Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
There are a lot of ways to look at this:
The real problem behind the skills shortage is that many companies don’t keep IT professionals for the long stretch.
CIOs keep complaining that they can’t find workers with the skills they need. In fact, two recent surveys on top issues among IT executives—one from the Society for Information Management and another by Robert Half Associates—rank finding skilled IT professionals as the No. 1 issue.
Many IT executives gripe that universities are not producing a stream of IT graduates who are prepared to function in the business world. Some worry about the unflattering image of technical professionals as socially awkward. But no one is more to blame for the skills shortage than CIOs, especially those at large companies. The reality is that IT executives are creating the skills shortage they grumble about.
Point one: …about which they grumble. That’s the way you do it, about which they grumble. What’s so hard about that? It’s not awkward at all. “…they grumble about” is just plain wrong. Anybody who’s seen Beavis and Butthead Do America knows, a preposition is not something you ever want to end a sentence with.
Point two is best articulated by blogger friend Virgil:
Funny thing about us americans.
We want everything yesterday and when we’re done with it.
We throw it away.
Appears to me that we have now reached that point with employee’s if I read this article in CIO – Insight correctly…Perhaps it is time to look in the mirror and realize that the problem is in fact us as we are reaping what we are sowing.
My take on this is slightly different. I believe in things like mentoring, friendships, setting up the “two way street” and so forth. To the extent that is voluntary and not a mandate from on-high from some busybody politician telling real businessmen how to run their businesses, sure I can get behind that.
Point three is mine: We are very confused — and I think the blame for this does fall somewhat on the CIOs — about what it is we mean when we use the term “skills.” What do we mean by that? The problem is, as I see it, that we’ve just finished undergoing the most insidious and extremist flavoring of thought-replacement possible, and that is the thought-replacement that is achieved by means of word-replacement. Skills, skills, skills…think about it. Your sink is busted and you need a plumber who has skills. What does “skills” mean in that context? It means, plain and simply, someone with the ability to fix your sink.
There it is, no ifs, ands or buts. And yet — that isn’t what CIOs talk about anymore when they use the word “skills.” They mean something very different. This is proven easily: You can be “more skilled” or “less skilled” than another plumber. There are plumbing problems some can fix that others can’t. This is an ancient tradition dating back to Roman times and before — apprentices, journeymen, etc.
We’re getting rid of that ancient tradition. “Skills” is becoming a pass-fail thing. You have it or you don’t.
Blogger friend Buck and I got into another one of our friendly disagreements about this:
…from Business Week:
The controversy over visas for high-skilled workers from abroad looks like it’s about to get even hotter.
The program for what are known as H-1B visas was originally set up to allow companies in the U.S. to import the best and brightest in technology, engineering, and other fields when such workers are in short supply in America. But data just released by the federal government show that offshore outsourcing firms, particularly from India, dominate the list of companies awarded H-1B visas in 2007. Indian outsourcers accounted for nearly 80% of the visa petitions approved last year for the top 10 participants in the program. The new data are sure to fuel criticism of the visa program from detractors such as Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). “These numbers should send a red flag to every lawmaker that the H-1B visa program is not working as it was intended,” said Grassley in an e-mail.
[…]
Critics such as Grassley and Durbin charge that the outsourcers are abusing the U.S. program. The work visas, they say, are supposed to be used to bolster the U.S. economy. The idea is that companies like Microsoft, Google, or IBM can use them to hire software programmers or computer scientists with rare skills, fostering innovation and improving competitiveness. Instead, critics say, companies such as Infosys and Wipro are undermining the American economy by wiping out jobs.
[…]
A clash is likely in the coming months. Durbin and Grassley are pushing for more restrictions in the program, even as tech companies are advocating for a sharp increase in the number of visas handed out each year. The senators want to tighten the program’s criteria, by requiring participating companies to try to hire American workers first and to pledge that visa workers will not displace American workers. U.S. tech companies, meanwhile, want Congress to increase the visa cap from 65,000 a year to at least 115,000.
