Hannity misleadingly claimed unemployment "lower than the '70s, '80s, and '90s"
SUMMARY: Sean Hannity claimed that the current unemployment rate "is literally ... lower than the '70s, '80s, and '90s." But while the current unemployment rate is, in fact, lower than the average unemployment rate for the 1990s it is higher than in 1998, 1999, and 2000 -- the last three years before President George W. Bush took office.
On the March 22 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity misleadingly claimed that the current unemployment rate "is literally ... lower than the '70s, '80s, and '90s." But while the current unemployment rate is, in fact, lower than the average unemployment rate for the 1990s, it is higher than in 1998, 1999, and 2000 -- the last three years before President George W. Bush took office.
The Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for February was 4.8 percent and that the average unemployment rate for 2005 was 5.1 percent. The average unemployment rate for the 1990s was 5.8 percent.
As the graph below illustrates, the BLS reports that the annual average unemployment rate rose to 7.5 percent in 1992, the last full year of President George H.W. Bush's term. The unemployment rate declined every year during Bill Clinton's presidency, falling to 4.5 percent in 1998 and 4.2 percent in 1999 -- both lower than current unemployment. The unemployment rate fell to 4.0 percent in 2000 -- Clinton's last full year in office.
As the graph shows, the unemployment rate rose to 6.0 percent during the first three years of George W. Bush's presidency. It has declined since then but remains higher than when Bush took office.
From the March 22 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: I want to ask you a political question about the president. You know something, [syndicated columnist] Bob [Novak]? Nearly five million new jobs have been created and just a little under 4-percent growth last year for the economy. We've out -- the president has gotten out of the recession, the negative impacts of 9-11. If you look at the jobless rate, it is literally -- the percentage -- lower than the '70s, '80s, and '90s. The president -- comparing it to the European Union and Japan, we are in far better shape. I don't understand one thing. Why isn't the message of success on the economy, the message of success in Afghanistan and Iraq, why does it not seem to be getting out that much?
The world of government statistics is mind-boggling at the best of times, but in comparisons such as in "unemployment", the potential for riggery is acute.
The Administration determines the criteria for charting unemployment. In order for a chart to be accurate (although this one shows the definite TREND of Bush to be worse than his predecessor), there has to be an apples-to-apples comparison.
For example, has the criteria for determining whether a person is "unemployed" changed in this administration? Without reasearching in depth (a daunting task -- MMFA?), I recall that the Bush labor department determined that people whose unemployment INSURANCE had run out would no longer be listed as unemployed, whether they had a job or not. Also, people who had two jobs were to be listed as TWO people with jobs.
Such tinkering "adjustments" to criteria can have the effect of drastically skewing comparisons with past numbers which used different criteria.
In one story read, I recall seeing that America's ACTUAL unemployment, if using the "old" criteria of the Clinton Administration, would be more in the area of 10% unemployment. Is that possible? I, a mere citizen, cannot know. The Administration not only won't tell, they are invested in having THEIR numbers be accepted as accurate apples-to-apples comparisons. Will the MEDIA do an expose' on this? You gotta be kidding.
We citizens need expert and "professional" help here.
HAS the criteria for the government determining unemployment been changed since Bush took office? If so, HOW, and what effect does it have on results compared to previous numbers (the right hopes favorably)?
This Administration has cooked every book it has access to, and has no credibility. Yet, without authoritative and objective analysis, they get away with it.
How about it, MMFA? Able to assign a researcher to this question, to "get to the bottom" of whether Bush's employment numbers are VALID, or if, like the information about the lead-up to war, they are BOGUS?
I'm betting the 10% figure is more accurate, and if widely known, would destroy Bush's claim that everything is economically rosy in America.
I would be curious to know where you pulled that 10% figure from, it is exceedingly higher than anything I have seen reported. If you refuse to believe the D of L statistics, then there isn't much room for a discussion, you have drifted into moonbat territory.
Perhaps things are improving and you refuse to acknowledge it, that seems more likely.
Didya even read what Tex wrote? He raised some cogent points and asserted that the methodology has changed, thus invalidating strict comparisons.
Remember Twain's words: "There are lies, damn lies, and statisitics."
