An acquaintance of mine is a staunch supporter of the Labor Party because it is the party of the working class person. I almost laughed when he said that, because I have for some time seen it as an amalgam of unionism & socialism - an uneasy alliance. He, however, believes that, by definition, the Party is there to fight for the rights of the common worker, etc, & that the fight is far from over.
On the other side of the coin, the Liberal party is an uneasy alliance between the landed conservatives & the middle class greasy pole climbers.
This is where it gets interesting.
Those who support the Labor Party expect structure - bureaucracy - layers of society or administration, where they start at the bottom, & some lucky few can be hoisted to the heights of political recognition. This takes a party headquarters that works like a war office on the basis that unions are always heavily organised, & therefore the party structure has local & regional gatherings, etc, layer upon layer.
Labor party members believe in their structure. They believe that there needs to be structure. They believe in the public service because it's just another structure. They believe in a sizable government, because that's what it takes to run a country.
Those who support the Liberal Party don't like structure. They believe that it holds them (personally) back, oppresses them, stunts their growth as human beings, impinges on their freedom of expression. They believe that the party structure should be flat, & that government should be small.
As a consequence, they believe that they know better than any structure, because they are cleverer than the working class, & don't need structure to protect them from big bad business.
The independent thinking of a semi-educated middle class will always be its own downfall. Fundamentally, they don't know better, & they refuse to be taught.
I am reminded of C S Lewis' "Forbidden Planet" series, where one of the characters is writing for the newspapers. He only needs to write for papers that aim at the middle class. There's no point writing for the upper class, because they can't be told anything, & writing for the lower class won't be understood. The object was to write in such a way that the middle class was convinced that it was coming up with the ideas for itself, & then they would embrace the notion as their own.
This is the basis of shock-jocks, who are always right wing - they convince middle-class people of what they are thinking, encouraging a particular point of view (only), as if it was a ground-swell of awareness, rather than a version of broadcaster push-polling.
So, my acquaintance is correct - the Labor Party, in all its unionist bureaucracy is the party of the working class - the kind of party that workers can believe in, because it is the kind of structure that they need to believe in, producing the kind of government that they expect to make decisions for them.
30 October 2013
23 October 2013
Taxing Facts
Sometimes I think of myself as too conservative to be a socialist, or too left-wing to be liberal. Think of that what you will. My politics don't follow party lines, so I'm just being me.
I was thinking about taxes. I don't care how much I get taxed, because I see that as a part of society that I contribute to. I don't like the tax dollars being wasted, but can't see how it is. In fact, I suspect that the professionals in the public service do as good a job as they can.
Make of that what you will.
The fixed price for carbon, which became known as the Carbon Tax in Australia, was considered at first a step in the right direction for bringing down the production of carbon emissions by increasing the cost of producing said emissions.
In theory, this is a direct effect.
The reality is that the increased cost of producing the service that produced the emissions was passed directly on to the consumer, & the consumer was then compensated for the increase by the government that collected the revenue ... but there was no correlation between between the rise in one & the offset of the other.
Fundamentally, although the idea of taxing the polluters is a good one, it doesn't encourage anyone to do anything about it, but shifts the money around. I believe that there was an effect on carbon emissions, but this could be more about people looking for cheaper alternatives & lowering demand, rather than any polluter changing their ways.
To ensure that things really change, you need to encourage investment in, & therefore availability of, alternatives. You can also discourage investment in pollution.
The easiest way to do this is to change the way that people are taxed on the profits in carbon-emission-oriented industries.
That's radical. It's also time-consuming, because it requires an assessment at the polluters end to determine how profitable the carbon-emitting aspect of the business is, & therefore what tax should be applicable to the profit of the company.
This sounds too hard, but the theory goes that people (investors) will move away from those companies who aren't investing their energy into lower-emission alternatives.
Tax concessions in green energy (for example) companies' profits would redistribute that investment appropriately.
Rather than applying a tax to the primary producer, hitting the secondary investor would have less of an impact on the end user, & would seem to be less of an administrative nightmare because there are fewer people involved in the process overall.
The end user would simply see less availability of high-emission products, or else cheaper low-emission products. Do they need to care more than that?
Now you see my political dilemma - I'm fundamentally all for climate change awareness & taxation, but don't believe it's been done right so far.
