Olbermann's Hour Long Special Comment
Last night Keith Olbermann used the entire hour of his show Countdown for a special comment on Healthcare. It was an extraordinary thing to do in a number of respects. It was a bit risky and it could easily have been a dud. But instead, Olbermann delivered one of his finest and most compelling arguments to date. In fact, I'd say his special comment was the best argument I've heard from anyone for genuine healthcare reform all year long. IMHO, Olbermann is turning out to be one of the most forceful and effective progressive voices in the country and this special comment proved the point once again.
Olbermann uses his communication talents extraordinarily well on a regular basis, but he used them in this case to take us to a higher plane of discourse very effectively. Olbermann cut through all the political bullshit that has thus far defined (or more accurately mis-defined) the debate over the healthcare reform effort in Washington. He doggedly stayed on the points that Democrats should have been focusing on all along and those are the moral and ethical bottom line of making sure every American receives the health care services they need as Teddy Kennedy always said "as a matter of right and not of privelege." Repeatedly, Olbermann asked us Americans, all of us left and right, to look into the mirror and see what we have wrought. He underscored several times the basic question: Is this what we've become? Are we a nation that allows people to die simply because they don't have insurance? Are we a nation that bankrupts families in their desperate attempts to secure the health of a loved one? Are we really okay with that?
Anyone who didn't see it can always go to the Countdown website and watch it. I highly recommend it to those who didn't see it. It is worth the time.
In the broadcast he made it clear that there is a moral imperative that we provide healthcare to all citizens and that is the overiding consideration that must take precedence over all the other noise, static, hype, etc... Medicare for All, Olbermann said, is what we need to be pushing to the American people, not the lame insurance subsidy program that is the centerpiece of the Baucus abomination and the other Congressional bills. I certainly agree with Olbermann on this. Medicare for All (aka Single Payer) is what we should have been focusing on from day one, but the President and far too many Congressional Democrats were afraid to take the bull by the horns and do what was right.
Olbermann called for a series of free health clinics to be conducted in the Capitol cities of the states where the six wishy washiest of the Democratic Senators hail from to demonstrate how widespread the problem of not having insurance is and how desperately we need to address the problem once and for all. The six Senators Olbermann called out were Nelson, Baucus, Landrieu, Lincoln, Pryor, and Reid because those Senators (with the exception of Reid) have refused to commit unequivocally to voting for cloture to stop a Republican filibuster of healthcare reform legislation. And Reid is on the list I'm sure because of his unrealiability when it comes to supporting what is best for the people on healthcare reform. I hope the organization that does these free clinics takes up the challenge because this would, in fact, be a way to bring enormous pressure to bear on each of these weak Democrats who cower before the insurance lobby.
Olbermann's special comment properly highlighted how inadequate and anemic has been the Democratic effort, rhetoric and substance on healthcare reform all year. Had our President and the Democats in Congress been making the case since January that Olbermann was making on his program we would be in a much different position right now. Let's hope it is not too late for Democrats to find their spine and do several things that will allow meaningful and worthwhile healthcare reform to take place. First, broaden the public option concept so that anyone who wants that option can choose it instead of only those who have no other choice. Second, drop the insurance mandate which is nothing more than a giveaway to the culprits whose business practices are inhuman, unethical and at the root of the problems we face in healthcare. And third, let's make sure that the reforms take place within 12-18 months of enactment and not 3-4 years down the line.
Finally, I think we should all be grateful for the outstanding job Keith Olbermann has done for years as the host of Countdown. He almost single handedly kept hope alive for millions of progressives during the darkest days of the Bush regime. He continues to keep the progressive agenda on the front burner of American politics and tonight contributed an extraordinary boost to the progressive effort on healthcare reform.
Thanks Keith!
For those who missed tonight's special comment, here's the url to Countdown: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677
His commentary was the most powerful argument I've seen yet for real health-care reform. Maybe there's promise in his kind of literate passion. The key motivation for the American Revolution - for selling the idea of nationhood to the farmers, colliers and storekeeps who actually did the fighting - was the lucid commentary of Thomas Paine. Reading him, and, say, the letters of Americans who weathered the Civil War decades later, is a reminder of how valuable were words and ideas to those earlier folk, so easily dismissed now as backward and primitive. Back then, people read - a lot more than they do now. The simple poetry of their writing strings together thoughts in inspiring packages somehow logical and heartfelt at the same time; they didn't write the way the spoke, they wrote the way they thought. Keith Olbermann conjured Paine for our health care Lexington.
If we're real lucky...
October 8, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unlike me, some other proponents of single-payer healthcare claim a moral basis for their preference.
For me it's a merely economic question of getting a lot more, as a nation, for a lot less, but it may be worth asking all these ad hoc moralists what's the basis of their ad hoc morality?
That basis probably isn't religious, because there were plenty of doctors in Mecca and Jerusalem and Nepal, but neither Jesus or the Buddha or Mohammed demanded universal healthcare, and very few religious scholars in any of those traditions have ever interpreted a sacred text as demanding single-payer or even a public option.
Jesus practiced faith-healing rather than relying on mainstream medicine, the Buddha's concerns were mostly confined to a more rarefied metaphysical atmosphere than physical health, and it's hard to fit universal healthcare into Mohammed's injunction about devoting around 4% of GDP to charity, when universal education and all other charitable projects have to fit into the same budget.
It's probably possible to make a case for universal healthcare as an injunction which follows from universally admitted axioms of rational morality, but there's no such thing as universally admitted axioms of rational morality, and I can't even believe that so many ad hoc moralists like Keith Olberman share either the same or even mutually consistent sets of all the required axioms and rules of moral inference.
So in this context it seems more likely to me that words like "morality" and all its cognates are just a noise that some people on my side of this issue like to make, and hear.
October 9, 2009 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
You certainly have a point here and you may be right Ruta but I don't think you are in this instance.
I think it is a self evident truth. I also don't think that making an argument based on what is moral (ethical is an interchangeable word here as far as I'm concerned)is being a moralist or a moralizer.
One could simply say that healthcare for all is the decent and humane thing to do at this point in history and that not to do so is immoral/unethical and would make our country immoral and unethicalif we fail to make universal healthcare a reality.
One could easily argue that health care as a matter of right and not of privelege is a self evident truth that we are only now recognizing. In fact, it can quite easily be argued that the right to healthcare is included among those rights that we are endowed with by our creator right alongside Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Personally, I think that's really the essence of the argument.
October 9, 2009 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are also at least a billion people who think abortion is self-evidently an abomination, and aren't they all just a bunch of ignorant hoodoos... according to the liberal bourgeoisie.
I have no idea why a well-educated person like you, oleeb, would devote so much attention to a shallow, self-righteous rant by a talking head on TV.
Just because he's on TV?
The economic advantage of single-payer is demonstrable in dollars, and nobody really disputes it, but there's never an end to what anybody can allege as self-evident, and exactly the opposite is always self-evident to somebody else.
October 9, 2009 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't dispute the economic advantage at all. That's one of the reasons we should have single payer. But the self evident morality of making sure everyone has health care is every bit as important as the economic argument. For example, in my case, I would be for single payer whether or not it was the most economical alternative simply because I believe we should make healthcare available to every human being.
As for abortion, I see that as being a very different question and one where there are some very sincere, intelligent people who believe that abortion is morally wrong. There are also a whole lot of people who see abortion as morally wrong who are ignorant fools. The test, in my opinion, of what qualifies as a self evident truth is how broad a consensus there is on such a question, not that there is unanimity.
I don't think Olbermann's arguments were shallow nor do I see his proposal as shallow. I found his arguments compelling and believe many, many other people will too. His argument was intended to reach people at a different level than simply a dry, wonkish presentation. You can take either route, but I see Olbermann's effort as having a much broader reach and effect. I think we should embrace not only what is intellectually sound but also those arguments that are highly persuasive to a much broader audience.
