Huh. If I were Yglesias, I'd take that as a compliment. A somewhat condescendingly delivered one, but it does identify a real and important virtue -- he's awfully smart, and knows a lot about a lot of stuff, but is pretty reliably clear about where he's getting into areas of ignorance, and so doesn't go pontificating about stuff where he really doesn't know what he's talking about. That's huge.
I'm pushing forty, white, and an academic. And I sometimes resent Yglesias (for his youth, intellect, and itchy trigger finger). But even I have to admit that the young whippersnapper is pretty damn smart, a hybrid of E.J. Dionne and Charlton Heston. If you'd all be kind enough to replace the previous analogy with one that's more apt, I'd be most grateful.
Ellis is a very odd fish, almost trollish at times in a tone-deaf way, but sometimes very sharp. I've had many run-arounds with him.
More importantly, what the fuck is most of Indiana doing on Eastern Standard Time? A nearly-missed appointment just introduced me to the unbelievably farcical world of Time in Indiana.
Anmik, I didn't mean that Yglesias-resentment is endemic to...you people, just that its notable cases (see Tom H/ilde) seem to be drawn from that population.
what the fuck is most of Indiana doing on Eastern Standard Time?
Gotcha, foreigner.
I'd take that as a compliment
That's because you're so sweet-tempered, LB.
4: There once was a West Wing episode that pivoted on this issue. As with so much on that show after Aaron Sorkin moved on (read: entered rehab -- again), it was a missed opportunity. Not nearly so culturally acute as the new Britney Spears, I think.
Indiana time has come up in comments here before, hasn't it?
>Gotcha, foreigner.
I actually knew --- or thought I knew --- about Indiana and Daylight Savings, but having just driven here via Chicago the EST caught me completely by surprise. The next county west -- still in Indiana -- is on Central.
That's because you're so sweet-tempered, LB.
Condescending. Ogged is working on becoming a Lefty Man. Ick.
is pretty reliably clear about where he's getting into areas of ignorance, and so doesn't go pontificating about stuff where he really doesn't know what he's talking about.
You're not a basketball fan.
5: Nope, I'm thinking that you're right. I didn't resent the implication of the post so much as recognize in my jealous, plaque-choked heart, that it was right. I'm filled with resenment, born of my sense that my time has come and gone. And the Yglesiai (is that the plural form?) of the world are just arriving.
1: Ellis does not concede that Yyglesias is "awfully smart." He rather suggests that Yglesias has done well with his only "moderately above average intelligence."
It's a ridiculous statement, and it's not intended as a compliment.
Condescending.
It was a performative ironic refutation, B; very advanced magic.
Okay, marginally relevant cute kid story. (One establishing either that I'm an excellent parent, or that Sally's achieved absolutely weird levels of subtly manipulative flattery. So, either way, I'm bragging here.)
We're jogging last week (in a low-speed, frequently interrupted kind of way) and Sally says, in response to nothing in particular, "You know what's different about you from other grownups, Mom? When I ask you something and you don't know the answer, you say you don't know." And of course I'm immensely pleased by this; I'm a more reliable source of information than all of those other bullshitting adults out there. And it's something I try to do, so the idea that I'm successful, and she's noticed, makes me very happy.
But that sort of thing -- being willing to argue like a fiend about stuff he knows about, and back off on areas where he's not an authority, makes Yglesias a very appealing writer.
Anmik, I didn't mean that Yglesias-resentment is endemic to...you people, just that its notable cases (see Tom H/ilde) seem to be drawn from that population.
A good chunk of that population has been invested for an awfully long part of their lives in being the smartest young person in the room. Now they're 40, they ain't got all that much to show for it, and people are much more interested in the smartest young person in the room.
very advanced magic
Holy shit, I thought we'd maxed out on the geekery around here. My bad.
LB, I bet you're a better mom than Yglesias is.
Now they're 40, they ain't got all that much to show for it, and people are much more interested in the smartest young person in the room.
It's so awful. Just wait; I'll be drunkenly flashing my tits ala Althouse soon enough.
Heh. I'm working on the transition from bright-young-thing to embittered-burnout myself. It'd work better with a good substance abuse problem, but I get such terrible hangovers when I drink, and everything else seems inconvenient and legally risky.
I find it not surprising at all that Ellis is a St. John's alum.
14: Okay, true, and that was what I meant by condescendingly delivered. But there's a valid compliment buried in there somewhere, even if Ellis was trying to be a jerk.
What would the Althouse fans diagnose as the cause of Althouse-resentment, I wonder?
Ellis intensely believes that Krugman (and DeLong) demeaning himself by writing about politics, and it's not even because he disagrees with Krugman. He seems to believe that political writing is a low-class trashy activity that pollutes anyone who touches it. He's probably saying that it's OK for Yglesias to write about politics because that's all he's capable of.
I'm going for embittered young burnout, myself.
A combination of sexism and feminist-based-sexist-hatred-of-women-who-don't-toe-the-party-line, clearly. And jealousy that she's pretty.
He's probably saying that it's OK for Yglesias to write about politics because that's all he's capable of.
LB, I totally agree that what Ellis says about Yglesias knowing his limitations is (mostly) true and a great compliment, but the whole thing taken together is no compliment.
On the topic of being the smartest young thing, I gave that up in college for some reason (even though I was convinced that I was surrounded by idiots), and I think that might have been a little too early to come to wisdom; probably would have been good to keep the fires burning for a little longer.
Gimme a break. LB's right in #1: it was a compliment, and it's not so far from a prior ogged post (or comment) noting that one of the things you learn once you're out of school and in a job is that having the sort of mind that does well in school is not the One Trait That Rules Them All. Yglesias is smart, but I don't think that it's a smartness differential that drives his success. He's good at some of the other stuff, as well. I take Ellis to be saying that some of that is a recognition of the wider world of smart--or even smart-er--people who know what they're talking about.
What would the Althouse fans diagnose as the cause of Althouse-resentment
Liberals talk big about digging the smart chicks, but Althouse reveals our true feelings.
26: I find the prospect of watching Yggles, and the rest of the blogger-gone-pro crowd, get older and more successful absolutely delightful. There's something very pleasing about the idea, twenty years from now, of watching him doing the liberal pundit slot on the PBS News Hour and thinking that I was reading his blog when he was an undergrad.
