After watching a clip of Marcel Duchamp, i came to the conclutsion that everything seems to come down to some sort of sexual innuendo or allegory. His window, and like the buildings mentioned in Bauhaus, can be seen as machines. The architechture of Bauhause movements are functional and built for purpose. Like Duchamps window, the background of the buildings change to whatever is neccessary or needed at the time. Thus the allegory differs on the scenario, yet the buildings or architecture still function as they are scientifically meant to, with reason and with explanation.
Machines are built in a way that resembles sexual activity. A small example would be the way pistons work in a car motor. Constantly thrusting in and out of a cylynder does indeed resemble the physical act. Duchamps window is a product of machine, if so the outcome. So to resemble the sexual act as a product of a machine allegorically resembles some functionality of the way we live today.
The window represents the profund love which we experience today with the machine-like functionality of the sexual precedure. Its scientific and can be explained and described the same as any kind of allegory or machine that exists. The process of being able to sleep with a woman is seen the duchamps window through allegorical means. The life force, or semen, is created through the grinding process and then spurted up a tube but meets a block were you just have to watch and observe and love. The same thing happens in architecture. The buildings are erected and meet a point where they need to be looked at and admired. The same as the women on the top half of Dechamps window.
This explanation is very raw and brief, as Dechamps modernist cubism, if so, i found quite difficult to come to terms with and link with Bauhaus. If anyone could help me with this i would be very appriciative as i found it rather confusing as you can see above.
Saturday, 13 February 2010
Sunday, 10 January 2010
Orwellian examples of "Newspeak"---- Duckspeak
"Newspeak" is an Orwellian term which is a away of influencing the thoughts and reactions of others through language. If you look back at my previous blog on euphemisms then the way this works will become quite clear. It is wrong to say that "Newspeak" is just euphemisms because it isn't. One word derived from "Newspeak" that i have chosen is a word called "Duckspeak". Some of you may of heard of this and others may well have an idea of what it could mean.
In brief, "Duckspeak" means to actually quack like a duck or to speak without any recognistion of thought. Speaking without thinking basically. "Duckspeak" can either be good to use or "ungood". Now, to speak lies and talk about random bollocks is obviously not going to be a very good thing to do. However, doing it for the greater good, i.e politicians will use "Duckspeak".....alot, is a positive thing.
In orwells 1984, there is an explicit example of this at the begining of chapter 9. An Inner PArty speaker is describing the crimes of Eurasia until a peice of paper is handed to him. He then condemns the crimes of eastasia. The speaker has not thought about what he was saying at all, but for the good of the party he has had to read of paper, without stopping his previous speaking, without thinking.
One of the main humerous ideas of what i call "Duckspeak gone wrong" is definately with George Bush.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EvNJWM_NDg
It is an example of "Duckspeak" because he is clearly not thinking about what he is saying as he is reading it off the back of some paper. Not only that the speaches were probably made for him anyway. However, it is not noticed because he is or was the president so whatever he would say would be good in the mind of people anyway.
An example of "duckspeak" as in random stuff coming out of someones mouth is this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQIek1XIKaA
This guy obviously has no idea what he is talking about and the fact that he doesnt makes public viewers worried about the fact that he has not done his job properly or attempted to do it at all by the soiund of it.
"Duckspeak" can be seen as a humerous subject however the realities are very true. Sometimes, without us knowing, people can fool our minds into thinking something different to what is being said. Again, the example from 1984 can show the importance of this.
In brief, "Duckspeak" means to actually quack like a duck or to speak without any recognistion of thought. Speaking without thinking basically. "Duckspeak" can either be good to use or "ungood". Now, to speak lies and talk about random bollocks is obviously not going to be a very good thing to do. However, doing it for the greater good, i.e politicians will use "Duckspeak".....alot, is a positive thing.
In orwells 1984, there is an explicit example of this at the begining of chapter 9. An Inner PArty speaker is describing the crimes of Eurasia until a peice of paper is handed to him. He then condemns the crimes of eastasia. The speaker has not thought about what he was saying at all, but for the good of the party he has had to read of paper, without stopping his previous speaking, without thinking.
One of the main humerous ideas of what i call "Duckspeak gone wrong" is definately with George Bush.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EvNJWM_NDg
It is an example of "Duckspeak" because he is clearly not thinking about what he is saying as he is reading it off the back of some paper. Not only that the speaches were probably made for him anyway. However, it is not noticed because he is or was the president so whatever he would say would be good in the mind of people anyway.
An example of "duckspeak" as in random stuff coming out of someones mouth is this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQIek1XIKaA
This guy obviously has no idea what he is talking about and the fact that he doesnt makes public viewers worried about the fact that he has not done his job properly or attempted to do it at all by the soiund of it.
"Duckspeak" can be seen as a humerous subject however the realities are very true. Sometimes, without us knowing, people can fool our minds into thinking something different to what is being said. Again, the example from 1984 can show the importance of this.
Monday, 7 December 2009
Orwell and politics- modern euphemisms
Orwell's essay, Politics and the English Language, highlighted one of my favorite aspects of the english language. Euphemisms. As Orwell pointed out, politicians are full of confusing jargon, using complicated lexis to convey the most simple of ideas or comments. Not only that, euphemisms used by previous politicians and leaders, hide the real aspect behind them. Euphemisms let people react in a better way, rather than giving them the shocking truth.
Alot of these euphemisms started to occur during the Iraq war.
Friendly fire: term used to describe military action on ones own side or allied forces. (Came from United States Military, stupid bastards)
Shock'n'awe: The use of overwhelming power, to demolish the opposing side and destroy their will to fight, also known as Rapid Dominance.( Came from United States Military, thick bastards)
Collateral Damage: Dead Civillians (Probably American)
Department of defence: Department of War (America ...again)
Soft Targets: Bombing of civillian targets (Yeah you know who did it)
Neutralise: Kill
You can see, especially with the last one, that It sounds better to say these words because it takes away the shocking nature of what politicians actually mean. Neutralise doesnt even sound like something has been killed, immobalised maybe (Immobalise- break or use force to stop working).
Orwell described this perfectly throughout his book and also in 1984. The ministry of truth obviously being a euphemism for the ministry of lies or control. The ideas of surveillance and control through the use of euphemisms is extremely important in the film. Orwells genious really was foreshadowing the events of today.
I leave you with a short video of another euphemism that came to light in the heat of war. Extraordinary Rendition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0MjAzFeNbU (the 0 is a Zero not an o)
Alot of these euphemisms started to occur during the Iraq war.
Friendly fire: term used to describe military action on ones own side or allied forces. (Came from United States Military, stupid bastards)
Shock'n'awe: The use of overwhelming power, to demolish the opposing side and destroy their will to fight, also known as Rapid Dominance.( Came from United States Military, thick bastards)
Collateral Damage: Dead Civillians (Probably American)
Department of defence: Department of War (America ...again)
Soft Targets: Bombing of civillian targets (Yeah you know who did it)
Neutralise: Kill
You can see, especially with the last one, that It sounds better to say these words because it takes away the shocking nature of what politicians actually mean. Neutralise doesnt even sound like something has been killed, immobalised maybe (Immobalise- break or use force to stop working).
Orwell described this perfectly throughout his book and also in 1984. The ministry of truth obviously being a euphemism for the ministry of lies or control. The ideas of surveillance and control through the use of euphemisms is extremely important in the film. Orwells genious really was foreshadowing the events of today.
I leave you with a short video of another euphemism that came to light in the heat of war. Extraordinary Rendition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0MjAzFeNbU (the 0 is a Zero not an o)
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
Freud's ego is huge!!
To follow last weeks lecture i thought it would be nice to look into Freud and his ideas for the psychoanalytic theory for personality. It was a breakthrough to look into the human psyche at such a deep level and to look into the way that humans present themselves in and out of their own bodies.
A humans personality, according to Freud is made up of three different functions. The ID, Ego and Super-ego. Each one has their own role in determining persona and creating complicated behaviour.
1) ID
You could say that ID is the animal instinct that lives in it regardless of what we do. ID is present from birth and in it exists the most basic of needs. If we were to look at ourselves as an animal we need the basic things to survive. Primitive behaviour is what the ID is and encompasses the Pleasure Principal. Basically, we strive for our needs, our desires and what we want. If these needs are not or cannot be met, it creates anxiety.
