Instead, I find you being amazingly defensive about my little after-thought. No wonder you’re sick of this controversy — you are taking it far too personal. (And, to be honest, I bet you could have stolen that extra half-second and noticed the “vote for your favorites” badge a few inches down the screen).

I refuse to use emoticons to show when I’m being less-than-fully serious (or am making an obviously minor, catty point, and having some fun). People who love to take offense should seriously consider avoiding this weblog.

God I am so sick of this subject, and the whiny, sour-grapes, faux-controversy. Of COURSE it’s a beauty contest. Of COURSE it doesn’t mean anything! If it’s a bad list – and I don’t disagree that some really good blogs were left out, by the way, and that I would have created a much different list – then MAKE YOUR OWN.

Everyday through this artificial controversy I am constantly reminded of the old saw: “He (or she) who looks for something to be offended at will never lack for contenders.”

Well of course I don’t give the electorate much credit. Look who we elect!

As for my blog readers, naturally I think they have excellent taste in reading materials! But I think it’s you that underestimates them, assuming they won’t know they have the option to vote for someone else unless I tell them so. People understand how voting works.

You may prefer candidates who don’t ask for your vote, but from a political perspective that’s pretty naive. Particularly for driving traffic online, a direct ask generates more click-throughs than a general one, plain and simple. best,

I agree the ABA Journal Blawg 100 list indeed does a service for many readers (especially those who do not spend much time at weblogs) and for blawgers who do not have the time for endless web-surfing. My goal was to help the feeble-minded or clueless — not my regular readers, naturaly — (and some of the loudest complainers) understand how the process works, so they would keep things in perspective.

It’s a little scary, of course, to think that a lot of lawyers go around not understanding how the world works (or — like lots of politicians — making believe they don’t, so that they can moan about it).

I didn’t call Best of Lists popularity contests. They rarely are that — unless “popular” means “the ones the Owner thinks can best help promote his publication.”

If it wasn’t so easy to stuff the ballot box in the blawg-favorites poll and similar contests, it would make more sense to participate. As formulated, even they aren’t really Popularity Contests in many of the categories.

One place I differ with your Comments: I like the candidates who say “they’re holding an election, vote for the candidate you think is the best.” By insisting that voters must be directly asked, you don’t seem to give either your blawg readers, your blawg itself, or the electorate much credit.

I’ll bite, having made the choice you describe. The ABA Journal established a competition and invited participation. I’m not a lawyer, but instead my background is in electoral and legislative politics. In both arenas, rule #1 is that if you want someone to vote for you, you have to ask. So I did – not just because of ego, though like most writers I’ve surely got one, but because the process engages core readers and gives them a way to participate in promoting the blog. That strengthens the blog’s overall communal relationships, since at core blogs are a community of writers and readers. Now, having answered, what were you implying that it said about the “needs and creeds” of blawggers? I suspect it wasn’t flattering.

FWIW, you’ve pegged it 100% correctly that these best of lists are mere popularity contests, but failed to answer the followup question, so what? They encourage blogger interaction, which IMO is good, and for myself I learned about quite a few new blogs I didn’t know about, e.g., like this one. That alone is a service to both the ABA Journal’s readers and the blogosphere. Nobody at ABA or any other best-of list ever claimed the results were scientific, just like reader polls on blogs don’t withstand scrutiny, or annual “best of the city” lists in local entertainment weeklies. Glenn Reynolds beats everyone is we measure by reader votes, though I don’t think Instapundit is the best legal blog. So what? It’s just for fun. Embracing subjectivity is part of what makes the blogosphere distinct from the MSM, and that’s a good thing. best,

[T]hey should at least delete all the pious statements about putting the client’s interests first, living up to the highest standards of ethics, and existing to serve the public.

Instead, bar association websites might conspicuously post this disclaimer:

Warning: We are a guild, here to serve the economic interests of our members. We’ll fight (’til your last dollar) to protect you from any legal adversary and to secure your legal rights. However, when it comes to your financial interests versus our own, we will put ours first whenever possible.

>>tended to include topics/segments within the profession that are of greatest interest to ABA leaders and potential advertisers, and exclude those — like family law and personal injury law — that for some reason are not of foremost interest to bar leaders, likely advertisers>

The Mission of the American Bar Association is to be the national representative of the legal profession, serving the public and the profession by promoting justice, professional excellence and respect for the law.

From the ABA website:

The Mission of the American Bar Association is to be the national representative of the legal profession, serving the public and the profession by promoting justice, professional excellence and respect for the law.

If advertising dollars are now more important than the mission, then they have failed in the mission.

cannot be

mine?

-Haiku for the poetically challenged, 2007