Of Men, Horses, and Rats
Some end of the year pointers:
My expanded report on the booking of Pinochet is now posted on Bob Scheer’s Truthdig. Take a peek and leave your comments on it there, not here. (My longer piece on Hugo Chavez is also posted at Truthdig if you haven’t yet seen it).
And as they say, on Monty Python… Now, for something completely different: a three minute video synopsis of Brokeback Bareback Mountain sent me by some friends can be found here. Men, bring your carrots.
December 31st, 2005 at 12:55 pm
I look forward to the theatrical release…truly the definition of newsworthy: “Horse Rides Man!”
It brings up the first question I had to ask myself viewing Brokeback Mountain – “Is this really that likely to happen to two loneseome cowboys when they’re surrounded by all of those lovely sheep ?”
December 31st, 2005 at 1:13 pm
P.S. Marc…didn’t you get the memo ? We’re all too PC and humorless to chuckle over this…
Also, where’s your goddam review of Brokeback you promised a week ago ????? And have you seen Munich ?
December 31st, 2005 at 1:16 pm
Reg,
Only on the Crawford Ranch!
December 31st, 2005 at 1:45 pm
p.s. Did you notice, Jeff Gannon, in the background–now he is an accomplished equestrian. He rides both English and Western Saddle.
December 31st, 2005 at 1:48 pm
Funny, Marc. Great work on the part of the horse and her stunt doubles.
I saw Munich. Liked it better than I thought I would. (Last night, saw “Goodnight and Goodluck,” which while beautifully shot, and terrific in many ways, had no plot or narrative drive whatsoever.)
Curious to know what everyone else thought about “Munich.”
And, yeah, Marc, where’s that Brokeback review?????
December 31st, 2005 at 2:51 pm
Where the hell is it even playing?
December 31st, 2005 at 3:33 pm
Marc, to be totally fair, give the left their anxiously waited review on Brokeback Mountain and give the decent folks a review on this: http://adisney.go.com/disneypictures/narnia/index.html . I went with my family to that show last weekend and think that the message of it is better and holds more hope than the other movie.
December 31st, 2005 at 4:07 pm
Narnia’s message more hopeful than Brokeback Mountain’s? You could say that, in the sense that Christianity is quite safely accepted within U.S. society, while the love between two individuals of the same sexual orientation is not. Narnia’s message is better than Brokeback Mountain’s? Most certainly not. Love is at the core of both films.
December 31st, 2005 at 4:38 pm
Rosedog -
I liked Munich too. I’d read the book years ago and a bunch of diatribes recently about the movie’s forced and insidious even-handedness, political naivete, factual distortion etc. I was surprised therefore to see how faithful the move was to the book’s point of view. Making a movie about how things stood in the 70′s is necessarily going to leave out all the grim and explosive stuff that’s transpired since, but I think the tone of the film was actually darkened by these subsequent events, and appropriately so. I lived in Israel for a few years and have kept up with the situation there; I came away scatching my head at all the critical carping.
I also thought Good Luck and Good Nght was kind of static, though it did hold my attention. Came away scratching my head at all the accclaim.
December 31st, 2005 at 5:10 pm
Sounds like I liked Good Night better than you guys…I’m a Murrow fan, loved Bob Edwards book and the Murrow Boys, and am old enough to remember his broadcasts – in particular Harvest of Shame, so maybe I was predisposed to like it. I thought it looked great – my understanding is that they actually shot it on color stock and did the B&W in post – and I loved the period feel, clever injection of the Tobacco Culture, etc.
Evets – I’m with you on Munich. The kind of absolutely hysterical responses to it you read even in places like TNR strike me as bizarre and, if anything, give evidence to the folks who think that in certain circles you can criticize damn near anything but don’t even begin to scratch the surface when it comes to Israel. Steven Spielberg = Self-Hating Jew ??? Yeah, right. I think that those who want the wagons circled that tight are shooting themselves in the foot (hows that for mixing the Monument Valley metaphors). I didn’t think there was anything close to “moral equivalence” in the way the story played out. If anything it made the Israelis seem remarkably morally superior. But it raised some very troubling questions regarding whether “realism” always equates with true pragmatism and the toll that some paths, that may well be morally justified in the abstract, are bound to take on one’s person. I’m not a big Spielberg fan, although I think he’s terribly talented (deliberate pun), but I completely forgot I was watching a Spielberg film. I really appreciated the fact that he allowed his film to look as gritty as the subject – none of the perfumed visuals of “The Colored People” or the staggeringly brilliant B&W Warsaw Ghetto and concentration camp scenery with that one wistful touch of color in “Schindler” (the best movie with four endings – the first one the best, of course – I’ve ever seen). Also, Tony Kushner – who I admire – managed to tell a straightforward story, with no precious touches of surrealism. Good work…and, for me, chilling and thought provoking.
