MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
If governments start to lose control over public knowledge in the information age, it won’t be because information “wants to be free.” It’ll be because of the creation of new ventures like this, that create public knowledge without adhering to the old rules about how government has a voice in deciding what gets published and what doesn’t.
Comments
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 10/18/2013 - 8:05am
Why it isn't a big deal.
'The facts' are what people want to hear. It's what reinforces their prejudices, beliefs and politics, ergo, tens of millions watch Fox News and listen to Hate Radio and believe the most ridiculous crap. I seriously doubt another 'truth telling' news outlet will make more than a ripple. Perhaps it will just get it's own fan base, like Glenn Beck or some reality TV show.
The facts are always out there for those who want to find them. It takes a functioning open mind to get a grasp on facts and reality. Without a change at the receiving end, will much change?
by NCD on Fri, 10/18/2013 - 11:35am
Will much change? Who knows, the answer to that question any more than who knows who actually has a functioning open mind willing to grasp facts and deal with them, but the point of the piece was an opinion about how this new news organization might make a difference and why the writer thinks that to be so.
Like you say, the facts are always out there for those who want to find them but I am among those who say that there are many facts not presented in a fair light, if presented at all, by the popular media. If a wider array of actual facts, not facts by your definition given above, are made available in a popular format then things might improve. If what is created is another variation of Fox News, or to a lesser but similar extent by MSNBC, rather than an actuall journalistic organization working to tell truth regardless of whose toes get stepped on, then your cynicism will prove to be warranted, but I am happy to see big bucks invested for the purported purpose of truth telling which will automatically be in tension with the big bucks already being invested in propagandistic bs by the like of the Kochs of the world.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 10/18/2013 - 12:17pm
For instance, has this been getting any play, scrutiny, or analysis in the media you follow? Will it get criticized as against any of Obama's past stated positions by either Hannity or Maddow? Maddow, ... maybe.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 10/18/2013 - 12:36pm
I stopped watching any TV News, including PBS, about 3 weeks after Bush invaded Iraq and the media treated the slaughter like the NFL playoffs. TV news is run by big corporations that have no interest in 'the facts', employing wealthy corporate executive celebrities to provide infotainment. It sells well and attracts viewers
I try to find actual facts in the news, what people say, what they do, what the body counts are and the math/science numbers from BBC, NYT, Guardian and a smattering of others like Reuters or USA Today listed at Yahoo.
For hard hitting to the point commentary on US politics and punditry, once an a while I check out Driftglass, a recent example:
He's not out to make converts when he talks about 'pig people', is it really possible with The Base? His opinion of media punditry and TV News:
This is unfortunately a take on the social, media and electoral environment Obama and other 'good' Democrats must operate with or within, and I often wonder why a fairly honest, smart guy like Obama even wants the job of President. I conclude he must care about the country.
And why he appointed this guy to the NEC probably has something to do with DC politics and GOP stonewalling of someone or something.
by NCD on Fri, 10/18/2013 - 2:53pm
I'd call it potentially a big deal. I'm sure they'll produce great journalism, but to succeed in the long run, they'll have to eventually cut Omidyar's umbilical cord. To do that, they'll have to solve the code that the mainstream press has so far failed to crack--how to turn a profit in the age of internet journalism.
I really hope it works out. Someone has to crack that code. Let it be scrappy liberal muckrakers and not the NYT's f-ing paywall.
by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 10/18/2013 - 12:46pm
As to the umbilical cord, where investors normally expect a return on investment, Omidyar has stated that all profits will be returned to the business. That, in affect, is a lot of profit which will not need to be made in order to keep the enterprise afloat because of a considerably lower overhead. Just the interest on 250 million dollars could be expected to pay the cost of a lot of investigative journalism and online publication of the results, I would think
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 10/18/2013 - 1:15pm
The question is not how large the profit is but whether there will be any profit.
Investors don't put cash into businesses for the purpose of providing interest revenue to fund operations. If that's Omidyar's plan, then it's not really a business, it's a not-for-profit foundation.
