April 12, 2007 - Likely Primary Voters on Iraq(source: http://americanresearchgroup.com/)
There are stark differences between likely Democratic and Republican primary voters over Iraq.
The following results are based on nationwide samples of 600 likely Democratic primary voters (PV) and 600 likely Republican primary voters (PV) conducted April 9-12, 2007. The theoretical margin of error for each sample is plus or minus 4 percentage points, 95% of the time. Primary preferences for each party are below.
Question:
Do you believe that the United States can win the war in Iraq, or not?
Can win No Undecided
Democratic PV 17% 70% 13%
Republican PV 75% 20% 5%
85% of likely Democratic primary voters voting for Hillary Clinton, 71% of those voting for John Edwards, and 64% of those voting for Barack Obama say they do not believe the United States can win the war in Iraq.
86% of likely Republican primary voters voting for John McCain, 62% of those voting for Rudy Giuliani, and 68% of those voting for Mitt Romney say they believe the United States can win the war in Iraq.
Question:
Do you favor or oppose setting a deadline for the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq
Favor Oppose Undecided
Democratic PV 70% 17% 13%
Republican PV 17% 77% 6%
74% of likely Democratic primary voters voting for Hillary Clinton, 57% of those voting for John Edwards, and 81% of those voting for Barack Obama say they favor setting a deadline for the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq.
89% of likely Republican primary voters voting for John McCain, 63% of those voting for Rudy Giuliani, and 62% of those voting for Mitt Romney say they oppose setting a deadline for the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq.
The Democratic Party, The Party of Defeatism
85% of those likely to vote for Senator Clinton don't believe that the U.S. can win the war in Iraq. Let's just throw in the towel and give up on Iraq, it's a lost cause, Hillary's supporters say so.
Flashback to 1992 - (LANGUAGE WARNING!)
1992 was the year I saw these guys live at The Delta Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. I'm not sure if this is from SLC or not. I can't recall if they performed it.
The Parable of The Talents
There's a parable in the bible about a lord that gives his servants a different number of talents (money). One of the servants takes his talents and uses them in a productive way. Another one of the servants takes his and buries them in the ground because he's afraid to try to use them. When the lord returns and finds out what they've done with their talents, he rewards the ones that have used them and punishes the one that hasn't.
I think a lot about this parable and about how at one time in my life I was afraid to use my talents. Since then, I've returned to school and I'm now working on my Masters degree. I've been out interviewing for other jobs and found out that more people are interested in a person that has a college degree, especially someone that graduated with honors.
We often get caught in a trap thinking that it's too hard, or it's a task for someone else but not for me. I work with certain people that wont go back to school because they think they're too stupid for school. In today's world, I just don't see any way that a person can truly succeed without a college education. Sure there are a couple like Bill Gates and Larry Ellison, but they are the exceptions and you also have to admit that they have an intrinsic business acumen that most people lack and have to learn in college.
I guess what I'm trying to say here, is God gives us all talents, some more than others. In my case I think he gave me very few when I look at the rich kids I grew up with. It took me time to learn to use those talents, but now I feel like the Lord is opening up new opportunities and increasing my measure. This is something I want for everyone, not just myself. I just wish some people would pull themselves up by their boot straps and get to work.
I think a lot about this parable and about how at one time in my life I was afraid to use my talents. Since then, I've returned to school and I'm now working on my Masters degree. I've been out interviewing for other jobs and found out that more people are interested in a person that has a college degree, especially someone that graduated with honors.
We often get caught in a trap thinking that it's too hard, or it's a task for someone else but not for me. I work with certain people that wont go back to school because they think they're too stupid for school. In today's world, I just don't see any way that a person can truly succeed without a college education. Sure there are a couple like Bill Gates and Larry Ellison, but they are the exceptions and you also have to admit that they have an intrinsic business acumen that most people lack and have to learn in college.
I guess what I'm trying to say here, is God gives us all talents, some more than others. In my case I think he gave me very few when I look at the rich kids I grew up with. It took me time to learn to use those talents, but now I feel like the Lord is opening up new opportunities and increasing my measure. This is something I want for everyone, not just myself. I just wish some people would pull themselves up by their boot straps and get to work.
Johnny Rotten Rants
Well, I don't know if this really would qualify as a rant, how about a diatribe? Johnny Rotten cracks me up, especially with his comments on the L.A. Galaxy. Even the English think American soccer is femmy.
No Free Speach at Rice-Eccles
A few fans decided to fly the Tibetan flag at the China vs. RSL friendly match. China didn't like that and refused to play. Here's what happened:
God Hates Westboro Baptist
If you haven't heard of Westboro Baptist, they are a so-called church that has put up web sites like God Hates Fags dot com, God Hates Sweden dot com, etc. Another modus operandi of Westboro Baptist is to go to the funerals of soldiers who died in Iraq and tell their family members that their son, brother, father is going to hell for fighting in an unjust and unrighteous war. Now, Westboro Baptism is planning on protesting the funeral of a Utahn that died in Iraq.
How exactly does this promote Christ? Did Christ teach us to condemn others and tell their family that they're going to hell. I seem to remember a story about an adulterous woman that was brought to Christ. The people wanted to execute her by stoning. Christ told them that if any of them were free of sin, they should throw the first stone. All of the woman's accusers left. Christ asked the woman where the people that accused her went, she told him that they left. Christ told her that he did not accuse her either, to go her way, and sin no more.
Instead of making accusations and condemning others, shouldn't Westboro be forgiving them? Maybe I'm totaly wrong here, maybe Westboro's intepretation of the bible is diffrent from mine. But it was always my impression that the gospel of the bible, the gospel of Christ, is a gospel of love and forgiveness.
And you know what? I don't think God hates Westboro Baptist either. I think he's probably just really frustrated with them right now.
How exactly does this promote Christ? Did Christ teach us to condemn others and tell their family that they're going to hell. I seem to remember a story about an adulterous woman that was brought to Christ. The people wanted to execute her by stoning. Christ told them that if any of them were free of sin, they should throw the first stone. All of the woman's accusers left. Christ asked the woman where the people that accused her went, she told him that they left. Christ told her that he did not accuse her either, to go her way, and sin no more.
Instead of making accusations and condemning others, shouldn't Westboro be forgiving them? Maybe I'm totaly wrong here, maybe Westboro's intepretation of the bible is diffrent from mine. But it was always my impression that the gospel of the bible, the gospel of Christ, is a gospel of love and forgiveness.
And you know what? I don't think God hates Westboro Baptist either. I think he's probably just really frustrated with them right now.
Warning: Soft Drinks May Seriously Harm You
It looks like I'm going to have to go cold turkey. I already knew that soda-pop was fattening and had no nutritional value, even if this study hasn't been proven yet, why take the risk?
Warning: Soft Drinks May Seriously Harm You
(Article from NewsMax.com)
You may want to think twice before you sip another soft drink: research reported in the UK's Independent newspaper says a common preservative used in fizzy drinks can switch off essential parts of DNA. The preservative may bring on premature aging and trigger diseases associated with old age.
The problem preservative is sodium benzoate, commonly used for many years by the $160 billion worldwide soft drink industry. Sodium benzoate, derived from benzoic acid, prevents mold in drinks like Coca-Cola, Oasis, Dr. Pepper, etc., and is also used in pickles and sauces.
Alarm bells have already been ringing about it, because it's been discovered that when it's mixed with vitamin C in soft drinks, it creates the carcinogenic substance benzene. Now UK Professor Peter Piper of Sheffield University has sounded an even louder alarm — his experiments show that benzoate damages DNA in the energy-producing mitochondria of cells.
"These chemicals have the ability to cause severe damage to DNA in the mitochondria to the point that they totally inactivate it: they knock it out altogether," Piper said. "The mitochondria consumes the oxygen to give you energy and if you damage it — as happens in a number of diseased states — then the cell starts to malfunction very seriously. And there is a whole array of diseases that are now being tied to damage to this DNA—Parkinson's and quite a lot of neuro-degenerative diseases, but above all the whole process of ageing."
The World Health Organization, the Food Standards Agency in the UK, and the US Food and Drug Administration all say that sodium benzoate is safe. Professor Piper, however, says that FDA tests are out of date.
"The food industry will say these compounds have been tested and they are completely safe," Piper said. "By the criteria of modern safety testing, the safety tests were inadequate. Like all things, safety testing moves forward and you can conduct a much more rigorous safety test than you could 50 years ago."
'Star Wars' still major force after 30 years
Article published May 25, 2007
'Star Wars' still major force after 30 years
Ethan Sacks
New York Daily News
ADVERTISEMENT
It really was a long time ago.
Today, it'll be exactly 30 years since "Star Wars" blasted away all expectations after opening in just 32 movie theaters on May 25, 1977.
It's remarkable to note how, in the days before universe-filling marketing campaigns and studio tracking reports, no one, not even writer-director George Lucas, was prepared for the lines that snaked around theaters showing "Star Wars."
Audiences cheered from the opening blasts of John Williams' score to the closing credits, pausing only to boo Darth Vader.
Facing high demand for tie-in toys that had yet to be manufactured, department stores were forced to issue IOUs.
In the late 1970s in America, the movie "appealed to people at a time (when) things maybe weren't going great," says Anthony Daniels, who played C-3PO in six movies and several TV specials. "People wanted something to make them feel good.
"And boy, did it take them out of their environment!"
Or as Rick McCallum, producer of the recent prequel trilogy, says: "It was a single moment in time that's not likely to be repeated."
The movie that 20th Century Fox nearly abandoned in midproduction ended up earning $460 million at the box office in the United States alone, boosted by the release of a special edition in 1997.
The film is the second-highest-grossing movie of all time, behind "Titanic."
There is no competition, however, in the world of toys and other tie-ins. The "Star Wars" franchise has raked in $13.5 billion in merchandising alone since 1977, according to Lucasfilm.
"There's no question that was the film that made the entire movie industry rethink its attitude toward summer movies, toward juvenile movies for big kids, science fiction, special effects and, of course, merchandising," says film historian Leonard Maltin.
This weekend, people who want to praise the Force can celebrate several ways:
l Now in bookstores is J.W. Rinzler's "The Making of Star Wars," a mammoth tome so packed with photos and facts, a wookiee could get a hernia trying to lift it.
The $75 book, surprisingly, is a first for "Star Wars."
But the author recently told the New Daily News that he stumbled across four boxes of transcripts in the Lucasfilm library archives from interviews that took place between 1975 and 1978, conducted by the film's original head of marketing.
The background they provided formed the basis of the book, which is chock-full of anecdotes, behind-the-scenes photos and early storyboard sketches (Darth Vader, it seems, once looked more like a vacuum cleaner).
* Think the creature cantina at Mos Eisley spaceport was filled with a motley bunch?
Watch "Star Wars: The Legacy Revealed," a new two-hour documentary airing Monday on the Discovery Channel, and see Newt Gingrich, Dan Rather and House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi comment alongside "Lord of the Rings" filmmaker Peter Jackson. Far out.
* To coincide with the anniversary, the U.S. Postal Service is issuing 15 "Star Wars" stamps.
But Lucasfilm isn't stuck in the past: There are two TV series in the works, animated and live-action, with the latter reportedly filling in the blanks of what some characters were doing for the 20 years between Episodes III and IV.
McCallum says the plan is to get them on the air in 2009.
"'Star Wars' was revolutionary, otherwise it wouldn't have lasted this long," says Peter Mayhew, the 7-foot-3 English actor who played Chewbacca. "So I'll talk to you again in another 30 years."
Copyright © 2007
The News & Record
and Landmark Communications, Inc.
'Star Wars' still major force after 30 years
Ethan Sacks
New York Daily News
ADVERTISEMENT
It really was a long time ago.
Today, it'll be exactly 30 years since "Star Wars" blasted away all expectations after opening in just 32 movie theaters on May 25, 1977.
It's remarkable to note how, in the days before universe-filling marketing campaigns and studio tracking reports, no one, not even writer-director George Lucas, was prepared for the lines that snaked around theaters showing "Star Wars."
Audiences cheered from the opening blasts of John Williams' score to the closing credits, pausing only to boo Darth Vader.
Facing high demand for tie-in toys that had yet to be manufactured, department stores were forced to issue IOUs.
In the late 1970s in America, the movie "appealed to people at a time (when) things maybe weren't going great," says Anthony Daniels, who played C-3PO in six movies and several TV specials. "People wanted something to make them feel good.
"And boy, did it take them out of their environment!"
