LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PORTSIDE Archives


PORTSIDE Archives

PORTSIDE Archives


PORTSIDE@LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PORTSIDE Home

PORTSIDE Home

PORTSIDE  June 2012, Week 1

PORTSIDE June 2012, Week 1

Subject:

Heartbreak in Wisconsin - What Labor's Loss in Wisconsin Does - and Doesn't Mean (two more pieces)

From:

Portside Moderator <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Thu, 7 Jun 2012 20:26:44 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (450 lines)

Heartbreak in Wisconsin - What Labor's Loss in Wisconsin Does - and Doesn't Mean (two more pieces)

1. The Heartbreak in Wisconsin (Tom Hayden) 
2. What Labor's Loss in Wisconsin Does-and Doesn't Mean (David 
   Moberg)

=====

The Heartbreak in Wisconsin

by Tom Hayden

Tomhayden.com
June 07, 2012

http://tomhayden.com/home/the-heartbreak-in-wisconsin.html

The triumph of Scott Walker and the Tea Party Republicans in
Wisconsin is heartbreaking for the many thousands who devoted
over one year of their lives to one of the most inspired
social movements of the current century.

Electoral campaigns are governed by deadlines and voting
results, unlike social movements, which can ebb and flow for
decades. The pain of a stunning defeat like yesterday's
inevitably takes a psychic toll on its participants, similar
in ways to a seven-game World Series. It takes time to
recover, and some never will.

Politics never stops, however. If Democrat John Lehman wins a
closely contested state Senate seat over Republican Van
Wanggarrd, the Wisconsin Democrats will wrest majority control
of that chamber from the Republicans, setting the stage for
another showdown this November when 16 of 33 Senators will
face election. The Legislature ordinarily is out of session
during the summer, possibly limiting the ability of the new
Democratic majority to foil Walker's triumphal agenda.

But the big picture is disastrous for Democrats and
progressives. Walker beat Democrat Tom Barrett solidly,
53%-46%, in a campaign fueled by unprecedented levels of
corporate money. The Tea Party, which became relatively
isolated during the Republican presidential campaign, is back
in the saddle. Its Wisconsin triumph will embolden the fervent
advocates of slashing social programs and deregulating the
economy to become even more adamant during the coming national
budget debates.

President Obama may benefit politically in the short- term if
the Tea Party overplays its hand in the immediate budget and
presidential debates. But Obama disillusioned many Democrats
in Wisconsin by his "tepid support for the recall," and the
foolish White House argument "that he had a full plate and did
not have time to come." (New York Times, June 3, 2012) Obama
still holds a slender lead over Romney in battleground states.

WHAT EXPLAINS THE DEFEAT IN WISCONSIN?

From the beginning there was a utopian expectation among many
progressives that the recall effort was such a righteous cause
that it was destined to succeed. One leader of the utopian
faction was The Nation's brilliant narrator John Nichols, who
is described by his wife Mary Bottari as the most idealistic
bearers of good tidings in progressive America. MSNBC pundits
Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow were swept up in the drama as
well, and expecting the election to be so close that returns
would take all night. Michael Moore wrote that the Capitol
Rotunda packed with protesters "would bring tears to your eyes
if you saw it," and that he was witnessing Corporate America's
"come-to-Jesus moment" in Wisconsin. Despite all the utopian
hope, the Devil won big, and now it's Lucifer's turn to howl.

It was indeed an inspiring social movement, in its tenacity,
scale, cross-section of activists, range of tactics, and
permanent duration in spite of Wisconsin's freezing snows.
Wisconsin seemed to be the place where progressive Americans
finally were drawing the line against anti-labor legislation,
budget cuts, Tea Party extremism, and plutocrats like the Koch
Brothers.

But at least one year ago there were internal labor polls
showing the recall would be very difficult to win. There was
no way, however, that a labor leader was going to stand in
front of the social movement with a yellow flashing light.
Instead, to its credit, labor chose to support the fight in
the hope that the sheer will power of the activist campaign,
or mistakes made by Walker, would overcome the odds.

Now the mic checks have to be put on hold long enough for a
reality check.

The recall was a concrete test of whether reactionary or
progressive populism (the traditions of Joseph McCarthy or
Robert LaFollette) would prevail in a state where the vote is
85 percent white. White men voted 52 percent for Walker,
compared to 53-54 percent of all women and 94 percent of
African-Americans against him. Hidden in those stark numbers
is a message that lots of white people are opposed to their
taxes going to African-Americans or the poor, especially in a
deep recession where they have no confidence in the
government.

Neither were the majority of Wisconsin voters moved to throw
out a governor they had just elected in 2010, only to replace
him with a Democratic candidate they had rejected the same
year, in spite of Walker's unpopular handling of the crisis,
these were the same voters that rejected a respected
progressive senator, Russ Feingold, for a little-known pro-Tea
Party Republican in that same year, 2010.

What happened, in sequence, was the Wall Street Crash on the
eve of the 2008 election, followed by the historic vote for
Barack Obama, who brought a circle of Wall Street advisers
into his administration. Their stimulus package slowed the
economic hemorrhaging but bailed out billionaires. Then Obama
and the Democrats passed a compromised version of health care
reform opposed by virtually all progressives, which seemed to
raise hundreds of billions in taxpayer costs and expand
government services for the poor - without much immediate
dividend for the white middle class. Those factors, in the
midst of a recession and fueled by racist hysteria at the
election of a black president, gave rise to the Tea Party as a
virulent counter- movement. McCarthyism triumphed in new form,
with the Tea Party frothing over a foreign-born black Muslim
sleeping in their White House.

It is possible, however, that the gloom will lift if Walker
and the Tea Party go too far once again. An analogy might be
Richard Nixon's triumphant presidential victory in 1968 after
the progressive left, the feminists and peace advocates had
taken over the Democratic Party through the primaries which
allowed citizen participation for the first time. McGovern was
crushed, in part because his running mate, Thomas Eagleton,
was removed after 18 days after revelations that he had
undergone shock treatments for a mental illness. That wasn't
the primary reason for McGovern's huge defeat, though it broke
his momentum for months. The key to Nixon's success was the
refusal of the mainstream media to pay major attention to the
unfolding Watergate crisis until after the November election,
and here is the similarity with Walker's situation today. The
newly elected Wisconsin governor is being investigated by
prosecutors on serious charges of ethics violations. Now that
the election is over, the question of possible criminal
charges may gain greater public attention. As Nixon fell from
triumph to disgrace, the same destiny might await Walker. It's
too early to know.

A more profound unknown is how organized labor will respond to
the Wisconsin experience, with their numbers declining and
campaign treasuries threatened if the Tea Party Republican
keep surging. It is a true institutional crisis for labor and
the Democrats, the greatest since the conflicts of the 1960s.
The combination of Citizens United, a pro-corporate Supreme
Court, and the Tea Party grip on Congress and many state
houses, means that the crucial base of the Democratic Party's
campaign funding - organized labor - is facing extinction,
with no comparable alternative in sight.

At the risk of offending liberal-left critics of Obama, he
often is to the "left" of the Democratic Party establishment
on most of these issues. True, he danced with the Republicans
in the opening round of the budget debates, and that dance
will continue. But he wants the Bush-era tax cuts to expire on
incomes over $250,000 - against the opposition of Wall
Street's Sen. Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats. He wanted
some sort of "public option" on health care - over the
objections of Sen. Max Baucus and Senate Democrats. He once
expressed interested in the Robin Hood Tax, but was undercut
by his own economic team. He sought to regulate derivatives -
but Barney Frank told him the votes weren't there. And now
Obama's presidential campaign against Mitt Romney and Bain
Capital is being openly derided by Bill Clinton, Ed Rendel,
Deval Partick and Cory Booker, among many other powerful
Democrats. It is hard to recall such backstabbing of an
incumbent president by leaders of his own party during a re-
election fight.

