Subject to Change, version 2.0
I'm a goddamed liberal. Deal with it.

Subscribe to "Subject to Change, version 2.0" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Limbaugh baselessly suggested Downing Street memo "may be a fake".

Syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh suggested that the Downing Street memo "may be a fake" and compared it to the disputed memos used by CBS in its controversial story about President Bush's National Guard service.

From the June 20 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: I purposely haven't talked about this Downing Street memo much because, frankly, a) it didn't interest me and, you know, if it doesn't interest me, I'm not going to talk about it. And the reason it didn't interest me is because it was just another one of these ginned up things by the libs, and it looks like it's got some similarities to Bill Burkett and the forged documents of CBS and Rathergate.

Later in the program, Limbaugh responded to a caller's question about the Downing Street memo by saying, "What is it? The Downing Street memo doesn't say anything, and it may be a fake. It may be a forgery."

In fact, multiple news organizations have authenticated the document, which London's Sunday Times first published on May 1. The memo records the minutes of a July 23, 2002, British Cabinet meeting, including British intelligence chief Richard Dearlove's statement that in Washington, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Since the Downing Street memo's publication, several related British documents have been published, which multiple news outlets have also authenticated.

Limbaugh's assertion appears to be based on claims circulating on the Internet following a June 18 post on the conservative weblog Little Green Footballs. The claims -- which were repeated on another conservative blog, Captain's Quarters, and subsequently linked to by National Review Online's blog, The Corner, and by the Drudge Report -- arose from a June 18 Associated Press article reporting that "Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals."

But contrary to AP's assertion, Smith has stated publicly that he destroyed copies of the documents and returned the originals. In a June 14 interview with, Smith described how he first obtained, photocopied, and returned the originals in September 2004. Then, working off of the copies, he reproduced the documents with a typewriter and then destroyed the photocopies (not the originals as the AP reported):

"The copying and re-typing were necessary because markings on the originals might have identified his source, Smith said. ... "The situation in Britain is very difficult but with regard to leaked documents the police Special Branch are obliged to investigate such leaks and would have come to the newspaper's office and or my home to confiscate them," he explained. "We did destroy them because the Police Special Branch were ordered to investigate."

Captain's Quarters concluded that based on this apparently inaccurate AP account, "One fact certainly stands out -- Michael Smith cannot authenticate the copies. And absent that authentication, they lose their value as evidence of anything" (emphasis in original). But the suggestion by conservatives that the documents were forged is baseless, given the multiple news outlets that have authenticated the existence of the memo and related documents.

The Associated Press released excerpts from the memos, including the July 23 memo, on June 18. "The following are excerpts from material in secret Downing Street memos written in 2002. The information, authenticated by a senior British government official, was transcribed from the original documents," the AP wrote.

Similarly, NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell reported June 14 on NBC's Nightly News that "war critics have come up with seven more memos verified by NBC News." A June 13 article by Mitchell on, published before her report aired on the Nightly News, also noted that the memos were "verified by NBC News."

[Media Matters for America]
7:50:08 PM    

Dance For Me Puppet.

Bill Frist, a tough leader who stands by his decisions, has a spine made of steel (emphasis mine):
Reversing field after a meeting with President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he will continue pushing for a floor vote on John R....


1:56:42 PM    

British sources contradict Woolsey's claim that "fixed" does not mean "cooking the books" in the Downing Street memo.

Appearing on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, former CIA Director R. James Woolsey repeated the false assertion -- which conservatives in the media have made and which Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice embraced during a previous interview with Matthews -- that the word "fixed," as used in the Downing Street memo, means something other than "cooking the books" in British parlance.

The memo, first published on May 1, contains the recorded minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting of senior British cabinet officials and advisers. The memo reports that British intelligence chief Richard Dearlove stated, based on meetings with U.S. officials in Washington, that President Bush was determined even then to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq "through military action" and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

When Hardball guest host David Gregory asked Woolsey about this line, Woolsey stated: "I think that's not what 'fixing' means in these circumstances. I think people are not listening to British usage. I don't think they're talking about cooking the books." But British sources have said that "British usage" conforms exactly to the interpretation Woolsey tried to reject:

  • British Sunday Times reporter Michael Smith, the reporter who first disclosed the memo on May 1, ridiculed the notion that "fixed" has a different meaning in Britain in a Washington Post online chat: "There are number of people asking about fixed and its meaning. This is a real joke. I do not know anyone in the U.K. who took it to mean anything other than fixed as in fixed a race, fixed an election, fixed the intelligence. If you fix something, you make it the way you want it."

