Tuesday, December 06, 2005

I Love Art--It's the Artists I can't Stand

An insightful reader sent me a link to this cover story in Entertainment Weekly about George Clooney entitled, "The New Politics of Hollywood." Sorry Entertainment Weekly, but your lame title should have been "Politics as Usual in Hollywood." George Clooney was interviewed for the article about his new movie, Syriana, a movie that (you'll never guess) exposes the lies behind the War on Terror. And of course, you'll be shocked to learn that there is a CIA agent in Syriana who thwarts deomocracy in an Arab country in order to keep petroleum flowing, along with some sympathetically portrayed suicide bombers just to give the audience a sense of the filmmaker's sympathy for Arab murderers. Clooney pats himself on the back for his bravery in bringing this charmer to Warner Bros.:

People were afraid to say things. Big stars would come up to me and whisper that they supported me — I thought it was strange that they felt they had to whisper. But people seem to be less afraid now. They're calming down. Lots of people are starting to ask questions. It's becoming hard to avoid the questions. When we started [Good Night, and Good Luck and Syriana], nobody was encouraging us, says Clooney. We jumped in on our own. And there was no reason to think it was going to get any easier. But people in Hollywood do seem to be getting more comfortable with making these sorts of movies now. People are becoming braver.

Sorry George, but preaching to the choir that is Hollywood is not bravery. I didn't hear Michael Moore whispering at the Oscars when he gave his rant about President Bush. Bravery is Mel Gibson shelling out millions and risking his own reputation in the movie business by making Passion of the Christ.

Do you ever wonder how these Hollywood stars such as Clooney can be so clueless about their behavior? I know I do. Clooney and his cronies see themselves as mavericks, even though they live in a world that caters to their every whim. How is it that George can have such sympathy for suicide bombers and terrorists on one hand and so little sympathy for his fellow Americans or even his Italian neighbors while he is filming?

This clueless self-centered behavior is not just an aberration of high level artist-types like Clooney--it trickles down to the masses of artists who seem to believe that their talent (whether good, bad or indifferent) gives them free license to selfish acts of self-expression. How do I know this? Unfortunately, I have lived with a number of these expressive types on an upclose and personal basis.

At the age of 21, I moved to Manhattan to go to graduate school. I lived with a wonderful roommate who was initially an NYU student and then an editor at a big publishing firm. After a few years, she moved in with her boyfriend and left me to the scary task of finding a normal roommate in Manhattan (remember Chandler in Friends with the psychotic roommate--that guy would have been a prize for me!) After meeting with a number of prospects, I finally settled on Dave, a musician and artist at NYU. He was a bit pasty and didn't talk much but I thought that would be a plus. It wasn't. He found girlfriends who talked for him. They talked to me all the time.

I was in graduate school in clinical psych and used all of my time to study and wanted to be left alone. He had two girlfriends who were actually both very competent and cheerful--almost the direct opposite of Dave. Neither woman knew about the other and when not out with them, he was out with numerous other women. It was none of my business except that both of his girlfriends (at different times) were constantly interrupting my work to ask me why I wasn't out partying. Maybe if I was, they concluded, I would meet a great, loyal guy like Dave. I never said anything but would listen and just nod until they left me alone. I never much said anything to Dave and vice versa--until one day, he left his diary out on the kitchen table open to a page of his writing. I figured it was private but he left it out day after day. I figured that maybe this was his way of communicating something to me so eventually I picked up the diary to read the following:

"I know my roommate is in love with me. I already have two of the women of my dreams. I cannot take on another one. I don't know how to break the news to her that I am not in love with her. And maybe I should break up with Kate and Kathleen too. My talent in music and the arts is my first perrogative."

At first I thought I should be angry that he had made such a big assumption--but given his bizzare way of connecting with me, I felt more bemused than anything. A few weeks later he moved out to live with his band. I breathed a sigh of relief but the roommate search continued.

To make a long story short, I next lived with a female photographer who would parade models in and out of the living room (the whole New York apartment was the size of a dollhouse so there was no escape) while I was preparing for exams, even when I asked her not to. Okay, if I were a guy or interested in women, this could have been exciting but I was neither. Next came Alex, a painter who asked if her cousin could stay overnight -- but then she stayed for two months without paying rent. Finally, my old roommate moved back in but we ended up taking in Wendy, a spoiled dancer who was the sister of a friend. She needed a place to stay and had no money for rent. One morning, I woke to a horrible cat fight going on between my kind roommate and Wendy who was fighting her for the bathroom. That was the last straw. I vowed not to take in any more artist types. It was a good move.

I often feel sorry for others who are dealing with some of these artist types who think their purpose in life is to "stand up to the man." I have a friend whose son is an artist and filmmaker. He once showed me some abstract art his son had made of 9/11. It showed men in suits with brief cases falling from the twin towers or running away. My friend told me his son had made it because he "did not feel sorry for capitalistic Americans and they got what they deserved on 9/11." My friend looked at me sadly and asked, "I wonder if his mother and I imparted any of our values on him at all or if he just rejected everything we stood for?" Sometimes I wonder the same thing about the Hollywood crowd.

Update: Here are some related thoughts from Ed Driscoll at TechCentral Station.


Blogger chrisburp said...

Right on Dr. H.
George Clooney is one of the main reasons I don't go to the movies any more. And this is from someone who saw at least 2 a week. I keep seeing George on talk shows etc, spouting his blather how his opinion is suppressed in some way...ARGHHH!!!
I even cancelled my E.W. mag that you're showing after seeing his hated mug on the cover!

7:16 PM, December 06, 2005  
Blogger Jeff with one 'f' said...

"One morning, I woke to a horrible cat fight going on between my kind roommate and Wendy who was fighting her for the bathroom."

CAT FIGHT?!?! Dr. Helen, you have obviously been brainwashed by the patriarchy if you use such misogynist terms for two grown womyn.

