Thursday, March 02, 2006

Critical Thinking still Prevails

In a recent excellent post by Jane Galt, she wonders if the left is out of ideas:

The left used to have a Big Idea: The free market doesn't work, so the government will fix it. The social democrats disagreed with the Socialists and the Scoop Jackson democrats about how much fixing was necessary, but they all agreed on a basic premise, and could sell that simple message to the public. Then, after fifty years or so, people noticed that the government didn't seem to work any better than the free market . . . worse, actually, in a lot of cases . . . and it was awfully expensive and surly. Conservatives stepped in with their Big Idea: the government screws things up, so let's leave more stuff up to individuals, which, if nothing else, will be a lot cheaper. Obviously, liberals disagree with this . . . but they have not come up with a Big, Easily Sellable, Idea With Obvious Policy Prescriptions to replace it. Some of them have just kept repeating the old Big Idea, which it seems to me that fewer and fewer people believe, as the US continues to pull ahead of its economic peers. Others have focused on coming up with lots of little ideas . . . but those take up too much time and energy to attract voters. Gore tried to whang up anger against pharmaceutical companies, and Kerry tried to stoke anger against Bush, as replacement. But in politics, there's just no replacement for the Big Idea.

Sometimes, when I lament to myself about the lack of critical thinking skills that go on in our educational system, I remember that in the United States, ideas still prevail when it comes to choosing our political systems.


Blogger Dave said...

" I remember that in the United States, ideas still prevail when it comes to choosing our political systems."

I don't think it follows from Jane's argument that the dominant political party, the Republicans, necessarily has ideas. Their platform is just less incoherent and inconsistent, and less fraught with internecine battles, than the Deomcrats'.

To assert that Republican politicians have a lock on critical thinking is to give politicians a degree of intellectual respect they most assuredly do not deserve. If power-hungry people really were so smart as some think politicians are, then surely those who are currently politicians would be doing something else with their lives, such as founding businesses, doing original research, creating wealth, etc., etc., etc.

8:54 AM, March 02, 2006  
Blogger ronin1516 said...

I have always wondered this - when it comes to having critical thinking skills, big ideas, etc, - why is it, that the Left( democratic Party) hasnt yet figured out that Islamic extremist terrorism, and extremist islamic ideology is a danger, not only to the USA, but to the entire civilised world? And that this menace has to be fought and defeated? Why do we seeLeftists still playing the game of identity politics, when they know that Islamic ideology is hell bent on destroying everything that leftists hold valueable?
Lack of critical thinking, maybe? Or are Leftists so blinded by their self-hatred or hatred of the USA, that they cant see the big picture? What kind of fantasy-land are they living in?

9:38 AM, March 02, 2006  
Blogger pst314 said...

"why is it, that the Left...hasnt yet figured out that Islamic extremist terrorism, and extremist islamic ideology is a danger, not only to the USA, but to the entire civilised world?"

In my experience they used to know this, but have "forgotten" it because they regard conservatism and classical liberalism as far greater threats to their idea of civilization. In their minds Bush and Rove are virtually slavering in anticipation of the day when they will stone all the sodomites, reenslave all the blacks, and send the women back to the kitchen (barefoot of course.)

It is, of course, also true that the left's thinking processes have been crippled by a fog of multi-culti relativism which interferes with their ability to distinguish between criticism and terrorism, but they are just as able to change their minds now as they were in the days of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. How ironic that a philosophical tool intended to sabotage the society the left hated now interferes with the left's ability to recognize a true enemy.

10:32 AM, March 02, 2006  
Anonymous cubanbob said...

Big ideas are usually bad ideas. leave well enough alone.

11:57 AM, March 02, 2006  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Conservatives stepped in with their Big Idea: the government screws things up.

Yes, they have proved it beyond all doubt. Now it's time for something new.

cubanbob is right.

12:13 PM, March 02, 2006  
Anonymous Nick (South Africa) said...

I think Critical Thinking should be a subject itself in schools. Qualifying in critical thinking to my mind should be a core skill, as essential as are numaracy and literacy. It should be formalised as a pre-requisite to study to at advanced level, most subjects, including law and science - both the hard and soft sciences.

It's all well and good knowing the Periodic Table off rote, being able to regurgitate from memory UVAST, formula rattle off the capitals of the World. However without critical thinking - including a full, internalised understanding of scientific thinking, scientific method, and the value of scepticism (often confused for cynicism), our minds and our intelligence is as bull in a china shop.

Any educated person should know the basics, including - the range of logical fallacies - all should know be able to identify a non sequitur from using an argument-ad-baculum, how to take an iffy argument apart using reductio-ad-bsurdum as a technique. The Carl Sagan 'Baloney Detection Kit' should be second nature, Karl Popper's falsification should spring immediately to mind when Intelligent Design is compared to Darwinism. This and more should be at the Critical Thinker's fingertips - including The Socratic Method, Occam’s Razor, knowledge of the different types of bias, the difference between science and pseudoscience, the skill of reasoning etcetera.

Most successful human endeavours operate on a corrective feedback loop - including businesses, all the hard and soft sciences and hell ….even child rearing and successful social interaction; indeed, democracy itself is a feedback loop system. This is largely what makes it better than systems where the corrective feedback loop is stymied – such as dictatorships, theocracies and other authoritarian systems. Better critical thinking skills generally will pay dividends in giving us better government, faster technological improvement, it will increase the quality of civil discourse. It has to be a good thing!