  • A British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) documentary in March quoted the Downing Street memo more than a month before the Sunday Times published it. BBC reporter John Ware explained: "By 'fixed' the MI6 chief meant that the Americans were trawling for evidence to reinforce their claim that Saddam was a threat."

  • When the Sunday Times first disclosed the memo on May 1, it noted the Bush administration's attempt "to link Saddam to the 9/11 attacks" as an example of "fixing" the intelligence around the policy: "The Americans had been trying to link Saddam to the 9/11 attacks; but the British knew the evidence was flimsy or non-existent. Dearlove warned the meeting that 'the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.' "

  • David Hughes, political editor of London's Daily Mail, argued in a May 2 column that the meeting detailed in the Downing Street memo "led inexorably to the publication of the 'sexed-up' Iraq weapons dossier two months later," referring to a now-famous 2003 report by BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan alleging that a British dossier on Iraq had been "sexed up" to hype the Iraqi threat.

From a panel discussion with Gregory, Woolsey and David Kay, the former top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, on the June 20 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

GREGORY: James Woolsey, is not the issue here, when we talk about fixing the intelligence to meet the policy, that the case, as the memo asserts, was thin on Saddam Hussein and whether he possessed chemical, biological, even nuclear weapons?

WOOLSEY: I think that's not what fixing means in these circumstances. I think people are not listening to British usage. I don't think they're talking about cooking the books.

I do think that there seemed a lot of indications at the time that there were chemical and bacteriological, at least, agent in Iraq. And, indeed, one of the fascinating things in David's report was that captured Iraqi generals after the war were each saying, you know, my unit didn't have chemical weapons, but the unit to my right and unit to my left I know did.

We call that red-on-red cover and description. Saddam apparently was deceiving some of his own generals. So, you know, I think people ought to back off a bit on this notion that we knew exactly what the situation was and the books were being cooked. I don't think there is really any basis for that kind of allegation.

[Media Matters for America]
1:55:19 PM    

Gen. John Vines, commander of coalition forces in Iraq, tells "Pentagon reporters" not to expect significant U.S. troop reductions, and that Americans who oppose the U.S. presence in Iraq "don't have a good perception of what is at stake here," as Newsweek warns of "forces strengthened by talk of American exit plans."

1:40:47 PM    

Iraq-Afghanistan war spending surpassed Korean War costs when the U.S. House "voted to advance the Pentagon another $45 billion," with Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi calling the war "a grotesque mistake" and House Speaker Dennis Hastert admonishing her to "support our troops instead of spreading inflammatory statements."

1:39:50 PM    


1:38:49 PM    

Straw Poll, Part II. Well, the results are in, with over 13,000 votes, and a margin of error of 90% (since we're not normal Democrats around here), the results of the first dKos presidential straw:

Daily Kos community poll. 6/20. 13,389 respondents. (No trend lines):

Clark 26 (3,496)
No Freakin' Clue 17 (2,320)
Clinton 10 (1,461)
Feingold 10 (1,433)
Edwards 8 (1,077)
Other 7 (1,088)
Warner 5 (689)
Richardson 4 (659)
Biden 3 (497)
Kerry 2 (341)
Bayh 2 (328)
Vilsack 0 (88)
While there's no way we can pretend that the Daily Kos community is representative of the Democratic Party electorate at large, this poll is a good indicator of where the Daily Kos community is at. The results didn't change more than a percentage point here and there from when there were 1,500 votes.

So what do we know? The field is clearly wide open, and there's a sense that we can do better than this lot. Gore, in particular, seems to have a lot of potential support if he were to express interest in running (he hasn't).

Clark, who is dismissed by the early CW, has a clear leg up, but it's not a dominant position by any stretch of the imagination. He's just the only guy who's standing out from the crowd.