PS Investigative journalism is not cheap.
by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 10/18/2013 - 2:58pm
While waiting for whatever financial model finally comes about I give five bucks a month to three sights I support and occasionally contribute to others when they ask. When in my preacher mode I suggest others do the same.
A very large readership will bring in ad revenue and a smaller but dedicated following would probably cough up some bucks each to keep a good thing going. I hope it works out one way or another.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 10/18/2013 - 3:27pm
I hope that it works out too. Whatever the long run success, it's awesome that they're doing it.
by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 10/18/2013 - 4:40pm
Among those who think that it may be a worthwhile undertaking even if Greenwald is associated with it there may have been questions about who else would be worth hiring. Here is one person's suggestions.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Hire-Suggestions-for-Glenn-by-Rob-Kall-...
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 10/23/2013 - 11:47am
There was a lot of criticism here about snowden giving secrets to russians and chinese, which now turns out laptops were red herrings, the laptops held no secrets. Will amyone really care about the truth, or will it be bloggers trying to still show they're as 'smart' and in lockstep as beltway insiders? We're all anti-keynesian deficit scolds and security 'grownups' now.
by Anonymous pp (not verified) on Sat, 10/19/2013 - 4:20pm
How reliable is this information? I mean, even if we assume it were true, it seems that it'd be difficult to have an unbiased source verify it.
by Verified Atheist on Sat, 10/19/2013 - 8:07pm
Like someone verified the assumption he gave secrets to China & Russia? Or it was the knee-jerk reaction and it felt good to assume it? In any case it's what's being reported in the Register & Reuters the last few days - go ask them if their new report is flawed. Snowden would have to be pretty dumb to walk secrets through the airport when on an international hunt (just like Greenwald's partner was reported to have a password 'this unlocks everything' as he went through the airport despite denials) and Snowden hasn't done or said anything truly dumb from 'what I've seen.
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sun, 10/20/2013 - 11:47am
Truly dumb Snowden, NYT 2 days ago:
Once Snowden gave the documents away, he can no longer guarantee anything. What happens to the documents, or who accesses them.
Not rocket science.
If the persons he gave them to in China were as dumb as Greenwald's buddy there is a 99.9% chance the Chinese or Russians will get them.
by NCD on Sun, 10/20/2013 - 6:09pm
Almost impossible to put the genie back into the bottle!
Once 'it's' out, it is out!
by Richard Day on Sun, 10/20/2013 - 6:30pm
What has Greenwald's buddy done regarding the documents that you are calling dumb?
by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 10/20/2013 - 9:01pm
Greenwalds buddy was carrying the encrytped file passwords on a piece of paper.
by ANON.NCD (not verified) on Sun, 10/20/2013 - 9:13pm
You seem to lock onto the first thing you hear that fits your wish to denigrate a side you want to see denigrated and then never pay attention or give any credence to follow up information as it comes out.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 10/20/2013 - 9:31pm
As I said above in my longer comment, I note what people say and what they do, or have done. It's called 'paying attention' to reality. You should try it.
Snowden by his own admission in his recent interview, gave away NSA files to 'journalists', he lost control of the files, so he is in no position to know now who the hell has the files, or copies of them.
by NCD on Sun, 10/20/2013 - 11:34pm
Giving files to reporters is completely different from the accusation that he gave US secret info to his Hong Kong / Russian hosts as a way of ingratiating himself. Sorry if 2 aspects of reality are confusing. Not sure why you put "journalists" in "scare quotes" - Greenwald wrote for The Guardian, i.e. journalist - maybe you have someone else in mind?
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Mon, 10/21/2013 - 4:47am
But I did not refer to Snowden, I asked what made you think that Miranda was dumb. Your evidence is weak. Your evidence that the encryption code was obtained from Greenwald's partner is from reporting of British government official's statements in an August 30 article. Greenwald has denied that Miranda carried the encryption code and that the security was compromised. You and I get to decide who is most likely telling the truth. If Miranda carried the code in his back pocket along with computers carrying the encrypted files then he is at least a dupe and either Greenwald or Poitras or both are as dumb as you want to believe. I wonder if anyone else here at Dag believes that is the correct explanation.
