I saw a promo for the movie “Sophie’s Choice” the other day. This brings to mind what I call the logic of sacrifice, of -at that moment -choosing the lesser of two inescapable evils.
It is the story of a holocaust survivor played by Meryl Streep, who when entering Auschwitz with her two children was presented with a horrific choice. (thus the reason for the title of the movie) Sophie, at the point of the gun of a German guard, is forced to choose between which of her two children is sent immediately to the Nazi gas chambers and die. Sophie initially replies that she can’t choose, but the guard then demands that if she does not, he will kill all of them right there. Sophie makes her choice.
What a horrific predicament! The audience has no anger for Sophie, but just sympathy. The actual behavior she presents is completely counterintuitive and beyond the scope of any normal behavior. Sophie chooses to have one of her children killed!
Without witnessing the threat on film, when seen solely from the view that one child was chosen to be killed by her mother, our reaction is- “oh my god, who would do that!?” Without seeing the presentation of the threat of certain death to the rest of the family, such behavior is absolutely unbelievable.
Under such a circumstance what would you do? What would all of your family do, to save yourselves? Would you sacrifice one member to save the rest from certain death? Would you lie? Would all of you lie?
When looked at in complete context what Sophie thought she was doing was choosing to save her other child and herself. She chose the lesser of two inescapable evils, doing something completely against a mother’s instinct, and completely against decent human impulses, for the benefit of the rest.
When looked at from the viewpoint of someone in that situation, what Sophie chose makes perfect sense and follows a perfect logic.
Sophie had no idea from previous experience that the choice before her was merely a phantom- the presentation of a false reality. We know in retrospect that the Germans killed everyone they could at Auschwitz. Armed with this knowledge, Sophie’s actual choice may have been different.
Armed with the knowledge that the possibility of safety for the other members was a lie, Sophie could either hope that all wouldn’t be killed and choose one of her children as she did, or Sophie could see that the death promised was actually the truth, and that it was, in actuality, promised for all. With this knowledge Sophie could choose to stand up to them. In the movie it was presented in a way that Sophie didn’t- and couldn’t- know that the latter option was available.
This is the logic of sacrifice that applies to all of us, of choosing completely counterintuitive behavior in the face of inescapable evil. It is the choosing of the lesser part of two inescapable evils, because of the threat of certain death, for the benefit of the rest.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
A Very Good Thanksgiving
It was a very good thanksgiving yesterday. We went to my nephew’s house, enjoyed our company, ate some good food, and talked. This was one of those rare occasions where you actually have a meaningful conversation with your family, and they show real understanding about the personal struggles and successes of your life. You also can give them updates about what is going on in your life with a good attitude, and because they care about you, with this new information, this inspires them about the possibilities open to their own futures.
Like any good get together, the conversation and laughter in the beginning was almost raucous. Some people get disturbed by the cacophony of such noises, don’t like crowds, and don’t see themselves included. For me however, I am fine with the haphazard inclusion and isolation, because I like and understand crowds. Also the cacophony from the gathering is from the voices I love, and therefore it is all music to me. I for one; in such a spectacle; could easily see the love in their eyes, and could see in their eyes even a sense of pride to be part of our family.
Yes, thanksgiving is a day that can bring everyone together, confirm that relationships have been restored and strengthened, and restore spirits. It is for these blessings that on thanksgiving, and really everyday, we thank god.
Like any good get together, the conversation and laughter in the beginning was almost raucous. Some people get disturbed by the cacophony of such noises, don’t like crowds, and don’t see themselves included. For me however, I am fine with the haphazard inclusion and isolation, because I like and understand crowds. Also the cacophony from the gathering is from the voices I love, and therefore it is all music to me. I for one; in such a spectacle; could easily see the love in their eyes, and could see in their eyes even a sense of pride to be part of our family.
Yes, thanksgiving is a day that can bring everyone together, confirm that relationships have been restored and strengthened, and restore spirits. It is for these blessings that on thanksgiving, and really everyday, we thank god.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Thoughts for Thanksgiving- What it Means to Give the Best of Ourselves
Some thoughts for this thanksgiving, on what it means to give the best of ourselves in everything we do.
