AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH JIM BOB DUGGAR
As most marriages on TV fail, the Duggars reveal how they work to keep their marriage strong
By Lucas Roebuck
Not being a fan of television in general, I am perplexed at how much my wife and her friends enjoy the super-sized family shows like “Jon and Kate Plus Eight” and “18 Kids and Counting.” She takes care of our two kids all day long, so why would she want to watch more on childcare? Shows what I know.
The big news in TV land is that after 10 years of marriage, Jon and Kate are calling it quits — and had a special show just to tell the world. More than 10 million people tuned in to see the announcement, the highest viewership for the show. Although they never used the D-word, soon the gossip Web sites were reporting divorce papers had been filed.
Jon explained he had to do what was “best for me” and the kids. Millions got the signal from the Gossilens that when the going gets tough in your marriage, its okay to break your vows to God and spouse. The message: Love is about what you get, not about giving everything up for something else.
Showing a positive message on marriage is one of the reasons Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, of Springdale, agreed to the show “18 Kids and Counting,” Jim Bob told me during a phone interview Wednesday. Jim Bob said he and Michelle were praying for the Gossilens.
Jim Bob and Michelle will celebrate 25 years of marriage this year — he was 19 and she was 17 when they hitched. In a nation where over half of marriages end up in divorce, being married for 25 years is almost as remarkable as having 18 kids.
Jim Bob is quick to point out that his family is not perfect, and that his quarter century love affair with Michelle is not always magic. Instead, the couple have sought out advice and learned from others on how to make their marriage last — and stay strong. Kids are just one of the many things that put strain on a marriage. But 18 kids? How do you survive that?
Jim Bob said early on he and Michelle took the advice of Dr. Ed Wheat, Jim Bob’s doctor — who has written some books on healthy marriage. During the first year of marriage, Jim Bob explained, Dr. Wheat said no TV.
Instead of focusing on these outside distractions, Jim Bob said, he and Michelle were able to learn about each other. After the first year of marriage, the Duggars did get a TV with cable. That only lasted three weeks.
“With both realized we were addicted to TV,” said Duggar. The cable got snipped and the rabbit ears put away. “A lot of people spend so much time watching TV, they don’t get to know each other.”
“We spend less time making television than most people spend watching it,” he said.
Besides cutting down on tube time, the Duggars work hard to settle disagreements quickly.
“There are going to be conflicts and disagreements, but when they come don’t let the sun go down on your wrath,” he said “Make sure that you resolve conflict as quick as possible.” Jim Bob said that unresolved conflict tends to build on other conflicts, compounding issues and making it harder to find peace in a marriage.
Another critical rule Jim Bob and Michelle live by is never to cut each other down verbally.
“We agreed never to put each other down,” Jim Bob said. He admits that sometimes they fail in that area, but when it happens, apologies are always forthcoming. “There have been times that I’ve had to ask for forgiveness,” Jim Bob said meekly.
Conversely, Jim Bob said what makes a relationship stronger is a concerted effort to compliment your spouse every day. “Not just something about their beauty,” he said, “but about their character.” This affirmation makes resolving future differences easier.
As committed Christians, like most things in life, “18 Kids and Counting” is an opportunity for the Duggars to share God’s love in their life. I remember when Jim Bob was running for U.S. Senate — an unlikely victory from the onset — he was always convinced that God would use his campaign, win or lose, for higher purposes.
An AP photographer took a photo of his family voting in that election, which started chain of events, eventually attracting the interest of TLC — and the rest is TV history.
Now the Duggars hope they can show how living in a family built on Biblical principles can help marriages survive.
Jim Bob believes in the triangle principle, which puts a husband and wife at the base points and God at the top. As the two spouses draw closer to God, they grow closer to each other as well. Duggar said he and Michelle are living proof of this.
“We’ve seen it in our marriage relationship,” he said.
The faith of the Duggars makes them prayerful and hopeful for God to work even in challenging situations.
“I know God could restore the Gossilens’ marriage and make it better than ever,” Jim Bob said.
“18 Kids and Counting” airs Tuesdays at 8 p.m. on TLC.
###30###
Note: All my columns also appear in print in the Northwest Arkansas Times.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
Is GM destined to crash?
