Last week I received a document from my health insurance company about "important changes" to my policy in 2011. Most of the changes fell under the heading "revisions to your benefits due to the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."
My life time maximum is changed from $5 million to an umlimited amount.
My mental health coverage is changed from $10,000 (without a period of time given) to unlimited lifetime coverage. (Imagine how fast you could burn through $10,000 even if that was an annual amount.)
My children (if I had any) are covered up to age 26.
I don't have to worry about pre-existing conditions.
I don't have to worry about them cancelling my coverage when I get ill--they can cancel only if I don't pay my premium or if I'm abusive to an "in network provider."
How incredibly ignorant of the American people to buy the Republican lies about this legislation. All of these changes are to protect me and my family, and to prevent the worst insurance industry abuses. Wake up America!
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Friday, January 7, 2011
Redacting the Constitution
The Republicans read the Constitution on the House floor, as promised, but they didn't read it as written. They skipped the passages that have been altered by amendments, such as the passages that count slaves as three-fifths of a person. This was an intellectually dishonest action, but perfectly constructed politically. All the legions of uninformed people watching Fox will believe that the Constitution was divinely written, since there doesn't seem to be any sections that have needed to be changed.
As I said below, the main purpose was to position the Republican Party as the defender of the Constitution, and they just showed how hollow their stance is.
The New York Times editorial today had this to say about the Republican charade:
As I said below, the main purpose was to position the Republican Party as the defender of the Constitution, and they just showed how hollow their stance is.
The New York Times editorial today had this to say about the Republican charade:
Members of the House might have thought they were bringing the Constitution alive by reading it aloud on Thursday. But they made a crucial error by excising its history. When they chose to deliberately drop the sections that became obsolete or offensive, and which were later amended, they missed a chance to demonstrate that this document is not nailed to the door of the past. It remains vital precisely because it can be reimagined...The reading was conceived so that Republicans could demonstrate their fidelity to the document and make it seem as though Democrats had abandoned it...The effect of Thursday’s reading, in case anyone was actually paying attention, was to wrongly suggest that the document was seamless and perfect, as if carved in marble rather than stained with sweat and American blood.Yale Law Professor Jack M. Balkin wrote in his blog that reading the Constitution as a whole would remind us that it is a work in progress:
The Constitution is not perfect. Nor are our political institutions. Nor are the American people. But we can take pride in our Constitution precisely because we Americans have continually sought to improve the Constitution, our institutions, and ourselves over time. We have not always been successful in these efforts. We have made many mistakes along the way, and we have committed many injustices. We continue to do so to this very day. The point rather, is that by creating this great experiment in self-government-- the United States Constitution-- we have committed ourselves to achieving a more just, free and equal society under law and we have adopted our Constitution and amendments to it as a way of realizing those commitments in history. It is a task that began with the founding and continues to this very day. It is a task that is never finished.I'd like to see progressive politicians standing up and claiming the Constitution for liberals as Mr. Balkin does so eloquently. See my post below, "Progressives Need to Claim the Constitution."
Reading the entire Constitution is a way of reminding ourselves that the Constitution is always a work in progress; that it has been flawed in the past and probably is still flawed in the present; that what we have now before us is not necessarily the final version of the Constitution, but that the Constitution can always be improved and that it must be improved; that no matter how much our political institutions may have failed us in the past, and no matter how much we have failed ourselves in the past, political redemption is always still possible; and that We the People of the United States can still always strive for a more just, more free, and more equal country-- what the Preamble of the Constitution calls a "More Perfect Union."
Reading the entire Constitution-- including its oblique references to slavery--is a way of engaging in proper humility about the products of flawed human beings, but it is also a way of expressing faith in eventual improvement. If the Constitution once allowed great evils, and now it does not, perhaps someday we will be able to recognize the current evils it still allows, and ameliorate them as well.