IN October, six weeks after the Telegraph article, Greenwald tweeted,
Follow the link in that tweet which came six weeks after the Telegraph article which you trust for further evidence that the British government did not get the encryption code.
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 10/21/2013 - 8:25am
Your link appears to refer to different files, in possession of an editor of The Guardian:
The editor of the Guardian recently boasted online that he was taking precautions to prevent UK security services having access to the files of vital national security that he had sent out of the remit of the UK court to the New York Times. Security services are still trying to decrypt these files,
The point remains, that if Snowden has given his (hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands) of files wholly or partially away, he cannot guarantee squat as to what happens to them.
Snowden, in his 'guarantees' (see above) was blowing hot air to cover his personal ass as to any 'traitor' attacks on him, related to possible file acquisition by the Chinese or Russians.
Which adds to the perception, as he settles down in Russia, that, as Orlando said recently, guys like Snowden should never have had access to this stuff to begin with.
by NCD on Tue, 10/22/2013 - 7:01pm
To me, you are someone who seems to do that, only recommending reading from sites that have an anti-war and/or leftist agenda, as if articles with those clear viewpoints are all you recommend reading. And only posting follow-up when it confirms something such sources previously suggested, but not when factual follow-up contradicts.
Conversely, I really don't feel NCD does that, not at all; he mostly seems much more interested in just figuring out what is going on with a story, without an agenda of protecting some pre-concepted narrative and without much of an ideology to flog. Even though I don't always agree with him, I do see a pattern of being very open-minded in what he posts here. (And even with the few times he hasn't, like with gun control, I have also seen him moderating his approach over time.)
He also seems skeptical of promises of saviors and heroes, and I will freely admit a prejudice that I think that's a good thing.
by artappraiser on Tue, 10/22/2013 - 12:57pm
This is a pretty humorous piece of ad hoc "I like the way this guy rolls so I'll back his methods". Sure, if Lulu supported the surveillance state he might go reaching for sources that back General Alexander lying to Congress. In the months since he did so he's been thoroughly discredited and is now being whisked through the "need to spend more time with his family" exit door, but it's Lulu's fault that he doesn't bite on renegade surveillance state spin. NCD is skeptical of those he wants to be skeptical of, and embraces those he wants to embrace - hardly skeptical of promises and heroes when they're fighting terruh undercover and keeping their sources and legal justification ever hidden.
It's fine to dislike Snowden and his actions - to each his/her opinion - but continually misrepresenting him or taking the conspiratorial whisper view against him is hardly laudable. Greenwald himself pointed out the absurdity of saying his boyfriend had an open password unlocking everything in the face of British intelligence submitting a subsequent request for a password to open everything. I of course expect everyone to defend themselves and self-promote, no matter how Clinton-esque, Palin-drone or Bush-league their logic might be, but at some point pigs and quack theories don't fly. I've also come to believe mightily in the power of winning the first press cycle, as a well-placed initial lie will survive countless refutations.
And while I applaud your filing stories from different magazines, it doesn't de facto make any arguments any stronger - over the years I've seen Andrew Sullivan never cease to draw self-satisfied, braindead donkey-in-a-rut conclusions from a vast variety of interesting quasi-intellectual sources. While I appreciate e.g. Foreign Policy for background color, I can't say it ever gobsmacked me as refutation of whatever dozen other sites I read might have read, or perhaps the more important tools: common sense, adherence to logic, devil's advocate, Occam's Razor, an occasional leap of fancy, experience & skepticism in human behavior, and a sad acceptance that both money & bullshit walk, talk and move mountains in this world.
As for "anti-war" it's been a decade or more since we had any sane approach to use of military power and diplomacy. Obama had it partially right with his "dumb wars" comment, ignoring the good that threat of war without doing it might have (though maybe has learned that trick as regards Syria, potentially even Iran). It's hard to see what war Lulu is missing the boat on, that might be interpreted as a "good war" or even an ambivalent one worth giving the benefit of the doubt. We've had a crass liar & manipulator as our ambassador in Yemen pulling the strings, our efforts in Iraq & Afghanistan were horridly ineffective aside from first invasion [including the mythical Petraeus supposedly training local troops to take over for us as we leave], Pakistan is a mess giving us a new black eye reputation for poor use of drones, while our military expansion into Africa is a topic as undiscussed as pre-May surveillance. I'm sure if I read enough conservative magazines I'll be half-convinced there's a pony in there somewhere, but these are people who thought Romney was going to pull out a big victory and that shutting down the government would win them huge plaudits and that cutting the deficit would produce jobs. How many times do we need to go to these types of beltway grownups to get their spin when they've been proven wrong time and again?