I wrote in a previous blog:
"So living our lives the best we can and giving the best of ourselves in everything we do- in our work, with our friends, loved ones, and fellow citizens- that is the way to battle the ugliness described in the article of which my friend refers".
And how do we do this, when at times the world can treat each of us so brutally- through forgiveness, in order to walk forward to the possibilities in the future with an open heart.
"The real fecundity of the will, its magic and its transformative character is shown when malice is transformed in the ethical in the act of human forgiveness. In the divine-like sweep of forgiveness, malice is transformed into the Ethical. It is here where the act becomes relation, in the negative act of anti-violence. Here is where we create something, ex nihilo, in an ethical effort towards another. It is how man lives from pain. It is context meeting its opposite in a moment where man becomes/ approaches, God; and God becomes/approaches man. It is formation and reformation, an emergence and affirmation simultaneously.
Forgiveness is the only beauty, the only creation".
(from The Kant Variations, the Chapter- Emmanuel Levinas and the Love of Knowledge)
Everyone- have a warm and safe thanksgiving.
I wrote in a previous blog:
"So living our lives the best we can and giving the best of ourselves in everything we do- in our work, with our friends, loved ones, and fellow citizens- that is the way to battle the ugliness described in the article of which my friend refers".
And how do we do this, when at times the world can treat each of us so brutally- through forgiveness, in order to walk forward to the possibilities in the future with an open heart.
"The real fecundity of the will, its magic and its transformative character is shown when malice is transformed in the ethical in the act of human forgiveness. In the divine-like sweep of forgiveness, malice is transformed into the Ethical. It is here where the act becomes relation, in the negative act of anti-violence. Here is where we create something, ex nihilo, in an ethical effort towards another. It is how man lives from pain. It is context meeting its opposite in a moment where man becomes/ approaches, God; and God becomes/approaches man. It is formation and reformation, an emergence and affirmation simultaneously.
Forgiveness is the only beauty, the only creation".
(from The Kant Variations, the Chapter- Emmanuel Levinas and the Love of Knowledge)
Everyone- have a warm and safe thanksgiving.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
We Battle Ugliness Best By Giving the Best of Ourselves
My good friend sent me an email on the ugly story of an intentional myspace hoax perpetrated by adult neighbors to torment an O'Fallon Missouri girl that at least contributed, if not directly led, to her suicide. It is one of the most vile stories of human ugliness in recent memory in the St. Louis area.
How we battle such ugliness is by living our lives with a good heart. Yes, at times people can be vile. I believe though in that we should live our lives the best we can, and treat people with respect. This is what our justice system really stands for- what it protects- our common goodness.
So it is by living our lives the best we can and by giving the best of ourselves in everything we do- in our work, with our friends, loved ones, and fellow citizens- that we most effectively battle the ugliness described in the article of which my friend refers.
How we battle such ugliness is by living our lives with a good heart. Yes, at times people can be vile. I believe though in that we should live our lives the best we can, and treat people with respect. This is what our justice system really stands for- what it protects- our common goodness.
So it is by living our lives the best we can and by giving the best of ourselves in everything we do- in our work, with our friends, loved ones, and fellow citizens- that we most effectively battle the ugliness described in the article of which my friend refers.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
The Lie Aggressors Tell Themselves- And Tell Others
Secretary of Defense McNamara once posed a question:
"How much evil must we perpetrate before we are able to do "good"?"
This question reveals three important aspects of the view and disposition of aggressors:
1) The need for total domination of others by the 'control freaks' in charge, and the feeling that aggression is warranted, is necessary, to achieve it. The U.S. at that time, and at this time, had superior military power. Those in charge itched to use it then to prove their superiority, and itch to use it now- to prove their 'greatness' by domination.
2) It is the lie the aggressors of history tell themselves to cloak their aggression and violence in goodness and legitimacy: To sublimate- make themselves feel better about- what they do to others. Regardless of the pain they cause, and the evil they do, there is an overwhelming need to see it as 'good' or as an instrument of good. It is the same dynamic and attitude of a 'wife beater', who in his mind rationalizes that it was the actions of the wife that 'caused' him to beat her.
