Contact
Archives
Search
Blogs
Newspaper Blogs
English-Language
Press
Polls

October 18, 2003

SPECIAL APOLOGY ISSUE....Speaking of apologies, our Islam-baiting general has issued one too:

Boykin spent much of Friday with Pentagon lawyers and public relations officials fashioning his statement. One official said he had seen five versions of the statement, which was released in Washington at 6:45 p.m.

Five versions! (And late on Friday, natch.) So what did he come up with?

Boykin said Friday that he had been misunderstood. When he spoke of the Somali warlord, he did not mean that the Somali's god was Islam, but rather "his worship of money and power — idolatry." Boykin said he did believe that "radical extremists have sought to use Islam as a cause of attacks on America."

As for his statement that God had installed Bush in the White House, Boykin said he meant that God had done the same for "Bill Clinton and other presidents."

Everyone who believes this, please raise your hand. On the other hand, at least the Pentagon media honchos managed to figure out something — no matter how unlikely — that allowed everyone to save some face, and Boykin has agreed to stop speaking in front of religious groups. Good thinking.

And while we're on the subject, how about another round of discussion about Gregg Easterbrook? Not his apology, really, but instead an effort to figure out what his original point was supposed to be. Aside from the "worship money above all else" stuff, which he addressed directly in his apology, here's my paraphrase:

Since Jews have been the victims of so much violence over the ages, including the Holocaust, you'd think they might be a little more sensitive to concerns over glorifying the killing of the helpless.

Does everyone agree that this was more or less his point? Or was it something more subtle?

Easterbrook says "I'm ready to defend all the thoughts in that paragraph." I wonder when he's going to do that?

UPDATE: Roger Simon reports that Easterbrook has been fired from ESPN because of his remarks.

Posted by Kevin Drum at October 18, 2003 09:47 AM | TrackBack


Comments

Regarding Easterbrook's original point, as paraphrased by you, I'm of the belief that Jews ARE more sensitive to concerns over glorifying the killing of the helpless.

Israeli soldiers, for example, take extreme care in their operations to avoid killing innocents. Innocents still sometimes die, but the Israelis do seem to do their best to avoid this.

The Jewish faith has for centuries emphasized the protection of innocents. I don't see any recent change in that regard.

As to General Boykin's apology, I accept it as I accept Mr. Easterbrook's. Next time I hope both will think a little before jamming their feet into their mouths.

Posted by: Steve White at October 18, 2003 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

You're too soft. A correct paraphrase would be "Since Jews...., they *should* be more sensitive.."

Posted by: Atrios at October 18, 2003 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

In essense, that is what I got to be Easterbrook's only defensible point, and I'm willing to let it slide, but it's not forgotten. Quite simply, as long as this is an isolated incident, both in reference to the past and the future, he should get off the hook. But if he repeats the same mistake, especially after what happened here, he's not going to be able to beg off so easily. I think it's a fair trade.

Posted by: mattH at October 18, 2003 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, and I don't mean that he is off the hook to explain himself or his point of view. If anything, his point that he still supports everything he wrote must be clarified, otherwise there is no real apology there.

Posted by: mattH at October 18, 2003 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

If you look at the Google News list of stories about Gen. Boykin, it's amazing how many of them are titled something like "General Apologizes for Talking About God"

Posted by: julia at October 18, 2003 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

If God wanted Bill Clinton to be President, doesn't that make Newt Gingrich into... Judas Iscariot?

Posted by: Brad DeLong at October 18, 2003 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

Well, apparently Easterbrook has been fired from ESPN, and I assume eventually from TNR. So you won't have to worry about him repeating "the same mistake".

Posted by: ctc at October 18, 2003 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

I found something incongruous about the same guy (Easterbrook) complaining that Jews made violent movies and needing to be more sensitive, and then putting himself forward as a good Christian (as he did in his column about Mel Gibson's film), all the while having a good time over at ESPN with the cheerleaders (per a recent column Page 2 column). There's just something weird about it.

But I'm not sure what to think about him losing his job.

As for the general, I think he ought to be busted back to buck private and kicked out of the military. Unfortunately, his sentiments are all too common these days among some officials in power. Sidney Schanberg said in the Village Voice this week that Shrub believes God called him to be president. When the president believes this sort of thing, you shouldn't be surprised to see it in administration officials. In fact, it might even be a sin qua non for office in this administration. Who knows?

