There was another school shooting today. It certainly seems like there have been a lot of mass shootings lately. Off the top of my head, I can think of the Virginia Tech, Tuscon, Colorado Movie Theater, and this one all over the past 2-3 years. I was curious whether mass shootings are increasing in either number or severity over the past 10 years. It sure seems like it from the news, but perhaps it is just our society remembering the more recents ones, and forgetting that others occurred. So I decided to look it up, and by one standard there have been 62 mass killings in the United States since 1982.
This has a pretty good summary with a chart of some interesting factoids about mass shootings. I am not a psychiatrist, social worker, or sociologist, but here are a few of my observations about some common themes of the shootings:
1) most of them occur either at a school or work (current or former)
2) the assailant often commits suicide
3) they do not appear clustered in any particular part of the country
4) family members seem to be more often than not to be victims
I draw two conclusions from this - (1) The shooters are very angry (2) The shooters do not value their own lives.
I tried to see if there was a comprable analysis for similar killings in Europe. Here is one. Not being satisfied with this, I checked out wikipedia and hit the mother lode. This wiki lists all sorts of mass killings from around the world. While, it may be stated that school shootings are something new and horrible in our society and were absent in the days of yore, the worse school shooting in the United States happened in 1927.
Again, I perused the list and it seemed many of the killings were work, school, or family related and the erstwhile assailant again seemed to more often than not commit suicide.
I am dismayed by what I have found (but somewhat suspected) - mass killings follow a relatively basic pattern and are by no means new or limited to any particular area of the world.
Based on my "research" (using quotes because I'm chuckling at the thought of a second career as a sociologist), it appears some extremely small percentage of people when faced with an educational, professional or family crisis proverbially "snap". Instead of committing suicide immediately, for whatever reason they decide to take a bunch of people with them. Therefore, my overall conclusions are -
1. limiting access to firearms will not stop these killings. I believe the assailants use whatever means available to enact their rage.
2. it is impossible to "deter" these killings. the perpetrator does not intend to get away with the crime.
3. it is probably impossible to identify in 99% of the cases who might become an assailant.
which leads to the final and ultimate and perhaps unfortunate conclusions that -
Mass killings have been around for a long time and probably will be around for a long time going forward. It isn't guns, it isn't the lack of God, it isn't bad parenting, it isn't society, it isn't heavy metal, it isn't religious extremism. I wish it was one of those, because then at least we'd have something to look at it to make it stop - what a mass killing really is, is a very, very bad reaction to certain situations that seems universal to human nature. I doubt we can ever stop them. I suppose the only good news is in the grand scheme of the amount of deaths caused each year, it is probably still infinitely safer to be at an elementary school than cross the street in downtown Los Angeles.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Monday, November 26, 2012
Same Sex Marriage Part One Million
My occasional insomnia sometimes leads me to research controversial topics. In case anyone cares, you can get a good summary of the pro here, and the con here.
The various recent legal opinions are as follows:
Golinski v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Gill v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Perry v. Brown (Prop 8 case).
Windsor v. United States
The Supreme Court is supposedly conferencing to decide what if, any of these cases hear.
My "I got an A- in con law 8 years ago" opinion is as follows:
1. The Prop 8 case can easily be punted on Romer. It will have the effect of legalization same sex marriage in California, and that is it. I would be surprised if SCOTUS wastes time on this.
2. Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is probably a goner on any theory, but the easiest and least controversial way to adjudicate is hold states decide who is married and who is not because states have historically been the authority to determine what a marriage is. Some states have common law marriages, some don't, some you can marry your cousins and some you can't and so forth - a simple argument is the Feds have no business determining what the states can determine marriage to be.
3. However, the real issue is whether DOMA as a whole is unconstitutional and going to the next step whether any state ban on same sex marriage is constitutional. I believe it is clear both DOMA and any ban on same sex marriage fails the "strict scrutiny" or "intermediate scrutiny" test. However, I think there is some flimsy merit to the "rational basis" test, it is a pretty low bar to pass and I think some of the myriads of arguments about encouraging heterosexual couples to not have kids out of wedlock might pass muster. Judge Faler would apply one of the higher levels so it would be moot.