Then again, the womyn in question must have been suffering from patriarchy-induced psychosis if they had been fighting with each other. Sisterhood is too powerful for womyn to actually do something as (forgive the term) male as fight or even disagree! Come the revolution, men (ptui!) will know their proper place and peace and harmony will reign among all womyn.

Or else.

7:57 PM, December 06, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bravo, Dr. Helen:

Actors are no different than anyone else. Some are well educated. Some are not. Compare, say, Jodi Foster to, say, Tori Spelling.

But many actors are highly narcissistic folk who need constant approval. We seem to notice that type more. We don't seem to pay much attention to good acts done by our neighbors, but boy howdy, when Angelina Jolie speaks out about poverty...we sure do listen.

Because in our society, we worship celebrity even more than money. Even more than beauty. How else to explain Donald Trump?

For some reason, people care what parakeets like George Clooney say. How do any of us know if George Clooney is informed on the facts of any given situation? We don't know a darned thing about the PRIVATE lives of such people. But every time they chirp, the media gives them a platform.

Don't get me wrong. Clooney has a right to his opinion, even if I find it ignorant, simplistic, and one-sided. More power to him.

But he DOESN'T have the right to have his opinion carry more weight than any random person I select from the telephone book.

Oh, I know the story: they want to "use" their celebrity to "do good." The least that they can do, in exchange for their wealth and power, is bother to use their brains before shooting off their mouths.

And I'm not even talking right wing/left wing stuff. Some actor types think long and hard about issues, even when I disagree with them (like Mike Farrell and the death penalty, for example). I learn from them, and I can see why they use their celebrity.

But Clooney? Oh, come on. It's as funny as Leonardo diCaprio (who I always called "androgenous waif-boy in TITANIC) sounding off about greenhouse gases and global warming.

Most of these folks aren't precisely rocket scientists. Come to think of it, it is worse: we treat the parakeets as if their opinions are more important than rocket scientists'.

Sorry for the rant. Clooney and his collection of giant dollars earned by acting like a frat boy starting to go to seed annoys me.

"Eric Blair"

8:01 PM, December 06, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They say Clooney put on weight for his role in "Syriana."

Heck, I did that over Thanksgiving, and I am not even in the movie business!

8:04 PM, December 06, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

The traditional way to pan a movie was to first watch it, then talk about how bad it is. The blogosphere has invented a new approach: The lead actor is a really irritating person, so of course no one should see the flick.

8:34 PM, December 06, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why should I pay money to see a really irritating person? I can do that for free by reading Greg's posts! ;)

9:27 PM, December 06, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I think the point---provided Dr. Kuperberg has read the article, as I certainly have---is that the authors seem to believe that the movie business has never really done very much, politically. Now, of course, they are being brave.

But they are being brave by parroting Howard Dean-ish philosophies.

So the last time a movie was made that critized left wing politics and "progressive" ideals would be....

(sound of crickets)

Clooney blathering on about how Hollywood people are whispering and afraid to speak out against the Evil Bush Empire is an example of the kind of inwardly directed, self-congratulatory, and thoughtless behavior too often seen in the media.

"Eric Blair"

10:02 PM, December 06, 2005  
Blogger Ed Driscoll said...


"The lead actor is a really irritating person, so of course no one should see the flick."

Well, yeah. Why would I want to shell out eight or nine dollars a ticket to see somebody who I think is a jerk? Historically, the leading man's job has been to ingratiate himself with the audience, which is why Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart, Bogie, and today, Jack Nicholson and Bruce Willis get the big, big, big bucks. They're bankable because audiences identify with them and love to see them on the screen.

But lots of actors have made themselves box office poison long before the Blogosphere was invented. On the commentary track for the DVD release of "The Godfather", Francis Ford Coppola said that Paramount made him jump through endless hoops when he said he wanted to hire Brando, because at the time, Brando was considered by most studios to be box office poison--audiences would steer clear of a picture because he was in it, which, roughly between "Mutiny on the Bounty" and "The Godfather" was definitely true. "Burn", the last picture Brando did before "The Godfather" was a huge bomb.

Alec Baldwin also put himself in a similar position long before the Blogosphere. Hollywood now uses his in supporting roles, whereas, earlier in his career, before he became such an outspoken liberal activist, he was headlining in films such as "Beetlejuice" and "The Hunt For Red October".

I'm sure nowadays, Baldwin gets supporting parts from sympathetic directors and producers because of his politics, but it's definitely cost him the brass ring of superstardom.

10:06 PM, December 06, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Ed: As I said, I evaluate movies the old-fashioned way: by watching them. I think that this talk about who is or is not box office poison, and what actors should or should not do to win some brass ring, is at least as pretentious as anything that Clooney has to say. It is at best a breezy pretense of advice. At worst it's nostalgia for McCarthyism, when boycott groups really did parlay political associations into career poison.

Moreover, when I watch a movie, the last thing that I want from the actors on screen is ingratiation. I am not watching the flick in order to pick a high school valedictorian. I would rather have good acting. Since you mentioned Cary Grant, one of my favorite Cary Grant movies is Suspicion. Grant played a complete jerk in this movie, for once, which is one reason that the movie is interesting.

I also do not care about Hollywood personalities and reputations. If anything, it's a distraction to see the Box Office Smash Personality walk onto the screen. One of my favorite Harrison Ford movies is The Conversation, which was made before he became Han Solo. (Have you noticed that Indiana Jones is almost the same as Han Solo?) I don't want to spoil the plot, but Ford played rather worse than a jerk. It was a good movie, but it was discordant to see Han Solo really get his hands dirty.

Needless to say, I couldn't care less how The Conversation did at the box office.

10:55 PM, December 06, 2005  
Blogger Ed Driscoll said...

" I evaluate movies the old-fashioned way: by watching them."

But something has to woo you into watching them in the first place. And conversely, there's also a reason why you choose not to watch a movie. And you can argue all you want that it shouldn't be this way, but for the vast majority of filmgoers, a huge part of the decision making process is who's starring in the film, and what associations--and baggage--they bring to their roles.

