I'm not a molecular biologist. I'm not an immunologist. I'm not a doctor. I'm not a pathologist. I'm not a lot of things relevant to the study of virology and how diseases work.
What I am, though, is inquisitive. I am logical. I reason.
AND I PAID ATTENTION IN SCIENCE CLASS.
The anti-vax movement disapproves of the removal of religious and philosophical exemptions from vaccinations within the state. Some people are against it on the grounds of government overreach but nearly all of them don't really understand how vaccines work nor do they understand their importance.
I encounter these people a lot in my internet meanderings.
Here is a summary of a recent conversation with one of them; I have been told by several people who are fancy-pants biology people who have degrees I can never attain that the below is a reasonable summary of an entire semester of college immunology.
------
First off, they claim they are not anti-vax and they launched their counter with the age-old "if vaccines work then why are you so worried about this if you are vaccinated?" (this question comes in many forms). I find this a tiring argument because it shows the level of science ignorance of the person and they are always smug about it, thinking it is the super "gotcha" argument that proves vaccines are worthless.
-----
Let's have a crash course in this.
Mutations are the root of evolution. They are transcription errors in genetic information being copied during the reproductive process.
Mutations occur generationally, meaning that the change does not happen within a cell, but when a cell is replicating. In single-celled entities (like microbes) each division is a generation of the species, whereas within multi-cellular beings each cellular generation is of no significance to the overall species mutation rate, only gametes matter for multi-cellular beings.
Mutations can be one of three things: inert, beneficial, or detrimental (from the perspective of the organism that possesses the mutation). Inert mutations don't matter, they are just a difference; beneficial mutations help the organism survive; detrimental mutations limit the success of the organism.
Beneficial mutations succeed in reproduction faster than the others in microbes because each subsequent division is a whole generation and a whole opportunity to spread faster and farther.
Each host for a microbe population varies slightly. Each one provides slightly different conditions that favor or hinder the growth of a microbe. This is why different people experience different levels of illness when exposed to the exact same strains of a microbe. This is why treatments work in some people and are completely ineffective in others.
If microbes have no home then they have no opportunity to grow and thrive and... mutate.
When a population is 95% immune it is 95% impossible for a microbe population to even enter the situation and 95% impossible for it to spread.
Which such a spread limitation treatments can be much more focussed and effective because the resources are available to spend on eradication.
This is called herd immunity.
NOW we get into the answer to your question.
Herd immunity minimizes the spread of a disease by minimizing the number of hosts in which it can gain a foothold. It minimizes the number of differing environments that can each exert naturally selective forces on the disease. It limited the number of mutations that can happen to the strain of the microbe, limiting the net volume of variation and mutation that it can acquire.
THAT is why we are so worried about it despite vaccinations.
Because, if we dip too far below the 95% threshold, even as low as 90%, we open a sliver of our population up to becoming incubators and mutation factories.
We open up that sliver of the population to transport the microbes wherever they go and to spread it to the sliver of the population in those locations that are also not vaccinated.
Those differing geographic regions compound the level of environmental diversity created by different individual hosts and create even more diverse naturally selective forces to act upon on microbe population.
Now... let's do some real quick math here based on a bacterium that is well known, even if it doesn't have a ready vaccination for it because we have lots of ways of preventing sickness from it:
An e. coli bacteria has a generation of about 20 minutes. This means that if a single e. coli bacterium finds its way into a human host it doubles in number every 20 minutes. Each individual division is an opportunity for a mutation to occur.
Since the division is exponential this balloons up VERY quickly.
At the end of ONE DAY the number of e. coli cells in the host is an unmanageable number to type (2^720).
If those replications develop a more virulent, faster reproducing, or more lethal strain that is more successful in the host and able to spread to others then we have an outbreak that kills lots of people.
This happens. This is why we have e. coli scares even though simple hand washing and proper cooking techniques prevent the issue.