Reading the entire Constitution should not be an act of shame that politicians avoid. It should be an act of hope.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Blowing Bubbles
Recently I read a history of capitalism called "The Relentless Revolution," by historian Joyce Appleby. Ms Appleby gives a nice concise list of the financial crises we have endured since the beginning of Reaganomics and the dismantling of the post-Depression regulations:
And it looks like we are already working on blowing up the next bubble. The Goldman Sachs investment in FaceBook was evidence of that, according to William Cohan in the New York Times:
Before the world recession of 2008-2009, the market’s stumbles had grown ever more frequent and painful, starting with the crash of 1987, followed by the junk bond crisis of the late 1980s, the 1989 sinking of the savings and loan industry, the Japanese depression, the Asian fiscal crisis of 1997, the Long-Term Capital Management near-default of 1998, the bursting of the dot-com bubble of 2000, the Enron and WorldCom debacle of 2001, climaxing with the rippling losses from the mortgage-based securities debacle in 2008.There were no financial crises in the United States between 1940 and 1987. There were recessions of course, but crises had been eliminated by financial industry regulations. Once those were removed with the ascendency of conservative free-market fundamentalist economic theories, financial crises began up again.
And it looks like we are already working on blowing up the next bubble. The Goldman Sachs investment in FaceBook was evidence of that, according to William Cohan in the New York Times:
With Goldman’s investment in Facebook, we have a front-row seat to the process by which Wall Street creates and inflates financial bubbles. This bout of hysteria involves not only Facebook but other Internet companies including Twitter, the gaming site Zynga, the social buying site Groupon and LinkedIn, another social networking site. The valuation of these companies has soared in the past two years, leading some to worry that the American people bailed out Wall Street so that we could relive the Internet Bubble of 1999.In the article he goes on the list the many ways that Goldman Sachs will profit from this deal, as "investor, salesman, money manager, I.P.O. underwriter," while adding almost no value and creating nothing.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Progressives Need to Claim the Constitution
In recent years conservatives have laid claim to the U.S. Constitution; they act as if they alone uphold the principles contained within our founding document. Of course it’s only gotten worse in the last two years with the Tea Party. This week Republicans have announced they are going to read the entire Constitution aloud in the House of Representatives the first day of the new Congress, and I’m sure it’s going to be a circus since every representative is going to want his or her chance to grandstand for the cameras.
When many liberals think about the Constitution they seem to only discuss its undemocratic and unliberal aspects: slavery was sanctioned, women couldn’t vote, only white male property-owners could vote, etc. But there are many points on which conservatives are mistaken about the Constitution and I think it would be to the progressive movements’ advantage to challenge conservatives on this issue.
I think it’s time for progressives to reclaim the Constitution.
I’m no scholar of the Constitution, or even a historian, but I’ve read many books about our nation’s history, including one about the writing of the Constitution, “A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution,” by Carol Berkin.
There are a number of points progressives can make. First, conservatives are always arguing that we need to adhere to the “original intent of the Founders” as if the Constitution were a sacred document written by God that can’t be modified in any way. The authors of the Constitution would have been astounded that anyone would think that way.
I can give several reasons for this opinion. Just for starters, what we now call “The Constitution” is our second constitution, written to replace the Articles of Confederation, which was our original governmental document. Within a few years after the Revolutionary War was over it became clear that the weak national government allowed under the Articles could not solve the enormous problems facing the new nation.
The Articles of Confederation had been written by many of the same men who gathered for the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Constitutional Convention was made up mostly of self-chosen men who thought there needed to be a more powerful central government. Those who didn’t think the Confederation needed to be changed stayed away.
In fact, Ms. Berkin calls it a coup d’etat: The men who gathered in Philadelphia in May 1787 “gathered behind locked doors and bolted windows to overthrow the legitimate government established by the Articles of Confederation and, by writing the Constitution, to stage what can only be called a bloodless coup d’etat.”
But the main point is this—our Founding Fathers’ first try at inventing a government lasted ten years from when it was written until when it needed to be completely redone.
Secondly, the Constitution contains an article (Article V) explicitly stating that all parts of the Constitution can be amended, except for the slavery clauses (which had to stay in effect through 1808) and the right of all states to have an equal vote in the Senate. If we wanted to amend the Constitution to eliminate the presidency, as crazy as that may sound, we could. Clearly, the authors of the Constitution saw that there could be the need to change all aspects of our government to deal with changing circumstances, and as a result left virtually every clause open to revision.
