The African National Congress is using its majority might to bulldoze the Protection of State Information Bill through Parliament. It now goes to the National Assembly after being passed by the upper house, where MPs were given suspicious, unmarked propaganda documents promoting the Bill’s “benefits”. By MANDY DE WAAL.
South Africa’s Protection of State Information Bill (POIB) was pushed through Parliament's National Council of Provinces (NCOP) by the ANC’s majority muscle late on Thursday 29 November 2012. The vote was 34 in favour of the draft legislation, while 16 members of Parliament voted against the Bill.
As MPs filed into Parliament’s upper house, the Right2Know campaign, a coalition formed in August 2010 to oppose the Secrecy Bill, handed out letters spelling out its concerns. “One of our campaign supporters noticed that the MPs were carrying documents themselves, and did an exchange,” says Murray Hunter, Right2Know’s spokesperson and organiser. “What we got hold of was a spin sheet with sound bites spinning certain aspects of the Bill. It was a document called “Myths about the Protection of State Information Bill” asserting that the Bill did indeed contain a public interest defence and would make it impossible to hide corruption.”
Murray says that the information used in the document – which had no source or logo on it – was filled with flawed and confused arguments. The Right2Know campaign said it wanted to know who had drafted the document and how it was funded.
Parliamentary leader for the DA, Lindiwe Mazibuko, said her biggest issue was the source of the anonymous document, and possible interference by the ministry of State Security. “We know that Siyabonga Cwele’s department has been interfering in the legislative process quite publicly by saying what NCOP members should and shouldn’t do with the legislation, which is in itself a violation of the separation of powers. That is problematic because once the law is in Parliament, it must be dealt with by MPs, and an MP’s job is not to do the bidding of government,” said Mazibuko. She added that if the document did indeed come from the ministry of State Security, it would be a “huge problem”.
“It is well known that Parliament has a research unit in every single portfolio committee, and every select committee, which has a secretariat and a researcher, and often they provide committee members with information. But there is something very suspicious about parties and MPs being given a script on their way into a debate, whether or not that script came from Parliament or a government department. It is suspicious when this document comes late in the game, when the legislation is being debated upon,” she said, and added: “At the moment we are concerned with some of the procedural problems with the Information Bill, and it is certainly one of the things we will look into.”
Earlier in the week, the controversial Bill – subject of much civil society protest – was adopted by an NCOP ad hoc Parliamentary committee which had been working on changes to the Bill for the last year. Mail & Guardian reported that opposition parties were given just 10 minutes to study the 22-page report on the ad hoc committee’s deliberations, and amendments to the Secrecy Bill. The opposition walked out and ANC members voted to send the Bill to a plenary session of the NCOP.
“It is clear that the Bll’s final process through the NCOP has been rushed and botched very badly,” said Nic Dawes, editor-in-chief of the Mail & Guardian. “Despite the initial willingness of members of all parties in the NCOP to do this properly and to try and hear the concerns that were raised by civil society, by lawyers, by the media, by activists, this potential to do a good job has been replaced by a mad rush to meet a self-imposed deadline. Serious damage has been done to the process as a result.”
Dawes said people weren’t able to properly consider the committee report earlier in the week and added it was likely that the remainder of the NCOP, and plenary session, hadn’t had a proper chance to consider the amended legislation in its entirety, nor to make an informed decision on it.
“The remaining options are for the National Assembly to do what it ought to have done all along, and that is to say that this legislation needs major revisions. It needs a proper public interest defence and a public domain defence. It needs to have an appropriate balance between freedom of information and the need to protect very narrowly and carefully defined state secrets, and it needs to be subordinate to the main piece of Constitutional legislation in this area, and that is the Promotion of Information Act,” Dawes said, adding that the National Assembly had one last chance to do the right thing.
“If they don’t, I hope a draft of MPs will send this for Constitutional review; I have been advised that they will try. Or alternatively that President Zuma does that, and then ultimately we will end up in the Constitutional Court, testing the legislation vigorously, and it is a pity that it looks like we are going to get to that place, but if need be that is what we will do,” Dawes said.
As the NCOP session got underway, State Security minister Cwele worked hard to sell the “benefits” of the Bill. Cwele, who had long pushed for the more draconian aspects of the Bill to remain intact, said the draft legislation sought to “advance the public interest by protecting certain classified information held by the state that if it became known to adversaries, would prejudice state programmes and hinder its ability to perform its duties.”
Reaching for a snappy quotable quote, Cwele addressed those scared of the implementation of the Bill into law. “To those who fear that the Bill may be abused, we say: the only thing to fear is fear itself.” (We presume Mr Cwele is FDR's fan - Ed)
BDLive reported that there was fierce opposition debate in the NCOP, with DA MP Alf Lees accusing the ANC of misleading the public by claiming extensive amendments to the Bill had ruled out the possibility of a state official using it to conceal wrongdoing. "Given the levels of corruption we see in government today, it is inevitable that the Bill will be used to cover up crime and corruption by those who risk exposure," he said, to ANC jeers.
Lees said the Bill still lacked a proper public interest defence clause to protect the media and whistle blowers, while his colleague Albert Fritz added, "This Bill is Stasi-like in its content and design."
Anton Harber, who directs the Journalism and Media Studies Programme at Wits University, agrees that there is still much to fear about the Bill. “It affects people in two ways. If one comes across information that needs to be out there in the public interest, clearly it raises the risks of being a whistle blower enormously,” said Harber.
“I have no doubt it will have a chilling effect on certain kinds of investigative journalism. It means an impact on the flow of information in the public arena. The penalties for whistle blowing potentially jump enormously here,” he added.
To understand the practical impact of the Bill, should it become law, Daily Maverick spoke to an activist in Kwazulu-Natal, a province where the political body count has been rising during recent months.
“We have a lot of political killings in the province at the moment, and in some cases even within the same political party,” said Desmond D'sa, a veteran political activist who’s currently in an organisational role for Right2Know in Kwazulu-Natal. “We believe that this is because of all the corruption that’s happening in this province. We have been asking for information related to this for a long, long time; for instance, we’ve asked for the Manase report in Durban, which reveals a lot of the shenanigans that going on.”
But the city refused to let activists, who report and organise against corruption, to have a copy of the report. “The city cites that whistle-blowers will lose their jobs or get killed and all of that, but that’s exactly what’s going on here in the ruling party. We believe that the Manase report is linked to these killings and will reveal a lot about what’s going on in the ANC in Kwazulu-Natal. The killings are about who is in power, who controls the resources, and who gets access to resources,” he said.
D'sa said even less “sensitive” information, like finding out about funding of housing projects, is blocked by officials who are already using the Bill (which hasn’t been passed in to law) to stop activists, the media or concerned citizens from getting information.
“If, for instance, you want to know what housing projects are being done and what funds have been made available for this in the city, you won’t get to the bottom of it. This is because the information is classified and not released. It is classified by people right at the top. It is going to make it impossible for people to find out what is really going on here in the province,” said D’sa.
The activist explained that the control of information made it impossible for civic society to do its job as a watchdog of government, and stated that the Bill was particularly threatening for whistle blowers.
“The NGOs and the civic organisations depend on whistle blowers to uncover corruption, and whistle blowers are crucial to the functioning of a democratic society and to help us get to the truth. However, the situation with whistle-blowers will get even worse because of the mounting fear. People will be fearful of being arrested, and now will be scared to release any kind of information because of the consequences,” D’sa said.
In terms of the proposed law, whistle blowers who reveal “corruption, malfeasance or wrongdoing by the State” can look at jail terms of up to 15 years. Furthermore, the Right2Know campaign also fears that whistle blowers may be charged under espionage clauses of the law which would see penalties of up to 25 years imposed.
In Kwazulu-Natal, this might be the case for activists investigating chemical fires and explosions. “In Durban the chemical cluster operates under the military, and under this new law, the military and the ‘securocrats’ in government won’t release any information at all. Even when people are getting killed or people are being affected by chemical emissions, this will not be released because they will deem it confidential and they will classify it,” D'sa told Daily Maverick.
“We have had over thirty explosions in the past few years, and fires in Durban, and we asked the department of labour to release certain forensic reports and they won’t do it. Can you imagine now if the law comes out? The flow of information with come to a standstill,” he added.
