March 15, 2004

Note: Dana Milbank on Unemployment Statistics

Dana Milbank reviews the unemployment statistics:

When the government unveiled the February unemployment numbers recently, Democrats and Republicans sounded as if they were talking about two different reports.

"The unemployment rate of 5.6 percent continues to be below the averages of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s," said Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao, using a phrase echoed by the White House press secretary, and by the secretaries of Commerce and the Treasury.

But Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), the No. 2 Democrat in the House, called the employment report "pathetic" because 2.3 million jobs were lost on President Bush's watch. He said "long-term unemployment is at its highest level in 20 years."

Who's correct? Actually, they both are.

Unemployment was 6.2 percent in the 1970s, 7.3 percent in the 1980s and 5.8 percent in the 1990s. Therefore, February's 5.6 percent is better than the average of each of the past three decades.

That rate may seem counterintuitive, given the loss of so many jobs. The reason is that millions of Americans who might otherwise be working have taken themselves out of the labor force.

At the moment, 65.7 percent of civilians are in the labor force, lower than any annual rate since 1987. The Labor Department says that 4.6 million Americans want jobs but are not in the labor force, and that 1.7 million of those have searched for work and are available. Of those, 484,000 are called "discouraged workers" -- people who looked for work in the past year but not in the past four weeks because they concluded they couldn't find jobs.

With the exception of one month last year, there are more discouraged workers now than at any time since 1994 (comparisons can't go earlier than 1994 because of a change in data collection methodology).

The job market also seems worse than the unemployment rate indicates because of the larger number of long-term unemployed. Those who have been out of work for 27 weeks or more are now 22.9 percent of the jobless -- with the exception of 1983's 23.9 percent, the worst showing in more than half a century...

Posted by DeLong at March 15, 2004 02:02 PM | TrackBack

Comments

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots

Jobs fall behind growth in working-age population

The U.S. economy would have generated 7.1 million more payroll jobs if job gains had kept pace with the growth in the working-age population since the recession began in March 2001. The shortfall in job creation has two parts: 1) the 2.4 million job decline since the last peak in employment in March 2001 and 2) the 4.7 million jobs needed to keep up with the growth in the working-age population since that point....

The working-age population is growing by 1.2% a year. That reflects both the large numbers of young people who are reaching working age and the continuing net immigration. Had payroll jobs kept up with working-age population growth since March 2001, the economy would be adding 137,000 new jobs each month....

Posted by: anne on March 15, 2004 02:21 PM

____

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots

Some have tried to rationalize the current low levels of job creation by arguing that there were too many jobs in March 2001. However, that argument does not make economic sense because March 2001 was a time of both low inflation and strong productivity....

The number of payroll jobs reached a low point six months ago, in August 2003. Job growth has averaged only 61,000 a month in the last six months—far less than the 137,000 jobs a month now required to keep the jobs gap from widening. As a result, despite positive job gains, the jobs gap has grown from 6.6 million last August to 7.1 million in February 2004....

Posted by: anne on March 15, 2004 02:26 PM

____

http://www.cbpp.org/3-15-04ui.htm

New CBO Report Demonstrates Value Of The Income Support Provided By Unemployment Insurance, And Confirms High Level Of UI Exhaustions - 3/15/04

...

The likelihood that UI recipients exhaust their benefits before they are able to find a job hit exceptionally high levels in 2002 and 2003.

....

The high exhaustion rate for state benefits was primarily a reflection of the weak labor market, not the existence of temporary federal benefit. As evidence for this conclusion, the length of unemployment spells also rose for those not receiving UI benefits.

....

Individuals who exhaust their regular UI benefits and are not able to find jobs are more than twice as likely to be poor and to lack health insurance as they were when they were employed.

Posted by: anne on March 15, 2004 02:31 PM

____

Good catch.

Posted by: Stirling Newberry on March 15, 2004 02:53 PM

____

Wow, 5 comments already and no conservatarians telling us either 1. the household survey shows unemployment is actually down or 2. that this was due to Clinton's recession. It's a miracle...

Posted by: non economists on March 15, 2004 02:57 PM

____

"Individuals who exhaust their regular UI benefits and are not able to find jobs are more than twice as likely to be poor and to lack health insurance as they were when they were employed."