3) These people who have the need for domination have no clue about how to do 'good' for others, and history always bears it out. The oppression never stops but expands, and there is always another enemy where to direct the aggression. They have no empathy and see no commonality for others lesser than themselves- the citizens, the people. If they did there would be no need for the repression in the first place. The good they want to do is never found and never done, because it lies not in their hearts.
McNamara's question reveals the lie at the heart, and in the heart, of aggressors.
"How much evil must we perpetrate before we are able to do "good"?"
This question reveals three important aspects of the view and disposition of aggressors:
1) The need for total domination of others by the 'control freaks' in charge, and the feeling that aggression is warranted, is necessary, to achieve it. The U.S. at that time, and at this time, had superior military power. Those in charge itched to use it then to prove their superiority, and itch to use it now- to prove their 'greatness' by domination.
2) It is the lie the aggressors of history tell themselves to cloak their aggression and violence in goodness and legitimacy: To sublimate- make themselves feel better about- what they do to others. Regardless of the pain they cause, and the evil they do, there is an overwhelming need to see it as 'good' or as an instrument of good. It is the same dynamic and attitude of a 'wife beater', who in his mind rationalizes that it was the actions of the wife that 'caused' him to beat her.
3) These people who have the need for domination have no clue about how to do 'good' for others, and history always bears it out. The oppression never stops but expands, and there is always another enemy where to direct the aggression. They have no empathy and see no commonality for others lesser than themselves- the citizens, the people. If they did there would be no need for the repression in the first place. The good they want to do is never found and never done, because it lies not in their hearts.
McNamara's question reveals the lie at the heart, and in the heart, of aggressors.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
What is the Good That Our Country's Greatness Aspires to Serve?
Some will say that in matters of purpose and efficacy that all individuals are not born equal- that some possess innate gifts and talent that others do not. In some there is a facility for math and science and the understanding of abstract and complex equations, in others the facility for organization, for medicine. In others there is a facility for music, in others for languages or painting. In athletics there is the phrase `You can not put in what God has left out'.
Sometimes the role 'chooses you' as the facility comes so easily, so naturally to the level of function- absent in almost all other people. Difficulty in function is overwhelmed by gift, by the rare facility, by the uncommon, so much so that indeed it is not even the same level of difficulty of which two people speak. For every person on earth, to some extent this is so.
No Race has advantage over any other here, nor does either sex have advantage, nor does any Nation.
Perhaps as a man I find that I possess a gift of function- why must I demand more money from this when this is precisely the level I am good at- because I can master more functions than others? Why must I deny others of the dignity of life when I am merely meeting up to the level of my own capability? If I can try more- shouldn't I? If I can do more- shouldn't I? if I can make more for others shouldn't I?
But as we now clearly hold our temporary domain over the world, dominion is only a question in the order among men, and has no real function in the survival of the species. That question has been answered, that challenge has been met.
The level of competence, function, and power of a higher position should be compensation in itself. The work is more challenging, more interesting, more engaging, and the individual so capable. On line monitoring markets in London at 5:30 a.m., meeting with managers of different properties discussing systems at 9:00, at 10:00 overlooking reports and the details in the system-looking for glitches; phone calls to subordinates giving feedback and then monitoring decision processes through 11:00....
Perhaps as a man I look and see others less capable, or with a different facility and say that I would not want their life because mine is more exciting, because mine is more challenging, because theirs is menial, elementary labor, unskilled and exhausting, because I see no creativity or imagination- Why then must I degrade their material life?? Why must I place these gifts in the service of dominion, for my own self interest??
What is this contest that I need to make myself- not the better, but feel the better?- and use my reason and intelligence as if they were only the instruments of a supreme lullaby, as if their supreme use were to sublimate the trauma of human comparison, to justify the material judgment in the ordering of other men for our benefit.
Out of the womb without food or care You came, You would not have lived one week. But came a common woman, your mother, and doing nothing extraordinary, but with a common gentle care, she nurtured your frailty and your Possibility but with a common love. As it was her duty to do her best, so it is your duty to do your best- to nurture the world by the possibility of your gift- to give the best of yourself, but with a common love.
