Damn, has it been cold!
We've had a week straight of sub-freezing temps here at the Chateau de Lieteau, and almost every morning has been in the single digits. We've weathered the cold with no problems (to date) like frozen pipes or failed furnaces, but it has impacted out fuel oil reserves something fierce.
Luckily, relief is in sight. Jambo will be delighted to hear that, as soon as our tax refund comes through, we will have our new pellet stove purchased and installed.
This should have been done years ago... but "shoulda" and "woulda" don't heat the house. We're going to get a super efficient stove that I saw at a local retailer and was very impressed with. Small, self-contained, and easy to install, it will run about $2,000 out-the-door and can be up and running in a single day. It doesn't need a chimney (as wood stoves do) and the fuel is conveniently delivered in stacked bags (as opposed to coal, which is delivered in 1-ton truck loads that need to be moved into storage). After this stove is here, I can buy a winter's worth of fuel for LESS than I'd have paid for a minimum-delivery load of oil... pellets running about $205/ton and a minimum oil delivery running right at $550/150 gallons. No one I've met that owns one says they've used more than two tons in a winter, so for $410 I have a winter's worth of fuel and the oil can be my back-up. That's a far cry from the $1,800 I'd need to fill my tanks twice a winter (even with the additional insulation efforts here at the Chateau, we're using about 750 gallons of oil a calendar year... minimum).
Even with the initial outlay of money, this is cheaper than the old way. We filled the tanks in the summer for about $1,500. We've used more than half the oil already, so we'd need another $1,500 before the season ends. That's $3,000 in oil alone, and we still use electric heaters to supplemental the oil. Now, we buy the stove and two tons of pellets, and we should be oil-electric free for the rest of the winter and on into the future. Conceivably, we could see a full tank of oil last as long as two years or more. Does fuel oil have an expiration date?
The stove is very impressive. I saw it on display and functioning at the retailer. Roughly speaking, it is about the size of a tall end table. It is fed from the top of the unit. A small window lets you actually see the firebox. The stove does need to be "plugged in" to operate the blower and fuel feeder, but it is a very low-power operation and can be plugged into a small, very affordable generator for emergency short-term operation (ice storms, blizzards, etc). The display model was operating with its exhaust vent un-attached... and when I placed my hand over the vent, I'd swear the heat coming out (which equals heat lost and wasted) was less than what my dryer vents out! Amazing, really. Set at a moderate level of heat, the "hopper" will last up to ten hours, and the unit is rated to heat a space of more than 12,000 square feet... roughly ten times the interior size of my house. One bag of pellets fills the hopper and costs $4.10 from the retailer... although I've seen prices as low as $3.78 from other sources. As long as it stays in the bag, it never goes bad, and the fuel is stacked (50 bags to a ton) and wrapped and delivered to your home.
So, for less than $2,500 I'll have the stove and two tons of fuel in less than 30 days... and it will pay for itself in less than one year. That's a HUGE "done" check on my 2013 resolution list...
Monday, January 28, 2013
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Dichotomy in America
First off, let me simply say that THIS WEBSITE is one of the best I've encountered... ever. I'm making a permanent link to it on this page. There is more cool stuff on this one web site than there is on any ten others I've visited.
Having said that, if you visit the site, take the time to read the article series entitled "Manly Honor". It is six parts long, probably 40,000 words total, and well worth the hour or so it will take you to read it. It is this series that has gotten my brain working this morning, and I wanted to share my thoughts with you.
The article details both what honor was over the course of history and is today... and (more interestingly) how it has changed over those intervening centuries. One of the more fascinating features of this essay is the manner in which the author ties the course of American history to America's changing attitude towards personal honor.
I know that countless volumes have been written about the "dichotomy" of the North and South in America, both pre-Civil War and post-Civil War... agrarian versus industrial, rich versus poor, modern versus traditional, liberal versus conservative... but in all I've read over the course of my life, I've never read, heard or seen anyone tie that dichotomy so completely to America's divided ideas on personal honor.
I'm going to give as brief an example as I can... just to make my point.
