WHERE DID PRIVILEGE COME FROM: Three letters!

MONDAY, MAY 12, 2014

Part 1—Readers grope pachyderm: All of a sudden, “privilege” is extremely hot.

Example:

In this morning’s New York Times, three letters discuss the paper’s May 3 news report about Princeton freshman Tal Fortgang, who wrote a murky piece in a campus mag concerning the subject.

Fortgang’s famous piece was murky enough on its own. This morning’s letters recall the three blind men who famously groped the elephant.

Famously, the three men emerged with completely different ideas about what sort of critter was being groped. This morning’s letters seem to be discussing completely different topics.

The first letter says that the command or suggestion, “Check your privilege,” is an “ad hominem attack” which “sabotages debate.” Fortgang seemed to make a similar claim at the start of his world-famous essay.

The second letter writer seems to be groping a different part of the elephant.

He agrees that the directive, “Check your privilege,” acts as a type of “conversational kryptonite.” But his main point is quite different: He seems to say that a sound moral upbringing constitutes a privilege too, and it’s a good thing to have.

Or something. In our view, this writer’s point isn’t enormously clear.

Already, we are off in the weeds, weeds which grew rather high in the original essay by Fortgang. That said, we were most struck by this morning’s third letter, which seemed to be groping an ancient part of the pachyderm.

The letter is short; it may include assessments which are perfectly accurate. We were struck by the language it used:
LETTER TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (5/12/14): The young man profiled in your article is too quick to dismiss the point about privilege. I am 75 and like him grew up in Westchester County, New York. My teachers reminded us frequently of the privileged life we were leading. We had the best teachers, involved parents, and many field trips to museums, concert halls and theaters in New York City. We were a very fortunate cohort.

This young man needs to get out of his soft surroundings and see how most of the population lives.
This writer says that young Fortgang is “too quick to dismiss the point about privilege.” The famous freshman should “get out of his soft surroundings and see how” the other 99 percent lives, the letter writer says.

Those judgments may be accurate! It all depends on what “the point” is taken to be. It also depends on Fortgang’s actual views, which weren’t expressed with any great clarity in his original essay.

That said, almost everyone could be more sensitive to other people’s situations and circumstances. That’s even true of Katie McDonough! Surely Fortgang, a college freshman, has a lot he could learn.

That said, we were struck by the writer’s recollections of her own upbringing in the 1950s:

Like Fortgang, this letter writer grew up in (largely) affluent Westchester County. We chuckled as she recalled her teachers describing the privileged life she and her classmates leading—privilege which started with the fact that her teachers were amazingly good!

Put that minor point to the side. Back in the 1950s, did her teachers really remind her of “the privileged life [she was] leading?” Was that the language they used?

It’s possible! But according to the world’s leading authority, the current language of “privilege” was largely invented and promulgated starting in 1965. By June 1969, the New York Times was on the case, reporting that SDS was calling “for an all-out fight against ‘white skin privileges.’ ”

That doesn’t mean there’s anything “wrong” with the language of “privilege” or “skin privilege,” or even with the language of “whitesplaining,” “mansplaining” or the more common “Salonsplaining.”

It doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with advising someone to “check his privilege” in some situation. Appropriately stated, that may constitute good sound advice!

It does make us wonder if that third letter writer’s recollection is accurate. Was she told the she was living “a privileged life?” Or was she possibly told that she had “all the advantages”—that she was part of “a very fortunate cohort,” language she herself recalls?

For starters, here’s why we ask:

In 1963, Phil Ochs wrote an anthem of the era. His famous song was called, “There But For Fortune.”

Ochs didn’t write a song called, “There But For Privilege.” To see Joan Baez singing his anthem in real time, you can just click here.

(Baez’s recording was a Top Ten hit in the U.K. But then, everybody recorded the song, including Chad and Jeremy!)

Does the possible change in language matter? If a change in language has occurred, could it be that the language of “privilege” is more instructive than the language of “advantage” and “good fortune?”

Could the language of “privilege” possibly be less helpful in our ingoing debates?

Suddenly, “privilege” is extremely hot. The concept is spawning a lot of discussions.

That said, no two people seem to be groping the same pachyderm in these discussions. We’ll discuss aspects of this ongoing Babel all week.

Where does confusion come from? In our sprawling national discourse, we have that critter in spades.

Tomorrow: Sources of incoherence

For extra credit: The lyrics to Ochs’ anthem can be perused here. Your assignment, should you choose to accept it:

In five minutes or less, compose an essay explaining how offensive Ochs’ lyrics are.