In the past, activists have been able to eke out some information through whistle blowers, but this will either dry up, or both activists and whistle blowers could face jail stiff terms. But D’sa and the Right2Know campaign are unrelenting.
“I hope that everyone realises that the democracy that everyone fought for and yearned for will be curtailed by this new law, as it is being bulldozed through Parliament. We are worried that we have gone right back, right back to the dark days of the Apartheid government, in bringing about these laws to stifle civil society, and to stifle ordinary people from standing up and asking the right questions, and getting the answers.”
“We will up the tempo of our protests. We are going to fight, even to the extent of being imprisoned. We are not going to shy away from standing up for the truth – even to the extent of being imprisoned because we need to fight this,” he added. DM
Source: Daily Maverick
Showing posts with label Kleptocracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kleptocracy. Show all posts
Friday, November 30, 2012
The ‘big bwana’ syndrome and the state
A big man, big man syndrome, or bigmanism, within the context of political science, refers to corrupt, autocratic and often totalitarian rule of countries by a single person.
Generally associated with neopatrimonial states, where there is a framework of formal law and administration but the state is informally captured by patronage networks. The distribution of the spoils of office takes precedence over the formal functions of the state, severely limiting the ability of public officials to make policies in the general interest. While neopatrimonialism may be considered the norm where a modern state is constructed in a preindustrial context, however, the African variants often result in bigmanism in the form of a strongly presidentialist political system.
Examples
Source: Wikipedia
Generally associated with neopatrimonial states, where there is a framework of formal law and administration but the state is informally captured by patronage networks. The distribution of the spoils of office takes precedence over the formal functions of the state, severely limiting the ability of public officials to make policies in the general interest. While neopatrimonialism may be considered the norm where a modern state is constructed in a preindustrial context, however, the African variants often result in bigmanism in the form of a strongly presidentialist political system.
Examples
- Mobutu Sese Seko - President of Zaire from 1965 to 1997. He remained in office for 31.5 years. While in office, he formed a totalitarian regime in Zaire which attempted to purge the country of all colonial cultural influence and entered wars to challenge the rise of communism in other African countries. His mismanagement of his country's economy, and personal enrichment from its financial and natural resources, makes his name synonymous with kleptocracy in Africa.
- Papa Doc Duvalier - President of Haiti from 1957 to 1971. In 1964 he made himself President for Life. He ruled until his death in 1971, in a regime marked by autocracy, corruption and state-sponsored terrorism through his private militia known as Tonton Macoutes. It has been estimated that he was responsible for 30,000 dead and exile of thousands more.
- Saparmurat Niyazov - President of Turkmenistan from 1990 until his death in 2006. Foreign media criticized him as one of the world's most totalitarian and repressive dictators, highlighting his reputation of imposing his personal eccentricities upon the country, which extended to renaming months after members of his family.
- Saddam Hussein - President of Iraq from 1979 to 2003. As president, Saddam maintained power during the Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988) and the first Persian Gulf War (1991). During these conflicts, Saddam repressed several movements, particularly Shi'a and Kurdish movements seeking to overthrow the government or gain independence, respectively. Whereas some Arabs looked upon him as a hero for his aggressive stance against foreign intervention and for his support for the Palestinians, many Arabs and western leaders vilified him for murdering scores of Kurdish people of the north and his invasion of Kuwait. Saddam was deposed by the U.S. and its allies during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
- Suharto - President of Indonesia from 1967 to 1998. The legacy of Suharto's 32-year rule is debated both in Indonesia and abroad. Under his "New Order" administration, Suharto constructed a strong, centralized and military-dominated government. An ability to maintain stability over a sprawling and diverse Indonesia and an avowedly anti-Communist stance won him the economic and diplomatic support of the West during the Cold War. For most of his presidency, Indonesia experienced significant economic growth and industrialization. Against the backdrop of Cold War international relations, Suharto's "New Order" invasion of East Timor, and the subsequent 24-year occupation, resulted in an estimated minimum of 102,800 deaths. A detailed statistical report prepared for the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor. By the 1990s, the New Order's authoritarianism and widespread corruption—estimates of government funds missappropriated by the Suharto family range from US$1.5 billion and US$35 billion was a source of much discontent, and was referred as one of the world's most corrupt leaders. Suharto tops corruption rankings. In the years since his presidency, attempts to try him on charges of corruption and genocide failed because of his poor health.
