I get emails asking me for links, both free and for-pay, just about every day from folks looking for a little PageRank love. Here's an example of one I got today:
________

Hello,

I ran across your page on

http://blog.ericgoldman.org/

and would like to purchase a link in one of your individual posts. This is for a site related to [ABC].

My budget is $100 for a permanent link and can pay via PayPal. Here are some of the details of the link:

(1) We'd add one or two sentences into the post with a link to the [ABC] site. Since there are many [ABCs] offered, making the sentences seem relevant to your post is not difficult.

(2) There would also be one more link, to a .gov, .edu or scholarly reference site that relate to your original post topic. This way both links look normal and not out of place. If you had a post about [XYZ], then we'd find a .gov or .edu link giving [XYZ] advice.

Let me know if you are interested and I'll send over the rest of the details and give you the site we'd link to.
________

I said no to this, as I do to all such requests. However, it does boggle the mind that a single link might be worth $100 from a relatively obscure/low traffic site like mine. To contextualize this, it's 2.5-3x as much as I make from AdSense in a month from across my entire website and blogs (i.e., many thousands of pages). Of course, that could say something about how badly AdSense performs for me...

QVC, Inc. v. Your Vitamins, Inc., 2010 WL 2985801 (D. Del. July 27, 2010)

This case involves two competitive products. Lessman, the principal behind one of the products, posted 4 blog posts deconstructing his competitor's products. The competitor sued Lessman and others for false advertising and related claims. The court discusses introducing comments to the 4 blog posts as evidence:
_____

To the extent plaintiffs address implied falsity, they offer responsive posts to Lessman's blogs as evidence of actual confusion.FN14 (D.I. 34 at 5 (“no one has written to express relief that any cancer risk is abated by the small quantities of unabsorbabilityl”)) There are sixty-seven (67) comments to the 99% additives article FN15 and fifty (50) comments to the Revesterol article.FN16 Though many of these are negative to QVC (as compared to simply supportive of Lessman), only a few correlate a decision not to buy Nature's Code Hair with Lessman's particular statements as discussed above.

FN14. The parties have each submitted statements regarding the traffic on Lessman's blog. At oral argument, defendants confirmed that there is no way to determine the number of lawyer or staff visits to Lessman's site as compared to consumer visits. (D.I. 41 at 2) Notwithstanding, the number of “hits” on a given page are not indicative of actual confusion imparted by the substance of Lessman's messages. Insofar as the court does not reach the issue of harms to the respective parties, the court need not evaluate the evidence further. Plaintiffs' motion to strike defendants' submissions regarding website traffic is, therefore, denied as moot.

FN15. As of July 20, 2010. The 99% additives article was posted by Lessman in January 2010. All but two comments were posted in January 2010. One substantive comment (negative to Lessman) was posted in April 2010.

FN16. Certain individuals engaged in online conversations via the blogs and posted several comments; therefore, there were less than 67 and 50 total responders to each article, respectively.

Only three posts to the 99% article appear to address HA and/or cancer. One asks Lessman whether HA poses a risk in creams or lotions.FN17 Another generally reflects that QVC is “criminal” for posing risks to “people's health.” One reader stated that “I did read that HA was linked in some cases [to] cancers,” but stated that the “primary reason” for discontinuing the use of Nature's Code Hair was how it made her feel (edgy and anxious). Similarly, four reiterate the 99% number or the high percentage of additives contained in Nature's Code Hair. Only one appears to address silica, and it came in the context of a question to Lessman regarding the silica in Healthy Hair. None of the comments to the Resveratrol article relate a decision not to purchase Resveratrex® with the source of resveratrol or sugar content. FN18 The court finds that plaintiffs have not demonstrated a “likelihood of success” with respect to implied falsity on this limited record and, therefore, need not evaluate the remaining preliminary injunction factors. FN19

FN17. Lessman responded to this post that he can see no risk by HA in topical products. A later blogger thanked Lessman for this additional HA information.

FN18. Plaintiffs stated at oral argument that the blogs and videos at issue are linked-to on other media, such as Facebook®. It is unclear on this record the extent of such dissemination, and the court does not have before it any consumer comments from other websites.

FN19. The court need not definitively determine, therefore, whether blog posts should be deemed relevant and credible evidence (generally and, in this context, as evidence of consumer confusion)-an issue of first impression for this court. Blog posts such as those in this case may be more reliable than broad-based surveys, insofar as they represent direct feedback from consumers specifically interested in the product(s) at issue, although concerns regarding such posts' authenticity are not ill-founded. Courts have reached differing conclusions on the issue. Compare Blue Bell Creameries, LP. v. Denali Co., LLC, Civ. No. 99-594, 2008 WL 2965655 at *5 & n.4 (S.D.Tex. July 31, 2008) (declining to admit blog entries as evidence of actual consumer confusion in a trademark infringement case stating that they “lack[ed] sufficient indicia of reliability” and “[n]othing is known about the persons who made the entries, about whether they are related in any way to either party or whether they are describing true events and impressions”); with Volkswagen AG v. Verdier Microbus and Camper, Inc., Civ. No. 09-231, 2009 WL 928130 at *4 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 3, 2009) (allowing internet postings and blogs “suggest[ing] that consumers believe the Verdier vehicle is a [Volkswagen] product” as evidence weighing in favor of actual consumer confusion). See also, gen., Victaulic Co. v. Tieman, 499 F.3d 227, 236 (3d Cir.2007) (web pages must be authenticated before they can be admitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 902).

Just to reiterate the language in FN 19, the court says "Blog posts such as those in this case may be more reliable than broad-based surveys, insofar as they represent direct feedback from consumers specifically interested in the product(s) at issue, although concerns regarding such posts' authenticity are not ill-founded." This does present a new source of evidence for litigants compared to the information available pre-Internet, when it was hard to find consumers publishing their thoughts about various brands.

More on this topic:

* Online Word of Mouth and its Implications for Trademark Law
* Blog Posts Not Reliable Evidence of Consumer Confusion--Blue Bell v. Denali

This year, I decided to take my 7 1/2 year old son Jacob on a one-on-one bonding trip. I’ll take my daughter Dina on a similar trip when she gets a little older. In California, we are blessed with many top-notch kid-friendly tourist destinations. I chose the Mendocino coast, one of my favorite destinations anywhere, because I was pleasantly surprised how many good kid options it offered.

Let's start with the downsides as a kid's destination. A minor downside is that it's a 4+ hour drive from our house in Mountain View. There are closer destinations that don't require a half-day in the car. A more serious downside is that all of the roads getting to the Mendocino coast are twisty and not kid-friendly. We had to take a break on the way back after the Navarro River stretch of the 128 nauseated Jacob. Jacob ranked the twisty roads as his least favorite part of the trip. Another major downside is that fog is a constant fact of life along the coast, especially in July when the Pacific water is cold and it's in the 90s inland. So temperatures remained cool all day long right along the coast (and cold in the mornings), and we didn't get a lot of sun--even though it was a beautiful sunny day a few miles inland.

With that caveat, I'll narrate some of the things Jacob and I did in our 2 1/2 day trip. You can also see the photo album at Flickr.

Point Arena Lighthouse. Grade: A

Jacob has not previously shown interest in lighthouses, but frankly, who doesn't like lighthouses? The Point Arena lighthouse has a number of advantages, but the biggest attraction was climbing 125 stairs to the top of the 115 foot concrete cylinder. Jacob scrambled up the stairs like a mountain goat, reaching the top before all of the adults (many of whom huffed and puffed their way up). Note that the staircase is pretty narrow, so we had to stop a number of times to let opposite-direction traffic pass.

The old Fresnel lens is now on display in the small museum, so it's possible to get a good look at it too. Now, all of the work is done by a tiny light on the lighthouse top’s exterior. At the top, a docent provided some good color commentary; we then got to walk along the catwalk (I think he called it the "gallery") right below the lighthouse room for some excellent unobstructed views of the coastline. (The lighthouse room has the same views, but the windows were dirty). From the top, we watched a sea lion rookery just offshore and birds of prey (mostly turkey vultures) riding the wind currents over a nearby punchbowl. Overall, the tour within the lighthouse column took about 20-30 minutes, perfect for curious boys with typical attention spans of 7 year olds. We also poked around the museum a bit and the grounds as well. As a bonus, from the cliffs I easily spotted a whale within a few hundred yards of shore!

Admission was a little high for adults ($7.50 per) and a bargain for kids ($1 per). For the two of us, the $8.50 admission was an excellent value. For a larger group with multiple adults, the economics may be less favorable. Their hours aren't entirely predictable. Their website said they close at 3:30, but they were open to 4:30 on a weekday in July.

Overall, the lighthouse was a big hit. Jacob ranked this as one of his "highlights" of the trip.

B. Bryan Preserve in Point Arena. Grade: B+

In the middle of nowhere--Point Arena (population around 500)--and in the cool fogbelt along the Mendocino coast, is a globally important African game preserve, including 3 types of antelopes (kudu, sable and roan) and two types of zebras (Grevy's zebras and mountain zebras). Giraffes are coming next. The proprietors, Frank and Judy Mello, appear to be passionate African animal lovers with the time, money and curiosity to devote their lives to living a fantasy. Admit it--when you were young, you thought: wouldn't it be cool if I could live on a ranch with several dozen amazing African animals? For the Mellos, that dream is their reality.

Even better, the proprietors share the experience with all of us. They run daily tours at 4:30 to coincide with feeding time. Space is limited--they can only take as many people as they can fit in their Land Rover and truck--so reservations are essential.

The "tour" itself is a bit of a misnomer. This is a preserve, not a zoo, and it's run like a true mom-and-pop operation. There is no road signage or welcoming booth. You drive up the driveway, park next to the barn, and try to figure out where to go next.

The tour starts in the barn, where Judy gave us some background information on the preserve and each of the animals we would see. As props, she used taxidermied heads of the various animals. We then walked around the barn to see some mountain zebras, then climbed into the antiquated open-air Land Rover to drive around the preserve and see the other animals.

The result is like a bargain African safari. We had an up-close-and-personal encounter with dozens of majestic animals without having to travel 6,000 miles to Africa. The animals were just a few feet away, drawn closer to us by their dinner. The animals aren't tame, so for the most part they were behind fences, but this was still an intimate interaction. Judy let the kids toss some apples into some of the pens; Jacob gave several good tosses.

I downgraded the tour's grade as a kid-friendly destination for a couple of reasons. First, although Judy did OK as a tour guide, this was not a professional-quality tour. Rather, the Mellos are hobbyists sharing their hobby. Second, at an hour-and-a-half, the tour stretched Jacob's attention span. For him, I think once he saw one zebra, the marginal utility of the next zebra diminished rapidly. By the end, he was more interested in playing with the other kids on the tour than checking out the animals. As a result, Jacob surprisingly did not rank this tour as a highlight.

I should add that as an adult destination, I would grade this an A. Despite the tour's casualness, I thoroughly enjoyed the tour and loved watching the animals. Zebras are too cool, and the antelope were pretty nifty too. The proprietors have two really lovely cottages that they rent out, and what a delicious destination for an adult getaway.

The tour is almost exclusively outdoors, so no matter how warm you feel waiting for the tour to start, bundle up tightly for the inevitable chilling wind that will blast you. The tour cost $20 per adult and $10 per kid, a decent value for being immersed in the unexpected Point Arena savannah.

Kayaking. Grade: A

The Mendocino coast offers several kayaking options, including sea tours, river float trips and (in season) river whitewater trips. I think a tour of the sea caves or coastline usually will be more interesting than the river tours, but Jacob has never kayaked before, so I chose a less complicated river float trip.

We took a Noyo River tour from Liquid Fusion kayaking. This proved to be an excellent choice for three reasons. First, the tour was easy paddling even for novices. Second, we were the only customers on a Wednesday morning tour, so we customized the trip to our specific interests. The tour wasn't the cheapest, but having a private session for 90 minutes turned out to be an excellent value. Third, the proprietor Cate is a former schoolteacher, so she did a great job engaging Jacob.

We kayaked from Dolphin Isle harbor down to the main harbor and back on our 90 minute tour. Along the way, we saw a couple seals in the river, many birds (osprey, kingfisher, woodpecker, ducks, swallows and a beautiful Great Blue Heron) and evidence of river otters (but no otters themselves). Jacob initially loved the opportunity to paddle, but eventually he got distracted by the surprisingly fascinating (to him) floating seaweed in the river.

Jacob ranked the kayaking as a trip highlight. It was a great way to whet his appetite for more.

Glass Beach in Fort Bragg. Grade: A

Glass Beach is a triple play as a kid's destination. First, the beach is covered in seaglass washed up from when the area was a dump. It may be my poor memory, but it seemed like there was less seaglass than I saw in previous visits. Don't expect a mile-long carpet of multi-hued seaglass; instead, the densest parts now are just small patches. Still, the colorful mixture of seaglass, shells and rocks was fun to poke around.

Second, Glass Beach has some of the better tidepools in the area. Jacob spent nearly 2 hours running from pool to pool, watching the tide flow in and out. We didn't find many critters, but their absence wasn't a dealbreaker.

Third, the bluffs are covered in wild blackberries, and we spent a little time looking for a snack. Most weren't ripe in mid-July (too early in the season), but the quest was fun. Lots of flowers too.

Glass Beach is convenient and free, and our visit enjoyably consumed a few hours of time. An excellent destination.

Pt. Cabrillo State Historic Park in Caspar. The official state website. Grade: C

After the success at the Point Arena Lighthouse, Jacob enthusiastically responded when I proposed visiting another lighthouse. However, this one was a mostly a bust for him. I think he expected we would climb to the top of the lighthouse, but that wasn't allowed. The park includes several 100 year old buildings that represent a complete lighthouse installation, including the lightkeepers houses and various other buildings. The tiny museum in the picturesque lighthouse building was not interesting to kids. One of the keeper's restored houses was open for inspection but Jacob was only mildly interested.

