In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Free Reads -- Joel Engel on Leadership and Smarts | Main | Ripped from the pages of Friedrich’s sketchbooks… »

May 29, 2003

Free Reads -- Joel Engel on Leadership and Smarts Redux


Thanks for recommending Joel Engel’s piece in your posting Free Reads -- Joel Engel on Leadership and Smarts. I take Mr. Engel's point to be that great intelligence is no substitute for either common sense or a firm moral compass, and that an intelligent person lacking those qualities is often positively dangerous. However, in your posting you seem to extend this logic in a way that I have a hard time following. Engel is saying that intelligence, common sense and sound morality sort independently—there is no particular correlation between these characteristics. Hear, hear, I shout. You go on to assert, however (if I understand you correctly) that there is a negative correlation between common sense and sound morality on the one hand and very high intelligence on the other.

Our founding fathers were obviously a brainy lot and yet possessed sufficient common sense (and morality) to run a revolution and set up a stable government. Our very greatest president, Abraham Lincoln, was clearly a man of enormous intellectual gifts (you try writing the Gettysburg Address on less than a year of formal education) and yet also an extremely capable practical politician. A number of American military leaders have been, if not exactly intellectuals, clearly both of high intelligence and high practicality: Grant, Lee, Sherman, Marshall, etc.

I also think you make a logical error by generalizing from your experiences with authority figures and members of “elites” that you’ve met, most or all of whom, I assume, were highly intelligent. I suspect your logic goes like this: these people are intelligent and pretty much to a man (or woman), they are scumbags. Ergo, high intelligence biases people towards being scumbags. What I suspect you were really running into is a different regularity I’ve noticed over the years: that all authority figures are scumbags (and I say this having been an authority figure in a small way myself.) However, if you had run into stupid authority figures, they wouldn’t have been any nicer--and possibly even less nice.

I will grant you that in the last century society has evolved towards an extreme division of labor, and this has resulted in many elites who have labored almost exclusively on various narrow “reservations” (e.g., academia, media, high-tech industries, politics). This has allowed less balanced personalities to thrive in a way probably not possible in 18th or 19th century American life, and perhaps has prevented these people from becoming as well rounded as they might have been a hundred years ago.

But I’m not sure that smart, practical and moral leaders aren’t still out there; you just need very good radar to distinguish them from the “chaff” of the dazzling scumbags. And I don’t think assuming you will find them only in the middle of intelligence distribution curve will help you much in such a search.



posted by Friedrich at May 29, 2003


Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said "...the most dangerous criminal may be the man gifted with reason, but no morals. We have to remember that intelligence is not enough..."

I think that is the lesson here (taking Michael and Friedrich's columns together). I don't think hyper intelligent people can be classified necessarily as pimply geeks or people without interpersonal skills. I do think people who lack those additional skills shouldn't be in leadership roles. But I don't think "interpersonal skills" alone are enough either---I actually think some decent smarts makes for better leaders. Some of the most infuriating bosses I have ever had were, quite frankly, dumbshits, and that was part of the problem.

But mostly there is no subsitute for character.

To use another example besides "Bore" and "Gush"---how bout our friend Bill Clinton? Hyper intelligent---sure. Interpersonal skills---plenty. Moral compass? Oooops--ran aground.

Posted by: annette on May 29, 2003 6:36 AM

I completely agree with Friedrich. If you want someone with high intelligence as well as sound morality and common sense, why not look across the pond to Tony Blair? I also think it's instructive to compare George W. to George H. W.: I feel that the former overdoses on "moral clarity" in an act of overcompensating for his lack of intelligence -- something Pa didn't need to do.