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
One of the great ironies of the fall of General Motors and Chrysler was how red America's patriotic ethos to buy American was what kept those companies afloat - and Democrat-contributing uber-high wage union workers in their jobs - for years if not decades.
Drive on the freeways of the blue state coasts, and you'll find a disproportionate number of foreign-made cars. In the American heartland - Republican strongholds - Chryslers, Fords and GM automobiles have traditionally dominated the roadways.
I'd bet my old 1966 Plymouth Valiant (if I still had it) that if Gallup did a poll today, we'd find that Republicans are far more likely to drive American-made cars than Democrats. In fact, an article in the The New York Times in 2005 reported that, indeed, Republicans bought American, and Democrats bought foreign cars, according to Scarborough Research, a New York market-based firm.
Interestingly enough, according to the Times, staunch Democrats drove sports utility vehicles just like Republicans - but the Democrats preferred foreign-made SUVs.
I don't want to debate the general merits of the quality and value of American cars versus those coming from Europe or Asia. I myself found an uneasy compromise in the last car that I purchased - a used Mazda 5 minivan. Not an American car, to be sure, but the Ford Motor Co. has a majority stake in Mazda (perhaps one of the reasons Ford avoided the fate of the rest of the former Big Three). So I rationalize my purchase by saying I drive a Ford. Sort of. (Yes, I don't sleep well at night.)
However, I know many Americans (including myself ) that paid a little more for a little less car at some point in the last few decades to buy American out of a since of patriotic duty. Buying American made American companies stronger, helped keep jobs in America and made the country stronger. Wearing your patriotism on your sleeve when car shopping has always been a heartland Republican activity.
So by getting into bed with the Democrats who bought cars mostly from their international rivals, the American automaker unions were biting the hand that fed them. No matter. Obama was happy to use money borrowed from our grandchildren to pay off the unions for their loyalty and contributions over the years to his party.
Now the government and the unions own what's left of GM. The Obama administration should sell off its stake as soon as possible, but that would be inconsistent with Obama's socialist march to the left. So don't expect the government to get out of the car business anytime soon.
Here's the problem now. Who is going to buy GM cars? Certainly not the Republican patriots who have been propping up GM for so many years. Maybe some Democrats who follow the commands of our supreme leader will do so - but, for the most part, I don't see Democrats changing from their buy-American-last ways. Do you really think that the people who buy the cool Toyota Prius are going to line up in droves to buy the nerdy Chevy Volt?
Even the new GM seems doomed to fail, sort of. Obama's new, greener GM is making cars that people in a recession just don't want or can't afford. For example, consider the Prius. Under the Bush recession, Priuses sold pretty well. Now that we have moved into a Category 5 Obama recession, Prius sales have dropped 50 percent. Democrats, like most Americans, are more high-minded when they have lots of cash to burn.
Toyota loses thousands of dollars on each Prius sold. Likely government subsidies from Japan and American tax incentives for buying hybrid cars mask the price point problem of hybrid/green cars. It's unlikely that a GM run by Obama cronies who have little auto experience to begin with are going to find a way to make hybrids/greens profitable if Toyota - a very efficient car company - can't.
Of course, what this means is that Obama is going to have to stack the deck in GM's favor - likely at the expense of the last great American car company, Ford. Whether by targeted subsidies, or mandating that government agencies buy only GM cars for the federal fleet, I am not sure. But the government just doesn't have a financial stake in GM, but a political one. The success or failure of the new GM will be credited to Obama - so he has an incentive to do whatever it takes to make GM work, even if that means short-circuiting fair competition with Ford (or Toyota or Honda, etc.).
Because this government interference is absolutely bad for America, I hope patriotic car buyers will not buy GM cars, and instead look to Ford, or even American startups like Tesla Motors (makers of really cool electric-only cars) when buying a new set of wheels.
I am not advocating protectionism for American carmakers. I believe in free markets, so the government shouldn't tell you that you have to buy an American car. I believe in freedom of choice, so the government shouldn't tell you that you have to buy a green car.
But just like those who are concerned about the environment are to be commended when they voluntarily spend a little more to buy a green car, let's also praise the patriots who voluntarily spend a little more on American cars - at this point, Fords - to strengthen the American enterprise.
###30###
By Lucas Roebuck
One of the great ironies of the fall of General Motors and Chrysler was how red America's patriotic ethos to buy American was what kept those companies afloat - and Democrat-contributing uber-high wage union workers in their jobs - for years if not decades.
Drive on the freeways of the blue state coasts, and you'll find a disproportionate number of foreign-made cars. In the American heartland - Republican strongholds - Chryslers, Fords and GM automobiles have traditionally dominated the roadways.
I'd bet my old 1966 Plymouth Valiant (if I still had it) that if Gallup did a poll today, we'd find that Republicans are far more likely to drive American-made cars than Democrats. In fact, an article in the The New York Times in 2005 reported that, indeed, Republicans bought American, and Democrats bought foreign cars, according to Scarborough Research, a New York market-based firm.
Interestingly enough, according to the Times, staunch Democrats drove sports utility vehicles just like Republicans - but the Democrats preferred foreign-made SUVs.
I don't want to debate the general merits of the quality and value of American cars versus those coming from Europe or Asia. I myself found an uneasy compromise in the last car that I purchased - a used Mazda 5 minivan. Not an American car, to be sure, but the Ford Motor Co. has a majority stake in Mazda (perhaps one of the reasons Ford avoided the fate of the rest of the former Big Three). So I rationalize my purchase by saying I drive a Ford. Sort of. (Yes, I don't sleep well at night.)
However, I know many Americans (including myself ) that paid a little more for a little less car at some point in the last few decades to buy American out of a since of patriotic duty. Buying American made American companies stronger, helped keep jobs in America and made the country stronger. Wearing your patriotism on your sleeve when car shopping has always been a heartland Republican activity.
So by getting into bed with the Democrats who bought cars mostly from their international rivals, the American automaker unions were biting the hand that fed them. No matter. Obama was happy to use money borrowed from our grandchildren to pay off the unions for their loyalty and contributions over the years to his party.
Now the government and the unions own what's left of GM. The Obama administration should sell off its stake as soon as possible, but that would be inconsistent with Obama's socialist march to the left. So don't expect the government to get out of the car business anytime soon.
Here's the problem now. Who is going to buy GM cars? Certainly not the Republican patriots who have been propping up GM for so many years. Maybe some Democrats who follow the commands of our supreme leader will do so - but, for the most part, I don't see Democrats changing from their buy-American-last ways. Do you really think that the people who buy the cool Toyota Prius are going to line up in droves to buy the nerdy Chevy Volt?
Even the new GM seems doomed to fail, sort of. Obama's new, greener GM is making cars that people in a recession just don't want or can't afford. For example, consider the Prius. Under the Bush recession, Priuses sold pretty well. Now that we have moved into a Category 5 Obama recession, Prius sales have dropped 50 percent. Democrats, like most Americans, are more high-minded when they have lots of cash to burn.
Toyota loses thousands of dollars on each Prius sold. Likely government subsidies from Japan and American tax incentives for buying hybrid cars mask the price point problem of hybrid/green cars. It's unlikely that a GM run by Obama cronies who have little auto experience to begin with are going to find a way to make hybrids/greens profitable if Toyota - a very efficient car company - can't.
Of course, what this means is that Obama is going to have to stack the deck in GM's favor - likely at the expense of the last great American car company, Ford. Whether by targeted subsidies, or mandating that government agencies buy only GM cars for the federal fleet, I am not sure. But the government just doesn't have a financial stake in GM, but a political one. The success or failure of the new GM will be credited to Obama - so he has an incentive to do whatever it takes to make GM work, even if that means short-circuiting fair competition with Ford (or Toyota or Honda, etc.).
Because this government interference is absolutely bad for America, I hope patriotic car buyers will not buy GM cars, and instead look to Ford, or even American startups like Tesla Motors (makers of really cool electric-only cars) when buying a new set of wheels.
I am not advocating protectionism for American carmakers. I believe in free markets, so the government shouldn't tell you that you have to buy an American car. I believe in freedom of choice, so the government shouldn't tell you that you have to buy a green car.
But just like those who are concerned about the environment are to be commended when they voluntarily spend a little more to buy a green car, let's also praise the patriots who voluntarily spend a little more on American cars - at this point, Fords - to strengthen the American enterprise.
###30###
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Tiller was a monster, but his murder was wrong
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
The murder of abortionist George Tiller was wrong. Period. His death cannot be justified.
I am as right-wing as they come on abortion. Life begins at conception, and once conceived, a child is entitled to naturally grow into a mature human. Tiller painfully denied thousands of innocent children that fundamental right. That he did it legally is a source of great grief - and he became a millionaire from his "practice." Some pro-life people labeled him a monster. The moniker is appropriate, but such labels are rarely helpful.
Most pro-life activists I know agree that shooting abortion doctors not only is morally reprehensible, but it also does not help efforts to stop abortion-murder. Case in point: Efforts by many in the media and left-wing blogs immediately after Tiller's death tried to paint the pro-life movement with the shooter's brush. Will that blatant opportunism by abortionrights advocates to overgeneralize and stereotype stick? That would be like saying all Muslims in America want to gun down Army recruiters just because one did.
It's sort of a logical fallacy - a combination of a hasty generalization and a false dichotomy - that is now populating the left-wing talking points of this issue. Abortion-rights people say, "See, you don't want to be like those crazy shooters? Either you join us or you are like them." The goal is, of course, to get moderates to see those evil, doctor-shooting so-called pro-lifers as the crazy ones. (When, in reality, people like Dr. Tiller are the ones who are crushing skulls and sucking the brains out of half-born babies who would otherwise be viable outside of the womb. Are Dr. Tiller's supporters extremists? You decide.)
Ironically, most hard-core pro-lifers don't support shooting doctors. Most left-wing pro-choice supporters do support lateterm abortions. The Senate voting record of President Barack Obama comes to mind.
Assuming that accused killer Scott Roeder did indeed gun down Tiller because of Roeder's anti-abortion views, Roeder did nothing to help the pro-life cause and most likely didn't even stop one abortion.
But it's a sick sort of math that calculates that one murder is justified if it saves the lives of many others. National Review editor Ramesh Ponnuru, who also condemned the shooting, points out three reasons why the rational pro-lifers (even doing this moral justifying calculus) would have to conclude that killing abortion doctors is morally wrong.
Ponnuru argues that in order to justify the shooting, first Tiller would have had to have been in the act of performing an abortion. For example, if I saw that you were about to puncture my child's (or anyone's child's, really) skull, I would be morally justified in shooting you, even if you were by some bizarre twist legally allowed to kill my child.
Second, the shooter would have to know with moral certainty that someone else wouldn't have performed the abortion if Dr. Tiller wasn't around to do it. Third, in order to justify the use of violence, the shooter's intent would have been simply to disable the doctor - you know, shoot his hands off - instead of actually killing him. Finally, Ponnuru writes that "it would have to be possible for a pro-life regime to survive without the rule of law." In other words, if you are willing to blatantly disregard the law (abortion is legal, shooting an adult is not), then whatever your perfect world would look like would also have to function in a state of anarchy. But you couldn't enforce pro-choice or pro-life rules in anarchy.
Ponnuru concludes the conditions for justifying the murder of abortionists are "impossible."
Abortion is a crime against humanity of Holocaust proportions. The fact that abortion is legal in America is the only reason I am ashamed of my homeland. But that doesn't excuse another murder.
Unfortunately, whatever Roeder's intentions were, he only made things worse, and empowered those who cannot see abortion for the great tragedy it is.
###30###
By Lucas Roebuck
The murder of abortionist George Tiller was wrong. Period. His death cannot be justified.
I am as right-wing as they come on abortion. Life begins at conception, and once conceived, a child is entitled to naturally grow into a mature human. Tiller painfully denied thousands of innocent children that fundamental right. That he did it legally is a source of great grief - and he became a millionaire from his "practice." Some pro-life people labeled him a monster. The moniker is appropriate, but such labels are rarely helpful.
Most pro-life activists I know agree that shooting abortion doctors not only is morally reprehensible, but it also does not help efforts to stop abortion-murder. Case in point: Efforts by many in the media and left-wing blogs immediately after Tiller's death tried to paint the pro-life movement with the shooter's brush. Will that blatant opportunism by abortionrights advocates to overgeneralize and stereotype stick? That would be like saying all Muslims in America want to gun down Army recruiters just because one did.
It's sort of a logical fallacy - a combination of a hasty generalization and a false dichotomy - that is now populating the left-wing talking points of this issue. Abortion-rights people say, "See, you don't want to be like those crazy shooters? Either you join us or you are like them." The goal is, of course, to get moderates to see those evil, doctor-shooting so-called pro-lifers as the crazy ones. (When, in reality, people like Dr. Tiller are the ones who are crushing skulls and sucking the brains out of half-born babies who would otherwise be viable outside of the womb. Are Dr. Tiller's supporters extremists? You decide.)
Ironically, most hard-core pro-lifers don't support shooting doctors. Most left-wing pro-choice supporters do support lateterm abortions. The Senate voting record of President Barack Obama comes to mind.
Assuming that accused killer Scott Roeder did indeed gun down Tiller because of Roeder's anti-abortion views, Roeder did nothing to help the pro-life cause and most likely didn't even stop one abortion.
But it's a sick sort of math that calculates that one murder is justified if it saves the lives of many others. National Review editor Ramesh Ponnuru, who also condemned the shooting, points out three reasons why the rational pro-lifers (even doing this moral justifying calculus) would have to conclude that killing abortion doctors is morally wrong.
Ponnuru argues that in order to justify the shooting, first Tiller would have had to have been in the act of performing an abortion. For example, if I saw that you were about to puncture my child's (or anyone's child's, really) skull, I would be morally justified in shooting you, even if you were by some bizarre twist legally allowed to kill my child.
Second, the shooter would have to know with moral certainty that someone else wouldn't have performed the abortion if Dr. Tiller wasn't around to do it. Third, in order to justify the use of violence, the shooter's intent would have been simply to disable the doctor - you know, shoot his hands off - instead of actually killing him. Finally, Ponnuru writes that "it would have to be possible for a pro-life regime to survive without the rule of law." In other words, if you are willing to blatantly disregard the law (abortion is legal, shooting an adult is not), then whatever your perfect world would look like would also have to function in a state of anarchy. But you couldn't enforce pro-choice or pro-life rules in anarchy.
Ponnuru concludes the conditions for justifying the murder of abortionists are "impossible."
Abortion is a crime against humanity of Holocaust proportions. The fact that abortion is legal in America is the only reason I am ashamed of my homeland. But that doesn't excuse another murder.
Unfortunately, whatever Roeder's intentions were, he only made things worse, and empowered those who cannot see abortion for the great tragedy it is.
###30###
Thursday, June 04, 2009
The Political Circle
The crazies from the left and the right meet in the middle
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
We often like to think of modern American politics as a line, sort of a spectrum from the extreme left to the extreme right. This simple model helps us understand and relate to each other politically but perhaps is lacking in the complexity needed to explain some political realities.
A circle has often been proposed as a better figure to model American politics. In a political circle, where you fall in the circle on the x axis can be described in the familiar liberal/conservative dichotomy. Where you fall on the y axis, however, describes where you fall on the governance level spectrum. The lower (or more negative) your y value, the more you believe that government should be involved in individual life. The higher or more positive your y value is, the more you believe that individual freedom supersedes the benefits of governance.
So the extreme libertarians are anarchists, and their polar opposites would be totalitarians. In essence, as you approach the apex of the circle from the right, you have your anti-all tax, government conspiracy nuts; and as you approach the top of the circle from the left, you have your screw-the-man, government-industrial complex antiestablishment free-love free-drugs anarchist-hippies. This circle model explains why in the 2008 presidential primaries, many Democrats really liked the sound of Republicanlibertarian Ron Paul.
On the bottom of the circle, you have theocrats and security hawks as you approach the base from the right; and you'll find social engineers and communist academics (who know so much more than you do) as you bottom out from the left. In a way, both ends of the circle are unhealthy and usually result in abuse. Anarchy is the result of the abuse of freedom; totalitarian oppression is the result of the abuse of governance.
Certainly, in freedom-loving America, the circle is topheavy. That's not to say we don't have our fair share of security hawks and government nannies weighting the circle down. The interesting phenomenon that helps balance out America's strong libertarian streak is that once in power, politicians are more likely to move down the circle than up it no matter what hemisphere they reside on.
Consider President Barack Obama. His recent breaks from his campaign rhetoric to basically adopt the Bush policy of military tribunals for war on terror detainees in the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base have infuriated civil libertarians. Many of them voted for Obama because they thought he would reverse the Bush policies, unlike Obama's opponent, Sen. John McCain, who during the election wanted to close Guantanamo, but use military tribunals to deal with the detainees, not treat them like common criminals.
I'm curious how the Obama-supporting libertarians occupying the upper-left portion of the quadrant feel about his new Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, who agreed that the government can seize land from one private owner via the power of eminent domain and give it to another private owner simply because the new owner will pay more taxes. I know many of them are already getting queasy over Obama's government takeovers of many private businesses in the automotive and banking sectors.
Political pandering to the top of the political circle is known as populism, which Obama and his team did a superb job of during the campaign. If popular votes are any indication, Obama drew a huge number of upper-right quadrant dwellers into the upper-left quadrant. It's very possible that Obama's margin of victory is summed up in this leftward shift.
But we are only half a year into the Obama administration, and Obama has already taken not just a sharp jump to the left, but also a sharp dive down toward the base of the political circle.
The further he moves toward totalitarian government control, the more Obama's charisma and gravitas lose a grip on those in the northern hemisphere of the political circle.
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
We often like to think of modern American politics as a line, sort of a spectrum from the extreme left to the extreme right. This simple model helps us understand and relate to each other politically but perhaps is lacking in the complexity needed to explain some political realities.
A circle has often been proposed as a better figure to model American politics. In a political circle, where you fall in the circle on the x axis can be described in the familiar liberal/conservative dichotomy. Where you fall on the y axis, however, describes where you fall on the governance level spectrum. The lower (or more negative) your y value, the more you believe that government should be involved in individual life. The higher or more positive your y value is, the more you believe that individual freedom supersedes the benefits of governance.
So the extreme libertarians are anarchists, and their polar opposites would be totalitarians. In essence, as you approach the apex of the circle from the right, you have your anti-all tax, government conspiracy nuts; and as you approach the top of the circle from the left, you have your screw-the-man, government-industrial complex antiestablishment free-love free-drugs anarchist-hippies. This circle model explains why in the 2008 presidential primaries, many Democrats really liked the sound of Republicanlibertarian Ron Paul.
On the bottom of the circle, you have theocrats and security hawks as you approach the base from the right; and you'll find social engineers and communist academics (who know so much more than you do) as you bottom out from the left. In a way, both ends of the circle are unhealthy and usually result in abuse. Anarchy is the result of the abuse of freedom; totalitarian oppression is the result of the abuse of governance.
Certainly, in freedom-loving America, the circle is topheavy. That's not to say we don't have our fair share of security hawks and government nannies weighting the circle down. The interesting phenomenon that helps balance out America's strong libertarian streak is that once in power, politicians are more likely to move down the circle than up it no matter what hemisphere they reside on.
Consider President Barack Obama. His recent breaks from his campaign rhetoric to basically adopt the Bush policy of military tribunals for war on terror detainees in the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base have infuriated civil libertarians. Many of them voted for Obama because they thought he would reverse the Bush policies, unlike Obama's opponent, Sen. John McCain, who during the election wanted to close Guantanamo, but use military tribunals to deal with the detainees, not treat them like common criminals.
I'm curious how the Obama-supporting libertarians occupying the upper-left portion of the quadrant feel about his new Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, who agreed that the government can seize land from one private owner via the power of eminent domain and give it to another private owner simply because the new owner will pay more taxes. I know many of them are already getting queasy over Obama's government takeovers of many private businesses in the automotive and banking sectors.
Political pandering to the top of the political circle is known as populism, which Obama and his team did a superb job of during the campaign. If popular votes are any indication, Obama drew a huge number of upper-right quadrant dwellers into the upper-left quadrant. It's very possible that Obama's margin of victory is summed up in this leftward shift.
But we are only half a year into the Obama administration, and Obama has already taken not just a sharp jump to the left, but also a sharp dive down toward the base of the political circle.
The further he moves toward totalitarian government control, the more Obama's charisma and gravitas lose a grip on those in the northern hemisphere of the political circle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