63 comments:

  1. Privilege might have a greater connotation of permanence or rigidity than fortune. Fortune can change at the drop of a hat, but the privileged do not let those privileges go without a fight. Not coming down on one side or the other of the helpful/harmful question, though.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Misquote alert !

    It was SIX blind men in the original.

    The blogger's brain is melting down, civilization is going to hell in a hand-basket.

    '
    Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling!
    Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes!
    The dead rising from the grave!
    Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!

    '

    Whats next -did they tell blogger's hero Zimmerman 'to stay in his car'?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a "supervisor" on one temp job said to me, "Man, you a idiot."

      Delete
    2. Supervisors on temp jobs say the cutest things.

      Delete
    3. What in the poem makes BOB think anyone was groping the elephant? Or should we ask what in BOB's past makes him fixate on groping?

      KZ

      Delete
  3. I prefer Ochs's song on which he implores Mississippi to "find another country to be part of."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Busting a gut to catch Salon in the Fortgang follies, are we?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tab Hunter and Phil Ochs references are really sparking the cross generational connection by Somerby to his eager millennial following.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Many people today might disagree that alcoholism or homelessness are necessitated by fate. In the 60's I knew that there were no circumstances under which I might become an alcoholic -- because I am from an Irish family chock full of examples of what happens when you drink.

    This is the heart of liberalism vs conservatism. Those who have made different, arguably more difficult choices in their lives during adverse circumstances are not so willing to chalk up alcohlism and destitution to fate.

    Character used to be taught in schools, admired, exemplified by main characters in films and especially children's books. I saw an article today that said on average high school students read for pleasure twice a year. That explains both low ACT scores and the sense that today's world revolves around privilege (bestowed by society) not effort (under the control of each and every one of us). The latter is empowering. The former fosters dependence and fatalism, like that exemplified by Och's song.

    That said, I am not a conservative politically because I believe that people's efforts to improve their lives should be helped along by collective action of our government, especially since communities no longer have the ability to help out. No one survives alone and not everyone has sufficient friends and family with the income to help them deal with life's disasters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I made a B+ in my character class in school. I did my final essay on the exemplarly character of the Penn State football program.

      Delete
    2. Didn't they kick character out with Christ? Of the public schools I mean.

      Delete
    3. If you were taught that Abe Lincoln walked miles to return a library book (true or not), then you were taught character in school.

      Delete
  7. I liked Joan's performance better than Phil's. And she looked better, too.

    ReplyDelete
  8. To see how silly the focus on privilege is, let's consider privilege in athletics. I wasn't privileged to have particularly good athletic skills, nor was I privileged to have athletic instruction or training from any source when I was growing up.

    Therefore, what? Well, therefore, I'm not a good athlete. But, does my lack of privilege gives me any kind of superiority over others who were more privileged athletically? I can't see how.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your comment merely serves to reinforce how silly you are.

      Delete
    2. No, but when the athlete who had those advantages laughs at you and ridicules you because of your lack of skill, you might wish he would "check his privilege" -- i.e., keep his skewed views of what others should be able to do to himself and STFU.

      Do you get it now?

      Delete
    3. Athletic ability isn't a privilege; it's a talent.

      Delete
    4. It is a talent that bestows privilege. Just as white skin isn't a privilege it is a biological condition -- one that confers social status in our society.

      But I disagree with David's assumption that he couldn't acquire more athletic skill with practice. There are a whole lot of people out there with no coaches and no training who nevertheless worked hard and became strong athletes. They had strong motivation. I think that is partly what people admire about athletes, beyond their actual performance of their sport.

      Delete
    5. Geez, miss the point or what?

      Delete
    6. Talent doesn't bestow privilege, as D'Leisha can tell you. Talent + opportunity + good fortune earns rewards through doing the hard work of developing that talent. Privilege doesn't work that way. It's bestowed (or is conferred) for being. There are Yale alumni who got into Yale because they were smart and talented, worked to get a high GPA and had good days on SAT tests. George W Bush is a Yale alumnus because he was born George W Bush. The latter is an example of privilege. I'm not saying that W should be ashamed of that privilege -- he didn't choose his parents -- or that whatever work he did to get his gentleman's-C diploma isn't his own. But as Ann Richards used to say about him (and which applies to Tal Fortgang and his ilk), he was born on third base and thought he'd hit a triple.

