Going along with the theory of relativity (Foer's not Einstein's), it's interesting to observe the extent to which humans either accept the relation with animals or refuse to accept it. After all, we are all animals. It's true that we have opposable thumbs and we do things that the average lion cannot, but we are very similar.
Foer first discusses the meaning of anthropocentrism. He says that it's the conviction that humans are the center of evolution. We can measure the "rightful" owners of every living organism and the lives of other animals in terms of human evolution. To me, this seems reasonable that the only living species on the planet capable of this kind of thinking should get to decide how to measure other living things. But what happens when humans believe they have the right to rule animals in all aspects, not just how to measure their lives. Then, I believe, problems arise. Religion, values, and truth are all things that make animal agriculture so complex and controversial.
Another term that Foer talks about is anthropodenial. Literally, it's the denial that anthropoids share similar experiences to humans. The denial that animals are similar to humans and other animals in terms of experience. Foer uses the example of how his son asks if their dog, George, will be lonely when they leave the house without her. His answer of, "George doesn't get lonely," is the epitome of anthropodenial. I believe that this state of denial is what allows some humans to be apathetic and merciless when it comes to animals. It is obvious that we are different from most animals, but it is not obvious and ignorant to assume that animals are not like us.
Another big word that Foer explores is anthropomorphism. It's the urge to project human experiences onto other animals (like the time Foer's son asked if their dog would be lonely.) An Italian psychologist, Emanuela Cenami Spada, wrote about anthropomorphism and how humans must do it to truly understand their own human existence and experiences. He writes, "The only available 'cure' [for anthropomorphism] is the continuous critique of our working definitions, and to that embarrassing problem that animals present to us." We need to keep questioning ourselves and keep evaluating our evolving relationship with animals. They are not who they were 100 years ago they won't be in another 100 years. The key, I believe, is to understand that neither are we. I think the "embarrassing problem" that Spada touches on is how animals depict human nature and human tendencies. Occasionally, other animals bring out compassion and empathy in humans. Other times, they bring out brutality and oppression. To make us feel comfortable with the creatures that we are forever here with, we must accept them and relate to them. This is the only way that we will be able to live harmoniously.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
#4: Humans and Animals - It's All Relative
Foer writes, "Humans are the only animals that have children on purpose, keep in touch (or don't), care about birthdays, waste and lose time, brush their teeth, feel nostalgia, scrub stains, have religions and political parties and laws, wear keepsakes, apologize years after an offense, whisper, fear themselves, interpret dreams, hide their genitalia, shave, bury time capsules, and choose not to eat something for reasons of conscience." We eat animals because we're different than them, yet we refrain from eating them because we're different from them. Is it legal to justify the same thing in two different ways? I guess it is, but it's comical how two extremes can use the same reasoning to justify why they do something (or don't do something.) This idea reminds me of another issue: abortion. If the pro-choice side and the pro-life side both claim that they believe in what they do because they value life, then you know that the issue must be complex. I think that one way complexity is illustrated is when two polar opposites defend their side with the same reasoning. When this happens, you know that the debates will go past the rights and wrongs. Animal agriculture is not just about morality. It's about the environment, tradition, the future, and desire. Humans are animals but animals aren't humans. (?) It's all relative . . .
#3: War On Fish
For every 10 tuna, sharks, and other large predatory fish that were in our oceans fifty to a hundred years ago, only 1 is left. Many scientists predict that in less than fifty years, all fished species will totally collapse. This is no longer a means of survival; it is a war of extermination. Not so long ago, farmers used natural processes to farm. The term "factory farmers" doesn't seem to fit our image of a father-son in a wooden boat fishing trip. Today, factory farming considers nature an obstacle to overcome.
A natural obstacle to overcome when using contemporary fishing methods is bycatch. Bycatch refers to the sea creatures that are "accidentally" caught by fishing nets (there's nothing accidental about hundreds of animals being consciously thrown back into the ocean alive.) Massive amounts of catches equals massive amounts of bycatch. For example, the shrimp business throws 80-90% of the sea animals, dead or dying, it captures overboard as bycatch. People tend not to think about this because they tend not to know about it. Foer notes that there might be a different reaction to eating animals if our food was labeled, letting us know how many animals were killed to make this one possible to eat.