"Since you mentioned Cary Grant, one of my favorite Cary Grant movies is Suspicion. Grant played a complete jerk in this movie, for once, which is one reason that the movie is interesting."

Actually, RKO was so nervous about casting Grant as the baddy that the forced the film's ridiculous happy ending on Hitchcock, thus obliterating the point of the movie. (Which I agree, up until its ending is great.)

"Needless to say, I couldn't care less how The Conversation did at the box office."

"The Conversation" was made as a low-budget break in-between the Godfather movies, as a sop by Paramount to Coppola, to get him to return to direct to "The Godfather Part II". It's a great film (and great Antonioni homage), but these days, when films are being budgeted in the hundreds of millions of dollars range (a big portion of which is the stars' salaries), instead of the 1.6 million that "The Conversation" cost. There's a lot less safety factor when that much money is on the line. You may not care about whether a film is successful (and there are loads of films I've also admired that have tanked), but Hollywood certainly does.

11:25 PM, December 06, 2005  
Blogger Assistant Village Idiot said...

greg, I take your point, but yet disagree with it. When a movie's premise is known to be yawningly predictable, I don't care how well directed it is.

I recognise this is considered rank heresy in the arts -- I was in the theater in the 70's (not even medium big, but enough to drop some names). I have heard many times the complaint "How can you criticise when you haven't seen/read/heard it?" I overlook for the moment the fact that this complaint often comes from those who commit the same sin in the opposite direction, believing themselves quite capable of commenting on religion, for example. But more importantly, we all can and do make such judgments daily, and usually with accuracy.

The key is whether one has some objective evidence. But actually seeing a movie is not the only source of objective information.

Goethe had a point with his Three Questions, but not an ironclad one. The answer to the first question does sometimes allow one to skip to the third.

11:29 PM, December 06, 2005  
Blogger Assistant Village Idiot said...

Double-post for change of topic.

When one is surrounded by sycophants, one becomes narcissistic enough that even mild criticism is an injury.

11:32 PM, December 06, 2005  
Blogger DADvocate said...

A funny thing about this one, I worked for 5 years at a small newspaper where several of the other employees, one was a distant cousin, had gone to high school with George Clooney. Apparently, as a youth, he was a decent sort as no one ever had a bad word to say about him.

George's parents occasionally attend my church. They always speak.

But then again, there is the hero worship and accompaning arrogance that comes with it. I believe after these "normal" people make it big and become surrounded by sycophants, they lose all sense of perspective and believe the sun rises and sets in their armpits.

BTW - word has it that George never is not an intellectual giant either.

11:56 PM, December 06, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Ed: But something has to woo you into watching them in the first place.

That's right. What gets to watch or not to watch a movie is the reviews of other people who saw it. Not just any people — I am not impressed by sheer popularity — but moviegoers who I can trust in some way.

Obvously a lot of people in Hollywood are only interested in money, and don't particularly care about artistic merit. That's their problem. It isn't any more noble than the political pretensions of Hollywood celebrities. Fortunately some of their movies are good anyway.

Not only are there movies I liked but tanked at the box office, there are also movies that I hated but hit the box office jackpot. I thought that the The French Connection was not only boring, but outright offensive. But hey, it not only made big bucks, it won five Oscars. I can't say that I know why.

Maybe I saw Suspicion with a different ending than you did. I thought that it had an ambiguous ending rather than a happy ending. Or maybe it was the Hollywood ending on the surface and Hitchcock managed to trick the establishment.

Assistant village idiot: People here have spent a lot of time predicting the premise of Syriana. But is it actually predictable? In order to know that, someone would have to see the movie.

11:56 PM, December 06, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know, I would take this discussion a bit more seriously if film critics went to go see BRAINWASHING 201 and similar documentaries from a "right wing" point of view---and actually discussed the movie in terms of moviemaking.

(Again, the sound of crickets)

In another way, how many times have we seen film critics who detest a particular subgenre, like science fiction, and trash the film mercilessly (usually without having paid any attention to the movie in question)?

So the snide comments about not judging a film without seeing it fall a bit flat. We would all feel differently if the "intellectual" among us were fair handed in their approach to cinema.

My favorite part of the discussion above would be the sneers about popular movies. It is a sign of the seemingly paradoxical but extremely common academic sins of snobbish elitism coupled with insecurity.

Oh, and jealousy that someone made money from a film. Imagine!

Here is the awful truth: any movie made outside of a film school is intended to make money. And that means appealing to moviegoers, folks.

And guess what? The moviegoing public is just as polarized in terms of what they like as they are politically. Watch what happens to BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN at the boxoffice, if you don't believe me.

12:55 AM, December 07, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Anonymous 12:55: Whoever you are, you're setting up a lot of straw men. I don't plan to see "Brainwashing 201" because it doesn't interest me. No one I trust has recommended it. But at the same time, I didn't pan the movie or tear down its director. Fair is fair. I don't mind movies that I haven't seen.

What is snide is to rail against a movie that you haven't seen, just because you don't like an off-camera interview with the lead actor. It would be one thing if Clooney's acting were the real problem — I saw Solaris and I must admit that Clooney was only passable. But who cares about his interviews? Tom Cruise's interviews are absolutely terrible, but that doesn't keep me from enjoying Rain Man.

I having nothing against a movie being popular. The point is that I just don't care. Possibly my very favorite movie of this decade is The Incredibles, which did make a ton of money. But the money it made had nothing to do with why I liked it. I liked The Triplets of Belleville almost as much, and for similar reasons, even though it was U.S. box office non-entity. I am not a sheep who needs to follow a herd. If there are many other people at my watering hole, that's fine; if I'm the only one, that's fine too.

I am also not remotely jealous of other people making money. It's like knowing that other people have great sex or great children. Good for them, but it's not my business. I don't particularly admire or resent the rich, because there are good and bad ways to make money. The closest that I come to jealousy is that if someone makes money for good reasons and using skills like mine, then I might wonder if it could have been me. But that has nothing to do with movies, because I would never have made it in Hollywood.

