Salvete. Plaustrum20 here, your friendly political blogger.
Other than the second German view and the South Korean view (about both of which I am excited), I am especially happy about the view from Estonia! I have had an interest about Estonia for years now, so I dedicate this blog to the people of Estonia.
(This information is based upon the author's knowledge, the CIA World Factbook, and the Heritage Foundation's 2013 Index of Economic Freedom).
Eesti (Estonia's name in its native tongue) is an amazing nation. In the centuries before World War I, Estonia has been tossed around by the Swedes, Teutonic Knights, Germans, Danish, Russians, and many others. Even after they became a modern nation in the aftermath of World War I, they still managed to get taken over by the Germans and Russians. Yet after they led the way for the dissolution of the Soviet Union, they became a powerhouse of the Baltic factions. According to the CIA World Factbook, they have the second highest industrial growth rate of any nation in the world. According to the Heritage Foundation 2013 Index of Economic Freedom, it is the 13th most economically free nation in the world and is one of the only two nations in Europe without an enormous government spending problem or a government corruption problem (the other is the epitome of economic freedom, Switzerland).
So why do I like Estonia so much? It started when I was looking on the CIA World Factbook and came across Estonia's page. I really became a fan, however, when I had an obsession with Sweden (Yes, it is not usual for a Republican conservative to like Sweden; I'll post about it later; I'm one-fourth Swedish). As I continued research both about Sweden and about other similar countries, I realized that not only was Estonian history closely tied with Swedish history but that Estonia was one of the greatest nations on Earth.
So what do I like about Eesti? For one, it is small. If any nation had a success story in the past century, it would be Estonia. It is also fairly conservative (in the European sense, of course). Just look at the Index of Economic Freedom report or the home page of the popular Estonian political party Isamaa ja Res Publica Liit (abbreviated IRL; they also have a YouTube account).
Stay strong and stay free, Eesti! As the Estonians say, "Kui sa, mu isamaa!"
Thanks for viewing. Please subscribe or comment as you so please. My next blog will come soon.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Let's Go Right for the Big Topics: Gun Control Part 2
Salvete. Ready for Trygve Plaustrum's Part 2?
How does this relate to today's world? First off, our government is becoming far more tyrannical with each passing day, and the two things that seem to stop the government from seizing power are decency and the people (and the government's decency is quickly waning). The people have no power in the eyes of a tyrannical government unless the people are armed and are stronger than the tyrannical government. More arms that the people have are the better. Nowadays the United States also have an extremely large army, by far the largest in the known world. It would indeed be a challenge for the people to match such a large army, especially with just rifles, handguns, and shotguns. So yes, I do believe that American citizens should be able to own grenades, rockets, and whatever other arms that they can afford and get their hands on.
Thanks for viewing. Parts 3 and 4 will be on their way soon.
How does this relate to today's world? First off, our government is becoming far more tyrannical with each passing day, and the two things that seem to stop the government from seizing power are decency and the people (and the government's decency is quickly waning). The people have no power in the eyes of a tyrannical government unless the people are armed and are stronger than the tyrannical government. More arms that the people have are the better. Nowadays the United States also have an extremely large army, by far the largest in the known world. It would indeed be a challenge for the people to match such a large army, especially with just rifles, handguns, and shotguns. So yes, I do believe that American citizens should be able to own grenades, rockets, and whatever other arms that they can afford and get their hands on.
Thanks for viewing. Parts 3 and 4 will be on their way soon.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Smoking Bubbles
Salvete. Trygve Plaustrum here, with a total of 14 views.
So I was watching some commercials before a movie, and one of said commercials was from Tobacco Free California. It was the commercial set in an ideal world where people blew bubbles instead of cigarettes.
I do not believe that will happen anytime soon. First, one would have to find a way for the bubble solution to involve nicotine or some other similar addictive chemical and then mass produce the product specifically for smokers.
On second thought, just don't even go there. It would ruin the fun of blowing bubbles for the kids.
Hope you enjoyed my rant. I will post soon.
So I was watching some commercials before a movie, and one of said commercials was from Tobacco Free California. It was the commercial set in an ideal world where people blew bubbles instead of cigarettes.
