Are We Going To Legislate Against Daddylessness?
Hot topic around here these days, women having daddyless children. Kamala Harris, a pandering politician running for California attorney general, wants to jail parents for children's truancy. (Of course, in the case of single mothers, this will mean the kids have no parent at home at all, instead of just being short one parent. Genius, lady) Let's explore the details on single motherhood and truancy:
Teenagers living without their biological fathers* Are more likely to experience problems with sexual health
* Are more likely to become teenage parents
* Are more likely to offend
* Are more likely to smoke
* Are more likely to drink alcohol
* Are more likely to take drugs
* Are more likely to play truant from school
* Are more likely to be excluded from school
* Are more likely to leave school at 16
* Are more likely to have adjustment problems* After controlling for social class, level of parental supervision, attachment to family, whether peers and siblings were in trouble with the police and standard of work at school, boys in lone-parent households were still 2.7 times more likely to truant than those from two-natural-parent households.70
Article on jailing parents for children's truancy here. By the time a kid's old enough to ditch school, it's a little late to start punishing Mommy.
P.S. When I go talk to kids at that inner-city school, which I'll next do on June 2, very few of the kids have two parents in the home. Those that do are likely to be Latino.
I guess we can't, temping as it may seem. If we tried, even if our society got fed up and admitted that single motherhood is a big part of the problem, SCOTUS exists to protect us from the tiranny of the majority, right? Holding parents financially responsible for their child's bad acts, sure. Criminally responsible? Slippery slope.
Instead, we need to do what we keep threatening to do: end incentives for women to have babies sans husband. Yes, husband. Not boyfriend or perpetual fiance or partner. Marriages these days are just about as disposable as the other relationships mentioned, but come with legal obligations that cannot be ignored.
My former sister-in-law had a baby at 16 by a man who's never met her child. With the support of our tax dollars, she went on to finish college and is now a productive member of society. Good for her, right? Good for society?
She never had to work through college. Never needed a student loan. Tuition, an apartment, food, medical and child care, all taken care of through the generosity of the state. And she is a terrible (and now, having dumped my brother at the very first sign of adversity, single) mother.
What lesson do you think she took away from that? What lesson will the young women coming after her take away?
Beth at May 30, 2010 9:48 AM
Hmmm...certainly punishing Mommy for a high schooler's truancy would be too much. But this proposal only regards children in grades K-8. Maybe 8th grade is pushing it, but certainly parents are responsible for getting their kids to grammar school, right? We're talking about little kids, not even teenagers, or in the case of 8th-graders, thirteen-year-olds. Frankly, if you can't get your kid to the third grade on a regular basis, whether it's public school, private school, or homeschool, you SHOULD go to jail, or at least have someone else take charge of your kid(s). That's not about the child's truancy; that's about the parent's neglect.
I do agree with you that by the time a kid is old enough to actively ditch school--probably seventh grade for some kids, ninth for most--the child should be prosecuted through juvenile courts, and the parent(s) should be investigated, especially if they have younger kids. But this seems to be about prosecuting parents who are currently neglecting their kids, not parents whose poor decisions have led teenagers to make poor decisions.
Jenny Had A Chance at May 30, 2010 10:12 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/05/30/are_we_going_to.html#comment-1719753">comment from Jenny Had A ChanceParental neglect starts with having daddyless children. You start the kids out in life with a much worse shot. Immediately. So, are we going to jail women who get knocked up by some guy they met in a bar?
Amy Alkon at May 30, 2010 10:21 AM
WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT LEGISLATION?
Sheeezzus.
What is it with America nowadays? Why do people think Barack Obama is the only human being who gets out of bed in the morning?
Why do people think this is about "punishing mommy"? Why are people such infantile shits, who can only think of their culture as influencing THEM as individuals in an oppressive hurtful way?
Didja notice that other thread? Fifty messages of shit about the suffering sing parenthood brings to society (let alone the kids), and people are worried that we're reaching out to "paint" single parents as incompetent or whatever.
I dont understand it I dont understand it I really don't and want to complain some more but I gotta gota work.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 30, 2010 10:35 AM
Parental neglect starts with having daddyless children.
So, are we going to jail women who get knocked up by some guy they met in a bar?