If you refuse to believe the D of L statistics, then there isn't much room for a discussion, you have drifted into moonbat territory
Tex didn't say he didn't believe the BLS figures, he said the method by which they were calculated had been changed in a way to make unemployment appear lower than it would have if calculated the same way as previously. Please read and think before reaching for talking points and moldy attempts at slammers (i.e., "moonbat").
But as for your assertion that not believing government statistics marks you as a nut, be assured we'll remember that.
Yes, first Tex asserted that the methodology had changed, then later on he asked the question whether the methodology had changed. At the end he said he believed the 10% fig was more accurate than the 5% fig, which seems to contradict what you said he said.
He really didn't seem to if the methodology had changed for sure, but since MMFA didn't paint his gloomy picture for him he figured he better take a swing at it. Something must be wrong with it. I'm well familiar with his style.
I don't think Tex, nor anyone else, doubts the BLS unemployment figure is accurate for what it measures. The issues are that it is not calculated in the same manner as it has been in the past; nor has it ever represented what many people believe it represents.
Some have suggested that changes in the survey and calculation method have resulted in an undercount of unemployed as compared to previous surveys. So, comparing current unemployment figures to past without considering the differences in the surveys is misleading. As for the amount of the undercount, I've seen estimates putting it at 1 to 3%.
In any event, the unemployment figure has long been misunderstood as simply representing the number of people who are able to work, but can't find work. However, the survey leaves out of the figure many people who are able to work, but are not considered to be actively seeking work. Whether a person in this situation should be considered unemployed or not is moot; however, the situation is far more complicated than "just not counting the bum."
The net effect is that the number of people who are without jobs, but would be willing to work given the opportunity is probably higher than the current BLS figure. Estimates of a "real" figure put it in the mid 6s to near 10%. I'm aware of no scientific studies on the subject.
One other important point often missing when discussing unemployment is under-employment. Some have suggested that under-employment is currently a very serious issue. There are some statistics, e.g., personal average annual income, poverty %s, etc., that can give some idea of the level of under-employment. However, I'm aware of no direct measure.
Bruce the fact is that once someone goes off the unemployment rolls, no matter if they found a job or not, they are not counted as unemployed anymore. So we know there are many that are not being counted. As for the economy doing great, with the outrageous defecit we currently have due to these enormous tax cuts to the rich and this obscene and illegal war in Iraq, all I can say is...you gotta be kidding.
I never said the economy is doing great I said it was improving. Slight difference there.
It is improving. I was laid off two times in the course of a year, and the second unemployment stint lasted 22 months. Now, at the company I've been with for two years, we are having trouble finding people to fill our positions. However, this is due to natural rebounding not anything Bush did. When the cyclical downturns come 'round, a president cannot prevent them. What he can do is influence the economy in ways that make the recession shallower and less painful. Clinton understood this and took very sound and effective economic measures when he took office.
I did great during the Clinton years. I even flirted with a salary that might be categorized as "rich". However, Bush slammed the economy all through the 2000 election cycle. There's a self-fulfilling prophecy effect at work here. Sure enough, when he got into office, the pessimism that he had fostered during the campaign has manifested itself into a full blown recession. And I was one of its victims. During that 22 month period I lost my car, my house, my marriage, and most heinous of all my dignity. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemies, even Tommy.
Looking at the context of his rematks, I personally think it's kind of obvious that Hannity was referring to averages.
I'm not convinced by MM's conclusion.
Anyone else agree?
read below whenever the moderator approves my postings (I always read MM but finally got a login).
The graph excludes the 70s and 80s, which is pointed out below, where he is clearly right. With the 90s aggregated he is almost right. 98 and 99 should be excluded IMHO because they were very speculative years that were based on misallocated investment.
As I point out neither Clinton nor Bush had anything to do with the recession. They don't control monetary policy and can't effect the stockmarket or corporate investment. Alan Greenspan gets the blame for warning about the bubbles and then drinking the koolaid and not raising repo rates higher to depress the bubble.
Instead his actions (which were probably politically motivated - he always was aware that he faced reappointment with Clinton's re-election and then became blinded to the investment side by focusing on productivity) directly led to a bubble that was higher than it could have been. That cause repo rates to be way too low (1 percent at its bottom). That lead to housing price inflation and other assets, fueling equity withdrawal and expansion in credit use.
