Ok. let me take your points one by one, some of which are very good, and try to address them...
First off, I think I was clear in stating several times that what I had written was merely my opinion, and that people didn't have to agree if they didn't want to, a point which you've illustrated in your response to this. My main desire in writing what I wrote was to a) vent a little, and b) to advise people not to panic and to educate themselves before taking anyone's word for anything -- including what I think.
What I wrote was based on my own impressions and, granted, some of it may not have been complete or entirely accurate (even three hours of research and reading appears not to be thorough enough for something as low-impact as a blog post). I'm not a health professional or an educated man by comparison to others. People can and should make their own decisions about what to do in any situation, not just this. But it was a blog post after all, not placed in the venue of a medical website or other pedestal of authority. I think that most of the few people who read my blog and my FB page realize this is where I'm coming from.
As far as having diabetes is concerned, that is very unfortunate, and believe me when I tell you that I *am* hearing you on this. As you know my father died from it, and it was awful to watch, having received two amputations, and having died shortly after the second. However, I can't find a consistent answer either for or against the idea that H1N1 in its current state will infect or affect a diabetic any differently that someone without diabetes. In fact, people seem to be arguing over whether it's even an issue. Britain's NHS seems to think diabetics are no more likely to contract it than non-diabetics, and if they do, it may alter their blood sugar levels and require a diet modification, but not land them in a hospital per se. However, Canada's Public Health seems to think that diabetics are MORE at risk of contraction than others and that they should protect themselves accordingly.
So once again, it's difficult to tell people, as you have told me, and I have indeed suggested to people in my post, to 'research more' before they decide, when the information available is so contradictory and convoluded across the board. I have had my own troubles muddling through it as you can see... which is kind of my original point, and is why it was important for me to say what I said. In a situation like that, many people are likely to panic, and that is what they absolutely should NOT do. I hardly think that advising people not to panic and instead think clearly is a bad thing.
Moving on... you may well be correct about 1918, [he had stated that the Spanish flu back then was a killer and that a simple mutation of H1N1 could conceivably rival that strain in this situation. Ed.] I did not have time to delve too deeply into that realm, spending more time in 1976, but be that as it may, you are what-iffing. At the moment (as far as we know) things are not at that point yet. Medicine has progressed marvelously in the last century and we know more about viruses in general, we have a system of prevention in place with the CDC et al and the knowledge to act in a crisis (at least moreso than then). Spanish flu caught them off guard in 1918, it seems, and so it stands to reason that things got out of hand quickly. This is not 1918. To predict what *might* happen *if* H1N1 mutates into something more deadly is useless. There's always that possibility with any virus. If it does, there's nothing us normal people can do about it, that's a job for scientists and doctors. *We* can only protect ourselves as best we can, and what-iffing is only going to serve to give way to fear and panic.
As for me not getting the shot? I said it was my main reason, not my only reason. As you have pointed out I was off the mark on Tamiflu (I was tired at the end of writing that - I had those two items confused). [I had confused the Tamiflu drug as the 'flu shot/vaccine' when in it seems that it is in fact an antiviral that you take when you are already sick, an entirely different thing - I am still verifying this. Ed.] You were also partially correct that about the flu shot not containing the virus itself. I have since read that the vaccine in question does in fact contain dead virus bodies that are not supposed to harm you. Similarly, the nasal form of this contains live virus bodies that have been altered so as not to cause the illness [...] So I am willing to retract that portion of my post for the benefit of all readers and state that this is probably correct.
However, regarding my personal receipt of the actual flu shot, there is still the concern I currently have about some of the supporting ingredients in the mix (squaline, mercury); the validity and importance of which I am still looking into. There is also the idea that I personally may have some modicum of immunity since I found out from my mother that I was immunized in 1976 for that particular strain, although that seems unlikely from what I have read. There are other issues as well that I have, but suffice it to say I have enough doubts and questions to think twice or perhaps thrice until someone proves to me that my concerns are unfounded. I've never had a flu shot in my adult life, and have not been seriousy ill. Granted this is by no means a guarantee, but my personal stance on this still remains, if I ain't broke, don't fix me.
I repeat once again that this is my own choice, and while I stated in my post that I have been 'advising people' not to get the shot, it was hardly so clear cut as the advice I gave myself; perhaps I chose the wrong words in stating this in the writing... it was more along the lines of what I have already been saying: make the right choice for you, don't just get it because someone is foretelling doom and gloom about pandemics or that you are positively going to get it and die. Consider all viewpoints, even the ones that seem wrong to you. The fact of the matter is that there is an element of risk for each individual in getting the shot, albiet small possibilities, but still something to consider.
So what I'm saying is this: I think the general tenor of my advice makes it clear that it's simply that: "advice* that is coming from a layperson which can either be ignored or considered. I have seen and heard far more vehement standpoints about not getting the shot in Facebook and IRL than mine and some based on far more biased ideas. Furthermore, I think/hope I was clear in giving such advice, both in person and in on all other modes of communication, that I was only stating personal opinion. I tend to express myself this way when it comes to all sorts of topics -- I don't force my ideas on others and try to be tolerant and let people think for themselves.
I think I'm capable of conceding to any argument that refutes to my satisfaction something that I've said about this. You make a good point about flu-shot-abstainers inadvertently helping to spread the virus, but there is really nothing that can be done about this under our current system of government in North America. A recent US poll shows that roughly half of Americans will not volunteer to get the shot. Internet and social media is making this situation worse with people playing the telephone game and the message is getting garbled at the other end. Unless (or until) the governments of the world decree that everyone *must* receive a flu shot (which will likely cause an uproar), the only thing each of us has to help us decide is our own minds and the information we receive on the subject, and all I'm saying is make as an informed decision as you can. I can't tell people where to go to find the truth or the choice that suits them, I can only suggest they keep looking until they find it.
I will say this however about your comments -- they made me rethink and reconsider, to a degree, the points of my post to see if I was on the right track or not. It was enough to reconsider my thought that I should unilaterally decline the shot for my daughter and instead start up a dialog with her about it this evening, trying to give her both sides of the issue and see what she thought about it. It's still open for discussion. So I thank you for that because it allowed me to realize that I was not applying the same standards I was preaching about to someone in my own family (even if she is only six), simply because I have a position of caregiver over her.
I hope this clears the air a little and further clarifies my position on this.
Hogwash Rebuttal
Editors note: I received a Facebook comment on my wall that was a lengthy rebuttal of my post, and I'd like to put my response to it here: I think even without the rebuttal included, my response will clarify a few things about what I wrote and point out an error or two.
Swine flu: A bunch of hogwash?
I keep getting notes from my kid's school about a local H1N1 'pandemic' and I'm seeing people on Facebook agonizing about getting the shot or not. It's becoming a little tiresome to be honest with you.
Personally, I never get flu shots. Not because I don't like needles (I don't, but I'm a big boy, I can take it... that's beside the point), but because there's something about shots in general that doesn't sit right with me. Briefly, in order to make the thing work, you have to include a small sample of the illness in order for the antibodies to know what they are fighting. I thought the idea was not to get the virus? But that's just me.
In any case, while doing some research into this, I quickly learned that this subject, like countless other hot topics, is so littered with conjecture, propaganda, half-truths, doom-sayers, religious or political zealots and paranoia-driven rhetoric, that it's difficult to see if there even is some truth there somewhere, let alone what it might be.
But before we get to that, I'll tell you that I have been advising people not to get the shot, because my personal feeling is that as long as you take care of yourself, get vitamins, eat well and you don't have any serious immunodeficiency issues, you probably won't get it. And if you do, given that all the above conditions are met, the worst that can happen to you is you feel like a bag of shit for two weeks, and then get better. Whereas, if you do get the shot, you risk getting sick from the very thing you are trying to avoid, because you've just put it into your body.
That said, I have no actual evidence to back up this claim that you can actually get any strain of flu from a flu shot (yet), but it stands to reason that in order for the shot to work, the forces battling against the virus in your body have to be stronger, and that's not always the case due to unforeseen circumstances. The antibodies can't work alone, they have to be helped by you being in generally good health, getting proper nutrients to sustain you, regular sleep, eating healthy and so forth. Again, just my opinion.
So when I read that the CDC is recommending that the highest risk people get the shot first, it raises my eyebrow. These are the very people whose general health is not good, aged or extremely young or those who are deemed to have medical conditions which would allow the virus to take hold more easily. I seems to me that these would be the last people who should get the shot, because it's a crap shoot isn't it? They have to hope that they can somehow fortify themselves enough to give the antibodies the help they need to function against it, and if they can't, then what?
