So today I was with the WCC field crew doing site maintenance at a landowner's on Jim Creek (I'll call him C.P., for the sake of anonymity). This site was planted this past fall, and so I was involved with the prep work, the planting, and now maintenance. So I've known C.P. pretty much since I started my position here. He's a bit socially awkward and when he makes jokes sometimes people just...don't really get them. He can also be pretty opinionated. He takes some getting used to, but in general he's a very good guy. He put a lot of work into the restoration site, and is very cognizant of environmental issues and being a good steward. I'm not completely sure what his source of income is (it's suspected by many in the office that he's independently wealthy, though nobody really knows the details), but he farms a good portion of his land. I'm not the best judge of area, but I'd say he farms 2-3 acres (so it's a pretty small operation). Organic, as far as I know. He gives a lot of his food away (to us when we're there; today I got beets!), and I've been told that he donates a lot of it to food banks. His lifestyle is encouraging.
Today he told a story about how "his" bobcat was shot by one of his neighbors. This bobcat would frequent C.P.'s land, catching mice in the field. He spoke very highly of the cat, and also lamented that there weren't any cougars in the area (as there historically were). Apparently this neighbor used the excuse that the cat had to be killed because otherwise he would kill too many chickens. I guess he (or one of the other neighbors) had a chicken coop that didn't have fencing completely enclosing it, and one time the bobcat got into it and killed all of the chickens. C.P. remarked "of course he killed them all, he was in a small space and there were chickens flying everywhere! You should have had wire over the whole thing!" C.P. then explained that one time when he had his chickens running free around the yard, he saw the bobcat kill one of them. He didn't do anything about it, explaining that "he [the bobcat] has to eat too, and one chicken isn't such a big deal."
This mentality needs to become widespread. Large predators are an integral part of ecosystems, and their extirpation has had deleterious effects across North America. Anyone from the midwest knows that we have too many deer. Wolves are widely considered a keystone species, especially after the negative effects of elk browsing on aspens were observed after their extirpation, and then subsequently reversed when wolves were re-introduced to Yellowstone. Who knows how much the eastern U.S. has changed. The attempted re-introduction of red wolves into the Smokies was a good start (albeit an utter failure), and conservation action to recover Florida panther numbers is encouraging. But currently, the majority of Americans simply don't understand how to coexist with large predators. Honestly, it's just common sense. Give them habitat (stop needlessly developing so much wilderness!) so that they have a healthy prey base. This way they won't be tempted to prey upon livestock. However, some livestock predation is inevitable. Especially if people are too clueless to take proper precautions. Throw a few llama into a herd of sheep. Get a few extra dogs to patrol your land (this is more of a predator deterrent than anything). Electric fence around pastures. There are several other precautions that have shown to be effective in deterring wolves. Don't let small dogs and children wander around unsupervised.
I'm not saying it will be a perfectly harmonious state of affairs; there will certainly be human - predator conflicts. These can be minimized, however, and overall the presence of predators and the effects that they have on the surrounding ecosystems are a boon that far outweighs the conflicts.
And on a semi-related tangent: let beavers do what they do! They're much better dam builders than humans anyways.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Rant on Overpopulation
"The Developers, of course--the politicians, businessmen, bankers, administrators, engineers--they see it somewhat otherwise and complain most bitterly and interminably of a desperate water shortage, especially in the Southwest. They propose schemes of inspiring proportions for diverting water by the damful from the Columbia River, or even from the Yukon River, and channelizing it overland down into Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico.
What for? 'In anticipation of future needs, in order to provide for the continued industrial and population growth of the Southwest.' And in such an answer we see that it's only the old numbers game again, the monomania of small and very simple minds in the grip of an obsession. They cannot see that growth for the sake of growth is a cancerous madness, that Phoenix and Albuquerque will not be better cities to live in when their populations are doubled again and again. They would never understand that an economic system which can only expand or expire must be false to all that is human." ~Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire
Interestingly enough, E.A. earlier described a microcosm example for global overpopulation, perhaps unwittingly as he didn't make the comparison directly. He described the rampant poverty on the Navajo reservation, and how Navajo are forced into the slums of the "white" cities, etc. as their own land has been essentially destroyed as a result of their increased fecundity (namely due to the introduction of the white man's modern medicine and its subsequent effect on infant mortality). Overused and overgrazed, the Navajo reservation no longer supports the (then) current number of Navajo, hence the population overspills out into white slums.
