I did promise you in the beginning I would let you know how my foray into gardening would progress. Being a self-confessed terrible gardener, I am currently bursting with unexplained pride (or half a bottle of good Spanish red). In the last several months I have learned several things: 1) only put in plants that you know what the leaves look like; 2) nothing beats good compost and lots of work with a fork; 3) weeds always spring up after rain.
For some of you this is a "duh!" set of realisations. However, for me this is a revelation.
I was cruel in the winter/spring and ripped out every known and possibly unknown plant in my various beds. My neighbour who really should be at Chelsea (the major garden show in the UK and possibly the world) has patiently sighed and groaned over my confusion between a clematis and a convolvulus. Many a fine clematis has died unnecessarily. Using much hard labour and an extreme number of green garden bags, I finally found the bare Earth. Starting at ground level has meant that I can spend lots of time with garden books and my neighbour Sarah discussing what is going in, what type of soil it needed (this also came as a shock to me -- seems there are lots of different types!), when it would bloom and, most importantly, WHAT THE BLOODY LEAVES LOOK LIKE. I now know when I am killing a convolvulus, I am killing a convolvulus!
Having access to horses makes the whole fertilizer problem much easier. The problem is bringing it home. I, no matter what people say, do not live at the stables. In fact, they are 8 miles away. This means taking the ubiquitous green bags with me and filling them with Mikey's little gifts to the garden and bringing them home. Even well rotted, these bags contain something that has more than a gentle perfume. And when placed upon the bare soil of my garden beds, my dear neighbour begged me to get it worked in as soon as possible because she could not open her windows. Sarah does not really like horses in any form. More work with the garden fork and my hard packed earth now is looking crumbly (like the books say it should) and I am finding that I can remove things like convolvulus roots and nettle roots (second most hated thing in garden because they sting!) with ease. Things are looking up.
So I carefully planned what I wanted to buy, took Sarah with me to the various garden centres (I'm learning only a fool ignores an expert), purchased the pots needed for the different soils, purchased the different soils, several pairs of gloves and spent enough money on plants to have paid for a trip to Ibiza. I planted it all up about 8 weeks ago and have sat waiting for things to die.
So far nothing has died even in the torrential rains we have had the last week. In fact every single thing looks great! I have fox gloves and lupines and red hot pokers shooting up and blooming. I have poppies about to pop. I have sun flowers that are nearly half a metre tall. I have rhododendrons and magnolias and camellias blooming. AND I have weeds. All my ground preparation did nothing to stop these little buggers. Rain and Mikey's digestive system seemed to have helped them considerably! But now that I know what my leaves look like and the beds are filled with soft crumbly earth, it took me about 2 hours to weed my beds. And they do look great.
Have I become a gardener? I would not go that far yet, but at least I have learned a thing or 3 about how I needed to do it. I am proud of what I have accomplished and it does look nice. The real test will be whether I can keep this up over the course of the summer. Will I remember to water and feed the "babies"? Will I end up like Prince Charles and talk to them??
Watch this spot......
Saturday, 31 May 2008
Monday, 26 May 2008
You're Nuts -- A Clarification
Sanely Maniacal recently wrote about his experiences as a carer to his Mother who is beginning to suffer from Alzheimer's. Ok, I know the sister and her family and I can tell you that it has had a profound effect on them and on their relationships. I know that this disease has pulled them closer together and that the next profit for BT will be because of the telephone bills they have run up discussing what to do next. It seems a shame, but ever is the way, that it is a tragedy that pulls families back together. At least they are together again.
Sanely tosses some terms around that I thought would be best if they were defined. As Dumbledore said in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, "Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself" (pg. 216) In the case of Alzheimer's, fear abounds because we, as humanity et al, don't understand the disease. Therefore, what is "Vascular Dementia" and should we be frightened?
Wikipedia provides an understandable basic definition:
Sanely's Mum also has the problem of denial or, at the very least, not being able to remember that she has this disease. A good source of information about what to do can be found through at www.alzheimers.org.uk/ where there are further links as well. Getting the elderly to take their medication is often very difficult and, having met Sanely's Mum (who should be included in ANY definition of stubborn), I can see he has his hand's full. Even so, a support group for him or any other member of his family could provide the mental release they will need should the disease progress to a debilitating level. I am sure there are similar organisations in the US. I do think training, in any event, is necessary in order clear the mist from what is "normal" and what is "The Disease".
As humanity all grows statically older due to better nutrition, education and housing, more and more of the population will be struck with this disease. It is important that is be understood and prepared for properly in the manner we have used for illnesses such as cancer rather than continue to act in a fearful, superstitious way only later suppling information and pity on the families of those affected.
Sanely tosses some terms around that I thought would be best if they were defined. As Dumbledore said in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, "Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself" (pg. 216) In the case of Alzheimer's, fear abounds because we, as humanity et al, don't understand the disease. Therefore, what is "Vascular Dementia" and should we be frightened?
Wikipedia provides an understandable basic definition:
Multi-infarct dementia, also known as vascular dementia, is the second most common form of dementia after Alzheimer disease (AD) in the elderly (persons over 65 years of age). The term refers to a group of syndromes caused by different mechanisms all resulting in vascular lesions in the brain. Early detection and accurate diagnosis are important, as vascular dementia is at least partially preventable.
The main subtypes of this disease described at the moment are: vascular mild cognitive impairment, multi-infarct dementia, vascular dementia due to a strategic single infarct (affecting the thalamus, the anterior cerebral artery, the parietal lobes or the cingulate gyrus), vascular dementia due to hemorrhagic lesions, small vessel disease (which includes vascular dementia due to lacunar lesions and Binswanger's disease), and mixed Alzheimer's and vascular dementia.
There are links here which will take you to the land of medical-ese, but will provide the reader with lots of information. The most important statement is that this "at least partially preventable", or in my friend's case, treatable.Sanely's Mum also has the problem of denial or, at the very least, not being able to remember that she has this disease. A good source of information about what to do can be found through at www.alzheimers.org.uk/ where there are further links as well. Getting the elderly to take their medication is often very difficult and, having met Sanely's Mum (who should be included in ANY definition of stubborn), I can see he has his hand's full. Even so, a support group for him or any other member of his family could provide the mental release they will need should the disease progress to a debilitating level. I am sure there are similar organisations in the US. I do think training, in any event, is necessary in order clear the mist from what is "normal" and what is "The Disease".
As humanity all grows statically older due to better nutrition, education and housing, more and more of the population will be struck with this disease. It is important that is be understood and prepared for properly in the manner we have used for illnesses such as cancer rather than continue to act in a fearful, superstitious way only later suppling information and pity on the families of those affected.
Thursday, 15 May 2008
Sense for fashion
You are what you eat. Or so we are told. I am sure that in some physical digestive cell replacement manner, I am. However I also think that I am more than the sum total of Quarter Pounders with Cheese, chicken kievs and onion bhajis. In fact to look at me, those may or may not even come to mind. Like most humans, I do not express myself in the food I consume (unless it is a dinner party I've cooked for my friends), but in the clothes I chose to wear.
Clothing has made a major social imprint since Adam and Even donned the first leaf. Through out history the type , styles, colours and fabrics which covered our nakedness have been regulated either by law or social standing. Today what governs your clothing choice is the amount of money you are willing to invest in a single garment or a whole wardrobe.
So far all of this is not earth shatteringly insightful, but basic statements of fact. However, with so many styles and colours available to us, why do we choose what we choose? Why do we stand looking at two seemingly identical pieces of sewn cloth and choose one over the other? Why does the fashion industry spend billions (pick your currency) to make us desire a fashion only to tell us 9 months later we look bad? Is it all economics?
Some if it is. A major portion of the world's employment, hence economies, is tied up in the ready to wear industry. They do need us to keep buying so that those workers, usually poor and ill educated, will have money to support themselves and their families. Yes, there are craftsmen and women in the Haute Couture who are truly artists with fabric, but this type of fashion is far beyond the means of most mortals. The Mexican/Indonesian/Thai/Chinese/Spanish/Indian textile worker is low paid and is often a "piece worker". As long as the product he sews is sold, he stays a step above starvation. This is possibly the best reason for changing your wardrobe completely once a year.
And the rest of those questions? OK, utility can be a factor in my choice. Sometimes I need to replace clothes that are indeed worn out. With all the horses and riding we do, jeans have a life span of about 4-6 months -- providing the children haven't grown too much (HA!). Therefore, do I choose Tesco value at £2.75 to £4 or Levi's 501s for £30 to £50? Both are made in countries that specialise in intensive manual labour that the mass clothing industry requires and aren't Fairtrade. The choice is obvious from a financial viewpoint. I can buy 10 pairs of of Tesco for every 1 pair of Levi's -- unless I am buying to Impress.
Now we come to the crux: "Dress to Impress". Impress WHO? Ourselves? Our Mates? Our Partners? Our Family? Our Boss? Our Secretary? The Public? The Builders? WHO??
Girls as young as 8 are wearing seductive clothes because they "want to look sexy". From the over simulating, over sexual media campaigns, These innocent children have been taught to equate looking nice with sex. Who in their right mind would market lacy bra-like things and transparent tops for children? Yet, they do. Who is type of dressing aiming to Impress? Why are high heeled (2 inch plus heels) available for children whose feet and legs are still soft and growing? We won't let them do en-pointe ballet because it will ruin their feet, but we will let them wear heels for school? Who is this for? It isn't only girls. Boys' shirts, tees, piques, and button front, are covered with images which are mostly violent and rebellious. The fashion is either athletic, military camouflage or slummy. Who is supposed to be impressed by this?
Adults may be thinking that dressing their 8 year olds this way is humorous. The messages on boys tee-shirts warning us of the approaching danger in the form of a toddler or child may bring a wry smile to other parent's faces. However, if this is the messages we give them at 8, when they are very impressionable, is it any surprise that they are over sexed, violent, low esteemed teenagers?
Stop and look at what your kids are wearing! What are you putting them in? Is this a reflection of yourself or how you really want your children to be viewed? Is this how you want your teenage son or daughter? How can we really be taken seriously when we tell them underage sex is wrong, yet dress them in the types of clothes we used to wear to nightclubs? Who are we telling them to Impress and for what reason?
Our own clothes reflect this principle too. I have seen lots of "mutton dressed as lamb", both male and female. Our body image obsessive society bombards us with airbrushed images of "perfection" that if we could only attain, then we would enjoy the wonders of "perfect" hedonistic pleasures. And we, the moronic consumer, must follow what we see. The result is people with dun-lop disease (their belly dun lopped over their belt) parade the streets of our towns and cities wearing crop tops, short tight tee shirts, hipster jeans and Lycra believing they are sexy. Not only is it a fashion offense, they look silly and don't realise it! Then there are the pregnant ones who do the same thing only to show us their unborn's movements and new acquired stretch marks. As one is pregnant, one is therefore sexually active and attractive to someone. The look is not complementary -- even if one is a famous "A-List" star.
Christians have it hard. They would like to be fashionable, yet not look immoral. They are told to be modest and conservative, but that is a hard look to achieve without looking dowdy. Mainstream Christians are often uncomfortable with, and sometimes unkind, to the more Fundamentalist types who wear a specific fashion to point out that they are different. Christians also like to Impress. But the question remains: WHO? For them, the answer should be easy, but the temptation is great.
Your clothes say a lot about you. We need to get the perspective right. Yes, there is a time and place to look sexy. However, is it right when it is a child? And there is a time took look athletic...but everyday and for every occasion? There is a time to look a mess in butt ripped and patched jeans, but is Church the right place? Ecclesiastes says there is time for every purpose under Heaven. We just need to use a bit more discernment and wisdom when we get dressed in the morning. People see your appearance long before your Big Mac.
Clothing has made a major social imprint since Adam and Even donned the first leaf. Through out history the type , styles, colours and fabrics which covered our nakedness have been regulated either by law or social standing. Today what governs your clothing choice is the amount of money you are willing to invest in a single garment or a whole wardrobe.
So far all of this is not earth shatteringly insightful, but basic statements of fact. However, with so many styles and colours available to us, why do we choose what we choose? Why do we stand looking at two seemingly identical pieces of sewn cloth and choose one over the other? Why does the fashion industry spend billions (pick your currency) to make us desire a fashion only to tell us 9 months later we look bad? Is it all economics?