Posted by: Felix on May 29, 2003 10:01 AM

I guess we disagree, though it's certainly true that there are gonna be some people of high intelligence who also have good character, common sense, and the ability to command respect and loyalty. Two points, though:

1) Independent of whether or not there's a correlation between high intelligence and leadership abilities ... The combo of good character, common sense, energy, and the ability to play politics and command respect and loyalty is pretty rare. Adding "must have high intelligence" to the list of qualifications makes the list ot potential candidates pretty darned short. Given this, I'm focusing on a practical question: how much emphasis to give to high intelligence in the "who to pick as a leader" contest? I suggest giving it a low emphasis. Given that it narrows the candidate pool so radically, I think it's awfully impractical to wait around for such creatures to show up. They're going to be few and far between. Why not work instead with something that tends to show up more often? I'd be very happy to settle in a politician for someone solid, modest, and effective. Intellectual sophistication too? Why not, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

2) As for negative/positive correlation between high intelligence (let alone very high intelligence) and leaderhip skills -- happy to admit that I'm just going on personal experience here. Does anyone know of any studies that might enlighten? But in my experience, yeah, sure, there's a definite negative correlation between high intelligence (and a pronounced negative correlation between very high intelligence) and leadership abilities. Extra brain cells above a certain level seem to (obviously don't have to, but certainly have seemed to in the people I've known) unhinge people a bit. They start to float off into abstract space and lose track of the basics, and can be prone to act out in destructive ways (usually by applying the abstractions they fall in love with, and then getting mad at everyone for not being grateful). They often lose track of their peoplehood, and of other people's peoplehood. The people I've known of average-to-bright intelligence have tended to be much more solid as people than the people I've known of high-to-very-high brain wattage. I'm not sure I detect a logical flaw in this assertion. Happy to admit this is just an impression, but my life experience certainly suggests there's something to it.

Has your experience suggested something different?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 29, 2003 11:29 AM

Maybe I'm not making enough distinction between "intelligence" and "ultra high intelligence." Let's just make sure our leaders aren't outright stupid, can we start there?

Coz I think there are too many of those already!

Posted by: annette on May 29, 2003 12:02 PM


I am in agreement with you on your point #1. As regards #2, however, I wonder if you are not confusing IQ with temperament. According to the schema of the Myers-Briggs test (at least as interpreted by Dave Kiersey on his website, which you can see at there are four main temperaments: guardians, artisans, idealists and rationals. Since few people would want to be governed by either artisans or idealists, let's focus on the Guardians and the Rationals.

The key functions of Guardians, according to Keirsey, are: "supervising and inspecting ...or supplying and protecting ([i.e.]conserving). And [Guardians] would if they could be magistrates watching over these forms of social facilitation. They are proud of themselves in the degree they are reliable in action, respect themselves in the degree they do good deeds, and feel confident of themselves in the degree they are respectable." Keirsey suggests that George Washington and Harry Truman were prototypical guardian presidents.

The key functions of Rationals are "marshalling and planning...or inventing and configuring ... They are proud of themselves in the degree they are competent in action, respect themselves in the degree they are autonomous, and feel confident of themselves in the degree they are strong willed. Ever in search of knowledge, this is the Knowledge Seeking Personality -- trusting in reason and hungering for achievement."

I suspect you would choose to be governed by a Guardian (probably the most naturally conservative of any of the temperaments) any day of the week over a Rational. Fair enough. But it sounds to me as if you are assuming that all people with high IQs are Rationals,and, moreover, members of the more theoretical and dreamily introverted subgroups of Rationals to boot. (This is unfair even to Rationals because it ignores a category of Rationals known as "Fieldmarshals" who are not only extroverts but possibly the most natural leaders in society, possessing an extreme ability to provide structure and strategic direction in even the most chaotic environments.) I'm not sure that this association of high IQ with Rational temperaments is accurate.

I believe that there is an increased likelyhood for high IQ people to be Rationals. But given that there are roughly four to five times as many Guardians as Rationals in the population, I suspect there are at least as many high-IQ Quardians as Rationals. I strongly suspect that George Washington, for example, was precisely such a high-IQ Guardian, which would explain his keen interest in scientific farming as well as his steadiness under fire. (And, possibly, his success at the almost impossible task of waging a successful revolution against an enemy with immensely greater resources.)