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 10/22/2013 - 3:36pm
Hey, it wasn't me that brought up the issue of confirmation bias, it was Lulu accusing NCD of it. And silly me, I guess, I thought pointing out that others, like me, might see more confirmation bias in Lulu's favored media than in what NCD choses to do and say here, might be doing a favor along the lines of aiding better communication (not to mention persuasion skills for those who have activist goals in their activities on the internet, which I decidedly do not.)
Leave me out of any Snowden vs. anti-Snowden tag team matches, puhleez. Have zero interest in agitprop from either side (hero/devil.)
Personally, on the post topic, I will say that I have never liked Greenwald's outrage-at-length-continually-updated-and-hardly-edited style of journalism, nor have I ever liked most forms of rant. All turn me off, I get hard of hearing all of a sudden. (As does lauding journalists as heroes to follow in their every opinion, whether they are Krugman or Hersh or Greenwald.) And if Omidyar's plans are to encourage and expand on that, I will be staying with forms like The Guardian-it's thanks but no thanks.
by artappraiser on Tue, 10/22/2013 - 5:14pm
Lulu was just pointing out that early press reports had been superseded by other info, a point he and I'd made way back when. Yet NCD clings to the notion that Snowden directly leaked to the Chinese even after [seemingly] refuted because he gave info to journalists and thus who knows? - a bizarre shotgun approach the government used in the Manning's trial.
Yes, you've made the same point about Greenwald time and again. There was a big attack-a-thon around here on Greenwald about the time Articleman was putting up his various dozens, one from when Quinn still posted if I recall correct. Aside from annoying style (which can be said for Krugman, TBogg, Kos, Sullivan, DailyHowler, Grayson, Gore, Tom Friedman, Bob Woodward and most Republicans...), I've yet to have someone point out effectively where Greenwald's facts or conclusions are off in any significant way - such as Krugman's "the Euro will crash any moment now".
Re: "As does lauding journalists as heroes to follow in their every opinion, whether they are Krugman or Hersh or Greenwald" - has someone been lauding Greenwald as a hero? I'm happy & supportive when Grayson or Greenwald or Krugman fight back against effective Republican spin or conventional beltway mediawhore wisdom, but that doesn't mean their facts & conclusions are 100% - just more useful than a luke-warm John Kerry proclamation.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 10/22/2013 - 10:19pm
Americans put their life online on Facebook, carry smart phones, use free email services, and huge multi-national corporations like Google/Apple/Microsoft run algorithm$ to track one's purchases, likes, friends, emails and GPS location.....and I am supposed to get all worked up about some retired General running government 'anti-terror' algorithms on billions of emails/phone numbers?
Gobsmack me with real news and real incidents about how the 'surveillance state' and NSA villains and malefactors have cruelly and unjustly harmed innocent Americans....?
And then say how a Prez is supposed to prevent the next underwear bomber or Boston bombing without some sort of non-public intelligence apparatus....?
by NCD on Tue, 10/22/2013 - 7:43pm
There is a non-public intelligence apparatus. that was approved by our elected officials.
That's the apparatus the administrations have been dismantling, ignoring, going around, saying they don't have to follow because it encroaches on Executive Privilege.
Even the specific Congressmen who wrote all the new loose Patriot Act rules are disgusted with the excessive eavesdropping and the way the Act's been abused. But not you.
You assume if they can gather even more data they're going to stop even more bombings? Then how come they couldn't stop attack bombings in Iraq & Afghanistan? Why didn't they stop the Boston Marathon bombing or have some clue from the guy's Russian/Dagestan travels? What were they missing after all the new looser FISA amendments and extended Facebook / email / VOIP scanning, aside from the childish unbelievable excuse that they were too busy surveilling a bunch of disorganized hippies at Occupy Wall Street?
