Law & Order's abortion episode: Is pro-life the new gay?

UPDATE, 10/26, 10:15a: Thanks to moderator Bethany for finding the L&O "Dignity" episode online! Here 'tis...


_______________

Law & Order logo.jpgUnable to watch Friday night's "ripped from the headlines" Law & Order episode about the murder of an abortionist in church, I thought I'd view it on the Internet tonight.

Unfortunately, I found NBC does not air full episodes of L&O. I'll have to see if past shows are available on cable t.v.

Meanwhile, pro-life reviews have been favorable, including comments on the post I wrote giving a heads up on the episode. Here's a sample why, a longer clip made available by NBC, where a post-birth partial birth abortion (yes, that's right) is detailed...

Comments from the L&O site:

  • "This episode was one of the most- probably THE most- moving TV I've ever seen. I don't feel you can justify the Dr's. murder, you certainly can understand the emotions. I wish NBC would show FULL shows - not just highlights. I'd love to have the rest of my family."
  • "'Dignity' was the most powerful episode you have done. I am used to seeing pro-lifers marginalized and dismissed as narrow minded religious zealots. This was one of the most fair-minded and even-handed presentations of this critical and persistent legal and moral issue."
  • "Congratulations, NBC. This was a great, thought-provoking episode. Anybody who watched this show experienced new ideas and feelings about abortions, and specifically, late term abortions. The scene that moved me the most was Detective Bernard's statement about how his mother tried to terminate her pregnancy. Her actions, like abortion, would have robbed him of his life, a life of a good man & police officer. The answer is that there is no easy answer. Thanks L&O, we have lots to think about!"
  • Pro-abort reviews most interested me. Did NBC throw them bones, too, as I expected? Apparently not so much. Wrote Kate Harding at the liberal rag Salon...

    Salon, Law & Order, NBC, George Tiller, abortion.jpg

    On Friday night's Law & Order, the abortion debate was represented by 2 separate, yet equally important, groups: The anti-choicers, who believe fetuses' rights trump women's, and the pseudo-pro-choicers, who are conveniently persuaded to agree with them by the end of the episode.

    That sound? It's my head exploding.

    Kind of like a late-term baby being aborted, Kate? Not quite. Read Kate's review for descriptions of more surprising pro-life apologetics in the show, even on minor rape:

    What's up? In a town bent on stirring controversy, does Hollywood now think the pro-life view is in, hot - the new gay?

    Or perhaps NBC is trying to recoup lost mainstream viewers?

    Or most likely, since L&O's previous 2 episodes dealing with abortion slanted way left, this was its attempt at balance?

    Whatever, I'll take it.


    Comments:

    Would like to see it before I jump to any conclusions. But I typically find Law and Order appalling. I think they turn real tragedies into sensationalized crap that numbs the hearts and minds of America. So when folks see REAL pain, suffering, and drama, they dismiss it. They've been too "entertained" with misery. What do people get out of shows like this?? Is there not enough anguish in the real world??

    Posted by: Jocelyn at October 25, 2009 10:48 PM


    Why do the pro aborts constantly call pro lifers anti choice? Do they FORGET that 50% or MORE of all abortions result in the death of FEMALE unborn babies?

    Equal Rights for UNBORN WOMEN!

    no opinion on the show as only watch a handful of shows and L&O is not one

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 25, 2009 10:49 PM


    Jill,

    FYI (I posted this on another thread):

    I can't vouch for its accuracy (since I did not see the whole episode) but I found a recap at: allthingslawandorder.blogspot.com/2009/10/law-order-dignity-recap-review.html

    I also googled "Law and Order Dignity" and it appears that you can buy the episode on iTunes. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

    If you don't want to pay for it, it will most likely air again. If we're lucky, maybe it will be advertised ahead of time!


    Posted by: Janet at October 25, 2009 11:03 PM


    What a surprise! Does it herald a new era of fairness and reasonable searching for objectivity by the media and entertainment industry? I wouldn't bet on it, at least until I see more evidence.

    Posted by: Joanne at October 25, 2009 11:48 PM


    Exactly! Why do pro-choicers insist on calling us "anti-choice"? We're the ones who believe women should be able to make an informed decision with complete information (not just what's politically suitable). And we're not against women choosing to carry to term & parent or women choosing to carry to term and place for adoption, so why don't they stop being disinergous (sp?) or misleading and refer to what we actually oppose, abortion.