I do not believe that will happen anytime soon. First, one would have to find a way for the bubble solution to involve nicotine or some other similar addictive chemical and then mass produce the product specifically for smokers.
On second thought, just don't even go there. It would ruin the fun of blowing bubbles for the kids.
Hope you enjoyed my rant. I will post soon.
Let's Go Right for the Big Topics: Gun Control Part 1
Salvete. I'm Trygve Plaustrum, here with some more conservative discussion.
Let me be honest. The closest thing that I have to a gun is an Airsoft rifle. I know very, very little about the mechanisms of rifles, handguns, or (Biden's favorite) shotguns. I do know that they are weapons designed to effectively injure or kill intruders (or potentially victims). That is all that I need to make this case.
Before I begin the bulk of my argument, I would like to state that the mass shootings of the past (most notably Sandy Hook) have little to no basis in this argument. Unfortunately, I must agree with Joseph Stalin when he says, "One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic" (quote taken from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/joseph_stalin.html). Honestly, in comparison to the hundreds if not thousands of deaths coming each day via smoking, cancer, alcohol, abortion, and car accidents, do massacres like Sandy Hook have any weight?
While I am on the topic of Sandy Hook,
To Whom It Concerns: Do not wave our children around in the argument for gun control (or, really, any argument). Both conservatives and liberals talk about our nation's children far too often. The argument is fallacious, overly emotional, and illogical. Should I care any more about a death because it was the death of a child? If a program is inefficient and corrupted, is it adoptable if suddenly children are involved? This generation will make its own decisions and hold its own opinions, the generation after this one will make its own decisions and hold its own opinions, et cetera. Our children will become adults someday and be able to look after themselves. Do not worry about our children. If the government leaves our children alone, our children will do just fine. Let us worry about this generation for now.
Our founding fathers probably never considered mass shootings like the one at Sandy Hook (apologies for not mentioning others like Columbine, but Sandy Hook was one of the more recent and well-known mass shootings). Our founding fathers installed the right to bear arms in the Constitution in order to make sure that no American administration would be without a leash. The Continental Army was underfunded, outnumbered, and divided, but the Continental Army particularly was outgunned. The Framers knew the importance of arms of any shape and size and knew that the more efficient and advanced the weapon was, the better (from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_washington.html, "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty teeth"). Knowing this, they ensured that each citizen would be able to have what they need to keep the government under control. Should a government become tyrannical, the American citizens could "pull a Jefferson," secede (hint), and potentially overthrow the government or establish a new one . Shootings were not even in the equation (although guns are definitely helpful in defense). Also, the United States government was very much against a large standing army. The people, then, were the ultimate American defense. Militia were critical in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Civil War.
Stay tuned for Part 2. Subscribe and have a nice day.
Let me be honest. The closest thing that I have to a gun is an Airsoft rifle. I know very, very little about the mechanisms of rifles, handguns, or (Biden's favorite) shotguns. I do know that they are weapons designed to effectively injure or kill intruders (or potentially victims). That is all that I need to make this case.
Before I begin the bulk of my argument, I would like to state that the mass shootings of the past (most notably Sandy Hook) have little to no basis in this argument. Unfortunately, I must agree with Joseph Stalin when he says, "One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic" (quote taken from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/joseph_stalin.html). Honestly, in comparison to the hundreds if not thousands of deaths coming each day via smoking, cancer, alcohol, abortion, and car accidents, do massacres like Sandy Hook have any weight?
While I am on the topic of Sandy Hook,
To Whom It Concerns: Do not wave our children around in the argument for gun control (or, really, any argument). Both conservatives and liberals talk about our nation's children far too often. The argument is fallacious, overly emotional, and illogical. Should I care any more about a death because it was the death of a child? If a program is inefficient and corrupted, is it adoptable if suddenly children are involved? This generation will make its own decisions and hold its own opinions, the generation after this one will make its own decisions and hold its own opinions, et cetera. Our children will become adults someday and be able to look after themselves. Do not worry about our children. If the government leaves our children alone, our children will do just fine. Let us worry about this generation for now.