HOW COME NO-ONE TALKS ABOUT THE MILLIONS WHO DON'T EVEN START "LOOKING" 'TIL THEY'VE USED UP ALL THE UI THEY CAN GET?

HOW COME NO-ONE TALKS ABOUT THE MILLIONS WHO'VE WORKED ALL THEIR LIVES AND JUST WANT TO TAKE "TIME-OFF" FOR A WHILE.

WHAT ABOUT ALL THE FORMER EMPLOYEES WHO ARE NOW FREELANCERS OR SMALL BUSINESSMEN?

UNTIL YOI ADDRESS THESE VERY REAL AND SIGNIFICANT ISSUES YOU HAVE NO RIGHT CLAIMING TO BE SCIENTISTS, BUT RATHER YOU'RE ALL JUST DEMOCRAT SHILLS TRYING TO GAIN UNDESERVED POWER.

ADRIAN

Posted by: Adrian Spidle on March 15, 2004 02:57 PM

____

speak of the devils...

Posted by: non economist on March 15, 2004 02:59 PM

____

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5144&sequence=0

This is the conclusion of the Congressional Budget Office Report:

“Three months before their long-term UI spell began, only about 7 percent had family income below the monthly poverty threshold…. During their long-term spell, by contrast, nearly one-quarter of the UI recipients had monthly family income below the poverty threshold. That figure rises to one-half when UI benefits are excluded.” (p. 13)

Posted by: anne on March 15, 2004 03:03 PM

____

“Three months before their long-term UI spell began, only about 7 percent had family income below the monthly poverty threshold…. During their long-term spell, by contrast, nearly one-quarter of the UI recipients had monthly family income below the poverty threshold. That figure rises to one-half when UI benefits are excluded.” (p. 13)

WHAT ABOUT THEIR ASSETS?

ADRIAN THE CONSERVATARIAN

Posted by: Adrian Spidle on March 15, 2004 03:07 PM

____

"HOW COME NO-ONE TALKS ABOUT THE MILLIONS WHO DON'T EVEN START "LOOKING" 'TIL THEY'VE USED UP ALL THE UI THEY CAN GET?

HOW COME NO-ONE TALKS ABOUT THE MILLIONS WHO'VE WORKED ALL THEIR LIVES AND JUST WANT TO TAKE "TIME-OFF" FOR A WHILE.

WHAT ABOUT ALL THE FORMER EMPLOYEES WHO ARE NOW FREELANCERS OR SMALL BUSINESSMEN?"

And what makes you think that the "election" of GWB increased the ranks of those people? Just because phisicists don't explain my the sun doesn't orbit around the earth, doesn't make them any less scientists...

Just because you can use your CAPS-LOCK does not make you any smarter.

Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on March 15, 2004 03:09 PM

____

"UNTIL YOI ADDRESS THESE VERY REAL AND SIGNIFICANT ISSUES YOU HAVE NO RIGHT CLAIMING [sic] TO BE SCIENTISTS"

Until you unlock that caps lock key you have no right to claim you're literate.

How are those issues different from the last recession-recovery cycle? How do they in a substantial (rather than marginal) way change the process of recovery? How do they explain away the fact that in employment terms the GWB recession is twice as deep and twice as long as the GHWB recession?

Posted by: ogmb on March 15, 2004 03:10 PM

____

And what makes you think that the "election" of GWB increased the ranks of those people?

USING CAPS TO DISTINGUISH MY RESPONSE FROM YOUR QUESTION... THAT'S NOT THE POINT. DON'T YOU THINK IT'S POSSIBLE THAT OUR ECONOMY IS UNDERGOING FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES THAT REDUCE PAYROLLS WITHOUT NECESSARILY INCREASING POVERTY?

ADRIAN

Posted by: Adrian Spidle on March 15, 2004 03:13 PM

____

And what makes you think that the "election" of GWB increased the ranks of those people?

USING CAPS TO DISTINGUISH MY RESPONSE FROM YOUR QUESTION... THAT'S NOT THE POINT. DON'T YOU THINK IT'S POSSIBLE THAT OUR ECONOMY IS UNDERGOING FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES THAT REDUCE PAYROLLS WITHOUT NECESSARILY INCREASING POVERTY?