Um, no. That would be a very slippery slope. No, that would be a slope that started out slippery and then was oiled for good measure. Would women who showed up at a doctor's office with a positive test and no wedding ring be offered three choices: abortion, wedding, or adoption? Would someone swoop in to take the kids the minute Mister stepped out for cigarettes and didn't come back? Yuck.
Tons of things start a child out on the wrong foot, and I certainly agree that single parenting on purpose is one of the big ones, there. But poor prenatal care is another. Should we start knocking down the doors of (married) pregnant women, checking that they've scheduled all their visits, locked the liquor cabinet, and are eating no more than two servings of tuna a week? Ooooh, and let's let the state loose on those wicked, wicked women who don't read to their bellies while gestating...
Honestly, while I certainly agree that children fare better with mom and dad, I'm not comfortable with the idea that state can start prosecuting you for crimes you are now more likely to commit. Yes, single moms are more likely to neglect their kids by not making them go to school. Homeless people are probably more likely to steal from a hot dog stand, too. But you wait till they actually do those crimes to arrest them. Not taking your child to school, or arranging pretty solid arrangements to that effect, is definitely neglect. This CA proposal is a good one, and frankly, I'm more shocked that CA doesn't already prosecute (after getting CPS involved) neglectful parents. Here, the term "truant" doesn't apply to a child under ten; they are called "at risk" and "educationally neglected" when they rack up unexcused absences, and their parents are definitely prosecuted.
It would sure be nice if there was some way we could keep people from having kids they can't/won't take proper care of, without trampling on freedom. But, really there's no way to stop it altogether without giving the state oversight of our bodies and families. What we SHOULD do is reduce it by refusing to pay the bills of it. Severely cut welfare, and a good deal of this would dry up and take the truancy, crime, etc. with it.
Jenny Had A Chance at May 30, 2010 10:45 AM
If she was pandering for the female vote she sure missed the boat on that one.
David M. at May 30, 2010 12:38 PM
We're not going to pass laws regulating the use of American pussy; but somebody is, whether from Mecca, Beijing or Brussels.
Some kind of use will be found for the "male" detritus of a failed culture. It won't be pleasant or conducive to longevity, but then why should it be? Vae victis & all that, eh?
Young pretty women will do fine - demand for concubines is pretty much unlimited. Others, unprotected and unprovided for by the long-gone men they didn't need, can live on bicycle-free fish.
Our feminized culture will expend the legacy of centuries of prudent husbandry attempting to sustain the unsustainable and then vanish from history.
Call me Cassandra. Just don't call me late for dinner.
--
phunctor
phunctor at May 30, 2010 1:33 PM
phunctor may be right. (Excellent classical reference with Cassandra by the by)
----------
We don't need legislative changes so much as we need cultural ones.
Start looking down on the women who divorce their husbands on a whim.
Start looking down at men who run out on their families.
Start looking down on the woman who sleeps around so often that it takes a lineup of genetic tests on a half a dozen men on some dumbass talk show to identify a father. Start looking down on sluts.
Start looking down on people who take public assistance. (I realize there are some times when it is legitimate, but those who take it SHOULD be ashamed of taking charity from the public, pride is a good incentive to get off of it, and start showing some regard for the people that do.)
Social pressure, contempt, and pride are powerful forces that require no legislation.
But the fact is we lionize single mothers. Its one thing if she's single because her husband died on the job. Its another if its because he's back in jail on his third drug charge.
Show contempt for contemptable behavior, stop putting them on shows like Oprah to talk about how wonderful and noble their behavior is.
----------
Robert at May 30, 2010 3:55 PM
Charles Murray once showed that single motherhood is related to low IQ, i.e., single mothers have lower IQ's, on average.
Nearly every social dysfunction is related to low IQ.
IQ is a VERY heritable trait.
So I wonder how much of this is just low IQ kids doing low IQ things.
Unless you control for the IQ of coupled parents vs single mothers, it's hard to know how much to the effect is just bad genes vs not having a father around.
Ditto for the personality trait conscientiousness (the opposite of impulsiveness), which I'm guessing is also lower among single mothers, on average.
D at May 30, 2010 4:21 PM
>>Start looking down on the woman who sleeps around so often that it takes a lineup of genetic tests on a half a dozen men on some dumbass talk show to identify a father. Start looking down on sluts.
And, then to everyone's surprise, the bio father was her husband. What a revolting development!
