June 12, 2004

Klaatu Barada Nitko!

Life was certainly interesting when Ronald Reagan was president. For the neoconservative Cold Warriors who largely staffed the foreign policy side of his administration, it became most interesting when Reagan began wandering around the White House saying, "Klaatu Barada Nitko!" and asking people whether they had seen The Day the Earth Stood Still. "Here come the Little Green Men again!" Colin Powell would say.

Rotten.com has a timeline of some of this:

4 Dec 1985
Anticipating arms control discussions with his Soviet counterpart, President Reagan draws on an extraterrestrial analogy: "[H]ow easy his task and mine might be in these meetings that we held if suddenly there was a threat to this world from some other species from another planet outside in the universe. We'd forget all the little local differences that we have between our countries ..."

17 Feb 1987
Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev reveals Reagan's preoccupation with space aliens: "At our meeting in Geneva, the U.S. President said that if the earth faced an invasion by extraterrestials, the United States and the Soviet Union would join forces to repel such an invasion. I shall not dispute the hypothesis, though I think it's early yet to worry about such an intrusion..."

15 Sep 1987
During a luncheon with Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnatze in the White House, President Reagan once again wondered what would happen if the Earth were under attack from an external threat: "Don't you think the United States and the Soviet Union would be together?"

4 May 1988
During a question-and-answer session in Chicago, President Reagan revisits his 'invaders from space' notion: "I've often wondered, what if all of us in the world discovered that we were threatened by an outer -- a power from outer space, from another planet. Wouldn't we all of a sudden find that we didn't have any differences between us at all, we were all human beings, citizens of the world, and wouldn't we come together to fight that particular threat?"

The Cold Warriors thought that they had a man who hated Communism and was eager for an expensive and bloody crusade against the Evil Empire. And they did. But there was also another Reagan roaming around inside Ronald's head: A Reagan who wanted SDI not to gain the U.S. an advantage in the Cold War but to protect people against the horrors of death-by-nuke--and who sincerely wanted to give SDI technology away for free to all nations so that no one would have to fear nuclear destruction. A Reagan who genuinely hoped to eliminate nuclear weapons from the face of the earth. A Reagan who thought that the movie "The Day the Earth Stood Still" carried a powerful message about how small were the differences that divided the world's nations when seen from the right point of view. A Reagan who was definitely willing and eager to give peace--and Gorbachev--a chance.

This Reagan freaked his National Security Council staff out. But he proved remarkably powerful when pitted singlehanded against virtually his whole administration in 1987 and 1988. And we should not forget that Nancy Reagan was a powerful voice backing Ronald-the-Peacemaker in the waning days of the administration.

For that, thanks.

Posted by DeLong at June 12, 2004 12:10 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this post
Comments

If we had only seen this post the day of Reagan's passing many would have thought better of you Brad. I wonder, has your conscience been bothering you just a tad?

Posted by: Dubblblind on June 12, 2004 12:23 PM

____

Perhaps SDI was really a dual use system. In case of an attack by aliens, we could turn the popup x-ray lasers on the flying saucers. What a ruse! The aliens think the system was designed for terrestrial missiles, not realizing all along it could be turned against them. Gort isn’t the only one with a disintegrator beam-- ha.

Posted by: A. Zarkov on June 12, 2004 12:44 PM

____

should it not be Klaatu Barada Nikto ?

DSW

Posted by: Antoni Jaume on June 12, 2004 01:03 PM

____

Yeah, it's sort of charming, but it also points to Reagan's fondness for alternative realities, like apocalyptic prophecy and astrology. Firm convictions plus no way of testing them against evidence.

Posted by: alien on June 12, 2004 01:16 PM

____

But there was also another Reagan roaming around inside Ronald's head:

Yeah, he had an Alzheimer. What's your excuse?

Posted by: bubba on June 12, 2004 01:31 PM

____

Who knew that Reagan and Alan Moore were on the same page?

Posted by: carpeicthus on June 12, 2004 02:02 PM

____

I always assumed that it was pretty much a given that reagan was batshit insane during the latter years of his second term

Posted by: Jon on June 12, 2004 02:34 PM

____

Brad,

I wanted to put this comment into an old post you made on the subject, but I was afraid you wouldn't read it.

In regards to Reagan's economic legacy, I have a question/comment.