Some if it is. A major portion of the world's employment, hence economies, is tied up in the ready to wear industry. They do need us to keep buying so that those workers, usually poor and ill educated, will have money to support themselves and their families. Yes, there are craftsmen and women in the Haute Couture who are truly artists with fabric, but this type of fashion is far beyond the means of most mortals. The Mexican/Indonesian/Thai/Chinese/Spanish/Indian textile worker is low paid and is often a "piece worker". As long as the product he sews is sold, he stays a step above starvation. This is possibly the best reason for changing your wardrobe completely once a year.
And the rest of those questions? OK, utility can be a factor in my choice. Sometimes I need to replace clothes that are indeed worn out. With all the horses and riding we do, jeans have a life span of about 4-6 months -- providing the children haven't grown too much (HA!). Therefore, do I choose Tesco value at £2.75 to £4 or Levi's 501s for £30 to £50? Both are made in countries that specialise in intensive manual labour that the mass clothing industry requires and aren't Fairtrade. The choice is obvious from a financial viewpoint. I can buy 10 pairs of of Tesco for every 1 pair of Levi's -- unless I am buying to Impress.
Now we come to the crux: "Dress to Impress". Impress WHO? Ourselves? Our Mates? Our Partners? Our Family? Our Boss? Our Secretary? The Public? The Builders? WHO??
Girls as young as 8 are wearing seductive clothes because they "want to look sexy". From the over simulating, over sexual media campaigns, These innocent children have been taught to equate looking nice with sex. Who in their right mind would market lacy bra-like things and transparent tops for children? Yet, they do. Who is type of dressing aiming to Impress? Why are high heeled (2 inch plus heels) available for children whose feet and legs are still soft and growing? We won't let them do en-pointe ballet because it will ruin their feet, but we will let them wear heels for school? Who is this for? It isn't only girls. Boys' shirts, tees, piques, and button front, are covered with images which are mostly violent and rebellious. The fashion is either athletic, military camouflage or slummy. Who is supposed to be impressed by this?
Adults may be thinking that dressing their 8 year olds this way is humorous. The messages on boys tee-shirts warning us of the approaching danger in the form of a toddler or child may bring a wry smile to other parent's faces. However, if this is the messages we give them at 8, when they are very impressionable, is it any surprise that they are over sexed, violent, low esteemed teenagers?
Stop and look at what your kids are wearing! What are you putting them in? Is this a reflection of yourself or how you really want your children to be viewed? Is this how you want your teenage son or daughter? How can we really be taken seriously when we tell them underage sex is wrong, yet dress them in the types of clothes we used to wear to nightclubs? Who are we telling them to Impress and for what reason?
Our own clothes reflect this principle too. I have seen lots of "mutton dressed as lamb", both male and female. Our body image obsessive society bombards us with airbrushed images of "perfection" that if we could only attain, then we would enjoy the wonders of "perfect" hedonistic pleasures. And we, the moronic consumer, must follow what we see. The result is people with dun-lop disease (their belly dun lopped over their belt) parade the streets of our towns and cities wearing crop tops, short tight tee shirts, hipster jeans and Lycra believing they are sexy. Not only is it a fashion offense, they look silly and don't realise it! Then there are the pregnant ones who do the same thing only to show us their unborn's movements and new acquired stretch marks. As one is pregnant, one is therefore sexually active and attractive to someone. The look is not complementary -- even if one is a famous "A-List" star.
Christians have it hard. They would like to be fashionable, yet not look immoral. They are told to be modest and conservative, but that is a hard look to achieve without looking dowdy. Mainstream Christians are often uncomfortable with, and sometimes unkind, to the more Fundamentalist types who wear a specific fashion to point out that they are different. Christians also like to Impress. But the question remains: WHO? For them, the answer should be easy, but the temptation is great.
Your clothes say a lot about you. We need to get the perspective right. Yes, there is a time and place to look sexy. However, is it right when it is a child? And there is a time took look athletic...but everyday and for every occasion? There is a time to look a mess in butt ripped and patched jeans, but is Church the right place? Ecclesiastes says there is time for every purpose under Heaven. We just need to use a bit more discernment and wisdom when we get dressed in the morning. People see your appearance long before your Big Mac.
Sunday, 11 May 2008
Happy Pentecost
Oh, Dear....