If you look at the massive tuna industry, you would see that there are tons of species that are regularly killed for the sole purpose of providing people with tuna (which, even though irrelevant, is known to have dangerous amounts of mercury in it.) Among the many species that are regularly killed to make tuna an availability are the manta ray, devil ray, spotted skate, bignose shark, copper shark, Galapagos shark, sandbar shark, night shark, tiger shark, sand tiger shark, great white shark, hammerhead shark, spurdog fish, Cuban dogfish, bigeye thresher, mako, blue shark, wahoo, sailfish, bonito, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, longbill spearfish, white marlin, swordfish, lancet fish, grey triggerfish, needlefish, pomfret, blue runner, black ruff, dolphin fish, bigeye ciagarfish, porcupine fish, rainbow runner, anchovy, grouper, flying fish, cod, common sea horse, Bermuda chub, opah, escolar, leerfish, tripletail, goosefish, monkfish, sunfish, Murray eel, pilotfish, black gemfish, stone bass, bluefish, cassava fish, red drum, great amberjack, yellowtail, sea bream, barracuda, puffer fish, loggerhead turtle, green turtle, leatherback turtle, hawksbill turtle, Kemp's ridley turtle, Atlantic yellow-nosed albatross, Audouin's gull, balearie shearwater, black-browed albatross, great black-backed gull, great shearwater, great-winged petrel, grey petrel, herring gull, laughing gull, northern royal albatross, shy albatross, sooty shearwater, southern fulmar, Yelkouan shearwater, yellow-legged gull, minke whale, sei whale, fin whale, dolphin, northern right whale, pilot whale, humpback whale, beaked whale, killer whale, harbor porpoise, sperm whale, striped dolphin, Atlantic spotted dolphin, spinner dolphin, bottlenose dolphin, and goose-beaked whale (just to name a few.)
Killing off so many members of so many species is not a healthy way to sustain an ecosystem. And now, I will prod at the morality of the contemporary fishing industry. Are a couple of tunas worth the lives of 145 species? This does not speak positively on behalf of the fishing industry. Like I said, people don't talk about it because people don't know about it.
A natural obstacle to overcome when using contemporary fishing methods is bycatch. Bycatch refers to the sea creatures that are "accidentally" caught by fishing nets (there's nothing accidental about hundreds of animals being consciously thrown back into the ocean alive.) Massive amounts of catches equals massive amounts of bycatch. For example, the shrimp business throws 80-90% of the sea animals, dead or dying, it captures overboard as bycatch. People tend not to think about this because they tend not to know about it. Foer notes that there might be a different reaction to eating animals if our food was labeled, letting us know how many animals were killed to make this one possible to eat.
If you look at the massive tuna industry, you would see that there are tons of species that are regularly killed for the sole purpose of providing people with tuna (which, even though irrelevant, is known to have dangerous amounts of mercury in it.) Among the many species that are regularly killed to make tuna an availability are the manta ray, devil ray, spotted skate, bignose shark, copper shark, Galapagos shark, sandbar shark, night shark, tiger shark, sand tiger shark, great white shark, hammerhead shark, spurdog fish, Cuban dogfish, bigeye thresher, mako, blue shark, wahoo, sailfish, bonito, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, longbill spearfish, white marlin, swordfish, lancet fish, grey triggerfish, needlefish, pomfret, blue runner, black ruff, dolphin fish, bigeye ciagarfish, porcupine fish, rainbow runner, anchovy, grouper, flying fish, cod, common sea horse, Bermuda chub, opah, escolar, leerfish, tripletail, goosefish, monkfish, sunfish, Murray eel, pilotfish, black gemfish, stone bass, bluefish, cassava fish, red drum, great amberjack, yellowtail, sea bream, barracuda, puffer fish, loggerhead turtle, green turtle, leatherback turtle, hawksbill turtle, Kemp's ridley turtle, Atlantic yellow-nosed albatross, Audouin's gull, balearie shearwater, black-browed albatross, great black-backed gull, great shearwater, great-winged petrel, grey petrel, herring gull, laughing gull, northern royal albatross, shy albatross, sooty shearwater, southern fulmar, Yelkouan shearwater, yellow-legged gull, minke whale, sei whale, fin whale, dolphin, northern right whale, pilot whale, humpback whale, beaked whale, killer whale, harbor porpoise, sperm whale, striped dolphin, Atlantic spotted dolphin, spinner dolphin, bottlenose dolphin, and goose-beaked whale (just to name a few.)
Killing off so many members of so many species is not a healthy way to sustain an ecosystem. And now, I will prod at the morality of the contemporary fishing industry. Are a couple of tunas worth the lives of 145 species? This does not speak positively on behalf of the fishing industry. Like I said, people don't talk about it because people don't know about it.
#2: Define Your Values
People, music, and traditions define New Orleans, as we know from discussing Katrina. That city has deep roots, ones that can tell a story about the culture from past to present. Just like the city, the food you eat can define a part of your culture and, essentially, a part of who you are. What you choose to eat is entirely up to you, but not all labels tell the truth that you want to hear.
Free-range is a great example because it clearly demonstrates the morality of the food industry. When buying chicken, for example, the package is sometimes labeled "free-range." To a lot of conscientious buyers who wish to purchase their produce only from ethical farmers, they choose this package. Because, in your mind, free-range creates the image of chickens roaming on open grounds, eating fresh feed as they please, and having a decent shelter to retreat to. But, actually, according to the USDA, chickens raised for meat must only have "access to the outdoors," which is absolutely insignificant if you take that literally. A shed containing thirty thousand chickens that has a door which occasionally opens to a 5-by-5 square inch dirt patch is considered free-range. Foer says that he could keep a flock of hens under his sink and call them free-range. Now what does that say about the food industry? To me, it says that not everything can be trusted. What does that mean about cage-free animals? Organically grown products? Unfortunately, "farmers" have found a loophole in these terms as well. Organic and cage-free are just two terms that have basically no meaning. They are merely used to take the money of misinformed, caring consumers. This is not fair to anyone.
FUN FACT (courtesy of Jonathan Safran Foer): Modern industrial fishing lines can be as long as 75 miles--the same distance as from sea level to space.
Local? Hmmm . . .
Free-range is a great example because it clearly demonstrates the morality of the food industry. When buying chicken, for example, the package is sometimes labeled "free-range." To a lot of conscientious buyers who wish to purchase their produce only from ethical farmers, they choose this package. Because, in your mind, free-range creates the image of chickens roaming on open grounds, eating fresh feed as they please, and having a decent shelter to retreat to. But, actually, according to the USDA, chickens raised for meat must only have "access to the outdoors," which is absolutely insignificant if you take that literally. A shed containing thirty thousand chickens that has a door which occasionally opens to a 5-by-5 square inch dirt patch is considered free-range. Foer says that he could keep a flock of hens under his sink and call them free-range. Now what does that say about the food industry? To me, it says that not everything can be trusted. What does that mean about cage-free animals? Organically grown products? Unfortunately, "farmers" have found a loophole in these terms as well. Organic and cage-free are just two terms that have basically no meaning. They are merely used to take the money of misinformed, caring consumers. This is not fair to anyone.
FUN FACT (courtesy of Jonathan Safran Foer): Modern industrial fishing lines can be as long as 75 miles--the same distance as from sea level to space.
Local? Hmmm . . .
Monday, January 10, 2011
#1: Eating Animals
Eating Animals caught my attention simply because of the title. I was hesitant at first because the last thing I needed to read was a one-sided book about animal rights that was written by a stubborn radical who worships PETA and its extremities. Then, I discovered the book was written by Jonathan Safran Foer, the author of other great literary works. I decided that because he has such a unique, opinionated voice, I would see what he has to say about this very controversial topic.
I was extremely glad that I decided to read this book because Foer puts complicated concepts that typically surround eating and put them into a perspective that anyone can comprehend. Whenever someone, usually one of my family members, boldly decides to engage in an animal rights debate, I am always amazed about one subject: eating dogs. To some people, eating dogs are two words that should under absolutely no circumstances be paired together. Despite the fact that it's completely legal in forty-four states, most people cannot fathom how anyone could eat man's best friend. The fact is, we are one of the few cultures around the world who shun dog eating. For example, Eastern Indians would never lay a hand on their cows, but they sometimes eat their dogs. Foer cleverly explained the average human's reasoning by using a passage from George Orwell's Animal Farm. Orwell wrote, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." You can try to set rules such as "don't eat companion animals" or "don't eat animals with significant mental capacities," but then you just end up contradicting yourself. Dogs are normally companion animals in America, but they're not domesticated in all parts of the world. If you claim that you shouldn't eat smart animals, then you've just led yourself into another loophole. If a dogs fall under "animals with significant mental capacities," then you must also include pigs, cows, chickens, and many sea animals. And, sadly, it would justify eating severely impaired humans. So tell me, please, how do you choose which animals are considered ethical to consume and which ones are considered unethical to consume?
In America, millions of dogs and cats that are euthanized in animal shelters every year become the food for our food. Safran points out that if we leg dogs be dogs and breed without interference, we would create a sustainable, local meat supply with low energy inputs. From an ecological standpoint, dog is a realistic food for our environment. But how can we do that? I just can't get over my sentimentality when thinking about my dog, Bailey, in a pot. But realistically, dogs are plentiful, good for you, easy to prepare, and reasonable to process. On one page, Foer includes a classic Filipino recipes: Stewed Dog, Wedding Style. I won't go into all of the details, but first you kill a medium-sized dog, cook it fur-less, cut the meat into 1" cubes, add some peppercorn and pineapple, do some more boiling, and lastly, blend in puree of dog's liver and cook for an additional 5-7 minutes.
Eating animals seems invisible and irrelevant when it's actually the most relevant thing. Thinking about dogs and their relationship to the animals we eat is a step towards making sense of why we eat animals.
I was extremely glad that I decided to read this book because Foer puts complicated concepts that typically surround eating and put them into a perspective that anyone can comprehend. Whenever someone, usually one of my family members, boldly decides to engage in an animal rights debate, I am always amazed about one subject: eating dogs. To some people, eating dogs are two words that should under absolutely no circumstances be paired together. Despite the fact that it's completely legal in forty-four states, most people cannot fathom how anyone could eat man's best friend. The fact is, we are one of the few cultures around the world who shun dog eating. For example, Eastern Indians would never lay a hand on their cows, but they sometimes eat their dogs. Foer cleverly explained the average human's reasoning by using a passage from George Orwell's Animal Farm. Orwell wrote, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." You can try to set rules such as "don't eat companion animals" or "don't eat animals with significant mental capacities," but then you just end up contradicting yourself. Dogs are normally companion animals in America, but they're not domesticated in all parts of the world. If you claim that you shouldn't eat smart animals, then you've just led yourself into another loophole. If a dogs fall under "animals with significant mental capacities," then you must also include pigs, cows, chickens, and many sea animals. And, sadly, it would justify eating severely impaired humans. So tell me, please, how do you choose which animals are considered ethical to consume and which ones are considered unethical to consume?
In America, millions of dogs and cats that are euthanized in animal shelters every year become the food for our food. Safran points out that if we leg dogs be dogs and breed without interference, we would create a sustainable, local meat supply with low energy inputs. From an ecological standpoint, dog is a realistic food for our environment. But how can we do that? I just can't get over my sentimentality when thinking about my dog, Bailey, in a pot. But realistically, dogs are plentiful, good for you, easy to prepare, and reasonable to process. On one page, Foer includes a classic Filipino recipes: Stewed Dog, Wedding Style. I won't go into all of the details, but first you kill a medium-sized dog, cook it fur-less, cut the meat into 1" cubes, add some peppercorn and pineapple, do some more boiling, and lastly, blend in puree of dog's liver and cook for an additional 5-7 minutes.
Eating animals seems invisible and irrelevant when it's actually the most relevant thing. Thinking about dogs and their relationship to the animals we eat is a step towards making sense of why we eat animals.
Monday, November 8, 2010
People Can Change...If They Are Given the Opportunity
Even from only viewing the first half of Clifford Boggess's story, it was evident to me that he should not have been executed. Of course, it is necessary to look at the aggravating and mitigating factors in Boggess's case, but it is also important to consider the time during which each event occurred. In other words, what was considered relevant during the time of the murder may have changed over the 9 years that he was on death row.
Many people would want to execute Clifford Boggess themselves just by glancing at the aggravating factors. Not only did he murder 2 men, but he did it just for the sake of hurting someone. This was not a conclusion that was drawn from the film; he shared his sadistic intentions in the film. After confiding in his girlfriend, Phoebe, he threatened to kill her and the judge if she ever told anyone about what he had done. When he stood during his trial to accept his sentence, he was described as having absolutely no feelings or emotions. Clifford really appears to be a man who is just out to kill for no reason, why shouldn't he be put to death?
I admit that none of this evidence reassured me of my opinion to keep Boggess alive. He seemed like such a deranged man. But when I weigh those factors with the mitigating factors, I am sure that I would have kept Boggess alive. The simple fact that Boggess was the only prisoner on death row who was able to openly and honestly talk about what he had done is a major sign that he has changed. He has come to terms with the two murders and he accepts the consequences. The video also touched on Clifford's past, which I believe should be considered in a life or death matter. People described him as always having a positive attitude and that killing him now would just kill the little boy within. He has the potential to change back into the pure soul that he was before. The video also claimed that there was always something "wrong" with Clifford, even at a young age. This makes me believe that if there was always something "wrong" with him, then the judges should consider the fact that maybe his actions were biologically prompted. Maybe he is not the bloodthirsty savage that his actions accuse him of being, and maybe he can still be the innocent boy from his past.
Just one look in Clifford's jail cell demonstrates that he has changed. He has a lot of artwork of his own, pictures of family and friends (even his victim's graves =/ ...), and he was willing to show anyone his personables. When a prisoner of conscience is left to ponder what they have done to put them in jail, there is a large possibility that they will change, or at least accept what they have done. But if they are killed, they will never receive the chance to make peace with themselves and others. They will never get the chance to make things right. And they will never get the chance to change. If you give people the opportunity, they CAN change.
Although I did not view Clifford's victim's family's reactions to his death, I can assume how they must have felt. I think they would have a SMALL sense of closure in the fact that they will never see or hear from him again. But if they were never going visit him in jail and he was sentenced for life, then why do families really want the murderers killed? Because Clifford's story has now been made famous, these families will have to answer questions for the rest of their lives. Killing Clifford will not and will never bring their loved ones back. They have now continued the cycle of killing. Would that bring you justice? Does killing Clifford outweigh the possibility that he could change and bring justice to the families? Well they will never know because they never gave him the opportunity...
Many people would want to execute Clifford Boggess themselves just by glancing at the aggravating factors. Not only did he murder 2 men, but he did it just for the sake of hurting someone. This was not a conclusion that was drawn from the film; he shared his sadistic intentions in the film. After confiding in his girlfriend, Phoebe, he threatened to kill her and the judge if she ever told anyone about what he had done. When he stood during his trial to accept his sentence, he was described as having absolutely no feelings or emotions. Clifford really appears to be a man who is just out to kill for no reason, why shouldn't he be put to death?
I admit that none of this evidence reassured me of my opinion to keep Boggess alive. He seemed like such a deranged man. But when I weigh those factors with the mitigating factors, I am sure that I would have kept Boggess alive. The simple fact that Boggess was the only prisoner on death row who was able to openly and honestly talk about what he had done is a major sign that he has changed. He has come to terms with the two murders and he accepts the consequences. The video also touched on Clifford's past, which I believe should be considered in a life or death matter. People described him as always having a positive attitude and that killing him now would just kill the little boy within. He has the potential to change back into the pure soul that he was before. The video also claimed that there was always something "wrong" with Clifford, even at a young age. This makes me believe that if there was always something "wrong" with him, then the judges should consider the fact that maybe his actions were biologically prompted. Maybe he is not the bloodthirsty savage that his actions accuse him of being, and maybe he can still be the innocent boy from his past.
Just one look in Clifford's jail cell demonstrates that he has changed. He has a lot of artwork of his own, pictures of family and friends (even his victim's graves =/ ...), and he was willing to show anyone his personables. When a prisoner of conscience is left to ponder what they have done to put them in jail, there is a large possibility that they will change, or at least accept what they have done. But if they are killed, they will never receive the chance to make peace with themselves and others. They will never get the chance to make things right. And they will never get the chance to change. If you give people the opportunity, they CAN change.
Although I did not view Clifford's victim's family's reactions to his death, I can assume how they must have felt. I think they would have a SMALL sense of closure in the fact that they will never see or hear from him again. But if they were never going visit him in jail and he was sentenced for life, then why do families really want the murderers killed? Because Clifford's story has now been made famous, these families will have to answer questions for the rest of their lives. Killing Clifford will not and will never bring their loved ones back. They have now continued the cycle of killing. Would that bring you justice? Does killing Clifford outweigh the possibility that he could change and bring justice to the families? Well they will never know because they never gave him the opportunity...
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Wait, the Fourth Amendment IS supposed to apply to students?
The Constitution contradicts itself when saying that students have Fourth Amendment rights in school. School officials are allowed to search lockers, people, and belongings merely because they have "reasonable" suspicion. Basing a student's rights on "reasonableness" gives them absolutely no certainty or sense of security in a school system. What determines reasonableness? It's simple. Basically anything that the school wants to abolish, for example, drugs, can be backed up by "reasonableness". The ambiguous nature of students' rights to privacy in school creates an unfair environment. But, if schools do not implement some form of restriction on the Fourth Amendment, then there would be a lot more drugs going around. How do you find a balance that puts the government's and students' best interests in mind?
The best solution that I can come up with is to simply eliminate all drug testing in high schools. Many people will argue that it is an invasion of privacy, but I really do not believe that a urine analysis is a brutal violation of one's Fourth Amendment rights. I think the only reason that can actually back up a privacy concern is that the person getting tested knows that their results will come back positive. It is a weak argument.
Although, I still maintain that overall, implementing random drug testing in schools is not a wise decision. Because the test will show drug usage, students will result to other dangerous behaviors, such as alcohol. Since alcohol will not necessarily show up on a drug test, students will be more inclined to partake in this activity. Initiating drug testing will only encourage students to find other, and sometimes more dangerous, ways of seeking whatever it is they look for in illegal substances.
When students try to find ways to make their test results read negative, they will be more likely to behave in other ways that undermine authorities. More and more students will learn how to slide past the radar as time goes on. I do believe that drug testing would be very effective, but in the long run, the drug tested generation would be better off without the tests.
In New Jersey v. T.L.O., I believe that T.L.O. should get in trouble for smoking in a restricted area, but she should not be charged for the other things in her purse. The search was over because they had found what they were looking for. The fact that "probable cause" is not even needed to search a student or their belongings is unconstitutional. This relates to drug testing because random drug testing also does not need a probable cause to test on students. I think that if a school were to get a lead or have plausible suspicion that a student is partaking in illegal and harmful behavior, they should be allowed to drug test. But randomly testing a student who is just in the fencing club or HUMAN RIGHTS CLUB (you should join - we meet in the library after school on Mondays) denies students their Fourth Amendment rights, no matter how trivial they were to begin with in a school.
The best solution that I can come up with is to simply eliminate all drug testing in high schools. Many people will argue that it is an invasion of privacy, but I really do not believe that a urine analysis is a brutal violation of one's Fourth Amendment rights. I think the only reason that can actually back up a privacy concern is that the person getting tested knows that their results will come back positive. It is a weak argument.
Although, I still maintain that overall, implementing random drug testing in schools is not a wise decision. Because the test will show drug usage, students will result to other dangerous behaviors, such as alcohol. Since alcohol will not necessarily show up on a drug test, students will be more inclined to partake in this activity. Initiating drug testing will only encourage students to find other, and sometimes more dangerous, ways of seeking whatever it is they look for in illegal substances.
When students try to find ways to make their test results read negative, they will be more likely to behave in other ways that undermine authorities. More and more students will learn how to slide past the radar as time goes on. I do believe that drug testing would be very effective, but in the long run, the drug tested generation would be better off without the tests.
In New Jersey v. T.L.O., I believe that T.L.O. should get in trouble for smoking in a restricted area, but she should not be charged for the other things in her purse. The search was over because they had found what they were looking for. The fact that "probable cause" is not even needed to search a student or their belongings is unconstitutional. This relates to drug testing because random drug testing also does not need a probable cause to test on students. I think that if a school were to get a lead or have plausible suspicion that a student is partaking in illegal and harmful behavior, they should be allowed to drug test. But randomly testing a student who is just in the fencing club or HUMAN RIGHTS CLUB (you should join - we meet in the library after school on Mondays) denies students their Fourth Amendment rights, no matter how trivial they were to begin with in a school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)