Like wildfire, word of the ABA Blawg 100 spread across the blawgosphere.  I learned of it as I entered the subway on my way back from court yesterday, when the person in the glass booth, formerly known as the token clerk, smiled at me and waved me through without having to swipe my Metrocard.  “No need,” he bellowed, “because you made the ABA Blawg 100!” 

It’s an honor to be recognized, and for that I appreciate being on the list for a second year.  And I certainly don’t want to be ungracious about it.  But the discomfort I felt last year persists, plus this year’s list presents some new issues that should be aired.  Does this make me unappreciative?  Perhaps, but the truth is that I still had to swipe my Metrocard to get on the subway, my honor notwithstanding. I received no free ride.  When this latest hoopla dies out, I will still be a party of the same blawgosphere, with the same folks as before, and aside from another badge on my sidebar indicating that I was an also-ran,

The list is structured very differently this year then last.  Rather than being broken up into practice areas that make some degree of sense, it’s broken into strange and amorphous categories that don’t have any cognizable connection to one another.  “Crime,” the category that Simple Justice is in, is the closest to last year, but this year contains only 5 names.  Worse yet, of the five, one isn’t a blog at all, and another seems to be in the wrong category, since there is a separate category for law professors where all the other lawprofs were placed.

Eric Turkewitz, the most glaring omission from last year’s list (along with the fact that it failed to include a single blog that discussed personal injury law), is now part of the 100, as well he should be after yesterday’s epic Blawg Review, a shoo in to win BR of the Year. But he’s in a category called “regional”.  Huh?  It’s like somebody read the blog title but never read the content, which is anything but regional.

But wholly missing from the list is any blawg by a Public Defender.  There are quite a few of them, and they are exceptionally good.  And they are entirely unworthy of mention, as far as the ABA Journal is concerned.  They include a website, an extremely good and fascinating website that I’ve posted about because I thought it was so terrific, but doesn’t happen to be a blog at all.  But they found no room for a PD blawg in the Crime category.  Not one.  Oddly, Blonde Justice is on the list, but this time was shunted off into the “Quirky” category.  What is meant by “quirky” is anybody’s guess, but Blonde apparently is more quirky than criminal.

This seems to be the new thing at the ABA Blawg 100.  It’s no longer about blawgs.  Not that there aren’t plenty of blawgs, written by lawyers, written for lawyers, thoughtful, interesting, funny, whatever.  There are.  And each reflects some lawyer somewhere giving his time and effort to provide posts for others who don’t put in that time and effort a place to go and explain why they are smarter then the blawger.  It’s a wonderful world in here, But the ABA Blawg 100 doesn’t see these blawgs. 

The point is driven home more clearly with the inclusion in the “podcasts” category (I kid you not, they have a podcasts category) of FBI: Gotcha, which is discussed more thoroughly here.  Not only is it not a blawg, but it’s open and notorious government propaganda.  And they have no room for a public defender blawg?

It is, without a doubt, nice to be back on the list, if only because one catches more than enough grief for doing this and a little appreciation from time to time makes me feel a little warm and fuzzy.  I still can’t shake the feeling that whoever created the list doesn’t really have much of a clue about the scope, breadth and nature of the blawgosphere, and inadvertently creates hard feelings within the ranks by the omission of great blawgs, far (by miles) of inclusion over others, or the insult of including non-blogs to those who work awfully hard to put out brilliant content.  I think some of the categories are silly, and that some of the blawg included within the categories don’t make any sense.  I’m not even going to touch the inclusion of Gerry Spence’s blog.

The ABA has gone a step further by providing blurbs about each of their selections.  I’ve read some of them, and think they are just awful.  I assume that they reflect someone’s concept of the blawg or non-blog website chosen, but certainly not mine.  As for the blurb written about Simple Justice, which attempts to be cute, it reflects at best a myopic and simplistic view of what I do here.  If that’s why they put me on the list, then it’s likely a mistake and they should remove me immediately and put a more worthy blawg in there.

The second stage of the ABA Blawg 100 process is to solicit votes, or the Beauty Pageant stage.  This is the part that I will not be involved in, as it’s demeaning and ridiculous.  Imagine, grown lawyers acting all humble while secretly begging for readers to “vote for me!”  The lawprofs are deep into this, as many posted about their inclusion within second of the list coming out, and seem to care deeply, very deeply, that they are on it.  Perhaps they get so little recognition otherwise that this matters.  Maybe it counts toward tenure.  I don’t know why they care, but they sure do. 

Plenty of other blawgs will be posting about this today, asking (begging) for your vote.  I am thrilled to pimp (h/t Randazza) for the blawgs that I believe do a great job, to the extent they appear on the list, and urge you to go to the Beauty Pageant and vote for them.  To do so, click on the category name or on this badge to go to the main page.

News: Vote for How Appealing, because Howard Bashman does more to help the blawgosphere than anyone else, and deserves to get some love.

Crime:  Vote for Defending People.  If I need to explain this, then you probably shouldn’t be reading Simple Justice.

Professors:  Vote for Volokh Conspiracy.  Oops, wait, VC isn’t in that category.  They put it in News instead.  Well then, second choice is Concurring Opinions, which is in a very tight race with a couple of others, like PrawfsBlawg and Turley.  I give the edge to Dan and Dave for depth, and especially because they have Frank Pasquale on their team.

Niche:  This is a tough category because they’ve mixed together blawgs that have absolutely nothing to do with one another.  Even so, the vote goes to Deliberations by Anne Reed.  Sorry Walter.

Technology:  Not my favorite category, but I’ll throw my vote to Kevin at Real Lawyers Have Blogs just because he works so darned hard at it.  Of course, he gets paid for it too, so don’t cry too hard for him.

Quirky:  As much as like Blonde Justice (and I do) and as much as I dislike (and I do), vote for Quizlaw.

Careers:  While Law21 is a great new blog, and Carolyn Elefant’s My Shingle is the only marketing blawg that keeps things honest, vote for What About Clients? because Dan Hull has got the biggest pair in the blawgosphere, and never shies away from saying what needs to be said.

Students:  I can’t help you on this one, as I’ve never read any of the blawgs.  You’re on your own.

Podcasts:  The only thing I can suggest here is don’t vote for FBI:Gotcha, a disgraceful inclusion. Talk about lipstick on a pig.  Aside from that, who cares.

Regional:   Another mix of apples and oranges that makes it silly to have to chose, but chose we must, and I chose Eric Turkewitz’s New York Personal Injury Law Blog, because Turk is one of the best, funniest and most astute inhabitants of the blawgosphere.

And so it goes.