Supermasterpiece.com
oh, by the way, this is "Shit Week" on their website! Every week has a theme.
be sure to check it out...
Supermasterpiece.com
07 January 2006
great website...
I have been ROTFL with this website for about a year now. [I don't know why I never put it in my links. It's there now.] Here is an example of a couple of the comics on it. They're recurring characters. Cedric & Gerard are my favorite. There are also great videos that these guys do. Always hilarious. Always irreverent. I love it.
Supermasterpiece.com
oh, by the way, this is "Shit Week" on their website! Every week has a theme.
be sure to check it out...
Supermasterpiece.com
Supermasterpiece.com
oh, by the way, this is "Shit Week" on their website! Every week has a theme.
be sure to check it out...
Supermasterpiece.com
06 January 2006
prada, gucci, oh, my...
"Men will always be men --
no matter where they are."
Henry Mudd
"Mudd's Women," Star Trek: The Original Series
...queer eye for the _____ guy?
05 January 2006
Iraq and Viet Nam...
Some parallels between Iraq and Viet Nam are prevalent. In Viet Nam the US went in to fight what they knew to be a conventional war. The North Vietnamese didn't do things by the "rules of war" as they were known in the 60's. They dug tunnels, sometimes miles and miles long; they transported materiel underground; they used tactics of deception and surprise; and they did things that were not conventionally "expected." The Viet Cong waged a "terrorist hit and run" war and they learned it from the very best: The American Revolutionaries!
The Colonists waged a guerrilla war that they learned from the Native Americans. Instead of standing out in the open in formation as the British and the rest of the "civilized" world fought wars at the time, they hid behind trees, they picked away at small pockets, and they made the decision where the right place was to have a major battle. In other words, they fought unconventionally for the norms of the day.
In Iraq the new unconventional method of warfare is really not that different than the American Revolutionaries or the Viet Cong. It is guerrila/terrorist war and does not follow what is thought of as the conventional type of warfare. The allied forces in Iraq are much like the British standing out in the middle of the field fighting for space - to keep a foothold.
Josh over at The Conjecturer in a post entitled "The Importance of Ideology" outlines an argument that the reason behind warfare today has shifted from one based on geopolitics [eg WWII] to ideology [fundamentalist Islamism].
With WWII, Hitler needed to expand the fatherland to maintain his idea of superiority because Germany was not limitless in resources. He also had the support of the German peoples due to his charismatic war machine. Japan followed the exact same thinking. Both fought to expand their sphere of influence in order to keep their civilization from demise. The Allies needed to stem the expansionistic plans of the two first, to stop the physical growth and second, to check the ideological growth of totalitarianism on the part of the Reich. By far, the first reason was tantamount. The second came from a hatred of dicatators.
Today, Al-Queda and all fundamentalist Islamists are fighting for the spread of everything Muslim and specifically Sharī'ah, Islamic law and government. They are not fighting for an expansion of land, per se. They are fighting a jihad to promote and expand what they believe is ordained by their god. What their god wants, in their minds, is a world based solely on his wants. They do not believe that anything secular promotes Sharī'ah.
As a result, the "insurgents" in Iraq, or whatever anyone wants to call them, have taken the next logical step in the ideological (r)evolution of warfare. They have taken it to the people or, rather, at the expense of the people with direct attacks on the populace, trying to wear the citizenry down, encouraging fear at all costs, turning the "liberators" into monsters, and making life more miserable than ever. Of course, WWII saw the beginning wholesale attacks on the general population rather than just on the military with the Blitz, Dresden and Hiroshima, the ultimate attack. Territory was gained either to stop or continue the onslaught or to end the war. Killing civilians has gone from "collatoral damage" to de riguer.
The Iraqi insurgents are not conducting war to gain territory. They want much more than that. The small attacks we are seeing now are meant to "wear down" rather than eliminate or conquer. This acts not only as a psychological deterrent but as a type of slow collective mind control. They want Islam to be the prevalent theocracy in the world.
Their rhetoric encompasses rebukes, condemnations, vilifications, and tirades against all things secular and non-Islamic. They assail what they believe to be against the will of Allah and Mohammad based on their own interpretation of the Koran, and they see all things Western and, especially, American as evil and to be eliminated. They are a small number of people trying to sway the course of a current that has taken over the world ever since WWII - to become all things Western.
The problem fundamental Islamists have is a dichotomy between what they want and what the people may want. The citizens of Iraq have repeatedly shown they want things Western. [The recent vote might be an indication of that.] But, how free do the people feel to express that?
I have often found in travels and in readings that everyone else in the world wants to be "ideally" like the US. The Soviets would pay exorbitant amounts of money for Levi's jeans. The French want the McDonald's and Pizza Huts. The Italian designers have extravagant homes in the US. What exactly is behind all of this? Do they want to become the US? Would they give up their history, customs and heritage to be mini-americans? I'm not sure this is what is behind the "adoption" of US mainstays. They're all an outward manisfestation. I don't believe it's what people are really after. They aspire to the premises and promises behind the semiotics of Western culture. The freedoms to design, create and possess these things.
For many decades, US politicians have talked and acted on exporting democracy. The mistake they've made too often is thinking, no matter how much they argue to the contrary, that only the US form of democracy should be used. I agree completely with Josh's idea that, What we should be pushing is liberalism.
The ideology of liberalism means that each individual is as or more important than the whole. Others see the promise of freedoms that we enjoy but don't see the struggles we endured or continue to have to keep it alive. They see change happening violently all around them where we change slowly, over time, in a cascade of dicussion, discourse and non-violent actions and elections. We have also had our John F. Kennedy's and Martin Luther King's who sacrificed the ultimate to keep us on the right track. The rest of the world also doesn't realize that we don't believe that what we have is perfect but actually alive and constantly changing.