I suspect Critical Thinking is not part of core school subjects largely because some would see it as dangerous and resist it – look at the palaver in the US over the teaching of Darwinian evolution - something completely un-contentious in the scientific community. Critical Thinking studies I suspect, would stir up much greater controversy than Darwinism in the faith based community, as critical thinking tends to lead to the rejection of supernaturalism and thus towards atheism, even more so than Darwin's seismic 1859 work 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'. To wit, the vast majority of scientists, US
scientists are atheist
, especially pronounced in top scientists. A trend that is increasing. It’s probably higher elsewhere as the US population is perhaps more religious than that in any other developed country.

An interesting topic, well worthy of debate.

12:48 PM, March 02, 2006  
Blogger Dave said...

Nick--your comment summarizes pretty well why I can't take seriously the idea that the Republicans here in the States have any claim on critical thinking.

12:57 PM, March 02, 2006  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...


Yeah, really. No one invested in critical thinking could have swallowed a line like, "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."

Critical thinkers still have another three years to ponder this one: "We're committed to the goal of a unified Iraq, with democratic institutions of which members of all ethnic and religious groups are treated with dignity and respect."

1:28 PM, March 02, 2006  
Anonymous cassandra said...

"..I think Critical Thinking should be a subject itself in schools. Qualifying in critical thinking to my mind should be a core skill, as essential as are numaracy and literacy.."

I don't know why you think it isn't? You must not be paying attention. All the bright lights in eduworld claim to teach "critical thinking" now. It was even enshrined in my state's "quality of education" statute as the primary goal of public education. I think it should be found void for vagueness.

What does it mean, exactly? Don't believe everything you hear? Question authority? If it ever had any meaning, it's been drained away by education progressivists. And they still don't know how to teach *critical thinking* to children. Obviously some fringe types think it means teach children to distrust their government, hate their country, and feel guilty for being white.

I agree that basics of deductive logic should be required..but what good is it with faulty premises, which is where 90% of people go wrong? People need to know *facts*, the one thing our schools do NOT want to teach because they're "boring."

I call BS. We need a good subject-matter "based *core* curriculum in all our schools, and the rest will follow.

Sorry if that was a little too much *critical thinking* on my part.

1:35 PM, March 02, 2006  
Blogger ronin1516 said...

Historically, Iraq was never a "true" country - it was artificially put together by the Brits. Like they created, artificially, the 2 countries of India and Pakistan. The Indo-Pak situation has sort of worked, but, given the differing interestes of the main ethnic/religious groups in Iraq, and the animosity that has been generated over time(especially during Saddam's reign), I wonder if they will ever be able to reconcile their differences. Plus, the crazy, violent actions of the Wahabbi-inspired Islamofascists arent helping the situation any.
And our home-grown liberal-leftist self-haters arent helping the situation either. pst314 describes it right.
Of course, we have Greg blathering on as usual.

1:37 PM, March 02, 2006  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

ronin1516: Given the differing interestes of the main ethnic/religious groups in Iraq, and the animosity that has been generated over time (especially during Saddam's reign), I wonder if they will ever be able to reconcile their differences.

If this is true, why commit America to the impossible?

2:02 PM, March 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Because, Greg, it gives you something to kvetch about.

It's all about you and your massive all knowing intellect.

2:19 PM, March 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could we minimize that sort of stuff, 2:19? Like someone else wrote, Greg Kuperberg has his drum to beat.

So do we all.

If we want folks to respectfully listen to us, we should do the same for others.

4:10 PM, March 02, 2006  
Blogger dadvocate said...

unless you're the kind of emotional toddler who wants to take other people's things away just because you can't have them.

I have to wonder how many liberals fall into this category. Many of the ones I know do. During a recent mayoral election I asked some liberals why they opposed a certain candidate. The first words out of their mouths were, "He's rich."

He was rich because he and his father successfully started and ran a large business. Seems to me that a person with good business skills might make a good mayor, rich or not.

I also find it ironic that so many liberals hate the people that many Americans aspire to become, the rich. Of course, if your name is Kennedy or Kerry you're exempt from this hatred.

It's also interesting that many of the least generous states in terms of charitable giving are the most liberal. Kerry and Kennedy's home state, Massachusetts, is 49th out of 50.

9:34 PM, March 02, 2006  
Blogger ronin1516 said...

if he hadnt had the name Kennedy, Sen Ted Kennedy would probably living in Mass, and reporting to his probation officer for weekly sobriety tests!!! After having served about 20 years in jail. But, dont you know, his last name and contacts in Mass got him a get-out-of-jail-free card, and now, he has the gall to lecture us all about right and wrong? And of course libs and leftists will try to convince us that the i ncident with in Chappaquidick never happened, or if it did, it was the late Mary-Jo's fult!!!!

9:50 PM, March 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nick's right that critical thinking should be an independent subject in our (US) schools - it is taught here but, at least in my experience, in other classes (english and social studies classes when I was in high school). But you should have stopped there Nick.

As to the "most US scientists are atheists" statement", I don't need my baloney detector to say that's baloney - let's see some stats or something (the sentence looks like a link, but it doesn't work). I'll bet not even a plurality of scientists in this country, top or otherwise, are atheists. Ask Karl Popper: If you could falsify atheism could you still be an atheist?

