By Request: Further Adventures in Suck

Here's Stefan with another variant on the question of whether or not I suck:

I still want to know how you feel about writing about Middle East policy without knowing Arabic.

In all honesty, I don't feel that good about it. But it's not as if the political conversation in the United States is dominated by people with a deep understanding of the Arabic language, fully immersed in primary sources, and here comes Matt Yglesias with his blog ruining everything. I read people who do read and speak Arabic (and Persian), try to be appropriately humble about my knowledge level, and try to call out people who are putting bad information out there. I think that, at the margin, the public debate is better off for me participating in it rather than leaving things entirely to Tom Friedman, Fred Hiatt, and Charles Krauthammer. Meanwhile, it's not as if language competency is some guarantee of clairvoyance -- Bernard Lewis is a bona fide scholar of the Ottoman Empire and I assume his Middle Eastern language skills could trounce mine, but he's still talked a lot of nonsense about the contemporary Middle East and US policy toward it.

Over and above all that, I've tried to make awareness of my own shortcomings influence the opinions I express about American policy. One presupposition of a lot of current US policy -- but also of a lot of proposed alternatives to US policy -- is that the American government is actually or potentially capable of being really effective at micromanaging political outcomes in Iraq or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or wherever. I try to remind people that for a variety of reasons, language competence being high on the list, Pakistanis are almost certainly going to be better at manipulating the American elite than vice-versa.

Comments

Excellent.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | July 11, 2008 12:37 PM

I've often wondered why you chose to write your first book on foreign policy matters at all. Reading your blog, it's never seemed like that was either your forte or your primary area of interest, and it's certainly the question on which you've been most famously wrong. Why that, as opposed to domestic policy?

Posted by G C | July 11, 2008 12:39 PM

Or political philosophy for a general audience.

Posted by G C | July 11, 2008 12:42 PM

tom friedman also speaks arabic.

but i completely reject the idea that if you don't speak the language of some corner of the world, you can't have an opinion about it or be well informed about that region. it would be a different thing if MY used this blog to talk about the current state of the arab media. but current events in the arab world do get translated into a whole bunch of languages on a regular basis, including english. and a lot of stuff is reported originally in english (and then translated to arabic for the local audience). it's silly to argue that english speakers have no say in the debate.

plus, i can (sort of) read and understand arabic as well as english. but i often don't know what i'm talking about when i say stuff about politics wherever it occurs.

Posted by upyernoz | July 11, 2008 12:42 PM

Americans should know more than one language? Stefan sounds like some snob elitist. I'm sure Europeans love him because he appeals to their anti-Americanism. /campaign circling the toilet

It is a variant on the "do you suck" question, and my response is basically the same - the opinions of smart non-experts (and yes, non-Arabic speakers) DO matter. How many Members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs or Senate Committee on Foreign Relations speak Arabic, do you think? How many American Presidents, ever, have spoken Arabic? How many current Presidential candidates?

It's not just that the opinions of the non-experts matter--it's that the opinions of the experts DON'T matter unless they get through to important non-experts in some way.

Posted by Jake H. | July 11, 2008 12:43 PM

I try to remind people that for a variety of reasons, language competence being high on the list, Pakistanis are almost certainly going to be better at manipulating the American elite than vice-versa.

The same could be said of the Israeli elites, transnationalist Jewish human rights lawyers, the Chicom elites, multilingual George Soros, the spanish-speaking Open Borders elites north and south of the Rio Grande.

Posted by chris ford | July 11, 2008 12:43 PM

I'm all for the discussion of whether blogs suck -- I think many of them do, and even the ones that don't sap lots of would-be productive time -- but I think you're being pretty hard on yourself here. Yes, obviously you're not an expert on water in the west or Middle Eastern languages, and you don't purport to be. What you are -- and this is why your blog is read by as many people as it is -- is an unusually insightful guy and good, clear writer who pays a lot of attention to the news. So, for us readers, it's like having a smart friend to talk over the world with, measure our opinions against, etc. What's wrong with that?

Posted by portraitoffer | July 11, 2008 12:46 PM

Enough! Stop entertaining this crap. The likes of Stefan and Mr. Appell may be looking for deep, yet narrow, expertise, but I suspect that the majority of your readers come back for your broad, yet not overly shallow, generalism.

