I may have to stop reading Blawg Review every week. No, it’s not
because of its cutesy title. It’s far more practical: The darn “carnival”
of law-related weblogs keeps adding to my to-do list of things to read
— and then, naturally, of things to write — at a pace that can never be
accomplished.
For example, Sean Sirrine hosted Blawg Review #46 at DeNovo this
week, and there are simply too many recent postings that sound inter-
esting and/or entertaining, not to mention the must-reads. (Go, see for
yourself.) I used to hope that Blawg Review would introduce me to one
brand new weblog each week. Now, to be honest, I hope it tempts me
to read no more than one or two postings each week.
This week, I’m going to check out Bruce MacEwen’s look at
BigLaw in 2015, at Adam Smith Esq. and follow the pointers
at David Jacobson’s Other Interests weblog, regarding the
lack of optimism among lawyers. (By the way, David surely
doesn’t have to worry about low-esteem — check out his
About page and “signature strengths.”)
However, I wish I hadn’t clicked on the AutoMuse
link at BR #46. To save myself aggravation, I am going to refrain
from explaining antitrust law, competition policy, monopoly
power, conspiracy theory and consumer choice and welfare,
to E.L. Eversman, who seems to be a little confused in a post on
insurers and lower prices. Maybe the guys at Antitrust Review
weblog can educate old E.L. — including pointing out why the issues
raised are not really caused by the McCarran-Ferguson Act’s antitrust
exemption for the business of insurance. This former antitrust lawyer
(who spent a lot of time trying to get rid of that exemption) just hasn’t
got the time or the energy.
Link Love? No thanks. Before leaving the topic of Blawg Review, I want to
respond to Sean Sirrine’s plea that we all start “giving out permanent links” to
eachother again. Sean wants us to put more weblogs on Blog Rolls, when we see
a post that is well done. He likens the process to tipping for good service.
Sorry, it’s not for me. Perhaps it was because Blog Rolls seemed so gimmicky
when I started weblogging (meant to create a clubby feel and to goose search engine
placement), but I have never had one and don’t plan to start. As the number of law
weblogs multiplied, it became impractical to keep a list of every weblog that seemed
worth a look. And, once a list is started, pruning out the deadwood becomes rather
touchy, and distinguishing between their quality and scope is impossible.
Sean worries about law-oriented weblogs becoming static and “talking about the
same things,” but I still see lots of topics and choices — while wanting the best
weblogs to keep doing what they do best. Perhaps, this gets back to my opening
theme at the top of this post: Who has time for reading ever-more weblogs? When
do law students study? When do lawyers practice law? When do they have lives
away from their computers?
There are many ways for those in search of new weblogs to find them. Browsing
long and un-annotated blog rolls — created by bloggers who are promiscuous with
their Link Love — seems like one of the least efficient ways to do so. Taking a
look at the weekly Blawg Review is a pretty good place to start — but don’t feel
you have to “Read them all,” like Sean says. You don’t have to catch every
fish in the sea.
“MGStuff” Brevity is one of the best things about haiku. Here to
show you how to do it right is composer-professor-poet Hilary Tann:
on his daily walks
my father’s steps
shorter now
hotel room –
trapped
in reflections
“MirrorG”
queene anne’s lace
the tiny
dark heart
first
snow
then
rain
then
snow
first date
she buys an extra
lottery ticket
above the embers
fireflies
and stars
February 28, 2006
too much to read, too much to write
8 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Several good points. Thanks David.
a comment is yet
another way to tip
for good service
Comment by Kevin Heller — February 28, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
Several good points. Thanks David.
a comment is yet
another way to tip
for good service
Comment by Kevin Heller — February 28, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
Yes, a Comment can indeed be a tip, and I wish more folks could take the time to Comment, as you often do. Of course, a Comment can also be the tip an iceberg — or of a knife.
Comment by David Giacalone — February 28, 2006 @ 12:57 pm
Yes, a Comment can indeed be a tip, and I wish more folks could take the time to Comment, as you often do. Of course, a Comment can also be the tip an iceberg — or of a knife.
Comment by David Giacalone — February 28, 2006 @ 12:57 pm
Sadly, not timely in getting around to reading all of the things I should — the old “to do list” you mentioned being too long as it is.
Your post, David, sharply criticizes something I posted that ran in Blawg Review #46. Yet, you flatly say in that entry you won’t take the time to comment on what aggravates you about my post; you discuss how beneficial comments can be to the overall discourse of a blog; but you didn’t voice your criticism of my entry in any comments on my blog. I wish you would have. After all, I just might have learned something from a former antitrust lawyer who spent a lot of time trying to get rid of the MFA.
If you had submitted a comment, and given the opportunity for some dialogoue, you might have been pleasantly surprised to discover that I am not nearly as much of an idiot as you suggest.
Comment by E L Eversman — March 23, 2006 @ 8:19 pm
Sadly, not timely in getting around to reading all of the things I should — the old “to do list” you mentioned being too long as it is.
Your post, David, sharply criticizes something I posted that ran in Blawg Review #46. Yet, you flatly say in that entry you won’t take the time to comment on what aggravates you about my post; you discuss how beneficial comments can be to the overall discourse of a blog; but you didn’t voice your criticism of my entry in any comments on my blog. I wish you would have. After all, I just might have learned something from a former antitrust lawyer who spent a lot of time trying to get rid of the MFA.
If you had submitted a comment, and given the opportunity for some dialogoue, you might have been pleasantly surprised to discover that I am not nearly as much of an idiot as you suggest.
Comment by E L Eversman — March 23, 2006 @ 8:19 pm
Of course, if typos count, then you’re right, I am.
Comment by E L Eversman — March 23, 2006 @ 8:21 pm
Of course, if typos count, then you’re right, I am.
Comment by E L Eversman — March 23, 2006 @ 8:21 pm