Did you know that one of the areas most significantly affected by so-called "hate crimes" is interstate commerce? Well, according to S. 909, introduced into the Senate by Sen. Ted Kennedy(D-MA) it is. The bill, titled the 'Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act,' states the following as point 6 of Section I:
(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:
(A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.
(B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.
(C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.
(D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.
(E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.
First of all, I have something of an issue with the whole "hate crimes" thing in that I don't understand why "hate crimes" have to be singled/separated out into their own legislation. A "hate crime" is still a crime; it's already a crime regardless of the motivation behind it. Sure, it's a horrible thing to beat up, or even kill, someone because you don't like the color of their skin but shouldn't it be horrible regardless? I could even see the case made that nearly all crimes, regardless of type or motivation, are rooted in "hate" in some shape or form.
But that's not really the point of the section I quoted above...I'm of the opinion that if a particular section/item/paragraph in a relatively "scholarly" piece of writing (I would consider written legislation to qualify here) makes you laugh out loud after reading it, it's probably garbage. There are, of course, exceptions--for instance, some things are clearly intended to be funny when read. I feel fairly confident in my assertion that written U.S. legislation is not typically used as a vehicle for overtly humorous statements, so I think it's safe to say that I take what I read in bills from the Congress to be intended to mean what they say.
It is in this light that I would ask the reader to consider the above quoted section--I will say that upon my first reading, I burst out laughing and felt certain that I had misread something. Interstate commerce?? Really? If hate crimes have such a significant impact on interstate commerce for the reasons they provide, I can hardly think of anything that WOULDN'T. I find this particularly interesting given the increasing encroachment of the federal government into the regulation of various activities by throwing out the justification that they "affect interstate commerce." This scares me--if the government can twist the issue of hate crime into something that impacts interstate commerce, there isn't much they can't.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Ooh...a conspiracy?!
As you may or may not have heard, sometime last week it was reported (although not widely--I heard about it on Glenn Beck) that police in Italy had seized $134 billion in U.S. government bearer bonds from two "Japanese nationals" who were trying to smuggle them across the Italy-Switzerland border in the false bottom of a suitcase. According to the Guardia di Finanza, Italy's tax police, the seizure consisted of 249 "Federal Reserve" bonds of $500 million each and 10 "Kennedy Bonds" of $1 billion each. There hasn't been much else reported about this since except that both the Italian authorities and U.S Treasury have concluded that the bonds are counterfeit, the U.S. examining the certificates first via fax and then via internet images. The Treasury also issued a statement indicating that since there is only $105 million in Treasury bearer bond securities outstanding, $134 billion is obviously not possible. The only other thing I've heard is that the "Japanese nationals" who were caught with the bonds are believed to have been released.
Admittedly, I don't know a whole lot about "bearer bonds" and the accounting process that goes along with these but given that the Treasury says that there are only $105 million in outstanding bonds, it seems pretty obvious that these are indeed counterfeits. What I found even more interesting was Glenn Beck's assertion on one of his programs that he felt that the culprits, for a variety of reasons, wanted to be caught. This seemed strange to me and prompted me to do some more research on the whole situation, out of curiosity, and I happened upon something from the World War II era called "Operation Bernhard," that I had never heard of before. It casts this current situation in a bit of a different light...it's likely nothing but it was interesting nonetheless.
Operation Bernhard was a secret German operation during World War II whose goal was to produce a large number of counterfeit British currency and circulate it through Britain, thereby destabilizing the British economy. According to the wikipedia entry, it is the "largest counterfeiting operation in history" and has been the subject of many books and even a movie. The operation was named after its director, SS Major Bernhard Kruger, who organized it at a concentration camp and "staffed" it with camp inmates. Apparently, the plan was originally to drop the counterfeit notes out of planes flying over Britain but, after it was determined that this would not be feasible, the notes were eventually used by the Germans to purchase items and pay personnel. The entire counterfeiting plan never was fully realized and ended with the closing of the Sachsenhausen camp in 1945, but by this time the Bank of England had become aware of some of the counterfeit notes and called them "the most dangerous ever seen." The wikipedia article again states that by the time of the camp's closing, "the printing press had produced 8,965,080 banknotes with a total value of 134,610,810 pounds" and that the "notes are considered among the most perfect counterfeits ever produced, being almost impossible to distinguish from the real currency."
Reading about this really got me to thinking about what Beck had said about the two smugglers who were recently caught wanting to be caught. I don't know about anyone else, but when I think of "counterfeiters" I think of the mafia or a shady operation in back room somewhere (these could still be "large" operations) who want to be able to "get rich," not a government entity "authorizing," whether implicitly or explicitly, a massive counterfeiting operation with the goal of destabilizing the economy of a rival nation. I'm probably way off, but somehow this seems much more sinister.