Sadly, we, the West, sometimes take all of this for granted. We don't have to fear that someone is going to be on the bus with us wearing a bomb like in Isreal. We don't have to be careful that our funerals won't cause more death because we belong to the wrong faction or tribe like in Iraq. We don't have to worry that the "thought" police are going to ban our favorite weblog because it goes against the party line like in China. We don't actively particiate in the struggle liberalism is to maintain.
We have come a long way from Viet Nam being Enemy #1. We have become partners in many areas with mutual interests. Today, we purchase fruits and vegetables that are produced in Viet Nam. We wear clothing that is made in Viet Nam. We use electronics that are constructed in Viet Nam. Travel to Viet Nam is no longer prohibited. Young Vietnamese study in the United States. Thirty-five years ago no one could have imagined this.
My hope is that what is happening in Iraq now will have the same ending as Viet Nam. Can it happen? Only time will tell.
An old Hopi Indian adage says, "When hope is gone, life is over."
[My thanks to Josh for getting me thinking.]
The Colonists waged a guerrilla war that they learned from the Native Americans. Instead of standing out in the open in formation as the British and the rest of the "civilized" world fought wars at the time, they hid behind trees, they picked away at small pockets, and they made the decision where the right place was to have a major battle. In other words, they fought unconventionally for the norms of the day.
In Iraq the new unconventional method of warfare is really not that different than the American Revolutionaries or the Viet Cong. It is guerrila/terrorist war and does not follow what is thought of as the conventional type of warfare. The allied forces in Iraq are much like the British standing out in the middle of the field fighting for space - to keep a foothold.
Josh over at The Conjecturer in a post entitled "The Importance of Ideology" outlines an argument that the reason behind warfare today has shifted from one based on geopolitics [eg WWII] to ideology [fundamentalist Islamism].
With WWII, Hitler needed to expand the fatherland to maintain his idea of superiority because Germany was not limitless in resources. He also had the support of the German peoples due to his charismatic war machine. Japan followed the exact same thinking. Both fought to expand their sphere of influence in order to keep their civilization from demise. The Allies needed to stem the expansionistic plans of the two first, to stop the physical growth and second, to check the ideological growth of totalitarianism on the part of the Reich. By far, the first reason was tantamount. The second came from a hatred of dicatators.
Today, Al-Queda and all fundamentalist Islamists are fighting for the spread of everything Muslim and specifically Sharī'ah, Islamic law and government. They are not fighting for an expansion of land, per se. They are fighting a jihad to promote and expand what they believe is ordained by their god. What their god wants, in their minds, is a world based solely on his wants. They do not believe that anything secular promotes Sharī'ah.
As a result, the "insurgents" in Iraq, or whatever anyone wants to call them, have taken the next logical step in the ideological (r)evolution of warfare. They have taken it to the people or, rather, at the expense of the people with direct attacks on the populace, trying to wear the citizenry down, encouraging fear at all costs, turning the "liberators" into monsters, and making life more miserable than ever. Of course, WWII saw the beginning wholesale attacks on the general population rather than just on the military with the Blitz, Dresden and Hiroshima, the ultimate attack. Territory was gained either to stop or continue the onslaught or to end the war. Killing civilians has gone from "collatoral damage" to de riguer.
The Iraqi insurgents are not conducting war to gain territory. They want much more than that. The small attacks we are seeing now are meant to "wear down" rather than eliminate or conquer. This acts not only as a psychological deterrent but as a type of slow collective mind control. They want Islam to be the prevalent theocracy in the world.
Their rhetoric encompasses rebukes, condemnations, vilifications, and tirades against all things secular and non-Islamic. They assail what they believe to be against the will of Allah and Mohammad based on their own interpretation of the Koran, and they see all things Western and, especially, American as evil and to be eliminated. They are a small number of people trying to sway the course of a current that has taken over the world ever since WWII - to become all things Western.
The problem fundamental Islamists have is a dichotomy between what they want and what the people may want. The citizens of Iraq have repeatedly shown they want things Western. [The recent vote might be an indication of that.] But, how free do the people feel to express that?
I have often found in travels and in readings that everyone else in the world wants to be "ideally" like the US. The Soviets would pay exorbitant amounts of money for Levi's jeans. The French want the McDonald's and Pizza Huts. The Italian designers have extravagant homes in the US. What exactly is behind all of this? Do they want to become the US? Would they give up their history, customs and heritage to be mini-americans? I'm not sure this is what is behind the "adoption" of US mainstays. They're all an outward manisfestation. I don't believe it's what people are really after. They aspire to the premises and promises behind the semiotics of Western culture. The freedoms to design, create and possess these things.
For many decades, US politicians have talked and acted on exporting democracy. The mistake they've made too often is thinking, no matter how much they argue to the contrary, that only the US form of democracy should be used. I agree completely with Josh's idea that, What we should be pushing is liberalism.
The ideology of liberalism means that each individual is as or more important than the whole. Others see the promise of freedoms that we enjoy but don't see the struggles we endured or continue to have to keep it alive. They see change happening violently all around them where we change slowly, over time, in a cascade of dicussion, discourse and non-violent actions and elections. We have also had our John F. Kennedy's and Martin Luther King's who sacrificed the ultimate to keep us on the right track. The rest of the world also doesn't realize that we don't believe that what we have is perfect but actually alive and constantly changing.
Sadly, we, the West, sometimes take all of this for granted. We don't have to fear that someone is going to be on the bus with us wearing a bomb like in Isreal. We don't have to be careful that our funerals won't cause more death because we belong to the wrong faction or tribe like in Iraq. We don't have to worry that the "thought" police are going to ban our favorite weblog because it goes against the party line like in China. We don't actively particiate in the struggle liberalism is to maintain.
We have come a long way from Viet Nam being Enemy #1. We have become partners in many areas with mutual interests. Today, we purchase fruits and vegetables that are produced in Viet Nam. We wear clothing that is made in Viet Nam. We use electronics that are constructed in Viet Nam. Travel to Viet Nam is no longer prohibited. Young Vietnamese study in the United States. Thirty-five years ago no one could have imagined this.
