Join 3,416 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


People with disabilities in "we can be prejudiced too" shocker
March 22, 2007 7:26 AM   Subscribe

New study reveals prejudices amongst disabled. A research paper by Mark Deal, a PhD student and researcher at UK disability charity Enham reveals the news that disabled people have the same prejudices about disability as non-disabled people: the research points to a hierarchy of impairment, ranking Deaf as the most ‘desirable’ impairment followed by Arthritis, Epilepsy, Cerebral Palsy, HIV/ Aids, Down’s syndrome and Schizophrenia amongst disabled people. These prejudices are almost identical to those held by the non-disabled sample, with the only difference being that Cerebral Palsy and HIV/Aids were placed in reverse order.
posted by patricio (48 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
BREAKING: DISABLED PEOPLE FOUND TO BE DISABLED, PEOPLE
posted by DU at 7:30 AM on March 22, 2007 [6 favorites]


I was going to say something similar, but well played sir!
posted by TwoWordReview at 7:34 AM on March 22, 2007


DEVELOPING: ALMOST NOBODY WANTS TO HAVE AIDS
posted by zerolives at 7:37 AM on March 22, 2007


I've also heard reports that non-white people can have racial prejudices too. Shocking, I know.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:39 AM on March 22, 2007


Actually, it seems to be dumber than I thought. Ranking deafness as more desirable than schizophrenia is only a "prejudice" in the technical sense of the person being asked not having an experience either way. I mean, my brain is more important than my ears.
posted by DU at 7:39 AM on March 22, 2007


And here, you can share with the world which disability you think is better than the one you currently have.
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:41 AM on March 22, 2007


Have there been any studies yet on the motivation for people on the internet to annonymously discount other people's postings?

I mean, seriously, this whole 'pffft! whatever, who didn't know that disabled people have prejudices?' snark-fest is just, well, retarded.


It is actually a pretty interesting post, thanks for putting it up.
posted by das_2099 at 7:43 AM on March 22, 2007 [2 favorites]


Well, personally, I hate British schizophrenics the most. Especially if they're in a wheelchair.

Otherwise, I have to say a lot of the quotes from this Deal fellow are kind of stupid, like this one: "This exposes a need for society to recognise that disabled people are not one homogeneous group..." Well, who the hell thought they were?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:43 AM on March 22, 2007 [1 favorite]


"This exposes a need for society to recognise that disabled people are not one homogeneous group..."

Next they'll be telling us Jesse Jackson isn't the emperor of black people.
posted by zerolives at 7:46 AM on March 22, 2007


Where are furries, again?
posted by dhartung at 7:46 AM on March 22, 2007 [2 favorites]


My deaf neighbor hates me for being a dirty hippie. True story.
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:51 AM on March 22, 2007 [1 favorite]


"This exposes a need for society to recognise that disabled people are not one homogeneous group..."

This explains why when you throw down handfuls of toothpicks and ask deaf people how many there are, they answer incorrectly so often.
posted by Bugbread at 8:11 AM on March 22, 2007 [4 favorites]


"This explains why when you throw down handfuls of toothpicks and ask deaf people how many there are, they answer incorrectly so often."

If a toothpick falls to the floor in a roomful of deaf people, does it make a noise?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:13 AM on March 22, 2007 [1 favorite]


mr_crash_davis writes "If a toothpick falls to the floor in a roomful of deaf people, does it make a noise?"

Racist.
posted by Bugbread at 8:15 AM on March 22, 2007 [1 favorite]


Being disabled with Cerebral Palsy, I could have dictated those results for you off the top of my head. Disability is very far from a monolithic construct: deaf head the list because they've developed their own norms of exclusion, arthritis has been stereotyped as a disease of age, and epileptics are not disabled...some of the time. As for me, I have a rough time explaining to the ladies that everything is indeed in working order downstairs. (subject of a potential future AskMe?) It's not quite as culturally loaded as the next three...and so on.

On preview: you'd be surprised, flapjax. I get lots of comparisons to Christopher Reeve, but it's a matter of whatever common reference is closer at hand for many people. They just don't know, which is understandable. That's why it's useful to have something like this on the record.

