If I thought Hillary had a heart worth sparing (a heart that loved something more than the notion of Presidential power), I’d feel a little guilty about telling her this on Christmas Eve:
“Hillary, I will never vote for you. Indeed, if you’re nominated by my Democratic Party as its 2008 presidential candidate, I might end up casting my first vote for a Republican for President. If the GOP candidate seems even less honest, trustworthy and genuine than you, I’ll find a third party candidate to support, or skip voting for the top office next November. But, Never for Hillary is a certainty for this law-trained, liberal-leaning Baby Boomer, despite decades of supporting gender equality and women candidates . . . . . ..
. . . . . the f/k/a Gang interrupts this Dear Hillary letter to announce the end of political and (especially) law-related punditry at our weblog. Sure, we’ve said this before — see, e.g., our May 2004 post “poetry not punditry” when the site ethicaEsq was renamed f/k/a — but this time there will be no punditry relapses. Neither “our” hearts nor souls, brains or bodies, are up to playing the role of political commentator (or advocate), much less carrying the much bigger burden of the “conscience of the legal profession” (a futile and thankless job if ever there was one).
When Carolyn Elefant asked last week “Is Blogging an Antidote to Lawyer Depression?,” I immediately thought “not the way I do it; it’s a catalyst for more.” And when I discussed the role of cognitive dissonance in the phenomenon of lawyer depression, on December 17, I knew that I would have to come clean and acknowledge that making moral or ethical judgments, and calling into question the conduct of others is simply at odds with my own core beliefs about my function on this planet. And, that this time I will have to act on that bit of personal insight, and live it.
In spite of the ego-gratification or reassurance that comes from voicing an opinion and being heard (and getting little attaboys and even awards from people I admire), there is no pundit-payoff for me — other than the travails of cognitive dissonance and malaise of ignored values. I can’t even offer the excuse of the depressed lawyer who is making a good living at the expense of his or her soul or sanity. Some people enjoy playing opinionated pundit; but the role sucks me dry of energy and joy, and daily fills me with dread.
So, as of today, there will be no new posting here that looks or sounds like legal ethics or political punditry. Other than continuing to highlight new poetry by our two-dozen fine Honored Guests, I’m not sure just what I will do at this space — although the short-lived Haibun Pundit might soon make his return. Of course, the archives of this weblog contain far too much good haiku and important analysis of legal ethics and clients’ rights to tear the site down.
the elm’s reflection
……………………… dagosan – Mainichi Daily News (March 5, 2005, No. 669)
As for Election 2008, I’ll let Maureen Dowd, and Stuart Taylor Jr, and maybe Althouse, along with the other candidates tell you the “The Trouble with Hillary.” I wish I could say that plenty of others will ride herd on the Bar on behalf of the consumer of legal services, but I can’t let the need suck me into this personal maelstrom again. Thanks again to all our readers and fans. We’ll understand if you drift away, and be mighty pleased if a more-enlightened, self-actualized version of the f/k/a Gang holds your interest.
big thaw overnight —
on the river
……………………… dagosan – from loose change: Haiku Society of America, 2005 Members’ Anthology