I'll be drunkenly flashing my tits atla Alt the Flophouse soon enough.
So you're coming to UnfoggeDCon II? Excellent!
Yglesias also gets really stupid flak from people who hate Ivy Leaguers because they're stuck up. I have my own anti-Ivy schtick, but I lay off on Yglesias's threads because I don't want to rouse the morons.
If he only coud spel.
You know what's different about you from other grownups, Mom? When I ask you something and you don't know the answer, you say you don't know
yes, my kids think this about me too. They are going to be fucking pissed off when they realise that I was actually bullshitting much more of the time than they had the wit to realise.
I have a bit up at the Guardian about book-larnin' versus street-smarts, where I demonstrate to the very sharp indeed which side I am on by including a Level One profanity in the first seven words and blithely assuming the Grauniad will print it.
21: Which kind of St. John's? Great books or basketball?
As to the other comment, I think Fred is finding that running for President is harder than GWB made it look.
They are going to be fucking pissed off when they realise that I was actually bullshitting much more of the time than they had the wit to realise.
Hopefully, by that time, they'll be too crafty to let you figure it out. Until, of course, they leave you to die alone in a poorly run nursing home.
Re: The Fred quip - to me it is about the most endearing thing I have heard from a presidential candidate in a long time. People with sophisticated senses of humor love the "but the compliment actually doesn't apply to me" trope. It is one of my favorites as well.
It's nice to see LB get something at least partially wrong every now and then. Yes, it's a true and valid compliment that Sausagely is good about distinguishing between what he knows and what he's bullshitting about, but it's not complimentary to compare his intellect to Sd/B's. The latter is a reasonably bright guy who suffers from the dread disease of thinking he's a lot smarter than he is. Sausagely is both smart as hell and secure enough about it that he's also shockingly wise for one of his tender years.
I'll be drunkenly flashing my tits ala Althouse soon enough.
Did Althouse really do that?
IA, control your timid Canadian prurience.
Never ever tell Emerson anything about your ethnic background.
Did Althouse really do that?
No, that was me.
drunkenly flashing my tits
I'll hit your Paypal for that, old lady.
I find the prospect of watching Yggles, and the rest of the blogger-gone-pro crowd, get older and more successful absolutely delightful. There's something very pleasing about the idea, twenty years from now, of watching him doing the liberal pundit slot on the PBS News Hour
What I wonder is which ones will be doing the neocon pundit slots. Not implying anything about anyone in particular, but c'mon: you know we're going to have some red-faced, balding former liberal bloggers arguing for war with whomever is left at that point.
"identify with frustrated forty-something academic males"
the key here might be to rearrange that to:
"forty-something, male, frustrated-academics."
i.e. that the guys he pisses off are the ones who are frustrated at their own lack of recognition, either cause they're not in academics, or cause they are but aren't getting the recognition in it they deserve.
forty-something passed me by a while ago, but i have also suffered relatively little frustration in my academic career, i.e. i've gotten due recognition etc., and i'm happy to say that i take my hat off to yglesias on an almost daily basis. he is preternaturally smart, as well as hard-working.
Didn't someone who looked just like Yglesias, but with a mustache, once comment here that he was first in line among the Yglesias skeptics?
What I wonder is which ones will be doing the neocon pundit slots
Aren't Matt Continetti and James Kircher (or whatever his name is) already lined up for these?
Think about it. The case against Yglesias is pretty strong.
46: "or cause they are but aren't getting the recognition in it they deserve"
Name me an academic who believes that s/he (but especially he) is getting the recognition s/he deserves. There may be a few out there, but they're hard to find.
Aren't Matt Continetti and James Kircher (or whatever his name is) already lined up for these?
I mean from among current liberals. There are a lot of neocon slots to fill, after all.
To me it's mind-boggling (though completely unsurprising) that Jonah Goldberg and Ana Marie Cox are in the big leagues and Yglesias isn't. Cox isn't really that bad, but for her to be one of the first bloggers to be promoted into money journalism is really a shame. And Goldberg is as appallingly bad as The Editors say he is.
I believe that Dr. Alterman also has commented on his own financial prospects compared to those of his imbecile winger peers.
50--
well, i listed myself. and my name. so that's one.
Oh for pity's sake:
He very well could be somewhere on the Autism Spectrum.
Cox was already a print journalist, wasn't she? I thought she wrote for the Chronicle of Higher Education.
they're hard to find.
Must not be getting that much recognition, then.
To me it's mind-boggling (though completely unsurprising) that Jonah Goldberg and Ana Marie Cox are in the big leagues and Yglesias isn't.
Whar? Yglesias is going to have a book published. He's one of the six or seven house bloggers of a magazine much more important than National Review Online. What are the "big leagues"?
Yglesias is on par with Ana Marie Cox. Megan From The Archives, for example, isn't.
Name me an academic who believes that s/he (but especially he) is getting the recognition s/he deserves
I can tell you which academics are getting more recognition than they deserve. Does that count?
54: Jackassery is easier to diagnose but, unfortunately, impossible to treat. So where's my grant money?
59--
sure, i'll put myself on that list, too.
Gosh, kb, one of you is awfully self-effacing.
Goldberg's on the LA Times and gets on TV a lot. The Atlantic Monthly isn't on a par with Time.
Magazine journalism and book publishing are open to liberals and smart people, but TV, the dailies, and the newsmagazines aren't very often.
58: I think Cox was getting paid before Yggles was, which was weird. But you're right that it's evened out.
National Review Online
But the complaint is not about NRO, but that Goldberg parlayed that into an oped slot at the LA Times, which many consider the big time.
So where's my grant money?
I'm not stinking rich yet.
Yglesias is on par with Ana Marie Cox. Megan From The Archives, for example, isn't.
I will be once people learn to see the beauty in lengthy irrigation blogging. Then I'll get the recognition I deserve.
54: Similarly, a K-12 administrator of my acquaintance used to distinguish between legitimate AD/HD and plain old RLS [rotten little shit] Syndrome.
Cox is on TV a lot more than Yglesias too. But maybe Yglesias doesn't want to do TV, which would be unfortunate For The Cause.
68: Actually, I have the occasional apocalyptic fear that in the near future water policy is going to be much more politically salient than it has been, and not in a happy way. Your route to punditry fame and fortune may open yet.
