Connecting the ills of the food system with climate change in a direct cause-effect relationship may be one of the most compelling ways to address the problems we face regarding food. Climate change is an unaviodable fact, and people who try to say otherwise are blinding themselves to reality, but then, that's nothing new. As always humanity likes to not know; it makes our day to day interactions so much easier. But, the time is coming when there will be no way not to know.
The majority of people now largely depend on a flawed system, that, no matter how it is viewed, is doomed to experience some intense shifts and upheavels. The simple truth is that we can't go on like this. People have been saying the same thing in a myriad of different ways for years, but now it is sharply apparent that the United States is a vast, lumbering, antiquated machine. Dropping vital parts left and right, it threatens to bring other countries down with it. Sad to say, but perhaps the superpower status may soon be obscured in a cloud of diesel exhaust, rich with particulate matter. The heavy stench of progress is in the air, but it is no longer clear which direction we are progressing in.
The thing about climate change is that if affects the entire world, not just specific countries. What the United States chooses to do in terms of pollution is not isolated, those decisions will spread and things will be better or worse as a result. Now here is the most obvious thing: If the food we are producing is contributing to the warming of the climate, we should start producing food in a safer manner!! If the meat people consume comes from factory farms which are ". . .responsible for eighteen percent of the world's total global warming effect-more than the emissions produced by every plane, train or steamer ship on the planet"(Lappe 106), then we should change the way those farms are structured! (Factory farms are not the only ill, monoculture is also vastly polluting).
This alone might be one way that shifts to a more sustainable food production system could be initiated and maintained. One of the powerful aspects of this shift is that it would be global and local at the same time. If individual countries made it mandatory for farm sizes to stay small, for food to be produced in beneficial ways, and for diversity to be priority than people and corporations would have to change. Laws governing what people can eat are concerning, but if they are made as a way to benefit the planet as a whole, and to stop/slow/or change the trajectory of global warming, they might be worth considering.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Big Organic vs Small Organic. What a dilemma.
On the one hand it makes great sense to grow as many crops as possible that are free of chemical inputs so that as many people as possible will have access to the food. But on the other hand these organic products are often more expensive than their conventional counterparts, so people need to have a more holistic understanding of what they are buying. They need to see the product as supporting a worthwhile system, and not just as something to eat.
But if this is the case then it is worth questioning the logic and ethics behind Big Organic. Although there are no toxic fertilizers and pesticides applied to the crops there is still a tremendous use of petroleum in the form of fuel for tractors and harvesters, not to mention the energy intensive process of preparing products for sale, as seen in the Earthbound Farms example. Also worth noting is the way crops are grown in intensive monoculture systems where variety and balanced inputs and outputs are not a factor. Pollan makes the distinction between the two systems when he talks about the attempts of the USDA to set standards for organic products. He calls the two systems the "organic industry"and the "organic movement"(155) and inevitably, in the case of the set standards, the desires of the industry won hands down over the movement.
If the goal of Big Organic farms is to produce as much food as possible than prices for those products should be as cheap or cheaper than their conventional counterparts. If their goal is to produce food in a way that is sustainable for the land and the environment than they should drastically scale down their farm size, incorporate species diversity, and integrate animals into the mix so that manure can be used for fertilizer. In a nutshell there does not seem to be any way that Big Organic is good for the environment, except for the fact that they don't use chemical fertilizers, but as Pollan says that is pretty much offset by the fact that petrol is used in almost other aspect of the farm.
Despite all these factors it seems to come down to one specific thing, and that thing is demand.
". . .Study after study has demonstrated that, measured in terms of the amount of food produced per acre, small farms are actually more productive than big farms; it is the higher transaction costs involved that makes dealing with them impractical for a company like Kahns [Cascadian Farms]- that and the fact that they don't grow tremendous quantities of any one thing"(Pollan 161). Sadly, when big food retailers want to buy your products it makes a sick kind of sense to cater to their desires and thus "the industrial values of of specialization, economies of scale, and mechanization wind up crowding out ecological values such as diversity, complexity and symbiosis"(161). The solution???
On the one hand it makes great sense to grow as many crops as possible that are free of chemical inputs so that as many people as possible will have access to the food. But on the other hand these organic products are often more expensive than their conventional counterparts, so people need to have a more holistic understanding of what they are buying. They need to see the product as supporting a worthwhile system, and not just as something to eat.
But if this is the case then it is worth questioning the logic and ethics behind Big Organic. Although there are no toxic fertilizers and pesticides applied to the crops there is still a tremendous use of petroleum in the form of fuel for tractors and harvesters, not to mention the energy intensive process of preparing products for sale, as seen in the Earthbound Farms example. Also worth noting is the way crops are grown in intensive monoculture systems where variety and balanced inputs and outputs are not a factor. Pollan makes the distinction between the two systems when he talks about the attempts of the USDA to set standards for organic products. He calls the two systems the "organic industry"and the "organic movement"(155) and inevitably, in the case of the set standards, the desires of the industry won hands down over the movement.
If the goal of Big Organic farms is to produce as much food as possible than prices for those products should be as cheap or cheaper than their conventional counterparts. If their goal is to produce food in a way that is sustainable for the land and the environment than they should drastically scale down their farm size, incorporate species diversity, and integrate animals into the mix so that manure can be used for fertilizer. In a nutshell there does not seem to be any way that Big Organic is good for the environment, except for the fact that they don't use chemical fertilizers, but as Pollan says that is pretty much offset by the fact that petrol is used in almost other aspect of the farm.
Despite all these factors it seems to come down to one specific thing, and that thing is demand.
". . .Study after study has demonstrated that, measured in terms of the amount of food produced per acre, small farms are actually more productive than big farms; it is the higher transaction costs involved that makes dealing with them impractical for a company like Kahns [Cascadian Farms]- that and the fact that they don't grow tremendous quantities of any one thing"(Pollan 161). Sadly, when big food retailers want to buy your products it makes a sick kind of sense to cater to their desires and thus "the industrial values of of specialization, economies of scale, and mechanization wind up crowding out ecological values such as diversity, complexity and symbiosis"(161). The solution???
Oppositions, and the Right to Know
Michael Pollan explains the way"old-fashioned farms" functioned as more effecient systems of energy exchange than their often much larger, more industrialized counterparts. Farmers acheived this balance through rotational crops and a large diversity of plant and animal life. Pasturing animals was one way that the system was kept in balance, animals would graze and consume plant waset from gardens and then deposit their manure in fields or in stalls ensuring that it would be incorporated back into the system as fertilizer.
This widening of plant and animal avenues allowed certain animals the chance to eat specific crops or plants and not others. Farmers understood that pasturing different species of grazing animals together could ensure that there was not an imbalance between the grazer and what was being consumed. Putting horses and cattle in one pasture together is one way to ensure a balanced and beneficial use of the land, as cattle eat the plants that the pickier horse is loathe to consume. In terms of composting the smaller scale farm was also an efficient system of consumtion and renewal. Farmers could take old plants from their gardens and mix them with manure from the animals. Over time the nitrogen and bacteria in the manure would cause the pile of compost to heat up thus speeding the breakdown of the tough grasses and plant waste and providing a balanced, not overly rich nitrogen fertilizer for the garden and other crops.
Pollan details the simplicity and logic of this system when he paraphrases Wendell Berry by saying we "take this elegant solution and neatly divide it into two new problems,a fertility problem on the farm (now remedied with petrochemical fertilizers) and a pollution problem on the feedlot (which is often not remedied at all)"(Pollan 67-68 Omnivores Dilemma).
Pollan shows the other "new"side of this equation by describing the waseful illogical system that is characteristic of monoculture industrial farms and large scale factory farms. In these arenas effeciency is the key and takes precedence over all else. On crop farms vast areas are planted with one or two plants, in the US most commonly corn or soybeans. The seeds of these plants are generally treated with fungicides while in storage and some are also GMO's. Once planted the areas under cultivation are intensely fertilized with high amounts of nitrogen and other substances, most of which are sourced from petroleum. The crops are harvested, and generally not used directly as food, but rather sent to factories to be broken down into, as Pollan describes them, more "value added" products. This description of the dangers of monoculture is abbreviated and some information has undoubtdly been left out.The main point however, is that in no way are these giant one crop farms beneficial to the farmer, the environment or the consumer. They only benefit the seed companies and corporations who process the products into a multitude of parts to be reassembled into "food".
On the factory farm side of things animals, only one species, are raised in intensely close quarters, and fed food they have not evolved to eat which usually contains animal parts and by-products. The waste from these animals is too contaminated with growth hormones and antibiotics- administered to boost their size and to treat illnesses which result from close confines and lowered immune systems-to use on crops or in any beneficial way. Because the manure must be gotten rid if it is stored in the most logical of places, open pit vast lagoons which are not lined, and often overflow and leak, contaminating rivers and watersheds. Throughout the Omnivores Dilemma these oppositions, and many others, stand out starkly, and demand to be recognized, if for no other reason than it being the right of people to know and understand where their food comes from. beautiful or not, people need to know.
This widening of plant and animal avenues allowed certain animals the chance to eat specific crops or plants and not others. Farmers understood that pasturing different species of grazing animals together could ensure that there was not an imbalance between the grazer and what was being consumed. Putting horses and cattle in one pasture together is one way to ensure a balanced and beneficial use of the land, as cattle eat the plants that the pickier horse is loathe to consume. In terms of composting the smaller scale farm was also an efficient system of consumtion and renewal. Farmers could take old plants from their gardens and mix them with manure from the animals. Over time the nitrogen and bacteria in the manure would cause the pile of compost to heat up thus speeding the breakdown of the tough grasses and plant waste and providing a balanced, not overly rich nitrogen fertilizer for the garden and other crops.
Pollan details the simplicity and logic of this system when he paraphrases Wendell Berry by saying we "take this elegant solution and neatly divide it into two new problems,a fertility problem on the farm (now remedied with petrochemical fertilizers) and a pollution problem on the feedlot (which is often not remedied at all)"(Pollan 67-68 Omnivores Dilemma).
Pollan shows the other "new"side of this equation by describing the waseful illogical system that is characteristic of monoculture industrial farms and large scale factory farms. In these arenas effeciency is the key and takes precedence over all else. On crop farms vast areas are planted with one or two plants, in the US most commonly corn or soybeans. The seeds of these plants are generally treated with fungicides while in storage and some are also GMO's. Once planted the areas under cultivation are intensely fertilized with high amounts of nitrogen and other substances, most of which are sourced from petroleum. The crops are harvested, and generally not used directly as food, but rather sent to factories to be broken down into, as Pollan describes them, more "value added" products. This description of the dangers of monoculture is abbreviated and some information has undoubtdly been left out.The main point however, is that in no way are these giant one crop farms beneficial to the farmer, the environment or the consumer. They only benefit the seed companies and corporations who process the products into a multitude of parts to be reassembled into "food".
On the factory farm side of things animals, only one species, are raised in intensely close quarters, and fed food they have not evolved to eat which usually contains animal parts and by-products. The waste from these animals is too contaminated with growth hormones and antibiotics- administered to boost their size and to treat illnesses which result from close confines and lowered immune systems-to use on crops or in any beneficial way. Because the manure must be gotten rid if it is stored in the most logical of places, open pit vast lagoons which are not lined, and often overflow and leak, contaminating rivers and watersheds. Throughout the Omnivores Dilemma these oppositions, and many others, stand out starkly, and demand to be recognized, if for no other reason than it being the right of people to know and understand where their food comes from. beautiful or not, people need to know.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Schlosser and the Industrial Food System
It is important that people like Eric Schlosser are writing books and speaking at universities in an attempt to educate people about the largely industrialized food industry and the way it is negatively impacting not just human life and health but all other living systems on the planet.
There is often a reactive tendency to discredit or disregard people like Schlosser who speak up against a consumption based lifestyle that has become mainstream for many people in the United States. This response may come from a a general disbelief or skepticism regarding the things he and other critics like him have said, or it may stem from a sense of shame or embarrassment that the lifestyle one lives is directly connected to the industrial food system and that the personal choices a person makes do have an effect. Knowledge like that is heavy and often uncomfortable; once a truth is known there is no excuse for inaction that can hold up under close scrutiny.
Ignorance is bliss, and the "success of the [industrial food] system and industry is based on people remaining ignorant." (Schlosser) If complacency is the dominant emotion regarding food than things will progress in much the same way they have for the past forty years. There is hope though, and that hope lies with education of the public and an awareness of the severely broken relationship that most people have with food.
The growth of the McDonald food system parallels the boom in industry and manufacturing that occured in the 40's and 50's. The production of food in fast food restaurants was modeled after the concepts of Taylorism, a scientific method to increase production where workers are specialized in one particular job, and Fordism, the concept of building products in vast quantities so that costs of production go down and prices can be kept low to ensure large rates of consumption. Some of the problems that arise from this type of business model are fragmentation of production activities, a massive deskilling of workers, thus making them more disposable as employees, and a sense that while mechanized production increases efficiency the only benefits are for owners and big corporations.
In his lecture Schlosser spoke to the way people have become more and more disconnected from the food they eat. The massive shift in the way food is produced and consumed runs parallel to the way the American capitalist economy has evolved. Lifestyles have changed from a largely self sufficient interaction with land and food to a reliance on big businesses and corporations to employ and feed the general public. A multitude of human, animal and environmental health factors have arisen with the increased industrialization and mechanization of the food system. Farm sizes increase, and monoculture spreads, and the distance between plant and plate becomes not just a distance but a chasm.
If one has the courage to look closely at the food system as it exists in most of the country they will see that a solution lies not in the separation of issues but in the acknowledgement of the connections that span each problem facing the world. The industrial food system is dependent on oil for fuel and fertilizers which poison the earth and contribute to global warming. The disconnection from food sources leads people to the sense of complacency mentioned earlier, which then keeps them from questioning what they are eating which further enables the financial well-being of a few giant corporations who are entirely profit driven and rely on product demand and consumption to continue their agenda of relentless expansion.
There is often a reactive tendency to discredit or disregard people like Schlosser who speak up against a consumption based lifestyle that has become mainstream for many people in the United States. This response may come from a a general disbelief or skepticism regarding the things he and other critics like him have said, or it may stem from a sense of shame or embarrassment that the lifestyle one lives is directly connected to the industrial food system and that the personal choices a person makes do have an effect. Knowledge like that is heavy and often uncomfortable; once a truth is known there is no excuse for inaction that can hold up under close scrutiny.
Ignorance is bliss, and the "success of the [industrial food] system and industry is based on people remaining ignorant." (Schlosser) If complacency is the dominant emotion regarding food than things will progress in much the same way they have for the past forty years. There is hope though, and that hope lies with education of the public and an awareness of the severely broken relationship that most people have with food.
The growth of the McDonald food system parallels the boom in industry and manufacturing that occured in the 40's and 50's. The production of food in fast food restaurants was modeled after the concepts of Taylorism, a scientific method to increase production where workers are specialized in one particular job, and Fordism, the concept of building products in vast quantities so that costs of production go down and prices can be kept low to ensure large rates of consumption. Some of the problems that arise from this type of business model are fragmentation of production activities, a massive deskilling of workers, thus making them more disposable as employees, and a sense that while mechanized production increases efficiency the only benefits are for owners and big corporations.
In his lecture Schlosser spoke to the way people have become more and more disconnected from the food they eat. The massive shift in the way food is produced and consumed runs parallel to the way the American capitalist economy has evolved. Lifestyles have changed from a largely self sufficient interaction with land and food to a reliance on big businesses and corporations to employ and feed the general public. A multitude of human, animal and environmental health factors have arisen with the increased industrialization and mechanization of the food system. Farm sizes increase, and monoculture spreads, and the distance between plant and plate becomes not just a distance but a chasm.
If one has the courage to look closely at the food system as it exists in most of the country they will see that a solution lies not in the separation of issues but in the acknowledgement of the connections that span each problem facing the world. The industrial food system is dependent on oil for fuel and fertilizers which poison the earth and contribute to global warming. The disconnection from food sources leads people to the sense of complacency mentioned earlier, which then keeps them from questioning what they are eating which further enables the financial well-being of a few giant corporations who are entirely profit driven and rely on product demand and consumption to continue their agenda of relentless expansion.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Ecocroticism and the role of questioning
Garrard's chapter on Ecocriticism gives a clear overview of some of the major theories and methods of analysis used in the field of environmental literature and study. It is important to understand the theories that are in use because the readings up to and beyond this point will all fall into one or more of the categories of ecocriticism.
While writing should be read and appreciated for what it is and for the message it imparts it is also helpful to have an understanding of the theories that are often the central backbone to many pieces of writing. This allows people to have a clear picture of the stance the author is taking and the underlying point they are perhaps trying to make.
In the piece by McKibben, an excerpt from the book The End Of Nature, the critical theme is that humans have successfully altered nature to the point that nothing will ever again be quite the same. This theme is quite clearly a reflection of the deep ecology theory discussed by Garrard. There is a sense that McKibben is lamenting the passing of nature as it should be, unspoiled by the workings of humanity, and yet he is also aware of the role he plays in that destruction. McKibben has exhibited some strong ideas about the natural world and the rate of population growth, the destruction of natural resources and, in a sense, the end of nature. These ideas are fleshed out in some of his other writings. He has enough clarity and honesty to see that we are all a part of the destruction, yet he, like so many others seems unsure what to do about it. He says "Of course, the person I was fleeing most fearfully was myself, for I drive . . . and I'm burning a collapsed barn. . . because it is much the cheapest way to deal with it, and I live on about four hundred times what Thoreau conclusively proved was enough, so I've done my share to take this independent, eternal world and turn it into a science fair project( and not even a good science-fair project but a cloddish one, like pumping poison into an ant farm and 'observing the effects'.)"
Now this statement rings true because I suspect it captures the emotion that many of us feel when we think about the environment and how we are all contributing to this huge problem, and how we feel rather stuck, and are not sure what is the best way out. For many people shutting down and tuning out on reality is a safe way to cope, but there is only so long we can blind ourselves to the truth staring us in the face.
Rather than choosing to look the other way we could take the path of resistance and defiance, choosing to speak when others would prefer we stay silent. Terry Tempest Williams writes about this resistance in her piece Refuge: An Unnatural History, an essay which combines her memories and experiences of growing up in Utah near the nuclear bomb test sites with a certain ecofeminist mystical theme brought to life in a dream about native women healing the poisoned earth. She seems to feel that the power of femininity and the power of the earth are both at stake, and the combination of the two concepts, as well as the alarming rates of breast cancer in her community all add up to an inability to stay silent. "The price of obedience has become too high. The fear and inability to question authority that ultimately killed rural communities in Utah during atmospheric testing of atomic weapons is the same fear I saw in my mother's body. Sheep. Dead sheep. The evidence is buried."(Williams 756)
It takes a brave soul to stand up for what is right, to speak for those who do not have a voice and to defy those seemingly endless opposing powers who laugh in the face of honest questions. So much is at stake that there can be no alternative but to hope and strive for something a little better, a little more sustainable each day. In an interview with Alex Steffen in The Sun magazine he says something to the effect of, the best way to defy those who want to continue in this destructive polluting manner is to cultivate optimism. Those who we defy want us to be pessimistic and scared, for that continues to feed them power, but if we are optimistic and believe that there is no alternative but to enact sustainable change then we have already begun to walk on the path of defiance.
While writing should be read and appreciated for what it is and for the message it imparts it is also helpful to have an understanding of the theories that are often the central backbone to many pieces of writing. This allows people to have a clear picture of the stance the author is taking and the underlying point they are perhaps trying to make.
In the piece by McKibben, an excerpt from the book The End Of Nature, the critical theme is that humans have successfully altered nature to the point that nothing will ever again be quite the same. This theme is quite clearly a reflection of the deep ecology theory discussed by Garrard. There is a sense that McKibben is lamenting the passing of nature as it should be, unspoiled by the workings of humanity, and yet he is also aware of the role he plays in that destruction. McKibben has exhibited some strong ideas about the natural world and the rate of population growth, the destruction of natural resources and, in a sense, the end of nature. These ideas are fleshed out in some of his other writings. He has enough clarity and honesty to see that we are all a part of the destruction, yet he, like so many others seems unsure what to do about it. He says "Of course, the person I was fleeing most fearfully was myself, for I drive . . . and I'm burning a collapsed barn. . . because it is much the cheapest way to deal with it, and I live on about four hundred times what Thoreau conclusively proved was enough, so I've done my share to take this independent, eternal world and turn it into a science fair project( and not even a good science-fair project but a cloddish one, like pumping poison into an ant farm and 'observing the effects'.)"
Now this statement rings true because I suspect it captures the emotion that many of us feel when we think about the environment and how we are all contributing to this huge problem, and how we feel rather stuck, and are not sure what is the best way out. For many people shutting down and tuning out on reality is a safe way to cope, but there is only so long we can blind ourselves to the truth staring us in the face.
Rather than choosing to look the other way we could take the path of resistance and defiance, choosing to speak when others would prefer we stay silent. Terry Tempest Williams writes about this resistance in her piece Refuge: An Unnatural History, an essay which combines her memories and experiences of growing up in Utah near the nuclear bomb test sites with a certain ecofeminist mystical theme brought to life in a dream about native women healing the poisoned earth. She seems to feel that the power of femininity and the power of the earth are both at stake, and the combination of the two concepts, as well as the alarming rates of breast cancer in her community all add up to an inability to stay silent. "The price of obedience has become too high. The fear and inability to question authority that ultimately killed rural communities in Utah during atmospheric testing of atomic weapons is the same fear I saw in my mother's body. Sheep. Dead sheep. The evidence is buried."(Williams 756)
It takes a brave soul to stand up for what is right, to speak for those who do not have a voice and to defy those seemingly endless opposing powers who laugh in the face of honest questions. So much is at stake that there can be no alternative but to hope and strive for something a little better, a little more sustainable each day. In an interview with Alex Steffen in The Sun magazine he says something to the effect of, the best way to defy those who want to continue in this destructive polluting manner is to cultivate optimism. Those who we defy want us to be pessimistic and scared, for that continues to feed them power, but if we are optimistic and believe that there is no alternative but to enact sustainable change then we have already begun to walk on the path of defiance.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Thoreau and Cronin
It seems to me that the most obvious difference between the writings of Thoreau and Cronin are that, while Thoreau is an avid proponent of wild spaces and wilderness, he is more so a supporter of the simple life. The call to live a simpler existence is what drives him to a certain seclusion, and in that seclusion he seems better able to focus on the minute details of nature and the abundance of life surrounding him. While it is true that his writings often fulfill the romanticized ideal of nature as the sublime and majestic, a theory which Cronin criticizes, it is also helpful to remember the context of his writing, as well as to notice the transformations and changes of opinion he goes through, most notably the way his concept of Native Americans changes in his Walden and Huckleberry pieces.
Cronin, in The Trouble with Wilderness, gives a rather chronological discussion of the way the concept of nature and the idea of wilderness have changed since Thoreau. What is most striking to me is the elitist mentality that pervades the construct of wilderness. This mentality is evidenced in retreats and hunting expeditions and national parks innundated with visitors. It's all well and good for people to experience those striking scenes and grand vistas, but there is something wrong with the mentality of traveling to a place to experience its beauty and wildness, and wanting to protect it, but disregarding areas that may be closer to home and less extreme in terrain and beauty, yet are still equally important and in need of protection. on page 85 Cronin says that, "Idealizing a distant wilderness too often means not idealizing the environment in which we actually live, the landscape that for better or worse we call home." That is what is most striking about the Cronin piece for me, that he calls attention to the way people can so easily disregard the woods outside their door as being mundane and somehow less worthy of protection than areas that are immediatly grand and majestic. What is the use of preserving the glory of Yosemite National Park if we are not equally intent on preserving the glory of the West Virginia mountains, or the Hocking River, or open prairie grasslands?
Cronin, in The Trouble with Wilderness, gives a rather chronological discussion of the way the concept of nature and the idea of wilderness have changed since Thoreau. What is most striking to me is the elitist mentality that pervades the construct of wilderness. This mentality is evidenced in retreats and hunting expeditions and national parks innundated with visitors. It's all well and good for people to experience those striking scenes and grand vistas, but there is something wrong with the mentality of traveling to a place to experience its beauty and wildness, and wanting to protect it, but disregarding areas that may be closer to home and less extreme in terrain and beauty, yet are still equally important and in need of protection. on page 85 Cronin says that, "Idealizing a distant wilderness too often means not idealizing the environment in which we actually live, the landscape that for better or worse we call home." That is what is most striking about the Cronin piece for me, that he calls attention to the way people can so easily disregard the woods outside their door as being mundane and somehow less worthy of protection than areas that are immediatly grand and majestic. What is the use of preserving the glory of Yosemite National Park if we are not equally intent on preserving the glory of the West Virginia mountains, or the Hocking River, or open prairie grasslands?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)