BEIJING - The official Chinese translation of President Barack Obama's inauguration speech was missing his references to communism and dissent, while a live broadcast on state television Wednesday quickly cut away to the anchor when the topic was mentioned.
The comments by the newly installed U.S. president veered into politically sensitive territory for China's ruling Communist Party, which maintains a tight grip over the Internet and the entirely state-run media. Beijing tolerates little dissent and frequently decries foreign interference in its internal affairs.
At one point, Obama said earlier generations "faced down communism and fascism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions." He later addressed "those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent รข€” know that you are on the wrong side of history."
The Chinese translation of the speech, credited to the Web site of the official China Daily newspaper, was missing the word "communism" in the first sentence. The paragraph with the sentence on dissent had been removed entirely.
The censored version was carried by the state-run Xinhua News Agency and posted on popular online portals Sina and Sohu. Another portal, Netease, used a version without the paragraph mentioning communism, but retaining the part about dissent.
The news channel of state broadcaster China Central Television broadcast the speech live early Wednesday local time, but appeared caught off-guard by the statement about facing down communism.
The translator had no sooner said "fascism and communism" when the audio faded out from Obama's speech and cameras cut back to the studio anchor, who seemed flustered for a second before turning to ask an expert what challenges the president faces in turning around the U.S. economy.
Wang Jianhong, deputy director of the CCTV general editing department, said he did not stay up to watch the inauguration broadcast but suggested the transition was a normal part of the program.
"There are breakaways even when broadcasting China's own meetings," he said. "Americans might care a lot about the presidential inauguration, but Chinese may not be very interested."
No one in the editing department of the China Daily Web site was immediately available to answer questions.
The full translation of Obama's speech could be viewed on the Web site of Hong Kong-based broadcaster Phoenix Satellite Television, which has a reputation as a more independent news source. The China Daily Web site posted Obama's full remarks in English only.
China has previously altered the words of U.S. officials. A 2004 speech in Shanghai by former Vice President Dick Cheney was broadcast live on state-run television at the insistence of U.S. officials, but the Chinese transcript of the remarks deleted references to political freedom.
In 2003, the memoirs of then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton were pulled from publication in China after the government-backed publisher removed references to the 1989 Tiananmen Square democracy protests and altered Clinton's comments about human rights activist Harry Wu.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/21/chinese-translation-cuts-parts-obama-inauguration-speech/
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Prime Minister warns of de-globalisation
Web posted at: 1/20/2009
Source ::: AFP
The Peninsula
LONDON: Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned yesterday of a "damaging spiral" of de-globalisation as he launched a new multi-billion dollar bank rescue and governments around the world prepared costly new measures.
The European Commission predicted that the EU economy will shrink 1.8 percent this year with surging unemployment and government deficits.
In a new sign of the recession taking a grip, Japan's industrial output plunged a record 8.5 percent in November and a regional bank said it was considering asking for public funds.
The prime minister, widely praised for his efforts to pull banks out of crisis last year, said that no country can counter the economic crisis on its own.
"Unless we come together to address these problems in a coordinated way, the world is at risk of a damaging spiral of de-globalising. It is fuelled by a combination of deleveraging and national-only policy solutions."
Brown called for the "widest possible international agreement" and warned against protectionism which he said "could be every bit as damaging to jobs and businesses in every part of the world, as the protectionism in trade has been in the past." Brown has taken a leading role in the international debate on battling the financial crisis and will host a recession-busting summit of the Group of 20 advanced and developing nations in London in April.
He has been forced by mounting bad debts to offer new protection to British banks and the government said it would coordinate its new insurance scheme to protect banks from toxic assets with other countries. British media said the new cash injection into banks could cost £200bn ($295bn). The government said was to help "otherwise creditworthy businesses, homeowners and consumers" find ways to lend money and keep the economy moving. Banks would pay to have bad loans underwritten by the government, leaving them with more freedom to increase lending to cash-starved businesses and individuals. As part of the plans, the Bank of England will use Treasury bills to purchase bank-owned assets worth up to £50bn.