Here's my bold prediction: the first candidate (or potential candidate) to come out for a full withdrawl from Iraq will get a huge groundswell of support. It may be one of these guys, or it may be someone out from left field.

But it's clear that even among the Daily Kos community, those who voted for the Bush's Iraq War aren't being penalized. The two candidates against the war from day one -- Feingold and Clark, are only splitting 39 percent of the vote.

One more thing -- there aren't organized campaigns yet, so there weren't any official efforts by campaigns to spam the poll. Future efforts may be more tainted by such things and will likely require security measures to protect the integrity of these polls.

For now, I plan on having one of these every month (or so). [Daily Kos]

1:36:57 PM    

FL-Sen: Harris trails Nelson badly. Mason-Dixon. 6/14-16. MoE 4%. (No trend lines)
Nelson (D) 53
Harris (R) 36
"This is one of those rare cases where, going in, the challenger has higher negative ratings than the incumbent," said Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc., which conducted the poll for the Orlando Sentinel and WESH 2 News. "At this point, when you look at these numbers, I don't know how she's going to win this race."

Harris, who achieved national notoriety for her pivotal role as secretary of state during Florida's disputed 2000 presidential recount, announced two weeks ago that she was planning to challenge Nelson.

But the move drew a lukewarm reception from Republican leaders, who fear she could lose to Nelson, whom they have targeted for defeat. The poll underscores this rising unease, which already has led the White House, Gov. Jeb Bush and other leading Republicans to court House Speaker Allan Bense, R-Panama City, as a potential GOP primary rival.

This race will be a definite oddity -- one in which the campaign becomes a referendum not on the incumbent, but on the challenger.

Which is great, considering that Nelson is our most endangered incumbent.

[Daily Kos]

1:36:07 PM    

Mississippi ex-Klansman convicted.

Jurors convict a former KKK member of manslaughter over the mob killings of three civil rights workers in 1964.

 [BBC News | News Front Page | UK Edition]
1:35:20 PM    

Is it about privacy? Or is it about choice?.

Salon has an article today by Lynn Harris where she describes the way that people habitually quiz and offer unsolicted
"advice" to women about our sex lives and family lives. She frames it as a privacy issue and that's a big part of it--people who don't know when to mind their own business. But that's sort of a hazy area sometimes, especially with friends. For instance, if you confess to a friend that you're not meeting anyone you like and that you do want to get married and have kids someday, is it a gross violation of your privacy for that person to turn around and offer advice? I wouldn't say so, even if you didn't explicitly ask for it. So, it's a hazy area.

What is not hazy is our society's long-term lack of respect for the concept of women having choices. The one common thread in the instances Harris comes up with isn't an overt inability to understand privacy boundaries so much--it's the implication that the speaker is passing judgement on her choices. Like this for instance:

Then yes, freaking finally, I got married. To a rabbi. Are you people satisfied?

Evidently not. "Did you ever think you would marry a rabbi?"

I have a feeling that Harris might have felt differently if the speaker had asked affirming, curious, polite questions about her husband, such as how he enjoys the job, has she met interesting new people, etc.

My take on this is that people are in the habit, especially when it comes to women, of having an internal ideal and then trying to get others to conform to it. Again, we feel particularly compelled to do this with women, especially if sex and family come into play, like here.

An older man I barely know -- but who knows I play ice hockey -- had this to say when he heard I was taking the season off: "Hmm, that'll help with conception." When my husband held a friend's infant at a party, every non-close friend looked at me. "He looks good with a baby!" they exclaimed, nudge nudge, wink wink.

First example is a classic example of someone pushing a woman to quit doing "masculine" things and take up baby-making. The second is a variation of that, a group of people silently urging her to conform to their model of womanhood. It's the same with the people who flutter around unmarried women and anxiously ask when they're getting married and demand that they lower their standards to obtain the ring--this about women conforming for their comfort, not necessarily a privacy issue.

So I wouldn't say this is part of the culture of celebrity, but tie it instead to the growing support for legally restricting women's reproductive choices.

