Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three times or more is a pattern.
There are:
12 inches in a foot
12 months in a year
12 grades in the American school system
12 signs of the zodiac
12 items in a dozen
12 dozen make up one gross
12 pence to a shilling
12 people on a jury
12 channels on early television sets -- 2 through 13
12 districts in the U.S. Federal Reserve bank system
12 tribes of Israel
12 apostles in Christianity, which borrowed the idea from
12 apostles in Mithraism
12 labors of Hercules, imposed as punishment
12 days to the Christmas season, from Yule to Epiphany
12 steps to humility, (St. Benedict, 520 A.D.)
12 steps of pride (St. Bernard of Clairvaux, 1130 A.D.)
12 steps to sobriety (Bill Miller founder of AA, 1937)
12 parts to the Boy Scout Law (Trustworthy, Loyal, etc.)
12 tones in the chromatic musical scale
12 bars in standard blues music
12 animals in the Chinese cycle of years (rat, ox, tiger, etc.)
12 points to a pica, the standard printer's measuring system
12 times 6 picas = 72, the number of points to an inch
12 times 3 = 36, the number of inches in a yard
12 times 2 = 24 hours in a day
12 times 5 = 60 minutes in an hour
12 times 30 = 360 degrees in a circle
12 times 10 = 120 beats per minute, the standard military marching pace
12 times 10 = 120, the optimum systolic blood pressure
12 volts in automobile electrical systems
12 was the base for early mathematics
12 Chairs in the Mel Brooks movie based on a Russian folk tale
12 Monkeys, another movie, by Terry Gilliam
12 Years a Slave, a book and a movie
12 strands in a DNA sequence
Finally, the atomic weight of carbon, the base of all life forms on earth, is 12.01
And consider this: 12 states sent delegates to Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention of 1787, during the 12th year of U.S. independence. (Rhode Island did not attend.)
Along with the new Constitution, the delegates submitted a package of 12 proposed amendments, the first two of which were not promptly ratified. Proposed Amendments Three through Twelve were approved by the several states by 1791, and became known as the Bill of Rights.
Proposed Amendment One, dealing with apportionment for the House of Representatives, was never approved, but was superseded when the House itself limited its membership to 435. The Constitution initially specified one representative per 30,000 population, but that soon became unwieldy, leading to the limit of 435.
Proposed Amendment Two, dealing with salaries for members of Congress, was ratified in 1992, as Amendment 27.
Taken together, what do they all mean?
Perhaps nothing; they are just coincidences.
Or are they?
Wednesday, December 19, 2018
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
Empty Threats
"If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen." -- Harry Truman
Few things are more foolish than empty threats made in total ignorance of the subject or topic threatened, unless the threatener does, in fact, know the background and assumes listeners will accept what he says. That, however, is a major threat to democracy.
The current president of the United States has threatened litigation against the TV satire show "Saturday Night Live" because he does not like being mocked.
And he has called on the Federal Communications Commission to cancel the licenses of CNN and MSNBC because he does not like their coverage of what he says and does.
The only problem with these threats is that they both clash with the right of free speech and the free press, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
Moreover, CNN and MSNBC, as cable-based networks, do not have broadcast licenses so there is nothing to cancel. Individual broadcast stations do have licenses, but networks do not. Neither do cable operations, so the FCC has little, if any, jurisdiction over their operations. The FCC does allocate broadcast frequencies and assign operations to specific places on the span of frequencies, but controlling what is said and done by the companies would amount to government censorship, which is forbidden by the Constitution.
Likewise, satire has been a highly protected weapon of writers, commentators and entertainers for centuries. To threaten to shut down a news or entertainment operation simply because a government entity or official does not like what is being said is a tactic used by dictatorship to suppress opposition.
So either the current president does not know the law, traditions or constitutional guarantees or he assumes the rest of the general public is ignorant of American values and will do what he says simply because he says it.
Therefore, we are dealing with a president who is either ignorant, or chooses to treat the American citizenry as if we are.
Meanwhile, the American news and entertainment media watch and report on what the senior political leader says and does, putting them into the context of law, reality, and constitutional guarantees.
Few things are more foolish than empty threats made in total ignorance of the subject or topic threatened, unless the threatener does, in fact, know the background and assumes listeners will accept what he says. That, however, is a major threat to democracy.
The current president of the United States has threatened litigation against the TV satire show "Saturday Night Live" because he does not like being mocked.
And he has called on the Federal Communications Commission to cancel the licenses of CNN and MSNBC because he does not like their coverage of what he says and does.
The only problem with these threats is that they both clash with the right of free speech and the free press, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
Moreover, CNN and MSNBC, as cable-based networks, do not have broadcast licenses so there is nothing to cancel. Individual broadcast stations do have licenses, but networks do not. Neither do cable operations, so the FCC has little, if any, jurisdiction over their operations. The FCC does allocate broadcast frequencies and assign operations to specific places on the span of frequencies, but controlling what is said and done by the companies would amount to government censorship, which is forbidden by the Constitution.
Likewise, satire has been a highly protected weapon of writers, commentators and entertainers for centuries. To threaten to shut down a news or entertainment operation simply because a government entity or official does not like what is being said is a tactic used by dictatorship to suppress opposition.
So either the current president does not know the law, traditions or constitutional guarantees or he assumes the rest of the general public is ignorant of American values and will do what he says simply because he says it.
Therefore, we are dealing with a president who is either ignorant, or chooses to treat the American citizenry as if we are.
Meanwhile, the American news and entertainment media watch and report on what the senior political leader says and does, putting them into the context of law, reality, and constitutional guarantees.
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
Pride and Arrogance
"If we don't get what we want, I will shut down the government."
That's the explicit threat made by the president of the United States, pronounced on national television, live from the Oval Office.
Moreover, he added that he would be "proud" to do it, accepting full responsibility for a complete shutdown of the U.S. government if he does not get his way.
The president made this threat while talking to Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, the leaders of Democratic members of Congress.
He also addressed the two senior political leaders by their first names, while they used the term "Mr. President." Whether they deserve the same courtesy is another issue. Respect is one thing, but insisting on deference is another.
We are, as the founding document of the American republic clearly states, "all created equal." There is also the matter of regularly interrupting others to dominate every conversation.
But I digress. These are tactics that illustrate the character of the person who uses them.
It has been long been said that pride goeth before a fall. Whether the amount of pride -- bordering on arrogance -- exhibited by the current president portends an incipient fall from power remains a future event.
Stay tuned.
That's the explicit threat made by the president of the United States, pronounced on national television, live from the Oval Office.
Moreover, he added that he would be "proud" to do it, accepting full responsibility for a complete shutdown of the U.S. government if he does not get his way.
The president made this threat while talking to Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, the leaders of Democratic members of Congress.
He also addressed the two senior political leaders by their first names, while they used the term "Mr. President." Whether they deserve the same courtesy is another issue. Respect is one thing, but insisting on deference is another.
We are, as the founding document of the American republic clearly states, "all created equal." There is also the matter of regularly interrupting others to dominate every conversation.
But I digress. These are tactics that illustrate the character of the person who uses them.
It has been long been said that pride goeth before a fall. Whether the amount of pride -- bordering on arrogance -- exhibited by the current president portends an incipient fall from power remains a future event.
Stay tuned.
Monday, December 10, 2018
Circular Logic
"I am the law." -- Judge Dredd, a fictional character.
There has been increasing talk among pundits as to whether a sitting president can be indicted. Some point out that it has never happened before, and therefore cannot happen now.
Others note that it has been Department of Justice policy not to try, and therefore that policy should not, cannot or must not be changed.
Meanwhile, what's to stop state officials from filing charges? They are not bound by federal DOJ policy. Moreover, that policy can change.
Evidence is piling up that the current president of the United States was involved in illegal activities before, during and after his election. While no charges have yet been filed, if the allegations and implications are true, there were multiple violations of law -- civil, criminal and constitutional.
Some defenders claim that the president cannot be indicted because he is the president. Others, however, point out that no one is above the law, and to assert such a claim is circular logic.
One of the reasons the American colonies declared independence from Britain was to establish that the head of state -- at that time King George III -- could not arbitrarily dictate policy. That precedent was established centuries before, when the Great Charter of 1066 set limits on the powers of the monarch.
