This will not be so heavy, but sometimes it is nice to take a break.
A pet peeve of mine: the notion that email is not efficient, not a good way to communicate.
I can sit in my lair and correspond nearly simultaneously with people literally throughout the entire globe. I can conduct planning, give reminders, post updates, etc., etc., etc. Sitting at my PC, I can get more done, not just casual conversation, in one hour than in what would have taken me one week of phone calls and traveling. To boot, I have a "paper" trail of all the conversations for later reference.
As long as we are able to avoid a 24-like, EMP scenario, the world is going to be electronic. Bills are electronic. Statements are electronic. Medical records are electronic. Unless one moves to a shack in the mountains of Montana and eats tree bark, he or she will be on the grid.
So there are still people who don't like email. Yes, it is impersonal. Yes, intentions can be misunderstood with the "printed" word. Much of that, however, is not the email's fault. Better writers make better emails.
A few weeks ago I heard a theory that addressed the illogical nature of this phenomenon. Like kids who make excuses for reading out loud because they have never really learned how to read, like the video game junkie who finds every reason to skip gym class because he can't jump over a telephone book, those who don't like email all seem to share a common denominator: they cannot type.
I learned to type as a senior in high school, at a typewriter. Today, kids learn to type in elementary school.
With the invention of cars, at some point the world realized that they would be around for a while, a common mode of transportation. At some point, schools started offering drivers ed. At some point, nearly everyone knew how to drive, either because they had to do so in school, or because, as adults, they realized that if they wanted to function successfully in society, they needed to update their skills.
I'm sure there were generations during the transition that said cars were not effective, that they were a waste of time and money. How many of these individuals said so because they didn't know how to drive. It wasn't that cars where not successful in revolutionizing travel, it was that they didn't know how to use them.
Here's the point. I'm not making fun of those who don't know how to type. I want to encourage them. Most people don't have the money to spend on voice-to-text applications. There are already numerous resources on the web, some of them free, for learning how to type. Don't remain in the dark. Catch up!! Don't have time? What is getting in the way. TV? Video games? We make time for what is important.
Some day, when a solar flare, knocks out all the electronics in the world, you can hammer me with "I told you so!!!" Just in case, however, I would make a point to start finding "home row".
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Nuh Uh
I'm about ready to plug back into the Matrix. I don't know how much more one can take.
Republicans: Stimulous Money Being Wasted
Well, "no $%^&, Shirlock!!!" Who with half-a-brain, any sense of economic principles, and an iota of insight into the current political culture thought it would be any different. News Flash!!! The money was never intended to stimulate the economy.
Deep down inside, everyone knows that "2+2=4". The raw data shows that government spending has never "stimulated" an economy; however, tax cuts has done it every time it has been tried. Who said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for different results?
What is really crazy is that the "money" being spent doesn't actually exist; the government is swiping a credit card that it gave itself, nothing to back it up. At some point, people (i.e., the Chinese) will want their money.
Wait, I hear some "unbelievers" saying that tax cuts don't work. Oh yeah, lets talk after the first of the year, when this Congress, and this Administration let the Bush tax cuts expire. Let me know how "stimulated" you are when the government has its hands deeper in your pockets. I'm sure there will be all kinds of stimulatin' going on when disposable income disappears. How many restaurant workers, movie theater employees, etc., etc. will have jobs when people work just to put food on the table.
Stop it!!! I'm not interested in your tired accusations of "Bush supporter!!!". Please dislocate the head from the anus. It is almost too late. Bush was only the opening act. While he was the author of the tax cuts, with the help of his pal Henry Paulson, he warmed us up to the whole idea of "Government Stimulus". Obama has reduced FDR's efforts to that of an amateur.
John McCain!!!! Now you want to have a pair and call light to the wasted spending?!!! Go away please.
Who knows, maybe someone will actually pay attention to some substance in the next election...
Republicans: Stimulous Money Being Wasted
Well, "no $%^&, Shirlock!!!" Who with half-a-brain, any sense of economic principles, and an iota of insight into the current political culture thought it would be any different. News Flash!!! The money was never intended to stimulate the economy.