Mea culpa: In the comments section below on Texas progressives, I did not mean to insult single mothers. I was more idly thinking about all the infrastructure problems in the South that create situations where women feel they have no choice to become single mothers--I phrased it badly. But I promise, it came from a place of respect for women's choices. And I love single moms--I had one for awhile myself.

Also: Female comic book nerds--if you want some outrageous sexism to kickstart a rant, check out the letters to the editor about "Batman Begins" at Salon.

8:03:31 AM    

Ritter says US is at war with Iran

Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, writing for al-Jazeera, says that recent stories indicating that Pres. Bush had decided to invade Iraq by summer, 2002, despite contemporaneous public statements to the contrary, reflect a pattern that currently being played out in Iran. Ritter accuses the US government with conducting illegal surveillance flights over Iranian airspace and supporting...

- Professor Kim

[Professor Kim's News Notes]
8:00:39 AM With his polls down, Bush takes flak on Iraq from a host of critics--including a key moderate Republican (6/27/05)

"Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel is angry. He's upset about the more than 1,700 U.S. soldiers killed and nearly 13,000 wounded in Iraq. He's also aggravated by the continued string of sunny assessments from the Bush administration, such as Vice President Dick Cheney's recent remark that the insurgency is in its 'last throes.' 'Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White...

- Professor Kim

[Professor Kim's News Notes]
7:59:50 AM    

Race a Factor in Job Offers for Ex-Convicts - New York Times

"White men with prison records receive far more offers for entry-level jobs in New York City than black men with identical records, and are offered jobs just as often - if not more so - than black men who have never been arrested, according to a new study by two Princeton professors. The study, the first to assess the effect of race on job searches by ex-convicts, also found that black men...

- Professor Kim

[Professor Kim's News Notes]
7:58:24 AM    

It's Our Fault

Everything is. But especially any future terrorist attack on the United States. That's how powerful we are, the lefties. So Rush Limbaugh said a few days ago:

LIMBAUGH: Let me tell you something, folks, if we are hit again, if we are hit again, we need to hold these people in our country who are undermining our efforts responsible. It ain't going to be the FBI's fault next time. It isn't going to be the CIA's fault next time. It isn't going to be some bureaucracy's fault next time. It's going to be the fault of politicians, left-wing groups and the like who have names and identities and spend their every waking moment trying to obstruct our ability to secure intelligence information for our own national security.

You want some names: [Sen. Patrick] Leahy [D-VT], [Sen. Joseph R.] Biden [D-DE], [Sen. Richard J.] Durbin [D-IL], [Sen. Barbara] Boxer [D-CA], [Sen. Edward] Kennedy [D-MA], [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid [D-NV], Newsweek, Time, The New York Times, Amnesty International. If we get hit again, these are the names of the people and organizations we need to look at when we're trying to find out why and how it happened.

This makes planning the future much easier. All the government needs to do is to intern us and the country will be safe! The real enemy has finally been revealed and the wingnuts can sleep safe in their little cots.

Which troll was it who recently foamed about how liberals hate everybody in this country? Sounds to me like it's the Limbaugh types who have some serious issues with misplaced hatred.

Sounds to me also like it might be Limbaugh himself who is stoking the flames of terrorism in the Middle East:

LIMBAUGH: Club G'itmo and our brochure at now features two T-shirts, ladies and gentlemen. We put them on sale yesterday, and they are going like hotcakes. They're a reddish-orange t-shirt and you can buy one or you can buy both. One of them says, "Club G'itmo" on the front and then on the back, "Your Tropical Retreat From the Stress of Jihad."

The other one says, "Club G'itmo" on the front, and on the back it says, "My Mullah Went to Club Gitmo and All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt." They're both $19.95. They come in sizes small up to double-X, and we're also still checking on prices to come up with Club G'itmo bathrobes and soap on a rope or just soap. Club G'itmo, whichever, and we've also added the fact that kids might want to be sent down to Club G'itmo, except Americans, because American kids are not allowed to pray in school or anything else. It's a great place for young jihadists to go and take a break from their training.

7:05:21 AM    


Conventional oil market analysis is focused on traditional economic factors. The only intangible factors left to deal with is the sentiment of OPEC (to abide by quotas, increase/decrease quotas, etc.) and Saudi Arabia's maximum production capacity (a closely guarded secret)....

 [Global Guerrillas]
6:41:35 AM    

Happy Solstice! . Good piece by Thom Hartmann over at Buzzflash: They Died So Republicans Could Take the Senate. So, it wasn't even just about oil and greed - those were just happy side-effects.

At Crooks and Liars, Penn & Teller: The Patriot Act is Bullshit. (You might want to give C&L a few bucks to help defray their download costs, too.)

Eli wonders if an NT story contains a bit of black propaganda.

Did Time interviewer Timothy Burger have to force himself not to ask Porter Goss that question?

The Coming World Realignment.

A good leader from the Torygraph on the proposed Incitement to Religious Hatred law - being introduced by the government as a sop to Muslims who are quite rightly disturbed by little things like being held indefinitely without trail and such.

Via Langford's Runcible Ansible, a Guardian article by Margaret Atwood, 'Aliens have taken the place of angels', in which she not only doesn't deny that she has written science fiction, but says we need sf.

Crucified nun dies in 'exorcism': A Romanian nun has died after being bound to a cross, gagged and left alone for three days in a cold room in a convent, Romanian police have said.

Operation Yellow Elephant - how to support the war.

A revelation from Smythe's World: Did you know it's easier for both men and women to have orgasms when they're wearing socks? Explains everything....

Roger Ailes explains what the "liberal" media is reading.

Rainstorm has an update on the Fall-Out from Wal-Mart Nazi Bookburning Ad - and a familiar P.F. Stone lyric.

[The Sideshow]

6:40:40 AM    

On bloody roads . My thanks to John Cole (of Balloon Juice) for bringing Russell Shorto's What's Their Real Problem With Gay Marriage? (It's the Gay Part) to my attention. (Single-page link)
But, of course, the Christian activists aren't vague in their opposition. For them, the issue isn't one of civil rights, because the term implies something inherent in the individual -- being black, say, or a woman -- and they deny that homosexuality is inherent. It can't be, because that would mean God had created some people who are damned from birth, morally blackened. This really is the inescapable root of the whole issue, the key to understanding those working against gay marriage as well as the engine driving their vehicle in the larger culture war: the commitment, on the part of a growing number of people, to a variety of religious belief that is so thoroughgoing it permeates every facet of life and thought, that rejects the secular, pluralistic grounding of society and that answers all questions internally.
One thing John and I can agree on is that the anti-gay campaign is from the anti-black playbook with which some of us are so familiar. The arguments are the same, the attitudes are the same, and the willingness to spread hate is the same.

Something we don't agree on is that,

...any allusion to Nazi's is offensive, stupid, and counter-productive, regardless of the point you are trying to make. Let's keep the Nazi references for, say, Nazi's.
Like Kevin Drum and Brad Plumer, I have no problem with any apt comparison - any warning - that reminds us of the landmarks on the path to Nazism. You may remember I referred a few years ago to my reasons for taking such references for granted:
When I was a kid, my many Jewish elders had a short-hand phrase they'd use to explain their objections whenever some suggested legislation (censorship, for example) or discrimination against blacks or gays left them gasping in horror: "The Nazis did that." (Or sometimes just: "The Nazis....") These were people who remembered how it took place, with not too much disruption of everyday life, at first, and most people going unmolested and therefore not making much of it. Nothing to see here, just a few commies and Jews and a couple of queers, not any of us Normal people.... These were, you understand, people who would have been crushed if their son turned out to be gay or their daughter married "a Negro", but by god they knew better than to give an inch on these things. They didn't have to like pornography to know it shouldn't be illegal - they knew what censorship was about. They understood, with crystal clarity, that there are no good excuses for dismissing people's civil liberties.
The idea that there is something wrong with making Nazi comparisons doesn't come from some natural revulsion that we - gentiles or Jews - have always felt. Oh, I'm sure there are some who think that the rise of the Third Reich was itself something unique, but that's foolish; the fact that they wasted lives with industrial efficiency is only an artifact. What they did is something that humans have always done, even if they had to use rocks to do it.