68: The future is bright for irrigation blogging. I'm certain of it. Just bide your time; apostles are already making a slow march to your front gate.
68: The future is bright for irrigation blogging. I'm certain of it. Just bide your time; apostles are already making a slow march to your front gate.
I'll take Yglesias's teevee leavings. For the Cause, honest.
maybe Yglesias doesn't want to do TV
He's been on TV, but usually it's C-Span at 4am, and he used to have something on his site that explained that he used to do MSNBC until he said something about cable news and the rush to war (or something like that).
"apocalyptic fear" s/b "realization of the inevitable"
Which type of irrigation blogging is better? Flooding the blog and then waiting for the post to seep in? A slow but regular drip of smaller posts? Circling around the same subjects again and again?
Fantastic! There's so much left to cover! In such great detail!
I've mostly been staying technical to bore out that Canadian troll. I tell myself that I can blog about irrigation for longer than he can stay outraged over feminism.
(Punditry fame and fortune carries some risk of outing me to my employee. I'll keep it low-pro for a while longer.)
Just one employee? You can easily buy his silence with the riches that come with notoriety.
Aw, eb. We always get along so well, but I really hate to be a reason for puns. Punning isn't the sort of behavior I like to encourage.
I can blog about irrigation for longer than he can stay outraged over feminism.
Somebody is not crediting the deep, tangled psychosexual roots of male responses to feminism.
Cox is on TV a lot more than Yglesias too.
Cox doesn't consistently appear to be in need of a shave.
I see blogspot still hasn't fixed its "link directly to a comment" problem.
TV is a pretty visual medium.
Next up for Yglesias: tanning bed, waxing, personal trainer, makeover, image consultant, new wardrobe!
86: Easy fix. The young today are too hirsute. Phil Hartman never had a beard.
He could stand to spend a little while blogging about the slutty escapades of unnamed insiders, too. And dress more like a slut. And slut on some more makeup, and slut up his hair a little.
69--
i like the diagnosis of 'rls syndrome'.
back when i used to work on ambulances, there was a charting notation of 'flk' for 'funny looking kid', which covered a wide range of abnormalities.
Cox used to have a fantastic blog, and her stuff on that was much richer and more thoughtful than what she's been doing since her rise to big media semi-celebrity.
Matt kind of has a voice for blogging, or Woody Allen movies.
Right, the antic muse, which I used to read regularly, back in the dark ages of blogs.
the antic muse
I remember that blog! That was one of the good ones. That was by the same person who created Wonkette? Holy crap.
The word "sellout" has never felt more necessary than it does to me right now.
While we're making over Yglesias, is there any chance to do something about his piercingly high voice? Is that just a Bloggingheads artifact?
Apropos of the Fafblog restrospective, I wonder if I would find the Antic Muse as awesome today as I did then. I think it would be hard to mentally separate the content from the Ana Marie Cox of 2007.
101--
a speech synthesizer. that would do the trick.
he could set it to 'james earl jones' for that darth vader sound.
While we're making over Yglesias, is there any chance to do something about his piercingly high voice?
Well, we could give him massive testosterone injections, but the risk is he would start seeing merit in AIPAC's positions. As well as being counterproductive w/r/t facial hair.
I'll hit your Paypal for that, old lady.
You insult me, sir.
Anyway, you saw 'em pretty well at DCon last year.
Name me an academic who believes that s/he (but especially he) is getting the recognition s/he deserves
I'm pretty sure I've said in public how much I hate that Bitch PhD person.
Speech lessons?
Actually, I hate watching online video, so I have no idea what Yglesias's voice sounds like. It's that bad?
102: From early 2003--
But yesterday ABC.com had a story saying that the upgrade stemmed from information obtained from a captured member of Al Qaeda, who told officials that the group had developed a way to sneak explosives past security devices by hiding them in "shoes, suitcases, and laptops" and was planning a dirty bomb attack on "Washington, New York, or Florida." (So much for specificity.) But, according to ABC, this intelligence turned out to be "a product of his imagination;" the informant failed a lie-dectector test.
I know, I know, a terrorist who lies. Who would have thunk it?
My father took the reversal a little more seriously, and noted, "This is the kind of thing that happens when you torture people for information."
I don't know that it's enjoyable, but I'm impressed by it. Sometimes I love old people.
Actually, I hate watching online video
You can download as an mp3.
I'm a luddite. I'm not actually using a keyboard right now -- I dictate comments to a paralegal, who reads responses out loud to me.
No, I don't like watching or listening to anything that's supposed to be informational -- it's too slow.
50 Name me an academic who believes that s/he (but especially he) is getting the recognition s/he deserves. There may be a few out there, but they're hard to find.
Actually, they're precisely the ones who are easy to find.
105: Yes, while you're at it, you can also try to name me an academic whose sense that they're insufficiently renowned isn't motivated, at least in party, by some amount of self-hatred. Seriously, I'm often amazed that even my most eminent colleagues -- with some important exceptions -- believe that they've been kicked around by the profession. These people hold chairs at Ivies, have won the big prizes, and sit on the powerful committess of the major organizations in their fields. And yet, somehow they're sure that the profession has ignored their brilliance. It's sad, really. Also: pretty annoying.
And that's why they don't like Yglesias. Actually, there's probably something here. As someone commented earlier, there's a way in which success in the academy doesn't amount to that much. Add to that, the successful usually become part of the establishment -- at least in my field -- meaning that the Yglesia of the world are both pretty threatening and pretty threatening.
Oh, and B, I can't stand myself either. Any accolades that have come my way have been entirely unwarranted.
It's less informational than entertainment. (It reads as if I'm pushing you towards it. I'm not. I like it, but you're not missing much. His voice is a bit higher than expected.)
I like listening to people talk (sports talk, for example), so Bloggingheads is just a nerdier version for me. As far as his voice, it's not exactly radio ready.
I cannot watch bloggingheads. It's just not exciting enough to satisfy my timid Canadian prurience.
So what if there are people wandering around who are much, much smarter than yggls? He works hard (most of the battle) and is getting things done. I know lots of scary bright people who are unfocused. Once you are talking noticably quicker than most, it's pretty hard to differentiate -- except for a very, very small number, and those ones are obvious. Everyone else is in the same pot, and what you do with it is vastly more important.
