Quotes of the day

posted at 10:42 pm on February 24, 2010 by Allahpundit

“In the end, the core unifying theme of the Tea Partiers is populist rage, and this is the core theme in Stack’s ramblings, whether the rage is directed at corporate titans (‘plunderers’), the government (‘totalitarian’) or individual politicians (‘liars’).

“I don’t doubt that Tea Partiers are on balance on the right, and if their movement ever crystallizes into a political party that will be its location. But until the requisite winnowing happens, a person with Stack’s fuzzy ideology wouldn’t feel terribly alone at a big Tea Party.

“I emphasize that I’m talking about his ideology, not his penchant for flying planes into buildings. Still, some of the ingredients of that penchant — a conspiratorial bent, a deep and personal sense of oppression, an attendant resentful rage — can be found in the movement, if mainly on its fringes. There are some excitable Tea Partiers out there.

“You could, on the one hand, follow this logic to the conclusion that Joseph Stack was the first Tea Party terrorist.”

***
Click the image to watch.

stack2


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Let’s see:

1. Tea Partiers express populist rage.

2. Stack expressed populist rage.

3. Therefore, Stack was a Tea Partier.

This is just breathtaking logic.

ZenDraken on February 25, 2010 at 1:50 AM

miring the communist quote in ambiguity

richard wright offers another example of something i keep seeing in reference to stack’s self-identification with communism in what is essentially the epitaph he chose for himself:

I think the overall point of those two references is that capitalism, as it’s being corruptly practiced, is no better than communism, and may be worse.

another dissembler at true/slant characterized the couplet as “being in character with the tea party to slam capitalism and communism equally”.

personally, it would make me physically ill to perform such a work of pretension. to misrepresent someone else’s clear language knowing full well what is plainly written, and knowing that others could read it for themselves; i wouldn’t feel like i had pushed the rhetorical ball down the court one inch. as i hit “send” i would be overcome by the slimy feeling that i was putting my cheapness on display and that i was squandering the esteem of people who might have respected me.

here’s what stack essentially put on his gravestone:

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

i feel like i’m almost insulting the reader by pointing out that the comparison is not, as it is portrayed by progressives desperate to dis-aggregate themselves from joseph stack and frame him as a member of the “tea party” right, a statement which disfavorably compares capitalism to communism nor one which condemns both equally. it quite simply says communism good, capitalism bad. a simple dichotemy which quotes the communist credo and sets it as a superlative standard against a jaundiced parody of capitalism.

it’s also worth it to note that this little couplet didn’t spring from joe stack’s mind. he absorbed it from standard lefty boilerplate sloganeering. one often hears it abbreviated as “human need, not corporate greed!” at progressive protests. it’s been around since almost as far back as when marx first stated the credo.

so, here is a selection of uses of the phrase on various progressive forums:

commondreams newsletter: bystander July 24th, 2009 12:55 pm

san diego indymedia: hoxha | 09.05.2003 01:00

democrat underground: Lilith Velkor Thu Jun-23-05 07:23 PM
and
boobooday Tue Oct-28-08 07:46 PM

socialist philosopher, slovoj zizek: To each according to his greed

jesus’ general: Socialism for Mavericks: To Each According to his Greed

matthew yglesias: Not As Stupid As Will Allen | July 11, 2008 2:32 PM

salon: walter kern, The year of inverted socialism

But there will never be any way of knowing for sure what he meant.

except if you mean from the document he left behind, explicating his motives and underlying beliefs at length and in detail.

sort of like how we’ll never know for sure whether alger hiss was a soviet spy. actually, to complete the metaphor to wright’s article, you’d have to add that because alger hiss’ allegiances are ambiguous, it’s safer to classify him as a mccarthyite.

eh on February 25, 2010 at 1:51 AM

I think we should send our garbage to Glen Beck for his attacks on Debra Medina.

Spathi on February 25, 2010 at 2:06 AM

I think we should send our garbage to Glen Beck for his attacks on Debra Medina.

Spathi on February 25, 2010 at 2:06 AM

Nice try, Paulnut. Beck never attacked her, she attacked herself as a Truther.

Enoxo on February 25, 2010 at 2:09 AM

Well it\’s official Bennett. Rush. Hannity. and Levin are wrong in going after Beck.Kathleen Parker, \”The GOP\’s misguided hunt for heretics\”If you agree with her you must be wrong.One of my rules, if I agree with Teddy Kennedy(GWB)I must be wrong and he was.

lilium on February 25, 2010 at 3:37 AM

sort of like how we’ll never know for sure whether alger hiss was a soviet spy. actually, to complete the metaphor to wright’s article, you’d have to add that because alger hiss’ allegiances are ambiguous, it’s safer to classify him as a mccarthyite.

eh on February 25, 2010 at 1:51 AM

Ahh yeah, that’s the money right there.

Hannibal Smith on February 25, 2010 at 3:52 AM

Hear that noise? It’s the dying breath of old journalism. The NYT thought they were forever ecsconced. It took them a while, but they finally figured out–they’re dying. Like all dying beasts, the unsheath their claws as they take their last breath.

Buh-bye, NYT. We won’t miss you. Good luck getting an interview with Breitbart when you finally go Air America.

Grace_is_sufficient on February 25, 2010 at 5:15 AM

that article was a remarkable piece of scat.

rob verdi on February 25, 2010 at 6:16 AM

Stack was a quack.
Ducks quack.
Therefore Stack was a duck.
It’s all so clear now.

hewhoone on February 25, 2010 at 6:19 AM

Bill Ayres and his cop-killing bomb factory cohorts must have been Tea Partiers too, amirite?

UncleOlaf on February 25, 2010 at 6:37 AM

“You could, on the one hand, follow this logic to the conclusion that Joseph Stack was the first Tea Party terrorist.”

Stack’s last blog posting also touched on hatred for GWB and big uncaring corporations. For these reasons, Stack could just as easily be classified as the first Obama terrorist- sending the message that doesn’t come from a teleprompter.

highhopes on February 25, 2010 at 6:45 AM

“You could, on the one hand, follow this logic to the conclusion that Joseph Stack

barry obama is a socialist

Except only liberals are logical so us idiots just jump to wild conclusions.

peacenprosperity on February 25, 2010 at 6:45 AM

Let’s see, “rage directed at corporate titans” and “a deep and personal sense of oppression…”

Now, I know that there is a political party out there fomenting a class war against “the rich” and “the Fat Cats in banking and on Wall Street”, as well as the perpetual victim mentality (so the government can rescue them) among its followers. Hmmm… I’ll get back to you when I remember what party that is.

Logic on February 25, 2010 at 6:53 AM

I am glad MSNBC does not have any viewers.

percysunshine on February 25, 2010 at 7:27 AM

If this is the best you can do, Allahpundit,
get a new job – elsewhere.

We get enough of the Left’s blathering on our own without you mussying up this website with more of it.

Lockstein13 on February 25, 2010 at 7:33 AM

I think we should send our garbage to Glen Beck for his attacks on Debra Medina.

Spathi on February 25, 2010 at 2:06 AM

Get a clue, moron. She said something stupid and beyond the pale.

bill30097 on February 25, 2010 at 7:38 AM

The poor thinking skills is astounding. His manifesto had as many left ideas as right ones.

I suppose it’s the anarchist act, but I’m still quite amazed that anyone with a shred of intelligence would actually go so far as to connect it to a group, when it’s quite obvious he had nothing to do with teaparties.

AnninCA on February 25, 2010 at 7:44 AM

Anybody know who runs MSNBC? Whomever it is, he should get the award for most incompetent executive in America. How can one watch their employees fumble around and drive their company’s market share down, with consistency, over a period years and not make some sweeping corrections?

pugwriter on February 25, 2010 at 7:53 AM

There are some excitable Tea Partiers out there.

And you know this, How, exactly?

JusDreamin on February 25, 2010 at 7:59 AM

Headline: Tax Cheat Appointed to Secretary of the Treasury

Headline: Tax Cheat Nominated to be Secretary of HHS

Headline: Serial asset-hider and a tax offender heads Ways and Means Committee

Headline: Frustrated Taxpayer Flies Airplane into Federal Building

Headline: Pundits dumbfounded, DUMBFOUNDED why someone would fly an airplane into a Federal Building.