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 10/22/2013 - 10:24pm
I am gobsmacked with your non-tally of serious incidents of NSA abuse of innocent Americans.
I read somewhere there was a data entry misspelling/error with the Chechen bomber names/locations in some FBI/police database. The inability to identify the guy when they had video of him from the crime scene, and had interviewed him as a terror suspect, was typically pathetic police work.
As I have said before, the level of data retention at the NSA or FBI is self defeating. The huge ocean of useless data dilutes any important data to the level of insignificance. Plus you have the understaffed 'data entry' government or contract personnel bored to death with their jobs, which pay $14K a year, and they are bound to make errors if swamped with useless crappy data. They miss or make errors on the important information. Nobody checks it. Stuff like the 2 year previous FBI interview of the Boston bombers is lost or can't be found.
I have noted a simple FBI Rolodex of 'Guys the Russians warned us about who we interviewed in the last 2 years' would have worked better than a billion terabytes of phone numbers and email addresses to find the bombers. We have little to fear from the NSA nerds in Utah.
by NCD on Wed, 10/23/2013 - 11:41am
Read Emptywheel. 'nuff said.
by Anonymous pp (not verified) on Wed, 10/23/2013 - 12:13pm
Did you edit this comment after originally posting it? I read it earlier just before leaving the house for work and I remember, maybe wrongly, that where you say "and/or leftist agenda" that you originally said "civil rights agenda". I do not consider myself as having a leftist agenda.
When you spot some factual contradiction to something I have posted then please point it out. Seriously, and that is not intended as an assertion that I have never done so. But also, bringing thousands of pieces of evidence that a war was promoted with lies and wrong thinking, which can be done with any of our recent ones as well as with the charges of violations of our civil liberties, and finding out that a few pieces of that evidence were wrong does not change the overall fact of the matter and it does not make those telling lies and their defenders and apologists for the crimes any less guilty or any less wrong.
Regardless, You are right about the obvious fact that I do recommend many articles from sites or individuals that have an anti-war stance. Also articles that expose and analyze attacks on our civil rights or which defend those few who have put a lot of skin in the game exposing those attacks. That is because I am anti-war and pro civil rights and being so is a position I feel strongly and am willing to defend, but obviously there are many others who do it better so I link to a few of them.
Yes, I recognize that I am pushing a position. You often take positions on the style of various proponents of positions but rarely if ever give your own judgment on the issue at hand if that issue involves our wars or our governments spying on everyone, rather only on the style of someone which does not suit your taste. Attacking Iran, which a whole hell of a lot of people were afraid might happen because a whole hell of a lot of influential people were pushing for it, is an example of our different ways of considering issues. Your memory is quite good and I admire your record keeping and research skills so this should be easy. Can you show me a time when you have said either that yes, we should attack them, or no, we shouldn't? Or do you think it is somehow a holding of the intellectual high ground to not form or at least to not express an opinion which might be criticized in a style you do not like about the right and wrong of it.
You are free to stay above the fray regarding these things while you criticize and mock my opinions and I will continue to express my feelings on things I believe call for it. Killing tens or hundreds or hundreds of thousands is such a case.
You also mock as hero warship a defense of Manning or Snowden when the defense includes the claim that what they did was not just 'right' but also required courage. I reject the mockery but at the same time wonder if there is anyone you currently admire in public life that is risking their life or freedom or career or anything else of real value and who rises further in your admiration because they are doing a hard thing.
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 10/22/2013 - 11:51pm
But giving them to "journalists he met in Hong Kong" would?
by Ramona on Sun, 10/20/2013 - 9:10pm
..would mean Snowden doesn't know what might happen to the files, and can 'guarantee' nothing, as he gave them away in China. See note on Greenwalds buddy above.
by ANON.NCD (not verified) on Sun, 10/20/2013 - 9:16pm
Link on Greenwalds guy and his password mishap in London.
by ANON.NCD (not verified) on Sun, 10/20/2013 - 9:17pm
Yes, go to EmptyWheel & try reading the archives - we now have hearings on government spying on us that never would have happened had he not leaked this info.You may be fine with government peering up your shorts in violation of the Constitution, but I don't like it. If nothing else, if they're going to do it, pass a real law, not a secretive FISA court where all protective provisions are routinely discarded.