Currently, America is faced with a similar difficulty, as its president tries to impose his will on the rest of the nation and its government agencies, including Congress and the Supreme Court.
So there is a legal and constitutional fight brewing, based on whether a president can be indicted while in office. Alternatively, must opponents wait until a president's term ends or he is impeached by the House of Representatives, convicted by the Senate and removed from office, as the Constitution provides.
The Constitution stipulates that the person convicted "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law." (Article I, Section Three, Paragraph Seven)
So the debate is whether the current president should face legal charges now, or must prosecutors wait until he is out of office. Meanwhile, there is the possibility that a president could continue illegal activities while in office, unless Congress ousts him first.
In effect, this would put a sitting president above the laws he has vowed to preserve, protect and defend.
Federal laws, that is. The president has no jurisdiction over state laws.
There has been increasing talk among pundits as to whether a sitting president can be indicted. Some point out that it has never happened before, and therefore cannot happen now.
Others note that it has been Department of Justice policy not to try, and therefore that policy should not, cannot or must not be changed.
Meanwhile, what's to stop state officials from filing charges? They are not bound by federal DOJ policy. Moreover, that policy can change.
Evidence is piling up that the current president of the United States was involved in illegal activities before, during and after his election. While no charges have yet been filed, if the allegations and implications are true, there were multiple violations of law -- civil, criminal and constitutional.
Some defenders claim that the president cannot be indicted because he is the president. Others, however, point out that no one is above the law, and to assert such a claim is circular logic.
One of the reasons the American colonies declared independence from Britain was to establish that the head of state -- at that time King George III -- could not arbitrarily dictate policy. That precedent was established centuries before, when the Great Charter of 1066 set limits on the powers of the monarch.
Currently, America is faced with a similar difficulty, as its president tries to impose his will on the rest of the nation and its government agencies, including Congress and the Supreme Court.
So there is a legal and constitutional fight brewing, based on whether a president can be indicted while in office. Alternatively, must opponents wait until a president's term ends or he is impeached by the House of Representatives, convicted by the Senate and removed from office, as the Constitution provides.
The Constitution stipulates that the person convicted "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law." (Article I, Section Three, Paragraph Seven)
So the debate is whether the current president should face legal charges now, or must prosecutors wait until he is out of office. Meanwhile, there is the possibility that a president could continue illegal activities while in office, unless Congress ousts him first.
In effect, this would put a sitting president above the laws he has vowed to preserve, protect and defend.
Federal laws, that is. The president has no jurisdiction over state laws.
Sunday, December 9, 2018
Donald in Wonderland
"Truth isn't truth." -- Rudy Giuliani
Humpty Dumpty was a lawyer.
Who else would say, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
Likewise, the current president of the United States says one thing and a day or so later denies having said it, that he was misquoted by the "fake news" media, and insists, "I never said that." Which prompts the TV producers to respond with video recordings of the president saying precisely what he denies ever saying.
Then the video documenting his comment brings more vituperation from the Twitter in Chief.
Reporters, however, ignore the attacks and continue to list the conflicting comments and to put them into context with reality.
This only angers the Chief Twit even more, as reporters refuse to react to the criticism.
Colleagues at the networks and newspapers who are paid for their comments and opinions, however, do react to the verbal assaults. That's what they get paid for.
Perhaps it's time the president became aware that there's a difference between reporting and editorializing. Reporting facts that contradict what a politician claims is not editorializing, but balanced and straight reporting.
Journalism's duty is to report all sides of an issue, whether the subject of the report likes it or not. Many politicians mislike negative reports of what they say and do -- few people in the public eye enjoy negative publicity.
But The Donald seems to live in a Wonderland of Snow Jobs, where he expects others to believe everything he says whether it comports to reality or not.
This is why we see presentations of video clips showing the president saying one thing at a certain time and place, followed by another clip showing him saying the opposite.
And when Humpty Dumpty insisted we cannot know what his words mean until he explains what he says, the curious Alice asked "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
To which the lawyer on the wall said, "the question is, which is to be master -- that's all."
But before you get egg on your face, Mister Lawyer, remember that words have meanings generally accepted by the public, and to claim that listeners cannot really understand what you say until and unless you explain to them is to insult all those who are proficient with words and language.
Especially news reporters.
Humpty Dumpty was a lawyer.
Who else would say, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
Likewise, the current president of the United States says one thing and a day or so later denies having said it, that he was misquoted by the "fake news" media, and insists, "I never said that." Which prompts the TV producers to respond with video recordings of the president saying precisely what he denies ever saying.
Then the video documenting his comment brings more vituperation from the Twitter in Chief.
Reporters, however, ignore the attacks and continue to list the conflicting comments and to put them into context with reality.
This only angers the Chief Twit even more, as reporters refuse to react to the criticism.
Colleagues at the networks and newspapers who are paid for their comments and opinions, however, do react to the verbal assaults. That's what they get paid for.
Perhaps it's time the president became aware that there's a difference between reporting and editorializing. Reporting facts that contradict what a politician claims is not editorializing, but balanced and straight reporting.
Journalism's duty is to report all sides of an issue, whether the subject of the report likes it or not. Many politicians mislike negative reports of what they say and do -- few people in the public eye enjoy negative publicity.
But The Donald seems to live in a Wonderland of Snow Jobs, where he expects others to believe everything he says whether it comports to reality or not.
This is why we see presentations of video clips showing the president saying one thing at a certain time and place, followed by another clip showing him saying the opposite.
And when Humpty Dumpty insisted we cannot know what his words mean until he explains what he says, the curious Alice asked "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
To which the lawyer on the wall said, "the question is, which is to be master -- that's all."
But before you get egg on your face, Mister Lawyer, remember that words have meanings generally accepted by the public, and to claim that listeners cannot really understand what you say until and unless you explain to them is to insult all those who are proficient with words and language.
Especially news reporters.
Saturday, December 8, 2018
Quo Vadis?
Where are you going?
In recent months, there have been suggestions that the Federal Reserve would likely raise interest rates to prevent the economy from growing too much, too quickly.
Now, however, it seems the Fed may not have to, because the economy is showing signs of slowing, not only in the U.S. but in other major world economies.
At least that's what many investors expect, assuming one accepts the idea that Wall Street holds a barometer of the nation's economy.
While it may reflect long-term trends, the stock market is also subject to panic attacks in the short term. That is, so short as to be during a week, a day or even hourly.
This partially explains the gyrations of major averages that track stock market activities. As with any average, however, it number -- whether it be up or down -- includes the rise or fall of a wide range of components. In the case of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, one of the most widely followed averages, there are just 30 components -- a list of 30 major corporations.
So an average is just that, an average, and it says nothing about the performance of individual stocks that are components of that list. An investor may well hold shares of one of the components that are above the average, and doing well. Or below average, not doing well, and it may be time to dump that stock for individual performance reasons, not the overall economy.
In any case, the American economy has been doing well for years, with 98 months of job gains, and the unemployment rate holding at 3.7 percent, according to the latest figures from the government.
Nonetheless, as J.P. Morgan once said when asked what the market will do, "It will fluctuate."
This is true of the overall economy also. It does and it will fluctuate. And this is what underlies the present feeling for the near future of the national and the world economy. We are now in a period of what has been called the longest period of economic growth in American history.
It has also been said that all good things come to an end, but whether the current economic good thing ends with a bang or a whimper is something no human can predict.
The Fed does its best to even out the ups and downs of the economy, and its weapon of choice is interest rates. It trims rates to stimulate growth and hikes rates when growth is too strong.
Many argue, debate and protest the Fed's strategies, but the reality is that the nation's central bank is an independent agency, largely immune to political pressure.
So now the questions are whether the economy will slow down on its own, and by how much, or whether the Fed will step in to stabilize the growth rate, put the brakes on to prevent a too rapid acceleration, or stimulate growth as the economy -- both national and world -- risks a stumble.
Your guess is likely better than mine
In recent months, there have been suggestions that the Federal Reserve would likely raise interest rates to prevent the economy from growing too much, too quickly.
Now, however, it seems the Fed may not have to, because the economy is showing signs of slowing, not only in the U.S. but in other major world economies.
At least that's what many investors expect, assuming one accepts the idea that Wall Street holds a barometer of the nation's economy.
While it may reflect long-term trends, the stock market is also subject to panic attacks in the short term. That is, so short as to be during a week, a day or even hourly.
This partially explains the gyrations of major averages that track stock market activities. As with any average, however, it number -- whether it be up or down -- includes the rise or fall of a wide range of components. In the case of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, one of the most widely followed averages, there are just 30 components -- a list of 30 major corporations.
So an average is just that, an average, and it says nothing about the performance of individual stocks that are components of that list. An investor may well hold shares of one of the components that are above the average, and doing well. Or below average, not doing well, and it may be time to dump that stock for individual performance reasons, not the overall economy.
In any case, the American economy has been doing well for years, with 98 months of job gains, and the unemployment rate holding at 3.7 percent, according to the latest figures from the government.
Nonetheless, as J.P. Morgan once said when asked what the market will do, "It will fluctuate."
This is true of the overall economy also. It does and it will fluctuate. And this is what underlies the present feeling for the near future of the national and the world economy. We are now in a period of what has been called the longest period of economic growth in American history.
It has also been said that all good things come to an end, but whether the current economic good thing ends with a bang or a whimper is something no human can predict.
The Fed does its best to even out the ups and downs of the economy, and its weapon of choice is interest rates. It trims rates to stimulate growth and hikes rates when growth is too strong.
Many argue, debate and protest the Fed's strategies, but the reality is that the nation's central bank is an independent agency, largely immune to political pressure.
So now the questions are whether the economy will slow down on its own, and by how much, or whether the Fed will step in to stabilize the growth rate, put the brakes on to prevent a too rapid acceleration, or stimulate growth as the economy -- both national and world -- risks a stumble.
Your guess is likely better than mine
Friday, December 7, 2018
Oops!
"Where ignorance is bliss,
''Tis folly to be wise." -- Thomas Gray
"What you don't know can cost you in politics." -- Pug Mahoney
The latest candidate for the post of ambassador to the United Nations said that D-Day is an example of America's "strong relationship" with Germany.
This from Heather Neuart, a former Fox News host and more recently a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of State.
She was quoted as saying this last June, during a ceremony marking the invasion of Normandy by Allied troops intent on defeating the Nazi regime in Germany.
Now she is being considered for what is one of the most important positions for American international relationships.
Yet another example of the folly of choices and decisions made by the current president of the United States in his campaign to ...
But that's another question. Just what is he up to, anyway? Are his choices and decisions made out of ignorance, or is there a plan? If so, what is it?
All this comes the same day as news of still more departures from senior government positions: The military chief of staff and the chairman of the joint chiefs are the latest to head for the exit door of this administration.
Meanwhile, Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson, a long-time supporter of the president, has now said, "I don't think he's capable."
So the list of political and government supporters who are abandoning the S.S. Trump keeps growing, even as the president adds his most ardent supporters -- despite their ignorance -- to key government posts.
Or is it because of their ignorance, as they blissfully take on key government jobs, led by near blind loyalty to this president?
So the question now becomes, will the current American two-party system survive? There seem to be two possible courses the ship of state may take. One would lead to the domination of American politics and government by a group of radical conservatives, ignorant of key issues and history. The other would see the sinking of the Republican Party, long a bastion of conservative economic and political thinking, yet also conscious of the history and reality of America and its allies.
''Tis folly to be wise." -- Thomas Gray
"What you don't know can cost you in politics." -- Pug Mahoney
The latest candidate for the post of ambassador to the United Nations said that D-Day is an example of America's "strong relationship" with Germany.
This from Heather Neuart, a former Fox News host and more recently a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of State.
She was quoted as saying this last June, during a ceremony marking the invasion of Normandy by Allied troops intent on defeating the Nazi regime in Germany.
Now she is being considered for what is one of the most important positions for American international relationships.
Yet another example of the folly of choices and decisions made by the current president of the United States in his campaign to ...
But that's another question. Just what is he up to, anyway? Are his choices and decisions made out of ignorance, or is there a plan? If so, what is it?
All this comes the same day as news of still more departures from senior government positions: The military chief of staff and the chairman of the joint chiefs are the latest to head for the exit door of this administration.
Meanwhile, Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson, a long-time supporter of the president, has now said, "I don't think he's capable."
So the list of political and government supporters who are abandoning the S.S. Trump keeps growing, even as the president adds his most ardent supporters -- despite their ignorance -- to key government posts.
Or is it because of their ignorance, as they blissfully take on key government jobs, led by near blind loyalty to this president?
So the question now becomes, will the current American two-party system survive? There seem to be two possible courses the ship of state may take. One would lead to the domination of American politics and government by a group of radical conservatives, ignorant of key issues and history. The other would see the sinking of the Republican Party, long a bastion of conservative economic and political thinking, yet also conscious of the history and reality of America and its allies.
Monday, December 3, 2018
Recluse Economy
"No man is an island, entire of itself." -- John Donne
Like it or not, we live in the world, and an isolationist economy is an oxymoron; its terms are mutually contradictory.
A global economic slowdown is on the way, according to some experts, ending the longest growth in American history. A downturn is inevitable, says standard theory, and any move to withdraw from the world is economic suicide. It happened after World War I, and led to the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Isolationism is an attractive concept to many, and is based on the group-think that "we are the best, and everyone else should do as we say." In the real world, however, with independent nations and thinkers who prefer to go their own way -- in cooperation with others -- regardless of any arrogant demands from those who see themselves as inherently better than others.
In economic and international trade terms, such arrogance usually leads to taxes on imports, intended to keep out and stifle competition from others and protect what is perceived to be "the national interest."
The problem with that, however, is that other nations also have a "national interest," and this leads to other tariffs in retaliation for the first country's self-interested import tax policy.
So the international economy is then caught in a tariff-imposed whirlpool, so down and down go both national economies. Both lose.
The economic warning bells are ringing, with alert stock market investors hearing the first chimes of approaching disaster.
And as the poet adds, "Therefore send not to ask for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."
Like it or not, we live in the world, and an isolationist economy is an oxymoron; its terms are mutually contradictory.
A global economic slowdown is on the way, according to some experts, ending the longest growth in American history. A downturn is inevitable, says standard theory, and any move to withdraw from the world is economic suicide. It happened after World War I, and led to the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Isolationism is an attractive concept to many, and is based on the group-think that "we are the best, and everyone else should do as we say." In the real world, however, with independent nations and thinkers who prefer to go their own way -- in cooperation with others -- regardless of any arrogant demands from those who see themselves as inherently better than others.
In economic and international trade terms, such arrogance usually leads to taxes on imports, intended to keep out and stifle competition from others and protect what is perceived to be "the national interest."
The problem with that, however, is that other nations also have a "national interest," and this leads to other tariffs in retaliation for the first country's self-interested import tax policy.
So the international economy is then caught in a tariff-imposed whirlpool, so down and down go both national economies. Both lose.
The economic warning bells are ringing, with alert stock market investors hearing the first chimes of approaching disaster.
And as the poet adds, "Therefore send not to ask for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."
Sunday, December 2, 2018
A League of His Own
"He was a man, take him for all in all.
I shall not look upon his like again."
-- William Shakespeare, "Hamlet."
The death of George H.W. Bush at the age of 94 brought many reflections on the life and career of the 41st president of the United States, all of them praising his patriotism, integrity and political accomplishments even as they acknowledged his mistakes.
No surprise, since the man himself was the first to admit he made errors during his lifetime. But he was also the first to pass credit to others who assisted him in his accomplishments.
Would that we all could play in this same Bush League.
I shall not look upon his like again."
-- William Shakespeare, "Hamlet."
The death of George H.W. Bush at the age of 94 brought many reflections on the life and career of the 41st president of the United States, all of them praising his patriotism, integrity and political accomplishments even as they acknowledged his mistakes.
No surprise, since the man himself was the first to admit he made errors during his lifetime. But he was also the first to pass credit to others who assisted him in his accomplishments.
Would that we all could play in this same Bush League.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)