Posted by: Mirele at October 18, 2003 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

Boykin: what. a. dickwad.
What Atrios said upthread. Evidently Easterbrook doesn't see a problem with that. Moral: don't mess with Eisner. His columns have been deleted.

Posted by: John Isbell at October 18, 2003 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

Um, excuse me, but General Boykins remarks concerning Bush's ascendancy to the Presidency singled him out as being SPECIALLY selected because he made it without having received a majority of the popular vote.

So the "explanation" that he meant it in the same sense that Clinton was also selected by God is a L.I.E.

Disgusting.

Posted by: Julia Grey at October 18, 2003 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

Moral: don't mess with Eisner.

True enough.

Disney does suck, though.

Posted by: Felix Deutsch at October 18, 2003 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

"'Since Jews have been the victims of so much violence over the ages, including the Holocaust, you'd think they might be a little more sensitive to concerns over glorifying the killing of the helpless.'

"Does everyone agree that this was more or less his point? Or was it something more subtle?"

I dunno about subtle. I think he meant "I don't like Quentin Tarantino's movies. I'm surprised that Jews don't like Quentin Tarantino movies."

To which the only sensible response is (in the voice of a Carnegie Deli waiter and accompanied by an existential shrug):

"Some do, some don't, bubala."

And there the matter should be dropped by all, like an old latke.

Posted by: tristero at October 18, 2003 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

They did not just delete Easterbrook's columns. They left nothing over for their search engine to locate. That seems to mean to me that it was personal. Eisner or someone who knew what Eisner wanted made the decision.

Posted by: elliottg at October 18, 2003 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

>Since Jews have been the victims of so much violence over the ages, including the Holocaust, you'd think they might be a little more sensitive to concerns over glorifying the killing of the helpless.

I think that's fair. I wouldn't even quibble with atrios's version.

But I think it's important to look at how he got there. My reading of it suggests that his first instinct was to go after executives for being insufficiently Christian. (Maybe I'm being too generous, but I've been reading him with interest for a couple of years, and I think this fits in with how he sees things.) When he hit the fact that Disney & Miramax's executives weren't Christian, he tried to force the argument anyway. Either not wanting to call someone else a hypocrite for not hewing to their religion closely enough, or recognizing that "Jewish" is ambiguous between religion and ethnicity, he went for wagging his finger about the Holocaust.

Does that make it excusable? Not really. But the way I see it, he didn't strike out to criticize the Jewy Jews (thanks, atrios), but wound up there after he couldn't criticize them for being bad Christians.

Posted by: allen claxton at October 18, 2003 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

As tristero says, Easterbrook's emphasis is on the *I* part. It's *he* who thinks Jews ought to have more sensitivity to violence than any other people. *He* makes the pre-supposition here: "*I* think they should be more sensitive to violence, considering their history."

But why does that idea make sense? Sometimes people who've been victimized by violence get really violent themselves. To say nothing of the fact that very damn few American Jews, really, are either survivors or the descendants of survivors and so aren't personally touched by it. I know I'm not.

The bigger problem with Easterbrook is where this kind of ascription comes from. He's saying, really, that certain groups of people ought to have certain characteristics because of nothing more than what they were born as.

This is purest Schlafly. Sexual aggression in men is the energy behind society-- it needs to be provoked, then channeled, by women. Presto, civilization. All based on group stereotypes.

Posted by: Altoid at October 18, 2003 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

TNR won't fire Easterbrook, and they shouldn't, at least not for what he said. But he isn't a good writer anymore, so if they let him go for that sometime in the future I wouldn't blame them.

Posted by: Mitch Schindler at October 18, 2003 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Israeli soldiers, for example, take extreme care in their operations to avoid killing innocents

Pounding Beriut into rubble, for example.

Or, carving the Star of David into Palestinians.

Etcera.

BTW there is at least one Jew who doesn't give a damn about blowing up the helpless - the "mehan'des".

That'll be an exception to your rule I guess. (shrug)

Posted by: Mark Tinsley at October 18, 2003 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

and as the first hints of dusk start to lower over the east coast, another interesting conversation at Calpundit jumps the shark.

sigh.

Posted by: julia at October 18, 2003 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

Would this have been a better Easterbrook comment:

Since all you Hollywood types like to carry on about how horrible the Holocaust was, why not start cleaning house at home and stop making these movies that glorify violence and killing, like 'Kill Bill?'

