Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 8, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

FARM WORKERS AND THE UFW....The United Farm Workers union isn't something I've ever paid deep attention to, but I've been reading bits and pieces for years suggesting that the UFW has basically betrayed Cesar Chavez's legacy by abandoning the fieldworkers themselves and focusing its attention mostly on bits of occasional lobbying combined with a healthy chunk of self-promotion. Today, the LA Times publishes way more than just a few bits and pieces about this:

Thirty-five years after Chavez riveted the nation, the strikes and fasts are just history, the organizers who packed jails and prayed over produce in supermarket aisles are gone, their righteous pleas reduced to plaintive laments.

What remains is the name, the eagle and the trademark chant of "S se puede" ("Yes, it can be done") a slogan that rings hollow as UFW leaders make excuses for their failure to organize California farmworkers.

Today, a Times investigation has found, Chavez's heirs run a web of tax-exempt organizations that exploit his legacy and invoke the harsh lives of farmworkers to raise millions of dollars in public and private money.

The money does little to improve the lives of California farmworkers, who still struggle with the most basic health and housing needs and try to get by on seasonal, minimum-wage jobs.

Most of the funds go to burnish the Chavez image and expand the family business, a multimillion-dollar enterprise with an annual payroll of $12 million that includes a dozen Chavez relatives.

The whole story weighs in at 5,000 words and it's worth reading. Parts 2-4 will run later this week.

Kevin Drum 12:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)

Bookmark and Share

I thought anyone who paid any attention to the UFW already realized that it was a self-interested company making a living for its management via extortion rather than a genuine representative of workers.

It's really only liberal students who still haven't twigged that Chavez is dead who still pay them any attention.

Posted by: Michael Friedman on January 8, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

I can't believe we've reached the point where an ostensibly serious newspaper laments the fact that organized crime is on the decline.

Why do liberals always forget that Chavez organized illegal immigrants? Chavez was the equivalent of a mafia kingpin, creating a hiearchy of criminals, attempting to extort those in the business of farming. The fact that the left idolizes him speaks of how highly the left thinks of anti-property rights criminals.

Posted by: Al on January 8, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Fine work Kevin/Al, but how did you miss the Wal-Mart Online Movie Recommendations linking "The Planet of the Apes" to movies about Rev Martin Luther King?

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 8, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Al:>"I can't believe we've reached the point where an ostensibly serious newspaper laments the fact that organized crime is on the decline."

Straw man. Thet's not what Kevin said.

Posted by: Joey G. on January 8, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Given that there's a rather large body of scholarship that writes about the Planet of the Apes films as civil rights movement allegories, why is that so surprsing, thirdPaul?

Posted by: Hank Scorpio on January 8, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

why is that so surprsing, thirdPaul?

Probably becuase Amazon, which arguably has the most sophisticated recommendation engine, does not give the same recommendations as Wal-Mart's.

Also, Wal-Mart has turned off its recommendations due to "errors".

But nice try anyway, Hank.

Posted by: pebird on January 8, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

There was an interesting Op-Ed in the NYT at the end of December about how much work the Unions have put in (over the last 30 years) to stopping national healthcare. Because they either (a) thought they had a better deal bilking industry, or (b) had their own healthcare programs that were big reasons that people joined the unions in the first place, worrying that healthcare was the single most important organizing principle and if the government picked it up their would be no unions. Our Unions are/have been broken for a long while. They've moved beyond working for the greater good and moved into their own self-preservation a long while ago. Unfortunately.

Posted by: DC1974 on January 8, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

Why do liberals always forget that Chavez organized illegal immigrants?

Why do wingnuts always forget that that is precisely who the farm corporations were hiring? Who else was he supposed to organize? Jesus, what a stupid observation, Al!

Posted by: jcricket on January 8, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

Since this is the first time I have ever commented at the Washington Monthly,I have been a long time reader of this web site. And the folks who manage this effort for my benefit, I must express my thanks for a job always well done.

However, I do not advocate, condone, or villify such behavior by the management of the UFW, but I did grow up a migrant worker in a large family that put the fruits and vegetables on the tables of Americans.