In addition, most of us are unaware that there was substantial opposition to the Constitution during the ratification process. These opponents were called Anti-federalists, and among them were some, like Thomas Jefferson, who today we consider to be one of the Founders of our nation. Jefferson was particularly nervous about the presidency. Ms Berkin writes, “He predicted that Virginia would reject the Constitution—and gave no indication that he would regret it. As Christmas 1787 neared, Jefferson confided to a friend, ‘As to the new Constitution I find myself nearly a Neutral…’”
Many people were opposed to the ratification of the Constitution because it did not include a bill of rights, which was a common part of state constitutions at that time. James Madison introduced twelve amendments during the very first Congress under the new Constitution, and ten of these were passed and ratified. In other words, the Constitution was amended ten times within the first year of its existence.
I don’t think any of the men who participated in the writing of our Constitution would think twice about the need for revision considering all of the changes that have occurred in this country since 1787. The Constitution was written before the invention of railroads, electricity, the internal-combustion engine, and the telephone. It was written in a much more agrarian age, just as the industrial revolution began. In fact, they would probably be surprised at how little we have changed it.
One of the reasons the Tea Partiers and conservatives like the Constitution is that it gives a lot of power to the states. But as I mentioned above, one of the main reasons the men gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 for the Constitutional Convention was because the weak national government was not working.
We forget that after the Revolutionary War the thirteen colonies became thirteen sovereign nations, joined in a very loose confederacy. The Articles of Confederation declare that “each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” The states competed with each other—they were individual nations vying for dominance. Each state imposed tariffs and trade barriers and had its own currency. Interstate commerce was difficult and expensive.
The Articles gave the Confederation the power to declare and make war, but little else. The Confederation had no separate executive branch, no independent judiciary, and no upper chamber in the legislature. There was one assembly in which each state had a single vote, regardless of its size. To insure that the Confederation would stay weak, the Articles denied it the power of taxation.
Technically the Confederation may have been responsible for the common defense, but because there was no funding mechanism for the national government, the ability to defend the national interest—against the British who still had forts on the western frontier, the French in the southwest, Native American tribes, and pirates marauding merchant vessels in the Mediterranean—was extremely limited.
Interestingly enough, it seems like this type of Confederation is what the Tea Party members want to go back to, a nation of allied states with a federal government responsible only for defense, and no ability to tax. It didn’t work in 1785 and it sure wouldn’t work today.
Lastly, many people don’t realize that the U.S. Postal Service is specified in the Constitution. The authors saw the value that a widely available postal service would provide to a thriving national economy. Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 empowers Congress to “establish Post offices and Post Roads.” Clearly the Founders were not adverse to the federal government building infrastructure; there just wasn’t much of it to build in the pre-industrial 18th century. Today if someone suggested a nationally-run telecommunications system they would be denounced as socialist.
The most important point, however, is that the Founders expected the Constitution to be amended as needed. During the summer of 1787 the Constitutional Convention was riven by disagreements and many participants feared they could never finish the job. When it was done they feared it would never be ratified. Further, none of them expected this government to last forever. Benjamin Franklin noted that “with luck and wisdom they would produce a government that could forestall, for a decade perhaps, the inevitable decline of the Republic into a tyranny of one, a tyranny of a few, or a tyranny of the majority.” The delegates were mainly concerned about the effect of greed and lust for power, which, they felt, could corrupt anyone.
We have modified the Constitution seventeen more times since 1789, and many of these have been the result of new ideas about inclusiveness and democracy: the end of slavery (XIII), direct election of Senators (XVII), and women’s right to vote (XIX) are prominent examples.
Progressives should embrace the idea that the updating of our Constitution to adjust to new ideas and understandings was the original intent of the Founders.
When many liberals think about the Constitution they seem to only discuss its undemocratic and unliberal aspects: slavery was sanctioned, women couldn’t vote, only white male property-owners could vote, etc. But there are many points on which conservatives are mistaken about the Constitution and I think it would be to the progressive movements’ advantage to challenge conservatives on this issue.
I think it’s time for progressives to reclaim the Constitution.
I’m no scholar of the Constitution, or even a historian, but I’ve read many books about our nation’s history, including one about the writing of the Constitution, “A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution,” by Carol Berkin.
