« A new year, and a new project | Main

February 02, 2005



Why does this feel like when they turn the lights up at last call..?

Shall we reconvene on the message boards, oh ye of many arguments? I'll see ya there in the days to come...


Personally, I like this format better on the boards but there's just too much to keep debating, discussing and arguing to stop now, so I'm game if everyone else is.

Who's going to start a thread and how shall we title it?

How about today's interesting news:

A lopsided majority of votes, 72 percent, went to the United Iraqi Alliance list, topped by a Shiite cleric who lived in Iran for many years and whose Sciri party has close ties to Iran's clerical regime. More than a third of the alliance's vote came from Baghdad, the cosmopolitan capital where Allawi had been expected to fare well.

Which of course leads to the new and unimproved Colin Powell publically addressing that fact with a statement that claims America is not poised to invade Iraq.


(Her exact quote was "The question is simply not on the agenda at this point,")

Perhaps we should postpone the tickertape parades for the troops return home.


OK, I started

The discussion has now been continued in the forum under the "Current events" topic.

I started a new thread and invite Jim, Jeff, Mark, Maryann, Del, Chrish and anyone else that wants to jump in to come on over

The forum is kind of funny because when you write bullshit, it changes to bull****
Kind of a kinder gentler forum? I can't seem to locate a preview, however, so it's not the world's best forum. Luke, can you fix that? Guess you can just copy and paste into Word and spellcheck.

Anyway, see you over there I hope


C'mon Luke, have a heart; damnit!!!

I agree with Rodi, it's like the lights
coming on at the end of a great concert
and they want everyone to start leaving...
Damn management, I won't mention any names,
Luke.... :o)

Of course I would love to continue to discuss, debate, argue, and blurt out censored words... :o) But, most of all, to
grow in ideas, concepts, and understanding;
to learn and grow.

I'm still reading Jeff's PDF on WMD's and
owe him a discussion on that or should I say
debate.... Assuming I still disagree with his position....

Luke, in spite of our, or at least my, disagreements with many of your positions I
thank you most graciously for the effort you
put into this site and wish you the very best of luck in your future endeavors....

I wished we all could have had the opportunity to sit down together at some pub in London, have a few pints, and discuss, debate, and argue .. :o) .. over
the many issues facing our country and the world... May not resolve anything but, perhaps come out with a better understanding about things....

Anyway, again thank you Luke it has been a roller coaster of a ride and I've learned much over these past few years from all of you at Expats and hope to retain that knowledge and understanding... My deepest
respects and regards to all.


Hey Chrish, thanks for the kind word and all of your well thought out participation. But before we all sign off, you have to let me know what you think of the PDF... even if you haven't finished it. That document... and of course the many times that I've heard Bush and his administration make those statements right to my face on TV really forms the crux of my opinion. Politicians lie all the time... but if lying about war (regardless of whether he is right or wrong) is not grounds for immediate firing, then what is?


Hey Chris, Jeff, Jim and Maryann:

Are we really signing off for good?
Cmon, give the discussion board a chance.
It's not the best forum but it's better than just deserting one another

I feel like my disfucnctional family is all leaving !!!

I also want to know what Chrish thought of the WMD PDF

And then there's the little item of the budget that Bush submitted today that conveniently left out how to pay for Social Secuirty reform and the ongoing Iraq occuation, the 2 very things that were the highlight of his State of the Union address.

Come back, one and all


Rodi, what's the point in inviting Jim, unless you want to talk with someone who goes postal over the purchase of a few shares of Texas oil company stock? Obviously, those companies support our troops and build Iraqi infrastructure. Only one answer I can think of, he must hate Iraqis, hate America, and love Saddam.


Now Mark, are you really going to be a stick in the mud and start excluding people?

Calm yourself down Rodi, I never said I was going to sign off or want to stop these discussions. That's in the hands of that party pooper, Luke.. Damn management!

What do I think of "Iraq on the Record" so far? Very damning piece of work against BushCo I have to admit but, I'm not finished reading so we still have to discuss it.... :o)

One thing I do find interesting is the amount of time and work that appears to have gone into categorizing, compiling, cross referencing the statements, etc. and
one question I do have. Would Waxman have done the same thing had it been Gore or Kerry that had launched us into a war with Iraq? And who paid for this, us?

Don't get me wrong I'm still reading but, those questions were at the back of my mind.


Chrish, is it really relevant who went through the trouble of putting the document together as long as it is unbiased and accurate? Obviously, time and money went into it, but I would imagine that it's extremely low compared to most government studies. Compiling public statements and categorizing them doesn't seem to be very labor intensive... in fact, I believe I could do it if I had a few weeks. But forget the cost, even though I think it was low, isn't the issue important enough to spend a few bucks?

The nice thing about the document is that it is unassailable and immune to partisanship. Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Powell, and Rice actually said all of those things, most of which were broadcast on the news. A false statement is a false statement. A misleading statement... well, you can be the judge of that.

The crux of most of our arguments here has been between those who believed it was necessary to do something about Saddam and those who would not have acted without an imminent threat. Bush needed our support and he made both groups of people one and the same with his lies. Without the lies, it all fell apart. You can defend the war as being morally right, I don't have a problem with that. What you can't defend is our right to know the truth and choose beforehand, instead of having our leading fooling all of us into believing that we'll be looking at a "smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud."



If I don't invite Jim, whose viewpoints can we hope to oppose and change?

On items relating to Jeff's comments, (ie: integrity and truth or lack thereof), here's an interesting tidbit:

Lots of Bush people like to dismiss many recent ant-Bush policy books as liberal, anti-American etc. I've often commented on how I find it amazing that book after book is published telling us the facts, yet so many Americans choose to dismiss them as "liberal" (thus, not true) without even giving them a look. It seems that there should be enough educated Americans with an open mind (like yourself) to swing public opinion on certain issues.

Let's suppose for a minute you give Bush the benefit of the doubt regarding his intention to spread "freedom" throughout the Middle East, but then dismiss all the Saudi connections as untrue. Bush people make the argument that all people want freedom, yet the Saudis are among the most repressed kingdoms in the world. Perhaps enough people have read the books and are responding as evidenced by this:

Apparently bowing under pressure, the Saudi kingdom has decided to have limited municipal elections in and around Ryiadh. However, women, who make up 50% of the population but only 5% of the workforce, will be banned despite neutral rules that allow all citizens over the age of 21 to participate. The Saudis deny any wrongdoing, claiming that is "not logistically possible" at this time. Yet, neither Bush or Tony Blair have ever denounced this policy. And then there’s this quote:
"In our interpretation of Islam, women have no identity," Iman al-Kahtani, a 24-year-old female journalist, remarked in "Veiled Hopes," a penetrating eyewitness account about the status of women in Saudi Arabia."
Articles like this discredit what's left of any legitimate reasons for regime change under the mantra of "spreading freedom". Bush backers love to claim how "women voting" is such a fabulous accomplishment. If Islamist values prevent women from joining the ranks of American democracy, why should the US deficit continue to climb to push the issue? How about proposing a budget that even addresses this point?

Meanwhile, in the midst of the freedom quest, Bush proposed a 12.6 trillion dollar budget that mysteriously fails to explain where he'd get the $1 trillion needed to finance Social security reform. It also conveniently excludes any information on paying for the ongoing occupation under the excuse that future costs "can not be estimated". It does, however, cut as many as 135 Federal programs and increase homeland security budgets.

While the budget may not be outright lies, why should any member of Congress be inclined to accept a proposal that fails to account for the 2 most important stated missions of the second term?



I can't speak for the many other's who slam or condemn books written by those opposing Bush, I can only speak for myself or present my thoughts on the subject. Now remember these are only my thoughts and are just thoughts.

For many years now the Left, let's call them Liberals, have been, for all intents and purposes, in control of things. They have determined the direction and scope of our educational and judicial systems, and social programs. Whenever someone either from the center or right spoke out against them or their programs or direction they were, systematically, shut down, shouted down, and attacked in many different ways.
Essentially preventing any form of open discussion, debate, or dialog.

These attacks or whatever you wish to call them came in many different forms. One was either classified as a racist, someone with a phobia, or anti-whatever. Since those in the center and the right did not want to be viewed in this negative manner they were silenced.

Discussion, debate, dialog was stymied and prevented; silenced.

It was only a matter of time when those types of tactics would no longer work nor shut people up.

That time has come and those who were shouted down and called names are no longer afraid nor inhibited from speaking out.

Sadly, though, many in the center and the right are essentially exhibiting and practicing the same tactics as those on the Left; shouted down, called names again silenced.

The results? No real nor meaningful discussion, debate, dialog, nor understanding from either side. Kind of a 'Only our way will work.' mentality.

Rather stupid don't you think?

The pendulum has swung from the far left and is now swinging to the right. For how long? Probably as long as the Left has been in control...

If you get beyond the politics, the 'Only our way' mentality both sides have valid arguments, valid ideas, and valid solutions.
The trick is how to get both sides to drop the ego's, the politics, and the 'our way' mentality keep what is good and drop what is bad or is not working.

Democrat or Republican aren't they supposed to be doing what is in the best interest of The People and not the Special Interest Groups?

Name one politician that a regular working class joe can walk into his/her office and hunker down and talk with? If you have some big bucks certainly you can. Would I or you, or Jeff, or Jim, or anyone else be able to do that? I hardly doubt it.

Everything they, the politicians, have whether it be salaries, staff, offices, on and on and on We, The People, have bought and paid for. Yet, we have no influence or
no say over what they do


Chrish, you're always coming at this from some sort of ultra big picture view. Yes, American politics suck and the system must be fixed. We can all agree with that... it's not really even a democracy. How can it be when the viability of any candidacy, down to the lowliest of elected positions is judged by fundraising?

As bad as those problems are, we have time to fix them... if they are even fixable. But right now you have a cancer growing at the very top... the worst of the lot and yet you chose to support them. You ask me what I would do if Bush was a Democrat, well I would try my best to throw him out on his ass too, just as anyone who would lie to my face to get me to send my sons and daughters to Iraq.


And Jeff, as always you miss the whole point of my post. We've already agreed that
politics suck American or otherwise and Our system must be fixed.

It isn't going to be fixed if both sides have a 'Only Our Way' mentality, which, is the crux of the problem. This mentality consumes both sides. No matter what the issue is if one side presents a solution the other side, essentially, says "No way!"
"Our Way is Better". The shouting, the name calling, the accusations start and all discusssion, debate, or dialog is SILENCED.
The Left used that tactic for some time and now, sadly, the Right has picked up on that tactic and are now throwing it back. Will anything substantial be accomplished? I hardly doubt it.

Incidentally Jeff, I did not ask you what you would do if Bush were a Democrat. I asked what would you do if, in the same circumstances, it were a Kerry, a Dean, or a Gore; a Democrat in office? I'm not as consumed by Bush as you appear to be.

You say, "you have a cancer growing at the very top..." and I submit that the cancer is already in the body politics and has been for some time now. You also say, "we have time to fix them... if they are even fixable." May I assume your fix would be to put a Democrat in office and then everything would be all hunkie dorie?

Yes, it is fixable if We are all willing to hold those people in office ACCOUNTABLE for their actions, their ineptness and incompetence. And that goes across party lines. It is also necessary to hold the news media ACCOUNTABLE for reporting partial facts that only serve to put their politician or party in a better light; bias
in reporting. Again that goes for both sides. I don't know about you but, I'm not
interested in an opinionated report on a news item. I'm more interested in the facts; all of the facts good or bad. I can make my own decision (choice) on whether it is good or bad. I certainly don't need some news reporter or journalist telling me how or what I should think. Just the who, when, and where; the facts.


Chrish, well it's really the same standard whether Bush were a Democrat or Kerry/Gore in the White House. You ask me whether my solution would be to put Kerry in the White House... it would certainly be a start. It's certainly better than keeping someone who's lied to us and refuses to accept any accountability... someone who says that his re-election is American endorsement of his entire administration's actions during this whole fiasco... even Rumsfeld, who I assume you'd like to see let go or at least disciplined in some fashion.

As for the facts... that's what I've tried to provide. The Report on Iraq would be enough evidence to seal Bush's fate for some sort of criminal misrepresentation in any court of law if he were the CEO of a company... and you would probably be able to add some sort of fraud on top of that for total mismanagement of our money.


"his re-election is American endorsement of his entire administration's actions"? That's nothing more than political sales talk. I don't buy into that anymore than you do. He won the election but, that doesn't necessarily mean he can do any-damn-thing he wants to anymore than if Kerry had won the election.

I disagree with your position that Kerry would have been a start towards it being better. Kerry couldn't make up his mind from one day to the next where he stood on a given issue. Today he's here, tomorrow he's over there, and the day after tomorrow
who the hell knows. Unless, of course, you want to take into consideration that he might be getting his direction from the European countries or, perhaps, he would be taking his directives from what the UN tells him?



Why are you so sure that it's just political sales talk? The people who were most egregiously wrong about the war got retained, promoted, or simply awarded the Presidential medal. Rice, Gonzales, Tenet, and Rumsfeld... are you really going to tell me that all four showed first rate job performance and judgment?

Regardless, even if it's political sales talk, it's ridiculously politically incorrect. Does he really think he's going to unite the nation by saying such a thing? You're defending a man who's shown misguided bravado from the get go... a man who's insulted our allies and inflamed our enemies. He finally admitted that he shouldn't have said, "Wanted: Dead or Alive" and "Bring it on!" and that sentiment gave me hope for all of 10 seconds before he dashed it.

You say that Kerry flip flopped with the wind... well, I'll give Bush this, he ran a masterful campaign that covered up all of his flops. From not wanting to wanting the 9/11 Commission and Homeland Security, from no nation building to nation building, from not wanting to offer North Korea any incentives to offering, from promising to pressure OPEC to not, from wanting a U.N. vote on the war to not (when it was obvious it wouldn't work), from having high tea with Chalabi to raiding his offices... how many more flip-flops do you want?

Voters have a short memory... Bush actually opposed any type of early election until Sistani forced his hand. In fact, it was the U.N.'s Lakhdar Brahimi that arranged the compromise. Bush flips and flops just as much as anyone else and in the instances that he doesn't, he's often completely wrong and unable to admit it... and guess what? People die because of it.

The fact of the matter is that these decisions that a President must make are extremely complicated and may change every single day. I fail to see why you consider someone who changes his mind worse than someone who makes up his mind and sticks with it, even though it's wrong. As I've illustrated, some of Bush's best decisions were total flip flops...

What a bunch of contradictory drivel.


I'm curious, if anyone on this board is still alive... what y'all think about the whole James Guckert/Jeff Gannon thing? To me, it's frightening, both how far Bushies are willing to go to control the news and an even worse indictment of their competency.

the Bushies have complete control of CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc etc



I'm still around and it looks like some nameless and clueless Bush supporter is still around also.

The big news for me as an expat in Canada is Paul Martin's surprising swing in policy. Apparently, the Canadian government has now come out and said they will not support the Bush Star Wars plan to dominate space but disguised as a missile defense system for North America. Man, now that's a flip-flop. Too bad he wasn’t running along with Bush and Kerry cause then the GOP could have a legitimate argument for "flip-flopping." Paul Cellusci's immediate response was that "We (America) will continue to protect North America against missile attacks even if Canada won’t." Can't wait to see the political and economic repercussions of Canada once again having the unmitigated audacity to challenge a Bush policy.

And don't you love the way Bush goes on a European mission designed to "mend fences", and then pubically "demands that European nations cooperate fully with US policy."

Couple of fun tidbits for all the idiots that still don't get it from the current book I'm reading ("What we've lost")

* A large amount of the Humvees that the Marines are forced to use are actually sport model Hummers designed for the actual road with little or no protection from attacks . Soldiers refer to them as "topless Hummers"

* When the Iraq War started, returning vets in the VA were paying $8 per day for their food until Bush finally agreed to let this insane policy stop.

* The Dept of Defense denies routine visits to VA hospitals from members of non-profit organizations designed to aid vets with benefits and paperwork for fear that they will disclose current Bush policies that deny almost all benefits to returning vets due to constraints on the system that existed BEFORE the invasion. Expect 25% more homelessness in the upcoming decades as the Iraq vets start to have their benefits denied.

* When most soldiers finally return home, almost all are forced to pay their own way from remote US bases scattered throughout Europe and the Middle East. To avoid having to fly them all the way home, Bush policy grants most leaves with only a 1 to 2 day notice, thus forcing soldiers to purchase full-fare tickets from Germany or Saudi Arabia under the guise that they can't afford to use valuable military planes.

Way to support the troops.


This is in response to Chrish's comment on the Message Board regarding Social Security privatization
(I also posted it there)


First of all, Social Security is hypothetically separate from the Federal Budget as is Medicare, and Medicaid. Of course we all know that Bush could find a way to manipulate that rule as a last resort when the deficit hits the quadrillion figure.

Secondly, as an employee of the financial markets for over 20 years, let me run this scenario past you. Let's say you invest diligently in your IRA, 401K and cash account for 30 or 40 years like you're supposed to. Someone that happened to retire in 2000 would have seen his nest egg shrunk by 30 to 40% compared to the same person that retired in 1992, right before the Bull Market run of the 1990's. In the market, advisers base almost all future returns on a 7 or 8% average return EVERY YEAR. If you happen to be at retirement at the start of a bear market and think your "private Social Security Fund" is going to earn you a better quality of life than the GUARANTEED pittance that is Social Security, you are kidding yourself. In addition, SS is supposed to be a small component of a diversified retirement plan. Obviously, those that have no other means of retirement are not exactly savvy investors. By privatizing, the government absolves responsibility from one more New Deal Program that Bush is trying to eliminate completely. You will be blamed for making poor investment choices when your money doesn't grow. (In fact, it can LOSE money, something Bush forgot to tell everyone)

The Bush doctrine has been slowly eliminating 50 or 60 years of Liberal social safety net programs that FDR started. Making HMO's richer while more Americans have absolutely no means of healthcare in the world's richest country is another example. What's wrong with privatization is that the system is solvent for another 30 or 40 years according to US Accounting and Budget Department estimates. It's just another example of why the Bush presidency will be viewed as one of the most destructive in US history to both Americans and the rest of the world.


It's just easier to post here, isn't it? Continuing with that answer to Chrish's question about privatization... sure, it sounds good. Your money and you get to control it. So why have any sort of retirement account at all? Forget 401ks, IRAs, and SS... just take it all home and invest it yourself... right?

Whether SS is in crisis or going to work in the long run is up for debate. What is not for debate is that privitization will not and cannot fix SS unless the government uses some ridiculous rate of return that they expect all the accounts to see. What we know for sure, privatization will costs trillions. Instead of some storage place where money goes, now Americans are supposedly going to be able to trade.

So who provides all the mechanism for that Chrish? I suppose your brokerage allows you to maintain your finances and trade stocks for free. Obviously, many more Americans have SS than have brokerage accounts. Do the math. The only way for any of these deficit problems to be fixed is to start spending and start saving. Like that's going to happen. Everyone knows it won't and that's why the dollar continues to tank. Your dollars depreciate just like your car... and you can't drive them either.



Wake up!!! Everybody knows that Social Security is "hypothetically speakking supposed to be a seperate account from the Federal Budget". Reality doesn't jive with what is "supposed to be.'. The fact is ALL of those politicians have been dipping into SS for some years now. WAY BEFORE BUSH CAME INTO OFFICE! Got it, WAY BEFORE BUSH CAME INTO OFFICE! Now, if you can put aside your hatred towards Bush, I know that's a difficult proposition for you, and look at SS as it is now we might just get somewhere.

I am amazed at how for years now the atypical Democratic Socialists consistently dragged out the SS scare when they thought it would serve their cause; it worked. When all the smoke and dust cleared those very same politicians stopped paying it lip service, did nothing to correct it, and it was business as usual; nothing was done.

Bush presents a reform to SS and the same group comes out saying the opposite of what they were previously stating; nothing's wrong with SS, the system is fine. Note that Bush was not the first president to say that SS must be reformed. President Bill Clinton stated that SS had to be reformed or there would be no money left in the fund. I repeat Jeff, Bill Clinton stated that SS must be reformed or there would be no money left in the fund.

So who's lying Jeff Bush, Clinton, or both?

What has been going on is slate of hand. SS taxes go into SS and those friggin politicians BOTH SIDES move some into the General Fund so they can fund their assinine programs that haven't really accomplished a hell of a lot. So much for the New Deal that FDR created. And both Democrat and Republican politicians have been diving into that fund to serve their's and their Special Interests concerns.

Now, you tell me what would be so bad to have more control of those funds as opposed to having politicians controlling it?

You're obviously a financial wizard so what do you think would be the best way for a person to have control over their own SS funds, how to make it grow in the safest possible way? IRA's, 401K's (assuming the usual thugs don't steal it), investments, stuffed into a mattress?

Assume, for a moment, that having control of your own SS funds was an option. How would you handle those funds? What would you do?

Keep in mind that it would be an option. You do know what an option is don't you? You could choose to either stay completely with SS or have a percentage of it at your complete control. What would you do? Let your favorite politicians continue to "control it" or, perhaps, would you, as a financial wizard, take advantage of the offering and do what you do best; play the markets? Hopefully in a cautious manner.

Bush has not said everyone will be forced to go that route. He's presented it as an option. You can choose to either try it with safeguards in place so you don't lose it all, or you can stay on SS as before.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that as the number of retirees increases, and they will, there will be less being paid into the SS funds. When it comes time for the next generation to retire where's the money going to come from? Your politicians, the generosity of Big Business? One of two things will happen; the Feds will have to borrow money to pay out SS, or they will have to increase the SS Tax. Which do you think will happen?

Of course, we could always just sit back, do nothing, and wait and see what happens.
Remember Clinton said it before Bush did and nothing was done then. How much longer do we wait before doing something about it.
Based on those assumptions why worry about Global Warming. Nothing's going on so why not wait and see what, if anything, happens?


But Chrish:

While it may be true that previous presidents have dipped into the SS fund, Clinton had a SURPLUS in the BILLIONS. Bush has now fought a voluntary war (or "preemptive" war as the GOP jargon goes) that has put us into a RECORD DEFICIT. There is NO MONEY to reform SS without quietly reducing or eliminating other federal programs. Did you know that as soon as the Iraq war started there were a slew of acts passed in the wee hours of the morning to free up as much money as possible? NO media coverage, little, if any debate. That's the way the Bush administration operates.

Then there's the tax cuts. There's not one single economist in the nation that can deny that the BIGGEST single cause of future generations having a LOWER standard of living is the Bush tax cuts. For example, after all the tax cuts are enacted fully (and then subsequently revoked back to square one in 2010), the richest 1% of Americans will have approximately 17 cents of every dollar going towards payroll tax. (the tax that actually funds SS)

The 80% of the population that comprises the bulk of the nation will have 16.5 cents going to the same payroll tax. The Bush Doctrine is slowly whittling away at the graduated tax system designed to benefit those he claims his tax cuts will help. The reality is we are very close to a flat tax system. Can you say socialism ?????

As usual, the SS reform is just another distraction from the horrible administration that this president is running. Did you know that when the Labor Department's jobs loss report looked too unfavorable one month, they actually tried to include FAST FOOD JOBS in the "manufacturing" sector? Tax cuts encourage outsourcing, which in turns DECERASES the very jobs that the American economy is supposed to be famous for. There is record college enrollment at the moment but the next generation can look forward to an increase in industries such as hospitality services, retail and general laborers. Good luck to the graduates that demand $50 to $80K when the Pakistanis and Indians will do the same job for thousands less.

One day last year Bush stopped in Bakersfield, a city with almost 20% unemployment. He went to a small business owner and gave a speech about "job creation." When interviewed later, the owners said they had hired TWO people, both making salaries near the poverty line.

And to address your financial wizard questions, most Americans can’t even balance their checkbook, never mind deciding what mutual fund to invest their social security in. Have you already forgotten Enron, Worldcom and Tyco? BTW, Bernard Ebbers is living the same life of luxury he did in the 1990's and there has yet to be ONE SINGLE FEDERAL CHARGE against Kenneth Lay. Yet the MILLIONS of Americans that you think Bush cares about are now forced to work another few years or retire poor thanks to the lack of emforcement. (Bush thinks the SEC and the IRS represent a "nuisance distraction" to a free market system)



They will never take off the blinders. Face it. If Bush says it, it's bad. If Clinton says it, he's a saviour.

Elections in Iraq? No that's not good, because it makes Bush look good.

SS reform? No, it's better if people get a 1% return on their money than a 10% return like they would probably get from the stock market.

And by the way, not one American can balance their checkbook and not one economist in the whole world thinks tax cuts are a good thing. I talked to all of them.

Here's an idea. Let's take all of our money and throw it into a big pot, then divide it up evenly. It worked in the Soviet Union

The comments to this entry are closed.

February 2005

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28          
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2003