Basically my main reason for declining the flu shot is embodied in this snippet from Wikipedia:
Basically what that means is that the virus can in fact develop a resistance to the inoculation over time. Viruses are cunning that way. So if you do happen to get sick and it happens to be the resistant strain, getting the shot after the fact won't help you much. At best, you'll just stay sick for a lesser amount of time.
Apart from that, we are just making the viruses stronger by continually creating new shots for them. In most cases, people get the flu and live, and then develop immunities to getting that strain again. Why should we help the fucking bugs get stronger just because we don't want to miss a few days of work?
All of the above is just my layman's view of what's going on. I'm not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV. Likewise, I have my opinions and make my choices, and no one else has to do what I do if they don't want to. But here's a bit of information that can be proven, regarding the alleged 'outbreak' of swine flu in 1976. It seems like a bit of history repeating itself. Basically, it goes like this:
So this is what we are in for, folks. Can you say this this is not bound to happen again? The fact of the matter is that people die from flu or complications of flu inoculations all the time. It's not uncommon. It's sad but not unprecedented.
This particular incidence of 1976 has caused a repercussion that lasts till this day, which is a distinct dividing line between pro- and anti-vaccination camps, as well as the general distrust of government-driven medical initiatives (many are screaming conspiracy! and some are stating that it's a poisonous toxin that is meant to reduce the population -- the extremists -- and this is a bad sign for people like Obama who is already the subject of intense scrutiny should this go wrong). We are seeing this now, with this new push for nationwide H1N1 inoculations and the banter within the social media realm both for and against as well as undecided and confused. Many people don't know what to think.
Fact is, we've been battling viruses for a long time, apparently, it never stops, but the human race is still here, and shows no signs of slowing its population growth, so I don't think we have anything to worry about for the time being. That's just my impression.
More to the point, have you noticed that no one is talking about the dreaded avian flu anymore? Or horse flu? Does anyone remember SARS? While I cannot comment on the relative importance or medical implications on any of those particular illnesses, I really don't need to. My point in writing this is that average people seem to be jumping from one implied threat to another with no consideration for facts or evidence, but fueled merely by the implied threat of global pandemic crisis. Is there any point to this? Naturally, the threat of a pandemic is always present, but so is the possibility that you could get run down in the street by a bus, or that a gamma ray burst in space could wipe out this entire solar system without so much as a warning. Anything is possible, but people in the medical community are working hard to control it, and I feel that people are just overreacting for some reason. Sure, be concerned, be diligent, but be realistic and don't panic until there is a reason to (Even then, panic won't help you). It's the same kind of thing that I saw after 9/11 when suddenly people didn't want to fly, or more absurdly, that they wouldn't get on the plane with anyone who looked like a terrorist, vis a vis, a brown man (Russell Peters points this out quite nicely in his standup).
Then there are those who are using the 'pandemic' keyword to cash in and take advantage of the ill-informed and naive. Like this person who is selling a mystery swine flu prevention plan for the low, low price of $7. Don't worry, he takes Amex. I have no idea what his report is saying, and I don't want to know. It reads like so many other scams I've seen before and if he really had the answer, why wouldn't he just tell us for free if he gave a shit? There are also scattered reports of medical offices and hospitals selling stuffed pigs in their shops to promote swine flu awareness. There are probably other more heinous infractions going on as well, I'm sure, because it seems there is money to be made from this, and humans are very good at exploiting people when they see people desperate for answers and solutions.
I could go on and on and on and on, but it's late and I've said all I want to say about this. It's really exhausting. Bottom line is, if you aren't sick, then don't worry about it. If you or someone you love is sick, then take them to the doctor and get them checked out. If you wanna get the shot, then by all means go for it. If you feel better keeping your kids home from school at some point, then okay. But for the love of Pete, keep your head about you and don't give into the surging cess pool of fear and hype about the swine flu. It is a real thing. It's just the marketing that's fake.
Personally, I never get flu shots. Not because I don't like needles (I don't, but I'm a big boy, I can take it... that's beside the point), but because there's something about shots in general that doesn't sit right with me. Briefly, in order to make the thing work, you have to include a small sample of the illness in order for the antibodies to know what they are fighting. I thought the idea was not to get the virus? But that's just me.