Perhaps, the "problem" if there is one is that Cesar Chavez did not accrue a vast fortune of wealth in his lifetime, but he did leave a considerable legacy for those who did this daily toil. Moreover, had he left a vast wealth in place, he too would have formed a foundation or trust for posterity's sake. And of course, he never had the wealth to establish a 'chair' at a major university or college to pepetuate the notion that the future of knowledge rests on the shoulders of those folks from yester-year.

And it is always easy to attack any legacy through the behavior of others as part of an overall effort to dimish organized labor, even from those who enjoy these benefits of rather inexpensive priced fruits and vegetables at the dinner table.

Jim Gonzales
Chicano Veterans Organization

Posted by: Jim Gonzales on January 8, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

Joey G: Straw man. Thet's not what Kevin said.

Yes it is! The fact that criminals aren't sufficiently organized is supposed to be a bad thing. The only difference is that Kevin/The LA Times obscures the facts by saying "Migrant workers".

Jcricket: Why do wingnuts always forget that that is precisely who the farm corporations were hiring? Who else was he supposed to organize? Jesus, what a stupid observation, Al!

Chavez should have worked with INS to deport the illegal workers. Then, after exploitable labor was no longer there, market forces would require the farmers to pay the fair market value of the work, which may or may not be higher than what the farmers we're getting prior to Chavez's RICO-like activities.

Posted by: Al on January 8, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

Chavez should have worked with INS to deport the illegal workersPosted by: Al on January 8, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

Bullshit. The farm corporations should have been hiring within the law and not creating the market in the first place. Your arguement puts the cart before the horse. No market, no migration. But that was and is not reality. Just like your argument.

Posted by: jcricket on January 8, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Jim Gonzales:

Sorry, Jim, but people who are well-informed and actually have personal knowledge about a subject aren't allowed on these comment threads.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 8, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

And for the record, most large unions seem to be more about the union, its power, and its political influence, than they are about the workers.

A bit about the NEA here.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 8, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

Jim Gonzales:

Sorry, Jim, but people who are well-informed and actually have personal knowledge about a subject aren't allowed on these comment threads.
Posted by: tbrosz on January 8, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

Good one!

Gotta get some errands run for a while. I'll catch up with you all sometime tonight. It's been fun.

Posted by: jcricket on January 8, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

Al is flat-out wrong -- and it is a bloody shame that on this of all sites, nobody called him on it right away.

Chavez did not organize illegal workers. He was a principal advocate for sanctions on employers who hired illegal workers. He was a PASSIONATE opponent of illegal immigration in itself and as a way of breaking unions, and he was a principal reason the bracero guest worker program was finally repealed. (Which actually brought consumer prices DOWN, btw.)

What's the matter with you people?

Posted by: theAmericanist on January 8, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Good point, Americanist.

Why in god's grey earth would a LABOR ORGANIZER be in favor of illegal immigration?

I wasn't on the thread at the time or I would have clobbered Al over it.


Posted by: rmck1 on January 8, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

Hiring illegal immigrants is the single most effective union-busting technique there is.

They have to eat whatever wages, hours and working conditions that their employers provide -- PERIOD. You no li-kee, go back to Mexico.



Posted by: rmck1 on January 8, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

Think of the business the heirs of Albert Einstein are passing up.

Hillary is marketing her husband's name. So did Liz Dole. Not to mention Bush.

What about the Hunt's, the Ford's. They have national corporations which rely on the family name.

The Chavez family should market organic, union grown food. Be the Trader Joe's of the food distribution, why not?

Let the family have it's run, just tell them to be profitable. If anyone is in the market for political nostalgia, let them sell it.

Posted by: Matt on January 8, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

Chavez was the public face of the UFW, but its founding and success also rested on the sharp negotiating skills of its other main leader, Dolores Huerta, who's still quite alive.

I certainly hope the LA Times, in this series, includes her thoughts about all that's occurring. I'd trust her opinion and recommendations far more than the claims of any corporate media reporter. Has the Chavez family corrupted its mission? Ask Dolores. I've interviewed her before and she'll give a straight answer. And to exclude her would be a journalistic faux pas of the highest order.

Posted by: Kevin Hayden on January 8, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

Chavez should have worked with INS to deport the illegal workers.

He did. He set up something similar with the Border Patrol to what the Minutemen are doing these days.

Posted by: Derek Copold on January 8, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

Tbrosz writes:

"And for the record, most large unions seem to be more about the union, its power, and its political influence, than they are about the workers."

Typical Tbrosz technique: To source his "for the record" T-twit cites an editorial from the Wall Street Journal, which we may describe as a less-than-dispassionate analyst of trade unionism. The WSJ blathers on about NEA contributing to liberal causes. Duh.

Another Typical Tbrosz technique: the fatuous distinction, this time power/influence vs. being "about the workers." Last time I looked, if a union wants to be "about the workers" it must have political influence and power. Will an organization such as the NEA use that power to support causes the WSJ editorial board finds objectionable? I certainly hope so.

If the material in the Times article(s) is correct, the UFW leadership deserves whatever punishment it receives. Worse. And no one on this board would dispute that. But please, take your knee-jerk antiunionism to the NRO corner or some other suitable venue.

Posted by: Friend of Labor on January 8, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

For the record, I've done my share of field work in my life but never for the minimum wage, as piece work pays for the strong and the motivated.

More to the point, how well should a job pay that requires no education, no criminal background check, no real skills. So you can't support a family on it. Then don't have a family, or if you do, they will have to be out there with you. In a sense, the whole idea of minimum wage is to declare that humans should not be allowed to work at any task that is not worth a fortune to society. That's arbitrary tyranny. Moreover, most field work today, if someone waves a magic wand today and declares that every field worker must earn $30/hr and get ful benefits, will immediately be taken over by a robotic machine. Both the concepts of "exploitation" and the "irreplaceability" of uneducated labor really look bogus in the high tech age.

Posted by: Michael L. Cook on January 8, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, or whoever the hell is supposed to be the informed backbone for this thread:

1) Chavez (and Huerta) founded the UFW precisely because illegal workers and braceros (and those who were citizens, but treated like chattel) were used to keep farmworkers from organizing;

2) One of the major pieces of Great Society legislation that had to be sold TO, not by, LBJ, was the repeal of the bracero program;

3) Chavez was a lifelong advocate of fining employers who hire illegal workers (the law throughout most of his career was the "Texas proviso", which made it a crime to 'harbor' an illegal alien, but not to hire one);

3) during the bracero program (1942-1964) 4.6 million braceros were imported -- and 5.2 million "illegals" were deported, largely through the Eisenhower administration street sweeps known as (I kid you not) "Operation Wetback";

4) when the bracero program was finally ended and (gasp!) free market economics forced onto growers, they automated and mechanized and PRICES WENT DOWN.

By the early 1980s, though, ostensible representatives of 'migrant workers' who claimed 'civil rights' credentials, had pulled off a truly Orwellian feat, opposing enforcement of the employer sanctions that Chavez had fought for his whole life. Now these same clowns (whose legislative genius brought us the welfare ban of the 1990s and the 3/10 year immigration ban to outlaw or exile LEGAL immigrant wives and kids by the million), are trying to sell a guest worker deal with "earned authorization".

And they've joined hands with Grover Norquist (again!) to oppose enforcing employer sanctions.

If you're gonna post on history, make it REAL history, not bullshit. And if you're gonna make vague reference to current policy choices: GET 'EM RIGHT.

Posted by: theAmericanist on January 8, 2006 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

Al writes:

"Why do liberals always forget that Chavez organized illegal immigrants?"

The truth about Chavez is much more interesting. A third-generation American citizen from Yuma, Arizona, he was first and foremost a labor leader, as crafty and sometimes ruthless as any effective union boss must be. Today, Mexican-American educators and politicians have one simple priority: more immigration. Every warm body with a brown skin increases their clout. But, then and now, union leaders have the opposite need. The UFW's essential problem was the same as all other unions', straight out of Econ 101. Chavez needed to limit the supply of labor in order to drive up wages.