You savaged Reagan's economic record due to the huge deficits we accumulated during his watch and the noneffective (and gradually disappearing nonetheless) tax cuts. Justifiably so, if I may add.

But aren't there two positive elements in his record?

1. So much that Reagan left us was on the level of political discourse and not of actual, substantial policy. And even though his success taught Dick Cheney the lesson that "deficits don't matter", isn't it also true that thanks to Reagan the public adopted a more pro-market orientation, a fact that should be welcome by a Rawlsian liberal such as yourself? For example, you lambasted rightfully Monbiot in a recent post and yet I tend to think that left-wing loonies are less prevalent thanks to Reagan (granted to our detriment of having more righ-wing loonies)

I tend to think that Clinton (and his fiscal conservatism, as well as his welfare reform) wouldn't have been possible without Reagan - the same way Blair wouldn't have been possible without Thatcher. Both Thatcher and Reagan redefined popular ideologies and conceptions of economics as well as created new constituences in a way that ammended many of the excesses of the liberal orthodoxy of the 50s and the 60s.

Again, granted, I think we ve reached a limit and the conservative orthodoxy has ran out of steam and into extremes, but up to a point, I think it was useful.

2. I am not 100% certain about this, but isn't the Carter administration the last one that let the Phillips curve manipulate its economic policy? I distinctly remember one of the 1980 debates in which Carter was talking about increasing inflation in order to decrease unemployment.

The abandonment of the idea that the Phillips curve should be manipulated was tremendously beneficial, no?

3. A third one just came along. Weren't the Brady and the Baker packages towards indebted countries and the concept of conditionality in IMF aid an overall good - the Asian crisis fiascos notwithstanding? Weren't these policies part of the free market air that would be perhaps unthinkable in the more Keynesian seventies?

Posted by: Nick Kaufman on June 12, 2004 03:48 PM

____

Um, when are gov't directed bailouts of private investors "part of the free market air"? If you want to argue for bailouts to resolve financial crises go ahead, but you can't do that on free mkt grounds unless you make some sort of arbitrary split between financial and other mkts. And for the record, "the concept of" IMF conditionality (and they're loans not "aid") dates from the founding of the IMF, not the 1980s.

And remind us what the "liberal orthodoxy of the 50s and the 60s" was. And "Keynesian seventies"? What exactly are we talking about? Can you really find evidence that Carter was talking about "increasing inflation in order to decrease unemployment"?

Posted by: alien on June 12, 2004 04:37 PM

____

So assuming he didn’t have problem with being an illegal alien, and eventually got citizenship, would Klatuu have voted for Reagan, over Carter and Mondale? Was Gort really a closet conservative? After all he did believe in preemptory action against those who threaten the peace.

Posted by: A. Zarkov on June 12, 2004 05:47 PM

____

I recall Hitler said something along the same lines in his "Table Talk" recorded by Martin Bormann during WWII (which I thought was odd, because that was before the UFO thing became widespread in the public consciousness). Funny coincidence.

Posted by: rps on June 12, 2004 07:03 PM

____

In the Bush WH I guess they run around singing
"Jaan Pehechaan Ho"...

Posted by: CSTAR on June 12, 2004 07:35 PM

____

Nikto!

Posted by: Typhonus on June 12, 2004 07:41 PM

____

"Um, when are gov't directed bailouts of private investors "part of the free market air"? If you want to argue for bailouts to resolve financial crises go ahead, but you can't do that on free mkt grounds unless you make some sort of arbitrary split between financial and other mkts. And for the record, "the concept of" IMF conditionality (and they're loans not "aid") dates from the founding of the IMF, not the 1980s."

I don't know about which bailouts you re talking about. If you are talking about the airline bailout, I agree, there's nothing free market about it. If you are talking about the bailout of countries, I would disagree. Being in favour of free market doesn't mean that you don't accept government intervention to counter market failure.

IMF's conditionality has indeed been there since the beginning. Nevertheless, the seventies had been a decade of rather lax and careless financing. Conditionality might have been an old concept, but there is a reason that we came to talk by the late eighties of a "Washington consensus"; a consensus which was radically different than the consensus of the seventies.

"And remind us what the "liberal orthodoxy of the 50s and the 60s" was. And "Keynesian seventies"? What exactly are we talking about? Can you really find evidence that Carter was talking about "increasing inflation in order to decrease unemployment"?"

