Please Come to the People’s Climate March September 21!
July 30, 2014 at 3:17 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | 2 CommentsTags: Cimate Change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report, People's Climate March, UN Climate Summit 2014
I don’t need to tell you about the dangers of climate change. The recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is hair raising–and they’re noted for the moderation of their reports. The U.S. report is equally chilling. It used to be that if you had kids and grandkids you were supposed to be concerned about this. Now if you’re planning to live fifteen more years you need to be afraid.
On September 21, climate action groups from around the world, including religious, spiritual, and interfaith groups, are converging on New York City for what we hope will be a huge march down the middle of Manhattan to get the attention of world leaders who will be gathering later that week for a climate change summit at the UN. World leaders have been pretty much AWOL on this subject. Some of the best, like Germany, who pride themselves on green technology, are importing increasing amounts of coal from the U.S. where numbers of coal burning power plants are being phased out. I kid you not. We need to scare these guys and gals to death.
To accomplish this, we need you to come to the People’s Climate March on September 21. If you live in the NY metro area you absolutely HAVE GOT TO COME. And if you live somewhere else, you should really try. Imagine telling somebody in 25 years that you participated in the climate change equivalent of the March on Washington! Won’t you be proud? Churches and non-profits are arranging for places where out of towers can stay, so you just need to get yourself here.
This is how you sign up for the March:
1. First, click here on this link: http://facebook.com/events/301805359975258/
2. Then, RSVP for the March by clicking “Join”
Then start making plans!
PLEEEEEEEEZE COME!!
The New York Times Ad
July 28, 2014 at 11:52 am | Posted in Uncategorized | 4 CommentsTags: "delayed hominization", "No Turning Back", a Catholic Social Justice Lobby, A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion, abortion, Barbara Ferraro, Geraldine Ferraro, Network, Patricia Hussey, Sisters of Life, The New York Times Ad, U.S. Catholic sisters
As you perhaps know, 2014 is the anniversary of a number significant events: the outbreak of World War I; the liberation of Paris; the signing of the Civil Rights Act; the resignation of Richard Nixon; the launch of Facebook. And a little closer to home–for my Catholic feminist self, at least–2014 is also the twentieth anniversary of the issuing of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter used to argue that that the Roman Catholic Church’s refusal to ordain women is infallible teaching. Catholic women’s ordination groups around the world are taking advantage of this anniversary to call on Pope Francis to retract the resulting ban forbidding Catholics to even so much as discuss women’s ordination.
2014 is the anniversary of yet another Catholic sex/gender event, the publication of “A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion” as an ad in the New York Times. The ad itself appeared on October 7, 1984, and argued that “a diversity of opinions regarding abortion exists among committed Catholics,” and that only 11% of U.S. Catholics surveyed disapproved of abortion in all circumstances. The statement also claimed that a large number of Catholic theologians held that “even direct abortion, though tragic, can sometimes be a moral choice.” These opinions, the ad went on to say, had been formed by
- Familiarity with the actual experiences that led women to make the decision for abortion;
- A recognition that there is no common and constant teaching on ensoulment in Church doctrine, nor has abortion always been treated as murder in canonical history;
- An adherence to principles of moral theology, such as probabilism, religious liberty, and the centrality of informed conscience, and
- An awareness of the acceptance of abortion as a moral choice by official statements and respected theologians of other faith groups.
The ad was published, at least in part, to support Geraldine Ferraro, the vice-presidential candidate in the upcoming presidential election; several leading U.S. Catholic archbishops had attacked Ferraro for saying that the Catholic position on abortion was not monolithic. Ninety-seven signatures appeared on the ad, including those of twenty-six nuns, two priests, and two brothers. A week after the defeat of Mondale/Ferraro, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement saying that the ad was nothing more than the personal opinion of the signers because what they asserted was in contradiction to “the clear and consistent teaching of the church that deliberately chosen abortion is objectively immoral.” Two weeks later the head of the Vatican Sacred Congregation for Religious, the same office that ordered the visitation of U.S. Catholic sisters in 2009, requested that the signers who were members of religious congregations retract their statements or be dismissed from religious life. Subsequently the four priests and brothers retracted, and a fairly long negotiation process took place between twenty-four of the twenty-six nun signers with their religious superiors, and between their superiors and the Vatican. These nuns were called “the Vatican 24.” Eventually, twenty-two of the twenty-four came to some sort of agreement that was accepted by the Vatican, though at least seven of these women later stated publicly that they had not aligned themselves with the institutional church’s position on abortion as Vatican officials claimed. Two nuns, Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur Barbara Ferraro and Patricia Hussey, publicly refused to retract their statement and though they were never actually expelled from their congregation for so doing, they eventually left because they felt betrayed by the entire process. Lay signers of the ad sometimes had their jobs threatened if they taught at Catholic institutions and were uninvited as speakers by others.
Let me make several observations about this ad and the controversy that surrounded it. First of all, no Catholic group, feminist or otherwise, seems to be commemorating the event, though supporting the ad was an act of considerable courage on the part of the signers. Secondly, much of what the ad argues is unambiguously true. There really is a wide range of positions on abortion among committed Catholics, unless one agrees with the position of the Vatican and the bishops that anyone who does not conform to their position on sex and gender issues is, by definition, not a Catholic. (Watch for more instances of this argument as the RCC and other religious groups attempt to avoid President Obama’s recent executive order forbidding federal contractors to discriminate against LGBT employees; for the bishops, “gay Catholic” is an oxymoron.)
Third, it is simply a fact that Catholic teaching on abortion has changed over the centuries, no matter how many hundreds of thousands of times the Vatican and the bishops say this is not the case. Thomas Aquinas, whose theology and philosophy were forced upon Catholics as the absolute truth for much of the 20th century, taught something called “delayed hominization” that is, that God inserts the soul into the fetus after conception–forty days after for males, eighty days after for females. Now some would argue that advances in our scientific knowledge of sexuality and conception makes Aquinas’s position no longer credible. Putting aside the fact that the Catholic Church is not known for its adherence to science in such matters (consider the argument, denied by nearly all scientists, that certain contraceptives mandated by the Affordable Care Act are abortifacients)–it is still the case that Thomas Aquinas, the most revered theologian of the Catholic tradition, did in fact teach this at one time, no matter what the bishops say.
Fourth, more “attention must be paid” to the ad’s first bullet point: familiarity with the actual experiences that led women to make the decision for abortion is pivotal. In reading No Turning Back, the inspiring memoir by Barbara Ferraro and Pat Hussey, the two members of the Vatican 24 who eventually left religious life, I was struck by how their position on abortion changed as they worked with the poor, especially at Covenant House, in Charleston, West Virginia. Initially, they were rather orthodox Roman Catholic nuns, and so opposed abortion, but as a number of poor women told them the stories of their abortions, Ferraro and Hussey had to reconsider the church’s absolute condemnation. This was also the case with John Rock, the Catholic medical doctor who was initially adamantly opposed to contraception, but after practicing obstetrics and gynaecology for a number of years, went on to co-invent the Pill. Is it a coincidence that many Christian churches that allow married and female clergy have broader positions on both abortion and contraception than the institutional Catholic Church, whose leaders, officially at least, live in splendid isolation from pregnancy, child-rearing, and maternal death?
Finally, I am struck by the argument Ferraro and Hussey make in No Turning Back that the crackdown on the priests, nuns and brothers who signed the New York Times ad was as much or more about the assertion of power by the Vatican as it was about abortion per se. Scrutiny of the history of the Catholic Church from the French Revolution to the present reveals that as the church lost more and more civil power, it focused its attention ever more strongly on controlling sexual morality. After the revolutions of 1848, during which Pope Pius IX fled the Vatican disguised as a parish priest, the church for the first time declared early term abortions a mortal sin. Some historians link this with the proclamation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in 1854; as free from sin from the moment of her conception, only Mary, and her sinless Son, were worthy of the vote, unlike those vile revolutionaries. And since Mary was free from sin “from the moment of her conception,” she had to have been a person at that moment. When finally, at the Second Vatican Council, the church acknowledged modern values such as freedom of conscience and the possibility that persons who were not Catholic could be saved, even its doctrinal power was undercut. All that remained as absolute Catholic truth was the universally valid “natural law,” that is, the control of sex and women.
