Happy July 4th!
Today is the celebration of our Independence! And the meaning of this day is significant to the world, as it is and was an "American experiment' in diversity of every kind. Governments are instituted by men to maintain order in society. Our order is one that is moral as it values all expressions of life, and guranteew equality under law, this is what liberty is about.
Conservative Christian's that have a fundamental bent believe in the 'pro-life" movement. Their ultimate value is life, as it is believed to be given by God. God's sovereignty is understood in these circles to mean whatever happens is "God's will", as their understanding and commitment to liberty is limited.
These Christians believe that choice is not to be valued as to one's life, because life is pre-destined or pre-determined by sovereign right of God within "providence" or sovereign rule of scripture. These Christians do not understand that our country's ultimate value is based on liberty, not life.
Is life of value without choice or liberty? I believe not for liberty means justice, as to conscience about the details of one's life. But, while I believe that civil liberties are important, so is upholding moral order, which is based on "law".
Law is what is legislated and agreed upon to maintain order and a civil society. Therefore, there are many lives that are of value that the conservative would dismiss "in the name of God". I believe that this dismissal itself is abhorrent, as we should be intolerant of the intolerant. So, while we may disagree with how one chooses to live their life and the values they uphold, we must in a free society allow them their "freedom of conscience".
Freedom of conscience affirms the religious just as much as it affirms the "infidel". Therefore, we must not dismiss the other without acknowledging that we undermine the very values that our Founder's had, diversity.
Does this mean that someone has to tolerate or live within a group identity that is not conducive toward their convictions? No. Our country is large enough to embrace all forms of understanding. We just cannot tolerate the intolerant, when it comes to the values of life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty, or give me death"! I think he is right, because otherwise we live, yes,
but under tyranny!
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Friday, July 3, 2009
Liberty and Marriage and Parenting
Marriage is a social structure and a social contract. Social structures have functions in society, but are not necessarily to be understood as static, as any healthy relationship grows with the people involved. Social contract is the communicated and agreed upon expectations about the marrage.
I find that those who adhere to a traditional conservative view of marriage, sometimes do not allow freedom to the individuals to formulate their own roles within the marriage, as they are defined in static form by the text of scripture. These make no allowance for individual conscience or identity apart from the marriage unit. In psychological terms, identities become "enmeshed", or "enabling" or "authoriatarian" and "overbearing", instead of functioning in a healthy dynamic way.
Communication is key to the continued intimacy in a changing relationship, as otherwise, there will be no ongoing understanding. Some think that there is no need to communicate, as their expectations of their marital partner is already understood, because of the "role" the other is to perform. Performance of any function is a de-humanizing way to "be" in a relationship. The standardization of marriage leads to a suppression of individual differences in talents as well as conscience.
I have used Jenny Sandford as an example of a healthy individual. She has not defined herself by her role, but understands that her person is not defined as Gov. Sandford's wife, but as a separate identity with a separate career. She also gives her husband room to choose what he will be and what he will do. This is why she can say she will forgive him, but reconcilliation is dependent on him, not just on her part. He must respect her, as well as co-operate in the relationship as an "equal partner". This is common sense, but some Christian marital counselors would condone an unhealthy union, as long as there is no physical abuse.
I think that whenever there are certain prescribed expectations that become formalized, then there will definately be an unhealthy relationship, as relationship is not about the "formula" but about the individuals involved. Their distinct uniqueness as individuals is impossible to define within a " roles or functions" understanding or mentality.
Expectations that are defined universally and not specifically, are a hinderance to the relationship. There is no form for marriage, in regards to roles and functions, just as there are no "formulas" that define what universal parenting should look like, except that the parent is interested in the best for the child.
Good parenting takes wisdom and makes room for the child's individual differences. Bad parenting does not allow the child to develop properly as it is overbearing, indifferent, or hovering. These bad parenting models are more about the parent's needs, than the child's. So, it takes a mature adult to raise a child and to be a good parent.
And it takes a mature person to be in an intimate relationship that is healthy and growing. Fortunately, our country allows diverse views and opinions. This is healthy for the individual, as well as the social structures.
