Okay, some things have changed since I last wrote anything about guns. Specifically, but not limited to: Sandyhook and Aurora. Before these two incidents I was wavering about my personal need to own a gun. At the time I came to the conclusion that the reason I did not want a gun was because I just couldn't see the end game. I could not conceive the idea that I would have to shoot someone to protect what was mine or who I cared about and the eventual escalation of firepower would result in one king and lots of bodies.
That has changed.
James Holmes (Aurora Theater shooter) and Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook) had many things in common, not the least of which they were both paranoid schizophrenics. This means they both had a mental disease that made them.....let's just say crazy. Of course let us not forget they also both used semiautomatic weapons to kill lots of innocent people. The wake of these two incidents has emboldened the proponents for both more and less gun control.
It is easy to understand why some people would line up to get rid of as many guns as possible: Guns are designed and manufactured to kill. I find it much more difficult to wrap my head around why these events would make anyone feel we needed less restrictions on guns. True, if every administrator at the Sandy Hook school and every patron of the Aurora Theater was packing a weapon these events may not have been as tragic. Surely if the sheer knowledge that everyone was caring their own personal protection wasn't enough to intimidate these two madmen from their quests, then as soon as they started shooting someone (presumably a good marksman, trained to use the adrenalin coursing though their bodies to react with measured restraint and accuracy) would have stopped them in their tracks and fewer people possibly would have been killed and injured. So is that the sensible answer? Should everyone carry a gun at all times? Is that really what the writers of the Constitution had in mind: that everyone should carry a handgun, own an (or lots of) assault rifle and have enough ammo on hand to kill thousands of deer (or people)?
The utter irrationality of this makes me wonder............why do people like guns so much that they will cloud their minds to the point of such absurdity? I've read everything from "it is part of our culture" to "when someone threatens to take something away it becomes more valuable". There are a million reasons given to the question. The most popular is for personal protection. So most gun owners are paranoid. They want to be ready for the bad guy that will eventually be coming to get them, their family or their stuff. Very few gun enthusiasts; however, will admit that they like the idea of killing someone. After all: killing is wrong...........right?
I was taught from an early age: two wrongs never make a right, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, thou shalt not kill, turn the other cheek, it takes a bigger man to walk away from a fight than to fight one, and sticks and stone may break your bones but names can never hurt me. These are the things that morality is based on. So in order to sidestep the immorality of killing (a bad guy), there must be something else that makes some people love owning and shooting lots of guns. Perhaps it has to do with something as simple and basic as pushing a button or pulling a trigger here and making something happen over there. The first time a powederman pushes a plunger he gets a big thrill blowing up something a mile away. After he does it enough the rush is gone. It becomes routine. Isn't it the same with guns? Does the initial thrill of pulling a trigger and making a bottle explode or a can jump at 30 yards wear off with repetition? Does the childhood owner of a Daisy BB air rifle need to get a .22, then a 12 gauge, then an AR-15 then two or three more? Are guns just another opiate of the masses?
People who fear the government will take their guns, take over their lives, and make everyone subservient to a dictatorial leadership are simply paranoid. When paranoia and addiction are combined, mental stability cannot be maintained for long.
I don't and will not own a gun because I am not crazy. I'm not saying that everyone who owns a gun is crazy but with the morals and convictions I believe in: I would have to be crazy to to believe that shooting someone and having those convictions can coexist.
Friday, April 5, 2013
Monday, September 17, 2012
Ten facts about the deficit that you won't hear Rush, Sean, Neal, Herman, Glenn or the GOP talk about
1. The deficit is actually shrinking.
2. The deficit grew under George W. Bush.
3. The deficit has grown in the last four years mostly due to the recession.
4. The stimuous cost much less than Bush's wars and tax cuts.
5. Investors are now paying us to borrow money.
6. Investors aren't running away. They are buying Treasury Bonds.
7. The Health Care Reform Act reduces the deficit.
8. The US is borrowing much less from Foreign countries now than before the recession.
9. We are spending 20% of the budget on defense.
10. We are spending 21% of the budget on healthcare.
2. The deficit grew under George W. Bush.
3. The deficit has grown in the last four years mostly due to the recession.
4. The stimuous cost much less than Bush's wars and tax cuts.
5. Investors are now paying us to borrow money.
6. Investors aren't running away. They are buying Treasury Bonds.
7. The Health Care Reform Act reduces the deficit.
8. The US is borrowing much less from Foreign countries now than before the recession.
9. We are spending 20% of the budget on defense.
10. We are spending 21% of the budget on healthcare.
I'm not looking but it's ok because I believe...
