Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Sincerity and Poverty

[I am posting here an entry written by Tam Ho, a former student of mine who offers a refutation of the claims that John Edwards is a hypocrite whose stated concern for the poor is undermined by his rich lifestyle. -- Neil H. Buchanan]

As noted on several occasions in recent months, here, here, and here, hypocrisy is often used to attack one’s credibility. In a recent article in The Atlantic, “The Poverty Candidates,” Bill Schneider asks whether John Edwards “looks like a hypocrite because he got a $400 haircut and built a 28,000-square-foot mansion.” The question I want to explore is whether this attack has a valid substantive argument behind it, or if it is simply an ad hominem attack: one that seeks to refute a position by assaulting the character of the speaker.

Schneider reports that Edwards responds, “Not really . . . because he was not born to wealth and privilege: ‘I come from a fairly modest beginning, but I've lived the American Dream.’” As I indicate below, Edwards gives other responses that I do think are better (which Schneider fails to report), but I want to discuss first why this response seems strange to me. Edwards’s reliance on “com[ing] from a fairly modest beginning” seems to imply that someone from a privileged background cannot take up the anti-poverty cause without being a hypocrite unless he renounces his wealth. This seems wrong; we don't think that doctors who have never been seriously sick and who treat AIDS patients are hypocrites for taking measures to avoid contracting HIV (i.e., for not renouncing their history of good health), or that radiologists working on cancer patients are hypocrites for wearing lead vests to shield themselves from x-ray radiation.

Perhaps the distinction here, though, is that being HIV- and cancer-free are necessities, not luxuries. But a 28,000-sq-ft mansion and a $400 haircut, the argument may go, are sinfully excessive in light of the fact that people live in poverty, and so someone who indulges in the former cannot possibly be serious about having a lifelong mission to eradicate the latter. But consider the hypothetical of a billionaire philanthropist who's donated billions to fighting world hunger. Is he a hypocrite if he has three industrial kitchens in his mansion and a personal team of professional chefs? No. But this analogy isn't perfect, either, because the billionaire's sincerity is demonstrated independent of his saying so (i.e., by his philanthropy), whereas Edwards has not given a significant portion of his wealth away (as far as I know). I can buy that distinction, too.

Let’s consider, then, the argument, as I can best make it out:

(1) Edwards claims to want to end poverty in
(2) Edwards enjoys the excesses of wealth.
(3) A desire to end poverty must be motivated by sympathy for the poor.
(4) Someone sympathetic to the poor would feel guilty about spending money so excessively; or, alternatively, someone who is sympathetic to the poor would feel guilty about wasting money (this is the old "finish your food; there are kids starving in
Ethiopia" argument).
(5) Someone who feels guilty about doing something would not do that thing.
(6) Therefore, Edwards's mansion and haircut demonstrates that he doesn't feel guilty about it, which demonstrates that he doesn't care about the poor, which demonstrates that he doesn't desire to end poverty.

Conclusion: Edwards is a hypocrite. Q.E.D.

If this is the argument, then Edwards's statement seems not to engage it. Edwards’s argument is that his sympathy for the poor is genuine because he grew up modestly and knows what it's like to be poor. This counterargument does not engage the argument above because one can still apply the syllogism of (4) and (5) to refute Edwards’s conclusion that he is sympathetic to the poor. More importantly, though, Edwards’s counterargument seems weak even on its own terms, because it’s highly plausible that people's attitudes change with their circumstances and their allegiances are susceptible to realignment. His opponents could retort, "Whatever your roots were, Senator, you are certainly no longer in touch with them." It would seem difficult for him to furnish a response to demonstrate that he is still in touch. (What would he say? "That's not true. I still have to put on my pants one leg at a time?") By conceding the tacit assumption that one's belief hinges on personal identity and circumstances, I think he gives up the game. (And as a matter of human psychology, reliance on circumstances and background as a determinative factor for establishing the sincerity of one’s views seems weak, for similar reasons to Mike Dorf's argument here last week that a precedent’s age, by itself, is no reason either to uphold or overturn it; witness, for example, that John Rawls was born into privilege, whereas Robert Nozick came from a poor family, contrary to what one might expect, given their positions on distributive justice.)

Two alternative lines of reasoning seem more logically tenable to me: either deny premise (4) or deny premise (5). As I alluded to above, Edwards in fact does both (though his denials are not reported by Schneider).

The denial of premise (4) is that one can be genuinely sympathetic to the plight of the impoverished without feeling guilty about spending money on luxuries for oneself. As reported in a recent AP article, Edwards makes this argument when he says that people want to come to America " because people like me can come from nowhere, the son of a mill worker ... and now be running for the president of the United States and pay $400 for a haircut." That is, he shouldn’t be embarrassed about his excesses because the ability to get to a point where such excesses are possible, from a starting point of zero, is the very thing that makes this country great. So there is no contradiction in caring about poverty but not feeling guilty about excessive spending.

Indeed, the billionaire philanthropist hypo demonstrates this point. The distinction making that analogy useless for Edwards’s purposes is not a metaphysical one, but an epistemological one. Edwards can’t use that hypo not because it has a disanalogy in principle, but because it doesn’t help him prove his case. It’s an evidentiary flaw.

The denial of premise (5) is that one can feel guilty about something but still do it, just as one can know that smoking is bad for one’s health, genuinely desire to have good health, but still smoke. Edwards also makes a form of this argument. As the AP article reports, he says that he is “actually embarrassed by it” but that it “doesn’t change who I am, what I believe in,” citing to his record of “standing up for people who have no voice.” That is, he felt guilty about it, but still did it, but it shouldn’t bring into question his sincerity.

But Edwards does not assert an all-out denial of premise (4) or (5). Instead, he still maintains that “[h]opefully, [he’ll] have enough sense not to [get a $400 hair cut] again.” But as matter of pure reason, it is far more logical to counter the argument by denying premise (4) and/or (5), and it wouldn’t require a promise not to do it again. After all, that is not a promise he can extend to his mansion. But that leaves Edwards in a hard place because even if he bought the logic of my argument, it wouldn’t be politically viable for him to assert it unabashedly.

There are two great ironies in this. The first irony is that even though Americans are all too personally well-acquainted with guilty pleasures, especially in the realm of materialistic consumption (and I include myself in that indictment), we are apparently unwilling to accept that excuse when it comes to others. The second irony is that many of those who have seized upon this opportunity to label Edwards a hypocrite, essentially because of his wealth, are the same ones who oppose policies that limit the accumulation of wealth because they think that obscene concentrations at the top help those at the bottom. Some might even call that hypocritical.


Unknown said...

How about this formulation:

1. Edwards claims to care about the plight of the poor.

2. People who care about the plight of the poor will do all they reasonably can to improve it.

3. Edwards could reasonably give 90% of his wealth to improve the plight of the poor.

4. Edwards spends 90% of his wealth on homes, cars, and expensive haircuts.

5. Therefore, Edwards does not really care for the plight of the poor.

6. Therefore, Edwards' claim that he cares for the plight of the poor is false and, presumably, hypocritical.

Premise 3 is certainly debatable, but I whatever the appropriate amount is, Edwards does not appear to be giving it.

egarber said...

I think there's a meaningful distinction that's missing in this debate:

As a presidential candidate, Edwards is advocating for a particular form of *public* policy -- not private charity.

This is clumsy, but if a candidate believes in a strong national defense and wishes to allocate public dollars for it, is he a hypocrite if he hasn't served personally in the military? Or if he hasn't donated money to veterans' groups? Personallly I don't think so, if his efforts to change public policy are consistent and substantive.

Tam Ho said...


You seem to be zeroing in on Carl's premise (2), which is also the one I would contest, but I think the public/private distinction may be too strong. Consider a candidate who supports public policies based on moral prescriptions against premarital sex and adultery, but it's discovered that he permits his college-aged children to engage in premarital sex at home, or that he was cheating. We'd all agree, I think, that that counts as hypocrisy, but it doesn't seem to count under your theory. In fact, it seems like almost no personal behavior can be used to demonstrate hypocrisy relative to a policy proposal under your theory, which is why I say it's too strong.

I would be more inclined to contest Carl's premise (2) by reference to arguments from the posts by Profs. Dorf and Buchanan (that I cite), and also to this one by Prof. Colb. An equivalent formulation of premise (2) is: one cannot be said to care about something unless one devotes all of one's reasonably available resources to that thing. That seems counterintuivie to me.

Is Warren Buffett feigning support for a cause because he only pledged $X billion to it when he could have reasonably pledged $(X+1) billion?

Tam Ho said...

My mangling of "counterintuitive" above should not be taken as an indication that I do not care about proper spelling. ;-)

egarber said...

Consider a candidate who supports public policies based on moral prescriptions against premarital sex and adultery, but it's discovered that he permits his college-aged children to engage in premarital sex at home, or that he was cheating.

I understand, but I still think there's a difference here. In your example, the policy itself is (presumably) about encouraging a particular kind of *personal* behavior -- so it sounds like a state lawmaker who illegally smokes pot pushing harsh drug laws.

With Edwards, he's not trying to cast aspersions on individual private behavior. He's basically saying poverty is a public problem, like infrastructure.

Maybe I should name my idea the "public need / personal aspersion" theory. Ok, that's stupid, but hopefully I'm at least making some sense.

Unknown said...

My premise 2 could be rewritten as follows:

2* People who want to end poverty should adopt any reasonable means to do so.

But 3* But Edwards wants to end poverty in America(this is just Tam's premise 1).

Therefore 4* Edwards should adopt any reasonable means to do so.

But 5* Donating 90% of his wealth would be a reasonable means toward ending poverty in America.

Since Edwards fails to contribute 90% of his wealth toward ending poverty in America, we can conclude one of the following:

a. Edwards doesn't really want to end poverty in America (in which case he is a liar)

b. Edwards doesn't believe it's reasonable to donate 90% of his wealth to ending poverty in America (in which case he is venal, stupid or both).

c. Edwards believes it is reasonable to donate 90% of his wealth to ending poverty in America, but he cannot give up his $400 haircuts and palatial homes (in which case he is weak-willed and unsuited for holding high office).

The alternative interpretation of Edwards's position that some of the comments seem to be pressing is that it's the government's job to end poverty in America, not private citizens'. I think anyone who genuinely cares about the poor would be loathe to wait on the government to address the problem, and if that's Edwards's position, he's less of a hypocrite and more of a monster.

Paul Scott said...

The public/private distinction is a smoke screen. I would hope even the excessively liberal here would at least agree that when it comes to charity, that I, not my government, should get to choose to which charities I donate. And that is what we are talking about - charity.

It is only a public need if poverty effects the entire public - not just the specific subset. Poverty is certainly a public need at some level. That is, when a large enough section of a society is poor enough, they present a danger to society as a whole. I think it is fairly clear that poverty in the United States is not close to that level of public concern.

It could also be considered a public need on the grounds of national pride or, for those that enjoy overarching government interference with the economy, on the grounds that poverty is bad for the economy of the nation and that increased government enforced wealth distribution is a common good.

I won't comment on either of those justifications apart from saying in this particular instance, Edwards is not suggesting either of those as a justification. Instead, he is appealing to our sense or sorrow for the poor. Such justifications are, quite clearly, charitable in nature and not reflective of any public need.

With the justification of forced charity being established, I think the hypocrisy claim is more readily sustained. Edwards does not (though I suspect he would if pressed), claim that America or Americans are insufficiently charitable. If that was the problem, the directed government charity to the poor is not the appropriate solution. Either increasing (above 100%) the tax benefit of charitable donations or mandating a certain percentage of income be donated to charitable organization would be more appropriate solutions.

But that is not what Edwards suggests. He is essentially asserting that America or Americans do not sufficiently target the charity(ies) of his choice when making donations.

That is from where the hypocrisy stems. Edwards wants me (and everyone else) to donate to his chosen charity(ies) rather than simply donating more himself.

Tam Ho said...


Let me try to understand the contours of your "charity" definition. Would you consider the use of federal funds to repair the bridge in Minnesota to be charity? Let's assume that a very small percentage of the American public will be affected by this bridge.

egarber said...

The public/private distinction is a smoke screen. I would hope even the excessively liberal here would at least agree that when it comes to charity, that I, not my government, should get to choose to which charities I donate. And that is what we are talking about - charity.

I don't agree. If you examine what Edwards wants to do, it's easy to see that he's proposing something different than direct "charity", which I'll define as roughly a straight handout. He sees it more as a problem of fundamentals. In his view, people who are working hard can't get out of poverty in many cases, which reflects *systemic* breakdown. Therefore, it's a question about education, health care, and basic opportunity, among other community efforts. In other words, Edwards might very well say, "poor people don't need our charity; they need a system that empowers them to do for themselves."

Imo, systemic breakdowns are indeed a public concern, at least in part.

So I think my public / private distinction does have meaning, with a few tweaks.

Paul Scott said...

Fairly clearly, no. You can do that to almost any system, by further and further segmenting it. A town may elect to have a system of sidewalks, but would not be charity to fix the portion of it in front of my home even if few people in the town were to use it. The highway infrastructure itself is susceptible to general public use. Fixing a part of that system does not make it charity just because only a few people happen to use that particular part.

Also, for what it is worth, while going through some hypotheticals can be useful, I will fully concede now - either as a function of language or as a limitation on my ability to use it - if you continue down that path you will find a hypothetical - or a parsing thereof - that will appear to contradict at least some part of my reasoning. I started by distinguishing charity from public need in part by insisting that the public in general, and not just the sub-set being addressed, gain from the action. While I think that is a reasonable distinction it is certainly neither complete nor perfect. I do think for the purposes of a blog discussion it does a reasonable job of making my point. It will not, however, survive (few things will) the scrutiny of endless hypotheticals.


"education, health care, and basic opportunity"

The first two are substantively very different from the last.

The first two are fairly distinct areas of direct government spending (without comment as to whether it is good policy for the government to in fact be spending in these areas). The latter is a completely nondescript goal, which is certainly laudable when stated so broadly, but is also the sort of empty talk we usually hear from politicians along the lines of "new ideas" and "change the system" - until you can define what exactly "basic opportunity" means or how to foster it, it is hard to comment.

As for education and health care, those are not specifically poverty issues. To the contrary, one could see how improving education and health care, generally, would not help the poor at all. As only one example, research grants in health sciences certainly help health care, generally, but don't make that improved health care any more accessible for those that cannot afford it.

So, if what you mean by health care and education are grants to the poor to make health care and education more accessible to the impoverished, then yes, you are still just talking about hand outs, but this time the hand out comes with a condition (on how you spend it). As long as the justification for such programs remains "poor people suffer, isn't that sad" then those programs are just charity to the poor.

You could make them a public need by, for example, justifying improved free health care to the poor on the grounds that paying for improved health care for the poor improves the overall health of those that are not poor as well. That would be a public need justification - but again, I fail to see such justifications inherent in Edward's remarks.

His rhetoric is not based on public needs justifications, it is based on the blight and suffering of the poor. Alleviating that suffering for its own sake is charity, not public need.

I am not commenting one way or the other on whether there are sufficient public needs justifications for poverty directed spending in education or health care. I am just arguing that Edward's justifications do not stem from public needs, they extend from charity. And that is what makes his choice of lifestyle subject to the criticism of hypocrisy.

Tam Ho said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tam Ho said...

The highway infrastructure itself is susceptible to general public use. Fixing a part of that system does not make it charity just because only a few people happen to use that particular part.


I agree with your statement quoted above. Can we substitute "school" for "highway" without changing the truth / validity of the statement? If we can, then can we infer that a federal policy to make sure that all public schools meet certain minimum operational standards, and to rebuild/repair ones that do not, would also, like in the bridge example, not count as charity?

Paul Scott said...

Sure, at least to the act itself. There is even a perfectly good analogy. Though i suppose that depends largely on teh details of implementation. If the Federal government established a school fund and conditioned state access to that fund on certain requirements - such as those you stated - that would be reasonably analogous to the highway funds.

It would not be charity; it would be investing in the infrastructure of a federal education program - presumably justified on the basis that a strong public education for everyone is good for society as a whole.

That is completely without comment as to whether substantial federal dollars for local public schools is in fact good good policy.

I am not entirely clear how that relates to our conversation about Edwards. Such a program would be very much a kin to Hillary's 1990 plans for Federally funded general health care.

Such a system would be a general investment in the health of our nation's public school infrastructure. It would have a disproportionately greater impact on impoverished localities, but that hardly makes it charity.

If that is what Edwards has in mind, he should say so and with details. It would certainly be a bold policy and would immediately distinguish himself from all other candidates.

egarber said...


I understand your thinking, but I'm not sure why the desired end matters here. In other words, whether Edwards stresses plight or the tangible ripples across society, I think it's possible to authentically believe that the real solution is some sort of public *means*.

Let me put it this way. If I worried about crime, not because of how it might harm society at large, but because my heart wrenched for children who are victims, do I have to donate money to private security firms to not be a hypocrite in calling for a public solution (more police on the streets)?

It seems to me that whatever your motivation (the desired end), it's possible to favor one specific means over others without being hypocritical. If Edwards thinks there is a unique systemic public policy problem that is beyond an individual's ability to correct via mere private charity, why does it matter if his reason is concern for people in tough circumstances, vs. say, concern for the larger economy?

egarber said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
egarber said...

To clarify,

My last comment isn't an effort to define what constitutes a true public need (we can talk about that later); it's an attempt to shed light on the hypocrisy question.

Paul Scott said...

Wealth redistribution for the sake of it is not what I would view as a public solution. But even so, your hypo does not fit. In it, you have a targeted reason for promoting a non-targeted solution. You unwillingness to attempt a private, targeted solution might legitimately make you subject to legitimate calls of hypocrisy, but the hypo substantively touches on something I (and I think most people) would agree is something only the state should wield - police force. That fact, more than any other, is what makes me say "no, you hypothetical actor is not a hypocrite."

I have already agreed that if we are talking about large, generally applicable social programs (such as federally funded health care and education) that Edwards would not be a hypocrite for "living the high-life" and also promoting those programs.

Though, as an aside, given US tax structure, the people most effected by the costs of those programs - the middle and upper-middle classes - will receive no benefits from them - but that is a tax structure issue, not a problem of the programs themselves. Thus, Edwards will not feel the sting of paying for such programs to the same extent the middle class will feel that sting.

But those programs are not what Edwards is (publicly, anyway) espousing. Here is his universal health care "details":

If you go there and read it, you will find details mostly lacking. It is a document filled with assertions and goals, but no actual proposed legislation.

Now, let's look at his attempt to "End poverty by 2030" - a patently absurd goal - and see what we have. Specifics include:

1. raise the minimum wage to $9.50 (then index it so it stays there).

Assuming that has any value (other than to the high-school kids working in fast-food), that is flat out charity - wealth redistribution.

2. Create a million short term jobs. - Ok, that is just non-sense. Especially when combined with #1. If there was use for a million jobs - they would exist, so that amounts to the government providing busywork, which again amounts to a handout.

3. Create a million "housing vouchers" so that poor people can move into better neighborhoods. Apparently Edwards is unfamiliar with the actual effect that such projects have and thinks that rather than just lowering the value of the property in the neighborhoods where these vouchers are used it will instead "create new opportunities." Naive, at best, but a straight handout in any event.

Everything else in his "plan" to end poverty is just platitudes. So Edwards anti-poverty program comes down to giving poor people my (and your, and everyone else's) money. that's great if he feels so strongly (and this is where the hypocrisy comes in), but if he does think that charity to the poor is a good idea then he can sell his mansion and start going to supercuts and donate more to the poor himself. I am sure with his resources he could do a lot of good. I, on the other hand, will continue to prefer giving my time and money to charities I prefer (mostly animal rights).

That is what the makings of my primary argument is about. Yes, universal health care. Federally funded education. These are legitimate (again, without comment as to where it is wise to have the government involved) public needs. His health care program - to the extent it is an actual program and not just good wishes - is exactly that - a public needs based program. All his anti-poverty measures are just taking my money to give it to someone else, which - as I started with - means him deciding that the charities I am giving to are not the right ones. For him not to be a hypocrite while making that claim, he needs to be giving a lot more of himself first (at which point I would still disagree with him, but would not consider him a hypocrite).

egarber said...

Paul, thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I still don't think you answered this question:

If Edwards thinks there is a unique systemic public policy problem that is beyond an individual's ability to correct via mere private charity, why does it matter if his reason is concern for people in tough circumstances, vs. say, concern for the larger economy?

Whatever the merits of his approach, it's very possible to argue that the items he's pushing would be difficult if not impossible to accomplish via mere private charity. One can argue that they are systemic solutions.

Now, if he was pushing a law that required people to donate money to charities of their choice, you'd be on to something if he himself wasn't already voluntarily doing so (my badly worded personal aspersion rule). But that's not the same thing as depicting public means as a uniquely qualified tool for the particular challenge. You may disagree that it is such a tool when it comes to poverty, but your opinion on the merits of that argument doesn't automatically make people with different thoughts "hypocrites".

If Edwards sees a nail to be pounded, he's not a hypocrite if he thinks that only a hammer can properly accomplish the job.

egarber said...

Let me add another angle here.

Supposing for the sake of argument that it is hypocritical for one to not personally involve himself in public causes, why doesn't Edwards get any credit for working full time (for a while at least) starting up and maintaining his his anti-poverty center at UNC?

The guy could have kept making bazillions as a trial lawyer, but he instead has dedicated himself to a cause. He gets no credit for that?

Paul Scott said...

In reverse order,

He certainly gets credit for his personal anti-poverty initiatives, including both time and money.

As for a "unique systemic public policy" problem - I guess I would simply define "giving people money" (which does compose the bulk of Edward's programs) as not a unique systemic public policy.

A minimum wage increase - ok, absolutely (as to that specific, but not as to it's effect on the "poor") impossible to achieve through private charity.

A million new "jobs" - that just takes money. Perfectly simple to accomplish through private charity.

A million housing vouchers - same deal - that is just handing out money. Private charity can do that with ease.

Now, it may be the case that he feels (and this really is the heart of my argument) that for him to accomplish what he wants to accomplish through completely voluntary means would be impossible because he would be incapable of raising that amount of money for his pet cause. I mean, it is very clear that what he wants to accomplish is going to be very expensive.

And that is the heart of what I am saying. He has a charity he wants to force me to donate to it. Well, hey - the government does that for all sorts of things I don't like - so nothing new there. But for Edwards to insist that I pay for his charities at, necessarily, the expense of my chosen charities, then he needs to do a lot more personally than what he is doing now.

It is not all that dissimilar to Al Gore making a movie that both shows him being driven in a Limo and charting a private jet (both of which are very convenient) while insisting to the world that everyone should be riding bikes and taking public transportation. Unlike with Edwards pet project, I am in complete agreement with Al Gore's pet project. But just like Edwards, if you are going to insist that others sacrifice for your cause, you better be sacrificing yourself first.

Paul Scott said...

To personalize it, I am an environmentalist and a staunch believer in animal rights. As a result, I eat organic foods; I pay for my utility bills using "green" credits. I don't awn a car and I bike almost everywhere I practically can. From the animal rights side, I am a vegan and I have personally rescued and placed several pets I have found sick or injured.

All of that stuff, and more, costs money. I *could* merely insist that the government do something about these things while I lived my life as if these things were someone else's problem (admittedly, and this is where *some* credit has to be given to Edwards' personal efforts). I'd feel like an idiot if I did that, however, and certainly would not have much of a defense against accusations of hypocrisy.

Edwards has done something, to be sure. But to demand the level of sacrifice from me (and the rest of the US) that his programs will require, well he needs to be doing a lot more personally first.

egarber said...

Paul, I think our areas of disagreement are pretty clear. Excellent chat -- thanks for your time.

On Gore, I will say that the ability or goal to be carbon neutral adds more flexibility to the equation. Not everybody will end up "neutral" the same way.

Paul Scott said...

thank you for your time as well. I enjoyed it. Although it is somewhat disappointing that neither of us invoked Hitler...

Anonymous said...

I am so happy to get some kal geons and the kal gold is given by my close friend who tells me that the kal online geons is the basis to enter into the game. Therefore, I should kal online gold with the spare money and I gain some kalonline Geons from other players.

Anonymous said...

酒店喝酒,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,制服店,便服店,鋼琴酒吧,兼差,酒店兼差,酒店打工,伴唱小姐,暑假打工,酒店上班,日式酒店,舞廳,ktv酒店,酒店,酒店公關,酒店小姐,理容院,日領,龍亨,學生兼差,酒店兼差,酒店上班,酒店打工,禮服酒店,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,經紀 彩色爆米花,經紀人 彩色爆米花,酒店傳播,酒店經紀 彩色爆米花,爆米花,童裝,童裝拍賣,童裝大盤,童裝寄賣,童裝批貨,酒店,酒店,童裝切貨,酒店,GAP童裝,酒店,酒店 ,禮服店 , 酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,招待所,

Anonymous said...

酒店喝酒,禮服店,酒店小姐,制服店,便服店,鋼琴酒吧,兼差,酒店兼差,酒店打工,伴唱小姐,暑假打工,酒店上班,日式酒店,ktv酒店,酒店,酒店公關,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,酒店上班,酒店打工,禮服酒店,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,經紀 彩色爆米花,經紀人 彩色爆米花,酒店傳播,酒店經紀 彩色爆米花,爆米花,童裝,童裝拍賣,童裝大盤,童裝寄賣,童裝批貨,酒店,酒店,童裝切貨,酒店,GAP童裝,酒店,酒店 ,禮服店 , 酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,招待所,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店上班,暑假打工,酒店公關,酒店兼職,酒店經紀

Anonymous said... . .
[url=]puma shoes[/url]
[url=]chaussures puma[/url]
[url=]nike air max ltd[/url]

Anonymous said...

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店工作, 專業酒店經紀, 合法酒店經紀, 酒店暑假打工, 酒店寒假打工, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店工作, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店經紀, 專業酒店經紀, 合法酒店經紀, 酒店暑假打工, 酒店寒假打工, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店工作, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店經紀,,

Edwin said...

Buy Kamagra
Earn Google
Viagra Cialis
Cheap Kamagra
Cheap Viagra
Cheap Cialis
Make Money on Google
M65 Jacket
M65 Field Jacket
Airline Dog Carrier
Airline Dog Carriers
Viagra Cialis
Earn Google
Airline Dog Carrier
Airline Dog Carriers
Airline Approved Dog Carriers
ED Hardy Wholesale
Copy DVD Software
How to Send Fax
14k Yellow Gold
Redneck Costume
14k Gold Heart
Tandem Baby Stroller