In 1860, there was a cultural divide in the North that (generally speaking) ran something like this:
Land owners and the "wealthy" segment of society constituted more than 78% of the officers in the Union Army, not based on education or ability so much as their status in society allowed them to avoid the draft by either buying commissions as officers or paying someone to serve for them. This sort of "command structure" was very similar to that which existed in the UK... rich, landed gentry buying command positions in the Army, rather than ability dictating who was in command. I'm not discounting experience (and neither is the author of the essays), since examples such as Grant, Sherman and Lee all show us that expereinced officers (general or otherwise) could and did hold vital positions in both armies, but the bulk of Union officers were neither experienced nor found "qualified" for the positions they held early in the war.
From extant sources, a clear picture emerges about exactly what the bulk of Northern "gentry" felt was defined as "personal honor": calm, cool ability to control both personal and external impulses (swearing, drinking, living to excess, etc). The modern idea of "private" honor is firmly taking root in the North, primarily in the wealthy side of society.
The poor people of the North, mainly immigrants and urban poor, make up the bulk of the conscripted Army, especially after 1862. Being poor, and with so many hailing from regions like Ireland, the Low Countries, Wales, and Cornwall (where a more "public" sense of honor existed), status and respect stemmed from physical prowess and ability, and was tested in feats of strength and skill and was celebrated with such abandon by drinking, swearing, fighting and singing.
An interesting fact comes from this "divided" sense of personal honor: by the end of the first full year of the war, more "soldiers" (meaning conscripts) were executed for assaulting officers then were tried for desertion. The Union Army, simply put, was far too likely to fight amongst itself than was good for it, and the author of the series says this is reflected in the manner in which the War developed early on... very, very few Union victories against smaller Confederate forces.
In the South, the tendency today is to see the officer corps of the CSA as mainly slave-owning landholders. Fact is, less than 10% of the South's officers actually owned ANY slaves, and less than 20% of the entire white population did, either... but more than 78% of ALL white men serving in the CSA owned productive land... officers and enlisted alike. As land owners and (presumably) mostly farmers who worked their own land, these officers and enlisted men shared a very similar sense of personal honor. That honor took the form of one far closer to the older, more traditional "chivalric" sort of code than anything seen in the officer ranks of the North. There was a sense of respect that moved both ways in the South... up and down the ranks... that simply did not happen in the North, where the officers too often saw their soldiers as wild, undisciplined animals. Washington himself encountered the same dichotomy in 1776 when he took command of the Continental Army and saw the differences between the Southern troops of Virginia and Maryland fight alongside troops from Pennsylvania and Connecticut.
I hope I'm making my point here as clear as I can... and I hope I encourage you all to read the essays.
More later...
Having said that, if you visit the site, take the time to read the article series entitled "Manly Honor". It is six parts long, probably 40,000 words total, and well worth the hour or so it will take you to read it. It is this series that has gotten my brain working this morning, and I wanted to share my thoughts with you.
The article details both what honor was over the course of history and is today... and (more interestingly) how it has changed over those intervening centuries. One of the more fascinating features of this essay is the manner in which the author ties the course of American history to America's changing attitude towards personal honor.
I know that countless volumes have been written about the "dichotomy" of the North and South in America, both pre-Civil War and post-Civil War... agrarian versus industrial, rich versus poor, modern versus traditional, liberal versus conservative... but in all I've read over the course of my life, I've never read, heard or seen anyone tie that dichotomy so completely to America's divided ideas on personal honor.
I'm going to give as brief an example as I can... just to make my point.
In 1860, there was a cultural divide in the North that (generally speaking) ran something like this:
Land owners and the "wealthy" segment of society constituted more than 78% of the officers in the Union Army, not based on education or ability so much as their status in society allowed them to avoid the draft by either buying commissions as officers or paying someone to serve for them. This sort of "command structure" was very similar to that which existed in the UK... rich, landed gentry buying command positions in the Army, rather than ability dictating who was in command. I'm not discounting experience (and neither is the author of the essays), since examples such as Grant, Sherman and Lee all show us that expereinced officers (general or otherwise) could and did hold vital positions in both armies, but the bulk of Union officers were neither experienced nor found "qualified" for the positions they held early in the war.
From extant sources, a clear picture emerges about exactly what the bulk of Northern "gentry" felt was defined as "personal honor": calm, cool ability to control both personal and external impulses (swearing, drinking, living to excess, etc). The modern idea of "private" honor is firmly taking root in the North, primarily in the wealthy side of society.