This same thing happens with EVERY disease. Vaccines work but they only work for existing strains and those similar enough to them for our body to recognize it. If a mutation happens that changes it just enough for our bodies' immune systems to no longer recognize it then EVERYONE, vaccinated or not, gets sick. The more infected hosts the more opportunities for such a mutation to happen; the more opportunities for such an infection to spread. The more opportunities for us to have created a new iteration of measles that we cannot treat with our current medications or which is just lethal enough to make treatments irrelevant altogether.
This, too, is happening. We have cultivated antibiotic-resistant strains of Staphylococcus (known as MRSA) which are now found in about 2% of the population; when it gets into their (or anyone else's) blood it becomes a lethal situation for more than 20% of the people infected.
The easiest and best, way to prevent massive disease outbreaks due to beneficial (to the microbe) mutations is to eliminate their ability to grow and thrive and reproduce and the easiest way to do that is.... TO VACCINATE EVERYONE
It might "just be wikipedia(1)" but it is well documented with primary sources in the bibliography at the bottom.
1. wikipedia has been, repeatedly, tested for accuracy against "real" encyclopedias and found to be more accurate AND have more detailed information (2). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
2. https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-online-encyclopedia-best-place-internet/
Monday, March 2, 2020
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Let Them Go
It is the very nature of humanity to have relationships come and go throughout our lives. It is inevitable. Friends drift apart; lovers part ways. Our paths are not all aligned.
Over the past 20 years, I have had people who were inseparable companions meander away as their lives went in different directions. Some of these people I mourn the loss of more than others, some of them were much dearer to me than others. Some of them are the same person that I used to know while others have changed into unrecognizable people wearing a recognizable shell.
It is these, in the last category, that I find most unsettling and the hardest to resolve. The people who are absent because they have changed so much that the person I knew is no longer there inside.
One of the most difficult things to watch is someone following that path. Seeing who they are on the inside take a path that is changing them and distorting who they are all while they are unaware of it. Watching their identity slide away through currents of hypocrisy and rationalization as their ego tries to satisfy itself and preserve its self-identity is a painful process to witness.
It’s important for us all, especially those of us with complex interpersonal webs, to know that we cannot fix other people. We cannot stop their path when they refuse to acknowledge it themselves.
It’s equally important to know that we are allowed to let them go. YOU, yes you reading this, do NOT need to rescue other people from themselves. You have no responsibility to do that. A good friend will try to exert guidance; a good friend will try to point out the path. A good friend will, usually, contribute more energy than they should to prevent the self-destruction of someone they care about. But it is not the responsibility of the good friend to follow on the path. It’s ok to say “enough.” It’s ok to cut the cord and let the person follow their path into self-implosion. It’s ok to sever their access to you when their behavior becomes damaging to you and other people in your life.
It’s also ok to be there for them when their implosion is complete and they realize they have destroyed everything in their lives for nothing. It’s ok to reach out and say “I forgive you. Welcome back.”
What is not ok is to let them destroy you with them. It’s not ok to let them gaslight you or manipulate you. It’s not ok for them to project their own horrible behavior onto you and blame you. It’s not ok for them to take out their frustrations with others deciding that their behavior is horrible on you.
If someone turns toxic in your life it’s ok to let them go. You’ll feel guilty about it. But, I promise you, it’s ok to let them go.
If someone turns toxic… LET THEM GO. You cannot fix them; you can merely help those who are willing to accept it. If they are not willing to accept help: let them go.
Over the past 20 years, I have had people who were inseparable companions meander away as their lives went in different directions. Some of these people I mourn the loss of more than others, some of them were much dearer to me than others. Some of them are the same person that I used to know while others have changed into unrecognizable people wearing a recognizable shell.
It is these, in the last category, that I find most unsettling and the hardest to resolve. The people who are absent because they have changed so much that the person I knew is no longer there inside.
One of the most difficult things to watch is someone following that path. Seeing who they are on the inside take a path that is changing them and distorting who they are all while they are unaware of it. Watching their identity slide away through currents of hypocrisy and rationalization as their ego tries to satisfy itself and preserve its self-identity is a painful process to witness.
