If the Internet is all a bunch of bad, dangerous pseudo-journalists and pornographers, with malware and terrorists lurking in the depths, as opposed to, say, project gutenberg, then why not shut it down, or force it to say exactly what we want it to?

If the young people of our country are all dumb, spoiled, and amoral, unable to appreciate our fine Western civilization, maybe they need the kind of disciplined education they can get in our glorious armed forces. In, say, Iran. Or Korea.

Not that the Bissingers of the world want to curtail our freedoms, mess up the unprecedentedly useful Internet, or screw over the youth (at least, I didn't think so until he suggested getting rid of the 1st Amendment). But they might not mind so much when somebody else suggests doing those things, because they don't know about the good side of the Internet, the value of constitutional rights, and the intelligent, good people under 30. They don't know how much "Western" civilization was made possible by an entire planet of innovators, either.

They don't know, because they don't think they have to. Ignorance is arrogance.

It is such a relief to hear somebody like King, who is not (with apologies, King) a member of the young generation, sticking up for us and saying he doesn't believe the anecdotal evidence about idiot children, he's seen some good stuff on the Web, etc.

.....who teaches writing to the younger set, I yield to no one in my capacity to be appalled at the rising generation and its seemingly concerted attack on literacy. And even so, everything King says here is exactly right. Particularly the historical context: there have been complaints about the younger generation and the breakdown of all that is civil and good at least since ancient Greece, and yes, the pamphleteering of the 18th century (when the First Amendment was adopted) WAS the internet, basically, just without computers. Anyway, brilliantly put.

Here it is. Judge for yourself.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You thought it was some long, tedious, convoluted thing, didn't you?

Someone made a hilarious comment over at www.firejoemorgan.com that I thought worth repeating:

"I'm pretty sure John Adams tried to get rid of that whole pesky 1st Amendment thing with the Alien & Sedition Acts and he got his [rear-end] rightfully handed to him."

Constitutional scholars agree that had they been the "Mike & the Mad Dog Acts" there would be no complaints.

"The bad blogs -- the ones that privilege glib snideness over reporting and analysis -- are the rule. They're also the most popular."

That's what I think is so funny about a guy like Leitch taking on these old-media types; that quote applies 100% to Deadspin (full disclosure: I am a regular Deadspin reader). I think half the problem is Deadspin being the poster boy for sports blogs when, to me at least, it's more a comedy blog than anything. It's the kid in the back of the class making fun of the sports world and media (with occasional liberal hipster earnestness thrown in for - I dunno... white guilt?).

It annoys me when "Olde Media" types treat Deadspin as honest-to-goodness sports reporting, and, even moreso, when Leitch (in defense of himself) tries to position the site as such.

I read Kaufman here for insightful commentary and sports stories I might not hear about elsewhere. I read Pete Abraham's Yankee blog for up-to-the-minute Bronx Bomber news. I read Deadspin for snarky comments on sports news and ephemera as well as unflattering pictures of athletes and/or media members at private events.

Like, King says, 90% of everything is crap. Everyone wants the kids to read more books (I even get on my wife for not reading enough), yet the absolute tidal wave of crap you have to fight through at your local bookstore just to find something worthwhile is astounding. For instance, I went into my local Border's last week only to find they had no Dashiell Hammett in stock, nor had the kid at the counter heard of him.

As always, the lesson is: it's not the tools you use, but what you build with them.

Bissinger's attacks on bloggers parallel those issued by the The Beltway Vanguard formerly known as The Fourth Estate.

Whether it's sports, politics or any other area of interest, what the critics are railing about is always the same: the democratic spirit of blogging.

The hostility of the pro's isn't rooted in a love of writing or expertise, but in the very real threat of being outperformed by the Average Joe's and Jane's who are supposed to be deferential, slack-jawed idiots. Adding insult to injury among the Elite Set, most bloggers aren't motivated by financial rewards like The Big Boys & Girls. Financial considerations equate to restraints, and bloggers have few compared to their resentful, self-aggrandizing betters.

I watched Bissinger's rant when it aired, and, after I got over the shock of his cartoonish apoplexy and street thug behavior, it was easy to understand its origin. Like a lot of overpaid boneheads with a megaphone, the man is terrified - and not without reason.

Is like getting into a fight with your buddy over watching fishing on TV.

When i first came to the paper in '73, we had @ 60 typewriters or so desked around the newsroom. Periodically, you had to change or reverse the inked ribbons.

Later, there came the IBM Selectric, the ones came with cartridge spheres.

But soon after, arrived VDTs. The first generation of electronic publishing, replacing the hot type cold type metal printing machine technology.

It took @ 2 years for the computer crew to perfect the process and fix all the program glitches.

Then after we could go to press electronically. It had no effect on the writing or the typing or the journalism or any other aspect or quality.

I'm not sure what Mr Bissinger is so unhappy with.

If we back then could have finished a story and immediately read our readers' reactions, it would have ecstasy.

I've maybe only browsed a

@ 40 sites on this net so far.

If something published doesn't please me, i just move on.

Occasionally on Salon i've seen topics elicit masterful and unique responses quite as good as the story which inspired them.

The petty personal ping pong which occasionally springs up as a distraction or thread diverting encumbrance is not too painful a price to endure when an exciting convergence of wit and shared knowledge has commenced.

So, what's the gripe?

Freedom of expression?

The average mind's contribution coexisting peacefully with the more MENSA-ed?

To me, this haven is spectacular.

I get the impression that Buzz is warped by some variety of bigoted literary turf war jealously.

I saw him rant rudely on air that time.

Seemed he was consumed by a compound ego fracture.

Good writers i knew often had a madness factor entwined around their deadline exploits.

Creativity oft is taken very personally.

People are funny that way.

You'd have have thought an experienced practitioner would have known that coming in.

He must be routine wired in agony thrive.

Some artists suffer great pain.

Except when they are working.

Naturally, for them, social intercourse takes a toll.

Must be akin to the unrequited love syndrome inspired the Elizabethan sonneteers.

What we see here shows me that everyone is a good writer.

One way or another, by lack or knack, they always reveal themselves.

-30-