As someone commented earlier,
That was me you young pup, and also 101 was totally pwned by my 97, but I didn't get any fucking credit for that in 103, 104 106 et seq., either.
iTunes -> Music Store -> Search -> "bloggingheads" -> subscribe
Listen on the bus.
Dear Max [Ferrand]:
Of course I liked your letter. Who would not have liked to have something that made him feel that what he was trying to do was worth while. Expressions of interest in onesself or ones work are so rare in New Haven that I am almost tempted to have your letter framed. I get into the habit of wondering sometimes whether it is all worth the effort and the sacrifice and the drudgery. But I always come back to the one great solace that it is all to the good, and that whatever contributes to knowledge or to life is its own reward. Then I love it and that adds to my cares, lest I be doing that which is purely selfish because I am never happier than when I am at it. I am glad you liked the paper, and I am more glad that you told me you liked it. I liked it myself, and felt that it opened a lot of possible interpretations that had not been in the past a part of our thought of colonial history. I sometimes in my climbing think that I am looking on a new world of colonial life, and that in the past we have been living like cave men instead of searchers for the truth and the light. I keep at it, but it[is] all so slow and there is so much to know. I wonder whether I shall live out the doing of what I want to do.
As far as his voice, it's not exactly radio ready.
I am optimistic that his voice could be made more tv/radio friendly with voice coaching. It's not that he doesn't have the pipes; it's that he talks from his upper chest through his nose.
MY, if you're reading this: You rock, man. Don't listen to the haters!
111--
"Any accolades that have come my way have been entirely unwarranted."
sure, it's a sign of decent humility to feel that way.
but, you know the saying:
when life hands you accols, make accolade!
MY, if you're reading this: You rock, man. Don't listen to the haters!
Hear, hear ! I'm pretty sure the abysmal spelling is a product of his desire to not seem too much above the rest of us.
Seeing Ygg's music reccs, i feel quite secure in my greater hipster credentitals.
117:
Gonerill, you're right -- I'm sorry, you got to it first. Woody Allen or perhaps Paul Giamatti in "Planet of the Apes". Maybe Paul Reiser?
I'm working on the transition from bright-young-thing to embittered-burnout myself.
It's true that alcohol makes that transition much easier and more fun.
Anyway, I'm inclined to think that Ellis wasn't trying to compliment Yglesias--I believe Ellis is a big fan of being "frank"--but I have my doubts that he meant it as a subtle dig, either. Emerson is right: Ellis is oddly tone-deaf in many ways, but he's always well-intentioned. If anything, he's being too generous to SDB.
There's something very pleasing about the idea, twenty years from now, of watching him doing the liberal pundit slot on the PBS News Hour
Totally.
For the myriad easily predictable, trite reasons, Yglesias gets a lot of crap for talking about Harvard, and for being the general goateed New Yorker everyone likes to laugh at, and writing about Broken Social Scene, blah blah. I'm consistently surprised by the amount of hostility you can see in his comment threads -- his opinions are reasoned and not outrageous, but for some reason, the fact that it's coming from Matthew and his nerdy Harvard beardedness makes it objectionable, or at least mockable.
So, I'm a big fan of MY. Yglesias has an amazing talent for getting to the core of faulty arguments and demolishing them quickly and gracefully, and also for imbuing every sentence of his writing with a light sarcastic humor. For some reason he seems by far the most "substantive" of the liberal bloggers; I'm not sure what I mean by this. Perhaps that his posts have the highest density of argumentative force, neatly arrayed and presented without much filler.
I think he is by far the best liberal policy blogger. For this reason he's been the first blog I look at every day (except sometimes Josh Marshall, who is not quite as potent or succinct) since about 2003. It's not because he's my age, or his views match my own, or anything else: it's because he's an exceptionally good writer in a very subtle, not flashy, very effective way.
125 is right, on all counts.
Speaking of tone deaf, 116 was. That'll learn me for rushing a comment.
117: You're so right. And you are, like most brilliant scholars, totally unappreciated. But do you, in turn, resent Yglesias for the recognition he gets?
The thing I admire about Yglesias is that he can raise a question and say something about it amazingly quickly (both in time and in words). So where someone else might spend 2 hours writing 300 words, Yglesias can make an equally good point in 20 minutes and 100 words (and shorter is better). It's sort of Voltairean (Voltaire wrote Candide in three days or so).
You're so right. And you are, like most brilliant scholars, totally unappreciated.
So true, so true. Actually that very last part is not true at all, but never mind.
But do you, in turn, resent Yglesias for the recognition he gets?
Nope. The people I resent tend to maxmize pseud-smarts, glibness and relatively high media exposure. Glysagia only scores one one out of three.
130: So, you're both appreciated and magnanimous. I think you've chosen the wrong line of work. And also: fuck you very much.
Ok, this thread is out of control, and we need some decent intelligent criticism of Yglles. Just because.
I don't think he is sardonic or cynical enough, is much too optimistic and idealistic for someone of his age, and has inadequate facial hair.
The thing I admire about Yglesias is that he can raise a question and say something about it amazingly quickly (both in time and in words).
This is exactly how Kinsely used to be when he was writing the TRB column for the New Republic. Somewhere along the way he his touch (maybe the absence of space constraints on Slate? The lack of an obligation to engage in policy debates in Los Angeles?), so he doesn't have much of value to say anymore. But back in the day, he was very much like Sausagely. Brad Delong I think dubbed Sausagely the new Kinsely a few years back, and I totally agreed with him at the time, though now I would say the comparison is unfair to Matt.
It's not because he's my age, or his views match my own, or anything else
Which is interesting: I imagine it must be very exciting to be MY's age, more or less, and to read him and think "Yeah! I could do this." But intimidating, too, because of course, everyone can't do it. In that way, he's like the Minor Threat of political bloggers.
To be honest, I have been watching Yglles for 7+ years now, and I am disappointed. There is something lacking, an edge or crazed ambition or discipline, and I don't think he is going to make it up to the level of an Alterman or Fallows, let alone a Krugman or Harrington. MY will end up a Tomasky or Sullivan, a respected editor at some liberal magazine. I think Ezra Klein has more upside.