Forgivable?.. No

Understandable?.. Yes

Enevitable?.. Absolutely

franksalterego on February 25, 2010 at 8:02 AM

Finding this on MSNBC is like looking in the toilet and finding a turd. Just because there’s a good chance it’s there doesn’t mean you should look.

Spider79 on February 25, 2010 at 8:14 AM

This would be funny if it weren’t so Maoist in nature. If given the chance, our government would eagerly pervert every source of information to promote their agenda. MSNBC and its ilk are already corrupted.

Watch Chavez for your future.

archer52 on February 25, 2010 at 8:19 AM

The article was written by Robert Wright, Editor of the Progressive Realist, among other things. Enough said.

Deanna on February 25, 2010 at 8:22 AM

By Robert Wright’s and David Shuster’s terrific, reversible, inductive reasoning we must all now, finally, accept that William Ayers was/is the first Democrtic Party terrorist.

Doorgunner on February 25, 2010 at 8:28 AM

To determine the authenticity of a document, it must be compared to all other sources.

The “rant” attributed to Joe Stack does not have documented sourcing for comparison against other correspondences and writings known to be Stack’s own.

Joe Stack’s adult daughter has stated that this “rant” does not resemble her father’s mannerisms in style and content.

Yes, Stack’s first wife said that he had a “hang-up” over the IRS.

Just as relevant is the fact that Joe Stack’s clients included interests involved in the Department of Homeland Security, national defense and the federal intelligence community.

The only information broadcasted regarding the airplane flown into the Austin IRS bldg. is being released by the IRS.

Stack’s second wife refuses to speak. Her neighbor assuming the role as her personal spokesman is an IRS agent whom she never had a friendship with until the day of the collision. She is being sued by the second wife of the IRS victim, the second wife also being an IRS employee. The law suit was announced as having “nothing to do about the money” but as a “requirement” in order to prevent any release of autopsies from the scene. (BTW, why was the day shift IRS employee on break at 9 a.m.?) Eye witness states that the pilot looked comatose, leaned back in static position. Remote control of aircraft is part and parcel of today’s technology.

Every single person who knew Joe Stack has only complimentary recollections regarding his personality and their associations. No one who knew Joe Stack has stepped forward to substantiate anything derogatory about his political views, stipulating instead that Mr. Stack had never brought up or discussed politics with friends.

So when arguing over “Stack’s” manifesto, realize the assumption being made based from the single source of information, the IRS that had all the evidence prepared for immediate release after a collision that conveniently occurred when all emergency vehicles and personnel were across the street from the scene.

YES, Joe Stack may have done this according to the story. He may well have been set up to do this, whether drugged or not, whether alive or not when the plane collided. And “this” terrorism is a horrendous crime against Americans.

Studying the complete scenario would be the responsible objective of investigative reporters.

Projecting propaganda as the complete body of evidence is irresponsible. Information from a single source, particularly from a source with 100% vested interest in the case, is only that. No more.

Where is the physical evidence proving the IRS story? Handwriting experts including those for the defense? Fingerprints? Phraseology (already discredited)? No transparency permitted, all victims DNA and autopsy evidence is prohibited from being released. Now THAT is a story to discuss.

maverick muse on February 25, 2010 at 8:29 AM

I have been to several Tea Parties and rage isn’t even part of the vocabulary. How is it that outsiders that won’t even come to an event are the ones who define the movement? Keith Olbermann has had more temper tantrums then tea party participants.

Cindy Munford on February 25, 2010 at 8:34 AM

IlikedAUH2O on February 25, 2010 at 1:40 AM

I got a dismayed email so I would like to ask your indulgence in changing my post above..

Replace the first line tyrant reference with:

A bus load of angry campers.

And the last line about miracles with:

This leader will surely engage the people at the first opportunity and we hope that they will be patient for the next seven years of progress as their children remain behaved while paying for it for the next seventy.

I forgot the liberal axiom that there are two groups of people whom you can’t hurt: Whites and Conservatives. They are impervious to pain.

IlikedAUH2O on February 25, 2010 at 8:36 AM

maverick muse on February 25, 2010 at 8:29 AM

That’s really interesting. I haven’t kept up with newly release information about this but if what I read originally is true it doesn’t make sense to kill yourself and others for the possible tax onf $12,500. But it’s nice that the pundits aren’t missing their opportunity to smear those with opposing political beliefs.

Cindy Munford on February 25, 2010 at 8:43 AM

Look guys, MSNBC is number one for a reason.
Get over it.

Dorvillian on February 25, 2010 at 8:56 AM

MSNBC has ratings so low a toilet wouldn’t accept them. If they weren’t on here so much, no one would know they even exist. The lemmings that watch them are even embarrassed.

volsense on February 25, 2010 at 8:59 AM

A Leftist whacko a Tea Partier?????????

DL13 on February 25, 2010 at 9:00 AM

at least he didn’t call us ‘tea baggers’ or make some stupid innudendo comments during this rant

Shawn92101 on February 25, 2010 at 9:09 AM

Therefore; Hitler was the “Tea Party” founder!
Aaaaaaaahhaaaaaahhaaaaahhaaaaaahhaaaaaa!

Cybergeezer on February 25, 2010 at 9:12 AM

Shamoo is a Tea Party’er too!
Aaaaaaaahhaaaaaahhaaaaahhaaaaaahhaaaaaa!

Cybergeezer on February 25, 2010 at 9:14 AM

Ahmanutjob is leading the Tea Party in Iran, too!
Aaaaaaaahhaaaaaahhaaaaahhaaaaaahhaaaaaa!

Cybergeezer on February 25, 2010 at 9:15 AM

Let them keep dissing the tea party people. My 88 yo mother and I went to the first party last April 15th. It was in a pretty liberal town and there were hundreds attending. We the people are the tea party. The more they say, the less we listen.

Kissmygrits on February 25, 2010 at 9:21 AM

NBC and MSNBC are propaganda tools just doing what they are geared to do. Ratchet up hate and rage against anyone who disagrees with The One. We didn’t elect a president, we elected a king. NBC/MSNBC are his paltry subjects, nothing more, nothing less.

volsense on February 25, 2010 at 9:24 AM

That killer whale at SeaWorld that killed that trainer? Tea Partier.

Akzed on February 25, 2010 at 9:28 AM

By Robert Wright’s and David Shuster’s terrific, reversible, inductive reasoning we must all now, finally, accept that William Ayers was/is the first Democrtic Party terrorist.

Doorgunner on February 25, 2010 at 8:28 AM

What are you talking about? The KKK has Billy Ayers beat by more than half a century, chronologically.

Count to 10 on February 25, 2010 at 9:49 AM

That killer whale at SeaWorld that killed that trainer? Tea Partier.

Akzed on February 25, 2010 at 9:28 AM

And gay.

uknowmorethanme on February 25, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Therefore; Hitler was the “Tea Party” founder!
Aaaaaaaahhaaaaaahhaaaaahhaaaaaahhaaaaaa!

Cybergeezer on February 25, 2010 at 9:12 AM

I thought it was John Wilkes Booth.

SKYFOX on February 25, 2010 at 10:02 AM

Everything is a stretch and a leap with these idiots from the Left, from their attempts at logic, to their grab at governing.
This is where I disagree with Beck. It’s not progressive, it’s leaping. They should be called Leapers.

ontherocks on February 25, 2010 at 10:14 AM

We wonder if somehow what was and is a wonderful and populist free-market uprising is in danger of becoming allied with high-profile conservative proponents of the American military industrial complex. We wonder how one can support the gigantic government infrastructure necessary for a pax Americana and still somehow be in favor of lower taxes, less government and a shut down of the Federal Reserve that in large part funds the overseas Anglo-American empire. Check your premises, Ayn Rand famously wrote.

Sarah Palin is the keynote speaker for the upcoming Tea Party Convention. Palin is so far as we can tell, a firm supporter of the war on terror with most if not all of its domestic security excrescences. Scott Brown (a Tea Party favorite), who was just elected in Massachusetts, was apparently a military man for 30 years and notes his service in virtually every other interview. Neither Palin nor Brown can be considered Jeffersonian republicans, even if one was willing to stretch the definition. They seem more likely to promote American adventurism. They want small government at home, but big government adventurism abroad. They are domestic constitutionalists and (in a sense) global imperialists.

Regarding the Washingtonian take on the Tea Party movement and members as the “Tea Party of Nope?

If the august reporters and editors of the Post think that what is occurring now is simply a time of negativism, we would like to make the case that the reality is exactly the reverse. Today is a time of renewed freedom, of economic literacy, of the acceptance of human action over the bogus blandishments of the Nanny state. Today is the beginning of the era of “yup.”

maverick muse on February 25, 2010 at 10:45 AM

Straight from B. Hussein Obama.

daesleeper on February 25, 2010 at 10:52 AM

Let’s see:

1. Tea Partiers express populist rage.

2. Stack expressed populist rage.

3. Therefore, Stack was a Tea Partier.

This is just breathtaking logic.

ZenDraken on February 25, 2010 at 1:50 AM

Reminds me of a joke I got the other day…

Here’s a little redneck humor to start the workweek:
Two rednecks decided that they weren’t going anywhere in life and thought they should go to college to get ahead. The first went in to see the counselor, who told him to take math, history and logic.
“What’s logic?” the first redneck asked.
The professor answered, “Let me give you an example. Do you own a weed eater?”
“I sure do.”
“Then I can assume, using logic, that you have a yard,” replied the professor.
“That’s real good!” said the redneck.
The professor continued, “Logic will also tell me that since you have a yard, you also own a house.”
Impressed, the redneck said, “Amazing!”
“And since you own a house, logic dictates that you have a wife.”
“That’s Betty Mae! This is incredible!” The redneck was catching on.
“Finally, since you have a wife, logically I can assume that you are heterosexual,” said the professor.
“You’re absolutely right! Why that’s the most fascinatin’ thing I ever heard! I can’t wait to take that logic class!”
The redneck, proud of the new world opening up to him, walked back into the hallway where his friend was still waiting.
“So what classes are ya takin’?” asked the friend.
“Math, history and logic!” replied the first redneck.
“What in tarnation is logic?” asked his friend.
“Let me give you an example. Do ya own a weed eater?” asked the first redneck.
“No,” his friend replied.
“You’re queer, ain’t ya?”

Parade on February 25, 2010 at 10:52 AM

Parade on February 25, 2010 at 10:52 AM

Ha!

It also reminds me of the witch scene

Sir Bedevere: “How do you know she’s a Tea Partier?”

Peasant crowd: “She looks like one!”

ZenDraken on February 25, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Unconstitutional Statist interests (within and outside of the Republican Party) recognize the Tea Party populist protest against government corruption as a threat, hence demonizing the Tea Party as anti-American, terrorists, even as ignorant rubes.

I have found that The Daily Bell (“A Daily Compendium of Free-Market Thinking” — an independent non-commercial site) expounds Constitutional modern application of the political and economic ideologies taught by Jefferson and Barzun. Staff Reports expose a Dominant Social Theme explicated through a Free-Market Analysis.

The Daily Bell is extremely illuminating reference material for those who appreciate scholarly research written for the public audience.

The Tea Party movement could be factionalizing. Many on the libertarian side may not like Scott Brown’s politics and feel he used the movement as way to build momentum without actually subscribing to its values. They might take the position that Brown, with his high profile and success, represents larger forces trying to turn the Tea Party movement into an adjunct of organized politics – and that this effort has been going on for a while.

This is not to say that the Tea Party movement has not already had a greatly positive impact on America’s electoral psyche. Or that it is in any sense a spent force (it’s likely still growing and will have continued, important impacts). We think it is a significant movement and there is plenty of life left in it. Yes, we think it has accomplished great things and will, in a sense, accomplish much more. We think many of those involved are most sincere and passionate. But certainly for organizers and dedicated participants, life could become more difficult for the Tea Party movement as it becomes less amorphous. Political organizers will move in order to take advantage of the money and enthusiasm of its members.

Think of the Tea Party as a kind of political equivalent of the 1960’s countercultural movement – just post Woodstock. That was when it ceased to be a kind of generational expression and became instead a vehicle that could support all sorts of commercialization. There was lots of money to be made. It could be the Tea Party is approaching that point now – a point of exploitation by the powers-that-be. The Tea Party movement is the first big populist movement of the 21st century, and populist movements, being popular, tend to sprawl across the board, meaning different things to different people. Eventually they are ripe for exploitation.

