« The Far-Right Court | Main | Time To Attack »
September 19, 2007
The Trap
I had a bit of an allergic reaction to Daniel Brook's much-hyped book, The Trap. Far too often, it seemed to be begging public policy to orient itself more towards helping Ezra Klein -- and other white, educated, ambitious do-gooder-types -- who don't need the help. Indeed, there's a whole chapter on how you can no longer be an underemployed intellectual living in a single bedroom in New York, and how that's bad. And maybe it is. But in the list of problems public policy should ameliorate, this didn't seem like one of them:
The catch-22 for today's aspiring intellectuals [in New York] is that you can have the time to do creative work or the money that affords a place to do it, but not both. The only way to make $1,000 monthly rent payments is to have a day job (translating Rimbaud won't cut it); the only way to spend less than $1,000 is to have roommates. The prerequisite for the writing life, what Virginia Woolf famously named "a room of one's own," is now hopelessly out of reach for young writers.
I've got a lot of sympathy in me, but I definitely run out long before I get to unemployed, wannabe writers who need a solo studio in New York from which to pen their first novel. And hell: Does anyone think there's really a paucity of people doing that in New York even as we speak!
That said, the book has some decent policy ideas, and does hook into a serious problem: That do-goodery really doesn't pay enough to support an adult lifestyle, and so we lose talented people from professions we want to keep well-stocked with impressive types. At the very least, college debt and healthcare shouldn't be holding anyone back (on the other hand, the answer to law school debt is for fewer people to go to law school, not for the rest of us to subsidize the indecision of social science majors). For a more generous read of the book's better arguments, see Doron Taussig's review in the latest Washington Monthly.
September 19, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
What the hell is an "aspiring intellectual" anyway?
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Sep 19, 2007 4:18:32 PM
"Surfeit" means "excess." I think you mean "shortage."
Posted by: Tim | Sep 19, 2007 4:21:54 PM
Meant paucity -- thanks for the catch.
Posted by: Ezra | Sep 19, 2007 4:23:37 PM
What the hell is an "aspiring intellectual" anyway?
I know plenty.
Posted by: Jason G. | Sep 19, 2007 4:31:27 PM
The real problem is: if anti-sprawl types are right about the need for most people to live in densely populated areas, people in general cannot afford to live in the areas/manner which would be best for society.
Perhaps Ezra's right that it really doesn't matter if some artist-wannabe is priced out of NYC. But if it's better for society that more of us live in NYC and take the subway to work and fewer of us live in auto-dependent suburbia, then it does matter that most people cannot afford $1000/month rents to live in NYC or a similar place.
But since proles are generally too busy actually working to complain and since the squeeky wheel gets the oil, it's good that the artist-wannabes are complaining so at least something is done about the problem (if it actually exists -- people like Michael Lind would argue against urbanization and in favor of population dispersion).
Posted by: DAS | Sep 19, 2007 4:42:25 PM
To push for more mandated vacation time rather than for an economic regime that doesn’t foster a lifestyle overwhelmingly oriented toward work seems a bit bizarre. Isolated pockets of leisure are not substantive boosts in the quality of life. If one believes there’s more to life than making a living, the policies one favors should somehow reflect this belief in a substantial way.
Posted by: jason | Sep 19, 2007 4:49:48 PM
I'll still have to give this a good thumbing through, even if Ezra Klein didn't really like it.
Posted by: david | Sep 19, 2007 4:52:11 PM
I've got a lot of sympathy in me, but I definitely run out long before I get to unemployed, wannabe writers who need a solo studio in New York from which to pen their first novel. And hell: Does anyone think there's really a paucity of people doing that in New York even as we speak!
I think there's a lot fewer artists/writers/entrepreneurs/etc. in America than there should be, in part because current policy makes housing and health care too expensive for these classes of people. For that matter I think there's a lot fewer liberal/leftist pundits and policy wonks than there should be, for mostly related reasons. But hey, as long as Ezra Klein's made it, who cares about anyone else?
Other than that, what DAS said. Even if you genuinely don't give a fuck about artists and writers, you should care that the suburban/exurban lifestyle is ultimately unsustainable. We need to be making it cheaper and easier to live in cities.
Posted by: Christmas | Sep 19, 2007 4:54:03 PM
I would like to know where these $1,000 apartment in NYC are. I rent out a room in my NYC apartment in an OK part of Manhattan for that.
