Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Bill 44: Realistic or Excessive?
Student 10019334, COMS 369
As most of us remember, attending public school was never
without its fair share of permission slips. There were forms for field trips,
movies shown in class and now… religion? Up until recently, the only topic of
discussion in classrooms that mandated parental permission was sexual
education, but the government has stepped up its role in regulating the public
education system and has now implemented Bill 44. Teachers can no longer speak
or teach about anything to do with sexual education, sexual orientation or
religion.
The bill was first brought to parliament in early 2009, and
it was not brought to public eyes without controversy. The government voted on
the bill and it was put into place effective September 1, 2010. It falls under
the category of human rights, and some would argue that it enshrines parental
choice over homosexual choice. It is because of this fact that a portion of
those against the bill claim that this bill is a direct response to a court
case that took place in British Columbia in 2006.
Peter and Murray Corren, a same sex couple, set in motion a
court case against the B.C. Ministry of Education, stating that the Ministry
had for years discriminated against same sex couples and their lifestyles.
Before the case could be completed in court, the B.C. government settled with
the Correns by coming to an agreement that Peter and Murray would stand as
consultants to the Ministry to review the course material before it went to the
classrooms to ensure that it avoided discrimination against same sex couples.
Some critics of the bill argue that the Alberta government implemented
regulation of sexual orientation-based teachings so that the same case against
the Alberta board wouldn’t be able to happen like it did in British Columbia.
Another aspect of the bill that appears to be even more
controversial is the portion that includes religion. Teachers are no longer
allowed to teach their students about any matter related to any religion, but
the larger impact is on the subject matter that contradicts the beliefs of any
religion. This includes Darwinism, evolution, and the Big Bang theory. Not only
are they not allowed to teach it, they legally aren’t even permitted to answer
questions about such material if those questions arise.
Growing up with a teacher for a mother, I have seen my fair
share of debates arise between parents and educators regarding everything from
unfair grading to detentions, but never in my mom’s eleven year teaching
history has a parent called her and been upset with her and the school for
teaching their child something that they didn’t agree with.
After much digging, I have not found one teacher that agrees
with this legislation, some for more practical reasons and some for
philosophical reasons. Firstly, the mandates are simply impractical. In
elementary schools, the students are small children who most often either
forget to have their parents sign the permission slips, or they lose the slips
altogether. If no slip is brought back by the due date, the children are put
into the class by default. That seems like a pretty ineffective policing system
to me. In high schools the permission slip system seems even less effective. At
that age, most students have been exposed to these topics in their lives
outside the classroom and have probably already formed their own opinions. In
addition to the practicality of permission slips, teachers are finding the
classroom dynamic to be very inefficient. As previously stated, questions posed
by students in class that relate to the ‘taboo’ topics outlined by Bill 44
cannot be answered by the teachers. Any class discussion of human reproduction,
evolution, same sex marriage, and many more, is forbidden by law.
Picture this: you’re a seventh grade student, and you heard
your friends talking outside about some Discovery Channel program they saw last
night. It was a show about the origins of planet Earth. You have some
questions, so you put your hand up and ask the teacher what caused life to
start on Earth. She looks at you with a bit of an awkward, nervous look, and
then quickly states that she can’t answer that. As a student, you’re left
unfulfilled and possibly with the opinion that your teacher isn’t very smart if
even your friends knew about that. The teacher is left feeling frustrated that
she can’t teach one of the basics of science to her eager student.
Is that any way for our teachers to be feeling? Is it fair
to the children of our future that they are left with a skewed and incomplete
knowledge about basic science? No, absolutely not.
On the other hand, many teachers are extremely passionate
about what they do, and feel that Bill 44 is restricting the learning
opportunities of some students based solely on the fact that their parents’
beliefs overshadow their education. Again, human rights groups have spoken up
in regards to this. As one CBC News commenter puts it, “If a parent thinks 2 +
2 = 5, should they be able to pull their children out of math class?” (CBC User
bernse, 2009). A parent’s belief
(religious or otherwise) should never stand in the way of a student’s right to
learn about as much in their world as they possibly can. The students have a
right to knowledge, regardless of their parent’s beliefs.
