Friday, June 1, 2007 18 Comments

Hillary fires back

Since Dr. Burgess has had his say, it's only fair to showcase Hillary Clinton's perspective of the Progressive Era:

Now we've done this before. We did the same thing back at the turn of the 20th century. Back then, the American economy was dominated by large corporate monopolies. Corruption was far too common and good government far too rare. Women couldn't vote, and the minimum wage, well, that wasn't heard of and worker rights were completely unimagined. Back then, America was a country filled with haves and have nots -- and not enough people in between.

In response to these excesses, the progressive movement was born. Throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s, the progressives busted trusts and fought for safe working conditions and fair wages. They created the national park system, and replaced a government rife with cronyism with a merit-based civil service. They understood, as the great progressive President Teddy Roosevelt once said, that "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."

I am especially into the Roosevelt quote, which I feel may indicate that Ms. Clinton shares an interest in palaeological grammar. (Unfortunately, the pleasures and pains of the campaign trail must have delayed her, for I snagged the $10 Palaeologus myself.)

In any case, there's no question but that Ms. Clinton approved these words - whoever wrote them. And I think they're a good way for me to explain why I don't trust history.

Every high school student in the US has a textbook which gives them Ms. Clinton's interpretation of the Progressive Era. I would be surprised if a single one gets Dr. Burgess's. Perhaps in some obscure, appalling Appalachian backwater. But probably not.

In fact, I myself obviously have some sympathy with Dr. Burgess and his cause. But how did I hear of him? Where did I find this work? I found a gilt-and-leather 1990s reprint at a used bookstore, the day before yesterday. I have never seen Dr. Burgess, "founder of American political science" (two of his students, for example, were Nicholas Murray Butler and Theodore Roosevelt) mentioned by any political essayist, historian or blogger.

I'm sure if I was actually a qualified specialist, this would be different. It is not quite as though Dr. Burgess was airbrushed out of the Kremlin parade. He has a Wikipedia page, after all. But it is not a long one.

I think this tends to confirm my general perspective, which is that history is not trustworthy in a democracy. In a democracy, power depends on public opinion, and public opinion depends on history. Since history - by definition - is written by historians, democracy vests vast powers in this tiny, self-selecting, and utterly opaque elite.

Of course, the facts of the Progressive Era are not in dispute. It is a fact that Woodrow Wilson was elected President in 1912. But if facts were all we wanted from history, we'd need databases, not historians.

And of course, both Dr. Burgess and Ms. Clinton are entirely sincere. Or at least the former. And whatever goes on inside Ms. Clinton's head - I would not dare to speculate - her views are not her own. They come from her staffers, who got them from their professors, who I'm sure were historians no less capable or sincere than Dr. Burgess.

This does not answer the question of why their views replaced Dr. Burgess's. Not just in the textbooks, not just under Ms. Clinton's polymerized coif, but even at Columbia University - where I'm sure President Wilson is now seldom compared to Julius Caesar.

Perhaps, for example, the Progressive historians were simply right. And Dr. Burgess - who obviously has a bad attitude - was simply wrong. Perhaps God, the Lord of Hosts, was looking on, and put a subtle finger on the scale when the tenure decisions were going down. Can we disprove this? We cannot.

Another possibility is that what we're looking at here is no more than intellectual fashion. Why are skirts long one year and short the next? Because Anna Wintour says so? Or is it the stock market? Whatever the answer, I don't know it and I don't think my girlfriend does, either. The word "random" is much misused, but it represents a negative result in the analysis of cause and effect, and it should always be on the table.

However, there is an even simpler and more disturbing explanation.

I think we have to consider the possibility that the extinction of Dr. Burgess's views, and the adoption of Ms. Clinton's, is an adaptive phenomenon. That is, it is easiest to explain by postulating some effect, at some point between 1915 and 2007, in which historians holding Dr. Burgess's perspective were less likely to prosper and spread their ideas, and historians holding Ms. Clinton's perspective were relatively more successful.

Of course, one cause of this would be our first hypothesis: that Dr. Burgess is wrong and Ms. Clinton is right. Given that they are both expressing value judgments, however, it is hard to justify this. And certainly if you read Progressive equivalents from the period - The Promise of American Life (1909), by Herbert Croly, is a good example - let's just say I think it would be quite difficult to claim that events since have discredited Dr. Burgess and vindicated Mr. Croly.