The Incredibles, by the way, has an interesting libertarian message. Since it is also a great movie, I can only accept its point.

1:29 AM, December 07, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What you are sir, is both snobbish and a troll...and I am not the only person, anonymous or not, who has noticed your actions on various blogs. Our hostess brought up Scott Adams' "rules" for being an argumentative blogger, you might see how well they fit you.

You have your world, and welcome to it. Someone on this blog called you "contrarian," and I very much agree. Knock yourself out doing what you do. You fool no one.

2:28 AM, December 07, 2005  
Blogger EvilPundit said...

What gets to watch or not to watch a movie is the reviews of other people who saw it. Not just any people — I am not impressed by sheer popularity — but moviegoers who I can trust in some way.


And the people I trust are predominantly right-wing bloggers.

I won't be seeing any movies that include George Clooney in future. Nor am I interested in the latest Oliver Stone crap, or whatever George Lucas might come up with now that he's finished wrecking Star Wars.

I'd like to see Brainwashing 201, though. Sounds fresh and interesting.

5:08 AM, December 07, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll change the track a bit here: what I object to is folks like Clooney critisizing us all the way to the bank with our money. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

On the theory that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, I'd suggest Clooney and his fellow preachers try leading by example.

As for being afraid to speak out, what would we be subjected to from these people if they weren't afraid? And why is it that the evening news isn't running stories about instances of the Bushhitlerhaliburton minions breaking down their doors and muzzling them? It's hard not to laugh at such insincere claims.


7:28 AM, December 07, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...


Brainwashing 201 is terrific--you can see it at www.brain-terminal.com. It had me laughing as well as upset at all the nonsense going on at college campuses today. Of course, it is a documentary. I would love to see more libertarian or right-leaning movies out there--but as long as Hollywood types are in charge--that will be hard.

8:39 AM, December 07, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The great thing about the BRAINWASHING documentaries (though I have only seen the first version, not 201---not available to me yet) is that it allows everyday folks to *see* what goes on in academia every day.

Sunlight remains the best disinfectant, as the saying goes. Unless you believe that the Great Unwashed cannot understand the elevated discourse at colleges and universities.

But since the public helps support those institutions, I find that sentiment offensive. I want the public to see what is going on on campus.

And the fellow who did these documentaries---Evan Coyne Maloney, I think--- doesn't do them in a mean spirited Michael Moore fashion...but with a genuine sense of humor.

Since I live in an academic asylum, I may be prejudiced...but I would recommend looking up this fellow's website and checking out his documentary work.


Just my opinion, of course.

"Eric Blair"

9:12 AM, December 07, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I won't be seeking out Syriana until it hits the DVD rental counter -- and then I certainly won't be standing in line -- for one simple reason: it looks like convoluted dreck. Even though it's a bizarre distortion of the truth, I may have seen it if it looked like quality movie-making; part of watching a movie is suspension of disbelief, after all.

Clooney and Soderbergh did some very interesting work about politics on the short-lived HBO series K Street. Still, there were times when I felt as if Mary Matalin was the only Republican they has ever met. That seems to be the case with Clooney's work now: he has so isolated himself that people who don't hold his (obviously noble) beliefs are easily demonized. Personally, I don't put much stock into the words of a man who whines about his opinions being suppressed in America from his villa on the shore of Lake Como.

On the other hand, George Clooney is a decent actor and fabulous eye candy. If he continues to cling to the misconception that his appeal lies between his ears, it won't be long before no one in Hollywood will return his calls.

9:18 AM, December 07, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's as funny as Leonardo diCaprio [...] sounding off about greenhouse gases and global warming.

[...] Come to think of it, it is worse: we treat the parakeets as if their opinions are more important than rocket scientists'.

Actually, parakeets have a long and distinguished tradition of detecting dangerous gasses -- greenhouse or otherwise. Unlike actors who are more noted for generating undesirable gasses than detecting them.

10:30 AM, December 07, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ooh, I loved Suspicion.

I don't really care about an actor's politics. There are some actors who I disagree with intensely but who never fail to blow me away on screen. The problem I have with some is that they turn into very vocal activists -- for whichever cause -- and all I can see when I see them in a movie is their cause. It's distracting. They should believe in, and speak out for, any cause they want to. But I think an actor is more interesting in a role, not a cause.

10:37 AM, December 07, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

EvilPundit: And the people I trust are predominantly right-wing bloggers.

That's exactly correct: Right-wing bloggers mainly trust each other. It's called the echo chamber. It's just unusual to see the people in the echo chamber freely admit it. "Right-wing" is also an apt description. Much of the right-wing echo chamber likes to call itself libertarian, but that's just a pretense. The American federal government has substantially undermined libertarianism in the past few years. Its main policies could hardly be less libertarian, but they are in keeping with the fellow travellers of libertarianism that attracted most of the interest: nationalism and plutocracy.

Nor am I interested in the latest Oliver Stone crap, or whatever George Lucas might come up with now that he's finished wrecking Star Wars.

Shrug. I have never seen any Oliver Stone movie either, and with Star Wars I left off at the Empire Strikes Back.

I'd like to see Brainwashing 201, though. Sounds fresh and interesting.

If you think it sounds fresh and interesting, what do you expect it to say that Brainwashing 101 didn't already say?

11:24 AM, December 07, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Speaking of Suspicion, Cary Grant was himself under a cloud of suspicion at the time, because it looked to a lot of people like he had had a gay relationship with Randolph Scott. If enough of the public had believed this, then Grant too would have been "box office poison".

As I said, I haven't seen any Oliver Stone movie. I also haven't seen any Michael Moore movie. I don't know if I will see Syriana, although I am getting curious because so many people here seem to know all about it without having seen it. It is not that I am against political movies, though. I thought that Wag the Dog was amazing. It really did wag the dog: fact followed fiction with the both the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the war in Iraq. I would also like to see The Thin Blue Line.

11:33 AM, December 07, 2005  
Blogger Unknown said...