For example, A new born baby is hungry. He cannot talk yet so the mother does not know until the ID of the baby makes it cry to get its needs.
You cannot live on this principal alone, if had a craving for something you may find yourself stealing from someone or killing them alltogether to satisfy your ID.
Freud sudgested that the ID resolves some of this tension throught the Primary Process where the ID forms a mental image to keep us happy.
2)EGO
Ego deals with reality. Freud states the EGO is conjured from the ID and that the EGO can fullfill the needs of the ID through simple acceptable manners. The EGO functions in all states of mind; concious, preconcious and unconcious.
The reality principal gives itself to the ID and supresses its desire through socially acceptable ways. It measures the pros and cons of an action before acting or ignoring. Some the ID can be happy through Delayed Gratification where the EGO will let the ID do what it likes in the right situation.
Also, through Secondary Process, the EGO can get rid of the ID's tension by finding an object that is similar to the mental projection created by the primary process.
3) SUPER-EGO
This is our morals and ideology that we gain from our parents and society. Right and Wrong. It helps us to make judgements and starts to play a larger part after about 5 years of age. The EGO IDEAL is a concept that controls the rules for acceptable behaviour, those which are aproved by parents or authoritative figures. These give us a sense of pride and fullfillment. On the other hand the Consience hold all things that a viewed as bad by parents and society. Most are not allowed and can lead to worse things. Often the Consience leads to guilt.
The SUPER-EGO stops all our ID's bad urges to make the EGO act upon standards rather than principal and is present in all states of mind.
Freud had the idea of EGO STRENGTH. Those of you with good EGO STRENGTH can manage the pressures of the ID. Those of you with too much or too little can become very disruptive.
Which one are you???
A humans personality, according to Freud is made up of three different functions. The ID, Ego and Super-ego. Each one has their own role in determining persona and creating complicated behaviour.
1) ID
You could say that ID is the animal instinct that lives in it regardless of what we do. ID is present from birth and in it exists the most basic of needs. If we were to look at ourselves as an animal we need the basic things to survive. Primitive behaviour is what the ID is and encompasses the Pleasure Principal. Basically, we strive for our needs, our desires and what we want. If these needs are not or cannot be met, it creates anxiety.
For example, A new born baby is hungry. He cannot talk yet so the mother does not know until the ID of the baby makes it cry to get its needs.
You cannot live on this principal alone, if had a craving for something you may find yourself stealing from someone or killing them alltogether to satisfy your ID.
Freud sudgested that the ID resolves some of this tension throught the Primary Process where the ID forms a mental image to keep us happy.
2)EGO
Ego deals with reality. Freud states the EGO is conjured from the ID and that the EGO can fullfill the needs of the ID through simple acceptable manners. The EGO functions in all states of mind; concious, preconcious and unconcious.
The reality principal gives itself to the ID and supresses its desire through socially acceptable ways. It measures the pros and cons of an action before acting or ignoring. Some the ID can be happy through Delayed Gratification where the EGO will let the ID do what it likes in the right situation.
Also, through Secondary Process, the EGO can get rid of the ID's tension by finding an object that is similar to the mental projection created by the primary process.
3) SUPER-EGO
This is our morals and ideology that we gain from our parents and society. Right and Wrong. It helps us to make judgements and starts to play a larger part after about 5 years of age. The EGO IDEAL is a concept that controls the rules for acceptable behaviour, those which are aproved by parents or authoritative figures. These give us a sense of pride and fullfillment. On the other hand the Consience hold all things that a viewed as bad by parents and society. Most are not allowed and can lead to worse things. Often the Consience leads to guilt.
The SUPER-EGO stops all our ID's bad urges to make the EGO act upon standards rather than principal and is present in all states of mind.
Freud had the idea of EGO STRENGTH. Those of you with good EGO STRENGTH can manage the pressures of the ID. Those of you with too much or too little can become very disruptive.
Which one are you???
Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Conspiracy theories and theorists
We live in a an age with conspiracy everywhere. Whether it be on a personal or global scale everyone has a conspiracy theory on something. As a very big follower of conspiracy theories, and also a believer of some, i'm going to highlight some of the most famous and show how they all link to the documentary we watched last thursday.