Bernie Potgan is the Head of the Education Program at
Ambrose University College here in Calgary, Alberta. Ambrose is an
evangelically rooted private institution that encourages the inclusion of
religion in their programs. He was quoted on canadianchristianity.com as
encouraging the parents of students in the public school system to embrace the
opportunities provided to their children by the schools and to allow their
children to be educated on all levels of religions other than their own. He
outlines that it is better to be educated and well rounded than to be
close-minded to only their beliefs. I have to agree. A Christian man of
authority in an educational setting is encouraging parents to not have their
children opt-out of these topics, so why wouldn’t those less qualified follow
his advice?
If I am not mistaken, Alberta’s government consists of
individuals that the people have elected to speak on their behalf and represent
their views and opinions on social and economic matters. From what I have seen
on almost all the websites and forums I have researched on, and based on the
debate this bill has sparked, this bill is not representative of the people’s
wishes. In a true democracy, the government would have seen all this dislike
and disapproval of such legislation and put the matter under review. In a true
democracy, they might have even removed it. I see no such effort.
At the end of the day, it is ultimately up to you to decide.
Will you side with the many who feel the government is favoring parental right
over human rights? Will you side with those who think this isn’t just fostering
religious ignorance or with those who feel everyone deserves to learn about
every religion? Join us on the side that favors the children of our future.
For more information, please see these sites:
Lloyd Mackey. (n.d.). Alberta human rights bill balances
parental, gay rights. In Canadian Christianity. Retrieved November 21,
2012, from http://canadianchristianity.com/nationalupdates/2009/090604alberta.html#articletop.
Kristopher Wells and James Chamberlain. (September, 2009).
Alberta’s Bill 44 severely restricts professional autonomy. In BC Teachers'
Federation. Retrieved November 21, 2012, from http://bctf.ca/publications/NewsmagArticle.aspx?id=19492.
CBC News. (June 2, 2009). Alberta passes law allowing parents
to pull kids out of class. In CBC News. Retrieved November 21, 2012,
from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/06/02/alberta-human-rights-school-gay-education-law.html.
Dennis Theobald. (August 24, 2010). Government puts fences
around Bill 44. In The Alberta Teachers' Association. Retrieved November
21, 2012, from http://www.teachers.ab.ca/Publications/ATA%20News/Volume-45-2010-11/Number1/Pages/Government-puts-fences-around-Bill-44.aspx.
Ken Dickerson. (April 29, 2009). Bill 44: Alberta
Government’s Human Rights Amendments Spark Religious Controversy, but Leave
Free Speech Untouched. In Centre for Constitutional Studies. Retrieved
November 21, 2012, from http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/ccs/news/?id=264.
Karen Drummond. (September 20, 2011). Bill 44 implementation
- Alberta human rights act, section 11.1. In Calgary Board of Education.
Retrieved November 21, 2012, from http://www.cbe.ab.ca/parents/bill44.asp.
CBC News. (February 17, 2012). Quebec students must take
ethics-religion course. In CBC News. Retrieved November 21, 2012, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/02/16/supreme-court-canada-religion-education-challenge.html.
Improper Use of the Word Gay
10076952
COMS 369 L2
Fortunately for you all, you have never had to sit through a holiday supper in the presence of my family. While most would admit to the occasional disagreement between their parents or siblings at the table, my family manages to get into a full on debate that usually results in someone angrily storming away and a few doors being slammed. Despite this sounding horrible and slightly traumatic, we actually manage to discuss topics that are fairly important and relevant to the world around us and occasionally someone may end up with a new perspective on an issue they once felt so strongly about. This past Thanksgiving dinner, I had the privilege of accidently setting off a dispute about the improper use of the word Gay in a derogatory manner. At the time, I yelled at myself for causing such a large argument, but looking back I see how valuable it was for all of us to hear various opinions on such a controversial subject.
Before I moved to Calgary last year, I was a frequent user of the word Gay to describe something I was unfavorable towards. While I am not homophobic, nor do I discriminate against Gay people in any form, it had just become a part of my every day vocabulary because it was a component of everyone else’s. However after I changed cities, it wasn’t long before I noticed that not many people I hung around were using it. I realized that while the people I used to spend time with had no problem with using Gay in a negative manner, I had no idea how to know whether that was an acceptable word around these new individuals. It also dawned on me that I could be speaking to or be within ear-shot of someone who was either Gay themselves, or just simply took major offense to this type of expression. It was then that I knew I had to stop using it, and it wasn’t long before I was free from that bad habit. It was from all of this that I had developed a new view on this sensitive subject, one that matched that of my dad’s, but fell flat with my mom and older brother. Mid debate, I was shocked to see how passionate I had become about the improper use of such a small word that managed to obtain such a large amount of divisive attention in our world.