True story:

"Hey StrikeTheViol, I'm having lunch with ParalyzedBevets, want to come with?"
"I'm sorry, no...I really think he's kind of a dick."
"StrikeTheViol! You should have more respect for people in your situation!"
"But I'm not paralyzed." *moves foot*
"Really?"
posted by StrikeTheViol at 8:19 AM on March 22, 2007 [3 favorites]


Have there been any studies yet on the motivation for people on the internet to annonymously discount other people's postings?

Pff. I'd rather have Mefitis over AIDS any day, man.
posted by interrobang at 8:29 AM on March 22, 2007 [1 favorite]


I mean, seriously, this whole 'pffft! whatever, who didn't know that disabled people have prejudices?' snark-fest is just, well, retarded.

Sure, they're a little bit retarded, but so is this study. The findings aren't indicative of prejudice at all. They're indicative of the fact that people in general (whether disabled or not) would rather be deaf than have AIDS. Wow, he must have been SHOCKED to find that out. I mean, I totally would have expected a completely different opinion among disabled people!

/sarcasm
posted by antifuse at 8:32 AM on March 22, 2007


Great story, StrikeTheViol.

While I was not at all surprised by this study, it did remind me that the disability community in the US (of which central components are explicitly "cross-disability") has done a really good job keeping the train on the rails. This was a nice thought, as like many in the world of disability I often bitch about community problems.

antifuse -- "retarded"? Also -- these rankings are indeed "prejudice" in that most people responding have no idea about the realities of living with a particular impairment or the range of difference among people with the same impairment.

corpse -- I love the ouch site.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 8:46 AM on March 22, 2007


Each participant within the sample, comprising 217 disabled people and 114 non-disabled people, was asked to score a series of statements reflecting aspects of individuals’ rights between one and six, based on how strongly they agreed with it.

The five statements covered the right to live in the community, to participate in vocational training and thus improve employability, to interact with others in a social setting and being treated fairly, to being treated as an adult citizen with rights and responsibilities, to the fundamental right of parenting and therefore reproduction.


In other words, they weren't just saying "I'd rather be deaf than have AIDS." They were saying "Deaf peoples' rights matter more than the rights of people with AIDS," "I'd rather live next to a deaf person than an HIV+ one," &c.

That's a lot more controversial, if you ask me. You can still make an argument for some of these rankings being justified — maybe low-functioning schizophrenics, for instance, shouldn't always be treated as adults — but they're not the no-brainers that people are making them out to be.
posted by nebulawindphone at 8:47 AM on March 22, 2007 [2 favorites]


Maybe that's true, nebulawindphone, but you can't make the assumption that schizophrenia = non-adult simply by diagnostic category. That's what the mental capacity laws are all about. And even if someone isn't fully capable, they should still have the right to make those decisions that they are capable of making..
posted by talitha_kumi at 8:57 AM on March 22, 2007


Actually, the study is not just about how undesirable the subjects found the various conditions, although some of the reported language suggests that. The City University link clarified this somewhat: the subjects were asked to rate agreement with several statements about the rights that should be afforded the disabled:
The five statements covered the right to live in the community, to participate in vocational training and thus improve employability, to interact with others in a social setting and being treated fairly, to being treated as an adult citizen with rights and responsibilities, to the fundamental right of parenting and therefore reproduction.
It's debatable whether some of these are indicative of prejudice (maybe AIDS victims for all there suffering don't need job training programs) but one could make a case that answers to questions like the "right to live in the community" one could indicate prejudice.
posted by grobstein at 8:58 AM on March 22, 2007


oof, sorry
posted by grobstein at 8:58 AM on March 22, 2007


Alcoholism pwns all other "diseases" and "disabilities".
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 9:04 AM on March 22, 2007 [1 favorite]


In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 9:06 AM on March 22, 2007 [1 favorite]


I mean, seriously, this whole 'pffft! whatever, who didn't know that disabled people have prejudices?' snark-fest is just, well, retarded.

This is an Escher snark. Beautifully done.
posted by srboisvert at 9:08 AM on March 22, 2007


grobstein writes "It's debatable whether some of these are indicative of prejudice (maybe AIDS victims for all there suffering don't need job training programs)"

The one that stuck out for me wasn't job training, but having children (which, based on the word "reproduction", I assume to mean "having your own bio kid" as opposed to adoption). Reproductive fluid transmitted terminal diseases and children don't match too well.
posted by Bugbread at 9:18 AM on March 22, 2007


Looking at the actual questions, it seems that quite a few aren't really indicative of prejudice anyway, in that they're based on assuming that each disability is identical, and therefore a non-prejudiced person would answer the questions for each disability identically, whereas in reality the specifics of individual disabilities make the answers different.

