The mixed economy is not longer mixed. Welcome to socialism, at the speed of light. I can only hang my head and raise a glass in a toast to the memory of what could have been.
And now a prediction: Give all failing industries time to approach the government for a bailout. They will all line up, and less efficient they are (negative profits and enormous numbers of employees), the more likely they will become part of the new "don't let anyone fail" government of ours. Expect auto and airline industries at the front of the line.
I expect inflation to go through the roof, since these paper bills we hold apparently have no value at all since the government is giving them away to purchase failed enterprises and prop up stock prices. Run for the hills!!!!
Friday, September 19, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
McCain, what the hell!?!
C'mon, I mean, c'mon. It makes you look like a befuddled old man to forget how many homes you own.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Michael Phelps
An important question. I don't care if he is or not, but what's the point of a free country if you can't ask questions like these? Hat tip to Mr. Mahood for bringing this important issue to my attention.
Yay! I'm a Sh*t Sandwich Republican
It's official, I'm a Sh*t Sandwich Republican. It's like choosing between Amy Winehouse and Brittney Spears. I choose Brittney. Thanks McCain, you're my Brittney. Given a choice between driving towards a cliff at a leisurely pace of 25 mph and speeding off at 80, I'm going to calmly vote for the lesser of two evils. Afterwards, I'm going to club some baby seals and give the pelts to homeless people to keep warm this winter. And Obama, don't worry, it's far from too late for McCain to do something so stupid that I don't vote at all. Sorry, but I can't vote for a candidate that believes Earl Warren is an ideal Supreme Court Justice. I mean, honestly, why bother to have a lame Congress when the courts can legislate any way they want? Kinda seems anti-Democracy to appoint legislators for life.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Taking some time off
I will be taking a break from the blog for a bit. Please check in again in a week or so as I hope to return then.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
America's Image
French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner says, in reference to America's image, "the magic is over."
I'm not certain what magical image America had prior to the Iraq war, except for the image of the poor victim for a couple of weeks following the World Trade Center. Would Europe prefer that the United States had taken a different path following the attack? Most believe so.
I ask a specific question. Would the world be better off with Saddam Hussein and the Taliban still in power? Is there a belief that diplomacy would have cured the ills in those areas? If diplomacy removed the Taliban or Saddam, it truly would have been "magical." Just look at the success of diplomatic efforts in North Korea. I am not proposing that this war was run in the correct way, only that any efforts less than war would not have been effective at getting the same result.
As it happens, the fighting in Iraq is giving the world the results of an interesting experiment. The experiment wasn't intentional, but it exists nonetheless. Can a nation that is attempting to run a "moral" war, win that war? Can civilian casualties truly be minimized? Obviously, trying to run a "moral" war has been much less effective than the traditional manner. That doesn't mean it's not worth trying.
Let's ask a different question.
Does the image of America matter? Not the actions, but the image. If the United Nations gives any clue, those nations with the worst reputations and records get to rule on human rights. Apparently, the more awful one is in the world, the better one fares in the UN. Why should that be?
One possibility is the US is a horrible juggernaut that trounces over the people of other nations and all they can do is beg for mercy. If that's true, it has been the single most ineffective use of power by any nation in history. I mean, what if we really tried to do what we are accused of doing? I can't imagine a less effective way to do it. I think there is a much more accurate answer.
In the immortal words of Lord Palmerston, "We have no permanent allies, only permanent interests ." Nations do not follow or agree with other nations because they are pleasant, only because they have something they need. This is why the world pays more attention to 500 deaths in the Middle East than 50,000 in Rwanda. It's not a kind world. If the US wants to be popular, it can always give away money, land, and sovereignty to other nations and it's popularity will skyrocket. It is always easier to avoid fighting a difficult fight than standing up for one's principles. The world is annoyed with the US because it was willing to stir up the hornet's nest of the Middle East while Europe was willing to quietly turn it's back on the situation there.
If we must err, let's err on the side that is least likely to harm freedom in the world. When the United States becomes isolationist and allows Europe and Asia to control their own affairs, it inevitably ends up in a World War as the most aggressive power comes to control (historically this has been Germany). When the US is active, the USSR falls, South Korea maintains itself, or the US ends up with a bloody nose like in Vietnam. Choosing between these two historic options is not difficult. Take a messy war like the one in Afghanistan any day over a World War with a real power. Fortunately, success in foreign policy is not a popularity contest. I fear Machiavelli had it right when he said it was better to be feared than love. May the US be the most just and least popular ruler the world has ever seen.