As most of you know, the word Gay was originally used to describe feelings of happiness back in the early nineteenth century. It was later on decided in the twentieth century that Gay could also be a term used to refer to a homosexual. Those who now tend to use Gay in slang form can use this previous change in definition to their advantage, claiming that if a word’s meaning can change once it surely can change again. The problem with this is that most of those who do use Gay as slang are using it either to describe something they dislike or to insult someone, regardless of their actual sexual preference. Gay is now one of “the most frequently used terms of abuse, according to a survey by the association of Teachers and Lecturers” (Denise Winterman). And while it may seem recent to most of us, the term gay was actually used as an insult and in slang form all the way back in the 1970’s (Winterman). However for some reason it only reached its peak in popularity during our generation’s use of it. Obviously the major trouble with the word Gay is that it has so many different meanings behind it now that you can’t truly tell when it’s being used in a negative or homophobic manner (Mr. Thorne). But these statistics are telling us that the majority of users, especially children, are using it in terms of an insult. I fear that this is something that simply isn’t being addressed enough.
The opposing argument at the dinner table that night was once again that the meaning behind the word had changed and it no longer necessarily referred to sexual orientation. While I must agree that connotation can evolve over time, I am also curious as to whose standards? The meaning of a word cannot be changed and simply accepted by all, especially when the original purpose of the word was created to describe a certain demographic. Gay is most certainly not the first controversial word used by the public. Similar to gay, the term retarded had a change in association when it began to be used as a form of describing something as dumb. But most of us can remember the Black Eyed Peas famous song, Let’s Get Retarded, which after a couple weeks of radio play it was changed to Let’s Get it Started, after realizing how offensive the original version was. This argument can also be made in addressing the use of the N word. Somehow people decided that since they weren’t using it in the same way that people had in the past, this made it acceptable to once more bring it back into our vocabulary. However controversy struck when actress Gwenyth Paltrow received major backlash after writing a tweet which incorporated a song title by Kanye West and Jay Z that just so happens to include the N word in it. Regardless of how much you claim to not be discriminating against mentally challenged people, and despite how much you claim not to be racist, and apart from how much you claim not to be homophobic, there will always be people who choose to use these terms in a negative approach, and it is because of that and out of respect for those who it offends that it simply isn’t right to use these words. To sum it up, your personal opinion and your personal use of the word does not matter in the slightest.
The most common ways people choose to defend themselves when using the word Gay as slang, is: “it’s just a word”, “meanings change”, and my personal favorite, “I’m not homophobic, so I can use it”. But, if it’s just a word then why can’t you just as easily pick another one? Meanings can change, but how do we know which meaning you are ascribing to it when you use it? And finally, the people that hear you say Gay, don’t actually know how you feel towards homosexuals. For all they know, you are a homophobe. So now I ask all of you, is it worth it to possibly insult someone who already feels insecure about who they are? Is it worth it to make someone feel like a word used to describe them is also suitably used to express something they are unfavorable towards? Is it worth it to make someone feel like there is something wrong with them? Ridding your vocabulary of a word that you so often use can seem intimidating especially when the majority of the time it is used unconsciously. But I now present you with the challenge of becoming more aware of the word choices you make. You’ll be amazed at how many times you may use this offensive language during the course of a day. Don’t be one of those people who support the improper use of the word gay. If I am making it sound simple, that’s because it is and if I can do it, so can you.
For More Information...
Winterman, Denise. "How 'gay' became children's insult of choice." BBC News. N.p., 18 Mar. 2008. Web. 24 Nov. 2012..