The byproduct of the implementation of Keynesian demand management and the wartime governmental intervention was the idea that government had a positiive role to play in order to help the less fortunate (I don't argue with that) and that it had the ability to do so; hence programs like the Great society.

One of the conservative critiques that turned out to be substantially correct and became popularized with Reagan was that government intervention wasn't necessary succesful (due to its inherrent limitations) and that it had unintended consequences which many times were the opposite effect than what was desired. The most tangible effect of this idea was the welfare reform of 1996.

As for the Keynesian seventies, none other than Richard Nixon said in 1971 that "we are all Keynesians now". Nixon continued Johnson's deficit spending to finance the war that led to the disbanding to the most Keynesian of institutions, the Bretton Woods currency system. Nixon also imposed price controls which are indeed not supported by any Keynesian, but which on the other hand comport with the prevailing wisdom of the time that government can do something about the economy.

The combination of all these measures (along with the oil shock) led to the stagflation of the seventies. Now, you can say that Nixon was responsible for all these policies and that Nixon was a Republican to which I ll reply that Nixon was simply following the orthodoxy of the times. In fact, although I haven't followed it very closely, I am willing to bet that no Democrat seriously criticized him when he took these measures.

Similar events occured both in Britain and the rest of the world and these led to Thatcherism and neoliberalism, which along with some whacky policies like monetarism and supply side economics, corrected the failed parts of the keynesian orthodoxy of the 70s.

As for Carter, as I said, I saw him on the debate against Reagan say that we will raise inflation in order to lower unemployment. My memory might fail me or the details might be different, but this is the gist of what I remember.

Posted by: Nick Kaufman on June 12, 2004 09:23 PM

____

What a coincidence. I found the DVD in the bargain rack at Wal-Mart last night, and posted a review of the flick on the ol' blog a while ago.

(spoiler alert)

The movie, whatever its intentions, serves as an illustration of bad diplomacy - most of it Klaatu's. He takes an alien artifact out of his shirt pocket in the presence of armed keepers of the peace without announcing what he's doing; instead he should have carried a tray with the artifact resting on it and announced "I have a gift." He escapes from custody thinking that he'll still be able to forge trust with the American Earthlings. He doesn't do the one thing that will earn trust: tell somebody in power the full details of his mission. The Earthlings had only one diplomatic failure: not working out a way to get all the heads of state to meet.

I wonder what Keir Dullea and Douglas Rain would think of the aliens' robotic police state. Can Gort and his kind always be counted on to open the pod bay doors?

Posted by: Alan K. Henderson on June 12, 2004 10:21 PM

____

Beware Sly Smirkers
(this post gets around to Reagan . . .
stay with me)

Armageddon Rapturists cling to the ermine
robes of H.R. Majestic Messiah Sun Myung Moon.

http://gorenfeld.net/images/moon_senate.jpg

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/June04/Berkowitz0605.htm

http://www.gorenfeld.net/blog//2004_04_01_barchive.html#108243081677230106

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2002/09/03/christian/

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2002/07/29/left_behind/

http://www.leftbehind.com/

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/123/31.0.html

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/123/12.0.html

Armageddon Rapturists (remember Jonestown?) came into power with Reagan.

"Ronald Reagan was the second greatest leader in the history of the world (second to only Jesus Christ, our Lord), and he has done so much for us."

Out with the old, in with the new.
Their New Messiah has this to say:

"This may be the most difficult time in history. Satan makes that separation of Church and State. But God wants religion first and for there to be unity and cooperation between church and state with the spiritual in the subject position."

Our Constitution has this to say on separation
of church and state:

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/toc.htm

And this from Honduras, although it sounds more
like the US every day:

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18843

"The government policy, they say, is to 'Sweep the trash off the streets, then burn it', by which they mean sweep up unemployed and homeless juveniles in raids, incarcerate them without charges, summarily execute them, and then burn their bodies."

Sounds like The Inquisition or Gitmo/Abu Ghraib, don't it?

It's all about religion *in* government. When "we the people" only refers to those (religious fundamentalists) in power, you get Buchenwald, Abu Ghraib and Honduras.

Look at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and our role in rural extermination campaigns in Colombia, and our insurgent support role in the democracy of Chavez in Venezuala.