Why should anyone expect any less of myself?? Why should I demand so much more for myself because of this gift?? Why should I make less of others because of it? Why should I demand more money and make the wretched more?? Have I really done all I could??!!
Justify yourself to the horizon of achievement and to the possibility of your gift, of what you can give and do for others.
It is time for us in the United States that each of us ask what good we are making for the world, for others, with our dominion, with the gifts of our country? Are we making a world of fear without freedom? ...of work without reward? ...of dominion without community?
It is time to ask what good the greatness of our country aspires to serve?
Sometimes the role 'chooses you' as the facility comes so easily, so naturally to the level of function- absent in almost all other people. Difficulty in function is overwhelmed by gift, by the rare facility, by the uncommon, so much so that indeed it is not even the same level of difficulty of which two people speak. For every person on earth, to some extent this is so.
No Race has advantage over any other here, nor does either sex have advantage, nor does any Nation.
Perhaps as a man I find that I possess a gift of function- why must I demand more money from this when this is precisely the level I am good at- because I can master more functions than others? Why must I deny others of the dignity of life when I am merely meeting up to the level of my own capability? If I can try more- shouldn't I? If I can do more- shouldn't I? if I can make more for others shouldn't I?
But as we now clearly hold our temporary domain over the world, dominion is only a question in the order among men, and has no real function in the survival of the species. That question has been answered, that challenge has been met.
The level of competence, function, and power of a higher position should be compensation in itself. The work is more challenging, more interesting, more engaging, and the individual so capable. On line monitoring markets in London at 5:30 a.m., meeting with managers of different properties discussing systems at 9:00, at 10:00 overlooking reports and the details in the system-looking for glitches; phone calls to subordinates giving feedback and then monitoring decision processes through 11:00....
Perhaps as a man I look and see others less capable, or with a different facility and say that I would not want their life because mine is more exciting, because mine is more challenging, because theirs is menial, elementary labor, unskilled and exhausting, because I see no creativity or imagination- Why then must I degrade their material life?? Why must I place these gifts in the service of dominion, for my own self interest??
What is this contest that I need to make myself- not the better, but feel the better?- and use my reason and intelligence as if they were only the instruments of a supreme lullaby, as if their supreme use were to sublimate the trauma of human comparison, to justify the material judgment in the ordering of other men for our benefit.
Out of the womb without food or care You came, You would not have lived one week. But came a common woman, your mother, and doing nothing extraordinary, but with a common gentle care, she nurtured your frailty and your Possibility but with a common love. As it was her duty to do her best, so it is your duty to do your best- to nurture the world by the possibility of your gift- to give the best of yourself, but with a common love.
Why should anyone expect any less of myself?? Why should I demand so much more for myself because of this gift?? Why should I make less of others because of it? Why should I demand more money and make the wretched more?? Have I really done all I could??!!
Justify yourself to the horizon of achievement and to the possibility of your gift, of what you can give and do for others.
It is time for us in the United States that each of us ask what good we are making for the world, for others, with our dominion, with the gifts of our country? Are we making a world of fear without freedom? ...of work without reward? ...of dominion without community?
It is time to ask what good the greatness of our country aspires to serve?
Founders' Vision of Religious Freedom- Response to Colleen Carroll Campbell
St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist, Colleen Carroll Campbell's November 1st piece, 'We've Drifted From Founder's Vision of Religious Freedom', deals with a Chicago area first amendment establishment of religion case. I think Ms. Carroll Campbell is right on the money.
She writes:
"The latest salvo in America's war over prayer in public schools was fired in Illinois last week when atheist activist Rob Sherman sued his daughter's suburban Chicago district to protest a new state law that mandates a daily moment of silence. Sherman and his 14-year-old daughter, Dawn, said the 15-second silent period observed in her high school is interrupting her education.
The Shermans have a habit of sweating the small stuff. Dawn successfully campaigned to scratch "God Bless America" from her school's homecoming song list this fall. Her father has battled to remove religious symbols from city seals, sever the link between the Boy Scouts and a local police department and stop student recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance".