The measures follow October's £37bn recapitalisation scheme, which failed to increase lending by banks suffering from the global credit crunch.
The announcement came as Royal Bank of Scotland, now majority-owned by the taxpayer, said it estimated an underlying annual loss of up to £8.0bn.
With the European Commission putting out a drastically more pessimistic forecast of prospects for Europe, other countries are already planning new measures.
It said the 27-nation EU economy would contracting by 1.8 percent this year before achieving growth next year of 0.5 percent. The eurozone economy would shrink 1.9 percent this year.
It predicted unemployment will climb to levels not seen in Europe for over decade.
Standard and Poor's rating service lowered its assessment of Spain's long-term sovereign debt by one notch to AA-plus from AAA. The downgrade, which came after similar action against Greece last week, followed mounting warnings about Spain's rapidly slowing econony.
Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel — who has ordered an ¤80bn economic stimulus — warned against the danger of mounting debt in the "period of deep global degradation."
"In order to meet its national responsibility, the federal government has decided, in addition to having a plan to repay its debts, to lock long-term debt reduction into the German constitution," she said. The auto sector has been badly battered and France could take stakes in struggling car makers, Peugeot-Citroen and Renault, Industry Minister Luc Chatel said in an newspaper interview published yesterday, one day before the government announces its measures. Japan's Mazda Motor said it would cut its managers' salaries by up to 10 percent and cut production at domestic plants. Japanese industrial output plunged a record 8.5 percent in November — the biggest fall since records began in 1953 — as companies slashed production, official figures showed.
There were also fresh signs of trouble in Japan's financial sector as a regional bank, Sapporo Hokuyo Holdings, said it was considering applying for an injection of public funds to help it weather the financial crisis.
It would be the first Japanese bank to do so since parliament approved a new law last month allowing the government to pump public funds into banks.
- Inigo Montoya
Source ::: AFP
The Peninsula
LONDON: Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned yesterday of a "damaging spiral" of de-globalisation as he launched a new multi-billion dollar bank rescue and governments around the world prepared costly new measures.
The European Commission predicted that the EU economy will shrink 1.8 percent this year with surging unemployment and government deficits.
In a new sign of the recession taking a grip, Japan's industrial output plunged a record 8.5 percent in November and a regional bank said it was considering asking for public funds.
The prime minister, widely praised for his efforts to pull banks out of crisis last year, said that no country can counter the economic crisis on its own.
"Unless we come together to address these problems in a coordinated way, the world is at risk of a damaging spiral of de-globalising. It is fuelled by a combination of deleveraging and national-only policy solutions."
Brown called for the "widest possible international agreement" and warned against protectionism which he said "could be every bit as damaging to jobs and businesses in every part of the world, as the protectionism in trade has been in the past." Brown has taken a leading role in the international debate on battling the financial crisis and will host a recession-busting summit of the Group of 20 advanced and developing nations in London in April.
He has been forced by mounting bad debts to offer new protection to British banks and the government said it would coordinate its new insurance scheme to protect banks from toxic assets with other countries. British media said the new cash injection into banks could cost £200bn ($295bn). The government said was to help "otherwise creditworthy businesses, homeowners and consumers" find ways to lend money and keep the economy moving. Banks would pay to have bad loans underwritten by the government, leaving them with more freedom to increase lending to cash-starved businesses and individuals. As part of the plans, the Bank of England will use Treasury bills to purchase bank-owned assets worth up to £50bn.
The measures follow October's £37bn recapitalisation scheme, which failed to increase lending by banks suffering from the global credit crunch.
The announcement came as Royal Bank of Scotland, now majority-owned by the taxpayer, said it estimated an underlying annual loss of up to £8.0bn.
With the European Commission putting out a drastically more pessimistic forecast of prospects for Europe, other countries are already planning new measures.
It said the 27-nation EU economy would contracting by 1.8 percent this year before achieving growth next year of 0.5 percent. The eurozone economy would shrink 1.9 percent this year.
It predicted unemployment will climb to levels not seen in Europe for over decade.