For example:

"Residential care is usually the best option for people with Disability X"

Well, clearly, if you have to answer on a scale of 1 to 5, you're going to answer quite differently for a deaf person than for a person with AIDS, in that a person who is just deaf (no other problems) is never going to be bedridden because of it, but some portion of AIDS patients, in the late stages of the disease, will be. Saying that all AIDS patients need residential care, and deaf people don't, might be prejudice. However, if "in general", let's say 0% of deaf people are bedridden because of their deafness, and 5% of people with AIDS are bedridden because of their AIDS, you're going to give deafness a "Strongly disagree", and AIDS a "Somewhat disagree". That isn't prejudice, that's understanding that disabilities aren't identical.

"A restaurant owner should be allowed to refuse service to a person with Disability X if they upset other customers because of their impairment"

In this case, a person who is bothering other people due to his/her deafness (and not because they're just a garden variety dick) would be, I dunno, someone who speaks too loud? That's about all I can imagine that would cause a deaf person in a restaurant to disturb others purely due to their disability. Compare that with a schizophrenic. Sure, the schizophrenia could just be causing the person to speak to themselves. Or it could cause them to shout epithets at other diners, threaten folks, etc. So if 5% of deaf people who disturb customers do so by threatening them, and 10% of schizophrenics who disturb customers do so by threatening them, you're going to get different answers. Again, not prejudice, just understanding that deafness and schizophrenia are different.

And it goes on.

So it looks like "Bad questions, misinterpreted by researchers, lead to faulty results, misrepresented on MeFi to look even more ridiculous"
posted by Bugbread at 9:40 AM on March 22, 2007 [2 favorites]


just because you are a member of a minority doesn't make you a small minded bastard.
posted by edgeways at 10:00 AM on March 22, 2007


add a "not" in there
posted by edgeways at 10:01 AM on March 22, 2007


I don't know what to think about or how to interpret this.

"...arthritis has been stereotyped as a disease of age"

Yes, and one of the worst things about my disability is that no one expects anyone my age to have osteoarthritis as severe as mine. Doctors don't. When my sister had her first hip replacement at 28, there was constant cognitive dissonance with the doctors and nurses and other patients at the hospital where she had it done (which has an entire floor for joint replacements and almost all the patients are elderly).

In fact, my sister simply doesn't describe our disease as "arthritis". Well, the disease isn't osteoarthritis, that's just the result of it. It's a genetic disease of the collagen, a type II collagenopathy, an extremely rare mutation (only seven families known in the world), with the associated disease as yet unnamed. My sister just ends up saying it's "SED", spondyloepiphyseal dysplasia, which it isn't (and which is much more severe—the fetuses are often spontaneously aborted—and causes dwarfism) just to put the severity in the right ballpark in contrast to merely "arthritis", which grossly understates it. Me, I can't manage to be anything less than correct and precise, and so I say "it's a type-II collagenopathy which results in developmental defects and quite severe early-onset osteoarthritis".

Anyway, having this level of joint degradation as a young person while otherwise appearing completely healthy, sucks. And it's not just how other people think, it confuses me.

As to comparative disability? Well, I've been lucky, my case has been mild relative to the rest of my family. I had some trouble and surgery on both hips when I was 10, but otherwise was a mostly normal healthy child who did what other boys and teens did. Unlike my sister, who had more than six surgeries before she was 17. So for much of my life, I've always thought that this was a pretty mild thing and I never felt sorry for myself and always thought of myself as lucky. It hasn't much played a role in my self-image. All this is in contrast to my sister.

However, in the last eight or so years, and especially the last four, my osteoarthritis has progressed so badly that I am quite disabled, some days I can barely walk around the house, am in constant pain, etc. Of course, I've yet to have any joints replaced, only recently (this year) having the medical insurance to do so, and so am in a worst state of uncorrected decay than anyone else in my family has been. So I now think it's pretty bad and I occasionally feel sorry for myself, although I resist it.