I find that those who adhere to a traditional conservative view of marriage, sometimes do not allow freedom to the individuals to formulate their own roles within the marriage, as they are defined in static form by the text of scripture. These make no allowance for individual conscience or identity apart from the marriage unit. In psychological terms, identities become "enmeshed", or "enabling" or "authoriatarian" and "overbearing", instead of functioning in a healthy dynamic way.
Communication is key to the continued intimacy in a changing relationship, as otherwise, there will be no ongoing understanding. Some think that there is no need to communicate, as their expectations of their marital partner is already understood, because of the "role" the other is to perform. Performance of any function is a de-humanizing way to "be" in a relationship. The standardization of marriage leads to a suppression of individual differences in talents as well as conscience.
I have used Jenny Sandford as an example of a healthy individual. She has not defined herself by her role, but understands that her person is not defined as Gov. Sandford's wife, but as a separate identity with a separate career. She also gives her husband room to choose what he will be and what he will do. This is why she can say she will forgive him, but reconcilliation is dependent on him, not just on her part. He must respect her, as well as co-operate in the relationship as an "equal partner". This is common sense, but some Christian marital counselors would condone an unhealthy union, as long as there is no physical abuse.
I think that whenever there are certain prescribed expectations that become formalized, then there will definately be an unhealthy relationship, as relationship is not about the "formula" but about the individuals involved. Their distinct uniqueness as individuals is impossible to define within a " roles or functions" understanding or mentality.
Expectations that are defined universally and not specifically, are a hinderance to the relationship. There is no form for marriage, in regards to roles and functions, just as there are no "formulas" that define what universal parenting should look like, except that the parent is interested in the best for the child.
Good parenting takes wisdom and makes room for the child's individual differences. Bad parenting does not allow the child to develop properly as it is overbearing, indifferent, or hovering. These bad parenting models are more about the parent's needs, than the child's. So, it takes a mature adult to raise a child and to be a good parent.
And it takes a mature person to be in an intimate relationship that is healthy and growing. Fortunately, our country allows diverse views and opinions. This is healthy for the individual, as well as the social structures.
Identity, Liberty, and Multiculturalism/Postmodernity
Many in the academic world have made much of the "talk" of postmodernity, or multiculturalism. This view affirms what defines "context", "groups of identity", and the values that these adhere to in behavioral standards. While I agree that all groups have to be defined, and that identification factors are not invalid, is there something that is "more" important and on what basis does one determine what is most important?
Yesterday, I wrote about how I was struck by Jenny Sandford. She had defined herself apart from these group identifiers, at least in her principles. She was able to evaluate a situation that was very personal from an objective viewpoint. She has her boundaries, although she respected others their right and understood that right in giving a "negative response" to the press.
Last night I listened to one of the contributors on a blog site I follow, American Creation. His name is Jonathan Rowe. He is libertarian in political commitment, but the others on this blog site range in their political commitment from fundamentalist evangelical, Mormonism, to agnostic. These political commitment are direct corrolaries to their individual understandings of the Founder's intent in regards to American principles.
Jonathan said that the Establishment Clause has not been definitively defined by the Supreme Court. The Establishment Clause has to do with religious freedom and the State and whether our country is a "Christian nation" or not. The Founders personally had various religious convictions, or commitments. This is why I believe they were libertarian in their understanding of religious traiditions.
While religious freedom defines our founding and protected the individual's conscience within a group identity, I am concerned about these very freedoms being undermined when it comes to certain ideals, as it concerns the Enlightenment. These ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are universal. But, is the universal personal, or is the universal communal?
I believe that the universal is personal within a communal/universal context. Therefore, individual/civil liberties trump communal/religious rights. This view protects or upholds human rights. And I believe that those who value women should adhere to this view. Traditions do not value women, for the most part.
Does the State protect religious conviction when human rights to education, medical care, and dignity are de-meaned, ignored, suppressed or subverted? And yet, where will religious freedom be, if there is not freedom from State intervention? Civil liberties protect both human rights and religious freedom. Freedom of conscience as it regards these issues is the most important value, in my opinion.
So, today's discussion is over the individual/personal, group identification/ multiculturalism, postmodernity/ modernity, dichotomies. Where do you think the lines should be when it comes to religious freedom, individual conscience, multiculturalism, immigration policy, assimilation, etc. All of these issues are at stake in our free society. We must address them to remain free.