A simpler explanation, I think, is just to postulate a feedback loop between Progressive victories in Washington, DC, and in the Columbia faculty lounge. Progressive historians assist Progressive politicians by spreading the notion that Progressivism and righteousness are equivalent. In return, Progressive politicians assist Progressive historians by giving them funding, fame and influence.

It is important to remember that this analysis is adaptive, not volitional. The historians and politicians do not meet up in some little smoke-filled room where packets of twenties change hands. When all are sincere, there is no need to conspire.

The key to the Progressive victory, which this theory so accurately postdicts, is that there is no equivalent libertarian feedback loop. Progressive historians win because Progressivism itself is inherently pro-historian. Historians, after all, are enlightened and benevolent experts, and the central idea of the Progressive Movement was and is that government should be run by enlightened and benevolent experts. You do the math.

This is also why I dislike the idea of "media bias."

There is no such thing as journalism. Journalism is just recent history. And saying that journalists have a "liberal bias" may be true, in some sense of the word. It is also deeply misleading, and worse, it understates the appalling size and scale of the problem. It is more that liberals have a journalist bias - that the very idea of liberalism (ie, progressive idealism) is pro-journalist.

So this statement, which seems so damning, reduces to the proposition that journalists are pro-journalist. This may not be a tautology, but it's close. For obvious reasons of human psychology, journalists - like other historians - are likely to favor political systems in which they themselves are more important and powerful. The same is true of poets, climatologists, economists, and for all I know dishwashers.

Democracy does not provide any obvious ways for dishwashers to influence public opinion. So no feedback loop can develop which favors self-aggrandizing schools of tableware hygiene. (Otherwise, used dishes would probably have to be sent to an official sterilization facility.)

The same is not true of historians, poets, climatologists, or economists. And without a way of breaking the feedback loops - which certainly does not exist today - we should expect democracies to produce some extremely strange and corrupt versions of history, poetry, climatology, and economics. To name only a few such fields.


Anonymous bdr said...

While i enjoy your writing, b/c a lot of the references you make presuppose the reader's familiarity with them, i think giving some basic arguments for the following subjects would help make some of your writing less 'preaching-to-choir-esqe':

1) The downsides of the New Deal (which,admittedly, your last few posts have been shedding more light on)

2) The evils of enviromentalism

3) Why we should deport people of the Muslim faith

June 2, 2007 at 9:53 AM  
Anonymous dearieme said...

Lord Acton's warning: "All power tends to corrupt and Powerpoint corrupts absolutely". Approximately.

June 2, 2007 at 10:52 AM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...


I don't favor deporting people of the Muslim faith, so I can't really comment on that one.

On the other points, thanks for your comment - I will try harder not to presuppose these arguments. In general I prefer to start from the big picture and descend to the little, and I think you're right that I have been overanticipating the latter a little too much.

Much as I love the choir, it always delights me to hear from readers who are not part of it. I cannot understand people who read blogs they always expect to agree with. I mean, what is the point?

June 2, 2007 at 11:17 AM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...


I can't even fathom how Acton would respond to 2007. It would probably take some really, really heavy drugs to bring him back around.

June 2, 2007 at 11:18 AM  
Anonymous bdr said...

I guess i just assumed #3 b/c a lot of the blogs you've linked have expressed support for such (or similar) measures.

i probably would have been better to phrase it as 'Your views on immigration' and secondarily that of American Muslims.

Thanks for the always interesting writing.

June 2, 2007 at 11:55 AM  
Anonymous tggp said...

Mencius, although I don't expect to agree with everything you say, I think you must be joking when you say you don't understand why people read something they expect to agree with: they find it enjoyable! Just a short quote from Hillary Clinton on the Progressive Era makes me feel nauseous, but your commentary makes up for it.

June 2, 2007 at 12:55 PM  
Anonymous nick said...

There's a fairly straightfoward explanation. Historians and other meme-mongers having increasingly relied on taxes for their salaries as government funding for education, including higher education, has increased and as the civil service employing graduates in these fields has expanded. So it's no surprise that they have increasingly promoted ideas that increase their revenue source and have shoved ideas that threaten their revenue, like Dr. Burgesss', into dark corners. The Progressive/New Deal has effectively buried the vast amount and variety of their opponents' ideas in this manner.

A similar phenomenon has also happened in many areas of science: see The Trouble with Science. Although the "hard sciences" are far more testable than the "soft" ones like climatology, much less the "social sciences", even in the hardest science, physics itself, bias and waste have crept in.

