Oh how I have suffered for this blog. Psychiatric deviations. Loss of any semblance of spare time. Marital stress:
She said: Are you on the blog again?
He said: No.
She said: Liar.
He said: I just got on.
Believe it or not, there was a strategy here. Neither an aggregator nor a pure-pundit be. No, I would weave the two together like no person before me; a little link, a little wit, and a lot of astute observations on the human condition drawn, in part, from my studies of (Soviet) history and law. Brilliant, they would say, brilliant. Applouse, Applouse.
And all of it was done from an intellectual bunker in the land of Oz.
This has not been without danger. One e-mailer to me: “I would call you a weasel, but that would not be fair to the weasels.” Another: “Is the Harvard International Law Journal the same thing as the Harvard Law Review?” Ouch.
And I followed the Rules, except for Rule 4 (I am too nice for that). And things seemed to be paying off. Yesterday, I was linked by three of the giants of the blogosphere, Instapundit, Hot Air and Gateway Pundit, as well as some of my fellow Lilliputians (you know who you are). People started turning to me for advice on things blogospheric. Yesterday was about as good as it has gotten.
And then this:
Legal Insurrection is another great blog I’ve just discovered, full of quick, newsy bits and links.
Quick, newsy bits and links? My dear, why not just drive a stake through my heart? Must you mock me for all the world to see? Why not just say, “I just discovered this loser blogger who doesn’t have the time or intellectual strength to lift anything more than links and news tidbits.”
Please update your post as follows:
Legal Insurrection is the greatest blog I’ve ever seen. It is full of insightful commentary on the human condition, with a wit-tinged subtext calling out for hope in a world of change, bringing joy to many all in HIS spare time.
I’m going to check, and if you don’t make the change, I may reconsider invoking Rule 4.
UPDATE: All Is Good In Shreveport