Updated to add information about The Island of Alameda closing shop (scroll to the end)
Of course in the days of Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and breaking news nothing stays fresh for long. Seriously, I literally just commuted home and had dinner and had missed Tweeting immediately about the officialness of John Russo being offered the City Manager job. You can see the details of the contract here. Big numbers are, of course, base salary among other things. He is being offered $215K as a base salary, with $10K increases every year if his performance “meets expectations” or better every year. The contract starts June of this year and ends in 2016. He’ll also be getting $15K every year in a 457 deferred compensation plan in addition to the standard PERS benefits, health benefits, etc.
To compare, Debra Kurita’s base salary was $195K, Lisa Goldman as Acting City Manager recently got a bit of a raise to compensate her on the additional work she was taking on, it was in the $200Ks, but I can’t find the agenda item right now, and Ann Marie Gallant’s base salary was $250K. But more on this next week, because that’s not what this post is about…
Apparently in addition to not really understanding what “fair use” is, our media type people don’t understand what “courtesy photo” means either. Although, brief digression, on the subject of fighting for your right to party, if you haven’t seen the extended cut of the Beastie Boys Fight for your Right revisted, it’s totally worth watching for the Will Farrell cowbell cameo alone.
Anyway, in the Alameda Sun yesterday on the front page there was a story about the former Alameda firefighter who a jury awarded damages to for, I’m guessing because the article is unclear, wrongful termination? discrimination? it’s unclear from the actual article itself. Essentially the article is about the history of the case, judge granting summary judgment to dismiss, summary judgment granted, appeal, appeal granted, jury trial, and now the result. Puzzlingly, the only photo that the Alameda Sun decided to run was that of another firefighter, not the one who sued. Granted, the other firefighter did play a role which led to the suing Firefighter’s dismissal, if any photo would be of interest it would be that of the guy who just won almost $700K in damages and attorney fees.
Instead this is the photo that was run with the caption “Courtesy Photo” for attribution.
You see, when you run any photos you generally have to provide credit to the photographer. Sometimes people give you photos to run and instead of running a photo of Joe Blow and then putting underneath “Photo by Joe Blow” you can write “Courtesy Photo” to dress it up a little better. “Courtesy Photo” implies that the photo was either (1) given to the reporter by the actual photographer or (2) given to the reporter by the subject of the photo. In this case, neither of those things occurred.
The photo, for those that perused the Otaez Series, was part of that set that was published without the permission of the original photographer. The photo is cropped from the original size but that, of course, does not change who actually “owns” the photo: which is the person who took the photos. While it is unclear if Action Alameda actually received any ad revenue because the photo was either downloaded by the Alameda Sun or given to the Alameda Sun by Action Alameda, the result of Action Alameda posting the photos ended in exactly what I suggested would happen, that Action Alameda trampled on the original owner’s ability to sell the photos if there was some market value to them.
The Alameda Sun publishing the photos in their paper, which they generate ad revenue from, has monetized on this photo and cut the original photographer out of the equation. Apparently, this is a fairly common occurrence of reporters snatching photographs from the Internet and using them without attribution. From a blog post from Laughing Squid in 2007, the author (and photographer) noticed that the San Francisco Examiner had used a photo he had uploaded to Flickr — a photo sharing site — without attribution simply using the “Courtesy Photo” to identify the photo.
One commenter gave a good explanation of what “Courtesy Photo” means:
“Courtesy photo” is newspaper speak for “Provided to us by the source”. For example, publicity photos provided to a drama critic by a theatre company or a candidate’s headshot distributed by the campaign. Is it possible that someone working on behalf of the campaign gave them the photo without attribution?
As I pointed out above, the photo in the Alameda Sun was neither provided by the subject of the photo nor the original owner. The good news is that in the Laughing Squid case, the SF Examiner apologized for their mistake, ran a correction, and paid for use of the photo. Let’s see if the Alameda Sun will do the same.
And speakin of media type people, given this enormous gaffe by our local newspaper, it is with great disappointment when I read that Michele Ellson was closing up her news site, The Island, this morning. What I have appreciated about her work over these past few years is that she filled a news void that was missing in Alameda. Even with all the blogs and newspapers around, Michele was writing amazingly in-depth news pieces and adding great information into the political dialogue. Michele, you will be missed and thank you thank you thank you for your many years of service to the community. I’m not sure if anyone can really fill the gap that Michele will leave behind, but it will be interesting to see if anyone is really going to try.
Thank you Michele.
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
What a surprise! Why they even bothered with that sham of an interview process is beyond me. Queen Marie is starting to make Queen Bev look like small potatoes when it comes to empire building.
Comment by Denise Shelton — April 29, 2011 @ 6:51 am
enormous gaffe! more like enormous guffaw
Comment by Jack Richard — April 29, 2011 @ 8:42 am
Oh my, it looks like its going to be a long four years for you two.
Comment by John P. — April 29, 2011 @ 10:31 am
Why is everyone picking on the firefighters?
Comment by Adam Gillitt — April 29, 2011 @ 10:36 am
It is sad to me that Michele’s closing down of The Island News will leave such a huge gap in the quality of local journalism. Alameda deserves better than the under-resourced step-child of a news conglomerate and the uneven coverage of a locally-owned but not always professional weekly.
Will others step in to fill the gap with fair and insightful daily reporting? It is a big task, and with so many disparate efforts competing with one another it will be difficult to cover what Michele did so well.
Comment by Jon Spangler — April 29, 2011 @ 11:37 am
The Sun article lost me. It described the initial incident incompletely and then jumped to summary judgment in court without filling in how the guy went from filing a complaint to apparently no longer being an employee of the City.
When Al De Witt’s seat became vacant Frank Matarrese supported Marylin Ashcraft and was stubbornly committed to voting for her from start to finish. Mayor Johnson eventually broke the deadlock and supported Marie. I don’t doubt that Marie Gilmore may have always been predisposed to John Russo, not just because they are friends but because she has always believed in his ultimate competence.
We don’t know details of the panel discussions or the closed door council meeting and rounds of voting, if there was more than one. Only choosing somebody other than Russo would have prevented the finger pointing and snarky accusations. I wish that there was a fixed schedule for making closed door deliberations public at the earliest time possible. Who knows what the real story is. As it is, everyone is free to presume it was a foregone conclusion from day one and to accuse anybody who thought otherwise of being a dupe.
I am looking forward to John Russo working in Alameda and reserve judgment about empire building until there is greater evidence to justify that accusation. Sorry, but neither the leave of Gallant or this appointment are definitive on that account.
If that’s not good enough for the newly formed Alameda Citizens Task Force for More Transparent Transparency they can just start demanding birth certificates and SAT scores.
Comment by M.I. — April 29, 2011 @ 3:41 pm
While I signed an “i will not disclose. . .” with the City, without giving anyone any specifics I can attest to two things: No one told the panel I was on how to vote, who was “preferred” or anything remotely like that, and We were asked to give the Council our “take” on the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate after our interviews with them, and read out what we had independently noted – most of which found concurrence among the members of the group. I felt that our assessment was fair, un-sullied, and was used by the Council, with the assessments of the other two panels to help them in their decision making, not to make any decisions for them. My birth certificate and college records are open to all.
Comment by Kate Quick — April 29, 2011 @ 4:01 pm
http://www.theislandofalameda.com/2011/04/thank-you-alameda/
The Island is irreplaceable … amazed (but not surprised) to see the appreciation for Michelle’s work. Somehow, I just don’t think we would see a similar show of support should ANY of the other blogs around town (incl this) decide to call it a day.
Maybe a clarion call to Lauren to take over from Michelle? Probably hard to do (given the overarching tone of the posts), but worth trying …
Comment by Alastair B — April 29, 2011 @ 9:35 pm
@Kate–I don’t doubt that the citizens chosen to take part were on the up and up. The point is that from what I can see, our mayor and city council routinely puts together these dog and pony shows whenever a big issue is on the table and then goes ahead and does what they wanted to in the first place, like in the case of the theatre complex which I supported. It’s not just the current administration. It just seems like that’s the way things are done. When was the last time citizen input late in the game changed what the council had already put in motion? It takes a SunCal scale gaffe to work that magic.
Comment by Denise Shelton — April 30, 2011 @ 9:00 am
Denise, your example of the theatre complex is way off the mark. The council was split and it took a couple of years to battle that one out. It went all the way through the planning board, then the council ended up firing the original architect and completely changing the design. The public was very much involved in this whole process all the way through. The public forced the change in design and was very involved all the way along.
Comment by John P. — April 30, 2011 @ 10:06 am
So, I don’t actually know that much about Alameda, but from an Oakland activist’s perspective, let me offer this:
I frequently lament the unnecessarily uncivil tone of Oakland politics. I am often frustrated by how juvenile and simplistic the debate can become in Oakland. And the conspiracy theories and hit pieces that pop up in the local press and the comment threads blogoaksphere can be equally frustrating.
But man, I didn’t know how good I had it. Taking 20 facebook pictures and splitting them up into a 7 part series and running them all week? Wow. That’s some amateur, high-school BS.
And as silly as it is, Lauren, and as much as I agree with the umbrage you’re taking, I don’t really understand why you’re dignifying these people with a response.
Fundamentally, it appears that the overly strident and conspiracist rhetoric coming out of some of the Alameda bloggers is a product of what I consider to be the simplest and most common of the rookie mistakes that happen in local politics:
People in America tend to get interested in politics at the national level first. As such, the example they start from is made up of highly strident and ideological talking points. National politics needs to be this way, the theatrics are necessary because they’re intended for a mass media audience. National politics is also highly polarized because of this.
Local politics is a totally different animal. Like Ben Stiller says in Zero Effect “there aren’t any good guys, there aren’t any bad guys, it’s just a bunch of guys”.
Of course I mean guys in the gender neutral sense, but bare with me: In local politics, particularly in the bay area, we don’t have two parties, we don’t have two party lines. What we have is a smorgasbord of issues, and a collection of people who will likely agree on some stuff and disagree on other stuff.
That’s why the behavior of Action Alameda is really nothing more than self-sabotage. Anybody who’s deeply involved in local matters on a day to day basis would be wise to avoid getting that uncivil, and they’d also be wise to engender such a troll friendly environment on their comment threads.
I just don’t get it. I mean I have gone after local politicians on specific issues many times, but not sense my first year of involvement have I made the error of making it personal. If you want to have an effect, criticize the policies you disagree with, laud the ones you agree with. Even people who you disagree with most of the time will come to respect you if you make sure to tell them when you think they’re right.
Elevate the debate folks. DNFTT. That is all.
Comment by Max Allstadt — April 30, 2011 @ 11:32 am
Max, well said and very good reality check. By the way, have you ever heard of the Hatfield’s and McCoy’s? Alameda is in many ways steeped in history, and when it comes to feudin’ we are not to be out done. We even have our own spite house.
Comment by M.I. — April 30, 2011 @ 12:16 pm
Max Allstead says today:
“…but not sense my first year of involvement have I made the error of making it personal. If you want to have an effect, criticize the policies you disagree with, laud the ones you agree with. Even people who you disagree with most of the time will come to respect you if you make sure to tell them when you think they’re right.
Elevate the debate folks. DNFTT. That is all.
Comment by Max Allstadt — April 30, 2011 @ 11:32 am”
Thanks Max, I’m sure we peons, after reading your gentle rebuke and your the many paeans for Damnedoakster, will mend our yokel ways.
Max Allstadt Says:
April 21st, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Naomi,
If a group is dedicated to preventing things from happening in their back yard, it’s not name calling to refer to them as NIMBYs. It’s accurate.
I’ve heard you refer to people you disagree with as corrupt, or as hypocritical. If they people you’re talking about are corrupt or if they’re hypocrites, there’s nothing wrong with that either.
I suspect your opposition to the term NIMBY is more robust because you get called a NIMBY relatively often. When the market comes back, if you start showing up at meetings about development projects again, I’ll be generous. Support over 50% of them, and I won’t call you a NIMBY.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 30, 2011 @ 2:43 pm
I can see we’re reaping the benefits of having John Russo as our City Manager already!
Comment by Adam Gillitt — April 30, 2011 @ 5:05 pm
I call Naomi a NIMBY when she’s being a NIMBY. When she supported the radical downzoning of the East side of downtown Oakland in order to create “view corridors” after our zoning update was already finished, that was NIMBYism.
I call her Naomi ally when she and I work together on issues including increasing transparency at city hall, and when we work together to keep our Redevelopment Agency from running rampant around downtown authorizing new surface parking lots on any open parcel that wants one.
NIMBYism is a real phenomenon. Calling NIMBYism NIMBYism isn’t strident, it’s honest. I’ll admit that Naomi and I have a bit of an Itchy and Scratchy relationship, but we’re both way above going after each other for anything other than real substantive differences of opinion. And aside from land-use, we usually agree.
I also recently used double entendres about “whipping out your poll” in a speech at City Hall to lambast the Mayor of Oakland about the way she was keeping polling data secret regarding the viability of a parcel tax. But it wasn’t an attack on the Mayor as a person. It was an attack on the secrecy. The following week, the Mayor’s chief of staff was cracking jokes on my facebook page.
We fight about the issues, not about each other.
I don’t see how you can compare that to some of the snyde personal comments that are attached to the so-called “expose” at the Otaez party. Nor do I see how you can compare it to some of the stuff that a certain failed candidate for office has said on this blog.
Politics full of disagreement. It’s one thing to disagree and do so forcefully. It’s another thing to resort to personalizing it.
And as for the Otaez picture show, that’s more bizarre to me because it isn’t a scandal, and it’s being presented as such. Why waste the effort on raising hackles if you’re just going to look petty. Save the energy for a real scandal, if and when it arises.
For instance, SunCal. Those are shenanigans worth screaming about. But an election victory party where people are looking happy? That’s what happens at election victory parties!
Comment by Max Allstadt — April 30, 2011 @ 5:07 pm
Aw, come on Max. Be a hipster, lighten up and breed a little.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 30, 2011 @ 5:23 pm
Besides, this island is already in danger of sinking into a morass of progressive swamplandia if too many more (like yourself apparently) choose to come here with visions of, “can’t we all just be ‘guy’s’ and play nice” bullshit. Then, without a hiccup of irony, proceed to besmirch two of our fine citizens.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 30, 2011 @ 5:45 pm
Wait, who did I besmirch? I think I did a pretty good job of focusing on acts rather than personalities.
I’m just saying, what I’ve seen so far on the Alameda blogs seems even more polarized than in Oakland. Maybe Oakland has benefitted from having more factions and having just run a 10-candidate mayoral election.
For what it’s worth, I happen to find SunCal’s actions wildly inappropriate, and simultaneously find the fact that Alameda is so resistant to increasing it’s housing stock to be unfortunate.
Also, another anti-factionalism comment I’ll add before heading out the door for the day: In the Oakland Mayor’s race, I busted by butt and donated heavily to Rebecca Kaplan, and part of my involvement included going after Don Perata on multiple issues, while simultaneously reminding people that I’d met Don, found him to be very personable and bright. But I still really didn’t want him to be Mayor.
And here’s the kicker: The idea that I pitched on a different thread on this blog about using the Air Base to expand the Port of Oakland? Guess who came up with that idea in the first place: Perata. And it was meant as a pragmatic alternative, given that the people of Alameda had clearly voted against adding housing to the city.
Perata advocated a lot of policies that I disagreed with, but that one is sound and sane.
Also, if by “besmirch”, you’re saying that by telling people not to be such jerks, I was being a jerk myself, you’re right. That’s not exactly irony. It’s more one of the great mysteries of life…
Comment by Max Allstadt — April 30, 2011 @ 6:12 pm
lastly, I’d like to express that I’m flattered that you’ve been googling me. I mean that sincerely. I’m not that important.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have some hipster business to attend to. It is Saturday night after all. Anyone want to join me at the disco?
Comment by Max Allstadt — April 30, 2011 @ 6:30 pm
I agree with you about the Port and Alameda. it’s a natural fit and one that could be the one thing that makes real sense for the base. Ant it could be financially beneficial to both the Port and Alameda.
But, of course it’s that damned estuary that’s the sticky wicket. If one looks at a bird’s eye view of that area, perhaps a canal across the base right west of the hangars leading to the the carrier anchorage makes sense. Eliminates the need for a bridge for container traffic and cranes could be located there.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 30, 2011 @ 6:32 pm
The estuary is an engineering issue, yes. But consider the potential benefits of an expanded port from a financial perspective. Get the idea rolling, and engineering becomes a small issue, because we’ll be talking about an opportunity to bring in serious money. Regional scale, statewide interest money.
Clearly if this comes to pass, we’ll have to keep a watchful eye on the progress, because that kind of money will do whatever the hell it wants I it’s unchecked. But at the same time, that whatever-the-hell-it-wants scale of money can snort and make the coast guard cooperate.
Think BIG.
Comment by Max Allstadt — May 1, 2011 @ 12:48 am
Just to clarify a minor (to some) but important point (to others). That thing that’s now called the Point, it wasn’t an “Air Base” it was a “Naval Air Station”. You know, wings of gold, not wings of lead. You obviously haven’t been in the military.
But getting back to the present past. Agree, Don Perata is (was) an interesting guy. Matter of fact, back in the 70’s (disco days), in a 4th of July Alameda parade in which I volunteered to drive a “person of repute”, had the pleasure of Perata’s company (owned a MBZ 450 SL convertible, which BTW, during the parade we had to withstand a barrage of “buy American” comments). This was during the period when the Raiders had abandoned Oakland and I think Perata was running for something or other. Don asked me if I was a Raiders fan and I asked “does a bear go potty in the woods”, he said “we’ll get ’em back”. Yeah right I muttered, under my breath. But they did come back. He was always jumping out of the car and “working the room” as he called it. Never agreed with much else he had a hand in, but, nice guy…back then.
Never heard of Rebecca Kaplan. Did google her, though. If you’re looking for bona fides in your support for another Civil Rights lawyer, you’ll, no doubt fine plenty in this city. Personally, her politics can requiescat in pace as far as I’m concerned.
My first choice for the Point was for high rise penthouse luxury apartments along the west end shoreline with links behind them. My opinion is worth about what that bear did in the woods so Port expansion is the best second choice. It would still leave most of the human habitable area for those who like to squabble.
Comment by Jack Richard — May 1, 2011 @ 10:09 am
One other thing about Perata and the parade, he must have stated Tip O’Neill’s truism, “All politics is local”, half a dozen times as he went off to shake spectator hands. I bring this up because in your #11 above, you seem to turn this notion on its head when you write of individual awakening to politics in America.
Assigning a personally held notion, (“People in America tend to get interested in politics at the national level first.”) to the people at large grates on my sense of reason. I realize, hyperbolic declarations are sometimes used to authenticate what follows, but rhetorical leaps also have their dangers.
In fact, both (in #11) the paragraph beginning with “People…” and the one following could keep us busy the rest of the day…if you really believe what you wrote.
Comment by Jack Richard — May 1, 2011 @ 10:53 am
I did Google satellite map search of port in Long Beach and Oakland and Alameda Point to compare and contrast. If the blue dotted line for ferry path in the estuary represents the navigable channel, I may have been wrong about the ability to add additional cranes on the estuary, but I still think that for container storage alone the Point is a bust, and without fast and efficient way to shoot containers to the Oakland side and without enough added crane capacity port expansion at the Point is a bust.
I have considered Don Perata a relatively productive politician in the past. I have ideas about good and bad, but don’t consider him resident evil. However, I’m not sure that just because he was touting the port idea that means it’s viable and the Raider deal might be an example to back that up.
I’d like more solid facts about the logistics of port expansion at Alameda Point before entertaining more conjecture. It just occurred to me to search for on line navigation charts to verify depths, which I am attempting presently.
Comment by M.I. — May 1, 2011 @ 12:25 pm
I like being right. Port depth appears to be about 30 feet up to 40′. Maximum at sea plane lagoon is 17′. Depths off the west end at 7′ and 8′. Alameda side of estuary is restricted, with no visible soundings, but must be minimum depth for navigable channel as per port.
Comment by M.I. — May 1, 2011 @ 12:48 pm
As Max stated, these are engineering/political problems and could, given the right climate and $’s, be solved.
Comment by Jack Richard — May 1, 2011 @ 1:02 pm
Don’t get me wrong, I would support highrises at the point too. I grew up in Tokyo and NYC, so I have a strong appreciation for the benefits of density. I think that it’s ludicrous that a city like Alameda in the heart of a major metropolitan area would have a defacto ban on creating new multi-unit housing.
From what I’ve read, the way in which SunCal pursued it’s goals was ineffective because it was politically reckless and ethically questionable. That doesn’t mean I think housing is a bad plan for the point, nor would I be dismayed in any way if it was tall, high density housing.
It just looks like the aftermath of SunCal’s involvement has blown that opportunity. Even if a decent developer comes along with a high sensitivity to the community and effective outreach, there seems to be a bad taste in everybody’s mouth that isn’t going away. So, if not housing, why not jobs? It just seem like the most beneficial option that is still possible. And, as an Oaklander, I see cross-estuary benefits that seem appealing too.
Comment by Max Allstadt — May 1, 2011 @ 2:01 pm
Oh, and as far as Kaplan goes, my support for her was based on her advocacy for urbanist land-use policy, her support of public transit expansion, and her commitment to updating Oakland’s use of information technology from it’s current position at a near stone-age level.
She does have a strong civil rights record, but she was running very much on a pragmatic progressive platform. The single loudest part of her platform was about business attraction and cutting red tape.
In all honesty, when I cast my ranked choice vote for Kaplan, Tuman and Perata in that order, I was picking the best available options in a so-so field. Kaplan was by far my favorite, but at the end of the day, anybody competing to inherit the mess that Ron Dellums and the City Council made was somewhat underqualified, because competing that hard for a suicide mission makes you somewhat unqualified.
Comment by Max Allstadt — May 1, 2011 @ 2:09 pm
The ban was put in place to keep Oaklanders out during the restless 70’s. It’s a relic, but has strong grass root backing in this city. Who knows, maybe the reality of bankruptcy will cause some new thinking in this city.
I was first in Japan when I was much younger. Ever since, I have had strong admiration for the culture, including the xenophobia component.
Comment by Jack Richard — May 1, 2011 @ 2:18 pm
First listened to Dellums speak at Cal in the 70’s. Thought he was riding his uncle’s coattails then and never saw anything that would change my mind since. Empty suit.
Good to read somebody different here. I have no problem with whomever thinks they can make Oakland work. But I’m not holding my breath thinking any human can.
Comment by Jack Richard — May 1, 2011 @ 2:33 pm
Jack, I don’t think it makes a lot of sense to, with a wave of the hand, say that engineering and political considerations makes anything an option. You won’t likely find the money ( read political will) to do the dredging needed to make any of it viable port. The shipping channel, governed by the Army Corp I believe, same scenario. If it were that simple, it’s probably a lot less so without a powerful politician like Don Perata in your corner.
Max, my make believe ranked choice vote if I had one was the same as yours. A lot of my reasons for steering clear of Jean Quan are same reasons I welcome John Russo without regard to his previous affiliations to Alameda politicians.
Comment by M.I. — May 1, 2011 @ 3:38 pm
I think you’re lucky to have hired Russo. I’m sure everybody already knows that. I’m not gonna sit here and write the guy a hagiography for you, because it’s unnecessary. He already got the job. Time will tell. Watch him do the job and decide for yourselves.
And as for the port, no it isn’t easy. It’s a giant freakin project. I think it can be done, and I hope it’s at least studied extensively in food faith. If by some miracle Alamedans could be swayed to accept some form of dense housing on the point, I’d support that too.
I’d also love it if there was some way to create a high enough foot and bike bridge over the channel at Jack London Square, allowing for co-development on both sides. Maybe even a wide enough bridge to accomodate a promenade with some vendors on it. Rebecca Kaplan once mentioned starting it at the new Jack London garage to get up to full height without having to do too much additional construction. Pie in the sky dreaming? Probably. Cool? Definitely.
Comment by Max Allstadt — May 1, 2011 @ 4:42 pm
Okay, Max, grew up in Tokyo?
Comment by Jack Richard — May 1, 2011 @ 6:21 pm
yup. K-3rd and 10th-12th.
Comment by Max Allstadt — May 1, 2011 @ 9:40 pm
31
This line sticks out:
I welcome John Russo without regard to his previous affiliations to Alameda politicians.
—-
It is difficult to believe you’d so blithely accept Russo’s appointment had he contributed to & been chosen by politicians you do not favor.
Comment by dave — May 2, 2011 @ 6:56 am
yeah, well he doesn’t have those affiliations, good for him.
Comment by M.I. — May 2, 2011 @ 7:42 am
Are news reports about his contributions incorrect?
Comment by dave — May 2, 2011 @ 7:57 am