Posted by Bragan | July 11, 2008 12:46 PM

Somehow I think that even if Wolf Blitzer spoke Urdu that he would still think that Benizir Bhutto was the shiznit instead of the corrupt motherfucker that she was.

That and I don't necessarily think you have to speak a particular language to be a policy expert in a particular area (although it helps). There are a lot of douchebags that speak Arabic and/or Persian and have been demonstrably wrong, wrong, wrong about Iran and the Arab world.

And the converse is true, too. I speak Russian and Serbian more or less fluently as well as enough Arabic to read the front page of a newspaper or get the gist of an al-Jazira story, but I couldn't name the prime minister of Croatia or Serbia right now.

Speaking the language of the area in which you are allegedly a policy expert: very useful, somewhat overrated. Foreign language expertise is nothing but a tool. It is what you do with the tool that counts. And a tool wielded by a tool will lead to toolish conclusions.

Posted by calipygian | July 11, 2008 12:47 PM

it would be a different thing if MY used this blog to talk about the current state of the arab media

I read on PowerLine that on a US-funded Arab-language television station someone once said something objectionable. Clearly this is indicative of everything they broadcast and I therefore support shutting the whole thing down. Or at least a complete ovehaul.

Also, did you know that Barack Obama attended a church where the only thing the pastor said over the course of twenty years was "God damn America"?

Posted by mark f | July 11, 2008 12:50 PM

Just let it go. Appell isn't relevant.

Posted by Jro | July 11, 2008 12:53 PM

That never stopped Michael Ledeen.

Posted by Randy Paul | July 11, 2008 12:53 PM

While I don't think you suck, Matt, I have thought for some time that it is curious that you decided to write and publish a book on foreign policy as your first foray into the big project, traditional print world. Personally, I find your blog comments about domestic economic and social policy to be much more interesting, compelling, better informed and better argued than your foreign policy and national security commentary, even where I disagree with you.

On foreign policy, you seem surprisingly unworldly and provincial, and somewhat disinterested in actual other countries and peoples. Your book was actually about 95% devoted to the domestic politics of foreign policy. Those arguments were interesting and plausible, but not entirely convincing since your claims about what makes sense politically weren't well-balanced by any solid, well-informed or well-researched assessment of what makes sense on the merits in the rest of the big, wide world.

For what my opinion as a friendly observer is worth, I honestly think you should take a break from blogging for a few years, go get a PhD in economics, political economy, public policy or some such related field, and then come back to the public world reincarnated as a Krugman, Reich or DeLong. You could make yourself into a serious and important public intellectual. But if you don't break away from your current path, I fear you're just going to end up as a dime-a-dozen hack. (And you're never going to overtake Ms. Natalie Portnman.)

I hate to see a good mind go to waste, and if you continue along the present path, I don't think you will ever achieve your full potential. You'll just end up as a garden variety pundit/opinionator like a Cohen or a Broder, whom the next generation of clever young people will mock and deride. You have a very good brain, but need to put some more serious intellectual meat on your bones. Random, desultory punditry in not very intellectually nutritious. You have much more to offer.

Sorry if these thought seem presumptuous and out-of-turn. But I've been thinking them for some time now, and felt I should share them.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 11, 2008 1:01 PM

The Period of Self-Criticism has been completed.

Posted by Daddy Love | July 11, 2008 1:03 PM

Don't worry about those guys. Nobody knows everything, and someone who is smart, analytical and well informed has more of interest to say than all the Bush supporters put together - not that that's such a tough test.
Remember how Bush and many members of congress didn't know the difference between the Shia and Sunni? That's a real disqualification from saying anything about the Mideast.

Posted by peter | July 11, 2008 1:08 PM

For what my opinion as a friendly observer is worth, I honestly think you should take a break from blogging for a few years, go get a PhD in economics, political economy, public policy or some such related field, and then come back to the public world reincarnated as a Krugman, Reich or DeLong. You could make yourself into a serious and important public intellectual. But if you don't break away from your current path, I fear you're just going to end up as a dime-a-dozen hack.

Or worse: the liberal Jonah Goldberg, without the nepotism. "Conservative Trotskyism" here you come!

Posted by calipygian | July 11, 2008 1:14 PM

Seriously, you don't suck. I do read your blog and appreciate it. It is a failing of mine that I put off contributing to discussions even when I could make a positive contribution and instead retreat into the never ending need for 'more research.' So I suck too...