From this grew the fundamental conflict of his life. Was he an American class warrior or a Mexican mestizo racial activist? What came first: La Causa or La Raza? This irresolvable dual identity culminated in the terrible irony of his tragic last dozen years.

Chavez's success at bringing better wages to stoop laborers in the early Seventies stemmed from the long-term decline in the pool of available migrant farm workers. According to agricultural economist Philip L. Martin of UC Davis, migrant farm workers in the U.S. numbered 2,000,000 in the Twenties. But the U.S. government started to crack down on Mexican illegal immigrants, most notably during 1954's "Operation Wetback," when a million were loaded onto railroad cars and shipped home. By Chavez's heyday in the early Seventies, there were only 200,000 migrant farm workers left. Which made his triumphs feasible.

In his prime, Chavez fought constantly against illegal immigration. He frequently complained that the Immigration & Naturalization Service wasn't tough enough. When Chavez would lead a strike, the grower would send trucks across the Mexican border, load them up with scabs, and race back to the Central Valley in the dead of night. Chavez even offered his UFW staffers to the INS to serve as volunteer border guards to keep Mexicans from sneaking into California. As Ruben Navarrette Jr. reported in the Arizona Republic: (8/31/97)

"Cesar Chavez, a labor leader intent on protecting union membership, was as effective a surrogate for the INS as ever existed. Indeed, Chavez and the United Farm Workers Union he headed routinely reported, to the INS, for deportation, suspected illegal immigrants who served as strikebreakers or refused to unionize."

You can find out more about what actually happened to the UFW here:


Posted by: Steve Sailer on January 8, 2006 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

Steve Sailor, theAmericanist, and Rmck1:

I want to thank you for providing the actual facts of Chavez' history and ask that you accept my apologies for making the presumption that the migrant workers he defended included illegals. I guess I was so disgusted with the (now obvious)"bait of a post" that I wanted the troll to understand that the onus is on employers not the unions to ensure their workforce is in the country legally.

To be sure, I am still green on this blog, but am learning the rules and cast of characters. Please be patient -- and do set me straight if I goof like this again. Truth is paramount.

Sincerely, and regards ~

Posted by: jcricket on January 9, 2006 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK

Why do liberals always forget that Chavez organized illegal immigrants?

Actually, it's the opposite: Chavez was opposed to illegal immigration.

Of course, nowadays "liberals" support illegal immigration for various reasons: they like the Mexican oligarchy, they support corrupt corporations, they support the GOP leadership, they like union busting, they like lowering wages for low-wage-earning Americans, they can't figure things out, they have psychological problems, etc. etc.

Plus, they like cheap lettuce at any price.

Posted by: TLB on January 9, 2006 at 1:30 AM | PERMALINK

Who are you people? Unions by their very nature are desinged to secure better conditions/pay/benefits for their members. This is the sole reason unions exist. Yet over and over on this board I read things like 'well the unions are really just looking out for their members.'
Corporations are managed to maximize profit and value for their shareholders. Unions are managed to maximize wages and benefits for their members.

Unions are generally progressive and were responsible for many of the working conditions/benefits we take for granted today.
Carrying the flag for progressive causes is not their primary purpose however.

Posted by: no scabs on January 9, 2006 at 3:27 AM | PERMALINK

Congratulations to Kevin Hayden, steve sailor, and theAmericanist for being accurate in their statements.

For those of us who have experienced the manifestly back-breaking hard work in the farm fields, the Cesar Chavez Legacy has carried us forward into the armed forces where we laced up our combat boots and strapped on the body armor in defense of our nation. Thus, "prosperity" has been and is our motivating force in life. As such, organized labor is and can be effective as a catalyst for life changes for achieving this prosperity.

And as military veterans, we have long advocated the notional for Trans-National Technology Centers located along our borders and that would permit undocumented immigrants to purchase for a minimal fee, their work permits which encourages security and safety for these employees and which takes the onus off of Corporate America all the while encouraging organized labor to seek out and expand their membership rolls.

