Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Fourth Stands for Equality

Some folks recently challenged me as to how I could think myself fit to criticize such media personalities like Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter, given how big an audience they have, how much money they make. Well, the thing is, I take this document at its word, I take it seriously.

I do not look at Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter, or anybody else, for that matter, and see somebody that it is beyond my right to hold accountable if they wrong me. I do not see the rich or the powerful as anymore than just regular human beings, no better, no smarter, no gentler of birth than me or anybody else, in the broad outlines.

Whenever somebody tries to put me in my place, I have only to reach back to that promise and affirm it to myself to have the courage to speak up, and speak for myself and say that I do not agree, that I do not think their arguments or their ideas are good. In the England and the Colonies of earlier times than the declaration, patriotism was supposed to be unquestioning devotion to the nation, and to its king or queen. But given that room, that pass on accountability, the crowned head got a little too big for its own good.

The Declaration of Independence, which for some only seems to exist for some in the part that talks of a creator, is really a laundry list of complaints following a rather crucial set of statements on what good government is supposed to be. The patriots weren't simply trading one unquestioned monarch for another, they were declaring that King George could not govern against the best interests of his subjects, and expect them to remain his subjects. Kingship wasn't granted from above, but suffered from below as long as the King did right by the people.

It wasn't simply big government or small government that the Patriots were after. They wanted to build a nation that worked.

That, I think is the best expression of one's patriotism. It's not enough to be proud of your country, you must take pride IN your country. There have to be situations and concerns you will not let fester into bigger problems. There have to be practical necessities you should be willing to sacrifice your agenda for. The real world often presents us with situations that test the weakness in our knowledge of it, that expose the shortcomings in our ideas of the world. The test of our political wisdom is how much and how well we're willing to let that world out there teach us what is right, what works, as opposed to trying to insist on a position, despite its failures.

It takes courage to chance being shown as wrong, to take the slings and arrows that come with taking an attitude where your mistakes can't merely be covered over with bluster. But such is accountability, and accountability is at the heart of good government. In a Democracy, its for the best if not only the rulers, but the citizens themselves recognize that they can be wrong, and adopt the education and the mental disciplines necessary to improve their quality as leaders of this nation's destiny.

I don't believe equality requires us to hide our abilities or ambitions, just not to set some false distinctions between ourselves and others. Just because you have attained power, wealth, fame, or other covetable things, doesn't mean that they are yours thanks to some inherent superiority on your part. You have no right to shut the door behind you, to think of yourself as being a higher breed of human being. Rich or poor, public school student or private, there is somebody out there who, given the chance, can be just as productive, just as inventive, just as masterful in whatever skill you've got as you are. A nation that lets the opportunities for its citizens to succeed pass it by is poorer for it.

People came to our country by the millions because of a simple fact about the countries they came from: in their countries, the poor and the lower class were often condemned to stay put, to be poor and lower class indefinitely. It says something that despite the prejudice they faced at first, many of those whose ancestors came over to this country from a life of subservience now are spread throughout the classes of our society.

We should not be sending a message to our children, much less taking it to heart ourselves, that when faced by the people who run a big corporation, or a politician running a war, or any of that other garbage that we should just bow our heads, and accept the place we are given by another. If more Americans have the strength, the courage, to speak truth to power, we stand a better chance of improving things. Too many look at the big busineses, or their politicians, and just feel too small to do anything about it. They see others losing heart, and get even more intimidated. It's a vicious cycle, and while it offers short-term relief from taking the trouble to do something about it, it doesn't cure us of the problems that hurt our interests.

I believe in government by the consent of the governed, that the role of government is not to take the side of the few and the powerful all the time, saying no to the interests of the many, the middle classed and the poor all the time. I believe government owes it to the people to make their lives better, so far as government is capable of doing that. I believe in Government not limited by some arbitrary number or principle, but by the balancing of interests against one another, by the forcing of compromise, by the well-interpreted limits of the Constitution. The question is not how big or small, but how well. I don't believe that the framers were of one mind as to how this country should be governed, and I don't believe they expected their heirs to be any more uncontentious.