At the same time, we need to be more aggressive about how bad lack of local knowledge is for American policy making. Reading translations of the foreign press is simply no substitute of reading and talking to a wide section of a country's population. Without that there is simply no way of telling -- as opposed to guessing based on one's own predispositions -- which foreign opinions are important and which are not, and how they play in in the overall politics and culture of the country, and hence which foreign opinions could or could not change in the future, and if they could change, how.

Just imagine a campaign strategist who never lived in the US and who read translations of the press advising on how to persuade the American public. How is that person going to have a sense of how racial issues actually play out here?

And yes, this is my parochial perspective as a bi-national bi-lingual person with a wife who has a (now rusty) working knowledge of Arabic and Persian. One of the annoying problems knowing Arabic and Persian is that one just cannot use many obvious facts in US discussions: people just treat one as if one is making them up. It's frustrating.

Posted by stefan | July 11, 2008 1:18 PM

Much as I enjoy Matt's work, I'm at least partly sympathetic to Appell's post.

For one, I agree with him entirely that Andrew posts way too promiscuously. He'll offer a long quotation and I go to the jump anticipating some penetrating insight...and...nothing.

I actually think MY's post-per-day average is about right. I find myself wanting to see less from Sullivan, more from Douthat.

But it also seems, especially when you write under the banner of an esteemed magazine brand, that a little intellectual modesty should be in order. That is, one should think twice about glibly opining and tossing off theories abut this or that with only the barest expertise. There have been plenty of times when I've finished an MY post and asked myself: "Well how the fark does he know?"

And the answer is: he doesn't.

David Broder, for example (someone brought him up in a previous thread), deserves to be called out for his genteel establishment centrism. But the man has also worn out considerable shoe-leather over the years covering political campaigns. Nick Kristof has been to Darfur, like, 6 times. For this, they deserve props and have earned an authoritative voice.

Don't mean to sound too harsh -- as I said I enjoy MY's stuff -- but I think the best analysts/pundits/bloggers are those who write with an edge but who also have breadth of relevant experience -- be it in political journalism (Tomasky), policy wonkery (Schmitt), political strategy (Kilgore) or something.

I like Chait, Beinart and Marshall too...even though I guess you could argue they arguably haven’t done as much with their lives other than be pundits.

I've never taken to Kevin Drum because I'm not really sure why I'm supposed to care about the political opinions of a guy who's been doing technical writing most of his career. And Markos...well what makes him important his harnessing of a medium to build a political movement. Most of the time I can't stand his actual writing.

Posted by BA | July 11, 2008 1:36 PM

If the Arabs don't want non-experts talking about their politics, they should learn English like the rest of us. Fuck them!

Posted by American and damn proud of it | July 11, 2008 1:42 PM

Matt, who cares what Stefan thinks? I doubt his mom cares what he thinks. Why do you engage these people? Your comment threads (which were great pre-Atlantic) are horrible, and the reason is because 50% of the comments are "how dare you post at all, Matt", 30% are racists reminding us that they still exist, and 20% Republican shills repeating whatever lunatic Republican talking-point they got faxed that day.

You deserve better than this, Matt. More importantly, I deserve better than this.

Posted by Walt | July 11, 2008 1:43 PM

David Broder, for example (someone brought him up in a previous thread), deserves to be called out for his genteel establishment centrism. But the man has also worn out considerable shoe-leather over the years covering political campaigns.

I was the one who called him out, and I stick by it. Everything I said was valid in my opinion--he doesn't know anything, he does no research, his writing sucks, and his opinions are ridiculously glib. I don't care if he was a correspondent on the William Jennings Bryan campaign--it's not relevant experience to what he does now.

Posted by Jake H. | July 11, 2008 1:47 PM

I don't have an economics degree yet I have the gall to have an opinion about economic policies and, to make things worse, I vote for politicians who also don't have economics degrees.
I suspect all of our presidents have and presidential candidates do speak fluent Arabic though.

Posted by carsick | July 11, 2008 1:57 PM

Stefan writes (contradicting himself at the end of the paragraph)

Seriously, you don't suck. I do read your blog and appreciate it. It is a failing of mine that I put off contributing to discussions even when I could make a positive contribution and instead retreat into the never ending need for 'more research.' So I suck too...

Stefan, you need to make up your mind -- does Matt suck or not?

I think Matt is going for a Socratic paradox -- the fact admits that he sucks is the reason that he doesn't actually suck.

Or to put it another way, semi-ironic self-deprecation is part of the Yglesias brand.

Posted by peep | July 11, 2008 1:58 PM

Much BS.

I speak Arabic and French, understand Persian, and can get by in a few other languages, including Spanish and German -- a result of diplomatic parents. But only one language is essential, the one I'm using now. My linguistic skills may have been very valuable once, say a century ago. They are considerably less so today, especially since the advent of the Internet. Often, these days, when I want to know what is being said in the Middle East, I go directly to sources... only to discover that I get more (and more accurate) information from English-language sites, either first- or second-hand. Sure, it's sometimes nice to know that what is being said for home consumption in the Middle East differs from what is is being uttered in English, but how different is that from official "diplomatic" statements or off-the-record briefings? But by now (thanks to Memri and blogs?) we have come to factor in such discrepancies and duplicities. In the end, the interpretation of statements and events in English is often more interesting, and revealing, than how they are documented originally.

Posted by Sami | July 11, 2008 2:15 PM

Dude(tte)s, the only criteria by which we should assess advice is the degree to which it's persuasive. By definition, any other skill or experience would be a help to gaining more knowledge about an area, but there's no a priori reason to argue that more specific knowledge would lead to different judgments. In addition, it is simply impossible to acquire **sufficient** detailed knowledge about every topic or geopolitical arena to "qualify" to be "knowledgeable" enough to write.
Argument from experience only holds water as a heuristic in situations of information imbalance under time constraints: if you have no other more knowledgeable sources, you'd likely weigh the information and judgment of the more knowledgeable sources you do have a little more seriously. But since we ALL must form judgments about the world around us with an information imbalance, that pretty much puts us all in MY's position: We read as widely as we can with the tools our time enables us to take up, and then try our best to make a persuasive argument about our position. Sheesh.

You don't think MY makes good arguments, then attack the arguments -- not the toolset. There are wonderful scholars the world over who do great work using entirely secondary source material by more knowledgeable people. They naturally have their limits, but hey, so do we all.

Posted by ralph | July 11, 2008 2:22 PM

Walt writes;

"Matt, who cares what Stefan thinks?"

Well, the WSJ once quoted me as an authority on page B1. Which was crazy of them, since I told the reporter I wasn't an authority on the thing she quoted me on. Which just proves that what people say about talking to the press is so very true.

Seriously, I don't think MY posted this since he cares what I think. But he might just care about the issues raised by my question, since he did write a whole book about US Middle East policy, which is different than having an opinion on US Middle East policy.

I'm not going after MY's blog, I'm asking about MY's book.

Kervick puts it well:

"Your book was actually about 95% devoted to the domestic politics of foreign policy. Those arguments were interesting and plausible, but not entirely convincing since your claims about what makes sense politically weren't well-balanced by any solid, well-informed or well-researched assessment of what makes sense on the merits in the rest of the big, wide world."

Posted by stefan | July 11, 2008 2:29 PM

Right: Stefan, you and Kervick have stated that you either didn't really think the arguments presented in the book are persuasive. That's totally fine, but it wasn't really the question you asked the provoked this post. If you suspect that his lack of Arabic skills might be related to his "getting it right", that would be reasonable. But it's simply an assertion; it's just as plausible that he had too little time to do "perfect research" or that he simply has poor judgment.

Note here that I am only saying that specific skills like linguistic ones do not make an argument better, but can be used to do so. Personally, I think more knowledge helps make better decisions, but that's merely a position, not a truism.

Posted by ralph | July 11, 2008 2:37 PM

Not so much sucky as whiny

Posted by sheltered | July 11, 2008 2:41 PM

"I don't care if he [Broder] was a correspondent on the William Jennings Bryan campaign--it's not relevant experience to what he does now."

I'm currently reading "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72." HST describes Broder as "generally acknowledged to be the ranking wizard on the campaign trail this year."

There's also a picture of Broder. He looks like he's in his mid-fifties. In 1972.

Not disagreeing with your comment, BTW. Just find it interesting that border has been the dean of the press corps for going on 40 years.

Posted by brewmn | July 11, 2008 2:48 PM

Ralph:

"If you suspect that his lack of Arabic skills might be related to his "getting it right", that would be reasonable. But it's simply an assertion."

It's not even an assertion on my part: that's why it is a question. Does MY himself think he can get it sufficiently righ -- and what does the best understanding of 'sufficiently right' mean in his view? -- without Arabic skills? And how would he suspect the book would have come out if he did have Arabic skills?

I don't know the answer to these questions -- that's why I asked. MY went through the experience of writing a book on this topic, I didn't. MY might know things I don't because of this. I asked him to tell me what learned from it.

Posted by stefan | July 11, 2008 2:48 PM

OK, fair enough. It is entirely plausible that Appel's... well, "rant"... has become contextually intertwined with your simple request. MY answered, and I summarize, with, "I'd like to know Arabic, but I don't, but that doesn't mean I don't have some insight which might be persuasive or right."

Now, given that, are you of Kervick's opinion, that the book wasn't very persuasive? How did Kervick put it? "...not entirely convincing since your claims about what makes sense politically weren't well-balanced by any solid, well-informed or well-researched assessment of....". I think the operative questions are:
1. Did you find the arguments not "well-balanced" by this kind of research?
2. How "solid" would you have liked the "well-informed" and "well-researched" assessments to be?

I note that I haven't read the book, do not intend to, and am expressing no opinions about its contents. I am curious, however, in the opinions of others about how they assess the persuasiveness of what the imbibe.... I find it an interesting topic.

Posted by ralph | July 11, 2008 3:09 PM

I've been to the United States 10,000s of times. So, I'm an expert. Heed my opinions on matters of the United States.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 11, 2008 3:23 PM

I shall heed.

Posted by ralph | July 11, 2008 3:26 PM

I disagree with your closing remarks about Pakistan. If Pakistan's elite has such a strong grasp of English then surely they are as open to manipulation by the American elite as vice versa.

Although it seems that American commentators like you do not seem to think that giving one individual (and the institution that he is associated with that shouldn't even be in politics to begin with) almost unlimited power over his political rivals by virtue of billions of dollars of no-strings aid is not considered manipulation -- just good old fashioned kindness.

Posted by Rabia | July 11, 2008 4:06 PM

Love your blog (and the Atlantic), but I believe we should be talking about Farsi, not Persian. I admit I could be wrong here....

Posted by RPCVLawson | July 11, 2008 6:44 PM

Great. Matt answers what was obviously a stupid question in the first place.

Dan Kervick is right in just about everything in his post. Yglesias as he stands is a "wannabe pundit" which is what I've been saying for months here. He has no depth of knowledge in anything - a degree in philosophy is a degree in nothing.

Kervick: "On foreign policy, you seem surprisingly unworldly and provincial, and somewhat disinterested in actual other countries and peoples."

Exactly. I'm no expert on any country, but I've read enough stuff just in the online press on Afghanistan and Pakistan and have enough background in military affairs from readings over the years to know that Matt's notions on those countries are pathetically uninformed. It's like Matt doesn't even bother to read the numerous articles on the problems and history of those countries.

Christ, he could even just read some Wikipedia and be more knowledgeable than he is.

"Your book was actually about 95% devoted to the domestic politics of foreign policy."

Right. I haven't even read the book, but it's clear that Matt's only "expertise" if you can call it that is in domestic political kibitzing, not national security or foreign policy. His posts on the Democratic primaries were more insightful than anything he's written on foreign policy.

"Those arguments were interesting and plausible, but not entirely convincing since your claims about what makes sense politically weren't well-balanced by any solid, well-informed or well-researched assessment of what makes sense on the merits in the rest of the big, wide world."

Correct. Matt is as much a provincial American as most Americans. As a "liberal internationalist" - read "liberal interventionist" - he still thinks America is the only country that should be allowed to have any influence in the world. He might as well be a signatory to the PNAC documents which said the same thing.

"For what my opinion as a friendly observer is worth, I honestly think you should take a break from blogging for a few years, go get a PhD in economics, political economy, public policy or some such related field, and then come back to the public world reincarnated as a Krugman, Reich or DeLong."

That would be a good idea.

"You could make yourself into a serious and important public intellectual."

When he grows up, maybe.

"But if you don't break away from your current path, I fear you're just going to end up as a dime-a-dozen hack."

