Bearing with me in a different way

I have to apologize in advance if posting is on the light side the next few days. I try to have 3-5 posts a day (plus Jeopardy!) but right now I'm going through one of my periodic "am I really contributing anything here" funks and I want to do some re-thinking of what I'm doing and how I do it.

What brought this up is the same thing that always does: I see something that I think is worth noting and try to do a little background only to discover a dozen other people have already noted it, dissected it, expanded on it, and filed it. Unless there is some point, some aspect of it, that doesn't seem to have gotten attention, I wind up wondering if there is any point in posting about it. I've said a number of times that I don't want to just have a bunch of posts consisting of either a long excerpt from some source plus a one-line comment or "hey, look at this!" and a link. I know we all do it sometimes and sometimes it's warranted. But the description of Lotus refers to thoughts, commentary, and a perspective, and that's what I'd like to be able to offer. If I'm not doing that, why am I doing this at all?

So I have a few options, the three biggest of which are

- continuing pretty much as I'm doing, averaging 3-5 posts a day on a range of topics but usually without a great deal of in-depth commentary.

- continuing pretty much in the same format but narrowing the focus to a specific set of issues, particularly if they are ones that don't seem to be getting enough attention in the biggest blogs. Examples might be, pulling them off the top of my head, nuclear weapons/the arms trade, sustainable/alternative communities, and international events. (I think my analysis and coverage of the negotiations over Cyprus, of Haiti during the coup, and of Iran in the period leading up to elections was as good as anything I saw outside of those blogs that specifically focused on such topics. I also think my analysis of Moqtada al-Sadr's actions and intentions, while a well-covered topic, was as good as most and better than some and has stood up quite well.)

- changing to what might be called a "column" style. In discussing the idea of having some blogger(s) serve as replacements for William Safire on the op-ed page of the NY Times, one person pointed out that they styles and demands are very different. Bloggers are often fast-responders, with info and commentary done on the fly in the breaking of news and just as often in quick snippets that rely fairly heavily on others' writings. A columnist, on the other hand, may put something out only two or three times a week - but it's 700 or 800 of their own words, their own analysis, each time, including at most brief quotes from others. (To give you a sense of perspective on that, this piece is a little over 700 words long.) Well, one thing I could do is switch to that: That is, post only two or three times a week but with a longer, more analytical post each time.

That third alternative is closer to what I originally did as a commentator: The old print version of Lotus, a monthly, typically contained three essays, one of about 400-500 words, one of about 700-800 words, and a "main" essay of about 1200-1400 words, plus a few side comments. Combined, upwards of 3000 words a month. That's still a fair amount ness than the typical syndicated columnist: 700 words twice a week pushes 6000 words a month. But the style is closer to what I've done before.

So without promising any quick resolution, I do want to think a bit. In the meantime, I know I don't get many comments, but I invite anyone who feels moved to chime in on this, either here or by email. Do you find Lotus useful or at least interesting? Would you think one of the other alternatives I mentioned above would make it more or less useful?

Don't worry (assuming you would), I'm not disappearing, even temporarily, just taking a moment to stop and think.