Posted by: bink at October 18, 2003 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Ummm, I consider myself a liberal, but I'm confused about why the topic of previously oppressed ethnicities/religions being hypocritical is such a sensitive no-no. In my hometown region, the Boston Irish population, obviously ethnically hypocritical in regards to the black population (e.g. busing crisis, and then the great white flight to suburbia in the 70s), should make any progressive gag and wretch.

Why is pointing out that the Jewish population as a majority might be hypocritical when the Israeli government routinely kills innocent helpless Palestinians? By pointing this out, I don't imply that Israel doesn’t' have a right to defend itself. It makes sense for Israel to be more militant than other industrialized democracies since all of the surrounding Arab countries would like nothing better than to drive every last Jew into the Mediterranean. But that does not excuse slaughter of innocent Palestinians. With the current rate of new settlements in Palestinian territories, and thus the lack of any regard for Palestinian sovereignty, the Israeli / Palestinian settlement issue will resemble South African apartheid era township issue. If things get to that point, how can any reasonable person not see the rank hypocrisy?

I think Easterbrook screwed up when he put the hypocrisy of the whole Jewish religion/ethnicity solely on the shoulders of two highly public successful Jewish businessmen. Traits and characteristics (or stereotypes if you aren’t into embellishments) of a group should not be categorically applied to an individual of that group. That is 4th grade simple, and it’s sad when pundits screw it up.

Posted by: Brad at October 18, 2003 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know much about Boykin and I don't have a password for the LA Times, but I don't think that comment itself is necessarily dishonest. It's really just Christianity 101.

"Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?" Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above... (John 19:10-11a)

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. (Romans 13:1-2)

Of course, Boykin could still be lying for all I know, if he didn't in fact treat Clinton like he should have. But it's nothing to get alarmed about when a Christian says President X or Prime Minister Y was put into power by God. This is really just a general statement that God is in control of the world. Of course, it needs to be applied consistently, regardless of whether or not the President is from your party. (Jesus, for instance, applies it to even Pontius Pilate.)

Posted by: JP at October 18, 2003 01:30 PM | PERMALINK

Would this have been a better Easterbrook comment:

Since all you Hollywood types like to carry on about how horrible the Holocaust was, why not start cleaning house at home and stop making these movies that glorify violence and killing, like 'Kill Bill?'

It most certainly wouldn't have been better in my book. The subject of whether violent movies in general (and Kill Bill in particular) are irresponsible, cause societal damage, etc., is a completely legitimate one for debate. Easterbrook's on one side of it, and I'm on the other. No problem there. But there's no controversy over how bad the Holocaust was, so what the hell does it have to do with this debate? Did violent movies directly cause the Holocaust? Will violent movies directly cause another Holocaust? Who in their right mind would make such an argument? How can you can carry on an honest discussion about a topic that has nothing to do with the Holocaust if one side suddenly decides to evoke it like that?

Posted by: Haggai at October 18, 2003 01:34 PM | PERMALINK

Probably going to offend someone, but here's an analogy to my reading of Easterbrook:

"Sure, other movie executives have demonstrated they only care about money, but you'd think black executives would know better than to make a film glorifying slavery."

"Sure, other movie executives have demonstrated they only care about money, but you'd think Michael Moore would know better than to make a film glorifying union-busting."

"Group 1 has suffered action X, unlike group 2. Sure, group 2 are being idiots, but you'd think a member of group 1 would know better than to make a movie (indirectly) glorifying action X."

Not that I really agree, but I don't think it's an offensive argument. The phrasing sure was, though.

I'm not sure what he was thinking with the comparision of "Christian executives" to "Jewish executives", when the Jewish executives aren't religious. Maybe he meant cultural?

Posted by: Jason McCullough at October 18, 2003 01:36 PM | PERMALINK

Bummer, I like TMQ except when gets all political

Posted by: CalDem at October 18, 2003 01:36 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, on the face of it Boykin's denial is a lie:

Here's the original quote:

“And then [the somali guy we were after] went on CNN and he laughed at us, and he said, ‘They’ll never get me because Allah will protect me. Allah will protect me.’
“Well, you know what I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol. But I prayed, Lord let us get that man."

Apparantly Boykin equates Allah with idolatry. This is perfectly self-consistent (to many devout christians, all other religious people are following false gods). This underlines the difficulties in putting people of fundamentally intolerant faith in policy-making positions, why why Tacitus gets on my nerves -- their 16th century thinking is essentially arguments from authority, not rationality. It's like The Enlightenment never happened.