So, what about this most recent incident? Well, there is already little confidence in the U.S. economy amongst most of the rest of the world. It seems to me that the discovery of a large-scale operation counterfeiting U.S. currency or bonds, or several large-scale operations--that the U.S. government essentially had no knowledge of--would certainly shake this confidence even further. Of course, there's probably still a great deal more to this story but if the government didn't know much about this before the seizure of the bonds in Italy it certainly seems possible that this counterfeit is likely in circulation in the U.S. already. I don't believe that the intent now would be to flood the U.S. with actual bogus paper bills but that such discoveries themselves would be enough today to help push the U.S. economy "over the edge" so to speak.
I admit that I myself find this unlikely but it's an interesting thought nonetheless. There are certainly some nations and/or governments who would likely have an interest in further disruption of the U.S. economy. And just to be clear, I'm not suggesting Japan--the "fact" that the culprits in this incident were reported to be Japanese has actually not been confirmed and even if they were, it's entirely possible they were working on the behalf of another entity. Anyway, I really just found the whole situation interesting and the new thinking about it that Operation Bernhard prompted. It's probably nothing, but you never know...
Admittedly, I don't know a whole lot about "bearer bonds" and the accounting process that goes along with these but given that the Treasury says that there are only $105 million in outstanding bonds, it seems pretty obvious that these are indeed counterfeits. What I found even more interesting was Glenn Beck's assertion on one of his programs that he felt that the culprits, for a variety of reasons, wanted to be caught. This seemed strange to me and prompted me to do some more research on the whole situation, out of curiosity, and I happened upon something from the World War II era called "Operation Bernhard," that I had never heard of before. It casts this current situation in a bit of a different light...it's likely nothing but it was interesting nonetheless.
Operation Bernhard was a secret German operation during World War II whose goal was to produce a large number of counterfeit British currency and circulate it through Britain, thereby destabilizing the British economy. According to the wikipedia entry, it is the "largest counterfeiting operation in history" and has been the subject of many books and even a movie. The operation was named after its director, SS Major Bernhard Kruger, who organized it at a concentration camp and "staffed" it with camp inmates. Apparently, the plan was originally to drop the counterfeit notes out of planes flying over Britain but, after it was determined that this would not be feasible, the notes were eventually used by the Germans to purchase items and pay personnel. The entire counterfeiting plan never was fully realized and ended with the closing of the Sachsenhausen camp in 1945, but by this time the Bank of England had become aware of some of the counterfeit notes and called them "the most dangerous ever seen." The wikipedia article again states that by the time of the camp's closing, "the printing press had produced 8,965,080 banknotes with a total value of 134,610,810 pounds" and that the "notes are considered among the most perfect counterfeits ever produced, being almost impossible to distinguish from the real currency."
Reading about this really got me to thinking about what Beck had said about the two smugglers who were recently caught wanting to be caught. I don't know about anyone else, but when I think of "counterfeiters" I think of the mafia or a shady operation in back room somewhere (these could still be "large" operations) who want to be able to "get rich," not a government entity "authorizing," whether implicitly or explicitly, a massive counterfeiting operation with the goal of destabilizing the economy of a rival nation. I'm probably way off, but somehow this seems much more sinister.
So, what about this most recent incident? Well, there is already little confidence in the U.S. economy amongst most of the rest of the world. It seems to me that the discovery of a large-scale operation counterfeiting U.S. currency or bonds, or several large-scale operations--that the U.S. government essentially had no knowledge of--would certainly shake this confidence even further. Of course, there's probably still a great deal more to this story but if the government didn't know much about this before the seizure of the bonds in Italy it certainly seems possible that this counterfeit is likely in circulation in the U.S. already. I don't believe that the intent now would be to flood the U.S. with actual bogus paper bills but that such discoveries themselves would be enough today to help push the U.S. economy "over the edge" so to speak.
I admit that I myself find this unlikely but it's an interesting thought nonetheless. There are certainly some nations and/or governments who would likely have an interest in further disruption of the U.S. economy. And just to be clear, I'm not suggesting Japan--the "fact" that the culprits in this incident were reported to be Japanese has actually not been confirmed and even if they were, it's entirely possible they were working on the behalf of another entity. Anyway, I really just found the whole situation interesting and the new thinking about it that Operation Bernhard prompted. It's probably nothing, but you never know...
Monday, June 22, 2009
World Bank Sinks the Market... Really?