We walked around the headlands as well. The "South" trail started out strong, but when we turned inland, the trail petered out into a bunch of game trails. We didn't get lost (it would be impossible to do so), but I hate it when trails are that confusing. I assume the lack of trail maintenance is due to the state budget crisis (the visitor center was closed due to budget cuts).

Despite all those strikes against the park, the visit was saved by a seal colony right by the lighthouse that we could watch easily without binoculars (binoculars did help). We counted at least 22 seals at one point, and we spent a half-hour watching seals trying to get out of the pounding surf and then blubbering up the steep slopes to avoid the splash zone.

Entrance into the park is free, but they request a small donation to access the tiny museum. Parking is about 1/2 mile away from the lighthouse. It's possible to rent one of the keeper's homes for a vacation stay; that looked like an interesting choice.

Van Damme State Park in Little River. Grade: B.

The Mendocino coast is blessed with several excellent state parks. Russian Gulch State Park is my favorite. It has the most interesting hikes, and the headlands are amazing.

Van Damme State Park has a lot to recommend it, but it suffers from a few obvious limitations. The biggest limitation is that its centerpiece attraction, Fern Canyon, remains partially closed to hiking due to storm damage from over a decade ago. You can hike about 1.5 miles in (further than the trailhead signage misleadingly indicates), but even getting that far requires scrambling over a few massive downed redwood trees blocking the trail. However, not being able to complete the hike feels somehow like the park is cut in two. Even so, the Fern Canyon hike is very nice, although my favorite Fern Canyon is in Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park north of Eureka. The hike is best in the rainy season, so the canyon was not at peak fern-iness during our mid-July visit.

Jacob enjoyed the Fern Canyon hike. The trail is level, wide and well-marked. Ferns and redwoods are everywhere. Most exciting to him was a tree growing out of a downed redwood at an angle that made it look like a "J." All around, this is a very kid-friendly hike.

There are two other hikes in the park: a short hike to a bog, and a loop around the Pygmy forest. We didn't do either on this trip, but on a previous trip I didn't find the Pygmy forest all that interesting. Due to the soil conditions, the trees' growth is stunted, so very old trees look like they are young saplings. But to the untrained eye, it just looks like a young forest. (The forests in the Yukon close to the treeline all look like this). Van Damme also has a small beach (with a kayaker concession) at the coast, but no headlands comparable to Russian Gulch's.

The campground has about 75 camping spots spread out over a mile or two. The layout is very typical for California state parks. Some sites are very close together; but even the more spread-out sites offer little aural or visual privacy. Fortunately, during mid-week, the campground wasn't too rowdy, but nevertheless you're likely to hear your neighbors for as long as they are awake. The campground "host" was invisible.

Each site has a park bench, a firepit and a food locker. Our site (#38) was shaded by a stand of evergreens (unfortunately not redwoods) on a sloping hillside, with two level tent sites. The bathrooms were a brief walk away. They were in OK condition but bring your own soap. The bathroom lights automatically turned on after dark, but we needed our flashlights inside the bathrooms at sunset/dusk before the lights turned on. We didn't take advantage of the various ranger-led activities (which were thin mid-week) but they were fairly typical for the state park system; most of them cater to kids. Firewood is sold at the visitor center, and the website advertises wi-fi at the visitor center too (I didn't try it).

In mid-July, we had virtually no bugs and it was light until about 8:45 pm, but temperature were cool--a damp high 40s with a light wind at breakfast-time that required us to put on jackets and use the car as a windbreak.

One of Van Damme's many advantages is its proximity to Mendocino town--3 miles and less than a 5 minute drive away. We paid $35/night plus the online reservation fee. I found a few sites still available for our mid-week stay with less than 2 weeks advance notice (Russian Gulch and other nearby state parks were all sold out by then). It was a good value for a prime sleeping spot on the Mendocino coast.

Other Things

Some other things we did:

* Golden Gate Bridge vista point. I believe this was Jacob's first time over the Golden Gate Bridge, so we stopped at the vista point on the Marin side of northbound 101. I had faint hopes that we might be able to walk across the bridge, but at 10:30 am on an otherwise lovely summer morning, it was uncomfortably cold and completely foggy (i.e., couldn't see the tops of the bridge or across the Bay to San Francisco).

* picnic lunch at Sonoma Coast State Beach. Hard to go wrong with this. Jacob ranked this as one of his highlights.

* hike at a nameless (?) vista point in Sonoma County. There was a nice <1 mile loop that was perfect for stretching legs, seeing flowers and getting some views--though the fog blocked most of the panoramas.

* lunch at Cafe 1 in Fort Bragg. Jacob rejected the Living Light raw food storefront for lunch, which screwed up my meal plans. Instead, we tried Cafe 1, a few blocks up Highway 1 and recommended by the Living Light folks. In an old-style diner, the restaurant served a mix of old diner favorites and modern vegetarian cuisine--all organic. I wish more restaurants were like this. We heartily devoured everything we ordered.

* dinner at Lu's Kitchen in Mendocino. I have a love/hate relationship with Lu's Kitchen! It has erratic hours and only serves lunch, so more often than not, it's going to be closed when you visit. And it has only outdoor seating--a chancey proposition with the fickle coastal weather, and no table service. But the wonderful food--and the lovely flowers in the garden--makes it worth tolerating the many quirks. We got lucky and arrived just before it closed. Jacob ranked his Golden Tofu dinner with peanut sauce as a highlight.

It took me 42 years to make my first trip to Europe; then, my first two trips to Europe came within 3 weeks of each other. First, at the end of May, I went to a conference at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, followed by some time in Amsterdam. Then, about 10 days later, I returned to Paris for an OECD meeting. This post recaps some of my observations seeing Europe for the first time through 42 year old eyes.

The Netherlands

See my photo albums of Rotterdam and Amsterdam.

The Netherlands were a great introduction to Europe for an American who doesn't speak any foreign languages. There was plenty of support for English-speakers. Most Dutch speak English flawlessly, and many of the museums and other tourist attractions had parallel English and Dutch explanations (indeed, many times they included French and German translations too). Plus, navigation by train/tram was mostly painless. I didn't ride a bike but the seemingly every Dutch person did. I didn't see a single bike helmet the whole trip, though.

I'm going to start with a seemingly small detail but one that colored my entire trip. For a country that has battled having too much water for centuries, the Dutch make it frustratingly hard to get drinking water. There are no drinking fountains, water was rarely presented as a free option at meals, and bottled water was overpriced. I guess the dutch lack of interest in drinking water makes some sense given that historically unprocessed water was unsafe to drink. Instead, at mealtimes, orange juice, beer and buttermilk were commonly served. Fizzy carbonated drinks were also popular.

Perhaps related to the difficulty getting hydrated, the Dutch approaches to bathrooms differ radically from American sensibilities. First, most bathrooms (public and private) are tiny. Public restrooms typically had an inadequate numbers of stalls/urinals. Second, it was almost impossible to find free public bathrooms. I figured the small and infrequent bathrooms completes a weird logic circle--the Dutch don't drink water, so they don't need bathrooms. The lack of public bathrooms has led to public urination problem in Amsterdam, which has responded with "pee guards" in dark corners that are designed to throw urine back on a (presumably drunk) offender. Pee guards have been through multiple innovation iterations. Apparently, it makes more sense to innovate ways to dump pee back on public urinators than to offer more free public bathrooms.

Consistent with the lack of Dutch freebies, it was virtually impossible to find cost-effective Internet access as a tourist. I didn't find any open WiFi signals, the hotels gouged, and I didn't see many cybercafes. Even Erasmus University wanted to charge me 30 EUROS for guest Internet access. No thanks.

My grades for some common tourist destinations:

[note: I'm generally a pretty tough grader, but my grades will look high because the tourist attractions I went to were, for the most part, world class.]

* Rotterdam Harbor tour. Grade: A-. A great look at a very active harbor. My only beef is that the recorded audio repeats everything in four languages, so on the hour-long tour, there was less than 15 minutes of English narration.

* Delfshaven. Grade: C. An old Rotterdam port--one of the few parts of Rotterdam that wasn't obliterated by WW2 bombing. Unfortunately, there was no "there" there. It's a small island in the middle of Rotterdam sprawl, and the remaining buildings were not worth the detour. Worse, I went to find the vegetarian restaurant Bla Bla, which was unexpectedly closed with no posted hours.

* Kinderdijk. Grade: B. This UNESCO World Heritage site is the remains of a windmill-powered drainage system for a polder. The area was studded with more windmills than you've ever seen in any one place. But other than the thrill of seeing lots of windmills near each other, there wasn't much more to recommend the site.

* Slot Loevestein. Grade: B. A nice 14th century castle bordered by two scenic rivers. The renovations were nice but the tour itself was oddly unenlightening. Getting to the castle involved an adventurous tour through surprisingly bucolic Dutch countryside.

* Free walking tour of Amsterdam by New Amsterdam tours. Grade: A. This free walking tour was a great introduction to the city and visited most of the highlights in the central city, including Dam Square, the Royal Palace, the New Church, the Old Church and the Waag. The guides impress upon their audience that they work for tips, but our guide did work hard and it was a bargain even with the tip.

* Canal boat tour. Grade: B. This was a bit of a disappointment. The canals make for a pretty tour, but the boat tour was not much more insightful than just walking around.

* Red Light District walking tour (I also took a tour by New Amsterdam tours). Grade: A. The Red Light District is fascinating, but I was not comfortable walking around there on my own. Numerous people there were surly and unfriendly and, in many cases, drunk. Fortunately, the tour answered all of my questions. One note about the women in the windows: most of them looked incredibly bored--while waiting, they were smoking, filing their nails and checking their cellphones.

* Van Gogh Museum. Grade: A. At its core, a great museum requires great content, and this museum has that. Van Gogh's work is moody and amazing, and it is so much more vibrant and electrifying in person than in washed-out reprints. His paintings virtually jumped off the walls crackling with excellence, even when placed side-by-side with works of other extremely talented artists. I spent several hours at this museum and enjoyed every minute. I bought my ticket in advance and skipped a 200 person long line. Afternoons are less crowded than mornings.

* Jewish History Museum. Grade: A-. On my trip, I wanted to understand why the Dutch were so tolerant of the Jews compared to all other Europeans. This museum did not directly answer the question, but it came close.

Amsterdam's Jewish community initially populated by Portuguese Jews fleeing the Spanish Inquisition. Amsterdam had already established its economy on trading, and the Portuguese Jews brought valuable trading contacts (especially with other Jews spread out as part of the Diaspora). Plus, Amsterdam itself was already composed of plenty of transplants.

Thus, a symbiotic economic relationship developed. The Portuguese Jews brought significant extra wealth to Amsterdam, and thus they were tolerated. I missed the time window to see the Portuguese Synagogue (it has limited hours), but given its importance to the Portuguese Jewish community, I wish I could have seen it. Ironically, at the same time the Portuguese Jews were ascending in the Amsterdam community, Catholicism was officially banned in Amsterdam--creating a bizarre situation where Jews were legal and Catholics were not.

Counterintuitively, then, the Sephardic Jews initially were the wealthy Jewish community. Meanwhile, the Ashkenazim Jews from Eastern Europe were poor, but the Portuguese Jews provided economic support for them, which in turn meant that the Amsterdammers tolerated the Ashkenazim as well. Eventually, the Portuguese Jewish community was economically ruined by the Dutch East India company's collapse, while the Ashkenazim Jews ascended in wealth and prominence and started providing economic support for the Sephardics. Eventually, the Holocaust destroyed the Amsterdam Jewish community.

If you're at all interested in Jewish history, especially Amsterdam’s unique relationship with the Jewish community, I enthusiastically recommend the museum. I allocated only 70 minutes; it would have benefited from 2 hours or more.

* Anne Frank House. Grade: A. I've always been a little uncomfortable that Anne Frank's story gets more attention than the stories of millions of other Holocaust victims. Nevertheless, Anne Frank's story is poignant and heart-wrenching. The self-guided tour tells her story very well without being overly sentimental. It subtly communicates the tragedy of her death and how the world is less rich without her--and the millions of other Jews (and others) whose lives were cut short.

Meanwhile, the museum provides a glimpse into the duality that many Dutch feel towards the Jewish community--the Franks and van Pels were saved by Dutch gentiles, but many Dutch feel that they didn't do enough to resist the German persecution of Dutch Jews. I sensed this psychological duality continues even today.

I bought my ticket in advance, which required me to set a specific time appointment. This helped skip a long line. Going in the late afternoon meant I wasn't crowded in the small rooms.

* Rijksmuseum (the Dutch National Museum). Grade: A. What I loved most about this museum is that it didn't try to cover all of Dutch history. Instead, it focused on the Dutch "golden age" in the 17th century when Amsterdam was one of the wealthiest and most sophisticated metropolises in the world. The amount of wealth that flowed into Amsterdam during that period is staggering, and the Rijksmuseum presented the opulence in all its glory. The silverwork, pottery, furniture and other craftworks were all remarkable; the dollhouses were especially mind-blowing. Also, in a collection of remarkable Renaissance paintings, Rembrandt's skill, use of light and ability to manufacture drama stood out against his talented peers.

* Begijnhof. Grade: B-. This is an old part of the city, including the oldest wooden house from the 15th Century, an old convent-like community, and a 16th Century English Reformed church. It's a peaceful oasis in a dense and crowded city. But there really wasn't much of interest to see, although I did enjoy the church, which has catered to an English-speaking community for centuries. A bonus freebie: I went back through the Amsterdam Historical Museum, which has a free-admission hallway filled with 17th century old master paintings of militia companies (another rare freebie).

* Vondelpark. Grade: B. Vondelpark is the biggest park near Amsterdam's city center, and it is well loved by Amsterdammers. On a warm early June evening about 7 pm (the high latitude means that the sun is still high in the sky at that time), the pathways were packed with bikers, runners, skaters and others. The park was laid out in a typical Europe manner--tightly constructed with every element carefully organized--although at least we could walk on the grass (unlike the Paris parks). I personally do not like these overly manicured parks very much. There's something to be said for raw nature, not nature reinterpreted by people. I also got nervous for my personal safety in some of the less well-traveled parts of the park, especially around stoner hill where everyone was brashly toking up in public.

* Amsterdam's Flea Markets. Grade: C. No bargains, but lots of junk. Cities in the Arctic joke that they are where cars go to die...Amsterdam flea markets are where junk goes to die.

* Amsterdam Architecture. Grade: A. Amsterdam is a beautiful city, especially in the city center. It has a beautiful foundation of 17th century architecture that has retained its feel, but the more recent additions--especially from the 19th century--are also beautiful.
_____

The vegetarian scene in the Netherlands was generally OK. Amsterdam had a number of good vegetarian destinations. I especially enjoyed a satisfying but basic meal at De Waaghals ("the dare devil") near de Pijp, although at the cost of about 20 euros.

Some odd standardization issues. To turn on a light switch in the Netherlands, you press down (normally, in the US, you press up). And to flush a toilet typically requires a push button rather than depressing a lever. I wonder why there hasn't been international standardization on these user interfaces? Also wondering why the Europeans don't use a top sheet on their beds...?

A final observation: the Dutch are tall. I am about 5' 8", and I looked eye-to-eye with most Dutch women and looked up to just about every Dutch male. Even the bathroom urinals are set high, presumably for the tall Dutch men.

Paris

See my photo album of Paris.

There's little I can say about Paris that hasn't been said many times before. Let me group my overview reactions into "things I liked" and things I didn't.

Things I liked:

* the tourist attractions. World class. More commentary on some of those attractions in a moment.

* walking around. Paris' architecture is beautiful. I was surprised how much of the architecture dated to the mid-19th century and not earlier. This is due to the city's redesign then. But the mid-19th century architecture was very aesthetically pleasing. I liked the flourish and details, the pretty stone, and the wrought iron fences around window balconies and patios. More generally, Paris was full of visual treats everywhere. I felt there was a surprise around every corner. The main attractions were also close together, making it easy to walk everywhere.

* the metro. It was PACKED during rush hour, but the metro gets high marks for convenience. There were stations everywhere, and the wait for another train was rarely more than 2-3 minutes.

Things I didn't like:

* the crowds. More than anything, my dominant memory of Paris will be standing in line. There were lines for everything! Of course this is especially true for the tourist attractions, although I didn't go during peak tourist season. I can understand why Parisians tire of Americans, because we overran the town. At the top of the Eiffel Tower, almost everyone was speaking American English. Paris is a pretty dense city and the ratio of tourists to resident Parisians is uncomfortably high in the summer.

* the weather. In a word, it sucked. At its best in mid-June, it was 70 and sunny but hazy and humid. More typically, it was overcast and humid, with drizzle, rain and even thunderstorms.

* the expense. Paris is expensive like any big city, but it was hard for tourists to find any bargains. Money just flies out of the wallet, especially when eating out. But I did like the cheap baguettes.

* Charles de Gaulle airport. I can't recall a more baffling airport to navigate.

* all the smokers...everywhere (but fortunately not inside restaurants).

Some comments about the tourist attractions:

* Notre Dame Cathedral. Grade: A. This was a truly amazing building. The details were incredible. I would have loved to spend more time exploring this treasure. If my travels take me back to Paris, I will definitely revisit.

* Eiffel Tower. Grade: A. The Eiffel Tower is beautiful to look at, the views from it are spectacular, and it epitomizes superlatives (i.e., once the tallest building in the world). However, I was most impressed with its elegant engineering. Every design choice is a remarkable monument to late 19th century ingenuity. As a result, I'm giving it an A despite its two structural limitations as a tourist attraction. First, it is super-crowded, so the lines and overall mass of humanity can be ridiculously oppressive. Worse, in June the weather improves in the afternoon…exactly the peak time for crowds. Second, the Eiffel Tower has some interpretative material about its construction and engineering, mostly on the 1st floor (which they didn't even merit a stop on the way up). However, the materials are poorly laid out and surprisingly thin. The Eiffel Tower would benefit from a bona fide museum to showcase its brilliance.

* Arc de Triomphe. Grade: B. The Arc de Triomphe is a stunning monument. It is a cultural icon and aesthetically beautiful--grand in scale but also replete with wonderful details. I was especially interested in the 500+ military generals permanently inscribed in the monument (some in larger lettering than others). It's an interesting social statement about what the community rewarded (the leaders, not necessarily unexpected "heroes"). I saw similar celebrations of 19th century individual accomplishments throughout Paris.

The monument is an "A" attraction, but I downgraded it because the paid admission was surprisingly a tourist trap. For 9 euros, I got access to the interior, which was supposed to be a museum but was remarkably content-free, and the rooftop--a nice view but partially duplicative with the Eiffel Tower's views. I could have gotten 90%+ of the value of visiting the monument from the free portions (which allow you to visit the exterior base) without paying the admission fee.

* Champs-Élysées. Grade: C. I'm not much of a shopper. especially at the high end, so this was not a place for me. It reminded me a lot of Magnificent Mile in Chicago (not a compliment). The most remarkable thing is that I saw at least 2 McDonalds within a few blocks of each other.

* the Louvre. Grade: A-. This is probably the most spectacular museum I've been to. The massive and palatial physical setting lets you know, before you even get started, that this is not your ordinary museum. Then, the collection. Wow. I started with some "highlights"--the Venus de Milo, the Mona Lisa, etc. All cultural icons. Then I went a little deeper into the Roman and Greek antiquities, the 19th century French paintings, the Italian late medieval and Renaissance paintings, and the French sculptures. The Louvre's collection is overwhelming, so perhaps it's better to think of the Louvre as about 10 museums in one, each of which would be among the world's finest if separated out.

I was blown away by the depth of each collection. It was dramatic evidence of the immense wealth that flows to the capital city of a colonial imperialist. The museum has so many treasures, it doesn't know what to do with them all. The "throw-away" items stashed obscurely in a corner each would be the centerpiece attraction at almost every other museum. I ended up spending a couple extra hours at the Louvre more than I had planned, as I kept addictively negotiating with myself "just one more room."

So why only an A-? Four knocks on the Louvre. First, they advertised an English highlights tour that I built my day's schedule around, but it was canceled without any notice when I showed. Second, I got the audio tour, but the first machine konked out on me in the middle of the museum, costing me valuable time to go back to replace it (there were at least 3 of us who showed up simultaneously with failed machines--apparently the handheld devices aren't very reliable). Third, the museum layout is thoroughly confusing. For example, it took me quite some time to figure out how to enter the sculpture garden. Finally, the Louvre is (surprise!) massively overcrowded, in many places oppressively so, although I did go to some rooms that were refreshingly quiet.

* Tuileries Garden. Grade: B. A typical and large Parisian manicured garden (no enjoying the grass) between the Louvre and Place de la Concorde. There were fewer flowers than I may have expected, but I got excellent views in every direction.

* The Jewish Quarter. Grade: B. An especially old part of the city with apartments towering over narrow streets. There was evidence of a robust Jewish community, including synagogues and kosher butchers, but the community is now a small fraction of its former self. Still, I liked poking around, but I would have benefited from taking a guided tour of the area.

* Walking along the Seine. Grade: B. Every walk in Paris is a treat, but walking along the Seine wasn't clearly better than other walks. I got a little nervous for my personal safety going through dark underpasses.
______

Paris was generally a disconcerting place for a vegetarian tourist. Although I found I was able to communicate successfully with most Parisian servers, I still inherently distrusted the vegetarianism of dishes at non-vegetarian restaurants no matter what the server said. I had competent vegetarian meals at Le Potager du Marais and Le Grenier de Notre Dame (Paris' most venerable vegetarian restaurant--30+ years old). Both weren't cheap (20+ euros), and each meal consisted mostly of unrelated mounds of different food on the same plate--a very different conception of a vegetarian meal than in the US.

Although generally it was easier for me to communicate in the Netherlands than Paris, Paris was a more friendly tourist destination in two ways. First, it was easier to find water and free public bathrooms. Second, it was easier to use credit cards in Paris than the Netherlands. The Dutch aren't big fans of Mastercard/Visa. However, unlike the Netherlands, many French attractions only had narratives in French with no English translations.

It has been a while since I've blogged about Phone to Phone Inc., the company that earned my enmity (and piqued my curiosity) after an annoying telemarketing assault last year. Initially, I was curious about their shady marketing practices, but I'm now more interested in their employment practices. With graduation season upon us, a new crop of eager and anxious graduating seniors are entering the job market--apparently the prime target of Phone to Phone Inc.'s Craigslist-heavy recruiting practices. I'm hearing from a number of these folks as they are doing their homework. The following email (republished with permission) is typical of the feedback I'm getting:
__________

[begin third party email]

I wanted to thank you so much for your blogs on Phone to Phone. Being a recent college graduate with a degree in literature and writing, I was excited to receive an e-mail from Phone to Phone (actually, they were posing to be from laws.com) asking me to come in for an interview. I obliged but I felt everything was sketchy to begin with.

First of all, the e-mail I received from their Human Resources department gave no indication of what company she was working for (it wasn’t until I actually got the cooperate building for my interview that I saw it was Phone to Phone not laws.com). Also in the e-mail she only gave me her first name which I thought was a bit odd because all other e-mails I received from other potential employers included the full name of the recruiter.

Looking past all of this, I proceeded to the interview and was shocked when I walked into the suite and was wandering around and no one even said anything to me or asked to help. Also, I noticed that all of the employees were young (college or recently out of college). Even the Human Resource woman could not have been that much older than me, and I am only 22. I also realized that everyone, once again the HR girl included, was in casual attire. I made sure my attire was presentable, however they were all wearing jeans, tank tops, and flip flops. It was all very odd to me.

The interview wasn’t really an interview at all—rather, HR told me briefly about what the company does (writes brief articles for different websites about law and medicine using key words), talked about the work shift, and how I would receive benefits after 3 months of employment. Our whole talk lasted maybe five minutes before she handed me a paper and sat me down at a computer and had me write two writing samples—one medical related and one law related. I was there for about one and a half hours working on my two articles. She told me that they really only used online sources and when I was writing my own samples to not worry about citations. Again, I thought that was weird because that’s the number one rule you are taught as a student—always cite where you got your information from. Anyway, I told HR that I e-mailed her my work, she made sure she got it, and dismissed me saying that she would contact me in a couple of days. She didn’t even get up and shake my hand.

Overall, I thought everything was a bit sketchy. While it seems like a great opportunity, I don’t think that employment here, if offered to me, would benefit me in any way or better my writing (which is what I’m looking for). When I got home and saw your blog I was glad I wasn’t alone in feeling that the situation was a bit off. I think that the company does a good job at remaining a mystery and makes it sound ideal for recent college graduates that are trying to find a job. I think everyone should be wary when attempting to get a job with this company.

[end third party email]
__________

This report identifies a few oddities. First, it's odd that the interviewee wasn't clear on the employer's identity until interview-time. Second, I've heard from others as well that the office environment is strangely quiet because everyone can overhear each other's conversations and because the content production requirements don't leave much room for chit-chat time. If so, that seems incongruous with the kind of office environment/culture I would expect recent college grads to want or enjoy. Third, it makes sense to request writing samples, but I wonder what Phone to Phone does with those writing samples. Do they publish them? If so, do they compensate the interviewee for them? Finally, the "no citation" policy is interesting. I have previously suspected that Phone to Phone is generating lots of low-cost but low-quality search engine bait, and this email is consistent with that.

My previous coverage of Phone to Phone Inc. and related entities:

* Public Librarian Complains About Phone to Phone Inc. (Jan. 17, 2010)
* Phone to Phone Inc. is Spamming Again--This Time for Lawschool.org (Jan. 14, 2010)
* Another Phone to Phone Inc. Employee Speaks Out (Dec. 15, 2009)
* Questionable Employment and SEO Practices at Phone to Phone Inc.? (Dec. 10, 2009)
* Attorney.org is Latest Phone to Phone Inc. Website to Spam Me (Oct. 28, 2009)
* More Spam from Phone to Phone Inc.--This Time on Behalf of Laws.com (Oct. 23, 2009)
* Newlawyer.com Spams Me Again (Twice in One Day!) (Oct. 19, 2009)
* Newlawyer.com: Persistent Telemarketer, and Now a Spammer (Oct. 2, 2009)

I also wrote a review of Newlawyer.com at SiteJabber.

Carrie Griffin Basas, 'V' is for Vegetarian: FDA-Mandated Vegetarian Food Labeling

I became a vegetarian over a quarter-century ago, when the vegetarian market was small/fringe-y. Back then, it was hard to get a supply of high-quality and trustworthy vegetarian food, either in the grocery stores or when I traveled.

Things have changed so much for the better in the intervening years. The vegetarian market has grown a lot, which has spurred competition and innovation, with the result being that vegetarians are now blessed with a panoply of high-quality vegetarian offerings. Despite this, I remain baffled that the market has not successfully self-organized a vegetarian certification. The vegetarian market is large enough to drive significant business from a successful certification, and there are so many products with obscure or hidden ingredients that vegetarians would like to know about.

Carrie Griffin Basas, a self-described "herbivore" and VAP at UNC, argues that this market failure should be cured by an FDA certification process. Normally, involving the FDA automatically goes into the bottom 10% of my desired outcomes (I don't know what options are in the top 90%, but I know FDA involvement never is). However, given the long-standing failure of the market to produce a reliable vegetarian certification, perhaps government involvement is necessary. She concludes:

Currently, vegetarians do not have the full information about ingredients that they need to make informed dietary choices. A federally mandated system of vegetarian food labeling hinges on having a consistent definition of “vegetarian” and addressing concerns about crosscontact that might arise in the manufacturing process. Consumers need to be involved in generating a compelling petition for these changes at the FDA. Unsuspectingly, vegetarians may be consuming food that contains animal ingredients because the current regulatory scheme falls short of full disclosure of ingredient sources. Manufacturers can play pivotal roles in ensuring that the FDA takes a consumer-driven petition seriously. Short of a successful petition, consumers should form coalitions with manufacturers to strengthen existing, voluntary certification systems. A cohesive, functioning model of labeling and certification can spur progress at the federal level, as well as in the food industry.

I have reached out to Prof. Basas about pursuing an FDA petition. If you would be interested in the effort, please let me know.

The abstract:

More than eight million adults in the United States are vegetarians and around forty percent of all people in the United States seek vegetarian food options while dining. Vegetarianism comes in a multitude of flavors, but a “pure vegetarian” or a vegan does not consume any products that come from animals, including milk, eggs, and gelatin. People practicing a vegetarian lifestyle may have turned to these dietary restrictions for ethical, religious, environmental, health, or other reasons. Currently, the FDA does not require the labeling of vegetarian foods as such. Because of the FDA’s permissive attitude toward food labeling generalities, such as “natural” or “artificial” flavoring and colorings, many vegetarians find it difficult to identify if their foods are indeed compatible with their lifestyles and ethical choices. Without this information, people interested in making food choices that respect the lives of animals may unintentionally cause harm to the creatures that they seek to protect. While voluntary, community-driven labeling programs exist, they reach only a small fraction of food products.

This article will explore the case for a standardized vegetarian packaged food labeling and certification system designed and implemented by the FDA. Part I presents the current problems with the FDA’s laissez faire approach to vegetarian food certification. Part II of the article addresses the law giving the FDA the authority and duty to ensure that vegetarian consumers are fully informed of food ingredients. Part III then presents three case studies - kosher certification, bioengineered foods, and food allergens - that could assist the FDA in designing a consumer-friendly, animal-conscious approach to vegetarian packaged foods. In Part IV, I outline a proposal to assist the FDA in addressing this critical monitoring and labeling issue.

Another reason to read the article: the footnotes provide a useful citation collection of academic research on vegetarianism.

Sedie v. U.S., 2010 WL 1644252 (N.D. Cal. April 21, 2010)

I've previously blogged about online postings exposing litigant duplicity, i.e., arguing one thing in court but saying something contrary online. (1, 2) This case is typical of the trend I'm seeing. The plaintiff was on the losing side of a 2006 bicycle-meets-postal truck collision. Seeking recompense in court, the judge found the plaintiff was not entirely credible due to juxtapositions like this (citations omitted):

"Plaintiff testified that he spends much of his time lying down, and there are times that he does not leave his room because he is depressed about his overall situation. However, the Court finds this testimony is only partially accurate, and is exaggerated given the other evidence of his actual activities and his pattern of exaggeration. For example, Plaintiff's online writings show that his life was not constantly “hell on earth” as he claimed. Plaintiff maintained his pages on MySpace and Facebook since the accident , and as of January 12, 2010, his MySpace page listed various activities and hobbies, and friends of Plaintiff. Plaintiff wrote entries on his MySpace page, including one on June 3, 2007, in which he described painting as a frustrating activity when his arm hairs would get caught in paint. Yet painting was on the list of activities that Plaintiff claims were adversely affected by the accident. Plaintiff also testified that he had not done any painting since the accident, but the MySpace entry was written in the present tense at a time just prior to his microdiscectomy. Plaintiff testified that the MySpace entry was a joke, but the Court did not find the testimony credible."

Funny joke. Why does it always seem to be MySpace in these duplicity cases...?

I've added some new talks to my schedule recently, so here's an updated list of my talks for the next couple of months:

May 6, 8-10 am: Obstacles and Opportunities: eCommerce on Both Sides of the Atlantic, a breakfast briefing co-sponsored by Bingham and HTLI. We'll be talking about the Google ECJ opinion, Tiffany v. eBay and other cutting-edge online trademark and copyright topics. In addition to me, the panel includes two Bingham partners and a very special guest: Terri Chen, Google's new chief trademark counsel, in one of her first public speaking venues since she has taken on her new role. Free CLE! Register here.

May 11, 12-1: I'll be speaking at the San Jose State library school about regulating reputation systems. See their event announcement. Seating at this event is very limited, so let me know if you would like to attend in person. A recording will be posted to the web about a week after this event.

May 28: EACLE Conference, Rotterdam. Assuming trans-atlantic flights have resumed by then, I will be speaking about my reputation research in the Netherlands. This may be a closed door event.

June 1, noon: I will give another version of my reputation talk at the University of Amsterdam. This should be an open door event, so contact me if you are interested in attending.

June 8, 8-10 am: Hot Topics in Blog, Social Network and Internet Law, a breakfast briefing co-sponsored by Greenberg Traurig and the High Tech Law Institute. Ian Ballon, one of the world's foremost Cyberlaw experts, and I will be speaking on the latest and most interesting Internet law developments. Free CLE! Register here.

June 25: I'll be speaking about online advertising at the Stanford E-commerce event.

Also, please save the date for our big Fall academic symposium on the First Sale and Exhaustion Doctrines in IP, November 5, at SCU. The event web page with a link to registration. This event will be especially timely given that the Supreme Court should be hearing oral arguments in Costco v. Omega around that time.

I have been an organizer and grader for a number of writing competitions over the years. Collectively, I've reviewed dozens of writing competition submissions, some good, most not so good. This post provides you with a three-step protocol for legal writing competition success. You might be surprised that it is easier to win than you think.

Step 1: Research competitions

Your first step is to learn about the competitions. It can be hard to get credible information about writing competitions because they change their rules or shut down entirely without much notice. My mom, her researcher and I have worked together to compile the legal writing competitions into a book, “How to Pay for Your Law Degree.” Most law schools have a copy on campus which you can review for free (usually in the law library, but sometimes in the financial aid or career placement offices). Or, if you want, you can order your own copy for about $30 at Amazon.

You should scan the book to get a sense of what writing competitions exist, the paper topics that might fulfill some competitions, typical deadlines and eligibility requirements.

Step 2: Write a Paper

Armed with some knowledge of writing competition requirements, your next step is to write a paper that can compete.

To help you write your paper, if you don’t already own it, you should get Prof. Eugene Volokh’s book Academic Legal Writing: Law Review Articles, Student Notes, Seminar Papers, and Getting on Law Review. This book helps you navigate every step in the paper-writing process.