As I was in the sacred Household Reading Room Which No Child Dare Disturb, I perused a copy of Nature magazine. As I flipped the pages one small article jumped out at me. On page 1030 of Vol. 451, 28 February 2008, blazed the headline "Lone Star vs creationism", "The battle against anti-scientific literalism continues. Next stop Texas."
What the article is saying in a nut-shell is that the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board should not grant the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) the right to grant Master's Degrees in science education because (1) ICR believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible, (2) Nature magazine believes Creationism is irrational, (3) ICR asked people to pray for it. It says nothing about the quality of the education that being offered or the success of the candidates who have earned their degrees in California. It does say without offering proof, only opinion, that "The ICR has managed to con its way into the California educational system for decades." Nature has managed to insult the State of California for a lack of proper educational assessment follow up, but also the all the people who worked hard for their degrees. Yet this attitude is not shocking, it is to be expected.
I regularly hear and read that Christians are unwilling to enter into a "rational" debate regarding the Creationism-Evolution argument. What I find hard when I do enter into the fray is remaining rational when all around me have lost their perspective. Instead of engaging me mentally, I am often insulted before we begin. I read Matt Ridley's book, The Red Queen, and on page 17 I was informed that if I believed in a "being with a long grey beard" that there was no point for me to continue because I had closed my mind to the [obvious] evidence. Really?? Then I think all you wanted, Mr. Ridley, was the money for the book and a veneration of your opinion. I did read the rest of the book and found it to be the usual mix of science, science fiction and "faith" that all would soon be revealed. I have also read Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion and found the same attitude expressed on page 31. New Scientist jumped with joy and clapped its literary hands in the 1 March 2008 issue declaring that gaps in the fossil record are not that big and that there is proof of evolutionary change within the Ceratopsians. True, there is change in the species, but they fail to explain or show me how, where or when the Ceratopsians (ie. Triceratops) became dinosaurs from the lower orders of the reptile/lizard kingdom. How did life in the Permian and the earlier Carboniferous become so large in the Mesozoic? There's a gap there I would like filled. I have a hunch, but I am regularly told I am too stupid with my BSc, Masters, PhD and a religious background to understand.
In all these cases, there is an underlying belief that Freedom of Speech and Belief is perfectly fine as long as one believes what "The Scientists" are saying. Most religious people I know would welcome open debate but are tired of being insulted and screamed at. Yes, there are some interesting parts of the Bible that do require faith. Equally, there are gaps and guesses in the scientific doctrines of Dawkins, Hawking and Gould that require equal amounts, if not a bit more, faith. In all cases, there are extremes on every end and they must be looked at, weighed intellectually and debated for value and worth. If they are found lacking, then they must be discarded. Because one is a member of the Populist Science belief with a contract from Harper-Collins does not make one automatically above examination and criticism. This I believe is what would be considered a rational approach.
And this is why Pentecost is such a wonderful thing. In 30 AD (according to modern scholars and historians) when the original Pentecost miracle occurred, the Disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit and were given the gift of speaking in languages so that all men would understand them. The miracle was treated with both awe and derision (Acts 2). And this is what Christians need to pray for today. We need the language of science. We need to speak to this atheists and explain to them where they have misinterpreted their information. All humans make mistakes, even the most eminent scientific scholars, and understanding and interpretation is an area where people are at their weakest.
We all need to embrace them with love and patience, but not apathy and disdain. Jesus said his followers would be persecuted and to find this joyful. I can see why. No one gets het up over "foolish nonsense"and "weird beliefs" unless they aren't that foolish or weird and have something truthful about them. For over 6,000 years people have worshiped, praised and adored Jehovah. At times there has been and swelling of belief and, at other times, a serious contraction, but there has been belief. There is nothing new under the sun and the vitriolic sputterings against those of us who do not follow Populist Science are akin to those uttered against us once upon a time in Rome, Lyon and Antioch. Hiding in fear was never part of the Plan.
So enjoy the Pentecost. Use it to boldly embrace a new language and understanding. Use it to make yourself strong, to go forth and speak, to raise awareness to the Truth. God, The Father, does not fit in a box or a scientific equation. He is greater that the sum total of ALL our parts as humanity, including all the atheists mentioned. Let go and see where He will take you this Pentecost.
