April 2005
April 29, 2005
A few small, important things that some important people have lost track of
By Bill Kraus
Wisconsin Public Television has lost track of Wisconsin. The network, admirably, gives us a half hour of world news from BBC every weekday, an hour of national and international news every weekday, and a half hour of Wisconsin news every week.
The people in the governor's office have forgotten why, at the urging of all of their predecessors, we finally have achieved cabinet government in Wisconsin. The reason was (and is) so that when the bureaucracy lets its considerable power go to its head the citizen has a recourse through the governor's office to the governor-appointed cabinet officer who is presumably more responsive to the governor than to the bureaucracy.
The incumbents of both parties who are excessively worried about who has the most campaign money or the access to the most campaign money seem not to have noticed that as candidates they have white chips in a blue-chip game where the big blue stacks are piled high in front of the teachers' unions, the manufacturers' association, and the well-heeled professionals, and that there is a 1,000 pound gorilla edging into this 500-pound gorilla game now: the tribes.
The excessively partisan legislators in their zeal to win the latest game of "gotcha" have forgotten that the people who elected them are more interested in a government that works than in who is ahead in the weekly game of "gotcha."
And, oh yes, the governor seems to have lost track of the idea of turning redistricting over to an un-partisan, dispassionate, disinterest group of leading citizens. At least there has been no overt move in that direction.
[permalink]
[0 letters]
April 28, 2005
'Culture of life'
By Ben Brothers
There is no political issue more contentious and more divisive than a woman's right to end her pregnancy. Even the language is politicized. I had to think about how to phrase that first sentence in a neutral way. "The right to choose" is uncomfortably euphemistic. "Pro-life" and "pro-abortion" are deliberately misleading. Does anyone, anywhere, believe that abortion is a good thing? Can one not be both pro-life and pro-choice at the same time?
A fully developed fetus is unambiguously a human being, identical to a newborn baby in every way that matters. Surely they deserve the protection of the law. Any true culture of life must include everyone, and prohibit the elective abortion of a viable, late-term fetus.
At the same time, I can't accept the claim that a fertilized egg or a zygote is a human being entitled to all the legal rights and protections that come from being alive. The choice to end a pregnancy in its early stages must be intensely private and difficult. I'm fortunate that I'll never have to make that choice, but I do believe it belongs to a woman and her doctor, and not to conservative politicians.
Abortion is not a one-sided issue, and it can't be reduced to one. It's a personal decision, and it may in some cases be the least bad of a lot of bad options. But while the right to have an abortion, in some cases, is a good thing, actually having an abortion never is. Every ended pregnancy is a tragedy.
So let's concentrate our effort towards reducing the number of abortions. Let's reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Let's restore some semblance of sanity to our national discussion about abortion. The Democrats have the right idea: while protecting a woman's right to end her pregnancy, work to make abortion as rare as possible, and outlaw the late-term procedure which doctors call dilation and extraction and Republicans call "partial birth abortion".
Late term abortions are extremely rare. 0.08% of the abortions in America occur after the 24th week. Most estimates of "partial birth abortions" place the number at several hundred per year. The Democrats proposed a ban on late-term abortion (S.Amdt. 289 to H.R. 1122), which would have prohibited abortions in cases where the fetus was viable outside the womb. It was rejected 36-64. 34 Democrats voted for the ban, as did 2 Republicans. 12 Democrats voted against the ban, as did every single Republican senator not from the state of Maine.
Why? Because the proposed law read: "It shall be unlawful for a physician to abort a viable fetus unless the physician certifies that the continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health."
As unbelievable as it sounds, the Republicans did not want to allow an exemption to protect the life and health of the mother. Their position is untenable. Is there never a time when it would be necessary to allow one person to die in order to save another? Doctors are forced to make that decision all the time, whether they are performing triage at the site of a car accident, or in the emergency room.
It's an impossibly hard decision for anyone to make. I've never had to make it, and I can only sympathize with those who have had to. But precisely because it's such a hard and personal decision, it can't be a legally-mandated one. It's a medical decision, and medical decisions should be made by doctors and their patients, not Republican congressmen.