Yesterday, I wrote about how I was struck by Jenny Sandford. She had defined herself apart from these group identifiers, at least in her principles. She was able to evaluate a situation that was very personal from an objective viewpoint. She has her boundaries, although she respected others their right and understood that right in giving a "negative response" to the press.
Last night I listened to one of the contributors on a blog site I follow, American Creation. His name is Jonathan Rowe. He is libertarian in political commitment, but the others on this blog site range in their political commitment from fundamentalist evangelical, Mormonism, to agnostic. These political commitment are direct corrolaries to their individual understandings of the Founder's intent in regards to American principles.
Jonathan said that the Establishment Clause has not been definitively defined by the Supreme Court. The Establishment Clause has to do with religious freedom and the State and whether our country is a "Christian nation" or not. The Founders personally had various religious convictions, or commitments. This is why I believe they were libertarian in their understanding of religious traiditions.
While religious freedom defines our founding and protected the individual's conscience within a group identity, I am concerned about these very freedoms being undermined when it comes to certain ideals, as it concerns the Enlightenment. These ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are universal. But, is the universal personal, or is the universal communal?
I believe that the universal is personal within a communal/universal context. Therefore, individual/civil liberties trump communal/religious rights. This view protects or upholds human rights. And I believe that those who value women should adhere to this view. Traditions do not value women, for the most part.
Does the State protect religious conviction when human rights to education, medical care, and dignity are de-meaned, ignored, suppressed or subverted? And yet, where will religious freedom be, if there is not freedom from State intervention? Civil liberties protect both human rights and religious freedom. Freedom of conscience as it regards these issues is the most important value, in my opinion.
So, today's discussion is over the individual/personal, group identification/ multiculturalism, postmodernity/ modernity, dichotomies. Where do you think the lines should be when it comes to religious freedom, individual conscience, multiculturalism, immigration policy, assimilation, etc. All of these issues are at stake in our free society. We must address them to remain free.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
"Self", Jenny Sanford and Christian Faith
I read an editorial about Jenny Sanford this morning and in light of a friend's e-mail today, I think that this is worth a blog entry.
The editorial was about how Jenny Sandford was handling the media and her husband's infidelity. She is being upheld by this editorialist as an "shining example" to others. I agree.
Instead of "standing by her man", like Christian conservatives (and other politician's wives) would affirm, she was not present at her husband's "confession". It is, after all, totally his responsibility and his choice. She is allowing him that freedom, although she had asked him to leave the house two weeks prior to his latest escapade. That is courageous. When the press intruded upon her family at an opportune moment, she respected their right of coverage, but also demanded her right to privacy, by telling the press that there was no room in the boat for them. She is no victim, nor is she victimized by his choices, nor is she to be humiliated in the press by expose'. She has a distinctly different concept of "self" than most conservative Christians and our voyeristic culture. She has dignity and self-respect.
Christians deem it necessary to be responsible for others. This is what is called the "social gospel". We must "walk the second mile", bear the burden of others, and fulfill the "law of Christ". I guess Jenny has considered her "walk" with Gov. Sandford and her commitment of these years of marriage as enough to "prove" her character. She is not trying to "prove" anything about herself; how compassionate, and how forgiving, etc. This is unlike what is "preached" in Christian circles.
I admire what she has accomplished. She is a investment banker. I think a Vice President. She is a strong, capable and independent woman. We need more of them, but we won't get them if conservative Christians have anything to say about it.
The editorial was about how Jenny Sandford was handling the media and her husband's infidelity. She is being upheld by this editorialist as an "shining example" to others. I agree.
Instead of "standing by her man", like Christian conservatives (and other politician's wives) would affirm, she was not present at her husband's "confession". It is, after all, totally his responsibility and his choice. She is allowing him that freedom, although she had asked him to leave the house two weeks prior to his latest escapade. That is courageous. When the press intruded upon her family at an opportune moment, she respected their right of coverage, but also demanded her right to privacy, by telling the press that there was no room in the boat for them. She is no victim, nor is she victimized by his choices, nor is she to be humiliated in the press by expose'. She has a distinctly different concept of "self" than most conservative Christians and our voyeristic culture. She has dignity and self-respect.
Christians deem it necessary to be responsible for others. This is what is called the "social gospel". We must "walk the second mile", bear the burden of others, and fulfill the "law of Christ". I guess Jenny has considered her "walk" with Gov. Sandford and her commitment of these years of marriage as enough to "prove" her character. She is not trying to "prove" anything about herself; how compassionate, and how forgiving, etc. This is unlike what is "preached" in Christian circles.
I admire what she has accomplished. She is a investment banker. I think a Vice President. She is a strong, capable and independent woman. We need more of them, but we won't get them if conservative Christians have anything to say about it.
Do Values Determine One's Paradigmic Understanding?
I have been thinking a lot about our American Government and the values it upholds. This is probably timely, as July 4th is just aroung the corner. We, Americans, "hold these truth to be evident, that all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights".This implies that each person's understanding and values are to be commended, as a "right". But, what determines their "understanding"? Education and culture.
Culture is a frame of reference, which determines the most important values of a person. In our free society, the individual is "free" to determine his own life. It is called "self-government". Our Constitution limits our government from overt determination or covert suppression, in a number of areas; privacy, religion, freedom of expression (speech, press, assembly). Individuality marks the American experiment.
But, Americans determine their own values in various ways. Some Americans adhere to an exclusive religious claim and gain and maintain their identity through the group's approved norms. Others Americans gain their values from their specified "cultural location". These values all influence the individual's own values and determine how he views the world and life, in general.
Education in our American society has been public, private, and religiously based. Each has its own constituencies. And each has its emphasis. While private and religiously based education has been privately funded, public education has not. We believe in the right of everyone to have an education. There is no "elite class" or "tracking system" as in European countries. A lack of "tracking or limiting" education to those who are "fit" for it has its downsides, as well as its opportunities. But, Americans believe in equality of each individual to choose his place of education.
Education has been valued for its ability to prepare others for a vocation/job, as Americans are pragmatists. Pragmatism has had its impact on American opportunity, irregardless of 'fit". In Europe, education is deemed to be a service to society. Those who have higher IQ's are deemed "fit" to fulfill a certain role or function in society. These are the ones who are tracked to attend the "gymnasium" high school and later to attend the publically funded universities.
Professors are considered highly in European society, whereas, educators are not valued, on the whole in American society. Americans like their entertainment, after working their jobs to earn their living. They don't seem to care to think about "values" or if "values" are important to address as to change. Americans are open, generous, and self-focused, for the most part, because they are naive'.
Perhaps, because America is so large and many do not travel extensively and even when we do, we don't go out of our country to understand the 'wider world". Cultural differences don't exist because we are a diverse country and "anything goes", while Europeans can be in another country and hear another language and experience another culture in a matter of a few hours drive. Most Europeans are exposed to differences, in a different way, than Americans are.
So, when Americans talk of values, then we are a people who define ourselves, by the multiplicity of opportunities, and "cultures" we can be a part of. American identity is as diverse as the American population. And the individual's values are developed within a diverse, open and free society that should value critical thinking more than it does.
Culture is a frame of reference, which determines the most important values of a person. In our free society, the individual is "free" to determine his own life. It is called "self-government". Our Constitution limits our government from overt determination or covert suppression, in a number of areas; privacy, religion, freedom of expression (speech, press, assembly). Individuality marks the American experiment.
But, Americans determine their own values in various ways. Some Americans adhere to an exclusive religious claim and gain and maintain their identity through the group's approved norms. Others Americans gain their values from their specified "cultural location". These values all influence the individual's own values and determine how he views the world and life, in general.
Education in our American society has been public, private, and religiously based. Each has its own constituencies. And each has its emphasis. While private and religiously based education has been privately funded, public education has not. We believe in the right of everyone to have an education. There is no "elite class" or "tracking system" as in European countries. A lack of "tracking or limiting" education to those who are "fit" for it has its downsides, as well as its opportunities. But, Americans believe in equality of each individual to choose his place of education.
Education has been valued for its ability to prepare others for a vocation/job, as Americans are pragmatists. Pragmatism has had its impact on American opportunity, irregardless of 'fit". In Europe, education is deemed to be a service to society. Those who have higher IQ's are deemed "fit" to fulfill a certain role or function in society. These are the ones who are tracked to attend the "gymnasium" high school and later to attend the publically funded universities.