COMS 369 L2
Fortunately for you all, you have never had to sit through a holiday supper in the presence of my family. While most would admit to the occasional disagreement between their parents or siblings at the table, my family manages to get into a full on debate that usually results in someone angrily storming away and a few doors being slammed. Despite this sounding horrible and slightly traumatic, we actually manage to discuss topics that are fairly important and relevant to the world around us and occasionally someone may end up with a new perspective on an issue they once felt so strongly about. This past Thanksgiving dinner, I had the privilege of accidently setting off a dispute about the improper use of the word Gay in a derogatory manner. At the time, I yelled at myself for causing such a large argument, but looking back I see how valuable it was for all of us to hear various opinions on such a controversial subject.
Before I moved to Calgary last year, I was a frequent user of the word Gay to describe something I was unfavorable towards. While I am not homophobic, nor do I discriminate against Gay people in any form, it had just become a part of my every day vocabulary because it was a component of everyone else’s. However after I changed cities, it wasn’t long before I noticed that not many people I hung around were using it. I realized that while the people I used to spend time with had no problem with using Gay in a negative manner, I had no idea how to know whether that was an acceptable word around these new individuals. It also dawned on me that I could be speaking to or be within ear-shot of someone who was either Gay themselves, or just simply took major offense to this type of expression. It was then that I knew I had to stop using it, and it wasn’t long before I was free from that bad habit. It was from all of this that I had developed a new view on this sensitive subject, one that matched that of my dad’s, but fell flat with my mom and older brother. Mid debate, I was shocked to see how passionate I had become about the improper use of such a small word that managed to obtain such a large amount of divisive attention in our world.
As most of you know, the word Gay was originally used to describe feelings of happiness back in the early nineteenth century. It was later on decided in the twentieth century that Gay could also be a term used to refer to a homosexual. Those who now tend to use Gay in slang form can use this previous change in definition to their advantage, claiming that if a word’s meaning can change once it surely can change again. The problem with this is that most of those who do use Gay as slang are using it either to describe something they dislike or to insult someone, regardless of their actual sexual preference. Gay is now one of “the most frequently used terms of abuse, according to a survey by the association of Teachers and Lecturers” (Denise Winterman). And while it may seem recent to most of us, the term gay was actually used as an insult and in slang form all the way back in the 1970’s (Winterman). However for some reason it only reached its peak in popularity during our generation’s use of it. Obviously the major trouble with the word Gay is that it has so many different meanings behind it now that you can’t truly tell when it’s being used in a negative or homophobic manner (Mr. Thorne). But these statistics are telling us that the majority of users, especially children, are using it in terms of an insult. I fear that this is something that simply isn’t being addressed enough.
The opposing argument at the dinner table that night was once again that the meaning behind the word had changed and it no longer necessarily referred to sexual orientation. While I must agree that connotation can evolve over time, I am also curious as to whose standards? The meaning of a word cannot be changed and simply accepted by all, especially when the original purpose of the word was created to describe a certain demographic. Gay is most certainly not the first controversial word used by the public. Similar to gay, the term retarded had a change in association when it began to be used as a form of describing something as dumb. But most of us can remember the Black Eyed Peas famous song, Let’s Get Retarded, which after a couple weeks of radio play it was changed to Let’s Get it Started, after realizing how offensive the original version was. This argument can also be made in addressing the use of the N word. Somehow people decided that since they weren’t using it in the same way that people had in the past, this made it acceptable to once more bring it back into our vocabulary. However controversy struck when actress Gwenyth Paltrow received major backlash after writing a tweet which incorporated a song title by Kanye West and Jay Z that just so happens to include the N word in it. Regardless of how much you claim to not be discriminating against mentally challenged people, and despite how much you claim not to be racist, and apart from how much you claim not to be homophobic, there will always be people who choose to use these terms in a negative approach, and it is because of that and out of respect for those who it offends that it simply isn’t right to use these words. To sum it up, your personal opinion and your personal use of the word does not matter in the slightest.
The most common ways people choose to defend themselves when using the word Gay as slang, is: “it’s just a word”, “meanings change”, and my personal favorite, “I’m not homophobic, so I can use it”. But, if it’s just a word then why can’t you just as easily pick another one? Meanings can change, but how do we know which meaning you are ascribing to it when you use it? And finally, the people that hear you say Gay, don’t actually know how you feel towards homosexuals. For all they know, you are a homophobe. So now I ask all of you, is it worth it to possibly insult someone who already feels insecure about who they are? Is it worth it to make someone feel like a word used to describe them is also suitably used to express something they are unfavorable towards? Is it worth it to make someone feel like there is something wrong with them? Ridding your vocabulary of a word that you so often use can seem intimidating especially when the majority of the time it is used unconsciously. But I now present you with the challenge of becoming more aware of the word choices you make. You’ll be amazed at how many times you may use this offensive language during the course of a day. Don’t be one of those people who support the improper use of the word gay. If I am making it sound simple, that’s because it is and if I can do it, so can you.