      Delete
    7. deadrat, I agree that George Bush is Yale alum, because he was born GW Bush. His Harvard MBA might not have happened either, without his background. However, Bush did successfully get his desired degrees in both institutions, (That's more than Al Gore did in his graduate studies in journalism and divinity, at Vanderbilt.)

      Barack Obama is a Columbia alum, probably aided by affirmative action. Perhaps his race helped him get into Harvard Law School. We don't his grades or his SAT scores. Obama certainly deserves credit for doing the work and getting the degrees.

      In short, I see a parallel between Bush and Obama. Both men were aided by something that they didn't do. Both got Ivy League Bachelor's degrees and Harvard post-graduate degrees. Bush's parentage most likely helped him get the Presidential nomination. Obama's race most likely helped him get the Presidential nomination. So, deadrat, would you agree that Bush and Obama were both privileged?

      Delete
    8. D'Leisha will be admitted to a college despite her low ACT scores because of her athletic talent.

      Delete
    9. DAinCA,

      Sometimes I wonder if you have some sort of cognitive problem that makes you unable follow a line of argument. Is that the case?

      Somehow you must think that I'm arguing that the WPE is a dunce and that Al Gore isn't. Or that Obama's race had no influence on his nomination or that Obama never had the benefit of privilege. It's true that WPE is the Prince of Dunces, and Al Gore is not. It's also true that you have no facts to support your claim that Obama didn't deserve admission to Columbia. (But as Bill Maher points out, "A black man getting into college. That is suspicious.")

      None of that is germane. The topic of discussion is the effect of privilege on one's political outlook. Let's even make the absurd assumption that Obama coasted through his academic life on the wings of affirmative action, and that he's the beneficiary of as much cushy privilege as the WPE. Somehow, Obama doesn't want to not extend unemployment benefits because he was once poor and worked hard and made things work so the unemployed just need to suck it up.

      Is any of this sinking in?

      Delete
    10. What is WPE?

      Delete
    11. (W)orst (P)resident (E)ver. My pet name for the worst President to hold office, including Benjamin Franklin, who, as you may or may not know, was the only President of the United States who was never President of the United States.

      Delete
  9. The "that said" cancer continues to grow here, even to the point of incorrect usage.

    Somerby never, ever makes a mistake. Even when it is pointed out to him that the NCES expressly says it considers the low-income data based on eligibility for free or reduced lunch to be an indicator of the poverty level of a school, he must continue to put "low income" in quotation marks and point out that it is not the same thing as "poverty." He is assuming that the U.S. Government's technical definition of poverty -- the official poverty level published by HHS -- is the only valid usage of the term, even though the NCES disagrees. So does the OECD, the international organization of leading countries, which considers incomes of 70% of median income to be at a poverty level; the 185% of official poverty level income that qualifies a student for a reduced lunch is less than 70% of median income for a comparable U.S. family unit. Are the sarcasm quotes supposed to mean that an income far below median income is not really "low income"?

    Somerby also seems not to get the fact that the error he is heroically spotting -- that eligibility for free or reduced lunch is not the same as the official published poverty rate -- is pointless. He has used it mainly to push back against Diane Ravitch and others who have pointed out that the high incidence of poverty in U.S.schools significantly skews U.S. scores downward on international tests compared to countries with low rates of poverty. Whenever he sees this, Somerby puffs out his chest and triumphantly declares that the income guidelines for free or reduced lunch are not the same as the official poverty level. Once again, of course, the NCES, in fact, considers that 75% free and reduced lunch in a school to be an indicator of a school with high poverty. Accordingly, when commentators like Ravitch use the same language used by the NCES, they are correct to do so. either that, or NCES is poisoning the national discourse.

    Beyond that, however, there is poor logic in the criticism. If the scores for schools with such levels of low income score that much below more affluent schools, imagine how much greater the difference would be for schools with 75% of the students from households below the official, published poverty rate. It's a pointless distinction when the data presented according to the Somerby Rules would only make the point even more clearly. Or perhaps according to those rules we are supposed to tell the family of four living on $25,000 a year to stop the belly-aching because they're not poor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You seem to be much more obsessed with this than Somerby is. We can all look up actual poverty stats in the census reports. There is no need for this argument any more.

      Delete
    2. If he stops criticizing the people who make a legitimate point about comparing the U.S. to other countries, and stops putting "low income" in quotation marks as if he were some kind of right-wing loon who thinks it's a piece of cake to raise a family of four on $44,000 a year when the housing and car costs probably take well over 50% of that, then fine, there will be nothing to talk about.