I'm not certain what magical image America had prior to the Iraq war, except for the image of the poor victim for a couple of weeks following the World Trade Center. Would Europe prefer that the United States had taken a different path following the attack? Most believe so.
I ask a specific question. Would the world be better off with Saddam Hussein and the Taliban still in power? Is there a belief that diplomacy would have cured the ills in those areas? If diplomacy removed the Taliban or Saddam, it truly would have been "magical." Just look at the success of diplomatic efforts in North Korea. I am not proposing that this war was run in the correct way, only that any efforts less than war would not have been effective at getting the same result.
As it happens, the fighting in Iraq is giving the world the results of an interesting experiment. The experiment wasn't intentional, but it exists nonetheless. Can a nation that is attempting to run a "moral" war, win that war? Can civilian casualties truly be minimized? Obviously, trying to run a "moral" war has been much less effective than the traditional manner. That doesn't mean it's not worth trying.
Let's ask a different question.
Does the image of America matter? Not the actions, but the image. If the United Nations gives any clue, those nations with the worst reputations and records get to rule on human rights. Apparently, the more awful one is in the world, the better one fares in the UN. Why should that be?
One possibility is the US is a horrible juggernaut that trounces over the people of other nations and all they can do is beg for mercy. If that's true, it has been the single most ineffective use of power by any nation in history. I mean, what if we really tried to do what we are accused of doing? I can't imagine a less effective way to do it. I think there is a much more accurate answer.
In the immortal words of Lord Palmerston, "We have no permanent allies, only permanent interests ." Nations do not follow or agree with other nations because they are pleasant, only because they have something they need. This is why the world pays more attention to 500 deaths in the Middle East than 50,000 in Rwanda. It's not a kind world. If the US wants to be popular, it can always give away money, land, and sovereignty to other nations and it's popularity will skyrocket. It is always easier to avoid fighting a difficult fight than standing up for one's principles. The world is annoyed with the US because it was willing to stir up the hornet's nest of the Middle East while Europe was willing to quietly turn it's back on the situation there.
If we must err, let's err on the side that is least likely to harm freedom in the world. When the United States becomes isolationist and allows Europe and Asia to control their own affairs, it inevitably ends up in a World War as the most aggressive power comes to control (historically this has been Germany). When the US is active, the USSR falls, South Korea maintains itself, or the US ends up with a bloody nose like in Vietnam. Choosing between these two historic options is not difficult. Take a messy war like the one in Afghanistan any day over a World War with a real power. Fortunately, success in foreign policy is not a popularity contest. I fear Machiavelli had it right when he said it was better to be feared than love. May the US be the most just and least popular ruler the world has ever seen.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
I love Goldenberg's Peanut Chews
I had some of them the other day, and they were awesome, but apparently I missed the news. A few years ago, the brand was bought out by Just Born, Inc., which also makes Mike & Ike. The shape of the candy, with that small sheath of cardboard holding all the lined up peanut chews in it is exactly the same, just the outside is different. Still, I'm sorry to see them change at all... it was kind of like eating a candy from the '30s. And they've added a milk chocolate flavor in addition to the original dark that I refuse to try. Ever. Unless I'm at the movies and there's nothing else.
Rumor has it the average Goldenberg's consumer was getting older and they decided it was time for an image change. Though they're the same candy, I'm sorry to see the era of the Goldenberg's name come to an end. Apparently they were a Philly original and have been around since 1890. See, you learned something today.
Riviera Beach sucks!
What is wrong with the people at Riviera Beach?
"Under the new law, anyone with droopy pants that show skin or underwear faces legal action."
Somehow I doubt there is a law on the books preventing someone from going out in a bikini, but if you cover that up with saggy pants, it's a fine for you. Nicely done, outlawing styles of dress that offend. What could be wrong with that? Is this what we need government for?
Shame on you, Mayor Thomas Masters! And shame on the voters that passed this bill!
"Under the new law, anyone with droopy pants that show skin or underwear faces legal action."
Somehow I doubt there is a law on the books preventing someone from going out in a bikini, but if you cover that up with saggy pants, it's a fine for you. Nicely done, outlawing styles of dress that offend. What could be wrong with that? Is this what we need government for?
Shame on you, Mayor Thomas Masters! And shame on the voters that passed this bill!
Quick Mississippi analysis
Obama won roughly 90 percent of the black vote in Mississippi on Tuesday, but only about one-quarter of the white vote.
This is interesting. The black vote entirely votes Democrat. According to Time, nearly 80% of blacks voted for the Democratic Party in general elections.
If one were to avoid the question of blacks simply voting for a black candidate, and whites voting for a white one, and instead focused on blacks voting for the candidate that is most in line with the Democratic party, is it possible that Obama is showing the inclination of the Democrat faithful to vote for him? After all, what could represent the faithful more than the black vote? Would Hillary, by taking large sections of the white vote, be more likely to take the white vote in an election, which is more likely to be swing votes or centrist? Has she become the "Republican" in the race for the nomination?
Perhaps Republicans should be cheering Obama as a candidate, as he appears to be taking less of the centrist vote and may continue on that path if he is the Democrat nominee. After all, McCain is about as centrist a Republican as the Republican party has put forth in decades. I am beginning to suspect Hillary would pose a stronger threat to a possible Republican victory than Obama. It's also hard to consider a victory by McCain a victory for Republicans... it would probably just be a loss for Democrats. Will I really have to choose between, in the immortal words of South Park...
This is interesting. The black vote entirely votes Democrat. According to Time, nearly 80% of blacks voted for the Democratic Party in general elections.
If one were to avoid the question of blacks simply voting for a black candidate, and whites voting for a white one, and instead focused on blacks voting for the candidate that is most in line with the Democratic party, is it possible that Obama is showing the inclination of the Democrat faithful to vote for him? After all, what could represent the faithful more than the black vote? Would Hillary, by taking large sections of the white vote, be more likely to take the white vote in an election, which is more likely to be swing votes or centrist? Has she become the "Republican" in the race for the nomination?
Perhaps Republicans should be cheering Obama as a candidate, as he appears to be taking less of the centrist vote and may continue on that path if he is the Democrat nominee. After all, McCain is about as centrist a Republican as the Republican party has put forth in decades. I am beginning to suspect Hillary would pose a stronger threat to a possible Republican victory than Obama. It's also hard to consider a victory by McCain a victory for Republicans... it would probably just be a loss for Democrats. Will I really have to choose between, in the immortal words of South Park...
Spitzer... staying or leaving?
It's being reported today that Governor Spitzer is weighing his options, choosing whether or not to resign. Why the delay? I suspect he has been hoping that his support would appear after the initial statement. He's a politician and is making a political decision. I might hope for better, but I should expect nothing less.
But one reason that is given is he is planning to use his office as a bargaining chip with prosecutors. This part makes no sense to me.
Why should his resignation of his office in ANY way change the way the law treats him in a plea deal? Would it make sense for a CEO to tell a prosecutor he would resign in the same circumstances? What about a convenience store clerk? The idea of a convenience store clerk using his resignation as a bargaining chip is absurd. Why should the prosecutor care? And by the same token, why should a prosecutor care if Spitzer stays or goes?
Has the law been upheld if a felony is reduced to a misdemeanor or if jail time is avoided by a guilty party because they held a position of high power in the government? I say no. That sounds to me like an excellent reason to go exactly by the book.
But one reason that is given is he is planning to use his office as a bargaining chip with prosecutors. This part makes no sense to me.
Why should his resignation of his office in ANY way change the way the law treats him in a plea deal? Would it make sense for a CEO to tell a prosecutor he would resign in the same circumstances? What about a convenience store clerk? The idea of a convenience store clerk using his resignation as a bargaining chip is absurd. Why should the prosecutor care? And by the same token, why should a prosecutor care if Spitzer stays or goes?
Has the law been upheld if a felony is reduced to a misdemeanor or if jail time is avoided by a guilty party because they held a position of high power in the government? I say no. That sounds to me like an excellent reason to go exactly by the book.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
It's Magic!
