secretion is AWESOME!
BDSM-June Cleaver’s question, “Ward, you weren’t too hard on my little Beaver last night, were you?â€Â
ECO-June Cleaver’s question, “Ward, were any little Beaver’s harmed in the making of our show last night?â€Â
SecProgg-June Cleaver’s question, “Ward, did Beaver replace my piss-christ picture with a family portrait again?â€Â
Homey-June Cleaver’s question, “Ward, you be gittin’ in my hooch wid dat Beaver shit, so you gonna chill samck-daddy?â€Â
This is vaguely reminiscent of when Andrew Sullivan chatted with Hugh Hewitt. Maximum defensiveness.
Greenwald cannot refute criticism by going point by point through it because that is not how he operates. As I stated earlier with respect to the memo from John Yoo, Greenwald did not attack the issue Yoo formulated, his research, or his analysis of the cited law. He merely disagreed with the conclusion and went to immediate outrage and bombast. Beyond a good vocabulary, Greenwald brings nothing to the table. If this is how he wrote as a lawyer, if this is representative of the Motions and Briefs he filed and the memos he presented, then it is for the best that he is no longer practicing. Not only would the other attorneys destroy him, but the judges’ long-suffering law clark would extract revenge for being forced to read and summarize Greenwaldian prose.
Ann Coulter SHOULD feel insulted. She still has the bigger cojones. I can’t see Gleen/Rick remaining calm in the face of flying food on his book tour. He would be seriously nonplussed!!!
I should add that after reading his response, he made the most vigorous attack on straw since the Big Bad Wolf.
“One finds these same platitudes in reviews of books by virtually every overly strident critic of the Right — such Naomi Wolf, Frank Rich and Molly Ivins, to say nothing of scholars such as Noam Chomsky and Tony Judt who have been more or less declared persona non grata in establishment circles for being way too far over the decreed line of respectability (no corresponding line exists for commentators on the Right — see e.g., Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and Coulter).”
emphasis added
Since there is always the possibility he could just be in it for the money, I won’t say Greenwald is an idiot. But his readers definitely are.
won’t say Greenwald is for sure an idiot, I meant to say
I’m reasonably sure Ann Coulter could kick Gleens asses.
Ihave just one more (Ha!) thing to say. Writing styles are drummed into you when you learn to write. Writing is a learned skill, and the styles are formalized in schools. It is hard to get out of the five-paragraph theme that was drilled again and again. It is very hard for lawyers to break out of the writing style that law school papers and exams drilled into us. IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is evident in Briefs and in Court Opinions. It is required in writing legal memos. Breaking lawyers from beginning an issue statement with the word ‘Whether’ or to break them from beginning any filing with the words “Now Comes (client)” is one of the hardest things to do.
The fact that a lawyer begins writing an article on a legal issue and not falling into a ‘lawyer style’ of writing concerns me. It is foreign to training (no IRAC?) and it triggers a caution flag for me, that nothing in the article can be taken as a serious take on the issue or the memo. It is a mere partisan polemic. Much as his his book is a partisan polemic, on pulp paper, to make a quick sale and then disappeer like all other books from other partisan bomb throwers left and right. It will not live beyond its year, it has no staying power, and will be gone frompublic notice before the apple blossoms come out in Michigan.
The pixels Protein Wisdom has expanded on this will have a longer life expectancy.
To summarize: Greenwald is a angry pansy. Possibly, he would win our support if he stopped blogging, handed the chore to others, took up a manly, of obscure hobby, used his joyless anger on people who disagree with him there, and asked us to help him in his war against these other people?
Nah, that could only work once.
Are you saying our pixels have expanded, Mikey NTH?
Never fret, barryL, Greenwalds has a large assortment of “others”.
Take that statue of a sword being hammered into a ploughshare, photoshop it to the truth being hammered into Gleen(s) book, and you have the proper response to this pile of excrement.
expanded, expended. What’s a vowel anyway?
BarryL: you are so far off you don’t even get a whiff of the cohiba. Try asking for Greenwald to address an issue as he was supposedly trained by his professors (a training that at least one bar association acknowledges he has). Try asking for honestey regarding a matter of policy. I know you have that in you – just reach down deep – not that, deeper – and you can find it.
I mean, far be it for one member of a profession to call out another member of a profession for addressing a professional matter in an unprofessional fashion. It’s kind of funny, but some of us took that oath seriously.
I’m pretty sure Gleen was not pleased to see his book described as a screed. A screed is a long tirade or harangue or ranting on a subject. Greenwald uses 500 words when 50 will do the job. Coulter is short and to the point. Different style altogether.
Once again, I won’t say Greenwald is for sure an idiot, but his readers definitely are, Exhibit A:
“Comment by barryL on 4/9 @ 5:15 pm #
To summarize: Greenwald is a angry pansy.”