ADRIAN

Posted by: Adrian Spidle on March 15, 2004 03:13 PM

____

Okay, maybe I'm cynical, but why do I have the feeling that if Al Gore was president, the entire story from beginning to end would the the 5.6 percent unemployment rate? This is the first time I've seen so damn many "modifiers" thrown onto a number that for the past twenty years has pretty much stood on its own.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 15, 2004 03:15 PM

____

Perhaps the most meaningful statistic is the one we can't lay our hands on. What would the unemployment figures look like if GWB had provided a meaningful stimulus to the economy instead of a big giveaway to the rich? I SAY, PERHAPS THE MOST MEANING...

Posted by: Dubblblind on March 15, 2004 03:24 PM

____

Tbrosz--The dramatic and unprecedented drop in the LFP rate makes the 5.6% rate, well not necessarily wrong, but historically unique. The unemployment rate is, by definition a rate:

(# with a job)/(#with a job or looking for a job).

In all recoveries until the current jobless one, low unemployment came from an increasing numerator; now it is the result of a shrinking denominator. In general, the former is a good thing for the economy and the latter a bad thing. So it's a distinction -- a "modifier" -- that's very important.

In other words, if the denominator is growing at a steady and predictable rate, as it has historically done, then talking about the unemployement rate and talking about the numerator are basically interchangeable. If, as is happening lately, both are jumping around at the same time, then talking only about the ratio masks what's going on.

If Al Gore were president (and cavalierly assuming LFP were still down -- while the outcome is not certain, it is certain that Gore's stimulative policies would be vastly different from Bush's), then you'd hear Republicans yelling about declining LFP and the extreme reliability of payroll surveys, so the "entire story" would not be the 5.6% unemployment rate.

AB


Posted by: Angry Bear on March 15, 2004 03:33 PM

____

Adrian: "HOW COME NO-ONE TALKS ABOUT THE MILLIONS WHO DON'T EVEN START "LOOKING" 'TIL THEY'VE USED UP ALL THE UI THEY CAN GET?"

In theory, you can't do that.

At least in Illinois, you're required to track your applications, and do a certain amount each week. Theoretically, they could call you in and ask for your records, and, if they aren't up to snuff, take the money back.

In this economy, I can't imagine anyone waiting until the UI runs out. In the case of techies, I find it more likely that they would put off filing for UI. I know I waited months before I filed, when it became clear that the job situation wasn't looking good.

I think a lot of people look at unemployment insurance as welfare, so they don't want to file. But, it's _insurance_, not welfare. You've paid for it.

Posted by: Jon H on March 15, 2004 03:50 PM

____

Angry Bear asserts:

"The unemployment rate is, by definition a rate:
(# with a job)/(#with a job or looking for a job). "

In the full-employment case this formula produces 1 or 100%. That couldn't be right, could it?

How many posts will it take to correct this typo?

Posted by: Mick on March 15, 2004 04:31 PM

____

Can we please rename Adrian to ADRIAN SPITTLE?

Posted by: pogo on March 15, 2004 04:38 PM

____

Adrian is just new to the blog. He hasn't read the postings dealing with the relatively small
number of self employed and he hasn't kept up
with the data on those who have dropped out of the labor force. It may just be that he is
an equilibrium theorist where all unemployment
is a voluntary vacation from work. Nope; I don't
really believe that either...

Posted by: malcolm on March 15, 2004 04:46 PM

____

I'll back up John H for Washington state as well. The unemployment insurance there gives you roughly 2/3 of your average salary over a certain time frame (unknown) with some cap (unknown as well). I am familiar with this after an 8 month unemployment stint - which thanks to the extensions was actually covered. There is also a requirement that you take any job that is offered to you if the pay is equal to or more than your unemployment benefits, even if it is outside of your field of knowledge.

It ended when another company figured out how much I was "earning" on unemployment and offered me a position at around $.30 above what unemployment was paying me, and used that as a way to force me into a one year noncompete contract. If I didn't sign, they would have told the state unemployment board that I turned down a valid employment offer. The HR drone actually smiled at me when he said that.

