Blogging very early in your career can put you in quite a predicament. Certainly, you want to say interesting things...it's no fun to post bloodless drivel and even less fun to read it. And yet, in the Google era, those who still have to establish themselves have a considerable incentive to not pull too many punches.
(For instance, I was going to link the phrase "bloodless drivel" to a well-known political blog, but I quickly thought better of it).
So in order to continue the conversation in the most interesting way possible, I thought I'd try making this blog only viewable to its authors. At the moment, I see this as a good middle path, a way to be prudent without resorting to Kagan-esque neutrality.* It's not like I have been dying to post anything that controversial, but I don't want anything I might say (or even joke) about a policy, figure, publication or university to be taken as my final, complete and permanent word on the subject (as so often seems to happen).
* I should add that I think this notion that Kagan has been neutral throughout her career is a bit overstated. Yes, I think a little more forthrightness and less hedging would have been preferable, but it's not like her worldview is that opaque. For the (imaginary) record, I would still vote to confirm Kagan. Her record of promoting intellectual diversity at HLS, or at least being amenable to it, appeals to me (even if it was motivated by realpolitik concerns). Still, after reading about some of the names being discussed, I was rooting for fellow Okie Elizabeth Warren, with Merrick Garland in close second. I still think Diane Wood would have been the most interesting pick, and not a bad one.