Or as Rick McCallum, producer of the recent prequel trilogy, says: "It was a single moment in time that's not likely to be repeated."
The movie that 20th Century Fox nearly abandoned in midproduction ended up earning $460 million at the box office in the United States alone, boosted by the release of a special edition in 1997.
The film is the second-highest-grossing movie of all time, behind "Titanic."
There is no competition, however, in the world of toys and other tie-ins. The "Star Wars" franchise has raked in $13.5 billion in merchandising alone since 1977, according to Lucasfilm.
"There's no question that was the film that made the entire movie industry rethink its attitude toward summer movies, toward juvenile movies for big kids, science fiction, special effects and, of course, merchandising," says film historian Leonard Maltin.
This weekend, people who want to praise the Force can celebrate several ways:
l Now in bookstores is J.W. Rinzler's "The Making of Star Wars," a mammoth tome so packed with photos and facts, a wookiee could get a hernia trying to lift it.
The $75 book, surprisingly, is a first for "Star Wars."
But the author recently told the New Daily News that he stumbled across four boxes of transcripts in the Lucasfilm library archives from interviews that took place between 1975 and 1978, conducted by the film's original head of marketing.
The background they provided formed the basis of the book, which is chock-full of anecdotes, behind-the-scenes photos and early storyboard sketches (Darth Vader, it seems, once looked more like a vacuum cleaner).
* Think the creature cantina at Mos Eisley spaceport was filled with a motley bunch?
Watch "Star Wars: The Legacy Revealed," a new two-hour documentary airing Monday on the Discovery Channel, and see Newt Gingrich, Dan Rather and House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi comment alongside "Lord of the Rings" filmmaker Peter Jackson. Far out.
* To coincide with the anniversary, the U.S. Postal Service is issuing 15 "Star Wars" stamps.
But Lucasfilm isn't stuck in the past: There are two TV series in the works, animated and live-action, with the latter reportedly filling in the blanks of what some characters were doing for the 20 years between Episodes III and IV.
McCallum says the plan is to get them on the air in 2009.
"'Star Wars' was revolutionary, otherwise it wouldn't have lasted this long," says Peter Mayhew, the 7-foot-3 English actor who played Chewbacca. "So I'll talk to you again in another 30 years."
Copyright © 2007
The News & Record
and Landmark Communications, Inc.
Star Wars: How The World Changed
Star Wars: How The World Changed
Posted By:Ted Kemp
Topics:Technology | Media | Movies & Film Studios
Sectors:Technology | Media
Companies:News Corporation
By Ted Kemp News Editor | 21 May 2007 | 12:42 PM ET
Font size:
“Star Wars,” the fantasy space epic that premiered 30 years ago this week, is often portrayed as the quintessential, even archetypal blockbuster—the flick that forever changed how the film industry writes, makes and markets movies. But things aren’t quite that simple.
The company that made the film, 20th Century Fox was a publicly traded—but still independent—studio on May 25, 1977, the day Star Wars debuted in 32 U.S. theaters. The company had never surpassed $37 million in annual earnings since its formation in 1935 through the merger of Darryl Zanuck’s Twentieth Century Pictures and William Fox’s Fox Film Corp.
In 1977, those profit numbers were about to change. Gary Arnold, a “Washington Post” staff writer who wrote an original review of the movie, told the story of two friends who “placed orders with their brokers (for 20th Century Fox stock) minutes after seeing the film.”
Box Office Gold
“Star Wars” raked in $6.8 million during its first weekend of wide release. Within months it would do something no movie—including “Jaws,” released the year before—had ever done: It surpassed the $300-million revenue mark. “Star Wars” topped out at $798 million in worldwide revenue. Earnings at 20th Century Fox more than doubled their best-ever mark in 1977, as did the company’s stock price.
Still, says Agatino Balio, a former professor of film at the University of Wisconsin who has written several books on movie industry history, not one of the underlying business strategies that created the “Star Wars” phenomenon was really all that novel.
“As a genre, and as a marketing strategy for a motion picture company, there wasn’t anything new about 'Star Wars' as a concept,” Balio says.
"Star Wars" would go on to be serialized, generating three decades of revenue through the release of sequels and prequels. But Balio points out that United Artists had pioneered the serial concept years before with the James Bond films. And “The Godfather” and “Jaws” had established themselves as “event” films with sweeping cultural impact while "Star Wars" was still an amorphous idea knocking around in George Lucas’ head. Star Wars can’t even claim the honor of being the first mega-blockbuster: After taking inflation into account, "Gone With The Wind" still ranks as the highest grossing movie of all time.
Nothing To Write Home About
As for depth of plot line , "Star Wars" certainly didn't open new territory. "The story of 'Star Wars' could be written on the head of a pin and still leave room for the Bible," said critic Vincent Canby of the New York Times.
All those things said, “Star Wars” did, indeed, break new ground. Even though it came along after "2001: A Space Odyssey," Lucas’ firm Industrial Light & Magic (which he founded only because 20th Century Fox had recently scrapped its special effects department) saw to it that “Star Wars” took effects—video, audio, robotic, miniature modeling and otherwise—to extremes previously unimagined.
Related Stories
* Jim Goldman: The Empire's Real Legacy
* Slideshow: Behind The Scenes At ILM
* StarWars.com
And for pure mythic originality, “Star Wars” represented something unprecedented: Arnold of the Post and Vincent Canby of “The New York Times” struggled to categorize the film, saying alternately in their first reviews that “Star Wars” evoked everything from Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, classic westerns, pirate melodramas and aerial combat films, to samurai epics, “Ivanhoe,” the Legend of King Arthur, and the Gospel According to St. Matthew.
Given that “Star Wars” was made for $11 million, its return on investment certainly surpassed anything before it and probably anything since. "Star Wars" accomplished that without the benefit of "saturation booking"—the relatively new industry practice of opening films in thousands of theaters on the same day. Not bad for a movie whose release 20th Century Fox execs moved to before Memorial Day because they were certain it wouldn’t be able to compete with that summer’s "Smokey and the Bandit."
Blockbuster Business Model
Today, a single film can cost $200 million to produce, and a hoped-for blockbuster may cost another $100 million to market, says Gordon Hodge, media analyst at Thomas Weisel Partners. In short, since the days of "Star Wars," the movie business has become a game of very big bets.
“When you think about the cost of just one film, you could even start a significant company with that kind of money,” Hodge says.
But consumer demand for the blockbuster remains. So, therefore, does studios’ incentive to turn out potential mega-hits. With the investment stakes higher than they've ever been before, motion picture companies have begun turning to financial devices that weren't available in 1977.
Today's movies have the benefit of revenue from DVD sales, which Hodge says often match box office sales. Because DVDs don’t require a huge marketing budget, they present less risk to the studios.
Movie companies have also begun mitigating risk by taking on banks and financial services firms as initial investment partners. Several banks and even hedge funds have developed formulas that factor actors, genres and other elements into account to gauge a film's chance of success. If they like the way the numbers come out, they get on board with the studio. Hodge cites Merrill Lynch's backing of Marvel Studios' "Iron Man" and "Hulk II," both slated for release in 2008.
Marvel Studios, which has borrowed more than one page from the "Star Wars" playbook, has proven itself a winner with its "SpiderMan" films. And it takes full advantage of the new, emerging—and unprecedented—financial tools at the disposal of today's film companies.
Taken in that context, "Star Wars" didn't so much herald the era of modern movie making, as it became the symbol—albeit a very successful one—of an age of filmmaking whose time has already passed by.
Posted By:Ted Kemp
Topics:Technology | Media | Movies & Film Studios
Sectors:Technology | Media
Companies:News Corporation
By Ted Kemp News Editor | 21 May 2007 | 12:42 PM ET
Font size:
“Star Wars,” the fantasy space epic that premiered 30 years ago this week, is often portrayed as the quintessential, even archetypal blockbuster—the flick that forever changed how the film industry writes, makes and markets movies. But things aren’t quite that simple.
The company that made the film, 20th Century Fox was a publicly traded—but still independent—studio on May 25, 1977, the day Star Wars debuted in 32 U.S. theaters. The company had never surpassed $37 million in annual earnings since its formation in 1935 through the merger of Darryl Zanuck’s Twentieth Century Pictures and William Fox’s Fox Film Corp.
In 1977, those profit numbers were about to change. Gary Arnold, a “Washington Post” staff writer who wrote an original review of the movie, told the story of two friends who “placed orders with their brokers (for 20th Century Fox stock) minutes after seeing the film.”
Box Office Gold
“Star Wars” raked in $6.8 million during its first weekend of wide release. Within months it would do something no movie—including “Jaws,” released the year before—had ever done: It surpassed the $300-million revenue mark. “Star Wars” topped out at $798 million in worldwide revenue. Earnings at 20th Century Fox more than doubled their best-ever mark in 1977, as did the company’s stock price.
Still, says Agatino Balio, a former professor of film at the University of Wisconsin who has written several books on movie industry history, not one of the underlying business strategies that created the “Star Wars” phenomenon was really all that novel.
“As a genre, and as a marketing strategy for a motion picture company, there wasn’t anything new about 'Star Wars' as a concept,” Balio says.
"Star Wars" would go on to be serialized, generating three decades of revenue through the release of sequels and prequels. But Balio points out that United Artists had pioneered the serial concept years before with the James Bond films. And “The Godfather” and “Jaws” had established themselves as “event” films with sweeping cultural impact while "Star Wars" was still an amorphous idea knocking around in George Lucas’ head. Star Wars can’t even claim the honor of being the first mega-blockbuster: After taking inflation into account, "Gone With The Wind" still ranks as the highest grossing movie of all time.
Nothing To Write Home About
As for depth of plot line , "Star Wars" certainly didn't open new territory. "The story of 'Star Wars' could be written on the head of a pin and still leave room for the Bible," said critic Vincent Canby of the New York Times.
All those things said, “Star Wars” did, indeed, break new ground. Even though it came along after "2001: A Space Odyssey," Lucas’ firm Industrial Light & Magic (which he founded only because 20th Century Fox had recently scrapped its special effects department) saw to it that “Star Wars” took effects—video, audio, robotic, miniature modeling and otherwise—to extremes previously unimagined.
Related Stories
* Jim Goldman: The Empire's Real Legacy
* Slideshow: Behind The Scenes At ILM
* StarWars.com
And for pure mythic originality, “Star Wars” represented something unprecedented: Arnold of the Post and Vincent Canby of “The New York Times” struggled to categorize the film, saying alternately in their first reviews that “Star Wars” evoked everything from Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, classic westerns, pirate melodramas and aerial combat films, to samurai epics, “Ivanhoe,” the Legend of King Arthur, and the Gospel According to St. Matthew.
Given that “Star Wars” was made for $11 million, its return on investment certainly surpassed anything before it and probably anything since. "Star Wars" accomplished that without the benefit of "saturation booking"—the relatively new industry practice of opening films in thousands of theaters on the same day. Not bad for a movie whose release 20th Century Fox execs moved to before Memorial Day because they were certain it wouldn’t be able to compete with that summer’s "Smokey and the Bandit."
Blockbuster Business Model
Today, a single film can cost $200 million to produce, and a hoped-for blockbuster may cost another $100 million to market, says Gordon Hodge, media analyst at Thomas Weisel Partners. In short, since the days of "Star Wars," the movie business has become a game of very big bets.
“When you think about the cost of just one film, you could even start a significant company with that kind of money,” Hodge says.
But consumer demand for the blockbuster remains. So, therefore, does studios’ incentive to turn out potential mega-hits. With the investment stakes higher than they've ever been before, motion picture companies have begun turning to financial devices that weren't available in 1977.
Today's movies have the benefit of revenue from DVD sales, which Hodge says often match box office sales. Because DVDs don’t require a huge marketing budget, they present less risk to the studios.
Movie companies have also begun mitigating risk by taking on banks and financial services firms as initial investment partners. Several banks and even hedge funds have developed formulas that factor actors, genres and other elements into account to gauge a film's chance of success. If they like the way the numbers come out, they get on board with the studio. Hodge cites Merrill Lynch's backing of Marvel Studios' "Iron Man" and "Hulk II," both slated for release in 2008.
Marvel Studios, which has borrowed more than one page from the "Star Wars" playbook, has proven itself a winner with its "SpiderMan" films. And it takes full advantage of the new, emerging—and unprecedented—financial tools at the disposal of today's film companies.
Taken in that context, "Star Wars" didn't so much herald the era of modern movie making, as it became the symbol—albeit a very successful one—of an age of filmmaking whose time has already passed by.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)