I took the job. :P

Posted by: Thane Walkup on March 15, 2004 04:55 PM

____

Okay, maybe I'm cynical, but why do I have the feeling that if Al Gore was president, the entire story from beginning to end would the the 5.6 percent unemployment rate? This is the first time I've seen so damn many "modifiers" thrown onto a number that for the past twenty years has pretty much stood on its own.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 15, 2004 03:15 PM

I believe you might just be right about this, tbrosz. However, we could argue at length about the proper federal policy response to this ongoing problem. I would argue that tax cuts for the rich are not as good a fiscal stimulus for the underemployed than would be direct aid to states and increased federal spending for job retraining and education. In that regard Gore would more than likely have been doing more to help out those chronically underemployed in this era of high corporate profit but poor demand and thus poor job growth than Bush.

Posted by: non economist on March 15, 2004 05:11 PM

____

Mick--There is a typo above, as what I wrote is actually the employment rate and the unemployment rate is 1-that number.

However, that's different from what I think you mean. When the economy is at full employment, the unemployment rate is not zero. Full employment occurs when the "cyclical" component of unemployment is zero. There will always be frictional unemployment due to new people entering the labor market and people changing jobs. So when I correct my typo, the unemployment rate is

(# without a job)/(#with a job or looking for a job).

And that number will always be above zero, due to frictional unemployment. There's also structural unemployment (unemp. do to workers' skills becoming obsolete), which also need not be zero when the economy is at full employment.

And, unless someone else commented while I typed this, the answer to your final question is 4.

AB

Posted by: Angry Bear on March 15, 2004 05:12 PM

____

Adrian: A bit of internetiquette, if you don't mind. TYPING IN ALL CAPS comes across as shouting, and I don't believe that is what you intended.

Posted by: sbw on March 15, 2004 05:25 PM

____

No-one has yet figured out how to measure the so-called "underground economy". Many folks who are listed as having opted out of the labor market have in fact joined the "cash" economy. For them it is a survival imperative. In my work I am now seeing white collar, upper middle class people engaging in business practices that we always assumed were the province of workers in the building trades. Not any more. Cash/barter survival drill is commonplace. Anyone know how to measure it? Government rails against it but has no means for eradicating it. Is it a problem signalling a larger economic problem? I think so.

Any thoughts on this?

Posted by: Khaki Snat on March 15, 2004 05:50 PM

____

The unemployment insurance there gives you roughly 2/3 of your average salary over a certain time frame (unknown) with some cap (unknown as well).

In NY I received 16% of my average weekly salary for 39 weeks. In 2003 (when I received the 39 weeks) I had a total income that was 12% of what I earned the previous year. It was not even enough to pay the rent.

I am still looking for full time work while getting by on loans and small side work.

Considering how much I paid in taxes over the years I should be more bitter. I have no tolerance for high minded conservatives at this point in my life. I am not alone.

Posted by: Jim on March 15, 2004 07:14 PM

____

Thane Walkup: I hope the figure you gave is at least hourly. Anyway I'm wondering what kind of shady outfit this might be. If this is how they recruit people, I hope there is not something worse in store for you down the line. I think Nolo press has some publications on employment-related abuses and legal issues. Check out http://www.nolo.com or your local library.

Posted by: cm on March 15, 2004 07:46 PM

____

Khaki Snat: underground economy

I'm glad you didn't say "chose to opt out", but "opted out" sounds close enough. You could perhaps have used the passive voice, "were opted out".

I suspect most are not joining the underground economy because they want to avoid taxes, but because the underground economy is the only place giving them jobs.

Now before anybody says there is always a market-clearing price, and they could find jobs if they were willing to take less, many companies actually don't consider hiring people on this basis (based on anecdotal evidence). If you would normally make $100K with your credentials and only $70K are available, chances are you may not get the $70K job but are "overqualified", and they would be looking for an "exceptional" candidate whose credentials match $70K. The (understandable) reasoning being that in case the economy improves with more decent jobs available, you may be the hell out quicker than they can think "the guy needs a raise". And it is not unlikely you would be unhappy and not exactly superbly motivated until then.

Regarding the measuring difficulties of the underground economy, that's why it's called "underground". And sorry, I cannot offer any data. I don't even have an idea what kind of "new" job categories thse people may be involved in.

Posted by: cm on March 15, 2004 08:06 PM

____

Jim: Did you hit a cap, or would that be what Joe Average earning $10/hour would get? Nice to know I live in an enlightened state. I most definitely did hunt for a job during those 8 months, and was quite willing to move to other parts of the country to take work. There just wasn't any.

cm: Thanks for the well-wishing. Yes, those numbers were based on hourly earnings... I'm not going to name names mainly because I don't want to risk any legal situations, but I think I'm pretty safe in saying that they were a contracting firm that was outsourcing to Microsoft.

They lost a major contract at Microsoft and they were trying to bust into a different field (software testing) by hiring up unemployed software testers, sticking them in "dirt" jobs to hold on to them as long as they could, in the hope that they could leverage their way into the software testing contract market.

Let's just say it didn't work out very well - Microsoft ended up outsourcing most of its contractor positions outside of the United States. I found another job about two months after being picked up by the firm, referred them back to the letter I submitted to human resources when originally hired equating non-compensated noncompetes with slavery, and told them they could sue me if they really wanted to smear my story across every newschannel in the Pacific Northwest.

I never heard a peep from them.

Posted by: Thane Walkup on March 15, 2004 08:25 PM

____

The Bush strategy of tax cuts for the wealthy has not created jobs. Duh. The wealthy will invest money where they get the greatest return. If it is in offshoring in India and China, they will invest there. If they make more by replacing workers with machines, they will invest there. Meanwhile education and infrastructure are underfunded.

If an employer has a choice between a high paid, not well educated worforce and poor infrastructure compared to low paid not well educated workforce and poor infrastructure, the low pay wins every time. It is only by investing in education and infrastructure that we can hope to create enough jobs in the US.

Posted by: bakho on March 15, 2004 08:48 PM

____

Adrian, I can back up forty years of general laboring back to Eisenhower, with this single morose ad hominem: "It feels like 1973 to me."

The only "fundamental change" as you put it, is the center of our economic universe has moved offshore and is drifting somewhere SW of Hawaii.

Habla Mandarin? Even if you learned, do you think you could make a living as an importer?
Do you believe the PRC's goal is equitableism?

Two economic models we should be comparing are global trade in pico-cheap foreign labor, and inner city ghettos at the advent of crack coke.

Except in this case, our government is promoting the crack pushers and drug cartels. Trade more!
"I want foreigners to buy America" t' Bushits.

Posted by: Justin Duckie on March 15, 2004 08:49 PM

____

'USING CAPS TO DISTINGUISH MY RESPONSE FROM YOUR QUESTION... '

I LIKE TO USE A QUOTATION AROUND THE TEXT THAT I'M REPLYING TO SO AS TO SHOW THE NON-QUOTATED TEXT IS A RESPONSE.

Posted by: bryan on March 16, 2004 01:19 AM

____

Weisman does a he said she said on the debate over the link between tax rates and employment. Wesiman misses a significant point. There were substantial tax cuts under Clinton- child credit, college credit, EITC is a tax cut, capital gains. It is that the tax cuts under Clinton were more targeted. Plus under Clinton, the states had plenty of money for projects. Now they don't.

Cutting wealth taxes, then having the federal government soak up $1.4 trillion does not provide a lot of stimulus to the economy, just a transfer of who owns the paper, the wealthy or the government.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58658-2004Mar14.html?referrer=email

Posted by: bakho on March 16, 2004 05:44 AM

____

cm:'If you would normally make $100K with your credentials and only $70K are available, chances are you may not get the $70K job but are "overqualified", and they would be looking for an "exceptional" candidate whose credentials match $70K. The (understandable) reasoning being'

...that when I'm the boss, I avoid hiring anyone able to do my job, who is willing to work for less money than s/he is worth.

Posted by: D'oh Coriolis on March 16, 2004 06:45 AM

____

Look I am a simple guy, so let me give you the simplistic explanation why 5.6% seens high. Maybe because according to BLS figures in front of me unemployment rates in 2000 averaged a hair under 4.0%? and hadn't been as high as 5.6% since May of 1996?

When Clinton got elected the rate was 7.4%. The 5.6% in November 1994 felt pretty good. Not as good as the 3.8% of April 2000, though.

Relativity - it's not just for physics anymore.

Posted by: Bruce Webb on March 16, 2004 07:13 AM

____

" In all recoveries until the current jobless one, low unemployment came from an increasing numerator; now it is the result of a shrinking denominator."