Standard and Poor's rating service lowered its assessment of Spain's long-term sovereign debt by one notch to AA-plus from AAA. The downgrade, which came after similar action against Greece last week, followed mounting warnings about Spain's rapidly slowing econony.
Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel — who has ordered an ¤80bn economic stimulus — warned against the danger of mounting debt in the "period of deep global degradation."
"In order to meet its national responsibility, the federal government has decided, in addition to having a plan to repay its debts, to lock long-term debt reduction into the German constitution," she said. The auto sector has been badly battered and France could take stakes in struggling car makers, Peugeot-Citroen and Renault, Industry Minister Luc Chatel said in an newspaper interview published yesterday, one day before the government announces its measures. Japan's Mazda Motor said it would cut its managers' salaries by up to 10 percent and cut production at domestic plants. Japanese industrial output plunged a record 8.5 percent in November — the biggest fall since records began in 1953 — as companies slashed production, official figures showed.
There were also fresh signs of trouble in Japan's financial sector as a regional bank, Sapporo Hokuyo Holdings, said it was considering applying for an injection of public funds to help it weather the financial crisis.
It would be the first Japanese bank to do so since parliament approved a new law last month allowing the government to pump public funds into banks.
- Inigo Montoya
There's more to life than democracy, Madeleine
By Tony Karon
(TIME.com) -- Democracy may be as American as apple pie, but it's not quite as universal as, say, the Big Mac. And, unfortunately, in the ambiguous, compromised world of geopolitics, it doesn't provide a basis for foreign policy.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright spent the early part of last week in Warsaw, at a conference of 107 nations to celebrate what she considers the Clinton administration's foreign policy legacy -- the spread of democracy. But it may be precisely this idealistic, even ideological conception of foreign policy that has had many pundits from both ends of the political spectrum expressing disquiet over the state of U.S. foreign policy.
The hype in Warsaw notwithstanding, democracy has never been the linchpin of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, the very term "democratic" was simply a synonym for anticommunist -- Suharto, Mobutu, Generals Diem and Pinochet, the medieval Islamists who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan and many other dodgy candidates were all in the "democratic" camp, remember. Even since communism's decisive defeat has allowed Washington to abandon such questionable company, it's simply not true to proclaim democracy as the basis for U.S. foreign policy.
It wasn't for democracy that we sent our troops to war in the Gulf in 1991. We sent them into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to protect the vital interests of the U.S. and its allies -- the oil reserves that Saddam Hussein would've controlled if he hadn't been ejected from Kuwait and stopped from invading Saudi Arabia. This was a valid and vital projection of the national interest, even if it meant shoring up Saudi and Kuwaiti regimes that would hardly be deemed democratic by U.S. standards.
The quest for Middle East peace, to which the Clinton administration has devoted so much energy and effort, also has little to do with democracy. Israel is the only democracy in the region, and that may be a good thing if peace is the goal. Popular opinion in Egypt, Jordan and among Palestinians is far more hostile to Israel than are the political elites who interface with Washington. President Mubarak, King Hussein and Yasser Arafat would have had a hard time concluding their peace agreements with the Jewish state if they had to answer, in short order, to an electorate.
China policy, the administration's other major foreign policy thrust, has little to do with democracy. We may placate our concerns with the idea that trade with the West will speed China's democratization -- it may contribute in the very long term, but don't hold your breath -- but it's really based on the economic self-interest of both countries. In fact, many sober foreign policy heads recognize that convulsive social upheaval will accompany the epic transformation from socialism to capitalism currently under way in China and say that a strong (yes, even authoritarian) state might be necessary to avert a cataclysmic collapse. Which is why electoral democracy isn't Beijing's immediate priority, and nor do serious foreign policy players believe it should be.
And while Washington may have insisted that democracy is the precondition for rehabilitating Serbia, that won't necessarily end all of the Balkan troubles: Slobodan Milosevic may be a despot and a demagogue, but the troubling reality is that most of the Serbian opposition accepted the principle that their nation should fight to hold on to Kosovo.