I agree with phunctor. My vote is on Mecca, though Beijing is second choice. We are not going to do anything. As we have seen here, it is impossible to even discuss such things with most women; I tried for well over 40 years. And, women control the vote. The few Amy's who get it, while being wonderful etc., simply aren't enough numbers to change things.
No country that let women take over ever regained sanity without losing the civilization first, and we will do no better.
irlandes at May 30, 2010 4:32 PM
It's true, the biggest problem here is there is no longer shame in the world. It's been replaced by entitlement.
I WISH we would just get rid of welfare. The ONLY way you're going to stop this entitlement-minded, irresponsible behavior is to STOP PAYING FOR IT. The ONLY way.
Ann at May 30, 2010 4:42 PM
I'm of the belief that jails should be used almost exclusively for people who would otherwise be a danger to society. Throwing people in jail for offenses like this is a waste of jail space and taxpayer dollars. Not to mention the associated expenses for taking care of the child while the parent is incarcerated. I'd be more in favor of fining the parent rather than jailtime.
Shannon at May 30, 2010 4:46 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/05/30/are_we_going_to.html#comment-1719805">comment from Di.e., single mothers have lower IQ's, on average.
Women throughout history have not been geniuses compared to women now, yet there's a boom in single parenting, especially in the black community, where 80 percent of the children are born out of wedlock. What's lacking here? A stigma against single motherhood.
Amy Alkon at May 30, 2010 4:53 PM
> Our feminized culture will expend
> the legacy of centuries of prudent
> husbandry attempting to sustain the
> unsustainable and then vanish
> from history.
Naw, chicks dig manly men. Manly men are useful, when properly manipulated... Ever watch the women when a really manly man walks into the room? This is not going to go away.
> Nearly every social dysfunction is
> related to low IQ.
Silliness. Besides, whatchoo mean, "related"?
Crid at May 30, 2010 6:28 PM
Robert,
I had to put in that your post on this issue is brilliant. There should be shame involved for men and women who discard their families. Why the hell isn't there? How did all this ridiculous, immature behavior become acceptable? It's absolutely maddening.
Regards,
Jon
jonQPublic at May 30, 2010 9:26 PM
Crid writes: "Chicks dig manly men"
Which excludes dhimmis with a survival instinct. You don't meet the Master's eye. You just don't.
--
phunctor
phunctor at May 31, 2010 10:45 AM
"Nearly every social dysfunction is related to low IQ." D.
Bull. Say it the other way, too.
Nearly every social dysfunction is related to low IQ, except for those that are not.
Interestingly, very high IQ has a definite social dysfunction trend as well. Bell curve it if you feel inclined. However, when talking about the 80% near middle? Hmm, people in that area seem to figure it out as well as any. You can argue IQ as predictor, but people with really low or high IQ, are actually a small part of overall population, and certainly not enough to argue most of the issues we speak of...
Anywho. What are we really dealing with?
The biological drive to procreation is just as strong for humans as any other animal. No matter the veneer of civilization we slap on top, that IS a truth.
Communities once would have formed the backbone of what we call civilization, and in those communities is where we standards are imposed or relaxed. This is where the shame thing comes in. This is where once, the family units and needs were dictated.
But, once you have some kind of far away government as the proxy for community, many standards go out the window. Least common denominator is what is used. Couple with the legal idea of freedom, and the original community standard goes by the wayside. Incentivize with money from that far off proxy government...
If you are having a kid, and don't know who helped you with that... it's not like you have to go look a women's circle, or elder in the eye, and cop to it. Likewise if you are a guy who knocked someone up, probably no-one knows it's you, nor does the "tribe" levy any punishment.
It's all levels of separation away. Do this for a couple of generations, and nobody knows what that kind of shame looks like. All they know is some kind of freedom, backed by a far off proxy who will facelessly give money. Add in a few cultural quirks, and viola, nobody feels responsible.
babies "just happen." Which is the basic human imperative. thousands of years of civilization to build up family structure, neatly rendered harmless, by it's own hand.
Oddly, coupled with... falling birthrates in general. It's a strange complex situation, but as the greenies say, unsustainable. The people who work hard and pay taxes, don't have lots of kids. Meanwhile paying for an increasing number of non tax-paying people who do.
Trying to fix the truancy rate of lostboys by throwing their parents in jail, doesn't do much for the problem. It's just a far off govt. showing it's caprecious.