Nah. The mistake is in thinking that artists in general, actors in particular have anything to say that they haven't already said through the practice of their craft. If they haven't said it through their art, their art is that much the less.

The exception, of course, is writers. Words are their stock and trade. Haven't you noticed at the Academy Awards that the best acceptance speeches are always the writers?

11:47 AM, December 07, 2005  
Blogger . said...

Oh, gimmeafreakinbreakalready, "greg."

Do you not even read what you write? Are you truly that oblivious to the profound irony of projecting the same sort of narcissistic circular argument you accuse others of making? Do you fancy yourself some sort of "brave, independent thinking, true LIBERTARIAN (or PROGRESSIVE, or whatever), whose special polemical gifts allow you to rise above the rabble, cut through the crap and tell it like it REALLY is?

How proud Mom must be right now ...


11:53 AM, December 07, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear BN:

No, I think Our Greg is very aware of what he is doing. It is all about stirring people up and demonstrating control---"I can say thing 'A' and get people all upset..."

I guess that is fine. If sad.

12:32 PM, December 07, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So the last time a movie was made that critized left wing politics and 'progressive' ideals would be....

(sound of crickets)"

(crunch crackle crunch)

Ick! My shoes!

Bleah. Well, the last one I know of would be this -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041386/

1:05 PM, December 07, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


What disturbs me is the rampant stereotyping here. Women, men, liberals, artists. Why can't you criticize particular people and situations without turning it into some wholesale statement about a particular group of which that person may be a member? It's a logical fallacy and just plain silly.

1:11 PM, December 07, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is a weird perceptual principle at work here, I think. We tend to remember incidents that are well publicized as being of much greater impact---because in a way, they are---then quieter approaches.

Thus, a thoughtful film-maker concerned with presenting several sides of an issue sympathetically, demonstrating the complexities of real life, would not get much airplay pro or con. But film-makers who say outrageous things, or make extreme statements....why, they get all the press.

And thus, we see them.

I wish there was a more elegant way to express what I just wrote...but it remains true.

"Eric Blair"

3:08 PM, December 07, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Is Evan Coyne Maloney concerned with presenting several sides of an issue sympathetically?

4:22 PM, December 07, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, just about as willing to do so as CBS news, the New York Times, and so on.

Don't be a troll.

5:50 PM, December 07, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

seriously, would somebody please explain to me the definition of the word "troll" as used so regularly here?

6:12 PM, December 07, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Making contradictory or outrageous statements solely to get a response. Here is Scott Adams' view of internet commenting:


7:23 PM, December 07, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well thanks for the clarification. i don't think that's what greg does at all. he argues, and quite well i think. he's certainly not outrageous. seems some people don't like hearing the opposition. guess Barbara Streisand ain't alone.

7:54 PM, December 07, 2005  
Blogger AmericanWoman said...

I think Clooney is pushing his left wing view to sell his movie. He shows up making political statements (and attacking Bill O'Reilly) whenever he has a movie opening.

Nothing new here. Just an actor using the press for publicity.

8:19 PM, December 07, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Anonymous 7:54 PM...

Your mileage may vary. But my reading of GK's entries in this and in other blogs (look around and see his style) shows that he takes up contrary and inconsistent views, issues "fishhook" comments rife with snarkiness and a lack of self-criticism, all with the goal (I think) of stirring the pot. That is a classic definition of a troll, of course (like The Argument Room in Monty Python sketches).

I have seen spirited debate in these comments between people who do not agree...but yet, at the same time, treat one another with respect and even humor. Heck, even your comment to me is an example of a useful interchange that made me think.

GK's arrogant and superior tone grates. He criticizes for the same of criticism.

But as I say, your mileage may vary. GK may be just the kind of commenter you prefer to make you think. And that is what is great about a diverse society: one size doesn't fit all, metaphorically speaking.

11:22 PM, December 07, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmm - well I don't have the time to wade through the entire long commenting good and bad...

I will say this - I have never cared for George Clooney - either before or after he started talking politics. (I like him way less now because of his big mouth- but that doesn't change the fact that I could never willingly sit through any of his movies)

I see Cary Grant's name mentioned often - He is one of my favorite actors ever - I have no wish to know about his private life or politics... But his acting was once described as Cary Grant being himself in every movie he made. I think whoever said this was right - the thing is that Cary could really pull it off - he was excellent at it!

George Clooney also plays himself in every movie... unfortunately, he can't pull it off. I can't connect with him regardless of the role he is doing. Therefore I no longer waste my time with his movies... I've never seen him in a television show. (I have seen enough of his performances in several movies to conclude this to my satisfaction)

The real problem with the Hollywood star system is... as has been pointed out... the absolute adoration for every utterance from these beings. They certainly have a right to their opinion... the amazing thing is how everyone hangs on each and every thing they say or do.

For instance - one of the Desperate Housewives is from the Boston area... (I do enjoy the show so it's not about her) she came to town for Thanksgiving with her family... the news people were all over her - like the second coming! It was almost ludicrous. She seems like a nice woman and she kindly answered reporters questions when I'm sure she would have liked to move on to her family stuff. I got a big laugh out of it - but it's a sobering thought that so many people think that this is real news!

Last of all - I should note that I love Robert Redford's acting - but loathe his politics... great actors can overcome the liability of spouting opinions I disagree with - good actors can sometimes overcome this...George Clooney is not good enough.

12:00 AM, December 08, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

George Clooney is an actor?!

6:25 AM, December 08, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Like the Lina Lamont character (Jean Hagen; "Singin' in the Rain", 1952), celebrities believe their own publicity and are unable to distinguish hype from news. There is no one around them who will tell them that they are not as brilliant, informed, or courageous as the characters they portray.

6:05 PM, December 08, 2005  
Blogger Assistant Village Idiot said...

I don't know greg's writing on other blogs. I don't have a particular objection to what he writes here. I disagree with it, and think he sometimes overcredits his objectivity, but I'm not on solid ground criticizing that. The set of people as objective as they think they are is fairly small.