The Republicans, of course, went on to pass their own version of a "partial birth abortion" ban. It contained no exemptions for abortions that are medically necessary to save the life of the mother. They knew that the law would be found unconstitutional, and of course it was.
The Republican Party specifically rejected a constitutional ban on late term abortion, in order to pass an unconstitutional one. There is no doubt about which law would do more to reduce the number of abortions. There is no doubt about which law would save the lives of more women. There is no doubt about which law is the better law.
A cynic might say that the Republicans are not primarily interested in passing a better law. They are not interested in reducing the number of abortions in this country. They are interested in having an "issue" with which to attack progressives and liberals and judges and Democrats and Methodists and anyone else they disagree with.
If I were a Republican politician who wanted to convince the middle class to vote for tax cuts to millionaires, funded by a phase-out of Social Security, I might be tempted to try such a strategy myself.
If I were an unprincipled senator from Tennessee, and I was running to the right ahead of a Republican presidential primary, I might go on national TV to talk about impeaching judges who disagree with me, and about changing the Senate's rules to prevent Democrats from having any input into judicial appointments. In a particularly silly flight of fancy, I might even insist that Democrats are "opposed to people of faith."
While the Republicans are grandstanding, the Democrats have quietly announced a series of proposals to reduce the number of abortions. The Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, who is pro-life, and Hillary Clinton, who is pro-choice, both agree on the need to find common ground on this. Abortion should be safe, legal and rare, and we should work towards making it safe, legal and never. Until the Democrats regain control of Congress, it is unlikely any of these proposals will see the light of a congressional committee. The Republicans are not interested in finding common ground, or in working together to help create a true culture of life in this country. They are interested in playing politics with our lives, and in exploiting wedge issues to win elections.
I, for one, am sick and tired of it. There is a culture of life in this country, and it's political home is the Democratic Party.
(Ben Brothers maintains the badger blues Web log.)
[permalink]
[0 letters]
April 22, 2005
The citizen politician: an endangered species
By Bill Kraus
Once upon a time in Wisconsin citizen politicians were the dominant force in elective politics. This group had its own special interests, of course, that placed it somewhere on the left-to-right spectrum, but its main interest was the general interest and in putting good people in office who would give the state a government that worked for the state and all the people in it.
The citizen politicians dominated the political parties and were heavily involved in candidate campaigns as well, serving as fund raisers, foot soldiers, and campaign managers.
The special interest groups and individuals who participated in either party organizations or candidate campaigns or both were welcome but were mostly marginalized. A Republican candidate who brushed off business people or a Democratic candidate who ignored organized labor probably wouldn't last long. But neither candidates nor parties were dominated by any of the special interests no matter how broad.
When politics became marketing, when political parties lost their role of financing and slating candidacies, when money became the most important factor in high profile campaigns, the citizen politicians' points of entry disappeared, and they became consumers, spectators in a game that was in the hands of professionals. It was not exactly "go away, you bother me," but it was close. It was more like "We want your money and if your name on our letterhead resonates beyond your immediate family, we will take that too, but we are looking mostly to organized special interest wedges for energy and votes."
The citizen politician became politically homeless.
A lot of sociological factors have played into this turn of events and I have no idea how to resurrect a system that was dominated by what were skilled amateurs. I do think, though, that putting limits on the amount of money being spent on political campaigning has possibilities.
For one thing, it might starve the campaign industry beast. For another, it might reduce the alienation and scorn that has led to lower and lower voting percentages. And, the law of unintended consequences being what it is, it might even make the amateurs, the citizen politicians important enough contributors to political success to lure them back in to the only game for adults again.
[permalink]
[0 letters]
April 19, 2005
A matter of access
By Stacie Rosenzweig
Last night, I attended a meeting of a local club unit of the Milwaukee County Democratic Party. As a card-carrying, paid-up and active Democrat, I attend many such meetings, as well as various fundraisers and rallies held by affiliated and allied organizations. (Hey, it's a hobby.)
