Some of you know that I'm selling my house. Half of this house is pre-1878 Victorian (pre-dates earliest city plat) re-built by me and half of it is my 1996 construction designed to blend. Not only do I have a lot of work into this, I've also lived in it for 22 years and so it isn't too easy to leave. That got a little easier today.
The wife of the couple who are buying the house stopped by today, a bit of work for her because she has somewhat recently had very extensive back surgery and just within the last week or so allowed to fly from CO. A week ago she got to see the house in person for the first time, her husband has been here for awhile, and I stuck around to show them both what is going on with the place beyond what a realtor would know or include in a tour. I liked them as much as such a short acquaintance would allow - and my disinclination to sell the place. Anyhow... get on with it Chuck.
She came to the door apologizing for making contact that is discouraged by the real estate business, something I find a bit ludicrous, BTW. I assured her that it was fine and asked what I could do for her. She wanted to assure me that they knew I'd put a lot of myself into the house and that they would care for it - really heart-warming and re-assuring in the sense that someone would want to let me know that. OK, I know I'm supposed to be pretty hard-bitten (and I am) but I was charmed. Now as to this blog - she told me she had stumbled across this thing by accident and really hoped I'd continue to write because I have a way with words. I pointed out that preaching to the choir is pretty easy, but she insisted anyhow. I don't hear that much so it stroked my not inconsiderable ego a bit.
OK, I'll go ahead and keep this thing going and maybe even post a bit more regularly (maybe). So this is a very public thank you to the lady from CO who went out of her way to improve my day. There are a hell of a lot of people in this world who could take this example to heart, I'll sure try to. Think about how much improved this sorry old world would be if...
Showing posts with label Words. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Words. Show all posts
Friday, September 21, 2012
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Bipartisan Politics
Engaging "wayback machine" this is Jan22,2007
Here's a phrase that seems to be getting big play, it started shortly after the '06 election results and has gained ground ever since. It has a nice ring, bipartisan, it sort of rolls off the tongue with lovely strong syllable breaks and an element of cadence. I'll bet it would sound good if you did it with a mouth full of marbles and it looks nice in print - bipartisan - hey even in italics - bipartisan. It seems such a long time time since it had any currency.
You may be familiar with the name Frank Luntz, he of the Republican dictionary, well now he's decided to tell the Democrats how to use Words that Work over at HuffPo. The idea is to bury the hatchet...not in the Republican's heads, but actually bury it. He's on to the spirit of bipartisanship (-ship kind of spoils the cadence) and even notes, "Democracy is at its best when its practitioners use language to unite and explain rather than divide and attack." I also think it works pretty well when "Clean Air" doesn't mean pollution and estate tax means that and not "Death Tax" which means you get charged for not living anymore, um, dying. It would be pretty crass to charge for the dubious privilege of being dead. He just doesn't think being vindictive will work out for the Democrat Party (sure he knows better, he just can't help himself), that the Party should figure out how to work with the Republicans. He's actually right, the Democrats cannot afford to be perceived as vindictive. What I find odd, though, is the idea that it's the Democrats who are supposed to be bipartisan. Maybe it's the bi- piece of the word that's throwing me. All the way through Webster's 9th Collegiate (again) bi- has two involved, I think the part about "both sides" (2) may just be what's up with the word. Well, anyhow, thanks Frank.
I have a little different take on this Congress deal, nobody on that side wants to get along, what they want is a chance to score points for '08 and make Democrats look bad. When you reach across that aisle, if you get your hand back, you better count your fingers. What Democrats can do (listen up Hillary) is come up with good policies, make sure everybody knows they're good, ram them through, be seen ramming them through, and make sure the Republicans get the blame for their failure to happen. The President says he can do as he pleases, well now, that's an idea, but hauling them up before investigative committees makes that a bit tougher and when the dirt falls out impeachment really ties you up. Jail can give you time to reflect on hubris.
You already know that the Republicans would like very much to undo the 06 damage and hang onto the Presidency, since they're the minority their only hope is to be obstacles and then blame Democrats as "do nothings." You can thank Mr Luntz for showing you the genesis of how it will be played, "We were reasonable but all they wanted to do was keep hitting us with a bat." Just make sure that it's obvious that the Republicans stopped the game by stealing the balls, the bases, and the scoreboard. Then whack 'em with that bat again.