Sorry for the drift. The left has been out of ideas for a long time, and when they did have ideas most of them were bad, with collectivist economic theory at the top of the list. At this point the core of the Democratic party seems to have surpassed even the looniest of the Clinton haters in their hatred of Bush II, and it'll be interesting to see how they react if (when, actually) Bush II is replaced by another Republican with a congressional majority. The Repubs are far from perfect, but at least they seem to understand that we want terrorists hunted down and killed, not arrested and prosecuted; that we're sick and tired of being told to be tolerant of cultures that execute homosexuals or make it a crime to educate girls or burn embassies over a freaking cartoon.

12:29 AM, March 03, 2006  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Whether scientists believe in God is an interesting question. There is more than definition of "scientist" of course, and you can get different answers depending on whether you take a narrow or broad definition.

Here are the results of a survey of a very narrowly chosen group: members of the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS are chosen by the federal government as the "advisers to the nation"; they are meant to be the most succesful scientists, like Nobel Laureates. So they are not a representative sample. The belief patterns in this group are totally different from the American average. According to the poll, 72% are atheist; another 21% are agnostic. That leaves only 7% who believe in God.

The same surveyers also chose a sample of scientists at random from "American Men of Science", with the conclusion that 39% believe in God. I don't know what kind of sample you get from "American Men of Science". (At some point they changed the name to "American Men and Women of Science".) I can say, qualitatively, that Christian belief is somewhat unusual among research mathematicians (which is my line of work). It's not quite unheard of. It's possible that a larger fraction of NAS mathematicians believe in Judaism than in Christianity.

1:12 AM, March 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A lot of Republican politicians have enacted socialist, collectivist, and statist policies, so one shouldn't exclusively beat up the left on that count. Granted, a lot of the rhetoric comes from the left but a lot of the actual spending and policies come almost just as often from the right.

1:30 AM, March 03, 2006  
Anonymous Nick (South Africa) said...

My interest was in Critical Thinking in education, not starting a debate theism. My point was that teaching Critical Thinking tends to result in atheim and that this may be why it’s taught sparsely.

I do stand by my point of lack of theistic belief in top scientists….

>I'll bet not even a plurality of scientists in this country, top or otherwise, are atheists<
I’m fairly convinced that you'd lose. The Nature study cited below suggests that belief in deities is an increasingly minority view in the scientific community, increacingly so since the first 1914 study of this.

Anecdotal evidence from well known scientists would it seems tend to support this. I’m thinking off the top of my head of Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, James Watson and Francis Crick, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking …the list goes on.

>let's see some stats or something (the sentence looks like a link, but it doesn't work). <
Sorry the link didn't work. Let me try again..Link

Also here is the link to copy and paste (Greg's link cites the same source – from a 1997 Nature magazine article).

>If you could falsify atheism could you still be an atheist?<
Atheism – defined as ‘being without belief in any deities’. That indeed is the point, atheism is falsifiable – that’s not really a very challenging thought experiment. Most superstitions are NOT falsifiable. That's one reason why 'Intelligent Design' does not cut it as a scientific theory, it isn't falsifiable – it’s religious dogma masquerading as science. Darwinian evolution is falsifiable, but thus far it hasn’t been…the evidence displays superb congruence with the theory, from the fossil record, DNA evidence, taxonomy, species distribution and so on…

If folks had better critical thinking skills the ID proponents – who seek to advocate that it be treated equitably with science, wouldn’t be given the time of day, and that’s rather the sort of point I was getting at apropos of Helen’s post.

2:50 AM, March 03, 2006  
Blogger Mercurior said...

as a british man, i know a bit about india and pakistan, the brits used to own all of india, until they wanted independence, which we said yes go on, have it, then due to the internal pressures they split their own country into pakistan and india. and look at all the troubles there since then.

thats as an aside, there will be no teaching of thinking, as thats i think its a threat to the policitical powers, if you think and are taught to think then you may not vote for the next leader for whichever party. they dont want people to say hang on, this is wrong look at all the anti war demonstrations.

critical thinking is a dying art, its all about feelings now in then political world its happening here in the UK as well.

6:25 AM, March 03, 2006  
Blogger Frank Borger said...

Mike Royko said it simply in one of his columns.

Let's list the things the US government does well.

1. Wage war.

As you can see, it is a very short list.

6:47 AM, March 03, 2006  
Anonymous Nick (South Africa) said...

>As you can see, it is a very short list.<
Indeed it is; and it immediately struck me as more of an insight into the mind of Frank Borger than on any failings in the US government!

8:13 AM, March 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Atheism – defined as ‘being without belief in any deities’."

Fair enough - our disagreement is about definitions. I would call someone without belief in any dieties who acknowledged that such a belief could be falsified an agnostic, an atheist being someone who actively believes as a matter of doctrine that there is no God. ( The Nature article appears to conflate the two.

More importantly, I question the survey given it's methodology (the article suggests that respondents could be identified) and the nature of the academic world in this country and probably most others, along with clear biases. Take a look at this paragraph from the Nature article:

"Leuba attributed the higher level of disbelief and doubt among "greater" scientists to their "superior knowledge, understanding, and experience"2. Similarly, Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins commented on our 1996 survey, "You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge.""

As a proponent of critical thinking, I can't believe this paragraph doesn't have every BS detector you own flashing. This survey is about as objective and accurate as an O'Reilly Factor poll.

An example from my own experience -I'm not an academic, but I am in a union and work under a union contract. The last contract we ratified was concessionary and somewhat controversial. In the years since it was ratified, I have come across less than ten co-workers (out of hundreds in my group, and thousands who voted on it)who admit they voted in favor of it. That contract passed by a three to one margin.

9:57 AM, March 03, 2006  
Anonymous dweeb said...

Back to the original posting question - the problem for the left is coming up with a new Big Idea that does not conflict with their former Big Idea, because our electoral system makes it very difficult for politicians to change course, which is a problem.
The voters don't reward politicians for acknowledging and correcting a mistake, thus creating a strong incentive for stubborn refusal to re-examine any decisions. There's a fine line between determined and bullheaded leadership.

11:47 AM, March 03, 2006  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

But that quote from Leuba is 70 years old. Larson and Witham don't see it the same way. At least Larry Witham doesn't. He is the author of a book that claims that "fewer and fewer" scientists are atheists.

Witham's claims about science are completely wrong, but he is at least honest enough to stand by the poll that he took with Edward Larson.

11:58 AM, March 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually the second one is from the 1996 survey. In any case, I think Nick is probably right given his definition - I just disagree with the definition. Whether the premise in the Nature article is correct or not, the "evidence" they present doesn't support it or any other position - it just represents the opinions of those who chose to respond. Hence the O'Reilly comparison.

Back to the left. Do they think they have no "Big, Easily Sellable, Idea With Obvious Policy Prescriptions"? I doubt it. Their trouble appears to be a self-reinforcing feedback loop. I see today that Time has published another article about a Gitmo prisoner being tortured (and yes, I consider Time, and most other media outlets part of the left). They, and the non-media leftists who will beat the drum on this, need to talk to people outside the media industry who can explain that telling the public that the Army/CIA is torturing terrorists does not harm the president politically (and that the public does believe they are terrorists). Nor does telling the public that the NSA is listening to phone calls to/from the middle east without a warrant. And a conservative in the media business can't help. I heard Tony Snow talking about how poorly the VP handled his shooting incident, without any explanation of why he thought so, or comprehension of the extreme damage David Gregory did to the credibility of the White House Press Corps.

12:58 PM, March 03, 2006  
Blogger A Jacksonian said...

Lets see, 25 years of the Dept. of Education and Johnny still can't read? Mind you this has been a problem since the mid-1950's and billions of dollars get poured into it.

As I pointed out, that is the problem. I do offer a solution that should be workable, amenable to the Constitution, satisfy those who worry over-much about religion and generally get the job done while enforcing accountability.

But to do that we have to get rid of the Dept. of Education since it does not have a goal of *solving* the problem, just making it a teensy-bit less bad while serving as a backdrop for politicos to claim they are doing something.

Dissolve it, block grant half of what was spent and performance adjust the payments. Let the states and schools figure it out, educate well, and get paid for accordingly. Do poorly and see your funding disappear slowly. If parents aren't willing to take an active role in helping to figure out how best to educate their children, then they can point *all* the fingers of blame at themselves.

Othewise it is buck-passing up to bureaucrats and *experts* who have zero interest in solving the problem and a large, large stake in keeping it going just as it is. Every generation since the late 50's chose buck passing, and Johnny *still* can't read.

How can that be with *so* many experts around?

7:28 AM, March 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Helen,

Since you are a critical thinker. Please tell me:

1) Why Saddam wasn't abominable when he gassed Kurds in the early eighties. Rumsfeld met him after that event as an envoy of the US and shook his hand. The US kept supplying him with weapons and material to make chemical weapons with. He was considered an ally of the US till 1991. Why did he suddenly become abominable in 2003?

2) Why Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are allies of the US against the war on terror and Iraq and Iran are enemies. The governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are responsible for most of the money / training / ideology of the 9/11 terrorists. The madrassas in Pakistan all run on Saudi money. Saudi Arabia has been funding Islamic terrorism all over the world for the last couple of decades. Bin Laden is a Saudi. 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were Saudi. etc.

3) There has been Islamic terrorism in countries like India and Russia for the last 20 years or so. Why did the US always try to play down terrorism back then. For instance, regarding Russia, all we ever heard from the US was concern about the human rights abuses against the Islamic population of Chechnya.

4) If what we saw in Abu Ghraib, and heard of in Gitmo, wasn't torture, then what was it? Is it OK if the US does the torturing, but not OK if "Saddam" does it?

5) After the US freed Al Sadr to do whatever he pleased, and he turned against the US (in Fallujah), the US went after him in just the typical way that Saddam would go after the people he oppressed. That is, with brute force. Why was it OK for the US to put down opposition with brute force, but not OK for Saddam to do the same?

Sorry I didn't mention Israel anywhere here. So you can't use the anti-semite card against me. I'm actually quite the philo-semite.

3:49 PM, March 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have one more (see previous post above).

6) Why did the US help aid the downfall of a democratically elected government in Iran and help to reinstate the Shah of Iran in the 1960s? (Yes, my dear critical thinkers, Iran used to have a democratically elected government, and the US helped to get the Shah back in power).

4:56 PM, March 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous:


I don't mind you pointing out hypocrisies. That is good, and makes for a healthy political system. What I mind is when you give a "free pass" to a politician you like for doing the same sorts of things you hate, or when you make equivalent very different events.

It seems to me that the gist of your argument is the very teenager/Kos/hardleft concept that you hate Daddy as personified by the United States government. Your tired arguments (forgive, I teach college freshman and these attitudes are sadly common, year after year) have all the hallmarks of teenage angst: relativism, emotionalism, and a persistent lack of factual information.

I'm not going to argue with you, point by point, but on one subject you make a simply despicable argument: equating the actions of Saddam Hussein to the actions at Abu Ghrab or Gitmo. If you had read anything at all about what Hussein had done, you would be so deeply ashamed you would would run away and never come back.

Oh, I don't expect you to agree. It all comes back to your psychological hatred of the system that gives you the freedom and wealth to curse it. I simply don't understand it.

If we are as awful as you say, why live here? If I hated my own country the way you so clearly do, I could not accept a cent of government money, and I would indeed emigrate to a country of which I could be proud.

Clearly, you are in the tertiary stages of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Honestly, I hope that the medication starts working for you soon. Equating anything at all done in Gitmo or Abu Ghrab to the actions of Hussein's butchers is either a sign of your utter ignorance, or a bizarre level of partisanship needing professional help.

7:36 PM, March 04, 2006  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Anonymous 7:36PM: the very teenager/Kos/hardleft concept that you hate Daddy as personified by the United States government.

But this is backwards! The posting at the top of this page says that it's the Big Idea of the conservatives that the government screws things up. So how it is now a "hard left" concept that the government should not be Daddy? Is it that conservatives agree with the hard left? If so, I'm happy to agree with both of them!

9:54 PM, March 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow! This person tells me to leave this country if I don't agree with his/her policies. Wow!

10:55 PM, March 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If you knew what Saddam had done, you would be so deeply ashamed you would would run away and never come back"

Bwahahahahaha... that's one of the funniest things I've ever read. Funny thing is that this other "anonymous" probably thinks he/she really knows how to make a legitimate argument.

10:58 PM, March 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And dude, I'm not exactly "equating" the two. I'm just asking, why is it OK for the US to torture, but not Saddam. Got an answer?

You're trying to bypass the issue by talking about the intensity of torture.

11:07 PM, March 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are such an ass, Kuperberg. As you know quite well on campus, the Left loves central planning and complete control by Those Who Know Better.

So when people who are NOT leftists are in control, the leftists scream and yell...just as they did as teenagers when Daddy insisted that they earn their allowance.

1:43 AM, March 05, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I could care less if jackasses like you relativists whine and carry on. You are the precise definition of Lenin's "useful fools." And that is fine.

What I objected to---and you know this perfectly well--are people who equate showing a bloody menstrual rag to a Muslim to removing fingers with tin snips. Both of those are specific examples of "torture" by both parties.

You are the folks calling them the same things.

It just amuses me no end that leftists like you SUPPORT regimes that would literally cut you into dogmeat. Funny, really.

1:46 AM, March 05, 2006  
Anonymous Hidden Academic said...

Hey, 1:46, chill out.

It's the usual Kossack stuff. Let 'em do their thing. Remember that Kuperberg talks a big line here, but doesn't ever speak out on the Davis campus about non-PC things. Think "fellow traveler." So he is just carrying on the party line. The other fella is just trying to get you upset. It worked, I see.

It's the usual bit: nasty-wasty US is just as bad (actually, they think worse) then any given foreign regime. And besides, our cultural imperialism or former foreign policy *made* them they way they are. They are not responsible for their own actions.

All the while, they will sip lattes, listen to protest music on their iPods, and ride titanium bicycles around.

Don't let it get you.

A *different* professor from Davis....

2:01 AM, March 05, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous 1:46 does have a point about the relativists, friends. Try reading:

Of course, the knee jerk lefties will claim first it is all lies, then they will claim that we "made" Hussein do all that (because, of course, he and his cronies are not responsible for their own actions...and, of course, the US is the source of all evil on earth).

Read the article. You can---and you should---reject any mistreatment of prisoners. But to attempt to make "waterboarding" or even kicking prisoners around the equivalent of genocide is....well....a sign of people who are blinded by their own hatred of the current administration.

And it minimizes and hides the true extent and horror of genocide, as Holocaust survivors have been telling us for decades.

And we who sit here in this country, fat and happy, well, it is easy for us to second guess generals and soldiers. Because we know so much better what they ought to do...from our current cushy, safe, and non-informed position.

Oh well.

3:15 AM, March 05, 2006  
Anonymous Nick (South Africa) said...

All these anonymous folks - it really is most confusing!

10:13 AM, March 05, 2006  
Anonymous dweeb said...

yes,well if they'd just pick a name and type it we culd keep them straight. All that verbiage and all those concepts and people apparently can't spare the typing to put in a pseudonym or can't figure out that if they don't use their own name, they're still anonymous.

10:13 PM, March 05, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In this case, it looked like a whole bunch of trolling followed by angry responses. Not much to comment upon, other than the fact that it fit the subject of the post: is there less critical thinking nowadays?

6:56 AM, March 06, 2006  
Anonymous Still Anonymous said...

On the other hand, I kinda liked whoever it was that claimed to be a prof at Davis. I wonder if he/she knows Kuperberg well?

I see the internet as a Walter Mitty gig. I can imagine some very quiet aquiescent folks who turn into Conan the Barbarian online.

Heck, maybe even me, like alone Our Greg.

7:11 AM, March 06, 2006  
Blogger Mr.. Wood said...

To Anonymous 11:07:

making people stand around naked with a bag on their head is a little different than slowing lowering people feet first into a big meat grinder so their families could listen to them scream...

Your moral equivilance excersize is tiring.

8:30 AM, March 06, 2006  
Blogger Mr.. Wood said...

and... the few soldiers that "tortured" the prisoners in Abu Graib have been prosecuted.

8:33 AM, March 06, 2006  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

SW: and... the few soldiers that "tortured" the prisoners in Abu Graib have been prosecuted.

The Bush Administration has promised and implied this many times, but it is not true. It is true that the most visible criminals among the soldiers at Abu Ghraib were prosecuted: Charles Graner, Lynndie England, and so on. However, the soldiers and CIA agents who committed the most serious crimes there have either not been prosecuted at all, or not effectively.

Here is a picture of Graner with the dead body of an Iraqi prisoner named Manadel al-Jamadi. His death was ruled a homicide by the Defense Department, but Graner didn't kill him. As Jane Meyer documented in the New Yorker, he was probably tortured to death during CIA interrogation. When he came to Abu Ghraib, he had been beaten by Navy SEALS; he had six broken ribs and he was bleeding from his face. Instead of receiving medical treatment, he was taken straight to questioning. He was hooded and left leaning from a wall with his arms pinned behind his back. He died in this position, probably from asphyxiation. Because he was hooded, Mark Swanner, the CIA agent who was interrogating him, thought that he was "playing possum". But when they removed his hood, he was dead.

Some of the Navy SEALS were prosecuted for murder of al-Jamadi, but they were acquitted. Their lawyers blamed the CIA. But Swanner has not been prosecuted.

Al-Jamadi is not the only case like this. The Pentagon has investigated dozens of homicides in Afghanistan and Iraq. But the most that any American has gotten in any of these cases is five months in jail, according to Human Rights First.

I am not going to compare this sorry record to Saddam Hussein. Hussein was incomparably worse, but that's not the point. The point is that the Bush Administration could and should have zero tolerance for torture. They imply that they do, but they are lying. They care more about the appearance of respectability than the real thing. Their lack of concern has done great damage to American interests. It could in the long run make the difference between winning and losing the war on terrorism.

11:09 AM, March 06, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's interesting. Every time a person like the previous commenter wants to be taken seriously, he or she will claim that his or her detractors have a point...but....

I honestly question whether a math professor---who perhaps should be spending more time on writing papers and supervising graduate students on university time, instead of discussing politics---actually is anything remotely resembling an authority on military jurisprudence.

Think I am unfair? How many folks in real jobs have been fired for using company computers for personal reasons?

Oh, right. I am criticizing a lack of credentials. But all of our mathematician-with-time-on-his-hand's references are from wikipedia, the New Yorker, and a magazine that appears to have a political axe to grind.

The man could be right, and tons of evil Americans are beating innocent people to death. But I am not convinced from the evidence.

The point that was being made earlier was the frankly put evil that allows someone to make equivalent what he is discussing to what Hussein and his henchmen did.

But I guess that depends on your definition of is. America is evil. Anyone else is good. End of discussion.

12:59 PM, March 06, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, 12:59....not nice!

I rambled over to the Davis website, and Professor Kuperberg only has one class to teach this semester in his department, and it isn't scheduled. So knock it off that he is "cheating" students out of his time.

That's sorta Horowitzian.

More speech, not less, is the answer. As I recall, Professor Kuperberg does not care for the group FIRE, but they certainly would defend his right to speak out as an academic (and they use the "more speech..." line quite often).

Let him talk. Lots of sources suck. Not just the ones you disagree with.

1:06 PM, March 06, 2006  
Anonymous Nick (South Africa) said...

I can see why Glen Reynolds doesn't bother with comments on Instapundit!

Having run a busy on-line forum for a around 3 yrs I decided early on to only allow comments by registered users and to insist that users register under their real names.

It's not perfect, but it definitely helps.

But I guess it depends what one’s goals are; clearly one of Helen’s prerogatives is feedback. Hardly surprising, given her profession.

To use a Brit-ism…It’s a bit of a bugger!

2:03 PM, March 06, 2006  
Blogger Mr.. Wood said...

Greg, it is called war, one side wins, one side looses, I'd rather be on the winning side. As soon as we start prosecuting our soldiers for killing the enemy we might as well give up. You don't know that other people (CIA) weren't punished for the treatment of dangerous, murderous terrorists and enemy combatants. Maybe they have. Maybe that guy had information regarding an impending attack that could save 100's of lives. Maybe he knew where the terrorist leadership was. *I* know we give medical support to injured enemy fighters as opposed to how they treat our soldiers they capture. What I am saying is it is easy to sit in our cushy offices and second guess and talk about how prisoners should be treated by soldiers with bullets, RPG's and IED's blowing up all around them. Prisoner of war treatment has varied throughout human history, but the treatment received by prisoners of war captured by the USA is better than most of these people receive by their own "military leaders". there are a FEW instances of maltreatment, but the norm is far from torture. Maybe our soldiers should solve the detainee problem by putting a bullet in the head of everyone they capture, that would still be more humane than how they treat our people.

11:14 AM, March 07, 2006  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

SW: Greg, it is called war, one side wins, one side looses, I'd rather be on the winning side. As soon as we start prosecuting our soldiers for killing the enemy we might as well give up.

But there is a difference between war and war crime. If an enemy soldier shoots at American soldiers and they shoot back and kill him, that's war. If American troops arrest an enemy soldier, or in this case a suspected enemy soldier, then an interrogator hoods him and strings him up until he stops breathing and dies, that's a crime. Even if the man really is an enemy soldier, or even a terrorist, it's still a crime and it's still wrong. Not only is it abstractly immoral, it's bad for America. It makes the war in Iraq, and the war on terrorism in general, go worse rather than better.

After all, the Pentagon already agreed that it was a crime to torture and kill Manadel al-Jamadi. They just didn't punish anyone for it yet, probably because they didn't put the worst offender on trial. In fact the Pentagon has already agreed that American troops have murdered dozens of people in Iraq and Afghanistan. But as the report said, the worst punishment so far has been five months in jail. You are right that I can't mathematically prove that that report is correct — that's an impossible standard. But neither the Pentagon nor the White House has said that it's wrong. All they do is grandly promise that they don't condone torture and that all crimes will be prosecuted. If some soldier or CIA agent really has been sentenced to more than five months for murdering detainees, it shouldn't be a secret. All they have to do is say who.

It's just simple critical thinking not to trust unproven government claims. After all, the Big Idea of the conservatives, supposedly, is that the government screws things up. Why wouldn't it screw up murder prosecutions in a war? Why wouldn't government apparatchiks scramble to cover their rears when their men commit deadly crimes? (Even friendly fire cases, like what happened to Pat Tillman.) But people here are taking it as a betrayal to doubt unproven government claims. I understand that Republicans used the war in Iraq to win in 2002 and 2004, but I don't think that critical thinking was their real case. Their real case was that we should be "optimistic" and loyal, and to hell with both critical thinking and limited government.

12:29 PM, March 07, 2006  
Blogger Mr.. Wood said...

A few isolated incidents is not a systemic problem. A relatively small number of prisoners receive relatively harsh treatment. The problem is that detractors of the war effort in Iraq paint with such a large brush that the public is left with the impression that ALL prisoners are tortured. Critical Thinking would look at the numbers and say that overall, our soldiers are doing a great job in a difficult situation and that the VAST MAJORITY of prisoners are treated extremely well considering the circumstances and compared to how our people are treated when captured by the enemy.

Yes, punish those that abuse prisoners, but don't indict the whole military because a very few get carried away.

11:02 AM, March 08, 2006  
Blogger Mr.. Wood said...

Greg Kuperberg said...
But people here are taking it as a betrayal to doubt unproven government claims.

What *I* take as betrayal is the Left's routine assumption that American Soldiers are the bad guy because of the actions of a very few bad apples. I take issue with the assertion that our soldiers are routinely torturing and killing prisoners, not that when proven, the punishment isn't harsh enough.

11:12 AM, March 08, 2006  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

SW: I am well aware that American troops treat most of their detainees pretty well by Middle Eastern standards. (I am less sure that they are treated well by American standards.) But at the beginning of this conversation, you said more than that. You said:

The few soldiers that "tortured" the prisoners in Abu Graib have been prosecuted

You could only have gotten that claim, directly or indirectly, from the Bush Administration itself. But the claim is not true. Now you swing from the strong and untrue claim that all torturers in the US operation are punished, to the correct but weak defense that the vast majority of the US Army treats detainees tolerably well. You also had scare quotes around the word "torture", as if it stretches the truth to call it torture at all. But the truth is that if a man stops breathing when he is hooded and strung up, that's unreconstructed torture, not some wobbly new definition.

Why is it so weak to argue that at least our soldiers treat detainees better than the enemy does? One reason is that they don't even know which detainees are the enemy. A lot of detainees have been released without any explanation of why they were ever arrested. If they keep an 11-year-old boy at Guantanamo for two years (as they in fact did), how can they tell his family, "Hey, at least we treated him better than terrorists treat us"? Maybe al-Jamadi was a terrorist; unfortunately he died before anyone at Abu Ghraib could find out. Again, no one has yet been punished at all for his murder, not just punished too little.

Anyway, no, I don't think of American soldiers as the bad guys. I think that most of them are making the best of an impossible mission in Iraq. I blame the people at the top, who committed the Army to squaring the circle, and who tell both the public and the soldiers themselves that doubt is betrayal. To be sure, even a logical mission has a few bad apples, but when the mission is unsound, that's when the bad apples are coddled and thrown back in the barrel, and more of the barrel spoils.

3:29 PM, March 08, 2006  
Blogger Mr.. Wood said...

First, I'm not saying that what happened to that one prisoner was not torture, it may have been, but the fact remains that you nor I have all of the facts regarding the incident. What I am saying is that there is not a systemic torturing problem in our military detention centers around the world. There may well have been some abuse of prisoners, but the abusers are generally punished. In the Abu Ghriab example, the army was already investigating and prosecuting individuals BEFORE it broke in the media.

As for 11 year olds being detained, if they are rounded up on the battle field with a AK-47 in their hands, they are thrown in with the rest of the enemy combatants, that is understandable. The question that needs to be put to his parents is why was their 11 y/o son shooting at our soldiers?

