« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »

October 2005 Archives

October 1, 2005

Election Reform or Racism?

As expected, a lawsuit was files today challenging a new Georgia law designed to prevent voter fraud. At least, the state senators and representatives, joined by the state’s governor, alleged it was designed to prevent voter fraud. Jimmy Carter does not agree. "It was specifically designed to prevent old people, poor people and African-Americans from voting," he said. Carter and the usual motley crew were on the capital steps in Atlanta today to raise the banner of the oppressed. It wasn’t pretty. But Jimmy Carter and embarrassingly ignorant assertions have gone together like peaches and cream since about 1976. The law is being compared to a poll tax. Such demagoguery plays well up north, but it is pathetic to see that argument being made by people who should remember the crimes of Jim Crow. The article notes that there are twice as many registered drivers as there are registered voters in Georgia. Georgians, like Americans everywhere, have shown what is important to them. Voting laws are structured by those who give a rip.

Those intrepid individuals who actually do vote in Georgia give a rip, and the rip they currently are giving centers on shamefully loose voting procedures. There have been some shenanigans recently. Georgia would like to require voters to show a valid, government issued voter registration card when they go to the polls. Eligible citizens who were able to get themselves off the couch could get one (good for five years) at various government offices, much like drivers’ licensing. The $20 fee could be waived for the poor. The cost-benefit analysis is stark.

Cost: mild inconvenience for the small fraction of eligible voters who would have difficulty getting to an office or completing the paperwork.

Benefit: extreme tightening of voter tallies and decrease in opportunities for fraud.

Which is the fundamental principle of our republic? To have the apparatus of representative government brought to individuals on TV trays on the off chance that they might want to utilize it (after the Desperate Housewives rerun)? Or to ensure that the votes of those who were willing to participate are counted accurately and their collective will correctly implemented?

October 3, 2005

Harriet Miers: This is the Best?

If a second term president caves in on a major appointment before any whining from the minority party actually takes place, is it still pandering? Or do we need another term? Perhaps “executive preemptive surrender” will do.

Its not that Harriet Miers is unqualified in any way. The fact that she is outside the usual network of Supreme Court appointees could make her a refreshing voice. Its not that she is 60, which will necessarily limit her influence. Its not even that she is a Bush crony; indeed, many presidents have been disappointed when they nominated strangers whose greatest asset was a thumbs-up from the ABA. Here, Bush can have some confidence that he knows the heart of his appointee.

The trouble with Harriet Miers is that she is not Michael McConnell, Edith Jones or Michael Luttig. The goal of realigning the Court to conform to a more humble vocation is only part of the equation. The main responsibility of any president is to elevate the best and brightest to positions of power. When “confirmability” and “predicatablity” assume paramount importance, the battle is already lost. That is the shallow thinking that got us into this mess.

The best judicial minds are conservative. The long string of liberal misrepresentations delivered over the last half century are not onerous and reprehensible to conservatives merely because we disagree. They earn contempt because they are poorly reasoned and do violence to our constitutional order. The Bush administration has surrendered this high ground without a fight.

October 5, 2005

P By Any Other Name

What happens when pornograhy tries to be "academic." You have to change the name. An interesting e-mail that landed in my inbox at one of our nation's top universities. No, I'm not making this up.


THE VELVET LIGHT TRAP
A CRITICAL JOURNAL OF FILM AND TELEVISION STUDIES

Call for Papers: P**n*gr*phy (hereafter P)

P has always been a ubiquitous, yet peripheral, part of the motion picture industry. Various events throughout the latter half of the 20th century have given p films a more visible presence in the public sphere. But as p becomes increasingly widespread and accessible, media scholars have largely resisted it as an object of inquiry. Despite annual revenues currently surpassing those of Hollywood and much of the sports industry, p still remains "obscene" in the sense that film theorist Linda Williams recently used the term -- "off-stage" or "out of public view." Over the last fifteen years, scholars have inched p closer and closer to center stage. Issue #59 of The Velvet Light Trap will continue in that tradition. The editors seek essays that build on the momentum of recent scholarly work and address p in its varied forms.