It’s important for us all, especially those of us with complex interpersonal webs, to know that we cannot fix other people. We cannot stop their path when they refuse to acknowledge it themselves.
It’s equally important to know that we are allowed to let them go. YOU, yes you reading this, do NOT need to rescue other people from themselves. You have no responsibility to do that. A good friend will try to exert guidance; a good friend will try to point out the path. A good friend will, usually, contribute more energy than they should to prevent the self-destruction of someone they care about. But it is not the responsibility of the good friend to follow on the path. It’s ok to say “enough.” It’s ok to cut the cord and let the person follow their path into self-implosion. It’s ok to sever their access to you when their behavior becomes damaging to you and other people in your life.
It’s also ok to be there for them when their implosion is complete and they realize they have destroyed everything in their lives for nothing. It’s ok to reach out and say “I forgive you. Welcome back.”
What is not ok is to let them destroy you with them. It’s not ok to let them gaslight you or manipulate you. It’s not ok for them to project their own horrible behavior onto you and blame you. It’s not ok for them to take out their frustrations with others deciding that their behavior is horrible on you.
If someone turns toxic in your life it’s ok to let them go. You’ll feel guilty about it. But, I promise you, it’s ok to let them go.
If someone turns toxic… LET THEM GO. You cannot fix them; you can merely help those who are willing to accept it. If they are not willing to accept help: let them go.
Thursday, September 21, 2017
Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?
Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?
The answer is an unequivocal "No."
Here's why I say that: history shows us that EVERY generation has problems with "kids these days."
"Many historians, psychologists, sociologists, and other scholars have documented this seemingly never-ending cycle of generational clashes and the juvenoia that typically accompanies it." - https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamthierer/2012/01/08/why-do-we-always-sell-the-next-generation-short/#7f05a37c2d75
These examples date back as far as records of social commentary exist. Sometimes quote make it to the present that are wrongfully attributed but, even then, there are quotes that are making it through generations to prove the core point: generational conflict is a stable force.
George Orwell phrased it succinctly: “Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it.”
Add to this your own anecdotal evidence of your parents and grandparents complaining about your peers AND your thoughts about the people younger than you and you can see a clear pattern.
This article is another "kids these days" article. It comes in the guise of a technophobic plea against the newest technology. It comes as the most modern conveyance of the ancient distrust of new technology. This dates back at least as far a Socrates, whose opinion on writing we only have because his student, Plato, wrote it down:
[Writing] will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.
Since that time every new invention has been the heraldic sign of the end of civilization in one form or another. The printing press, recorded music, the moving pictures, the radio, the telephone, the television, cable television, etc. All of these advancements have been decried by opponents in the adult generation during the time they were being introduced as a means to end society as they know it.
And they were partly right.
Because society as they knew it ended, to be replaced with a new society that embraced the technologies and used them to grow and expand. Where they were wrong was the WAY in which this happened. They believed it would undo civilization but, instead, it pushed it forward.
Move forward to today, and the article I am specifically addressing, and you find ubiquitous information and connectivity. That is what the real phobic concern is here but it is not the real issue at hand. The internet, social networking, and the mobile computational devices to access these nebulous constructs are not the root cause of the issue yet the article is insistent on blaming them.
Quotes such as:
"The results could not be clearer: Teens who spend more time than average on screen activities are more likely to be unhappy, and those who spend more time than average on nonscreen activities are more likely to be happy."
and
"The more they’d used Facebook, the unhappier they felt, but feeling unhappy did not subsequently lead to more Facebook use."
clearly show the author's decision to blame the smartphones rather than examine the true cause which, in other quotes, she clearly acknowledges could exist:
"Of course, these analyses don’t unequivocally prove that screen time causes unhappiness; it’s possible that unhappy teens spend more time online. But recent research suggests that screen time, in particular social-media use, does indeed cause unhappiness."
and
" For all their power to link kids day and night, social media also exacerbate the age-old teen concern about being left out. Today’s teens may go to fewer parties and spend less time together in person, but when they do congregate, they document their hangouts relentlessly—on Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook. Those not invited to come along are keenly aware of it."
and
" Shifts in the economy, and parenting, certainly play a role."
and, finally,
" Or some other factor could be causing both depression and sleep deprivation to rise."
