ambivalent imbroglio home

« November 30, 2004 | Main | December 05, 2004 »

December 01, 2004

Why do you blog?

As some people have already noted, an article in this month's Student Lawyer magazine has something in common with this blog—your humble ambivalent blogger wrote them both. And since Student Lawyer has yet to get its own blog or enable any sort of feedback feature on its site (other than letters to the editor, of course), I happily offer this forum for your feedback on the article. Comment away! Specifically I wonder: What do you think of the general argument that blogs/blawgs are valuable for law students? More to the point, why do you maintain a blawg? Do you do it for any or all of the reasons the article discusses, or are there other reasons for your habit? Also, what about that whole “blawg” moniker? It's kind of cute, but is it worth anything more than that? Should we talk about law-related blogs as “blawgs,” or is the regular old “blogs” preferable? Are there other negatives to blogging as a law student that the article doesn't mention? Finally, thanks to everyone who responded to my calls for input on this article early last summer. As you can see, I basically just took the great things a lot of you said and wrote transitions between them; I'm just the messenger. Also, I had much more material than the magazine had space for, so if you sent in comments that aren't in the article, it's only because of that lack of space. Related food for thought: UPDATE: “Blog” is apparently the number one word of the year, according to Merriam-Webster (via AmbivaBlog, which shares me ambivalence about this, obviously). And in related law-blogging reading, see also What Weblogs Can Do For You, a brief primer for legal practitioners by Evan Schaeffer.

Posted 03:19 PM | Comments (12) | meta-blogging

You're a conlaw prof

You know you're a professor of Constitutional law when you tell jokes and then have to explaining them and then you still have to tell your listeners you're joking. Today a student commented that criminal defendants have a right to choose to make no case and instead depend for their freedom on the prosecutor failing to make her case. In response, my esteemed ConLaw II professor (who has probably been my favorite professor this semester both because he's so knowledgeable and because he just seems like a likable guy) said that reminded him of an old cartoon where two prisoners are talking and one says, “If my lawyer said 'no questions, your honor' once, he said it a hundred times.” The class was silent. So my good professor proceeded to explain that the cartoon was saying “no questions” meant “no defense” and that that meant the defense attorney wasn't doing his or her job. Still, the class remained silent, so the good professor shouted, “It's a joke!” Everyone laughed. Students are so well-behaved. Or maybe we're just all pretty humorless about now as finals loom.

Posted 02:26 PM | 2L

about   ∞     ∞   archives   ∞   links   ∞   rss
This template highly modified from The Style Monkey.