Now I’ll turn things over to the decent people…
December 31st, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Narnia is a Christian fable as is Lord of the Rings. Tolkein coverted CS Lewis. There is little real life in it. It’s fantasy. One could make the case Brokeback is real life even if some among us are afraid to look. They’d rather condemn. It’s easier.
December 31st, 2005 at 5:37 pm
Feel free to label me as PC but the Bareback Mointain Sketch came off as utterly offensive and rather stupid too. As for the actual film, I caught it last night as was thorougly moved. The character portrayals were wonderfully complex, the story beautiful, moslty i found it to be a nuanced and complicated meditation on masculinity, done with far more sensitivity than any film ive seen in some ime. i cant claim to have gone out to munich yet but it distresses me to hear reg postively affirm that the film shows israelis to be “more moral”. Or speak of moral equaivalence i a way that negates the routine violation of palestinain rights which the israeli occupation is predicated on. here’s a bit of the angry arabs fiery take onb the film
Spielberg on Munich: the humanization of Israeli killers, and the dehumanization of Palestinian civilians. Or the Celebration of the Israeli Killing Machine. And who is retaliating against whom in the Arab-Israeli conflict? THIS is the question. It reminds me of a line that George Carlin—yes, that Carlin—used to use in his comedy routine and went roughly like this: “why do “we†call Israeli terrorists commandos, and we call Palestinian commandos terrorists?†That line never got a laugh the two times I saw him use it with a live audience. The thrust of the Spielberg movie is simple, fanfare notwithstanding: Israeli killers are conscientious and humane people, while Palestinians are always–no matter what–killers. But a Spielberg movie about current affairs is like a Thomas Friedman’s column about…Emanuel Kant. What do you expect. But you know? Did you notice how one lone critical opinion of the movie by one Israeli diplomat, which only mildly criticized the movie, got so much press in the US? It was needed; and it even helped to promote the movie to give a “balanced†cast to the narrative, that it of course does not deserve. This one critical opinion reminded me of O’Reilly; how he every night finds one email from somebody in Montana who tells him that he is too liberal. He needs to that to maintain an image that does not exist, just as Spielberg needs to maintain an image that he does not deserve. This movie could easily have been a paid Israeli advertisement for its killing machine. In fact, it could be a recruitment movie for Israeli killing squads. I mean that. In fact, it is a celebretary movie of Israeli murder of Palestinians. Israel killing is always moral, and always careful, and always on target.
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/
December 31st, 2005 at 5:56 pm
Ok Ahmed. I will label you as PC. The link was circulated to me and others by a very prominent gay rights blogger. Not that it matters — as I trust you can view pretty much anything and not turn to salt or stone, right?
December 31st, 2005 at 5:57 pm
Rosedog,
Goodnight and good luck was worthwhile—I viewed it as a cinema verite—an historical glimpse at television news reporting in its infancy; but done so well. Edward R. Murrow was a wonderful writer and if you only “listened†to his words, you would think that he was critiquing polictical life today. It’s a shame that a news reporter of his ilk is not around today. Haven’t seen Munich—maybe, I will have a chance to view it tomorrow.
Oh, yesterday I watched a discussion between to movie critics—and found one to be especially noxious. Her perspective is that Hollywood should be strictly commercial and concentrate on the bottom line–attempt no artsy “depressing†flicks—keep it light and simple. A feeling of nausea overwhelmed me as she spoke—I think the population is mindless enough—we don’t need to be further narcotized by mindless gore, and objectifying sex scenes intended to further marginalize women. But then again, the temptation of the “IN-GOD-WE- TRUST- BUCKS†is too great for most to reject.
An article mentioned that Clooney only took remuneration of $1.00 for his role in Good Night Good Luck and only $383, 000 for Syrianna—He just wanted those movies to be made.
In the suburbs, there are very few movie theatres showing films other than Disney releases.