At most of these gatherings I get the chance to speak with elected officials, ranging from county supervisors to state senators to members of Congress. I have come to discover that merely showing up might get me a couple of minutes of face time (which I will use to complain, commend or self-promote, depending on my mood), and writing a check to a campaign fund will buy me even more access (I can hear the political veterans in the audience saying, in unison, “Well, duh”).
Of course, I have the time to do this, and I enjoy this, or I wouldn’t bother. I have to wonder, though, if I would ever get a chance to meet with my elected officials if I did not attend these events. Sure, I could try to make an appointment at a district office, or head over to Madison, or track them down at the State Fair. But none of these is as simple or as surefire as heading to a partisan meeting and shaking hands.
What troubles me more, though, is that people who are not members of one of the two major parties do not get the opportunity for interaction that I do. Also, Democrats who live in areas represented by Republicans, and vice versa, are left out -- when I lived in Waukesha County, local elected officials, aside from a couple of city council members, didn't show up at our meetings because they were Republicans and we, well, weren’t.
There has to be a better way. Some elected officials are good about making time for their constituents -- not just those who share similar views (ask anyone who has ever attended a Sensenbrenner Town Hall meeting about that one). Some are not. Perhaps this is one of the things we should look at more closely the next time we choose our representatives.
(Stacie Rosenzweig maintains The Vast Dairy State Conspiracy Web log.)
[permalink]
[0 letters]
April 16, 2005
The Constitution as moving target
By Ben Brothers
House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Corrupt) gave an interview in the rightwing Washington Times Friday, in which he asserted the following:
“The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state that's nowhere in the Constitution is that Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had judicial review is because Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them.”
What has happened to the Republican Party? They don't believe in the right to privacy? They don't believe in the separation of church and state? They are totally intoxicated with power and out of control. It would have been unbelievable as recently as five years ago, and even now the thought seems vaguely surreal, but there is no way to read Tom DeLay's statement as other than a preference for some twisted and Zwinglian New Jerusalem over the Bill of Rights.
This sort of nonsense is not confined to the extreme right anymore. These are not the John Birchers or the Flat Earth Society. Tom DeLay is the House majority leader and the second most powerful man in Washington. Something is seriously wrong in our body politic. The few moderate Republicans left are aghast: Chris Shays said, "This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy."
For myself, I agree with C.S. Lewis: "I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to rulers and to the subjects. Theocracy is the worst of all governments."
This hostility to privacy is the cornerstone of the Republican jihad against an independent judiciary. It is one manifestation of the ugly authoritarianism at the heart of modern Republicanism, and it has been festering since at least 1965, when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Griswold v. Connecticut, affirmed that there was a right to privacy that "is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights." The ruling struck down a 19th century Connecticut law banning the sale of contraceptives to married couples.
Griswold is the sort of thing they object to when they rail against "activist judges." Nowhere in the text of the Constitution are the words, "The people have a natural right to privacy." Neither will you find an amendment specifically allowing contraception. Therefore, say the Federalist Society and the Republican congressional caucus, those rights do not exist but for the grace of the United States Congress.
This is a strange and unnatural reading of the Constitution, and one shared by none of the founders. Indeed, the strict constructionists have a curious ignorance of the 9th Amendment, which reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
In other words, the right to privacy is a central feature of all American (and English) tradition, and the common law. That which is not forbidden is allowed. This is the heart of freedom. This is what it means to be a free people. Does the Republican Party understand this anymore?
(Ben Brothers maintains the badger blues Web log.)
[permalink]
[0 letters]
April 15, 2005
To ID or not to ID
By Bill Kraus
Unfortunately it is not that simple. ID's and same-day registration are inextricably linked. Everyone knows that same-day registration is the single most important way to increase voter turnout. Everyone also knows, or thinks they know, that same-day registration is the single most conspicuous opportunity for voting mischief.
There are a lot of opinions based on reasonable assumptions on what a voter ID requirement will do to turnout. The only definitive data on this that I have seen is on how many potential voters have no acceptable ID, which would seem to be at least a partially correctable deterrent.
