Law review articles: make them bloggier.

Law review articles are notoriously bad. They are self-indulgent and pompous. Authors usually go on and on about their private obsessions, and do not ever seem to acknowledge other points of view. They can be so silly!

The problem is not caused by the student editors. No, it is caused by pretentious lawprofs who refuse to engage with pertinent legal issues and instead go on and on about trivialities. And they are so sneering and condescending to their critics! They absolutley will not do what they most need to do, and that is explain complex legal issues in clear, down-to-earth language.

Law review articles should be more like blogs. None of these defects appear in blog writing! Look at my site, for instance. Would that all lawprof law review writers could be as honestly self-reflective as this blog.

UPDATE: Here is a funny picture of the American Idol judges! Simon has tape over his mouth. That is good, because he is as mean as Ted Kennedy. I love this picture. What a hoot!


UPDATE: I wish some of the more obnoxious commenters would stop posting nonsense about how I will not discuss the FICA statute. I have explained several times that it is very complex. Only partisans are saying that anything might be wrong with the NSA spying program. The Justice Department has persuasively argued that the president could not follow FICA because if he did, the program would have been unconstitutional. That is common practice and very logical. The matter is closed.

I am more than willing to listen to criticism. All of it will, however, be deleted.

UPDATE: I am thinking of doing a 365-minute podcast on the color orange. Why orange? Because yellow is too partisan. That is clear.