The book will answer most of your questions, but let me add a little advice about writing a paper that can win writing competitions. From my perspective, the key to winning is picking a good topic. This may be obvious, but students often focus more effort on conforming to the Bluebook and the style manuals; those are helpful, but they will not determine your success in a writing competition. Instead, pick a good topic and execute it competently, and you position yourself well for victory. In contrast, pick a poor topic, and even if you execute it brilliantly with the finest footnotes and no style errors, you still aren't competitive.

Regarding topics, I recommend that you start thinking about topics early. By doing so, you can start collecting material and thinking about the topic in your spare mental cycles rather than rushing around at the last minute. Stated differently, it’s easier to write a good paper on deadline with a warm start than a cold one. Also, it is hard to write a good paper in a single semester. You might consider ways to work on your paper before and after a semester to make sure you have adequate time to refine your thoughts, develop your arguments and polish your paper.

As Volokh discusses in his book, students routinely make some errors selecting topics that reduce or eliminate their chances of winning a writing competition. Some examples:

* case notes. Personally, I think blogs have mooted student-written case notes. It is very, very rare that a student case note can add something to the collective understanding of a case that the blogosphere didn’t already say in the first week following the case. But even if you disagree with me about that, case notes have almost no shot of winning a writing competition because they are too topically narrow and unambitious compared to other papers.

* topics driven by current events. Virtually every time I grade a writing competition, I see papers on a topic that briefly got a lot of press coverage about 12-18 months beforehand, but that no one is still discussing any more. These papers also have almost no chance of winning.

* topics on pending legislation or cases on appeal. Occasionally these papers are perfectly timed, but usually something happens between the time the student selects the topic and the writing competition evaluation—such as the legislation dies or gets radically revamped, or the case settles or the new opinion hasn’t issued yet but is imminent. Those intervening developments usually undercut the paper's most interesting facets.

* me-too topics. Students tend to gravitate towards overgrazed topics where it is hard to find something unique to say. There are certain topics that students just can’t resist (in my field, they include online music/file-sharing and keyword advertising). As a grader, when I see the eighth entry on online file-sharing, an overwhelming sense of ennui sets in—either the paper better knock my socks off, or I’ve seen and heard it all and the paper looks derivative. In effect, student papers play a game of Scattergories against each other (a process I describe in more detail here). In particular, when two or more writing competition submissions are on the same general topic (don’t laugh—it happens frequently), almost invariably they both knock each other out because neither paper seems original. At best, the grader will compare the two papers against each other, and the lesser paper is doomed. So to avoid the pitfalls of grader ennui and scattergories, avoid the me-too topics.

* topics that are too hard. Occasionally students go the other direction and pick a topic that is too hard for students to successfully execute. I remember grading one paper that simultaneously undertook three really hard tasks: (1) a constitutional analysis, (2) analysis of an international treaty, and (3) a multi-country comparative analysis. Whew! I think most law professors with their resources and experience could not successfully execute this topic even if they worked on it for years, and a student writing his/her first academic paper had no chance of succeeding.

Whatever topic you select, make sure you love it. In effect, you marry your topic because you will typically spend several hundred hours working on it over the course of months or even years. Ideally, your topic will have something to do with your desired future practice. Your research can lay a foundation for your substantive knowledge in that area and signal your interests to future employers.

A final note about writing the paper: your paper competes based on its original analysis, not its recap of the prior literature. When I’m grading a paper, I skip over the paper’s recap of the law (unless I don’t know the area well) and look for the paper’s unique insights into the issue. If that’s only one paragraph in the conclusion, the paper has zero chance of winning.

Step 3: Apply!

Winning a writing competition is a big deal. Usually you win cash, which is always nice. Sometimes you also get guaranteed publication for your article. With some competitions, you get a free trip to an awards presentation ceremony. For example, the Entertainment Law Initiative Writing Competition flies out the winner and the honorable mentions to attend the GRAMMY awards ceremony and related parties.

A writing competition victory also has incalculable benefits for your resume. It represents external validation of your writing skills. As you know, employers value writing skills highly, so a win could significantly improve your job prospects.

So there are ample reasons to compete. Yet, amazingly, fewer students do so than you might think. I have been involved with several writing competitions where we have received a shockingly low number of submissions. It is not atypical for lesser-known or niche competitions to have less than 2 submissions for every prize available.

In some cases, the odds are even more favorable. For example, for the past 3 years I have run ASCAP’s Nathan Burkan copyright-themed writing competition at SCU. ASCAP gives us the right to designate a winner ($600) and runner up ($250) at SCU; the winner then competes nationally for more money. Each of the past 3 years, we have gotten only one submission for the local SCU competition. In other words, we have had $250 and an honorific just waiting for someone to apply and we couldn’t give it away. As the marketing slogan goes, “you can’t win if you don’t play.”

Now, some writing competitions do have a lot of submissions, making the odds of success much lower. But if you do your research, you can find competitions that other students may have overlooked; and if you write a competent paper on a good topic, your paper will stand out and compete well even in popular contests.

Good luck!

[Note: some of the links are Amazon Affiliates links]

Embry v. State, 2010 WL 768755 (Ind. App. Ct. March 8, 2010)

I've blogged before about the use of postings to MySpace or other social networking sites as a new source of impeaching evidence. In this case, an ex-husband was accused of beating his ex-wife. He unsuccessfully argued self-defense. The court quotes the following testimony about the wife's attitudes towards her husband:
____

"On cross-examination, the defense questioned her about a number of derogatory statements she had posted about Embry on her MySpace blog prior to the incident in question:

BY [DEFENSE]: ... Prior to Au-April 22nd, 2008 had you ever expressed or communicated in any way that you wanted your ex to die a slow painful death?

A I believe you're referring to my “My Space” ...

Q I'm not-I-no, I'm not referring to anything. I'm just asking you a simple question: if you'd ever expressed or communicated in any way that you wanted your ex-husband, Mr. Embry, to die a slow painful death?

A I see it right there on your desk.

Q Okay.

A It's my “My Space” blog.

Q Okay, did you say it?

A I typed it.

Q Okay. But the answer is, did you say it? I mean is that your communication.

A I typed it.

Q Okay. And did you ever express um, or communicate in any way that you wanted to be present and dance the cha-cha around his slow painful death?

A It's all there in the blog.

Q Okay. The answer's a simple yes or no. You said it; you've communicated it some way, did you?

A If you want to put that blog there, I ...

Q I'm just asking you a simple question.

BY COURT: Ma‘am, will ya just answer the question yes or no?

A Yes, I did.

Q Did you ever refer to Mr. Embry or communicate in any way that he was a worthless bag of monkey shit?

A Yes.

Q Did you ever refer to him as dog piss?

A Yes.

Q Did you ever refer to him as a worm puke stale crusty moldy inhuman horrible human oxygen sucking moron?

A Yes.

Q Did you ever communicate the desire, that because he's older and more stupid than you, he will die way before you do?

A I believe I said please assure me that it was possible that he would pass before me."
___

The state's attorney redirects with this understated summary:

"BY [STATE]: Ms. Embry, is it fair-fair to say that you're not very fond of your former husband?

A No, I am not fond of him at all."