Fed improves liquidity by lending to banks that are squeezed. Like magic, the market rallies and news commentators are talking about how this will help avoid recession and improve recovery. Is anyone asking why these banks are unable to get liquidity themselves? If this is so good, why not do it all the time? What has the government been waiting for? Why not always have a fantastic economy if there's no down side? Why EVER have a recession?
I have the answer.
There is a downside.
Banks can't get liquidity because people don't think they're worth the risk. There's no free lunch.
Allowing companies to fail is a good thing. Propping them up encourages failure. Who do you think will foot the bill if these risks, that the market has deemed not worth supporting, fail? The answer to that is whoever gave these banks the loan. In this case, it's your government.
Mark my words. Whenever the government invests in the markets, it takes risks the market participants are unwilling to bear. It buys high and never sells. We should be careful that the cure is not worse than the illness. When a bank goes under and doesn't repay the loan to the government, the next question you will hear is whether the government should support the bank and effectively add to a bad trade. We should stop rewarding failure.
After we take the medicine of recession, if it even comes, our economy will be stronger for it. There is no way to buy your way out of it. Trying to do that will only hurt us more in the long run.
I have the answer.
There is a downside.
Banks can't get liquidity because people don't think they're worth the risk. There's no free lunch.
Allowing companies to fail is a good thing. Propping them up encourages failure. Who do you think will foot the bill if these risks, that the market has deemed not worth supporting, fail? The answer to that is whoever gave these banks the loan. In this case, it's your government.
Mark my words. Whenever the government invests in the markets, it takes risks the market participants are unwilling to bear. It buys high and never sells. We should be careful that the cure is not worse than the illness. When a bank goes under and doesn't repay the loan to the government, the next question you will hear is whether the government should support the bank and effectively add to a bad trade. We should stop rewarding failure.
After we take the medicine of recession, if it even comes, our economy will be stronger for it. There is no way to buy your way out of it. Trying to do that will only hurt us more in the long run.
Prostitute Aggravation
Apparently running an international prostitution ring isn't as glamorous as it seems. Paying bills, working with vendors... it's like another long day at the office, and that's not even considering the jail time. Soon, they'll be telling me being a world class assassin is all about filling out the correct paperwork.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Proud to be a New Yorker
Governor Spitzer was involved in a prostitution ring
I can't help it, I just think this is hilarious. So much for cleaning up Albany with a prosecutor! At least he's doing New York proud by not knocking on the door of his stall for gay sex in a bathroom. How the mighty have fallen.
I'm commenting on this prior to his press conference, so maybe this won't be as steamy as I hope. Personally, I'm hoping for an arrest at his home and a perp walk in front of his family, a humiliation he visited on many of those he prosecuted who were not allowed to surrender to the police.
I can't help it, I just think this is hilarious. So much for cleaning up Albany with a prosecutor! At least he's doing New York proud by not knocking on the door of his stall for gay sex in a bathroom. How the mighty have fallen.
I'm commenting on this prior to his press conference, so maybe this won't be as steamy as I hope. Personally, I'm hoping for an arrest at his home and a perp walk in front of his family, a humiliation he visited on many of those he prosecuted who were not allowed to surrender to the police.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Torture Pt. 3
We all know there's a difference between torture involving mutilation and rape, and waterboarding. We do a disservice to the debate by categorizing them together under the title torture and pretending they are the same thing.
Torture Pt. 2 - Bush's Veto
Torture's been on my mind a bit ever since President Bush vetoed a bill to prevent the CIA from using certain interrogation techniques including waterboarding. I haven't read the bill (or any bill in it's entirety since I went to Model Congress as a kid), but I feel confident to discuss the issue involved.
At this time, there are two distinct aspects as to whether or not the United States should use coercive interrogation techniques, aka torture. 1. Does it work? 2. Is it moral?
Many say it doesn't work, but personally, I'm convinced that I'd talk hours earlier if someone hurt me than if they did anything but. I'd like to think I'm stronger than that, but torture techniques have been improved upon for millennia and I'm confident I can deal with psychological pain far longer than physical pain. But that's not the issue at hand. If it doesn't work, we won't do it, and if it does, that doesn't make it morally correct. For the sake of getting to the core of the moral argument, let's assume torture works.
This is not a simple issue. Obviously there are levels of coercion, from sleep deprivation and imprisonment to the iron maiden and beyond. Some have permanent physical and/or psychological effects, other do not. In addition, there are many reasons given for the motivation to torture, from those who would use it as a punishment, a deterrent, an incentive, an interrogation technique, or a number of other reasons. I have intentionally left out entertainment and many of the other macabre reasons people have used torture in the past as I'm trying to focus on one particular aspect of torture. That aspect is torture as an interrogation technique. That's what this bill was about.
The question is, if torture for interrogation can be proven to save lives, should we prevent our CIA or military from doing it anyway? It's a difficult question, especially given the usual hypothetical: What if torture was used to glean information on the location of a nuke in a major American city and the information ended up preventing the catastrophe? Most people agree, and I suspect most Democrats as well, that torture would be justified in those circumstances. I certainly believe this.
If we make torture illegal under all circumstances, and design our laws to follow what we see as moral, can we be convinced that a government bureaucrat will risk breaking those laws to his own personal detriment? Or will he be more likely to do as our soldiers did when they had Osama bin Laden in their sights many years ago? Apparently we didn't fire because we required confirmation. When that confirmation arrived, the opportunity was gone and so was Bin Laden.
Of all the people we want to steadfastly follow our laws, none are more important than those with the guns in our government. Our military MUST be held responsible for its actions and must follow the laws and orders set by civilian authority. There must be NO misunderstanding as to what is allowed by our troops. We cannot have a loophole that is understood that under certain circumstances "It is okay to break those laws, all will be forgiven."
If we all agree that there are certain circumstances where torture is acceptable (think nuke in New York City), let's spell them out. This is too important an issue to insist on making it illegal, while simultaneously saying that in extenuating circumstances it is both acceptable and expected. Anyone who votes for the bill making torture practices illegal should answer the direct question of "Is torture EVER acceptable?" with a resounding "NO!" I sincerely doubt the many lawmakers who voted for this bill feel that way. The answer should not be "let's make it illegal, but expect extremely good and patriotic men will risk the consequences by breaking this law when it seems in the nation's best interest." Our military and foreign policy need clarity. I don't want to hear that we could have prevented losing a city if we'd gotten the information a few hours earlier, but the subject was still resisting talking in his comfortable cell and our men were proudly following our laws.
We are a nation of laws and not of men. At least, we strive to be a nation of laws. We build statues of lady justice, whose eyes are blind to those who stand before, and we wish all to be equal before the law. We should not place laws on the books that are intended to be broken by our own government, with the punishment to be withheld by the whim of the State after the fact. That's a slippery slope I'd rather not slide down.
At this time, there are two distinct aspects as to whether or not the United States should use coercive interrogation techniques, aka torture. 1. Does it work? 2. Is it moral?
Many say it doesn't work, but personally, I'm convinced that I'd talk hours earlier if someone hurt me than if they did anything but. I'd like to think I'm stronger than that, but torture techniques have been improved upon for millennia and I'm confident I can deal with psychological pain far longer than physical pain. But that's not the issue at hand. If it doesn't work, we won't do it, and if it does, that doesn't make it morally correct. For the sake of getting to the core of the moral argument, let's assume torture works.
This is not a simple issue. Obviously there are levels of coercion, from sleep deprivation and imprisonment to the iron maiden and beyond. Some have permanent physical and/or psychological effects, other do not. In addition, there are many reasons given for the motivation to torture, from those who would use it as a punishment, a deterrent, an incentive, an interrogation technique, or a number of other reasons. I have intentionally left out entertainment and many of the other macabre reasons people have used torture in the past as I'm trying to focus on one particular aspect of torture. That aspect is torture as an interrogation technique. That's what this bill was about.
The question is, if torture for interrogation can be proven to save lives, should we prevent our CIA or military from doing it anyway? It's a difficult question, especially given the usual hypothetical: What if torture was used to glean information on the location of a nuke in a major American city and the information ended up preventing the catastrophe? Most people agree, and I suspect most Democrats as well, that torture would be justified in those circumstances. I certainly believe this.
If we make torture illegal under all circumstances, and design our laws to follow what we see as moral, can we be convinced that a government bureaucrat will risk breaking those laws to his own personal detriment? Or will he be more likely to do as our soldiers did when they had Osama bin Laden in their sights many years ago? Apparently we didn't fire because we required confirmation. When that confirmation arrived, the opportunity was gone and so was Bin Laden.
Of all the people we want to steadfastly follow our laws, none are more important than those with the guns in our government. Our military MUST be held responsible for its actions and must follow the laws and orders set by civilian authority. There must be NO misunderstanding as to what is allowed by our troops. We cannot have a loophole that is understood that under certain circumstances "It is okay to break those laws, all will be forgiven."
If we all agree that there are certain circumstances where torture is acceptable (think nuke in New York City), let's spell them out. This is too important an issue to insist on making it illegal, while simultaneously saying that in extenuating circumstances it is both acceptable and expected. Anyone who votes for the bill making torture practices illegal should answer the direct question of "Is torture EVER acceptable?" with a resounding "NO!" I sincerely doubt the many lawmakers who voted for this bill feel that way. The answer should not be "let's make it illegal, but expect extremely good and patriotic men will risk the consequences by breaking this law when it seems in the nation's best interest." Our military and foreign policy need clarity. I don't want to hear that we could have prevented losing a city if we'd gotten the information a few hours earlier, but the subject was still resisting talking in his comfortable cell and our men were proudly following our laws.
We are a nation of laws and not of men. At least, we strive to be a nation of laws. We build statues of lady justice, whose eyes are blind to those who stand before, and we wish all to be equal before the law. We should not place laws on the books that are intended to be broken by our own government, with the punishment to be withheld by the whim of the State after the fact. That's a slippery slope I'd rather not slide down.
Shameful AP misrepresentation, or, Torture Pt. 1
Yahoo news says, printing an article By Deb Riechmann, Associated Press Writer :
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the nation's ability to lead the world depends on its morality, not military might. "We will begin to reassert that moral authority by attempting to override the president's veto next week," said Pelosi, D-Calif.
Actual quote:
In the final analysis, our ability to lead the world will depend not only on our military might, but also on our moral authority.
Emphasis added by me.
There is a difference, and when I originally read the misrepresentation, my head almost exploded. It was bad enough that I had to go to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's blog just to confirm it.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the nation's ability to lead the world depends on its morality, not military might. "We will begin to reassert that moral authority by attempting to override the president's veto next week," said Pelosi, D-Calif.
Actual quote:
In the final analysis, our ability to lead the world will depend not only on our military might, but also on our moral authority.
Emphasis added by me.
There is a difference, and when I originally read the misrepresentation, my head almost exploded. It was bad enough that I had to go to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's blog just to confirm it.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
I love cheap technology... and drugs!
Staples just sent me an ad for $50 off this hard drive. It's a 500GB external drive, which, with the rebate, comes to $120. Seems to me that the prices are getting a bit close to zero these days! Inflation may be increasing, but it's not stopping the march of progress in lowering prices.
And yet... I wonder if some health cost issues are similar? People say drugs are more expensive today, but I think they're just talking about new drugs. I'm willing to bet that drugs haven't increased in price a bit in 10 years if one were willing to use the drugs available 10 years ago. Perhaps the the cost of drugs to receive the best available today should not be compared to the overall cost of drugs from 10 years ago. The inflated cost may be the result of "newer and better." If you want the same old 10-years-out-of-date drugs, I'm sure you can get them cheaply today. (I'm not saying expired, just the same drugs available then.) If you want drugs from the '90s, expect to have a '90s lifespan as well. Sort of like a computer form a decade ago... today charities don't even accept them.
And yet... I wonder if some health cost issues are similar? People say drugs are more expensive today, but I think they're just talking about new drugs. I'm willing to bet that drugs haven't increased in price a bit in 10 years if one were willing to use the drugs available 10 years ago. Perhaps the the cost of drugs to receive the best available today should not be compared to the overall cost of drugs from 10 years ago. The inflated cost may be the result of "newer and better." If you want the same old 10-years-out-of-date drugs, I'm sure you can get them cheaply today. (I'm not saying expired, just the same drugs available then.) If you want drugs from the '90s, expect to have a '90s lifespan as well. Sort of like a computer form a decade ago... today charities don't even accept them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)