"Through a series of rulings on largely symbolic matters, judges have sent a powerful message that religious faith is something citizens should keep to themselves".
"That message does not match the vision of America's founding fathers. Contrary to claims by revisionist historians, the founders did not see the First Amendment as a way to purge religion from the public square. They saw it as a way to prevent the establishment of a state church that threatened to stifle authentic religious expression and make religion subordinate to the state".
"The founders considered religion essential to America's character and crucial to the endurance of a vibrant, virtuous democracy. George Washington said "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity. John Adams warned that our Constitution was designed "only for a religious and moral people" and is "wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
My response:
Ms. Carroll Campbell
I think that your St. Louis Post-Dispatch column is right on the money that the Shermans are extending their views of the establishment of religion in the public sphere too far. Your column also does a pretty good job of portraying the double-edged sword of the religious clauses of the first amendment- the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.
Most laws treating religion deal with the lines of the balance between the two. On the one hand, law protecting against the establishment of religion can impinge on the free exercise of it. Laws over-allowing the free exercise, where free exercise becomes promotion, step into the realm of the public establishment of religion.
I agree with your assessment that religion had a prominent place in the minds of the founders, and in the founding of the United States. James Morone's book, 'Hellfire Nation', does a pretty good job detailing one side of the role of religion in the public life of U.S. History, where the evangelistic aspects of righteous moralizing intruded upon and damaged the secular freedom of Americans.
The history you cite from the other side of this argument, I think is persuasive concerning the limits drawn by your argument. The founders obviously did not think that religion could be eliminated completely from public life. I agree with your assessment- the Shermans are going too far in their interpretation of the establishment clause and are pushing their own levels of the tolerance and free exercise of religion in the public sphere on others. Your short paragraph deals nicely with the reasonable common-sense need for balance.
"Surveys find that the public resents such extreme secularization efforts. Proselytizing and force-fed Bible verses have no place in public schools, but most Americans can distinguish between catechism classes and 15-second silent periods".
Ms. Carroll Campbell is right. It is fine if the Shermans don't want to be forced to pray- they can do anything with their 15 seconds of silence they want. But to want to eliminate the 15 seconds altogether because others are praying is ridiculous, and infringes on the freedom of others to do with the 15 seconds what they want- including pray.
An argument of the role of religion in American life, from the moral perspective, I would say in line with your sensibility, is Pope John Paul II's (The Great) encyclical letter 'Evangelium Vitae' (the Gospel of Life), which magnificently decries the over-secularization of everyday life, that has developed so far into a 'culture of death'. As the great Pope stated:
"Even in the midst of difficulties and uncertainties, every person sincerely open to truth and goodness can, by the light of reason and the hidden action of grace, come to recognize in the natural law written in the heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15) the sacred value of human life from its very beginning until its end, and can affirm the right of every human being to have this primary good respected to the highest degree. Upon the recognition of this right, every human community and the political community itself are founded".
and then later...
"In fact, while the climate of widespread moral uncertainty can in some way be explained by the multiplicity and gravity of today's social problems, and these can sometimes mitigate the subjective responsibility of individuals, it is no less true that we are confronted by an even larger reality, which can be described as a. This reality is characterized by the emergence of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a veritable "culture of death".
This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency. Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected in one way or another".
So to extend the public sphere legal argument of the role of religion in public life, to the moral argument, the balance between first amendment religious clauses deal indirectly with the moral balance of freedom of the individual where that freedom becomes freedom of the powerful to do evil to others.
I would say that the battle for where the balance is drawn between free exercise and establishment, directly affects the moral balance between individual freedom, and evil done to others.
Our Constitutional law must balance between freedom to exercise religion and the establishment of religion, to preserve freedom, to preserve a sense of public obligation and morality, and to protect the individual in the war of the powerful against the weak.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Luczak II
She writes:
"The latest salvo in America's war over prayer in public schools was fired in Illinois last week when atheist activist Rob Sherman sued his daughter's suburban Chicago district to protest a new state law that mandates a daily moment of silence. Sherman and his 14-year-old daughter, Dawn, said the 15-second silent period observed in her high school is interrupting her education.