For More Information...
Winterman, Denise. "How 'gay' became children's insult of choice." BBC News. N.p., 18 Mar. 2008. Web. 24 Nov. 2012.
Should Fine Arts Programs Be Offered in Schools?
10088124
Coms 369 L02
“If you’re not prepared to be
wrong, you’ll never come up with anything original.” Ken Robinson, an author,
speaker and professor, made this point in a speech commenting on the
importance of Fine Arts programs in school systems. He makes the point that as
children we are born creative, however it is the academic system that forces us
to grow out of creativity; and I agree with him.
Living in a world where being
wrong is a burden and making mistakes should be punished has a huge impact on
kids. They need room to express their ideas especially when developing because
that is how new inventions, different works, and even motions that change the
world are originated. If Alexander Graham Bell hadn’t had room to think on his
ideas, we would not have the one invention that we hold to such value today,
which is the telephone. This holds true to children in school: if they do not
have the support and the time to imagine and create, new ideas and passions
would be very rare and progress would be harder to achieve.
As the economy fluctuates, the
debate of whether fine arts programs (including art, music, drama and dance)
should be offered in schools, becomes a heated discussion. On the one hand,
people are against fine arts programs because they believe that there is not a
big enough job market for it and will even argue that children are not
developing useful skills for living in the world today. These people believe
that it is a waste of money to invest in such programs and that the government
should be funding the maths and sciences more. On the other hand, some people
believe that fine arts programs carry such importance in growing up and
expressing one’s passions. That in our free society we have the right to do
what we want with our lives and to stop funding this is taking away a right.
I believe that without fine arts,
society would be lost and unable to progress. I believe that art has allowed us
to connect with other cultures whether it is through music, writing or acting.
Art is something to bond over and growing up without it would affect everyone. This
issue affects myself personally: As a child I was very shy to the point that speaking
to other people was hard for me because I was afraid of being judged. Friends
were hard to make because of this and all I really had was my family and my
passion for singing. It was not until junior high school that I was able to
join my first drama class in an attempt to do what I like to do and try and meet
people like me. After a year of drama, my family, my friends and even I noticed
a huge difference in the way I talked to people and my attitude towards myself.
I carried on with these classes throughout high school and I continued to grow
as a person. Not only that, but it is where I discovered how passionate I
really was for the fine arts and I knew I wanted to pursue it in my career
path. Now, I am an eighteen-year-old Drama and Communications major and the
last thing most people would describe me as is shy. If drama had not been
offered at my school I don’t know where I would be now but I can assure you, I
would not be in my chosen career. I understand the reluctance of people to
support the arts due to the job market and my parents made it clear to me that
I would always need something to fall back on as a career. As an artist I can
assure you though, that we know it’s tough. We know that you have to work a lot
harder to do what you love than it would be to go to university and instantly become a
doctor or an engineer, but most of us are prepared to meet that challenge.
But why should everyone suffer from
a few people thinking that art isn’t worth having? Even the most logical
thinkers need creativity in their lives, they need to grow to be able to
express their ideas, and nurture their right brain. And perhaps these people
aren’t thinking far enough ahead. Without writers we have no books, no
newspapers; Without musicians we have no music, no instrument; Without visual
artists we have no architecture, no websites; and without actors and dancers we
have no entertainment, no passion. Without the arts culture is hard to maintain
and diversify, society will not progress and people will be more reluctant to
express themselves.
Out of these people against fine arts, I bet there is not one that can say they have never enjoyed a movie, played a video game or read a good book. It is safe to say that what these people do not realize, is taking away these programs is taking away a lifestyle and taking away the opportunity for kids to grow up with imagination. If you’re not going to support the arts for yourselves, do
it for the shy kids, the awkward kids, do it for world changing ideas, and do
it for progress.
And please, keep supporting fine arts programs in schools.
