Is That Legal?

It was that post about "fellow travelers" that did you in. Not law-related enough, I guess.

Hmm. Maybe not a blawg. But certainly a blog. Frankly, reading "real" blawgs makes me very sleepy. I'd much rather read yours.

you're out and volokh is in? that's arbitrary and capricious, i say. the title is "is that legal" for god sakes!

i did note you would rank as #11 if you were included. chopped liver never ranked so high.

Eric, don't you know a compliment when you see it? You're much to well-rounded to be a blawg.

It all started with a "self-congratulatory" posting by a blawg about how influential it was based on some dubious public 'hit' logs and tracking lists. Then it changed the term from influential to "popular" but to the same effect, an us and them club aimed at making sure that blog and its friends and those it wanted to be associated with were on the list. Of course many of us have more reads than those listed on the list (or in my case at least a couple listed on the lists) of blawgs, but if you don't play with the "popular kids" on their terms you don't make the list.

And here I was thinking I graduated high school twenty years ago.

If it makes you feel better, I've never heard of most of those sites.

For starters, I don't see the point of excluding law professor blogs that "are not true law blogs," unless you're compiling a list of legal blogs that nobody actually reads. If you're a legal scholar and you discuss legal topics on your blog from time to time, that should be good enough.

Also, how is it that Professor Muller's blog "stradles the fence?" Couldn't the same be said of professorbainbridge.com, which is #3 on the list? He describes his site as an "eclectic mix of law, business and economics, Catholicism, politics and current events, dogs, and photography." (I prefer your succinct, modest, and accurate tagline, "A law professor's musings.")

I demand a Congressional inquiry into this sham of a law blog ranking - one hopefully not chaired by that windbag Joe Biden.

I'm guessing that it's the increasingly disturbing fascination with Michelle Malkin that's creeping everybody out.

[ELM: An interesting little theory, Dave, and I hope you feel better for having created a chance to take another shot at me. One little wrinkle in your theory is, unfortunately, the facts; this conference was planned months ago. But have at me anyway, Dave; don't let the facts stand in your way!]