SwissArmyD at May 31, 2010 11:55 AM
Start looking down at men who run out on their families.
Can you tell the difference, just by looking, between the man who ran out on his family, and the man who was locked out of his family by a vindictive woman and the power of the courts?
I R A Darth Aggie at May 31, 2010 12:13 PM
> Which excludes dhimmis with a survival instinct.
> You don't meet the Master's eye. You just don't.
Wut?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 31, 2010 12:29 PM
> Can you tell the difference, just by looking,
> between the man who ran out on his family,
> and the man who was locked out
Do we need to?
It's important that you try to understand this: "Just be looking" is going to be the absolutely best case for my appraisal of your divorce. That's if you're freaky-shit lucky and happen to have me involved in your life in a personal way... In that case, I might "just look". (But I probably won't. I like to give acquaintances some space, and not distract myself with their personal emotional freight.) Even after "looking", I won't care.
And the vast majority of people who get divorced aren't going to enjoy the tremendous blessing of my personal friendship. They're statistics, m'kay? And they're statistics of PAIN.
Whether a man has run out or was locked out is irrelevant. Nor do I care when brides from collapsed unions complain that it turns out the man was a 'a liar!' The point is, you failed to marry well.
And so I and the rest of society and your own children, the defenseless ones who were counting on you for nurturing shelter are now going to have to clean up the mess.
Burdened with such a project, I don't want to hear about your resentments towards "the power of the courts". You happily availed yourself of that leveraged power when you selected this woman as your bride. You came to the state asking for a marriage license for your commitment, because you wanted to state power to make it stick. It's not like anyone else in the culture put a pistol to your temple as said 'You must swear to love THIS random woman evermore, whether you like it or not.' You're a grown man, after all, and you selected her and brought her to us for certification.
Well, OK... Sign here, raise yer right hand, rubber stamp THUMP. Next!
What, you're back again?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 31, 2010 12:55 PM
"Women throughout history have not been geniuses compared to women now,..."
Good point. And it may be that lower IQ women have been more responsive to the anti-stigma and nanny state by having more kids out of wedlock. So we can add one more layer to the stigma: "Are you dumb? Because dummies are more likely to have out of wedlock babies who cause problems later?" Somehow I doubt that will fly.
On the empirical point, fatherless homes may account for a % of the problem. Stigma is needed. But I'd be willing to bet that average or above average IQ kids in fatherless homes have these problems at lower rates.
"Nearly every social dysfunction is related to low IQ, except for those that are not."
Which social dysfunctions are common, serious, and documented (like the ones listed) to occur with above average IQ people at higher rates? Maybe there are exceptions. I'm not aware of them and would be happy to be shown some.
"Interestingly, very high IQ has a definite social dysfunction trend as well."
Same response. And lets's stick with stats and not anecdotes like the unibomber. And who said "very" high or low IQ. Let's not move the goalposts to talk about outliers (though I'd still like you to make that case as well).
Most of what is amazing around you was created by high IQ people. And the world has been getting better by nearly every metric, in no small measure because of science, technology, and medicine - all high IQ professions.
"Silliness. Besides, whatchoo mean, "related"?"
Correlated. More likely. Look into it before dismissing it. A good place to start is prisons, which act as a net capturing people who are continually disruptive in various ways and ruining others' lives in the process. Criminals have lower IQ's, on average, than the free population. That's a fact.
I didn't make my original comment to say IQ was the end all and be all. I was just saying it's missing from the debate, and misleading conclusions often follow when you discount genetics.
D at May 31, 2010 12:56 PM
> Criminals have lower IQ's, on average, than
> the free population. That's a fact.
You're a ninny.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 31, 2010 1:05 PM
OK, D... how this works, is that you are making the argument, you have to provide the stats. Beginning with what is your statistical measurement of IQ in the first place? Last I checked there isn't a broad administration of WISC IV or WAIS, that you would be able to get a broad stat for IQ anyway...
so where are your numbers, that you haven't linked to, from?
You are the one trying to prove something here, show your work.
SwissArmyD at June 1, 2010 9:17 AM
I don't know if single mommy hood is a feminist problem...more than anything it seems to be a morals problem and an entitlement problem. In the old days I guess it was frowned upon to be a single mother, and they quickly found husbands. Of course now, single mommyhood is so glorified by the media...I mean just look at commercials these days and it is all targeted to single moms.