I agree with Senators Durbin and Grassley… it appears the Indian outsourcers are abusing the program. But I also agree with the corporate IT guys in that we—the US― need more H-1B visas, not less. Finding qualified American IT workers was pretty danged hard in my day, and I can only imagine the situation is worse these days and not better…given the growth in the IT industry. I had a bunch of database administrators (primarily Oracle DBAs) working for me in the last job I held. Out of the five DBAs on my team three were Indian, one was Russian, and only ONE was American. And these are six-figure jobs we’re on about, Gentle Reader. The financial incentives and rewards are substantial in the IT field, particularly for DBAs, so why don’t we have more native-grown talent in these areas? That remains a mystery to me…
And how, exactly, was I supposed to pass that up? I couldn’t move on without turning that rock over…
Durbin, et al, are correct just like you are, but their motives aren’t as pure as yours. They’re just beating up on eevyl korporashuns to keep themselves in good graces with the watermelons (green on outside red on inside).
This word “skills” is very seldom explored meaning-wise. It needs exploration because it’s a Yin-Yang thing, and has two different meanings in the two worlds. In the world of Yang it is demonstration that you have completed coursework, and in the world of Yin it is aptitude. I have skill pumping gas into my car. Now if the time comes where there is certification handed out for pumping gas into a car, and I don’t have it, the inquiry “Does Morgan have skill pumping gas into a car” will elicit a definite yes from half of us and a definite no from the other half.
So in my world, when Bill Gates goes to Congress and says he needs more H1-B’s to address this lack of “skill” he must have a different meaning in mind of what “skills” are than I do. (In fact he does, because his statistics have to do with number of graduates from computer science courses.) That, or else America has gotten really atrophied at the “there’s [a way] to do this and I’m gonna find it by cracky” meme that used to be our defining characteristic, what made the country great and wonderful.
I like my world a lot better and I think Mr. Gates should [too]. It has to do with getting the job DONE. On time, under budget. Not following rules…not showing you have the right letters after your name. PERforming over CONforming. Not to badmouth my accredited, and sometimes overly-accredited, brethren in I.T. since having those kinds of “skills” is not mutually-exclusive from being able to do the job. But it isn’t synonymous either.
And the fact of the matter is, if we all agreed on what the word “skills” meant, and we were all concerned about getting the contraption built on-time, under-budget, so it stays built and does what it’s supposed to do…and if America had the kind of spirit it had in the John Wayne days…this wouldn’t be an issue at all. We’d see what needs to be done, pick the most capable from among us, and get ‘er done.
To which Buck, former manager of database administrators, said…
You bring up some good points… but it takes more than just will to “git ‘r’ dun” these days. You can’t just pick up a book and figure out how to optimize a database, or worse: fix one when it goes belly-up. Same thing where sys admin (in general) is concerned. It takes a lot of study or natural talent (similar to that “talent” for languages), coupled with experience, to be effective in tech. But you know this…
Yes I do. And Buck is absolutely right. Right, anyway, about the subject immediately under discussion, which is database administration. And with very few exceptions, I would broaden that floodlight out to shine on anything in Information Technology with the word “administrator” in the job title: E-mail administrator, access administrator, etc.
Your needs here aren’t at all like having a plumber fix your sink; not by a damn sight. You have anything you’ll be using that interfaces with a larger network…a car that needs to be registered…a phone that needs to be plugged in…you really want the work done the way anybody else would do it. Otherwise you embark on this technical-support tumbling-dominoes nightmare — we’ve all been there, haven’t we? “Sorry, Mr. X, I have another call to make and I’m going to have to come back to this…I don’t know who did the previous work on this, but it’s like nothing I’ve ever seen before…it’s just weird…”
But then there is the job I held when I was a “Sr. LAN Administrator.” The name of that job was converted when I got a new boss who didn’t have a technical background and couldn’t understand what “Sr. Network Systems Engineer” meant. That job had a very simple definition, both before and after the name change: It was at the top of the ladder of escalation resources for technical problems that could not be resolved by others.