So, what do these pieces mean?
The author is indicating that there is a correlative relationship between smartphones, social media, and the declining mental health of the current teenage generation. This is, absolutely, accurate. It also means that the author is acknowledging, but discarding, the idea that this correlation might NOT be causal. That, in fact, the afflicted youth might be driven to the correlated behaviors by other triggering factors.
I believe that the reality lies in the larger picture and not something so simple as "smartphones are killing our kids."
There are countless articles on the state of the economy and how Millenials are killing industry after industry as well as countless articles that proclaim that the Baby Boomers destroyed the future, leaving the youth of today with a barren wasteland to grow their own prosperity in. There are countless articles that highlight the declining power of the working classes' wages in the economy and the declining availability of jobs that can support someone working full-time. There are countless articles that indicate the shifts in policy that have allowed wealth to move into the upper echelon at an ever-accelerating rate (note: the more cash that gets sequestered there the less there is moving around the economy). There are countless articles that compare the historical parallels of pre-economy-driven-revolution scenarios to the current state of our economy.
There are also countless articles on parenting. The article that this is a response to highlights an important aspect of youth life but then, summarily, blames it on the smartphones: independence and non-electronic play. It highlights examples of teens going to the mall in a supervised fashion and outlines, in the words of the kids, that they must check in with their parents constantly. These things are not the fault of the phones: these are the structures of the parents. Children canNOT become autonomous adults if they are never given the opportunity to learn how. If they are constrained in their ability to socialize in person with their friends and in an unsupervised manner.
The problem starts with the parenting. When parents use the screens as placation devices and babysitters they are training the children to replace normal socialization with screen time. They are robbing the children of the ability to explore with their peers in a manner that has limited danger, but some potential for unpleasant consequences. They are, in effect, constraining their children's' world to what they can experience in the borders of the screen. This is not the fault of the screen: it's the methodology. "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" - the screens are a hammer and the world has become nails to the children because the parents have not even shown them that screwdrivers, saws, and everything else even exist.
Feeling left out is a normal part of youth but that, too, is exacerbated by the parenting and further exaggerated by the technology. When children are only allowed to have small gatherings they MUST leave people out. When children are not allowed to go then they MUST be left out. When parents refuse to allow children to spend time with other children without adults present then children get left out. Being left out is a lonely feeling and the social media experience, in which all of one's friends are documenting what they are doing without one, hurts. NOT being allowed to experience the world other than through the screen forces the children to ONLY go to the screen when they are lonely and bored, which makes them MORE lonely and bored. The solution here: adjust the parenting. Create in-person activities. Allow children to mingle in person in both structured and unstructured scenarios and settings. Let them be people.
Now stack, on top of that, the status of the world. When I was a school-aged child it was clear that university was the path to a prosperous future. There was no question about it. But the costs have risen nearly 1000% since that time and effective incomes have risen a mere single percentage point to keep pace. The Return on Investment (RoI) has come into question. University carries a lot of benefits other than the diploma but the justification for the expenditure is becoming less and less solid with each passing year. AND YET, at the same time, more and more jobs want a 4-year degree. Children have to mortgage their future for the CHANCE at a job that was, effectively, handed to my parents and grandparents' generations if they just showed up and worked hard. My grandparents bought their house in cash. My parents were able to pay off their mortgages and student loans. I will, likely, never get clear of my mortgage and student loans. The children today have it much worse and they know it.
The future is bleak: THAT is why kids are depressed. The present it authoritarian: that is why children cannot go anywhere. The present is lonely: that is why children reach out. The present is confinement: that is why the kids turn to screens.
This is not a problem with the screens: it's a problem with US. It's a problem with out culture and our society. It's a problem with our economy and what we are failing to teach our children. It's a problem where our society is now, after thousands of years of society, changing at a pace where we cannot keep up. This is not a problem with technology: it's a problem with our unwillingness to adapt to our surroundings as we change them on ourselves.