My hope is that what is happening in Iraq now will have the same ending as Viet Nam. Can it happen? Only time will tell.
An old Hopi Indian adage says, "When hope is gone, life is over."
[My thanks to Josh for getting me thinking.]
04 January 2006
i can dream, can't i...
Which superhero are you?
My results:
You are Green Lantern
Click here to take the Superhero Personality Quiz
Thanks for the heads up from Weltanschauung
I certainly am glad it didn't turn out to be Supergirl or Wonder Woman! Though the latter may have fit during my heyday managing a bar!
I'm not sure about the Green Lantern though. He wasn't one of the comics I ever read, so I don't know very much about him. But I found information on Wikipedia about him. Interesting.
it could happen...
My results:
You are Green Lantern
| Hot-headed. You have strong will power and a good imagination.  |
Thanks for the heads up from Weltanschauung
I certainly am glad it didn't turn out to be Supergirl or Wonder Woman! Though the latter may have fit during my heyday managing a bar!
I'm not sure about the Green Lantern though. He wasn't one of the comics I ever read, so I don't know very much about him. But I found information on Wikipedia about him. Interesting.
it could happen...
03 January 2006
it was true then...
No greater harm can be done than breaking the covenant of trust between the President and the people; between the three branches of our government; and between the country and the world.
For to break that covenant of trust is to dissolve the mortar that binds the foundation stones of our freedom into a secure and solid edifice. And to break that covenant of trust by violating one's oath is to do grave damage to the rule of law among us.
That none of us is above the law is a bedrock principle of democracy. To erode that bedrock is to risk even further injustice. To erode that bedrock is to subscribe, to a "divine right of kings" theory of governance, in which those who govern are absolved from adhering to the basic moral standards to which the governed are accountable.
We must never tolerate one law for the Ruler, and another for the Ruled. If we do, we break faith with our ancestors from Bunker Hill, Lexington and Concord to Flanders Field, Normandy, Iwo Jima, Panmunjon, Saigon and Desert Storm.
Let us be clear: The vote that you are asked to cast is, in the final analysis, a vote about the rule of law.
The rule of law is one of the great achievements of our civilization. For the alternative to the rule of law is the rule of raw power. We here today are the heirs of three thousand years of history in which humanity slowly, painfully and at great cost, evolved a form of politics in which law, not brute force, is the arbiter of our public destinies.
We are the heirs of the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic law: a moral code for a free people who, having been liberated from bondage, saw in law a means to avoid falling back into the habit of slaves.
We are the heirs of Roman law: the first legal system by which peoples of different cultures, languages, races, and religions came to live together in a form of political community.
We are the heirs of the Magna Carta, by which the freeman of England began to break the arbitrary and unchecked power of royal absolutism.
We are the heirs of a long tradition of parliamentary development, in which the rule of law gradually came to replace royal prerogative as the means for governing a society of free men and women.
We are the heirs of 1776, and of an epic moment in human affairs when the Founders of this Republic pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor - sacred honor - to the defense of the rule of law.
We are the heirs of a tragic civil war, which vindicated the rule of law over the appetites of some for owning others.
We are the heirs of the 20th century's great struggles against totalitarianism, in which the rule of law was defended at immense cost against the worst tyrannies in human history. The "rule of law" is no pious aspiration from a civics textbook. The rule of law is what stands between all of us and the arbitrary exercise of power by the state. The rule of law is the safeguard of our liberties. The rule of law is what allows us to live our freedom in ways that honor the freedom of others while strengthening the common good. The rule of law is like a three legged stool: one leg is an honest Judge, the second leg is an ethical bar and the third is an enforceable oath. All three are indispensable in a truly democratic society.
REP. HENRY HYDE, January 16, 1999
Rep. Henry Hyde's (R-IL) closing argument on the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton.
Heads up from
Hullabaloo by digby, January 2, 2006
...and what is the difference now?
just asking...
For to break that covenant of trust is to dissolve the mortar that binds the foundation stones of our freedom into a secure and solid edifice. And to break that covenant of trust by violating one's oath is to do grave damage to the rule of law among us.
That none of us is above the law is a bedrock principle of democracy. To erode that bedrock is to risk even further injustice. To erode that bedrock is to subscribe, to a "divine right of kings" theory of governance, in which those who govern are absolved from adhering to the basic moral standards to which the governed are accountable.
We must never tolerate one law for the Ruler, and another for the Ruled. If we do, we break faith with our ancestors from Bunker Hill, Lexington and Concord to Flanders Field, Normandy, Iwo Jima, Panmunjon, Saigon and Desert Storm.
Let us be clear: The vote that you are asked to cast is, in the final analysis, a vote about the rule of law.
The rule of law is one of the great achievements of our civilization. For the alternative to the rule of law is the rule of raw power. We here today are the heirs of three thousand years of history in which humanity slowly, painfully and at great cost, evolved a form of politics in which law, not brute force, is the arbiter of our public destinies.
We are the heirs of the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic law: a moral code for a free people who, having been liberated from bondage, saw in law a means to avoid falling back into the habit of slaves.
We are the heirs of Roman law: the first legal system by which peoples of different cultures, languages, races, and religions came to live together in a form of political community.
We are the heirs of the Magna Carta, by which the freeman of England began to break the arbitrary and unchecked power of royal absolutism.
We are the heirs of a long tradition of parliamentary development, in which the rule of law gradually came to replace royal prerogative as the means for governing a society of free men and women.
We are the heirs of 1776, and of an epic moment in human affairs when the Founders of this Republic pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor - sacred honor - to the defense of the rule of law.
We are the heirs of a tragic civil war, which vindicated the rule of law over the appetites of some for owning others.