Posted by: Troy at October 18, 2003 01:43 PM | PERMALINK

Jason M., I see your point, but where I differ is when someone simply conflates the Holocaust with anything that shows violence, or even with anything that shows violent killing. The Holocaust was one of the biggest campaigns of genocide in human history, and that's not even in the same ballpark with the gang-land violence of Kill Bill. I don't see how anyone can equate the two on any level at all.

Posted by: Haggai at October 18, 2003 01:44 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, the denial with respect to the Islam/idolatry comment was definitely a lie. Just to clarify.

Posted by: JP at October 18, 2003 01:46 PM | PERMALINK

I can't help but mentally compare ESPN's quick and quiet firing of Easterbrook, with their loud defense of Limbaugh. I mean, I can't say that Easterbrook's comments (especially as he apologized for at least some of them quite quickly) are so obviously worse than Limbaugh's to make a the difference between the two reactions.

Maybe ESPN just has a very quick turnaround in revising their policies, but I doubt it.

Posted by: Nick at October 18, 2003 01:46 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't Easterbrook linked with the Mel Gibson arch-catholic sect, or something similar?

Posted by: Troy at October 18, 2003 01:46 PM | PERMALINK

JP, did you understand my comment? Boykin made a special point in his speeches of claiming that the way he knew Bush had been placed in power by the Hand of God was because he was president in spite of not getting a majority of the vote.

Therefore he was making an argument that Bush was, in fact, SPECIALLY elevated to the job by God. The "all government officials are appointed by God" wiggle is dishonest in light of his actual meaning in the context of the speeches he gave.

You want to beg context for his other remarks, you gotta suffer the context for this one, too.

Posted by: Julia Grey at October 18, 2003 01:47 PM | PERMALINK

Julia:
Yeah, that's why I included those disclaimers in my comment. As I mentioned, I haven't been following this story. I have no brief for Boykin personally. I'm just making a more general point about those types of statements.

Posted by: JP at October 18, 2003 02:04 PM | PERMALINK

Only if Mel Gibson's arch-catholic sect is the Presbyterians.

Posted by: ctc at October 18, 2003 02:04 PM | PERMALINK

I think that Easterbrook's wording was awful (I winced when I first read it), but it is apiece with his other writings about people taking their religious faith(s) seriously, which was one focus of his Gibson criticisms.

I've been reading Easterbrook for work and fun for a long, long time, and I think this is the first hint, even the tiniest hint, of him harboring some sort of prejudice.

And Haggai, I disagree re analogy with the Holocaust. It was an unfortunate use, but not necessarily an inapt one. The glorification of violence is one step on the path to genocide -- a necessary but not sufficient condition.

Posted by: Bob at October 18, 2003 02:11 PM | PERMALINK

Brad: hypocrisy occurs when people act contrary to their purported beliefs. Groups of people don't hold beliefs, (unless they are groups defined by those beliefs, and even then, there is always disagreement). To ascribe a belief to an ethnic group is screwed up because it subjugates a person's individuality to their membership of a group, as you point out.

To ascribe hypocrisy to an ethnic group is even more screwed up, because not only does it ascribe beliefs to that group, but it also makes a claim about the way people within that group act. It also makes an implicit moral judgment about the moral character of the group as a whole.

And in this particular case, I think it's hard even to make the claim that this hypocrisy, of oppressed people being oppressive, is disproportionately represented among Jews (or Israelis, or whatever).

My own personal feeling is that it's statements like this that make the Israel/Palestine conflict intractable. If every Israeli is genocidal and every Palestinian is a terrorist, then why bother negotiating? Unltil the Palestinians who want peace and justice recognize and work with the Israelis who want peace and justice, and vice versa, there will be no progress. The absolutists on both sides recognize this, and stoke the fires accordingly.

Posted by: Melissa O at October 18, 2003 02:15 PM | PERMALINK

And Haggai, I disagree re analogy with the Holocaust. It was an unfortunate use, but not necessarily an inapt one. The glorification of violence is one step on the path to genocide -- a necessary but not sufficient condition.