Don't blame the screens, unless you have the device turned off and are using it as a mirror: then it is fair to blame what you see.
Refence links:
About Generations -
http://mentalfloss.com/article/52209/15-historical-complaints-about-young-people-ruining-everything
http://proto-knowledge.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-is-wrong-with-young-people-today.html
http://ambitious.com/the-younger-generation-has-been-ruining-the-world-since-forever/
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/me-generation-time/315151/
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-complaints-about-modern-teens-that-are-statistically-bs/
About Tech -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-natasha-josefowitz/a-history-of-complaints_b_5400459.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/02/dont_touch_that_dial.html
The answer is an unequivocal "No."
Here's why I say that: history shows us that EVERY generation has problems with "kids these days."
"Many historians, psychologists, sociologists, and other scholars have documented this seemingly never-ending cycle of generational clashes and the juvenoia that typically accompanies it." - https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamthierer/2012/01/08/why-do-we-always-sell-the-next-generation-short/#7f05a37c2d75
These examples date back as far as records of social commentary exist. Sometimes quote make it to the present that are wrongfully attributed but, even then, there are quotes that are making it through generations to prove the core point: generational conflict is a stable force.
George Orwell phrased it succinctly: “Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it.”
Add to this your own anecdotal evidence of your parents and grandparents complaining about your peers AND your thoughts about the people younger than you and you can see a clear pattern.
This article is another "kids these days" article. It comes in the guise of a technophobic plea against the newest technology. It comes as the most modern conveyance of the ancient distrust of new technology. This dates back at least as far a Socrates, whose opinion on writing we only have because his student, Plato, wrote it down:
[Writing] will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.
Since that time every new invention has been the heraldic sign of the end of civilization in one form or another. The printing press, recorded music, the moving pictures, the radio, the telephone, the television, cable television, etc. All of these advancements have been decried by opponents in the adult generation during the time they were being introduced as a means to end society as they know it.
And they were partly right.
Because society as they knew it ended, to be replaced with a new society that embraced the technologies and used them to grow and expand. Where they were wrong was the WAY in which this happened. They believed it would undo civilization but, instead, it pushed it forward.
Move forward to today, and the article I am specifically addressing, and you find ubiquitous information and connectivity. That is what the real phobic concern is here but it is not the real issue at hand. The internet, social networking, and the mobile computational devices to access these nebulous constructs are not the root cause of the issue yet the article is insistent on blaming them.
Quotes such as:
"The results could not be clearer: Teens who spend more time than average on screen activities are more likely to be unhappy, and those who spend more time than average on nonscreen activities are more likely to be happy."
and
"The more they’d used Facebook, the unhappier they felt, but feeling unhappy did not subsequently lead to more Facebook use."
clearly show the author's decision to blame the smartphones rather than examine the true cause which, in other quotes, she clearly acknowledges could exist:
"Of course, these analyses don’t unequivocally prove that screen time causes unhappiness; it’s possible that unhappy teens spend more time online. But recent research suggests that screen time, in particular social-media use, does indeed cause unhappiness."
and
" For all their power to link kids day and night, social media also exacerbate the age-old teen concern about being left out. Today’s teens may go to fewer parties and spend less time together in person, but when they do congregate, they document their hangouts relentlessly—on Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook. Those not invited to come along are keenly aware of it."
and
" Shifts in the economy, and parenting, certainly play a role."
and, finally,
" Or some other factor could be causing both depression and sleep deprivation to rise."
So, what do these pieces mean?
The author is indicating that there is a correlative relationship between smartphones, social media, and the declining mental health of the current teenage generation. This is, absolutely, accurate. It also means that the author is acknowledging, but discarding, the idea that this correlation might NOT be causal. That, in fact, the afflicted youth might be driven to the correlated behaviors by other triggering factors.
I believe that the reality lies in the larger picture and not something so simple as "smartphones are killing our kids."
