Saturday 28 April 2012
The central thesis of this book is that
people determine how they vote based on emotions rather than cold,
logical thinking. The candidates that do well need to tell stories
that inspire people and link in with the candidates beliefs. To win
elections to some extent requires a triumph of substance over form.
The book outlines this central thesis
and then uses examples of how Republicans have already done this in
debates and illustrates how a Democrat should respond, by creating
hypothetical responses. The author regards the Democrats as being too
considered with policies that generally bore or do not connect with
an electorate. While the Republicans have stronger narratives that
appeal to the people. Republicans are also more prepared to fight
dirty, and this makes them appear stronger. An example is John
Kerry’s unwillingness to fight when George Bush's criticism of his
Kerry's war record. In theory as a decorated veteran this ought to
have been a clear win for Kerry, but instead Kerry tried to rise
above it and so appeared to have something to hide or to be weak.
The impression is that Democrats need
to be nastier, the author does not have a problem with negative
campaigns, especially if they are retaliatory. This is in part
because not to respond does not raise a candidate up so much as make
them seem weak and unable to respond.
Much is made of the way Republicans
have hijacked language. An example would be a term such as "tax
relief" which seems to have a positive impression, the fact
these are often limited to a few executives is ignored. The Democrats
need to have simple narratives that are clearly described in every
day language and using stories that connect with electorates lives.
This book is interesting and highlights
the ideas that much of how we vote is based on how we feel about a
candidate rather than a rational analysis of their points. The book
is very US centric, and the same doesn't apply in other countries, as
many issues such as abortion and gun control are not so contested.
Tuesday 24 April 2012
This book is a study of genius and what makes some people very high achievers.
The author's conclusion is that genius
is that genius is not something iniate, an intelligence or gift that
a person is born with. Rather it is something that is developed. High
achievers often seem to have first mover advantages getting an
initial lead that means they build more experience and are that
little bit better than those that just miss out. So it is not so much
that genius are unique as born in the right place at the right time.
He invokes a 10,000 hour rule which is a rule of thumb which states
that you are likely to be expert at anything if you devote that much
time to it. Often the number of spaces at the top(or in the team or
industry or group) are limited. Those who are the first to get 10,000
hours of football in, or hockey, or computer programming will become
the elite. Those who get their second will never be able to catch up.
This explains why many of the founders of the large computer
companies are the same age(they got the 10,000 in first), why
footballers tend to have birthdays clustered around certain
months(those in certain months get picked for the most game and why
the Beatles dominated pop music(they got thousands of hours playing
in Germany and Liverpool).
There is an interesting chapter which
looks at the history of air crashes and how different societies lead
to different interactions between pilot and co-pilot. Cultures where
subordinates are able to criticise their superiors have better safety
records as co-pilots are actually able to overrule their pilots. The
point is presumably the culture is a key driver in human activity. I
found this rather fascinating, although it almost seemed like it
could be built into another book.
A criticism of the book is that often I
do not feel the author actually proves his point. It is still
plausible that some geniuses have some innate advantage. He seems to
pick a few anecdotes that do back up his argument. But on the other
hand it seems his books are often designed to encourage you to think
about things in a slightly different way. I suspect that even the
author is not discounting natural intelligence or an individual’s
hard work, but arguing that environment is important too.
Saturday 21 April 2012
This book analyses the last century of
the Western Roman empire. The fundamental thesis is that it was not
the direct influence of the Huns or internal divisions in the Roman
empire that lead to the collapse of the empire.
Instead the impact of Rome on the
border regions lead to those societies becoming more sophisticated
and politically unified. In the first and second century the Roman
empire was vastly richer than the less civilised Germanic world.
Indeed the beyond the edge of the empire was territory it was not
economically viable to conquer(being far removed from the
Mediterranean trade routes). The Germanic tribes were politically
divided into many small groups. This individual small groups were
unable to trouble the Roman empire, except by low level raiding. The
Germanic armies were not professional soldier and lacked iron
weapons, armour and training. This allowed the Romans to often win
battles even when outnumbered by more than five to one.
The centuries that followed saw the gap
between the Roman world and Germanic world narrowing. Trade and
warfare between the two saw the Germanic world becoming more advance.
The Germans gradually acquired more weapons and armour through trade
and acting as mercenaries within the Roman empire. Meanwhile the
various tribes fought to get closer to the Roman border which was a
source of wealth. This saw a gradual consolidation into larger
political groups.
The Romans were unable to simply
address the threat presented by the Germanic tribes as they faced a
rising empire to the East(Persia). They struggled throughout the
period to defend their borders and to raise their tax rates to a high
enough level to pay for an enlarged military. However they did manage
to contain the Persian threat, although they were not able to defeat
Persia decisively.
Germanic tribes from the start of the
fifth century crossed the border and settled in Roman territory,
initially some were accepted to assist in battling other groups. War
with Persia distracted Rome from the issue. Eventually the sheer
number of non-Roman within the empire lead to revolts and breakaway
kingdoms that reduced the Roman tax base and so size of the
professional army. This made it harder and harder to fight back and
reunite the empire. The empire unravelled surprisingly quickly as
North Africa, Spain and France fell became separate kingdoms.
The role of the Huns was indirect in
that there rise forced the Germanic tribes into the Roman empire to
escape their advance. But the Huns were numerically too small to
destroy the Roman empire, and ultimately lacked the political
organisation to survive and so did not establish a successor state to
the Roman empire. Instead the Western world of the dark ages was then
dominated by the political confederations of Goths, Alans, etc that
began to cross the border in the 5th century.
Thursday 19 April 2012
argues the case for cities. The major advantages of cities are that:
1. Cities allow intelligent people to congregate within a relatively small geographic area. Because lots of different skills can be found within cities there is a tendency for knowledge cross pollination.
2. Cities allow economies of scale in entertainment facilities (theatres, museums, restaurants, etc). This allows them to offer rewards to their citizens.
3. Cities are environmentally friendly as a major source of environmental damage is transportation and space usage. Cities can build upwards and use less space and transportation can better be managed on foot or via public transport.
The author provides some evidence that cities dwellers are more prosperous and that higher rates are associated with higher national incomes.
This book does consider that cities sometimes decline, either as a result of environmental shift or government policies. The cities of the USA have shifted over time. This was due initially to the movements associated with the opening of land to the west and changes in the size of boats which required larger harbours. The rustbelt of the USA is due to cities that were overly focused on single industries that have subsequently declined, such as the automobile industry or steel. The author recommends that rather than try to fight the decline with grand public works such cities should have a managed decline with empty buildings being demolished, and funds should follow people rather than buildings.
The book is largely free-market in approach, although it does see a role for government that goes slightly beyond getting out of the way of business. It is argued that governments ought to provide a decent infrastructure and public goods, as things like sanitation can only really be dealt with on a large scale. In general the tone of the book is that governments ought to focus on doing a few things well.
The book then looks at “suburbanisation” which is the trend for large sprawling cities that are common in the South of the USA. These are car based, decentralised cities built on cheap land. The appeal of these cities is their lower cost relative to the more centralised, older cities. They also offer better education and more space which makes them more appealing to young families. The book does not regard this as a positive trend as it increases environmental damage from transport (and also air conditioning required as these new cities are in very hot regions). The blame for this is placed on planning regulations which prevent older cities from building up in skyscrapers and force inner city land values high.
The book ends up asking if the cities in China and India end up as sprawling cities with the related environmental damage of being car powered, or if they will be skyscraper based and rely on lifts and public transport.
Monday 16 April 2012
Unconventional Success: A Fundamental Approach to Personal Investment
is written by the head of Yale endowment fund.
Like “Smarter Investing” this is no “get rich quick” guide to investment book, it differs from that book in that it is focused on USA rather than the UK. The book similarly advocates investors hold a diversified portfolio - generally preferring government bonds, property and stock market trackers. Investors are advised to avoid the high fees associated with the active investment fund management industry. Where the book is strongest is in examining agent-principle issues. This occurs when the investors aims differ from the managers of the asset or their owner.
Developed World Shares - The management are supposed to be operating for the benefit of shareholders and are often remunerated to increase the returns to shareholders.
Government Bonds (Gilts) - Generally government lend to their own citizens and so are broadly neutral. In developing countries most Gilts are held domestically and in a democracy default is very unlikely.
Company Bonds – Interest payments on bonds are a cost for companies and so they will seek to minimise them. There is a downside risk of default and complex contractual arrangements that can allow bond issues to buy back Bonds if interest rates fall, but unlike shares the potential upside is limited. This leads him to prefer Gilts.
Property - Investments in commercial real estate which have a predictable revenue stream (like bonds) and a residual value at the end of the lease. This makes them operate a bit like a cross between Bonds and Shares.
Developing World Shares – These offer potentially returns are higher, but political factors may limit potential for shareholder as returns are diverted to workers, governments or managements.
He recommends avoiding asset classes where the cost of information are too high for private investors – such as high yield bonds(junk bonds), private equity, hedge funds and asset backed securities. These do tend to form part of his professional portfolio, but he has more resources to evaluate these asset classes than a private investor. A problem with this is that much of his returns are generated from these assets as the high barriers to entry presumably offer the potential for higher profits.
The book argues that professional advisors suffer from a severe agent-principle issue. These professionals as agents seek to maximise their fees. The structures of the industry mean there is often little incentive for these to be aligned with the interest of investors. The result is complex and overly large fee structures (“Where are the Customers’ Yachts?” as another book asks).
The writing feels like it is written by an academic economist and the issues are considered rigorously. What it does not do is offer much in the way of example portfolios or concrete advice for the UK investor. Instead it is more a call to be careful on costs and consider how the interest of the person issuing or managing an asset is aligned with the interest of investors.
The author also guest lectures on the Yale finance lectures with Robert Shiller, this is available from iTunesU.
is written by the head of Yale endowment fund.Like “Smarter Investing” this is no “get rich quick” guide to investment book, it differs from that book in that it is focused on USA rather than the UK. The book similarly advocates investors hold a diversified portfolio - generally preferring government bonds, property and stock market trackers. Investors are advised to avoid the high fees associated with the active investment fund management industry. Where the book is strongest is in examining agent-principle issues. This occurs when the investors aims differ from the managers of the asset or their owner.
Developed World Shares - The management are supposed to be operating for the benefit of shareholders and are often remunerated to increase the returns to shareholders.
Government Bonds (Gilts) - Generally government lend to their own citizens and so are broadly neutral. In developing countries most Gilts are held domestically and in a democracy default is very unlikely.
Company Bonds – Interest payments on bonds are a cost for companies and so they will seek to minimise them. There is a downside risk of default and complex contractual arrangements that can allow bond issues to buy back Bonds if interest rates fall, but unlike shares the potential upside is limited. This leads him to prefer Gilts.
Property - Investments in commercial real estate which have a predictable revenue stream (like bonds) and a residual value at the end of the lease. This makes them operate a bit like a cross between Bonds and Shares.
Developing World Shares – These offer potentially returns are higher, but political factors may limit potential for shareholder as returns are diverted to workers, governments or managements.
He recommends avoiding asset classes where the cost of information are too high for private investors – such as high yield bonds(junk bonds), private equity, hedge funds and asset backed securities. These do tend to form part of his professional portfolio, but he has more resources to evaluate these asset classes than a private investor. A problem with this is that much of his returns are generated from these assets as the high barriers to entry presumably offer the potential for higher profits.
The book argues that professional advisors suffer from a severe agent-principle issue. These professionals as agents seek to maximise their fees. The structures of the industry mean there is often little incentive for these to be aligned with the interest of investors. The result is complex and overly large fee structures (“Where are the Customers’ Yachts?” as another book asks).
The writing feels like it is written by an academic economist and the issues are considered rigorously. What it does not do is offer much in the way of example portfolios or concrete advice for the UK investor. Instead it is more a call to be careful on costs and consider how the interest of the person issuing or managing an asset is aligned with the interest of investors.
The author also guest lectures on the Yale finance lectures with Robert Shiller, this is available from iTunesU.
Sunday 15 April 2012
The book portrays Gordon Brown as almost a Shakespearian tragic figure. The man who waited years to be Prime Minister and yet when he achieved that goal he rather failed and did not seem to enjoy it. He failed to live up to his own high standards for several reasons;
1. He surrounded himself with schemers who plotted and back-stabbed to get him to number ten and was unable to ditch them when he was there. This meant he had a lot of divisions festering within the Labour party.
2. After planned for so long to get into Number 10, once he was there he did not really have much of an idea what to do and lacked a clear vision for domestic policies. His policies were little different to Blair's.
3. He was a poor organiser and weak at man management. This meant it was hard to develop ideas from others within his government. Policies that were adopted were often poorly implemented.
4. He was also poor at communicating with the public, he compared poorly with Tony Blair in this regard and had difficulty connecting with the electorate.
The strength of Gordon Brown seemed to be that he was an intelligent, hard working and decent individual and he seemed to do best in a time of crisis.
1. He was well good in a crisis. He seemed able to focus on the issue, determine the best course of action and get things done. In many ways he seemed to enjoy crisis, frequently rushing to the COBRA crisis room to take personal command.
2. On the international stage he seemed to do much better with a vision of fighting poverty, a deep commitment to globalisation and a determination to deal with the financial crisis. The banking crisis was the area in which he was able to lead the world and act far more decisively than the confused administration in the USA.
3. He was skilled political operator who managed to survive the challenges from within his party. The Labour Party went into the election united and ultimately prevented an outright Conservative victory.
The book ends with Gordon Brown heading off into the sunset to do more on the international stage in areas such as development. The book portrays him in a balanced, if not slightly positive light. I found this book has a lot of research behind it, but this can make it feel a bit unstructured. It is also a bit long.
Saturday 14 April 2012
Heat: How We Can Stop the Planet Burning
is a book on the challenges of global warming. The book rapidly assumes that;
1. Global warming is happening
2. It is a result of mankind usage of consumption
3. Pricing of carbon is insufficient and an immoral way of deal with the issue.
The book jumps onto the idea of cutting emissions by a massive 90% and doing so as soon as possible. Each chapter then deals with the ways in which this can be done. At no stage is there an assumption that technology will ride to the rescue. Instead the solutions are generally economic or political, based on technologies we have now.
The chapters deal with areas such as travel, heating, a couple of industries and power generation. Each solution is proposed and then well examined. An interesting solution is a ring of coaches around the M25 that could run from service stations every couple of minutes. Other examples are for supermarkets to be switched to warehouses from which goods are delivered(this saves on refrigeration, lighting, heating, lower transport costs, etc). In general the author is able to propose solutions although he derides many of the more commonly offered one(micro-wind generation and bio-fuels are criticised heavily).
This book is heavy going, there are lots of statistics and evidence to back up the arguments and it is well researched. The author is clearly left of centre and has no time for arguments that market mechanisms can correct environmental issues. Overall the message seems positive as he believes we can continue our lifestyle and cut greenhouse gases, the only really unsolvable problem is flight, the era of international flying is over.
I enjoyed this book but found David MacKay “Sustainable Energy – without the hot air to be more readable”. This book is available for free on line at the authors website, the two books are similar in approach and complement one another. David MacKay is a physicists and doesn't assume global warming, but looks at how we will generate and use energy without carbon based fuels. Whereas Heat is written by a political activist and tend to consider sociological factors more. I think the two can be read together.
is a book on the challenges of global warming. The book rapidly assumes that;
1. Global warming is happening
2. It is a result of mankind usage of consumption
3. Pricing of carbon is insufficient and an immoral way of deal with the issue.
The book jumps onto the idea of cutting emissions by a massive 90% and doing so as soon as possible. Each chapter then deals with the ways in which this can be done. At no stage is there an assumption that technology will ride to the rescue. Instead the solutions are generally economic or political, based on technologies we have now.
The chapters deal with areas such as travel, heating, a couple of industries and power generation. Each solution is proposed and then well examined. An interesting solution is a ring of coaches around the M25 that could run from service stations every couple of minutes. Other examples are for supermarkets to be switched to warehouses from which goods are delivered(this saves on refrigeration, lighting, heating, lower transport costs, etc). In general the author is able to propose solutions although he derides many of the more commonly offered one(micro-wind generation and bio-fuels are criticised heavily).
This book is heavy going, there are lots of statistics and evidence to back up the arguments and it is well researched. The author is clearly left of centre and has no time for arguments that market mechanisms can correct environmental issues. Overall the message seems positive as he believes we can continue our lifestyle and cut greenhouse gases, the only really unsolvable problem is flight, the era of international flying is over.
I enjoyed this book but found David MacKay “Sustainable Energy – without the hot air to be more readable”. This book is available for free on line at the authors website, the two books are similar in approach and complement one another. David MacKay is a physicists and doesn't assume global warming, but looks at how we will generate and use energy without carbon based fuels. Whereas Heat is written by a political activist and tend to consider sociological factors more. I think the two can be read together.
Friday 13 April 2012
analyses the way the white working classes have been demonised and ridiculed in popular culture. The working class are portrayed as “Vickie Pollard” comedy creations or benefit scroungers in popular media.This book argues that the working class have been left behind as many members have pulled away into the aspirational Middle Classes. Meanwhile a cultural and economic elite has formed at the top of society as incomes and social situations have diverged. The result is rather like a two nation Britain that Benjamin Disraeli might have recognised. Wilson argues that the gap between rich and poor has widened and the cultural weight of the poor has fallen. Economic changes such as the shift from mass production to a more service oriented economy have eroded trade unionism which was a key factor in working class identity. The book is quite weak on economics and features more on the media representation. He makes much of how Working Classes are often portrayed as criminal or uncultured.
I think the book fails to consider the way in which working class people have chosen to adopt different identities and bought into the Thatcherite idea of individualism and consumerism. I am not sure it is ever going to be possible to turn the clock back to a 1970s world with a strong collective trade union. I am not sure that many people really want to work in a coal mine or steel mill. New Labour only started to win elections when they realised that almost all Working Class people either perceived themselves as Middle Class or aspired to be Middle Class.
Many people argue that more needs to be done to make our society more meritocratic. This book at least makes a case for those who cannot or do not want to become Middle Class. However I think the idea of a Working Class is probably fading away as idenity becomes more complex.
The author writes good prose and I hope to see what else he produces. I think it would be interesting to see him analyse race, gender or sexuality in a similiar way.
Thursday 12 April 2012
Many investing books focus on “get rich quick” strategies. These tend to be around picking specific shares or times to enter or exit the market or investing in unusual types of assets(buy to let housing, ostrich farms, etc).
Smarter Investing: Simpler Decisions for Better Results
is different; it is a champion of the passive investing school. This argues individuals have only a few choices to make, firstly which broad types of asset to invest in and which fees, taxes and charges to pay.
is different; it is a champion of the passive investing school. This argues individuals have only a few choices to make, firstly which broad types of asset to invest in and which fees, taxes and charges to pay.
Many ”gurus” claim you can time the market, moving into shares when prices are low and selling when they are high. However research shows where the gains from shares are generally concentrated in a few days spread randomly over decades. If you miss one of these big winning days it might take years to catch up.
The other frequent claim is that you can stock pick specific shares and beat the market. However it is not possible for the average investor to beat than the market, this is because market is the sum of all participants and for every winner there must be a loser.
The professional investment fund industry promise market beating returns. In order to do this they incur costs in research, buying and selling and administration that eat into returns. However the average performance of funds before costs will on average be the market average. This makes professionally managed investment funds a poor choice for individual to invest in. Such funds tend to advertise based on past performance, even though they state that past performance is no guarantee of future success.
The alternative is passive funds which aim to track a recognized broad index of shares and so have far lower costs. They aim to grow with the market and not to beat it. The market has a strong rate of return over many decades from capital growth and share dividends. Unlike professional managed funds there is no need to pay for star investment managers and so costs are lower and more of the returns from the stock exchange are passed to the investor and not their advisors.
Individuals can also reduce the risk of their portfolio by investing in other assets. The main example is government bonds which pay a fixed rate of interest. The choice of how much of other assets and their relative riskiness is a key investment decision an individual should make. The amount invested in different asset types depends on an individual’s investment timescale and their psychological profile when faced with risks.
The final piece of the puzzle is rebalancing where an individual periodically examines their investment and adjust them back to the desired level. This involves buying and selling assets to return to a target split. So an individual may want to a half their money in bonds and half in shares. If shares rise faster than bonds over a period of time they will have to sell some shares to buy bonds. This is counterintuitive as it seems to involve selling when assets are rising, and buying when they are falling. But it helps to keep risk levels stable and locks in some gains when shares rise, and buys when prices are low.
This book recommends an individual
1. Sets investment goals and timeframes
2. Determines how much they need to invest and the risk they are prepared to bear
3. Sticks largely to asset classes that are well understood and where markets for index funds operate – bonds and shares
4. Rebalances that risk periodically.
5. Relentless fights against taxes, fees and charges that eat into returns
Wednesday 11 April 2012
which gives an account of how normal people end up commiting evil deeds. It was written by Philip G. Zimbardo, who was behind the famous Stanford Prison Experiment. He created a fake prison and divided groups of students into guards and prisoners. Most of the book details what happened in the experiment, which was a descent into sadism by the guards in just a few weeks. The experiment was terminated after a week rather than the two it was meant to run. A lot of time is spent describing how the guards reacted, depriving prisonners of food and sleep and calling them names, locking them in solitary confinement and verbally abusing them. How on a day by day basis the abuse and mental anguish of the guards steadily grew worse. Also the long term impacts of the experiment on all those involved are considered as he has followed them up on the participants over the decades, it seems that it was overwhelmingly a benign experience.The prisoners are not really as closely analysed. Some rebel against the system, but this attracts more abuse from the guards. But the point is made that they were free to leave at any time, yet didn't do so. They seemed to genuinely believe that they couldn't leave and even plotted to escape.
The book then moves on to consider atrocities as Abu Ghraib in Iraq. His analysis of the behaviour of the guards is interesting and sympathetic towards them. For example the prison was under intermittant mortar attack, the Iraq guards smuggled in guards, civilians did the interrogation, guards were told to "soften up" prisonners, the prison was overcrowded, senior officers never patrolled the night shift and some of the abuses photographed were in retribuation for attacks by the criminals. One of the guards who received a long sentence had worked for 40 twelve hours on/twelve hours off shifts in a row and his time off was spent sleep in a prison cell.
Next he attempts to put the military and civil leadership of the US army on trial for the abuses. Interesting stuff, but it seems that there isn't really enough evidence to convict anyone or even to hold them morally if not legally responsible. It is not clear who is responsible, but on the other hand as an Iraqi who had been abused I would want someone punished. I was pretty critical of the prison guards a few years ago, but I now see that in their position it would be hard to say for sure I wouldn't have acted in the same way.
The book then examines the Stanley Milligram experiments and others of their ilk testing the way people comply to authority and will happily harm others if an authority figure instructs them to do so. These experiments consist of an authority figure request a subject inflicts pain on a confederate. Overwhelmingly people do. Interestingly of those that refused they tended to just walk out of the experiment rather than attecting to stop the experiment, something I had never really thought about. As these experiments are carried out usually in universities asking for volunteers merely walking away wouldn't have stopped any real abusive experiments. In the Stanford Prison Experiment a priest, parents and a lawyer were allowed visiting rights and despite some protest no-one really acted to stop it.
The book then looks at another risk factor which is groupthink, the tendency of people to suspend critical judgement and go with the rest of the group - it looks at the Bay of Pigs invasion as the classic example. I might have liked to have seen this section expanded.
The theme of the book is very much that people are driven towards evil as a result of the situation or system they are in rather than an intrinsic evil within them. However the book does argue that some are more susceptible to evil by virtue of their personality - conformist and shy people especially.
The book does allow some room for individual agency and next considers how to resist being lead down the path towards evil. The 10 points are:-
1. Admit mistakes. Be prepared to cut losses as bad choices or actions.
2. Be mindful. Don't live in autopilot.
3. Take responsibility for your own actions.
4. Protect your individuality. Don't hide behind an identity.
5. Respect just authority, rebel against unjust authority.
6. Seel group authority but value independence
7. Be frame vigiliant, be aware of how issues and situations are presented to you.
8. Balance time perspectives. Think how the future you will look back on your actions and look back at past commitments. Avoid what the author calls an extended present, where proper consideration of consequences can be avoided.
9. Don't sacrifice freedom for security
10. Be aware you can make a difference to systems and situations.
The book then enters what is, in my opinion, its weakest section which looks at heroism. Much of the book is well researched, but there is less scientific rigour in this part, probably because their isn't much research into heroism.
At times the book considers other atrocities and evils such as those in Vietnam, Rwanda and Nazi Germany. Although these are not analysed to the same extend of Abu Ghraib, probably because the author was an expert witness in the trial that followed.
This is a very good book, although I feel it is overlong and the author allows his political stance to colour the book somewhat. The chapter on heroism could have waited for another book really, and I am not sure it really fitted with the tone of the book.
The overal theme is that evil is something that is normal for all of us and that situations can cause or encourage us to act in certain ways and we ought to be careful of this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)