When I started this weblog, I had a few self-imposed rules:

1. No posts about the weblogging phenonmenon.
2. No posts about why I blog.
3. The aggregate time spent actually posting things should not be more than 30 minutes daily.

Rule #1 is a reaction to my observation that even some of the best weblogs contain way too much self-possesed analysis of why what they are doing is culturally significant (versus insignificant hubris). Rule #2 comes from the observation that I have yet to read one of these confessionals which answered my question, “Why should I care?” Rule #3 seemed obvious (and obtainable after you learn some tricks).

On ocassion, I’ve broken Rule #3, but not often.

I have not broken Rule #2 unless this post sorta counts.

I am about to break Rule #1 with this post.

Adage.com reports that Goldman Sachs has set aside $1 billion (which can be leveraged into as much as $4 billion with debt) to put together a magazine venture (”as a means to consolidate middle and low-level players,” says one observer.) Timing seems right to me: buying magazines in the midst of an historically-bad advertising slump as it turns the corner. Reminds me of the time I “lost” a really nice rain coat during a meeting at Goldman Sachs, but that’s another story. If nothing else, this news should generate interest in the category.

The NY Times does a feature on the always quotable Jann Wenner, owner of Rolling Stone.

Quote:

“It is daunting to be up against competition as formidable and well financed as AOL Time Warner (news/quote ) or the millions of Si Newhouse,” Mr. Wenner said. “Their advantage is incalculable. There is no end to what they can spend to compete, and we have to live by our wits.”