Posted by: Kate | Sep 19, 2007 4:54:30 PM
The problem of affordable housing in cities is a bigger problem than some starving artist in a hovel writing the next great book; it's a basic thing about keeping the working class generally on the edges in first, second and third ring suburbs. It's not that I'm unsympathetic to the starving artist problem, indeed, that hits pretty close to my (non) home these days... but we don't need to solve the housing problem for potential Hemingways, and frankly, casting them as the victims strikes me as a way to harden people's hearts, not open them ("get a job, you lazy gadabout" comes to mind).
Second, I'd dispute even more forcefully this romanticized view of what New York was or what it's become - that "starving artist" culture in Manhattan or Brooklyn died to a large extent in the 1980s, with a few pockets that stretched into the 90s. You just don't see the kind of artsy buzz you used to and examples of the change abound - the closing of CBGB, the condo-ization of the Lower East Side, the election of a series of Mayors meant to "clean up" areas of drug use and crime that existed in large measure due to poor housing stock (one of Giuliani's less heralded changes was redevelopment of Harlem and the East Village). I moved to New York in part because I was drawn to just such romantic notions; by the time I left, 42nd Street was a Disney theme park, Starbucks had outposts in Hell's Kitchen, and Whole Foods had a store in the Bowery. The real energy in the arts has moved, arguably, south and west, along with much of the population. What's left in the northeast is a bunch of rich hippies who want the image of an experience, not the real thing. It's worth keeping in mind when we talk about solutions for artists that we not marry ourselves to the romance of the way it was. Art and creative energy don't need a place, they need room, and the solutions (which are needed) should think about what's next, not what's been.
Posted by: weboy | Sep 19, 2007 4:55:30 PM
My heart bleeds for wannabe "intellectuals" who want to live in NYC but don't want to have day jobs or roommates.
Wait - no it doesn't. I can't believe anyone could write that paragraph - it reads like a parody of what a mid-westerner would think an overprivileged, elitist New Yorker intellectual would write.
Posted by: NonyNony | Sep 19, 2007 4:55:56 PM
I'm sympathetic to your arguments, but here are a couple of counterarguments to consider:
First, if you follow the gentrification trends of New York you see a repeated series of events:
1. The artists get priced out of their current neighborhood and find a rundown neighborhood with cheap rent and move in.
2. The artists establish a hip scene with cool bars and clubs and coffee shops and museums and stuff, and it becomes a desirable neighborhood.
3. Everybody wants to live there, and they move in, driving rents up.
4. The artists get priced out of their current neighborhood and find a cheap, rundown neighborhood with cheap rent and move in.
5. In the meantime, a formerly undesireable neighborhood has been revived, and wealth is created in the sense that property values go up (and landlords make a killing.)
This happened in downtown Manhattan, and as the area between Houston and 14th street gentrified, the artists moved to SoHo. Then they moved to DUMBO. Then they moved to Williamsburg. These days, the artists are getting priced out of Williamsburg.
My point is that the artists are performing a valuable service which is unremunerated. One might argue that there's a missing market which somebody ought to step in and take care of.
Another consideration is simply whether we as a nation want to provide governmental subsidies for the arts. If we do, then finding ways to make it easier for unestablished artists to live on small incomes is arguably a better investment than pouring money into big established organizations with existing financial support.
Posted by: Galen | Sep 19, 2007 4:58:34 PM
The prerequisite for the writing life, what Virginia Woolf famously named "a room of one's own," is now hopelessly out of reach for young writers.
Of course, Woolf wasn't one for libraries.
Art and creative energy don't need a place, they need room, and the solutions (which are needed) should think about what's next, not what's been.
Ding fucking ding.
And again, this is about more than rents: it's about barriers to entry. I'm looking at you, small magazines who love their unpaid interns and Rolodexes. 'Aspiring intellectual' is such an unfortunate phrase: if you want to think and write, then you think and write: you'll write in coffeeshops and diners and libraries. And of course, Ezra's living proof that a blog will get you noticed. But then comes the stumbling block: if there's no money to support you during that internship, or no friends in the city to offer a couch or floor, you're likely to be stuck.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Sep 19, 2007 5:05:52 PM
Wait - no it doesn't. I can't believe anyone could write that paragraph - it reads like a parody of what a mid-westerner would think an overprivileged, elitist New Yorker intellectual would write.