Hence my comments about PERforming versus CONforming. When problems are kicked upstairs to you, it really doesn’t do you or anybody else an awful lot of good for you to do things exactly the same way others have done them. If that worked, after all, the problem would already be solved wouldn’t it?
Yes, it would. So Buck’s comments have a validity to them; the validity extends well over what he has in mind. That validity does not extend to what I have in mind. Information Technology is a big world, in which you need his type of skill as well as mine.
So through this word replacement game, what we’re doing is eradicating, completely, PERforming in favor of CONforming. We’re making entire IT farms scrubbed clean of anybody who does anything outside of the box. And we don’t even have the vocabulary necessary to reverse this if we choose to, because now the word “skills” has been re-defined to infuse all IT farms with more of the same: Bright, golf-shirt-and-goatee wearing “engineers” richly skilled in Step 1 Step 2 Step 3, who, if the previous guy didn’t work that way (or something’s just plain busted) may not understand enough about how things work to fix little bits of it.
They are valuable people. We need them. But they are admins, not engineers.
I think the vision of the CIOs makes sense on some level. The assumption under which they’re operating is that when one of these unorthodox problems comes up that requires this escalation to guys who can think outside of the box and do things differently than the way the next guy might do them…it was probably caused by one of those guys. Speaking as one of those guys, I do have to say I can see the merits of this argument. I have seen this happen many times. Someone didn’t follow rules…someone who has an “admin” job and wants to have an “engineering” job and acted as an “engineer” when he was expected to act like an “admin”…and now we have a mess.
But I still blame the CIOs for that.
I blame them because it’s simplistic thinking, the kind of thinking they’re paid good money to avoid, to say this is the cause of all IT woes. This drive to expunge IT of anybody who colors outside the lines and saturate it with the “step 1 do this step 2 do that” mindset, makes sense only if you presume this is the only type of technical problem we can have. And after twenty years in the biz, I think I can provide my assurances that this is not the case.
I further blame them because it’s an avoidance of responsibility. This thing we talk about now when we use the word “skills” — it isn’t like the olden days when you’d talk about someone’s skills after spending years personally witnessing his use of them — it’s decidedly a third-party definition. You have skills, I point out you have skills, and what I mean is there is some third party esteemed accreditation institution that has put out a piece of paper that says you have the skills. Nobody expects me to know anything about the details, I’m just Player B. And, of course, if we’re talking about another guy who also has these “skills” it is logically impossible to compare the two of you. It’s strictly pass-fail.
You know, in IT and outside of it, we have a need for pass-fail jobs: You’re qualified to do them, or you aren’t. My point is that all jobs are not like that. If you’re going in for brain surgery or heart bypass surgery, you aren’t going to be satisfied with a surgeon who went through a pass/fail and got his piece of paper saying he’s got “skills.” You’ll want to know a bit more than that. You’ll be throwing around the word “skills” with the spirit in which we used to use it. You’ll want to talk to someone who’s worked with your surgeon, preferably for years, with a big ol’ saga of war stories to tell.
And I think people need to understand that with all the services they use, Information Technology is not going through a process of confining that kind of talent to the very top. It’s going through a process of cleaning it out. Everybody in our data center, top to bottom, is here to follow rules, to CONform and not to PERform. If something pops up and nobody can figure it out…well…nobody will figure it out. We’ll end up replacing huge things at great cost instead of smaller things at reduced cost — and don’t even ask what that will do to the delivery schedule involved in the repair, you don’t wanna know. We are making it into a bureaucracy — it only works if everybody follows the rules. Nothing Invented Here.
…here, where we expect things to be invented.
A lot of people don’t see an issue with that. I think I see a big one. Time will tell if I’m right.
Update 3/24/07: Run, don’t walk, over to Phil’s place to see what he has to say about this.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
That is an excellent insight. I wish I had something useful to add, but all I can say is that problem of “meaning” extends to an enormous amount of words.
- JohnJ | 03/23/2008 @ 12:10Thanks for the shout-out, Morgan…and an extended shout-out, at that! Excellent analysis, and I’m with you on the larger point you’ve made. I saw it, I lived it, I railed against it, as well… sometimes successfully, most times not. I think the biggest problems are within the biggest organizations, coz they’re the ones that build bureaucracies. Often it’s because they have to, sometimes it’s simply because they CAN, and the B-Schools say they should.
