When I reworked my blogroll last week, I quoted Borges as justification for my new pseudo-systematic arrangement. Perhaps I should have used Borges' actual categories. Some identifications are obvious:

• A Dog's Life would come under "those that are trained", while The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler could be one of the "stray dogs".
• First on the list of "those that tremble as if they were mad" would have to be Laurence Simon (Amish Tech Support). I'm sure there are others that could (and should) be included in this category, perhaps even some eager to be committed to it.
• The category "innumerable ones" is made for the ever-increasing ranks of The Volokh Conspiracy.
• There are lots of candidates for "suckling pigs", but I don't link to any of them on principle.

Unfortunately, that still leaves "those drawn with a very fine camel's-hair brush", "those that have just broken the flower vase", and several other hard-to-fill, categories. Nine out of ten blogs would have to be assigned randomly to the Borgesian categories.

Of course, there is precedent for that, too. Pejmanesque's Dantesque blogroll seems relatively random: why are Time and Newsweek listed under Gluttony, the New Republic under Perverted Love, and the BBC under Violence? On the other hand, he lists me in the Primum Mobile, and I have actually operated a Prime Mover. I doubt that there are very many others who can honestly say that they have read bits of Aristotle in Greek and operated a Prime Mover.