Maybe we should just let the couple hundred detainees go back to their homes so they can start shooting at our soldiers again...

And we treat our prisoners far more humanely that they treat theirs, by anyone's standards.

The "torture" notation is because we haven't even establish a definition of what constitutes "torture". For me, having someone walk around naked with a bag on their head is a little shy of the requirments. Some are saying force feeding someone on a hunger strike in order to keep them alive is torture, so it would be better to let them starve to death?

Was al-Jamadi injured while he was being captured? How much did he fight the Navy SEALS that brought him in? if someone dies from injuries sustained in combat, is that really homicide? You might be able to make the argument in this one case that there may have been neglect in not giving him some medical care, but maybe there was a high probability that he had time sesitive information, maybe he was going to die from his wounds anyway and they wanted that info before he died?

Maybe that is why no one was punished for his death, maybe there are too many contributing factors that *we* don't know.

*I* give the benefit of the doubt to the guys in the field.

To be sure, even a logical mission has a few bad apples, but when the mission is unsound, that's when the bad apples are coddled and thrown back in the barrel, and more of the barrel spoils.

YOUR opinion may be that this mission is unsound, others don't share that.

10:15 AM, March 09, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wonderful and informative web site. I used information from that site its great. »

12:39 PM, April 26, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


11:49 PM, March 14, 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

6:52 AM, March 22, 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

6:52 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

1:22 PM, April 05, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


2:14 AM, April 13, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

免費視訊聊天 ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 吉澤明步QQ美女視訊秀 85cc免費影片aa影片下載城sex免費成人影片aaa片免費看短片美女視訊 sex383線上娛樂場av969 免費短片日本免費視訊aa影片下載城視訊網愛聊天室影音視訊交友 咆哮小老鼠分享論壇sex520免費影片aa免費影片下載城aio辣妺視訊 aio辣妹交友愛情館 jp成人影片aio交友愛情館馬子免費影片免費線上a片18成人85cc影城0204movie免費色咪咪視訊網pc交友s383視訊玩美女人34c高雄視訊聊天jp成人免費視訊辣妹 kk777視訊俱樂部xxxpandalive173影音視訊聊天室 sex520-卡通影片成人免費視訊 完美女人13060 免費視訊聊天sexy girl video movie辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室UT視訊美女交友視訊情色網百事無碼a片dvd線上aa片免費看18禁成人網ut聊天室kk俱樂部視訊激情網愛聊天 情人小魔女自拍卡通aa片免費看夜未眠成人影城aio性愛dvd辣妹影片直播拓網視訊交友視訊聊天室ggoo168論壇視訊辣妹love104影音live秀 美女show-live視訊情色yam交友辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室s383情色大網咖視訊aaa俱樂部台灣情色網無碼avdvdsexy diamond sex888入口Show-live視訊聊天室

3:56 AM, April 14, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

免費 a 片aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部dodo豆豆聊天室sex520網路自拍美女聊天室天堂免費線上avdvd援交av080影片aa影片下載城aaa片免費看短片成人圖片區18成人avooogo2av免費影片sexdiy影城免費線上成人影片bonbonsex0951影片下載日本av女優sex888免費看影片免費視訊78論壇辣妹有約辣妹no31314視訊dudu sex免費影片avdvd情色影片免費色咪咪影片網av080免費試看日本美女寫真集辣妹脫衣麻將視訊聊天室性福免費影片分享日本美女寫真集,kk視訊aio交友愛情館免費成人美女視訊bt論壇色情自拍免費a片卡通tw 18 net卡通18美少女圖色情漫畫777美女小護士免費 aa 片試看百分百成人情色圖片a片免費觀賞sexy girls get fuckedsexy girl video movie情色文學成人小說sex888免費看eyny 伊莉論壇sexdiy影城自拍情色0204movie免費影片aio免費aa片試看s383情色大網咖sexy girl video movie草莓牛奶AV論壇台灣論壇18禁遊戲區環球辣妹聊天室 90691拓網aio交友愛情館拓網學生族視訊777美女 sex888影片分享區hi5 tv免費影片aa的滿18歲卡通影片sex383線上娛樂場sexdiy影城免費a片線上觀看真人美女辣妹鋼管脫衣秀比基尼辣妹一夜情視訊aio交友愛情館

3:56 AM, April 14, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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視訊聊天室v6 0plus論壇sex520免費影片avdvd-情色網qq美美色網ut13077視訊聊天A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道aaa免費看影片免費視訊聊天室微風成人免費視訊聊天 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JP成人網免費成人視訊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85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片後宮0204movie免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費A片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aaaa片免費看影片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費A片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片aa影片下載城色漫畫帝國av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費線上歐美A片觀看免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片

3:56 AM, April 14, 2009  
Blogger 徵信 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

1:58 AM, April 20, 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..........................

10:25 PM, May 19, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

a 免費影片線上直播小魔女a自拍大眾論壇成人用品維納斯yam天空影音18禁成人網成人光碟taiwankiss免費視訊聊天kiss情網線上免費a片kiss168成人電影院免費視訊聊天 aio強姦ut聊天室聊天室豆豆聊天室微風成人區免費視訊聊天18成人交友哈啦聊天室線上aaa片免費看尋夢園聊天室寶貝視訊台北視訊

10:35 PM, June 07, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home