That's going to hurt the economy when rates stay at the current or higher repo rates as many people took out variable housing rates assuming rates would remain low. Taking the hurt now for sure.
I have a combination of a fixed mortgage @ 6 percent total balance 276k and a 50.8k variable HELOC at prime minus .55 .
My old house went up in value 120k in the two years since I sold it (in 02). Sort of amusing.
"I personally think it's kind of obvious that Hannity was referring to averages."
What precisely indicates that to you, based on the context? Or are you purporting to read minds?
Looking at the context of his rematks [sic], I personally think it's kind of obvious that Hannity was referring to averages.
"Kind of obvious" is an oxymoron, like Hannity's integrity.
I'm not convinced by MM's conclusion. Anyone else agree?
Nope. Hannity's modus operandi is to paint things as positively for Bush as possible, and giving accurate information just doesn't do it for him. When he says the rate is lower than in the 90's, it's much more likely that he means lower than the highest point in the 90's (which happened under G.H.W. Bush, but Hannity certainly won't admit that).
Hannity's rhetoric is like a butterfly: it may look attractive from a distance (that's his intention, after all), but when you look closer, you realize it's really just a bug.
From his " interview " with Katherine Harris ( R-Fl ), I thought he was romancing Harris . Bet ann is really mad !!!!!!!!
Hannity spews propaganda frequently, but this is not really a clear cut 'lie'.
Your graph omits the 70s and 80s. He is clearly right there - the 70s were a disaster and the 80s setup a recovery by the Volcker induced recession to drastically lower inflation. Even though Reagan was not a good president, the labor reforms/flexibility did help with the 90s - and we had a majority in Congress at the time.
He is definately not distorting the 70s or 80s. He's entirely correct anyway you choose to look at it. With the 90s he would be correct if he excluded 98, 99 and then went on to exclude 2000. Those were extremely speculative years that led to a recession.
Whatever your political beliefs, and mine are to the left, the 'internet boom' and the buildup of inventories (decreasing inventory investment) - which is the most leading recession variable - was the cause of that recession. It was neither Clinton's or Bush's fault. Neither have control over monetary policy and neither can effect idiotic investment.
The late 90s should be ignored, specifically 98,99 as well as 00. Those were highly speculative years where the labor market became extemely tight - it even drew in several million 'retired' individuals - who then left after the recession - which was very short (and the fix was stupid - Greenspan inflated housing prices as well as stocks which will be a negative in the long run due to the debt buildup from withdrawing equity and cheap credit).
He IS NOT RIGHT on the European Union, however. He would only be correct if he included Germany, France,Portugal, and a few other laggards. The EU's new eastern members are having really rapid growth and the UK and nordic countries continue to do very well.
Japan has 'exited' it's deflationary stage and it's most recent GDP statistics were 4 percent annualized GDP growth - which will be revised upwards. Their unemployment, due to social 'obligations', is lower than the US as well (even if they are shrinking as a population).
Hannity shouldn't compare the EU as a entity - it's true that they are dragged down by their largest members with rigid labor markets, but there are many others who are doing as well as or better than the US in terms of GDP growth (and wage growth which we don't have).
because of 'speculation', then you can ignore EVERY year because much of the U.S. economy (and job creation) rides on the speculations that happens on Wall street. Every year is going to have some variables (whether it's Greenspan, housing prices, Dow Jones, technological breakthroughs, etc) that may coorelate with the rise or fall of job creation, but, the central point should still be focused on base-lining all the goverment's data collecting methods and interpretations of what is considered a 'job' from the past through the present. Only then can real results be teased out of the figures.
That is not to say figures and graphs of today should thus be ignored, but, given that statistics is the subjective side of mathematics, it is also important to take a reality check of one's surroundings to determine if new 'jobs' are being created; if the economy is still strong; has the standard of living improved; and so on. Job stats are but one piece of the mosiac of the economy. Observing my situation in Fairbanks, Alaska, things are very sketchy...Wages and benefits (if one is lucky enough to have either..) have been stagnant or gone down the last five years with one glaring exception- the federal government has literally thrown money at Fort Greely for the 'Star wars' missle defense program. It is true that hundreds of new jobs were created- a menial painter (not to disparage manual labor) makes $20 - $25 dollars an hour (and is guarenteed 40+ hours aweek) , for Christ's sake, while most other service oriented jobs, which constitutes most jobs up here, average $7- $8 dollars an hour. The missle defense on Kodiak Island has failed its three tests- the rockets never even got out of the silos, and the government thinks putting billions of dollars more into it will help us? PuuuH- Leeeeze!