This isn't a system to elevate one side or another, and give them everlasting control. This was a system meant to resolve differences. This wasn't a system meant to simply grant the wishes of the winning party, like some parliaments do, the majority simply dictating policy. This was a system meant to pit different factions of American political life against one another until they broke down and made a deal with one another.

This is a system deliberately designed to cast down the proud, the arrogant, and the incompetent, and its been my observation that folks have to go through a ridiculous amount of trouble to justify not being held accountable, to justify trying to get your way, even as you have to shove everybody else out of the way on your path to getting what you want.

This is a system deliberately designed to get people to think about consensus-building, about the general interests of the nation, not just their particular pet interests. This is a system deliberately designed to break the chains that bind people to bad government that doesn't fit their needs, designed both in response to King George's autocratic misrule, and the Article of Confederation's more democratic version of failed government.

When folks say the corporations rule, or despair of bad elected officials being held to account, I counsel patience, persistence, and the stubborn unwillingness to concede to power that is not gained through the consent of the governed. So I don't despair, because I know that in despair, I would only concede something I was looking to protect in the first place. I hold my citizenship, and the rights I hold in common with millions of Americans dearly, and believe they should do so, too. Our forebears trusted us to be able to govern ourselves, to hold our government to account. They did not leave the rule of our country to a few gently born nobles.

They certainly didn't fight and die for these rights, only to have somebody like me yield up my right to speak my mind, especially on political matters to some fear or some feeling of inferiority to some famed media personality. They fought and died so that a person like me could stand as an equal to one of them, to one of the elites, and demand that they answer for what they say and do.

That belief in my inherent equality to each and every other America, hell, each and every human being on the planet, is what sustains me through long and bitter arguments with those who make their contempt for me obvious. Everytime somebody tries to stick me in that pigeonhole, I stand strong in the belief that they have no right to force me to stay put where they shove me, and that my place in this world is my decision. I stand confident that somebody putting an 'R' besides their name doesn't make their arguments instantly more credible than mine, that in the end, the merits of the argument are what decide things best, and in the most lasting way.

I know for some of you, these last few years have been difficult, and you feel beat up. I can understand. The question is whether you stay feeling beat up, whether you stay defeated in your heart. Votes can be lost, elections can be lost, precious time and opportunities can be lost. All that said, the framers, whose legacy we celebrate, gave us the means to restore good government, and the rights necessary to stand up for the steps we would need to take to achieve that. They gave us the pathway towards these improvements. All we need to do is find the strength within ourselves to stand up for what we believe in, to stand up for what we believe to be right.

And then we just need the wisdom and the patience, the smarts and the eloquence to work out the differences between us, and everybody else who has seen fit to exercise their rights. It only works though, if you recognize that the person who is in your face has no more and no less of a right to be there in that public forum expressing their belief, petitioning for their causes and everything.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at July 4, 2011 7:57 PM
Comments
Comment #325299

stephen

you said

“I do not look at Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter, or anybody else, for that matter, and see somebody that it is beyond my right to hold accountable if they wrong me.”


ok stephen, how have glen beck, and ann coulter “wronged” you? oh do tell.

Posted by: dbs at July 5, 2011 12:37 PM
Comment #325300

stephen

you said

“Some folks recently challenged me as to how I could think myself fit to criticize such media personalities like Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter, given how big an audience they have, how much money they make.”

really stephen….cause that’s not the way i remember it. you were asked to give some examples as to what “vile” things glen beck said about the left, but chose to obfuscate instead. hey who am i to question, continue feeling picked on, and persecuted. it’s much more entertaining anyway.

Posted by: dbs at July 5, 2011 12:44 PM
Comment #325302

dbs-
I did give some examples of the vile things Beck said about us, and by extension, what they’ve done to wrong us. They’ve misrepresented our politics, our goals and aspirations.

You just weren’t paying attention. Go back and re-read the comments, and you’ll find it.

You have every right to question, but you had better be prepared for the answer.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 5, 2011 1:39 PM
Comment #325303

stephen


here is a paragraph from your link to the huffpost.