- Nicolae Ceauşescu was the General Secretary of the Romanian Workers' Party, later the Romanian Communist Party from 1965 until 1989, President of the Council of State from 1967 and President of Romania from 1974 until 1989. His rule was marked in the first decade by an open policy towards Western Europe and the United States of America, which deviated from that of the other Warsaw Pact states during the Cold War. He continued a trend first established by his predecessor, Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, who had tactfully coaxed the Khrushchev regime to withdraw troops from Romania in 1958. Ceauşescu's second decade was characterized by an increasingly erratic personality cult, extreme nationalism and a deterioration in foreign relations with Western powers and also with the Soviet Union. Ceauşescu's government was overthrown in December 1989, and he was shot following a televised two-hour session by a military court.
Source: Wikipedia
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Widespread criminal practices by UK banks
Scandals emerging from the financial services industry on an almost daily basis point to the ongoing criminal practices of British banks. They expose the complicity of the regulators—the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the Bank of England (BoE), who famously practice “light touch” regulation—and successive governments that function as the advocates and protectors of these financial gangsters.
The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) has announced half-year losses of £1.5 billion—double that of the same period last year. It cited the cost of charges for the “mis-selling of financial products.” This loss is before any charge for RBS’s role in rigging the interbank lending rate, Libor.
RBS and other high street banks mis-sold expensive and useless payment protection insurance to more than 3 million people who did not need it. Now RBS is setting aside £850 million to compensate people who bought the payment protection insurance, taking the total charge over the last 18 months to £1.3 billion. Even this pales into insignificance besides Lloyds Banking Group, which has set aside another £700 million, bringing its total to £4.3 billion over the last 18 months. The total compensation across the banks could top £10 billion.
RBS is making a provision of £50 million for compensation to small businesses to which it mis-sold interest rate insurance. It is also setting aside £125 million to compensate its 13 million customers who were locked out of their accounts for at least 10 days when its computer crashed in June—a cost that could rise further.
RBS is one of 18 giant banks at the heart of the rigging of the Libor rate, the interbank lending rate linked to $800 trillion in financial transactions. Barclays has already been fined £290 million and RBS expects to be fined hundreds of millions of pounds and has sacked four people involved in the manipulation.
Between 2005 and 2009, the banks manipulated the rate upwards, robbing millions of people of billions of pounds in inflated loan costs, and downwards, depriving states, cities, pension funds and pensioners with fixed investments of billions in lost income from bond holdings. Documents that have been released implicate the Bank of England and show that neither the bank nor the government did anything to stop it. In its latter stages this was because reducing Libor after 2007 helped to conceal the depth and scale of the banking crisis and thus facilitated the bailout of the kleptocracy.
Stephen Hester, the chief executive of RBS, made it clear that this was not all, saying that there could be further problems as it turned over the “rocks” left by the previous CEO Fred Goodwin. It means that RBS will post its fifth year of losses since the bank’s bailout in 2008. It made losses of £2 billion in 2011, up from a loss of £1.1 billion in 2010.
When RBS, along with Lloyds Bank and HBOS, faced bankruptcy in October 2008, Alistair Darling, then Labour chancellor, organised a massive rescue. It came after secret talks over a weekend, with no strings attached, no discussion in Parliament, much less any public consultation, and was announced to the stock markets early on the Monday morning.
Despite this, there has been no proper examination of the banks’ activities in Britain. The one “report” into the collapse of RBS, which at first the FSA refused to publish, turned out to be just a series of memos and statements, concluding that no rules or statutes had been breached. This was despite cables released by WikiLeaks revealing that Lord Turner, the FSA chair, had been concerned about the directors’ mistakes. According to the cables, Turner had said, “Negligent boards of directors bore much of the responsibility for the crisis,” by “failing to provide oversight or check risky activity,” something that publicly he denied in the context of RBS. The cables show that no less a person than RBS’s new chairman, Sir Philip Hampton, flatly contradicted the FSA’s line, telling visiting congressmen that the former directors were in breach of their fiduciary responsibilities.