Today was a rough day on Wall Street - at least for those who want to see stock prices go up. The latest report from the World Bank (a topic for another day) is being "blamed" for the sell off as their view on the global economy was dim.
The World Bank released the Global Development Finance 2009 report stating that global growth in GDP is estimated to be -2.9%. Their previous estimate was -1.7%. You can read today's press release here. The interesting phenomenon is that World Bank President Robert Zoellick had already let the cat out of the bag on June 11 in a speech in Washington. Read the press release here.
So, I'm a bit puzzled. Today's news was not really news. Yet, if you follow headlines like I do, you would think that this report was surprising and catastrophic triggering a stock market sell-off. Maybe I'm overreacting, but I think the media collectively decided to use this as an excuse to explain the lack of green shoots today.
On a semi-related note... if you were the owner of a company and had appointed a CEO to run the company on your behalf, wouldn't you feel a bit slighted, misled, or lied to if said CEO did not disclose that he had a liver transplant while on medical leave for the past few months? I would. But, that's just what happened with Apple CEO Steve Jobs. So much for market transparency.
The World Bank released the Global Development Finance 2009 report stating that global growth in GDP is estimated to be -2.9%. Their previous estimate was -1.7%. You can read today's press release here. The interesting phenomenon is that World Bank President Robert Zoellick had already let the cat out of the bag on June 11 in a speech in Washington. Read the press release here.
So, I'm a bit puzzled. Today's news was not really news. Yet, if you follow headlines like I do, you would think that this report was surprising and catastrophic triggering a stock market sell-off. Maybe I'm overreacting, but I think the media collectively decided to use this as an excuse to explain the lack of green shoots today.
On a semi-related note... if you were the owner of a company and had appointed a CEO to run the company on your behalf, wouldn't you feel a bit slighted, misled, or lied to if said CEO did not disclose that he had a liver transplant while on medical leave for the past few months? I would. But, that's just what happened with Apple CEO Steve Jobs. So much for market transparency.
Quit complaining...maybe give your Congressperson a hug instead
I admit that I quite enjoy browsing through the GovTrack "Introduced Legislation" feed that I follow in my Google Reader...it's amazing some of the bills I see there (from title alone). Some of them I've pointed out in previous posts. Yesterday, I came across another that, after reading the full text, I feel that I am obligated to share it here in toto. The bill is H. Con. Res. 155 introduced by Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-MO.
Supporting the goals and ideals of 'Complaint Free Wednesday'.
Whereas the average person complains approximately 15 to 30 times per day, resulting in roughly 4,500,000,000 complaints spoken every day in the United States;
Whereas complaining keeps people focused on current problems stultifying their innate abilities to seek and create positive, harmonious solutions;
Whereas complaining has been shown by research psychologists to be detrimental to a person's physical and emotional health, relationships, and to limit their career success;
Whereas the 'A Complaint Free World' organization is to be recognized for its efforts to encourage people to redirect their minds toward more positive, constructive, and rewarding lives and for its goal to positively inspire at least 1 percent of the global population (60 million people) to become complaint free;
Whereas thousands of people across the United States, including many students, have already adopted the complaint free attitude; and
Whereas 'Complaint Free Wednesday' will be observed on the day before Thanksgiving, providing each person in the United States a day free from complaining in order to prepare for a day of gratitude: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--
(1) supports the goals and ideals of Complaint Free Wednesday;
(2) encourages each person in the United States to remember that having a positive life begins with having a positive attitude; and
(3) recognizes and reaffirms the meaning of Thanksgiving by asking each person in the United States to use 'Complaint Free Wednesday' to refrain from complaining and prepare for a day of gratitude.
Sigh...I find it sad that I'm no longer surprised to find this sort of thing as an official piece of legislation introduced in our Congress. A few notes--I found it quite amusing that the text of the bill makes it seem like the 4.5 billion "complaints spoken every day in the United States" is an outrageously large number when, compared with the huge numbers found in the recent relief and stimulus programs, it's really a drop in the bucket. Yes, I realize that there's not really a comparison between "complaints" and dollars but what I'm talking about is the undertone I detect there. Maybe I'm just nuts. I also thought it was pretty darn funny that they're encouraging us to "stop complaining" when I'm guessing the government is behind (in some fashion) most of the things that are complained about!
If you have some time, I'd highly recommend checking out the webpage for the aforementioned 'A Complaint Free World' organization...very amusing.
Supporting the goals and ideals of 'Complaint Free Wednesday'.
Whereas the average person complains approximately 15 to 30 times per day, resulting in roughly 4,500,000,000 complaints spoken every day in the United States;
Whereas complaining keeps people focused on current problems stultifying their innate abilities to seek and create positive, harmonious solutions;
Whereas complaining has been shown by research psychologists to be detrimental to a person's physical and emotional health, relationships, and to limit their career success;
Whereas the 'A Complaint Free World' organization is to be recognized for its efforts to encourage people to redirect their minds toward more positive, constructive, and rewarding lives and for its goal to positively inspire at least 1 percent of the global population (60 million people) to become complaint free;
Whereas thousands of people across the United States, including many students, have already adopted the complaint free attitude; and
Whereas 'Complaint Free Wednesday' will be observed on the day before Thanksgiving, providing each person in the United States a day free from complaining in order to prepare for a day of gratitude: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--
(1) supports the goals and ideals of Complaint Free Wednesday;
(2) encourages each person in the United States to remember that having a positive life begins with having a positive attitude; and
(3) recognizes and reaffirms the meaning of Thanksgiving by asking each person in the United States to use 'Complaint Free Wednesday' to refrain from complaining and prepare for a day of gratitude.
Sigh...I find it sad that I'm no longer surprised to find this sort of thing as an official piece of legislation introduced in our Congress. A few notes--I found it quite amusing that the text of the bill makes it seem like the 4.5 billion "complaints spoken every day in the United States" is an outrageously large number when, compared with the huge numbers found in the recent relief and stimulus programs, it's really a drop in the bucket. Yes, I realize that there's not really a comparison between "complaints" and dollars but what I'm talking about is the undertone I detect there. Maybe I'm just nuts. I also thought it was pretty darn funny that they're encouraging us to "stop complaining" when I'm guessing the government is behind (in some fashion) most of the things that are complained about!
If you have some time, I'd highly recommend checking out the webpage for the aforementioned 'A Complaint Free World' organization...very amusing.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Loose Ends... Vol. XLVIII
Another empty post tonight. I was struggling to come up with some meaningful items to discuss tonight. I've spent the last hour or so researching various aspects of the situation in Iran. An attempt to post anything of meaning on this subject tonight would be a dis-service to readers.
Happy Father's Day!
Happy Father's Day!
Friday, June 19, 2009
The Return of Doctor No
Today, we saw the return of Dr. No in the form of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). Before the floor of the House today, Paul cast the only "Nay" vote in H. Res. 560; full text follows:
On the surface, it may seem that this resolution is necessary to support democracy and condemn state-sponsored violence in Iran. After all, we all know that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is pure evil (that is sarcasm). Why did Dr. Paul choose to vote against the resolution? Here is the full text of his statement in opposition:
1. March 11, H. Res. 226 - Recognizing the plight of the Tibetan people on the 50th anniversary of His Holiness the Dalai Lama being forced into exile and calling for a sustained multilateral effort to bring about a durable and peaceful solution to the Tibet issue.
2. March 31, H. Res. 282 - Recognizing the 30th anniversary of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.
3. April 28, H. Res. 1243 - To provide for the award of a gold medal on behalf of Congress to Arnold Palmer in recognition of his service to the Nation in promoting excellence and good sportsmanship in golf.
4. June 2, H. Res. 489 - Recognizing the twentieth anniversary of the suppression of protesters and citizens in and around Tiananmen Square in Beijing, People's Republic of China, on June 3 and 4, 1989 and expressing sympathy to the families of those killed, tortured, and imprisoned in connection with the democracy protests in Tiananmen Square and other parts of China on June 3 and 4, 1989 and thereafter.
Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes.
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;
(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and
(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.
Paul has received the nickname "Dr. No" due to his frequent status as the sole objector to House legislation (often resolutions) while having a medical degree. Today's vote was already the fifth time in the 111th Congress (since January 2009) where Paul was the lone dissenter. A list of the previous four follows:I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about “condemning” the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.
1. March 11, H. Res. 226 - Recognizing the plight of the Tibetan people on the 50th anniversary of His Holiness the Dalai Lama being forced into exile and calling for a sustained multilateral effort to bring about a durable and peaceful solution to the Tibet issue.
2. March 31, H. Res. 282 - Recognizing the 30th anniversary of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.
3. April 28, H. Res. 1243 - To provide for the award of a gold medal on behalf of Congress to Arnold Palmer in recognition of his service to the Nation in promoting excellence and good sportsmanship in golf.
4. June 2, H. Res. 489 - Recognizing the twentieth anniversary of the suppression of protesters and citizens in and around Tiananmen Square in Beijing, People's Republic of China, on June 3 and 4, 1989 and expressing sympathy to the families of those killed, tortured, and imprisoned in connection with the democracy protests in Tiananmen Square and other parts of China on June 3 and 4, 1989 and thereafter.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Flabbergasted
That about sums it up.
Yesterday, Congress passed H.R. 2346 - the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009. Why am I so flabbergasted? Let me count the ways...
First, this bill provides over $100B in supplemental funding to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It provides no substantive provisions which would serve as "strings attached" such as a timetable for troop withdrawal. Additionally, it provides (by my quick reading and research) a lot ($75B?) of funding to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to assist in global bailouts and the like.
Second, I tried to research this bill in more detail so that I would be able to provide quality, objective insight to its details. This thing is a mess. It is long and riddled with changes from the original House version to the Senate version (which appears to be the one which the House agreed to yesterday). I unfortunately do not have the time to dedicate to this type of research.
Third, this thing originally passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support on May 14. It then passed the Senate (after significant amendment) on May 21, again with overwhelming bipartisan support. Yesterday, the House voted upon the bill as referred by the conference committee. (My understanding of this is that the House voted on the Senate version as-is with no changes coming from the conference committee since there will be no additional vote in the Senate. I stand to be corrected on this point.) This time, the vote was pretty much on party line - passing 226-202. This flip-flop is bothersome. What suddenly drove almost all House Republicans to decide that the bill which they previously supported and received GOP support in the Senate in its current form to change their mind?
Well, that leads me to point number four. The GOP is now (after years of supporting the Bush administration) deciding that we cannot afford more spending on the wars in Iraq. Further, after supporting the IMF under the Bush administration (and in the Senate), the GOP has decided we cannot afford that any more either. Now, I happen to agree with the "Nay" vote, but this is the either the height of hypocrisy or a tacit admission of historical stupidity by many House Republicans.
On a related note, irritant number five is the response by House Democrats. Only thirty-two brave souls stepped away from the party line to oppose this bill. I'd love to spend the time to see how well this group matches up to those who opposed supplemental war funding under Bush. Actually, I'm more interested in seeing those who opposed Bush's requests but now support the same request from Obama. By the way, fifty-one Democrats opposed this bill back in May.
I'm sure there are more things about this that irritate me, but we'll leave it at that. I urge my readers to wake up, recognize that Washington is full of hypocrites who only want to play games and spend your money. Tell your friends. Demand change and vote your representatives out of office.
Yesterday, Congress passed H.R. 2346 - the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009. Why am I so flabbergasted? Let me count the ways...
First, this bill provides over $100B in supplemental funding to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It provides no substantive provisions which would serve as "strings attached" such as a timetable for troop withdrawal. Additionally, it provides (by my quick reading and research) a lot ($75B?) of funding to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to assist in global bailouts and the like.
Second, I tried to research this bill in more detail so that I would be able to provide quality, objective insight to its details. This thing is a mess. It is long and riddled with changes from the original House version to the Senate version (which appears to be the one which the House agreed to yesterday). I unfortunately do not have the time to dedicate to this type of research.
Third, this thing originally passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support on May 14. It then passed the Senate (after significant amendment) on May 21, again with overwhelming bipartisan support. Yesterday, the House voted upon the bill as referred by the conference committee. (My understanding of this is that the House voted on the Senate version as-is with no changes coming from the conference committee since there will be no additional vote in the Senate. I stand to be corrected on this point.) This time, the vote was pretty much on party line - passing 226-202. This flip-flop is bothersome. What suddenly drove almost all House Republicans to decide that the bill which they previously supported and received GOP support in the Senate in its current form to change their mind?
Well, that leads me to point number four. The GOP is now (after years of supporting the Bush administration) deciding that we cannot afford more spending on the wars in Iraq. Further, after supporting the IMF under the Bush administration (and in the Senate), the GOP has decided we cannot afford that any more either. Now, I happen to agree with the "Nay" vote, but this is the either the height of hypocrisy or a tacit admission of historical stupidity by many House Republicans.
On a related note, irritant number five is the response by House Democrats. Only thirty-two brave souls stepped away from the party line to oppose this bill. I'd love to spend the time to see how well this group matches up to those who opposed supplemental war funding under Bush. Actually, I'm more interested in seeing those who opposed Bush's requests but now support the same request from Obama. By the way, fifty-one Democrats opposed this bill back in May.
I'm sure there are more things about this that irritate me, but we'll leave it at that. I urge my readers to wake up, recognize that Washington is full of hypocrites who only want to play games and spend your money. Tell your friends. Demand change and vote your representatives out of office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)