Eeveybody says MY is so smart and hard-working, and of course he is (compared to most of us), but he is, as far as I can tell, attempting to play in the big leagues. I am pretty sure Matt understands the differences between himself and O'Hanlon or Pollack or Beinert, and probably decided he didn't want to take his game & life up the the 'A" level.
That's fine. I like Tomasky & Gitlin and the rest of the ineffective liberal writers entertaining we political junkies. There are a lot of reasons the very talented don't become superstars.
29: I totally agree that what Ellis says about Yglesias knowing his limitations is (mostly) true and a great compliment, but the whole thing taken together is no compliment.
It may not've been delivered like one, but it was a compliment. Recognizing your own limitations is the key to happiness; thing is, academics are encouraged to think they have no limitations -- or that, if they do, it's only because they're not working hard enough. So they bust their collective asses, get a few promotions, yet still no one knows who they are. The lack of recognition is brutal, so much so eminent scholars are intimidated by my presence. Not because I'm smarter than they are -- I'm certainly not -- but because my modest talents have been recognized, whereas their greater talents have been praised then forgotten. They lack Google footprints, and this bothers them.
133: Sorry, that was feigned resentment over your success and apparent good nature. Really, a joke whose tone went awry.
Am I reaching anyone here? MY may be smarter, a better writer, a nicer person than say, DeLong or Mankiw, but he will not get the tip of a finger on the levers of power like DeLong or Mankiw have.
And I can see why on their blogs, even if I can't explain why very well.
There are a lot of reasons the very talented don't become superstars.
Don't go stealing my epitaph now, Bob.
"my modest talents" s/b "lucky enough to walk in on students fucking" ... because I know my place in things.
When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Matt Yglesias.
Matt Yglesias doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.
Matt Yglesias counted to infinity - twice.
I'll back Emerson et al. Keith Ellis is a good guy.
139: DeLong and Mankiw have their fingers on the levers of power because they're economists, not anything to do with blogging style.
It may not've been delivered like one, but it was a compliment.
That's Ellis. It took me a long time to get used to him. He says great stuff occasionally.
We're still waiting to hear the truth about the Kotsko-Holbo-Kaufman threesome.
but he will not get the tip of a finger on the levers of power like DeLong or Mankiw have.
Seriously, though--who the hell knows? I'm sure I lack the foresight to know where some guy in his mid-twenties will be twenty years from now. The truth here is that very few of us--however brilliant or determined we are--ever have a finger on the levers of power.
I have a slight chip on my shoulder about a lot of paid young bloggers because: (1) they got hired by the American Prospect & I didn't; (2) A-list liberal generalist bloggers don't listen to B-listers who know more about a given area & I end up feeling all Cassandra-ish: "no! McCain & Graham will cave, we can't hide behind them! Raise hell, starting now". But compared to the existing pundit corps, Yglesias, Klein et. al are really, really great. And certainly Yglesias is smart as hell.
145:Blogging style reveals something about personality. What specifically came to mind was DeLong's & Mankiw's lack of patience with their commenters. Whereas Yglesias is easy-going and tolerant.
Yglesias seeks to play in the FP community, and the play hardball when wars and defense budgets and the survival of gov'ts are at stake.
Virtues can become vices when you turn pro.
omg, I'm as neurotic as ogged.
On the topic of being the smartest young thing, I gave that up in college for some reason (even though I was convinced that I was surrounded by idiots), and I think that might have been a little too early to come to wisdom; probably would have been good to keep the fires burning for a little longer.
The only time that I thought of myself as being one of the smartest things was in highschool. (My grade school was more academically selective than the high school I went to.) I've never thought of myself as the smartest, or even smart in the grand scheme of things. I think, though, that I came upon this humility a little too early. I only compared myself to some exalted standard. "Hume was *smart*. I'm not as smart as Hume, so therefore it's wrong to say that I'm anything other than kind of bright." Basically that's true, but I think that too much self-awareness too young can get in the way of success by undermining one's confidence. I'm no genius, but I'm not dumb either.
I think Ezra Klein has more upside.
I wonder if this is true, but only because Klein is better on TV. I'm a huge Yglesias fan, I read him still for all the reasons people have mentioned. But he's not all that great on TV, and I think TV can still propel careers. Ana Marie Cox spent a lot of time being funny on cable TV during the Washingtonienne (?) anal ballet. Ezra is fine and wonky on his blog, but he's doing quite well on hardball and honing his game.
Stephanie Miller has been pretty funny on AM radio lately talking about how she'll never be on cable again since she called Chris Matthews a right wing tool to his face.
148: The chip is a perfectly reasonable one -- god knows why they didn't hire you.
Also, I'm looking forward to MY's book next year. It'll be interesting to see his approach to this long form.
I watch Steve Clemons very carefully, who is a minor FP player. Clemons is currently concentrating on Bolton & the Law oof the3 Sea and maybe Saudi relations. I think Iraq & Iran and torture+ are too vicious games right now. His buddy Bellinger is getting eaten alive for trying to balance loyalty & service with honesty & integity. Bellinger may be thru.
When MY was all over Beinert & O'Hanlon I was always thinking does MY realize what it takes to get a President, Secretary, even UnderSecretary to listen to you twice, or ten times. You gotta have the court intrigue and asscovering down ferpect.
154 may be the most clear-headed thing mcmanus has ever written in these pages.
I'm generally inclined to think that Yglesias might be smarter than Klein. I feel smarter reading Yglesias, because I think Yglesias is a better writer. Klein is very smart and a very good writer, but it takes a tiny bit more effort to read his substantive posts.
But sometimes, I wonder whether I think that Yglesias is smarter than a lot of people is because he went to Harvard. I'm not awed by the name or anything; there are plenty of people who went to Harvard who aren't all that bright or intellectually curious, but the East Coast style is one with which I'm comfortable, and it's different. I tend to believe that that means smarter, but it probably doesn't.
On the unknowability of career trajectories:
During the 1972 Presidential election, William Greider and David Broder occupied roughly similar positions in the press. (Although Broder was already "the Dean", believe it or fucking not)
they got hired by the American Prospect & I didn't
Well, for what it's worth, you should've had your own blog already, at least. Your writing on rendition and on Maher Arar, specifically, is as good as anything I've read on those topics anywhere and better than most. It's a shame that it's only been available on Obsidian Wings.