1) Attack on the World Trade Centre, September 11 2001.
The amount of conspiracies that came out of this horrific attack was mind blowing to look at. One Idea included that demolition charges were placed in the buildings which was quickly passed aside by demolition experts saying that it would have been noticed and recognisable by the way the buildings fell. People believe that the plane that hit the pentagon was actually a missile, that the american government knew about the attacks before they happened and that the planes were controlled remotely. To highlight Anti-semitism in the last lecture it was also beleived that 4,000 jewish workers in the world trade centre failed to turn up to work on that day. To link it further you must think back to David Ickes and his belief that the Jewish community rule the whole world. See the similarities? However, with my own research I have found numerous sources that can make you think about whether or not 9/11 was really planned or not.
Firstly, the information i used to help gain some of this information was also from a conspiracy killer website, basically a website of the american government.....http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html .......So anything this website says is going to be bias towards the american government regardless.
Secondly, the only footage that the FBI will let the public see from the petagon crisis is this video which explains the possibility that the "plane" was actually a missile.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRK8QFvXyfE
Not only that, the Pentagon has the most amount of security cameras in one place, IN THE WORLD, and the fact we can only see one peice of footage from this raises quite a few questions, also the fact that this footage was found from a gas (petrol) station.
I will leave you guys to look into this for more info.
2) The death of Princess Di and Dodi Fayed.
Only a couple of conspiracies but feasable none the less.
The First being that they faked their own death to get away from the media and everything else that was following their lives.
The usual driver of the mercedes was not actually driving on the night it crashed. Henri Paul was the driver of the car and he died and was aparently wisked away from hospital afterwards, did this man even exist? Now a 121mph crash would have definately killed everyone in the car so it could not have been going that fast. The body guard was the only one to have surved and he was believed to have links to MI6 which is another theory that they were responsible for the death of DI
6 Hours before the crash DI revealed that she was about to get out of public life permanently, she revealed this to a reporter called Richard Kray.
David Icke, which we learned about last weeks, is one of the key conspirisists as his ideology is the basis that all other conspiracies are roped upon. That a secret government that no one knows about is able to dish out death and judgement asd they see fit to keep us under control and to stop us asking questions. This being anti-semite is an ideology that sticks with Icke alone and other right-wing extremists around the world. Reavealing conspiracies and looking into them is a hobby of mine but does not represent my views on society.
If anyone would like to add to this with their own conspiracies i would appriciate it as it is a very large topic of discussion.
I will leave you with one of the best sources of terrorism conspiracies for your enjoyment..
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8136133221213939183#
1) Attack on the World Trade Centre, September 11 2001.
The amount of conspiracies that came out of this horrific attack was mind blowing to look at. One Idea included that demolition charges were placed in the buildings which was quickly passed aside by demolition experts saying that it would have been noticed and recognisable by the way the buildings fell. People believe that the plane that hit the pentagon was actually a missile, that the american government knew about the attacks before they happened and that the planes were controlled remotely. To highlight Anti-semitism in the last lecture it was also beleived that 4,000 jewish workers in the world trade centre failed to turn up to work on that day. To link it further you must think back to David Ickes and his belief that the Jewish community rule the whole world. See the similarities? However, with my own research I have found numerous sources that can make you think about whether or not 9/11 was really planned or not.
Firstly, the information i used to help gain some of this information was also from a conspiracy killer website, basically a website of the american government.....http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html .......So anything this website says is going to be bias towards the american government regardless.
Secondly, the only footage that the FBI will let the public see from the petagon crisis is this video which explains the possibility that the "plane" was actually a missile.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRK8QFvXyfE
Not only that, the Pentagon has the most amount of security cameras in one place, IN THE WORLD, and the fact we can only see one peice of footage from this raises quite a few questions, also the fact that this footage was found from a gas (petrol) station.
I will leave you guys to look into this for more info.
2) The death of Princess Di and Dodi Fayed.
Only a couple of conspiracies but feasable none the less.
The First being that they faked their own death to get away from the media and everything else that was following their lives.
The usual driver of the mercedes was not actually driving on the night it crashed. Henri Paul was the driver of the car and he died and was aparently wisked away from hospital afterwards, did this man even exist? Now a 121mph crash would have definately killed everyone in the car so it could not have been going that fast. The body guard was the only one to have surved and he was believed to have links to MI6 which is another theory that they were responsible for the death of DI
6 Hours before the crash DI revealed that she was about to get out of public life permanently, she revealed this to a reporter called Richard Kray.
David Icke, which we learned about last weeks, is one of the key conspirisists as his ideology is the basis that all other conspiracies are roped upon. That a secret government that no one knows about is able to dish out death and judgement asd they see fit to keep us under control and to stop us asking questions. This being anti-semite is an ideology that sticks with Icke alone and other right-wing extremists around the world. Reavealing conspiracies and looking into them is a hobby of mine but does not represent my views on society.
If anyone would like to add to this with their own conspiracies i would appriciate it as it is a very large topic of discussion.
I will leave you with one of the best sources of terrorism conspiracies for your enjoyment..
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8136133221213939183#
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
Epistemology- a basic run through
Epistemology was one of the words that came up in the last lecture and to be honest, i had no idea what it meant. So i thought i would post something up to help everyone else if they also had some trouble understanding this, or even wondered what it meant.
In brief, epistemology focuses on the understanding of knowledge and justified belief. It asks questions to gain knowledge for this like---- What are the conditions of knowledge? What are the sources?And what structure and limits does it hold?
Epistemology focuses on the justification of your own beliefs. How justified are your justifications? Is this internal or external to your mind? It has alot to do with the creation of knowledge in specified areas of investigation.
Knowledge comes in many different forms, which you all should know. Things like the knowledge of certain subjects, how to do things, how to deal with problems and specific areas of interest.
This is simply outlined with a very simple scenario and deals with the conditions of knowledge through epistemology.
"Tom knows that James has gone to the park"
Through this we see toms knowledge is that james has gone to the park. But how do we clarify this? Through investigative means (like investigative journalism). What we ask is--- What are the necessary conditions for tom to know that james has gone to the park.
To go into slight more detail, these conditions can be solved in two different ways.
1)Traditional--- Toms knowledge that james has gone to the park can be justified true belief. However, if Tom did not beleive the it cant be propersitioned that tom knows. Make sense? Is what tom nkows even true? he may belive it but it may not be justified because belief could also be a lie. To justify it it has to meet 3 conditions of truth, belief and justification. If one fo these is out of line then you cant have knowledge of something.
2) the non-traditional method is similar but no the same. It deals with whether toms statement if true out of probability to save it being true just out of luck. Basically, a balance of probabilty rather than guessing something that turns out to be right. This "guessing" idea is also a problem known as the Gettier Problem.
My knoweldge is also starting to get a little jaded at this moment so I will make a couple more points and then that should leave you the basic idea of epistemology.
The idea of justification can also be shown with a different scenario.
"Tom asks dick a question and dick answered with a lie" was dick justified to tell a lie? " Harry thinks that dick was justified because toms question was innapropriate to which the answer was none of toms buisness."
What does it mean to think that dick was justified into telling a lie. Because of the innapropriateness of the question dick was under no obligation to refrain from lying, it was not her duty to tell the truth. This form is also called Deontological justification. Simply---- A is justified in doing B if and only A is not obliged to refrain from doing B.
Non- Deontological justification follows a simply reverse pattern.
Tom is justified in beleiving james has gone to the park if and only tom belives james has gone to the park on a basis that properly probabilifies toms beleif that james has done so.
After these points it becomes very simple, and you can see how these philosophies can be merged in with investigative journalism. The ideas of evidence vs reliability to justify your knowledge through the justification means come into alot of modern day journalism and most of us dont actually realise how often the points above actually happen.
In brief, epistemology focuses on the understanding of knowledge and justified belief. It asks questions to gain knowledge for this like---- What are the conditions of knowledge? What are the sources?And what structure and limits does it hold?
Epistemology focuses on the justification of your own beliefs. How justified are your justifications? Is this internal or external to your mind? It has alot to do with the creation of knowledge in specified areas of investigation.
Knowledge comes in many different forms, which you all should know. Things like the knowledge of certain subjects, how to do things, how to deal with problems and specific areas of interest.
This is simply outlined with a very simple scenario and deals with the conditions of knowledge through epistemology.
"Tom knows that James has gone to the park"
Through this we see toms knowledge is that james has gone to the park. But how do we clarify this? Through investigative means (like investigative journalism). What we ask is--- What are the necessary conditions for tom to know that james has gone to the park.
To go into slight more detail, these conditions can be solved in two different ways.
1)Traditional--- Toms knowledge that james has gone to the park can be justified true belief. However, if Tom did not beleive the it cant be propersitioned that tom knows. Make sense? Is what tom nkows even true? he may belive it but it may not be justified because belief could also be a lie. To justify it it has to meet 3 conditions of truth, belief and justification. If one fo these is out of line then you cant have knowledge of something.
2) the non-traditional method is similar but no the same. It deals with whether toms statement if true out of probability to save it being true just out of luck. Basically, a balance of probabilty rather than guessing something that turns out to be right. This "guessing" idea is also a problem known as the Gettier Problem.
My knoweldge is also starting to get a little jaded at this moment so I will make a couple more points and then that should leave you the basic idea of epistemology.
The idea of justification can also be shown with a different scenario.
"Tom asks dick a question and dick answered with a lie" was dick justified to tell a lie? " Harry thinks that dick was justified because toms question was innapropriate to which the answer was none of toms buisness."
What does it mean to think that dick was justified into telling a lie. Because of the innapropriateness of the question dick was under no obligation to refrain from lying, it was not her duty to tell the truth. This form is also called Deontological justification. Simply---- A is justified in doing B if and only A is not obliged to refrain from doing B.
Non- Deontological justification follows a simply reverse pattern.
Tom is justified in beleiving james has gone to the park if and only tom belives james has gone to the park on a basis that properly probabilifies toms beleif that james has done so.
After these points it becomes very simple, and you can see how these philosophies can be merged in with investigative journalism. The ideas of evidence vs reliability to justify your knowledge through the justification means come into alot of modern day journalism and most of us dont actually realise how often the points above actually happen.
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
Eurovision hope
Unfortunately i happen to be a eurovision freak, i don't know what it is i just love watching it. Random acts of stupidty, strange costumes, normally outrageous dancing and the German act which normally includes some form of leather bondage costume or obscene singing.
I think our chances are good this year, yes the last few years have been pretty terrible i will say, mabey horrific. But we have an ace in the hole now, a man to change our fortunes in this war.....Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber.
Yes the musical wizard, has personally picked our young hopeful, promoted her all over the world and even tried to change the minds of the eastern territories to stop the bias voting.
Will this really happen though. I mean i cant remmember a year where Cyprus didnt give Greece top marks. The same goes for Russia, Ukraine and Serbia. But after many events of the past year we can definately see some new votes coming in.
We know for a fact that Georgia is definately not going to give Russia and its followers anything due to the fighting that has been happening. Most of the powerful EU (France,Germany,Sweden) may vote for us because of our lead in the global financial crisis.
We can pretty much say that Eurovision is going to stay a pollitical fight for surrounding allies, however i think this year will be slightly different due to the fact that our singer is fantastic. What do you guys think?
I think our chances are good this year, yes the last few years have been pretty terrible i will say, mabey horrific. But we have an ace in the hole now, a man to change our fortunes in this war.....Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber.
Yes the musical wizard, has personally picked our young hopeful, promoted her all over the world and even tried to change the minds of the eastern territories to stop the bias voting.
Will this really happen though. I mean i cant remmember a year where Cyprus didnt give Greece top marks. The same goes for Russia, Ukraine and Serbia. But after many events of the past year we can definately see some new votes coming in.
We know for a fact that Georgia is definately not going to give Russia and its followers anything due to the fighting that has been happening. Most of the powerful EU (France,Germany,Sweden) may vote for us because of our lead in the global financial crisis.
We can pretty much say that Eurovision is going to stay a pollitical fight for surrounding allies, however i think this year will be slightly different due to the fact that our singer is fantastic. What do you guys think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)