What happens, then, when we extrapolate the situation to a global level? Where will the "overspill" human population go? Sci-Fi offers romantic notions of escaping the planet and colonizing other chunks of rock in space. Utter absurdity. Life on Earth is adapted for Earth's climate, one of possibly infinite arrangements of climatic variables. What is the likelihood that we'll find a suitable planet for habitation, free of ill (and likely unforseen) effects? What if such a hypothetical planet were otherwise perfect, but the atmosphere failed to block out harmful solar radiation? It would be like sucking on lollipops made from Uranium 235, and the "colonists" would soon succumb to a most miserable, agonizing death. So much for expanding our available land. As much as I love Firefly, terraforming is a fantasy.
So our available planet space is finite. We will soon be trapped in our own depleted "Navajo reservation" to take what we can from what little is left of the land. It's less productive overall, for a higher number of people. The gruesome truth of Overpopulation. THIS is the single most dangerous threat to the environment, to society, to the existence of life on Earth. Pollution, habitat loss, etc. are all related to and amplified by population. We've overextended our carrying capacity in a way that no species (to our knowledge) has yet been able to do, as a result of cheap energy from the alchemically altered bodies of organisms that lived millions of years ago. It was cheating. Non-renewable energy provided a false sense of prosperity.
Of course the basic concept is not as unnatural as it at first appears. Carrying capacity is not a fixed value, but is dynamic (responding to changes in the environment). Changes like the applications of fossil fuel to industrialization. Changes like a boom in the population of hares, increasing the carrying capacity of the fox. Such cycles are common in nature, and as the increasing number of foxes prey upon the hares, the prey species begins to decline because too many of them are getting eaten. Well, that leaves less food for the fox, and its carrying capacity decreases. Or at least that's how the textbooks put it; they even make it easy to understand with a nice graph: a red sine wave slightly misaligned with a blue sine wave. Blue (fox) follows red (hare), and an increase or decrease in hares causes an increase or decrease in foxes (likewise, an increase in foxes causes a decrease in hares, thus the feedback loop is ongoing). The textbooks make it very crisp and understandable indeed (good for the visual learners, of course). Distanced from the reality of the Struggle for Existence. The graph can't evoke the hunger that the fox feels when he can't find any hares. The slow weakening of his muscles. The more he needs food the less able he is to hunt food. And so his body consumes itself; slowly, and painfully. Perhaps he goes mad. Starvation is not a pleasant death; if he is capable of emphathy (and perhaps he is? We know not...) then he certainly envies the quick death of the hares that were plentiful in his puphood. The sustenance that he hasn't known for weeks, or even months.
But with non-renewable energy, there is no cycle (at least not one applicable to the human reference frame). An increase in the utilization of petroleum certainly increased our carrying capacity, but what happens when that resource runs out? A drop in carrying capacity, much like with the fox. And then the biology student will truly understand that deceptively simple graph, with its red and blue sine waves.
Over-dramatic much? What can I say, I've been reading Edward Abbey. And of course the hypothetical example that I gave is a simplification; after all, renewable energy will provide a boost to our carrying capacity! But a boost equal to that of fossil fuels? And where exactly will that carrying capacity line hover? 6 billion? 9 billion? 3 billion? 1 billion?
And more importantly, what shall be the terms? We can continue to "cheat" and raise our carrying capacity beyond what the world can sustainably support. Instant gratification, right? Develop all the world; turn all the fields and forests into cropland; turn all the oceans into hatcheries; dam all the rivers and drain all the aquifers; use every last resource for the benefit of humanity and fulfill that prophecy of the 6th mass extinction!
Will the amphibians survive? Perhaps the African Clawed Frog (that vile harbinger of chytridiomycosis), for it's too valuable a research organism to let go extinct! Will the songs of scarlet tanagers, hooded warblers, common yellowthroats, and wood thrushes be silenced forever, only to be replaced by the obnoxious, monotonous cheeping of house sparrows? Who will the starlings have left to mimic?
Bottom line: sustainability cannot happen without stabilization of human population growth rates, and likely decreases. So how do we want to go about it? With our big brains we can (theoretically) foresee things like this. We can predict much more complex phenomena, so why is Overpopulation so commonly ignored? Perhaps because it's an uncomfortable topic. If "culling" is out of the question, then what? Birth limits (worked great in China!)? Forced sterilization? Well, making birth control/family planning available to third world countries is certainly a great start. But then again, the birth rate in America isn't even at that target net value of 0 (at least), and to top it off we're consuming a disproportionate amount of resources. How can population be seriously discussed and ethically addressed?
Hopefully we figure it out soon. As unorthodox as random sterilization sounds, it's a hell of a lot better than half the world starving to death.
So why are humans starving to death a problem exactly? After all, I did provide an example of how it's natural for starvation to stabilize population size (those poor foxes). Why should humans be any different? No, it's not because we're more valuable, or important, or because we have more of a right to live and be comfortable (as much as the vast majority of people would like to believe). The real danger is that humans have become such damn good competitors that, in securing resources for our own species' survival, we will degrade and destroy ecosystems and cause a disturbing numer of species to go extinct.
We're not the only species that can potentially do this; an example that immediately springs to mind is swarms of locusts destroying every living plant in a given area. The difference is one of scale; the locust destroys 10 acres, 100 acres, 1000 acres, perhaps even 1,000,000 acres. There are always new sources, however. The destroyed region becomes a sink population, but there is always a source to re-populate it. What happens when the scale of destruction is global, though?
It amazes me how much time and money people spend redecorating their houses, mowing their lawns, etc. and yet many of these people don't give a damn about the environment. Clearly they have some concept of taking care of the place that they live, so do they just not realize that they live on Earth too? What makes it even more absurd is that the "little boxes" that they care so much about are relatively easy to replace (if, for example, it were to burn down). Just move somewhere else! The Earth, on the other hand, is all that we have. Either people are ignorant of that fact, or they truly (and childishly) believe the Sci-Fi balderdash that we'll colonize other planets when Earth simply isn't enough. Perhaps they just don't believe that it will happen in their lifetime. But what about their children's lifetime? Don't they want to secure the continuity of their genes (why else would they breed at all)?
Denial isn't constructive.
To quote Abbey again, "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." And we all know what happens to the "host" of a cancerous population of cells, when said growth becomes too prolific.
What for? 'In anticipation of future needs, in order to provide for the continued industrial and population growth of the Southwest.' And in such an answer we see that it's only the old numbers game again, the monomania of small and very simple minds in the grip of an obsession. They cannot see that growth for the sake of growth is a cancerous madness, that Phoenix and Albuquerque will not be better cities to live in when their populations are doubled again and again. They would never understand that an economic system which can only expand or expire must be false to all that is human." ~Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire
Interestingly enough, E.A. earlier described a microcosm example for global overpopulation, perhaps unwittingly as he didn't make the comparison directly. He described the rampant poverty on the Navajo reservation, and how Navajo are forced into the slums of the "white" cities, etc. as their own land has been essentially destroyed as a result of their increased fecundity (namely due to the introduction of the white man's modern medicine and its subsequent effect on infant mortality). Overused and overgrazed, the Navajo reservation no longer supports the (then) current number of Navajo, hence the population overspills out into white slums.
What happens, then, when we extrapolate the situation to a global level? Where will the "overspill" human population go? Sci-Fi offers romantic notions of escaping the planet and colonizing other chunks of rock in space. Utter absurdity. Life on Earth is adapted for Earth's climate, one of possibly infinite arrangements of climatic variables. What is the likelihood that we'll find a suitable planet for habitation, free of ill (and likely unforseen) effects? What if such a hypothetical planet were otherwise perfect, but the atmosphere failed to block out harmful solar radiation? It would be like sucking on lollipops made from Uranium 235, and the "colonists" would soon succumb to a most miserable, agonizing death. So much for expanding our available land. As much as I love Firefly, terraforming is a fantasy.
So our available planet space is finite. We will soon be trapped in our own depleted "Navajo reservation" to take what we can from what little is left of the land. It's less productive overall, for a higher number of people. The gruesome truth of Overpopulation. THIS is the single most dangerous threat to the environment, to society, to the existence of life on Earth. Pollution, habitat loss, etc. are all related to and amplified by population. We've overextended our carrying capacity in a way that no species (to our knowledge) has yet been able to do, as a result of cheap energy from the alchemically altered bodies of organisms that lived millions of years ago. It was cheating. Non-renewable energy provided a false sense of prosperity.