I'm catching a whiff of "Dirty Fucking Hippies" syndrome.
Posted by: Christmas | Sep 19, 2007 5:07:21 PM
Well, Jesus Christ. I live in NYC, and I've had roommates the entire time.
And guess what. I've always had a room to myself.
It's not like me and some random guy from craigslist are thrown into a dorm room together. From the three places I've lived, I've had a bedroom to myself and had to share a bathroom, kitchen, and living room. Isn't that pretty normal?
Like many failed writers in NYC, my inability to produce anything of worth is because I'm a drunk, not because I don't have a one bedroom apartment.
Posted by: Stu | Sep 19, 2007 5:15:54 PM
i lived in new york city in the sixties and seventies, and it certainly was not inexpensive to live there then, either.
...my best friend lived in soho in the sixties and though the rents were inexpensive, she took her life in her hands entering and leaving at night.
...i remember my last flu in new york city, waiting for the bus that never came in a snowstorm, with my umbrella turned inside out, my fever rising by the minute, watching the taxis go by that i couldnt afford, and they were all filled anyway, thinking...manhattan is great if you are rich.
time to move on.
...i bet even montmartre was expensive in the time of toulouse-lautrec. (i have no actual evidence of that)..just thinking of the consumptive waifs in the garret in la boheme.)
....i also believe that creative artists and writers could paint and write inside a cardboard box and be just fine.
look at thoreau in a cabin in the woods.
...being an artist has never been easy.
economics being the least of it.
Posted by: jacqueline | Sep 19, 2007 5:18:03 PM
jacqueline - Exactly. And Manhattan is great if you are rich - and even more fun if you're rich and call yourself an "artist", even if, like Stu, your art is mostly how you liven up a party. :)
Posted by: weboy | Sep 19, 2007 5:24:22 PM
Artists and intellectuals could always migrate to a city with cheaper rents, like Chicago, and live like kings! Damn hell ass kings!
Posted by: Royko | Sep 19, 2007 5:33:19 PM
Like many failed writers in NYC, my inability to produce anything of worth is because I'm a drunk, not because I don't have a one bedroom apartment.
I likes: best thing I've read on the internets all week. Way to go, Stu! You should definitely use that line in your next failed novel.
Posted by: Jasper | Sep 19, 2007 5:33:19 PM
Stu certainly livened up this party. Thanks!
Posted by: mutakhalef | Sep 19, 2007 5:34:07 PM
I'm catching a whiff of "Dirty Fucking Hippies" syndrome.
I don't get it. All of the "Dirty Fucking Hippies" I know have roommates. Some of them practically live in communes they have so many roommates. And many of them have day jobs. And some of them are actually writers.
None of them, however, whine about the fact that they need to have day jobs or roommates to pay their rent.
Posted by: NonyNony | Sep 19, 2007 5:51:20 PM
Law school is what I've been going for since I was 20 years old Ezra. If I didn't have that I'd have no marketable intellectual skills (except my admittedly raw but slightly above average talent as a fiction writer, and ability to opine on everything) despite my intelligence.
Jesus. Thanks.
Posted by: MNPundit | Sep 19, 2007 6:15:54 PM
But if it's better for society that more of us live in NYC and take the subway to work and fewer of us live in auto-dependent suburbia, then it does matter that most people cannot afford $1000/month rents to live in NYC or a similar place.Except that one-bedroom apartments are terrible for society (all those fully furnished kitchens and bathrooms going unused 90% of the time, for starters), and artist wannabes with no job aren't so hot either. And with this thing called "The Internet" there's no requirement that you must to live in NYC to create art.
Living alone in NYC is not the only way to live in NYC; living alone without a job in NYC is *definitely* not the only way to live in NYC. And living alone without a job in NYC is definitely, definitely not the only (or probably even best) way to create art of lasting merit, so why should we give a damn whether it's an economically viable lifestyle or not?
Posted by: Chris | Sep 19, 2007 6:37:42 PM
I am not understanding your point about law school. How would fewer people going reduce the debt of the ones who did? Unless you think only the people whose parents can pay their tuition ought to go?
Posted by: Emma Anne | Sep 19, 2007 7:08:12 PM
It should be noted that many places have loan-forgiveness programs in place for law students who go on to work in public interest.
