|
Thursday, June 12, 2003 |
|
Here is the text of the speech Bill Moyers gave recentlly at the Take Back America Conference - it is so important that I wanted to cull it out from The War and Peace Watch e-letter in which it was first mentioned. The Progressive Story of America Bill Moyers was awarded the Lifetime Leadership Award at the Take Back America conference last week. His honey-worded acceptance speech won the hearts and minds of all privileged to hear him. The speech is destined to become a classic, and is coming to be known as the Progressive Story of America. It is our story. Common Dreams This is Your Story - The Progressive Story of America. Pass It On. Text of speech to the 'Take Back America' Conference Thank you for this award and for this occasion. I don't deserve either, but as George Burns said, I have arthritis and I don't deserve that, either. Tomorrow is my 69th birthday and I cannot imagine a better present than this award or a better party than your company. Fifty three years ago tomorrow, on my l6th birthday, I went to work for the daily newspaper in the small East Texas town where I grew up. It was a good place to be a cub reporter -- small enough to navigate but big enough to keep me busy and learning something every day. I soon had a stroke of luck. Some of the old timers were on vacation or out sick and I got assigned to cover what came to be known as the Housewives' Rebellion. Fifteen women in my home town decided not to pay the social security withholding tax for their domestic workers. They argued that social security was unconstitutional, that imposing it was taxation without representation, and that -- here's my favorite part -- "requiring us to collect (the tax) is no different from requiring us to collect the garbage." They hired themselves a lawyer -- none other than Martin Dies, the former congressman best known, or worst known, for his work as head of the House Committee on Un-American Activities in the 30s and 40s. He was no more effective at defending rebellious women than he had been protecting against communist subversives, and eventually the women wound up holding their noses and paying the tax. The stories I wrote for my local paper were picked up and moved on the Associated Press wire. One day, the managing editor called me over and pointed to the AP ticker beside his desk. Moving across the wire was a notice citing one Bill Moyers and the paper for the reporting we had done on the "Rebellion." That hooked me, and in one way or another -- after a detour through seminary and then into politics and government for a spell -- I've been covering the class war ever since. Those women in Marshall, Texas were its advance guard. They were not bad people. They were regulars at church, their children were my friends, many of them were active in community affairs, their husbands were pillars of the business and professional class in town. They were respectable and upstanding citizens all. So it took me awhile to figure out what had brought on that spasm of reactionary rebellion. It came to me one day, much later. They simply couldn't see beyond their own prerogatives. Fiercely loyal to their families, to their clubs, charities and congregations -- fiercely loyal, in other words, to their own kind -- they narrowly defined membership in democracy to include only people like them. The women who washed and ironed their laundry, wiped their children's bottoms, made their husband's beds, and cooked their family meals -- these women, too, would grow old and frail, sick and decrepit, lose their husbands and face the ravages of time alone, with nothing to show from their years of labor but the crease in their brow and the knots on their knuckles; so be it; even on the distaff side of laissez faire, security was personal, not social, and what injustice existed this side of heaven would no doubt be redeemed beyond the Pearly Gates. God would surely be just to the poor once they got past Judgment Day.... To read the rest of the speech click here: 2:35:42 PM 
|
|
Re: Bill Moyers Keeper of the Flame Dear Friends: Bill Moyers recently spoke at the Take Back America conference, where he received the Lifetime Leadership Award. Among his fellow-presenters were Democratic presidential hopefuls for the 2004 election. The well-honed words flowed like honey, but Moyers won the hearts and minds of the audience with his telling of the progressive story of America. It is our story. Because of the length of Moyers' speech, we will not be including it in the War and Peace Watch newsletter, but you can read it on our web site, www.warandpeacewatch.com where it is carried in its entirety. It can be found in the "articles" section. --John Nichols is a native Wisconsinite, who has written for The Capital Times for the past decade. ___________________________ Capital Times June 10, 2003 John Nichols: Moyers tends flame of democracy by John Nichols Democratic presidential candidates were handed a dream audience of 1,000 "ready-for-action" labor, civil rights, peace and economic justice campaigners at the Campaign for America's Future's Take Back America conference. And the 2004 contenders grabbed for it, delivering some of the better speeches of a campaign that remains rhetorically - and directionally - challenged. But it was a non-candidate who won the hearts and minds of the crowd with a "Cross of Gold" speech for the 