1600 . . . 1600 . . . wasn't that the (King's) Church of England? Drawing and quartering dissidents, castrating and then beheading them for not swearing fealty to the King?

Henry created the Church of England because he wanted to mount the youngest of three daughters, two he had already taken, but the Pope wouldn't grant him a divorce.

Wild, huh? Some royal horndog back in the 1600's, and now we got another guy who thinks he's king in the White House, dismissing the three houses of government, and declaring
"all laws are subject to the President's declaration".

Does George II intend to create his own Church of America?
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/121/51.0.html

Posted by: Tante Aime on June 12, 2004 10:52 PM

____

Nobody really cares, but the complete quote is:

"Gort, Klaatu barada nikto"

Gort was the robot's name.

Posted by: Stephen Anderson on June 13, 2004 12:14 AM

____

J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2000 Nov;6(7):815-20. Related Articles, Links


Neurobehaviors and psychotic symptoms in Alzheimer's disease.

Paulsen JS, Ready RE, Stout JC, Salmon DP, Thal LJ, Grant I, Jeste DV.

Department of Psychiatry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA. jane-paulsen@uiowa.edu

Psychotic symptoms are common in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and clinicoanatomical and neuropsychological evidence indicate an association between these symptoms and frontal lobe dysfunction. Neuro-behaviors associated with frontal dysfunction were assessed in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients with (n = 20) and without psychotic symptoms (n = 21) matched for mean age, education, gender, and dementia severity. The Frontal Lobe Personality Scale (FLOPs) was completed by patient caregivers to measure behaviors typically associated with frontal dysfunction. Findings indicated that AD patients with psychotic symptoms exhibited significantly greater neurobehavioral dysfunction (FLOPs M = 130.69, SD = 24.70) than AD patients without psychotic symptoms (FLOPs M = 111.10, SD = 25.83). Subscale analyses indicated that psychotic AD patients were more dis-inhibited (M = 28.28, SD = 7.54) than patients without psychotic symptoms (M = 20.92, SD = 4.9). Findings are consistent with and contribute to previous neuropsychological and clinicoanatomical research suggesting increased frontal dysfunction in AD with psychotic symptoms and lend additional empirical support to subtyping AD based on the presence of psychotic symptoms. Furthermore, findings provide preliminary evidence indicating which specific type of neurobehavioral abnormalities are related to the presence of distressing psychotic symptoms.

PMID: 11105471 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Posted by: non economist on June 13, 2004 01:30 AM

____

Brad you forgot to thank Nancy Reagan's astrologer, the key figure (along with Grigori Romanov's daughter) in the end of the cold war.

Reagan and the little green men doe show an attachment to fantasy worlds and a willingness to keep to the same argument even if people are convinced the first 10 times.

On Reagan's brain, I think there are three separate issues. One is Alzheimer's. I think that it was mostly a nightmare for ex president Reagan (and ex first lady Nancy). the second is Reagan's resistence to facts and fixation on fantasy. I think this was not a sign of organic brain disfunction but a learned behavior/ aspect of his personality. Among other things it was an approach to politics that worked. Finally from 86 to 88 Reagan had fluid on the brain. A buildup of fluid inside his skull pressing on his brain. This problem was resolved as soon as he left office and the question "is there something wrong with Reagan's brain" could be asked. It is disturbing, not only that we had a president without a normally functioning brain, but also that, because Reagan's brain was too important while he was president, the fact that it had an easily resolved problem was not discovered.

Posted by: Robert Waldmann on June 13, 2004 02:01 AM

____

Robert Waldmann: It is disturbing, not only that we had a president without a normally functioning brain...

Unusual, that.

Posted by: a on June 13, 2004 05:56 AM

____

Re: Brad's post, one of the better-known underground hits of the Reagan years was the "Watchmen" series of comics ("graphic novels"), implicitly most critical of Reagan, & in which a billionaire-superhero type (Bruce Wayne gone Republican) actually blows up half of NYC in order to unite West and East against an (imaginary) alien threat.

The insight of the work's author into the actual thought-processes of the President is a little spooky.

Posted by: Andy on June 13, 2004 07:24 AM

____

Actually, the earliest version of this idea that I know of was a short story by Theodore Sturgeon, "Unite and Conquer," published in Astounding in 1948, but anthologized many times over.

Can't imagine that Reagan ever read it, though.