To be fair we should say that unemployment is lower than when the last Bush was in office. Primarily it is his father's legacy that kept unemployment so high in the ninety's, as the staggering national debt will be this Bush's and his hero Reagan. As far as I have seen in my life the party of business is not really good at it -- unless you mean in an Enron sort of way.
The reason it has gone down is because so many of those receiving unemployment checks stopped getting them. Their insurance ran out so they were removed from the ranks of the unemployed. That’s not improvement. That’s like killing everyone then staying the subsequent rate of death has sharply declined.
If you lumped in those whose unemployment insurance ran out plus those who simply gave up looking for work, the aggregate revised rate would prove that REAL unemployment has gone up steadily since #43 was appointed as Chief Occupant by the Supreme Court. If you throw in people relegated to part-time employment by the likes of Wal-Mart—the underemployed—the rate skyrockets.
Face it: the idea of a fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work is a bankrupt concept. As bankrupt as our country.
First, Bush LOST 3 million good-paying jobs.
The economy needs about 100,000 new jobs a month just to STAY EVEN with population. This means if the nation falls short of a million jobs a YEAR, it's falling behind.
Bush now claims to have "created" 5 million new jobs.
He's been in office 5 years. That means we're still 3 million jobs short of where we SHOULD be.
Add to that, the 5 million jobs created pay an average of 23% LESS than the jobs LOST. This means America's middle class is losing ground in terms of average income.
So, how's Bush doing for the working man? Lousy, terrible, disasterous. And this says nothing of the rising prices of gas and oil and healthcare and local taxes, which sap American's "disposable income" directly into the pockets of the already very wealthy.
Absolutely true on the net jobs lost!
Plus, if we factored into the unemployment figures the loss of wages/salaries, prorated this as a "lost job" (ex. someone making $60,000 forced into a new position paying only $40,000 equals 1/3 of an unemployed person), the REAL dilapidation of our economy would come into stark focus.
To be fair, Clinton's unemployment figures would also have to be likewise adjusted, downward, because of how much better off everyone was.
Jobless figures, no matter how they're calculated, are only one indicator in the larger total economic picture. Since it is Hannity's "promise", his "solemn vow" to shill for this administration at every opportunity it's not surprising he would focus on this statistic. WSJ reports that new house sales are down 10.5%, biggest drop in nearly 10 years. Lots of outsourced good jobs replaced by lower paying new ones, record trade deficits and increasing foreign debt are other indicators that might suggest that things aren't so rosy.
As for successes in Iraq and Afghanistan "not getting out", 60-70 more Iraqis killed over the last 2 days and the Afghani govenment under pressure from the west to prevent the execution af a muslim who converted to christianity. Thought their wonderful new constitution guaranteed religious freedom. Whoops!
The deterioration of the US$ in foreign currency markets.
As of March 24, 2006, a single Euro$ costs US $1.20464, and the Canadian$ costs US$ 0.85706. And those numbers are IMPROVEMENTS.
A small anecdote: My mother tried paying a street performer in Rome in American dollars and he threw them back at her. Not even Europe's indigent or homeless want American money. They know we are funneling down the toilet at an alarming rate.
Housing sales are down for several reasons, including rising mortgage interest rates, which forces home prices down, lower wages when adjusted for inflation since 2000, and the real unemployment rate is not represented by the numbers, which I had calculated in a post previously to be closer to 8% when you actually calculate unemployment rate from 2000 against the increase in workforce and the actual number of jobs created, assuming the 4% unemployment rate in 2000. The next prop for the economy is 50 and 75 year mortgages, which are strictly designed to prop up the housing market in the face of rising interest rates, which will also greatly inflate the profits of the mortgage industry, but will keep home buyers in perpetual debt. Basically, if you assume you would buy your first home at maybe 30 years of age - you will still not have paid it off by your death based on current life expectancy. It will make homes more affordable on a monthly basis - which is fine, IF you wish to spend your entire life in debt with the possibility of others taking your home from you. It's really scary stuff if you look closely at it.
Does anyone know the stats of those who are out of unemploynent weeks. How do they get counted?
Hannity asked why isn't the information he cited about the unemployment rate getting out more. I'll tell you why: because surveys indicate Americans are very uneasy about their jobs and the economy. The jobs being created are more often than not low wage, entry level position. Average income is up only because the richest are getting richer. Median income is down. All other statistics aside, Bush's first term was the first of any president to have a net loss of jobs. Sean, the news is "getting out" but it is not real to most Americans.
Bush's was the first President since Herbert Hoover to experience a net job loss. That of course was during the Great Depression when unemployment, as they used to measure it, soared to 25%.
You gotta love trickle down economics. The warming tingling sensation running down your spine is all the rich people urinating on your back. Bush must have us confused with a bunch of golden shower freaks.
The unemployment rate in the current decade is lower than any decade since the 1960's.
The unemployment rate under Pres. Bush is lower than the rate during Clinton's first 5 years.
Unemployment rate for Pres.Bush's term to date is 5.4%...Clinton for 8 years was 5.2%...a deadheat.
Clinton's halcyon years of 98-00 are 25% higher than those grand years of 51-53.
Anyone can play with the numbers to support an agenda. Don't bother with any mathmatical gymnastics as a rebuttal...I've already demonstrated the fallacy of playing politics with the numbers.
If you are unhappy with the latest report of 4.8%...que sera sera...I'll remain upbeat at the improving economy and falling unemployment rate.
Anyone can play with the numbers to support an agenda. Don't bother with any mathmatical gymnastics as a rebuttal...I've already demonstrated the fallacy of playing politics with the numbers.
Yes, they can, which is precisely the point here.
A common fallacy put forth by conservatives these days is that if I have one set of statistics, and you have another that seems to rebut it, the evidence is inconclusive; therefore, all sides in a debate are equally valid, and the winner is the side that yells loudest or "loves America more."
This technique is used to argue that we are really winning in Iraq, that we shouldn't really do anything about global warming, that peak oil is not a big concern, that the economy is fine, etc.
This is sophistry. The entire purpose of a dialogue is to throw away those facts that are irrelevant and get to the truth, or some reasonable facsimile of it.
I can go to your above statistics and show that each of them is meaningless for putting forward an accurate picture of our current economy relevant to the credit or blame Bush receives. It does not logically follow, however, that because I rebutted you, both sides of the argument can be rebutted, and, therefore, all statistics are meaningless to this debate.
Instead, we have to judge the merits of each "fact" brought into the debate, and see which are germane.
Now, Hannity is saying the economy is great, and he doesn't understand why everyone doesn't agree with him. As evidence, he cites the unemployment rate averages for the past three decades in comparison with today's rate.
MMFA's point is not that his facts are wrong: it's that they are not germane to his assertion (I would add that they also are part of a pattern of Hannity's behavior where he is deliberately deceptive). Your rebuttal is to give more statistics to prove Hannity's point: thus, you assert, we can't really know what the state of the economy is based on numbers, because we can twist them anyway we want.
Yes, we can, but that doesn't mean we can't use argument to keep those statistics that are meaningful and throw away those that are not.
The unemployment rate in the current decade is lower than any decade since the 1960's.
Irrelevant. We should be looking at trends in unemployment, not average rates for a decade, which arbitrarily divides periods for comparison into 10-year blocks that have no political or economic meaning.
The unemployment rate under Pres. Bush is lower than the rate during Clinton's first 5 years.
Irrelevant. As MMFA shows, the trend lines are more important for judging whether a president's policies were successful in creating jobs.
Unemployment rate for Pres.Bush's term to date is 5.4%...Clinton for 8 years was 5.2%...a deadheat.
Irrelevant - see above.
Clinton's halcyon years of 98-00 are 25% higher than those grand years of 51-53.
Irrelevant. Hannity's assertion was that Bush is not getting credit for his strong economy. A comparison to dates over 50 years ago is not germane.
Again, because I refute your points, you don't automatically get to say, "Well, you made MY point - all statistics can be twisted, so we can discount MMFA's statistics too!"
Instead, you have to SHOW that what MMFA says is not relevant to Hannity's assertion.
Good luck with that.
- you assert, we can't really know what the state of the economy is based on numbers, because we can twist them anyway we want. - ellington
============================
Nope. Statistics and in this case economic indicators are valid to analyze...but don't be so quick to say that republicans are the only one at fault. Both sides twist the numbers and shout them in headlines and sound bites...which are meaningless without further review.
You made this statement..."The entire purpose of a dialogue is to throw away those facts that are irrelevant and get to the truth"...and I agree with you completely.
You also said..."we have to judge the merits of each "fact" brought into the debate, and see which are germane"...once again I agree totally.
I made the comment, "don't bother with mathmatical gymnastics as a rebuttal". That doesn't mean to imply that all statistics that seem to rebut my statistics are meaningless. What it does mean is that simply spouting more statistics does nothing to further the discussion.
I listed a string of unrelated facts. You correctly analyzed the facts instead of simply trumpeting another set of facts. That is the proper way to get to the truth.
In Hannity's case we seem to agree again. He is relentless in repeating talking points and sound bites. That may be soothing to some of his followers but it does not further the debate...it is a waste of time.
The reason I posted on this thread was not to debunk anything that mmfa was reporting about Hannity. It was to highlight the incoherant debates going on today...and that comes from both democrats and republicans.
I'll take a wild shot in the dark and say...you and I probably have a lot of idealogical differences...LOL. We can further the goal of finding the truth with logical analysis...not shouting meaningless sound bites...not printing bold sized headlines that are misleading or untrue...or mindlessly listing irrelevant facts.
I will not run the risk of becoming oxygen challenged and having a blue face while waiting for conservatives and liberals to grow up...I'll simply make the lament...where have all the leaders gone?
How each of us weighs our economic wellness TODAY as compared to 6 years ago. The average person isn't saying, they're SCREAMING that they are worse off.
You can spin numbers.
You can't spin the deafening cacophony of displeasure aimed at Bush.
in this subject. Both sides are picking and choosing to justify their position. The true unemployment rate may be above 5%, but who knows for sure. We don't want a crackdown on illegal immigration, so payrolls will be lower. We want low prices for the goods and services we buy, so jobs are going off-shore. I can remember a time when somewhere between 5-6% was considered full employment and that was at a time when there were a lot less people in the labor force than now. Why is it the papers are full of "Help Wanted" ads if there are so many unemployed? Any job would be better than no job, especially if unemployment insurance has run out.
Are you kidding me? Any job is better than nothing?
With all the outsourcing of our skilled jobs we are now making less than we were 5 years ago. You are saying an engineer should be damn happy to be flipping burgers? Congratulations, you are a schmuck. Be happy with the manual labor you have when you have paid $50,000 to become educated. My god, what the hell is wrong with you Bushies???
To Rufus T Firefly - this is a common error which irks me each time I see it (because I've lived in Afghanistan and my daughter's father is Afghan). "Afghani" is the name of the currency of Afghanistan. Afghan is the word used for the people of Afghanistan and anything else pertaining to Afghanistan. We do not call Americans "Dollars" or "Cents", nor do we call Mexicans "Pesos" or the Swiss people "Francs" - it would be nice if we extended the same courtesy to the Afghans. :)
I don't even understand why you bothered with this...you proved Hannity was correct (and the BLS supports him).
So...rather than leading with the bold headline "Hannity misleading..." why don't you simply tell the truth? The headline should have said "Don't blame Clinton!"
This one wasn't even about Hannity's error. It was about your need to highlight democratic achievements in every context possible...even if it isn't relevent.
Now I wonder if I should start my own websight called "Mediareallymatters" as a watchdog for your site.
You can quible about the numbers, but the fact is that unemployment is very low. I don't know anyone who isn't working.... do you?
46 states have a lower unemployment rate today than they did 12 months ago. 5 states have have their lowest unemployment rate ever: (Nevada, Florida, West Virginia, Montana and Idaho).
The Institute for Supply Management (ISM), a private research group, reports manufacturing activity grew for the 33rd consecutive month in February. The ISM's manufacturing index reading of 56.7 indicates continued sector expansion.
Since Feb. 2002 (48 months), the PMI Index has been above 50.0 every month except 4 months, and has been above 50.o for the past 34 months.
Based on those facts, the economy looks very good to me.