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Mon, 10/21/2013 - 4:49am
There's a piece of this that I don't entirely get. Maybe I missed it.
His thesis rests on the idea that certain news organizations have the power to turn information into knowledge--to get a broad cross-section of people to accept as true.
So a blog like TPM might report XYZ, but it isn't accepted as true by a broad cross section of people, even though it might be true. It could be devastating information that everyone needs to know, yet it will live in a netherworld of "proto-facts" until a "real" news organization reports it. Then it will be considered knowledge...true.
Greenwald's Newco promises to bridge the divide between these standard bearer news organizations (NYT and WaPo) who are seen as compromised by their connections to authority and unwilling to go all out to report the unvarnished truth and the blogosphere, which has no such compunction about going for the jugular, but doesn't get the respect from the public that is required for wide dissemination and acceptance of important kinds of information.
But what I don't see here is any analysis as to WHY organizations like WaPo and NYT command wide readership and broad public trust and other news outlets, say, dagblog don't. Is it just a matter of having a lot of money behind you? If that were true, then wouldn't FOX be seen as a standard bearer and not the propaganda outlet that it is? Moreover, in the age of the Internet, you don't need a lot of money to transmit information to a lot of people very quickly. So that can't be it, either.
So I'm wondering...isn't it that WaPo and the NYT, though battered from both sides of the ideological spectrum, are still seen as organizations dedicated to trying to report "the facts" in as unbiased a way as they can (or as their corporate task masters will allow them)? IOW, people broadly accept, I think, the idea that these papers are at least trying to report the objective truth, even if they fall short--whereas other groups aren't even trying to be "fair," but are simply pushing their point of view.
How does Greenwald recreate this with NewCo? How does he overcome the broad perception that he has a point of view, a political agenda, that he will "push" through this new, very well-funded enterprise? And if he can't overcome this doesn't NewCo provoke a conservative response funded by a conservative billionaire counterpart to Omidyar and headed by a conservative journalist counterpart to Greenwald?
And then aren't we back to square one except that all the partisans are now just a lot better funded and more powerful than when they were sitting at their computers in their pajamas?
by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 10/20/2013 - 10:42pm
Most polls indicate that the majority of Americans are concerned about government surveillance. Given the makeup of our current Congress, I doubt that hearings are going to end up producing anything useful. This will come down to the courts. Those who are paying attention await for the Supremes to voice an opinion. There is also a Keystone Kop aspect that comes up. The NSA hired Snowden and couldn't detect that he was stealing from them. The NSA's planned Utah Supercenter has a problem with wires catching fire. The NSA does not really install fear. The public is not unaware of the issue but realizes the court will be the final decider.
Revelations about spying on foreign governments are not surprising to many US citizens, because US citizens realize that foreign governments are spying on the US. Facebook is probably seen as a more direct threat than the NSA regarding misuse of personal data.
Both Snowden and Greenwald have a Libertarian viewpoint that will lead to suspicion from certain segments of the population. If Snowden praises Rand Paul or Greenwald promotes a rightwing group like the OathKeepers, questions will be raised.
There are activists addressing women's rights, discrimination against a Gays, cuts to social programs, decreases in education funding, voter suppression and a host of other issues. Surveillance is also being addressed, it is simply that looking for Congressional action is not going to happen. The NSA will only change with legal requirements.
If Obama says that changes are being made, the reaction from many would be identical to the reaction others have to statements from Snowden or Greenwald. There is a lack of trust for all from various quarters. There will be no Church Committee equivalent coming from the current Congress. Presidents are reluctant to give up peers that existed when they came into office. The courts are the only hope to quell over zealous surveillance.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 10/21/2013 - 11:00am
A recent Reason magazine poll suggests the public trusts the IRS and NSA more than they trust Facebook or Google to protect their data. Very interesting if verified by better recognized polling services.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 10/21/2013 - 6:18pm