Kosovo, in fact, showed the danger in simply exporting an American conception of democracy into a situation with a very different history. The U.S. led NATO to war against ethnic cleansing, projecting, as an alternative, the notion of a democratic multiethnic Kosovo. Convinced of his own vision of a peaceful Balkan melting pot -- as implausible as that sounded to long-term analysts of the region -- President Clinton lashed out at anyone who dared to view the conflict instead through the politically incorrect lens of centuries of unresolved tribal hatreds. And yet, a year later, it's increasingly clear that a democratic, multiethnic Kosovo is a Western illusion. The Kosovo Liberation Army, backed by NATO against the Serbs, appears to be animated by instincts every bit as violently racist and intolerant as those of its enemies in Belgrade, and simply started its own ethnic cleansing campaign as soon as it had the opportunity. The West may yet have to accept a partition solution despite its discomfort with conceding that in some circumstances, people can't all just get along.
The Clinton administration has been correctly accused of lacking a coherent foreign policy vision, and instead simply responding to crises. In its defense, it must be noted that crises have proliferated on an unprecedented, alarming scale in the decade since communism's collapse. But that deepens the urgency of defining U.S. interests on a world scale, fashioning policy objectives on the basis of those interests, building alliances on the basis of those objectives and using a variety of policy levers to realize them, always guided by a comprehensive global picture.
As gratifying as the spread of democracy and market economics has been, it hasn't necessarily created a uniform interest among nations. Russia is now a full-fledged democracy, according to Washington, and yet since the election of President Vladimir Putin -- whose popularity with voters was derived in no small part from sticking out his jaw in the face of Western criticism over his conduct in Chechnya -- it has positioned itself ever more assertively as a competitor to Washington on the global stage. Putin is working aggressively (and not without success) to win Western European support for his opposition to Washington's national missile defense, and is making a concerted effort to restore Moscow's influence in some of the capitals that most perplex U.S. policy makers -- Pyongyang, Havana and Belgrade. There's nothing ideological about this. It's just a pragmatic, calculating attempt to assert the national interests of a newly capitalist Russia on the global stage, playing Moscow's weaker hand to maximum advantage. And he'll prove quite a match for the next U.S. administration if its conception of foreign policy is limited to exporting democracy.
Copyright © 2000 Time Inc.
~charlie the unicorn~
(TIME.com) -- Democracy may be as American as apple pie, but it's not quite as universal as, say, the Big Mac. And, unfortunately, in the ambiguous, compromised world of geopolitics, it doesn't provide a basis for foreign policy.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright spent the early part of last week in Warsaw, at a conference of 107 nations to celebrate what she considers the Clinton administration's foreign policy legacy -- the spread of democracy. But it may be precisely this idealistic, even ideological conception of foreign policy that has had many pundits from both ends of the political spectrum expressing disquiet over the state of U.S. foreign policy.
The hype in Warsaw notwithstanding, democracy has never been the linchpin of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, the very term "democratic" was simply a synonym for anticommunist -- Suharto, Mobutu, Generals Diem and Pinochet, the medieval Islamists who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan and many other dodgy candidates were all in the "democratic" camp, remember. Even since communism's decisive defeat has allowed Washington to abandon such questionable company, it's simply not true to proclaim democracy as the basis for U.S. foreign policy.
It wasn't for democracy that we sent our troops to war in the Gulf in 1991. We sent them into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to protect the vital interests of the U.S. and its allies -- the oil reserves that Saddam Hussein would've controlled if he hadn't been ejected from Kuwait and stopped from invading Saudi Arabia. This was a valid and vital projection of the national interest, even if it meant shoring up Saudi and Kuwaiti regimes that would hardly be deemed democratic by U.S. standards.
The quest for Middle East peace, to which the Clinton administration has devoted so much energy and effort, also has little to do with democracy. Israel is the only democracy in the region, and that may be a good thing if peace is the goal. Popular opinion in Egypt, Jordan and among Palestinians is far more hostile to Israel than are the political elites who interface with Washington. President Mubarak, King Hussein and Yasser Arafat would have had a hard time concluding their peace agreements with the Jewish state if they had to answer, in short order, to an electorate.
China policy, the administration's other major foreign policy thrust, has little to do with democracy. We may placate our concerns with the idea that trade with the West will speed China's democratization -- it may contribute in the very long term, but don't hold your breath -- but it's really based on the economic self-interest of both countries. In fact, many sober foreign policy heads recognize that convulsive social upheaval will accompany the epic transformation from socialism to capitalism currently under way in China and say that a strong (yes, even authoritarian) state might be necessary to avert a cataclysmic collapse. Which is why electoral democracy isn't Beijing's immediate priority, and nor do serious foreign policy players believe it should be.
And while Washington may have insisted that democracy is the precondition for rehabilitating Serbia, that won't necessarily end all of the Balkan troubles: Slobodan Milosevic may be a despot and a demagogue, but the troubling reality is that most of the Serbian opposition accepted the principle that their nation should fight to hold on to Kosovo.
Kosovo, in fact, showed the danger in simply exporting an American conception of democracy into a situation with a very different history. The U.S. led NATO to war against ethnic cleansing, projecting, as an alternative, the notion of a democratic multiethnic Kosovo. Convinced of his own vision of a peaceful Balkan melting pot -- as implausible as that sounded to long-term analysts of the region -- President Clinton lashed out at anyone who dared to view the conflict instead through the politically incorrect lens of centuries of unresolved tribal hatreds. And yet, a year later, it's increasingly clear that a democratic, multiethnic Kosovo is a Western illusion. The Kosovo Liberation Army, backed by NATO against the Serbs, appears to be animated by instincts every bit as violently racist and intolerant as those of its enemies in Belgrade, and simply started its own ethnic cleansing campaign as soon as it had the opportunity. The West may yet have to accept a partition solution despite its discomfort with conceding that in some circumstances, people can't all just get along.
The Clinton administration has been correctly accused of lacking a coherent foreign policy vision, and instead simply responding to crises. In its defense, it must be noted that crises have proliferated on an unprecedented, alarming scale in the decade since communism's collapse. But that deepens the urgency of defining U.S. interests on a world scale, fashioning policy objectives on the basis of those interests, building alliances on the basis of those objectives and using a variety of policy levers to realize them, always guided by a comprehensive global picture.
As gratifying as the spread of democracy and market economics has been, it hasn't necessarily created a uniform interest among nations. Russia is now a full-fledged democracy, according to Washington, and yet since the election of President Vladimir Putin -- whose popularity with voters was derived in no small part from sticking out his jaw in the face of Western criticism over his conduct in Chechnya -- it has positioned itself ever more assertively as a competitor to Washington on the global stage. Putin is working aggressively (and not without success) to win Western European support for his opposition to Washington's national missile defense, and is making a concerted effort to restore Moscow's influence in some of the capitals that most perplex U.S. policy makers -- Pyongyang, Havana and Belgrade. There's nothing ideological about this. It's just a pragmatic, calculating attempt to assert the national interests of a newly capitalist Russia on the global stage, playing Moscow's weaker hand to maximum advantage. And he'll prove quite a match for the next U.S. administration if its conception of foreign policy is limited to exporting democracy.
Copyright © 2000 Time Inc.
~charlie the unicorn~
Obama Reverse on Abortion Likely
By Suzanne Malveaux
CNN White House Correspondent
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama is considering issuing an executive order to reverse a controversial Bush administration abortion policy in his first week in office, three Democratic sources said Monday.
Obama's second full day as president falls on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the United States.
The sources said Obama may use the occasion to reverse the "Mexico City policy" reinstated in 2001 by Bush that prohibits U.S. money from funding international family planning groups that promote abortion or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion services. It bans any organization receiving family planning funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development from offering abortions or abortion counseling.
The "Mexico City policy," commonly referred to by critics as "the global gag rule," was devised by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 at a population conference in Mexico City.
President Bill Clinton lifted the ban in January 1993 as one of his first acts as president, but President George W. Bush reinstated it in his first executive order on January 22, 2001, the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
At the time, critics -- including Planned Parenthood -- called the move a "legislative ambush."
Bush defended the action, saying then: "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortion or actively promote abortion."