““Mr. Jones is not a member of any Communist Party or Marxist organization whatsoever, and has not expressed any support for any form of Communist or Marxist ideology for many years,” Sandler wrote. He added that such statements are “demonstrably and unequivocally false” and were made to “injure Mr. Jones in his professional and community standing.””

you say becks accusation that van jones is a communist is a lie? is that correct? read the paragraph again. what does it say.

“Mr. Jones is not a member of any Communist Party or Marxist organization whatsoever, and has not expressed any support for any form of Communist or Marxist ideology for many years,”

so let’s see if i understand this comment. he used to be a marxist. but isn’t anymore. or if you like he just hasn’t publicly voiced or shown support. he’s keeping a low profile. it tells me he’s still a comunist, but has learned to keep a lower profile.

becks accusations about jones are completely reasonable, whether you like them or not.

Posted by: dbs at July 5, 2011 3:04 PM
Comment #325304


dbs, that is like saying that Beck used to be psychotic, but now he is not. Accusations about Beck’s mental stability are equally reasonable.

Posted by: jlw at July 5, 2011 3:47 PM
Comment #325305

jlw

saying that van jones hasn’t shown any support for marxism or communisn in many years tells me he has in the past.

comparing becks status as a recovering drug addict is completely different. alcohol, and drug abuse are considered a disease. one which can be overcome and rehabilitated from. this would be becks situation. his past as a drug addict, does not make him psychotic by default, or unable to make a case, and back it up with evidence.

if you are saying marxism is a disease in which someone like jones can be rehabilitated from, then fine. i don’t recall him ever saying he had a change of heart, or that he had a disease, and had seen the error of his ways. he’s still a communist, just one who’s realized being openly communist will not get him anywhere.

an alcoholic is always an alcoholic, it just comes down to whether they decide to drink or not. jones just chooses to hide his drinking.

Posted by: dbs at July 5, 2011 4:13 PM
Comment #325308

dbs, the goal is to defend a liberal socialist at all cost; even if he is a communist revolutionary. My eyes begin to glaze over when reading these dissertations and I find myself trying to speed read to the bottom; and I am no speed reader. I guess some people believe much talk means intelligence.

SD’s opening statement, “Some folks recently challenged me as to how I could think myself fit to criticize such media personalities like Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter, given how big an audience they have, how much money they make.”

I believe the statement was that SD is jealous that he is still posting on WB and the Kos; while Beck and Coulter are very successful, and that his attacks on Beck and Coulter are based upon their success.

All of this stuff was hashed over in a previous post, but now SD feels he must continue the argument and try to explain why he said the things he said in the previous post…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 5, 2011 6:15 PM
Comment #325312

dbs,

Are you saying that a person can not modify, alter or completely change his political views over time? Are you saying that once a conservative, always a conservative, once a liberal, always a liberal, etc.? If so, then Ronald Reagan was a fraud. In his early years, he was a liberal, union organizer and official. In his later years, he was a free market conservative and anti-union. Was he a fraud? Did he actually change his political views or was he really a closet liberal and union sympathizer?

Posted by: Rich at July 5, 2011 8:38 PM
Comment #325319

dbs-

so let’s see if i understand this comment. he used to be a marxist. but isn’t anymore. or if you like he just hasn’t publicly voiced or shown support. he’s keeping a low profile. it tells me he’s still a comunist, but has learned to keep a lower profile.

You really think you could sneak that “or if you like” part past me? If we’re arguing things logically here, you have to prove a difference between publically expressed views and privately expressed one. You can’t simply choose it out of an argument from ignorance. The simplest theory here is that Van Jones has moderated his views since his college days. Reading that to mean that he’s really a cryptic communist would catch up many conservatives as well.

Insinuation isn’t good enough. Conspiracy theories aren’t good enough.

Marxism isn’t a disease, it’s a set of ideas, some of which I would agree are pretty naive or stupid. People can grow past that. By your argument I’m still a conservative, since once I was a strong supporter of Reagan and Bush.

If I can change my mind about your party, Van Jones can change his mind about his politics. Treating politics like a disease is just rhetoric excess. Of course, for some, rhetorical excess is all they’ve got to rely upon.

Conservativethinker-

My eyes begin to glaze over when reading these dissertations and I find myself trying to speed read to the bottom;

So that means you’re ignorant of my actual arguments? Oh, that sucks. I wouldn’t want to be in your shoes. Me, I often copy my rivals’ postings to wordpad so I can have them there, however tedious they might be, in order to respond to them.

You can’t criticize my arguments with any level of authority if all you do is simply skip to the end and respond with generalized rhetoric.

I believe the statement was that SD is jealous that he is still posting on WB and the Kos; while Beck and Coulter are very successful, and that his attacks on Beck and Coulter are based upon their success.

All of this stuff was hashed over in a previous post, but now SD feels he must continue the argument and try to explain why he said the things he said in the previous post…

And that’s the kind of argument you produce when you only skim, when you don’t read in any great detail.

The last post does have something to do with it, but it’s more that incredibly elitists thing you said about them being able to buy and sell me many times over, and about how it was all about jealousy, and how I should let their status cow me into silence by that logic.

This post, while it responds to you and Beck and Coulter in part, is really meant to encourage people to stand up for themselves, to see themselves as truly equal. It’s meant to encourage people to take control of their own destiny, and to insist on taking control of their country to the best of their abilities.

My starting point is Beck and Coulter, but the underlying philosophy goes far beyond one little controversy.

The guy who runs a factory should be considered no greater, no more qualified for deference, than the people whose river he might pollute. I believe that the woman whose business the BP spill sent into a downward spiral has every right for access to her government that the oil company executives have. I’ve phrased things similarly in other posts, that if Wall Street bigwigs con people, steal people’s money, they should suffer no better a fate than the thief who tries to empty your bank account with your ATM card.

And the big media personality who uses fallacies of logic, who get his facts wrong, whose rhetoric is ridiculous? Well, I feel I have the right to respond to them. Jealous or not, If I come at them with a truthful, well thought out argument, their status should not matter. If they are wrong they are wrong and if I am right, I am right.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 5, 2011 10:06 PM
Comment #325320

rich

i realize reagan was once a democrat. i also recall him saying that he didn’t leave the party, the party left him.
could van jones chage? i suppose so, but when looking at the people and organizations he affiliates himself with i’de have to say it’s not likely. IMO he’s learned to change his approach, or softened it up if you will in order to make it more palateable.

Posted by: dbs at July 5, 2011 10:12 PM
Comment #325321

stephen


“You really think you could sneak that “or if you like” part past me?”

oh gosh no!

“If I can change my mind about your party, Van Jones can change his mind about his politics.”

i don’t believe he has stephen. his words and associations don’t paint the picture of a man that has changed his views, but rather one that has changed his tactics.

http://www.theobamafile.com/_associates/VanJones.htm

“Of course, for some, rhetorical excess is all they’ve got to rely upon.”

yes i’ve noticed.

Posted by: dbs at July 5, 2011 10:28 PM
Comment #325322

CT

“the goal is to defend a liberal socialist at all cost; even if he is a communist revolutionary.”

i think what truely bothers me is that it is hard to tell those who are genuinely ignorant of the facts, and blindly follow, from those that are just unwilling to publicly own thier beliefs.

Posted by: dbs at July 5, 2011 10:34 PM
Comment #325324

dbs-
Let me quote from your Van Jones source:

The Founders were very clear that the Commander-in-Chief should be a “natural born” citizen. They were less clear in their definition of what that meant. But they sure as hell didn’t mean a natural born citizen of Kenya. At birth, Barack Obama was a Kenyan citizen and British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. He’s so proud of this fact, that he has it published on his own website — and his Indonesian citizenship status is still open to question.

Oh, dear. He wrote that?

Obama quote: “So let me say this as clearly as I can — the United States is not and will never be at war with Islam.” Unfortunately, Islam is at war with the United States. So the question needs to be asked, is Obama going to vigorously defend America, or be Islam’s lawyer? So far, it doesn’t look good. And for all you folks that parrot the “it’s a fringe, Islam is the religion of peace” nonsense — the “peaceful” Muslims could shut down the “radical fringe” Muslims in a heartbeat — if they wanted to.

And that?

Barack Obama has been described as a “son of Africa.” He spent 4 years in “mengaji” classes where he studied the Quran in its native Arabic, and from the age of 12 through 18, he was tutored in Marxism and radical black activism by a member of the Communist Party. Obama has said he believes, that when it comes to reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds. He also said, “In the wake of 9/11…I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” — Obama is no Jack Armstrong.

This is what he means by that, by the way.

Some people have a vision of American exceptionalism that is defined by a stubborn unwillingness to admit America’s made mistakes, or that America’s pre-eminence might be being threatened by economic policies which do more for the rich few than the middle class which forms our nation’s economic core.

Obama is an argument for American exceptionalism. He wasn’t born rich. His educational career is marked by great improvement and impressive achievement. He is the first African American President. Only in America!

But for some, he represents a threat to all that, and that’s a pity. What they really fear is that sweaty mass of bloody-minded anxiety that’s been cooked up over years of dogwhistles, race-baiting and red-baiting.

And you know something? This is the conservative’s response to an article that is mostly about how one man or woman can stand up before any other, and claim them as their equal. That is the exceptional thing about America, really. No lords and ladies, no requirement that you bow your head to somebody else the law sees as your better.

You are every bit the first class American that Barack Obama, the President of the United States is. In fact, the phrase used to describe the president, often enough, is “First Among Equals.”

That’s what’s beautiful about America, that an ordinary citizen can stand proud.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 6, 2011 12:09 AM
Comment #325330


Stephen, Our elitist founding fathers thought of themselves as superior to the common man. The common man scared the hell out of them, because the common men’s ideas of freedom went way beyond the bounds of what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

Even while the Constitution was being written and argued, the Founding Fathers were becoming fearful of the common people’s abilities to be good republicans. They were seeing common men, with parochial ideas being elected to state and local legislatures and it disturbed them immensely. You can see their fears addressed in the Constitution. They felt that only the elites could put their differences and their own desires aside and govern for the common good. They were wrong. Elitists can be just as self-centered and parochial as the common men. ‘What is best for the elites is what is best for all.’

Our claim to uniqueness is that a common man can, by his own abilities, climb through the ranks to become one of the elites, qualified to govern.

Posted by: jlw at July 6, 2011 1:40 PM
Comment #325331

jlw-
Well, I don’t deny that the framers had some elitists tendencies. Here’s the thing, though: the rights they established for citizens, though initially hampered by rather restrictive definitions of citizenship, expanded in their application as the definition of who was a citizen expanded from the rather narrow standard we started out from.

Put another way, rights granted to the elite in a Democracy almost never stay nicely exclusive to them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 6, 2011 2:58 PM
Comment #325333


Stephen, it is not a guarantee. Especially if current generations forget the sacrifices made by previous ones to obtain those rights and capital is able to elicit support, trending towards worship, from a large segment of the workers.

Posted by: jlw at July 6, 2011 4:17 PM
Comment #325336

jlw-
The very adaptability of a Democracy, and the freedom people have to backslide, makes nothing in a Democracy a guarantee. Despite that, though, we’ve been able to do much to improve the lot of the average citizen.

There is no magic cure for the failure of people to stand up for their interests. That’s something people have to learn, sometimes the hard way, if they learn it at all.

The question is, what do you think the proper response here, not generally by the public, but person by person? My entry here suggests one basic principle as part of how people deal with folks who run big business and big government alike: treat them as your equal, not as somebody you must pay unfounded deference towards. Stand up for your interests. There are times that your interests and theirs might coincide, but you shouldn’t simply assume that what makes a guy running a business richer is better for his employees or community.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 6, 2011 5:53 PM
Comment #325338

“…and capital is able to elicit support, trending towards worship, from a large segment of the workers.”

Deference to capital by workers is certainly a modern phenomena. However, I don’t think it is really worship. It is, in my opinion, fear. The fear of losing your job. The fear of mergers, corporate re-locations, outsourcing, etc. It is the instability of jobs. Don’t piss off the people that create jobs. Don’t tax away the opportunity for job creation. It is a message that resonates in an unstable economic environment.

But, it is not just workers that suffer from the uncertain economic environment, it is also corporations. I read a study a few years ago examining the factors related to the trend of corporations to hoard cash rather than invest in new production. The most significant factor was the volatility of the market.

Globalization and financialization of the economy has produced an uncertain and rapidly changing economic environment. What happens in China or Europe is just as important as what happens here in the US.


Posted by: Rich at July 6, 2011 7:49 PM
Comment #325346

The Fourth Stands for Equality. Only after you drank that fifth.

Posted by: tom humes at July 7, 2011 12:14 PM
Comment #325370

tom humes-
In your haste to make a joke at my expense, have you just said that all men are not created equal?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 7, 2011 9:49 PM
Comment #325389

SD

Your reading skills have sunk to a lower level. Where did I say that?

More of the same lack of discernment from the southpaw-in-chief.

Posted by: tom humes at July 8, 2011 12:11 PM
Comment #325404

tom humes-
My title is a reference to the Fourth of July, the birth of our country. The Fourth of July stands for our declaring all men to be created equal, and it’s that equality I am speaking of.

So, do I have to be drunk in order to believe in that principle?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 8, 2011 5:20 PM
Comment #325407

SD

Your version of equality is not as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

We are not all equal only born with equality to pursue freedom.

We are created equal and endowed by God with rights nobody can take away. And those are: “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. That is not what you are touting in your above piece.

The equality you talk of is not what the Declaration of Independence is talking about. Two totally different concepts.

Posted by: tom humes at July 8, 2011 6:01 PM
Comment #325451

tom humes-
The beauty of this argument is that it’s utterly unresolveable. Except on certain facts, that is.

To say that a right is inalienable, is not to say that it is automatically enforced, or taken advantage of.

You cariacture my position by claiming that what I’m saying is that we’re equal in all regards. NO. That’s not what I said. Here’s what I said: As an American, I have the right to stand up to these people, like Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck, and speak my mind. You can do the same with President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and others, despite the fact that their status and wealth are far beyond yours.

Does that mean you or I are guaranteed to win the debate, or that we automatically deserve the same high profile to do so? No. I’m not claiming that if I go after them with a stupid argument that I shouldn’t get shot down, nor that it should be my right to demand an opportunity to stand toe to toe with them in a high profile debate.

But for my small part, I should not be intimidated into not offering my opinion, simply because they have more money, more power, or higher status and regard.

The equality I talk about is that as private citizen, me and my other private citizen friends can go out there and stand up for ourselves, express those inalienable rights, instead of just resigning ourselves to defer our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to there. The equality I’m talking about is about having the guts to look some rich, powerful guy in the eye, and say, that despite all you can do to so many people, I will stand here, and speak out against what you’re doing to harm my interests, and I’m going to demand that in a dispute between the two of us, I should get a fair hearing, and a fair decision, based on the facts and the law.

I don’t need that rich man’s fortune in my pocket, for the equality I’m talking about. Nor do I need him cast down at my feet. He can keep his riches, I will compete to gain my fortune on my own terms. But justices should be blind, and my rights should not be discarded for the sake of his interests.

Now, I don’t feel that this idea is far from from what the Framers and the Founding Fathers spoke of. You’re free to disagree, to put words in my mouth that are irrelevant to my actual position, but the equality I seek is equality as a citizen, not equality of net worth or socioeconomic status.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 9, 2011 10:35 AM
Comment #325476

SD

Replace equality with the word freedom and I will agree that we can stand up to someone. Also remove the rich person thing. It has nothing to do with riches.

Posted by: tom humes at July 9, 2011 2:41 PM
Comment #325492

Stephen,

You do not better yourself by debating fools. You are not intellectually enriched by reading words placed against you in hate, and without thought. These are not wasps with stingers for your mind, they are flies in the muck and foul earth, and with a desire to drown you in it.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 9, 2011 4:33 PM
Comment #325535

Marysdude-
Thanks, but if nobody confronts the fools, what’s to stop their foolishness?

tom humes-
There is no freedom without equality. If a rich man can get away with something I cannot and should not, then they can take our freedom, can leave us powerless. If I cannot stand and look that person eye to eye, then all the freedoms I am said to have are empty promises.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 10, 2011 11:53 AM
Post a comment