21st century. Recalling the populism and old-school progressivism of the era in which William Jennings Bryan stirred the Democratic National Convention of 1896 to enter into the great struggle between privilege and democracy - and to spontaneously nominate the young Nebraskan for president - journalist and former presidential aide Bill Moyers delivered a call to arms against "government of, by and for the ruling corporate class." Condemning "the unholy alliance between government and wealth" and the compassionate conservative spin that tries to make "the rape of America sound like a consensual date," Moyers charged that "right-wing wrecking crews" assembled by the Bush administration and its congressional allies were out to bankrupt government. Then, he said, they would privatize public services in order to enrich the corporate interests that fund campaigns and provide golden parachutes to pliable politicians. If unchecked, Moyers warned, the result of these machinations will be the dismantling of "every last brick of the social contract." "I think this is deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States of America," said Moyers, as he called for the progressives gathered in Washington last week - and for their allies across the United States - to organize not merely in defense of social and economic justice but in order to preserve democracy itself. Paraphrasing the words of Abraham Lincoln as the 16th president rallied the nation to battle against slavery, Moyers declared, "Our nation can no more survive as half democracy and half oligarchy than it could survive half slave and half free." There was little doubt that the crowd of activists from across the country would have nominated Moyers by acclamation when he finished a remarkable address in which he challenged not just the policies of the Bush administration but the failures of Democratic leaders in Congress to effectively challenge the president and his minions. In the face of what he described as "a radical assault" on American values by those who seek to redistribute wealth upward from the many poor to the few wealthy, Moyers said he could not understand "why the Democrats are afraid to be labeled class warriors in a war the other side started and is winning." Several of the Democratic presidential contenders who addressed the crowd after Moyers picked up pieces of his argument. Former U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley Braun actually quoted William Jennings Bryan, while North Carolina Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts tried - with about as much success as Al Gore in 2000 - to sound populist. Former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt promised not to be "Bush-lite," and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean drew warm applause when he said the way for Democrats to get elected "is not to be like Republicans, but to stand up against them and fight." Ultimately, however, only the Rev. Al Sharpton and Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-chairman Dennis Kucinich came close to matching the fury and the passion of the crowd. Kucinich, who earned nine standing ovations for his anti-war and anti-corporate free trade rhetoric, probably did more to advance his candidacy than any of the other contenders. But he never got to the place that Moyers reached with a speech that legal scholar Jamie Raskin described as "one of the most amazing and spellbinding" addresses he had ever heard. Author and activist Frances Moore Lappe said she was close to tears as she thanked Moyers for providing precisely the mixture of perspective and hope that progressives need as they prepare to challenge the right in 2004. That, Moyers explained, was the point of his address, which reflected on White House political czar Karl Rove's praise for Mark Hanna, the Ohio political boss who managed the presidency of conservative Republican William McKinley, the man who beat Bryan in 1896 and then - with Hanna's help - fashioned a White House that served the interests of the corporate trusts. Comparing the excesses of Hanna and Rove, and McKinley and Bush, Moyers said "the social dislocations and the meanness of the 19th century" were being renewed by a new generation of politicians who, like their predecessors, seek to strangle the spirit of the American revolution "in the hard grip of the ruling class." To break that grip, Moyers said, progressives of today must learn from the revolutionaries and reformers of old. Recalling the progressive movement that rose in the first years of the 20th century to "restore the balance between wealth and commonwealth," and the successes of the New Dealers who turned progressive ideals into national policy, Moyers challenged the crowd to "get back in the fight." "Hear me!" he cried. "Allow yourself the conceit to believe that the flame of democracy will never go out as long as there is one candle in your hand." While others were campaigning last week, Moyers was tending the flame of democracy. In doing so, he unwittingly made himself the candle holder-in-chief for those who seek to spark a new progressive era. --John Nichols is associate editor for The Capital Times. E-mail: jnichols@madison.com. You can read more about Bill Moyers' speech in this week's edition of The Nation magazine and in Nichols' Web column at www.thenation.com. Copyright 2002 The Capital Times Freelance writers retain the copyright for their work that appears on this site. _______________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ Read all about it and get the news that matters by receiving the War and Peace Watch. To subscribe, send an e-mail to: Reikiworks@compuserve.com Thank you for your support, The War and Peace Watch publisher. contact: Otoño Johnston ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment for research and educational purposes only.) ============================================================ 2:30:37 PM
|
|
Re: Bad Iraq Data From Start to Finish Dear Friends: The bad news (i.e., the truth) about Bush relying upon, and encouraging, distorted intelligence data continues to appear. You've all probably noticed that the White House has been a bit uneasy this week, and is scrambling for something to distract our attention. What shall it be--another invasion to "liberate" a country, a brilliant photo-op, putting the country on Mauve Alert? ____________________ Robertscheer.com June 3, 2003 Bad Iraq Data From Start to Finish Americans were duped: Evidence of administration manipulation and mendacity just keeps rolling in. by Robert Scheer June 3, 2003--Ever since the tragedy of Sept. 11, the Bush administration has relied on selective and distorted intelligence data to make the case for invading Iraq. But the truth will out, and the White House is now scrambling to explain away its mendacity. On Sunday, Condoleezza Rice admitted that President Bush had used a forged document in his State of the Union speech to prove Iraq represented a nuclear threat: "We did not know at the time--maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency--but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course it was information that was mistaken." United Nations inspectors, belatedly presented with the same document, realized within hours it was a crude forgery. While this garbage and much else like it got rushed into the light, the Bush administration protected its continuing lie about a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein by repressing the results of interrogations of captured top Al Qaeda leaders. As Monday's New York Times reported, Al Qaeda honchos in separate interrogations told a consistent story a year ago: The terrorist group, and Osama bin Laden in particular, had shunned any connection with Hussein and his government. In going to war, the administration was unable to come up with a shred of verifiable evidence linking Hussein with Bin Laden. The closest it came was a purported meeting in Prague between an Al Qaeda member and an Iraqi diplomat, which has been fully repudiated by the Czech government. Keeping secret any information that contradicted the pro-war line of the administration allowed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to fabricate what he called a "bulletproof" connection between Al Qaeda and Hussein. We were expected to believe that our government had hard, definitive intelligence we couldn't be shown - just as we were told to trust that U.N. inspectors wouldn't be able to find all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in time to avert disaster. Thus, with the pattern established, it was not surprising last week to read in the Los Angeles Times of a leaked report from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency - secret since its completion last September - that indicated the depth of our government's confusion as to the nature of the Iraq WMD threat. The report stated that "there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has - or will - establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities," according to U.S. officials interviewed by The Times. Yet that very month, Rumsfeld told Congress that Hussein's "regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons - including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas." Did Rumsfeld know of the DIA report? If so, did he keep that information from the president? Or did he and Bush knowingly deceive the American people? And isn't that an impeachable offense? Unfortunately, the president still hasn't learned his lesson. Only last week, on his trip to Europe, he pointed to two mobile trailers the U.S. had seized in Iraq as proof of Iraq's threatening WMD program. Yet, as emerged over the weekend in newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic, Bush's claims rest on intelligence that is again unable to withstand scrutiny: Some leading weapons experts summoned by the administration to make the case for the ominous trailers take issue with the Bush administration's interpretation of their design and use. On Saturday, the New York Times, which had originally hyped the trailer story based on official U.S. sources, published a front-page report quoting experts who repudiated the administration's claims. One such expert went so far as to say the government's "white paper" on the labs "was a rushed job and looks political." Others questioned myriad technical claims and suppositions in the report that led to the government's conclusion that the trailers were germ labs that could be used to cook up anthrax or other bioweapons. "It's not built and designed as a standard fermenter," one top U.S. scientist told the New York Times. "Certainly, if you modify it enough you could use it. But that's true of any tin can." On Sunday, the London Observer, citing British intelligence sources, reported that it "is increasingly likely that the units were designed to be used for hydrogen production to fill artillery balloons, part of a system originally sold to Saddam by Britain in 1987." The British Parliament is in an uproar, but so far the U.S. Congress has failed to exercise its obligation to hold the executive branch accountable. Copyright © 2003 Robert Scheer _______________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ Read all about it and get the news that matters by receiving the War and Peace Watch. To subscribe, send an e-mail to: Reikiworks@compuserve.com Thank you for your support, The War and Peace Watch publisher. contact: Otoño Johnston ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment for research and educational purposes only.) ============================================================ 2:29:48 PM
|
|
Re: Doris Meissner Speaks Out on US Detentions Dear Friends: Newsweek's Malcolm Beith spoke with Doris Meissner, commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service under President Bill Clinton and now a senior fellow at Washington's Migration Policy Institute, about the US Justice Department's heavy-handed treatment of hundreds of illegal immigrants detained in the wake of September 11. Excerpts of the interview follow, in which she speaks of these violations of people's civil liberties and the harsh use of immigration law, all in the name of national security. ______________________________ Newsweek International June 16, 2003 issue The Last Word: Doris Meissner And Justice for All...? June 16 issue--Last week the U.S. Justice Department's Inspector General issued a long-awaited report on the government's treatment of hundreds of illegal immigrants detained in the wake of September 11. Among its findings: the government failed to inform many detainees of the charges against them, denied them bond, prevented many from seeking legal representation and tolerated "a pattern of physical and verbal abuse" by corrections officers at a center in Brooklyn. Out of the 762 detainees, not one was indicted on terrorism charges. Newsweek's Malcolm Beith spoke with Doris Meissner, commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service under President Bill Clinton and now a senior fellow at Washington's Migration Policy Institute, about the scandal. Excerpts: What are your thoughts on the report? I think it really corroborates what a lot of outside observers have been talking about, which is that in the name of responding to the terrorist attacks, there have been substantial violations of people's liberties, and the immigration law has been used as a very blunt instrument. What could--or should--the government have done differently? [After the September 11 attacks] it's understandable that there would have been--at the outset--this almost panicky reaction on the part of government officials to just start arresting people. But it's also reasonable to say that after the first couple of weeks, when it became clear that there were not going to be a series of repeat attacks immediately, somebody needed to take a deep breath and sit down and say, "Wait a minute, what are we doing here? And what is going to be the best way to isolate who might have been involved in these attacks and file charges against them?" That didn't happen. Last week Attorney General John Ashcroft defended his department's actions and asked Congress for even broader powers, including tougher sentences and the right to hold suspected terrorists without bond. I cannot imagine that Congress would grant that right. [But] the danger in this kind of discussion is to be dismissive. The government does have the responsibility to do certain things differently, and as a public we are in a different place. But you have to abide by the due-process rules of our system: there must be probable cause, there must be an investigation of individual law-breaking and ultimately charges have to be filed. Our legal system focuses on punishment of criminal behavior that individual people commit, not guilt by association. How does one single out suspicious individuals without resorting to racial profiling? By following leads and building from the individual to the general, rather than going from the general to the individual. The actual cases that have been made on terrorism in this country--the Lackawanna group in New York, the group in Oregon--have come from the kind of law enforcement that I've just described or from community cooperation, people coming forward to the government. This [immigrant-detention] stuff has been ultimately a sideshow from the standpoint of effectiveness, but it's a sideshow that has deeply compromised people's rights and our civil-liberties principles. Supporters of these new measures have criticized the INS for being too lax under your watch. How do you respond to that? Our immigration system has always been too lax. I have always argued that. But we set priorities in the 1990s based on what the needs at the time seemed to be--and were--which were the southwest border [with Mexico] and technology, where ports of entry, visas and screening were concerned. A lot of fixes were made in the 1990s that responded to 1990s problems. September 11 has created a whole other set of priorities. With the tightening of borders, should we expect to see a new America in the future? I think that even with September 11, what we're seeing is an America that is remaining open to immigration and that fundamentally endorses the idea that we are a nation of immigrants. The really remarkable thing that has happened since September 11 is what has not happened--that Congress has not gone into a fit of anti-immigration legislation and fundamentally changed immigration rules. How should potential immigrants react to the administration's policies? You seem to think that America will remain welcoming. I say that with some degree of glass-half-full hope. I am deeply concerned [about] the messages that we are sending, through these changed procedures, to the countries of the Middle East and to the Arab and Muslim worlds. The actions that we are taking are tapping into this deep, deep resentment about America as a hypocritical country that is anti-Muslim and anti-Arab. That can fuel terrorism and it can fuel the ability to recruit among younger generations in particular. We need to address that and I don't see a real effort to do that. © 2003 Newsweek, Inc. _______________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ Read all about it and get the news that matters by receiving the War and Peace Watch. To subscribe, send an e-mail to: Reikiworks@compuserve.com Thank you for your support, The War and Peace Watch publisher. contact: Otoño Johnston ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment for research and educational purposes only.) ============================================================ 2:29:01 PM
|
|
Re: The Impeachable Offense Dear Friends: Is it essential to unearth the truth about the purported weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but then we must go a step further. Geov Parrish, among others, feels that the Bush administration's blatant manipulation of intelligence regarding the WMD, and the more serious crime of an unprovoked invasion of a foreign country are unconscionable. Soldiers were deployed on the basis of a threat that Bush knew, or should have known, was non-existent. This lie resulted in the deaths of both civilians and soldiers in Iraq, and jeopardized American troops' lives. This arrogant abuse of power betrayed the American people and the world at large. We call for the impeachment of George W. Bush. ____________________________________ Working for Change.Com June 9, 2003 The Impeachable Offense by Geov Parrish Finally, and far too late, the networks, the big dailies, and the national news magazines are discovering that the Bush Administration's case for invading Iraq was a combination of willfully gross exaggerations and flat-out lies. For weeks, various recently leaked or released documents have confirmed that there was little or no evidence in American and British files that even plausibly pointed to an Iraqi threat of either nuclear or other banned weapons or an Iraqi link to Al-Qaeda. Intelligence analysts in both governments did not believe such threats existed; allegations of a threat only materialized when the politicians got involved. The new documentation of hyped claims, combined with an utter lack of post- invasion evidence that such claims had any basis in fact, are an enormous political scandal in Britain. However, their content does little more than confirm what opponents of the proposed invasion have said since last summer. Even then, it was a staple of opposition to Bush's invasion that intelligence community reports assessed the possibility of the existence of Iraqi WMDs as minimal and Iraq's threat to the U.S. as nonexistent. It was also an opposition staple that the Bush Administration routinely either misrepresented or ignored such expertise, and that most of the endless variety of Bush assertions "proving" either Iraqi WMDs or links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda were on their face preposterous. The Bush team's strategy of rapidly shifting justifications effectively deflected attention each time actual facts on the ground caught up with the rhetoric; by then, the White House was already hammering on a new reason for its unprovoked war. All this has been known for months by enough people to fuel the instant birth of a massive peace movement in America, and to inspire tens of millions to pour into the streets of cities around the world. The lack of any subsequent supporting discoveries of WMDs or terror links, and the utter disinterest by the British and American governments in finding any, comes as no surprise; a stopped clock is occasionally correct, but usually it's wrong, and usually its owner knows the clock is broken. But this wasn't a matter of reporting the time; it was a matter of the Bush Administration's swearing to Congress, America, and the world that the legal justification for invading, conquering, and occupying Iraq was based on evidence that did not in fact exist. The Bush Administration made such assertions repeatedly, for over half a year. Such assertions are not simply an appalling campaign of lies. They are an impeachable offense. For months, various mostly liberal and progressive critics of Bush have been whipping up impeachment calls on the Internet. Such calls have been delusional, boiling down, essentially, to the fact that Bush's critics hate a number of his policies. But there are no pending or existing indictments; no evidence of criminal wrongdoing; and no conceivable political route by which the votes for impeachment could be mustered by a Republican-controlled House of Representatives and upheld by two-thirds of a Republican-controlled Senate. Critics may charge that Dubya's administration has been appallingly corrupt, or that it is gutting the Bill of Rights; but so far the corruption has been legal, and conservative federal courts have mostly upheld post-9/11 civil liberties atrocities. George W. Bush has inspired remarkable amounts of hatred amongst many of his critics; but that alone doesn't make impeachment legally viable or politically sustainable. It has been a non-starter. Until now. If proven -- and they can, in fact, be proven as such -- the Bush Administration's lies to the United Nations, to the American people, and to Congress in last October's effort to win authority to invade, all constitute an either unwitting or witting effort to put American soldiers in harm's way, guaranteeing the deaths of some. America's military was deployed for reasons Bush and his entire foreign policy apparatus either knew or should have known were fallacious. They did so anyway, in the service of a war whose unprovoked nature was a sharp departure from international law and norms. Bush claimed as his legal authority last October's Congressional vote. On the eve of that vote, in a major speech aimed at Congress, Bush claimed satellite photos gave irrefutable evidence that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear weapons program, and claimed -- mere days after intelligence agencies put the date at 2010 -- that Iraq would have such weapons ready to deploy within a year. "Facing clear evidence of peril," Bush told Congress, America, and the world, "we cannot wait for the final proof that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." All this was nonsense, and plenty of the administration's own experts had told the White House it was nonsense. From August to March, Bush and his team first insisted they had evidence that did not in fact exist, and then presented evidence, such as Colin Powell's U.N. citations of a forged bill of sales and a plagiarized ten-year-old graduate student paper, that was patently false. In doing so to win approval for an unprovoked and legally unjustifiable war, Bush and his top officials -- including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Paul Wolfowitz -- have done something that (unlike, say, violating international law) is considered an extremely serious affront by much of the American public, Republicans as well as Democrats. They have caused the unnecessary deaths of a lot of U.S. soldiers. The outrage thus far is coming from the media and from the British example. With a few honorable exceptions, such as Sen. Robert Byrd, it is not coming from Congressional Democrats. Contrast this with the Clinton impeachment, where years of fanatical attempts by Congressional Republicans and right-wing talk radio hosts to impale Clinton over Whitewater had resulted in a special prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, whose obsessive efforts finally provided the legal pretext for the Monica Lewinsky charges. By contrast, this time, given the relative Democratic spinelessness, no attack on the fitness of George W. Bush and his band of neocon zealots can have any traction without widespread public outrage, including support from independents and at least some Republicans. Corporate corruption and civil liberty attacks don't rise to that level. Misuse of the American military does -- either willfully or through incompetence. Soldiers are sacrosanct to many Americans, especially conservatives. Now, we have learned, the President of the United States has deployed our soldiers on the basis of a threat he knew or should have known did not exist. The unprovoked invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq should never have happened. Instead, the White House claimed that Bush spent several months allegedly agonizing over whether to launch an invasion he had already approved. Before and after his secret decision, for at least half a year, his Administration's claims were largely false. If Bush himself didn't know that, he should have. If he did know it, he has lied to Congress -- just like Clinton -- and to America and the world, but repeatedly and on a far more serious matter than the definition of "sex." Bush, instead, used his lies to intentionally sacrifice the lives of American soldiers -- along with other coalition soldiers and countless Iraqis, soldier and civilian alike. For this egregious abuse of his oath of office, George W. Bush should be impeached. --Geov Parrish is a Seattle-based columnist and reporter for Seattle Weekly, In These Times and Eat the State! He writes the daily Straight Shot for WorkingForChange. © Working Assets Online _______________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ Read all about it and get the news that matters by receiving the War and Peace Watch. To subscribe, send an e-mail to: Reikiworks@compuserve.com Thank you for your support, The War and Peace Watch publisher. contact: Otoño Johnston ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment for research and educational purposes only.) ============================================================ 2:27:16 PM
|
© Copyright
2005
craig cline
.
Last update: 6/3/2005; 8:12:35 PM .
Last update: 6/3/2005; 8:12:35 PM .