Well, it really doesn't matter--assuming consistency in defining the denominator--WHY the denominator is what it is. After all, there had to be some reason the denominator wasn't larger back in 1994.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on March 16, 2004 08:49 AM

____

Thane,

Bravo (brava?). You did right. I am not an authority on non-compete agreements, but I understand there are serious enforcement issues. The point, in most cases, is to intimidate you to the point that you have limited employment opportunities beyond the one you are in. If you choose not to be intimidated, you win. The non-compete issue (again, I'm no expert) bites execs with access to sensitive corporate information more. As I understand it, courts find that a non-compete which simply intends to prevent you from using your skills for another firm improperly limits your ability to participate in the labor market.

Posted by: K Harris on March 16, 2004 08:49 AM

____

Re noncompetes:

I heard of cases where noncompete clauses were voided as no extra compensation was offered, and the clause was thus considered unfair (there is a legal term for it that I forgot). That's probably the enforcement problem K Harris is referring to.

Posted by: cm on March 16, 2004 09:15 AM

____

>>WHAT ABOUT ALL THE FORMER EMPLOYEES WHO ARE NOW FREELANCERS OR SMALL BUSINESSMEN?<<

Sorry, but this really made me laugh. In 2000 I was making 110K as a marketing director and today I am a “self-employed” painting contractor/free-lance tech writer/ebay entrepreneur with a taxable income of 32K. So what about all those former employees who are now freelancers and/or small businessmen???

Do not be so stupid as to ask questions that you do not want to hear the answer too....

Posted by: Peter Selph on March 16, 2004 03:01 PM

____

I have heard it quoted a couple of times now, that a Silicon Valley CEO said he would do anything to avoid having to hire a permanent employee. It would be nice if someone who has expertise in economics would make the case clearly that the problem is the cost per employee - which must largely come down to salary plus health care costs. If that case can be made well then it follows that the single most beneficial thing that could be done for unemployment would be relieving businesses of health care costs. It should be a central issue in the campaign. So this 'meme' of "its the economy..stupid" could be replaced by "its the health care costs..stupid".

Posted by: pwax on March 16, 2004 04:53 PM

____

Adrian keeps trying the same arguments in the hopes that someone will tell him he's correct. No one will, so with any luck, he'll give it up and start doing some homework.

tbrosz, on the other hand, does try, but yes, i'll call him cynical. If Al Gore had presided over the same job loss as George Bush, he would be getting the same criticisms from Democrats, plus the Republicans who have fallen in love with the household survey would, instead, be criticizing Gore too.

And Patrick Sullivan's point makes no sense to me at all....

Posted by: howard on March 16, 2004 06:31 PM

____

"That rate may seem counterintuitive, given the loss of so many jobs. The reason is that millions of Americans who might otherwise be working have taken themselves out of the labor force."

Can it really be this difficult to come up with a statistic regarding the *availability* of jobs that is meaningful on its face to the public? That doesn't need to be explained by a bevy of overpaid experts on the obvious? For whom is this statistic so meaningful that it is invariably given great coverage and discussion in lieu of more enlightening statistics?

Posted by: Handy Fuse on March 17, 2004 04:53 AM

____

">>WHAT ABOUT ALL THE FORMER EMPLOYEES WHO ARE NOW FREELANCERS OR SMALL BUSINESSMEN?<<

Sorry, but this really made me laugh. In 2000 I was making 110K as a marketing director and today I am a “self-employed” painting contractor/free-lance tech writer/ebay entrepreneur with a taxable income of 32K. So what about all those former employees who are now freelancers and/or small businessmen???

Do not be so stupid as to ask questions that you do not want to hear the answer too....


Posted by: Peter Selph on March 16, 2004 03:01 PM "

That's the problem with you Dems. Once you lose your cushy big business or big government jobs you discover your real economic value.

I was fired from a $50,000 job and much more than doubled it after starting my own little business.

Perhaps you should delve into your own small soul to find the root cause of your dilemna.

Thanks for calling me stupid,

Adrian


Posted by: Adrian Spidle on March 17, 2004 07:04 AM

____

"And Patrick Sullivan's point makes no sense to me at all...."

What else is new.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on March 17, 2004 08:48 AM

____

Post a comment
















__