Since the Clinton era, the Democratic Party has joined the
Republicans in seeking Wall Street contributions as finance
capital has become the leading sector of the American economy.
Wall Street is the top investor in the Romney campaign and its
allied super PACs. And Wall Street is the "single largest
source of cash for the national Democratic Party's various
campaign committees," well head of entertainment and real
estate developer donors. (New York Times, May 27, 2012) Given
these polluted streams of campaign money, Obama is "cautious"
in his criticisms of Wall Street while Romney is an "outspoken
proponent of the industry's agenda," Edsall concludes.

Given these toxic trends, it is entirely possible that by
November Tea Party-driven Republicans will control the White
House, Supreme Court, and both houses of Congress, pushing the
States towards a 1929-style crisis. Or Obama will be re-
elected to govern alone in a sea of conservative followers of
Ayn Rand and Democratic lifers too timid to fight.

The outcome in Wisconsin only makes that scenario more likely.

[Tom Hayden currently writes for The Nation, organizes,
travels, and speaks constantly against the current wars as
founder and Director of the Peace and Justice Resource Center
in Culver City, CA. He also recently drafted and lobbied
successfully for Los Angeles and San Francisco ordinances to
end all taxpayer subsidies for sweatshops.

Hayden has taught recently at Scripps and Claremont colleges
in Claremont, Occidental College, the Harvard Institute of
Politics, and is the author or editor of 19 books and hundreds
of articles for publications from the Los Angeles Times to the
Boston Globe to the Chronicle of Higher Education.

He served 18 years in the California legislature, chairing key
committees on the environment, higher education and labor, has
recently taught at Scripps College and Pitzer College in
Claremont, California, Occidental College, and Harvard
University's Institute of Politics.]

==========

What Labor's Loss in Wisconsin Does-and Doesn't-Mean

by David Moberg

In These Times
Working in These Times Blog
June 7, 2012 

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/13340/what_labors_loss_in_wisconsin_doesand_doesntmean

There's no point mincing words: By rejecting the recall of
Republican Gov. Scott Walker, Wisconsin voters dealt a nasty
blow to organized labor and progressives in the state and
beyond.

That was especially true since Wisconsin unions and liberals
picked this particular fight, even if it was a justifiable but
politically risky response to the governor taking away the
rights of public workers.

Quickly, right-wing leaders and commentators-and even some
liberals-declared the vote the death knell of unions,
especially in the public sector, and a public legitimation of
hard-line anti-union strategies. And it could turn into a
PATCO moment-when Ronald Reagan fired striking air traffic
controllers-if organized labor and its allies fail to launch
an effective counter-attack on behalf of not only labor rights
but more broadly economic justice and democracy.

But single victories rarely translate into triumphal waves.
The right reads too much into their win. Few Republican
governors would like to undergo the protests Walker has faced,
even if they keep their office.

Yet a strong trend has emerged among both Democrats and
Republicans toward attacking public employees, following the
successful decades-long offensive against private sector
unions. And the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision will
keep the floodgates open to the gush of money from right-wing
billionaires that gave Walker an overwhelming financial edge
(perhaps eight to one).

The recall vote "was not the end of something but the
beginning," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said, referring
to a "new model" of labor and community mobilization, a new
determination "to hold politicians accountable," and an
emerging movement for economic justice.

Labor and its progressive allies are hardly dead after
Tuesday, but they need to take the defeat seriously. They
could start by acknowledging that many unions have failed to
educate and energize their own members adequately and that
much of the public, including even theoretically friendly
politicians, do not appreciate-or feel any benefit from-a
shrinking, sometimes insular movement.

In these hostile times, unions need to pre-emptively create
broad coalitions-such as Wisconsin formed in reaction to
Walker-and more means of outreach to educate the public,
especially the working class, about how our society fails to
work for the 99 percent and why unions still play a crucial
role at work and in politics.

Some implications of the recall vote are murky because the
factors in the election are complex. For example, Walker kept
his office by a larger margin than when he first won a year
and a half ago, but Republicans lost control of the state
Senate when one Democrat won in a recall contest. (That opens
up a way to stop much of Walker's agenda, but the Senate will
probably not meet until next year.) That slightly tempers the
loss.

Also, although labor unions and many supporters saw the recall
as a referendum on labor rights, Democrats and Barrett himself
downplayed public workers' rights in the recall battles, with
both parties emphasizing other issues. That makes the meaning
of the vote less clear-in contrast with voters' strong
rejection of S.B. 5's anti-labor provisions in Ohio.

Also, 60 percent of voters in exit polls said they thought a
recall was appropriate only in cases of misconduct. That
reluctance to recall showed up in last year's Senate campaigns
and constitutes one of the main reasons Walker won.

Wisconsin voters were deeply divided on public workers' union
rights and somewhat at odds with themselves. In exit polls, by
51 to 45 percent, voters expressed a favorable view of public
employee unions, but by almost inverse divisions-52 to 47
percent-they approved both limiting collective bargaining and
how Walker handled collective bargaining. Nationally, however,
a New York Times poll in February 2011 found Americans opposed
taking away collective bargaining rights by 60 to 33 percent.

Even though the anti-Walker movement lost this fight, it is
still alive as a movement, including new or revitalized
organizations like We Are Wisconsin and Milwaukee-based
Wisconsin Jobs Now.

"The story of Wisconsin is the story of fighting back and the
force of mass offensives," says SEIU Healthcare Wisconsin Vice
President Bruce Colburn. "Wisconsin set a good example of that
willingness to take on that fight," possibly giving other,
less ideological governors than Walker pause about following
his path.

But membership in public employee unions has dropped. The Wall
Street Journal reports AFSCME in Wisconsin has declined from
62,818 in March 2011 to 28,745 in February 2012, though AFSCME
disputes those numbers. Meanwhile, SEIU has lost some
government members and is likely to lose many more in 2014
when its contract with the University of Wisconsin expires,
and with it, their right to bargain a new contract. So far,
few unions have re-organized their workplaces to prepare
workers to act collectively even without bargaining.

The right also used Wisconsin as a test for developing its
political "ground game," which some reports described as
rivaling labor's own infrastructure. While some pundits see
dangers that Obama could now lose Wisconsin, which he won by a
large margin over John McCain in 2008, the exit polls showed
Obama favored over Romney by 51 to 44 percent. The
presidential race will likely be tight, but Walker's victory
does not pose a great setback for Obama, except for motivating
the far right and for stimulating development of field
operations.

Unlike the Republicans, the national Democrats and Obama
stayed relatively distant-with the president's main, pathetic
role consisting of sending out a tweet at the last minute in
support of Barrett. This strategy of avoiding an intensely
felt but probably losing candidacy may be smart, if not
particularly principled, politics on the part of Team Obama,
but to the extent that it sets back labor unions, it hurts
Democratic electoral prospects.

More important to the state of the union, if not the
president's campaign, declining unions are implicated in
rising inequality, worse health, and weakened democracy.

Do even union members realize that? Searching the beer and
brat leftovers of Tuesday night for clues, the answer is yes-
and no.

Union members and their households turned out only somewhat
more forcefully to vote than non-union voters. According to
exit polls, 17 percent of voters were union members, though in
2011 they constituted about 13 percent of the state's
workforce, and they voted 71 percent for Barrett, 28 percent
for Walker.

According to a Hart Research poll of union members for the
AFL-CIO, 85 percent of public-sector union members voted for
Barrett, 15 percent for Walker. Private-sector union members
voted 69 to 31 for Barrett (for a combined union member tally
of 75 to 25 percent split). Voters from households with a
union member-32 percent of the electorate, according to the
exit polls-cast 62 percent of their ballots for Barrett,
compared to 39 percent for the Democrat from households with
no union member.

Considering Walker's extreme actions against public union
members and the protests against him, the private-sector
unionist vote does not show unusually strong support for the
recall. But Hart found that 79 percent of private-sector union
members believe in public workers' right to bargain
collectively-not too bad but not overwhelming solidarity.