I was thinking about taxes. I don't care how much I get taxed, because I see that as a part of society that I contribute to. I don't like the tax dollars being wasted, but can't see how it is. In fact, I suspect that the professionals in the public service do as good a job as they can.
Make of that what you will.
The fixed price for carbon, which became known as the Carbon Tax in Australia, was considered at first a step in the right direction for bringing down the production of carbon emissions by increasing the cost of producing said emissions.
In theory, this is a direct effect.
The reality is that the increased cost of producing the service that produced the emissions was passed directly on to the consumer, & the consumer was then compensated for the increase by the government that collected the revenue ... but there was no correlation between between the rise in one & the offset of the other.
Fundamentally, although the idea of taxing the polluters is a good one, it doesn't encourage anyone to do anything about it, but shifts the money around. I believe that there was an effect on carbon emissions, but this could be more about people looking for cheaper alternatives & lowering demand, rather than any polluter changing their ways.
To ensure that things really change, you need to encourage investment in, & therefore availability of, alternatives. You can also discourage investment in pollution.
The easiest way to do this is to change the way that people are taxed on the profits in carbon-emission-oriented industries.
That's radical. It's also time-consuming, because it requires an assessment at the polluters end to determine how profitable the carbon-emitting aspect of the business is, & therefore what tax should be applicable to the profit of the company.
This sounds too hard, but the theory goes that people (investors) will move away from those companies who aren't investing their energy into lower-emission alternatives.
Tax concessions in green energy (for example) companies' profits would redistribute that investment appropriately.
Rather than applying a tax to the primary producer, hitting the secondary investor would have less of an impact on the end user, & would seem to be less of an administrative nightmare because there are fewer people involved in the process overall.
The end user would simply see less availability of high-emission products, or else cheaper low-emission products. Do they need to care more than that?
Now you see my political dilemma - I'm fundamentally all for climate change awareness & taxation, but don't believe it's been done right so far.
16 October 2013
Government - What's it good for?
Here's a fundamental question, especially in a country that has just gone through elections - what does the parliament do?
You can see that the title I used above is different. At first, that's what I was thinking - "government" - but then I realised very quickly that I didn't mean those that don't get elected. There are public servants, appointments, etc, who get on with the job they were expected to perform (to some degree) with interference only from those that we, the people, elect.
What has evolved as a parliament has a strange history from the two conflicting needs to counsel the monarch & to ensure that the monarch doesn't overstep the rights of the people. Here, of course, "the people" were those with property & money, with things at stake.
As soon as you have reviewing the monarch, you end up with a monarch who is always trying to test their limits, & thus parliament becomes a shaggy dog.
Essentially, we can't get rid of the one we've got. It's also grown since its inception to take over the roles of many other political functionaries.
Direct monarchy doesn't happen in Australia, & even the Vice-Regal has very fine teeth. Therefore, the parliament isn't counselling anyone - it seems to be a self-perpetuating process of navel gazing, that is, reviewing itself.
This is all well & good if it had well-defined functions on which to base its review. It seems to be there just "to rule".
Other things that happened to Australia is the true separation of Church & State, & a theoretically independent Judiciary.
The latter is not quite true, because the laws (the Queen's Law, in fact) come from the parliament.
The interpretation is left to judges, whose experience is relied on thereafter - unless the parliament decides to do something about them as individuals.
There is no Church. There are some left-overs from a once-Anglican dominance (we talk of parishes within an electoral boundary), but there are now so many churches that there seems no relationship between any one of them & a given parliament.
This, to me, means two things - there is no social cohesion on questions of morality & ethics (or even debate), & the parliament thinks that it should step into the gap (heaven forbid!).
I think gay marriage is a classic example here. Why does the parliament decide on the social representation of people's relationships?
Can a church not recognise & perform gay marriage within its separate articles? How can a parliament then say what marriages that church can perform (or will be "recognised")?
Australia is a special case where de facto relationships are already recognised by the parliament (& the government) as equivalent to marriage.
How can the parliament interfere with a church in that way?
If a bunch of ordinary people elected to create laws (or review them) is given the power to determine what a church can do - or the judiciary - then they have too much power, & surely we should have some kind of review on that process itself to ensure that the parliament doesn't overstep the rights of the people (not just those whose support got them there).
This seems to be going around in circles - meet the new boss: same as the old boss.
You can see that the title I used above is different. At first, that's what I was thinking - "government" - but then I realised very quickly that I didn't mean those that don't get elected. There are public servants, appointments, etc, who get on with the job they were expected to perform (to some degree) with interference only from those that we, the people, elect.
What has evolved as a parliament has a strange history from the two conflicting needs to counsel the monarch & to ensure that the monarch doesn't overstep the rights of the people. Here, of course, "the people" were those with property & money, with things at stake.
As soon as you have reviewing the monarch, you end up with a monarch who is always trying to test their limits, & thus parliament becomes a shaggy dog.
Essentially, we can't get rid of the one we've got. It's also grown since its inception to take over the roles of many other political functionaries.
Direct monarchy doesn't happen in Australia, & even the Vice-Regal has very fine teeth. Therefore, the parliament isn't counselling anyone - it seems to be a self-perpetuating process of navel gazing, that is, reviewing itself.
This is all well & good if it had well-defined functions on which to base its review. It seems to be there just "to rule".
Other things that happened to Australia is the true separation of Church & State, & a theoretically independent Judiciary.
The latter is not quite true, because the laws (the Queen's Law, in fact) come from the parliament.
The interpretation is left to judges, whose experience is relied on thereafter - unless the parliament decides to do something about them as individuals.
There is no Church. There are some left-overs from a once-Anglican dominance (we talk of parishes within an electoral boundary), but there are now so many churches that there seems no relationship between any one of them & a given parliament.
This, to me, means two things - there is no social cohesion on questions of morality & ethics (or even debate), & the parliament thinks that it should step into the gap (heaven forbid!).
I think gay marriage is a classic example here. Why does the parliament decide on the social representation of people's relationships?
Can a church not recognise & perform gay marriage within its separate articles? How can a parliament then say what marriages that church can perform (or will be "recognised")?
Australia is a special case where de facto relationships are already recognised by the parliament (& the government) as equivalent to marriage.
How can the parliament interfere with a church in that way?
If a bunch of ordinary people elected to create laws (or review them) is given the power to determine what a church can do - or the judiciary - then they have too much power, & surely we should have some kind of review on that process itself to ensure that the parliament doesn't overstep the rights of the people (not just those whose support got them there).
This seems to be going around in circles - meet the new boss: same as the old boss.
28 September 2013
Not My Fault
Call me an arch-conservative (go on - be the first!), but I don't like whining liberals who complain about the world & how so many wrongs need to be righted.
This is, fundamentally, a revenge mentality - there is a wrong, someone needs to be punished, & then "we" will feel better.
It doesn't matter if we are talking about law, politics, or sport, people think they have a right to retribution in matters that don't actually concern them or directly affect them.
Let's do this with examples.
Law.
Although I'm all for victim impact statements & assessments, let's limit the range of victim defined. Perhaps I should say that we could leave it in the hands of professional victim assessors, rather than broadcasting "Hey, who wants to be a victim here?"
In a murder, there is generally one victim. They are dead. That's a big impact, but nothing can be done to change that.
No parent can get their child back. No parent should expect blood money. I say "expect" intentionally. Society may punish the perpetrator in such a way that it "profits", & these funds should then be pushed towards ameliorating the grief associated with the victim's loss, definitely.
However, buying a new house doesn't count.
The old Gaelic concept (& I'm sure it existed elsewhere) of blood money was to compensate a family for the loss of a worker - in the same way that you would compensate if you'd killed someone's cow. This is no longer relevant to our society, but we keep acting as though it is.
Don't even get me started on the precedence principles in the legal profession - where once judgement was by the King, then by his representatives, & now must look as consistent as if that was still the case.
I doubt if HM feels it is like that now.
Politics.
In a recent Australian election - & it's not the first time I've heard it - voters "punished" the government due to their unhappiness with various aspects of its organisation or its policies.
In what way did "punishing" a political party improve the lot of those voters?
Regardless of the opposition's policies, voting with revenge in mind is stupid.
I'm not even going to continue with how the new government then systematically removed any public servant or office with the taint of their predecessors.
Government is meant to be the stability that rules the country & keeps it from dissolving into anarchy & chaos.
I believe that seeking revenge on the temporarily unpopular former ruling tribe can lead only to further retribution down the track.
Sport.
This story seems to have legs for so many reasons. When one football team lost a game "because" the referees failed to notice an infringement by the other team, all hell broke loose.
Someone had to be held responsible for the tragedy - remember, this is football.
So, who perpetrated the "crime"? Obviously, the side that infringed, right?
I doubt that the infringement was intentional, but it also reflects on the reliance by that team on the referee to ensure that they didn't infringe - that is, they weren't clever enough to self-monitor.
The team that lost didn't notice until after the game, & only then protested that they had lost because of the unnoticed infringement, & that someone had to be held to account.
This is football! It's entertainment for the masses! Do we really need to "punish" someone for not imposing the rules perfectly? Does there need to be revenge?
Do we need to hold someone ultimately responsible for what is, at the base level, a small number of men trying to keep two teams of bigger angrier men from killing each other by pointing out the limits to which they can apply their aggression?
This is, fundamentally, a revenge mentality - there is a wrong, someone needs to be punished, & then "we" will feel better.
It doesn't matter if we are talking about law, politics, or sport, people think they have a right to retribution in matters that don't actually concern them or directly affect them.
Let's do this with examples.
Law.
Although I'm all for victim impact statements & assessments, let's limit the range of victim defined. Perhaps I should say that we could leave it in the hands of professional victim assessors, rather than broadcasting "Hey, who wants to be a victim here?"
In a murder, there is generally one victim. They are dead. That's a big impact, but nothing can be done to change that.
No parent can get their child back. No parent should expect blood money. I say "expect" intentionally. Society may punish the perpetrator in such a way that it "profits", & these funds should then be pushed towards ameliorating the grief associated with the victim's loss, definitely.
However, buying a new house doesn't count.
The old Gaelic concept (& I'm sure it existed elsewhere) of blood money was to compensate a family for the loss of a worker - in the same way that you would compensate if you'd killed someone's cow. This is no longer relevant to our society, but we keep acting as though it is.
Don't even get me started on the precedence principles in the legal profession - where once judgement was by the King, then by his representatives, & now must look as consistent as if that was still the case.
I doubt if HM feels it is like that now.
Politics.
In a recent Australian election - & it's not the first time I've heard it - voters "punished" the government due to their unhappiness with various aspects of its organisation or its policies.
In what way did "punishing" a political party improve the lot of those voters?
Regardless of the opposition's policies, voting with revenge in mind is stupid.
I'm not even going to continue with how the new government then systematically removed any public servant or office with the taint of their predecessors.
Government is meant to be the stability that rules the country & keeps it from dissolving into anarchy & chaos.
I believe that seeking revenge on the temporarily unpopular former ruling tribe can lead only to further retribution down the track.
Sport.
This story seems to have legs for so many reasons. When one football team lost a game "because" the referees failed to notice an infringement by the other team, all hell broke loose.
Someone had to be held responsible for the tragedy - remember, this is football.
So, who perpetrated the "crime"? Obviously, the side that infringed, right?
I doubt that the infringement was intentional, but it also reflects on the reliance by that team on the referee to ensure that they didn't infringe - that is, they weren't clever enough to self-monitor.
The team that lost didn't notice until after the game, & only then protested that they had lost because of the unnoticed infringement, & that someone had to be held to account.
This is football! It's entertainment for the masses! Do we really need to "punish" someone for not imposing the rules perfectly? Does there need to be revenge?
Do we need to hold someone ultimately responsible for what is, at the base level, a small number of men trying to keep two teams of bigger angrier men from killing each other by pointing out the limits to which they can apply their aggression?
16 September 2013
Schrodinger & the Numbers Game
A few things have popped into my head recently, & I've managed to put them together - diets, election platforms, & rugby league. Stay with me on this.
I believe that people (humanity) will focus on concrete things to try to corral the abstract. This is obvious pattern-matching behaviour which was wonderful when survival was a day-to-day struggle, but not so helpful now when we have a lot more structure in our existence - culturally & environmentally.
Case number 1: dieting.
Everyone "knows" that a lower calorie diet will help you lose weight. In general, this is true. For most people this is almost a given. For some, it just isn't.
Some seemingly low calorie foods just stop some people from losing weight due to biochemical interactions that make them store fat regardless, or don't let them burn it off - without going to extreme measures like starvation.
On the surface, this makes sense. However, if you play the numbers game - low calorie = weight loss - then you can quickly get to the point of "if I eat less meat, I can have a chocolate", which is probably not good, because the essential fats & proteins in meat is good for you (in small doses), but the chocolate isn't.
Same calories. Different outcome. No weight loss.
Don't play the calories. Look at the bigger (fatter) picture.
Case number 2: political campaigning.
Although it was riotously funny to hear Australia's Liberal Party claim that their platform was to "stop the boats" (boats of asylum seekers arriving via Indonesia) in a state election on the other side of the country (in NSW), having it echoed on a national level was no surprise - unless you noticed the opinion polls which suggested that almost no-one cared about that issue.
Because the Liberal Party had the platform, they made a case for it being on the agenda. You can't argue against something that doesn't exist. The policy stood. The party got kudos (without explaining how boats would be stopped).
Overall, nothing much changes.
The policy was irrelevant, but the electorate fell for it because the Liberal Party seemed so sure of themselves that it was important, therefore it must be. The Labor party did not make any such claims in their platform.
The Liberals played the numbers & won.
Case number 3: rugby league.
With finals afoot, every match becomes sudden death, & a bad refereeing decision can be a season-ender. Thus it has happened, unfortunately to a team two years in a row. The followed the rules - played the numbers - but the referee didn't. They should have won.
Rather, they should have been concentrating on the game, which they lost.
The referee is there to impose the rules. There is a common understanding of those rules between the teams & officials. It is for the officials to interpret them.
If they make a mistake, then it's between them & their higher powers - & no-one else.
Rules are there to minimise the chaos, & there is rarely divine retribution when a rule within a game is not followed - in fact, they have a whole set of rules around how to interpret breaking the rules - called penalties.
Look at the scoreboard. Suck it up, losers. Maybe next year.
Oops - the Schrodinger reference ... if you stop worrying about the cat, it won't enter into your head that it's probably dead. Get on with your life.
I believe that people (humanity) will focus on concrete things to try to corral the abstract. This is obvious pattern-matching behaviour which was wonderful when survival was a day-to-day struggle, but not so helpful now when we have a lot more structure in our existence - culturally & environmentally.
Case number 1: dieting.
Everyone "knows" that a lower calorie diet will help you lose weight. In general, this is true. For most people this is almost a given. For some, it just isn't.
Some seemingly low calorie foods just stop some people from losing weight due to biochemical interactions that make them store fat regardless, or don't let them burn it off - without going to extreme measures like starvation.
On the surface, this makes sense. However, if you play the numbers game - low calorie = weight loss - then you can quickly get to the point of "if I eat less meat, I can have a chocolate", which is probably not good, because the essential fats & proteins in meat is good for you (in small doses), but the chocolate isn't.
Same calories. Different outcome. No weight loss.
Don't play the calories. Look at the bigger (fatter) picture.
Case number 2: political campaigning.
Although it was riotously funny to hear Australia's Liberal Party claim that their platform was to "stop the boats" (boats of asylum seekers arriving via Indonesia) in a state election on the other side of the country (in NSW), having it echoed on a national level was no surprise - unless you noticed the opinion polls which suggested that almost no-one cared about that issue.
Because the Liberal Party had the platform, they made a case for it being on the agenda. You can't argue against something that doesn't exist. The policy stood. The party got kudos (without explaining how boats would be stopped).
Overall, nothing much changes.
The policy was irrelevant, but the electorate fell for it because the Liberal Party seemed so sure of themselves that it was important, therefore it must be. The Labor party did not make any such claims in their platform.
The Liberals played the numbers & won.
Case number 3: rugby league.
With finals afoot, every match becomes sudden death, & a bad refereeing decision can be a season-ender. Thus it has happened, unfortunately to a team two years in a row. The followed the rules - played the numbers - but the referee didn't. They should have won.
Rather, they should have been concentrating on the game, which they lost.
The referee is there to impose the rules. There is a common understanding of those rules between the teams & officials. It is for the officials to interpret them.
If they make a mistake, then it's between them & their higher powers - & no-one else.
Rules are there to minimise the chaos, & there is rarely divine retribution when a rule within a game is not followed - in fact, they have a whole set of rules around how to interpret breaking the rules - called penalties.
Look at the scoreboard. Suck it up, losers. Maybe next year.
Oops - the Schrodinger reference ... if you stop worrying about the cat, it won't enter into your head that it's probably dead. Get on with your life.
08 September 2013
Let Me Get This Straight
I was already totally over the idea of voting a week ago, & wanted my old favourite ads back on TV, but as it came closer to the day I was expected to tramp up to the community centre to prove I hadn't died since the last such event, I got to thinking about democracy (as you do).
A certain proportion of the people (hopefully more than half, even if indirectly) will get their wish & the people they support will get the chance to have the policies of the political party they (not the voters) belong to be presented before a parliament which also contains representatives of the lesser portion of the population (those representatives also mostly belonging to a political party that their supporters do not).
The object of the game is that those who have the majority can simply say "this is what we'll do", & those who don't say "I wish you wouldn't, but there's nothing I can do about it", & this goes on for a few years, & then the roles might reverse.
Sure, there's a lot more bitching & moaning, kicking & screaming, & other pre-schooler-esque entertainments along the way, all being televised to the bemused or frustrated populace by those who are now simply reporters (there are so few journalists left), scrambling to be "first" with the news that everyone read on Twitter hours before.
Fortunately, this process (electioneering, at least), only consumes a month or two, & we can get back to complaining about all politicians, rather than trying to defend some favoured ones as simply being misunderstood.
Life goes on. Democracy drains the energy of the soul & the public purse. Nothing really changes (except for the relative position of caricatures in cartoons).
It's interesting how much you can glean about a process that you've lost interest in. The only alternative is a radical shake up of the system; & let's face it, if there's one thing the voters don't like, it's actual change.
A certain proportion of the people (hopefully more than half, even if indirectly) will get their wish & the people they support will get the chance to have the policies of the political party they (not the voters) belong to be presented before a parliament which also contains representatives of the lesser portion of the population (those representatives also mostly belonging to a political party that their supporters do not).
The object of the game is that those who have the majority can simply say "this is what we'll do", & those who don't say "I wish you wouldn't, but there's nothing I can do about it", & this goes on for a few years, & then the roles might reverse.
Sure, there's a lot more bitching & moaning, kicking & screaming, & other pre-schooler-esque entertainments along the way, all being televised to the bemused or frustrated populace by those who are now simply reporters (there are so few journalists left), scrambling to be "first" with the news that everyone read on Twitter hours before.
Fortunately, this process (electioneering, at least), only consumes a month or two, & we can get back to complaining about all politicians, rather than trying to defend some favoured ones as simply being misunderstood.
Life goes on. Democracy drains the energy of the soul & the public purse. Nothing really changes (except for the relative position of caricatures in cartoons).
It's interesting how much you can glean about a process that you've lost interest in. The only alternative is a radical shake up of the system; & let's face it, if there's one thing the voters don't like, it's actual change.
21 August 2013
Educating the Educators
There was a kerfuffle in this great brown land over changes to funding in education to allow for a leveling of the playing field in high schools (in particular) to build a better platform for our children's future. This is an admirable sentiment - if a little pointless. We don't really want to give more opportunities to those who would never take them, but rather should allow for those who would take opportunities to be exposed to a better education. This is a different thing.
But what exactly are we teaching kids these days? The same as we've ever taught them. Teaching the same stuff in a better way doesn't improve their future - it restricts it. If you look at employability (rather than further education at University because high school just doesn't prepare young adults enough), there are things that come up again & again that we often think of as attributes rather than skills. I differentiate these because most people seem to think that attributes can't be taught.
The things that I look for in an employee are:
That way, we can become a much more cleverer country.
But what exactly are we teaching kids these days? The same as we've ever taught them. Teaching the same stuff in a better way doesn't improve their future - it restricts it. If you look at employability (rather than further education at University because high school just doesn't prepare young adults enough), there are things that come up again & again that we often think of as attributes rather than skills. I differentiate these because most people seem to think that attributes can't be taught.
The things that I look for in an employee are:
- Ability to think - this is creative thinking, not critical, which is taught too often
- Adaptability - change is the future
- Multi-tasking - being used to handling multiple things, & this isn't a gender thing
- Team skills - working in a team, leading a team, not working alone
- Pressure - we leave this to students who want to do well in the HSC, but all types of non-University roles come under pressure
- Soft skills in general - emotional intelligence, for example
That way, we can become a much more cleverer country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)