As I was in the sacred Household Reading Room Which No Child Dare Disturb, I perused a copy of Nature magazine. As I flipped the pages one small article jumped out at me. On page 1030 of Vol. 451, 28 February 2008, blazed the headline "Lone Star vs creationism", "The battle against anti-scientific literalism continues. Next stop Texas."
What the article is saying in a nut-shell is that the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board should not grant the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) the right to grant Master's Degrees in science education because (1) ICR believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible, (2) Nature magazine believes Creationism is irrational, (3) ICR asked people to pray for it. It says nothing about the quality of the education that being offered or the success of the candidates who have earned their degrees in California. It does say without offering proof, only opinion, that "The ICR has managed to con its way into the California educational system for decades." Nature has managed to insult the State of California for a lack of proper educational assessment follow up, but also the all the people who worked hard for their degrees. Yet this attitude is not shocking, it is to be expected.
I regularly hear and read that Christians are unwilling to enter into a "rational" debate regarding the Creationism-Evolution argument. What I find hard when I do enter into the fray is remaining rational when all around me have lost their perspective. Instead of engaging me mentally, I am often insulted before we begin. I read Matt Ridley's book, The Red Queen, and on page 17 I was informed that if I believed in a "being with a long grey beard" that there was no point for me to continue because I had closed my mind to the [obvious] evidence. Really?? Then I think all you wanted, Mr. Ridley, was the money for the book and a veneration of your opinion. I did read the rest of the book and found it to be the usual mix of science, science fiction and "faith" that all would soon be revealed. I have also read Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion and found the same attitude expressed on page 31. New Scientist jumped with joy and clapped its literary hands in the 1 March 2008 issue declaring that gaps in the fossil record are not that big and that there is proof of evolutionary change within the Ceratopsians. True, there is change in the species, but they fail to explain or show me how, where or when the Ceratopsians (ie. Triceratops) became dinosaurs from the lower orders of the reptile/lizard kingdom. How did life in the Permian and the earlier Carboniferous become so large in the Mesozoic? There's a gap there I would like filled. I have a hunch, but I am regularly told I am too stupid with my BSc, Masters, PhD and a religious background to understand.
In all these cases, there is an underlying belief that Freedom of Speech and Belief is perfectly fine as long as one believes what "The Scientists" are saying. Most religious people I know would welcome open debate but are tired of being insulted and screamed at. Yes, there are some interesting parts of the Bible that do require faith. Equally, there are gaps and guesses in the scientific doctrines of Dawkins, Hawking and Gould that require equal amounts, if not a bit more, faith. In all cases, there are extremes on every end and they must be looked at, weighed intellectually and debated for value and worth. If they are found lacking, then they must be discarded. Because one is a member of the Populist Science belief with a contract from Harper-Collins does not make one automatically above examination and criticism. This I believe is what would be considered a rational approach.
And this is why Pentecost is such a wonderful thing. In 30 AD (according to modern scholars and historians) when the original Pentecost miracle occurred, the Disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit and were given the gift of speaking in languages so that all men would understand them. The miracle was treated with both awe and derision (Acts 2). And this is what Christians need to pray for today. We need the language of science. We need to speak to this atheists and explain to them where they have misinterpreted their information. All humans make mistakes, even the most eminent scientific scholars, and understanding and interpretation is an area where people are at their weakest.
We all need to embrace them with love and patience, but not apathy and disdain. Jesus said his followers would be persecuted and to find this joyful. I can see why. No one gets het up over "foolish nonsense"and "weird beliefs" unless they aren't that foolish or weird and have something truthful about them. For over 6,000 years people have worshiped, praised and adored Jehovah. At times there has been and swelling of belief and, at other times, a serious contraction, but there has been belief. There is nothing new under the sun and the vitriolic sputterings against those of us who do not follow Populist Science are akin to those uttered against us once upon a time in Rome, Lyon and Antioch. Hiding in fear was never part of the Plan.
So enjoy the Pentecost. Use it to boldly embrace a new language and understanding. Use it to make yourself strong, to go forth and speak, to raise awareness to the Truth. God, The Father, does not fit in a box or a scientific equation. He is greater that the sum total of ALL our parts as humanity, including all the atheists mentioned. Let go and see where He will take you this Pentecost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)