Measured against usual performance, public workers were, not
surprisingly, strongly for the recall. While some association
with a union seemed to have significantly influenced voters to
oppose Walker, a large bloc of union members was not moved by
Walker's attack on unions-including people who object to
unions, hold a right-wing worldview, vote on specific social
issues or otherwise part company with their union.

The weak support for the anti-Walker campaign from other, non-
union workers is more of a problem, since they form a bigger
share of the voters.

Overall, Barrett won a few distinct groups of voters-the poor,
the very educated, the young, minorities, single women (and
union members). He lost the wealthy. He also lost the non-
college educated (56 to 43 percent), and he split whites
making $50,000 or less evenly. But despite attempts to work
with these voters, such as the AFL-CIO's Working America
organization, many of these non-union but working-class voters
simply don't identify with the labor movement.

Looking ahead, both sides are geared up for the November
elections, and voters are energized, says Rob Zerban,
challenger to Republican budget chair Paul Ryan in the
southeast corner of the state.

Though encouraged by the state Senate recall victory within
the Congressional district where he is running, Zerban says,
"The races are different. But anytime there is more
participation by Democrats, it's a good sign." He does not
believe Walker's victory will hurt his campaign.

The recall fallout can-and must-be contained. But it will take
more serious member education, mobilization and the creation
of meaningful coalitions that reach out more broadly than has
happened before.

[David Moberg, a senior editor of In These Times, has been on
the staff of the magazine since it began publishing in 1976.
Before joining In These Times, he completed his work for a
Ph.D. in anthropology at the University of Chicago and worked
for Newsweek. He has received fellowships from the John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Nation Institute for
research on the new global economy.]

==========

___________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2017, Week 3
November 2017, Week 2
November 2017, Week 1
October 2017, Week 5
October 2017, Week 4
October 2017, Week 3
October 2017, Week 2
October 2017, Week 1
September 2017, Week 5
September 2017, Week 4
September 2017, Week 3
September 2017, Week 2
September 2017, Week 1
August 2017, Week 5
August 2017, Week 4
August 2017, Week 3
August 2017, Week 2
August 2017, Week 1
July 2017, Week 5
July 2017, Week 4
July 2017, Week 3
July 2017, Week 2
July 2017, Week 1
June 2017, Week 5
June 2017, Week 4
June 2017, Week 3
June 2017, Week 2
June 2017, Week 1
May 2017, Week 5
May 2017, Week 4
May 2017, Week 3
May 2017, Week 2
May 2017, Week 1
April 2017, Week 5
April 2017, Week 4
April 2017, Week 3
April 2017, Week 2
April 2017, Week 1
March 2017, Week 5
March 2017, Week 4
March 2017, Week 3
March 2017, Week 2
March 2017, Week 1
February 2017, Week 4
February 2017, Week 3
February 2017, Week 2
February 2017, Week 1
January 2017, Week 5
January 2017, Week 4
January 2017, Week 3
January 2017, Week 2
January 2017, Week 1
December 2016, Week 5
December 2016, Week 4
December 2016, Week 3
December 2016, Week 2
December 2016, Week 1
November 2016, Week 5
November 2016, Week 4
November 2016, Week 3
November 2016, Week 2
November 2016, Week 1
October 2016, Week 5
October 2016, Week 4
October 2016, Week 3
October 2016, Week 2
October 2016, Week 1
September 2016, Week 5
September 2016, Week 4
September 2016, Week 3
September 2016, Week 2
September 2016, Week 1
August 2016, Week 5
August 2016, Week 4
August 2016, Week 3
August 2016, Week 2
August 2016, Week 1
July 2016, Week 5
July 2016, Week 4
July 2016, Week 3
July 2016, Week 2
July 2016, Week 1
June 2016, Week 5
June 2016, Week 4
June 2016, Week 3
June 2016, Week 2
June 2016, Week 1
May 2016, Week 5
May 2016, Week 4
May 2016, Week 3
May 2016, Week 2
May 2016, Week 1
April 2016, Week 5
April 2016, Week 4
April 2016, Week 3
April 2016, Week 2
April 2016, Week 1
March 2016, Week 5
March 2016, Week 4
March 2016, Week 3
March 2016, Week 2
March 2016, Week 1
February 2016, Week 5
February 2016, Week 4
February 2016, Week 3
February 2016, Week 2
February 2016, Week 1
January 2016, Week 5
January 2016, Week 4
January 2016, Week 3
January 2016, Week 2
January 2016, Week 1
December 2015, Week 5
December 2015, Week 4
December 2015, Week 3
December 2015, Week 2
December 2015, Week 1
November 2015, Week 5
November 2015, Week 4
November 2015, Week 3
November 2015, Week 2
November 2015, Week 1
October 2015, Week 5
October 2015, Week 4
October 2015, Week 3
October 2015, Week 2
October 2015, Week 1
September 2015, Week 5
September 2015, Week 4
September 2015, Week 3
September 2015, Week 2
September 2015, Week 1
August 2015, Week 5
August 2015, Week 4
August 2015, Week 3
August 2015, Week 2
August 2015, Week 1
July 2015, Week 5
July 2015, Week 4
July 2015, Week 3
July 2015, Week 2
July 2015, Week 1
June 2015, Week 5
June 2015, Week 4
June 2015, Week 3
June 2015, Week 2
June 2015, Week 1
May 2015, Week 5
May 2015, Week 4
May 2015, Week 3
May 2015, Week 2
May 2015, Week 1
April 2015, Week 5
April 2015, Week 4
April 2015, Week 3
April 2015, Week 2
April 2015, Week 1
March 2015, Week 5
March 2015, Week 4
March 2015, Week 3
March 2015, Week 2
March 2015, Week 1
February 2015, Week 4
February 2015, Week 3
February 2015, Week 2
February 2015, Week 1
January 2015, Week 5
January 2015, Week 4
January 2015, Week 3
January 2015, Week 2
January 2015, Week 1
December 2014, Week 5
December 2014, Week 4
December 2014, Week 3
December 2014, Week 2
December 2014, Week 1
November 2014, Week 5
November 2014, Week 4
November 2014, Week 3
November 2014, Week 2
November 2014, Week 1
October 2014, Week 5
October 2014, Week 4
October 2014, Week 3
October 2014, Week 2
October 2014, Week 1
September 2014, Week 5
September 2014, Week 4
September 2014, Week 3
September 2014, Week 2
September 2014, Week 1
August 2014, Week 5
August 2014, Week 4
August 2014, Week 3
August 2014, Week 2
August 2014, Week 1
July 2014, Week 5
July 2014, Week 4
July 2014, Week 3
July 2014, Week 2
July 2014, Week 1
June 2014, Week 5
June 2014, Week 4
June 2014, Week 3
June 2014, Week 2
June 2014, Week 1
May 2014, Week 5
May 2014, Week 4
May 2014, Week 3
May 2014, Week 2
May 2014, Week 1
April 2014, Week 5
April 2014, Week 4
April 2014, Week 3
April 2014, Week 2
April 2014, Week 1
March 2014, Week 5
March 2014, Week 4
March 2014, Week 3
March 2014, Week 2
March 2014, Week 1
February 2014, Week 4
February 2014, Week 3
February 2014, Week 2
February 2014, Week 1
January 2014, Week 5
January 2014, Week 4
January 2014, Week 3
January 2014, Week 2
January 2014, Week 1
December 2013, Week 5
December 2013, Week 4
December 2013, Week 3
December 2013, Week 2
December 2013, Week 1
November 2013, Week 5
November 2013, Week 4
November 2013, Week 3
November 2013, Week 2
November 2013, Week 1
October 2013, Week 5
October 2013, Week 4
October 2013, Week 3
October 2013, Week 2
October 2013, Week 1
September 2013, Week 5
September 2013, Week 4
September 2013, Week 3
September 2013, Week 2
September 2013, Week 1
August 2013, Week 5
August 2013, Week 4
August 2013, Week 3
August 2013, Week 2
August 2013, Week 1
July 2013, Week 5
July 2013, Week 4
July 2013, Week 3
July 2013, Week 2
July 2013, Week 1
June 2013, Week 5
June 2013, Week 4
June 2013, Week 3
June 2013, Week 2
June 2013, Week 1
May 2013, Week 5
May 2013, Week 4
May 2013, Week 3
May 2013, Week 2
May 2013, Week 1
April 2013, Week 5
April 2013, Week 4
April 2013, Week 3
April 2013, Week 2
April 2013, Week 1
March 2013, Week 5
March 2013, Week 4
March 2013, Week 3
March 2013, Week 2
March 2013, Week 1
February 2013, Week 4
February 2013, Week 3
February 2013, Week 2
February 2013, Week 1
January 2013, Week 5
January 2013, Week 4
January 2013, Week 3
January 2013, Week 2
January 2013, Week 1
December 2012, Week 5
December 2012, Week 4
December 2012, Week 3
December 2012, Week 2
December 2012, Week 1
November 2012, Week 5
November 2012, Week 4
November 2012, Week 3
November 2012, Week 2
November 2012, Week 1
October 2012, Week 5
October 2012, Week 4
October 2012, Week 3
October 2012, Week 2
October 2012, Week 1
September 2012, Week 5
September 2012, Week 4
September 2012, Week 3
September 2012, Week 2
September 2012, Week 1
August 2012, Week 5
August 2012, Week 4
August 2012, Week 3
August 2012, Week 2
August 2012, Week 1
July 2012, Week 5
July 2012, Week 4
July 2012, Week 3
July 2012, Week 2
July 2012, Week 1
June 2012, Week 5
June 2012, Week 4
June 2012, Week 3
June 2012, Week 2
June 2012, Week 1
May 2012, Week 5
May 2012, Week 4
May 2012, Week 3
May 2012, Week 2
May 2012, Week 1
April 2012, Week 5
April 2012, Week 4
April 2012, Week 3
April 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 1
March 2012, Week 5
March 2012, Week 4
March 2012, Week 3
March 2012, Week 2
March 2012, Week 1
February 2012, Week 5
February 2012, Week 4
February 2012, Week 3
February 2012, Week 2
February 2012, Week 1
January 2012, Week 5
January 2012, Week 4
January 2012, Week 3
January 2012, Week 2
January 2012, Week 1
December 2011, Week 5
December 2011, Week 4
December 2011, Week 3
December 2011, Week 2
December 2011, Week 1
November 2011, Week 5
November 2011, Week 4
November 2011, Week 3
November 2011, Week 2
November 2011, Week 1
October 2011, Week 5
October 2011, Week 4
October 2011, Week 3
October 2011, Week 2
October 2011, Week 1
September 2011, Week 5
September 2011, Week 4
September 2011, Week 3
September 2011, Week 2
September 2011, Week 1
August 2011, Week 5
August 2011, Week 4
August 2011, Week 3
August 2011, Week 2
August 2011, Week 1
July 2011, Week 5
July 2011, Week 4
July 2011, Week 3
July 2011, Week 2
July 2011, Week 1
June 2011, Week 5
June 2011, Week 4
June 2011, Week 3
June 2011, Week 2
June 2011, Week 1
May 2011, Week 5
May 2011, Week 4
May 2011, Week 3
May 2011, Week 2
May 2011, Week 1
April 2011, Week 5
April 2011, Week 4
April 2011, Week 3
April 2011, Week 2
April 2011, Week 1
March 2011, Week 5
March 2011, Week 4
March 2011, Week 3
March 2011, Week 2
March 2011, Week 1
February 2011, Week 4
February 2011, Week 3
February 2011, Week 2
February 2011, Week 1
January 2011, Week 5
January 2011, Week 4
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager