01 July 2008

It's not discrimination if you treat everyone appallingly.

As a group, the English are not generally more pleasant than others, but at least when they're unpleasant they tend to be more sporting about it. Thus, presented with GeekLawyer's Blawg Review #166, we can't say we weren't warned.

Those of us who've enjoyed GeekLawyer's writing over the years have had ample opportunity to steel ourselves for this edition of the carnival of legal blogging. We've come to understand that he's the Squidward in our Bikini Bottom, the Grinch in our Whoville, the Blawg Review family's black sheep who the judge swore wouldn't be eligible for work release before little Suzy's birthday party.

I digress.

Those of you who are just discovering him now will . . . not be bored. Scandalized perhaps, but not bored. Dan Hull described #166 best this morning:

Barrister-pundit GeekLawyer never disappoints . . . . Women, children, liberals, conservatives, Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, your Mom, Mormons, the religious right, Midwesterners, most lawyers and their spouses will not like it. Witty, very British--and vile.

To his list, Hull might have added Canadians. The anonymous ("mysterious and suspiciously evasive" according to GeekLawyer) Blawg Review Editor notes that although this week's host has recognized America's upcoming Independence Day, he's slighted today's Canada Day. Ed. offers a supplemental post in honor of neglected Canadian legal bloggers:
[T]his addendum is by way of apology to the many Canadian barristers and solicitors who follow Blawg Review hoping, nay praying, for some passing references this Canada Day . . . and some well-deserved link love from a popular law blog host.

In all fairness to GeekLawyer, however, he's not the first person to completely forget that Canada exists. Frankly, we Americans should all try harder. After all, they are our 51st state and they deserve our consideration, respect, and superior health care, eh.

Next week, Jonathan D. Frieden will host Blawg Review #167 at the E-Commerce Law blog, assuming there's anything left of Blawg Review then, that is.

No comments: