And I am moving. Both figuratively and literally. Literally is a story for another time. So we'll stick with figuratively.
You landed here because you went to http://blog.solemorality.com. Don't do that anymore. You can find me at http://www.solemorality.com.
I've moved to Posterous and am enjoying it. Blogger has been fun, but I am ready for something a little newer. Better photo posting, great quick posting via a bookmarklet, new paint, updated appliances, you know...newer.
So, this won't be updated any further. All the old posts are now at the Posterous blog. Comments aren't, but I hope to move them once they operationalize their comment importer. Until then, you can browse comments back here.
See you over at http://www.solemorality.com
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Bully Badge
Ok, it has been a little bit. Good grief things have been busy and still are busy. But I came across this article via @cboyack and @ekimatuan on Twitter and it made me feel ill.
Out of the Philadelphia Daily News comes a report of police bullying that will make you want to throw something (preferably not at the LCD monitor, they can be expensive). Here's the scenario.
Imagine you are in your car and are rear-ended by another vehicle that drives off instead of stopping. The driver of the other vehicle turns out to be the son of a local cop who is on duty. The son goes and reports the accident to dad. What do you think should happen?
Morally, the father shouldn't show any preference in taking the report of the accident. Ethically, I believe the father shouldn't even get involved and the entire incident should be handled by another officer if not an officer from a different department. Relation to an officer should play no part in the investigation of an accident. What do you think actually happened? Well, if you didn't click through the link, then I can almost guarantee you won't guess. The cop assaults the victim.
Officer Lopez takes his son in his patrol car to the convenience store the accident victims are at and confronts him. During all of this, his son is armed with a handgun, although it was never drawn. Officer Lopez's account is that he ordered Agnes Lawless and her three companions to the ground and that she resisted, assaulting the officer. That is the charge she was arrested on and for which spent a night in jail. That is the story that the courts believed over Lawless' story, even though all three of her companions and the store clerk gave stories that matched hers.
The fact that the courts would side with a cop over the victim isn't unheard of as they often are faced with a he-said-she-said situation of events. The fact that they believed a single police officer over the victim and four other witnesses is concerning if not suspect. Oh, did I mention that the officer's son was involved in the accident that lead to this, thereby possibly prejudicing him in the recount of the events? I did? Oh, I don't see why I bothered since the officer didn't! In fact, he didn't even use his son's name in the report, only referring to him as a "witness." But the court did side with the officer and suggest that Lawless be brought to trial. Well, they did until the store's security footage was released and showed a different course of events. One that matched Lawless' version.
Despite her not being hostile in the least at the outset of the encoutner, Officer Lopez proceeded to approach Lawless from behind with a drawn handgun, forcibly grab her by the neck, force his gun against her neck, and struck her in the face. Lawless, uncertain of what was going on and obviously confused by the lack of professional behavior, felt that the best thing would be to leave the situation and call for some "real cops." She is stopped and physically restrained, not by Officer Lopez, but by his son. Officer Lopez twice asks the store clerk to "do himself a favor" and erase the security camera footage. Three times after the incident, cops tell the clerk to erase the tapes and testify for the cop.
With the video out and the charges aginst Lawless dropped, an Internal Affairs investigation was conducted. Here is a man who violated the public's trust by engaging in completely inappropriate and unprofessional behavior, comitted multiple crimes as he assaulted members of the public, and endangered the lives of all of the people in the store when he needlessly initiated a physical confrontation with a drawn handgun, pressing it up against the body of an innocent person in a threatening manner. Certainly plenty for an IA investigation to work from and with video footage of the encounter, you'd think that would be plenty of evidence.
No, not really. And this is where the article got my attention.
After four months, the district attourney decided not to prosecute Officer L0pez. In the end, the Internal Affairs investigation found that Officer Lopez had violated departmental policies, but that was all. He was reissued his gun and is back on full duty although the department may still reprimand him.
Frankly, that is thoroughly insufficient. He should have lost his gun, his badge, and his commission and been barred from ever being employed in law enforcement again.
Lapses in judgment like that of Officer Lopez's would be utterly inexcusable if committed by the public and should be equally so when committed by police officers. Officers should be ticketed every time they are caught speeding and not let off for the exact reason that they are police officers and should be setting the example of the behavior they expect the populous at large to exhibit. They should be the shining examples of what it means to be a law abiding citizen.
Police officers are granted an incalculable trust by the public and when they violate that trust, there must be significant consequences if the people are to be able to continue to place that trust in the police as a whole. Christ put it best when he told the mass assembled to put the adulterous woman to death when he advised the person who was without sin to cast the first stone.
How can we allow someone to enforce the rule of law who is on film eggregiously violating that law and reportedly shouting, "You think you can hit my son and get away with it, you think you can f--- with me?"
We can't and we should never be asked to do so.
Out of the Philadelphia Daily News comes a report of police bullying that will make you want to throw something (preferably not at the LCD monitor, they can be expensive). Here's the scenario.
Imagine you are in your car and are rear-ended by another vehicle that drives off instead of stopping. The driver of the other vehicle turns out to be the son of a local cop who is on duty. The son goes and reports the accident to dad. What do you think should happen?
Morally, the father shouldn't show any preference in taking the report of the accident. Ethically, I believe the father shouldn't even get involved and the entire incident should be handled by another officer if not an officer from a different department. Relation to an officer should play no part in the investigation of an accident. What do you think actually happened? Well, if you didn't click through the link, then I can almost guarantee you won't guess. The cop assaults the victim.
Officer Lopez takes his son in his patrol car to the convenience store the accident victims are at and confronts him. During all of this, his son is armed with a handgun, although it was never drawn. Officer Lopez's account is that he ordered Agnes Lawless and her three companions to the ground and that she resisted, assaulting the officer. That is the charge she was arrested on and for which spent a night in jail. That is the story that the courts believed over Lawless' story, even though all three of her companions and the store clerk gave stories that matched hers.
The fact that the courts would side with a cop over the victim isn't unheard of as they often are faced with a he-said-she-said situation of events. The fact that they believed a single police officer over the victim and four other witnesses is concerning if not suspect. Oh, did I mention that the officer's son was involved in the accident that lead to this, thereby possibly prejudicing him in the recount of the events? I did? Oh, I don't see why I bothered since the officer didn't! In fact, he didn't even use his son's name in the report, only referring to him as a "witness." But the court did side with the officer and suggest that Lawless be brought to trial. Well, they did until the store's security footage was released and showed a different course of events. One that matched Lawless' version.
Despite her not being hostile in the least at the outset of the encoutner, Officer Lopez proceeded to approach Lawless from behind with a drawn handgun, forcibly grab her by the neck, force his gun against her neck, and struck her in the face. Lawless, uncertain of what was going on and obviously confused by the lack of professional behavior, felt that the best thing would be to leave the situation and call for some "real cops." She is stopped and physically restrained, not by Officer Lopez, but by his son. Officer Lopez twice asks the store clerk to "do himself a favor" and erase the security camera footage. Three times after the incident, cops tell the clerk to erase the tapes and testify for the cop.
With the video out and the charges aginst Lawless dropped, an Internal Affairs investigation was conducted. Here is a man who violated the public's trust by engaging in completely inappropriate and unprofessional behavior, comitted multiple crimes as he assaulted members of the public, and endangered the lives of all of the people in the store when he needlessly initiated a physical confrontation with a drawn handgun, pressing it up against the body of an innocent person in a threatening manner. Certainly plenty for an IA investigation to work from and with video footage of the encounter, you'd think that would be plenty of evidence.
No, not really. And this is where the article got my attention.
After four months, the district attourney decided not to prosecute Officer L0pez. In the end, the Internal Affairs investigation found that Officer Lopez had violated departmental policies, but that was all. He was reissued his gun and is back on full duty although the department may still reprimand him.
Frankly, that is thoroughly insufficient. He should have lost his gun, his badge, and his commission and been barred from ever being employed in law enforcement again.
Lapses in judgment like that of Officer Lopez's would be utterly inexcusable if committed by the public and should be equally so when committed by police officers. Officers should be ticketed every time they are caught speeding and not let off for the exact reason that they are police officers and should be setting the example of the behavior they expect the populous at large to exhibit. They should be the shining examples of what it means to be a law abiding citizen.
Police officers are granted an incalculable trust by the public and when they violate that trust, there must be significant consequences if the people are to be able to continue to place that trust in the police as a whole. Christ put it best when he told the mass assembled to put the adulterous woman to death when he advised the person who was without sin to cast the first stone.
How can we allow someone to enforce the rule of law who is on film eggregiously violating that law and reportedly shouting, "You think you can hit my son and get away with it, you think you can f--- with me?"
We can't and we should never be asked to do so.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
The Drinking Age and The Lessons of Prohibition
Back in November of 2007, I wrote an entry that talked about possible beneifical aspects of lowering the drinking age. A year and a half later, the idea is popping up elsewhere.
CBS Evening News did a story[1] on it a couple of nights ago and note that some experts believe, like I theorized in my entry, that the higher drinking age of 21 is "actually contributing to an increase in extreme drinking."
In the story they talked with Mark Bckner, the chief of police in Boulder, Colo., a college town. "We'd find a party where we know there's underage drinking. We would seal the house. Surround the house with officers and we would write every single underage person coming out of that house. We wrote hundreds and hundreds of tickets those years. All we did is we pushed it further underground," said Beckner.
Beckner commented about lowering the drinking age to 18, something he is in favor of, "The overall advantage is we're not trying to enforce a law that's unenforceable. The abuse of alcohol and the over-consumption of alcohol and DUI driving. Those are the areas we've gotta focus our efforts. Not on chasing kids around trying to give 'em a ticket for having a cup of beer in their hand."
The story also comments about a college freshman, Gordie Bailey, who died of alcohol poisoning during a fraternity initiation. The fraternity members left him on a couch for 9 hours before someone called 911. He died because, according to Gordie's parents, the other college kids were too scared to call for help because the drinking was illegal.
It isn't just some police chiefs that feel a lower drinking age would be better. Minnesota legislators are also looking at the issue, considering a bill that would lower the drinking age to 18 in their state. They also are proposing allowing 16 and 17 year olds to drink at bars when accompanied by parents.
Both stories highlight something that escapes a lot of supposedly "enlightened" people in this day and age: banning something doesn't eliminate it. It is illegal for someone under the age of 21 to consume alcohol, right? But yet, from the SADD website:
Prohibition should have taught us that telling people who want to drink that they can't won't stop them. The war on drugs should be teaching us right now that making something illegal doesn't stop it. All it does is drive it underground, create a mistique around it, and put it in the same realm as other much more harmful things.
I recently read about, though I can't remember exactly where, the idea that by eliminating things from being illegal and underground, you remove the connection to worse items. For example, a party at which significant underage drinking is taking place would also be more likely to have drugs at them.
If teens don't have to find a less than reputable "source" for their alcohol, they may be less likely to get involved in major drugs. After all, "more than 67% of young people who start drinking before the age of 15 will try an illicit drug. Children who drink are 7.5 times more likely to use any illicit drug, more than 22 times more likely to use marijuana, and 50 times more likely to use cocaine than children who never drank."[3] You can argue that drinking itself makes them more likely to abuse other substances but I am more inclined to believe it is the atmosphere into which they immerse themselves in order to consume alcohol underage.
I have my opinions on this topic. I'd love to hear yours.
***
[1] H/T http://www.thelibertypapers.org/
[2] H/T http://hotair.com/
[3] Cigarettes, Alcohol, Marijuana: Gateways to Illicit Drug Use, Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University, 1994 as referenced at http://www.drug-rehabs.org/articles.php?aid=318
CBS Evening News did a story[1] on it a couple of nights ago and note that some experts believe, like I theorized in my entry, that the higher drinking age of 21 is "actually contributing to an increase in extreme drinking."
In the story they talked with Mark Bckner, the chief of police in Boulder, Colo., a college town. "We'd find a party where we know there's underage drinking. We would seal the house. Surround the house with officers and we would write every single underage person coming out of that house. We wrote hundreds and hundreds of tickets those years. All we did is we pushed it further underground," said Beckner.
Beckner commented about lowering the drinking age to 18, something he is in favor of, "The overall advantage is we're not trying to enforce a law that's unenforceable. The abuse of alcohol and the over-consumption of alcohol and DUI driving. Those are the areas we've gotta focus our efforts. Not on chasing kids around trying to give 'em a ticket for having a cup of beer in their hand."
The story also comments about a college freshman, Gordie Bailey, who died of alcohol poisoning during a fraternity initiation. The fraternity members left him on a couch for 9 hours before someone called 911. He died because, according to Gordie's parents, the other college kids were too scared to call for help because the drinking was illegal.
It isn't just some police chiefs that feel a lower drinking age would be better. Minnesota legislators are also looking at the issue, considering a bill that would lower the drinking age to 18 in their state. They also are proposing allowing 16 and 17 year olds to drink at bars when accompanied by parents.
Both stories highlight something that escapes a lot of supposedly "enlightened" people in this day and age: banning something doesn't eliminate it. It is illegal for someone under the age of 21 to consume alcohol, right? But yet, from the SADD website:
In 2005, about 10.8 million persons ages 12-20 (28.2% of this age group) reported drinking alcohol in the past month. Nearly 7.2 million (18.8%) were binge drinkers, and 2.3 million (6.0%) were heavy drinkers.To all the people out there that don't want to lower the drinking age because they don't want teenager drinking, BREAKING NEWS: they already are.
2005 SAMHSA National Survey on Drug Use and Health
Three out of every four students (75%) have consumed alcohol (more than just a few sips) by the end of high school.
2005 Monitoring the Future
About two fifths of students (41%) have consumed alcohol (more than just a few sips) by 8th grade.
2005 Monitoring the Future
Prohibition should have taught us that telling people who want to drink that they can't won't stop them. The war on drugs should be teaching us right now that making something illegal doesn't stop it. All it does is drive it underground, create a mistique around it, and put it in the same realm as other much more harmful things.
I recently read about, though I can't remember exactly where, the idea that by eliminating things from being illegal and underground, you remove the connection to worse items. For example, a party at which significant underage drinking is taking place would also be more likely to have drugs at them.
If teens don't have to find a less than reputable "source" for their alcohol, they may be less likely to get involved in major drugs. After all, "more than 67% of young people who start drinking before the age of 15 will try an illicit drug. Children who drink are 7.5 times more likely to use any illicit drug, more than 22 times more likely to use marijuana, and 50 times more likely to use cocaine than children who never drank."[3] You can argue that drinking itself makes them more likely to abuse other substances but I am more inclined to believe it is the atmosphere into which they immerse themselves in order to consume alcohol underage.
I have my opinions on this topic. I'd love to hear yours.
***
[1] H/T http://www.thelibertypapers.org/
[2] H/T http://hotair.com/
[3] Cigarettes, Alcohol, Marijuana: Gateways to Illicit Drug Use, Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University, 1994 as referenced at http://www.drug-rehabs.org/articles.php?aid=318
Friday, February 27, 2009
The Necessity of Religion
I was not a Mitt Romney supporter in this last primary process. Some of the things he said rubbed me the wrong way. That aside, I do agree with him on some matters. One of them was a sentiment he expressed in his notable speech on religion. In that speech he said, "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom." Religion isn't necessarily the word I would have used, but I agree with the sentiment. Romney's quote hearkens back to one of my all time favorite John Adams quotes that says, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
There was an article posted back in January of this year at American Thinker that talks about Mitt's speech and whether religion really is necessary. It is a quick read and I found it to be very thought provoking. Here's a great excerpt:
There was an article posted back in January of this year at American Thinker that talks about Mitt's speech and whether religion really is necessary. It is a quick read and I found it to be very thought provoking. Here's a great excerpt:
Self governance cannot function without morality. As morals decline, laws expand and freedoms necessarily contract. This is because no law is perfect. The perfect application of law is only possible if the lawmaker and judge are omniscient, knowing every reason a law exists and every detail, even the thoughts, of the alleged law-breaker.I encourage you to go read the article in full. It made me really consider how we have gotten to the point in our society that we have to defend our rights when those who originally pushed for our constitution's ratification felt that the enumeration of such rights was wholly unnecessary, as expressed in the Federalist Paper No. 84, written by Alexander Hamilton:
Since this is impossible, the best situation is to have the fewest laws possible, to avoid illegalizing proper behavior under legislation's inevitably wide swath. The more self-regulating (or moral) a nation is collectively, the fewer laws needed to maintain order.
As national morality declines, inducing governments and citizens to favor more laws, the less plausible our Constitutional system becomes.
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments.
For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
The Camel's Nose and Your Tent
Via CNN.com, there is a report of a push for legislation that would require anyone who owns/operates a wireless internet network to keep a log of all users for two years to aid police investigations.
This is the technological equivalent of the government, say 12 years ago, requiring you to keep an accurate log of everyone who uses your phone for the last 2 years.
Sorry, but this is wrong. This is the government sticking it's nose into your private life. If they want to get a warrant for the records you do have, that's one thing but this is different. You don't have to keep a log of where your car goes and who drives it to aid an investigation about whether it was used in a crime. You aren't required to keep a log of all video purchases and what movies are watched on your television/DVD player to make sure you aren't pirating movies. There is no reason to force you to keep a record of who uses your internet connection.
Contact your legislators and let them know that you want the government to keep out of your business.
This is the technological equivalent of the government, say 12 years ago, requiring you to keep an accurate log of everyone who uses your phone for the last 2 years.
Sorry, but this is wrong. This is the government sticking it's nose into your private life. If they want to get a warrant for the records you do have, that's one thing but this is different. You don't have to keep a log of where your car goes and who drives it to aid an investigation about whether it was used in a crime. You aren't required to keep a log of all video purchases and what movies are watched on your television/DVD player to make sure you aren't pirating movies. There is no reason to force you to keep a record of who uses your internet connection.
Contact your legislators and let them know that you want the government to keep out of your business.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Unstoppable force, meet immovable object
A very quick post. I would love to research this more and write up a big long post, but I just do not have the time right now.
First, a quick intro to "Good Samaritan" laws. They are laws enacted to protect those coming to the aid of another from prosecution for any harm that may come to a person due to emergency care rendered. These laws vary from state to state regarding whom they protect and in what ways. Here is an excerpt from California's via this article from the LA Times whic has a story about the incident I am going to bring up:
Van Horn sues. Torti appeals. They end up at the state supreme court. The court hears both sides and concludes in a 4-3 decision that the above law did not protect Torti because pulling Van Horn from the car did not qualify as "medical care."
Let's contrast this with Vermont's Good Samaritan's law:
So let me ask, what would happen California had the same type of requirement? Or what if Vermont had a judge who ruled similarly to this California ruling?
You can't not help but you can be sued if you do.
Think it can't happen? I wouldn't hold my breath...
So what do you think about mandatory help laws? The California ruling?
*****
[1] Chances are that what she saw was some liquid, probably antifreeze and the "smoke" was actually steam from the antifreeze hitting the hot engine. Doubtful if there was any real danger of explosion at all, but I used to be in emergency services and have learned about this stuff. The general public has not and only knows what they see on TV. I could talk for a while about the ways in which ridiculously unrealistic cinematic special effects have warped the ability for the public at large to react to real life situations, but that is a different subject entirely.
[2] I heartily object to this phrase as it implies carelessness. How easily and carefully could you be when pulling an unconcscious adult from a car? Would they be limp and flop around?
First, a quick intro to "Good Samaritan" laws. They are laws enacted to protect those coming to the aid of another from prosecution for any harm that may come to a person due to emergency care rendered. These laws vary from state to state regarding whom they protect and in what ways. Here is an excerpt from California's via this article from the LA Times whic has a story about the incident I am going to bring up:
"No person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission"Enter a case out of California. Lisa Torti saw her coworker in a car crash. Her coworker, Alexandra Van Horn, was paralyzed in the car crash. Torti claims to have seen smoke and liquid coming from the vehicle and feared an imminent explosion[1]. She ran to the car and pulled an unconscious Van Horn from the vehicle, yanking her from the car "like a rag doll"[2].
Van Horn sues. Torti appeals. They end up at the state supreme court. The court hears both sides and concludes in a 4-3 decision that the above law did not protect Torti because pulling Van Horn from the car did not qualify as "medical care."
In a dissent written by Justice Marvin Baxter, the minority deemed “illogical” recognition of legal immunity for nonprofessionals administering medical care while denying it for nonmedical actions, like saving a person from drowning or carrying an injured hiker to safety.I gotta say that I side with the dissent here. But the problematic aspects of this ruling aren't why I am writing this.
"One who dives into swirling waters to retrieve a drowning swimmer can be sued for incidental injury he or she causes while bringing the victim to shore, but is immune for harm he or she produces while thereafter trying to revive the victim," Baxter wrote. "Here, the result is that defendant Torti has no immunity for her bravery in pulling her injured friend from a crashed vehicle, even if she reasonably believed it might be about to explode."
Let's contrast this with Vermont's Good Samaritan's law:
A person who knows another is exposed to grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the same can be rendered without danger or peril to himself or without interference with important duties owed to others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person unless that assistance or care is being provided by others.In case you didn't catch it, Vermont requires you to help. Remember Seinfeld's series finale? Yeah, that kind of requires.
So let me ask, what would happen California had the same type of requirement? Or what if Vermont had a judge who ruled similarly to this California ruling?
You can't not help but you can be sued if you do.
Think it can't happen? I wouldn't hold my breath...
So what do you think about mandatory help laws? The California ruling?
*****
[1] Chances are that what she saw was some liquid, probably antifreeze and the "smoke" was actually steam from the antifreeze hitting the hot engine. Doubtful if there was any real danger of explosion at all, but I used to be in emergency services and have learned about this stuff. The general public has not and only knows what they see on TV. I could talk for a while about the ways in which ridiculously unrealistic cinematic special effects have warped the ability for the public at large to react to real life situations, but that is a different subject entirely.
[2] I heartily object to this phrase as it implies carelessness. How easily and carefully could you be when pulling an unconcscious adult from a car? Would they be limp and flop around?
Saturday, January 31, 2009
The sting of discrimination
This article is from a couple months ago. Truthfully, I couldn't help but find some irony in this bit from the Oregon Department of Transportation. From the article:
The majority of blacks feel that with the election of President Obama, Martin Luther King's dream has been fulfilled. I'm not sure that what the Oregon DOT is doing right now is quite in line with his dream that his "children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
I'm of the opinion that Dr. King's dreams will more fully be realized when our government hires contractors based on who can do the job quickest, cheapest, and best, not based on the color of their skin. His dream won't be reality until Gene Nelson's comment of "there's no classifications" applies to all US citizens and not just minorities.
A $30 million project to add a lane to Highway 217 in Washington County is the first to include requirements for hiring African-American and Asian-American contractors. In years past, ODOT did not specify which minority groups needed to receive state contracts.For me, the big irony here is the loud protests of minority preferential treatment from someone who has probably been receiving government contact work over others based solely on his minority status. Perhaps Gene Nelson now understands a bit about how many non-minority owned/run businesses feel when they are passed over for jobs based not on the merits of their work or the bid price that they submitted, but on the color of their skin.
“If you’re a minority, you’re a minority. There’s no classifications,” said Gene Nelson, owner of Forest Grove-based Sundown Electric Co., a Native American-owned electrical contractor specializing in highway construction projects. “We are now a minority that is being discriminated against.”
The majority of blacks feel that with the election of President Obama, Martin Luther King's dream has been fulfilled. I'm not sure that what the Oregon DOT is doing right now is quite in line with his dream that his "children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
I'm of the opinion that Dr. King's dreams will more fully be realized when our government hires contractors based on who can do the job quickest, cheapest, and best, not based on the color of their skin. His dream won't be reality until Gene Nelson's comment of "there's no classifications" applies to all US citizens and not just minorities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