CNN White House Correspondent
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama is considering issuing an executive order to reverse a controversial Bush administration abortion policy in his first week in office, three Democratic sources said Monday.
Obama's second full day as president falls on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the United States.
The sources said Obama may use the occasion to reverse the "Mexico City policy" reinstated in 2001 by Bush that prohibits U.S. money from funding international family planning groups that promote abortion or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion services. It bans any organization receiving family planning funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development from offering abortions or abortion counseling.
The "Mexico City policy," commonly referred to by critics as "the global gag rule," was devised by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 at a population conference in Mexico City.
President Bill Clinton lifted the ban in January 1993 as one of his first acts as president, but President George W. Bush reinstated it in his first executive order on January 22, 2001, the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
At the time, critics -- including Planned Parenthood -- called the move a "legislative ambush."
Bush defended the action, saying then: "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortion or actively promote abortion."
Monday, January 19, 2009
Obesity isn't the Government's Problem
When it comes to hot topics obesity isn't one of that readily rises to the top. However, obesity is a topic being debated in America today. The government thinks obesity, an over weight person, is a big problem in the Unites States today. The government say's that obesity should be stopped and that schools and restaurants should start serving healthy food. However, when someone becomes obese it's not the restaurants fault. Jeffry Axelrad, in the article "Ad Restrictions diminish kids Rights to Freedom of choice," states "Kids should have the choice to choose what they want to eat whether it is healthy or not." All men have been given the freedom to choose. One of the few choices kids get to make is what they want to eat. In Nebraska the legal adult age is 19 years old. Until kids turn 19, their parent's have control over them. Deciding what they like is one of the few freedoms they do have. Also Axelrad states that "Attempting to change kids' eating habits through restrictions on their exposure to food marketing efforts is a thoroughly distasteful, puritanical crusade." Even as FDA is trying to stop obesity the people do not want to change their eating habits though they know that the meals have high calories. People choose to go to restaurants and they choose to order high calorie foods. It's not right for the government to make restaurants and schools stop serving foods that sell just because the kids are making unhealthy food choices. If the government legislates this they are taking away customers and profit from the restaurants. According to the NPD group, 73% of adults 18 years and older did worry about the calories they were eating. Even so, fried food sales just keep growing (Policy Pros, Marketers Question FDA's Anti-Obesity Report). Chief Officer of Link Incorporation states that "There's no way in hell consumers will change their habits now," (Policy Pros, Marketers Question FDA's Anti-Obesity Report). Bad habits are hard to break and with the way the economy is going right now it is unwise to try and change the way people eat. So many businesses are going under that we should be trying to avoid anything that could throw the United States economy into the Great Depression II. American's these day's, especially teens, are stubborn as molasses and refuse to eat anything they don't like. It is a waste of time and money to try and fix obesity now when the economy is so bad. Coen of Coen company in Pacific Palisades, California states that "food companies have to make every marketing dollar work in their competitive battle, and there is no question that most chains are better off when they offer people what they want and advertise that fact to them." (Policy Pros, Marketers Question FDA's Anti-Obesity Report). Now businesses need to do what they can to stay on the top. They do whatever they can and sell whatever they need to too keep their costumers coming back again. In the United States the people are free to make the choice on what they want to eat. It is wrong for the government to take control of the American peoples eating habits at restaurants and schools when the people in America were promised freedom.
Lil BK
Works Cited
Axelrad, Jeffrey. "Ad Restrictions Diminish Kids' Right to Freedom of Choice." Sirs. 24 Feb. 2005. 14 Jan. 2009.
Cebrzynski, Gregg. "Policy Pros, Marketers Question FDA's Anti-Obesity Report." Sirs. 12 June 2006. 14 Jan. 2009.
Lil BK
Works Cited
Axelrad, Jeffrey. "Ad Restrictions Diminish Kids' Right to Freedom of Choice." Sirs. 24 Feb. 2005. 14 Jan. 2009
Cebrzynski, Gregg. "Policy Pros, Marketers Question FDA's Anti-Obesity Report." Sirs. 12 June 2006. 14 Jan. 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)