Possible topics for this issue include but are not limited to:
* Connotations of the words "p-grapy" or "p**n"
* Genres
* Sexually Explicit Art Cinema -- (e.g. Patrice Chereau, Catherine Breillat, Andrew Repasky McElhinney, Baise-Moi, Porn Theatre)
* P from non-Western countries
* Teaching p
* Amateur p
* Production companies
* The avant-garde as p / p as avant-garde
* Questions of "the real" and evidence
* Feminist interventions
* P stars as celebrities / celebrities as p stars
* Documentaries about p- (e.g. Shooting P, Sex: The Annabel Chong Story, Inside Deep Throat, P Star: The Legend of Ron Jeremy, Kamikaze Hearts, Wadd: The Life and Times of John C. Holmes)
* Films about p - (e.g. The Fluffer, Demonlover, Orgazmo, Wonderland, Boogie Nights, 8MM, Inserts)
* Softcore vs. hardcore
* Changing definitions of p
* Exhibition/distribution
* Delivery systems
* Queering p
* Internet p
* Canon formation
* Narrative strategies
* Technology
* Theories of the visible and audible
* Intersections with race and class
* Censorship
* Rating systems
* P Auteurs
* P Classics
* Careers in p

To be considered for publication, papers should be between 4,500 and 7,500 words, double-spaced, in MLA style, with the author's name and contact information included only on the cover page. Queries regarding potential submissions also are welcome. Authors are responsible for acquiring related visual images and the associated copyrights. For more information or to submit a query, please
contact Leslie Delassus (lesliedelassus@earthlink.net). All submissions are due January 15, 2006.

The Velvet Light Trap is an academic, refereed journal of film and television studies published semi-annually by University of Texas Press. Issues are coordinated alternately by graduate students at the University of Texas-Austin and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. After a prescreening, articles are anonymously refereed by specialist readers of the journal's Editorial Advisory Board, which includes such notable scholars as Charles Acland, David William Foster, Sean Griffin, Bambi Haggins, Heather Hendershot, Charlie Keil, Michele Malach, Dan Marcus, Nina Martin, Tara McPherson, Walter Metz, Jason Mittell, James Morrison, Steve Neale, Karla Oeler, Lisa Parks, and Malcolm Turvey.

Please address submissions to:
The Velvet Light Trap
c/o The Department of Radio-Television-Film
University of Texas at Austin
CMA 6.118, Mail Code A0800
Austin, TX 78712


The spam filters know it isn't academic. Now if only the academics would wise up!

The Pyrrhic Presidency

When the sorrowful history of early 21st century conservatism is written, chiseled into tear-stained stone tablets by candlelight, the term “compassionate conservatism” will be remembered as the harbinger of political doom. Let the hidden scrolls and cave paintings bear witness to that phrase dropping conspicuously on the 2000 campaign trail from the lips of George W. Bush, he of the Biblical allusions and furrowed brow. The true believers of conservatism may now begin stocking their fallout shelters in preparation for the long, dark ice age ahead. As they mournfully turn the moral tundra for a few turnips, they will wail and gnash their teeth, accusing themselves of willful ignorance in regard to that infamous phrase. “We should have suspected,” they will lament. “We should have seen it coming…pass the squirrel soup and put another back issue of National Review on the fire, will you honey? My martini is freezing solid.”

With the appointment of Harriet Meirs, a cynic (were there one among us) might conclude that conservatives must now embrace their exile. A substantial argument can be made that never has a political victory cost so much as the one conservatives delivered to George Bush in 2000. Undoubtedly, he looked and sounded conservative against a backdrop of Clinton, Gore and the usual lunatics at the DNC. But the actual meaning of words has always been important to conservatives, and “compassionate conservatism” ought to have given pause. The phrase assumes as true the longstanding liberal slander that conservatism is harsh, uncaring and impersonal. To admit this fallacy is to eviscerate the entire conservative worldview. Is it compassionate to enable the poor to remain poor, aided only by government handouts? Is it compassionate to legitimize destructive behavior, be it abortion, homosexuality or drug use? What Bush espouses now as a vision is actually a philosophically desolate moonscape adorned with the shiny furniture of postmodern decadence. In other words, he’s a liberal.

