And now you're super-famous and incredibly cool!

Matt's hetero man-crush on you is _adorable_.

I don't know, man. As luck would have it I'm not particularly interested in ever being paid to give my opinions, so the bar for what I consider success is much lower. But a small but smart group of people reads what I have to say, and I get read and linked to by a small number of really smart and generous bloggers, and for me, that's enough. And I started this thing in June. Meanwhile, there's simply no chance I could ever get an internship at the New Republic, say. I'll be the first to argue that the democratization of blogs is overblown, but being able to reach even a small community from a blog I literally started on a public computer at the library... that has to count for something.

i just read this kid Dylan Matthew's blog. It sucks. he's a dumb twerp who obviously doesn't actually know anything but has the bare technical competence to post one-sentence links to CNN and The Page, along with the occasional music video. Oh, and his adventures cleaning out the dorms at Harvard.

Look, Ezra, i understand Dylan Matthews is your "DC Amigo". I know you like the kid and you wanna give him some badly-needed encouragement. but please, don't debase yourself. It's an embarrassment to both of you.

hey, freddie, i have a question for you. What do you do IRL?

Do you mind if I don't say, raft? It's not really logical, I guess, because anyone seeking out what I've done online could do it fairly easily. (Although I don't go by Freddie in my professional life.) It's just that I'm coming from a culture that has demonstrated some uneven attitudes towards blogging, and depending on your place in the culture you can be set back by being known as a blogger.

Not trying to be obstinate or anything.

The fact that you were an early blogger is only part of the story. You, Yglesias, and Mcardle, et. al., all have safe establisment viewpoints (albeit the leftish edge of the establishment). Furthermore, you all appear "serious" and business-like, and are capable of appearing as though you actually know what you are talking about, regarless of whether you actually do or not. Remember, we're talking about a media system where Thomas Friedmans are elevated and Noam Chomskys are ridiculed. To rise in such a system isn't exactly a compliment.

i get you, freddie (though that *is* your picture, isn't it?)

That's a very important point from Jessica. One of the things that I find funny about Yglesias-- who is my favorite blogger-- is that he talks so eloquently about the "Very Serious" tendency within foreign policy debates, but doesn't seem to realize that he's on a similar scale, and the reason that Chomsky or Chalmers Johnson or similar are exiled from the mainstream conversation that he is a part of is that he is more "Very Serious" than they are.

Well luck is important, but I think what separates you all from others who jumped on during that period (say Michelle Malkin) is that you all held yourself accountable to increasing your knowledge and deepening your perspective as you increased your profile. I also appreciate that you personally take a "if I don't have any relevant knowledge to add, refer to someone who does" approach, something Matt drifts away from far too often for my tastes.

My mom thinks I'm the most handsome person on the internet.

i get you, freddie (though that *is* your picture, isn't it?)

Yeah. I guess it's really just an affectation, at this point.

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/11/malcolm-gladwells-outliers/

That's great that you guys are getting recognition, but I would be a little offended to be lumped in with Lomborg of all people. I mean Friedman is a first degree asshat who increasingly resembles Matt Tiabbi's (at the time over the top) hit piece.

But Bjorn Lomborg has got to be one of the silliest, most intellectually dishonest people of the 21st century. Who does he think he's fooling, other than Andrew Sullivan and the WSJ editorial board?

luck helps
but a nice, thick turtle shell
is essential!

luck helps
but a nice, thick turtle shell
is essential!

Don't sell yourself too short Ezra, sure you got in early but you're also one of those who built up the medium's credibility so that others may follow. Plus back in the 2003-2004 days of Pandagon there was plenty of competition for you guys, you just did a great job of pointing out why they were idiots.

Congrats

Remember, we're talking about a media system where Thomas Friedmans are elevated and Noam Chomskys are ridiculed. To rise in such a system isn't exactly a compliment.

Well...look, Ezra doesn't pretend to be anything else other than a mainstream liberal. He believes in capitalism, he believes in an interventionist foreign policy, etc. You can disagree with about those things of course, but it's not like he's some kind of sell-out. If anything Ezra has moved further to the left.

And the fact of the matter is, Noam Chomsky is not going to be invited on Hardball. So who would you rather have on there: Ezra, or Thomas Friedman?

"It's not like he's some kind of sell out."

No one claimed that he is. I was just making the point that, for the most part, access to the mainstream media requires one to have views that fall somewhere inside the estabishment spectrum. The fact that Ezra was an early blogger had very little to do with his media success, a point which wasn't acknowledged by him.

"And the fact of the matter is, Noam Chomsky is not going to be invited on Hardball. So who would you rather have on there: Ezra, or Thomas Friedman?"

This is irrelevant to the point I was making.

The simple fact is that luck does have something to do with it.

You can have all the talent in the world, but if you're not fortunate enough to have a few things go your way, it just might never happen for you.

I think a lot of people are a bit precious about acknowledging the role of luck, because they want to believe they have absolutely earned their success. In realizing one has been at least somewhat lucky, one must at the same time acknowledge there might be other, equally talented, equally worthy individuals who just haven't had the chance.

And goodness knows that might lead us toward something that vaguely resembles what some might consider socialism...

"In realizing one has been at least somewhat lucky, one must at the same time acknowledge there might be other, equally talented, equally worthy individuals who just haven't had the chance."

Comments like this are why I made my initial post. Gaining access to the mainstream media has very little to do with being "talented" and "worthy." Just look at the figures on TV or the Op-ed writers of any major newspaper. To the extent that talent is involved, it should be decried, because you're essentially talking about talented propagandists.

I was speaking more broadly of the role luck plays in success in any given field, not merely in securing a prominent place in the media. Goodness knows it's been true of my career.

Friedman is on Colbert right now, he really looks a lot like Peppy Hare from Star Fox.

More people should be Rawlsians, but luck has little to do with it - he wasn't a luck egalitarian, which seems to be what you're implying.

The editor at City on a Hill the first year I worked there was Dana Priest, who has since gone on to win two Pulitizers at the Washington Post. So I don't think working at CHP would have been bad for your career...

You know, every honest successful person can look back and identify forks in the road that look like "luck." And they are, at one level. But then, lots of lame people started lame blogs when you did, Ezra, and we do not know who they are. Success is the intersection of luck, ability, and effort. Luck alone does not mean anything.