I suspect this confusion may well derive from the fact that in Manhattan media circles you may well find Guardians are fairly thin on the ground. (You have my condolences.)

Posted by: Friedrich von Blowhard on May 29, 2003 3:33 PM

Zounds, defeated by the Myers-Briggs Personality Test!

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 29, 2003 3:59 PM

I am personally an Architect on M-B personality tests, and have consistently from 3rd grade on scored 175 on proctored high-clock IQ tests ever since, which is the top 1/1000 of a percent, top 3000 or so in the US.

I can MOST certainly relate to the points about loss of personhood and disconnection from humanity in very high intellect individuals.

You do NOT interact with people at the same levels as a child, you are analyzing EVERYTHING to death, and conversing with adults as mental peers at a young age. Your emotional development WILL get all messed up, and you'll probably end up modelling peoples social behaviour in different ways.

It took a deliberate, sustained, intentional effort over years from age 16 on to gain much socialization that normally occurs far earlier, with adolescence very much delayed.

All of the other very high IQ friends of mine are FAR less socialized than I (hitch hiking for 2 years at age 20 forced me to live by my wits, and come to see ALL people as unique jewels with much to contribute). With years of ongoing meditation to maintain emotional balance.

And I'm 6' 2", 250 lbs. with low fat percentage, raised as a Mormon with very good public speaking skills and a very loud, commanding baritone voice. With long curly blond hair, piercing blue eyes, and a visage described by women as beautiful. A hyper-intellectual alpha male; does this perchance explain my occasional tendency to rant and flail about? :-)

I was continually lectured in school and home about how, no matter WHAT I chose to be interested in, that I was somehow "wasting my potential", as I was not engaged in what the speaker wanted me to make my life's course.

My personality is EXTEMELY attenuated by the linear nature of online posting, which I have engaged in since the age of 12 (past 20 years).

I believe I have a handle on how Tyrants and Demagogues can occur. Thank god my younger brother is the sociopathically inclined of the family.

Posted by: David Mercer on May 30, 2003 4:26 AM

Is there a difference in your mind between high IQ and giftedness? Are you familiar with the multiple intelligence theories of Howard Gardner?

David, I have a friend in your situation--without the good looking physical appearance to go along with it---as I recall he was one of the lonliest kids in my class. Good for you!

Posted by: Deb on May 30, 2003 10:14 AM

Hey David -- Wow, I'd say you've got about ten novels, and maybe a dozen nonfiction books, in you just rarin' to take form. Let me know when they're readable. Although, if I remember right, one of the problems the super-intelligent sometimes wrestle with is difficulty focusing on one thing for a long time. The restless brain keep searching out new kinds of stimulation.

Hey Deb, Yeah, I've read Howard Gardner. I can't imagine why anyone should care, but I'm suspicious of him. On the one hand, there's a lot to be said for opening up our ideas about what "giftedness" can be, and the various schools I attended would have benefited a lot from being less concerned with "intelligence" in the raw. I personally think that kinesthtetic or visual or musical or mechanical gifts are every bit as worthwhile, god knows, as sheer symbol-processing power, which seems to be what IQ measures. The reason I'm susicious of him, though, is his insistence on using "intelligence" for all those gifts. I think it makes a lot of sense to reserve the word for the specific sense of mental symbol-processing, the ability to reason in the abstract. Not because I think it's a higher or more important thing, but because otherwise the meaning of the word starts to go to hell. I think there's a mushy, lefty, let's-make-life-a-little-kinder side to Gardner that's on the one hand kinda great, but on the other hand kind of a pain. And in interviews with him that I've read, that seems to be exactly what he's about. He sees the emphasis on IQ as unkind, and responds to it by wanting to obliterate the meaning of the word intelligence. Personally, I think an overemphasis on IQ can certainly be unkind, but I also think that reserving the word "intelligence" for that kind of gift is very useful. How else would you describe it? (Well, maybe "abstract symbol-processing mental power," but that's awfully cumbersome.) So I go with him halfway, and happily so: Let's open up our ideas about what a gift could be, let's de-emphasize the stress on intelligence in the IQ sense, let's remind ourselves over and over that gifts come in a huge variety of forms, and let's be far less eager to rank one above the other. My conclusion? (Again, marveling that anyone would be interested.) Instead of viewing the various gifts -- physical, relational, etc -- as forms of intelligence, as Gardner would have us do, why not view IQ-style intelligence as one kind of gift?

But I'm much more curious to hear your musings about Gardner's ideas...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 30, 2003 1:49 PM


I brought it up because these recent posts about IQ, leadership and the effect computers have on the growing brain somehow fit in with my everpresent interest in how people think and learn.

I actually came across the multiple intelligence idea recently while reading a book on learning styles in children, specifically children diagnosed with learning disabilities. I agree with you that his use of the word "intelligence" is imprecise since it carries too many connotations of IQ/linear/logical thinking. And I am not sure I can accept all his various permutations of what he defines as intelligence--there is one that refers to people who have an ability to understand nature that seemed to be stretching it a bit. But generally, he describes how different people process the world they live in much better than anything I've seen anywhere else.

I am extremely hesitant about accepting tests as a measure of IQ or giftedness or even learning. The current movement in education to test children as a measure of accountability for the schools bothers me greatly since it seems to rely on the same idea that you can measure learning as you can measure intelligence using IQ tests. If our leaders dont have high IQ's they must not be intelligent is similar to saying if you dont do well on a standardized test you havent learned the material. Too many variables, too much that isnt measured, and too much reliance on a small slice of a larger whole.

Posted by: Deb on May 30, 2003 2:30 PM

I remember someone (who had some experience in the standardized-testing world) telling me years ago, "Remember, the people who put these tests together score lower on them than you do."

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 30, 2003 3:45 PM

Focus IS a big problem Michael, I know that for sure. Friends have been telling me for YEARS to write a book or 5, but I always get bogged down, and just recently came to the acceptance that, ok, I do now actually want to be a writer.

But the best bits always pop into my head when trying to go to sleep...I need a thought dictation device (don't we all? :-)

But I normally don't think in words, holographic networks of abstractions is more the case, to try to explain it in English, which is hard.

I'm fairly opposed to pigeon holding kids based on standardized tests, what little they tell you either isn't used properly, or is often not relevant.

For instance, why in Junior High did it take them the entrie 2 years to figure out that I was getting almost straight D's out of boredom at the gifted magnet school? Why did they just send me their pet psychologists to play with and emotionally crush? (I've grown a lot since then, but as a child I could be VERY cruel).

When you function at a very high level of abstraction, you can generally just look at a question on a standardized test and SEE the right answer, without what would be considered much conscious thought. Question writers biases are generally transparent, and even topical material has patterns of what 'doesn't fit' thats fairly clear. It's like all of those 'test taking strategies' they teach at SAT classes hardwired in your brain or something.

And I think that using whatever form of intelligence IQ measures for anything substantial most certainly does miss much of the point. I can't paint or compose music worth a damn, and have poor hand eye coordination, as I proved conclusively with a short stint in construction. There are so many other skills that are invaluable in this world, that a schools emphasis on one narrow metric strikes me as madness, at least as far as 'gifted' programs go.

Gifted HOW?

But I was rescued from being behind in school by testing into a gifted program, I was considered a trouble maker and was 1-2 years behind in reading and math by 3rd grade, although I was actually just bored to DEATH. Undoubtedly today I'd have just been given Ritalin and left to rot.
Within a year, I was 1-2 years ahead of my grade in all subjects, just by being told I was smart, which boosted my self-esteem and supplied more motivation.

How many kids out there on drugs to make them behave who are 'behind' should actually be 'ahead'?

Posted by: David Mercer on May 30, 2003 6:41 PM


My daughter was not allowed into a GAT program for artistically inclined kids because they gave her a written creativity test, which I thought was a riot because the kid is dyslexic as well. Her teachers all recommended that they take her into it and disregard the test results but with funding issues, the school was not having it. They might just as well have given her a test using German as the language....

Posted by: Deb on May 30, 2003 7:56 PM

Deb, do you know if your daughter was taught to read primarily with phonics or with word-recognition techniques? Word recognition can lead to induced dyslexia, which even Dr. Seuss knew when he wrote all his books...wish I had the link to the damning interview with him before he died where he basically said "oh, I knew they would make worse readers, put I was being paid, and need to eat".

So, she may be genuinely dyslexic, or induced, in which case you may be able to help her overcome it, the best software for that is at: (ugly website, good program).

Posted by: David Mercer on May 30, 2003 8:45 PM


We've been dealing with this for 6 years now-she's 13 at the moment. Her older brother was what is called, I think, a "natural" reader--he was reading simple books by age 4 and was in the GAT program at school second semester of kindergarten. You could have put him in a room with a Wall ST Journal and the kid would have learned to read.

So when she came home unable to read anything, including her own name, after 5 months of 1st grade, I talked to the teacher. It took alot of ranting on my part and pounding my fists on desks but she finally realized that my kid was memorizing a book after having it read to her once and merely repeating it back. She tested so high on the IQ test they gave her they were absolutely amazed. So we got her out of whole language with it's inventive spellings and word recognition and into a strict phonics based program called Direct Instruction--used only with LD kids. She has been in special ed ever since tho she now reads quite well. The Lord of the Rings is her current fav book tho I think that has something to do with Orlando Bloom as Legolas. Her problem is more of an executive function, organizational issue---when learning to read, she couldnt "see" the specific letters in all the information on the page. I had to get it written into her IEP that she would be allowed to use her finger to read with. That's something that "studies have shown" inhibits good reading skills. Ha! For her it's the only way she can keep her eye and brain in the right place. Also, she is unable to copy something from a board onto paper, for example. Assignments are often written down incorrectly or incompletely. Transfering a math problem from the book to paper is impossible so I copy the problems and let her do them. It just doesnt compute with the teachers that she can do the work if the mechanics were easier. She thinks quite well in abstract concepts--she just cant express it on paper. Math has to be done on graph paper to keep the columns of numbers in line because her brain cant keep it straight otherwise. She cant spell because she doesnt hear words the same way you or I do. The issues go on and on.

However, she can draw beautifully complex images. She can knit on 4 needles. She does soft scupture using raw wool and makes realistic faces. She writes stirring poetry. Heartbreaking poetry for her mother at times. She sings and makes music--which interestingly enough she has no problem reading.

It's not induced. Dyslexia is just the word I use to describe it since most folks dont understand the complexity of learning disablities. I took her a couple years ago to a pediatric neurologist for a whole battery of tests to find out what I was missing that I needed to adapt the environment for to help her learn--the school provides only minimal services. That helped and gave us tons of ideas. He also suggested giving her many enrichement activities since she tested out as extremely creative and inventive.

In many way, what you described as your experience growing up reminds me of her. Thanks for sharing, by the way.

Posted by: Deb on May 30, 2003 9:37 PM

Deb, thanks for sharing about your daughter, too.

Is there any possibility of you getting her into some sort of private high school when the time comes that uses non-traditional techniques, more in line for creative types like her?

I can relate to her difficulties, some of them sound like more extreme versions of things I had to deal with. The mechanics of following the words, for instance. I had to go from finger on page, to using a ruler (tracking on a line was easier), then eventually got to where that wasn't needed, she sounds like she's in the same camp more extremely on that one.

I STILL often type or write with letters reversed, or outright run together when an end matches a beginning of the next word, I've just trained myself to spot it and immediately compensate.

I'm betting she might have trouble memorizing arithmetic (I never got up to 12x12 by rote, and still work out stuff above, say, 6x6 in my head from smaller sums). I was and remain very fond of graph paper for the same reason she is.

Sounds like she has more artistic and motor skills than I did/do, the right arts school in HS could really do great things for her I think.

Two girls in Colorado that I became good friends with had been labeled as autistic growing up, and were very creative in the arts. They were actually very smart, and saw many layers of things going on socially around them that most people just missed, but which they were quite sensitive to and withdrew from.

I was one of the only persons who'd ever treated them as peers, as I could understand the things they SAW around them, and understood how they thought: very non-verbal and abstract.

No one had ever bothered to understand them on their own terms. It sounds like your daughter is in a much more positive, supportive environment with you than they were growing up.

Our schools just can not cope with kids like this, and almost all highly gifted persons I've known got labelled LD somewhere along the way: those of us who got lucky shed it.

Posted by: David Mercer on May 31, 2003 2:32 AM

I really cant bash the teachers at Abby's school tho there are several I'd love to see replaced--they try very hard to accomodate her but with all the other kids to take care of and teach she is one of many. You couldnt pay me enough to teach. I am hoping she will find a "mentor" teacher to guide her. Her art teacher seems to have helped her and the chorus and band teachers work on social skills and self esteem issues with her all the time. It's the system that cant handle these kids, not the teachers for the most part.

I would love to have an alternative school available but all the private schools for kids like her only go thru elementary grades. The alternative high schools in the city I commute to are essentially holding pens for troubled kids who are tossed from the regular programs. We live in the country with few options that larger cities have. Except that my husband and I do what we can to make sure she's learning the content of her subjects and maintain her spirit at the same time.

You were right--memorizing multiplication tables is just not something she can do. My husband, an engineer, teaches her different ways to look at math problems so the mechanics dont get in the way and now that she's getting into early algebra and geometry she's actually doing a little better. She does quite well in science. We go to art museums, get magazines that interest her and read them with her, buy her books that she enjoys reading, allow her to make messes when she's doing things that are interesting to her and just give her space to be herself.

Posted by: Deb on May 31, 2003 10:22 AM

Deb, I wasn't meaning to convey that the teachers were at fault, I know that as you indicate they are just too overloaded to do all that she needs. It is indeed the system, not the teachers.

It's a shame that there aren't better alternative schools where you are. In Tucson there's at least one private HS that's oriented towards creative and highly talented students who are not in the mold of the traditional academic success story, for whatever reasons. Small seminar type classes, lots of personal attention, and a fairly wide open choice of curricula. Now, they don't have rigid grades, but that hasn't stopped their arts students from submitting portfolios and getting into arts colleges, or stopped their music students from seucessfully auditioning. And their more academically inclined students have in the worst case had to do a short stint at a community college before a 4 year school, neither of which they would have done well at without the unique environment in HS.

Sounds like you guys are awesome partents, and I hope to do half as well when the time comes for me!

Posted by: David Mercer on May 31, 2003 8:21 PM

Awesome parents we are not. Persistent, perhaps.

Posted by: Deb on June 1, 2003 9:13 AM

Well, persistence combined with consistency is most of what it takes, from what I can tell.

You sound like you put much more care, time and effort into your children than most parents, which is very admirable!

Posted by: David Mercer on June 1, 2003 10:10 PM

Joel Engel's smarmy musing on I.Q. are not a new story. The idea here is to KEEP OUT the white guys from the neighborhood (i.e. from working class and economically disadvantaged backgrounds) with high test scores. After all, these are the people (and I should know, being one of them) who might, even if they otherwise support a labor-oriented agenda, hold realistic views on national security. No good Marxist would want that, nor would any member of the American elite either.

Posted by: Mike Field on July 10, 2003 10:03 PM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?