December 31st, 2005 at 6:00 pm
This is a complex set of issues raised that I don’t have time to give due consideration of right now, but my point wasn’t really about the accuracy of the film’s POV as regard’s “moral equivalency” in the bigger picture of Israeli vs. Palestinian claims, but my inability to comprehend how anyone could not see that the film, in it’s very essence, takes the side of Israel as a legitimate political entity over any claims that it deserves to be destroyed, presumes that the Israelis’ have a right to respond to acts like Munich, and shows the people who – at least as this instance is portrayed – who carried out the response not as amoral automatons but very human with moral compasses intact – perhaps to their personal detriment. I’ve read numerous essays on the film that treat it like it’s the work of, literally, a self-hating Jew who would surrender to terrorism. However you pick the films politics apart from your own perspective, anyone who makes that kind of claim about Spielberg’s narrative is, to put it bluntly, a crackpot extremist who will go to any lengths to perpetuate the impossibility of a pragmatic solution to one of the central conflicts in the Middle East.
I think you’re missing what is most disturbing about the response being amped up by some very powerful lobbies for Israel in the U.S. – that the movie isn’t pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian enough. That’s, to me, is scary…
December 31st, 2005 at 6:01 pm
reg -
What I really get a kick out of is all the apoplectic critics complaining that the movie, above all, is tedious. It may be manipulative at times, sugarcoat things here and there (as any Spielberg flick would) but it definitely ain’t tedious.
Ahmed -
Interesting to hear your reaction in light of the concern friends have expressed that the neutral viewer would come way looking at the Israelis as heartless victimizers, the Palestinians as sympathetic victims. I thought their concerns were way off-base — all in all, the movie seems to be a pretty good Rorschach test.
December 31st, 2005 at 6:04 pm
So far as finding “Bareback Mt” offensive goes, I’m glad you weighed in with that…fair enough. Didn’t hit me that way, but I’m not offended that you were offended.
December 31st, 2005 at 6:17 pm
Just reread Ahmed’s post and realized he hadn’t actually seen the movie. I guess that makes it an even better Rorschach test than I’d thought.
December 31st, 2005 at 6:22 pm
Ahmed…go see the movie. It will piss you off, but I also think you’ll find spending the time with it worthwhile as a piece in the puzzle – not so much of the history of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict – but of where we’re at in trying to grapple with it. My own reaction to it is that it’s coming from somewhere I’d roughly call “Amos Oz” territory. If that perspective isn’t part of stumbling toward some kind of understanding and ultimate pragmatics to reach an unhappy but workable settlement, everybody concerned is totally fucked. Maybe they are…some days I think so.
December 31st, 2005 at 6:32 pm
Ahmed,
The New Yorker review was clever—his concluding paragraph was very amusing:
“At the least, we would have been spared the sight, toward the end, of Avner having sex with his wife while images of the hostage ordeal flood his weary brain. How’s that? Is he fathering new life to replace the dead, or getting off on the sound of German helicopters? What a curious arc this movie has described: starting in terror, and ending up on the very brink of kitsch.â€
Well don’t worry too much about Munich, most people will be viewing â€Cheaper by the Dozen 2;†“Fun with Dick and Jane;†“Chronicles of Narnia;†and King Kong. Spielberg’s film is too violent for the little kiddies—mom and dad would need to hire a babysitter; and then the evening starts to get too expensive.
December 31st, 2005 at 7:09 pm
Reg
I think Amos Oz and with much the the liberal israeli “peace wing” for that matter can be rightly criticized as part of the problem… but lets leave this debate aside. I will go see spielberg’s film if only due to the contreversy its geneated from the lobbies/israeli extremist on this side of the border. i’ve always admired kushner as well. And yes im am disgusted by the brazeness of the lobbies and their friends who have done so much to pollutte the discourse surorunding the middle east. They will do anything to shut down debate, intimidate opponents, and have managed to distort reality with alarming fluency. Disguting.
Marc- Hmmm, even if i was inclined to view comparisons of homosexuality with beastiality as funny id still think that trailer sucks. The only midly funny line involved calling up the humane society. different tastes i guess but for me it came across as humour for the witless…not unlike woody sterile joles here a couple weeks back
December 31st, 2005 at 7:14 pm
Witless? Come now, Ahmed. I will, however, confess that I think sleeping with the sheep would have been a greater temptation than the horses.
December 31st, 2005 at 7:39 pm
I once worked for someone who claimed to have made love with a sheep. Near the climax the sheep apparently turned her head back and rolled her eyes in sensual appreciation before subsiding into the hay. Of course, this may have been a particularly romantic sheep. I’m not sure if we can extrapolate to the whole species.