There is something lacking, an edge or crazed ambition or discipline, and I don't think he is going to make it up to the level of an Alterman or Fallows, let alone a Krugman or Harrington. MY will end up a Tomasky or Sullivan, a respected editor at some liberal magazine. I think Ezra Klein has more upside.
I would have put Alterman in the same category as Tomasky and Sullivan. And how is Krugman at a higher level than Fallows? Krugman is a columnist and has only had one job, ever, as a writer rather than an economist, and he's never been an editor or been in charge of journalists or even really been a journalist. Fallows is one of the most accomplished journalists/editors in the business. I don't know what you're measuring here.
And who's Harrington?
Although Broder was already "the Dean", believe it or fucking not
I'd pay to watch him fight Christgau for that title.
By the way, motherfuckers: I'm still a smart, promising young fella.
What specifically came to mind was DeLong's & Mankiw's lack of patience with their commenters.
I've had good luck with DeLong. More than any other site, I've trimmed my message to what he's willing to hear, but I've been normally abusive at times too. I believe that I might have changed his mind once or twice.
159:A lot of that is my personal taste. Fallows is a very great journalist. Krugman may win a Nobel.
Michael Harrington was just somebody I respect. Doesn't matter, I suppose.
152: I didn't have a very long resume, & by the time blogs existed, I was in law school. Not that being a lawyer is all bad: take that, CACI. (But boy am I annoyed about the other half of the decision.)
MY gave me good advice about a girl problem once.
Pursuant my ingrained paranoia, I'm convinced that in journalism mostly the good die young. There's a parade of sharp reporters and writers who were drummed out of the Times and the Post.
159: He wrote The Other America, among other things.
Katherine, did you work on that CACI case? Because, if you did, that's awesome.
lead associate. Actually, only associate.
160 I'd pay to watch him fight Christgau for that title.
Or for a more fair match, he could fight the corpse of Grantland Rice ... outlined against a blue-gray October sky
yep, soon. I was all pissy about the Titan half of the decision when I first read it, but I've moved on to excitement that this is the first civil torture suit to reach merits discovery & about the documents I might get to see. I should move into "OMG, we're tiny, how do we actually do all this" soon.
Muchos congratulationes, Katherine! And please continue to give 'em hell!
This thread is making me think I shouldn't even try to go into journalism. Katherine's doing great work, though. So I guess there's, uh, law school.
eb, LB's not here, so I can only repeat what she's said to teo several times: don't go to law school.
Well, law school will be in charge of you for three years and then make you be a lawyer. If you are looking for something else to decide everything, law school is a decent option.
eb, these folks are talking about punditry, which is a strange little branch of journalism. Most journalism is quite different.
I don't want to turn into John. But seriously, I'm not applying for law school this year, at least, and probably won't. I am looking at journalism. However, there are jobs where a law degree makes sense, if you can figure out how to get there.
eb: It's impossible to know, but my guess is that if I'd graduated from college a few years later I'd not have given up on journalism. (Of course, it'd be a lot harder to break in through blogging now than a couple years ago, but I don't think the window's entirely closed.) I had limited interest in the college paper given my work study job; limited ability to do unpaid internships; & limited patience for covering zoning meetings with no health insurance, no sick days, less salary than my husband's stipend, & no clear indication that I was getting closer to doing the sort of writing I was really interested in. If I'd had a way to generate published clips on national politics or investigative work in a source that people read, who knows. There's a lot of bad things about the press, but there's also a lot of bad things about the legal profession, & trying to break into journalism doesn't involve taking out massive loans.
178: TAP isn't really punditry though, is it? I'm certainly not looking to become a pundit.
Tapped at TAP is, but TAP itself isn't, no. It's just that journalism is a lot of things, including those jobs where you start with the local crime beat, and Catherine's roundups of weekend events in DC, and political journalism of the kind TAP does, which is not the same kind of political journalism TPM Muckraker does, etc.
So I guess there's, uh, law school.
Do not go to law school.
limited ability to do unpaid internships; & limited patience for covering zoning meetings with no health insurance, no sick days,
Unpaid internships I'm looking into (and have applied for - haven't heard back yet); the jobs where you start at the local beat I wonder if I have the patience for (plus, particularly with the history background, I'm much better with documents than with interviews). But of course in whatever you do, you have to work your way up.
TAP isn't really punditry though, is it? I'm certainly not looking to become a pundit.
It sounds like you want a policy degree.
It sounds like you want a policy degree.
I'm almost completely sure this is true; jobs that look really interesting to me are jobs that are looking for public policy/administration backgrounds. And I have pretty much no resume for that sort of thing. But I've spent so much time in school that, like law school, I'm not going to be applying for any programs this year.
You know what you shouldn't do, along with law school? Non-quantitative history unless you're sure you want to be an academic. I'm just thankful I don't have loans.
Cryptic Ned: Krugman wrote for Slate before he wrote for the NYT. Before that, he wrote several books on economics for a popular audience.
Don't listen to the naysayers! Go to law school! The world needs more lawyers!
Of course, it'd be a lot harder to break in through blogging now than a couple years ago, but I don't think the window's entirely closed.
I've thought about this. Building an audience would seem to be a real problem. Plus, I want to be in a position where I'm doing original research, and that's hard enough for already paid bloggers to do.
Step 1: Win the lottery.
Step 2: Blog your original research.
What are you doing to make that first step happen?
I read some Shirley Jackson story and got all scared and hid.
Congratulations, Katherine!!
The opinion (pdf) creates a perverse incentive for government contractors: less supervision of your employees leads to greater protection from liability.
"I tried to give information which could be documented so the reader could check it for himself. I tried to dig the truth out of hearings, official transcripts and government documents, and to be as accurate as possible. I also sought to give the Weekly a personal flavor, to add humor, wit and good writing to the Weekly report. I felt if one were able enough and had sufficient vision one could distill meaning, truth and even beauty from the swiftly flowing debris of the week's news....
The reporter assigned to specific beats lie the State Department or the Pentagon for a wire service or a big daily newspaper soon finds himself a captive. State and Pentagon have large press relations forces whose job it is to herd the press and shape the news. There are many ways to punish a reporter who gets out of line; if a big story breaks at 3 A.M., the press office may neglect to notify him while his rivals get the story. There are as many ways to flatter and take a reporter into camp--private off-the-record dinners with high officials, entertainment at the service clubs. Reporters tend to be absorbed by the bureaucracies they cover; they take on the habits, attitudes and even accents of the military or the diplomatic corps. Should a reporter resist the pressure, there are many ways to get rid of him....