Our founding fathers probably never considered mass shootings like the one at Sandy Hook (apologies for not mentioning others like Columbine, but Sandy Hook was one of the more recent and well-known mass shootings). Our founding fathers installed the right to bear arms in the Constitution in order to make sure that no American administration would be without a leash. The Continental Army was underfunded, outnumbered, and divided, but the Continental Army particularly was outgunned. The Framers knew the importance of arms of any shape and size and knew that the more efficient and advanced the weapon was, the better (from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_washington.html, "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty teeth"). Knowing this, they ensured that each citizen would be able to have what they need to keep the government under control. Should a government become tyrannical, the American citizens could "pull a Jefferson," secede (hint), and potentially overthrow the government or establish a new one . Shootings were not even in the equation (although guns are definitely helpful in defense). Also, the United States government was very much against a large standing army. The people, then, were the ultimate American defense. Militia were critical in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Civil War.
Stay tuned for Part 2. Subscribe and have a nice day.
Imperialism or Isolationism: Choose, America
Salvete. I am Trygve Plaustrum, the conservative, Republican, Christian, Californian, blogger.
Give me a superpower other than America and I will tell you whether or not the country is imperialist or isolationist. Russia is imperialist. China is isolationist. India is isolationist. Great Britain is imperialist. There are many other examples of these two categories around the world. America, however, is one of the few countries that is both imperialist and isolationist. America grew up isolationist and attempted to remain neutral and work on internal affairs but found out during the late 1800s and throughout the 1900s that it was hungry (perhaps even desperate) for power and influence. Thus America went to war with Spain and conquered her holdings, solidified bases in the Pacific, and became the main factor in two world wars and the Cold War.
After all this history, we still cannot decide an identity. We have recently gone to several useless wars with the Libyan, Egyptian, and Iraqi governments, two of which turned out to be extremely harmful to the United States. We send only a handful of soldiers to foreign soil, hope they do not get shot, and bring them home without our goals and missions being fulfilled. We are desperate for homemade industries but are addicted to trade with China. We are hesitant to let go of either of these two identities.
As an analogy, I will use one of my favorite video games (Sega's Empire: Total War) as an example. There are two main aspects of the game: an overarching campaign, and a real-time series of battles. The artificial intelligence for the games are notoriously bad, as is shown by my example. In real-time battles, the computer makes constant reactions to the player's every move. The result is a constant shift between positions depending on the deployment of the player's troops. The result is a messes-up jumble of soldiers that are easily hunted down and destroyed by the player's troops.
America cannot invest just a few troops into a war and leave most of the troops at home and assume that everything is going to be fine and that America will come out on top. Choose one identity and stick with it. There is nothing wrong with imperialism, nor is there anything wrong with isolationism. Imperialism allows America to have dominance and influence over the world, spreading prosperity and liberty to every inhabitant of our earth. Isolationism allows us to watch on the sidelines as other nations destroy themselves and prevents us from being corrupted by foreign, socialist-communist political influence from the outside. But we cannot have both. We will die otherwise.
Another analogy: Imagine that your friends have wagered money on a 50-50 bet. All of your friends have invested all of their gambling money onto this bet for one side or the other. You have more money than any of your friends, and you play to win. If you put half of your money on one side and half of your money on the other, you know you will lose. You must risk it all and place all of your money on one side or the other, or surely one of your friends will walk home the winner.
If we are imperialist: metaphorically, shoot to kill. We cannot fight a war, win it, and walk away shouting, "We won the war!" while our enemies come back and nullify everything for which we have fought. When we come into a country, we must come into the country to stay. We must stay until well after the war is over, until not only every scrap of resistance is taken care of in one form or another but also until American culture, business, and values are implanted firmly into the country. Only then can we truly say that our job is done. It would not hurt to seize territories for our own. Territories that are rich in oil, that are of some economic or political use to us, or that are just generally great regions to have should be incorporated (or perhaps even annexed) into the United States.
If we are isolationist: cut off any and all ties. Pay off any foreign debt or declare it nullified. If we look irresponsible, so be it; we were irresponsible for having such a large debt in the first place. If we go to war, so be it. It would be a defensive war, and we are more powerful than our enemies as it is. Raise tariffs and lower income taxes. Tariffs would make us less reliant on foreign trade, but income taxes are simply stumbling blocks for the common man. Build a military. If we are on our own, we better make sure that we can handle being on our own. And please make sure that everyone is well armed (hint for next topic). Use our natural resources. Yes, this does mean oil, lumber, anything that is in our boundaries. Otherwise, we are reliant on foreign countries. Only then will we be free from globalization.