Posted by: Theophylact on June 13, 2004 08:51 AM

____

Rising inflation, starting in 1977, led President Carter to appoint Paul Volcker, an inflation fighter, as the chair of the Federal Reserve. His “tight money” policy caused interest rates to rise sharply and unemployment to reach over 10% by 1983.

As actual unemployment exceeded the natural rate, the inflation rate fell, just as predicted by the expectations Phillips curve.

Posted by: A.W.Phillips on June 13, 2004 09:35 AM

____

Phillips observation that the rate of inflation was reversely proportional to the rate of unemployment is from what I understand empirical and not founded on some scientific theory that explains why that happens.

In any case, the problem isn't the Phillips curve per se, but the idea that since there is this equation produced by the observed relationship, government will adjust macroeconomic policy accordingly, tweaking inflation and unemployment according to economic or -in practice- political considerations.

The problem is that -as Friedman argued- doing so leads to stagflation. This was part of the problem the American economy faced in the seventies and a great deal of the boom and bust periods of the british economy, as well as many other countries during the 60s and the 70s.

Having the Central bank set policy according to low inflation targets and the NAIRU, was indeed an innovation, an innovation that was accompanied in many countries with establishing genuine central bank independence (which has also shown in itself to be an effective tool for fighting inflation).

To say that these innovations were part of the conservative agenda is debatable, but there were certainly innovations that became consensual tools of economic policy worldwide in the 80s and remain as useful knowledge with us until today.

PS. I would still love it if Brad would weigh on this. I have studied some political economy, but I do not possess as much knowledge as he does, nor do the ideas I have put forth here are set in stone. I am genuinely interested in his insight.

Posted by: Nick Kaufman on June 13, 2004 02:01 PM

____

I'm sure that many readers here, even given their hefty analytical bent, can understand that life has a mythical component. It is interesting, but not surprising, that for Reagan the motivational myth came, not from the Greeks or Romans, but from Hollywood. Reagan was no friend of mine, I think of him as having popularized the compassionless conservativism that has penetrated American society today, but in spite of what many may characterize as the flake factor, he was remarkably clear about his intentions in regards to ending the cold war and the nuclear threat it contained.

Posted by: Dubblblind on June 13, 2004 02:13 PM

____

Yes, Reagan policy affected Clinton fiscal policy but maybe not in the way you envisioned. Clinton ran on a tax cut for the middle class as an economic stimulus and to get people back to work. By the time Clinton got into office, the economy was starting to improve and Clinton backed off his middle class tax cuts because the deficit numbers were too scary by 1993 standards. Reagan deficits made it necessary for Clinton to try to operate without enough revenue.

As for welfare reform, anyone who has ever been poor (this applies to Mr. Clinton but not Mr. Bush) knows that the best welfare program is a job. That is because all benefits are tied to having a job. Advancement to a better job is tied to having an entry level job (unless you are well connected). Much of welfare was done on the cheap. The cheapest welfare program in the short run is to just mail checks. Any additional support requires additional money short term.

What Clinton managed to do is add EITC and other benefits to supplement people who moved from welfare to work. This greatly expanded their disposable income and in part helped fuel the boom of the 90s.

Posted by: bakho on June 13, 2004 07:01 PM

____

An interesting but distrubing read on Reagan was Frances FitzGerald book "Way out there in the Blue".

Reagan was one of those that bought into "urban legends". The left has their own set of blind spots, especially on some of the environmental issues, but overall, the right has pursued a set of policies based on ideological beliefs that have little factual support.

Posted by: bakho on June 13, 2004 07:04 PM

____

The Phillips Curve was a dead letter as of sustained stagflation. That didn't start in Carter's years, but throughout the '70s, after the oil price shock episode, which lowered the growth trajectory of the entire industrial world's economies.

After Carter's own oil price shock induced mini-recession, inflation peaked at over 10%, but was down to 7.x% in October of 1980. Unemployment remained above 7%. In their presidential debate, candidate Reagan accused Carter of using higher unemployment to lower the inflation rate, and promised he'd never use that approach. That is the exact opposite of the fragmentary memory expressed above, and probably the root of what the gentleman remembered incompletely.

Then candidate-Reagan also fulminated against Volcker's policies, and said he wouldn't reappoint him when his term came up in the next years.

Ironically enough, inflation got trimmed under his terms by Volcker, whom he reappointed, by an unprecedented since the Depression double digit unemployment rate, reaching over 11% in its peak month. This was so great an unemployment rate for such an extended period that his 8 years averaged over 7% unemployment, about the level in Carter's worst year. The poverty rate was higher each year of Reagan's terms than Carter's worst poverty rate of 1980, until it beat Carter's worst year by one-tenth of a percentage point (then soared the next 4 years).

The great strategy of the Reagan policies was to lower the living standards and net worth of 80% of the population, and have them thank him for it.

Posted by: sofla on June 14, 2004 12:07 AM

____

>The great strategy of the Reagan
>policies was to lower the living standards
>and net worth of 80% of the population,
>and have them thank him for it.

Just bears saying again...

>So much that Reagan left us was on the
>level of political discourse and
>not of actual, substantial policy.

He didn't do discourse any favors, either, unless discourse is 'improved' by the substitution of myth for fact, and narrative for analysis.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on June 14, 2004 06:24 AM

____

"This was so great an unemployment rate for such an extended period that his 8 years averaged over 7% unemployment, about the level in Carter's worst year."

Ah, Krugmanomics. Of course that average ignores the direction (improvement) which left the country with an unemployment rate of 5.3% in January 1989.

It's telling how far people have to reach to find something bad to say about Reagan's economic record.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on June 14, 2004 08:39 AM

____

Just in case anyone can't find the BLS page for themselves, here are the unemployment figures (note that Carter inherits an improving trend, and bequeaths the opposite to Reagan):

1975 8.5
1976 7.7
1977 7.1
1978 6.1
1979 5.8
1980 7.1
1981 7.6
1982 9.7
1983 9.6
1984 7.5
1985 7.2
1986 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5
1989 5.3

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on June 14, 2004 08:45 AM

____

I like the way Greider explains Reagan's fiscal policies:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040628&s=greider

Patrick-
The unemployment went up during the oil shock and came down after conservation efforts increased efficiency and lowered both demand and energy cost.

Posted by: bakho on June 14, 2004 09:10 AM

____

Yes, it is true, Reagan's 'average' of over 7% unemployment was only true in his FIRST SIX YEARS. How misleading and what a stretch I made, eh?

Oh, and by the way, a change in the calculation of the unemployment rate, by adding in those in the military service into the 'workforce' calculation, which was not done until Reagan's years, artificially LOWERS the nominal stated unemployment rate, and makes his numbers not strictly comparable to any earlier era without correcting for that upward bias on employment. (All several millions of persons in the military are employed, adding to the 'official' numbers several millions at 100% employment).

So, Reagan's performance on unemployment is actually WORSE than even these numbers portray.


Posted by: sofla on June 14, 2004 09:24 AM

____

My favorite Cold War science fiction movie will always be Invasion of the Body Snatchers (original version). It would be hard to overstate the effect of that movie on an impressionable mind.

The Reagan connection will be clear to anyone with a comprehensive memory of old Saturday Night Live skits. In the skit, a take-off of Body Snatchers, the seed pods all had Reagan written on them in big letters. Most of the people had already been replaced by pods and were acting very strange--e.g., a folk singer doing a new version of "Blowin' in the wind" ("How many times must our taxes be raised?... The answer my friend, is Ronald Reagan.")

Only last week I realized it wasn't just an old SNL skit. It really happened.

Posted by: Paul Callahan on June 14, 2004 09:44 AM

____

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Posted by: reductil on July 6, 2004 02:56 PM

____

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Posted by: reductil on July 6, 2004 11:12 PM

____

Get it up mate, it's fun!

Posted by: Viagra on July 8, 2004 09:26 PM

____

It gets yours up to the top dude! The girl will enjoy it!

Posted by: cialis uk on July 13, 2004 02:31 PM

____

Muppets love Viagra!

Posted by: Viagra UK on July 14, 2004 04:53 AM

____

I don't really think your thoughts are right. Maybe you need a loan?

Posted by: payday loans on July 15, 2004 01:13 PM

____

If you're looking for Kontaktanzeigen online, check the blog!

Posted by: Kontaktanzeigen mit Bild on July 16, 2004 06:54 AM

____

Hire a car to feel higher!

Posted by: Car hire UK on July 21, 2004 12:09 AM

____

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Posted by: reductil on July 23, 2004 02:11 PM

____

Post a comment
















__