Eugene Volokh blogs about why he sometimes doesn’t blog. He’s speaking about academic legal bloggers, but the same applies to most bloggers, at least those who try to do a more than superficial analysis.

• How much time will be required to get up to speed on the topic?
• How interesting is the topic?
• Can I make a useful contribution to the debate?
• How much time do I currently have?

For example, the central questions in the Schiavo case are, to me, “is she dead?” and “did she do the equivalent of a living will?” Because I’m inclined to say yes to the first question, and no to the second, this becomes a somewhat pointless exercise requiring a lot of legal reading--not to mention guessing at what someone meant from an off-hand remark a decade ago. But I suppose I’m starting to blog.

While some commentators tried to tie this to the “right to die with dignity” movement for those who are terminally ill or otherwise desire to end their life earlier than normal, but are still able to make their own decisions, it doesn’t appear to be related to that. So it wasn’t worth it to me to finish my long-in-limbo article on the dangers of legalizing suicide when I could be writing other things, such as finally finishing my latest novel or writing other articles.

The same questions apply to the Walkerville Weekly Reader. Is this something I’m qualified to satire? Is the inherent silliness of this position already highly publicized? Then I’m not going to waste my time on it. This is probably why the Reader gets fewer articles during a Republican administration than during a Democratic administration.