Choose one. Discard the other. Prosper.
Thanks for viewing. Please subscribe. I shall be working on the other shortly. I am thinking about writing a video game blog. Opinions are welcome in the comments.
Give me a superpower other than America and I will tell you whether or not the country is imperialist or isolationist. Russia is imperialist. China is isolationist. India is isolationist. Great Britain is imperialist. There are many other examples of these two categories around the world. America, however, is one of the few countries that is both imperialist and isolationist. America grew up isolationist and attempted to remain neutral and work on internal affairs but found out during the late 1800s and throughout the 1900s that it was hungry (perhaps even desperate) for power and influence. Thus America went to war with Spain and conquered her holdings, solidified bases in the Pacific, and became the main factor in two world wars and the Cold War.
After all this history, we still cannot decide an identity. We have recently gone to several useless wars with the Libyan, Egyptian, and Iraqi governments, two of which turned out to be extremely harmful to the United States. We send only a handful of soldiers to foreign soil, hope they do not get shot, and bring them home without our goals and missions being fulfilled. We are desperate for homemade industries but are addicted to trade with China. We are hesitant to let go of either of these two identities.
As an analogy, I will use one of my favorite video games (Sega's Empire: Total War) as an example. There are two main aspects of the game: an overarching campaign, and a real-time series of battles. The artificial intelligence for the games are notoriously bad, as is shown by my example. In real-time battles, the computer makes constant reactions to the player's every move. The result is a constant shift between positions depending on the deployment of the player's troops. The result is a messes-up jumble of soldiers that are easily hunted down and destroyed by the player's troops.
America cannot invest just a few troops into a war and leave most of the troops at home and assume that everything is going to be fine and that America will come out on top. Choose one identity and stick with it. There is nothing wrong with imperialism, nor is there anything wrong with isolationism. Imperialism allows America to have dominance and influence over the world, spreading prosperity and liberty to every inhabitant of our earth. Isolationism allows us to watch on the sidelines as other nations destroy themselves and prevents us from being corrupted by foreign, socialist-communist political influence from the outside. But we cannot have both. We will die otherwise.
Another analogy: Imagine that your friends have wagered money on a 50-50 bet. All of your friends have invested all of their gambling money onto this bet for one side or the other. You have more money than any of your friends, and you play to win. If you put half of your money on one side and half of your money on the other, you know you will lose. You must risk it all and place all of your money on one side or the other, or surely one of your friends will walk home the winner.
If we are imperialist: metaphorically, shoot to kill. We cannot fight a war, win it, and walk away shouting, "We won the war!" while our enemies come back and nullify everything for which we have fought. When we come into a country, we must come into the country to stay. We must stay until well after the war is over, until not only every scrap of resistance is taken care of in one form or another but also until American culture, business, and values are implanted firmly into the country. Only then can we truly say that our job is done. It would not hurt to seize territories for our own. Territories that are rich in oil, that are of some economic or political use to us, or that are just generally great regions to have should be incorporated (or perhaps even annexed) into the United States.
If we are isolationist: cut off any and all ties. Pay off any foreign debt or declare it nullified. If we look irresponsible, so be it; we were irresponsible for having such a large debt in the first place. If we go to war, so be it. It would be a defensive war, and we are more powerful than our enemies as it is. Raise tariffs and lower income taxes. Tariffs would make us less reliant on foreign trade, but income taxes are simply stumbling blocks for the common man. Build a military. If we are on our own, we better make sure that we can handle being on our own. And please make sure that everyone is well armed (hint for next topic). Use our natural resources. Yes, this does mean oil, lumber, anything that is in our boundaries. Otherwise, we are reliant on foreign countries. Only then will we be free from globalization.
Choose one. Discard the other. Prosper.
Thanks for viewing. Please subscribe. I shall be working on the other shortly. I am thinking about writing a video game blog. Opinions are welcome in the comments.
Interrupting TED Talks
Salvete. I am Trygve Plaustrum, your friendly political blogger from the conservative part of California.
