I’m still having a spirited discussion with Ann Althouse in the comments section to one of her AutoAdmit posts, and I’m laying into her a little bit. But just to show I’m not a completely hostile guy, I want to recognize the smashing job she did taking apart Glenn Greenwald in this post, one portion of which made me laugh out loud:

[N]obody really seems to find it odd or disturbing or objectionable at all — that day after day, Salon features a blogger who goes on and on in the most tedious way. . . .

During the last week, when I was traveling, I spent substantial time driving in a rental car…

Glenn G can’t say “last week.” It’s got to be “during the last week.” He can’t say “a long time,” he has to say “substantial time.”

…and thus had the opportunity to listen for large chunks of time to The Rush Limbaugh Show…

You know, Glenn G can’t just “listen” to the radio, he has to have “the opportunity to listen” to the radio. So you listened to the radio? Who cares if it was last week and the car was a rental car and you were not only driving you were also traveling? It’s like his little heart leaps every time he sees the opportunity to lard in a few more words, like a schoolboy assigned to write a 500-word essay.

More like a 10,000 word essay — but still: heh. That’s good stuff.

Althouse’s post has its faults, too. The Greenwald post that Althouse is criticizing contains one of the few passages in recent memory in which I have wholeheartedly agreed with Greenwald: a criticism of the inanity of Chris Matthews. Althouse says Greenwald is “tone deaf” to Matthews’s humor, whereas I agree with Greenwald that Matthews is just a buffoon who exemplifies the worst aspects of our terrible, trivial, herd-mentality, shameful excuse for a news media.

Also, Althouse reads something sinister into a Greenwald missing link that turns out simply to be misspelled, as one of her commenters points out to her (not that she bothers to correct it in the post).

But I can easily overlook these faults, because the criticism of Greenwald’s deadly and overwrought prose is just so well done. In fact, it was so much fun to read, I’m tempted to start making fun of his prose on a daily basis myself. The only thing holding me back is the realization that somebody could probably do it to me too . . .

I’d be excited about the news — if I understood what a “sanctuary city” is. For example: Tancredo slaps Denver with that label, but Denver denies it. I haven’t seen the language of the proposed amendment yet and can’t find it on the Treo — so I’m playing the lazy blogger’s trick and outsourcing the work to you.

My main post today is about the Sopranos. In case you’re not interested in that, discuss other things here. Some ideas:

• The takeover of Gaza by Hamas.

• Reid’s criticism of Petraeus as not in touch.

• Libby denied a reprieve from prison.

Have fun and be polite.

I alluded to this the other day, but I think it’s time for a more explicit discussion of the Sopranos ending. I’ve come to believe that it was a good ending, but I see little agreement with my point of view.

Even if I’m wrong, I think the negative reaction to the episode is a mistake. I’ll explain why.

Spoilers ahead.

(more…)