We are the heirs of the 20th century's great struggles against totalitarianism, in which the rule of law was defended at immense cost against the worst tyrannies in human history. The "rule of law" is no pious aspiration from a civics textbook. The rule of law is what stands between all of us and the arbitrary exercise of power by the state. The rule of law is the safeguard of our liberties. The rule of law is what allows us to live our freedom in ways that honor the freedom of others while strengthening the common good. The rule of law is like a three legged stool: one leg is an honest Judge, the second leg is an ethical bar and the third is an enforceable oath. All three are indispensable in a truly democratic society.
REP. HENRY HYDE, January 16, 1999
Rep. Henry Hyde's (R-IL) closing argument on the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton.
Heads up from
Hullabaloo by digby, January 2, 2006
...and what is the difference now?
just asking...
02 January 2006
a serious question...
Is there any way that Mr. Bush can extend his term of office, constitutionally or legally, short of military tactics?
just asking - curiously...
just asking - curiously...
28 December 2005
brokeback mountain...
I have not written anything about the movie Brokeback Mountain on purpose. I saw it two weeks ago when it first came out in Chicago. I also have read the short story - three times.
The reason I have not written is because I saw the movie with an audience that was 95-99% gay and I wanted to see it again with an audience that is at least 95% straight. I want to see the differences in reaction. [I thought I was going to do that tonight at a suburban theatre with a friend, but I have the plague. It's what happens when you spend Christmas with a 2-year old, 4-year old, and 5-year old. They carry diseases you thought you could never catch.]
My main reasons for wanting to do it this way are first to see if there is a major different overall reaction between the audiences and second to discover why the gay audience laughed at very inappropriate moments in the movie. They were powerfully sad moments and the laughter was not nervous laughter or surprise laughter as when something unexpected happens in a movie. They were amused at what was happening.
So, I decided to make some comments now while I have thoughts fresh in my mind and then post again after seeing it with a straight audience. It could also give me a different impression because I have spent a lot of time thinking about Brokeback Mountain.
My own personal reaction, though it is skewed because of my take on the short story, is extremely positive. I really, really didn't like the short story. Not even re-reading it the week before I saw the movie. I think it is very poorly written contrary to everyone else's thoughts and not deserving of the O'Henry award and another it received. It is actually too long for a short story and too short for a novella. It is lacking in a cohesive character development.
Before anyone comments that a short story can be limited because of its length, I have to offer up O'Henry's The Ransom of Red Chief. You know exactly what all the characters are like in that story. You feel their dilemmas, especially because of your attraction and repulsion for Red Chief! You can't have character development better than this.
Ennis Del Mar comes across as an ass in the Brokeback short story in my opinion. He knows what he wants; he doesn't know what he wants; he treats Jack like a jerk; he treats Jack as the most important thing in his life; he treats his wife like a nothing; his family is everything to him. Heath Ledger, in the movie, adds the depth and dimension lacking in the story. You know where the conflict is coming from within him
Jack Twist is not a gay man in the story but a victim of circumstance right until the very end. He knows what he wants and he knows he can't have it. He realizes that he can have no control over anyone but himself. In the movie, Jake Gyllenhall gives Jack the personality he needs.
Ennis and Jack become two very believeable characters.
These two actors give the movie, along with Ang Lee's direction and Larry McMurtry's writing, what is missing in the short story. The other characters are also developed better. It is important to know about their lives away from each other and of both of their wives. The written story doesn't give as much of an insight. Because of these things the movie is tremendously better than the story. Usually, it's the other way around: the story is better than the movie.
My personal reaction to the movie did not hit during or right after I saw the movie. It hit me three days later when the impact of what is in the movie suddenly connected with my own life. Boy, did it hit! I had a breakdown that lasted all the way to work in the car. [I don't know why but breakdowns always happen to me in the car.]
I saw the hopeless situation that the two men were in and didn't know of a way out of. I also saw that the hopelessness was of their own making. Jack has a way out, but Ennis stops it, or, rather, can't imagine it. Yes, it does have to do with the time that the story takes place [1963-83] but there are stories of people who took the route in spite of it. [I'm being vague on purpose for anyone who has not seen it yet. I DO recommend everyone see it to make their own decisions.]
As a consequence, I saw the hopeless situations I had put myself into by not realizing that I had innumerable possibilities. Though I now know of these possibillities, I still can put myself into the hopelessness. All of us can. Knowing something and action are two different things. Everyone knows how to lose weight - diet and exercise. However, knowing about it doesn't lose the weight. Actually doing it is a completely different thing.
The passage of time is very important to the story but it does not come across too well in the written version. The movie uses it to the fullest advantage. Just seeing the 80's Jack is to see how time has affected the two men. The aging on Ennis is done without make-up, as far as I can tell. Ledger's transformation in the movie is remarkable, especially since you know it is from all of the torment Ennis created for himself.
This is an extremely personal movie. It is a love story as the reviews and commentaries say. Everyone can identify with something in the movie, even if it is the scenery that is stupendous. [We have spent the last two vacations at the site of the filming, actually arriving right after the filming completed.]
As far as the sex, the AFA and Pat Robertson have nothing to worry about. The gay sex is practically non-existent. There is a lot of rolling around and liplocking, but only one time that there is no doubt what is going on. The sex that is prevalent is all straight boobie sex with Jack's and Ennis' wives. The gay audience had very little reaction to it. The AFA and Robertson should be shocked by this not the gay theme.
What had the greatest affect on me the most were the simple unspoken thoughts, the holding, the caressing, the cuddling and the quiet moments between Ennis and Jack. These moments spoke volumes about what was going on. It was not a sex movie; it was a loving, compassionate story between two men who knew what was important to them but couldn't act. These moments are what life, romance and uniting are all about, not the sex, and it is broadcast very well in my opinion.
Academy Awards? I leave that to the politicking in Hollywood. Brokeback Mountain is a movie that was ready to be made, to be seen, to be discussed and finally with which to be identified. No matter who you are. It is a step in the right direction.
A hint: there is a symbol mentioned more than once in the movie that is very important. It is also talked about in the short story. It is important because it answers a question that is not explored deeply in the short story but holds the crux to Ennis' actions. The film has a much better handle on it.
As an aside, I can't get over the music either. It all fit so beautifully and added to the movie at all the right moments and you weren't even aware of it. The album is wonderful.
The reason I have not written is because I saw the movie with an audience that was 95-99% gay and I wanted to see it again with an audience that is at least 95% straight. I want to see the differences in reaction. [I thought I was going to do that tonight at a suburban theatre with a friend, but I have the plague. It's what happens when you spend Christmas with a 2-year old, 4-year old, and 5-year old. They carry diseases you thought you could never catch.]
My main reasons for wanting to do it this way are first to see if there is a major different overall reaction between the audiences and second to discover why the gay audience laughed at very inappropriate moments in the movie. They were powerfully sad moments and the laughter was not nervous laughter or surprise laughter as when something unexpected happens in a movie. They were amused at what was happening.
So, I decided to make some comments now while I have thoughts fresh in my mind and then post again after seeing it with a straight audience. It could also give me a different impression because I have spent a lot of time thinking about Brokeback Mountain.
My own personal reaction, though it is skewed because of my take on the short story, is extremely positive. I really, really didn't like the short story. Not even re-reading it the week before I saw the movie. I think it is very poorly written contrary to everyone else's thoughts and not deserving of the O'Henry award and another it received. It is actually too long for a short story and too short for a novella. It is lacking in a cohesive character development.
Before anyone comments that a short story can be limited because of its length, I have to offer up O'Henry's The Ransom of Red Chief. You know exactly what all the characters are like in that story. You feel their dilemmas, especially because of your attraction and repulsion for Red Chief! You can't have character development better than this.
Ennis Del Mar comes across as an ass in the Brokeback short story in my opinion. He knows what he wants; he doesn't know what he wants; he treats Jack like a jerk; he treats Jack as the most important thing in his life; he treats his wife like a nothing; his family is everything to him. Heath Ledger, in the movie, adds the depth and dimension lacking in the story. You know where the conflict is coming from within him
Jack Twist is not a gay man in the story but a victim of circumstance right until the very end. He knows what he wants and he knows he can't have it. He realizes that he can have no control over anyone but himself. In the movie, Jake Gyllenhall gives Jack the personality he needs.
Ennis and Jack become two very believeable characters.
These two actors give the movie, along with Ang Lee's direction and Larry McMurtry's writing, what is missing in the short story. The other characters are also developed better. It is important to know about their lives away from each other and of both of their wives. The written story doesn't give as much of an insight. Because of these things the movie is tremendously better than the story. Usually, it's the other way around: the story is better than the movie.
My personal reaction to the movie did not hit during or right after I saw the movie. It hit me three days later when the impact of what is in the movie suddenly connected with my own life. Boy, did it hit! I had a breakdown that lasted all the way to work in the car. [I don't know why but breakdowns always happen to me in the car.]
I saw the hopeless situation that the two men were in and didn't know of a way out of. I also saw that the hopelessness was of their own making. Jack has a way out, but Ennis stops it, or, rather, can't imagine it. Yes, it does have to do with the time that the story takes place [1963-83] but there are stories of people who took the route in spite of it. [I'm being vague on purpose for anyone who has not seen it yet. I DO recommend everyone see it to make their own decisions.]
As a consequence, I saw the hopeless situations I had put myself into by not realizing that I had innumerable possibilities. Though I now know of these possibillities, I still can put myself into the hopelessness. All of us can. Knowing something and action are two different things. Everyone knows how to lose weight - diet and exercise. However, knowing about it doesn't lose the weight. Actually doing it is a completely different thing.
The passage of time is very important to the story but it does not come across too well in the written version. The movie uses it to the fullest advantage. Just seeing the 80's Jack is to see how time has affected the two men. The aging on Ennis is done without make-up, as far as I can tell. Ledger's transformation in the movie is remarkable, especially since you know it is from all of the torment Ennis created for himself.
This is an extremely personal movie. It is a love story as the reviews and commentaries say. Everyone can identify with something in the movie, even if it is the scenery that is stupendous. [We have spent the last two vacations at the site of the filming, actually arriving right after the filming completed.]
As far as the sex, the AFA and Pat Robertson have nothing to worry about. The gay sex is practically non-existent. There is a lot of rolling around and liplocking, but only one time that there is no doubt what is going on. The sex that is prevalent is all straight boobie sex with Jack's and Ennis' wives. The gay audience had very little reaction to it. The AFA and Robertson should be shocked by this not the gay theme.
What had the greatest affect on me the most were the simple unspoken thoughts, the holding, the caressing, the cuddling and the quiet moments between Ennis and Jack. These moments spoke volumes about what was going on. It was not a sex movie; it was a loving, compassionate story between two men who knew what was important to them but couldn't act. These moments are what life, romance and uniting are all about, not the sex, and it is broadcast very well in my opinion.
Academy Awards? I leave that to the politicking in Hollywood. Brokeback Mountain is a movie that was ready to be made, to be seen, to be discussed and finally with which to be identified. No matter who you are. It is a step in the right direction.
A hint: there is a symbol mentioned more than once in the movie that is very important. It is also talked about in the short story. It is important because it answers a question that is not explored deeply in the short story but holds the crux to Ennis' actions. The film has a much better handle on it.
As an aside, I can't get over the music either. It all fit so beautifully and added to the movie at all the right moments and you weren't even aware of it. The album is wonderful.
25 December 2005
Merry, merry...
Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus
Editorial Page, New York Sun, 1897
We take pleasure in answering thus prominently the communication below, expressing at the same time our great gratification that its faithful author is numbered among the friends of The Sun:
Dear Editor,
I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus. Papa says, "If you see it in The Sun, it's so." Please tell me the truth, is there a Santa Claus?
Virginia O'Hanlon
Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except what they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The external light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.
Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies. You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if you did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.
You tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived could tear apart. Only faith, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.
No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives and lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay 10 times 10,000 years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.
I really do believe that there is a Santa Claus. It makes no sense to believe in the president, the pope, or any of the other stories if you don't believe in Santa Claus. They hold no hope. Santa Claus is full of hope. As the native American Hopi adage goes, "When hope is gone life is over."
Lately, it sure seems like hope is going, if not yet gone. We are hit in the forehead daily with dismal news from around the world and in our country. People are hated just for being who they are. People are not trusted because of their familial background. People are dismissed because of who they love. People are diminished because of what they believe.
Usually, all of this is done in the name of some god. A god who is usually acknowledged as all-forgiving, all-loving, and all-enclusive. Believers of these gods spout off on beliefs and add their own, "Yes, but..." None of their gods have a "Yes, but..." in the theology. Righteousness is not an attribute of very many gods, but their followers are filled with it.
Santa Claus has no "Yes, but..." or righteousness. Santa Claus is hope and future. There is no prerequisite to believing in Santa Claus. No one has to swear to his "truth." No one has to belong to the "right" group. No one has to love the "correct" person. Everyone is the same.
These are some of the reasons why I, at the age of 58, believe in Santa Claus. He loves me for who I am just like he loves everyone for who they are - not what they are.
...merry, merry, merry, merry, merry, merry, merry, merry, merry, merry, merry, merry, merry, merry, merry, merry, merry!
Editorial Page, New York Sun, 1897
We take pleasure in answering thus prominently the communication below, expressing at the same time our great gratification that its faithful author is numbered among the friends of The Sun:
Dear Editor,
I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus. Papa says, "If you see it in The Sun, it's so." Please tell me the truth, is there a Santa Claus?
Virginia O'Hanlon
Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except what they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The external light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.
Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies. You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if you did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.
You tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived could tear apart. Only faith, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.
No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives and lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay 10 times 10,000 years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.
I really do believe that there is a Santa Claus. It makes no sense to believe in the president, the pope, or any of the other stories if you don't believe in Santa Claus. They hold no hope. Santa Claus is full of hope. As the native American Hopi adage goes, "When hope is gone life is over."
Lately, it sure seems like hope is going, if not yet gone. We are hit in the forehead daily with dismal news from around the world and in our country. People are hated just for being who they are. People are not trusted because of their familial background. People are dismissed because of who they love. People are diminished because of what they believe.
Usually, all of this is done in the name of some god. A god who is usually acknowledged as all-forgiving, all-loving, and all-enclusive. Believers of these gods spout off on beliefs and add their own, "Yes, but..." None of their gods have a "Yes, but..." in the theology. Righteousness is not an attribute of very many gods, but their followers are filled with it.
Santa Claus has no "Yes, but..." or righteousness. Santa Claus is hope and future. There is no prerequisite to believing in Santa Claus. No one has to swear to his "truth." No one has to belong to the "right" group. No one has to love the "correct" person. Everyone is the same.
These are some of the reasons why I, at the age of 58, believe in Santa Claus. He loves me for who I am just like he loves everyone for who they are - not what they are.
...merry, merry, merry, merry, merry, merry, merry, merry, merry, merry, merry, merry, merry, merry, merry, merry, merry!
24 December 2005
no right to complain...
George Carlin has it all right! He said that he hasn't voted in the last elections because, in his words, "They're all schmucks! All of them!" He says that he has the right to complain about what's going on in the country because he didn't vote.
Yet he hears everyone else complaining about the war, loss of privacy, the economy.... He says, "You don't have the right to complain. You voted for the assholes!"
I'm beginning to believe he's right. You might say, "I didn't vote for Bush. I voted for Kerry." That doesn't make any difference. You and I didn't work hard enough to keep the country safe.
Bush and his minions say everything that they are doing is to keep the country safe. I don't feel safe now that I know that they have been monitoring all communications. The scariest part is that they feel that they are perfectly right in doing everything they are doing.
What they are doing is destroying the Consitution! This man is now worse than Richard Nixon. He believes he's above the law. he believes that he has broad powers. He has betrayed the conservative right, the liberal left and eveyone in between the two.
The pictures of him wearing a crown were a joke. Now I'm not so sure.
Clinton just stained the carpet. Bush is spitting on the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the people of the United States.
Where are the cries for impeachment?
just asking...
Yet he hears everyone else complaining about the war, loss of privacy, the economy.... He says, "You don't have the right to complain. You voted for the assholes!"
I'm beginning to believe he's right. You might say, "I didn't vote for Bush. I voted for Kerry." That doesn't make any difference. You and I didn't work hard enough to keep the country safe.
Bush and his minions say everything that they are doing is to keep the country safe. I don't feel safe now that I know that they have been monitoring all communications. The scariest part is that they feel that they are perfectly right in doing everything they are doing.
What they are doing is destroying the Consitution! This man is now worse than Richard Nixon. He believes he's above the law. he believes that he has broad powers. He has betrayed the conservative right, the liberal left and eveyone in between the two.
The pictures of him wearing a crown were a joke. Now I'm not so sure.
Clinton just stained the carpet. Bush is spitting on the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the people of the United States.
Where are the cries for impeachment?
just asking...
22 December 2005
misproven intelligent design...
I have the definitive proof that intelligent design has absolutely no basis.
PUBERTY!
no one intelligent would ever have designed puberty.
think about it...
PUBERTY!
no one intelligent would ever have designed puberty.
think about it...
03 December 2005
30 November 2005
what's the surprise..?
From La Prensa, Managua, Nicaragua, 22 April 2005
Interview with Boff in Buenos Aires.
Boff: "He's a man that has no compassion." (Buenos Aires, EFE)
The Brasilian theologian Leonardo Boff thinks that the German Joseph Ratzinger is " a hard man and without compassion," and says he fears that after his consecration as Pope " an immense hell of hypocrisy will reign in the Church."
Boff, on whom the new Pope once imposed silence as a punishment, assured that the posture of Benedict 16 will be " a radicalized continuation" of the line of the deceased John Paul 2 against the use of contraceptives and " discrimination" against homosexuals and carriers of the AIDS virus.
Ratzinger is a man " without intellectual cordiality" with a posture that is " hard and at times without mercy." in dealing with " all this distant world of problems in which there is suffering and discrimination," the theologian declared to Radio Mitre in Buenos Aires. " I would not like it for this style to spread itself through the whole Church." Boff thinks that some of the positions of the new Pope will divide the Church. " I fear an immense hell of hypocrisy" he said. For this theologian, the appointment of Ratzinger " produces no hope, but instead fear and trembling in many sectors of the Church, especially among women, among those who are asking for the use of contraceptives,
among those living with AIDS, and among homosexuals." He said also that another point of conflict is in relations with the divorced. " Ratzinger has a very narrow conception of the Eucharist. He fights with them (the divorced), he distances them all. This is not to be a pastor. A pastor
accompanies these people, dries their tears, raises their hopes," he emphasized. " He must have a pastoral sense of mediation, of mercy. The Eucharist is not for saints and angels, it is for concrete persons who are sinners, that are open to meet the Lord," he added. Leonardo Boff has been one of the principle exponents of the Theology of Liberation, a liberal tendency that assumes Christian practice with a strong social coloration, and that forcefully struggles with the hierarchy and the Roman curia.
The same Ratzinger as chief of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was responsible for the silencing imposed on Boff and other representatives of Liberation Theology in Latin Ameria during the time of John Paul 2.
It was expected. JPII had no sense of intellectialization. He was purely a mystic-based scribe, out of touch with the modern world with yearnings for the Middle Ages where the church ran the entire show, kept the people in ignorance and the rulers in fear of hell and its minions, aka the soldiers of Christ. As proof, look at his support of Opus Dei and its founder.
BXVI is the intellectual but he was also evil and a Nazi. Doctrinaire has been a part of the German belief system long before Hitler. Everything is exact, precise and unwavering. Leonardo Boff has been ostracized by the church like all other "thinkers." The church does not like "thinkers." It only wants obedient children. As proof, look at the entire history of the German peoples. Just the words "I was only following orders" sends a chill down my spine.
These two ways of thinking, JPII and BXVI, can explain the problems the church has with North America.
Democracy is not in the best interest of a church that is run on authoritarian premise and relentless dogma. The sad thing is Jesus' thinking and ideals were not autocratic. They were more socialistic and communist. The revolution of his thoughts was that they came from the poor, the downtrodden, the infirmed, the cast offs.
Jesus was the founder and architect of Liberation Theology. The one line of thought that greatly questions the authority of the church by bringing up the original message of Jesus. The church does everything in its power to hide its true beginnings.
The latest proclamations on gay priests, usury [read anti-semitism], and the murder of innocents through refusing to fight AIDS in the one way that we know works, contraception, proves the back peddling is getting faster and more fervent.
So, again, what's the surprise..?
Interview with Boff in Buenos Aires.
Boff: "He's a man that has no compassion." (Buenos Aires, EFE)
The Brasilian theologian Leonardo Boff thinks that the German Joseph Ratzinger is " a hard man and without compassion," and says he fears that after his consecration as Pope " an immense hell of hypocrisy will reign in the Church."
Boff, on whom the new Pope once imposed silence as a punishment, assured that the posture of Benedict 16 will be " a radicalized continuation" of the line of the deceased John Paul 2 against the use of contraceptives and " discrimination" against homosexuals and carriers of the AIDS virus.
Ratzinger is a man " without intellectual cordiality" with a posture that is " hard and at times without mercy." in dealing with " all this distant world of problems in which there is suffering and discrimination," the theologian declared to Radio Mitre in Buenos Aires. " I would not like it for this style to spread itself through the whole Church." Boff thinks that some of the positions of the new Pope will divide the Church. " I fear an immense hell of hypocrisy" he said. For this theologian, the appointment of Ratzinger " produces no hope, but instead fear and trembling in many sectors of the Church, especially among women, among those who are asking for the use of contraceptives,
among those living with AIDS, and among homosexuals." He said also that another point of conflict is in relations with the divorced. " Ratzinger has a very narrow conception of the Eucharist. He fights with them (the divorced), he distances them all. This is not to be a pastor. A pastor
accompanies these people, dries their tears, raises their hopes," he emphasized. " He must have a pastoral sense of mediation, of mercy. The Eucharist is not for saints and angels, it is for concrete persons who are sinners, that are open to meet the Lord," he added. Leonardo Boff has been one of the principle exponents of the Theology of Liberation, a liberal tendency that assumes Christian practice with a strong social coloration, and that forcefully struggles with the hierarchy and the Roman curia.
The same Ratzinger as chief of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was responsible for the silencing imposed on Boff and other representatives of Liberation Theology in Latin Ameria during the time of John Paul 2.
It was expected. JPII had no sense of intellectialization. He was purely a mystic-based scribe, out of touch with the modern world with yearnings for the Middle Ages where the church ran the entire show, kept the people in ignorance and the rulers in fear of hell and its minions, aka the soldiers of Christ. As proof, look at his support of Opus Dei and its founder.
BXVI is the intellectual but he was also evil and a Nazi. Doctrinaire has been a part of the German belief system long before Hitler. Everything is exact, precise and unwavering. Leonardo Boff has been ostracized by the church like all other "thinkers." The church does not like "thinkers." It only wants obedient children. As proof, look at the entire history of the German peoples. Just the words "I was only following orders" sends a chill down my spine.
These two ways of thinking, JPII and BXVI, can explain the problems the church has with North America.
Democracy is not in the best interest of a church that is run on authoritarian premise and relentless dogma. The sad thing is Jesus' thinking and ideals were not autocratic. They were more socialistic and communist. The revolution of his thoughts was that they came from the poor, the downtrodden, the infirmed, the cast offs.
Jesus was the founder and architect of Liberation Theology. The one line of thought that greatly questions the authority of the church by bringing up the original message of Jesus. The church does everything in its power to hide its true beginnings.
The latest proclamations on gay priests, usury [read anti-semitism], and the murder of innocents through refusing to fight AIDS in the one way that we know works, contraception, proves the back peddling is getting faster and more fervent.
So, again, what's the surprise..?
13 November 2005
no control... part II
Other Countries Buying Our Debt
Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn) spoke in the House of the US debt of $1.2 trillion that the Bush government owes to foreign countries and banks who have been buying up our debt. (italics mine)
Money quote (pun intended):
President George W. Bush and the current administration have now borrowed more money from foreign govenments and banks than the previous 42 presidents combined." (bold number mine)
This means that we no longer own our country. It is owned by other governments and banks.
Now, in personal finance, when you owe money to a bank the loan has a date of expiration and a payment schedule. When you or I don't make the dates, guess what the bank does? Takes the collateral.
My first question is: What was put up as collateral?
My second question is: When are the payments due?
My third question is: Who's going to come up with the money for the payments?
My last question is:
...no control, or out of control?
Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn) spoke in the House of the US debt of $1.2 trillion that the Bush government owes to foreign countries and banks who have been buying up our debt. (italics mine)
Money quote (pun intended):
President George W. Bush and the current administration have now borrowed more money from foreign govenments and banks than the previous 42 presidents combined." (bold number mine)
This means that we no longer own our country. It is owned by other governments and banks.
Now, in personal finance, when you owe money to a bank the loan has a date of expiration and a payment schedule. When you or I don't make the dates, guess what the bank does? Takes the collateral.
My first question is: What was put up as collateral?
My second question is: When are the payments due?
My third question is: Who's going to come up with the money for the payments?
My last question is:
...no control, or out of control?
12 November 2005
fianally, a test worth taking...
This is the most logical of all tests I have ever seen. It is one that tells the truth and makes you laugh. It's better than a horoscope, the I Ching, and numerology all rolled into one. Try it, if you don't believe me.
What Muppet are you?
Here's who I am:
You are Kermit the Frog.
You are reliable, responsible and caring. And you have a habit of waving your arms about maniacally.
FAVORITE EXPRESSIONS:
"Hi ho!" "Yaaay!" and "Sheesh!"
FAVORITE MOVIE:
"How Green Was My Mother"
LAST BOOK READ:
"Surfin' the Webfoot: A Frog's Guide to the Internet"
HOBBIES:
Sitting in the swamp playing banjo.
QUOTE:
"Hmm, my banjo is wet."
I would rather have been Statler or Waldorf, the two old farts in the balcony, because they made the most sense, were sarcastic and cynical, and got to say whatever they wanted. Kermit is fine with me.
...it ain't easy bein' green!
What Muppet are you?
Here's who I am:
You are Kermit the Frog.
You are reliable, responsible and caring. And you have a habit of waving your arms about maniacally.
FAVORITE EXPRESSIONS:
"Hi ho!" "Yaaay!" and "Sheesh!"
FAVORITE MOVIE:
"How Green Was My Mother"
LAST BOOK READ:
"Surfin' the Webfoot: A Frog's Guide to the Internet"
HOBBIES:
Sitting in the swamp playing banjo.
QUOTE:
"Hmm, my banjo is wet."
I would rather have been Statler or Waldorf, the two old farts in the balcony, because they made the most sense, were sarcastic and cynical, and got to say whatever they wanted. Kermit is fine with me.
...it ain't easy bein' green!
02 November 2005
having your head...
In addition to the limits on write-offs for mortgage interest, the main elements of the proposals would abolish the alternative minimum tax, erase deductions for state and local income and property taxes, restrict tax-free employer-paid health insurance, and reduce the deductions that many taxpayers can claim for charitable donations.
"Panel Urges Big Cut in Mortgage Deduction", New York Times, Wednesday, November 2, 2005
In addition, The top tax rate for the wealthiest taxpayers would be lowered, to 30 percent in one alternative, and 33 percent in the other, from 35 percent now.
Mr. Bush, in theory if not in practice, put this panel together. Besides the changes mentioned above on personal income taxes, it recommends changes for business:
The plans would lower the top tax rate for businesses. One plan would let businesses write off the cost of investments in plants and machinery in the year of the cost, a system known as expensing, and would disallow writing off interest payments.
So, the vast majority of taxpayers, including Bush's base, get the shaft again. Yet, the wingnuts have time to scream about a Supreme Court appointment, same-sex marriage, and abortion rights that effect a small portion of the population. Will they scream that they are going to be poorer again?
More and more I believe that a straight forward tax rate on individuals, no matter what their income, and businesses, no matter what their size, would be the fairest system of all of them. It would generate more income for the the US; it would treat everyone the same; and there would be fewer complications.
Now, to finish the title of this post...
up your ass...
"Panel Urges Big Cut in Mortgage Deduction", New York Times, Wednesday, November 2, 2005
In addition, The top tax rate for the wealthiest taxpayers would be lowered, to 30 percent in one alternative, and 33 percent in the other, from 35 percent now.
Mr. Bush, in theory if not in practice, put this panel together. Besides the changes mentioned above on personal income taxes, it recommends changes for business:
The plans would lower the top tax rate for businesses. One plan would let businesses write off the cost of investments in plants and machinery in the year of the cost, a system known as expensing, and would disallow writing off interest payments.
So, the vast majority of taxpayers, including Bush's base, get the shaft again. Yet, the wingnuts have time to scream about a Supreme Court appointment, same-sex marriage, and abortion rights that effect a small portion of the population. Will they scream that they are going to be poorer again?
More and more I believe that a straight forward tax rate on individuals, no matter what their income, and businesses, no matter what their size, would be the fairest system of all of them. It would generate more income for the the US; it would treat everyone the same; and there would be fewer complications.
Now, to finish the title of this post...
up your ass...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)