Deep down inside, everyone knows that "2+2=4". The raw data shows that government spending has never "stimulated" an economy; however, tax cuts has done it every time it has been tried. Who said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for different results?
What is really crazy is that the "money" being spent doesn't actually exist; the government is swiping a credit card that it gave itself, nothing to back it up. At some point, people (i.e., the Chinese) will want their money.
Wait, I hear some "unbelievers" saying that tax cuts don't work. Oh yeah, lets talk after the first of the year, when this Congress, and this Administration let the Bush tax cuts expire. Let me know how "stimulated" you are when the government has its hands deeper in your pockets. I'm sure there will be all kinds of stimulatin' going on when disposable income disappears. How many restaurant workers, movie theater employees, etc., etc. will have jobs when people work just to put food on the table.
Stop it!!! I'm not interested in your tired accusations of "Bush supporter!!!". Please dislocate the head from the anus. It is almost too late. Bush was only the opening act. While he was the author of the tax cuts, with the help of his pal Henry Paulson, he warmed us up to the whole idea of "Government Stimulus". Obama has reduced FDR's efforts to that of an amateur.
John McCain!!!! Now you want to have a pair and call light to the wasted spending?!!! Go away please.
Who knows, maybe someone will actually pay attention to some substance in the next election...
Monday, July 19, 2010
Keep Your Mouth Shut!
According to this Chicago Tribune article, "U of I to review removal of religion professor", a professor was fired for "explain[ing]" the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality and the related warrants. Labeled as "hate speech", the University of Illinois determined that this information was inappropriate. By the way, it was a religion class.
Folks, I have sat in college-level classes where it was well understood that one better "think" the right things if one wanted to get a good grade. In the education classes, one must hate vouchers. In science classes, one must admire Darwin. According to the report, this guy wasn't telling people what to think, per say, he was explaining what the Catholic Church thought and why. Unlike the tactics of the left and its choke-hold on free thought, nothing suggests that students were forced to agree with the Catholic Church, only to learn about it.
If evidence were to surface that students' test scores suffered when they didn't side with Judaeo/Christian beliefs then, yes, the professor was out of line and disciplinary action would be appropriate. Let's say, however, that the instructor reportedly stood up and said, flat out, "homosexuality is an abomination", but he allowed for free discussion and graded on the content of arguments, regardless of a particular stance, he would have been well in the bounds of the concept of university.
That is the heart of university, an environment where many ideas contend for supremecy. A good teacher knows what is true, or when it is "unknown"; however, education happens when the students form solid conclusions based on the information, not based on a teacher's expectations. Good educators present information and spark thought. Good classes take ideas and beat them to a pulp. If they stand, they stay.
To the contrary, the University of Illinois seems to agree with the current president's thinking that "information [is] a distraction" ("Obama: 'Information Becomes a Distraction'”). There isn't any indication that this professor tried to police the thought of his students. Instead, he probably presented perspectives and philosophical arguments for which they had never encountered, especially since public schools have become indoctrination centers where elementary students can learn all about "anal penetration" ("Montana Parents Weigh In on Proposed Kindergarten Sex Ed"). What part of university bars teachings of the Catholic Church in its religion department?
That's the problem. There's not much left of university. We have freedom of speech, unless you say something that is "offensive". We retain democracy unless you vote the wrong way. No one wants to debate anymore. They want to declare, to control. Their ideas are so good, so righteous, so good-intentioned that to question them would only delay the utopian state that "they" can deliver. It's time to shut up. Its time to listen. Its time to do what you are told. Or else?
Folks, I have sat in college-level classes where it was well understood that one better "think" the right things if one wanted to get a good grade. In the education classes, one must hate vouchers. In science classes, one must admire Darwin. According to the report, this guy wasn't telling people what to think, per say, he was explaining what the Catholic Church thought and why. Unlike the tactics of the left and its choke-hold on free thought, nothing suggests that students were forced to agree with the Catholic Church, only to learn about it.
If evidence were to surface that students' test scores suffered when they didn't side with Judaeo/Christian beliefs then, yes, the professor was out of line and disciplinary action would be appropriate. Let's say, however, that the instructor reportedly stood up and said, flat out, "homosexuality is an abomination", but he allowed for free discussion and graded on the content of arguments, regardless of a particular stance, he would have been well in the bounds of the concept of university.
That is the heart of university, an environment where many ideas contend for supremecy. A good teacher knows what is true, or when it is "unknown"; however, education happens when the students form solid conclusions based on the information, not based on a teacher's expectations. Good educators present information and spark thought. Good classes take ideas and beat them to a pulp. If they stand, they stay.
To the contrary, the University of Illinois seems to agree with the current president's thinking that "information [is] a distraction" ("Obama: 'Information Becomes a Distraction'”). There isn't any indication that this professor tried to police the thought of his students. Instead, he probably presented perspectives and philosophical arguments for which they had never encountered, especially since public schools have become indoctrination centers where elementary students can learn all about "anal penetration" ("Montana Parents Weigh In on Proposed Kindergarten Sex Ed"). What part of university bars teachings of the Catholic Church in its religion department?
That's the problem. There's not much left of university. We have freedom of speech, unless you say something that is "offensive". We retain democracy unless you vote the wrong way. No one wants to debate anymore. They want to declare, to control. Their ideas are so good, so righteous, so good-intentioned that to question them would only delay the utopian state that "they" can deliver. It's time to shut up. Its time to listen. Its time to do what you are told. Or else?
Monday, May 31, 2010
A Letter To Dead Soldiers
Dear Dead American Soldiers,
Thank you for protecting my freedoms. I especially cherish my ability to speak freely. I can say whatever I want. That doesn't happen in other countries. I can say very smart things. I can say very stupid things. I can speak words of love. I can shout words of hate. I can offend. I can inspire. People can listen to me. They don't have to listen to me. We live in a country where ideas are debated. We are not jailed for our opinions (at least not yet), no matter how right or how wrong, no matter how sensible or how ridiculous. We don't censor (well not as much as other countries). We don't stifle. Other's have protected this right, but it is you who paid the ultimate price.
To protect my freedom of speech, you no longer get to say what you think. You cannot disagree because you are no longer here. You may have had very intelligent things to discuss. You may even have had your own blog. It could have been published on the Huffington Post, maybe on Hot Air. It is not, because you are dead.
You may have agreed with me. You may have despised my words. Who knows? The point is, is that you never got the opportunity. I have because you gave your life.
Would Hitler, and then those who succeeded him have permitted me to speak freely. No, they had the Gestapo, the SS, organizations specifically chartered to imprison, torture, and execute those who said things that were not in line with the Nazi regime.
Had the Soviet Union won the Cold War, had communism spread throughout the world, would I speak my mind without ending up in a gulag, a work camp, a re-education camp? Ask someone in China, Cuba, or North Korea. No, I would not.
Your efforts, your life, prevented these powers from swallowing and consuming the freedoms, rooted in Judaeo-Christian teachings, that were realized by The Founding Fathers. I distribute my speech now because you died.
Thank you and Rest In Peace.
Thank you for protecting my freedoms. I especially cherish my ability to speak freely. I can say whatever I want. That doesn't happen in other countries. I can say very smart things. I can say very stupid things. I can speak words of love. I can shout words of hate. I can offend. I can inspire. People can listen to me. They don't have to listen to me. We live in a country where ideas are debated. We are not jailed for our opinions (at least not yet), no matter how right or how wrong, no matter how sensible or how ridiculous. We don't censor (well not as much as other countries). We don't stifle. Other's have protected this right, but it is you who paid the ultimate price.
To protect my freedom of speech, you no longer get to say what you think. You cannot disagree because you are no longer here. You may have had very intelligent things to discuss. You may even have had your own blog. It could have been published on the Huffington Post, maybe on Hot Air. It is not, because you are dead.
You may have agreed with me. You may have despised my words. Who knows? The point is, is that you never got the opportunity. I have because you gave your life.
Would Hitler, and then those who succeeded him have permitted me to speak freely. No, they had the Gestapo, the SS, organizations specifically chartered to imprison, torture, and execute those who said things that were not in line with the Nazi regime.
Had the Soviet Union won the Cold War, had communism spread throughout the world, would I speak my mind without ending up in a gulag, a work camp, a re-education camp? Ask someone in China, Cuba, or North Korea. No, I would not.
Your efforts, your life, prevented these powers from swallowing and consuming the freedoms, rooted in Judaeo-Christian teachings, that were realized by The Founding Fathers. I distribute my speech now because you died.
Thank you and Rest In Peace.
Monday, April 5, 2010
The Sermon On The Mount
Yesterday morning the Sunday School class finished a study on Jesus' "Sermon On The Mount" (Matthew 5-7). I've read this passage numerous times since childhood, even memorizing a large portion of the King James Version as an elementary student. As often happens when studying scripture throughout one's lifetime, something hit me in a light that I hadn't fully considered.
Over the years this has meant NO SMOKING, NO DRINKING, NO CUSSING, and definitely NO GAMBLING!!! One could include a few other "sins", but for the most part, a Christian must abandon these vices specifically to navigate the "narrow road" successfully.
A Self Examination
NO SMOKING. That's an easy one. I despise, I detest, I loathe cigarette smoking. The smell, the concept, it makes me angry.
All I have to do to travel the "narrow road" is to avoid smoking? Sure, no problem. I wish everyone would!!!
NO DRINKING. I must be honest. I like beer. Heineken, Sam Adams, these are some of my favorites. I like wine too. A full-bodied, "earthy" Cabernet makes a well-prepared New York Strip that much better.
Even though I won't be driving, no beer or wine is allowed on the narrow road? Fair enough. I like it but I don't need it. Sure! No problem. Man, this narrow road isn't as difficult as some say!
NO CUSSING. This one is more difficult. If people would get off my nerves, I wouldn't have to cuss. What is so bad about this word or that word? They are only words.
But all I have to do is stop saying them, and I'll make it to the "narrow gate"? Sure, I'll give it a shot. I can be colorful and descriptive without the use of "bad words".
NO GAMBLING. After smoking, this one is the "second easiest". I like to play cards. Throwing some money in the pot creates interest; however, I learned early that only a "fool" gambles to win money. A few cycles of 8-hour shifts followed by earnings donated to the local river boat cured the habit instantanously.
To gain access to the "life" road, all I have to do is not gamble. Sure, no problem!!! I'll play video games instead.
An Assessment
So far this "narrow road" doesn't seem to be so narrow. I would venture to say that a sizeable marching band could parade down it with enough room for children to steak out territory and wait for candy thrown from floats. But Jesus, Himself, said that, if we want "life", we should follow a "narrow" road leading to a "narrow gate" implying that it isn't a "cakewalk". He even included that only "few" would "find it". Surely the "rules of the road" must include more than NO SMOKING, NO DRINKING, NO CUSSING, and definitely NO GAMBLING.
They do.
I have often found the following activity quite entertaining when teaching classes at church:
"Okay, I'll give $50 dollars to the first person who can find in scripture where it says that you are not supposed to smoke. "
The sounds of pages turning, nearly ripped from their bindings.
"Give up? No? I'll help you out. It's not there..."
"Okay, new contest. Find one place in the Bible where it says that you can't gamble. $100 says that you can't!!! Ready. Set. Go!!!!"
Matthew...Mark...Luke...John...nope...let's try the Old Testament!!! With all those laws, its got to be in there some place!!!! &%*$
"Ah, ah, ahhh... no cussing!!!!"
"Times Up!!!! Anyone find it? If you did, you must be using a 'special' translation because its not in there. Pay up everyone!!!"
At this point, some reading this may already be on the phone. He said its okay to smoke and gamble!!!! He collects on bets during the actual class time!!!
Calm down. Focus, Danielson. Let's hope that "the point" is not a Mac Truck because there may not be much left of you if it is.
The Problem
We Christians often have difficulty with the concept of context. We yank a passage like Matthew 7:13-14 in order to target those vices which for some, are most readily visible, but ironically, are not even specifically mentioned by Jesus or any of His apostles. In the process, we miss, much like the pharisees of the time, the intent of Jesus' message.
It was a sermon. It should be examined in context. What did Jesus say as a whole?
Whoa, ho, ho!!! Now this is getting a little personal. You are telling me that if someone hits me in the face, instead of knocking him on his @$$ (no cussing), I have to let him hit me again?!!! You're nuts!!!
You have lost your mind!!! I have to love my enemies? The people I can't stand? The very individuals who seek to do me and my family harm? Good luck with that one, mister!!
I have to pray for those who "persecute me"?!!!! Let me know how that works out for you, because I'm starting to think that this road is just a little too "narrow"...
What I've Learned
I hate smoking. I can do without drinking. I don't need to gamble. I can use different words. But when reading Jesus' entire sermon, and what he specifically referenced, the narrow road is quite difficult. Someone wrongs me, and I want to make things difficult for them. Someone hits me, and I want retaliate with such force that he or she never considers it again. Resisting these "human" and natural reactions are what makes the "road" small. These are the radical principals that turn our lives upside down, just as they did when Jesus uttered the words.
Ironically, we often miss Jesus' intended meanings for the very same reasons that many did so 2000 years ago. Jesus' "beef" with the Pharisees was that they had such an unhealthy obsession with "the law" that they were almost inhuman. They didn't give a "darn" (no cussing) about the sick, the widows, and the children, but they could surely tell you how many steps one could take on the Sabbath. The human elements of love and compassion were replaced with an overwhelming concern for "superficial" behaviors that had no effect on one's fellow man in the slightest.
There he goes again with all this "love and compassion" while excusing and nearly encouraging people to SMOKE, DRINK, CUSS, and definitely GAMBLE!!!
Seriously, you should seek counseling. Do I have to spell it out? I'm not saying anything right now about these things. Right or wrong. Good or bad. My point is is that the tough stuff, the things that make the "road to life" difficult are those things that Jesus mentions in His sermon, and if you don't quit obsessing about the SMOKING, DRINKING, CUSSING, and GAMBLING, you may not have taken the time to look down and see which road it is that you are actually on.
I will end with a hypothetical question. There are only two people in the world. One smokes, drinks, cusses, and gambles; yet, he loves his enemies to the point of going out of his way to help them. The other never smokes, never drinks, never cusses, and definitely, never gambles; yet, if someone were to cross him, he would soon regret it.
Who is more "Christ-like"?
Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
(Matthew 7:13-14)
(Matthew 7:13-14)
Over the years this has meant NO SMOKING, NO DRINKING, NO CUSSING, and definitely NO GAMBLING!!! One could include a few other "sins", but for the most part, a Christian must abandon these vices specifically to navigate the "narrow road" successfully.
A Self Examination
NO SMOKING. That's an easy one. I despise, I detest, I loathe cigarette smoking. The smell, the concept, it makes me angry.
All I have to do to travel the "narrow road" is to avoid smoking? Sure, no problem. I wish everyone would!!!
NO DRINKING. I must be honest. I like beer. Heineken, Sam Adams, these are some of my favorites. I like wine too. A full-bodied, "earthy" Cabernet makes a well-prepared New York Strip that much better.
Even though I won't be driving, no beer or wine is allowed on the narrow road? Fair enough. I like it but I don't need it. Sure! No problem. Man, this narrow road isn't as difficult as some say!
NO CUSSING. This one is more difficult. If people would get off my nerves, I wouldn't have to cuss. What is so bad about this word or that word? They are only words.
But all I have to do is stop saying them, and I'll make it to the "narrow gate"? Sure, I'll give it a shot. I can be colorful and descriptive without the use of "bad words".
NO GAMBLING. After smoking, this one is the "second easiest". I like to play cards. Throwing some money in the pot creates interest; however, I learned early that only a "fool" gambles to win money. A few cycles of 8-hour shifts followed by earnings donated to the local river boat cured the habit instantanously.
To gain access to the "life" road, all I have to do is not gamble. Sure, no problem!!! I'll play video games instead.
An Assessment
So far this "narrow road" doesn't seem to be so narrow. I would venture to say that a sizeable marching band could parade down it with enough room for children to steak out territory and wait for candy thrown from floats. But Jesus, Himself, said that, if we want "life", we should follow a "narrow" road leading to a "narrow gate" implying that it isn't a "cakewalk". He even included that only "few" would "find it". Surely the "rules of the road" must include more than NO SMOKING, NO DRINKING, NO CUSSING, and definitely NO GAMBLING.
They do.
I have often found the following activity quite entertaining when teaching classes at church:
"Okay, I'll give $50 dollars to the first person who can find in scripture where it says that you are not supposed to smoke. "
The sounds of pages turning, nearly ripped from their bindings.
"Give up? No? I'll help you out. It's not there..."
"Okay, new contest. Find one place in the Bible where it says that you can't gamble. $100 says that you can't!!! Ready. Set. Go!!!!"
Matthew...Mark...Luke...John...nope...let's try the Old Testament!!! With all those laws, its got to be in there some place!!!! &%*$
"Ah, ah, ahhh... no cussing!!!!"
"Times Up!!!! Anyone find it? If you did, you must be using a 'special' translation because its not in there. Pay up everyone!!!"
At this point, some reading this may already be on the phone. He said its okay to smoke and gamble!!!! He collects on bets during the actual class time!!!
Calm down. Focus, Danielson. Let's hope that "the point" is not a Mac Truck because there may not be much left of you if it is.
The Problem
We Christians often have difficulty with the concept of context. We yank a passage like Matthew 7:13-14 in order to target those vices which for some, are most readily visible, but ironically, are not even specifically mentioned by Jesus or any of His apostles. In the process, we miss, much like the pharisees of the time, the intent of Jesus' message.
It was a sermon. It should be examined in context. What did Jesus say as a whole?
You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
- Matthew 5:38-42
- Matthew 5:38-42
Whoa, ho, ho!!! Now this is getting a little personal. You are telling me that if someone hits me in the face, instead of knocking him on his @$$ (no cussing), I have to let him hit me again?!!! You're nuts!!!
You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good,and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
- Matthew 5:43-48
- Matthew 5:43-48
You have lost your mind!!! I have to love my enemies? The people I can't stand? The very individuals who seek to do me and my family harm? Good luck with that one, mister!!
I have to pray for those who "persecute me"?!!!! Let me know how that works out for you, because I'm starting to think that this road is just a little too "narrow"...
What I've Learned
I hate smoking. I can do without drinking. I don't need to gamble. I can use different words. But when reading Jesus' entire sermon, and what he specifically referenced, the narrow road is quite difficult. Someone wrongs me, and I want to make things difficult for them. Someone hits me, and I want retaliate with such force that he or she never considers it again. Resisting these "human" and natural reactions are what makes the "road" small. These are the radical principals that turn our lives upside down, just as they did when Jesus uttered the words.
Ironically, we often miss Jesus' intended meanings for the very same reasons that many did so 2000 years ago. Jesus' "beef" with the Pharisees was that they had such an unhealthy obsession with "the law" that they were almost inhuman. They didn't give a "darn" (no cussing) about the sick, the widows, and the children, but they could surely tell you how many steps one could take on the Sabbath. The human elements of love and compassion were replaced with an overwhelming concern for "superficial" behaviors that had no effect on one's fellow man in the slightest.
There he goes again with all this "love and compassion" while excusing and nearly encouraging people to SMOKE, DRINK, CUSS, and definitely GAMBLE!!!
Seriously, you should seek counseling. Do I have to spell it out? I'm not saying anything right now about these things. Right or wrong. Good or bad. My point is is that the tough stuff, the things that make the "road to life" difficult are those things that Jesus mentions in His sermon, and if you don't quit obsessing about the SMOKING, DRINKING, CUSSING, and GAMBLING, you may not have taken the time to look down and see which road it is that you are actually on.
I will end with a hypothetical question. There are only two people in the world. One smokes, drinks, cusses, and gambles; yet, he loves his enemies to the point of going out of his way to help them. The other never smokes, never drinks, never cusses, and definitely, never gambles; yet, if someone were to cross him, he would soon regret it.
Who is more "Christ-like"?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