My aunt is congenitally deaf. We're pretty close. In fact, she's been the one person helping me out the most these days, doing shopping for me, etc. Would I say that her disability is better or worse than mine? I'd say without hesitation that it's worse. Yes, it's very true that a deaf person within Deaf culture is not disabled and in that context, they're normal. But for those who try to live in hearing culture, or move between both (as my aunt does), deafness is a disability and a profound one, affecting every aspect of their lives. On the other hand, my aunt leads a very active life with many, many friends and, I think, she'd probably say that my disability is worse than hers. Maybe not, I'm not sure. I think I can say with certainty that she wouldn't trade places now (as opposed to trading disabilities at birth). On the other hand, I think I might trade places with her now. Not being born deaf, but just being deaf now but being able to walk and not live in pain...I think I might trade.

I don't really know how people work out a calculus of such things. I'd expect that disabled people would be self-aware enough to realize that in some sense disabilities aren't comparable. We all rue the things we can't do and envy people who can do those things, even if they have other disabilities. That's how it works.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:36 AM on March 22, 2007 [2 favorites]


Ah, the Disability Hierarchy rears its head again. When I was a kid, I would make it absolutely clear to every adult I met that even though I used a wheelchair, I was nothing like those other kids who had Down's or other developmental disabilities. I feel pretty crappy about that now.

On a related note, I also told myself I would never date someone with a physical disability. Until I met a girl in a wheelchair who totally digs me.
posted by wintermute2_0 at 10:38 AM on March 22, 2007


People punched in stomach prejudiced against people kicked in nuts!
posted by klangklangston at 11:13 AM on March 22, 2007


It'd probably be helpful for me to make explicit something that was implicit in my comment. I think it demonstrates how hard it is to make these comparisons.

From one perspective, the fact that my disability doesn't have any apparent superficial manifestations is a benefit. People with disabilities that make them appear abnormal are often treated badly and many or most people are uncomfortable. (This is definitely a kind of prejudice and it's a bad thing, but I'm a bit reluctant to demonize people for this because, I think, it's to some degree hardwired into our brains and it takes some education and effort to overcome.) Anyway, being apparently disabled, the more one's appearance deviates from "normal", the more that people won't look at you and treat you very strangely or badly. This causes a great deal of emotional pain to disabled people. So, again from this perspective, having a disability that isn't superficially apparent is a desirable thing. And, of course in that context it is: as long as people don't see me walk (or, more and more these days, move around much) I appear normal. They treat me normally.

On the other hand, from a different perspective, in my experience that's often be a bad and unpleasant, frustrating thing. Because it often means that people are unaware that I can't do the things they expect me to do and therefore they don't make any accommodations for this. In my mid-thirties, eight or so years ago, I could still walk fairly normally and my disabilities were not very obvious. But I couldn't, for example, sit down on the floor. And I would often find myself in situations where I was expected to do this. Or to stand for long lentgths of time. Or to walk large distances. There were many times when I wished that my disability was obvious from my appearance...while other disabled people envied me because it wasn't. So which is better? Which makes life more difficult? Having people overreact to your obvious disability, excluding you, not looking you in the eye? Or having people never accomodate your disability because they aren't aware of it, forcing you to act differently and call attention to oneself, or try to accomodate their ignorance and conceal your disability and being, for example, in a great deal of pain because of it? Which is worse?

I think that comparisons are problematic and it just seems to me very strange to try to decide what disabilities are better and worse. Yes, at the extremes it's easy and makes some sense. But otherwise it's too complicated and not productive.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:31 AM on March 22, 2007


I was going to post ... but you know what, just go reread what StrikeTheViol said, and you'll get the same experience.

Ethereal Bligh: not all disabled people have that kind of awareness. Even for those of us that do, prejudice is a tough cookie.
posted by spaceman_spiff at 11:37 AM on March 22, 2007


EB— One of the neighbor kids when I was growing up had a raft of profound, "invisible" disabilities (learning disabilites, ADHD, depression, asthma, severe allergies), and that was someothing that made it much, much harder for him to get the help he needed. His mother, back when she was still medicated and somewhat sane, used to wish that he was born visibly deformed so that teachers and other authority figures wouldn't just assume that he was "faking" or just a dick.
posted by klangklangston at 12:05 PM on March 22, 2007


Ranking deafness as more desirable than schizophrenia is only a "prejudice" in the technical sense of the person being asked not having an experience either way. I mean, my brain is more important than my ears.