A few centuries earlier the Romanists, with their ideas of delegation-based government and sovereignty, buried the old paradigm of jurisdiction as property with the myth of government as a "monopoly of force". Those who follow my blog know that I have worked hard to revive this lost and now quite alien paradigm. Similar to Mencius' experience, I disovered this lost paradigm not in any scholarly tome of history or political science -- the idea has been utterly lost to academia, which reflexively and falsely applies delegation principles when describing kings and nobility -- but in reading ancient law cases from Selden Society volumes that are almost never actually read. These volumes are largely confined to a few major law school libraries as status items to brag about the comprehensiveness of their collection. But these had never been checked out of the library and they had old pages that required the reader to cut them that had never been cut. Even if you try to read them you have to have the discipline to learn the meaning of lost old legal phrases and actually understand the cases before the light bulb goes on and you discover that you are reading about an extremely alien political world that today's minds do not imagine, no matter how much they might go on romantically about Dukes and Earls and such.

Modern academia has engaged in lossy compression to such an extreme degree that many of the highly evolved ideas of the past have been lost. They exist only in a close reading of the most direct accounts of these lost worlds, such as the legal cases of medieval and Renaissance England reported in the Seldens.

As for journalism, forget the romantic ideas you've been taught in the news by journalists: that they run around digging up deep facts and piecing them together and so forth. That's total rubbish -- no organization exept a detective agency could earn a profit going to all that effort. Journalism is in fact the art of plagiarizing press releases made by various organizations for their own benefit. Thus most of the text you read about a commercial product, for example, comes straight out of a press release. And the critiques you read come from the press releases of "grass roots" organizations funded by their competitors or of government agencies who want to increase their regulatory power over that field of products.

Guess where most of political news articles come from? Straight out of the text and speech of government officials. These officials are the only people who have the budget, time, staff, and legal power to actually investigate the political issues they handle. Thus political jounnalism is nothing but a megaphone for government -- sometimes of competing government factions criticizing each other, but almost always praising government generally.

I have personal experience reading in trade magazines "reviews" of one of my old employer's "products" that didn't even work yet in the lab -- the only thing that had been released was some preliminary marketing material. The non-trade, i.e. mass-market, press is usually even lazier than this.

When we moved our tribal loyalties to "the government", as described by the press, the apotheosis of government as an omniscient and omnipotent diety, coming down from the skies to rescue us from hurricanes and old age, was not far behind.

Microkernel government, based on the old paradigm of jurisdiction as property, would go a long way towards solving this problem by unbundling jurisdictions and revenue sources.

June 2, 2007 at 2:57 PM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...

bdr - thanks for the clarification. I suppose I should note that I don't endorse all the positions of Auster, etc. Perhaps I have become too used to traveling in such motley company.

tggp - I appreciate the compliment, but I suspect the fact that you don't expect to agree with everything here is a more important aspect of your enjoyment than you may think. It adds dramatic tension, as it were.

nick - for once I agree completely. I really liked that science post. In fact I liked it so much it annoyed me, because I had planned to cover exactly the same material. Not, despite our disagreements on sovereignty, uncommon with your work.

Have you checked out Climate Audit yet? I find it absolutely shocking. Really gives you that whole Philip K. Dick vibe.

June 2, 2007 at 8:04 PM  
Anonymous nick said...

Climate Audit is shocking only as opposed to the myth that scientists are spotless seakers after Truth rather than spinners and rhetoriticians like most smart people seeking to "pay off the mortgage." (From the film "Thank You for Smoking", a hilarious spoof on DC lobbying). All sides are spinning heavily in the global warming game. The myth says that a scientist objectively presents all relevant evidence, but when politics or other large revenue streams are at stake we can't rely on most scientists in most fields to present evidence contrary to their interests and preconceived beliefs, any more than we can rely on the prosecution alone or the defense alone to present evidence at a trial.

Physical reality can sometimes be uncommonly good at restraining this spin -- that is the main reason science has had the great reputation that it's had -- but when physical reality becomes elusive the spin tends to come to the fore as it does in other politics.

June 4, 2007 at 1:43 PM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...

Yeah - what I like about Climate Audit is that it is almost entirely an amateur site. It is not involved with the spinmeisters of either side.

"Funding" is the dirtiest word in the English language.

June 4, 2007 at 10:13 PM  
Blogger Alias Clio said...

Historians are more varied in their opinions than you make them out to be, although I suspect that the ones who operate out of the Ivy League universities (i.e. on private funding, please note), tend to be less so. That, at least, is something I heard many times from my own Harvard and Yale educated profs, who were glad to escape.