I know I definitely found my professional life much more rewarding when I made the jump from one of the largest IT companies (>100K employees) to one that was among the smallest (≤ 200 employees). There’s a lot of truth in that “light and agile” thingie associated with smaller orgs. And more “outside the box” thinkers and do-ers, too. Proportionally speaking.
This conversation is almost enough to make me wanna go back to work. Almost. The fact I’m five-years-removed from the biz makes the thought of “going back” ludicrous, though…at the VERY best.
- Buck | 03/23/2008 @ 15:39It occurs to me that there are parallels with the Tower of Babel. The bigger the organization gets, the more difficult communication becomes.
- JohnJ | 03/23/2008 @ 19:11Thanks for the comments, you two.
Yes, we do seem to have this built-in pattern in our behavior, in business as well as outside of it: Maturity brings complexity, complexity brings a proclivity to regard communication as synonymous with competence in all things. Then we cut the real talent loose, until nobody’s doing anything except communicating. Before you know it, we aren’t even doing that very well. Meanwhile, all the parts to this complicated machinery start to wear out and nobody is rebuilding or replacing them.
What an amazing piece of literature that is, or would be, if this is the tale it was trying to tell. Can’t see a reason to think otherwise. Very astute observation, John.
Thing I Know #130. The noble savage gives us life. Then we outlaw his very existence. We call this process “civilization.” I don’t know why.
- mkfreeberg | 03/23/2008 @ 19:56Thing I Know #162. Over the long term, American businesses seem to live out the life of a fruit: Green to juicy to overripe to trash. I notice the ones that have peaked, have it in common that the decisions owned by smaller groups must involve more and more groups as they are recognized as important, and input must eventually be gathered from everyone across the board. Successful businesses that are still growning, do it the opposite way: Only on the trivial, meaningless business is input gathered “across the board.” The most critical issues are decided by a small circle, or by an individual. Someone getting in trouble for leaving so-and-so “out of the loop” is something you hear only rarely.
I was going to leave a comment, but it got really long and somewhat involved.
So it’s now a post of its own over here.
- philmon | 03/23/2008 @ 22:19You want PERform and CONform to come closer together? (Or, at least, be able to accurately surmise that the CONformists with certifications and degrees are able to PERform when called upon to do so?) Simple solution.
Make all the “Engineer” level certifications like the CCIE or the GSE.
Let’s look at the CCIE. You are given a network diagram, a list of requirements, and a rackfull of shit. Go to it. Have fun. You have 8 hours to, essentially, build an enterprise network from bare metal. 80% 1st time failure rate, $1500 price tag to try. Weeds out all non-hackers, as Gunnery Sargeant Hartmann would say.
Let’s then look at the GSE. First you take two grueling tests for your GSEC. Then two more for your GCIA. Then two more for your GCIH. (And, let me tell you, these suckers are HARD. SANS posts your friggin’ scores next to your name to show how hard they are.) Then, for two of those, you get the unbridled joy of writing masters’ level theses on new, emerging ideas on security technology. Fun. ONCE YOU COMPLETE THAT, you may APPLY to sit the GSE. That starts with a 200 question written exam, which, if you pass, leads to a THREE DAY lab exam, where you run penetration tests, demonstrate that you can decode binary packets to figure out what kind of fuckery they’re running against your systems, write up incident reports for the fuckery you found, and then, if you survive all that, you join the other 11 people in the world who have. Now THAT is a certification.
So, let’s expand.
You want to prove you’re a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer? Great. After you take the 7 tests, you’re invited out to Microsoft to sit down at a virtual farm of servers, and successfully complete some tasks of deployment, management, administration. Then, you go back to your hotel while they fuck your shit all up. You come back in the next morning, and get your world back. You pay $2K for the privilege of seeing an 80% 1st-time failure rate.
You want to prove that you’re a Domino engineer? Why? Sorry. I mean, Great! You get to sit a written exam, and then get invited to deploy a domino farm, deal with some intentionally crashed databases (and restore them), design a simple database, etc.
This can go on and on. That way, when someone says, “I am a _______ engineer”, you know they friggin’ well MEAN it.
That would take the blame off of the CIO’s, that would get RID of paper MCSE’s, and turn the braindump industry on its ear.
- muttley | 03/24/2008 @ 04:13Well, ultimately the only useful “cert” program is for the CIO himself. It happens when the project managers get together for their weekly meetings and report on how their projects are doing.
If everyone at that table is into their third straight week of waiting for engineering resources to be “freed up” so their projects can be worked, then the CIO failed. The engineers fix things but break things faster than they fix ’em…or they can’t fix things…or their training isn’t grueling enough…or they don’t get enough of it…whatever. If the ship doesn’t float, the captain should go down with it. That’s what’s missing here.
- mkfreeberg | 03/24/2008 @ 08:48Let me get this straight – you think that a company will ever enact rules where, if a C-level executive is failing at his job, they’ll replace him, instead of all of us? Bwahahahahahahahaha. In a world without corporate politics, maybe. In the real world, however, we need to rely on BOFH methodology. 🙂
- muttley | 03/24/2008 @ 11:17Hey, a fella can dream.
What I like about your idea is that it demands solving puzzles, over selecting from multiple-choice on a test. I have seen a lot of evidence in my time that these are, in fact, mutually-exclusive aptitudes. If you pack a data center to the brim with people who can pass multiple-choice tests, you are more than likely to find it lacking in the problem-solving skills overall. That is the situation as it exists, and it sounds like your plan would address that.
But to demand more things out of engineering candidates, well, I don’t see what that has to do with a[n alleged] skills shortage. Seems to be going in the opposite direction. And I worry about what kind of arrogance you would end up seeing in the engineers who would graduate from such a program. I mean let’s be honest, charging more for the privilege of taking the test, does very little to produce a more proficient graduate from the program — just one from, on average, a wealthier family.
My take on it isn’t that they aren’t demanding enough out of the engineers, it’s that they’re demanding the wrong stuff. You can’t supply results above what is expected, if you’re committed to following the steps that are expected.
Maybe I’m just one more old man wishing for the way things used to be. But it doesn’t look to me we’ll ever get back to the days when IT was valued for its ability to make things work until the CIOs go back to owning that…with their careers rising and falling depending on that ability being present. That is, after all, the product they’re supposed to be selling to the rest of the organization. Today, we don’t have that accountability. As Phil said over at his place,
- mkfreeberg | 03/24/2008 @ 11:47See, I don’t know if the “wealthier family” thing would be as much of a factor. Wealthy families, on average (Paris Hilton and other celebutards notwithstanding) have a stronger tendency to be careful with their money. Therefore, until they had high confidence of a pass, that exam would not be an option.
That’s why relatively few people even sit the CCIE exam. The written is hard enough, the lab is a monster. (I’m aiming for it this year.) By requiring that people pass a grueling exam, you prove competence. By making it expensive, you prevent people from the “keep trying until I pass” mentality. At $100 for the exam, I could take the lab, figure out where I’m weak, take it again, find some other deficiencies – 15 times. I’m BOUND to figure out where I’m short on one of those tries, and pass. But at $1,500 / throw, I’m going to damn well make SURE I know what every command on the IOS does and what the options are, what all the parameters for BGP, IS-IS, EIGRP, RIP, IPv6, and so on and so forth are. I’m going to do a boatload of practice labs. I’m going to make sure I have hands-on experience with everything that they *might* throw at me, out of fear of failing that test.
Yes, engineers with that certification would be arrogant. Hint: engineers with high skill levels tend to be arrogant, because, if our personalities are not somewhat off-putting, we’ll be called for every little helpdesk-level waste of time that someone is too lazy to troubleshoot for themselves. It’s much better to cultivate an attitude of “If I haven’t tried everything I know how to do, and I bother Mike or Morgan, they’ll deball me.” That make sure that the high-level engineers can concentrate on what we’re doing, thus providing better ROI for our salaries.
Now, how do the CIO’s fit into this? Well, they pressure the vendors to put high-level certifications like this into practice. Then only give the engineer title to people who have them. I know you’re opposed to this, but it can be thought of as the licensure required for any other high-level profession. You wouldn’t want your doctor, lawyer, architect, or civil engineers operating without a license. Your information architecture engineer needs that same level. People who just have Q&A certifications can take the name “Admin.” Once they’ve proven themselves to the point where their employer is willing to foot the bill for them to take an E-level certification attempt, we accomplish two things. 1) We make sure that the employers pay attention to the qualifications that each person has, by ensuring that the price tag for that licensure is enough to get their attention, and 2) We make sure that said licensure as an engineer is rigorous enough that the CIO doesn’t need to interview each new member of his staff personally and run them through a series of problem solving questions. The CIO knows, “I’m hiring a CCIE/MCSE/etc. I *know* that this person is properly vetted, and can not only remember the little intricacies that are involved in teh multiple choice questions, but can think on his feet, configure the damn things in his sleep, and deal with arcane and difficult problems.”
THEN, once we have industry buy-in for the high-level certs, we can start holding CIO’s responsible. We have a proven record of “This guy is certified, and REALLY REALLY REALLY knows his shit. So it was a failure of leadership.”
Just my $0.02, I could be wrong.
- muttley | 03/24/2008 @ 14:00Well, in my opinion you’re not wrong about the puzzle solving thing, that’s exactly what’s missing from the status quo. But if your plan were to be implemented a lot of the CIOs would protest “but that’s exactly what we’re doing” and they’d be right to do so. The point of the article (or rather, my response to it) is that the CIOs have been making the problem they’re grumbling…y’know…about which they’re doing their grumbling.
It’s basic economics. Scarcity of commodities.
The best way I could illustrate this is with an absurd extreme. Suppose that in order to earn the right to sit for the first phase of your testing proposal, a candidate had to demonstrate documented clairvoyant ability AND a height of no less than 6’4″. Both would be handy, right? Clairvoyant “skills” could be implemented to diagnose network problems, and y’know, sometimes things are way up on a shelf. So these would not be irrelevant.
But the problem with the status quo is project managers like me bellyaching about resources. And CIOs telling us the resources are not to be found. How’s your new program going to solve that, when you aren’t graduating anybody?
- mkfreeberg | 03/25/2008 @ 08:26I think the thing that needs to be mentioned here is institutional memory. Having worked for several Fortune Fifty companies I’ve seen this ebb and flow. Perfect example: I worked for a VERY large investment bank that merged with another VERY large retail bank. The new CEO determined that as a bank, they weren’t in the IT business and any non-core people were to be outsourced. A great cost savings but you had guys who had planted their feet in the wet cement of the foundation of the company were then being outsourced with no guarantee that you’d be able to keep them. We had engineers who built everything from scratch get outsourced after 20+ years on the job. As noted above the new guy then has to decypher what was done, why it was built that way etc. Losing that institutional memory was defined as an inability to find “skilled people”.
Another problem that is not mentioned is the impediment to progress that is HR. They are given guidelines for hiring people and have no clue what those guidelines mean. I had one job I applied for that required 8 years of experience w/ a given tool. I called the recruiter and asked why I was not given an interview. They explained that I had only 6 years of experience which wasn’t good enough. I pointed out that the particular software they were talking about had only been publicly release 6 years ago which means that 8 years ago it was probably in not even in beta yet. No matter, she had guidelines and that was that. The position went unfilled for another year and I happened to meet the hiring manager socially. I was telling him the story and his eyes went wide and he realized that I was talking about his job posting. He called me later that week and hired me.
The H1-B thing: I think managers hire foreigners because they’re less problematic. They don’t complain, they know their stuff and they work very hard. They work circles around most of the ‘Merkin guys I know.
YMMV. Just my $.02 Tax, title and license not included. Not valid in Virginia or Idaho. See dealer for details.
- Duffy | 03/25/2008 @ 18:20