With the election nearly upon us, a potential regional war breaking out in the middle east, and a never-ending stream of court decisions, you would think there would be something, if not many things, to write about daily. And, indeed, there is. The only problem for me is that I’ve already written about them. Some more than once. Some many times.
For those of you who are new here, you may wonder why I didn’t pound to death some facet of an issue that you believe deserves a damn good pounding. Some of you will make note of it by raising what you perceive as my shortfall in the comments. After all, if I was thorough, or perhaps a little smarter, I would have included your issue in my post because it’s important. That I wrote about it a year ago, or ten years ago, means nothing to you. It’s like TV reruns, if you didn’t read it the first time, it’s new to you.
For those of you who have been around here for a while, you may already share the sense that discussions of issues can get a bit repetitive. Is there really any reason to read the same post with new names? Is there really any reason to change the head on the corpse just because it’s another morning and there ought to be something new to read at SJ?
Every day, I read what other people write. Sometimes it’s interesting and, on occasion, novel. I would often like to read more, but with pay walls blocking my access, and my inability to subscribe to the thousand sites I wish I could access because it’s cost-prohibitive, there may well be more interesting and novel writings than I realize, But most times, it’s just regurgitation of the same stale points. Trump bad and lying. Kamala cackles and dances, both literally and around questions. Israel doing America’s dirty work of eliminating terrorism, or committing genocide
This morning, I read an interesting transcript of a conversation by Yascha Mounk and Ruxandra Teslo about the nature of “luxury beliefs,” what has become the new status symbol for “elites” who can’t afford Jordache Jeans but want to be accepted and adored by their peers. Yesterday, I read Brett Stephens write about the wake-up call for Jews, who believed that the antisemitism of yore could never repeat itself in an enlightened society like ours. I found both of these writings interesting and provocative. So why not write about them here?
For one thing, I’ve strayed quite a distance from law, which, for better or worse, is what I have most to offer. For another thing, what could I add to what Yascha and Brett already offered? I consider what I write here to be “value added,” meaning that I try to contribute something that you might not find elsewhere, whether it’s some insight or some practical application that pundits wouldn’t be aware of. Whatever it might be, I try (perhaps unsuccessfully, but I try) to do better than merely repeat others. Or repeat myself.
I don’t know how many readers have been here since the beginning. It was, after all, a long time ago. But I have, and while I don’t remember every post I’ve written, I remember that I’ve made whatever point I have already and need not make it again. Sure, others who were writing similar things back when and have gone on to influential gigs in major newspapers seem to write the same post over and over. It’s their “thing,” and their readers expect them to do no less.
Sure, cable channels that pretend to about news fill all the airtime between commercials with their brand of drivel, why Trump is the worst or why Harris is the real danger to democracy. Even the New York Times has done a half dozen editorials about why Trump is unfit to be president, as if its readers didn’t see the ones preceding.
But as much as I may fall into that trap as well, I don’t want to and try not to. So some days, there will be no post. Sometimes, I start a post and then realize I either have nothing worthwhile to offer or I’m just rewriting what I’ve already written. Other days, there’s just nothing I have to contribute value to whatever is new and interesting. And still other days, it’s just groundhog day, with nothing new to say.
Today is one of those days.
Welcome back.
Honestly, even posts such as this one something to offer. The links to other people are appreciated.
So thanks for this one.
That’s a lotta wrapping around a “no post today.” Hope you did something fun with the time you, uh… saved?
This post reminds me of the good old days when the blawgosphere was a big conversation. Alas, I’m one of the many who pretty much dropped out.
I miss those days.
Maybe consider this (?): once in a while post a list of articles (or books) you find interesting. And attach a sentence of commentary when you wish. Could be recent articles, old articles; you make the rules. Just a thought.
I’d read the list. I have a hard time finding good reading material and a curated list would be helpful.
Probably most of us do a lot of reading, out of a sense that it’s better to understand what’s going on than to be ignorant. As far as seeing an urgent need to comment about this issue or that issue, that might be just delusional. Basically, identity as a working lawyer puts us in the basket of commoners, mere millionaires instead of billionaires, and with no celebrity status. In short, over-dressed peasants, who can only change anything within the narrow confines of transactions or litigation cases. Does it really do us any good to know that particular courts, or the crazies in the respective political wings, are stomping all over law and reason? “Everybody’s talking about the weather, but nobody’s doing anything about it.”
The Beatitudes may not be from my team, but I fully endorse the sentiment of this one: Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, says nothing at all. Strategic silence is, after all, a power move! That being said, in all my years of reading your posts, I’ve never thought, “Oh, that was better left unsaid.” (That is different than “Way wrong!” which has crossed my mind a few times.) Of course, my experience might be a testament to your wisdom in withholding some inchoate thoughts before hitting PUBLISH and is not an argument to change your filter. But I would ask that maybe you hold back a little less, if the only concern is repetition. As some ancient Greek said, the same man can’t step into the same river twice, for the man has changed and so has the river. Similarly, it’s highly likely that your current take on an old point will be novel and engaging, precisely because you’ve changed, and so has your audience (even the ones with enough seniority to post videos.)
And here is this from my team: happy new year, to you, to the silent readers who motivate you, and to the many commentators from whom I have learned.
Happy New Year, Joe.
Despite your clearly knowing him well (yay! not snark), I claim you’re missing the point here.
There have been times in the past where SHG huffily threatened to take his ball and go home — especially around Fault Lines, due to lack of appreciation.
And expressions of appreciation were what were needed, then.
This feels different. It seems more a genuine inquiry either along the lines of 1) cynically — what makes continued posting interesting/worthwhile *for him* — an “Algo” (eff y’all for that disparaging term!) could easily scan the previous day’s news and just link to his previous commentary,
or 2) not so cynical and along the lines of “Hey. I love doing this. But it’s becoming cyclical/redundant — any ideas?’
For example, SHG is only my *second* favorite source for legal commentary — the first being Popehat. But Ken is off to podcast land(*), so … SHG is my primary pipeline.
Though I think a podcast with SHG would techlocally count as MMA, so there might be licensing problems there…
Good morning. I’m not sure where the difference of opinion arises, but perhaps it’s a matter of timing. I only started reading here in ~2018, so my perspective might be influenced by having gotten on the bus a bit later than you. One’s tenure in the audience certainly makes a difference. My first Grateful Dead show was in 1987—another bus I got on late—and for the most part, things stayed fresh for me until my last show in 1994. By contrast, some Deadheads my senior know “U.S. Blues” as “U.S. Snooze,” for example, having heard it 300+ times. And that brings up another dead-related point. Part of the experience here is the audience (participation). My sense is that in a given week, ~50 different people will be inspired to post something–a number that seems pretty constant over years. In “algo” terms, if the engagement is still there, the product is fresh enough.
Your blog, you write what you want without succumbing to others’ interests. I’ve been a regular visitor for 10 years, maybe 12. I read because I gain useful knowledge, and am grateful for the chance to do so.
Couldn’t agree more, same slightly more than 10 years readership, but I think this is different than previous similar posts.
Consider an article about things you have changed your mind about. As much as you love Chesterton’s fence, you seem to value intellectual honesty even more. Given the longevity and sheer number of posts, I’d be flabbergasted if there weren’t things you once (maybe repeatedly) espoused, but now view differently
Other bloggers rehash old posts by listing the comments that added the most to the discussion.
Does not seem your preference but thought I would offer a suggestion that has worked in other places.