There are a number of points progressives can make. First, conservatives are always arguing that we need to adhere to the “original intent of the Founders” as if the Constitution were a sacred document written by God that can’t be modified in any way. The authors of the Constitution would have been astounded that anyone would think that way.
I can give several reasons for this opinion. Just for starters, what we now call “The Constitution” is our second constitution, written to replace the Articles of Confederation, which was our original governmental document. Within a few years after the Revolutionary War was over it became clear that the weak national government allowed under the Articles could not solve the enormous problems facing the new nation.
The Articles of Confederation had been written by many of the same men who gathered for the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Constitutional Convention was made up mostly of self-chosen men who thought there needed to be a more powerful central government. Those who didn’t think the Confederation needed to be changed stayed away.
In fact, Ms. Berkin calls it a coup d’etat: The men who gathered in Philadelphia in May 1787 “gathered behind locked doors and bolted windows to overthrow the legitimate government established by the Articles of Confederation and, by writing the Constitution, to stage what can only be called a bloodless coup d’etat.”
But the main point is this—our Founding Fathers’ first try at inventing a government lasted ten years from when it was written until when it needed to be completely redone.
Secondly, the Constitution contains an article (Article V) explicitly stating that all parts of the Constitution can be amended, except for the slavery clauses (which had to stay in effect through 1808) and the right of all states to have an equal vote in the Senate. If we wanted to amend the Constitution to eliminate the presidency, as crazy as that may sound, we could. Clearly, the authors of the Constitution saw that there could be the need to change all aspects of our government to deal with changing circumstances, and as a result left virtually every clause open to revision.
In addition, most of us are unaware that there was substantial opposition to the Constitution during the ratification process. These opponents were called Anti-federalists, and among them were some, like Thomas Jefferson, who today we consider to be one of the Founders of our nation. Jefferson was particularly nervous about the presidency. Ms Berkin writes, “He predicted that Virginia would reject the Constitution—and gave no indication that he would regret it. As Christmas 1787 neared, Jefferson confided to a friend, ‘As to the new Constitution I find myself nearly a Neutral…’”
Many people were opposed to the ratification of the Constitution because it did not include a bill of rights, which was a common part of state constitutions at that time. James Madison introduced twelve amendments during the very first Congress under the new Constitution, and ten of these were passed and ratified. In other words, the Constitution was amended ten times within the first year of its existence.
I don’t think any of the men who participated in the writing of our Constitution would think twice about the need for revision considering all of the changes that have occurred in this country since 1787. The Constitution was written before the invention of railroads, electricity, the internal-combustion engine, and the telephone. It was written in a much more agrarian age, just as the industrial revolution began. In fact, they would probably be surprised at how little we have changed it.
One of the reasons the Tea Partiers and conservatives like the Constitution is that it gives a lot of power to the states. But as I mentioned above, one of the main reasons the men gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 for the Constitutional Convention was because the weak national government was not working.
We forget that after the Revolutionary War the thirteen colonies became thirteen sovereign nations, joined in a very loose confederacy. The Articles of Confederation declare that “each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” The states competed with each other—they were individual nations vying for dominance. Each state imposed tariffs and trade barriers and had its own currency. Interstate commerce was difficult and expensive.
The Articles gave the Confederation the power to declare and make war, but little else. The Confederation had no separate executive branch, no independent judiciary, and no upper chamber in the legislature. There was one assembly in which each state had a single vote, regardless of its size. To insure that the Confederation would stay weak, the Articles denied it the power of taxation.
Technically the Confederation may have been responsible for the common defense, but because there was no funding mechanism for the national government, the ability to defend the national interest—against the British who still had forts on the western frontier, the French in the southwest, Native American tribes, and pirates marauding merchant vessels in the Mediterranean—was extremely limited.
Interestingly enough, it seems like this type of Confederation is what the Tea Party members want to go back to, a nation of allied states with a federal government responsible only for defense, and no ability to tax. It didn’t work in 1785 and it sure wouldn’t work today.
Lastly, many people don’t realize that the U.S. Postal Service is specified in the Constitution. The authors saw the value that a widely available postal service would provide to a thriving national economy. Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 empowers Congress to “establish Post offices and Post Roads.” Clearly the Founders were not adverse to the federal government building infrastructure; there just wasn’t much of it to build in the pre-industrial 18th century. Today if someone suggested a nationally-run telecommunications system they would be denounced as socialist.