In the 1980s I read the work of many historians who were fiercely critical of the "Progressives" and everything they stood for. And incidentally, most of them came from a left-wing, indeed a Marxist, perspective. They disliked the Progressives and the New Deal because they thought of these as bourgeois reforms which, by moderating the effects of capitalism, would delay the oncoming of the real revolution, the Marxist one.

And sorry, but I can't give you any names offhand. I'm already doing too many things at once.

Forgive the late comment. I just had to speak up to defend my sometime profession, even if it's by means of citing the loonier side of the left.

June 5, 2007 at 3:05 PM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...


I assume you mean Gabriel Kolko and the like. Libertarian historians, like Murray Rothbard, discovered these guys and love to cite them. Interesting bedfellows.

I am sure the world is full of dedicated historians who love the past for what it is, not for the ways in which it can send some useful message. The problem, I think, is that the struggle to be one of the few historians whose work affects those who are not historians is intense, and it not always won by the former class. Or by the most scrupulous in general.

BTW, I'm working my way through Paul Scott on your recommendation...

June 8, 2007 at 9:41 PM  
Blogger Alias Clio said...

MM, I'm glad to hear that you're working through Paul Scott's Raj Quartet. I hope it doesn't disappoint! You must tell me what you think later. Incidentally, there are some issues relating to Indian history about which I don't think I can agree with Scott - but I'll save that for after you've read the books.

And yes, I think it must be Kolko et al whom I was remembering. That group, the revisionists who came along at the end of the 1960s and were prominent throughout the 1970s, had, I think, another name for themselves, which I can't at present recall.

They were not social historians as the phrase was later defined, because they didn't use quantitative methods, and they didn't write "history from below". But the social historians of the later 1970s and 1980s (the movement began rather earlier in England, and lasted longer) drew much from their ideas.

June 11, 2007 at 9:48 AM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...


I definitely will. I like it so far - whatever Scott's personal distaste for colonialism may be, it doesn't show through too badly. If the past is another country, it's usually pretty easy to tell the real multiculturalists from the fake ones (ie, the presentists).

(I'll take a racist over a presentist any day - in theory I don't believe in thoughtcrime, but there have to be some limits.)

I suppose you've read Nirad Chaudhuri on the same period? If not, a great treat awaits you.

June 11, 2007 at 9:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,充氣娃娃,免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,免費AV,色情網站,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人影片,成人網站,A片,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,情色網,成人交友,嘟嘟成人網,成人電影,成人,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,情色,情色貼圖,情色文學,情色交友,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,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,色情影片,視訊聊天室,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊,視訊美女,視訊交友,視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,AIO,a片下載,aV,av片,A漫,av dvd,av成人網,聊天室,成人論壇,本土自拍,自拍,A片,情境坊歡愉用品,情趣用品,情人節禮物,情人節,情惑用品性易購,生日禮物,保險套,A片,情色,情色交友,色情聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色小說,情色視訊,情色電影,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊,,視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,情人視訊網,視訊交友90739,成人交友,美女交友

November 6, 2008 at 6:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,約定金生,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,約定金生,情趣網站,跳蛋, 約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,約定金生,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,約定金生,潮吹,高潮,後庭,約定金生,情色論譠,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,約定金生,音樂下載, 約定金生,約定金生,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套, 約定金生,約定金生,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,約定金生,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車, 約定金生,手機,來電答鈴, 約定金生,週年慶,美食,約定金生,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計, 約定金生,室內設計, 約定金生,靈異照片,約定金生,同志,約定金生,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解,av女優, 約定金生,小說,約定金生,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,約定金生,討論區,痴漢,懷孕, 約定金生,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,約定金生,免費影片,醫學美容, 約定金生,免費算命,算命,約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學,約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲, 約定金生,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,約定金生,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,約定金生,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片, 約定金生,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表, 約定金生,線上電視,約定金生,線上a片,約定金生,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,約定金生,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車, 約定金生,約定金生,法拍屋,約定金生,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, 約定金生, G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,約定金生,後庭,情色論譠,約定金生,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,約定金生,軟體下載,約定金生,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,約定金生,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片, 約定金生,同志,聊天室,約定金生,運動彩券,,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,約定金生,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢, 約定金生,懷孕,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av ,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,約定金生,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命, 約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學, 約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,約定金生,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視, 約定金生,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯, 約定金生,購物車,身分證製造機,約定金生,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網, 約定金生,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,約定金生,六合彩,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,

January 31, 2009 at 11:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^ nice blog!! ^@^

徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,

March 2, 2009 at 7:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^

徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,

March 2, 2009 at 7:43 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home