Why don't people open their eyes? Why do many people believe the loudest voice on the TV or radio? Why are the same mistakes made as history is ignored? There must be profit in it for someone. Not me; of course, I am in the lower half of the "middle class". One thing that President Obama, Mitt Romney, George Will, and most other national politicos have in common is that they are so out of touch they cannot conceive how much of a luxury going out for a $5 McDonald's lunch is for me. To realize evidence of this it is only necessary to listen to many who say that this or that government program or tax hurts small business people. Of course, the term "small business" includes many businesses that routinely trade over a million dollars. Of course; to them, I could be making $200,000 a year and still be considered "middle class". To me a small business is the mom and pop bookstore on 3rd street that has half a dozen employees. Most people don't think to ask what is meant by "small business" or "middle class" because they are too busy believing in someone or some philosophy.
I don't understand how anyone can believe that we can have the society we have without government regulation and by reducing taxes on those who can afford them most. I know it doesn't seem fair that Warren Buffet should have to pay a higher percentage of his money in taxes than me, but the aforementioned hamburger costs us both the same. If my taxes are a larger percentage of my available income (for food) than his, it affects me more. If we both routinely buy the $5 hamburger, I don't get to buy new shoes this year and he still gets to buy a new Rolls Royce. Many "middle class" people cannot afford new shoes at all.
The belief function of the brain and the thinking part of the brain are separate. You can't do both at the same time. This is a big part of the problem. When people start believing in someone or something they stop thinking. Remember that when your candidate of choice says something will hurt or help small businesses or the middle class: they cannot relate to what a small business or middle income level is to you and me.
Please people: stop believing and start thinking.
.
I don't understand how anyone can believe that we can have the society we have without government regulation and by reducing taxes on those who can afford them most. I know it doesn't seem fair that Warren Buffet should have to pay a higher percentage of his money in taxes than me, but the aforementioned hamburger costs us both the same. If my taxes are a larger percentage of my available income (for food) than his, it affects me more. If we both routinely buy the $5 hamburger, I don't get to buy new shoes this year and he still gets to buy a new Rolls Royce. Many "middle class" people cannot afford new shoes at all.
The belief function of the brain and the thinking part of the brain are separate. You can't do both at the same time. This is a big part of the problem. When people start believing in someone or something they stop thinking. Remember that when your candidate of choice says something will hurt or help small businesses or the middle class: they cannot relate to what a small business or middle income level is to you and me.
Please people: stop believing and start thinking.
.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Mom baked cookies
My mom loved everybody. Personal space be damned; mom was a hugger. Everybody knew my mom's smile and hugs and of course: her cookies.
Mom was a professional woman. She had a 4 year college degree and was a registered nurse. She only worked as a nurse when she needed to. She was always a full-time mother and housewife. I guess you could say she was liberated because she was free to do what she wanted; and what she wanted was to raise her boys and take care of her household. She loved housework. My mother ironed our tee shirts just for the joy of doing it! She also had dinner on the table promptly at 5:30 each night. Somewhere in there she found time to bake. Apple pie and strawberry shortcake were seasonal delights but brownies and cookies were regulars.
When my bothers and I grew up and moved away, mom retired from nursing and did volunteer work at Northside and North Fulton Hospital. She never let on to them that she was a nurse. This way she could care for people (the way she loved) in an environment she knew well, without any pressure. With a home that didn't have three growing boys and their friends constantly messing it up, and with a whole lot less laundry to do, mom baked more. She settled on sugar cookies.
Now Mom wasn't the greatest baker in the World. She did cook with a whole lot of love and it came through even when the edges were a bit brown and the texture somewhat overly crunchy (hard as rocks). Of course, Mom firmly believed a cold glass of milk could fix any miscalculation in baking times. The fact is: she didn't pay a whole lot of attention to baking times and everything got baked at 350 degrees.
I'm not really sure where the sugar cookie recipe Mom used came from. When I was small and insecure Mom's form of therapy involved teaching me to bake brownies or chocolate chip cookies which she never used a written recipe for (I think that this is why she never baked bread). The improvisational method of baking has it's successes and failures but I never remember a bad batch of brownies. Until later in life though sugar cookies were reserved for Chirstmas cutout cookies. Between having to wait for the dough to chill, adding lots of food coloring and decorating with colored nonpareils, sugar cookies were a major production to be eagerly anticipated. Still never a recipe. Sometimes they were hard and sometimes the green Christmas trees looked like they had the blight, but they were always tasty. When she "retired" and sugar cookies became a weekly thing for Mom she actually wrote down her recipe and Dad sent it in to a magazine contest which she won. Even after that I don't think she ever referred to her own recipe. It was this, that and a pinch of something else. Chill the dough, cut them out (simple rounds now) throw them in a 350 degree oven for awhile. Nothing fancy, but they filled the cookie jar.
That cookie jar never stayed full though. If you visited Mom and Dad's the cookie jar came off the fridge and you had a cookie. Most likely you left with a bag of cookies. The mailman got cookies. The UPS man left with cookies. The flower delivery person (Dad loved to send Mom flowers as often as he could afford to) left with cookies. The preacher and every neighbor knew my Mom's sugar cookies. She did venture out once in awhile and try molasses cookies (my Grandmother's specialty) ginger snaps, or snickerdoodles. But she always came back to sugar cookies and everybody got them.
When my mom died peacefully in her sleep we had to decide upon a vessel of some sort to put her ashes in for the memorial/interment service. Even though we thought it might raise a few eyebrows, there was really only one thing we could use: her cookie jar. At the funeral when the pall was removed and there sat Mom's earthly remains inside her cookie jar, there was not a murmur, chuckle or any little old ladies gasping to be heard. There were a whole bunch of smiles though. Everyone knew Mom baked cookies.
Now Mom wasn't the greatest baker in the World. She did cook with a whole lot of love and it came through even when the edges were a bit brown and the texture somewhat overly crunchy (hard as rocks). Of course, Mom firmly believed a cold glass of milk could fix any miscalculation in baking times. The fact is: she didn't pay a whole lot of attention to baking times and everything got baked at 350 degrees.
I'm not really sure where the sugar cookie recipe Mom used came from. When I was small and insecure Mom's form of therapy involved teaching me to bake brownies or chocolate chip cookies which she never used a written recipe for (I think that this is why she never baked bread). The improvisational method of baking has it's successes and failures but I never remember a bad batch of brownies. Until later in life though sugar cookies were reserved for Chirstmas cutout cookies. Between having to wait for the dough to chill, adding lots of food coloring and decorating with colored nonpareils, sugar cookies were a major production to be eagerly anticipated. Still never a recipe. Sometimes they were hard and sometimes the green Christmas trees looked like they had the blight, but they were always tasty. When she "retired" and sugar cookies became a weekly thing for Mom she actually wrote down her recipe and Dad sent it in to a magazine contest which she won. Even after that I don't think she ever referred to her own recipe. It was this, that and a pinch of something else. Chill the dough, cut them out (simple rounds now) throw them in a 350 degree oven for awhile. Nothing fancy, but they filled the cookie jar.
That cookie jar never stayed full though. If you visited Mom and Dad's the cookie jar came off the fridge and you had a cookie. Most likely you left with a bag of cookies. The mailman got cookies. The UPS man left with cookies. The flower delivery person (Dad loved to send Mom flowers as often as he could afford to) left with cookies. The preacher and every neighbor knew my Mom's sugar cookies. She did venture out once in awhile and try molasses cookies (my Grandmother's specialty) ginger snaps, or snickerdoodles. But she always came back to sugar cookies and everybody got them.
When my mom died peacefully in her sleep we had to decide upon a vessel of some sort to put her ashes in for the memorial/interment service. Even though we thought it might raise a few eyebrows, there was really only one thing we could use: her cookie jar. At the funeral when the pall was removed and there sat Mom's earthly remains inside her cookie jar, there was not a murmur, chuckle or any little old ladies gasping to be heard. There were a whole bunch of smiles though. Everyone knew Mom baked cookies.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Really stupid stuff..........
As I read the paper today I came across (as I often do) several items in the news that are just plain stupid.
Now stupid is word I use lightly (it would be stupid not to do so). It was one of those words I taught my kids to never use; however, the experience of my advanced age has convinced me that stupidity does exist and should be discussed with the hope of eliminating some of it from the World.
I have decided; therefore, to create a list of things I find really stupid and explain why I feel that way (as time allows).
The list so far:
The Chik-fil-a controversy.
The uproar about where the USA Olympic uniforms were made.
The "need" to personally own assault weapons and justify it Constitutionally.
People who support the "right to life" yet are also warmongers.
Trickle down theory.
Long drawn out trials for people whose guilt is not in doubt.
The amount of money spent on elections.
"the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President.” Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader.
President Obama agreeing to kill a US citizen (terrorist) abroad rather then bring him back to the US for trial.
The criminalization of teenagers for possession of alcohol at 18.
Please feel free to add to my list. Please don't load me up with things you just don't like. I don't like black-eyed peas but they really are not stupid in anyway. Remember: this is my list and my opinion. Don't take it personally. If you disagree, tell me why. You just might teach me something.
stw
Now stupid is word I use lightly (it would be stupid not to do so). It was one of those words I taught my kids to never use; however, the experience of my advanced age has convinced me that stupidity does exist and should be discussed with the hope of eliminating some of it from the World.
I have decided; therefore, to create a list of things I find really stupid and explain why I feel that way (as time allows).
The list so far:
The Chik-fil-a controversy.
The uproar about where the USA Olympic uniforms were made.
The "need" to personally own assault weapons and justify it Constitutionally.
People who support the "right to life" yet are also warmongers.
Trickle down theory.
Long drawn out trials for people whose guilt is not in doubt.
The amount of money spent on elections.
"the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President.” Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader.
President Obama agreeing to kill a US citizen (terrorist) abroad rather then bring him back to the US for trial.
The criminalization of teenagers for possession of alcohol at 18.
Please feel free to add to my list. Please don't load me up with things you just don't like. I don't like black-eyed peas but they really are not stupid in anyway. Remember: this is my list and my opinion. Don't take it personally. If you disagree, tell me why. You just might teach me something.
stw
Liberative conservial
Political parties aside, according to Webster's: a conservative is one who adheres to traditional methods or views. Nowhere does it mention that a conservative is ante-liberal. Additionally, according to Webster's: a liberal is one who is open minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established forms or ways. Again, no mention that a liberal is ante-conservative. The irony of course is that the one word (traditional) common to both definitions is the thing that is in most opposition to the meaning of these two nouns. Untie that one philosophy majors!
I've often described myself as either the most liberal conservative or the most conservative liberal anyone could meet. I really don't like either characterization because the truth is I am one on some issues but the other on different subjects. Is it really necessary to be one or the other? I think this is what hangs up our government more than anything else. Politicians seem to feel the need to be either liberal or conservative.....PERIOD! And somewhere along the way someone seems to have decided that in order to be a Democrat you must be a liberal and in order to be a Republican you must be a conservative. I won't pretend to be a history scholar here but if studied it is interesting how these two parties came about in the United States and the ideas that brought them about.
The Universe has allot of black, white, and yes, grey in it. Perhaps things would work better if we all accepted that fact. I know this is idealistic talk and I admit having a pair of rose colored glasses. I just believe that every one's opinion is valid. An opinion is just that. There are some truths but most of what divides the state of the World is only right or wrong according to one's point of view. What gets me the most is how often a person's point of view is guided by someone who has no real credibility. Most radio show hosts and TV personalities fall into this category (another great subject to wax poetically about sometime!). If you only listen to those who you agree with then where does the opportunity to grow come from? I suggest that one should listen to and open the possibility to learn from those we don't agree with. I doubt anyone will change my mind about Rush Limbaugh being a loud mouthed, uncaring, rich actor who loves to hear his own voice; however, if I listen to him once in awhile, I will hear him say something outrageous that causes me to investigate something a bit more and I might just learn something I didn't know or gain an understanding I didn't have previously. One example: a local politician (who I don't particularly like for a number of reasons) was recently involved in a forum with his opposition (from the same party). When the candidates were asked about major issues facing the state, his opposition mentioned education, tax reform and ethics reform. Mr. Incumbent replied: "If we don't elect Mitt Romney as President we will be saddled with Obamacare. If Obamacare stays in place, instead of 1.7 million Georgians on Medicare we will have 2.5 million." Now the singularity of the answer was enough to enrage me, but it made me want to learn a bit more about Medicare, and how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will affect it. I learned allot after about 10 minutes worth of research. What I learned: Medicare costs allot. Medicare provides allot of medical care for pennies on the dollar, whereas companies like AEtna provide the same level of care for multiple dollars. The population of the United States is aging and there will be many more people in need of help to provide the health care they will need as they age.
A close acquaintance of mine is retiring soon. He has worked hard for 60 years. He falls into the so-called "doughnut hole" where coverage stops because his pension and Social Security will pay him just enough to keep him above the Federal Poverty level. He will not be able to afford the medicine he and his wife need to keep them alive. The PPaACA will close this gap. Yes we will have to pay for it. And yes, I believe that the 1-2% of the people in this country who made their money off the hard work and backs of people like my friend should pay higher taxes to help pay for it.
My point is this: Be liberal and learn something new. Be conservative and make decisions carefully with traditions and history in mind. You can do both. It is quite alright to lean one way or the other (the news media should be liberal and banks should be conservative) but don't be opposed to growing and changing by examining a different point of view.
stw-----Do your very best to be better than humanly possible and not be selfish.
I've often described myself as either the most liberal conservative or the most conservative liberal anyone could meet. I really don't like either characterization because the truth is I am one on some issues but the other on different subjects. Is it really necessary to be one or the other? I think this is what hangs up our government more than anything else. Politicians seem to feel the need to be either liberal or conservative.....PERIOD! And somewhere along the way someone seems to have decided that in order to be a Democrat you must be a liberal and in order to be a Republican you must be a conservative. I won't pretend to be a history scholar here but if studied it is interesting how these two parties came about in the United States and the ideas that brought them about.
The Universe has allot of black, white, and yes, grey in it. Perhaps things would work better if we all accepted that fact. I know this is idealistic talk and I admit having a pair of rose colored glasses. I just believe that every one's opinion is valid. An opinion is just that. There are some truths but most of what divides the state of the World is only right or wrong according to one's point of view. What gets me the most is how often a person's point of view is guided by someone who has no real credibility. Most radio show hosts and TV personalities fall into this category (another great subject to wax poetically about sometime!). If you only listen to those who you agree with then where does the opportunity to grow come from? I suggest that one should listen to and open the possibility to learn from those we don't agree with. I doubt anyone will change my mind about Rush Limbaugh being a loud mouthed, uncaring, rich actor who loves to hear his own voice; however, if I listen to him once in awhile, I will hear him say something outrageous that causes me to investigate something a bit more and I might just learn something I didn't know or gain an understanding I didn't have previously. One example: a local politician (who I don't particularly like for a number of reasons) was recently involved in a forum with his opposition (from the same party). When the candidates were asked about major issues facing the state, his opposition mentioned education, tax reform and ethics reform. Mr. Incumbent replied: "If we don't elect Mitt Romney as President we will be saddled with Obamacare. If Obamacare stays in place, instead of 1.7 million Georgians on Medicare we will have 2.5 million." Now the singularity of the answer was enough to enrage me, but it made me want to learn a bit more about Medicare, and how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will affect it. I learned allot after about 10 minutes worth of research. What I learned: Medicare costs allot. Medicare provides allot of medical care for pennies on the dollar, whereas companies like AEtna provide the same level of care for multiple dollars. The population of the United States is aging and there will be many more people in need of help to provide the health care they will need as they age.
A close acquaintance of mine is retiring soon. He has worked hard for 60 years. He falls into the so-called "doughnut hole" where coverage stops because his pension and Social Security will pay him just enough to keep him above the Federal Poverty level. He will not be able to afford the medicine he and his wife need to keep them alive. The PPaACA will close this gap. Yes we will have to pay for it. And yes, I believe that the 1-2% of the people in this country who made their money off the hard work and backs of people like my friend should pay higher taxes to help pay for it.
My point is this: Be liberal and learn something new. Be conservative and make decisions carefully with traditions and history in mind. You can do both. It is quite alright to lean one way or the other (the news media should be liberal and banks should be conservative) but don't be opposed to growing and changing by examining a different point of view.
stw-----Do your very best to be better than humanly possible and not be selfish.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Help! Healthcare Hell!
What a mess! First of all let me say I hate the term "Obamacare"; and not just because it was coined by that actor guy named Limbaugh. The healthcare plan President Obama tried to get through Congress and the plan Congress passed are very different. What the President attempted would have really changed things (good or bad) and what we got is a bit of a water downed mess that won't change the big picture dramatically. Doctors, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, lawyers, and mostly lobbyists will still make plenty of money, the upper 1-2% of Americans will get the greatest healthcare available in the World and the rest of us will pay allot for healthcare coverage. Don't misunderstand me here: I like what has passed. It is better than what was in place before. My premiums have gone up but I have known for three years they would. And I still pay very little for excellent coverage. Thanks to the new provisions: I didn't have to pay a dime for a routine colonoscopy, my wife gets a free mammogram, my children who are out of school and under the age limit are still on my policy, and family members with pre-existing conditions cannot be turned down for coverage. I know it is not a perfect solution but for Mr. Average Middle Class the changes have and will be good.
Perhaps at some point I will wax on the idea of socialized medicine. I think there are good things and bad things about it, but a good exploration will need more time than I have right now. I do think that is is unfortunate that because of the inclusion of the term (social-) many people will not consider anything that they think is linked to communism.
So healthcare reform is constantly being linked to partisan politics. If what we presently have is linked with President Obama and the Democrats, what is the Republican plan? Mitt Romney supported about the same thing in Massachusetts but now has changed his mind (OK by me to change your mind if it is done for thoughtful, principled reasons rather than cynical, political ones). What is Mitt's plan? He hasn't said. When a FOX reporter asked Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to describe his party's (R) plan to replace "Obamacare" (ugh!) he said that first the GOP had to repeal Obamacare. When asked the simple question two more times McConnell continued to refuse to offer any plan. He just kept saying that the GOP (not Congress mind you) must first repeal Obamacare. The most powerful man in the Republican party will not speak about a specific alternative healthcare plan. Of course this is the same politician that said "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President.” This powerful Congressional leader (remember Congress? supposed to by our lawmakers and overseers of the common good) cares more about dumping his political opposition then passing any meaning good legislation. And you wonder why I don't like politicians and especially the GOP right now.
The only way to get any good done for the common man is to be open to ideas. No matter who comes up with them or what words they contain. Listen. Debate the points not the ideology.
Perhaps at some point I will wax on the idea of socialized medicine. I think there are good things and bad things about it, but a good exploration will need more time than I have right now. I do think that is is unfortunate that because of the inclusion of the term (social-) many people will not consider anything that they think is linked to communism.
So healthcare reform is constantly being linked to partisan politics. If what we presently have is linked with President Obama and the Democrats, what is the Republican plan? Mitt Romney supported about the same thing in Massachusetts but now has changed his mind (OK by me to change your mind if it is done for thoughtful, principled reasons rather than cynical, political ones). What is Mitt's plan? He hasn't said. When a FOX reporter asked Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to describe his party's (R) plan to replace "Obamacare" (ugh!) he said that first the GOP had to repeal Obamacare. When asked the simple question two more times McConnell continued to refuse to offer any plan. He just kept saying that the GOP (not Congress mind you) must first repeal Obamacare. The most powerful man in the Republican party will not speak about a specific alternative healthcare plan. Of course this is the same politician that said "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President.” This powerful Congressional leader (remember Congress? supposed to by our lawmakers and overseers of the common good) cares more about dumping his political opposition then passing any meaning good legislation. And you wonder why I don't like politicians and especially the GOP right now.
The only way to get any good done for the common man is to be open to ideas. No matter who comes up with them or what words they contain. Listen. Debate the points not the ideology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