Greg, the distinction is perhaps too subtle for blog-comment length discussion. There is a continuum of political advocacy in Hollywood that seldom extends rightward. But some of what skews leftward is not necessarily unfair. For me the difference is the fairly obvious intent of the movie. Telling a story which has liberal implications is artistically honest. Agit-prop is not. The interviews with actors and directors may or may not be germane in identifying this. With Clooney, he confirms my suspicion. The premise of Syriania suggests the intent is primarily political, secondarily story or character. But hey, I've been wrong before about those things, and that alone wouldn't push me away. But coming on the heels of his hypocritically McCarthyite movie about McCarthyism, combined with his public statements, it confirms my suspicion. I could still turn out to be wrong about the movie. It might be a subtle, complex, evenhanded treatment. But I am no longer willing to bet my entertainment money that way in the face of three votes otherwise.

Full disclosure: I'm writing crap, really. I never go to movies anyway, and don't have a TV or VCR.

9:28 PM, December 08, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The new politics of hollywood a nest of vipers all the way and GEORGE CLOONEY could poinson a cobra with just his appearnece

10:01 AM, December 09, 2005  
Blogger woods said...

Bill Gerber, the producer of The Dukes of Hazard, got the idea to make the film in response to 9/11...

"You know, I think it's time for a real ass-kicking, Smokey and the Bandit-type movie that's about two guys who defend their family and their town and they stand for something."


Of course, he's opposed to defending his country, democracy, and the Free World. And, by the way, he hates the War on Terror, President Bush and all things right of center. Loves Hilary Clinton... A chicken in every pot and a Clinton in every office...

I know him. It's true.

9:52 PM, December 13, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


12:07 PM, February 22, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


5:13 AM, March 14, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


11:21 PM, March 14, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

本土成人貼圖站大台灣情色網台灣男人幫論壇A圖網嘟嘟成人電影網火辣春夢貼圖網情色貼圖俱樂部台灣成人電影絲襪美腿樂園18美女貼圖區柔情聊天網707網愛聊天室聯盟台北69色情貼圖區38女孩情色網台灣映像館波波成人情色網站美女成人貼圖區無碼貼圖力量色妹妹性愛貼圖區日本女優貼圖網日本美少女貼圖區亞洲風暴情色貼圖網哈啦聊天室美少女自拍貼圖辣妹成人情色網台北女孩情色網辣手貼圖情色網AV無碼女優影片男女情色寫真貼圖a片天使俱樂部萍水相逢遊戲區平水相逢遊戲區免費視訊交友90739免費視訊聊天辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網080視訊聊天室日本美女肛交美女工廠貼圖區百分百貼圖區亞洲成人電影情色網台灣本土自拍貼圖網麻辣貼圖情色網好色客成人圖片貼圖區711成人AV貼圖區台灣美女貼圖區筱萱成人論壇咪咪情色貼圖區momokoko同學會視訊kk272視訊情色文學小站成人情色貼圖區嘟嘟成人網嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區免費色情a片下載台灣情色論壇成人影片分享免費視訊聊天區微風 成人 論壇kiss文學區taiwankiss文學區

6:17 AM, March 22, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

2008真情寫真aa片免費看捷克論壇微風論壇大眾論壇plus論壇080視訊聊天室情色視訊交友90739美女交友-成人聊天室色情小說做愛成人圖片區豆豆色情聊天室080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網台中情人聊天室桃園星願聊天室高雄網友聊天室新中台灣聊天室中部網友聊天室嘉義之光聊天室基隆海岸聊天室中壢網友聊天室南台灣聊天室南部聊坊聊天室台南不夜城聊天室南部網友聊天室屏東網友聊天室台南網友聊天室屏東聊坊聊天室雲林網友聊天室大學生BBS聊天室網路學院聊天室屏東夜語聊天室孤男寡女聊天室一網情深聊天室心靈饗宴聊天室流星花園聊天室食色男女色情聊天室真愛宣言交友聊天室情人皇朝聊天室上班族成人聊天室上班族f1影音視訊聊天室哈雷視訊聊天室080影音視訊聊天室38不夜城聊天室援交聊天室080080哈啦聊天室台北已婚聊天室已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室520情色聊天室QQ成人交友聊天室免費視訊網愛聊天室愛情公寓免費聊天室拉子性愛聊天室柔情網友聊天室哈啦影音交友網哈啦影音視訊聊天室櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集123上班族聊天室尋夢園上班族聊天室成人聊天室上班族080上班族聊天室6k聊天室粉紅豆豆聊天室080豆豆聊天網新豆豆聊天室080聊天室免費音樂試聽流行音樂試聽免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看色情貼影片免費a長片