I'm a single parent (not by choice, and if you are the one asking for the divorce that IS a CHOICE!)and I tell you it is difficult. However, I don't get any child support from my dead-beat ex-wife, no day care entitlements, nothing. I do it all myself, and am proud to do it. It makes me wonder how women, who made the choice to get divorced, cannot even take care of the child without handouts and child support.
In custody cases, all things being equal with no abuse and with both parents wanting custody, primary should go to the one who can actually afford to raise the child.
It absolutely sickened me the other day when my ex actually said: "Kids need their mothers more than their fathers." Really? I guess that is why I got custody then!
mike at June 1, 2010 9:42 AM
Let's not forget that, statistically, the WORST deadbeat parents are ... women. The typical child abuser is ... a woman. Women are naturally nurturing? Riiiiiight!
Can we be thankful to feminism for anything? Yes: Women have been allowed the freedom to finally reveal who they really are. Is it a pretty picture? Horrifying is more like it. Still, forewarned is forearmed, fellas.
Now that women have, by and large, trashed the whole "good wife and mother" thing in service to feminism and in pursuit of personal "empowerment", what is it, exactly, do they think they still have to offer men other than a wet membrane?
Jay R at June 1, 2010 1:14 PM
"OK, D... how this works, is that you are making the argument, you have to provide the stats."
If you're asking me for stats on the very non-controverisal claims I made that are well-known by anyone who's bothered to dip their finger into the subject, I'm going to go ahead and assume you were just making stuff up about people with above avg IQ's having social dysfunction at higher rates than lower IQ people. And now that you've poked around and realized it, you want to make me prove gravity exists or whatever else you can do to avoid proving your extraordinary claim.
My claim is basic and well-known. Yours is not and runs contra expectations. So you ought to back it up... "how this works", blah blah.
A GREAT source for you to read is the book "The Bell Curve", which only has about 1 chapter on race that everyone became fixated on. It's not about race. Mostly it's about whites in the U.S., controlling for SES, poverty, and a host of other variables and looking at the effects of IQ. Their data involve hundreds of thousands of subjects spanning decades. Check it out.
The only thing I've ever read consistent with your claim is that bus drivers with IQ's above some high number had more accidents than people below that number. Thomas Sowell wrote it in one of his books (high IQ bus drivers? Must have been a very small sample size, I'm guessing). Although I have also read that low IQ people get in car wrecks more often. I know a little about this topic because I've read several books on it.
Just tell me what you know that I don't about high IQ people. Be as specific as you can but don't even bother sourcing it for now if you don't want to.
I'm now curious if you just made it all up.
D at June 2, 2010 8:18 AM
I actually just remembered 2 other activities that are potentially (though not at all necessarily) viewed as negative that higher IQ people engage in.
They drink a little more and are mroe likely left-wing in their politics!
But certainly that's not what you were referring to, SwissArmyD!
You must have something much better than that.
D at June 2, 2010 8:44 AM
D, have you ever looked up Asperger's syndrome, and then their IQ spread? These are people who often actually have a WISCIV so you actually have measured their IQ, and the definition of Aspie is to be average to above average IQ. Interestingly it seems that there is such a genetic part as to make these issues cluster in areas of support... like silicon valley. Where people with similar social issues, congregate.
From Wired archives
Now they go a lot into autistic spectrum issues, that are perhaps not related to Aspergers, and autism itself is not defined as above average IQ. Bust Aspies are.
the question is, how many are there and would you call that a trend? If there are only 100-200K Aspies in the US, then... uncommon. EVEN IF every single one has social issues by definition. But, someone with light social issues, and decent school work ethic can get by without anyone ever noticing they have this issue. But they will still have issues keeping their relationships going, in the same way people with ADD do.
How much has been studied? Dunno that it really has been. What's the marriage and divorce rate among MENSA members? What is the rate of crime?
Perhaps no-one cares. But since I am being agent provacateur, and you are the one nameing stats about low IQ's you are the one who needs to provide them.
This is not a case of "well everyone knows". How are you getting your supposedly low IQ numbers? Have those kids even been tested?
SwissArmyD at June 2, 2010 10:55 AM
I am familiar with Asperger's.