Everyone is very aware of Florida in 2000 and the large importance of small margins in swing states. Everyone, at least everyone who reads the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is aware that a lot of votes cast in that city in 2004 were, to be generous, questionable.
A lot of excuses have been offered for this which may or may not be reasons, but the fact is that the Milwaukee experience in a Florida/swing-state era has put ID-less same-day registration in jeopardy.
We may have to decide whether to pay the ID price for same-day registration. If we can make voter ID's fast and free, is that a reasonable price to pay to get the increased voting percentages that come with same-day registration?
I think so.
[permalink]
[0 letters]
April 13, 2005
A question of identity
By Jay Bullock
Last week, intrepid Fighting Bobber Stacie Rosenzweig GuestBlogged on the Voter Photo-ID pablum that passed out of Senate committee last week. A couple of days later I did a poll in my class of ninth graders (I teach high school). I asked if they--or any of their "friends"--had fake IDs or had ever successfully used fake ID's. Well over half raised their hands. Which makes me wonder, of course, how much more vigilant about these sorts of things volunteers working the polls will be than, say, bouncers at "the club" or clerks selling cigarettes.
Look, many other people have waxed plenty eloquent about how none of the irregularities that Republicans have gone all gasket-blown about would have been stopped by requiring a photo ID. Felons voting? That's fine, as long as they have an ID. Voters who vote without being checked off the list? Not solved by requiring ID's. Transcription errors in registering new voters? Not helped--since new voters need ID of some kind, anyway. People voting multiple times under multiple names? Ask my students about that one. (Of course, there is no evidence that this happened at all, just wild speculation.)
In fact, the only thing that requiring ID's will prevent is votes from traditionally Democratic voters: the poor, the elderly, and minorities. Why can't the Republicans just admit--like that WMC guy finally did--that they don't want the "wrong people" to vote?
(Jay Bullock maintains the blog folkbum's rambles and rants.)
[permalink]
[0 letters]
April 9, 2005
Phase One: less democracy
By Jason Haas
The two years I was living in the state of Georgia taught me a great deal about what it meant to be a Wisconsinite. For one thing, we trust people. It's an intrinsic Midwestern quality to take people at their word and believe their actions are made in good faith. Second, we value the involvement of fellow Wisconsinites in our communities and our government. I did not see this in Savannah. Because I was there between elections, I never had the opportunity to vote.
Returning to Wisconsin, I felt more at home and welcome in a place where people trusted each other. Even though I had just moved back to the state, presenting the lease for my apartment was all I needed to provide to vote in the fateful 2000 election. This was all the proof I needed to present in order to register to vote on the day of the election.
Fast forward to 2005. The state Legislature is now filled with Republicans who do not seem to have this trust in their fellow Wisconsinites. This is evident in the voter ID bill, which if passed would require each would-be voter to show a state photo ID before being allowed to vote. In other words, the state government is saying, "I don't trust you."
The distrust does not stop there. State Republican Party chairman Rick Graber went on the record at the March 21 hearing on the bill saying the voter ID bill is just part of a larger plan by Republicans to alter Wisconsin's election laws. In addition to distrusting the voters, they want to eliminate a voter's ability to register to vote on election day. Had this pillar of Wisconsin's progressive legacy been eliminated five years ago, I and countless other citizens would have been turned away at the polls.
The voter ID bill flies in the face of the characteristics that make Wisconsin such an appealing place to live. When the Republicans passed a similar voter ID bill in 2003, Gov. Doyle was quick to strike it down. Should this latest act of distrust pass the state Senate, Doyle should make good on his promise and veto its successor.
(Jason Haas maintains The Dyskeptic Web log.)
[permalink]
[0 letters]
April 8, 2005
District democracy
By Bill Kraus
The most surprising and creative part of the governor’s proposed election fixes was also the most extraneous. And the most welcome.
The governor wants to take redistricting out of the hands of the Legislature and make it the responsibility of a disinterested and dispassionate group of political experts.
Many in the Legislature will probably regard this as incumbent-inimical. This is inarguable since it is hard to imagine anything more incumbent friendly than the present arrangement where the incumbents draw the lines and the legislative leaders who stage-manage the event are trying to make as many districts incumbent-safe as possible.
