GW Law Profs Blogging Like MadMEN

I noted the other day that GW's SBA seems to be getting its online house in order, but I would be remiss if I did not also note the veritable explosion of GW professors entering (or already in) the blawgosphere. As far as I know, blogging GW professors include:

• Paul Butler at blackprof.com
• Orin Kerr at The Volokh Conspiracy
• Spencer Overton at blackprof.com
• Daniel Solove at Concurring Opinions and Balkinization

Ok, so that's only four, but hey, what other school has that many? Yeah, University of Chicago maybe, since it just started its Faculty Blog, but that's kind of cheating, isn't it?

And speaking of blogging professors, why are so many of them male? Or to put it another way, why are so few female?

Ok, I am so wrong about GW's 4 blogging profs being even a little impressive. According to The Conglomerate, the U of Wisconsin Law School has about 16 faculty blogs, at least two of which are by women—Ann Althouse and Nina Camic. And, of course, Christine Hurt is another female professor blogging at The Conglomerate, so maybe there's more balance out there than I realize. Her institution, Marquette U. Law School, also has at least six faculty blogs, so again, GW's four is looking more anemic all the time.

Still, even if GW is not on the top of schools in terms of numbers of blogging profs, these four are four more than existed (or at least four more than I knew about) when I started school two years ago, so I consider this great progress. Blog on, GW profs, blog on!

Posted 10:47 AM | law school meta-blogging

Republicans on the Run

Have you noticed what's going on these days? Yubbledew's approval ratings continue to plummet (with key supporters drifting), and there are so many different scandals and investigations and indictments and criminal proceedings involving Republicans at the moment that I can't even keep up with it all. Some people have suggested this is just the kind of stuff that happens in a second term, and it's true that during the Clinton years we saw plenty of scandals, indictments, and investigations. But that only throws what's happening now into sharper relief b/c during the latter half of the Clinton years the Republicans took control of Congress and therefore had a much better position from which to launch investigations. What's most incredible about all of this is that the Republicans control every branch of government, yet they still can't stop the investigations and indictments. Oh, and now Republicans are at war with each other over the Miers nomination.

No wonder Yubbledew is once again pulling out the “be very afraid” schtick to beat us with, as Arianna Huffington notes:

Looking to bring back the Fear Factor that worked so well in the 2004 campaign, the president boldly declared that the U.S. and its partners “have disrupted at least ten serious al-Qaida plots since September 11 -- including three al-Qaida plots to attack inside the United States. We have stopped at least five more al-Qaida efforts to case targets in the United States or infiltrate operatives into our country.” Holy Moly -- that sounds impressive… and effective… and scary.

That is, until the details of exactly which “serious” plots the president was referring to came out. . . . In other words, it was a Top 10 list more suited to Letterman than a major presidential speech. . . . If this is the best the White House has, then I’m really scared. . . . When asked why the White House would include so many alleged, vague, and seemingly half-baked schemes in a triumphant list of thwarted terrorist plots, yet another federal counter-terrorism official said: “Everyone is allowed to count in their own way.” Especially if they are President of the United States. And have an approval rating of 37%.

The “be very afraid” routine may have gotten Bush elected, but it's looking pretty pathetic today. Can we have the 2006 mid-term elections now, please?

Posted 09:52 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | general politics