      Delete
    3. It is no piece of cake to raise a family of four on $99,000 a year. Why do you privilege one figure as poor and not these other figures? Why do you draw the line at Somerby's low income figure instead of where the government does (for poverty) but instead want to decide some other boundary? Why not put it where it belongs (e.g., higher) instead of using the school lunch program cutoff, a convenience of history, as if it were a meaningful cutoff?

      Delete
    4. as if he were some kind of right-wing loon who thinks it's a piece of cake to raise a family of four on $44,000 a year when the housing and car costs probably take well over 50% of that

      You understand that the Bob Somerby in the italics above is the Bob Somerby you've constructed in your head and that that's exclusively where he lives, right?

      You understand that the people TDH criticizes for making spurious comparisons between the US and other countries don't have a legitimate point, right?

      Just checking.

      Delete
    5. TDH has made the point that these students that qualify for free or reduced lunch should not necessarily be factored in as having a significant negative impact on comparative test scores because a) they are not technically below the poverty line, and b) they are 47.5% of the student population (as low as 32% in Conn, and as high as 72% in DC).

      Others have made the point that although they do not technically count as being below the poverty line, they still struggle with many difficulties of limited income, and that this struggle appears to be beyond Bob's empathy.

      Delete
    6. Many students above the poverty line struggle with the burdens that come with low income. Point taken.

      You understand that TDH's feelings (or lack of them) live entirely in your own head, right?

      Delete
  10. I am glad Somerby reads letters written to the Times and makes comments on Drum's blog. Shows he is one of us.

    ReplyDelete
  11. My parents' parents were poor immigrants. My parents fed me, expected me to do well in public school and put a roof over my head. They took me to church and talked about right and wrong. None of us were permitted to view ourselves as victims of being in the 99 percent. None of us went to prison and all prospered. Through the good fortune of honorable parents who cared enough to work, struggle and sacrifice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Congratulations, 4:32, you're a charter member of the Tal Fortgang Self-Satisfaction Society.

      Delete
    2. Why does it offend you that I recognize the good fortune and privilege provided me? Because I recognize it was provided not by my race but by both of my moral, hard-working and dedicated parents?

      Delete
    3. The problem is that many people's parents do the same but don't have the same fortunate outcome. They get picked up by immigration or bilked out of their savings or get sick or have an accident at work (without insurance) or are shot standing in the wrong place at the wrong time or work hard but cannot put a roof over their kids head. Do they somehow not care? You seem to think that anyone who does what your parents did would have the same outcome. Life doesn't work like that. Some kids are born with birth defects, others have dyslexia, some parents are not only poor immigrants but illiterate and thus cannot help themselves or their kids. If you imply that they should do as your parents did, you are not simply recognizing your own good fortunate but being a jerk by suggesting that there are no forces larger than individual will that affect people's lives ("victims of being in the 99 percent").

      Delete
    4. Most children labeled "underprivileged" or "unfortunate" by white liberals fit those definitions because of parents who don't care about them, not because of their race. Most failing, drug addicted, imprisoned people were victims of their parents, not racism. Check your privilege mostly means check your parents, and no one should apologize for having good ones.

      Delete
    5. Check your facts -- this is just not true. I hate to say it but you need to read some sociology of poverty and crime. You don't know what you are talking about.

      Delete
    6. The black illegitimacy rate is 75%. 75% of black children underprivileged from before the day they're born as a result of negligent parenting not race.

      Delete
    7. The white illegitimacy rate is high too. Does that mean those white kids are underprivileged due to negligent parenting too. Marriage itself is declining. Can you assume any child of unmarried parents is automatically underprivileged? You use the term negligent, like all those parents just sort of forgot to get married.

      Delete
    8. The genesis of this phrase must be as a response to the Ayn Randian libertarians' fondness for the phrase, "Check your premise" from, "Atlas Shrugged". A perfect riposte is, "Check your privilege."

      Delete
    9. Can you assume any child of unmarried parents is automatically underprivileged?

      Automatically less privileged than one born to married, committed parents. Being born to low income unmarried parents is even worse. Low income unmarried parents who produce children are abusing and neglecting them from they day they are born. Progressives hate the promotion of marriage and family and usually that uncivilized outlook is attributable to their own parents' failures.

      Delete
    10. Every person born to and raised by their two caring and dedicated parents knows he enjoys a privilege in excess of anything a white face or money would have provided. Tal Fortgang was privileged but not because of his race, because of the dedication of his parents and grandparents who were "underprivileged" under some definitions such as income and initial social status. The pushback from the left over culture and family guarantees those groups disproportionately affected by poverty, lack of education, crime, illegitimacy will never advance.

      Delete
    11. One day I hope to be as sure about something as you seem to be about everything.

      Delete
    12. I hope never to be as resistant to truth. Having dedicated parents who commit themselves to one's welfare is a more important privilege in America in 2014 than skin color. Generations of groups who have abandoned this truth consequently live in misery. The failure of the progressive culture of lazy alternatives and excuses. Observing that progressives recoil at the mention of these ideas reaffirms that the groups and individuals who have rejected these cultural values in favor of sad, defeatist excuses will never advance.

      Culture determines outcome, not race or initial social status. Poor immigrants of varied ethnicities succeed and other groups "helped" by progressives for five decades still fail and will always fail.

      Delete
    13. Truth? You can't handle the truth.

      Abstractions, those you've got covered. Count the number you've mouthed @3:47. When you start to realize that they're grounded in nothing beyond your skull, get back to me.

      Delete
    14. Dedicated parents with high expectations regarding their children's educational performance and who instill in them morals, family values, and a work ethic are not an abstraction. Those values are the foundations for civilization but they deeply offend the uncivilized and the intellectually and morally underdeveloped.

      Delete
  12. nike shoes, Cheap Jordans,Cheap Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Max,Cheap Free Run Shoes,nike shoes,nike outlet,nike factory,nike store,nike factory outlet,nike outlet store,cheap nike shoes,nike sneakers, toms outlet, toms outlet,tom shoes,toms shoes outlet,tom shoes,toms wedges,cheap toms,toms.com, air jordan, air jordan,jordan shoes,cheap jordans,air jordans,jordan retro,air jordan shoes,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan retro, cheap jordans, cheap jordans,cheap jordan shoes,cheap jordan,cheap jordans for sale,jordans for cheap,jordan shoes,jordans,air jordan,jordan retro,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,air jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes,air jordan retro, jordan retro, jordan retro,jordan shoes,air jordan,air jordans,retro jordans,air jordan retro,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,cheap jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes, air max 90, air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 95,air max 2014,air max 2013,air max 1,nike air max,air max,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, air max 95, air max 95,nike air max 95,air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 2013,nike air max,air max,air max 2014,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, nike free 5.0, nike free 5.0, nike free trainer 5.0,nike free run 5.0,free running 2,nike free run,nike free,free running,nike running shoes,nike free trainer,free runs,free run 5.0, omega watches, omega watches,omega watch,replica watches,rolex watches,replica omega watches,rolex,watches for men,watches for women,rolex watches for sale,rolex replica,rolex watch,cartier watches,rolex submariner,fake rolex,rolex replica watches,replica rolex, ralph lauren outlet

    ReplyDelete
  13. ralph lauren outlet,ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren outlet,polo ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren,ralph lauren,polo ralph,polo shirts,ralphlauren.com,polo outlet,ralph lauren polo, oakley sunglass, oakley sunglasses,cheap oakley,cheap oakley sunglasses,oakley sunglasses cheap,oakley outlet,oakley sunglasses outlet,oakley vault,oakleys,oakley.com,sunglasses outlet,cheap sunglasses,oakley prescription glasses,fake oakleys,oakley glasses,oakley store,fake oakley,oakley sale,cheap oakleys,discount oakley sunglasses, ray ban sunglasses, Ray Ban Sunglasses,Ray Ban Outlet,Ray Ban Sale,Cheap Ray Bans,Cheap Ray Ban Sunglasses,ray ban sunglasses outlet,ray ban,rayban,ray bans,ray-ban,raybans,ray ban wayfarer,ray-ban sunglasses,raybans.com,rayban sunglasses,cheap ray ban, burberry, burberry,burberry outlet,burberry outlet online,burberry factory outlet,burberry sale,burberry handbags, chanel bags, chanel bags,chanel handbags,chanel sunglasses,chanel outlet,chanel purses,chanel handbags official site, coach outlet store, coach outlet,coach outlet store,coach outlet store online,coach outlet stores,coach factory outlet,coach factory,coach factory online,coach factory outlet online,coach outlet online, chaussures louboutin, louboutin,louboutin pas cher,christian louboutin,louboutin chaussures,louboutin soldes,chaussure louboutin,chaussures louboutin,chaussure louboutin pas cher,louboutin france, sac michael kors, michael kors,sac michael kors,michael kors sac,michael kors pas cher,sac michael kors pas cher,michael kors france, north face outlet, north face outlet,the north face,north face,the north face outlet,north face jackets,north face jackets clearance,northface, yoga pants, yoga pants,lululemon,lululemon outlet,lululemon athletica,lululemon addict,lulu lemon,lulu.com,lululemon.com, beats by dre

    ReplyDelete
  14. nike shoes, Cheap Jordans,Cheap Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Max,Cheap Free Run Shoes,nike shoes,nike outlet,nike factory,nike store,nike factory outlet,nike outlet store,cheap nike shoes,nike sneakers, toms outlet, toms outlet,tom shoes,toms shoes outlet,tom shoes,toms wedges,cheap toms,toms.com, air jordan, air jordan,jordan shoes,cheap jordans,air jordans,jordan retro,air jordan shoes,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan retro, cheap jordans, cheap jordans,cheap jordan shoes,cheap jordan,cheap jordans for sale,jordans for cheap,jordan shoes,jordans,air jordan,jordan retro,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,air jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes,air jordan retro, jordan retro, jordan retro,jordan shoes,air jordan,air jordans,retro jordans,air jordan retro,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,cheap jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes, air max 90, air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 95,air max 2014,air max 2013,air max 1,nike air max,air max,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, air max 95, air max 95,nike air max 95,air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 2013,nike air max,air max,air max 2014,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, nike free 5.0, nike free 5.0, nike free trainer 5.0,nike free run 5.0,free running 2,nike free run,nike free,free running,nike running shoes,nike free trainer,free runs,free run 5.0, omega watches, omega watches,omega watch,replica watches,rolex watches,replica omega watches,rolex,watches for men,watches for women,rolex watches for sale,rolex replica,rolex watch,cartier watches,rolex submariner,fake rolex,rolex replica watches,replica rolex, ralph lauren outlet, ralph lauren outlet,ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren outlet,polo ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren,ralph lauren,polo ralph,polo shirts,ralphlauren.com,polo outlet,ralph lauren polo, oakley sunglass, thomas sabo

    ReplyDelete
  15. oakley sunglasses,cheap oakley,cheap oakley sunglasses,oakley sunglasses cheap,oakley outlet,oakley sunglasses outlet,oakley vault,oakleys,oakley.com,sunglasses outlet,cheap sunglasses,oakley prescription glasses,fake oakleys,oakley glasses,oakley store,fake oakley,oakley sale,cheap oakleys,discount oakley sunglasses, ray ban sunglasses, Ray Ban Sunglasses,Ray Ban Outlet,Ray Ban Sale,Cheap Ray Bans,Cheap Ray Ban Sunglasses,ray ban sunglasses outlet,ray ban,rayban,ray bans,ray-ban,raybans,ray ban wayfarer,ray-ban sunglasses,raybans.com,rayban sunglasses,cheap ray ban, burberry, burberry,burberry outlet,burberry outlet online,burberry factory outlet,burberry sale,burberry handbags, chanel bags, chanel bags,chanel handbags,chanel sunglasses,chanel outlet,chanel purses,chanel handbags official site, coach outlet store, coach outlet,coach outlet store,coach outlet store online,coach outlet stores,coach factory outlet,coach factory,coach factory online,coach factory outlet online,coach outlet online, chaussures louboutin, louboutin,louboutin pas cher,christian louboutin,louboutin chaussures,louboutin soldes,chaussure louboutin,chaussures louboutin,chaussure louboutin pas cher,louboutin france, sac michael kors, michael kors,sac michael kors,michael kors sac,michael kors pas cher,sac michael kors pas cher,michael kors france, north face outlet, north face outlet,the north face,north face,the north face outlet,north face jackets,north face jackets clearance,northface, yoga pants, yoga pants,lululemon,lululemon outlet,lululemon athletica,lululemon addict,lulu lemon,lulu.com,lululemon.com, beats by dre, beats by dre,beats headphones,beats audio,beats by dr dre,beats by dre headphones,dr dre,dre beats,beats by dr,dr dre beats,dre headphones,beats by dr. dre,cheap beats, ferragamo, ferragamo,salvatore ferragamo,ferragamo shoes,ferragamo outlet,salvatore ferragamo outlet,ferragamo belts,ferragamo belt,ferragamo outlet, nike blazer, nike blazer,blazer nike,nike blazer pas cher,Chaussures Nike Blazer,Nike Blazer Femme, nike air force, swarovski crystal, swarovski

    ReplyDelete