It is, nonetheless, a very large step in the right direction.
What the present rules have created is districts where the incumbents are not threatened by challenges from the other party, but where electoral safety lies in pandering to the special interest extremists who deliver the sure votes to their own party.
A New Yorker article on Arnold Schwarzenegger's redistricting initiative in California (6/28/04) articulates the trouble with the present arrangement there, and here as well.
“Thanks in large part to a redistricting deal struck by Democrats and Republicans after the 2000 census---it created solidly Democratic and Republican districts, which tend in each party’s primary election to regard the more extreme and punish the more centrist” the Legislature has become a place where nothing is more rare than common ground.
Politics is the art of compromise. Extremists do not compromise. Nor do the legislators who are beholden to them.
Go for it, Jim, and, of course, Arnold.
[permalink]
[0 letters]
April 7, 2005
Reading the DPI tea leaves
By Jay Bullock
As Ed himself noted Wednesday, the contest between Burmaster and Oshkosh Republican Gregg Underheim "wasn't close." That is a massive understatement in these days of 50-50 Wisconsin elections! Ed also hinted that perhaps Underheim was routed because he had no coherent message. I disagree; his message was technology. If we had a nickel for every time he said technology in this campaign, we wouldn't have a school-funding crisis.
The technology message was served with a side of tax freeze, which also fizzled. The fizzle was primarily due to Underheim's having been abandoned by the Republican muckety-mucks who convinced him to run; WEAC's profligate spending went unmatched by GOP, WMC, CRG, and the rest of the conservative, anti-tax alphabet soup. And as he got higher and dryer, his rhetoric got shriller and shriller--a bad move against Libby's soft-spoken smile.
Underheim also was never able to answer the tough questions about, say, how to fund his technology, seeing as how his technology classroom would be as costly as a regular classroom plus $50,000 of laptops.
More importantly, this election may cause the state's GOP to re-think its "all anti-tax all the time" strategy. Burmaster's theme was that we need to set priorities--and her priority, seeing as how it's her job and all, is education. That echoes Jim Doyle's early moves at articulating a message for his campaign to defeat ScottMarkWalkerGreen.
Finally, I think Libby's victory is a good sign for our schools, and the parents, children, and teachers who come with them. Burmaster's stock-in-trade is bringing people together to find workable solutions to intractable problems. I personally sat in on her efforts to curb truancy in Milwaukee, and was impressed that she started by talking with children. I also appreciate that she was able, so early in her tenure, to win some safeguards for Milwaukee's choice program, and I fully expect she will be able to place some academic standards on the program soon, as well. As long as she continues to work just as hard on the problems faced by the rest of the state--and as long as she isn't hamstrung by the Legislature--it will be a good four years for Wisconsin's public schools.
(Jay Bullock maintains the blog folkbum's rambles and rants.)
[permalink]
[0 letters]
April 5, 2005
Another pocketbook issue
By Stacie Rosenzweig
I lost my wallet a couple of weeks ago, and went into the standard process -- the first stage, is, of course, panic. Then, scrambling to cancel credit cards. Then, standing in a bunch of long lines to replace my identification. (And, in my case, the final stage was simultaneous relief and frustration when my wallet was mailed back to me a few days later. But I digress.)
I was lucky, not only in receiving my wallet back with its contents intact, but in that I didn't need my identification in those couple of days I was without it. I wasn't attempting to rent a car or board an airplane.
And I wasn't attempting to vote.
Today is election day in Wisconsin. Currently, we do not need to produce a photo ID with correct address to vote. If certain Republicans have their way we all soon will. This is supposedly to keep people who should not be voting from voting and to prohibit the "irregularities" that have popped up in recent years.
Like when an investigation shows that hundreds of people voted from addresses that do not exist. Or when those 278 felons voted in the 2004 elections.
Oh, wait. It won't stop any of that. All of the ID's in the world will not keep overburdened poll workers and municipal clerks from transposing letters in an address, or omitting apartment numbers (heck, I had to go back to the DMV a few days after replacing my license, because, oops, my name was misspelled on it and I didn't catch it). Few, if any, of the felons who voted tried to conceal their identity. As usual, this is a feel-good political solution for a problem that does not exist. (Gov. Doyle recently proposed another solution, one that at least tries to address bureaucratic errors and felon ineligbility, without calling ID's a cure-all. We will see what happens.)
American citizens have a Constitutional right to vote in the United States. I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I am pretty sure there is nothing in the Constitution that limits that right to people who keep better track of their wallets than I did.
(Stacie Rosenzweig maintains The Vast Dairy State Conspiracy Web log.)
[permalink]
[0 letters]
April 2, 2005
An April 4 listening session on Accenture
By Rep. Mark Pocan
Like many of you, I was taken aback when I heard the news late last year that our State Elections Board was proposing to enter into a contract with Accenture to compile Wisconsin’s statewide voter file. Since then, I have been active in trying to stop the state from spending millions more than necessary with a company that has a sketchy history at best (never forget Florida!).
Under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) that was spurred by the 2000 Florida election debacle, Wisconsin is required to establish a centralized statewide voter registration system. The State Elections Board proposed a $13.9 million software contract with Accenture, LLP, a $2.7 million project management contract with Deloitte Consulting, LLP, and budgeted $10.2 million for State Elections Board staff oversight, hardware and data entry for a total of $26.8 million to comply with the federal law. Concerns have been raised over the cost, the legality of the contract, the product, and the company’s history in government products.
I am currently a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the State Elections Board as we try to block implementation of this contract, along with Mike McCabe of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, Bob Beglinger of AFT-Wisconsin, John Matthews of Madison Teachers, Inc. and others. Ed Garvey is representing us in this fight for fair elections in Wisconsin (in addition to being FightingBob.com’s editor and publisher, he also happens to be an attorney).
If we are going to stop Wisconsin from spending millions of dollars on a crapshoot on our democracy, we need to act now before it is too late. Until now, there has been no real attempt to hear from the public on this issue. On April 5, the first phase of software from Accenture is due – let’s work now to stop this bad idea. Please join us on Monday, April 4, at 2:00 pm in Room 225 NW of the state Capitol. Make your voice heard and learn more about the contract, the required list and real democracy in Wisconsin.
See you there!
[permalink]
[0 letters]
April 1, 2005
The Governor's Race 2006
By Bill Kraus
"Isn't it a little early," you're thinking. Not these days. The governor has already raised more money than he would be allowed to spend if the campaign finance bill he undermined had been passed. The two most likely Republican opponents are openly or tacitly in the race. The third most likely Republican candidate has opted out. There are no Democrats on the horizon who think they can beat Doyle in a primary.
So the field is pretty much set. Except for the Republican primary winner, you say. Well, actually, if their press releases and Web sites are to be believed, there is no substantial difference between Mark Green and Scott Walker. So the primary will be a beauty contest, and since they are both attractive, the winner may be determined more by the money and the cleverness of the commercials the money will buy than anything else.
Jumping ahead to the finals then, the Doyle strategy is clear. Ignore the so-called progressives. They have no place to go. Charm and disarm the business community with deregulation and tax freezes. The business community is not going to endorse Doyle, but they are not going to bring out the heavy artillery against him, either, if handled properly. And, of course, raise enough money ($13 million is the admitted target) to drown out the opposition.
This leaves the Republican winner with God, guns, gays, feeding tubes, and a seriously co-opted taxpayer bill of rights/tax freeze. Pretty thin soup.
Unless, of course, someone steps up to the plate (or jumps into the contest) who can make an issue of cleaning up and opening up the government and who has ideas about where the state should be spending its money and how the state should raise the money it spends on things that have always been priorities in Wisconsin. And who, not so incidentally, does not pander to the special interests, good and bad, that put up the money and get the top spots on the public agenda.
I do not think we have lost our appetite for mavericks. Maybe one will show up in time to get all those votes looking for an honest, honorable, and creative home.
[permalink]
[0 letters]
current
--------
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004