October 9, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
RR,
I think the positions you contort yourself into
to DENY a moral claim for HCR tend in my mind to reinforce exactly the OPPOSITE position. Without overly explicating Jesus, Buddha, or Mohammed, is there ANY ethical or moral system that doesn't include "caring for the sick" as one of its core values? Isn't that simply a LIFE value, reflected not only in all major global health care centers, but equally powerfully in huts in Africa or Indian teepees in the Old West, or in wolf packs in Alaska?
As I've said previously, morality is certainly not the ONLY claim for HCR, but it remains at heart one of the two STRONGEST claims. If we ignore that claim altogether in favor of ONLY basic nuts-and-bolts accounting, we leave at least half our argument on the sidelines - probably the half that has a chance to prevail among the multitudes among us who don't yet reduce EVERY public debate to basic financial self-interest.
With respect to perhaps the LAST great public morality debate, could someone tell me whether or not racial integration was COST EFFECTIVE? No, I don't know either, and don't recall the question ever coming up at the time.
October 9, 2009 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the concept of treating others as you'd have them treat you is universal - virtually every culture on earth has it as a tenet, and one not so much of moral commandment as practical social compact. If we all lived by it, the problems of crime and poverty would pretty much disappear. We'd save live, save money. Practical. ...No?
October 9, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is such a thing in chess strategy as a FIXED WEAKNESS. This is a structural weakness in a player's position that cannot be corrected by simply shifting pieces around on the board. (One good example is an isolated pawn, unsupported by a pawn on an adjacent file). The weakness can only be DEFENDED - it cannot be CORRECTED.
IMO, opposition to HCR has two fixed weaknesses: (1)It is morally wrong, and (2)Society cannot sustain that position - something MUST be done.
Those are the two fundamental points that advocates of reform must continue to make, remorselessly and over and over. Most opposition arguments (with their statistics, sophistry, ranting, and all the rest) are at heart simply pushing wood around the board to buy time, and to confuse - they cannot answer their fixed weaknesses, simply because they are fundamentally irrefutable.
To bring this back to Mr. Olbermann, I think his comment did a great deal to bring this argument back to fundamentals. Fundamentals are in our favor, and we'll sooner or later win for that reason.
October 8, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Insurance has become nothing more then a middle man who scrapes money off a transaction between a patient and their doctor.
October 8, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?
October 8, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
How did you miss that? It's in plain english for God's sake.
October 8, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I rec' this comment. Brilliant, Gregor!
October 9, 2009 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
In addition to the health clinics, WE need our own march on DC! It has to be huge and monolithic in its message, not the hodge-podge that most liberal marches are(G-20, lampooned on the Daily Show).
Gimme a date, I'll go!
October 8, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
In all of my years following politics, I've never been convinced that "any" march "ever" effected the outcome of any pertinent legislation. I respect those that have the personal conviction to march, but I feel that direct pressure on our law makers is more conducive to causing change. I would expose the anti-universal health care Dems and Blue Dogs for what they are and create a living hell for them...In DC and in the states they represent. I would, without mincing words, let them know that we don't care what corporations they are beholden to. There are times that they "must toe the line!" Yes, we will lose some of them, but isn't affordable health care for all something worth taking the gloves off for? This is one the most critical acts any of those creeps will ever be associated with!
October 8, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, how about the March on Washington where Dr. King gave the famous "I Have A Dream speech?" That one is beyond doubt in the tremendous impact it had on helping to pass Civil Rights legislation that year and for several years afterward.
It isn't an either or proposition and for the life of me I don't understand why people put it in those terms. We need people contacting their members of Congress certainly but why do so many (such as yourself) act as though we have only one option or one action to take? We need both the contact you prefer AND public demonstrations. Do you think the teabaggers would have made headlines contacting their members of Congress on the phone or via e-mail? Of course not. But what they did by publicly congregating at both the Town Halls and at their Fox sponsored rally in DC was to motivate others of like mind, to galvanize those who agreed with them and to make their point of view known. Naturally, folks like us don't agree with their points but the same functions are accomplished no matter what the point of view. And you can ask any elected official whether or not massive demonstrations make a difference and they will acknowledge that they do.
The real problem is that our Democratic leaders don't want to demonstrate people power and make that show of force because they want to claim to represent the people while brokering bad deals on behalf of the people. If the President called for major demonstrations in all our great cities on a certain day you can be sure it would happen. Instead, what we get from our leaders is silence, trial balloons for ditching the only worthwhile parts of the HCR legislation, etc...
As Olbermann's special comment made very apparent it is the Democrats and the willingness of far too many of them to compromise with evil even when what is at stake are the lives of their constituents. The free clinics are one way of demonstrating the need for real healthcare reform that covers every American. Mass protests are another form of demonstration that has tremendous power and should not be either overlooked or poo-pooed. History, our own American history, is replete with examples of how important an effect public protests can have. Such protests work very well all across the globe. I do not understand at all how people here in America act as though, despite all the history, all the positive examples, mass demonstrations are ineffective. It truly boggles the mind.
October 8, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly can not refute what you post about marches. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I sense that too many of our politicians, too quickly, "forget" why they were elected. Yes, they do set up offices and utilize assistants to help constituents deal with bureaucratic mazes which they have created. Do I believe that they answer the telephone and read their email? Hell no! Staffers do that. Some say that faxing is more effective. I do believe that "most" of our representatives concern themselves with polls and fund raising. DC is a country onto itself and our reps become citizens of DC. The power, benefits and social status become an opiate. Now, I'm not painting all of our reps with a broad brush because I have noted some damn good people representing us in Washington...Just, so few. I doubt that a million people screaming in the Mall moves them very much. They are a very insulated lot. I think that threatening their political future will get their attention. Of course there is always K Street, it seems.
October 8, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you not see how your opinion becomes a self fulfilling prophecy? I don't think it does any good so, let's not do it, and then see, it didn't work. It's kinda the flip side of Baucus saying he won't support a public option because there aren't 60 Senators in favor of it despite the fact that if he would come out for it, the chance of there being 60 Senators for it would be far better and his support might just make the critical difference in reaching that threshold.
I'll say it again, we need to do ALL these things and each of them has it's place. But mass demonstrations are absolutely effective and have proven over and over again to be so in myriad ways. Think about it for a second. With pressure from all sides hot and heavy on members of Congress and a million angry constituents show up demanding Medicare for all. This won't have much effect? Of course it will. But it's effect is heightened by all the other activities going on and vice versa.
October 8, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent reply oleeb. My attitude does create a self fulfilling result. Obviously, what should be working, doesn't.
October 8, 2009 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see why we couldn't do what you describe AND march.
October 9, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Usually I find Olbermann to be a loudmouthed blowhard but this was really good. An hour long speech and he held my attention the whole time. Very little hyperbole. He hit many good points. I was really impressed.
October 8, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even though I like KO, I rolled my eyes at the idea of sitting through one of his overblown tirades. I ended up watching it 3 times - twice on TV, once online. It was that good, and I cried all 3 times.
One thing I know for sure about the opponents of health care reform - they've never experienced a lengthy medical crisis for themselves or a close family member or they have but they're fantastically wealthy. Nowadays, even people with "good" insurance fear the deductibles and co-pays and worry they'll get booted out of the hospital before they're well enough to go and wonder how they'll pay for their meds.
Anyone who's dealt with a serious medical issue in a loved one - as Keith has, as I have - knows how bad the situation is and knows it has to change.
October 8, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
As much as I like Olbermann I've always felt his Special Commentaries were maybe 2 or 3 minutes too long. I like Bill Maher's better.
I think this hour long commentary was a mistake.
1-He could have cut it to 30 minutes and explained what the Public Option is and how it will benefit the public,
2- and how those fighting against it, especially Democrats, are awash in Insurance Co, Pharma, etc. contributions.
The contrast between these two would have been stark.
October 8, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry JohnW1141. On October 7, 2009, Keith Olbermann used his entire hour beautifully. He made the emotional, moral appeal that has been so lacking in the arguments for health care reform. If he'd taken 30 minutes to explain the public option and how opponents are awash in contributions from Pharma, etc. it would have been "business as usual" and would have lacked the impact of his hour-long commentary.
In this instance, I'd say Keith nailed it.
October 8, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Several years ago, it was determined that I was suffering from congestive heart failure and my life-expectancy was one year. I was about 58 years old at the time. Before being accepted into the transplant program at Mayo I was told that I would have to provide a $40K cash deposit as my wife's employee was self-insured and would not commit to covering the transplant. I spent many nights looking at the stars thinking about not having a future or hope. God protect and give strength to those who lack the resources to have hope.
October 8, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Good health to you!
October 9, 2009 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was anxious to read the critque of last nights program. Keith & Rachel are a very refreshing duo, after a day of MSM. Unfortunately they play primarily to a progressive choir. Rachel does seem to be gaining attention as one of the brightest in a long, long time. She makes the pundit school grads look like the uneducated shouters & screamers that they infact are. Keith also deals in facts & intelligence. He was eloquent, to the point & poignant last night.
It is really too bad that so many, myself included, are just so sick of all the nonsense surrounding healthcare. We all know it should have been presented as single payer, then at least we had a chance at something meaningful, but now we can only hope that in time, as Teddy always said, it could be turned into something with teeth in time. At the moment anything meaningful coming out of this bunch seems highly doubtful.
October 8, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those of us with compassion, he hit a nerve. However, there are people who believe their medical coverage would not let them suffer nor cost them nothing more than a $25 co-pay regardless the injury or acute medical condition they may suffer - Obermann's argument fell on deaf ears. These are the people who not only refuse to listen to reason, they feel it is their duty to keep the debate from happening because any reform would unravel the precious covenant they have with their company and the high level of health care coverage they believe they have. And with the republicans in dire need of any kind of public support to keep from having to declare political bankruptcy, this group gives them the political cover they need to fight against any reform efforts strictly for political oneupmanship and trip up the democrats efforts as a means for regaining political power in 2010. For health care reform in the form of a single payer option(screw public option)to pass with unanimous support from both Partys and the public will only happen when the nay-sayers realize their health care covenant isn't worth the cost of the paper it's written on. Only then will we get the health care reform we desperately need without any exceptions to the industry. We're not at that stage were the costs are so prohibitive in deductions from take-home pay, high deductibles and high co-pays to warrant any health care reform that carries any weight in favor of the public. I suspect it'll be another 15 years before we get the chance to tackle health care reform that has any meaning to it. Anything we get passed now will be equivalent to an abortion - best it dies quickly once its' born.
October 8, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was excellent.
The personal IS the political and this has been missing from this whole debate.
Where's the populist rage against the health insurance profiteers?
Are we afraid of them?
It seems like with this president and this congress/senate getting a good bill would be no-brainer.
Instead we are designing a way to make insurance companies MORE money. Have we lost our minds?
October 8, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have we lost our minds? No. But our leaders are a different story.
There would be plenty of rage nationwide if our leaders would have the guts to point out who the enemy is here in the form of the insurance, pharma and related industries. But they don't. Why? Because they are too busy trying to please them to do their jobs which is to represent the people's interests.
If Democrats had the integrity to do what is right instead of what is right for feathering their own nests they would be railing against the insurance interests and the others. They would be making the passionate and indisputable sort of arguments Olbermann made. But instead they seek "compromise" with evil. Our leaders seek "compromise" because they have compromised themselves and the principles they alledgely stand behind. They want the public to swallow the rotten compromises they have made with those who profit off of denying healthcare to people and charging them twenty times what a drug is worth. And so, they do not wish to inflame public anger. Their game is a delicate one of soothing the public just enough to make them think they did something for them all the while handing the keys to the store to the people who have caused much of the crisis to begin with.
IMHO, we need to make it clear to all the Democrats on the Hill and in the White House that on this question, the health of all our people, we cannot accept a bad deal for the sake of saying we passed "something". We must demand that they pass genuine, substantive reform. And for me it must be reform without insurance subsidies (mandates) that only cost the public money and drench the insurance companies in more profits they don't deserve and haven't earned.
October 8, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Olbermann is turning out to be one of the most forceful and effective progressive voices in the country.."
And what scares em' most is that you could take the word progressive out of that sentence, and it would still fit.
As a proud progressive who never was ashamed of the label "liberal", I'm glad he's one of us.
But so often, his commentary has transcended anything akin to political ideology and thrust to a more common thread of reason we all share, regardless of ideology.
Like the child who hollered "The Emporer has no clothes", Kieth so often just speaks the simple truth the others avoid.
Thanks, Mr. Olbermann, and keep after em'. Oleeb's right, there's been some dark times when, at least as far as the MSM is concerned, you were the only shining light.
October 8, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a wackaloon talking point BTW that nobody watches. They say, for example, that he doesn't crack 200,000 and slap one another's back confidently laughing at that falsity.
Real number is over 1.5 million.
October 9, 2009 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keith's special comment last night was spot on.
Since last December, when my father had a stroke, our family has been going through similar things. And it really did change my perspective on the health care system.
Specifically, I now favor fully socialized medicine. I had already been for a single-payer system. But now I think hospitals should all be non-profit, and the excellent doctors and nurses should be well compensated, but not on a per-procedure basis. It was a mind-opening experience.
Medicare is great, but it needs to be expanded and improved.
Anyone who has not had to deal directly with the things Keith described -- including facing the possibility of death -- does not really understand what the healthcare debate is really about. I hope that Keith's special comment helped some people understand it better.
-- ARG
October 8, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Robert Greenwald or Michael Moore or both, could produce Keith's show into a documentary, and we could show it at local venues and home events, like the Obama campaign has done, and both Greenwald and Moore have done, to promote their other work?
Or maybe there's a DVD of it available? Can Keith do that, sell a DVD of his show?
May be a "duh" question, but outside of replaying the show on cable, this would be a good way to keep the ideas fresh in the public's mind.
Even some of the best TV stuff fades away with the fickle public, if people had a way to show or replay it, it might have a more enduring influence.
Maybe MSNBC could find enough profit incentive to actually offer the DVD via some well-placed advertising.
Just food for thought...
October 8, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keith O did a masterful job last nite. A good mixture of facts and emotion.
The emotional case may be our best case for real health care reform.
October 8, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since the single payer option is DOA and the public option is in serious doubt, here's an option the democrats might want to consider as a way to appease the right and give us progessives something to hold on to.
October 9, 2009 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hope we hear more about Keith's initiatives and this takes off into something. Rec'd.
October 9, 2009 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
People have to wake up. What do they think they're paying into for years and years of "good" health only to be shocked out of their minds to find out that when you DO need your insurance to kick in they'll come out with all types of excuses to NOT pay. My wife (the Primary holder of the health plan) and I paid for years on our HUMANA health plan, and rarely used it except for yearly physicals. Last year I had 2 heart attacks and was in the hospital for 2 days (that's right TWO days), a month later she gets a letter saying that I am not covered because she FAILED to prove I am her husband. It didn't keep them from charging her to add me to the plan for 5 years though and NOT asking if I was her husband then. So we sent IRS documents, checking accounts, utility bills that showed both our names on it as they requested. They sent back a letter saying that they needed our marriage certificate, WOW now I now what President Obama feels at the being asked of his birth certificate. So we had to get a copy since we don't have the original and sent it to them. Well as of last week, I am still not on the plan that we paid into for 5 years. So I guess I'll have to hire a lawyer to see where this goes. I write this so that others can see that if they have insurance not to be lured into thinking everything is OK.
October 9, 2009 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow is right! What kind of scummy organization does this to people? And why do our elected representatives dance to their tune? It is appalling.
October 9, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink