Monday, September 24, 2007

Make Ahmadinejade?

You know the old saying: When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Today's introductory speech by President Lee Bollinger was an effort to make Ahmadinejade of the difficult hand that School of International and Public Affairs Acting Dean John Coatsworth dealt him by inviting Iranian President Ahmadinejad to speak at an official university forum. You can read the full text here, but having watched it live (via closed circuit tv on campus), I must say it was perhaps the most forceful performance I have ever seen from Bollinger. He called Ahmadinejad "evil," "petty," and "cruel," adding that his Holocaust denial made him "either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated." The written transcript does not quite do justice to Bollinger's contempt for Ahmadinejad.

As for Ahmadinejad himself, I only watched about 20 minutes before I had to go teach my civil procedure class, but during most of the time he impressed me as oddly disconnected. Most of his prepared remarks seemed, well, unprepared. There were long rambling discussions of scripture, meaningless discursions on "science," and an occasional dig at the Bush Administration, the U.S. more broadly, and President Bollinger's hostile introduction. The transcript (available here) reveals a mind that is at the very least, disordered. Here's an example of the sort of gobbledeeguk that makes the Unabomber look like Thomas Paine:
If we accept that "science" means "illumination," then its scope supersedes the experimental sciences, and it includes every hidden and disclosed reality. One of the main harms inflicted against science is to limit it to experimental and physical sciences; this harm occurs even though it extends far beyond this scope. Realities of the world are not limited to physical realities. And the material is just a shadow of supreme realities, and physical creation is just one of the stories of the creation of the world. Human being is just an example of the creation that is a combination of the material and the spirit.
Ahmadinejad did much better in answering questions. His answers were, of course, preposterous to anyone who knows or cares about the actual facts, but they had an internal coherence of the sort one associates with ideologues. He even had some good (if disgusting) rhetorical moves. E.g., he turned the extolling of academic freedom to his advantage by characterizing his Holocaust denial as merely "asking questions" in the spirit of science. Which is not to say he didn't occasionally display his delusional nature. E.g., "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country. (Laughter.) We don't have that in our country. (Booing.) In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it. (Laughter.)"

Perhaps the only unexpected moment was Ahmadinejad's acceptance of Bollinger's challenge to permit a delegation of Columbia students and faculty go to Iranian universities and meet freely with students and faculty there. That's a tiny bit uncomfortable for me, however, because Bollinger's challenge was issued just after mentioning my own stint today on Voice of America (which he misidentified as Radio Free Europe). To wit:
And while my colleagues at the law school -- Michael Dorf, one of my colleagues, spoke to Radio Free Europe, viewers in Iran a short while ago on the tenets of freedom of speech in this country -- I propose further that you let me lead a delegation of students and faculty from Columbia to address your universities about free speech with the same freedom we afford you today.
I fear that I'll be expected to pack my bags for Tehran, which was not really on my list of places I most wanted to go.

30 comments:

Sally said...

You should definitely go to Tehran. Why wouldn't you? Travel for Americans is restricted and there are very few opportunities to hear from someone even half-way objective about what it's really like there.

Just don't go wandering off and getting kidnapped.

dave said...

in a way, Ahmadinejad's denial of "homosexuals" in iran is coherent. he's obviously not denying *homosexuality* construed as the occurrence of homosexual acts. rather, the point is that the society doesn't recognize a discrete class of homosexuals who would be the object of civil rights protection on the one hand, or homophobia (and the associated absurd identity-crises identified by Foucault) on the other.

this attitude obviously has roots in post-monarchist traditionalism (and the consciousness of ancient Persian homoeroticism), as well as the present Muslim family-values culture which discourages homosexual identity. stop being orientalist; not every society without rainbow pride parades is nazi.

Sally said...

"The point is that the [Iranian] society doesn't recognize a discrete class of homosexuals..."

Well we can certainly agree that Iran doesn't recognize gays as needing any special protection because they are arrested and executed rather routinely, correct?

To say then, there are no homosexuals in Iran is not of course to say that there is no homosexual behavior in Iran (which you agree that there is) and because both the person AND the behavior is punished in Iran (by death), you are making a distinction that has no meaningful difference.

I'm as sure as you seem to be that Ahmadinejad knew exactly what he was saying.

dave said...