December 31st, 2005 at 7:44 pm
Didnt I see that scene in Woody Allen’s “Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex?” Gene Wilder and Daisy. Lovely.
Also.. my long awaited review of Brokeback Mountain will be coming next year.
December 31st, 2005 at 7:45 pm
That was another romantic sheep, perhaps a relative. My friend’s tryst took place in a barnyard in Maine.
December 31st, 2005 at 7:57 pm
FLASH! Glad to see Ahmed has come out and posted his website. NOW I know who you are– seen u on TV and everything.
And now will be blogrolling you too. One of my favorite sparring partners.
Happy New Year.
December 31st, 2005 at 8:53 pm
For the prurient interests of some of you:
Horse sex story was online hit: As I look back at the year in news, it’s clear I should have focused more on people having sex with horses. By tallying clicks on our Web site, we now chart the most read stories in the online edition of The Seattle Times. Software then sorts the tens of thousands of stories for 2005 and ranks them. The story last summer about the man who died from a perforated colon while having sex with a horse in Enumclaw was by far the year’s most read article. What’s more, four more of the year’s 20 most clicked-upon local news stories were about the same horse-sex incident. We don’t publish our Web-traffic numbers, but take it from me — the total readership on these stories was huge. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002711400_danny30.html
I’m glad to see that Marc is jumping on this bandwagon to increase traffic to his site. I thnk I’ll stick with Disney movies.
January 1st, 2006 at 2:51 am
Oh man, that Bareback Mountain thing was hilarious.
reg, Wieseltier’s take on Munich in the pages of TNR was about as “evenhanded” and “relativistic” as one could hope from that magazine.
I’ll reserve judgment until I actually see it, but I think that if Marty Peretz wanted to contract out a journalistic hit piece about the movie, he could have just gone to his regular “button-pusher”, ex-JDL man Yossi Klein Halevi.
January 1st, 2006 at 2:56 am
Marc,
I could be wrong but I don’t think that Ahmed is an alter-ego of As’ad “the Angry Arab” — I think Ahmed was just posting As’ad’s observations about the movie.
January 1st, 2006 at 3:08 am
I’ve had far too much champagne to type sensibly but….oh well….
Re: Munich: “…It will piss you off, but I also think you’ll find spending the time with it worthwhile as a piece in the puzzle – not so much of the history of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict – but of where we’re at in trying to grapple with it….”
Perfect assessment, reg. You said what I wanted to say….but much better than I could have.
Eleanore…. I agree about “Goodnight and Good luck.” I thought it was brilliant in all the ways you mention. Plus I thought the photography and art direction was stunning. Nevertheless, I wanted to tinker with the story because I think there could have been more of a narrative drive without losing any of the films existing virtues. I realize the filmmakers made a purposeful artistic choice. But I really wanted to tinker anyway.
Geeze! What an arc of professional development George Clooney has undergone in the last decade! From eemingly semi-mindless hunk with irritating acting ticks, to a gifted and committed actor/director/producer that it’s impossible not to respect enormously.
Ahmed…. Good to see you around. BTW, I loved “Brokeback Mountain.†It broke my heart. But I wasn’t offended by ….um….Bareback. Then again, I have an extremely silly streak. (Will be curious to hear what you think of Munich when you see it. As reg said, it won’t be what you want it to be. But it feels like a step.)
Okay, night, night. Happy 2006, y’all!
January 1st, 2006 at 3:40 am
There’s a plausible theory that the longer a director obsesses over getting a film made, the more of a disappointment it will be. Gilliam’s Don Quixote, for example, never really got the proper wind in its sails, and the abortive-making-of documentary (sort of starring Johnny Depp) might be seen as a blessing in disguise. Likewise Gangs of New York — Scorsese tried to sell it for years. It’s not bad, it had its moments but … it was supposed to be Opus Magnum territory for him. Clearly, though, he’s still Dr. Taxi Driver after all these years. That’s gotta hurt.
Perhaps Spielberg fell into the same trap. After all, he wanted to make Munich for some years. But maybe it works the other way, too. Remember Wag the Dog? That was thrown together on a shoestring, almost overnight, when a bunch of people interested in making a movie based on Larry Beinhart’s American Hero noticed that they all had about a six-week lull between projects. The result was a minor gem, in part because the extemporaneous scheduling and the budget limits forced them to not take the project too seriously. I like the book, but getting it right on the screen might well have been impossible, and certainly would have been expensive (perhaps in terms of lawsuits not just production values, given that it could be seen as vicious slander against Bush Sr and his administration.) Some stories are like that.
As for George Clooney’s measly paychecks on some recent highbrow efforts, I caught him and Soderbergh a few years back on Charlie Rose, and Rose asked a slightly embarrassing question: do you have to make the blockbusters to get permission to make the finer films? Both Clooney and Soderbergh sheepishly allowed that there was something to this theory — and as Soderbergh warmed to the task of justifying the strategy, he remarked that an Oceans 11 paves the way for taking the risks of a Solaris, for example. (By Soderbergh’s account, he had been holding himself in reserve, while producers were champing at the bit for another Soderbergh, and he was asked if he was willing to do SF. He said he might, if it was the right kind of thing. What was the right kind of thing, they asked impatiently. Well, he said, I’m reading Stanislaw Lem’s Solaris right now — OK, then, go make that, they said. Weird, how decisions get made in Hollywood.) The Clooney-Soderbergh collaboration has produced a few clunkers, but for the most part they put together some very watchable AND thought-provoking flicks. And it’s not like their potboilers (Oceans 11, Out of Sight, etc.) were exactly a waste of $7 either.
Spielberg, though … I think he has what might be called auteur-envy. But he just can’t think … well, *small* enough. It’s either Big Entertainment or Big Message. And his Big Message is almost always about some fundamental human unity. Good small films tend to be about alienation, and that’s a theme that doesn’t hold up very well under the big-bucks sledgehammer. And the other choices — can you see Spielberg doing light comedy? — require a touch that I just don’t think he has.
January 1st, 2006 at 3:53 am
To be fair to Spielburg, I think that “A.I.” was one of the best, and most underrated, movies of the past ten years.
I’ve been laughed out of the room before for saying that, but what the hell, it’s true.
January 1st, 2006 at 6:08 am
“My friend’s tryst took place in a barnyard in Maine.”
Great. That’s real great publicity. Sure it wasn’t Georgia?
January 1st, 2006 at 7:14 am
OK, AAA, let me be the first to laugh you out of this room. A.I. was good — brilliant in some ways — but it wasn’t THAT good.
The genesis of Spielberg’s A.I. is an incredibly tangled tale — “Pinocchio” meets Brian Aldiss’ “Supertoys last all summer long”, with a dash of J.G. Ballard’s “The Drowned World”.
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/index2.html
One of the ironies is that A.I. almost got made by Stanley Kubrick, but then his attention drifted to a Holocaust-related story (“Aryan Papers”), and then he gave up on that when Spielberg did Schindler’s List (a project that Kubrick had also showed some interest in.) Had it not been for Eyes Wide Shut, something like A.I. might have been Kubrick’s last film. It seems, however, that Kubrik finally anointed Spielberg as the best possible director for A.I., believing that if he were to do it, it would be too “stark” and “philosophical”. Sounds to me like A.I. would have been better as a Kubrick film. It would almost certainly have been better than Eyes Wide Shut. (Like, what WOULDN’T have been better?) On the other hand, maybe Kubrick was so totally off his game by then that he would only have made an incomprehensible hash of A.I. as well.
Both A.I. and EWS are pretty good examples of how long obsession with a film project usually yields disappointment. IMNSHO, anyway. A.I.’s core is a retelling of Pinocchio, and that’s a story that had a lot more depth and social repercussions than A.I. will ever have.
OK, back to more important issues, like … barnyard love. (And yes, filmically, that DID peak with Gene Wilder’s inspired performance, right down to the end, where > the Woolite he’s chugging on Skid Row is dribbling out of the corners of his mouth.)
January 1st, 2006 at 7:37 am
Munich: see, its fiction based on fact, not a documentary, which frees Spielberg to tell the story he wants (with his themes, morals, whatever) rather than the story that was. So I just don’t get the point of all the overheated cheerleading and derision. Worthy of discussion certainly, but just as certainly not an attack on Israel (despite what the former director of the US Holocaust Museum may say). Perhaps he should have adopted the approach of Swift or Miller to tell his tale.
January 1st, 2006 at 8:21 am
Abbas-Ali Abadani -
I think you’re wrong about Yossi Klein HaLevi. He’s now in the Israeli political center (along with a majority of country), disillusioned with the solutions of left and right, chastened by the collapse of Oslo, the subsequent violence etc. His political stance is built chiefly on wariness and clear-eyed disenchantment; this wariness is what he writes about, almost obsessively, and why he supports Sharon with a kind of fierce enthusiasm ( I get tired of his schtick, but I can ubderstand it). He’s not a Likkudnik and as far as I know never was. He supported Oslo fairly vigorously as I recall. In fact, not too long ago he wrote a book about his attempts to sample spiritual life in Israel’s various religious communities, describing his own warm interaction with Muslim mystics, his feelings (as a religious Jew) of identification with their religious commitment and appreciation for what is sublime in Islam. Once the Intifida began, I believe he regretted the book and considered his attempts to bridge gaps as naive. But he certainly wasn’t a guy who took some grim ‘I told you so’ kind of satisfaction with the onset of violence and implosion of the peace process.
January 1st, 2006 at 8:33 am
Mark York -
Sorry to drag Maine through the mud (and disheveled hay) but I only report the facts, even when they’re painful. If it’s any consolation, I’m sure Georgia has it’s share of this sort of thing. I now live in NJ where I think the trysting is less frequent and property values, consequently, remain strong. Hold your head high, you’ve got nothing to be ashamed of — your potatoes are still top-notch. .
January 1st, 2006 at 9:04 am
Can I add 4 more sites? Reading this thread has made me realize how much I visit 4 other sites I did not include in my meme list. And I’m sick over it.
The Angry Arab News Service:
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/
Forward:
http://www.forward.com/
Arts & Letters Daily
http://www.aldaily.com/
Political Theory Daily
http://www.politicaltheory.info/
January 1st, 2006 at 9:08 am
And Spielberg rocks!
I don’t give a freak, that I get cavities after most of his flicks, they still taste sweet.
January 1st, 2006 at 11:31 am
Actually the potatoes are prone to rot. I prefer “Idahoes.”
January 1st, 2006 at 5:59 pm
We can’t really be sure if Evets friend fornicated with a sheep, it could have very well been a sly fox.
Anyway, “Brokeback Mountain†was an interesting movie, in that it demonstrates how cultural limitations defined by a society, causes emotional anguish and alienating relationships which ultimate destroy lives. What makes the movie especially poignant is that this sad circumstance was not exclusive to just the two men–all the characters were living lives of “quiet desperation.†I thought the end was a little cliché– he tucks away his daughter’s sweater and we see his dead lovers shirt carefully hung behind the door of his small closet–symbolically suggesting that to expose such a relationship would lead to shame or death.
p.s. there were an awful lot of sheep in that movie!
January 2nd, 2006 at 6:09 am
Sheep are rough on the landscape. If you want to wreck a meadow and stream just bring in sheep. They’re even worse than cows in that respect. I found one dead in the creek this summer. Mighty ugly.
January 2nd, 2006 at 8:37 am
Was it a victim of a wolfe?
January 2nd, 2006 at 8:43 am
Actually I meant Fox—Wolfe is the name of my dentist
January 2nd, 2006 at 10:59 am
I heard David Dreier enjoyed Brokeback Mountain. One more testament to the leftwing orientation of Hollywood’s latest gay film!
January 2nd, 2006 at 2:40 pm
No, it just died. The take home lesson is the sheep people just let it lay in the creek polluting the place.
July 12th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Shes Got A Boyfriend Now Ringtone…
I Only Have Eyes For You Ringtone I Only Have Eyes For You Ringtone The Mob Goes Wild Ringtone The Mob Goes Wild Ringtone Californication Ringtone Californication Ringtone Quicksand Ringtone Quicksand Ringtone Picture of you Ringtone Picture of you Rin…
July 21st, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Ein Schloss, Ein poker Wurst, Ein Kopf !qwv
November 4th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Buon luogo, congratulazioni, il mio amico!
February 25th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Loan Refinancing…
stabilizing parklike delayed accurateness softened Patricia Equity Refinance [url=http://www.aequityrefinance.com/#]Equity Refinance[/url] http://www.aequityrefinance.com/# …
April 12th, 2007 at 3:38 am
Ich besichtige deinen Aufstellungsort wieder bald fur sicheres!
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:29 am
Every one of them behaves quite independently of all the others, which it very seldom meets. ,
October 23rd, 2009 at 6:40 am
Liveblog:He won’t say that Grassley was the last straw for bipartisanship. ,