You know, we could tell this past year that something was happening. We sensed that the Tea Party movement was becoming at least partially co-opted because the high profile names suddenly seemed to change from people we’d never heard of to people we had. And we noted that pro-military establishment commentators like Sean Hannity were styling themselves as Tea Party supporters and saw how mainstream political strategists were suddenly proclaiming their fealty to the movement and we began to wonder if a schism was in the offing.

We wrote we didn’t “get it.” We didn’t see how you could support America’s military-industrial complex and be pro-freedom and smaller government at the same time. We wrote about these views several times in order to unpack what was and remains a confusing situation because we think the Tea Party now falls into at least three camps. There are those political organizers and commentators who are manipulating the Tea Party movement in order to reap benefits for the Republican party. Then there is the libertarian group that believes in what they perceive as the foundational profile of the Tea Party movement as an anti-tax, pro-freedom movement. Finally, there are likely millions of Tea Party supporters who have a “big tent” approach to the Tea Party’s goal and are perhaps satisfied with its anti-government flavor (as it pertains especially to domestic programs) and “give ‘em hell” mentality. Whether “conservative” or not, they may make up the biggest group of all – and are no less sincere or motivated than any others.

Because of this latter group, we are not willing to say that Scott Brown’s victory had no larger import – or was not in some sense a triumph. We think there are lots of Tea Party people out there who simply see Brown’s victory as proof of a resurgent movement of resentment and irritation unleashed on the full political spectrum. That’s why we wrote that in a sense Scott Brown’s importance was perhaps more symbolic than realistic. Because so far as we can tell, realism may dictate something approaching business-as-usual. He certainly doesn’t have the hallmarks of a radical “change agent.” His patron seems to be Mitt Romney.

…But you know what – in the long run it may hardly matter … The MOVEMENT that cast up Scott Brown is only going to get bigger and more powerful. In fact to call it a movement is doing it a disservice. It is a process, sparked by the Internet and fanned by the winds of economic and social discontent.

Perhaps those libertarians who seem upset over what they see as the ongoing hijacking of the Tea Party movement could take a step back. Consider, please: This technology of mass communication – the Internet – is just beginning to bite. History shows us that movements of mass communication like this one can roll forward for decades and even centuries like Tsunamis, leveling social controls and creating more and more space for freer societies.

Brown’s Tea Party Schism

maverick muse on February 25, 2010 at 11:12 AM

MSNBC feels compelled to remind us that they are the product of a merger between two incompetent organizations.

landlines on February 25, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Populist rage against somebody is a connection? I guess that means that Palistinian terrorists are Tea Partiers. It is amazing the links that you can deduce when you make them up.

Choose_Freedom on February 25, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Parade on February 25, 2010 at 10:52 AM

If only they could be that entertaining!

Cybergeezer on February 25, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Have Tea Party leaders started enriching uranium yet?

Cybergeezer on February 25, 2010 at 11:57 AM

I see where the widow of the man he killed is suing Joe Stacks’s family so his estate. Suppose the man’s real political ideology – identity, may come out in discovery?

I don’t think it’s a privacy matter of how he was registered to vote? If he is registered to vote. Or if he signed petitions, attended any meeting hosted by for example organizing for America etc…

The problem with trying to tie this guy to a Tea Party, it’s probably going to be real easy in the coming months to ask those people who knew him well if he was a Democrat or not etc. The line he used about Captalism can be found online on an Anarchy website…Tea Party people are supposed to be Anarchist now because Joe Stack regurgitated something he read?

This is kind of sloppy writing even for the NYC. Reminds me of how the online community of lefty bloggers jumped the gun on the census takers death in Kentucky. They have a big plate of crow to eat now.

Unless Joe Stack openly identified with or attended a tea party this is just a smear job.

Dr Evil on February 25, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Sooo… Lesseee…

1. Babies are on the decline in the UK
2. Storks are on the decline in the UK

Therefore…

Storks bring babies in the UK!

GENIUS!!!

stvnscott on February 25, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Didn’t this guy and MSNBC crop and cut images of a Blackman carrying a gun at a town hall so they could portray it as EVIL RASIST!!! white man AGAINST Obama!

Why yes it is!

As someone noted earlier, this guy Shuster, he’s a dead ringer for PeeWee Herman all growed up!

DSchoen on February 25, 2010 at 3:50 PM