Not that anyone is following me every day, but apologies for not writing yesterday. I was at a theater internship for 11 whole hours. So, to make it up, I will be putting up three posts today.
First off, yesterday I nearly interrupted a TED meeting. For those of you who do not know what TED talks are, they are based off of lectures and speeches from the most brilliant minds in the country, if not the world. Said people come to a specific hall or stage in front of a large crowd to share their ideas or knowledge.
In an attempt to look for an available chair, I opened the door to my internship's college's Performing Arts Center. I found a couple techs drastically motioning for me to close the door. I did. That was it. It was nothing big in particular.
Later, I thought about analyzing the TED talk that I had accidentally walked into, but I could not find the video. Apparently some TED talks are posted long after the lecture is given.
Anyway, have fun and enjoy the next post.
Not that anyone is following me every day, but apologies for not writing yesterday. I was at a theater internship for 11 whole hours. So, to make it up, I will be putting up three posts today.
First off, yesterday I nearly interrupted a TED meeting. For those of you who do not know what TED talks are, they are based off of lectures and speeches from the most brilliant minds in the country, if not the world. Said people come to a specific hall or stage in front of a large crowd to share their ideas or knowledge.
In an attempt to look for an available chair, I opened the door to my internship's college's Performing Arts Center. I found a couple techs drastically motioning for me to close the door. I did. That was it. It was nothing big in particular.
Later, I thought about analyzing the TED talk that I had accidentally walked into, but I could not find the video. Apparently some TED talks are posted long after the lecture is given.
Anyway, have fun and enjoy the next post.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Billboard
Salvete. I have something quick that I wanted to share with you. As I was driving, I saw a billboard promoted by Fatherhood.gov that said something along the lines of, "Take Time to Be a Dad Today"
with images of characters from the movie Despicable Me.
Really? Is there no better use for taxpayer dollars? Are there that many fathers that are going to change their lives or even their schedule just by looking at that billboard?
Anyway, I am glad to see viewers from Germany and Poland watch Plaustrum20. Have a nice day, and I hope to post again soon.
with images of characters from the movie Despicable Me.
Really? Is there no better use for taxpayer dollars? Are there that many fathers that are going to change their lives or even their schedule just by looking at that billboard?
Anyway, I am glad to see viewers from Germany and Poland watch Plaustrum20. Have a nice day, and I hope to post again soon.
Big Government and Big Business
Salvete. I am Trygve Plaustrum, the conservative political blogger from California, and I look forward to voicing my opinion on this blog.
Today's topic is big government versus big business. Buy in large, liberals are strictly opposed to big business and ally with big government, while conservatives are strictly opposed to big government and ally with big business. Each side believes that their opponent is bigger and needs to be brought down.
So I was thinking the other day about big government and big business and I thought to myself, "Big government by its very definition must be greater than big business." No matter how small the government of a country is, it is still capable of bringing down business through regulating procedures or products, outlawing said items, and, at extreme cases, arresting the leaders of the business and directly seizing the business. When a business is able to counter these assaults by the government and become greater than the government, big business would not be greater than the government. Big business would be the government. At this point the debate between big business and big government is obsolete.
In America, I personally believe that big government is far greater than big business. The American people have already seen the United States government take over businesses (General Motors), enact and enforce regulations, and tax corporations. The United States government has authority. Big business does not. The United States government has a military. Big business does not. The United States government can enact laws and has the final say in interpreting them. Big business cannot and does not, respectively.
Besides, governments often owe little to no allegiance to its people. Dictatorships, for example, do not care about the plights of their people. Businesses, however, must appeal to a consumer base in order to make a profit and survive. Very often this consumer base is ordinary citizens, either in a country or around the world. We see in the American government how unelected officials are gaining more and more power.
So my opinion is that the American people should tackle big government first and perhaps big business later. Big government is the problem as well as a source of power in America. Limiting big government would ensure that power is kept at a minimum while ensuring that big business will still be limited as well. Big government must be stopped before it becomes unstoppable.
Thanks for reading. I am excited to see four views for my blog, including one from Saudi Arabia. I hope to write another blog soon. Have a nice day.
Today's topic is big government versus big business. Buy in large, liberals are strictly opposed to big business and ally with big government, while conservatives are strictly opposed to big government and ally with big business. Each side believes that their opponent is bigger and needs to be brought down.
So I was thinking the other day about big government and big business and I thought to myself, "Big government by its very definition must be greater than big business." No matter how small the government of a country is, it is still capable of bringing down business through regulating procedures or products, outlawing said items, and, at extreme cases, arresting the leaders of the business and directly seizing the business. When a business is able to counter these assaults by the government and become greater than the government, big business would not be greater than the government. Big business would be the government. At this point the debate between big business and big government is obsolete.
In America, I personally believe that big government is far greater than big business. The American people have already seen the United States government take over businesses (General Motors), enact and enforce regulations, and tax corporations. The United States government has authority. Big business does not. The United States government has a military. Big business does not. The United States government can enact laws and has the final say in interpreting them. Big business cannot and does not, respectively.
Besides, governments often owe little to no allegiance to its people. Dictatorships, for example, do not care about the plights of their people. Businesses, however, must appeal to a consumer base in order to make a profit and survive. Very often this consumer base is ordinary citizens, either in a country or around the world. We see in the American government how unelected officials are gaining more and more power.
So my opinion is that the American people should tackle big government first and perhaps big business later. Big government is the problem as well as a source of power in America. Limiting big government would ensure that power is kept at a minimum while ensuring that big business will still be limited as well. Big government must be stopped before it becomes unstoppable.
Thanks for reading. I am excited to see four views for my blog, including one from Saudi Arabia. I hope to write another blog soon. Have a nice day.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Remember June 26th... as Plaustrum20's First Post!
Salvete. My name is Trygve Plaustrum (pseudonym), and I am into politics. I am a Christian Republican conservative in the state of California, and I look forward to sharing my views with the world (hopefully) through this blog.
First on the list: Today, the Supreme Court has ruled same-sex marriage legal in my home state. Being in California, I found that many of my friends were quite happy with this ruling. Now, I personally do not believe that same-sex marriage is biblically or ethically correct. But, ethics aside, I believe that the government has no authority to interfere with marriage. I am concerned, however, about whether or not the government will become actively involved in what defines marriage and potentially force churches and other religious institutions to marry same-sex couples against their will. Sooner or later, anyone who is opposed to same-sex marriage will be shouted down by either the public or the government. The law will be to actively support and promote same-sex marriage or face the social and legal consequences.
To Whom It May Concern:
You do not have the right to my support. You should not feel that your policies and beliefs are automatically entitled to the approval of myself, my family, my church, my community, and, above all, my God. I do not care whether or not same-sex marriage is legal (and this goes for any ruling, law, or policy). I will obey the law to the maximum extent, but I choose whether or not I agree with the law. You cannot force my opinion or take away my right to think independently. Not even God, worthy as He is, forces us to think like He does. Who are you, then, to harass someone to think like you do?
Sincerely,
Trygve Plaustrum
That wraps up my first post. I hope that you enjoyed reading, and expect another tomorrow.
First on the list: Today, the Supreme Court has ruled same-sex marriage legal in my home state. Being in California, I found that many of my friends were quite happy with this ruling. Now, I personally do not believe that same-sex marriage is biblically or ethically correct. But, ethics aside, I believe that the government has no authority to interfere with marriage. I am concerned, however, about whether or not the government will become actively involved in what defines marriage and potentially force churches and other religious institutions to marry same-sex couples against their will. Sooner or later, anyone who is opposed to same-sex marriage will be shouted down by either the public or the government. The law will be to actively support and promote same-sex marriage or face the social and legal consequences.
To Whom It May Concern:
You do not have the right to my support. You should not feel that your policies and beliefs are automatically entitled to the approval of myself, my family, my church, my community, and, above all, my God. I do not care whether or not same-sex marriage is legal (and this goes for any ruling, law, or policy). I will obey the law to the maximum extent, but I choose whether or not I agree with the law. You cannot force my opinion or take away my right to think independently. Not even God, worthy as He is, forces us to think like He does. Who are you, then, to harass someone to think like you do?
Sincerely,
Trygve Plaustrum
That wraps up my first post. I hope that you enjoyed reading, and expect another tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)