Furthermore, we have advocated the idea of "rolling over" a universal health care system into the Veterans Administration Hospital System as the premier provider and delivery system. And yet, organized labor and the small business community of operators are opposed, but if done correctly, over 45 million Americans and all the migrants workers would be covered.

And as you can see or read, the Chavez Legacy continues forward as we evolve our thinking to address our national needs, and of course, this "legacy" will never be addressed by the writers of the Los Angeles Times. And I won't hold my breath expecting the traditional top down media to accurately reflect the usual "unassailable" facts.

Moving from farm workers to military vets to good citizens, doesn't sell newspapers, as we all know well, but any "crisis" does.

Posted by: Jim Gonzales on January 9, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

This is the problem with all organizations: they are originally formed to provide some benefit to their members but then devolve to provide benefits mostly to their managers. Labor organizations are particularily easy targets to demonstrate this phenomena, as the social scientist Robert Michels demonstrated almost a hundred years ago.

It is one reason why I think the Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans, although not as brazenly corrupt recently.

Posted by: Powerpuff on January 9, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK
Of course, nowadays "liberals" support illegal immigration for various reasons

Which liberals support illegal immigration?

Posted by: cmdicely on January 9, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

I support calling all peoples human beings and letting them cross arbitrary frontiers without having their humanity belittled. So, I do support eliminating the word illegal as an adjective of immigration, which is just natural migration of individuals seeking to improve their lives. My ancestors migrated to the US and so did every one else's. Let us welcome them as fellow human beings.

I am concerned about the idea of revoking the citizenship of children born from migrants deemed illegal. Most people think it means children born of Mexican and other Latin American migrants, but I think this idea could be used against any citizen whose ancestor's migration may not have been as legal as they assume. How many Irish, Polish, Chinese, etc. citizens can prove great grandpa/grandma really legally immigrated? Certainly many ethnic groups were not welcome when they came to America, and this may be a way to send their dissident children back where there ancestors came from. There have already been politicians who have vocalized the idea of revoking citizenship for dissent, so they may use ancestor illegal immigration to deport them.

Posted by: Hostile on January 9, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

Why do so many liberals turn a blind eye toward the illegal aspect of illegal immigration? When do you decide that some laws really are not meant to be followed? Either we are a nation of laws or we are not - you do not get to pick and choose.

Posted by: sans papels on January 9, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

The only thing 'illegal' about immigration is rabid American bigots put the word illegal in front of the word migrant and drew imaginary border lines in the dust after their ancestors arrived in America (probably illegally, too.)

Why do so many conservative descendants of European bigots turn a blind eye to the natural migration of Native Americans and demean their humanity by calling them illegal? It is not illegal to be a human being.

Posted by: Hostile on January 9, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

Hostile, you are utterly full of shit.

The "legal" part of immigration denotes the path to citizenship. Citizenship is an AMERICAN invention -- with Greek and Roman roots, to be sure: but at the time of the Founding, the only citizens on the planet were Americans. Everybody else was subject to a sovereign. Here, "We, the People" are sovereign.

Sans is even worse: the core policies to enforce the law against people we don't want here (that's why illegal aliens ARE illegal) were all proposed, backed, and passed by liberals: Senator Paul Douglas in the 50s, Cesar Chavez, Father Ted Hesburgh, the late Barbara Jordan.

This ain't complex: the purpose of American immigration is new American citizens. "They" become "us", and who "we" are (as in "We, the People") changes and expands to include 'em.

Legal immigrants are people we WANT. That's why they are legal.

Illegal foreigners are people we do NOT want. That's why they are illegal.

You cannot make sense if you cannot make distinctions.

The Rule for American immigration (with many exceptions, but it's still the Rule) is that legal immigrants are INVITED. If you weren't invited here, we don't want you. If there isn't a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident who has invited you: we don't want you here.

THAT is the law (somewhat oversimplified). If you want to argue history, well: learn some, we'll talk.

If you want to get all over-arching about it, heed the late Barbara Jordan: "I would be the last to claim that our nation is perfect. But we as a nation have a kind of perfection in us, because our founding principle is universal: we are all created equal.... it was immigration that made the universal promises of the Founding, apply universally. When the Declaration was written, when the Constitution was adopted, their promise applied to white men with property on the East Coast... it was immigration that drove us down the track to a broader and more true vision of ourselves." (Speech to Perot convention, 1995)

The fact is, if we can't say "no" effectively, our "yes" becomes essentially meaningless.