The most important point, however, is that the Founders expected the Constitution to be amended as needed. During the summer of 1787 the Constitutional Convention was riven by disagreements and many participants feared they could never finish the job. When it was done they feared it would never be ratified. Further, none of them expected this government to last forever. Benjamin Franklin noted that “with luck and wisdom they would produce a government that could forestall, for a decade perhaps, the inevitable decline of the Republic into a tyranny of one, a tyranny of a few, or a tyranny of the majority.” The delegates were mainly concerned about the effect of greed and lust for power, which, they felt, could corrupt anyone.
We have modified the Constitution seventeen more times since 1789, and many of these have been the result of new ideas about inclusiveness and democracy: the end of slavery (XIII), direct election of Senators (XVII), and women’s right to vote (XIX) are prominent examples.
Progressives should embrace the idea that the updating of our Constitution to adjust to new ideas and understandings was the original intent of the Founders.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Let's Celebrate the Important Part of Jesus' Life
I marked Christmas Eve by watching the Christmas episode of TV Funhouse and the film Bad Santa. TV Funhouse was a parody of children’s programs, and the main characters are foul-mouthed cynical animal puppets. The Christmas episode lampoons Christmas in many ways, including the opening scene where the host, Doug, oscillates between singing a manic “Jing-jing-jingly time of year” and a solemn “Christ was born.” The brilliant claymation short “Tingles the Christmas Tension” can be seen on YouTube.
After a night-long orgy, high on “Cheer,” the animal characters go see the Christmas pageant starring the goose’s son. A light shines on the goose egg lying in the manger on the stage and a voice speaks “Unto us a child is born…”
Looking at that egg I thought, “the most holy day of the Christian calendar is not the day when Jesus attained enlightenment, or when he performed some meaningful miracle, it’s the day he was born. And the other major holiday is the day he died. Christians mark the beginning and the end of Jesus’ life—not what came in between. Christmas emphasizes the horrible theology that Jesus is the only son of God—Christmas is special because its the day when God came to Earth—Jesus is a special case. None of us can be like him because he’s the only son of God and we’re flawed evil creatures.
How different from Buddhism, where the tree under which the Buddha achieved enlightenment is a holy place; how different to believe that the founder of your religion “was a person just like you, who chose life undefiled,” to quote my husband’s song “Dream Messiah.”
After a night-long orgy, high on “Cheer,” the animal characters go see the Christmas pageant starring the goose’s son. A light shines on the goose egg lying in the manger on the stage and a voice speaks “Unto us a child is born…”
Looking at that egg I thought, “the most holy day of the Christian calendar is not the day when Jesus attained enlightenment, or when he performed some meaningful miracle, it’s the day he was born. And the other major holiday is the day he died. Christians mark the beginning and the end of Jesus’ life—not what came in between. Christmas emphasizes the horrible theology that Jesus is the only son of God—Christmas is special because its the day when God came to Earth—Jesus is a special case. None of us can be like him because he’s the only son of God and we’re flawed evil creatures.
How different from Buddhism, where the tree under which the Buddha achieved enlightenment is a holy place; how different to believe that the founder of your religion “was a person just like you, who chose life undefiled,” to quote my husband’s song “Dream Messiah.”
Thursday, December 9, 2010
End the Tax Cuts for Everyone
In my post "Obama is Pathetic" I didn't mention what I think should happen with the Bush tax cuts: I think they should be allowed to expire for everyone. Of course this is unthinkable politically, but it is what makes sense. I remember "Shrub," by the late Molly Ivins, about George W. Bush's tenure as governor of Texas. Bush pushed through tax cuts that, in Ivins words, gave enough money to the average person to buy a hamburger, but in the aggregate impoverished Texas's public institutions. Texas ranks among the worst states in terms of education, health care coverage, and pollution. In return for an extra hamburger per week the people of Texas destroyed their public institutions.
When you look at the graph I mentioned in that post, and look at what retaining Bush's federal tax cuts would put into the average person's pocket, we're talking similar amounts. The median income in this country is somewhere around $50,000. A person making $50,000 would get a $1,000 a year tax break, which works out to $20 a week.
But the cost to that average person from these tax breaks in the aggregate--$3.1 trillion over 10 years--is going to hurt far more than the loss of that $20. We will do to our federal institutions what Texas did to theirs. In order to have that paltry extra sum our politicians will say they've been "forced" to cut Social Security, Medicare, education programs, health and human services, oversight of pollution and food safety, etc. We'll be poorer, sicker, and less educated. We'll continue to speed down the declining-empire-path that the election of George W. Bush set us on.
Of course blaming President Obama is foolish. Why didn't the Democrats handle this issue before the election when they had more power? Because they are beholden to the rich, just like the Republicans.
It's time for a revolution in this country. We need to throw off the stranglehold the two political parties have on our political system.
When you look at the graph I mentioned in that post, and look at what retaining Bush's federal tax cuts would put into the average person's pocket, we're talking similar amounts. The median income in this country is somewhere around $50,000. A person making $50,000 would get a $1,000 a year tax break, which works out to $20 a week.
But the cost to that average person from these tax breaks in the aggregate--$3.1 trillion over 10 years--is going to hurt far more than the loss of that $20. We will do to our federal institutions what Texas did to theirs. In order to have that paltry extra sum our politicians will say they've been "forced" to cut Social Security, Medicare, education programs, health and human services, oversight of pollution and food safety, etc. We'll be poorer, sicker, and less educated. We'll continue to speed down the declining-empire-path that the election of George W. Bush set us on.
Of course blaming President Obama is foolish. Why didn't the Democrats handle this issue before the election when they had more power? Because they are beholden to the rich, just like the Republicans.
It's time for a revolution in this country. We need to throw off the stranglehold the two political parties have on our political system.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Obama is Pathetic
I was not a fan of Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries. Frankly I didn't like any of the Democratic front-runners, but I thought he was naive. If you think this is just an example of 20-20 hindsight, see my February 28, 2008 column called, "Just What Do We Mean By Change?"
But I never dreamed he would be such a weak president. What an immense disappointment, and this latest "compromise" on the Bush tax cuts is just plain disgusting. Ezra Klein has posted an excellent chart that makes the difference between the Democratic and Republican plans clear.
Klein writes, "The term 'tax cuts for the middle class,' which Democrats like to use, has misled. As you can see from the left side of the chart, the 'tax cuts for the middle class' also cut taxes on the rich. A family that makes $750,000 a year would pay lower taxes on the first $250,000 of their income. The question has never been whether only middle-class workers should get a tax cut. It's how much income the tax cut should cover."
The two plans give almost identical tax cuts for all income groups, until you get to the last two groups with the highest income. Under the Democratic plan, people in the highest categories-- $500,000 to $1 million, and over $1 million--would all receive a tax cut of around $6,700.
But the Republican plan would give those earning between $500,000 and $1 million a $17,400 tax cut, and a mind-boggling $103,800 tax cut to those earning over $1 million. And the Republicans say they care about the deficit--what an enormous con job they pulled on the American people this fall, the latest in a series.
And how pathetic is President Obama.
But I never dreamed he would be such a weak president. What an immense disappointment, and this latest "compromise" on the Bush tax cuts is just plain disgusting. Ezra Klein has posted an excellent chart that makes the difference between the Democratic and Republican plans clear.
Klein writes, "The term 'tax cuts for the middle class,' which Democrats like to use, has misled. As you can see from the left side of the chart, the 'tax cuts for the middle class' also cut taxes on the rich. A family that makes $750,000 a year would pay lower taxes on the first $250,000 of their income. The question has never been whether only middle-class workers should get a tax cut. It's how much income the tax cut should cover."
The two plans give almost identical tax cuts for all income groups, until you get to the last two groups with the highest income. Under the Democratic plan, people in the highest categories-- $500,000 to $1 million, and over $1 million--would all receive a tax cut of around $6,700.
But the Republican plan would give those earning between $500,000 and $1 million a $17,400 tax cut, and a mind-boggling $103,800 tax cut to those earning over $1 million. And the Republicans say they care about the deficit--what an enormous con job they pulled on the American people this fall, the latest in a series.
And how pathetic is President Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)