4. I am certain the liberal wing of SCOTUS is chomping at the bit to take the DOMA cases as is the conservative wing, both for opposite reasons. However, this puts CJ Roberts in a bind. Justice Kennedy who authored Romer and Lawrence is probably likely to find some part of DOMA unconstitutional. If he authors the opinion it could range from very narrow to overturning Section 3, or very broad overturning the entire thing. While, I don't agree with the CJ on much, he is unlike Scalia / Thomas intellectually honest. My guess is his preferred option is to let the states sort it out, however with the issue on his desk, he will probably join the majority and attempt to craft some sort of narrow plularity opinion holding homosexuals as a class are only entitled to rational basis review and on those grounds Section 3 is unconstitutional and then not rule on the rest and hope it doesn't come back for awhile. Then there will be a bunch of concurrences and dissents that will be entertaining but as binding as a tentative ruling on a relief stay motion. End result is really no binding precedent.
I don't envy CJ Roberts position. He is going to piss off a large, passionate group of people one way or the other. However, he already did this on the Obamacare case, so he probably doesn't care about that. I am certain he knows that same sex marriage is the way of the future, but he believes it should be resolved in the legislative process and not by the courts. Unforuntately, for him he will be forced to make a decision he doesn't think he should make.
5. This is my last point. The anti-same sex marriage offers a lot of reasons for their position ranging from tradition, procreation, saving the government money and encouraging two parent households. All of these arguments are largely devoid of support and/or legal merit. The only possible answer for their strident opposition to same sex marriage is they don't like gay people. Maybe they think gay people are just making a lifestyle choice (as an aside, who cares? People choose their religion and that gets strict scrutiny), or they are sinners who will burn in hell. People used to say the same things about inter-racial marriage. That got overturned in 1967. It is time to do the same.
P.S. - I find the Golinski matter even more fascinating as the illustrious Judge Koz apparently not only serves as the 9th Cir. Chief Judge, he also is in charge of administrative decisions, and in this case Golinski had to goto a lower court to get a writ of mandate on Judge Koz's administrative decision to give her benefits. I've said this many times, I heart Judge Koz for so many reasons I can't list here. Why he isn't on the Supreme Court is beyond me.
P.P.S - I should amend point 5 a bit. A lot of conservatives fully support same sex marriage ranging from Dick Cheney, Ted Olsen (counsel for Plaintiffs in Prop 8 case), and the troupe of conservative legal scholars here. Putting it bluntly only religious conservatives are against it, the same group holding Republicans back...coincidence??
P.P.P.S. - No discussion of con law issues is complete without a look to see what contracts professor / conservative legal guru, Tom Smith has to say on the topic. Sadly, I was unable to find anything on point. But for entertainment value, read his posts discounting Nate Silver pre-election and his later half-ass mea culpa. Almost as good as Dick Morris. He also quotes R.E.M. in a post, which means TS and I agree on at least one musical selection.
The various recent legal opinions are as follows:
Golinski v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Gill v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Perry v. Brown (Prop 8 case).
Windsor v. United States
The Supreme Court is supposedly conferencing to decide what if, any of these cases hear.
My "I got an A- in con law 8 years ago" opinion is as follows:
1. The Prop 8 case can easily be punted on Romer. It will have the effect of legalization same sex marriage in California, and that is it. I would be surprised if SCOTUS wastes time on this.
2. Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is probably a goner on any theory, but the easiest and least controversial way to adjudicate is hold states decide who is married and who is not because states have historically been the authority to determine what a marriage is. Some states have common law marriages, some don't, some you can marry your cousins and some you can't and so forth - a simple argument is the Feds have no business determining what the states can determine marriage to be.
3. However, the real issue is whether DOMA as a whole is unconstitutional and going to the next step whether any state ban on same sex marriage is constitutional. I believe it is clear both DOMA and any ban on same sex marriage fails the "strict scrutiny" or "intermediate scrutiny" test. However, I think there is some flimsy merit to the "rational basis" test, it is a pretty low bar to pass and I think some of the myriads of arguments about encouraging heterosexual couples to not have kids out of wedlock might pass muster. Judge Faler would apply one of the higher levels so it would be moot.
4. I am certain the liberal wing of SCOTUS is chomping at the bit to take the DOMA cases as is the conservative wing, both for opposite reasons. However, this puts CJ Roberts in a bind. Justice Kennedy who authored Romer and Lawrence is probably likely to find some part of DOMA unconstitutional. If he authors the opinion it could range from very narrow to overturning Section 3, or very broad overturning the entire thing. While, I don't agree with the CJ on much, he is unlike Scalia / Thomas intellectually honest. My guess is his preferred option is to let the states sort it out, however with the issue on his desk, he will probably join the majority and attempt to craft some sort of narrow plularity opinion holding homosexuals as a class are only entitled to rational basis review and on those grounds Section 3 is unconstitutional and then not rule on the rest and hope it doesn't come back for awhile. Then there will be a bunch of concurrences and dissents that will be entertaining but as binding as a tentative ruling on a relief stay motion. End result is really no binding precedent.
I don't envy CJ Roberts position. He is going to piss off a large, passionate group of people one way or the other. However, he already did this on the Obamacare case, so he probably doesn't care about that. I am certain he knows that same sex marriage is the way of the future, but he believes it should be resolved in the legislative process and not by the courts. Unforuntately, for him he will be forced to make a decision he doesn't think he should make.
5. This is my last point. The anti-same sex marriage offers a lot of reasons for their position ranging from tradition, procreation, saving the government money and encouraging two parent households. All of these arguments are largely devoid of support and/or legal merit. The only possible answer for their strident opposition to same sex marriage is they don't like gay people. Maybe they think gay people are just making a lifestyle choice (as an aside, who cares? People choose their religion and that gets strict scrutiny), or they are sinners who will burn in hell. People used to say the same things about inter-racial marriage. That got overturned in 1967. It is time to do the same.
P.S. - I find the Golinski matter even more fascinating as the illustrious Judge Koz apparently not only serves as the 9th Cir. Chief Judge, he also is in charge of administrative decisions, and in this case Golinski had to goto a lower court to get a writ of mandate on Judge Koz's administrative decision to give her benefits. I've said this many times, I heart Judge Koz for so many reasons I can't list here. Why he isn't on the Supreme Court is beyond me.
P.P.S - I should amend point 5 a bit. A lot of conservatives fully support same sex marriage ranging from Dick Cheney, Ted Olsen (counsel for Plaintiffs in Prop 8 case), and the troupe of conservative legal scholars here. Putting it bluntly only religious conservatives are against it, the same group holding Republicans back...coincidence??
P.P.P.S. - No discussion of con law issues is complete without a look to see what contracts professor / conservative legal guru, Tom Smith has to say on the topic. Sadly, I was unable to find anything on point. But for entertainment value, read his posts discounting Nate Silver pre-election and his later half-ass mea culpa. Almost as good as Dick Morris. He also quotes R.E.M. in a post, which means TS and I agree on at least one musical selection.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Why Evolution Matters
Marco Rubio, potential 2016 Republican President contender, gave an interview recently on a myriad of topics. A lot has been said about his response to how old the earth is. Also, a representative from Georgia who is also a medical doctor had some rather harsh things to say about evolution.
Rubio and Broun are not stupid or uninformed. Both of fully aware of evolutionary theory and the concepts behind it. And both seem to have rejected it on some level. I assume they believe in some variation on the Christian creation story. They are fully entitled to this belief. However, given that they clearly use logic and the scienific method in other aspects of their lives, it is disturbing they appear to discount the evidence on this point.
The problem with this is that when they encounter some evidence which contradicts some belief of theirs, they tend to look the other way. This is not a trait I would expect from any leader in the public or private sector. We elect people and pay CEOs the big bucks to solve problems. We expect them to use rational and systematic thinking. Or at least I do.
In short, I can't trust someone who ignores evidence of the existence of some particular trend, theory, or fact for any reason. Let me give you a hypothetical question - A CEO of a company has to make a decision how to invest some money. You are a shareholder of this company. Presumbably, you would want the CEO to make a decision which will in most likliehood increase the value of your shares. Would you prefer the CEO to justify his decision based on what the Bible says or would you prefer the CEO base his decision on research, logic, and the like? I think I know the answer to that.
I am not wedded to any particular answer to any problem. I am serious. The primary reason I vote democratic is because I see too many conservatives deny science, be it evolution, global warming, and the like. Another set of examples, to illustrate my point -
Example 1) Health Care in the United States. This is a complicated problem. Thankfully, to assist ourselves in addressing it, we have numerous other industrialized nations that have a variety of health care systems. I believe this would be the starting point for any analysis. However, it seems on the right, we start from this assumption that government run health care is inherently bad and inferior to our current system. So I ask conservatives why is our system superior? What evidence suggests this? What metrics should be used in the analysis?
Example 2) Budgets, Taxes, and the like. Liberals say raise taxes on the rich, conservatives say cut taxes on all. Sometimes defecits matter, sometimes they don't. Sometimes government spending is bad, sometimes it is good - see Defense spending. Again, there is a lot of data to help us in making the correct decision. We as a nation have had a long history of various tax rates. Other nations have had challenges with defecits and taxes. Both of these items should be the starting point for the discussion. Both liberals and conservatives fail to really use any evidence to support their views.
Example 3) Crime and Punishment. I perceive that most of America is of the "tough on crime" mentality such as long prison sentences, death penalty, "victims rights", no parole and a general attitude that more jails equal less crime. This topic is a little different than the previous two, as there is some hard to define moral concept i.e. a criminal must be punished, not to deter others or make society safer, but to "punish" the offender. The concept of punishment in my opinion is beyond anything that can be rationalized and everyone believes in punishment on some level.
Therefore if you strongly believe in punishing criminals the analysis really stops there. The debate then is about the severity of the punishment not about what creates the greatest benefit to society or any other putative objective of the criminal justice system.
I am in the definite minority in that I do not believe in punishment for punishments sake. I believe the primary if not sole objective of the criminal justice system is to reduce crime. Obviously, a big part of this is incarerating criminals for various periods of time. In my opinion, I think an individuals sentence should be of sufficient length to dissuade him from commiting future crimes and dissaude others from commiting crimes. If that has the side effect of punishing him, then so be it. However, these are just my opinions. I'd like to see the stats from various states and countries - which systems really reduce crime? Given my objective I am open to all options.
Ok, I kind of rambled at the end, but perhaps my crime and punishment stuff should be for another post. However, evolution matters because the scientific method matters and following logic only when you agree with it, is in fact illogical.
Rubio and Broun are not stupid or uninformed. Both of fully aware of evolutionary theory and the concepts behind it. And both seem to have rejected it on some level. I assume they believe in some variation on the Christian creation story. They are fully entitled to this belief. However, given that they clearly use logic and the scienific method in other aspects of their lives, it is disturbing they appear to discount the evidence on this point.
The problem with this is that when they encounter some evidence which contradicts some belief of theirs, they tend to look the other way. This is not a trait I would expect from any leader in the public or private sector. We elect people and pay CEOs the big bucks to solve problems. We expect them to use rational and systematic thinking. Or at least I do.
In short, I can't trust someone who ignores evidence of the existence of some particular trend, theory, or fact for any reason. Let me give you a hypothetical question - A CEO of a company has to make a decision how to invest some money. You are a shareholder of this company. Presumbably, you would want the CEO to make a decision which will in most likliehood increase the value of your shares. Would you prefer the CEO to justify his decision based on what the Bible says or would you prefer the CEO base his decision on research, logic, and the like? I think I know the answer to that.
I am not wedded to any particular answer to any problem. I am serious. The primary reason I vote democratic is because I see too many conservatives deny science, be it evolution, global warming, and the like. Another set of examples, to illustrate my point -
Example 1) Health Care in the United States. This is a complicated problem. Thankfully, to assist ourselves in addressing it, we have numerous other industrialized nations that have a variety of health care systems. I believe this would be the starting point for any analysis. However, it seems on the right, we start from this assumption that government run health care is inherently bad and inferior to our current system. So I ask conservatives why is our system superior? What evidence suggests this? What metrics should be used in the analysis?
Example 2) Budgets, Taxes, and the like. Liberals say raise taxes on the rich, conservatives say cut taxes on all. Sometimes defecits matter, sometimes they don't. Sometimes government spending is bad, sometimes it is good - see Defense spending. Again, there is a lot of data to help us in making the correct decision. We as a nation have had a long history of various tax rates. Other nations have had challenges with defecits and taxes. Both of these items should be the starting point for the discussion. Both liberals and conservatives fail to really use any evidence to support their views.
Example 3) Crime and Punishment. I perceive that most of America is of the "tough on crime" mentality such as long prison sentences, death penalty, "victims rights", no parole and a general attitude that more jails equal less crime. This topic is a little different than the previous two, as there is some hard to define moral concept i.e. a criminal must be punished, not to deter others or make society safer, but to "punish" the offender. The concept of punishment in my opinion is beyond anything that can be rationalized and everyone believes in punishment on some level.
Therefore if you strongly believe in punishing criminals the analysis really stops there. The debate then is about the severity of the punishment not about what creates the greatest benefit to society or any other putative objective of the criminal justice system.
I am in the definite minority in that I do not believe in punishment for punishments sake. I believe the primary if not sole objective of the criminal justice system is to reduce crime. Obviously, a big part of this is incarerating criminals for various periods of time. In my opinion, I think an individuals sentence should be of sufficient length to dissuade him from commiting future crimes and dissaude others from commiting crimes. If that has the side effect of punishing him, then so be it. However, these are just my opinions. I'd like to see the stats from various states and countries - which systems really reduce crime? Given my objective I am open to all options.
Ok, I kind of rambled at the end, but perhaps my crime and punishment stuff should be for another post. However, evolution matters because the scientific method matters and following logic only when you agree with it, is in fact illogical.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Benghazi
Fresh off a loss, the Republicans have decided that hyping up the Benghazi incident is the way to get back in the game. They should not waste their time.
Democrats spent years trying to bring down the Bush II presidency on various alleged foreign policy / security goofs including 9/11 preparedness, 9/11 initial reaction, and starting two wars for dubious reasons. The end result was Bush II was relatively easily re-elected in 2004. Bush II's repuation and political standing were finally eroded when the economy began to stall in 2006 and finally go into freefall in 2008. The fact that Saddam never had weapons of mass destriction nor planned the 9/11 attacks never really harmed his presidency at all.
Therefore, regardless of how incompetent Obama's administration was or wasn't and whether the attacks were done by terrorists or not, it doesn't matter. The reality is most Americans are unable to answer very basic questions about the world outside our borders. It doesn't matter whether you ask people in San Francisco or Kentucky, most would probably not be able to find Libya on a map, nor would they really care.
As uninformed as Sarah Palin is her misstatements about Africa being one country and the queen being the head of the UK governments are largely shared by a large portion of Americans. In fact, I'm convinced this little quiz I am putting below would be failed by 50% plus of Americans of all politcal stripes. Here it is, five questions and no wikipedia allowed.
1. Mitt Romney said Iran is Syria's only ally in the Arab World. What is incorrect about this statement?
a. Iran and Syria are not allies.
b. Syria is in fact allies with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt in addition to Iran.
c. Iranians are not Arabs
d. Mitt Romney did not say this
2. Who helped Apartheid era South Africa build a nuclear weapon?
a. Soviet Union
b. Pakistan
c. Israel
d. North Korea
3. On a per capita basis which country is closest to China?
a. Jamaica
b. Sweden
c. Germany
d. Canada
4. Where is Somalia?
a. West Africa
b. North Africa
c. South Africa
d. East Africa
5. Who is not in the "G-8"?
a. Japan
b. China
c. Russia
d. Italy
Enjoy.
Democrats spent years trying to bring down the Bush II presidency on various alleged foreign policy / security goofs including 9/11 preparedness, 9/11 initial reaction, and starting two wars for dubious reasons. The end result was Bush II was relatively easily re-elected in 2004. Bush II's repuation and political standing were finally eroded when the economy began to stall in 2006 and finally go into freefall in 2008. The fact that Saddam never had weapons of mass destriction nor planned the 9/11 attacks never really harmed his presidency at all.
Therefore, regardless of how incompetent Obama's administration was or wasn't and whether the attacks were done by terrorists or not, it doesn't matter. The reality is most Americans are unable to answer very basic questions about the world outside our borders. It doesn't matter whether you ask people in San Francisco or Kentucky, most would probably not be able to find Libya on a map, nor would they really care.
As uninformed as Sarah Palin is her misstatements about Africa being one country and the queen being the head of the UK governments are largely shared by a large portion of Americans. In fact, I'm convinced this little quiz I am putting below would be failed by 50% plus of Americans of all politcal stripes. Here it is, five questions and no wikipedia allowed.
1. Mitt Romney said Iran is Syria's only ally in the Arab World. What is incorrect about this statement?
a. Iran and Syria are not allies.
b. Syria is in fact allies with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt in addition to Iran.
c. Iranians are not Arabs
d. Mitt Romney did not say this
2. Who helped Apartheid era South Africa build a nuclear weapon?
a. Soviet Union
b. Pakistan
c. Israel
d. North Korea
3. On a per capita basis which country is closest to China?
a. Jamaica
b. Sweden
c. Germany
d. Canada
4. Where is Somalia?
a. West Africa
b. North Africa
c. South Africa
d. East Africa
5. Who is not in the "G-8"?
a. Japan
b. China
c. Russia
d. Italy
Enjoy.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
California Republican Platform
I found this document on the web. Not sure if it is from this year or not, but here is my commentary.
1. It refers to the United States having the finest health care system in the world.
2. It says bad things about gays in several different places.
3. It is semi-watered down on immigration compared to national Republican rhetoric.
4. It does not state global warming is fake, but makes a half-ass reference to "sound science".
5. It sort of says abortion is bad, but doesn't really press for laws outlawing it.
6. It states we need more prisons.
7. Public employee pensions are bad.
8. There is no mention of religion or god.
I'll help the Republican party out a bit and give them some insight on some tidbits on the above -
1. Stop saying the United States has the best health care system in the world UNLESS you can provide specific facts to support this assertion aside from vague statements about Canadians waiting in line for medical care and rich foreigners getting treated at the Mayo Clinic.
2. State that people should not be discriminated in any way, shape or form because of sexual orientation.
3. I'd eliminate the part about only having ballots in English. Great way to lose votes.
4. State global warming is real, man-made and make reference to seeking solutions using the free market and private enterprise to solve the problem. Promotes science and the free market. Conservatives should be all about this.
5. This position is probably not hurting it.
6. The entire crime and punishment section is a lot of tough talk. I'd produce some evidence to explain why being tough benefits us.
7. There is no doubt pensions are a big cost. Perhaps 401ks are the way to go. However, just because private industry fucked over their employees by transitioning to 401ks, is not necessarily evidence 401ks are in fact better for the workers in state government or elsewhere.
8. Republicans get a bad rap for being the party of right wing Christianity. I'd take a step further and affirmatively declare California is a secular society.
1. It refers to the United States having the finest health care system in the world.
2. It says bad things about gays in several different places.
3. It is semi-watered down on immigration compared to national Republican rhetoric.
4. It does not state global warming is fake, but makes a half-ass reference to "sound science".
5. It sort of says abortion is bad, but doesn't really press for laws outlawing it.
6. It states we need more prisons.
7. Public employee pensions are bad.
8. There is no mention of religion or god.
I'll help the Republican party out a bit and give them some insight on some tidbits on the above -
1. Stop saying the United States has the best health care system in the world UNLESS you can provide specific facts to support this assertion aside from vague statements about Canadians waiting in line for medical care and rich foreigners getting treated at the Mayo Clinic.
2. State that people should not be discriminated in any way, shape or form because of sexual orientation.
3. I'd eliminate the part about only having ballots in English. Great way to lose votes.
4. State global warming is real, man-made and make reference to seeking solutions using the free market and private enterprise to solve the problem. Promotes science and the free market. Conservatives should be all about this.
5. This position is probably not hurting it.
6. The entire crime and punishment section is a lot of tough talk. I'd produce some evidence to explain why being tough benefits us.
7. There is no doubt pensions are a big cost. Perhaps 401ks are the way to go. However, just because private industry fucked over their employees by transitioning to 401ks, is not necessarily evidence 401ks are in fact better for the workers in state government or elsewhere.
8. Republicans get a bad rap for being the party of right wing Christianity. I'd take a step further and affirmatively declare California is a secular society.
Blog Renamed
I finally figured out to rename the blog. It is impossible to limit my blogging to one topic. I just have too much to say i.e. I can't keep my mouth shut. Whatever. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)