If you say so, youngster. These days I hear the Voices better than I hear real people; given that the drugs to stop "schizophrenia" have terrible side-effects, I'd rather have two really good hearing aids (for which I'm accepting donations, my email addy's in my Profile). It does help to be able to drown out the Unreal noises with Not-So-Unreal ones, y'know.

Anyhow, I can think of several disabilities I have but don't like or don't have and don't want, but I've never thought to rank them -- and I don't sit around ranking other people's problems either. Y'mean people make money doing that shit?
posted by davy at 12:13 PM on March 22, 2007


I think everyone who has a chronic disease or disability plays the which is worst game sometimes. It can be a recognition that someone has a larger burden to bear, more than an expression of prejudice. I've got young friends with gout, cerebral palsy, and a horrible bone disease that is named after the individual who has it. I myself have diabetes. I rank from best to worst gout-> diabetes -> CP -> bone disease X. The worst thing is to have a disease named after you (or your doctor). Where the prejudice comes in for me is saying "Oh, no, I'm a type I diabetic, not one of those type IIs". Even though type II is a more treatable disease, I do not want to be lumped in with the "fatties". There is a stigma associated with type II because 65% of the people who get it are medically obese. However that leaves 35% who aren't. Also, there is no guarantee that obesity is what led them there, or that the obesity was not the effect of some other condition you do not know about. So basically anytime I express myself about type II, I run the risk of being an obesity bigot.
posted by BrotherCaine at 12:14 PM on March 22, 2007


But klangy, I have a few disabilities, invisible and not, and I'm still a dick. (Really!)
posted by davy at 12:15 PM on March 22, 2007


I empathize, EB. But I've had to run that calculus since toddlerhood. One of my earliest memories was being in a special-ed classroom and knowing something was wrong. A year and some IQ tests later, I was officially a genius, and would be mainstreamed from then on. Many of my childhood experiences with other disabled were grounded in fear or pity, as I met many worse off than I was cognitively, and only a rare few who were able to communicate with me without the nagging sense I was talking down to them. I was frightened of physical deformity for years because I was exposed to the story of the Elephant Man from an early age, which combined with earlier experiences meant that I saw my disability at one remove. I learned much later that there were many others like me, and still others like me: people with disabilities who didn't deny their condition, but set them themselves apart because they were seen as being of one group by a larger, unknowing society.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 12:27 PM on March 22, 2007


That's very interesting, StrikeTheViol. I don't know what to think about all this. I feel very atypical, though I may not be. In many ways I'm very immune to social pressures and therefore the problems that arise from them are not things I worry about much in myself (though, oddly, I'm very aware of them with regard to other people). My emotional concerns related to my disability are very personal: I struggle to understand how to deal with my frustration at being able to do so little, and less and less all the time, and being in pain. I struggle with my desire to have someone close to me that really understands, or tries to understand, what's it like being me. Far down on my list are the social problems related to being disabled. But then, I'm almost a hermit. I'm insulated against a lot of social pressures.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:37 PM on March 22, 2007


“I have a few disabilities, invisible and not, and I'm still a dick.”

Is being a dick a disability? Hmmm...well, even if it is, the support groups would be terrible.
“My name is Smed, and I’m a dick.”
“Hell, yeah you are.”
“Not just a dick, you’re an asshole!”
“Sit down jagoff!”


“Sure, they're a little bit retarded, but so is this study.”

‘I do a lot of work with retards.’
‘Isn’t that politically incorrect?’
‘Yeah, maybe. But I love the little bastards.’
posted by Smedleyman at 3:48 PM on March 22, 2007 [1 favorite]


Maybe that's true, nebulawindphone, but you can't make the assumption that schizophrenia = non-adult simply by diagnostic category. That's what the mental capacity laws are all about. And even if someone isn't fully capable, they should still have the right to make those decisions that they are capable of making..

Fair enough. But actually, if you feel that schizophrenics do deserve the same rights as, say, deaf folk, that just reinforces my point — the "preferences" people are expressing here really are prejudices and not just common sense.

(I don't presume to know anything about how the mentally ill should be treated. My point was about the design of the experiment, not human rights or mental illness per se, and I only mentioned schizophrenia to head off a possible objection. For what it's worth, my gut reaction's with you — I hate to see someone's self-determination being taken away.)
posted by nebulawindphone at 4:23 PM on March 22, 2007


When I was a kid it used to piss my off royally that people assumed that because my mom has pretty bad cerebral palsy, an associated speech impediment and unrelated hearing impairment that she's retarded too. It still bothers me a bit. Anyone who pays attention can see she's not retarded, like anyone who knows what "lip reading" is can see she does it rather well, so assuming she's intellectually impaired shows one up as stupid. (And yes, she is slightly nuts, but being surrounded by stupid people who have the gall to dismiss you on sight will do that to anybody.)

Oh and by the way, when people meet my mother they should talk to her directly. I'm still amazed at how otherwise intelligent 60 year olds will have philosophical debates with their dogs but can't discuss the weather with a grown human being. When you get her attention she'll turn to you like a flower to the sun, the better to read your lips. Touch her shoulder, she won't bite. (I recall silently mouthing to her something like "Mom, this idiot wants to know if you LIKE thunderstorms. Should I tell it to piss off or do you want to?")
posted by davy at 4:38 PM on March 22, 2007


nebulawindphone writes "But actually, if you feel that schizophrenics do deserve the same rights as, say, deaf folk, that just reinforces my point — the 'preferences' people are expressing here really are prejudices and not just common sense."

Well, no, because the questions themselves were faulty. They purport to be questions which determine whether people think folks with disability X should have the same rights as folks with disability Y, but some of the questions don't, quite. For example, how would saying that residential care is a better idea for someone with late stage AIDS than for someone who is deaf indicate that you didn't think people with AIDS had the same rights as those who are deaf, or vice versa? From what I can tell, it wouldn't, yet this study uses the answer to that question, and others like it, to determine that people don't think folks with AIDS deserve the same rights as folks who are deaf.
posted by Bugbread at 4:40 PM on March 22, 2007


Bugbread (and others): the right to live 'in the community' is one that has often been denied to people with all sorts of disabilities. In all but a very few cases, the kind of care that is currently provide in institutions ('residential care') can be provided in a home-care setting, but Medicare often won't cover certain needs unless you are in an institution. Private insurance tends to follow their lead.

Aside from the issues of autonomy and independence, the standard of care is often lower in an institution because it reduces the power a patient (and their family) has to advocate for themselves. In some cases, this means the mortality rate is increased.

Google for "Micassa" if you're interested in this issue. ADAPT has done a lot of work to get this bill to Congress.
posted by spaceman_spiff at 5:14 PM on March 22, 2007


spaceman_spiff writes "In all but a very few cases, the kind of care that is currently provide in institutions ('residential care') can be provided in a home-care setting"

Ah. I was misparsing "residential care" to mean "care provided at one's residence" (that is, home care) as opposed to "care provided by residing in an institution".

However, if Medicare won't cover home-care, doesn't that just lend more reason to answer the question affirmatively? If someone asks me if residential care is the best option for people with late stage AIDS, and I know that they can't get home-care because of Medicare, but that they really need that care, I would presumably answer "yes" if I weren't prejudiced against people with AIDS. If I were prejudiced against folks with AIDS, I'd say "fuck em, let em rot". So a non-prejudiced person would agree more than a prejudiced person, and yet doing so would make this questionairre count the non-prejudiced person as more prejudiced.

There's room for debate on how to interpret the question, of course, but a key point in making questions which are designed to determine people's opinions is to make questions where there isn't room for debate. A multiple-choice question is useless if two people who agree on an issue answer the question differently because they parse it differently, or if two people who disagree answer the question identically because they parse it differently.
posted by Bugbread at 5:02 AM on March 23, 2007


My deaf neighbor hates me for being a dirty hippie. True story.

I'm blind in one eye, and hippies smell. [j/k]
posted by pax digita at 8:14 AM on March 23, 2007


"we can be prejudiced too"

Good for you! High five!
posted by Smedleyman at 3:45 PM on March 23, 2007


« Older It's spring, and that means its convention time!...  |  Rrraahhr! I'm a monkfish!... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments