Aside from my interest in disability studies, I have done research about body art and modification. The two fields have many connections: for instance, people with disabilites and those who have chosen to modify their body in a non-traditional way can encounter stigma and animosity. People who have chosen to modify their bodies intrigue me--what is it that drove them to get a tattoo, a piercing, or non traditional body modification? Just as there is a wide range of disabilities, there is an equally diverse population interested in body modification.
The link between these two seemingly disparate groups was blurred when I read about a student, Klara Jirkova, at the University of Arts, Berlin, who came up with the idea of Braille Tattoos. Jirkova noted that the purpose of body art was not only to decorate but was meant to be read or interpreted by society. In an attempt to empower blind people to have meaningful body alteration Jorkova created Braille Tattoos. Not really a tattoo but a subdermal implant, this could be placed anywhere on the body. For example, a subdermal implant could be placed between the thumb and index finger that would be felt when two people shook hands. This could be read by a blind person.
Subdermal implants are not new but the term Braille Tattoo is certainly unique. I am not quite sure what to make of this. The idea is creative--a spin on existing and well established body art. I do not like the term Braille Tattoo--perhaps this is a matter of translation from German to English that has resulted in an odd phrasing. However, my dislike for the phrase is over ridden by a new use for an existing form of body modication.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Transhumanist Accusations
George Dvorsky has written extensively about science and technology. He is on the Board of Directors of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies and co-founder of the Toronto Transhumanist Association. Much of what he writes I disagree with--especially what he wrote about the Ashley Treatment earlier this year. Here I refer to his contention that Ashley X existence was grotesque because she had the mind of a baby inside the body of a full grown and fertile woman. Dvorsky's dehumanizing view of Ashley X led to the belief that mental age and body size were somehow connected.
Based on my previous posts and published articles about the Ashley Treatment, I obviously diagree with Dvorsky. Yet I was stunned by his most recent comments about the Ashley Treatment and the death of Daniel Gunther. On October 11 in Sentient Development, Dvorsky's blog, he noted that one person posted a comment on a MSNBC message board that maintained the Ashley Treatment was offensive and perverse. This view, Divorsky wrote, was seconded by disability rights groups, a fact that was "particularly upsetting for me, not just beause I supported Gunther during the controvery, but because of the possibility that his suicide was wrought by the undue pressure exacted on him by overzealous and vocal disability groups".
The above accusation is nothing short of gross. It has no basis in fact--Gunther's family maintans the Ashley X Case had nothing to do with his death (they point to a prolonged struggle with depression). To blame disability rights activists for Gunther's death is an exploitative smear tactic. Dvorsky's reasoning dimminshes Gunther's life to be about one case when I am sure it was far richer and diverse--a fact the family can affirm and to whom my heart goes out to.
Based on my previous posts and published articles about the Ashley Treatment, I obviously diagree with Dvorsky. Yet I was stunned by his most recent comments about the Ashley Treatment and the death of Daniel Gunther. On October 11 in Sentient Development, Dvorsky's blog, he noted that one person posted a comment on a MSNBC message board that maintained the Ashley Treatment was offensive and perverse. This view, Divorsky wrote, was seconded by disability rights groups, a fact that was "particularly upsetting for me, not just beause I supported Gunther during the controvery, but because of the possibility that his suicide was wrought by the undue pressure exacted on him by overzealous and vocal disability groups".
The above accusation is nothing short of gross. It has no basis in fact--Gunther's family maintans the Ashley X Case had nothing to do with his death (they point to a prolonged struggle with depression). To blame disability rights activists for Gunther's death is an exploitative smear tactic. Dvorsky's reasoning dimminshes Gunther's life to be about one case when I am sure it was far richer and diverse--a fact the family can affirm and to whom my heart goes out to.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Ashley X and Katie Thorpe and a Cultural Divide
The debate surrounding the removal of Katie Thorpe' uterus has entered week two in the UK. Newspapers such as the Guardian, Independent, Daily Mail, and the BBC News have all published articles. Based on my reading about the case in a different country three thousand miles away I am struck by three things:
First, the mainstream British media, like their brethren in this country, do not understand disability rights. If they did, someone would have pointed out the obvious: it is not acceptable to modify and mutilate Katie's body. Katie has rights and her mother is requesting her daughter undergo a major surgical procedure that is not medically necessary. Like all people her age, Katie has the right to grow up with her body left intact. Alison Thorpe knows this as do the doctors willing to perform the surgery. Thus this case raises deeply troubling medical ethics foremost among them trying to use a surgical procedure to solve a problem that is social. As noted by Andy Rickell of Scope, an advocacy organization for people with cerebal palsy in the New Statesman on October 9 that "we do not believe that a child should be modified for society's convenience, but instead that society needs to adapt and become more inclusive of disabled people".