He already is.

"(And you're never going to overtake Ms. Natalie Portman.)"

True. Natalie has an intelligence and a seriousness about her that Yglesias can't match. Even if she is unfortunately a devotee of the egregious Alan Dershowitz, one of the most intellectually dishonest fucktards in academia.

"I hate to see a good mind go to waste, and if you continue along the present path, I don't think you will ever achieve your full potential. You'll just end up as a garden variety pundit/opinionator like a Cohen or a Broder, whom the next generation of clever young people will mock and deride."

This clever old person already mocks and derides him as a wannabe pundit.

"You have a very good brain, but need to put some more serious intellectual meat on your bones. Random, desultory punditry in not very intellectually nutritious."

Agreed.

"You have much more to offer."

Maybe.

"Sorry if these thought seem presumptuous and out-of-turn. But I've been thinking them for some time now, and felt I should share them."

You're absolutely right, Dan. You said the same things I've been saying, but you said them politely.

So Matt will probably ignore you.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 11, 2008 6:52 PM

All these criticisms, by the way, are equally applicable to more seasoned pundits, like Cokie Roberts and Daniel Shore. Whenever I hear them on NPR, I come out feeling like I've just thrown away five minutes of my life. Everything is discussed in terms of domestic politics, no matter how tragic the news plug -- and that's because these people aren't experts in anything except reading the Washington Post.

Now, in one sense, there's nothing wrong with that -- we all talk current events without expertise in the localities or personalities or histories we're discussing. The difference is, the rest of us have other jobs in which we have expertise. What is annoying is that pundits actually get paid for -- that is, they are valued for -- uninformed and US-centric spouting. I guess there must be an element of jealousy on my part.

(This is why I so enjoyed Bill Moyer's interview of Peter Beinert in his documentary on selling the war. Shouldn't Peter have been embarrassed to say, paraphrasing here, "I don't do any primary reporting; I consume [that is merely read] what other people write." Well, great. I do that, too, but I wouldn't presume to present myself as deserving of a spot on cable television as an expert.)

Posted by Amitava Mazumdar | July 11, 2008 7:47 PM

RPCVLawson:

"Love your blog (and the Atlantic), but I believe we should be talking about Farsi, not Persian. I admit I could be wrong here...."

Persian and Farsi are both fine usage:

http://cmes.hmdc.harvard.edu/gradprograms/mels/persian

Posted by Persian is fine | July 11, 2008 8:28 PM

Last I checked, Middle East policy in the next four years was going to be actually made by John McCain or Barack Obama, neither of whom speaks Arabic.

Time to amend the Constitution, obviously.

Posted by Anderson | July 12, 2008 3:05 PM

Natalie Portman is broderful

Posted by burning flock | July 12, 2008 10:12 PM

beautiful

Posted by burning flock | July 12, 2008 10:14 PM

Above all else, the mentat must be a generalist, not a specialist. It is wise to have decisions of great moment monitored by generalists. Experts and specialists lead you quickly into chaos. They are a source of useless nit-picking, the ferocious quibble over a comma. The mentat-generalist, on the other hand, should bring to decision-making a healthy common sense. He must not cut himself off from the broad sweep of what is happening in this universe. He must remain capable of saying: "There's no real mystery about this at the moment. This is what we want now. It may prove wrong later, but we'll correct that when we come to it." The mentat-generalist must understand that anything which we can identify as our universe is merely part of larger phenomena. But the expert looks backward; he looks into the narrow standards of his own specialty. The generalist looks outward; he looks for living principles, knowing full well that such principles change, that they develop. It is to the characteristics of change itself that the mentat-generalist must look. There can be no permanent catalogue of such change, no handbook or manual. You must look at it with as few preconceptions as possible, asking yourself: "Now what is this thing doing?"
The Mentat Handbook - Dune

Posted by Frank Herbert | July 13, 2008 9:04 AM

Or to put it another way, semi-ironic self-deprecation is part of the Yglesias brand.

Posted by peep | July 11, 2008 1:58 PM

***********************

It's a Jewish thing.

Posted by aleks | July 13, 2008 9:06 AM

Not so much sucky as whiny

Posted by sheltered | July 11, 2008 2:41 PM

Probably another Jewish thing, I'm afraid.

Posted by aleks | July 13, 2008 9:14 AM