Ferraro and Hussey also make clear that it was the control of the nuns who signed the ad that was of particular importance to the Vatican representatives. Recent events confirm their insight. After the New York Times ad, large numbers of U.S. Catholic sisters shifted their attention from gender issues like women’s ordination, abortion and contraception to social justice; it’s easy to see why. Yet twenty-five years after the New York Times ad, the Vatican launched an investigation of the umbrella group connecting 80 percent of U.S. Catholic sisters and subsequently issued a doctrinal statement accusing the group of “radical feminist themes” and of not putting enough energy into opposing abortion and homosexuality. To fix this, the Vatican put the group under the control of several U.S. bishops. Network, one of the leading Catholic social justice groups in the U.S., founded and led by sisters, was singled out for condemnation. A majority of Catholic sisters hadn’t earned any tolerance at all for changing their direction after the New York Times ad. Perhaps next the boys in Rome will order them to transfer their membership to the Sisters of Life.
Contextualizing the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Contested Land, Contested Memory
July 19, 2014 at 10:26 am | Posted in Uncategorized | 8 CommentsTags: "Contested Land, 9/11, collective memory, Contested Memory", Hamas, Israel, Jo Roberts, Osama bin Laden, the Eichmann trial, the Great Irish Famine, the Holocaust, the Nakba, the Palestinian Authority, the Shoah
(Apologies to the regular followers of my blog if you receive this post twice; when I published it the first time, it was mailed out to you but did not appear on my actual blog page, so I am posting it again.)
It is my hope that this review essay will shed some light on the current round of seemingly endless hostilities between the State of Israel and various Palestinian groups. The post is longer than usual; I trust it will reward your perseverance.
…………………………………………………………….
As a member of the post-World War II generation, my Holocaust learning followed a fairly standard trajectory: watching The Diary of Anne Frank in 1959, Holocaust with Meryl Streep in 1978, Lanzmann’s Shoah in 1985. Then, in graduate school, I read that Catholics constituted 60 percent of the Nazi army and that after the war the Vatican used “ratlines” to sneak Nazis to Latin America. I concluded that, as a Catholic, I was not entitled to an opinion about the State of Israel.
I suppose I considered my silence penance for centuries of Christian antisemitism. But as I read Jo Roberts’ stunning new book, Contested Land, Contested Memories, I began to wonder if my motives were entirely virtuous. Perhaps they included naiveté. Or romanticism—how comforting it is to believe that unambiguous good has triumphed over absolute evil! Or maybe it was sloth that underpinned my stance, sloth in the face of an unbelievably complex situation.
As its subtitle—Israel’s Jews and Arabs and the Ghosts of Catastrophe—suggests, Roberts’ book includes the Holocaust frame within which I and millions of others understand contemporary Israel. But it expands that frame to include what the current million-and-a-half Palestinian Israelis, Palestinians in exile and those in the Occupied Territories call the Nakba, the catastrophe that befell them as a result of the 1948 War of Israeli Independence. Included as well are the ghosts of that catastrophe—whatever memories remain after Jewish Israeli attempts to eradicate them from national consciousness, as well as the ghosts of that other catastrophe, the destruction of European Jewry. The words Shoah and Nakba both mean catastrophe.
Underlying Roberts’ analysis is a scholarly conversation about collective memory, initiated by the sociologist Emile Durkheim in the late nineteenth century and continued by his student, Maurice Halbwachs. Collective memory is a memory or memories shared by a group that contributes significantly to the group’s identity. Halbwachs expanded the concept with a second notion, that of “instrumental presentism.” In this case, groups not only remember, but their leaders choose which past events should be remembered and which forgotten in order to make the past useful to the needs of the present. By the late twentieth century, scholars such as Peter Novick were applying collective memory directly to the Holocaust, a fitting use since Halbwachs himself died in Buchenwald in 1945.
Initially, Roberts uses collective memory to explore the ways Jewish and Palestinian Israelis have understood 1948. For the Palestinians, the Israeli Declaration of Independence and the subsequent Arab-Israeli war meant the expulsion of most Palestinian Arabs from the new State of Israel; for those who remained, it meant the destruction of their society, their culture, entire villages, the land itself. For Jewish Israelis, on the other hand, 1948 meant that David had triumphed over Goliath, the vastly stronger Arab League.
Because the Palestinian Arabs lost the 1948 war (and several thereafter), Jewish Israelis had the upper hand in the political reconstruction of the collective memory of 1948. In the decades that followed, Israeli textbooks presented the Israeli defense forces as having had nothing to do with the seven hundred thousand plus refugees who poured out of what became the State ofIsrael during and after the war; the Palestinians simply chose to flee. And in those same years, Israel eradicated as many traces of Palestinian culture as they could, bulldozing towns and villages and mosques, constructing high-rises over cemeteries, replacing Arabic geographical names with Hebrew ones.
Yet the Nakba was not the only catastrophe rewritten in the years after 1948. For me, as a Christian, one of the most stunning sections of Contested Land, Contested Memory is Roberts’ narrative of David Ben-Gurion’s using the 1961 Eichmann trial to make the Holocaust the center of a new, unified Israeli identity. Who knew that Zionists, before 1961, stereotyped Holocaust survivors as victims or Nazi collaborators? Who knew that Sabra (socialist) Zionists looked down on Mizrahi (Arab) Jews for their Arabness and their excessive religiousness? Yet after the Eichmann trial, Mizrahis felt more at home in Israel and Zionists and Holocaust survivors came together around the Holocaust as the foundation of the State of Israel. In the 1960s, victimhood became central to Jewish Israeli identity and extermination by Palestinians and other Arabs a constant threat. As the Zionists had argued, Jews are safe only in a Jewish state.
Roberts makes clear that such transference of collective trauma is by no means limited to Israelis. Throughout history traumatized peoples have attempted to reconstruct their identity by obliterating the collective memory of the Other; the Shoah and two millennia of Christian anti-semitism led to the attempted obliteration of the collective memory of the Nakba. But the ghosts of collective trauma refuse to be obliterated; they live on, in this case, in Arab Holocaust denial, guerilla attacks, and suicide bombings. One catastrophe begets another.
Writers besides Roberts have used the discourse of collective memory to understand the transmission of catastrophe. In The Shadow of a Year (2013), a book of particular interest to me as a descendent of Irish Catholic immigrants, John Gibney traces massive misrepresentations of the Irish Rebellion of 1641 for Irish Protestant as well as Irish Catholic political purposes from just after the rebellion to the Northern Ireland Troubles of the last sixty years. Irish Protestant convictions that Catholics had massacred hundreds of thousands of their forebears in 1641 contributed directly to the catastrophe of an Gorta Mór, the GreatPotato Famine of the 1840s. And who knows what shadows—ghosts—of ostensible Irish Catholic barbarism hovered around the May arrest and questioning of Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams for a purported political assassination in 1972?
Yet Contested Land, Contested Memory distinguishes itself from other studies of collective memory on several counts. To begin with, Roberts’ fine writing makes the discourse of collective memory accessible in ways that scholarly studies often fail to do. And because the catastrophes that concern her happened fairly recently, Roberts is able to use the memories of actual Palestinian and Jewish Israelis to frame her subject matter. Stories of Jewish Israelis discovering with horror that their home or vacation cottage stands on the site of an obliterated Arab dwelling, or of Palestinians’ attempting, often without success, to return to a beloved village or mosque, bring the ghosts of the Nakba to life.
For Roberts, as the book’s title suggests, the land itself is central to her story. The prolific vines overgrowing an abandoned and deteriorating Arab structure on the book’s cover and spine alert the reader to this from the outset. Narratives of the destruction of towns andvillages (and sometimes the murder of their inhabitants) during the 1948 war are sobering enough, but to read of continuing efforts to remove all traces of Palestinian material culture throughout the more than a half century of Israel’s existence is genuinely shocking.
Equally unforgettable is Roberts’ documentation of the Jewish Israeli remaking of the land itself, not merely the structures on it, in the interest of obliterating Arab traces. After Independence, we learn, Palestine’s traditional rural landscape was transformed into a socialist-modernist one: tens of thousands of olive trees, the signature tree of the Arab-Palestinian culture and the source of its two primary exports, were uprooted, even as whole forests of other trees were planted tomake the land look more European.
In her close attention to the land, Roberts actually expands John Gibney’s historiographic portrait of the shadows of Irish catastrophe. Two decades before the Potato Famine, as they were mapping Ireland, the British Ordnance Survey transliterated the names of geographical locations across Ireland from Gaelic to English, a language many of the Irish did not even speak, never mind read. This is what colonizers do, Roberts observes.
Some of the conclusions Roberts draws in Contested Land, Contested Memory are discouraging. The State of Israel has moved steadily to the right politically since the election of Menachim Begin’s Likud party in the 1970s. The identification of Mizrahi Jews with Likud because of previous discrimination they had suffered and the arrival of a million Jewish Russians in the 1990s has contributed to an increasingly racialized society. In 2012, 70 percent of ultra-Orthodox Israelis, a group whose numbers have exploded in recent years, supported barring Palestinian Israelis from voting, while 71 percent supported their forced “transfer” (explusion) from Israel. Today, more and more, as Roberts observes, “Palestinian Israelis are the intruding stranger in the Jewish homeland,” the Other who maintains the margins of Jewish Israeli identity. Connections with the most recent outbreak of hostilities are obvious.
Nonetheless, Roberts finds reason for hope. Already in the 1980s, Jewish Israeli scholars known as “the New Historians” had begun heroically documenting the other origin of the State of Israel, the Nakba. Since then, groups such as the Jewish Israeli NGO Zochrot (Hebrew for “remembering”) have formed to bring forward the hidden history of the Nakba. For Zochrot, a major effort is leading Jewish Israelis on tours of villages and urban neighborhoods that had Arab populations sixty years ago. Scholars and journalists also continue to write about these unacknowledged ghosts. For Roberts, the very nature of these efforts “allows for a glimmer of hope, the potential for…’multiple narratives with multiple beginnings’ to tell the history of this land.” Reconciliation is possible only when the ghosts of both catastrophes are acknowledged and a new history constructed from them.
Two events occurred as I was reading Contested Land, Contested Memory. One was the visit of Pope Francis to Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, and Israel. The pope’s decision to go from Jordan straight to Bethlehem, his references to the “State of Palestine,” and his unscheduled stop at the barrier between Bethlehem and Jerusalem, while making him unpopular with some, hint at a shift in the global view of Israel and Palestine. A reference to “competing narratives” in a New York Times article about the pope’s visit also suggests that long-buried memories are resurfacing.
But even as Pope Francis was visiting Israel, the 9/11 Museum opened at the World Trade Center Site in Lower Manhattan. Certain aspects of the museum are contentious—the presence of a gift shop, and the location of the remains of unidentified victims below ground, for example. But overall, the museum stands as the representation of yet another unambiguous narrative, the barbaric terrorist attack on innocent Americans of September 11, 2001.
Yet perhaps because of my reading of Roberts, it came to me that I had virtually no knowledge of why the terrorists had attacked the Twin Towers. When I asked others about this, nobody knew. They were just terrorists, my friends replied; it’s what terrorists do.
But with a little effort, I learned that al-Qaeda had, indeed, stated its reasons for the attack. Already in 1998, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri had issued a fatwa to “kill the Americans and their allies…in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (the Temple Mount in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Mecca) from their grip…” And in a 2002 letter, bin Laden described the U.S. support of Israel as the motivation for 9/11. Later he claimed that the idea of destroying the towers had first occurred to him when he witnessed Israel’s bombardment of high-rise apartment buildings during the 1982 Israel-Lebanon war.
The mass killing of civilians can never be justified, and other motives besides the ones mentioned here doubtless contributed to the 9/11 attack. But as Jo Roberts articulates powerfully in Contested Land, Contested Memory, catastrophe begets catastrophe. Only when communities face their ghosts and reconcile with one another can they prevent the next catastrophe, the one that is otherwise surely on its way.
-
Speaks against the inertia and retrenchment of the ecumenical churches on the loaded issue of the gender of God....Appropriately scholarly and...readily accessible.
—Theology TodayWISDOM'S FEAST is available in paperback on Amazon.
What I’m Reading
The Other Catholics: Remaking America’s Largest Religion, by Julie Byrne (Columbia, 2016).
The Quest for Environmental Justice: Human Rights and the Politics of Pollution, by Robert W. Bullard, editor (Sierra Club Books, 2005).
Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence, by Christian Parenti (Nation Books, 2011).
A Council that Will Never End: Lumen Gentium and the Church Today, by Paul Lakeland (Liturgical Press, 2013).
The War that Ended Peace: The Road to 1914, by Margaret MacMillan (Random House, 2013).
“What Our Church Has Inflicted on Judaism,” by Steven Englund. With Responses by Jon Levenson, Donald Senior, and John D. Levenson. (Commonweal, Feb. 10, 2014).
The Quest for Environmental Justice: Human Rights and the Politics of Pollution, by Robert W. Bullard, editor (Sierra Club Books, 2005).
Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence, by Christian Parenti (Nation Books, 2011)
A Council that Will Never End: Lumen Gentium and the Church Today, by Paul Lakeland (Liturgical Press, 2013).
The War that Ended Peace: The Road to 1914, by Margaret MacMillan (Random House, 2013).
“What Our Church Has Inflicted on Judaism,” by Steven Englund. With Responses by Jon Levenson, Donald Senior, and John D. Levenson. (Commonweal, Feb. 10, 2014).
Archives
- October 2021 (2)
- April 2021 (1)
- March 2021 (2)
- February 2021 (1)
- December 2020 (3)
- November 2020 (2)
- September 2020 (1)
- August 2020 (5)
- July 2020 (6)
- February 2020 (1)
- January 2020 (1)
- December 2019 (1)
- November 2019 (1)
- October 2019 (1)
- September 2019 (1)
- August 2019 (1)
- June 2019 (1)
- May 2019 (1)
- April 2019 (2)
- March 2019 (3)
- February 2019 (2)
- January 2019 (1)
- December 2018 (1)
- November 2018 (1)
- October 2018 (1)
- August 2018 (1)
- July 2018 (1)
- May 2018 (2)
- April 2018 (3)
- March 2018 (3)
- February 2018 (3)
- January 2018 (1)
- December 2017 (1)
- November 2017 (2)
- August 2017 (1)
- May 2017 (1)
- April 2017 (2)
- March 2017 (1)
- January 2017 (1)
- December 2016 (2)
- November 2016 (3)
- October 2016 (1)
- August 2016 (1)
- July 2016 (1)
- June 2016 (1)
- May 2016 (1)
- April 2016 (4)
- March 2016 (3)
- February 2016 (2)
- January 2016 (1)
- December 2015 (2)
- November 2015 (3)
- October 2015 (1)
- September 2015 (4)
- August 2015 (4)
- July 2015 (3)
- June 2015 (3)
- May 2015 (4)
- April 2015 (3)
- March 2015 (3)
- February 2015 (1)
- January 2015 (4)
- December 2014 (3)
- October 2014 (4)
- September 2014 (2)
- August 2014 (1)
- July 2014 (3)
- June 2014 (3)
- May 2014 (2)
- April 2014 (2)
- March 2014 (4)
- February 2014 (3)
- January 2014 (2)
- December 2013 (4)
- November 2013 (1)
- October 2013 (3)
- September 2013 (3)
- August 2013 (4)
- July 2013 (4)
- June 2013 (2)
- May 2013 (3)
- April 2013 (4)
- March 2013 (4)
- February 2013 (4)
- January 2013 (4)
- December 2012 (3)
- November 2012 (5)
- October 2012 (4)
- September 2012 (1)
- August 2012 (8)
- July 2012 (3)
- June 2012 (6)
- May 2012 (4)
- April 2012 (5)
- March 2012 (2)
- February 2012 (3)
- January 2012 (4)
- December 2011 (4)
- November 2011 (5)
- October 2011 (4)
- September 2011 (3)
- August 2011 (3)
- July 2011 (5)
- June 2011 (3)
- May 2011 (3)
- April 2011 (3)
- March 2011 (2)
- February 2011 (6)
- January 2011 (6)
- December 2010 (3)
- November 2010 (4)
- October 2010 (3)
- September 2010 (3)
- August 2010 (3)
- July 2010 (6)
- June 2010 (2)
- May 2010 (3)
- April 2010 (5)
- March 2010 (8)
- February 2010 (3)
- January 2010 (6)
- December 2009 (5)
- November 2009 (9)
- October 2009 (9)
- September 2009 (7)
- August 2009 (5)
Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.