Later Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, revealed that the BoE had provided £36.6 billion in secret loans to RBS and the government had agreed to underwrite RBS’s debts should it default on its loans. This was in addition to the £45 billion the government paid the shareholders to acquire an 82 percent stake in the failed bank. As well as providing the ultimate backstop for the banks, the government is currently providing £512 billion of explicit public support, and hundreds of billions in guarantees.
Furthermore, with its “quantitative easing” (QE) programme—essentially printing money—the BoE has provided the banks with a further £375 billion of cash by buying up the banks’ assets—typically financial assets such as government and corporate bonds. While the declared aim was that the banks would to lend to businesses and thus boost the economy, business lending has fallen sharply.
A BoE report claims that the first round of QE had helped to increase gross domestic product by between 1.5 and 2 percent, which if true means that without it, GDP would have fallen by a catastrophic 6 percent since the financial crash.
Less has been said about the losers. RBS laid off 5,700 workers in the past year, bring the total since 2008 to 36,000. HBOS, another government-owned bank, has shed 45,000 jobs in the same period.
QE has led to a massive increase in company pension scheme deficits—to a record £312 billion. This is because the cost of paying pensions on final-salary schemes is based on the yield from government bonds, which have fallen, necessitating an increase in assets to generate the same level of pension income. At the same time, the fall in bond yields has driven down the annual income from any annuity bought with savings in the last two years, leading to a loss in income that will never be recouped.
The ongoing saga over accusations that Standard Chartered hid illegal Iran-linked transactions is beyond the scope of this article. But it should be noted that last month, HSBC, the world’s second largest banking group, was found by a senior US Senate Committee to have laundered billions of dollars in Mexican drug cartel money. This and other legal claims against HSBC could lead to fines of $1 billion.
HSBC is not alone. Six years ago, Barclays Private Bank, a subsidiary of Barclays, laundered drug money from Colombia through five accounts linked to the infamous Medellin cartel.
In March, Coutts, part of RBS, was issued with a final notice from the FSA to pay a penalty of £8.75 million for breach of its money-laundering code. This followed a review of 103 “high-risk customer files” and “deficiencies in 73 files” that showed a “failure to conduct appropriate ongoing monitoring” over three years.
Despite this record of illegality, recklessness and mismanagement, not a single top executive of a major UK bank has been charged with criminal wrongdoing. Neither has there been any substantive change in the regulation of the banking and financial services sector. The fines, so much loose change for the banks, have become part of the cost of the banking business and are simply passed on to customers in innumerable charges while the top executives walk away with massive bonuses.
Successive governments are linked by countless connections to the financial elite, from whom they recruit their advisors, regulators and even ministers. The present minister of state for trade and investment is Lord Green, a former HSBC chairman. Their record confirms that they are merely the puppets of criminals in London’s Square Mile.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) has announced half-year losses of £1.5 billion—double that of the same period last year. It cited the cost of charges for the “mis-selling of financial products.” This loss is before any charge for RBS’s role in rigging the interbank lending rate, Libor.
RBS and other high street banks mis-sold expensive and useless payment protection insurance to more than 3 million people who did not need it. Now RBS is setting aside £850 million to compensate people who bought the payment protection insurance, taking the total charge over the last 18 months to £1.3 billion. Even this pales into insignificance besides Lloyds Banking Group, which has set aside another £700 million, bringing its total to £4.3 billion over the last 18 months. The total compensation across the banks could top £10 billion.
RBS is making a provision of £50 million for compensation to small businesses to which it mis-sold interest rate insurance. It is also setting aside £125 million to compensate its 13 million customers who were locked out of their accounts for at least 10 days when its computer crashed in June—a cost that could rise further.
RBS is one of 18 giant banks at the heart of the rigging of the Libor rate, the interbank lending rate linked to $800 trillion in financial transactions. Barclays has already been fined £290 million and RBS expects to be fined hundreds of millions of pounds and has sacked four people involved in the manipulation.
Between 2005 and 2009, the banks manipulated the rate upwards, robbing millions of people of billions of pounds in inflated loan costs, and downwards, depriving states, cities, pension funds and pensioners with fixed investments of billions in lost income from bond holdings. Documents that have been released implicate the Bank of England and show that neither the bank nor the government did anything to stop it. In its latter stages this was because reducing Libor after 2007 helped to conceal the depth and scale of the banking crisis and thus facilitated the bailout of the kleptocracy.