In any case, while doing some research into this, I quickly learned that this subject, like countless other hot topics, is so littered with conjecture, propaganda, half-truths, doom-sayers, religious or political zealots and paranoia-driven rhetoric, that it's difficult to see if there even is some truth there somewhere, let alone what it might be.
But before we get to that, I'll tell you that I have been advising people not to get the shot, because my personal feeling is that as long as you take care of yourself, get vitamins, eat well and you don't have any serious immunodeficiency issues, you probably won't get it. And if you do, given that all the above conditions are met, the worst that can happen to you is you feel like a bag of shit for two weeks, and then get better. Whereas, if you do get the shot, you risk getting sick from the very thing you are trying to avoid, because you've just put it into your body.
That said, I have no actual evidence to back up this claim that you can actually get any strain of flu from a flu shot (yet), but it stands to reason that in order for the shot to work, the forces battling against the virus in your body have to be stronger, and that's not always the case due to unforeseen circumstances. The antibodies can't work alone, they have to be helped by you being in generally good health, getting proper nutrients to sustain you, regular sleep, eating healthy and so forth. Again, just my opinion.
So when I read that the CDC is recommending that the highest risk people get the shot first, it raises my eyebrow. These are the very people whose general health is not good, aged or extremely young or those who are deemed to have medical conditions which would allow the virus to take hold more easily. I seems to me that these would be the last people who should get the shot, because it's a crap shoot isn't it? They have to hope that they can somehow fortify themselves enough to give the antibodies the help they need to function against it, and if they can't, then what?
Basically my main reason for declining the flu shot is embodied in this snippet from Wikipedia:
As of October 2009, only 39 out of over 10,000 samples of 2009 pandemic H1N1 (swine) flu tested worldwide have shown resistance to Oseltamivir.
However, A study published in the 2009 June Issue of Nature Biotechnology emphasized the need for augmentation of oseltamivir (Tamiflu) stockpiles with additional antiviral drugs including zanamivir (Relenza) based on an evaluation of the performance of these drugs in the scenario that the 2009 H1N1 'Swine Flu' neuraminidase (NA) were to acquire the tamiflu-resistance mutation which is currently widespread in seasonal H1N1 strains.
Basically what that means is that the virus can in fact develop a resistance to the inoculation over time. Viruses are cunning that way. So if you do happen to get sick and it happens to be the resistant strain, getting the shot after the fact won't help you much. At best, you'll just stay sick for a lesser amount of time.
Apart from that, we are just making the viruses stronger by continually creating new shots for them. In most cases, people get the flu and live, and then develop immunities to getting that strain again. Why should we help the fucking bugs get stronger just because we don't want to miss a few days of work?
All of the above is just my layman's view of what's going on. I'm not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV. Likewise, I have my opinions and make my choices, and no one else has to do what I do if they don't want to. But here's a bit of information that can be proven, regarding the alleged 'outbreak' of swine flu in 1976. It seems like a bit of history repeating itself. Basically, it goes like this:
- in February, 1976, a soldier at Fort Dix reported feeling weak and tired. He died the following day. Twelve of his comrades also fell ill similarly and one other death occurred.
- investigation proved that the virus was 'closely related' to the one that reportedly killed up to 100 million people in 1918. However, this is questionable since the medical community at large admits that they didn't really know a heck of a lot about virii back then, not having all the cool equipment that they invented later. To date, they still don't know where or how the 1918 strain originated.
- evidence and documentation has shown that this virus was only detected between Jan. and Feb. of that year, and was confined to Fort Dix. However increased vigilence and research uncovered a geographically separate but similar strain of swine flu which they called H3N2, and this was seen throughout the US up until March.
- this sets the government into a tizzy and they start considering a program of mass innoculations in order to stave off a similar situation as 1918. Under pressure from public health officials, President Ford moves ahead on it.
- actual commercials aired at the time on US TV:
- from the start, the program is a fiasco, as many government initiatives can be. Delays and public relations mistakes confuse the issue. A few deaths occur as a result of something called Guillain-Barré syndrome, a paralyzing neuromuscular disorder. This syndrome is a rare side-effect of modern influenza vaccines, with an incidence of about one case per million vaccinations.