Did the Holocaust happen even in part because of whatever the German cinematic equivalent of Kill Bill was in the 1930s, i.e. some movies, plays, radio shows, etc. that were thought by some at the time to be too violent? I think it's ridiculous to say that such a thing was, or could have been, even a small step in what followed. The de-humanization of Jews (and non-Aryans, as the Nazis chose to define such things) via propaganda was extremely widespread in Nazi Germany, and that, along with numerous other things, helped lead to the Holocaust, but that has nothing to do with the sort of movies that Easterbrook is talking about. I don't see what fictional stories or images that involve violence in some general sense, but not promoting it as something that should be done to any particular ethnicity or group of people, could possibly have to do with genocide (even Easterbrook didn't claim that Kill Bill is irresponsibly promoting anti-Asian violence in particular). If someone wants to claim that violence in the movies coarsens society or corrupts people into thinking that violence is OK, that's one thing. But it's an absurdly slippery slope to say that this could possibly contribute to genocide in our society.

Posted by: Haggai at October 18, 2003 02:50 PM | PERMALINK

Having spent 24 years in the U.S. military, it seems to me that being a so-called Christian as well as a soldier is an oxymoron.

A soldier by definition is forced to be a killer of his own kind. While killing is the way of the world, killing one's own kind is essentially abnormal.

Scratch a soldier who actually knows the teaching of Christ and yet still professes to be a Christian and you'll often find a highly functional, seemingly very intelligent, yet insane man.

Civilians are usually taken aback when they hear of the spooky superstitious beliefs coming from supposedly educated men such as Boykin, Patton and probably thousands of others who are smart enough to keep their mouths shut.

I know I've never quite figured it out. I can only guess such so-called Christian soldiers are in truth still locked into the vindictive god of the Old Testament/Torah. They often speak in terms of good verses satan, etc.

Maybe it's akin to the reasons Nietzsche is said to have gone insane.. That is, maybe it's something like trying to handle his atheistic beliefs while trying to balance a growing gnosticism?

Who knows, maybe Bokin is searching for a way to
reconcile what he knows he must do. That is, he must believe his own lies in order to continue to do his duty and kill his fellow man in the most brutal of ways.

Yet the terrible truth is we will always need such men who perhaps need to tear themselves apart in order to do their jobs.

Posted by: Charles Munn at October 18, 2003 02:50 PM | PERMALINK

To ascribe hypocrisy to an ethnic group is even more screwed up, because not only does it ascribe beliefs to that group...

I commented on this on another thread. The source of the confusion is that Jews are both an ethnicity and a religion. Easterbrook was only looking at them as the latter - incorrectly for the point he was trying to make, because the Holocaust was aimed at Jews as the former (those who had converted were still targeted, etc). But I'm sure he didn't mean to ascribe any beliefs to them as an ethnicity.

Posted by: JP at October 18, 2003 03:22 PM | PERMALINK

Scratch a soldier who actually knows the teaching of Christ and yet still professes to be a Christian and you'll often find a highly functional, seemingly very intelligent, yet insane man.

This is absurd. It's not as if you're the first person ever to notice the tension inherent in being a Christian soldier. There are all kinds of theological responses to this problem, and have been for thousands of years. It's fine if you don't agree with any of those justifications, but you can't just tar everyone who disagrees with you as being "insane."

Posted by: JP at October 18, 2003 03:28 PM | PERMALINK

Am I the only person who takes offense when the Christian extremists claim that the U.S. is a Christian nation? In his 'apology' Boykin said, “My references to Judeo-Christian roots in America or our nation as a Christian nation are historically undeniable." I understand the Judeo-Christain influances but the neocons Seem amnesic toward the fact that Deists like Jefferson and Franklin had the greater influence.


How to objectively measure that influence? Try to find a single mention of Christianity in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. It’s not there. Boykin didn't just offend Islam, he insults the intelligence of all free thinking people who desire a world based on reason, not crass superstition.

Posted by: d.w.otto at October 18, 2003 03:31 PM | PERMALINK

>Boykin didn't just offend Islam, he insults the intelligence of all free thinking people who desire a world based on reason, not crass superstition

Probably true. Yet I wonder how many people truly are free thinking and are not superstitious?

For instance, it seems to me that most so-called Christians are in fact Jews by virtue of their belief in the old testatment as opposed to what is said to be the teachings of Christ. Yes, Christianity supposedly emerged from Judeoism. Yet Christianity is a very different philosphy than that of the old testament/Torah. In that regard I view such people who say they are Christians but believe in an eye for an eye, etc., as either uniformed/uneducated or if they are informed/educated, then personally dishonest.

I also strongly suspect that personal dishonesty is the first step into insanity which is often reinforced by superstiions such as exhibited by Boykin. For a further elaboration of that theory go http://ChazzMunn.tripod.com/index.thoughts.html
and scroll down to "A Practical Way To Bypass Ego"

Posted by: Charles Munn at October 18, 2003 04:24 PM | PERMALINK

The godists like to point to the "year of our lord 17xx" in the Constitution.

See! The US is implicitly a Christian nation...

Posted by: Troy at October 18, 2003 04:25 PM | PERMALINK

"If God wanted Bill Clinton to be President, doesn't that make Newt Gingrich into... Judas Iscariot?"

Posted by: Brad DeLong at October 18, 2003 10:36 AM

If this general said that Clinton was appointed by God, then that would indeed make Newt into a tool of the Adversary. However (just guessing here), that general was not standing in front of right-wing Christian groups during the Clinton administration and saying that the president was appointed by God.

Posted by: Barry at October 18, 2003 04:41 PM | PERMALINK

We could talk about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict from now till doomsday, but I think it has little relevance to the whole Easterbrook discussion.

dw otto:
"Am I the only person who takes offense when the Christian extremists claim that the U.S. is a Christian nation?"

Nope, you certainly are not. When someone like Easterbrook provides commentary that's based on an assumption that Christian references are shared by all of us, and are therefore generic...well, it's another signal that the separation of church and state is rapidly eroding. That this is what the current administration intends makes it all scarier.

Easterbrook's original haphazard argument could probably be reframed to amusing effect by pitting, say, vegan film executives against an omnivorous viewing public. Or vice versa. "You'd think that someone who eschews the consumption of animal flesh and the exploitation of non-human life forms would be a little more sensitive to the filmic portrayal of humans being maimed and slaughtered."

Posted by: Sarah at October 18, 2003 05:35 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I think you left out one very important part -- that the Jews who SHOULD (thank you, Atrios) be more sensitive aren't because they are GREEDY (like the Christians).

The idea of the greedy Jew has been used for so long to bash them -- "they'd sell out their own savior for a lousy 30 pieces of silver!" -- that the inclusion of this particular point, corporate greed winning out over should-know-better Jewish execs' hearts must be looked at in the historic context.

And within that context, his statement becomes far, far worse. He may not have meant it that way, but damn, he sure said it that way.

That, coupled with picking out their ethnicity -- not their religion -- in a completely arbitrary manner is what did him in.

--Kynn

Posted by: Kynn at October 18, 2003 06:52 PM | PERMALINK

online casinos | casino bonus | casino directory | high roller casinos | casinos

Posted by: doi at May 23, 2004 08:28 AM | PERMALINK

Buy www.i-directv.net this it is a wonderful addition to anyones home entertainment system.

Posted by: click here at May 28, 2004 01:03 AM | PERMALINK

Find your www.ALL-FIORICET.COM here, 100% discrete!

Posted by: fioricet at June 14, 2004 05:07 PM | PERMALINK

go to WWW.E-CREDIT-CARD-DEBT.COM for great deals!

Posted by: creditcard debt at June 15, 2004 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

Now you can Play Poker online any time!

Posted by: online poker at June 25, 2004 01:21 PM | PERMALINK

online casino

If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers. You can also play blackjack online fo free!

Posted by: online casino at July 30, 2004 10:16 PM | PERMALINK

883 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com

Posted by: texas holdem online at August 9, 2004 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

3028 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com

Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

7090 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com

Posted by: cialis at August 10, 2004 03:06 PM | PERMALINK

569 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com

Posted by: buy viagra at August 14, 2004 05:09 PM | PERMALINK

6573 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

Posted by: online poker at August 15, 2004 07:53 PM | PERMALINK

4356 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com

Posted by: play blackjack at August 17, 2004 02:24 AM | PERMALINK

3383 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is
Krankenversicherung private and dont forget
Krankenversicherung gesetzlich
and then again there is always beer

Posted by: Krankenversicherung gesetzlich at August 17, 2004 06:54 PM | PERMALINK

1587 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto

Posted by: debt consolidation at August 19, 2004 12:09 AM | PERMALINK

2827

http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for
Adult DVD And Adult DVDS And Adult videos Thanks and dont forget Check out the diecast model
cars
at http://www.diecastdot.com

Posted by: Adult DVD at August 19, 2004 02:32 PM | PERMALINK

1407 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~

Posted by: blackjack at August 23, 2004 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

6512 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-)

Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 06:19 AM | PERMALINK

1322 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow

Posted by: online texas hold em at August 26, 2004 03:34 AM | PERMALINK
Navigation
Contribute to Calpundit



Advertising
Powered by
Movable Type 2.63

Site Meter