If conservatives wanted a ballooning deficit (Iraq), federal meddling in local affairs (No Child Left Behanind), reckless domestic spending (Katrina aid), stifled political speech (McCain/Feingold), and endlessly expanding entitlements (Medicare prescriptions), they would have elected Gore or Kerry. Undoubtedly, there were political considerations to Bush’s advocacy for these and other initiatives, but another core conservative value is that politics serves truth, not the other way around. Winning the White House is meaningless if the values enshrined there are not honorable. Bush has abandoned conservatives. They will now abandon him, preserving authentic culture, honoring philosophy, waiting in the hills for national politicians who are more worthy of their energies. The martinis will be less tasty in the caves, but at least there will still be something to toast.

October 6, 2005

New Mass Translation

A new draft translation of the Ordo Missae has found its way out of Rome. Catholic News Service has the scoop.

Many Catholics in English-speaking nations have looked forward to a new order of the mass since John Paul II’s 2001 “Liturgiam Authenticam” which was an adminition for clarity in translations from Latin. CNS offers side-by-side comparison of the current and the proposed translations of many basic prayers and responses uttered at Mass. The most important change is the correction in the Creed from “we believe” to “I believe.” There are deep theological issues at play here, but the strongest argument for the change is that the Latin inarguably uses the first person. Accuracy is the first duty of the translator. As a non-Latin ignoranti, I wonder what other inaccuracies have crept in.

Bishops' Synod Staying Busy

The Synod of Bishops in Rome is off to a rousing start. The meeting of 242 bishops from around the world runs through October. The general theme is tied to the Year of the Eucharist which also concludes this month. The bishops have come from all over the world. After the serene conclave of cardinals this summer, this rabble of bishops is both refreshing and revealing.

After only a few days, they are busy. The reports are spotty and intermittent, but some serious issues have already emerged. Bishop Javier Echevarria has reportedly suggested that communion not be distributed at huge outdoor masses (despite John Paul II’s frequent use of them), claiming that it cannot be done with dignity. Also, the pros and cons of Eucharistic adoration (there are cons?) have been debated. Some are calling for a return to receiving Communion only on the tongue. Some are discussing stem cell research and ecological issues. The old lament about declining priestly vocations is ubiquitous, and there are bishops now actively campaigning for the removal of the celibacy requirement, and criticizing the recent announcement that active homosexuals not be admitted to seminaries.


Of course, this meeting has an advisory role only and no radical changes are to be expected. Nonetheless, visit the Holy See Press Office for the blow-by-blow.

October 7, 2005

Signs of Constitutional Life

The Senate, lead by presidential aspirant John McCain, has drafted legislation that would regulate the detention and interrogation of individuals held by the US military. Though such a law is unlikely to emerge from the House, the fact that several prominent Republican senators have opposed President Bush signals the dwindling of support for the administration’s policy. The regulations take the form of amendments, authored by McCain and tacked on to a military spending bill. If they became law, the amendments would require a uniform manual for handling those in US custody.

Though there is no doubt some cheap pandering here in the shadow of the alleged torture at Gitmo that was so dubiously exaggerated by the media, McCain’s amendments have merit. It is hard to argue with a call for procedures involving human rights where now there are only conflicting protocols and jurisdictions.

However, President Bush’s claim is also valid. Such a manual might undercut some necessary interrogation and bind the US military to unrealistic considerations in a time of war. The manual would not pertain merely to those held at Gitmo, but also to those apprehended in battle or during terrorist attacks both here and abroad.

What we have here is a good old-fashioned constitutional crisis, and it warms my heart. Congress is showing a little institutional spine in response to a perceived over-reach of the executive. The executive is asserting inferred powers and questioning Congress’ right to even speak to the matter. Some may say that this arguing is mere partisan bickering or playing to the crowd, but this is the way the constitution was meant to work. In the words of Hamilton, “Let ambition check ambition.” Congress is unlikely to prevail here, but they will certainly call out the President to make an accounting of his policies.

Nobel Prize Awarded for Abject Failure with Correct Politics

It says here that the Nobel Prize for Peace has been awarded to Mohamed El Baradei and the pathetic International Atomic Energy Agency for which he is responsible. The good folks at the Nobel committee wanted to send a message.
"This is a message to all the people of the world: Do what you can to get rid of nuclear weapons," Nobel committee chairman Ole Danbolt Mjoes said. "The people's power is formidable."
Specifically, the committee wants to applaud the work of El Baradei and the IAEA for what they have tried to do with regard to Iran and North Korea. But isn’t Iran still building its nukes in open defiance of the International Non-Proliferation Treaty and the IAEA? Isn’t North Korea still armed and dangerous, having only mouthed meaningless concessions without allowing IAEA inspectors back in?