There are countless articles on the state of the economy and how Millenials are killing industry after industry as well as countless articles that proclaim that the Baby Boomers destroyed the future, leaving the youth of today with a barren wasteland to grow their own prosperity in. There are countless articles that highlight the declining power of the working classes' wages in the economy and the declining availability of jobs that can support someone working full-time. There are countless articles that indicate the shifts in policy that have allowed wealth to move into the upper echelon at an ever-accelerating rate (note: the more cash that gets sequestered there the less there is moving around the economy). There are countless articles that compare the historical parallels of pre-economy-driven-revolution scenarios to the current state of our economy.
There are also countless articles on parenting. The article that this is a response to highlights an important aspect of youth life but then, summarily, blames it on the smartphones: independence and non-electronic play. It highlights examples of teens going to the mall in a supervised fashion and outlines, in the words of the kids, that they must check in with their parents constantly. These things are not the fault of the phones: these are the structures of the parents. Children canNOT become autonomous adults if they are never given the opportunity to learn how. If they are constrained in their ability to socialize in person with their friends and in an unsupervised manner.
The problem starts with the parenting. When parents use the screens as placation devices and babysitters they are training the children to replace normal socialization with screen time. They are robbing the children of the ability to explore with their peers in a manner that has limited danger, but some potential for unpleasant consequences. They are, in effect, constraining their children's' world to what they can experience in the borders of the screen. This is not the fault of the screen: it's the methodology. "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" - the screens are a hammer and the world has become nails to the children because the parents have not even shown them that screwdrivers, saws, and everything else even exist.
Feeling left out is a normal part of youth but that, too, is exacerbated by the parenting and further exaggerated by the technology. When children are only allowed to have small gatherings they MUST leave people out. When children are not allowed to go then they MUST be left out. When parents refuse to allow children to spend time with other children without adults present then children get left out. Being left out is a lonely feeling and the social media experience, in which all of one's friends are documenting what they are doing without one, hurts. NOT being allowed to experience the world other than through the screen forces the children to ONLY go to the screen when they are lonely and bored, which makes them MORE lonely and bored. The solution here: adjust the parenting. Create in-person activities. Allow children to mingle in person in both structured and unstructured scenarios and settings. Let them be people.
Now stack, on top of that, the status of the world. When I was a school-aged child it was clear that university was the path to a prosperous future. There was no question about it. But the costs have risen nearly 1000% since that time and effective incomes have risen a mere single percentage point to keep pace. The Return on Investment (RoI) has come into question. University carries a lot of benefits other than the diploma but the justification for the expenditure is becoming less and less solid with each passing year. AND YET, at the same time, more and more jobs want a 4-year degree. Children have to mortgage their future for the CHANCE at a job that was, effectively, handed to my parents and grandparents' generations if they just showed up and worked hard. My grandparents bought their house in cash. My parents were able to pay off their mortgages and student loans. I will, likely, never get clear of my mortgage and student loans. The children today have it much worse and they know it.
The future is bleak: THAT is why kids are depressed. The present it authoritarian: that is why children cannot go anywhere. The present is lonely: that is why children reach out. The present is confinement: that is why the kids turn to screens.
This is not a problem with the screens: it's a problem with US. It's a problem with out culture and our society. It's a problem with our economy and what we are failing to teach our children. It's a problem where our society is now, after thousands of years of society, changing at a pace where we cannot keep up. This is not a problem with technology: it's a problem with our unwillingness to adapt to our surroundings as we change them on ourselves.
Don't blame the screens, unless you have the device turned off and are using it as a mirror: then it is fair to blame what you see.
About Generations -
http://mentalfloss.com/article/52209/15-historical-complaints-about-young-people-ruining-everything
http://proto-knowledge.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-is-wrong-with-young-people-today.html
http://ambitious.com/the-younger-generation-has-been-ruining-the-world-since-forever/
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/me-generation-time/315151/
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-complaints-about-modern-teens-that-are-statistically-bs/
About Tech -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-natasha-josefowitz/a-history-of-complaints_b_5400459.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/02/dont_touch_that_dial.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)