That's not being vindictive, it's culling the herd.
Here's a phrase that seems to be getting big play, it started shortly after the '06 election results and has gained ground ever since. It has a nice ring, bipartisan, it sort of rolls off the tongue with lovely strong syllable breaks and an element of cadence. I'll bet it would sound good if you did it with a mouth full of marbles and it looks nice in print - bipartisan - hey even in italics - bipartisan. It seems such a long time time since it had any currency.
You may be familiar with the name Frank Luntz, he of the Republican dictionary, well now he's decided to tell the Democrats how to use Words that Work over at HuffPo. The idea is to bury the hatchet...not in the Republican's heads, but actually bury it. He's on to the spirit of bipartisanship (-ship kind of spoils the cadence) and even notes, "Democracy is at its best when its practitioners use language to unite and explain rather than divide and attack." I also think it works pretty well when "Clean Air" doesn't mean pollution and estate tax means that and not "Death Tax" which means you get charged for not living anymore, um, dying. It would be pretty crass to charge for the dubious privilege of being dead. He just doesn't think being vindictive will work out for the Democrat Party (sure he knows better, he just can't help himself), that the Party should figure out how to work with the Republicans. He's actually right, the Democrats cannot afford to be perceived as vindictive. What I find odd, though, is the idea that it's the Democrats who are supposed to be bipartisan. Maybe it's the bi- piece of the word that's throwing me. All the way through Webster's 9th Collegiate (again) bi- has two involved, I think the part about "both sides" (2) may just be what's up with the word. Well, anyhow, thanks Frank.
I have a little different take on this Congress deal, nobody on that side wants to get along, what they want is a chance to score points for '08 and make Democrats look bad. When you reach across that aisle, if you get your hand back, you better count your fingers. What Democrats can do (listen up Hillary) is come up with good policies, make sure everybody knows they're good, ram them through, be seen ramming them through, and make sure the Republicans get the blame for their failure to happen. The President says he can do as he pleases, well now, that's an idea, but hauling them up before investigative committees makes that a bit tougher and when the dirt falls out impeachment really ties you up. Jail can give you time to reflect on hubris.
You already know that the Republicans would like very much to undo the 06 damage and hang onto the Presidency, since they're the minority their only hope is to be obstacles and then blame Democrats as "do nothings." You can thank Mr Luntz for showing you the genesis of how it will be played, "We were reasonable but all they wanted to do was keep hitting us with a bat." Just make sure that it's obvious that the Republicans stopped the game by stealing the balls, the bases, and the scoreboard. Then whack 'em with that bat again.
That's not being vindictive, it's culling the herd.
Monday, May 28, 2007
War On Terror
We've heard this for years now, "war on terror" demands this, that, or the other thing. This phrase is truly a piece of nonsense, look at the words themselves:
"War" is a military engagement with an organized foe with a definitive goal and end,
"Terror" is a tactic engaged in by individuals, organizations, or governments.
So what we have is some kind of war being waged on a tactic. It's a bumper sticker. There is no war against terror, there has been a war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. In Iraq we started a war with Saddam Hussein and quickly overwhelmed his army. Since that point we have been engaged in conflict with an assortment of "bad guys." This is no longer a War, it is a series of deadly encounters with people of wildly varied agendas having only in common an opposition to American troops and each other. "Terror" is not even a definition of their combat tactics, it is applicable to a car bomb in a crowded market, but certainly not to sniping, IEDs, and firefights. Sniping is a common military tactic, IEDs are no more than mines without the title, and a firefight is what engaged units do.
Words count, they are supposed to be a method of communication, in this instance words have been used to lie about what is being done and further to dissemble aims. An action against a tactic can be accomplished with treaties, diplomacy, and law enforcement but it is not a War. The tactic is being misrepresented to the public, much of what is called terror are straightforward military tactics we ourselves use and while some of our weaponry carries a different name, they are the same thing. Finally there is what the phrase covers, wiretapping citizens without a warrant is not a war it is terrorism practiced on the citizenry, torture is not a war, it is terror, disappearances are not a war, they are terror. The tools the BushCo tries to use are not a part of warfare, they are assaults on civil liberties and humane behavior, these are the agendas of the War on Terror.
***UPDATE***
If you think I exaggerate see AP on the Alabama Homeland Security including gay rights, anti-war, and other single issue social issue organizations on a list of organizations which may habor terrorists. This one got publicized because blogs took it up, think there are other "lists" elsewhere?
"War" is a military engagement with an organized foe with a definitive goal and end,
"Terror" is a tactic engaged in by individuals, organizations, or governments.
So what we have is some kind of war being waged on a tactic. It's a bumper sticker. There is no war against terror, there has been a war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. In Iraq we started a war with Saddam Hussein and quickly overwhelmed his army. Since that point we have been engaged in conflict with an assortment of "bad guys." This is no longer a War, it is a series of deadly encounters with people of wildly varied agendas having only in common an opposition to American troops and each other. "Terror" is not even a definition of their combat tactics, it is applicable to a car bomb in a crowded market, but certainly not to sniping, IEDs, and firefights. Sniping is a common military tactic, IEDs are no more than mines without the title, and a firefight is what engaged units do.
Words count, they are supposed to be a method of communication, in this instance words have been used to lie about what is being done and further to dissemble aims. An action against a tactic can be accomplished with treaties, diplomacy, and law enforcement but it is not a War. The tactic is being misrepresented to the public, much of what is called terror are straightforward military tactics we ourselves use and while some of our weaponry carries a different name, they are the same thing. Finally there is what the phrase covers, wiretapping citizens without a warrant is not a war it is terrorism practiced on the citizenry, torture is not a war, it is terror, disappearances are not a war, they are terror. The tools the BushCo tries to use are not a part of warfare, they are assaults on civil liberties and humane behavior, these are the agendas of the War on Terror.
***UPDATE***
If you think I exaggerate see AP on the Alabama Homeland Security including gay rights, anti-war, and other single issue social issue organizations on a list of organizations which may habor terrorists. This one got publicized because blogs took it up, think there are other "lists" elsewhere?
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Speech, Free and Otherwise
One of the more egregious things I've heard said about Imus' firing was that it was a violation of free speech. What Imus had was not free speech, he had compensated speech, he was paid to say things. His employers are in the "saying things" business and as such are in control of what they want said. They, finally, didn't like what they were paying him for, so they quit paying him for it. I'll leave the why of it to others.
Regardless of where or how you say things (or write them) there are consequences of speech, the consequences can be good - I have an audience - it's a well mannered one -I'm proud to have. Sometimes the consequences aren't so hot - Imus. Sometimes the consequences aren't enacted or are delayed - Sharpton. Imus got to pay, now I'm calling for some consequences for "The Rev," he's used race and racism to unjustifiably attack people and even instigate violence, unjustifiably, so it's time he doesn't get to play the "outraged victim." His crap differs from Imus' by exactly two factors - he's black and he hasn't apologized. There is another set of differences, he's been sued for it and lost and as far as I know, nobody has died because of Imus' speech. I've already complained to the networks about holding Sharpton up as a paragon, maybe they didn't hear it enough.
Be under not illusions, if it had been my decision, I'd have warned Imus some time ago to fix his stuff or he'd be gone, this time would've taken me about 5 minutes to figure out how to say, "Get lost." President Bush has earned the appellations of George II and BushCo that I hang on him, he earned them through actions and general behaviors and those were entirely voluntary, not a matter of sex or race. The news media seems to be composed of twits who can't remember anything or research anything regarding a "black spokesman."
I don't do PC, I also don't try to be gratuitously rude. Remember that I'm a hard core lefty who owns and shoots guns and dragraces and defends labor from illegal hiring. I would be an odd representative for PC. If somebody tries to run Imus at you as PC run amok or a free speech issue, I've given you some ammo, not to mention an example of anti-PC that isn't rude.
You're a heck of an audience, you make this exercise in free speech enjoyable.
Regardless of where or how you say things (or write them) there are consequences of speech, the consequences can be good - I have an audience - it's a well mannered one -I'm proud to have. Sometimes the consequences aren't so hot - Imus. Sometimes the consequences aren't enacted or are delayed - Sharpton. Imus got to pay, now I'm calling for some consequences for "The Rev," he's used race and racism to unjustifiably attack people and even instigate violence, unjustifiably, so it's time he doesn't get to play the "outraged victim." His crap differs from Imus' by exactly two factors - he's black and he hasn't apologized. There is another set of differences, he's been sued for it and lost and as far as I know, nobody has died because of Imus' speech. I've already complained to the networks about holding Sharpton up as a paragon, maybe they didn't hear it enough.