The poor people of the North, mainly immigrants and urban poor, make up the bulk of the conscripted Army, especially after 1862. Being poor, and with so many hailing from regions like Ireland, the Low Countries, Wales, and Cornwall (where a more "public" sense of honor existed), status and respect stemmed from physical prowess and ability, and was tested in feats of strength and skill and was celebrated with such abandon by drinking, swearing, fighting and singing.
An interesting fact comes from this "divided" sense of personal honor: by the end of the first full year of the war, more "soldiers" (meaning conscripts) were executed for assaulting officers then were tried for desertion. The Union Army, simply put, was far too likely to fight amongst itself than was good for it, and the author of the series says this is reflected in the manner in which the War developed early on... very, very few Union victories against smaller Confederate forces.
In the South, the tendency today is to see the officer corps of the CSA as mainly slave-owning landholders. Fact is, less than 10% of the South's officers actually owned ANY slaves, and less than 20% of the entire white population did, either... but more than 78% of ALL white men serving in the CSA owned productive land... officers and enlisted alike. As land owners and (presumably) mostly farmers who worked their own land, these officers and enlisted men shared a very similar sense of personal honor. That honor took the form of one far closer to the older, more traditional "chivalric" sort of code than anything seen in the officer ranks of the North. There was a sense of respect that moved both ways in the South... up and down the ranks... that simply did not happen in the North, where the officers too often saw their soldiers as wild, undisciplined animals. Washington himself encountered the same dichotomy in 1776 when he took command of the Continental Army and saw the differences between the Southern troops of Virginia and Maryland fight alongside troops from Pennsylvania and Connecticut.
I hope I'm making my point here as clear as I can... and I hope I encourage you all to read the essays.
More later...
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Perhaps its a matter of choice...
Maybe I am "pro-choice" after all...
I recently read an article comparing the growing gun control debate in this country to the ongoing debate over abortion. The author makes the case that the dissenting opinions in both Roe v Wade and District of Columbia v Heller, the Justices involved in the majority decision "created rights where none existed".
While I don't agree with this opinion, I can't deny that it seems to sum up my thoughts on the Roe decision rather nicely. However, the Heller decision is one that I think falls squarely into my own opinion on the matter. That being said, I can't say that that makes it right, either way. Prior to Roe, the SCotUS had not made a sweeping decision regarding abortion and a woman's right to seek one out legally. Rather, they had relied on the individual States to regulate the practice (or lack thereof) according to the will of the People. Prior to Heller, no sweeping decision on the actual definition of the Second Amendment had been made in over two hundred years of Court findings.
If the SCotUS can determine that restrictive abortion laws established by due process at a State level somehow infringe on an "implicit" (emphasis mine) right to privacy, as they did in Roe, then the Court's ability to determine that the D.C. gun ban infringed on the very explicit right (emphasis mine) to keep and bear arms must also stand.
Add to this the fact that, while the SCotUS has only made ONE decision defining the Second Amendment... they have made at least FIVE (and I'd seen references to as many as 16) decisions on the responsibility of law enforcement and government to the "individual"... none more clear than Warren v District of Columbia in 1981. In short, there is NO "obligation" for protection, or even of civil service, to the individual from the government. Only an obligation to the "general welfare of society".
If the Government can guaranty the "right" of the individual woman to best determine the course of a pregnancy, over the objections and rights of the natural father and/or the natural rights of the child itself, then how can it deny the rights of each and every citizen to "choose" to take responsibility for the protection and well-being of their lives and property through the free exercise of their explicitly defined Second Amendment rights? How can I support one choice over another, as an individual citizen?
I am adamantly opposed to abortion... and I do what I can when I can to bring the ignored rights of the unborn into the debate... but until such time as the "laws" of the land are changed, I cannot "deny" that choice to someone outside of my immediate and direct influence. I "choose" to do nothing to support or participate in the realm of "abortion" and its adherents and supporters.
I am adamantly supportive of the Constitutional nature of our right to keep and bear arms as individual citizens. It is "fundamentally" included in the founding documents of this nation, from start to finish... as a right and not as an obligation. One can choose NOT to keep arms for personal protection, just as one can choose NOT to support the abortion industry in this nation.
As long as the national "average" of criminal forced entry into homes remains at one every 41 seconds... which translates as 2,107 break-ins a day... and that 40% of those occur in homes that are occupied by the families that live there... which translates to 843 times a day... and that 65% of the people breaking-in are armed themselves... which translates to 1,370 armed assailants every day... I am going to CHOOSE to exercise my RIGHT and fulfill my OBLIGATION as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States to "...keep and bear arms..." "...for the security of a free state".
I recently read an article comparing the growing gun control debate in this country to the ongoing debate over abortion. The author makes the case that the dissenting opinions in both Roe v Wade and District of Columbia v Heller, the Justices involved in the majority decision "created rights where none existed".
While I don't agree with this opinion, I can't deny that it seems to sum up my thoughts on the Roe decision rather nicely. However, the Heller decision is one that I think falls squarely into my own opinion on the matter. That being said, I can't say that that makes it right, either way. Prior to Roe, the SCotUS had not made a sweeping decision regarding abortion and a woman's right to seek one out legally. Rather, they had relied on the individual States to regulate the practice (or lack thereof) according to the will of the People. Prior to Heller, no sweeping decision on the actual definition of the Second Amendment had been made in over two hundred years of Court findings.
If the SCotUS can determine that restrictive abortion laws established by due process at a State level somehow infringe on an "implicit" (emphasis mine) right to privacy, as they did in Roe, then the Court's ability to determine that the D.C. gun ban infringed on the very explicit right (emphasis mine) to keep and bear arms must also stand.
Add to this the fact that, while the SCotUS has only made ONE decision defining the Second Amendment... they have made at least FIVE (and I'd seen references to as many as 16) decisions on the responsibility of law enforcement and government to the "individual"... none more clear than Warren v District of Columbia in 1981. In short, there is NO "obligation" for protection, or even of civil service, to the individual from the government. Only an obligation to the "general welfare of society".
If the Government can guaranty the "right" of the individual woman to best determine the course of a pregnancy, over the objections and rights of the natural father and/or the natural rights of the child itself, then how can it deny the rights of each and every citizen to "choose" to take responsibility for the protection and well-being of their lives and property through the free exercise of their explicitly defined Second Amendment rights? How can I support one choice over another, as an individual citizen?
I am adamantly opposed to abortion... and I do what I can when I can to bring the ignored rights of the unborn into the debate... but until such time as the "laws" of the land are changed, I cannot "deny" that choice to someone outside of my immediate and direct influence. I "choose" to do nothing to support or participate in the realm of "abortion" and its adherents and supporters.
I am adamantly supportive of the Constitutional nature of our right to keep and bear arms as individual citizens. It is "fundamentally" included in the founding documents of this nation, from start to finish... as a right and not as an obligation. One can choose NOT to keep arms for personal protection, just as one can choose NOT to support the abortion industry in this nation.
As long as the national "average" of criminal forced entry into homes remains at one every 41 seconds... which translates as 2,107 break-ins a day... and that 40% of those occur in homes that are occupied by the families that live there... which translates to 843 times a day... and that 65% of the people breaking-in are armed themselves... which translates to 1,370 armed assailants every day... I am going to CHOOSE to exercise my RIGHT and fulfill my OBLIGATION as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States to "...keep and bear arms..." "...for the security of a free state".
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Dear Mr. Vice President...
Apparently VP Biden and another D.C. "commission" are putting in motion all the ammo the president needs to introduce sweeping new gun restriction laws. Now I could make the typical arguments - that the very cities with the strictest gun laws (Chicago, New York, D.C., et al) have the highest gun-murder rate while those counties and cities with the most liberal conceal-carry laws have the lowest; or that gun powder has been around since the 1600's and school shootings are a modern development, hence culture not the flint lock is to blame; or that in one battle 70,000 men died under Alexander the Great, hence "living by the sword" alone can be equally deadly, read: man will always find a way to take life when he deems it necessary; or that the nation boasting Europe's strictest gun laws, the U.K., has seen since its' total hand gun ban a violent crime rate explosion - up 89% in the 10 years since its' implementation (or per 100,000 people in Britain 2,034 violent assaults happen, as opposed to 486 per 100,000 in the US) - however, I know full well Mr. VP that common sense and facts have a way of bouncing right off you and your boss, so I'll stick to a simple question:
The criminally-insane man whom perpetrated the Sandy Hook massacre illegally obtained his weapons by stealing them from his mother. He then illegally brought them into a school, a "gun-free-zone." He then illegally took the lives of 26 children and adults. Mr. Vice President my question to you is, at what point during that sequence do you believe this man would have respected your proposed new laws?
Speaking of VP's... Al Gore - congratulations on your new found wealth. I read that your sale of "Current TV" to the oil empire of Qatar (via Al Jazeera) has put your net worth to that of just beyond Mitt Romney's. I'm sure you'll be purchasing your carbon off-sets in gross now.
By the way Titus, I find your quest to be self sufficient extremely admirable and a worthy endeavour indeed ... and you sound exactly like a man whom has been adamantly preaching that very message, can't really remember his name right now, it rhymes with Ben Gleck... I'll think of it, just give me a minute (couldn't resist... hehe).
The criminally-insane man whom perpetrated the Sandy Hook massacre illegally obtained his weapons by stealing them from his mother. He then illegally brought them into a school, a "gun-free-zone." He then illegally took the lives of 26 children and adults. Mr. Vice President my question to you is, at what point during that sequence do you believe this man would have respected your proposed new laws?
Speaking of VP's... Al Gore - congratulations on your new found wealth. I read that your sale of "Current TV" to the oil empire of Qatar (via Al Jazeera) has put your net worth to that of just beyond Mitt Romney's. I'm sure you'll be purchasing your carbon off-sets in gross now.
By the way Titus, I find your quest to be self sufficient extremely admirable and a worthy endeavour indeed ... and you sound exactly like a man whom has been adamantly preaching that very message, can't really remember his name right now, it rhymes with Ben Gleck... I'll think of it, just give me a minute (couldn't resist... hehe).
Saturday, January 5, 2013
"The Cost of Compromise" would have been a better title...
My New Year resolution for 2013?
To become as self-sufficient as I can possibly be by the end of 2013.
I want to find the way, means and manner by which we can live on this 1.5 acre piece of God's creation in NEPA and rely as little as possible on the "machine" of modern society.
Just over 100 years ago, the home I am sitting in was built on this same piece of land, and a family (named the Bakers) happily and productively lived here for the better part of 70 years. They built the house without electricity, running water, sewage utilities, government assistance, or special guaranteed loans and grants. They farmed, produced and managed all the surrounding land. Of that original homestead, we now own only 1.5 acres... but with the means at our disposal, there is no reason why we can work to meet a goal of 75% complete self-sufficiency within a few short years.
By year's end, I resolve to find the means to reduce our fuel consumption (mainly heating oil) by more than 60%, and our costs by more than 50% for winter heating. This 100-year-old house will be better insulated, it will have a secondary source of heat for winter, it will have a secondary source of water, and it will have a secondary source of sanitation by next winter. We will improve our gardening skills (already rather successful in our first few attempts) to allow us to "produce" a much larger proportion of our consumable needs every season. We will find the means to stop "patching" the problems with this old house, and we will learn how to "fix" them ourselves. We will find the means to supplement or reduce our electrical needs.
In short, I want to make my "goal" the ability to require only gasoline (which I cannot produce), electricity (which I cannot produce enough of), communication (internet, phone, etc) and such minimum amounts of supplies as required to live healthy, happy and productive lives. I want to manage this house as a "homestead" that can and does produce as much as it needs, as often as it can, with only what we have on hand to do it.
It worked for my grandparents and great-grandparents during the Great Depression. It worked for the people that built this house and successfully worked the land here for 70 years (until the Carter Depression, in fact, when it was parceled- out and sold). By God, it's going to work for us too... or I'm going to go broke. I simply DO NOT see how I am going to pay for two college educations, a young son, and all the bills and costs associated with today's spend-spend-spend society.
To become as self-sufficient as I can possibly be by the end of 2013.
I want to find the way, means and manner by which we can live on this 1.5 acre piece of God's creation in NEPA and rely as little as possible on the "machine" of modern society.
Just over 100 years ago, the home I am sitting in was built on this same piece of land, and a family (named the Bakers) happily and productively lived here for the better part of 70 years. They built the house without electricity, running water, sewage utilities, government assistance, or special guaranteed loans and grants. They farmed, produced and managed all the surrounding land. Of that original homestead, we now own only 1.5 acres... but with the means at our disposal, there is no reason why we can work to meet a goal of 75% complete self-sufficiency within a few short years.
By year's end, I resolve to find the means to reduce our fuel consumption (mainly heating oil) by more than 60%, and our costs by more than 50% for winter heating. This 100-year-old house will be better insulated, it will have a secondary source of heat for winter, it will have a secondary source of water, and it will have a secondary source of sanitation by next winter. We will improve our gardening skills (already rather successful in our first few attempts) to allow us to "produce" a much larger proportion of our consumable needs every season. We will find the means to stop "patching" the problems with this old house, and we will learn how to "fix" them ourselves. We will find the means to supplement or reduce our electrical needs.
In short, I want to make my "goal" the ability to require only gasoline (which I cannot produce), electricity (which I cannot produce enough of), communication (internet, phone, etc) and such minimum amounts of supplies as required to live healthy, happy and productive lives. I want to manage this house as a "homestead" that can and does produce as much as it needs, as often as it can, with only what we have on hand to do it.
It worked for my grandparents and great-grandparents during the Great Depression. It worked for the people that built this house and successfully worked the land here for 70 years (until the Carter Depression, in fact, when it was parceled- out and sold). By God, it's going to work for us too... or I'm going to go broke. I simply DO NOT see how I am going to pay for two college educations, a young son, and all the bills and costs associated with today's spend-spend-spend society.
The price of compromise...
Today, we looked at my first payroll check of 2013...
I was more than $25 short from my last check of 2012, due entirely to the increased SSI tax and the 2% higher payroll tax withholding amount.
This is not an issue of too many early outs, either. I'm salaried... meaning my paycheck hasn't varied by more than $0.02 since I became a full-time pit manager. This is, without question, the result of the House compromise bill okay'd by Boehner and Co. to keep the gov't afloat through the "fiscal cliff" drama. The compromise, though reached "after" the cliff edge, was designed to allow certain changes to happen automatically... and the payroll deduction percentage and the SSI increase were both part of that automatic increase.
So, assuming my wife makes just about half of what I do, we can expect to see $150 LESS per month in our bank accounts... or, to put it in more broad and general (and painful) terms, we will see $1,800 LESS in spendable income for the tax year of 2013.
That's two payments on my house note. Or my car note and the power bill and the phone bill, three months. Or an entire year of my daughter's college books bill. $1800 worth of further financial cuts and needed savings that I have to work through in the coming 51 weeks of 2013. No reduction in fuel costs (as promised by Obama in 2008), no reduction, or even stabilization of education costs for college students (as promised by Obama in 2008 and 2012), no boost to the economic picture that might equal increased revenue for my industry and, thus, to my wallet... just more penny-pinching, hair-pulling, do-without-and-like-it lifestyle changes thanks to the myopic, mindless meat-heads in DC that care more about "perception" than they do about solutions.
This is going to be a great year...
I was more than $25 short from my last check of 2012, due entirely to the increased SSI tax and the 2% higher payroll tax withholding amount.
This is not an issue of too many early outs, either. I'm salaried... meaning my paycheck hasn't varied by more than $0.02 since I became a full-time pit manager. This is, without question, the result of the House compromise bill okay'd by Boehner and Co. to keep the gov't afloat through the "fiscal cliff" drama. The compromise, though reached "after" the cliff edge, was designed to allow certain changes to happen automatically... and the payroll deduction percentage and the SSI increase were both part of that automatic increase.
So, assuming my wife makes just about half of what I do, we can expect to see $150 LESS per month in our bank accounts... or, to put it in more broad and general (and painful) terms, we will see $1,800 LESS in spendable income for the tax year of 2013.
That's two payments on my house note. Or my car note and the power bill and the phone bill, three months. Or an entire year of my daughter's college books bill. $1800 worth of further financial cuts and needed savings that I have to work through in the coming 51 weeks of 2013. No reduction in fuel costs (as promised by Obama in 2008), no reduction, or even stabilization of education costs for college students (as promised by Obama in 2008 and 2012), no boost to the economic picture that might equal increased revenue for my industry and, thus, to my wallet... just more penny-pinching, hair-pulling, do-without-and-like-it lifestyle changes thanks to the myopic, mindless meat-heads in DC that care more about "perception" than they do about solutions.
This is going to be a great year...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