Sally, the point is that there is nowhere near the critical mass of self-identifying homosexuals in iran necessary for there to be meaningful civil rights reform. the brutal executions that you're thinking about are extremely infrequent, and most homosexual activity is clandestine and undetected. this is why Ahmadinejad was absolutely on-point in saying that Iran lacks a phenomenon that occurs here.

unfortunately, it's just a fact of life that it's impossible to get elected in Iran on a gay rights platform. The clerics will never allow it, and the electorate doesn't really care. hence, it's naive to think that Ahmadinejad could do better even if he wanted.

Sally said...

"the brutal executions that you're thinking about are extremely infrequent."

And this would be meaningful in what way?

I'm not sure what you mean by a "phenomenon" that occurs here. Do you mean there is freedom in the US for those who wish to engage in certain sexual activity to do so without fear of death or imprisonment? Then yes I agree that this freedom doesn't exist in Iran.

As to what the people of Iran do or don't want, how could you possibly know with certainty? There is no freedom of expression in Iran. Another "phenomenon" it does not share with the West.

One would hardly choose to be "self-identifying" as a "phenomenon" that would invariably lead to one's death. I doubt Iranian's gay men and women are willingly suicidal. Hounded and persecuted, yes. Suicidal, no.

dave said...

i'm absolutely not apologizing for censorship, which exists in iran as well as most of asia. but the limits on "free expression" hardly prove anything about a significant potential reform movement for self-identifying homosexuals. even during the shah's regime, in the absence of any state opposition, homosexuality still existed only at the margins. the same goes for other relatively modernized middle eastern states, e.g. turkey or lebanon. the extant social importance of family and religion in these societies is dispositive in this regard.

i'm not saying i definitively know "what the people of Iran do or don't want", but you must admit that imagining gay rights to be democratically accepted in countries with such high rates of religious puritanism is pretty far fetched. you can Joseph Massad's recent book, "Desiring Arabs", for more on this issue.

Jantzus said...

Before his trip and during his Columbia speech and comments to the media on Monday, Ahmadinejad appeared to be reaching out to the American public, giving a much more balanced view than the US media has often portrayed.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/401EF371-16B9-4809-8BAD-786CB2C26DF1.htm

I'm sure that you will find it hard to find disagreement that going to Iran would be a very good thing for you to do for the academic community and for the United States as a while.

mnuez said...

I thought Bollinger's straight-talk confronting of Ahmadinejad was Fantastic. Absolutely fantastic and likely (though only "likely") to have wide-ranging positive consequences in how millions of people view Iran and its leaders.

Well done!

AND...though I'm unclear on exactly what it is that you did, it's obvious that Your part was not inconsequential either. Most excellent, sir and Bravo.

mnuez
www.mnuez.blogspot.com

ChrislPettit said...

If only Bollinger would utilize the same tough talk for the other ideologues that come through Columbia. For instance, the next time Kissinger visits, I would like to hear Bollinger speak plainly about his demagougery, his war crimes, support of terrorism, denial of basic rights for thousands, etc. Consistency is what I demand from my students, and would expect the same from political academic positions (such as a dean). Next time Clinton, Bush I or W come and speak, lets speak of their disregard for international law and human rights and their delusional policies. By all means criticize those whose buffoonery knows no end, but lets do it consistently.

Unfortunately, I am afraid that very few who visit Columbia would be able to escape tough criticism. Hypocrisy is one of the worst human vices and, although I applaud what Bolliger did (petty as it may have been), it does not seem to me that he would be consistent in his criticisms of other worthy targets.

As a human rights lawyer who has traveled that area of the world, I highly recommend visiting Tehran...it is part of the world where so many cultures intermingled through the centuries and has great educational value. Some of my favorite contributors that I utilize in my Human Rights in Islamic Law class are Iranian and from a variety of different schools and traditions.

As for the homosexuals...they aren't recognized by fundamentalist Christians like W either (and neither are their rights)...why should Ahmadinejad have to be any different than the loonies we have running our own land of contradiction?

Carl said...

As for the homosexuals...they aren't recognized by fundamentalist Christians like W either (and neither are their rights)...why should Ahmadinejad have to be any different

Perhaps because - I don't know - maybe, just maybe, there is a morally significant difference between being opposed to letting gays marry and ACTIVELY EXECUTING THEM.

Carl said...

Dave said:

the point is that there is nowhere near the critical mass of self-identifying homosexuals in iran necessary for there to be meaningful civil rights reform.