As far as I know those people aren't going around causing societal havok. Plus they are a rare subset.
That's all you had? Really?
"How much has been studied? Dunno that it really has been."
Ah, and here we have the nub of the problem. You went around here confidently saying something that I'm fairly confident isn't true(I remain open). And now you're admitting you didn't know what you were talking about, as the above quote betrays your ignorance. You are basically saying you're not familiar with the subject. Your asserions were therefore made up. Shame on you.
"What's the marriage and divorce rate among MENSA members? What is the rate of crime?"
"The differences among the siblings go far beyond income. Marriage and children offer the most vivid example. Similar proportions of siblings married, whether normal, bright or dull - but the divorce rate was markedly higher among the dull than among the normal or bright, even after taking length of marriage into account."
http://www.prometheism.net/texts/murray.htm
Crime rates? You really haven't read anything about this suject, have you? That's OK, except for your running in here telling me I'm crazy and wrong. Maybe you should think about this next time someone says something you don't like yet don't know it to be false. Maybe they're right, your ideas are wrong, and maybe knowing something about the topic could prevent you from looking a little foolish.
D at June 2, 2010 11:29 AM
OK, D, I'll do one serious thing about this because it is a subject that isn't helpful in my opinion.
Murray DIDN'T USE IQ TESTS. He and Herrnstein used Armed Forces Qualifying Test as reported in the National Longitudinal Study of Youth.
This is why I asked you if they took a WISCIV or WAIS. ThOSE are IQ tests and the current standard of them. They cost $400 or more each and are long and exhaustive. The AFQT is a test about how much you learned in SCHOOL.
So if you didn't learn much in school... you don't do well on it.
Is that IQ? Does teaching Trig. in high school help a business person? A used car salesman? A florist?
The best predictor for doing well on the AFQT is a good EDUCATION, thus giving the lie to your presupposition.
I didn't quote Aspie info to do much more than show you there are other things out there. I have a kid with same and an IQ of 134. I know one or two things about it.
But that isn't the point ultimately. 100 years ago, when many more people were farmers, or laborers, the problems were different. And yet not related to IQ. Social structures were far diffrent and community mores played a much larger role. Mores that are gone. BUT you could look at some insular communities, and still see them, and think about your issues with IQ. Take the Amish for example. Hard work has far more to do with their society than IQ, but somehow they get by.
IQ, cleaverness and such certainly do have effects on an individual and their life, but I would imagine that if you looked at twins, you would see with similar IQ's they don't always have the same outcome. Sometimes they are night and day. Since I know numerous sets of twins, including my own sisters, I can vouch for at least an anecdote on that one.
With statistics, you can prove almost anything you aim for, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to take people how they come, you can't just rewire their brains.
Unless you are willing to push eugenics. Was that what Murray was after?
The fact of the matter is that humans figured out and evolved ways of making some similar outcomes happen for large numbers of people, regardless of their intelligence. One of those adeptations was a family with 2 parentsm that stayed together. The ease with which we tear that apart, or never form it to begin with is a far more important predictor of outcome for people than all of your ruminations about IQ.
Ultimately, you don't get to choose your parents, nor do you get to choose your essential IQ. The question is, what can you do with what you are given. And can anyone help you with that.
SwissArmyD at June 2, 2010 8:17 PM
"Murray DIDN'T USE IQ TESTS. He and Herrnstein used Armed Forces Qualifying Test as reported in the National Longitudinal Study of Youth"
*sigh*
There is the ASVAB test, and within that 10 part test there are 4 subsections that make up the Armed Forces Qualifying Test. This section is HIGHLY g-loaded (look that up). It's IQ test. The military is VERY interested in intelligence and is one of the few institutions allowed to test for it (even if they don't call it that) and discrimimnate based on the results. They also study its effect on military personnel, and this is yet another place where IQ has been shown to correlate positively with performance on nearly everything the military is after (including basic fighting w/ a machine gun).
The rest of your post didn't seem to be anything more that your opinion about stuff we weren't directly talking about.
Have a good day.
D at June 3, 2010 7:03 AM
I apologize for the atrocious typos throughout my posts. "It's IQ test"? What the...? I edited that sentence and didn't add the "an". I'll try and read what I write before hitting send in the future. *shakes head*
D at June 3, 2010 7:06 AM
Leave a comment