Stephen Hester, the chief executive of RBS, made it clear that this was not all, saying that there could be further problems as it turned over the “rocks” left by the previous CEO Fred Goodwin. It means that RBS will post its fifth year of losses since the bank’s bailout in 2008. It made losses of £2 billion in 2011, up from a loss of £1.1 billion in 2010.
When RBS, along with Lloyds Bank and HBOS, faced bankruptcy in October 2008, Alistair Darling, then Labour chancellor, organised a massive rescue. It came after secret talks over a weekend, with no strings attached, no discussion in Parliament, much less any public consultation, and was announced to the stock markets early on the Monday morning.
Despite this, there has been no proper examination of the banks’ activities in Britain. The one “report” into the collapse of RBS, which at first the FSA refused to publish, turned out to be just a series of memos and statements, concluding that no rules or statutes had been breached. This was despite cables released by WikiLeaks revealing that Lord Turner, the FSA chair, had been concerned about the directors’ mistakes. According to the cables, Turner had said, “Negligent boards of directors bore much of the responsibility for the crisis,” by “failing to provide oversight or check risky activity,” something that publicly he denied in the context of RBS. The cables show that no less a person than RBS’s new chairman, Sir Philip Hampton, flatly contradicted the FSA’s line, telling visiting congressmen that the former directors were in breach of their fiduciary responsibilities.
Later Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, revealed that the BoE had provided £36.6 billion in secret loans to RBS and the government had agreed to underwrite RBS’s debts should it default on its loans. This was in addition to the £45 billion the government paid the shareholders to acquire an 82 percent stake in the failed bank. As well as providing the ultimate backstop for the banks, the government is currently providing £512 billion of explicit public support, and hundreds of billions in guarantees.
Furthermore, with its “quantitative easing” (QE) programme—essentially printing money—the BoE has provided the banks with a further £375 billion of cash by buying up the banks’ assets—typically financial assets such as government and corporate bonds. While the declared aim was that the banks would to lend to businesses and thus boost the economy, business lending has fallen sharply.
A BoE report claims that the first round of QE had helped to increase gross domestic product by between 1.5 and 2 percent, which if true means that without it, GDP would have fallen by a catastrophic 6 percent since the financial crash.
Less has been said about the losers. RBS laid off 5,700 workers in the past year, bring the total since 2008 to 36,000. HBOS, another government-owned bank, has shed 45,000 jobs in the same period.
QE has led to a massive increase in company pension scheme deficits—to a record £312 billion. This is because the cost of paying pensions on final-salary schemes is based on the yield from government bonds, which have fallen, necessitating an increase in assets to generate the same level of pension income. At the same time, the fall in bond yields has driven down the annual income from any annuity bought with savings in the last two years, leading to a loss in income that will never be recouped.
The ongoing saga over accusations that Standard Chartered hid illegal Iran-linked transactions is beyond the scope of this article. But it should be noted that last month, HSBC, the world’s second largest banking group, was found by a senior US Senate Committee to have laundered billions of dollars in Mexican drug cartel money. This and other legal claims against HSBC could lead to fines of $1 billion.
HSBC is not alone. Six years ago, Barclays Private Bank, a subsidiary of Barclays, laundered drug money from Colombia through five accounts linked to the infamous Medellin cartel.
In March, Coutts, part of RBS, was issued with a final notice from the FSA to pay a penalty of £8.75 million for breach of its money-laundering code. This followed a review of 103 “high-risk customer files” and “deficiencies in 73 files” that showed a “failure to conduct appropriate ongoing monitoring” over three years.
Despite this record of illegality, recklessness and mismanagement, not a single top executive of a major UK bank has been charged with criminal wrongdoing. Neither has there been any substantive change in the regulation of the banking and financial services sector. The fines, so much loose change for the banks, have become part of the cost of the banking business and are simply passed on to customers in innumerable charges while the top executives walk away with massive bonuses.
Successive governments are linked by countless connections to the financial elite, from whom they recruit their advisors, regulators and even ministers. The present minister of state for trade and investment is Lord Green, a former HSBC chairman. Their record confirms that they are merely the puppets of criminals in London’s Square Mile.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)