Posted by: Jason G. | Sep 19, 2007 7:12:17 PM
I think there's a lot fewer artists/writers/entrepreneurs/etc. in America than there should be, in part because current policy makes housing and health care too expensive for these classes of people.
While health care is a problem which creates a huge barrier of entry to aspiring writers, artists, and entrepeneurs, those in search of less expensive housing can move to Pittsburgh, Baltimore, or any number of cities that aren't NYC, DC, Boston, LA, Seattle, or SF.
And somehow I, in my early 30s, learn to deal with living with a roommate because it was inexpensive for my first year in DC. I'm not happy about it, but I do have a room of my own to work undisturbed, and I realize that I was making a personal choice to live with a roommate. Had I been willing to live in a more suburban neighborhood or more far-flung part of the city, I could live alone with no problem.
Posted by: Tyro | Sep 19, 2007 7:17:15 PM
Unless you think only the people whose parents can pay their tuition ought to go?
The country has no shortage of lawyers. Can we accept that certain decisions are, from a financial point of view, bad ones? I don't consider it a "market failure" that law school doesn't create the financial returns necessary to justify the high tuition. It's a sign that a legal education from a private law school is only practical if you are a top student from a top tier law school who wants to get a job as a corporate or otherwise BigFirm lawyer, so you should make professional/academic decisions accordingly.
I know a guy who went to Harvard undergrad and then went to a smaller, not-well-known law school that he got a scholarship to. Now, I'm sure this prevented him from getting some glorious corporate law job at a New York City firm, but he seems to be doing well for himself, doing what he wants to do, and not having to worry about crippling debt. And that seems to be the same assessment of the public-interest lawyers I know who chose to attend a public law school and patent attorneys who went to night law school while they worked as a technology specialist at a law firm which paid their tuition.
Posted by: Tyro | Sep 19, 2007 7:27:17 PM
Dude, seriously, where are these $1000/month one-bedrooms in NYC? I think they don't exist except maybe in the sketchier parts of the Bronx (where, sadly, public housing for those who really need it is being bought out & torn down for expensive condos... sigh).
Anyway. The argument, I agree, does hold more weight when applied to those in the service professions (full disclosure: a.k.a. the professions I want to go into, in NYC, heh), and either way the "no roommate" thing is just kind of weird. Does he think married people can't create art either?
Also, this:
Like many failed writers in NYC, my inability to produce anything of worth is because I'm a drunk, not because I don't have a one bedroom apartment.
wins the internets.
Posted by: Isabel | Sep 19, 2007 7:32:45 PM
Far too often, it seemed to be begging public policy to orient itself more towards helping Ezra Klein -- and other white, educated, ambitious do-gooder-types -- who don't need the help.
Class traitor.
:P
In all seriousness, let me just note that the reason our law schools are flooded is because of the paucity of other professional alternatives in the social sciences. I suppose we need to either turn out fewer undergrads there or find somewhere else to put them.
Posted by: Anthony Damiani | Sep 19, 2007 8:05:03 PM
Artists and intellectuals could always migrate to a city with cheaper rents, like Chicago, and live like kings! Damn hell ass kings!
A lot of the artistic mass of New York has been dispersing to Philadelphia and LA in the past decade, it just hasn't cleared the radar horizon yet. Philly's got that cheap, murdery gotham vibe, and it's on the Northeast Corridor for jaunts up to New York for business. As for LA, the upside of car culture is that the entire city is "usable space" in terms of finding a place to live and produce, not just the parts in walking range of transit. It's quite possible for artists to band together into collectives and rent out a cheap space, support it by selling printed t-shirts and other light goods in the front, hold shows in the back.
Posted by: Senescent | Sep 19, 2007 8:57:37 PM
I know at least 20 people in my law school class (top ten law school, within the past five years) who would never even have looked at a law school application if there were more opportunities for political science majors in upper academia. We need to shift resources away from the military and into the humanities and social sciences.
Posted by: Father Figure | Sep 19, 2007 9:10:01 PM
I was just in NYC a couple of weeks ago and the real estate signs I saw in Soho at least seemed to indicate that the going rate for a studio or one bedroom was in the $3,000 to 3,500 range. Not exactly an amount that encourages the bohemian lifestyle.
Not sure that there is a real public policy answer to this one.
I do think that if society valued certain thing more --like teaching -- there might be fewer people heading to law schools.
Posted by: Klein's tiny left nut | Sep 19, 2007 9:10:39 PM
A lot of the artistic mass of New York has been dispersing to Philadelphia and LA in the past decade, it just hasn't cleared the radar horizon yet.
You've already had your turn of living in New York
So leave
Now
You're wasting space
And breathing up all of our oxygen
Go live in Northern California
But leave before you simultaniously die in an earthquake and a gang related shooting
-Denis Leary, "Drink Beer"
the real estate signs I saw in Soho at least seemed to indicate that the going rate for a studio or one bedroom was in the $3,000 to 3,500 range. Not exactly an amount that encourages the bohemian lifestyle.
Well, not in SoHo, no, which has long since ceased to be a very bohemian place, given that it's host to a Louis Vuitton and Apple store. But if you're willing to live in Queens or Washington Heights, you might find something more affordable.
Pre-Katrina, a lot of artists were abandoning SF for New Orleans, which had both a low cost of living and a very vibrant culture.
The ideal situation for an artist is being able to hold down part-time a job which is sufficient to pay their rent and gives them enough time to pursue their artistic/literary interests. Unfortunately, they're not only competing with the well-heeled professionals for living space but also competing with people whose parents are able to pay their rent and living expenses while they play artist for a few years.
Posted by: Tyro | Sep 19, 2007 9:22:30 PM
I live on the West Coast, where housing prices are frankly outrageous. I too had some issues with the book, but there is an important issue here: people who want to live in coastal cities and raise a family basically HAVE to choose high-paying professions. Between the loan burdens and the cost of housing, these young people are really being squeezed. I'm lucky; I went to graduate school back when fellowships still existed, and we bought our townhouse before prices in our neighborhood became insane. I was thus free to choose to work in public mental health, which is definitely not a good way to get rich. I'm a nurse practitioner (among other things), and I'm especially concerned at how this dilemma is likely to exacerbate the shortages we already have in nursing and teaching.
Posted by: beckya57 | Sep 19, 2007 9:45:41 PM
Becky,
I think it is almost impossible to live in a major coastal city now as a middle aged adult with children without having a fairly high income unless you bought real estate a long time ago. Once the group house or the small apartment don't suit you, it's very difficult to be a teacher, public safety worker or social worker and stay, which is unfortunate for the cities.
Posted by: Klein's tiny left nut | Sep 19, 2007 10:36:16 PM
You're wasting space
And breathing up all of our oxygen
Go live in Northern California
But leave before you simultaniously die in an earthquake and a gang related shooting
Or, alternatively, steal all of Bill Hicks' jokes to jump-start your career.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Sep 19, 2007 11:45:32 PM
[i]I do think that if society valued certain thing more --like teaching -- there might be fewer people heading to law schools.[/i]
Or after you dissed my teaching experience, if society valued ethics.
'Question on a lawyer's ethics exam: "If a client overpays you, do you split it with your partner?"
Ha Ha Ha Get it? Legal ETHICS exam!!!!!'
Posted by: daveinboca | Sep 20, 2007 12:16:50 AM
I think people are missing the point of the book (which I only got because I saw the author speak this evening).
Apparently it used to be that it was possible to make a living, even a career, being creative or a do-gooder. Like, raise kids and stuff. Nowadays, if someone (like your little sister) tells you he or she is going into social work, you look at them funny, and if you have a heart, offer encouraging words. This is because there is no safety net for most people, and Brook is arguing that this is a bad thing. It reduces the numbers of folks taking risks and starting their own businesses, freelancing, etc.
In an ideal world (and those are the best kind to argue in favor of), folks would be enabled to attempt to do creative things for a living without risking bankruptcy to pay for theirs or their children's medical bills. National Health Care is the most salient policy point of the book.
Posted by: Aaron | Sep 20, 2007 1:54:50 AM
I'd kill to pay $1000 rent. I'm paying twice that in London and was paying more than that when I shared with two other people.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Sep 20, 2007 9:04:22 AM
Aaron - I think what people are saying is that the issue with the premise is that it's not as if a creative, experimental, or daring life has really ever been easy. While it's certainly fair to point out all of the economic factors that make it harder for people to pursue their dreams, people who really pursue their dreams don't get a lot of breaks... which is why the "artist" lifestyle has almost always been the province of those whose parents or other family have been willing or able to indulge creativity without expectation of earning. Would various economic improvements make it more possible for more people to pursue creative opportunities? Yes... but nothing guarantees success and it isn't just economic barriers that keep great talents from realizing their potential. Which is to say, I'm not sure the book will really change all that much. The reasons for improving healthcare, affordable housing and the like are far broader than the needs of the creative. And no creative person who's really serious should allow themselves the lazy excuse of how they're Being Kept Down By The Man. If you're going to let that stop you... you're doomed.
Posted by: weboy | Sep 20, 2007 9:19:12 AM
Seems to be a fair amount of conflation here. As a former lawyer now starving writer leaving a rapidly gentrifying part of NYC, let me throw in my nickel.
1. NYC has changed; there's so much more money around now that there's no slack in the city to live a life not centered on making money. True, the 70s were a strange interregnum, but before that there were always pockets of urbanity that didn't cost an arm and a leg. No more.
2. Things are different now. I have no idea where all the 20-somethings in my hood get their cash from, but they are paying thousands of dollars a month to live in a crappy neighborhood. I moved there because it was cheap, not hip.
3. This is really a symptom of a much larger problem--the erosion of an employment structure that had a significant number of jobs that paid enough to get by on. Those jobs just don't exist any longer. Ask anyone who is working 3 jobs to make ends meet.
4. I don't mind having to move. But I do think this economy is misallocating resources in a number of terrible ways. There is no reason (other than conformity) to pay a lot of money to live in a crappy neighborhood. Only property owners win from that one (Henry George, anyone?). And as for lawyers, I made six figures doing inefficient wealth transfers. Nothing productive about that at all. But no one will pay for productive work because the incentives all run toward skimming a bit of cream off the top of our endless monetizations. It's quick, easy, and you always get your fee.
Posted by: sparky | Sep 20, 2007 9:21:58 AM
This is one of the pernicious effects of increasing income inequality. Yes, doctors and lawyers always made more than teachers and middle managers, but now the gulf is so large that two people who went to the same high school together but chose different professional career paths will be unable to live in the same town, much less the same neighborhood. There are tangible consequences to this increased social separation.
Posted by: Tyro | Sep 20, 2007 10:02:24 AM
Tyro,
This is very true. The economic gulf between me, as a partner in a medium sized law firm, and my sister, who is a public elementary school teacher in a small blue collar city, has reached chasm like proportions. I always feel bad about how little she is paid for the effort that she puts in -- not to mention the money she lays out for her class room.
Daveinboca,
I wasn't knocking teaching -- I was responding to your faux claims to be the tribune of the people and the epitome of manliness by virtue of teaching at a university. It didn't strike me as persuasive. And frankly, if the word "libtard" is an integral part of your vocabulary, you've got to expect some shots.
Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | Sep 20, 2007 10:31:10 AM
Check out my response to you on the original post. I was shot at in Nam, scudded in Riyadh & hiked the Himalayas in Azad Kashmir and Nepal where I motorcycled up to the Chinese border and down the Rajpath to India. Plus visiting 50 countries along my path to academicide.
"Libtard" is tame compared to some insults I've seen elsewhere on this thread, but I'll put it in the penalty box until hyperventilation from your side causes it to come back on the ice. Blogging is a contact sport, and leaves more than marks.
Posted by: daveinboca | Sep 20, 2007 12:19:50 PM
daveinboca, like most people online, is a self-made-millionaire veteran of the special forces who turned down Harvard when he realized that he had taught the professors everything he knows. He can hang out with hutch1200 in this sadlyno thread.
Posted by: Tyro | Sep 20, 2007 12:43:21 PM
Tyro,
Oh yes, I'm making it all up. Why is it that clicking on your link gets a qmail address & mine gets a blog?
Maybe you are a gutless loo-zer libtard, but you can check my cred on my blog if you take a few minutes. Libtard is the only name, Klein-jr, that cowards like Tyro deserve, so it's back on the ice.
Where do YOU live, Tyro, and what's YOUR CV?
Posted by: daveinboca | Sep 20, 2007 2:31:33 PM
Silence, as expected.
Posted by: daveinboca | Sep 20, 2007 11:39:58 PM