6:17 AM, March 22, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

85cc免費影城 愛情公寓正妹牆川藏第一美女 成人影片 情色交友網 美女視訊 美女視訊 視訊情人高雄網 JP成人影城 383成人影城 aa片免費a片下載 a片線上看aa片免費看 ※a片線上試看※sex520免費影片※ aa片免費看 BT成人論壇 金瓶影片交流區 自拍美女聊天室 aa片免費a片下載 SEX520免費影片 免費a片 日本美女寫真集 sex520aa免費影片 sex520aa免費影片 BT成人網 Hotsee免費視訊交友 百分百貼影片區 SEX520免費影片 免費視訊聊天室 情人視訊高雄網 星光情色討論版 正妹牆 383成人影城 線上85cc免費影城 85cc免費影城 85cc免費影城 85cc免費影城 ※免費視訊聊天室※ ※免費視訊聊天室※ 免費視訊聊天室 85cc免費影片 85cc免費影片 080苗栗人聊天室 080苗栗人聊天室 080中部人聊天室 080中部人聊天室 免費a片下載 免費a片 AA片免費看 aa片免費看 aa片免費看 aa片免費看 aa片免費看 日本av女優影片 av女優 av女優無碼影城 av女優 av女優 百分百成人圖片 百分百成人圖片 視訊情人高雄網 電話交友 影音電話交友 絕色影城 絕色影城 夜未眠成人影城 夜未眠成人影城 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 免費色咪咪貼影片 免費色咪咪貼影片 色情遊戲 色情遊戲 色情遊戲 色情遊戲 影音視訊交友網 視訊交友網 080視訊聊天室 ※免費視訊聊天室※ ※免費視訊聊天室※ 視訊聊天室 成人影音視訊聊天室 ut影音視訊聊天室 ※免費視訊聊天室※ 視訊ukiss聊天室視訊ukiss聊天室 視訊交友90739 視訊交友90739 情人視訊網 168視訊美女 168視訊美女 168視訊美女 視訊美女館 視訊美女館 免費視訊美女網 小高聊天室 小高聊天室 aio交友聊天室 aio交友聊天室 交友聊天室 交友聊天室 線上a片 線上a片 線上a片 線上a片 線上a片 免費線上a片 免費線上a片 嘟嘟成人網站 成人漫畫 情色文學 嘟嘟成人網 成人貼圖區 情色文學成人小說 微風成人區 情色貼圖區 免費視訊聊天 免費成人圖片區 愛情公寓 愛情公寓聊天室 寄情築園小遊戲 免費aa片線上看 aa片免費看 情色SXE聊天室 SEX情色遊戲 色情A片 免費下載 av女優 俱樂部 情色論壇 辣妹視訊 情色貼圖網 免費色情 聊天室 情人視訊聊天室 免費a片成人影城 免費a片-aa片免費看 0204貼圖區 SEX情色 交友聊天-線上免費 女優天堂 成人交友網 成人情色貼圖區 18禁 -女優王國 080視訊美女聊天室 080視訊聊天室 視訊交友90739 免費a片 aio 視訊交友網 成人影城-免費a片※免費視訊聊天※85cc免費影片日本線上免費a片 免費色咪咪影片免費色咪咪影片aaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看成人影城免費色咪咪影片

12:55 PM, April 05, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"免費視訊美女520sexy girl
免費線上 aa 片試看85CC
情色18 禁sex520免費a長片
視訊辣妹girl5320 貼片貼圖區
本土自拍影片qq 美美色網漫畫
小護士免費 aa 片試看
雪之深戀 080聊天網水之浪漫
高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片
aa 片試看免費卡通
dudu sex免費 aa 片試看

4:40 AM, April 09, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

免費av成人 情色
視訊美女 寫真
我愛78論壇情色情趣 商品
sexy diamond sex888入口
成人免費視訊 完美女人
tw33 影片交流
18 禁亞洲名模瘋情
hi5 tv免費影片sex貼片網
domain hilive.tv限制級

4:40 AM, April 09, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

85cc免費影城aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片aaa免費看影片aaaaa片俱樂部影片免費 a 片85cc免費影片aa影片下載城微風成人av論壇免費a片aaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片小魔女免費影片免費視訊聊天 a片免費看a 免費影片觀賞免費視訊聊天室微風成人85cc免費影片85cc成人影城免費成人視訊亞洲禁果影城aa的滿18歲影片A片-sex女優王國aaaaa片俱樂部免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看A片-sex女優王國情色偷拍免費A片免費A片免費看 aa的滿18歲影片aaa影片下載城日本免費視訊av俱樂部後宮0204movie免費影片免費 a 片ut聊天室辣妹視訊情色美女視訊聊天室免費卡通影片線上觀看 ut交友成人視訊免費A片av1688影音視訊天堂aaa的滿18歲卡通影片s383情色大網咖視訊美女館aaaa 片俱樂部免費a片卡通aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片 杜蕾斯成人UT影音視訊聊天室 免費視訊78論壇免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片aa影片下載城色漫畫帝國kk777視訊俱樂部美女視訊5278論壇ut聊天室aio交友愛情館免費視訊聊天成人a圖片區小說頻道彩虹頻道免費影片jp成人小魔女免費影城免費 aa 片試看情色文學A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道亞洲東洋影片gay片免費下載卡通aa片免費看成人影片分享小魔女免費影片視訊高雄情人聊天室34c卡通美女a片免費試看av免費影片,視訊聊天go2av免費影片情色 網站sex女優王國高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片plus論壇080情人網免費av影片免費a片卡通浪漫月光論壇免費aa片avdvd無碼影音視訊交友 免費視訊辣妹情人視訊網免費視訊辣妹 免費視訊78論壇台灣kiss情色貼圖區sex免費看影片彩虹論壇免費視訊聊天室 咆哮小老鼠分享論壇月宮貼圖色妹妹嘟嘟情人色網日本美女寫真集,kk視訊成人情色 視訊21sexsexy辣妹視訊百分百成人情色圖片ut辣妹哈啦視訊聊天室 素人自拍免費影片線上觀賞論壇男人的最愛中國性愛城avdvd無碼aaa免費看影片bt電影下載,免費成人片免費a片卡通dudu sex

4:40 AM, April 09, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


1:58 AM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger Unknown said...

外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇

外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇

外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇

外遇 外遇

外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿喜帖囍帖卡片外遇外遇 外遇 外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇剖析 外遇調查 外遇案例 外遇諮詢 偷情 第三者外遇話題 外遇發洩 感情挽回 徵信社 外遇心態 外遇 通姦 通姦罪 外遇徵信社徵信社外遇 外遇 抓姦徵信協會徵信公司 包二奶 徵信社 徵信 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信 徵信 婚姻 婚前徵信 前科 個人資料 外遇 第三者 徵信社 偵探社 抓姦 偵探社 偵探社婚 偵探社 偵探社偵探家事服務家事服務家電維修家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務持久持久持久持久持久持久持久離婚網頁設計徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社外遇離婚協議書劈腿持久持久持久持久持久劈腿剖析徵信徵信社外遇外遇外遇外遇徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信公會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信公會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿

11:22 PM, April 19, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道視訊聊天室免費視訊聊天室微風成人成人聊天室-情色視訊ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂免費 a 片85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片aio交友愛情館免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費A片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520視訊做愛聊天室plus論壇sex520免費影片avdvd-情色網qq美美色網ut13077視訊聊天sex383線上娛樂場sex888sex520免費影片sex999免費影片情色貼圖情色視訊sexaaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費影片 - aa的滿18歲影片線上免費a片觀看sex520免費影片85cc免費影片免費 a 片免費A片aa影片下載城ut聊天室-視訊日本免費視訊aaaaa片俱樂部aaaa 片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片aa免費看aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片jp成人5278論壇 sex888影片分享區情色偷拍免費A片sex520免費影片後宮0204movie免費影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費a片卡通sex888影片分享區aaa的滿18歲卡通影片

12:39 PM, April 29, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

激情網愛聊天 激情網愛 伊利討論區 亞洲情色視訊交友 亞洲成人圖片區 伊莉論壇 一夜情聊天室 浪漫月光論壇 一葉情貼圖片區 正妹牆-校園版 水都情色論壇 洪爺色情電影 波波情色貼圖 洪爺 影城 櫻桃不夜城 歐美 a片 歐美模特兒寫真 東東成人論壇 楓之谷小遊戲 曼雪兒 免費小說 星光情色討論版 本土自拍網 日本a片 搜樂論壇 新6k聊天室 日本美女寫真集 日本av女優色色網 成人影城 成人交友 成人微風論壇 成人哈啦聊天室 成人卡通影片 成人視訊交友聊天 成人電影下載 成人免費視訊聊天 成人貼圖站 成人聊天網 成人網站- 嘟嘟情人色網 情人視訊聊天室 情人影音視訊網 情人視訊高雄網 情色交友網 情色小遊戲 情色交友聊天小站 情色視訊聊天 情色電影院 情色網 情色自拍 情色貼圖區 情色 後宮電影院 後宮成人影城 微風成人區 微風成人短片區 影音Live秀 彩虹hi視訊交友網 影音視訊聊天室 巨乳辣妹寫真視訊 平水相逢遊戲區 小魔女自拍天堂 小魔女影片交流 小弟弟貼影片 小潘潘寫真圖片 小弟弟貼影片區 小魔女免費影片 小高 聊天室 小莉影像館 小高深情聊天室 寄情築園小遊戲 尋夢園聊天室 小瓢蟲情色論壇 尋夢園聊天室聯盟 女優成人情色網 女優報報 女人色色網 大奶美女視訊 天堂情色網 天下第一色站 夢幻家族聊天室 失敗論壇 土豆網 - 影片下載 嘟嘟情人色網 壞朋友論壇fliendo 嘟嘟情人色網影片 嘟嘟成年人網 哈啦聊天室 嗡嗡嗡論壇 嘟嘟 貼圖區 嘟嘟影城 咆哮小老鼠分享論壇 台灣成人貼圖 台灣美女寫真貼圖區 台灣原住民聊天室 台灣論壇 台灣kiss 台灣kiss文學區 原住民聊天室-視訊網 台灣a片王 原住民聊天室 八國成人情色網 卡通a片 免費曼雪兒小說 免費檳榔西施摸奶影片 免費情色電影分享區 免費影音視訊聊天 免費貼圖區 免費辣妹視訊聊天網 免費辣妺視訊 免費視訊美女網 免費視訊聊天室入口 免費視訊辣妹脫衣秀 免費視訊聊天 免費視訊聊天室 免費視訊成人聊天室 免費色咪咪影片網 免費線上a片 免費a片欣賞 免費av18禁影片 免費a片 偷窺大本營 yymp3 音樂網站 watchshow情色視訊聊天室 t聊天聯盟 taiwankiss文學區 sex女優王國 sex999 免費影片 sex888免費影片城 s383情色大網咖 QQ美美色網 kiss影音視訊聊天室 JP成人影城 jojo 漫畫連載 hilive tv免費電影 fhm男人幫 Hotsee 免費視訊 聊天室 friendster交友社群部落 辣妹視訊秀 豆豆聊天室 麗的免費情色遊戲 貓貓論壇 視訊ukiss聊天室 視訊交友90739 視訊交友 視訊聊天 視訊聊天交友 視訊聊天室 視訊美女34c 電話交友 色情遊戲 色色網 色美媚部落格 都會男女視訊聊天室 自拍美女聊天室 金瓶影片交流區 聊天室080 美女視訊聊天 美女交友聊天室 線上免費a片 線上a片 網路交友聊天室 絕色成人影城 百分百貼影片區 童顏巨乳美女圖片 男人幫論壇 癡漢論壇 甜心寶貝貼影區 無名 正妹牆 熊貓情色貼圖 熊貓貼圖區 BT成人論壇 av女優報報 av博物館 aio男女交友愛情館 aio交友戀愛館 aa免費看 aa的滿18歲影片 aaaa片俱樂部 a383成人影城 85cc免費影片 6k聊天館 18成人dvd 383成人論壇 4u成人論壇 18成人av影城 3a情色網 18禁小遊戲 080原住民聊天室 080聊天室 080視訊聊天室 080中部人聊天室 0401影音視訊聊天室 080 聊天室 6k 0204貼圖區 0204movie - 18成人影城 007色色網kk777視訊俱樂部正妹視訊ggoo

8:54 AM, May 05, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................

10:08 PM, May 19, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

aa影片下載城日本情色 視訊視訊交友90739免費視訊情人辣妹av969 免費短片免費色咪咪影片網 a片美女視訊視訊情色網a片免費看夢幻家族影音視訊聊天室嘟嘟情人色網影片土豆網韓劇播放性愛姿勢 sogo 色論壇美眉共和國美女視訊色美眉部落格男同志聊天室免費成人情色愛情公寓aaa片免費看影片sex movie日本美女寫真集情色a片情色交友色情遊戲aio交友愛情館sex999免費影片伊莉成人視訊交友歐美潮吹短片線上a片85cc免費影城

2:43 AM, June 07, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home