Get the point?


Posted by: theAmericanist on January 9, 2006 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINK

The fact that the left idolizes him speaks of how highly the left thinks of anti-property rights criminals.

Posted by: james on January 10, 2006 at 2:13 AM | PERMALINK

adult personals - adult personals and adult singles top


free adult personals - free adult personals, adult singles

and adult chat rooms

adult dating - adult dating for adult personals and adult singles

free adult dating - free adult dating with free adult web cam and

free adult chat - adult dating free

adult swingers - adult swingers and adult personals use this free

adult web cam and adult chat

free adult swingers - free adult swingers, free adult personals -

adult sex dating

adult chat - adult chat and free adult dating for adult personals

free adult chat - free adult chat and free adult web cam

adult friend - adult friend and adult personals free adult dating

adult web cam - adult web cam and free adult chat for sex


adult finder - adult finder for adult personals

free adult web cam - free adult web cam and free adult chat

adult dating service - free adult dating service with free adult


sex dating - sex dating for adult personals and erotic adult


adult sex dating - adult sex dating for adult personals and adult


adult singles - adult singles for adult sex dating

sex adult dating - sex adult dating, adult singles site

adult dating service - adult dating service, sex adult dating

adult models directory - top adult models free directory

adult friend finder - find adult friend for free

adult finder - adults find friends for free!

adult chat - best adult chat available here

best porn stars - best and most famous porn stars

adult dating - top adult dating site

adult dating chat -
adult dating chat - any adult welcome!

adult sex dating - adult sex dating portal

free adult dating - free adult dating available here

adult dating online - adult dating online best choice

adult dating personals - find adult dating personals here

adult dating site - best adult dating site

adult xxx dating - adult xxx dating available here

adult singles dating - adult singles dating top site

porn star gallery - most famous porn stars free gallerys

porn star gals - best porn star free gals

famous porn stars - most famous porn stars free photos

porn stars - porn stars and adult models free photos

free porn stars - free porn stars listings and galleries

top porn stars - top porn stars free listings

online dating service - free online dating


dating services - free dating services, online


single dating - singles dating online

internet dating - best internet dating site!

christian dating - christians dating services


christian dating service - dating service for


christian dating services - dating services

for christians

free online dating - free online dating services

online dating Louisville - Louisville online


hispanic dating service - hispanic dating


dating lexington online -
dating lexington online singles and personals
Discount Pharmacy discount pharmacy
best choice

Online Pharmacy cheap online pharmacy

Discount Online Pharmacy at best prices.

Sildenafil Citrate
Sildenafil Citrate pills

Tadalafil - Tadalafil
pills and Generic Cialis - Generic Cialis pills

Vardenafil HCI

6-Tablet Trial Pack

Carisoprodol (



Finasteride (



Atorvastatin (




Celecoxib (



Metformin (



Amlodipine (



Simvastatin (




Atomoxetine (



Bupropion SR (



Eszopiclone (



Fexofenadine (



Loratidine (



Ranitidine (



Regalis (




Free games free games

free ringtones free ringtones

free online games free online games

free screensaver free screensaver

free credit report
free credit report

free clip art free clip art

free downloads free downloads

free stuff free stuff

free wallpapers free wallpapers

free email free email

free people search free people search

free translation free translation

free chat rooms free chat rooms

free chat free chat

free software downloads free software downloads

free sample and free samples

free desktop wallpaper free desktop wallpapers

Skin treatment skin treatment

natural skin care natural skin care

Natural skin treatment Natural skin treatment

Best sex toys store
Sex toys, sex videos and more

sex toys
sex toys store for discount prices

adult sex toys
adult sex toys for best prices

sex toys store
best sex toys store

Dating information, dating tips, dating articles

internet dating top dating site

free internet dating available here.

Posted by: dating on January 11, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK



Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM

buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly