« May 2007 | Main | July 2007 »
Posted by EclectEcon on June 30, 2007 at 01:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Posted by EclectEcon on June 29, 2007 at 01:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
The city of Bath in the UK prides itself on the sameness of the architecture of all its buildings. Many refer to Bath as a quintessential example of Georgian architecture; in fact, if you go to the Wikipedia entry for Georgian architecture, one of the photos you will see is of The Royal Crescent in Bath.
But Bath takes things to impressive, ridiculous, boring extremes. Building owners must use only white paint on the window trim [exceptions are permitted for the ground floor of businesses in most places, and some window trim seemed to be more on the creamy side of white than pure white]. Also, the buildings must have either Bath limestone or (more recently) similar limestone exteriors. And the roofs must be slate or slate-coloured. So everything looks alike. Just look at these photos, each one taken in a different location in Bath.
Interesting architecture. I might even say it is fascinating, stupendous, or amusing to have an entire town done up in such similar architecture. And as Tim Worstall recommended, just walking around the streets of Bath is a great experience (well, except maybe on weekend evenings when the younger crowd seem to take over).
There are, of course, a few minor exceptions to the basic rules. First, the backs of the buildings do not have the same degree of sameness as the facads. Also, O'Neill's pub near the Roman Bath has blue trim, not white, on the windows on the upper levels:
When I asked them about it, they said they had special permission because blue is their official colour. But I am skeptical. Flan O'Brien's, just down the street, doesn't have green trim on the upper windows. Also, the O'neill's pub in Mayfair doesn't have blue trim on the windows on the upper floors.
Posted by EclectEcon on June 28, 2007 at 01:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Several people in Bath told me that there had never been any love lost between Queen Victoria and the people of Bath. Supporting evidence of this view is that while I was in Bath, I so no mailboxes with "VR" on them, despite having seen several of them in other towns. I did, however, come across several mailboxes with E-VII-R on them, placed during the reign of Victoria's son, Edward VII, in the early 20th century.
Posted by EclectEcon on June 27, 2007 at 01:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
In a shop window in the Mayfair District of London:
Posted by EclectEcon on June 27, 2007 at 01:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Many years ago, while I was talking with an esteemed colleague, I said something about some market's being out of equilibrium. He reacted pretty strongly, saying that if a market appears to be out of equilibrium then I hadn't taken into account all the relevant variables. Good advice.
So what is happening with prices in Canada and the U.S. now that the U.S. price of a Canadian Loonie has risen to about 94cents? Back when the U.S. price of the Canuck Buck was 84 cents, prices of goods seemed to pretty much reflect purchasing power parity, and there wasn't a tonne of cross-border shopping. But now goods from the U.S. are so much cheaper. Manufacturers in Canada are finding it harder to sell their products in the U.S., and many more Canadians are engaging in cross-border shopping. I find it much more attractive, myself, to order things from the U.S. than from Canada.
As an example, consider any item listed at both Amazon.com and Amazon.ca. A year ago, the price spread was off-putting, but not so much as to keep me from ordering things now and then from Amazon.ca, especially since the Amazon.com free shipping offer for large orders does not apply to shipments to Canada. But now, even without free shipping on larger orders, most things are much cheaper when ordered from Amazon.com instead of Amazon.ca. Prices in Canada and the U.S. simply are not adjusting to the shifts in supply and demand that follow from the recent, sizable jump in the U.S. price of the Canadian Loonie.
In a model of purchasing power parity in a flexible exchange rate regime, one would expect that the prices of goods and the prices of currencies would adjust so that the same book would cost the same for me to buy in either Canada or the U.S. But prices and exchange rates simply are not adjusting that quickly. Books still have Canadian prices stamped on them that are maybe 30 - 50 percent higher (nominally) than the U.S. prices.
Of course many other things determine prices and exchange rates (try oil and other resource price swings, inflationary expectations, political uncertainties, etc.), but if the prices stay the way they are, also look for Amazon.ca to have to lower its prices eventually. Also look for Chapters-Indigo to have to lower its prices, too. If they don't, watch for some outlets to close.
But these changes do not happen overnight or instantaneously. Rather, it takes time for customers to adjust to purchasing things from different sources. And it takes time for many merchants to adjust their prices to new market realities.
It is easy for us to draw the graphs and shift the curves, but we are not price searchers in an uncertain world; these movements do not happen automagically and immediately without decision-makers contemplating them and trying to reformulate their own expectations. Retail merchants, though, should be seeing these changes on the horizon and making plans now to deal with them.
Posted by EclectEcon on June 26, 2007 at 01:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Posted by EclectEcon on June 26, 2007 at 01:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
One Tuesday in late May while I was in England, I decided to go for a walk on The South Downs, just west of Eastbourne. The Downs stretch a long ways, and there are many trails to take that are gorgeous, with nice views and pleasant breezes. Here is a view of The Downs (those hills in the distance) from my apartment window in Bader Hall at Herstmonceux Castle.
As I was walking up one of the paths to The Downs, I turned around and could see the old Newton Observatory, along with several smaller observatory domes at the Science Centre, all of which are located on the Castle grounds at Herstmonceux. Bader Hall is barely visible as a low brownish brick building to the left in this photo. [You will probably have to click on this photo to see the domes, etc.]
One of my favourite activities when walking is to take a break and fly a small parafoil kite that I carry with me. It has no frame, is sturdy, and it rolls up into a very small package that is easy to carry around. Here it is, in the air over The South Downs.
Posted by EclectEcon on June 25, 2007 at 01:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
When I was in Bath several weeks ago, one thing that made the visit so nice was the tours.
When I first arrived, the proprietress at the B&B where I was staying strongly recommended that I take the Mayor's "free" guided walking tour. She was right. Giles, the guide when I took the tour, was fascinating and knowledgeable. He probably spent way too much time lecturing and not enough time walking and guiding for most people, but I loved his presentation and his wry sense of humour. His tour was so good on Friday evening, that I almost went back to take it again on Saturday evening.
Posted by EclectEcon on June 24, 2007 at 01:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The Downs are really "ups" — hills. Jacquie told me that historically, the word "down" is a variant of "dune", which seems plausible.
The Fells are really "rises" — plateaus between which the dales have been carved by streams over time.
Both the South Downs, between Eastbourne and Brighton, and the Yorkshire Fells are amazingly spectacular places. I am confident that if there were a god*, these places would be part of heaven.
*note the subjunctive mood, implying a statement contrary to fact, which reveals just how close to atheism my agnosticism really is.
Posted by EclectEcon on June 23, 2007 at 01:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Knole is a part of the National Trust in the UK. It is basically a huge country home, built shortly after Hertmonceux Castle was built, for use by members of the royal family. Even though it was near London, moving the royal household there overland must have been quite a chore back when it was first built.
To be honest, I found Knole to be less-than-scintillating. Perhaps the weather influenced my mood, though. It was raining, so walking outside wasn't much fun, and there was no way to sit outside and have tea from their tearoom. And I'm just not turned on by displays of 300 different portraits of royalty and their friends or displays of 17 million different chairs, all in a dark hallway (dark to protect the original upholstery). On their website, they say,
In order to protect Knole's fragile and rare textiles, light of all kinds is carefully controlled. This restricts opening hours of the show rooms – last entry 3:30but if they really mean that, they should be open in the evenings and closed from 11am until 4pm. More likely, the real reason they close early is that Knole is staffed almost entirely by volunteers, who are more likely to be available for work during the day than in the evenings.
Posted by EclectEcon on June 22, 2007 at 01:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Canada's manufacturing labour force has declined by over 11% in the past three years. Nevertheless, our unemployment rate is as low as it has been for decades and income per capita has continued to grow. The reason? Growth in high-paying jobs, especially in the oil patch but also in the finance and insurance industries. Steve Poloz has the details:
Nearly 260,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since May 2004, a drop of 11.2%. Manufacturing output has fallen only 0.7% in the same three years, implying that average productivity per worker is up, but that is no consolation for the unemployed. Meanwhile, since May 2004, the non-manufacturing economy has created 1.1 million new jobs – which means that, after taking account of manufacturing job losses, the economy has added 860,000 new jobs.I would add that they also need flexibility to adapt, and an important part of that flexibility comes with freedom from burdensome gubmnt restrictions that impede the flow of resources, especially labour, from declining to growing sectors of the economy.
Some treat non-manufacturing jobs with scepticism, describing them as part-time, low-paying and less value-creating than manufacturing jobs. These concerns are clearly worth examining.
First, consider the part-time/full-time split of the employment growth that has occurred. Of the 860,000 jobs created on net between May 2004 and May 2007, 750,000 are full-time, an increase of 5.8%. Part-time jobs are up 3.8%, so the share of full-time jobs is rising, not falling.
Second, consider the claim that new non-manufacturing jobs do not pay as well as the lost manufacturing jobs. The average manufacturing wage in Canada is about $936 per week, which is good money. Manufacturers of durable goods earn more, $978, while non-durables workers earn $851. What about the new jobs? Construction jobs are up by 187,000, and weekly wages are $919. Jobs in mining and oil and gas are up over 63,000 and pay $1,386 per week. Those two categories alone are roughly enough to replace the high-paying manufacturing jobs that have been lost since May 2004....
Of course, there have been new jobs created in the service sector of the economy as well. Finance and insurance are up by 108,000, at $985 per week. Professional and technical jobs are up 101,000, with an average wage of $978 per week. Education and health care have added 232,000 positions, at pay rates of $700-800 per week. And there are some 250,000 new jobs in retail trade, wholesale trade and the hospitality sector, where there is a wide range of salaries, but most of which would be quite a bit lower than those in the manufacturing sector.
Even a cursory glance at these numbers can explain why Canadian income growth has been strong despite the losses of manufacturing jobs. The claim, made by some, that non-manufacturing jobs are less value-creating....
The bottom line? The Canadian manufacturing sector has a good future, but it will look different from what it does today. The share of total employment in fabrication is declining, as in other countries, and as it has done for the last 50 years. The key is to ensure that both companies and workers have the tools they need to help them adapt to these challenging conditions.
Posted by EclectEcon on June 21, 2007 at 01:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
One of the many field trips that I tagged along on during my brief teaching stint at Herstmonceux Castle was to The UK office of the European Parliament. There we listened to a very bright person tell us why the EU is so good and all that it is doing for the UK.
I.e., that office is a public relations outlet for bureaucrats to explain why their bureaus should be enlarged. Surprise, surprise.
[shades of William Niskanen's theory that the goal of bureaucrats is to maximize the size of their bureaux].
When I left our session there, I strolled through St. James Park, across a footbridge. What a beautiful place! The Chauffeur says this scene reminds her of a fairy-tale castle.
Posted by EclectEcon on June 21, 2007 at 01:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
How much are they?And so I ended up with this luggage tag from a souvenir store:
£29 (i.e. roughly $65 Cdn, or about three times what I had paid for the bag).
Oh, I think I must be shopping in the wrong section of town?
Why is that?
I had in mind something with ASDA prices (ASDA is owned by Wal-Mart).
Posted by EclectEcon on June 20, 2007 at 05:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
It all started less than a year ago. I had nice, handy Minolta digital camera that I carried everywhere in my shirt pocket. While wading, I leaned over and dropped it into the Irish Sea.
Then I dropped my first Canon 750 into our hot tub.
Next, a little over a week ago, I was carrying my second Canon 750 in my pocket when, as happened several times before, something bumped the on-off switch, turning the camera on (and, unfortunately, opening and extending the lens away from the camera body). It seems that the heavy bag I was carrying on my shoulder then smashed into the camera in my pocket, destroying the mechanism. Another camera bit the dust.
Results:
Posted by EclectEcon on June 19, 2007 at 01:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
I initially figured, "Yup, rich kids of privilege; athletes. They did it." Obviously, in canceling the remainder of last year's season, the president of Duke agreed with me.
Then I started reading things indicating there were holes in the prosecution's case. Big holes. But I never read much about it; and I never followed the details.
Here is a tidy summary from the NYTimes. I must say, no DNA match looks more like "innocent" than just "not guilty" to me.
Posted by EclectEcon on June 18, 2007 at 01:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
I recently bought a very basic Garmin e-trex GPS locator, which is a really fun toy and great tool for hikers. It gets great reviews, and I will surely be writing more about it in the future.
But this brief posting was spurred by a warning label attached to the front of the toy/tool:
WARNING: This product contains lead, a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects and other reproductive harm.Why would they word a warning about lead that way? Was it something specific in California legislation that caused them to use that wording? Or was it just written by someone who thinks Californians are deserving butts of other people's humour?
Update: Rebekah writes:
Funny, you're the second person I've read today to comment on that little snot-nosed offspring of prop. 65. From Christian Probasco's article, California Looms, posted @ New West:
Many business and products in California have Proposition 65 warning labels affixed to them, warning the ever-unsuspecting public of the dangers of grocery produce, nail polish, solvents, oil, gasoline, you name it. Businesses which fail to post the proper signage can face fines of $2500 per day. Freelance journalist Donald Melanson noted the following label on his computer’s mouse:
“The cord on this product contains lead, a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. Wash hands after handling.”
Posted by EclectEcon on June 17, 2007 at 01:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Posted by EclectEcon on June 16, 2007 at 02:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
When I arrived at the hospital last Monday morning, I was treated immediately. The on-call urologist explained things to me carefully and performed what seemed like logical tests to identify the problem and speed a diagnosis and treatment plan.
Later that day, I was informed that they (I never quite knew who, I was so doped up) had decided to blast the kidney stone to break it up so it would pass easily, and that I would be discharged until they could bring me in as an out-patient to do the blasting.
Hmmm. That didn't seem like such a great plan to me. First, I was planning to return to Canada the next Wednesday and would need an appointment well before then. Second, I wasn't too eagre to be walking around with this stone if it was likely to cause that much agony time and again.
It turns out that blasting time is a VERY scarce commodity, either because of a shortage of time on the blasting machine or because of a shortage of time with the consulting urologist. However, they managed to squeeze me in the next day for a blasting. I was grateful for that.
As I was being prepped for a preliminary electro-cardiogram on Tuesday afternoon, suddenly a doctor I'd never seen before (he turned out to be the chief/consulting urologist) came rushing into the ward and started ripping off the patches that had just been stuck onto my hairy chest. He said,
No ECG. We just have time on the machine now, and we'll lose it if we don't get down there right now.So we went barreling through the halls, and they rushed me up onto the table. Then I overheard them say there were two stones: one in the kidney, which was causing no problem at the moment and the other, which they were going after. I raised a bit of a stink that they weren't going after both while I was there, but they said they simply didn't have time to do them both.
Posted by EclectEcon on June 15, 2007 at 02:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
Seven hours after returning from a wonderful weekend hiking in the Yorkshire moors and fells, I had to go to the hospital because of some kidney stones, my first ever experience with such a medical condition. It hasn't been a pleasant few days, but the worst seems to be over now. I'll be cutting short my stay here in the UK and returning to Canada this weekend.
Posted by EclectEcon on June 14, 2007 at 11:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Last month, the Trono Globe and Mail reported that teens are still having as much sex as they ever had, but that teen pregnancies and teen abortions have declined dramatically.
The number of unwanted pregnancies among adolescents and young adults has fallen principally because they are using birth control, said Alex McKay, research co-ordinator at the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada, and author of the study.I have to wonder how much of a role welfare reform played in these trends. If teens knew that raising infants on welfare would not be easy, it must have deterred some of them from becoming pregnant.
"It's due to greater contraceptive use, not teens having less sex," he said.
... The research, published in today's edition of The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, shows that the teen pregnancy rate in Canada fell to 32.1 per 100,000 population in 2003 from 53.9 per 100,000 in 1974.
During the same period, the teen abortion rate increased to 17.1 per 100,000 from 13.9 per 100,000. However, the number of teens having abortions has fallen steadily since 1994.
Posted by EclectEcon on June 13, 2007 at 05:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
I just returned from a glorious weekend in Settle, North Yorkshire, where I spent a considerable amount of time walking on the fells/downs. While I was there, I stayed at a small B&B called Burn Lodge. Mrs. Hutchinson, the proprietress served excellent breakfasts, and was even willing to serve me as early as 6am so I could get on early start on my walking jaunts. Also, it was very inexpensive, in part because there is no internet connection and in part because the bathroom is shared with the other guest(s).
But while I was there, there were no other guests. The bathroom was private for my own use (the proprietress lives upstairs). This situation made the room worth more to me than it would have been, had there been other guests in the other guest room on the lower level.
I wondered whether it would be possible for B&Bs to initiate conditional pricing: £24 if there are other guests sharing the bathroom, and £ 29 if you are the only guest using the bathroom. I would certainly be willing to pay more for a private bath (and even more for an en suite), but imagine trying to specify a conditional contract that would set out these prices and conditions. Also, I have to wonder whether such a pricing scheme might actually deter some potential guests from visiting. You'd have to (well, at least I would, given my general chicken-hearted risk aversion) say to yourself, "I'm signing up for a B&B with a shared bathroom, but maybe I'll get lucky..." but I think no matter how much I might try to convince myself of that view, I'd be disappointed if someone else showed up. Maybe what I'll do next time is just rent both rooms; it wouldn't be much more expensive than a single, en suite.
Does anyone know of any B&Bs that have a pricing scale even remotely capturing this effect? The risk to the proprietress is that nobody else will rent the other room; but this risk is most likely unaffected by the pricing scheme. The risk (in a sense) to the guest is that someone will; at least the pricing scheme provides an insurance policy for this risk.
[digression: I used a booking agency to find a B&B where I will be staying in Scotland next weekend, specifying that I wanted a single, en suite, for four nights. The one they gave me has a wash basin in the room; I don't call that "en suite". I'm supposed to use that in the middle of the night???]
Posted by EclectEcon on June 11, 2007 at 01:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)
The other night I was walking the two-mile stretch back to the castle from a village pub where there had been a live jazz performance. Often the walk is downright glorious when the moon is shining and the stars are out. After all, this is an area that had once been the home for England's Royal Observatory.
But when the moon is not out and/or when there are clouds in the sky, it can be difficult to find one's way along some portions of the road. It is especially difficult along those portions of the road that are completely covered in foliage, which blocks out the ambient light from the (few) farms and the reflected light from the towns 5 - 10 miles away. I realized it might have been nice had I remembered to take along a working flashlight for the walk.
Instead, I turned my camera on to view mode, with a bright photo showing on the screen. Perfect! I held the camera so the viewing screen was facing the direction I was walking, and there was plenty of diffuse light for me to see the laneway. And the battery in the camera lasts a long time and is rechargeable.
Since I carry my camera with me everywhere (okay, not in the shower), I probably won't worry about taking a flashlight with me most places any more. The light from the camera is more than sufficient.
Posted by EclectEcon on June 10, 2007 at 01:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Posted by EclectEcon on June 09, 2007 at 01:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
I promise this will (probably!) be my last posting about afternoon tea for quite some time. To be stupid about it, afternoon tea just isn't my cup of tea.
When I first started thinking about going somewhere in London for a proper English afternoon tea, many people recommended Claridge's, saying that The Ritz and The Savoy are over-rated and trading on their past reputations. [note: after seeing this, I'm not so sure they are correct.] With all those recommendations, plus those from the internet (see here for links to them), I went to some effort to make a reservation to take tea at Claridge's and was finally able to arrange to do so for this past Tuesday.
Fortunately, our friend The Chauffeur was working in London at the time and was able to join me.
Claridge's is very popular. When we arrived, there was a queue just to claim reservations. And since we were a bit early, the hostess suggested we freshen up in the washrooms and then our table would be ready.
Claridge's is the type of place where washroom attendants hand you towels and leave their hands out for a tip; it is the type of place that has clothes brushes and numerous other accessories for the use of the patrons. I have been in such places before, but I do not particularly feel comfortable in them.
We were seated against a back wall in a room separate from the one that had the live music.
Posted by EclectEcon on June 08, 2007 at 01:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
After my sub-mediocre experience at The Royal Crescent Hotel in Bath, I had mixed feelings about going for afternoon tea at The Pump Room, which is located directly above the Roman Baths in Bath.
Posted by EclectEcon on June 07, 2007 at 01:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
By a Druze student from Israel [h/t to MA]:
As a holder of two degrees from the University of Haifa and a PhD student at the University of London, I traveled to Bournemouth for the meeting of the British University and College Union (UCU) as an Israeli delegate on behalf of the Israeli Council for Academic Freedom.The UCU: a bunch of scary non-scholars.
The discussions at the meeting regarding the imposition of a boycott on Israeli academia took place in a hostile environment while ignoring all the facts we presented regarding freedom of expression and academic freedom at Israeli institutions of higher learning.
Evidence that Israeli lecturers who hold pro-Palestinian views are able to express their positions uninterrupted both in their research work and lectures, as well as in the media, had no effect whatsoever on the discussions.
Even when we presented a list of organizations and research centers that operate in the framework of Israeli universities and boast Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab cooperation, with the promotion of ties between the peoples their top agenda, it did not make a difference.
... The truth is that it is clear to this group of lecturers that Israeli academia is least at fault for what is happening in our region, certainly when compared to the freedom of expression at our neighbors' academic institutions. After all, the English know full well that the technological, academic, and cultural achievements in the State of Israel stem first and foremost from the freedom of expression and research in every field in Israel.
Therefore, the figures we presented were futile, because all they cared about was their one and only objective: De-legitimizing the State of Israel with no relation to its academia; presenting it as an apartheid state that deprives its minorities of elementary rights such as education and the freedom of expression.
Posted by EclectEcon on June 06, 2007 at 02:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Last weekend I went to Bath, which is about an hour and a half west of London by train. I had a fabulous time there, about which I will write more later.
One of my first experiences there was to go for afternoon tea at The Royal Crescent Hotel. The setting is quite spectacular, with the Royal Crescent of buildings sitting atop Victoria Park.
Posted by EclectEcon on June 06, 2007 at 10:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Alan Adamson spotted the hidden truths. See the first photo here.
Posted by EclectEcon on June 06, 2007 at 01:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
[h/t to JC] from the Gulf News:
'Cover up or we will cut your throats'
Gaza City: An Islamic group threatened to behead female TV broadcasters if they don't wear strict Islamic dress, frightening reporters and signaling a further shift toward extremism in the Gaza Strip.
The threat to "cut throats from vein to vein" was delivered by the Swords of Truth, a fanatical group that has previously claimed responsibility for bombing Internet cafes and music shops. The new threat was the first time the organization targeted a specific group of people.
On Sunday, around 50 anchors and employees from government-run Palestine TV, mostly women wearing Muslim headscarves, marched from the station's offices in Gaza City toward the office of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to protest the threat.
Most of the 15 women broadcasters on government-run Palestine TV wear headscarves. But they also wear make-up and Western clothing — not considered strictly observant by extremists.
The Swords of Truth issued the statement Friday in an e-mail to news organizations.
"We will cut throats, and from vein to vein, if needed to protect the spirit and moral of this nation," the statement said. The group also accused the women broadcasters of being "without any ... shame or morals."
Posted by EclectEcon on June 05, 2007 at 01:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)