January 3, 2006

Blog style tips for the new year.

Evan Shaeffer comes up with ten New Year's Resolutions for bloggers, especially law bloggers. He mentions me a couple times, in the context of recommending blogging on a variety of topics. I'd just say there are two kinds of blogs, the kind that pick one topic and stay on it and the kind that range over whatever topics the blogger feels moved to write about. One person might write both types of blogs. For example, lawprof Stephen Bainbridge has his wide-ranging blog and then a single-topic blog. And his single-topic blog, nicely, isn't about law. It's about wine. Do I have a specialized interest of the sort that I'd want to break out into a separate blog? I certainly wouldn't segregate the law material.

I actually had a separate blog for a while, and I used it for very lightweight, chatty material. I stopped because the software trial license I was experimenting with expired, and I was happy enough mixing up this blog with serious and very easygoing material -- you know, the kind of stuff that makes certain bloggers rail against me. Ann Althouse, who's supposed to be a constitutional law professor, wrote this, about nostrils, nostrils! Hey, I pick my topics, and, if I want, I can pick nostrils.

17 comments:

Gregg said...

Some of us read this for the "nostrils" posts and tolerate the law stuff. You have a great balance, please don't change a thing!

Ron said...

Well of course you pick nostrils...that's what they're for...

But not in the car.

vienalga said...

Speaking of topics, (yours are excellent) the NYT had a great article about how a couple of women in Madison are beating the pants off traditional realtors and their high commissions. They're at FsboMadison.com (FIZZboh). Check it out...

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Ron: Continuing your Seinfeld meme....

GEORGE: Was there any nostril penetration?
JERRY: There may have been some incidental penetration. But from her angle she was in no position to make the call.
GEORGE: So let's say in her mind she witnessed a pick. Okay, so then what?
JERRY: Is that so unforgivable? Is that like breaking a commandment? Did God say to Moses thou shalt not pick?

Nostril penetration....heh.

reader_iam said...

Ann, thanks for the referral! Very timely, indeed!

reader_iam said...

I enjoyed looking at your old "other" blog, too. Familiar, but different, too. Interesting.

XWL said...

Damn time difference!

I was going to make the same joke Ron did with the second comment.

I guess we share pet peeves.

AnechoicRoom said...

Boogers and the forcefield of invisibility. Wherein drivers of bigbuxlux autos believe they are invisible, completely. To one and all. And in that singular moment, for whatever reason, one just happens to glance over while in traffic (whether moving or stopped). And the driver digs for gold.

Can I sue?

Jack P Toerson said...

I don't care as long as it doesn't hurt to read it.

miklos rosza said...

The balance seems fine to me (or I wouldn't be here), though naturally I have my own hobbyhorses and would be pleased if you noticed them and posted forthwith.

Europe, for instance. There's a piece in the New Criterion by Mark Steyn about where demographics are leading things over there.

But you do what you do, you are what you are... (have you noticed how popular it has become to say "It is what it is"? Is this somehow derived in a way from Frank Stella's famous statement about his art?)

Ron said...

XWL: You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but your pet peeves pick people for their personal predilictions, perhaps...

Matt Barr said...

The sadness of lost opportunity! The last word of your post should so have been "noses."

Tony said...

Hey!!! I was googling for "nostrils" and ended up on this law blog!!!

Ann Althouse said...

Matt: I assure you I was in full control of my imagery. No sledgehammers are required for the readers of this blog. I presume!

Ann Althouse said...

Tony: Were you really Googling for nostrils? Because... why??

brylin said...

Nostrils are most often picked by crotchfruit.

John in Nashville said...

As the proprietor of this blog, you can of course pick nostrils as a subject. It heightens the irony when you fault Senator Clinton for hesitating to comment on the President's decision to order the NSA to bypass the warrant requirement for wiretaps.

By the way, what is your take on whether Jack Abramoff is/was or is/was not a Republican lobbyist?