Of course the basic concept is not as unnatural as it at first appears. Carrying capacity is not a fixed value, but is dynamic (responding to changes in the environment). Changes like the applications of fossil fuel to industrialization. Changes like a boom in the population of hares, increasing the carrying capacity of the fox. Such cycles are common in nature, and as the increasing number of foxes prey upon the hares, the prey species begins to decline because too many of them are getting eaten. Well, that leaves less food for the fox, and its carrying capacity decreases. Or at least that's how the textbooks put it; they even make it easy to understand with a nice graph: a red sine wave slightly misaligned with a blue sine wave. Blue (fox) follows red (hare), and an increase or decrease in hares causes an increase or decrease in foxes (likewise, an increase in foxes causes a decrease in hares, thus the feedback loop is ongoing). The textbooks make it very crisp and understandable indeed (good for the visual learners, of course). Distanced from the reality of the Struggle for Existence. The graph can't evoke the hunger that the fox feels when he can't find any hares. The slow weakening of his muscles. The more he needs food the less able he is to hunt food. And so his body consumes itself; slowly, and painfully. Perhaps he goes mad. Starvation is not a pleasant death; if he is capable of emphathy (and perhaps he is? We know not...) then he certainly envies the quick death of the hares that were plentiful in his puphood. The sustenance that he hasn't known for weeks, or even months.
But with non-renewable energy, there is no cycle (at least not one applicable to the human reference frame). An increase in the utilization of petroleum certainly increased our carrying capacity, but what happens when that resource runs out? A drop in carrying capacity, much like with the fox. And then the biology student will truly understand that deceptively simple graph, with its red and blue sine waves.
Over-dramatic much? What can I say, I've been reading Edward Abbey. And of course the hypothetical example that I gave is a simplification; after all, renewable energy will provide a boost to our carrying capacity! But a boost equal to that of fossil fuels? And where exactly will that carrying capacity line hover? 6 billion? 9 billion? 3 billion? 1 billion?
And more importantly, what shall be the terms? We can continue to "cheat" and raise our carrying capacity beyond what the world can sustainably support. Instant gratification, right? Develop all the world; turn all the fields and forests into cropland; turn all the oceans into hatcheries; dam all the rivers and drain all the aquifers; use every last resource for the benefit of humanity and fulfill that prophecy of the 6th mass extinction!
Will the amphibians survive? Perhaps the African Clawed Frog (that vile harbinger of chytridiomycosis), for it's too valuable a research organism to let go extinct! Will the songs of scarlet tanagers, hooded warblers, common yellowthroats, and wood thrushes be silenced forever, only to be replaced by the obnoxious, monotonous cheeping of house sparrows? Who will the starlings have left to mimic?
Bottom line: sustainability cannot happen without stabilization of human population growth rates, and likely decreases. So how do we want to go about it? With our big brains we can (theoretically) foresee things like this. We can predict much more complex phenomena, so why is Overpopulation so commonly ignored? Perhaps because it's an uncomfortable topic. If "culling" is out of the question, then what? Birth limits (worked great in China!)? Forced sterilization? Well, making birth control/family planning available to third world countries is certainly a great start. But then again, the birth rate in America isn't even at that target net value of 0 (at least), and to top it off we're consuming a disproportionate amount of resources. How can population be seriously discussed and ethically addressed?
Hopefully we figure it out soon. As unorthodox as random sterilization sounds, it's a hell of a lot better than half the world starving to death.
So why are humans starving to death a problem exactly? After all, I did provide an example of how it's natural for starvation to stabilize population size (those poor foxes). Why should humans be any different? No, it's not because we're more valuable, or important, or because we have more of a right to live and be comfortable (as much as the vast majority of people would like to believe). The real danger is that humans have become such damn good competitors that, in securing resources for our own species' survival, we will degrade and destroy ecosystems and cause a disturbing numer of species to go extinct.
We're not the only species that can potentially do this; an example that immediately springs to mind is swarms of locusts destroying every living plant in a given area. The difference is one of scale; the locust destroys 10 acres, 100 acres, 1000 acres, perhaps even 1,000,000 acres. There are always new sources, however. The destroyed region becomes a sink population, but there is always a source to re-populate it. What happens when the scale of destruction is global, though?
It amazes me how much time and money people spend redecorating their houses, mowing their lawns, etc. and yet many of these people don't give a damn about the environment. Clearly they have some concept of taking care of the place that they live, so do they just not realize that they live on Earth too? What makes it even more absurd is that the "little boxes" that they care so much about are relatively easy to replace (if, for example, it were to burn down). Just move somewhere else! The Earth, on the other hand, is all that we have. Either people are ignorant of that fact, or they truly (and childishly) believe the Sci-Fi balderdash that we'll colonize other planets when Earth simply isn't enough. Perhaps they just don't believe that it will happen in their lifetime. But what about their children's lifetime? Don't they want to secure the continuity of their genes (why else would they breed at all)?
Denial isn't constructive.
To quote Abbey again, "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." And we all know what happens to the "host" of a cancerous population of cells, when said growth becomes too prolific.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince first impressions *SPOILERS*
Ye be warned: Spoilers!
I'd like to preface this by noting that I never expected Half Blood Prince to translate well from book to movie. So they did as well as can be expected I guess. Besides, it was still better than Goblet of Fire and the 1st two movies.
A few extra action scenes that weren't in the book were added, (Death Eaters attack the Muggle World and the destruction of the Burrow) and for the most part I think they were probably necessary. Granted, it's been a while since I read that book but I seem to recall it being largely Dumbledore giving Harry memory tours, backstory on Tom Riddle, and "teen drama" of the romantic kind. Not that I disliked the book (I remember it being one of the better ones), but yeah, once again I think the story is much better told in print than on film.
While I'm on the subject of the new scenes, I actually really liked the attack on the Burrow. It was one of the more intense scenes in the movies and the chase through the wheat field had some great cinematography. Bellatrix's playful, insane brand of evil was perfectly conveyed as she lured Harry away shouting "I killed Sirius Black!," as was Harry's reckless rage. The Weasley's sense of disbelief, and defeat, was felt as they watched their house (one of the more iconic locations in the Harry Potter universe) burn to the ground. It made me look forward to some of the scenes that were coming up at the end of the movie, but unfortunately those subsequent scenes were quite disappointing.
For some reason, the Harry Potter movies don't really do character death scenes all that well. They always seem too...casual? They just don't invoke the level of emotion that a death scene should (but maybe I expect too much, being a fan of Joss Whedon...). In any case, one of the most vivid parts of the book (in my head, when I was reading it) was when Harry chases down Snape after Dumbledore is killed. With the movie I just kind of reacted by thinking "was that really it?!" And I think I remember Faux immolating himself after Dumbledore's death in the book (or am I making that up?), but in the movie he just sort of flies off into the distance.
I surprisingly enjoyed Draco Malfoy's struggle to deal with his mission in the movie. Enjoyed in the sense that I think they did it right. He was shown frequently, and only at the beginning was he his normal braggy, jerk of a self. He came across as visibly tormented, which is good given that he's normally such a vile character who is hard to take seriously. On a related note, the Sectumsempra scene, while not quite how I pictured it in the book, was excellent.
A large part of the movie was devoted to Ron/Hermoine/Lavender drama, and Harry/Ginny drama to a lesser extent. Yay, teen angst (sarcasm). To be fair, it was far less annoying than it was in the book. Less drawn out I guess, and also a little bit of humor to make it bearable.
Why wasn't Katie Bell shown in the Quidditch scenes? Or maybe she was, but it just wasn't noticeable. Still, would it have been that hard for someone to address her at least once given that she was going to play a role in the plot later on? No, instead they decided that the first time you see her is when she's cursed. Whatevs I guess.
I liked the guy they got to play Slughorn, especially since my mental picture of him from reading the books was never too clear.
The Inferi looked like Gollum. Why, exactly? Sure, Gollum's a little creepy looking, but these are supposed to be zombie corpses, any classical zombie portrayal would have been better than looking like Gollum! But then again the movie series has a history of screwing up creepy bad guys (though I won't bash them too much for the Dementors, since the imagination is really the only place that those scary bastards can reach their full potential).
Yeah, ok, so they decided to make Fenrir Greyback a very prominent Death Eater. No mention of the fact that he's a werewolf though. And there was a pretty good opportunity to do so during the destruction of the Burrow scene, especially since Remus was present and the fact that he is a werewolf was mentioned!!!!
I just realized that they didn't show Voldemort at all in that movie (except for in the memory scenes, as young Tom Riddle). Huh.
Luna's great.
I'm getting tired of typing and I don't know what else to talk about, especially since it's been so long since I read the gosh-darn books.
I'd like to preface this by noting that I never expected Half Blood Prince to translate well from book to movie. So they did as well as can be expected I guess. Besides, it was still better than Goblet of Fire and the 1st two movies.
A few extra action scenes that weren't in the book were added, (Death Eaters attack the Muggle World and the destruction of the Burrow) and for the most part I think they were probably necessary. Granted, it's been a while since I read that book but I seem to recall it being largely Dumbledore giving Harry memory tours, backstory on Tom Riddle, and "teen drama" of the romantic kind. Not that I disliked the book (I remember it being one of the better ones), but yeah, once again I think the story is much better told in print than on film.
While I'm on the subject of the new scenes, I actually really liked the attack on the Burrow. It was one of the more intense scenes in the movies and the chase through the wheat field had some great cinematography. Bellatrix's playful, insane brand of evil was perfectly conveyed as she lured Harry away shouting "I killed Sirius Black!," as was Harry's reckless rage. The Weasley's sense of disbelief, and defeat, was felt as they watched their house (one of the more iconic locations in the Harry Potter universe) burn to the ground. It made me look forward to some of the scenes that were coming up at the end of the movie, but unfortunately those subsequent scenes were quite disappointing.
For some reason, the Harry Potter movies don't really do character death scenes all that well. They always seem too...casual? They just don't invoke the level of emotion that a death scene should (but maybe I expect too much, being a fan of Joss Whedon...). In any case, one of the most vivid parts of the book (in my head, when I was reading it) was when Harry chases down Snape after Dumbledore is killed. With the movie I just kind of reacted by thinking "was that really it?!" And I think I remember Faux immolating himself after Dumbledore's death in the book (or am I making that up?), but in the movie he just sort of flies off into the distance.
I surprisingly enjoyed Draco Malfoy's struggle to deal with his mission in the movie. Enjoyed in the sense that I think they did it right. He was shown frequently, and only at the beginning was he his normal braggy, jerk of a self. He came across as visibly tormented, which is good given that he's normally such a vile character who is hard to take seriously. On a related note, the Sectumsempra scene, while not quite how I pictured it in the book, was excellent.
A large part of the movie was devoted to Ron/Hermoine/Lavender drama, and Harry/Ginny drama to a lesser extent. Yay, teen angst (sarcasm). To be fair, it was far less annoying than it was in the book. Less drawn out I guess, and also a little bit of humor to make it bearable.
Why wasn't Katie Bell shown in the Quidditch scenes? Or maybe she was, but it just wasn't noticeable. Still, would it have been that hard for someone to address her at least once given that she was going to play a role in the plot later on? No, instead they decided that the first time you see her is when she's cursed. Whatevs I guess.
I liked the guy they got to play Slughorn, especially since my mental picture of him from reading the books was never too clear.
The Inferi looked like Gollum. Why, exactly? Sure, Gollum's a little creepy looking, but these are supposed to be zombie corpses, any classical zombie portrayal would have been better than looking like Gollum! But then again the movie series has a history of screwing up creepy bad guys (though I won't bash them too much for the Dementors, since the imagination is really the only place that those scary bastards can reach their full potential).
Yeah, ok, so they decided to make Fenrir Greyback a very prominent Death Eater. No mention of the fact that he's a werewolf though. And there was a pretty good opportunity to do so during the destruction of the Burrow scene, especially since Remus was present and the fact that he is a werewolf was mentioned!!!!
I just realized that they didn't show Voldemort at all in that movie (except for in the memory scenes, as young Tom Riddle). Huh.
Luna's great.
I'm getting tired of typing and I don't know what else to talk about, especially since it's been so long since I read the gosh-darn books.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