The Shermans have a habit of sweating the small stuff. Dawn successfully campaigned to scratch "God Bless America" from her school's homecoming song list this fall. Her father has battled to remove religious symbols from city seals, sever the link between the Boy Scouts and a local police department and stop student recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance".
"Through a series of rulings on largely symbolic matters, judges have sent a powerful message that religious faith is something citizens should keep to themselves".
"That message does not match the vision of America's founding fathers. Contrary to claims by revisionist historians, the founders did not see the First Amendment as a way to purge religion from the public square. They saw it as a way to prevent the establishment of a state church that threatened to stifle authentic religious expression and make religion subordinate to the state".
"The founders considered religion essential to America's character and crucial to the endurance of a vibrant, virtuous democracy. George Washington said "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity. John Adams warned that our Constitution was designed "only for a religious and moral people" and is "wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
My response:
Ms. Carroll Campbell
I think that your St. Louis Post-Dispatch column is right on the money that the Shermans are extending their views of the establishment of religion in the public sphere too far. Your column also does a pretty good job of portraying the double-edged sword of the religious clauses of the first amendment- the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.
Most laws treating religion deal with the lines of the balance between the two. On the one hand, law protecting against the establishment of religion can impinge on the free exercise of it. Laws over-allowing the free exercise, where free exercise becomes promotion, step into the realm of the public establishment of religion.
I agree with your assessment that religion had a prominent place in the minds of the founders, and in the founding of the United States. James Morone's book, 'Hellfire Nation', does a pretty good job detailing one side of the role of religion in the public life of U.S. History, where the evangelistic aspects of righteous moralizing intruded upon and damaged the secular freedom of Americans.
The history you cite from the other side of this argument, I think is persuasive concerning the limits drawn by your argument. The founders obviously did not think that religion could be eliminated completely from public life. I agree with your assessment- the Shermans are going too far in their interpretation of the establishment clause and are pushing their own levels of the tolerance and free exercise of religion in the public sphere on others. Your short paragraph deals nicely with the reasonable common-sense need for balance.
"Surveys find that the public resents such extreme secularization efforts. Proselytizing and force-fed Bible verses have no place in public schools, but most Americans can distinguish between catechism classes and 15-second silent periods".
Ms. Carroll Campbell is right. It is fine if the Shermans don't want to be forced to pray- they can do anything with their 15 seconds of silence they want. But to want to eliminate the 15 seconds altogether because others are praying is ridiculous, and infringes on the freedom of others to do with the 15 seconds what they want- including pray.
An argument of the role of religion in American life, from the moral perspective, I would say in line with your sensibility, is Pope John Paul II's (The Great) encyclical letter 'Evangelium Vitae' (the Gospel of Life), which magnificently decries the over-secularization of everyday life, that has developed so far into a 'culture of death'. As the great Pope stated:
"Even in the midst of difficulties and uncertainties, every person sincerely open to truth and goodness can, by the light of reason and the hidden action of grace, come to recognize in the natural law written in the heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15) the sacred value of human life from its very beginning until its end, and can affirm the right of every human being to have this primary good respected to the highest degree. Upon the recognition of this right, every human community and the political community itself are founded".
and then later...
"In fact, while the climate of widespread moral uncertainty can in some way be explained by the multiplicity and gravity of today's social problems, and these can sometimes mitigate the subjective responsibility of individuals, it is no less true that we are confronted by an even larger reality, which can be described as a
This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency. Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected in one way or another".
So to extend the public sphere legal argument of the role of religion in public life, to the moral argument, the balance between first amendment religious clauses deal indirectly with the moral balance of freedom of the individual where that freedom becomes freedom of the powerful to do evil to others.
I would say that the battle for where the balance is drawn between free exercise and establishment, directly affects the moral balance between individual freedom, and evil done to others.
Our Constitutional law must balance between freedom to exercise religion and the establishment of religion, to preserve freedom, to preserve a sense of public obligation and morality, and to protect the individual in the war of the powerful against the weak.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Luczak II
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)