The horror of Nazi Germany isn't that they killed six million Jews. It's not the numbers and it's not who the victims were, except for one thing: that a nation singled-out specified groups of their own people and declared them bereft of their citizenship and their rights. It would not matter if they had only killed a couple thousands Jews and a handful of gays and political objectors. The point is that these were German citizens who suddenly found themselves without the protections of German law, the personhood that had previously been presumed - and thus, it became acceptable to do things to them that no civilized society subjects people to. And that the threat of this happening to you, to me, to us, is always there, because it always has been; no one is safe, immune.

To be "civilized" is a delicate thing. In Nudes, Prudes and Attitudes, I wrote:

In each of us, there is a little fascist who fervently wishes to suppress any expression by others of beliefs we find threatening to our values.
It's not a German thing. It's not an antisemitic thing. It's certainly not a Christian thing, or a Muslim thing. It's a human thing, and it can get out of the box on pretty small provocation.

So you have to be on the lookout for that sort of thing, and that's the point of noticing when the tactics of the Third Reich are starting to smell up the place. Just as all those old Jews I knew used to do. That's what "Never Again" really means.

Inapt comparisons, on the other hand, are a completely different matter. Rush Limbaugh using the term "feminazis" is certainly over the top, but Rick Santorum's recent equation of Democrats in Congress with Hitler in Paris wasn't just over the top, it made no sense. The Democrats, to begin with, did not invade the Senate and impose the filibuster on it.

Was Robert Byrd out of line when he compared the Republicans' tendency to behave as if the law was not the law to Hitler's similar mushing up of German law? No, of course not. While it is not accurate to say that Hitler never broke the law and that everything his government did was legal, it is similarly not accurate to say that Bush never breaks the law and that everything his administration does is legal.

For example, Germany passed a law in 1875 that is still on the books today banning hate speech against any identifiable group. You'd think that would have protected the Jews, wouldn't you? But the Nazis merely decided Jews and gays and a few others were exceptions, and then all bets were off.

The parallels, of course, are obvious - and in some respects even more unsettling. Our founders made clear that they believed the rights they outlined in both their writings and the Constitution and Bill of Rights they fashioned were inherent for all humans - inalienable - regardless of their origins and nationality, and thus the United States is always obliged to give the protections of the law to everyone we deal with. We are required to offer alien nationals in our country the same rights to due process that citizens have. And yes, the glaring exceptions are obvious, but they have also been a matter of shame for us - and one that we have tried to put right.

But now we hear that it's okay to treat non-citizens differently, to deprive them, under numerous circumstances, of due process. And to do things to them that we have already sworn we would never do.

And we've even seen legislation drawn up and put before Congress that would deprive Americans of their citizenship! Think about that for a minute. How good are your rights as a citizen if the government can simply declare you a non-citizen and then subject you to violations of those rights?

And none of this is legal under our Constitution, which says treaties we've signed have the force of law, and thus the Geneva Conventions - which do not allow torture under any circumstances - apply to all.

You know how it feels to think of yourself as a citizen and resident of a free country. You know that you read about torture and abuse in other countries, about freedoms that do not exist there, about outrages against the citizenry, and a little voice in your head says, "I'm glad I'm not there. I'm safe here. I'm an American." As I've said before, that is a feeling, a reaction, an instinct, I was privileged to feel for my entire life. And for my entire life, I was able to read of such abuses and know that I was absolutely not reading about the United States.

Until now. And that's what Dick Durbin was saying. And if anyone does not feel that loss, I wonder what special thing you must think America has that is worth defending.

Update: Teresa covered this territory before I noticed (and there's a great comment thread). So did Gail and Nathan.

[The Sideshow]

6:38:59 AM    

21789 Days Late And a Trillion Dollars Short.

One of the stated goals of the BFEE/PNAC Petroleum Pirate Posse is to remake the world in an 'American' image, with America at the helm and all others trailing obediently in our wake. The only problem with this desire is...

[The Left Coaster]
6:36:34 AM    

Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website. © Copyright 2005 Michael Mussington.
Last update: 7/1/2005; 6:37:36 AM.
June 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 29 30    
May   Jul