The only decisive action the IAEA has taken is to thumb its nose at Washington, and this is the only real accomplishment being praised. The IAEA has no principled argument against nuclear proliferation. Its existence itself is absurd. If the UN had its way, every banana republic on earth would have a reactor for power as well as weapons, preferably aimed at the US. The fact that the vast majority of these countries are politically unstable, morally questionable, intellectually porous and lack any infrastructure for dealing with nuclear waste or a nuclear accident is not discussed. Shall we give the Nobel prize for medicine to the cancer research team that has tirelessly worked to cure cancer by wrapping patients in sliced salami and reciting dirty jokes in Gaelic? After all, they worked hard toward a good goal.

The IAEA has done nothing to get rid of nuclear weapons. Indeed, its policies (or lack thereof) have made the world less safe. This award is the culmination of a decline of the Nobel committee to an abject state similar to leftist parties in the US and Europe. They have no policies or platforms other than blind opposition to the well-reasoned positions of their political adversaries.

October 12, 2005

iPod Evangelization

Apple announced their new video ipod today.

The potential for the Church is tremendous, if we take advantage of it.

Tired of father's sermon's? Hopefully the more zealous preachers will have their homilies streaming soon to an ipod near you. Or perhaps we can all catch Benedict's latest Wednesday audience. And I'm sure that live adoration and devotions won't be far behind.

Of course with such opportunity, the case for "presence" will be all the more challenging. Why go to Mass, when you can just watch the homily at your leisure?

October 18, 2005

Excellent Essay on the Liturgy

Prepare to be incriminated. This is a wonderful essay not to be missed.

October 19, 2005

New Blogger!

Greetings!

I have been invited by the blogistas at The Seventh Age to guest blog on the site. I hope my posts will be provocative, informative, and thoughtful (I'll work hard on that last one).

The reason for my anonymity is that in light of the recent scrutiny given to the writings of prospective judges, it is prudent to keep my identity secret. This way, I can actually take positions on the myriad of interesting issues that are dominating public life and the broader culture today.

I will make an effort to respond in the comboxes when I can!

Cheers!

Judge Bork on Harriet Miers and the Federalist Society

This op-ed by the great jurist Robert Bork pretty much sums it up for me. I am hoping Miers does the honorable thing and withdraws.

Daily Roundup

The best of what I've read today:

Jonah Goldberg discusses why as down in the dumps as conservatives are about just about everything, we can always give thanks for Howard Dean. His hilarious use of pop culture references should give pause to anyone who has a tendency to shelter themselves and/or their children from popular culture. It's all about word pictures.

Over at Mirror of Justice, Notre Dame law prof Rick Garnett has a post on Crunchy-Cons and McMansions. "Crunchy-cons" is a term coined by Dallas reporter Rod Dreher to describe the type of conservatives that defy the red/blue stereotypes often noted by commentators such as David Brooks. Dreher has a book with the same title due out in February. For previous Seventh Age commentary on crunchy cons, go here and here.

The Volokh Conspiracy is hosting a debate on same-sex marriage between Maggie Gallagher and University of Minnesota law prof Dale Carpenter. Gallagher is blogging right now, and Carpenter will join the fray in a week. So far, there has been some serious intellectual combat. Check it out.

Michael Barone has an excellent essay at U.S. News & World Report describing the consequences of the liberal elite's disdain for America.

In other news, Bush and Bono talk poverty, and at Amy Welborn's Open Book, you can find out about the feast of the North American martyrs, which is today. Those guys were damn tough. Real men love Jesus.

As always, check out National Review's Bench Memos for the latest on the Harriet Miers flop, and for some great cultural commentary, visit the new blog "On the Square," of the great journal First Things.

October 20, 2005

Comments Update

Due to another increase in spam comments and trackbacks (over 200 spam comments per day), these features will be temporarily disabled.

We value your comments, as they are one of the unique features of the blogging medium, and as soon as we have time to upgrade our blog spam filtering software, we will allow them once again.

Thanks for your patience and understanding!

The Management

Even Liberals Hate Roe

Add Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen to the legion of liberals now questioning the wisdom of pro-choicers' continued defense of Roe v. Wade.

