I doubt the Weblog Awards are as prestigious as, say, the Ignoble Prize. Nor can I saw I've ever read a blog or refrained from reading one because it did or didn't get an award. I try to read things that are worthy of reading, or offer interesting insights into the emotional cesspools of the minds of Israel's detractors.
Still for some people these things are important, and as in many things, ending up with a bad result is worse than no result.
In the Middle East category there are a number of fine bloggers in the running, which is a problem because the ranters are represented by only one fellow with a shot at winning, and the vote for him isn't splitting. So we should be voting to assure he doesn't. Me, I've been voting for Michael Totten, because he's very good (but so are others), because so far as I know, he's the only one who blogs for a living so it may make a difference to him, and as of this morning, also because right now he's solidly in the lead, so we don't really have to split our vote anymore.
Here's where you vote, and you can do so once a day for the next few days.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I wrote about this topic this morning. Martin Kramer wrote a great post on Juan Cole's allegations of a neocon plot to sweep the category. The "Politics of the Weblogs," you might say...
Thanks, Yaacov.
It's really too bad your excellent blog wasn't nominated. Every day I read what you have to say.
Best wishes,
Michael
I wanted to vote for you!
Too bad you're not nominated. I had to go with Juan Cole.
But I hate to do things on ideology alone. I would have preferred to reward good prose, such as yours. Cole's is boring.
Who is the representative of the ranters? Or should I not ask? And is he one of the people Jihad Watch recommends we vote for?
Post a Comment