Nice sleight of hand, Dave. Ahmandinejad was asked point blank why his country executes homosexuals. He claimed there are no homosexuals in Iran. Your tortured interpretation of what this might mean in a vaccuum renders MA's claim either incoherent or unresponsive and only serves to distract attention from the fact that Iran as a nation is engaged in a blatant and barbaric pogram against gays. Way to bring reaons and balance to the debate here, Dave.

Yonatan said...

Carl - maybe Ahmadinejad was implying that there are no gays in Iran BECAUSE they have all been executed; this way, his answer sort of makes sense.

Carl said...

maybe Ahmadinejad was implying that there are no gays in Iran BECAUSE they have all been executed; this way, his answer sort of makes sense.

Or terrorized into exile/hiding, yep.

Matt said...

That first quoted bit sounded quite a lot like Greg (brother of Frank) Easterbrook whenever he talks about anything other than football!

Octopus Grigori said...

Absolutely agree with ChrislPettit on Bollinger's denunciation of Ahmadinejad before Ahmadinejad even began to speak. Kissinger wouldn't get the same; he'd chat about the Hamptons with Bollinger and Co. while munching on hors d’ouevres in the entrance hall to Low Library. Ditto as to Netanyahu, Musharraf, Mubarak, et al.

Does anyone dispute the following: this will be the one time you get Republicans and other neo-cons jumping up and down professing horror at the denial of rights to gays and lesbians. Well, the one time until we get to the next New Hitler, and the next Middle Eastern country that the war-mongers see fit to bomb to hell for our purported interests and allies. (I'm putting odds on Bashar al-Assad to fill the role of our next New Hitler.) Paging Larry Craig.

Is it not clear that the right wing has decided to target Iran and that we are now in the midst of a personalized demonization campaign almost identical to the one we endured in the run up to the glorious invasion of Iraq? Hussein was the New Hitler. Now Ahmadinejad is the New Hitler. And so it goes. Gay rights! That'll help the cause, like Nigerian yellowcake and our newfound horror at Hussein's gassing of his own people (after which we handed him off some more weapons). The opportunistic willingness to create a dossier of bullet points to support an pre-established agenda (bomb Iraq back five or ten years) is transparent.

Don't you see? We will be bombing Iran to, inter alia, help advance gay and lesbian rights. Duh.

Does anyone recall that we invaded Iraq supposedly, in part to help Iraqi women, per Wolfowitz and Co.? How'd that work out, after hundreds of thousands, if not more than a million Iraqis have died as a result of our Mission Accomplished and its glorious aftermath?

Isn't homosexuality illegal in Saudi Arabia? Can we start building a case to bomb them?

It's really quite sad to see otherwise intelligent people give in to an orchestrated campaign to drive us to war, just five years after we were all bullied and hectored by the intelligentsia (David Remnick sneering at the idiotic peaceniks from the pages of the New Yorker as he, with some elegant anguish, endorsed the intellectually interesting doctrine of preemption, Bill Keller reluctantly joining the "I-Can't-Believe-I'm-A-Hawk Club" in the editorial pages of the Times, etc.) into the undying glory of our liberation of Iraq. It really does feel like we're all sitting through our two minutes hate this week.

I fear that these opinions will be dismissed for being too strident, too heated, alarmist. I forgot that those modalities of argument are reserved for only one side of the current and depressingly familiar "debate" we are being force-fed. (It's September, and you never launch a product in August.)

I give up. Ahmadinejad is evil and must be destroyed. Therefore, Iran must be bombed! We will bomb Iran to save ourselves and our friends (and the Iranian people that we don't blow up or who aren't destroyed in the aftermath). It's clear: if we don't attack Iran now, it's, like, totally possible that they might build a bomb soon, and then, you know, someday decide to use that bomb or give it to someone else or something, because they totally might be suicidal, like Bernard Lewis, you have to understand the Arab --er, Persian, um, Muslim mind and be able to like see into the future- so, like, you see, the cause for war is eminently just! Who could/dares disagree? The only way to peace is through war. I give up and defer to the experts, like the people who brought us glory in Iraq. They've got experience.

Please make sure to dispose of the lessons of the Iraq War in the nearest available Memory Hole on your way to your reluctant support for violence against Iran. Thank you.

Carl said...

Octopus,

Let me get this straight. You are proposing that people like Bollinger and others critical of Iranian human rights abuses give the country and its leaders a pass for things like summarily executing homosexuals because these criticisms might be used by people who don't really care about human rights abuses as a pretext for war?

I'm not sure if this makes you a better friend to Ahmandinejad and his ilk than some of their more deluded apologists in this thread, but it does make you an enabler of an even more morally egregious sort.

Octopus Grigori said...

Carl:

Way to bring reaons [sic] and balance to the debate here, Dave.

* * *

I'm not sure if this makes you a better friend to Ahmandinejad and his ilk than some of their more deluded apologists in this thread, but it does make you an enabler of an even more morally egregious sort.

You seem to toss around a lot of ad hominem attacks pretty casually and reflexively. I'm sure that is due to the confidence you have in the strength of your arguments. But thank you for raising the level of the discussion.

Um, no, Carl, I am not saying that Bollinger should have given Ahmadinejad a "free pass". I actually think Bollinger had to do what he did, given that Sheldon Silver and others are clamoring to punish Columbia for even having Ahmadinejad at the forum. But never mind that.

I am saying that the sudden emphasis to create a list of All Bad Things About Ahmadinejad and Iran that Justify War seems all too familiar. My focus was not even on Bollinger, but on the sudden drumbeat for war on Iran from all corners. But I suspect you understood that point.

To be tediously clear. For years, we didn't care at all about Hussein's gassing of his own people. Hell, we continued to support him afterwards. But once the administration had decided it was time to blow up Iraq, they (and a compliant media) began to trot out the horrors of Hussein, including the gassing we had previously not given a rat's ass about. It's my opinion that we're watching the same process happening here: substitute Ahmadinejad for Hussein as the new existential threat to the world.

And to be clear on another point: it is terrible that homosexuals are persecuted in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other places. No one should get a pass for this.

But it seems to me, Carl, that you have failed to address the main point ChrislPettit made: the exceptional and unusual treatment Bollinger gave to Ahmadinejad. Why aren't other speakers invited to Columbia given the same treatment? Why is Ahmadinejad so special?

And just curious, Carl, do you or do you not support the use of force against Iran to eliminate its nuclear program? Did you support the invasion of Iraq?

Carl said...

You seem to toss around a lot of ad hominem attacks pretty casually and reflexively.

Perhaps someone needs to look up the meaning of "ad hominem."

For years, we didn't care at all about Hussein's gassing of his own people.

Human rights activists had been decrying the brutality of Hussein's regime well before even the first Gulf War.

you have failed to address the main point ChrislPettit made: the exceptional and unusual treatment Bollinger gave to Ahmadinejad. Why aren't other speakers invited to Columbia given the same treatment?

I don't know, Octopus. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Columbia is not generally in the business of providing a public relations forum for the brutal leaders of nations the murder gays, arm terrorists, suppress women and religious minorities, and advocate the wholesale slaughter of the Jewish people.

I admit, however, that I'm still at a loss as to your point, Octopus. Are you suggesting, like Dave, that Ahmandinejad is not as bad as people are saying? That is absurd.

Or are you just lamenting the fact that there are other equally brutal people out there who are not currently receiving the same scrutiny? This is reasonable. Of course, these others were not recently engaged in a highly politicized press junket right here in our midsts. Have you forgotten the stir Chavez caused last year? Did the criticism aimed at him lead to an invasion of Venezuela?

Perhaps you should be more concerned about doing something to prevent these human rights atrocities that people like Ahmadinejad are perpretraing against real people right now as we speak rather than worrying about some hypothetical war that you fear might possibly result from people drawing attention to these human rights atrocities that people like Ahmadinejad are committing against real people right now as we speak.

Octopus Grigori said...

Thanks, Carl. I didn't expect you to answer my pretty simple questions, even though I attempted to address yours. I guess you're in the position to ask questions, and feel no need to respond to questions posed by others. Fair enough. You can continue to battle all the straw men you like. *Yawn*

Hmm. My dictionary works. Does yours?

But thanks for the advice, Carl.

Carl said...

Hmm. My dictionary works.

Perhaps you should try reading it then. At no point did I respond to an argument by you or dave with an irrelevant personal attack. The fact that your feelings get hurt when someone points out a morally outrageous consequence of some claim you are endorsing does not an ad hominem make.

I didn't expect you to answer my pretty simple questions, even though I attempted to address yours.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of rheorical question while you're at it. The fact that I end a response to your question with a question mark does not a non-answer make.

Or are you upset that I did not address your voyeuristic and irrelevant inquiries into my views on the war in Iraq? I can only imagine you were fishing for fodder to mount some genuine ad hominem attacks.

Octopus Grigori said...

Carl: I see, wanting to know whether you have been and are for war against Iraq and Iran has nothing to do with this discussion, and would give rise to ad hominem attacks, because your positions on whether we should attack Iran are obviously irrelevant and deeply personal. Yes, that makes sense.

I must also misunderstand the meanings of "deluded apologists" and "enabler of . . . an even more morally egregious sort." (Please forward me a copy of your fantastic dictionary.) I guess it would cross the line -- but wouldn't be an ad hominem attack -- to call you a "deluded war cheerleader", but, of course, you aren't calling or hoping for war on Iran, are you?

Okay, I'm done. I'll cede you the last word, which I'm sure you'll have anyway.

Carl said...

I must also misunderstand the meanings of "deluded apologists" and "enabler of . . . an even more morally egregious sort."

No, you only misunderstand the meaning of "ad hominem."

I see, wanting to know whether you have been and are for war against Iraq and Iran has nothing to do with this discussion, and would give rise to ad hominem attacks

Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit. My views on the war in Iraq and any future military action in Iran are irrelevant to my assessment of the moral character of Ahmadinejad and his ilk. That you wanted to know them despite this obvious fact led me quite reasonably to conclude that you were fishing for fodder for an ad hominem attack to try to discredit my arguments on something other than their merits. Sorry to disappoint you, but I simply have no interest in discussing the merits of a war in Iran with you.

I guess it would cross the line -- but wouldn't be an ad hominem attack -- to call you a "deluded war cheerleader"

See, you're catching on. The concept isn't that difficult. Now if only you weren't so presumptuous.

Octopus Grigori said...

Thanks, Carl! You've answered my question. 8 ]

Sobek said...

"Does anyone dispute the following: this will be the one time you get Republicans and other neo-cons jumping up and down professing horror at the denial of rights to gays and lesbians."

By contrast, liberals are remarkably consistent for their support of human rights abusers outside of their own country. (Prof. Dorf excepted, it would appear).

The problem with your claim, however, is that you seem unable to honestly fathom a difference between opposing judicially-mandated gay marriage, contrary to the will of the people, and capital punishment for homosexual activity.

路傑 said...

免費A片, ut聊天室, AV女優, 美女視訊, 免費成人影片, 成人論壇, 情色交友, 免費AV, 線上a片, 日本美女寫真集, 同志聊天室, 聊天室交友, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 色情網站, 辣妹視訊, 美女交友, 微風成人區, 色美媚部落格, 色情影片, 成人影片, 成人網站, 免費A片, 上班族聊天室, A片,H漫, 18成人, a漫, av dvd, 一夜情聊天室, 微風成人, 成人圖片, 成人漫畫, 情色網, 日本A片, 免費A片下載, 性愛, 成人交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人貼圖, 成人電影, 成人, 中部人聊天室, 080中部人聊天室, 成人貼圖, 成人小說, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人遊戲, 微風成人, 愛情公寓, 成人電影, A片, 情色, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 做愛, 成人遊戲, 成人影城, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 寄情築園小遊戲, 色情遊戲, 成人網站, 麗的色遊戲, 色情網站, 成人論壇, 情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 言情小說, 愛情小說, 色情A片, 情色論壇, 自拍, 癡漢, , 俱樂部, 豆豆聊天室, 聊天室, 色情影片, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊交友90739 情人視訊網影音視訊聊天室 免費視訊聊天室 視訊聊天 視訊交友 美女視訊 視訊美女 視訊 免費視訊 免費視訊聊天 視訊聊天室 辣妹視訊 一夜情 色情a片 aio交友愛情館 情色電影 情色視訊 色情遊戲 色情 情色小說 一葉情貼圖片區 色情小說 色情聊天室 情色交友 成人論壇 成人網站 色情網站 情色論壇 小高聊天室 女同志聊天室 6K聊天室 080苗栗人聊天室 080聊天室 聊天室尋夢園 UT男同志聊天室 男同志聊天室 尋夢園聊天室 UT聊天室 聊天室 豆豆聊天室 A片 成人電影 成人貼圖 嘟嘟成人網 美女交友 本土自拍 成人交友 成人影片http://ssff01.3b8mm.com/

kutyhgvd said...

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

. 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,

. 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

wsty said...

www.eshooes.com .
www.pumafr.com.
www.myshoess.com.

www.eshooes.com .
www.pumafr.com.
www.myshoess.com.
[url=http://www.pumafr.com]puma shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.eshooes.com]chaussures puma[/url]
[url=http://www.myshoess.com]nike air max ltd[/url]

freefun0616 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,,