Professors are considered highly in European society, whereas, educators are not valued, on the whole in American society. Americans like their entertainment, after working their jobs to earn their living. They don't seem to care to think about "values" or if "values" are important to address as to change. Americans are open, generous, and self-focused, for the most part, because they are naive'.
Perhaps, because America is so large and many do not travel extensively and even when we do, we don't go out of our country to understand the 'wider world". Cultural differences don't exist because we are a diverse country and "anything goes", while Europeans can be in another country and hear another language and experience another culture in a matter of a few hours drive. Most Europeans are exposed to differences, in a different way, than Americans are.
So, when Americans talk of values, then we are a people who define ourselves, by the multiplicity of opportunities, and "cultures" we can be a part of. American identity is as diverse as the American population. And the individual's values are developed within a diverse, open and free society that should value critical thinking more than it does.
Bad Attitudes, Good Attitudes in the Media and Healthcare
I have to admit that I haven't been engaged with the discussion on healthcare, as I am not open to government taking over that part of my life, no matter what their "greater good" arguments are. I recognize that my husband's employer, as well as many other employer's are probably most interested in this discussion, as many foot much of the bill. But, I have listened to some of the discussion. What stikes me is the press!
We need a Free Press to remain a Free Society. Without a free press, we are headed for an authoritarianism that will subvert any choice that the individual may want. The taking over of our liberties is done incrementally and without much notice, unless one is aware. The press is aware of what is happening, if they will 'take a step back for ideological commitments and do their job responsibly. The government is held accountable by the press and is the greatest assest, if sometimes the only way "we, the people" are informed! I love to see a "critical press". But, most of the time the press holds a double standard when it comes to Republican and Democratic leaders.
I caught a glimpse of change when one of the press's most prestigous and well-known asked a question of Obama's press secretary. He tried to delay answering the question until the end of the press conference. Why? Was it because he hoped that the question would not be televised, or that he had time to "think" about how to finagle out of directly answering the question? Was the question so direct and critical that he was "taken aback"?
Whatever the reason of his request for delay, he was held accountable to the press! In fact, the press insisted that the question be answered, then and there. And it was suggested that the press was being controlled! I was very elated to see such courage, such critical thinking, such responsibility toward the American people and one's job!
Was this a bad and disrespectful attitude toward those in authority? Or was this a Good Attitude because the press was not being held hostage to the adminstration's desires about healthcare?
Is this adminstration having an open dialogue with the American people about the real problems, and allowing the population to engage, be informed and educated, as well, as being honest about the pros and cons of both sides of the issue? I don't think so.
I "ran upon" a town hall meeting when flipping through the channels last night, while babysitting. The moderator asserted that Obama had not been informed beforehand about any question that was forthcoming. He was answering honestly and directly. The first question was about why America wouldn't want a one payer insurance policy, meaning that the government underwrites all of everyone's healthcare. Obama did not answer with pros and cons, but only with the pros concerning government take-over of everyone's healthcare.It seemed to me that it was a 'prepared answer' to a specifically focused question. Obama didn't show any critical thinking skills at all.
Then, a woman stood up and said she hoped she could ask a question without crying...she gave her "story" and the public was moved, Obama gave her a hug and reassurance that "government would be there"! I was not moved and was incredulous at a Town Hall meeting of our president, the most powerful of the free world, having an"Oprah-like" "feel". I turned off the TV. I couldn't bear how manipulative the whole scene seemed.
I am not negating this woman's real crisis, if it is real. But, I am negating what seems to be a "play for reality TV" when it comes to our policy decisions. All it takes for authoritariansm to take hold of our government is for there to be no accountability. The "consent of the governed" is being taken incrementally, subtly, and without any critical thinking on the part of the American people!
Did the press have a "bad attitude" toward the press secretary by "not being nice" in his request of denying an anwer to a direct question? or was the press really in "good behavior" according to their responsibility toward the American people? I think it is obvious!
We need a Free Press to remain a Free Society. Without a free press, we are headed for an authoritarianism that will subvert any choice that the individual may want. The taking over of our liberties is done incrementally and without much notice, unless one is aware. The press is aware of what is happening, if they will 'take a step back for ideological commitments and do their job responsibly. The government is held accountable by the press and is the greatest assest, if sometimes the only way "we, the people" are informed! I love to see a "critical press". But, most of the time the press holds a double standard when it comes to Republican and Democratic leaders.
I caught a glimpse of change when one of the press's most prestigous and well-known asked a question of Obama's press secretary. He tried to delay answering the question until the end of the press conference. Why? Was it because he hoped that the question would not be televised, or that he had time to "think" about how to finagle out of directly answering the question? Was the question so direct and critical that he was "taken aback"?
Whatever the reason of his request for delay, he was held accountable to the press! In fact, the press insisted that the question be answered, then and there. And it was suggested that the press was being controlled! I was very elated to see such courage, such critical thinking, such responsibility toward the American people and one's job!
Was this a bad and disrespectful attitude toward those in authority? Or was this a Good Attitude because the press was not being held hostage to the adminstration's desires about healthcare?
Is this adminstration having an open dialogue with the American people about the real problems, and allowing the population to engage, be informed and educated, as well, as being honest about the pros and cons of both sides of the issue? I don't think so.
I "ran upon" a town hall meeting when flipping through the channels last night, while babysitting. The moderator asserted that Obama had not been informed beforehand about any question that was forthcoming. He was answering honestly and directly. The first question was about why America wouldn't want a one payer insurance policy, meaning that the government underwrites all of everyone's healthcare. Obama did not answer with pros and cons, but only with the pros concerning government take-over of everyone's healthcare.It seemed to me that it was a 'prepared answer' to a specifically focused question. Obama didn't show any critical thinking skills at all.
Then, a woman stood up and said she hoped she could ask a question without crying...she gave her "story" and the public was moved, Obama gave her a hug and reassurance that "government would be there"! I was not moved and was incredulous at a Town Hall meeting of our president, the most powerful of the free world, having an"Oprah-like" "feel". I turned off the TV. I couldn't bear how manipulative the whole scene seemed.
I am not negating this woman's real crisis, if it is real. But, I am negating what seems to be a "play for reality TV" when it comes to our policy decisions. All it takes for authoritariansm to take hold of our government is for there to be no accountability. The "consent of the governed" is being taken incrementally, subtly, and without any critical thinking on the part of the American people!
Did the press have a "bad attitude" toward the press secretary by "not being nice" in his request of denying an anwer to a direct question? or was the press really in "good behavior" according to their responsibility toward the American people? I think it is obvious!
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
What I Find Interesting in Language
As I have been intereacting on different blog sites, it occurs to me that each subject or discipline has its own language, which different "communities" or "peoples" use, understand and value.
I think that for one to be a good social constructionist, all languages must be used. For without the different languages, and ability to translate into other languages amongst the disciplines, then the disciplines cannot colaborate about the "whole" truth of a certain subject.
Since the human being or person is the unifying factor amongst all subjects, then one must ascertain what defines the human person.
Social scientists inform us that we are products of our environment. These are determining factors, while the more recent intersection of the neurosciences suggest that the human is determined by his DNA. Which is true? Both.
Religion and anthropoligists say that the human is bound by his particular context and understanding in his cultural framework. While this is true it undermines what moral philosophers and moral development has found to be true.
Moral philosophers and moral developmental has shown that the human person is a free agent. A free agent is determined by his free choice in a free society. But, what defines morality in a free society? This is where moral philosophy that was wrought in America's founding is useful.
I find that all of these subjects are profoundly interesting. And this is why I am wanting to learn the languages.
I think that for one to be a good social constructionist, all languages must be used. For without the different languages, and ability to translate into other languages amongst the disciplines, then the disciplines cannot colaborate about the "whole" truth of a certain subject.
Since the human being or person is the unifying factor amongst all subjects, then one must ascertain what defines the human person.
Social scientists inform us that we are products of our environment. These are determining factors, while the more recent intersection of the neurosciences suggest that the human is determined by his DNA. Which is true? Both.
Religion and anthropoligists say that the human is bound by his particular context and understanding in his cultural framework. While this is true it undermines what moral philosophers and moral development has found to be true.
Moral philosophers and moral developmental has shown that the human person is a free agent. A free agent is determined by his free choice in a free society. But, what defines morality in a free society? This is where moral philosophy that was wrought in America's founding is useful.
I find that all of these subjects are profoundly interesting. And this is why I am wanting to learn the languages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