Second, Katie's mother has given a number of interviews and her choice of words leaves much to be desired. For example in the Daily Mail October 12 story "The humbling true story of why this mother wants her disabled daughter to have her womb removed" she commented that "there is no doubt it would have been better for Katie if she had died at birth". Alison also said she felt as though "looking after a disabled child is like serving a life sentence". Comments such as these are offensive and degrading to Katie Thorpe and show a stunning lack of awareness with regard to the rights of disabled people.
Third, articles about Katie Thorpe focus on her care and the degree to which her mother's life is not just compromised but consumed by endless drudgery. Katie's mother, Alison, and her partner, Peter, are Katie's primary care givers. Alison Thorpe has revealed intimate details about her daughter's life and exactly what is involved. The portrait painted is not pretty. There is no question Alison Thorpe is dedicated to her child and overwhelmed by her needs. However, I am struck by what I see as a major disconnect: the problems involved in Katie Thorpe's care are not medical. Surgery will prevent Katie from menstruating but I do not see how this will make caring for her any easier. Katie will continue to need care at all times and surgery will not change this fact. The problem Katie's mother has is a lack of support. Why has she not slept though the night for the last 15 years? Why has she been left alone to care for her daughte? What does this lack of support say about society and the degree to which the lives of disabled people are valued? No parent should speculate that it would have been better if their child died a birth--this is a social tragedy that need not occur and I wish the correct questions and issues were being discussed.
First, the mainstream British media, like their brethren in this country, do not understand disability rights. If they did, someone would have pointed out the obvious: it is not acceptable to modify and mutilate Katie's body. Katie has rights and her mother is requesting her daughter undergo a major surgical procedure that is not medically necessary. Like all people her age, Katie has the right to grow up with her body left intact. Alison Thorpe knows this as do the doctors willing to perform the surgery. Thus this case raises deeply troubling medical ethics foremost among them trying to use a surgical procedure to solve a problem that is social. As noted by Andy Rickell of Scope, an advocacy organization for people with cerebal palsy in the New Statesman on October 9 that "we do not believe that a child should be modified for society's convenience, but instead that society needs to adapt and become more inclusive of disabled people".
Second, Katie's mother has given a number of interviews and her choice of words leaves much to be desired. For example in the Daily Mail October 12 story "The humbling true story of why this mother wants her disabled daughter to have her womb removed" she commented that "there is no doubt it would have been better for Katie if she had died at birth". Alison also said she felt as though "looking after a disabled child is like serving a life sentence". Comments such as these are offensive and degrading to Katie Thorpe and show a stunning lack of awareness with regard to the rights of disabled people.
Third, articles about Katie Thorpe focus on her care and the degree to which her mother's life is not just compromised but consumed by endless drudgery. Katie's mother, Alison, and her partner, Peter, are Katie's primary care givers. Alison Thorpe has revealed intimate details about her daughter's life and exactly what is involved. The portrait painted is not pretty. There is no question Alison Thorpe is dedicated to her child and overwhelmed by her needs. However, I am struck by what I see as a major disconnect: the problems involved in Katie Thorpe's care are not medical. Surgery will prevent Katie from menstruating but I do not see how this will make caring for her any easier. Katie will continue to need care at all times and surgery will not change this fact. The problem Katie's mother has is a lack of support. Why has she not slept though the night for the last 15 years? Why has she been left alone to care for her daughte? What does this lack of support say about society and the degree to which the lives of disabled people are valued? No parent should speculate that it would have been better if their child died a birth--this is a social tragedy that need not occur and I wish the correct questions and issues were being discussed.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Ashley X Story Becomes More Depressing
Daniel F. Gunther, physician at Children's Hospital in Seattle and primary proponent of the Ashley Treatment, committed suicide. As reported in the Seattle Times today, the family believes a history of depression was the reason for the suicide. Colleagues and family members said the Ashley Treatment had nothing to do with his decision to end his life. According to colleague Dr. Doug Diekema, he considered Gunther to be "a hero for standing up for families" and "without whose courage, confidence, knowledge, open-mindedness and unwavering support the [Ashley] Treatment woud not have been realized"
Like many others I was severely critical of the Ashley Treatment, Gunther and Doug Diekema. In spite of my criticism, I am deeply sorry to learn about Gunther's death. My heart goes out to his family, friends and colleagues. I was also sorry to learn that Gunther was subjected to harrassment when the Ashley Treatment became a media sensation. It is one thing to disagree but something else entirely to harrass a fellow human.
I remain adamently opposed to the Ashley Treatment. For me, Gunther's death highlights the overwhelmingly depressing nature of the Ashley Treatment. I wish his family well and offer them my condolences.
Like many others I was severely critical of the Ashley Treatment, Gunther and Doug Diekema. In spite of my criticism, I am deeply sorry to learn about Gunther's death. My heart goes out to his family, friends and colleagues. I was also sorry to learn that Gunther was subjected to harrassment when the Ashley Treatment became a media sensation. It is one thing to disagree but something else entirely to harrass a fellow human.
I remain adamently opposed to the Ashley Treatment. For me, Gunther's death highlights the overwhelmingly depressing nature of the Ashley Treatment. I wish his family well and offer them my condolences.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Ashley Treatment Again?
I wrote about the Ashley Treatment in January and May for Counter Punch. Like many other people with a disability I was shocked and outraged that doctors would remove the uterus, appendix, spleen, and breast buds buds of a disabled girl. I was somewhat encouraged when the so called "Ashley Treatment" and the sterilization of Ashley X was declared unlawful by the Washington Protection and Advocacy System (WPAS). Surely no doctor would contemplate such an invasive, unnecessary, and ethically questionable treatment. Based on what was abuzz on the internet via parenting and disability rights blogs for many months this year no parent of a disabled girl would request the Ashley Treatment. I am quite wrong on both fronts. To this I can add the mainsteam media appears to be oblivious of the multitude of complaints disability rights activists have posted and acted upon on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.
According to the UK Timesonline October 7 Alison Thorpe, mother of Katie, "a victim of severe cerebal palsy" has requested doctors "remove her womb" and appendix. To this end, Ms. Thorpe has consulted with Phil Roberts, a consultant at St. Johns Hospital in Chelsford, Esssex. Doctors are now consulting with lawyers to determine if they can sterilize Ms. Thorpe's daughter. Mainstream media outlets in the US failed to understand the broader implications of the Ashley Treatment and it appears the press in the UK is not better. The UK Times noted "the treatment would not be carried out on able bodied people" and that "even some disabled campaigners are critical of them" This sort of reporting is not just bad it borders on offensive. British and American disability rights activists were extremely critical and remain adamently opposed to the Ashley Treatment. Don't take my word for it, look it up on the internet and see for yourself.
I maintain the Ashley Treatment is one of the grossest violations of human rights. Katie's mother uses the same warped logic that Ashley's parents did to enable and empower them to mutilate their daughter. It is as though these parents think a person with a profound physical and mental disability never existed before. Happily unaware and hopelessly selfish, they have sought out a medical solution to a problem that is entirely social. The fact is disabled people are perceived to be less human and valued. What happens when parents of disabled children are critiqued? They mainstain critics have no conception of what it is like to care for disabled chidren. Give me a break. Perhaps parents that are considering the Ashley Treatment or those that think it is an appropriate course of action consider disabled people, all diabled people, are human. We crippled humans have rights even if we cannot articulate them. Just because one cannot see, hear, speak, or walk does not place us in a different sub-human category.
In the coming days I will eagerly follow what disability rights activists have to say. They need to act without delay as the institutional bias against the rights of disabled people are constantly being eroded away. One need only consider the sad state of the ADA and the way the Supreme Court in this country has narrrowed the law to the point of irrelevance. I sincerely hope my peers in the UK, especially the Disabled People's Movement, fare better. At least this time, there is a chance that a girl will not be subjected to needless surgery.
According to the UK Timesonline October 7 Alison Thorpe, mother of Katie, "a victim of severe cerebal palsy" has requested doctors "remove her womb" and appendix. To this end, Ms. Thorpe has consulted with Phil Roberts, a consultant at St. Johns Hospital in Chelsford, Esssex. Doctors are now consulting with lawyers to determine if they can sterilize Ms. Thorpe's daughter. Mainstream media outlets in the US failed to understand the broader implications of the Ashley Treatment and it appears the press in the UK is not better. The UK Times noted "the treatment would not be carried out on able bodied people" and that "even some disabled campaigners are critical of them" This sort of reporting is not just bad it borders on offensive. British and American disability rights activists were extremely critical and remain adamently opposed to the Ashley Treatment. Don't take my word for it, look it up on the internet and see for yourself.
I maintain the Ashley Treatment is one of the grossest violations of human rights. Katie's mother uses the same warped logic that Ashley's parents did to enable and empower them to mutilate their daughter. It is as though these parents think a person with a profound physical and mental disability never existed before. Happily unaware and hopelessly selfish, they have sought out a medical solution to a problem that is entirely social. The fact is disabled people are perceived to be less human and valued. What happens when parents of disabled children are critiqued? They mainstain critics have no conception of what it is like to care for disabled chidren. Give me a break. Perhaps parents that are considering the Ashley Treatment or those that think it is an appropriate course of action consider disabled people, all diabled people, are human. We crippled humans have rights even if we cannot articulate them. Just because one cannot see, hear, speak, or walk does not place us in a different sub-human category.
In the coming days I will eagerly follow what disability rights activists have to say. They need to act without delay as the institutional bias against the rights of disabled people are constantly being eroded away. One need only consider the sad state of the ADA and the way the Supreme Court in this country has narrrowed the law to the point of irrelevance. I sincerely hope my peers in the UK, especially the Disabled People's Movement, fare better. At least this time, there is a chance that a girl will not be subjected to needless surgery.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Why Focus on Cure?
There were many things I never understood about Christopher Reeve after he was paralyzed. Foremost among them his intense and singular focus on cure. His vow to walk again was hardly unusual as many make the same pronouncement after a traumatic injury. In 2002 I was severely critical of Reeve in an essay that appeared in the Ragged Edge--"Wishing for Kryptonite". I maintained that Reeve's overwhelming interest in cure was highly unusual--that virtually no one has ever been willing to devote all their time and money in an effort to be cured. A newspaper article in the local paper, "Portchester Woman Happy with Progress after Chinese Spinal Surgery" makes me wonder if my views about cure are correct (www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070928/news02/709280387).
In the above article, Christan Zaccagnino who lives just 30 minutes away from me, went to Beijing where she underwent spinal surgery. If Ms. Zaccagnino had been paralyzed within the last two or three years, I would not be surprised by her decision to search out a cure for her paralysis. However, Ms. Zaccagnino was paralyzed 14 years ago in a diving accident when she was 10 years old. Given this, I cannot begin to understand her thought process. Undoubtedly she was aware that the neurosurgeon who operated on her, Hongyun Huang, treatement is not just controversial but has no documented success rate. American neurologists strongly advise patients against the invasive procedure because some people had serious complications such as meningtis. This did not stop Ms. Zaccagnino from traveling to China or raising $30,000 needed for the surgery through fund raisers. According to the article, Ms. Zaccagnino is not alone--400 other paralyzed people have made a similar journey and undergone what appears to be a high risk procedure.
It would be easy for me to be critical of Ms. Zaccagnino and her strong religious convictions--she refused to have cells from aborted human fetuses implanted by Dr. Huang as is the norm in the preocdure she underwent. Like Reeve who also underwent questionable medical proceedures, the gains for Ms. Zaccagnino's were minimal. This leads me to ask, why take such a chance? Is walking really that important? Based on my life experience, walking is highly over rated. Humans are amazingly adaptable and there is very little I cannot do. So why have 400 people traveled to Beijing to be cured? I think such individuals are self absorbed narcissists. It is far easier to accept dominate socio cultural norms about disability than it is to rail against injustices and fight for equal rights. It is easy to sit around (pun intended) and pray for a cure than it is to go out into the world and get a job. It is easy to thoughtlessly use ramps and elevators disability activists fought decades for. It is easy to go to college and not think about the men and women who had to fight for the right to be educated in the 1970s. It is too easy to forget about people like Ed Roberts or Justin Dart. It is easy to just accept the ADA exists however weak it may now be without considering what it was like to prior to 1990.
If I have learned one thing in the last 30 years I have been paralyzed it is that being disabled is social problem. The real obstacles are not architectural but social. How else can one explain why 66% of Americans with a disability are unemployed and do not have access to adequate health insurance. Do not get me wrong, I am not against a cure for paralysis. This is a lofty goal. Perhaps I too am a narcissist for my goal is for paralyzed people to be equal to their fellow humans who are bipedal. This is in my best interests. For me, civil rights are more important than walking.
In the above article, Christan Zaccagnino who lives just 30 minutes away from me, went to Beijing where she underwent spinal surgery. If Ms. Zaccagnino had been paralyzed within the last two or three years, I would not be surprised by her decision to search out a cure for her paralysis. However, Ms. Zaccagnino was paralyzed 14 years ago in a diving accident when she was 10 years old. Given this, I cannot begin to understand her thought process. Undoubtedly she was aware that the neurosurgeon who operated on her, Hongyun Huang, treatement is not just controversial but has no documented success rate. American neurologists strongly advise patients against the invasive procedure because some people had serious complications such as meningtis. This did not stop Ms. Zaccagnino from traveling to China or raising $30,000 needed for the surgery through fund raisers. According to the article, Ms. Zaccagnino is not alone--400 other paralyzed people have made a similar journey and undergone what appears to be a high risk procedure.
It would be easy for me to be critical of Ms. Zaccagnino and her strong religious convictions--she refused to have cells from aborted human fetuses implanted by Dr. Huang as is the norm in the preocdure she underwent. Like Reeve who also underwent questionable medical proceedures, the gains for Ms. Zaccagnino's were minimal. This leads me to ask, why take such a chance? Is walking really that important? Based on my life experience, walking is highly over rated. Humans are amazingly adaptable and there is very little I cannot do. So why have 400 people traveled to Beijing to be cured? I think such individuals are self absorbed narcissists. It is far easier to accept dominate socio cultural norms about disability than it is to rail against injustices and fight for equal rights. It is easy to sit around (pun intended) and pray for a cure than it is to go out into the world and get a job. It is easy to thoughtlessly use ramps and elevators disability activists fought decades for. It is easy to go to college and not think about the men and women who had to fight for the right to be educated in the 1970s. It is too easy to forget about people like Ed Roberts or Justin Dart. It is easy to just accept the ADA exists however weak it may now be without considering what it was like to prior to 1990.
If I have learned one thing in the last 30 years I have been paralyzed it is that being disabled is social problem. The real obstacles are not architectural but social. How else can one explain why 66% of Americans with a disability are unemployed and do not have access to adequate health insurance. Do not get me wrong, I am not against a cure for paralysis. This is a lofty goal. Perhaps I too am a narcissist for my goal is for paralyzed people to be equal to their fellow humans who are bipedal. This is in my best interests. For me, civil rights are more important than walking.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Revelation for the NYT Dining Critic
New York is a hard city. It is an even harder city when a person who uses a wheelchair wants to dine out. Althought the New York Times dining critics include brief reference to wheelchair access, I have learned not to rely on this information. Most people who use a wheelchair and dine out know they are too often directed to the worst table in the dining room. Getting to and navigating within a dining room can also be a challenge. As for accessible bathrooms, that is a pipe dream. This is hardly ground breaking news but for the NYT critic, Frank Bruni, it is. In a recent column, When Accessibility Isn't Hospitality (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/dining/12acce.html) he is amazed to discover that even though he asked about access for his reviews he "didn't appreciate the obstacles people without full mobility face until I dined with one of them". No wonder I don't trust the NYT.
It was nice of Mr. Bruni to dine out "with one of them". Aside from the demeaning choice of words, Mr. Bruni seems to have discovered what I and most people who use a wheelchair already know--there is giant gulf between what is perceived to be accessible and reality. The barriers encountered are architectural--even 17 years after the ADA was passed--and attitudinal. For example, if a dining room is accessed by a wheelchair lift I will routinely encounter one of the following problems: the lift will be broken, the power turned off, the key used to operate it missing or the lift itself filled with trash or used as a storage closet. I have also learned that many restaraunts have what I call the "cripple table"--the one table where all people who use a wheelchair are directd to. Generally this table is in a corner and as far away from others diners as possible.
What Mr Bruni and his temporarily disabled friend with whom he dined fail to realize is that the ADA is not just about wheelchair lifts, elevators, and accessible bathrooms. The ADA is civil rights legislation first and foremost. Access is not provided because businesses want to be accessible out of the goodneess of their heart but rather due to the fact it is the law. Diners who use a wheelchair have the same rights as those that walk in the door--and those rights are violated on a daily basis. The violation of these rights are not, as Mr. Bruni writes, relatively minor inconveniences. Such "inconveniences" are illegal. Why is it okay to "inconvenience" a person who uses a wheelchair but socially unacceptable to make all black people sit in a particular area? Segregation eneded a long time ago for blacks but remains socially acceptable for crippled people. As for Mr. Bruni's temporarily disabled dinner guest, she too does not understand the meaning of access as required by the ADA. If she had a glimmer of understanding, she would not have carried a 12 pound fiberglass ramp with her to get into restaurants with a step or two. In carrying this ramp she is accepting a subserviant social status and sending a very bad message--access is an individual person's problem. Businesses need not be accessible, it is their problem not mine.
I appreciate Mr. Bruni's effort to understand the inherent problems diners who use a wheelchair encounter. I think he would be well served, pun intended, if he dined regularly with a person such as myself who has used a wheelchair for over thirty years. Like others who have thought long and hard about the inequities associated with using a wheelchair, I pereceive the ADA as it should be--ground breaking civil rights legislation. When businesses, restaurants and ordinary indviduals such as Mr. Bruni come to this realization, perhaps I will be able to dine out like any other bipedal person.
It was nice of Mr. Bruni to dine out "with one of them". Aside from the demeaning choice of words, Mr. Bruni seems to have discovered what I and most people who use a wheelchair already know--there is giant gulf between what is perceived to be accessible and reality. The barriers encountered are architectural--even 17 years after the ADA was passed--and attitudinal. For example, if a dining room is accessed by a wheelchair lift I will routinely encounter one of the following problems: the lift will be broken, the power turned off, the key used to operate it missing or the lift itself filled with trash or used as a storage closet. I have also learned that many restaraunts have what I call the "cripple table"--the one table where all people who use a wheelchair are directd to. Generally this table is in a corner and as far away from others diners as possible.
What Mr Bruni and his temporarily disabled friend with whom he dined fail to realize is that the ADA is not just about wheelchair lifts, elevators, and accessible bathrooms. The ADA is civil rights legislation first and foremost. Access is not provided because businesses want to be accessible out of the goodneess of their heart but rather due to the fact it is the law. Diners who use a wheelchair have the same rights as those that walk in the door--and those rights are violated on a daily basis. The violation of these rights are not, as Mr. Bruni writes, relatively minor inconveniences. Such "inconveniences" are illegal. Why is it okay to "inconvenience" a person who uses a wheelchair but socially unacceptable to make all black people sit in a particular area? Segregation eneded a long time ago for blacks but remains socially acceptable for crippled people. As for Mr. Bruni's temporarily disabled dinner guest, she too does not understand the meaning of access as required by the ADA. If she had a glimmer of understanding, she would not have carried a 12 pound fiberglass ramp with her to get into restaurants with a step or two. In carrying this ramp she is accepting a subserviant social status and sending a very bad message--access is an individual person's problem. Businesses need not be accessible, it is their problem not mine.
I appreciate Mr. Bruni's effort to understand the inherent problems diners who use a wheelchair encounter. I think he would be well served, pun intended, if he dined regularly with a person such as myself who has used a wheelchair for over thirty years. Like others who have thought long and hard about the inequities associated with using a wheelchair, I pereceive the ADA as it should be--ground breaking civil rights legislation. When businesses, restaurants and ordinary indviduals such as Mr. Bruni come to this realization, perhaps I will be able to dine out like any other bipedal person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)