- Public outcry and panic as a result of the deaths ensue, and sway the general public away from such things as vaccinations in particular and government in general. By this time, over 48 million people in the US were inoculated. Nationwide monitoring revealed that just over 1000 people died from Guillain-Barré complications since the start of the campaign, and somewhere around 250 of those were directly attributed to the swine flu inoculation. The program was eventually halted due to the backlash.
So this is what we are in for, folks. Can you say this this is not bound to happen again? The fact of the matter is that people die from flu or complications of flu inoculations all the time. It's not uncommon. It's sad but not unprecedented.
This particular incidence of 1976 has caused a repercussion that lasts till this day, which is a distinct dividing line between pro- and anti-vaccination camps, as well as the general distrust of government-driven medical initiatives (many are screaming conspiracy! and some are stating that it's a poisonous toxin that is meant to reduce the population -- the extremists -- and this is a bad sign for people like Obama who is already the subject of intense scrutiny should this go wrong). We are seeing this now, with this new push for nationwide H1N1 inoculations and the banter within the social media realm both for and against as well as undecided and confused. Many people don't know what to think.
Fact is, we've been battling viruses for a long time, apparently, it never stops, but the human race is still here, and shows no signs of slowing its population growth, so I don't think we have anything to worry about for the time being. That's just my impression.
More to the point, have you noticed that no one is talking about the dreaded avian flu anymore? Or horse flu? Does anyone remember SARS? While I cannot comment on the relative importance or medical implications on any of those particular illnesses, I really don't need to. My point in writing this is that average people seem to be jumping from one implied threat to another with no consideration for facts or evidence, but fueled merely by the implied threat of global pandemic crisis. Is there any point to this? Naturally, the threat of a pandemic is always present, but so is the possibility that you could get run down in the street by a bus, or that a gamma ray burst in space could wipe out this entire solar system without so much as a warning. Anything is possible, but people in the medical community are working hard to control it, and I feel that people are just overreacting for some reason. Sure, be concerned, be diligent, but be realistic and don't panic until there is a reason to (Even then, panic won't help you). It's the same kind of thing that I saw after 9/11 when suddenly people didn't want to fly, or more absurdly, that they wouldn't get on the plane with anyone who looked like a terrorist, vis a vis, a brown man (Russell Peters points this out quite nicely in his standup).
Then there are those who are using the 'pandemic' keyword to cash in and take advantage of the ill-informed and naive. Like this person who is selling a mystery swine flu prevention plan for the low, low price of $7. Don't worry, he takes Amex. I have no idea what his report is saying, and I don't want to know. It reads like so many other scams I've seen before and if he really had the answer, why wouldn't he just tell us for free if he gave a shit? There are also scattered reports of medical offices and hospitals selling stuffed pigs in their shops to promote swine flu awareness. There are probably other more heinous infractions going on as well, I'm sure, because it seems there is money to be made from this, and humans are very good at exploiting people when they see people desperate for answers and solutions.
I could go on and on and on and on, but it's late and I've said all I want to say about this. It's really exhausting. Bottom line is, if you aren't sick, then don't worry about it. If you or someone you love is sick, then take them to the doctor and get them checked out. If you wanna get the shot, then by all means go for it. If you feel better keeping your kids home from school at some point, then okay. But for the love of Pete, keep your head about you and don't give into the surging cess pool of fear and hype about the swine flu. It is a real thing. It's just the marketing that's fake.
Death of the Remixer
After spending a great deal of time going through my 26,000+ mp3 collection, I'm saddened by the fact that there are no good remixers anymore.
Back in the 80's and 90s we had lots. Of course that was because remixing was still new and novel. Shep Pettibone is generally regarded as the godfather of remixing. Before then, dance versions were basically just longer versions of the original mix. He was the one that invented the idea of programming additional sequences and parts separate from what was already there. Others took up the reins when he faded from the scene.
Unfortunately he set in motion a movement that would eventually spin out of control. If you grew up on the 80's 12" singles and dance mixes like I did, and still follow those bands that were out back then and still are now, the Depeche Modes, the New Orders and so forth, you begin to see that the gap between original track and remixland become further and further apart.
Take Mode for example. for the last, oh, seven years or so, I have been hard pressed to find even one really good remix out of many in a single release. Instead, the long time fans are fed a steady supply of versions so far removed from the album version as to be unrecognizable. Weird blips, pops, bizzarre stuttering and dischordant effects that sometimes sound like mastering errors rather than intentionally done. Many remixes fade into the lo-fi realm, and many have no elements of the original track at all, contrary to the whole point, really.
Remixing began as a way to create an enhancement or accompanyment of the single version, wherein the remixer is taking the best parts of the song and integrating it into his vision, to make it playable for clubs. Now, the single version has become the afterthought in many cases, where a completely different song is created from scratch and the original material is added later, if at all.
Some people will never like remixes, and that's fine. But there are many who do, and at one point, single releases were created for the sake of the fans who enjoyed them. Now the remixes are made for the sake of the remixers themselves, and others of their ilk, not for the fans, per se. I'm not sure what the MO is for some of them; they aren't danceable, they mock the song it was supposed to be based on and many are just unlistenable.
As a producer, however unfamous or unknown I am, I always try to keep the original version of the song in mind when I attempt a remix, because otherwise there is no point. Mind you I am old school...
Having said that, there are a few remixers out there still that 'get it' and to name a few, I can think of Tiga, Peter Rauhofer, The Thin White Duke, Richard X, Gui Boratto, Roger Sanchez, Sasha and BT for a start. but gone are the days of shep Pettibone, Justin Strauss, Arthur Baker and william Orbit, et al.
I used to rush to the store to get the latest 12' or CD single of a favouite band, but since about the turn of the centruy it's been a crap shoot, since more and more remixes become less and less appealing since you never know if you ar epaying for something that you won't like. Add that to the advent of file sharing, and people wonder why there is so much pirating going on. When it comes to dance remixes of modern day, most of it is not worth paying for unless being a DJ is your trade, or you are a hard core collector.
Just my opinion.
Back in the 80's and 90s we had lots. Of course that was because remixing was still new and novel. Shep Pettibone is generally regarded as the godfather of remixing. Before then, dance versions were basically just longer versions of the original mix. He was the one that invented the idea of programming additional sequences and parts separate from what was already there. Others took up the reins when he faded from the scene.
Unfortunately he set in motion a movement that would eventually spin out of control. If you grew up on the 80's 12" singles and dance mixes like I did, and still follow those bands that were out back then and still are now, the Depeche Modes, the New Orders and so forth, you begin to see that the gap between original track and remixland become further and further apart.
Take Mode for example. for the last, oh, seven years or so, I have been hard pressed to find even one really good remix out of many in a single release. Instead, the long time fans are fed a steady supply of versions so far removed from the album version as to be unrecognizable. Weird blips, pops, bizzarre stuttering and dischordant effects that sometimes sound like mastering errors rather than intentionally done. Many remixes fade into the lo-fi realm, and many have no elements of the original track at all, contrary to the whole point, really.
Remixing began as a way to create an enhancement or accompanyment of the single version, wherein the remixer is taking the best parts of the song and integrating it into his vision, to make it playable for clubs. Now, the single version has become the afterthought in many cases, where a completely different song is created from scratch and the original material is added later, if at all.
Some people will never like remixes, and that's fine. But there are many who do, and at one point, single releases were created for the sake of the fans who enjoyed them. Now the remixes are made for the sake of the remixers themselves, and others of their ilk, not for the fans, per se. I'm not sure what the MO is for some of them; they aren't danceable, they mock the song it was supposed to be based on and many are just unlistenable.
As a producer, however unfamous or unknown I am, I always try to keep the original version of the song in mind when I attempt a remix, because otherwise there is no point. Mind you I am old school...
Having said that, there are a few remixers out there still that 'get it' and to name a few, I can think of Tiga, Peter Rauhofer, The Thin White Duke, Richard X, Gui Boratto, Roger Sanchez, Sasha and BT for a start. but gone are the days of shep Pettibone, Justin Strauss, Arthur Baker and william Orbit, et al.
I used to rush to the store to get the latest 12' or CD single of a favouite band, but since about the turn of the centruy it's been a crap shoot, since more and more remixes become less and less appealing since you never know if you ar epaying for something that you won't like. Add that to the advent of file sharing, and people wonder why there is so much pirating going on. When it comes to dance remixes of modern day, most of it is not worth paying for unless being a DJ is your trade, or you are a hard core collector.
Just my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