The 2012 NHL Lockout: Why Fans Should Blame the Players
Student #: 10096622
COMS 369- L02
The 2012
NHL lockout is a touchy subject for many. Hockey fans are missing their beloved
sport and they’re angry. They are angry with the players, angry with the owners
and angry with commissioner, Gary Bettman who seems to be taking most of the
heat. Who is to blame for the NHL lockout is a subject of great debate and it’s
becoming increasingly difficult to separate fact from opinion. So to began,
lets consider the facts.
According
to ESPN, the lockout commenced September 16, due to the fact an agreement could
not be reached between the NHL owners and the players to replace the previous
collective bargaining agreement. The NHL owners originally sought to lower the
player’s earnings from 57% to 46% of hockey-related revenue. However, since
their original proposal the NHL owners have suggested a 50/50 split, which was
also denied by players. As many as
10 NHL teams are struggling to break even, commissioner Bettman tells
ESPN, “in these economic times there
is a need to retrench.” Nevertheless, Players don’t think any belt-tightening
is necessary, mentioning annual industry revenue is on the incline, growing
from $2.1 billion to 3.3 billion since the last deal was made. To date, no
agreement has been reached in regards to revenue allocation. Both sides stand
firm, the players saying they want to see a fair deal and the owners allegedly
unable to give them one.
In deciding whose side to take on
this debate what is “fair” should be considered. Players feel it is not fair
they work for a lesser amount of money when the profit of the industry is
increasing. This is true, but they are not taking into account the teams that
are financially struggling. Bettman’s job is to make sure the system works and
if he sees some areas of the system failing due to financial reasons, he is
going to do his best to keep them afloat. If players care about the sport and
their jobs, shouldn’t they too try and keep the best interest of the league in
mind? In fairness to the fans, the players and the league as a whole, the big
picture needs to be considered.
Keeping the league running smoothly
should be in everyone’s best interest and it is clear through the player’s
unwillingness to settle they are not considering the interest of the league.
With this in mind, maybe anger shouldn’t be directed at Bettman, but rather the
players. The players attempt to redirect anger from them by airing messages to
their fans starring prominent NHL figures like Sidney Crosby, expressing his
desire to simply play hockey. They act like it’s simple; all they want to do is
play hockey for their fans. The truth is, it is far from simple and they
shouldn’t try and trick their fans into thinking it is.
If NHL players really wanted to be
on the ice, they would be. It is clearly much more complicated than they make
it seem. It makes sense they wouldn’t want to air a message that makes them out
to be greedy and discourteous to the fans that fund their careers. This is why fans
should take into consideration the message player’s action’s send, rather than
their words. Unfortunately, the message players are sending to fans by asking
for more money than Bettman can offer is not a favorable one.
It is important to remember, without
fans these players would not have a career. The healthy paychecks these men
receive come out of the pockets of fans. Therefore, for players to simply say
they feel for their fans because they too are missing hockey, seems completely
ungrateful knowing the only thing keeping them off the ice is money. This
battle over money makes hockey appear to be primarily about profit, which
devalues all the wonderful things about hockey as a sport. For this reason,
hockey players should feel guilty. Guilty they are attempting to increase their
already generous paycheck, rather than giving back to those who have given them
the opportunity to do what they love professionally.
It is clear I feel that the loyalty
of fans, players and owner’s should be with the league as a whole. If the
league runs smoothly everyone wins, this means players may need to accept a pay
cut in order for the league to continue to thrive. The more players fight this,
the more likely it is they will loose their fans. Why would fans want support
hockey when it’s becoming more about money than bringing people together,
teamwork and hope? Without fans hockey is not possible. This is why players
need to consider revised monetary offers as a means to keep the league
successfully running, keep their fans and their jobs.
For more
information:
Lupul, J. (2012). NHL Lockout 2012: AN NHL Player’s Unadulterated Opinion On Why There’s A Lockout. Retrieved from http://ca.askmen.com/sports/fanatic/nhl-lockout-2012.html
Blum, R. (2012). NHL
Lockout: What You Need to Know. Retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/nhl-lockout-know-162929731--nhl.html
Associated Press. (2012) Time of Future Negotiations Uncertain. Retrieved from http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8615644/2012-nhl-lockout-league-union-meet-small-informal-lunch-talks
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]