But a reporter covering the whole capital on his own--particularly if he is his own employer--is immune from these pressures. Washington is full of news--if one story is denied him he can always get another. The bureaucracies put out so much that they cannot help letting the truth slip from time to time. The town is open."
--I.F. Stone
There's room for original research. The press won't read or report on each other's work. If you read all the good beat reporters & gov't documents on the area you're most interested in, you can figure out things they don't know or that their editors don't consider scoop-y enough to run.
Of course, finding time to do this, & an audience for it, are somewhat trickier.
I read some Shirley Jackson story and got all scared and hid.
"Like Mother Used to Make" is indeed a chilling tale.
192: there's the rub. "Didn't supervise" doesn't mean "couldn't supervise," and the military clearly does not have command authority over contractors. I'm sure the screwed-over Iraqi nationals who translated for Titan would be interested to know that they are "the functional equivalent of soldiers".
Still, merits discovery. Woot.
The problem with Yglesias is that when he's right, he either gets there later than everyone to his left or on a much more limited scale, and when he's wrong, he's wrong out of either ignorance, apathy, or because he's decided to be contrarian. Like pretty much every other opinion writer on the planet, his analysis gets worse and worse the more it strays from areas he researches and pays attention to; however, contrary to the Ellis quote in ogged's post, Yglesias comments on plenty of subjects he doesn't know or care much about, and some of those posts - especially on energy, environmental and labor policy - have been embarrassingly bad in the past. I'm still waiting for him to give an explanation for his gun control views that goes beyond "I, Matt Yglesias, want to shoot things." He's still much better than the average big media pundit, but that says a lot more about the established media than it does about Yglesias.
I. F. Stone's probably right about what's possible, even if secrecy is better enforced today, which it might be, but he started out as a reporter for regular news outlets, I think. When you're self-employed doing your own original stuff, you're being both reporter and editor, and that's got to be even more difficult for a beginner trying to break in than being a reporter only.
however, contrary to the Ellis quote in ogged's post, Yglesias comments on plenty of subjects he doesn't know or care much about, and some of those posts - especially on energy, environmental and labor policy - have been embarrassingly bad in the past.
I like MY, but this is definitely true. For example, he's had a number of "I don't much like camping or wild animals, therefore environmental issues are unimportant" posts, and the flippancy and "I'm such a contrarian!!!1!!" signalling are pretty grating.
I think Ellis meant about important stuff.
I think Ellis meant about important stuff.
Right, because the fact that we're running out of oil and baking the planet with greenhouse gases isn't all that important.
I'm still waiting for him to give an explanation for his gun control views that goes beyond "I, Matt Yglesias, want to shoot things."
Doesn't seem like he's much interested in debating it on his blog much beyond "I like shooting guns", and "The D.C. gun ban does not seem to be accomplishing anything."
202: Here's the thing: Yglesias has a longstanding opposition to gun control, which he readily brings up from time to time. In fact, he brings it up in ways that seem calculated to tweak gun control supporters among his readership (for example, posting pictures of himself at a firing range with libertarians). But, as you say, he's not interested in actually debating gun policy. This is weird, because Yglesias is nominally a political opinion writer - that is, someone who writes about political opinions for a living - and is refraining from doing so in this case. I have no idea what Matt Yglesias actually thinks gun control policy should look like in the United States, other than that laws should be lax enough for him to own one.
More importantly, I have no idea why Yglesias holds whatever opinion he holds in this area, because he's never bothered to make an argument for or against any particular gun policy. I don't know whether he's formed this on the basis of some collection of statistics I've never seen, or on some belief that gun ownership is a fundamental right that can't be impeded by the state, or what. And the thing that's frustrating here is that I'm not a die-hard gun control proponent; this is one area of policy where I don't have an especially firm view either way, and am open to being persuaded. But Yglesias isn't interested in making any kind of argument at all; he just looks like he wants a gun.
To illustrate my frustration in 148 & the possibility of breaking stories on weblogs: ABC has posted, & Atrios & a bunch of liberal blogs have picked up, a story about "smoking gun" CIA cables giving details about Ibn Shaykh al-Libi's allegations of torture in Egypt. The reporter notes:
Last September, these red-hot CIA cables were declassified and published by the Senate Intelligence Committee, but in, a welter of other news, one of the most important documents in the history of rendition had passed almost without notice by the media. As far as I can tell, not a single newspaper reported details of the cable.I think he's right about this, but I posted on them the day the Senate Intel Committee published them. I got 10 comments, and as far as I could tell, 0 links.
To some extent, the major liberal blogs use the same criteria that the mainstream press does to prioritize what stories to post on: is everyone else talking about it? Then you should too.
Hasn't he said more or less that he thinks gun control policy is a political loser for Democrats, doesn't think changing current law would do much to improve public safety, and therefore treats it as a cultural signifier rather than a policy topic?
doesn't think changing current law would do much to improve public safety
But that is, in fact, a policy argument. So why isn't he making it?
Because gun control is not one of the many issues that are relevant in national politics right now and therefore discussing it would be pointless?
208: But he does discuss it. That's the point. He's bringing up the issue, he's saying he has a position, but he's not really saying what it is or why he has it. Given that writing about and analyzing political opinions is his job, this is pretty frustrating behavior.
It's also one of those issues on which a lot of people aren't particularly persuadable.
210: So people should stop blogging about abortion, then?
211: On the merits, sure. On the politics, no, because there are people trying to change the status quo in undesirable ways who need to be opposed.
204: Wow, that must be incredibly frustrating, in all sorts of ways.
I think Unfogged should make a concerted effort to get Kathering more notice and influence. Yellow post-titles activate!
Stras is right, it's annoying. It's particularly annoying to me, as I also think gun control isn't particularly fruitful on either the policy or political front, but I'm just some random commenter on Unfogged. It would be nice to see the case being made on a well read liberal blog.
Still not getting how that makes it Yglesias' job to address that particular issue in detail, but whatever.