Be under not illusions, if it had been my decision, I'd have warned Imus some time ago to fix his stuff or he'd be gone, this time would've taken me about 5 minutes to figure out how to say, "Get lost." President Bush has earned the appellations of George II and BushCo that I hang on him, he earned them through actions and general behaviors and those were entirely voluntary, not a matter of sex or race. The news media seems to be composed of twits who can't remember anything or research anything regarding a "black spokesman."
I don't do PC, I also don't try to be gratuitously rude. Remember that I'm a hard core lefty who owns and shoots guns and dragraces and defends labor from illegal hiring. I would be an odd representative for PC. If somebody tries to run Imus at you as PC run amok or a free speech issue, I've given you some ammo, not to mention an example of anti-PC that isn't rude.
You're a heck of an audience, you make this exercise in free speech enjoyable.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Waste and Sacrifice
There has been a bit of a storm lately about what word describes the deaths and injuries of our soldiers in Iraq. The first assumption in the argument is whether Iraq is something the US should be doing or or is a mistake. Most of America believes it is a mistake, by a wider margin than virtually any other political issue. This said and allowed as a basis leaves another point, the feelings of those who've been harmed by this issue. The families and friends of soldiers and others killed and injured certainly have good reasons to not like the term 'waste' applied to their own.
Rep Barney Frank (D) and others have made the point that you do not gain ground in an argument by harming or offending those you are speaking for or attempting to persuade. There is a great deal of truth in this statement, words carry loading and for some people in this issue there has been great harm.
I'd like to change the ground under this argument, all of our soldiers are volunteers. These individuals have made a choice to serve the United States of America, they do not serve George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Paul Wolfson, or any other individual. Their commitment is to their country and their unit. I do not care how pointless and stupid this war is, I do not care how stupid and pointless GWB is, this country and their fellow soldiers are not a stupid pointless commitment. Loss of life and injury is not a good thing, but it can occur for good reasons and devotion to country and fellows is good reason. I do not like the term waste applied to such a venture, Iraq is a waste in political, military, and social terms, what the soldiers have done is not. Sacrifice is the term used for a giving of oneself, it's better to let it go as that.
Rep Barney Frank (D) and others have made the point that you do not gain ground in an argument by harming or offending those you are speaking for or attempting to persuade. There is a great deal of truth in this statement, words carry loading and for some people in this issue there has been great harm.
I'd like to change the ground under this argument, all of our soldiers are volunteers. These individuals have made a choice to serve the United States of America, they do not serve George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Paul Wolfson, or any other individual. Their commitment is to their country and their unit. I do not care how pointless and stupid this war is, I do not care how stupid and pointless GWB is, this country and their fellow soldiers are not a stupid pointless commitment. Loss of life and injury is not a good thing, but it can occur for good reasons and devotion to country and fellows is good reason. I do not like the term waste applied to such a venture, Iraq is a waste in political, military, and social terms, what the soldiers have done is not. Sacrifice is the term used for a giving of oneself, it's better to let it go as that.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Scapegoat ...Aaaaaaggghhhh!
The President of the USA told 60 Minutes in an interview that if Americans wanted a "scapegoat" he was it. There have been "things that could've been done better" and if we need a scapegoat he'll take it on for us. My head exploded.
I like Webster's 9th New Collegiate, it's not the best but they do get to the point fairly quickly and are accepted:
scapegoat - 1. *biblical, never mind* 2. a: one who bears the blame for others b: one that is the object of irrational hostility
If Merriam Webster take these people in the White House seriously they're going to be publishing an entirely new type of dictionary, one with meanings optional. They'll just spray words at a page and you get to pick what you like.
Now if you can explain to me how exactly it is that the Commander-in-Chief, you know, The Decider, is bearing the blame for someone else regarding the conduct of his war I'll try to put my head back together and apologize. Failing that, explain to me how this person who has mislead us into a war, mismanaged a war, inaccurately described the progress of a war, and divided this country into Patriots who back him and Traitors who do not is the object of irrational hostility on this basis and I'll just stop writing anything at all, ever again, because I must be psychologically imbalanced and just plain retarded.
There is such a complete and total disregard for the meaning of the English language demonstrated by these people that there probably are no words to adequately describe it to them. This misuse of the language goes beyond spin into the realm of propaganda. For Condi Rice to argue that escalation isn't the proper term, that augmentation is a correct description to a US Senator - Republican - is just plain ... stupid. Augment means: to make greater, more numerous, larger, or more intense and escalate means : to increase in extent, volume, number, amount, intensity, or scope. This is the best we can do for a Sec. State? This isn't about the diplomacy of correct language, this is about using the language to deny that what you're doing is exactly what you say you're doing. Does this make your head spin? 'We don't want you to think we're doing exactly what we're telling you we are doing because you might not like us doing exactly what we just told you we are doing.' If you don't like being treated like a complete idiot, it would pay to remember that these people were elected by us TWICE.
I like Webster's 9th New Collegiate, it's not the best but they do get to the point fairly quickly and are accepted:
scapegoat - 1. *biblical, never mind* 2. a: one who bears the blame for others b: one that is the object of irrational hostility
If Merriam Webster take these people in the White House seriously they're going to be publishing an entirely new type of dictionary, one with meanings optional. They'll just spray words at a page and you get to pick what you like.
Now if you can explain to me how exactly it is that the Commander-in-Chief, you know, The Decider, is bearing the blame for someone else regarding the conduct of his war I'll try to put my head back together and apologize. Failing that, explain to me how this person who has mislead us into a war, mismanaged a war, inaccurately described the progress of a war, and divided this country into Patriots who back him and Traitors who do not is the object of irrational hostility on this basis and I'll just stop writing anything at all, ever again, because I must be psychologically imbalanced and just plain retarded.
There is such a complete and total disregard for the meaning of the English language demonstrated by these people that there probably are no words to adequately describe it to them. This misuse of the language goes beyond spin into the realm of propaganda. For Condi Rice to argue that escalation isn't the proper term, that augmentation is a correct description to a US Senator - Republican - is just plain ... stupid. Augment means: to make greater, more numerous, larger, or more intense and escalate means : to increase in extent, volume, number, amount, intensity, or scope. This is the best we can do for a Sec. State? This isn't about the diplomacy of correct language, this is about using the language to deny that what you're doing is exactly what you say you're doing. Does this make your head spin? 'We don't want you to think we're doing exactly what we're telling you we are doing because you might not like us doing exactly what we just told you we are doing.' If you don't like being treated like a complete idiot, it would pay to remember that these people were elected by us TWICE.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Jay Rosen - PressThink
You will find a new link on the side bar PressThink written by Jay Rosen who teaches journalism at NYU and spends some time thinking about interesting perspectives. His latest, "Grave and Deteriorating for the Children of Agnew"does some tracing of the conservative crying of media bias. He's spent quite a few words putting this together and I have no intention of trying a Cliff Notes version of short-changing him, so you 'll need to go on over there. You might want to save to 'Favorites' or whatever your browser calls it.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Words and More Words
Words are such wonderful things, there's so much information included in them and in some usages so much music. They contain not only information and music but also feelings. Ah, words, I suppose it's obvious as a Blogger that I love words.
Well, mostly I do. The misuse of words infuriates me, the misappropriation of words can bring me to frothing fury.
Hero. What a great word, short, almost musical in itself, magical in its connotation, magnificent in its fact. What crap to apply it to people doing their ordinary job. Calling a supply seargent sitting at his desk a Hero devalues the word and hence the soldier risking his life by rescuing a comrade under heavy fire or holding a position at all odds. I watched a dashboard camera recording of a cop climbing onto the hood of a fully engulfed burning automobile to smash out the windshield and pull an unconscious woman out and get hit by the explosion within feet of the car while carrying that woman, now I can say the word hero and have a feeling in my eyes and throat and gut and know exactly what I meant and I didn't mean a cop writing a speeding ticket.
George Bush has brought up the Freedom Agenda, agenda is pretty non-commital but there's that word Freedom. Hey, 1776, the Emancipation Proclamation, VE Day, boy have we got some some background stuff for freedom. What the heck does freedom have to do with George Bush's oil and war profiteering inspired adventure in Iraq? And since he's linked it to terrorism, exactly how does the restriction of our civil libeties and abridgement of the Bill of Rights and violation of the Constitution have anything whatever to do with the word freedom? And he uses it to the American Legion? And they bought it?
Security is one of those double edged words, little kids have their security blanket, a warm soft concept and then there's the other side. The FBI sneak and peek, you know, Federal Agents breaking into your house without a warrant to get something to get a warrant. Then there's the comforting thought that the President of the United States says he can listen to your calls without court approval, because he says so. Now if you're fond of secure vacations from work, security means that if George Bush calls you an enemy combatant and you just disappear into the Federal Penal system, you don't get a trial. Now don't you have a warm soft feeling?
Cut and Run, there's a set of cold words. These are good for debasing someone. Cut and Run, oooh, cowardice all over it. We all remember those bang bang shoot 'em up westerns, the weasly shop owner cuts and runs while the brave cowpoke stands up to the desparadoes. Has anybody made a comparison to Vietnam and the draft and getting to fly jets in Texas and deferments out the kazooo for people now "running the show" and "staying the course"? Maybe I exaggerate, it has been proven dangerous to shoot caged pigeons. For other people.
Clean Air Act, Forest Preservation Act, Patriot Act, there's some nice sounding stuff. There was a near miss with Homeland Security, that one evokes swastikas. What the hell are these people doing to our words? Joseph Goebbles mangled German to abuse people and justify atrocities, is this where we're headed? Even if these people's politics didn't stink, for what they're doing to our language they've got to go.
Well, mostly I do. The misuse of words infuriates me, the misappropriation of words can bring me to frothing fury.
Hero. What a great word, short, almost musical in itself, magical in its connotation, magnificent in its fact. What crap to apply it to people doing their ordinary job. Calling a supply seargent sitting at his desk a Hero devalues the word and hence the soldier risking his life by rescuing a comrade under heavy fire or holding a position at all odds. I watched a dashboard camera recording of a cop climbing onto the hood of a fully engulfed burning automobile to smash out the windshield and pull an unconscious woman out and get hit by the explosion within feet of the car while carrying that woman, now I can say the word hero and have a feeling in my eyes and throat and gut and know exactly what I meant and I didn't mean a cop writing a speeding ticket.
George Bush has brought up the Freedom Agenda, agenda is pretty non-commital but there's that word Freedom. Hey, 1776, the Emancipation Proclamation, VE Day, boy have we got some some background stuff for freedom. What the heck does freedom have to do with George Bush's oil and war profiteering inspired adventure in Iraq? And since he's linked it to terrorism, exactly how does the restriction of our civil libeties and abridgement of the Bill of Rights and violation of the Constitution have anything whatever to do with the word freedom? And he uses it to the American Legion? And they bought it?
Security is one of those double edged words, little kids have their security blanket, a warm soft concept and then there's the other side. The FBI sneak and peek, you know, Federal Agents breaking into your house without a warrant to get something to get a warrant. Then there's the comforting thought that the President of the United States says he can listen to your calls without court approval, because he says so. Now if you're fond of secure vacations from work, security means that if George Bush calls you an enemy combatant and you just disappear into the Federal Penal system, you don't get a trial. Now don't you have a warm soft feeling?
Cut and Run, there's a set of cold words. These are good for debasing someone. Cut and Run, oooh, cowardice all over it. We all remember those bang bang shoot 'em up westerns, the weasly shop owner cuts and runs while the brave cowpoke stands up to the desparadoes. Has anybody made a comparison to Vietnam and the draft and getting to fly jets in Texas and deferments out the kazooo for people now "running the show" and "staying the course"? Maybe I exaggerate, it has been proven dangerous to shoot caged pigeons. For other people.
Clean Air Act, Forest Preservation Act, Patriot Act, there's some nice sounding stuff. There was a near miss with Homeland Security, that one evokes swastikas. What the hell are these people doing to our words? Joseph Goebbles mangled German to abuse people and justify atrocities, is this where we're headed? Even if these people's politics didn't stink, for what they're doing to our language they've got to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)