Simply put, it's bad law. Additionally, it isn't just some simple procedure. It has real traumatic consequences, as Cohen acknowledges. He is generally comfortable with the fact that in most states, abortion will be protected through the first trimester, and in the places it isn't, women can travel to a neighboring state. This isn't much of a price to pay for something that is poisoning our politics, legal culture, and actually threatening liberalism's long-term goals.

October 26, 2005

Dubious Gay Marriage Logic

Local law professor Dale Carpenter muddied the usually reliable waters of the National Review Online yesterday with fables of conservative debate on the issue of gay marriage. Carpenter asserts that there are “interesting” and possibly “fruitful” discussions going on in conservative circles. Carpenter states:

“Beginning in the 1990s, a few prominent gay intellectuals like Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch began making what Sullivan called the ‘Conservative Case for Gay Marriage.’ This ‘conservative case’ has rested on the idea that marriage would benefit gays, generally by encouraging long-term commitment among gays and particularly by settling gay men. It would therefore benefit our whole society.”

The sophistry here is redeemed neither by its subtlety nor by its general effectiveness. Framing the alleged debate this way asserts as an accepted truth what is in fact the core of the real debate in our society. This “conservative case” assumes that homosexuality is acceptable, and looks ahead to how best to integrate it. But that assumption is not proven merely by the strength of sheer repetition. The real debate is about the nature of homosexual behavior itself. This battle, like abortion before it, is being inexorable cut off from the public square by a federal judiciary that marches in lockstep with the liberal elite. But we should not let it go without a fight.

Carpenter seems to believe, with Sullivan and others, that being homosexual is like being left-handed. Though its genetic, psychological or environmental origins are unclear, it is a natural occurrence whose only consequence is the difficulties sometimes encountered in a predominantly right-handed world.

The better analogy, however, is to say that being homosexual is like being alcoholic. It causes are indeed unclear, but its consequences are not. Homosexuality is a condition of intrinsic disorder, an affliction like other disorders such as alcoholism, bulimia or kleptomania. It is a burden to bear, and for those who live the lifestyle its appetites demand, it is destructive. To argue that gay marriage would benefit homosexuals is absurd. Society does not seek to benefit alcoholics by delivering liquor to their front doors. Society benefits homosexuals by evincing disapprobation and offering help. To say that married homosexuals in society is better than unmarried homosexuals is like saying its better to have four fingers than three. Better yes, but not right.

The day is coming when a federal court will settle the question of homosexuality for us, handing down its benediction on the homosexual lifestyle in the “sweet mystery of life.” Any disapprobation of homosexuality will then be anathema and countless souls, both heroic and pathetic, will move from the ranks of the afflicted to the ranks of the debased. Until that day, however, it is disingenuous to speak of a gay marriage debate at all. The true debate, whether Carpenter and other want to admit it or not, is the legitimacy of the actively homosexual lifestyle. The burden of proof rests with those who seek to cast aside traditional moral values derived from natural law. Their efforts to misrepresent the disagreement reveal their lack of success in the public square.

Same-Sex Marriage Continued...

While frustration with the direction of the same-sex marriage debate is appropriate, despite the fact that eleven marriage amendments were passed in 2004, I'm not sure Dale Carpenter should be the point of our invective. I actually think the "conservative case for gay marriage" is a helpful contribution to the debate. It actually frames the debate in terminology and concepts that are (or should be) strengths for those who seek to defend the institution of marriage. I think this was the point of his piece in National Review.

Now admittedly, there are some assumptions present within the propositions on which he claims all conservatives agree. But he admits that his schema is simply a proposal, not an ironclad list of definitive truths. This is valuable because at least it creates starting points on ground where we can have a reasoned debate. Considering we need to get past the tolerance, pastel, love everybody rhetoric that currently dominates the conversation, this is an important step. As the data comes in, we can have conversations.

The fact is, the only thing that prevents same-sex marriage in this country is either a Supreme Court ruling, or the yuck factor. People are viscerally opposed to the concept of ssm. Now that of course is a legitimate reaction, considering the fact that we are created in a certain way and there are some things, as J. Budziszewski says, you can't not know, even if you can't articulate a coherent intellectual defense of the position. However, this is not a long-term strategy for winning the public policy debate. In 30 years, the yuck factor that was once present for same-sex marriage could become virtually extinct like the yuck factor of interracial marriage, which is now virtually gone today. (Not that the two are necessarily comparable).

Furthermore, in a culture that has denigrated marriage, wholeheartedly embraced pornography, lives for contraception, relies on divorce and abortion, embraces gay adoption, and no longer sees the value in full-time parents, how can we make a straight-faced argument about preserving marriage to protect the children or not open the floodgates to all sorts of dysfunctional behavior that is already here? At this point, the only argument we've got is that recognizing same-sex marriage would publicly acknowledge and affirm the inherent equality of same-sex relationships. All of the things we claim ssm will cause are for the most part here. Heterosexuals have already ruined marriage. Children are afterthoughts, and ironically, gay parents are surprisingly traditional, with one partner often staying home.

It is worth defending marriage in the hope that by drawing a line in the sand, we can save the legal institutions that will aid us in changing the culture (by which I do not mean rolling back gay rights). If we lose the marriage battle, I think it will be a civilizational-type shift because of the fact that marriage is the basic unit of society. It will re-order everything. Of course if we are wrong about marriage, this won't be a big deal since human beings are purportedly adaptable creatures that create new social institutions to preserve order. However, if we are wired a certain way, or should I say created a certain way, by thwarting nature this will come back to bite us bad. It seems that many of the "developments" in the area of sex, gender, and family over the last 60 years have not been good for society as a whole. But at this point, recognizing ssm simply affirms the cultural trend. The point is, the effects of disordered sexual relations are already here. Drafting a parade of horribles is not going to help us win the debate.

Thus, Dale Carpenter provides a valuable resource in the conversation. He is sensible, a person of good-will, and wants to foster a way in which everyone can live with a development that is almost assuredly over the horizon. Furthermore, he gives us real propositions that we can debate, rather than the sloppy rhetoric where we will most assuredly lose in the long run. And when ssm does come, and it will, the conservative case for gay marriage may help reign in some of the excesses that the Gay Left might try to bootstrap to it.

So, let's celebrate the conservative case for gay marriage and have a conversation.

A Conversation, Yes. Celebrations, No.

Invective is denunciatory or abusive language, and I hope I have spread none in my remarks. I do not know Professor Carpenter personally. I trust he is a fine gentleman and a worthy scholar of the law. The position taken in his NRO article has been asserted before and has a life all its own. If there is to be denunciation it is the argument that is attacked, not the man.

It is the premise that we must be wary of, and not the conclusion. For the reasons our mysterious, anonymous poster pointed out, gay marriage is difficult (though not impossible) to argue against from a policy standpoint. The institution is already in ruins. The unmistakable premise in this argument is that homosexuality is natural, no better or worse than heterosexuality.

There is a certain arrogance in this argument that the temptations of homosexuals are somehow deeper and more meaningful than those of others. But there is no great difference in temptation between, for instance, the sexual desire a man feels for another man and the sexual desire a man feels for a woman who is not his wife. Both can be extremely powerful. Both are traditionally held to be impure impulses. Both require effort if illicit behavior is to be avoided. But a man who feels adulterous temptations does not define himself by his affliction and begin speaking of “adulterer’s rights” and “adulterers’ marriage.” Carpenter has said, “Given that they exist and aren't going to go away, what's to be done with gay people? Are they going to be marginalized and alienated, or included in American life?” But what is so special about moral difficulties of a sexual nature? Everyone has their problems, brother. It’s a fallen world out there. To the extent you’re your behavior falls outside the bounds of acceptability, you’ll feel marginalized. This is not a choice between gay marriage on the one hand and gay gulags on the other. The lustful aren’t going away either, nor are the gluttonous, the slothful, the avaricious or the wrathful. Indeed, we all carry these burdens. It is how we bear them that matters.

It is the definition of man, and the ever decreasing ability to speak of right and wrong, that is at the heart of any debate we ought to be having. Is homosexuality disordered or natural? Morally wrong or morally neutral? That is the only debate worth having. There is no principled argument against gay marriage (or any one of a host of other ancillary turmoil) except that it violates the natural law of God. If we are unwilling to speak such an insensitive phrase, we have already lost the debate and a blog like this one is just a vanity press.

About October 2005

This page contains all entries posted to The Seventh Age in October 2005. They are listed from oldest to newest.

September 2005 is the previous archive.

November 2005 is the next archive.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.34