Look: Yglesias apparently cares enough about the issue to bring it up on a semi-regular basis, but not enough to explain what kind of policy he'd favor or why he'd support such a policy. Does Yglesias support mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Eliminating the gun show loophole? Requiring safety locks? Training and safety requirements for gun licenses? I have no idea, because to my knowledge Yglesias has never written about this stuff. He has, however, frequently written about the issue in general, apparently without touching on any of these particulars or actually arguing for a particular policy. This is kind of strange for someone like Yglesias, who seems ready and even eager to analyze any other area of policy he's interested in. If I had to offer an explanation, it would be that Yglesias isn't interested in gun policy at all, and never has been - he just wants a gun.
204: Sadly, I think a lot of the media failure to pick up on these stories is the lack of pictures; that ABC post is linked to a documentary.
Back in 2004, just after Abu Ghraib came out, I searched Lexis-Nexis for earlier stories on torture and came across this and this from the Washington Post in December 2002 about interrogations in Afghanistan and elsewhere. As far as I could tell, the story was referenced in some op-eds, some articles on torture in the Economist in January 2003, and some reports in the New Yorker and New York Times in March 2003, and then disappeared after the start of the Iraq War. It wasn't ignored, but I suspect a story with pictures would have had more of a response.
In the sober light of day it strikes me as kind of shitty to have all this anonymous judging of Yglesias on a blog that he occasionally reads and comments on.
Go Matt! Keep up the good work, you goddamn precocious SOB.
205 is awesome and I want to learn how to do it for when I want to communicate sheepishness.
Yglesias is pretty clear that gun control is peripheral for him, and a loser for Democrats. I think that he dabbles in it just as a sort of taunting attitude thing toward weenie liberals. It's still peripheral to him. Also, the sinister McMegan femme fatale is working her charms on the poor motherfucker.
He wrote:
This is not, incidentally, a tongue-in-cheek post. My feeling is that DC law has been working as hard as possible for the past few decades to try and demonstrate the maxim that when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. I don't write about this issue much because, hey, I don't want to be a wanker, but you can certainly mark me down as glad that Democrats seem to have dropped gun control as a cause here in the 21st century.
I'm not sure why he thinks it would make him a wanker, but presumably he has a defensible reason.
: Sadly, I think a lot of the media failure to pick up on these stories is the lack of pictures
My personal belief is that we would have gone much less crazy after 9/11 if we hadn't had video of the event.
Also, the sinister McMegan femme fatale is working her charms on the poor motherfucker.
I always thought it was the opposite: McMegan maintains, against all her inclinations, a posture of civility toward liberals because she's hot for Ygles and Smasher.
Truly, we on the outside can only guess at the seething snakepit of psychosexual motivations that is the DC blogosphere.
223: Based on the photos I've seen, I'd bet the other way.
I think that teasing and taunting liberals is McMegan's schtick. She grew up in a liberal family, she says, and liberals are her natural prey.
224: Until UnfoggedDC II, anyway.
The basic complaint seems to be that Yglesias is not doing with his success what other people would do with the same. I guess that's a reasonable complaint, but the force of it seems pretty limited.
The basic complaint seems to be that Yglesias is not doing with his success what other people would do with the same
Inviting the young women he mentors to spend a week in his Paris apartment?
My personal belief is that we would have gone much less crazy after 9/11 if we hadn't had video of the event.
bin Laden, of course, understood this, too.
If I had to pick one thing that I wish Americans understood better, it would be the symbiotic relationship between bin Laden and American crazies like George W. Bush.
In the sober light of day it strikes me as kind of shitty to have all this anonymous judging of Yglesias on a blog that he occasionally reads and comments on.
Boo hoo. I'm sure Yglesias is the very first blogger to be criticized in any way on this blog who is also a reader of this blog.
218:Shitty is what I do.
On the gun-control thing. Maybe Yggles thinks the consequentialist arguments and data are fairly obvious. But I always remember his nominalism. After multiple levels of consequentialist arguments, he gets to a point:"Ending war & feeding hungry children are good things." I think Y believes core values are inarguable and mostly immutable in individuals. It is a source of his magnanimity.
The basic complaint seems to be that Yglesias is not doing with his success what other people would do with the same.
I am not criticizing or complaining, just psychoanalyzing the dude. Or whatever. I am sure I don't know the true path to pundit-overlordship. I don't know if he regrets not getting more degrees or spending time in foreign service overseas. I am collecting notes for the biography. For instance, his early expertise included education and I wonder why after a couple years he decided to move into foreign policy. Now entry requirements for foreign policy pundit can look not very rigorous, but the actual competition is monstrous, and it strikes me as very ambitious (arrogant?) that MY chose to play in that arena with less qualifications than most of his main competitors.
This is why I like Ezra. He really specialized in a field that is accessible and manageable. Ezra can become a universally admired gov't health care expert. MY is going to have more trouble getting to the table with the Kagans & Gerechts.
Knows his limitations? Not so sure.
Course all I can do is watch MY, and read between the lines. Of course MY is not trying to be Lynch or Ulrich or Cole. Supposedly, part of the problem with the MSM pundits is relying on the wrong experts. I say supposedly, because the "right experts" were ignored and we got stupid wars. So maybe the "wrong experts" understood the politics better.
Maybe it is the interface between foreign policy & domestic politics that is the niche MY thinks he can fit into.
I'm not sure why he thinks it would make him a wanker, but presumably he has a defensible reason.
I'm sure he has some reason, I'd just like for him to explore - in any way - what that reason is. The prominent policy-oriented liberal bloggers mostly lack any interest in gun policy whatsoever; Yglesias is a rare exception. So it's interesting to me that he not only has a view on the issue that he brings up from time to time, but an unorthodox one. But what's incredibly frustrating about this - and I think I've said this at least twice now - is that I am genuinely curious as to what policies Yglesias would like to see implemented in this area, and Yglesias - in a way that's rather un-Yglesian of him - seems either unwilling or uninterested to go into those policies, which he does in just about every other area of interest he has.
For a professional wonk to want to own a gun, and want laws to be changed such that he can legally own a gun, and blog about this desire on a regular basis, and yet never go into detail about the policy ramifications of laws that make it easier for people to own guns or what an ideal gun policy would look like, is bizarre. It is, at best, an indicator of lazy thinking - which I generally see as Yglesias's biggest flaw as a pundit (see again his stubbornly-maintained ignorance on energy and environmental policy while continuing to write about energy and environmental policy).