    Posted by: Rachael C. at October 26, 2009 12:20 AM


    Let them call us anti-choice - who cares? We're right and they're barbaric.

    Posted by: Louise at October 26, 2009 4:47 AM


    I saw the program: http://www.megavideo.com/?v=IPKZX38Y

    I was amazed. An admission was made that the majority of Americans are now pro-life! They said that Roe v Wade conformed to what we knew then, before advances in science..., admitted that the age of viability changes with technology & the law doesn't keep up with that, made a reference to a Potassium Chloride shot in the heart & brought out many things I didn't think I would see in a show like this. Unfortunately, they pretty much ignore the humanity of the pre-viable baby, and allow for some disconnect with reality in a few areas but as someone who has been fighting the pro-life battle for thirty years, I would call this show a break-through!

    Posted by: Jan De Land at October 26, 2009 5:41 AM


    Jill, you can watch the whole episode here:

    http://www.casttv.com/shows/law-order/dignity/sv83dv1

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at October 26, 2009 7:31 AM


    Be prepared to be surprised- it was very pro-life, much more than I would have ever expected!

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at October 26, 2009 7:33 AM


    Note to pro-aborts: when referring to anti-choicers believing a fetus' rights trump a woman's rights, could you please clarify the two rights in turn?

    Is it a fetus' right to free speech trumping a woman's right to health care? A fetus' right to the pursuit of happiness trumping the woman's right to vote? Right to privacy vs. the right to shop? What the HECK rights are you talking about?

    Posted by: Cranky Catholic at October 26, 2009 8:49 AM


    I still like Fr. Corapi asking "Right to choose... hmm... to choose WHAT? What kind of open ended statement is 'the right to choose'" (paraphrased from memory so forgive me if I messed it up, but that's the gist of it)

    Posted by: Dirtdartwife at October 26, 2009 9:18 AM


    I was also pleasantly surprised with the episode. Once people understand the humanity of the pre born at post viability stage then it is a smaller step to help them understand that it is just size, level of development that separates the post and pre viable infant. To see that woman question what she thought was gospel (Roe Vs. Wade) and in violet(woman's privacy rights) and then wonder out loud when does my privacy end and anothers dignity begin.....and the acknowledgment that when Roe Vs Wade was decided our knowledge was limited. To have one DA compare abortion to slavery.....and say most people are pro life now because of medical science that allows us to view the humanity of the pre born. All in all a good show (surprise, surprise) Including the end when the Head DA says I thought all pro lifers were opposed to the death penalty...this is a messy world.

    Posted by: Maria at October 26, 2009 9:24 AM


    I love how pro-aborts say abortion is needed because children with "defects" might "die young" and SO the solution is to KILL the children months earlier when they are in the womb so they don't "die young". HUH? Thats like me saying I might die in the future so I better just kill myself now. Its the stupidest argument I've ever heard. There is no common sense with the pro-choice side.

    Also on that pro-choice blog the writer claimed children might suffer so we need to abort them....as if having your arms and legs ripped off isn't suffering! As if having a pair of surgical scissors thrust into the back of your neck isn't suffering! How can pro-aborts be so detached from reality?

    The writer also whines about how the one detective was almost aborted but "he lived, ergo happy ending!" Well yeah...what would HER happy ending be? His little arms and legs thrown into a dumpster outside an abortion clinic?

    My good friend almost aborted her daughter. She had already had an abortion and found herself in crisis with a second pregnancy (and by the way after being counseled at Planned Parenthood after her first abortion she STILL didn't use birth control! So blow that theory out of the water that access to birth control would mean fewer abortions). She scheduled an abortion and then cried and cried. Everyone told her to "just get rid of it" including co-workers and family. I showed her a picture of what her 8 week baby looked like and told her she could have that baby and it would be hard and she would have to sacrifice and couldn't be selfish but she could be a mom!!!! She chose life for her child and then at her first ultrasound at 12 weeks was awed to see the baby wave at her. The day she gave birth I held that baby in the hospital and this girl and her mom just kept repeating " I can't believe we almost threw her away! We can never tell her what we almost did!" That mom has thanked me many times for talking her out of the abortion and has anger still with the co-workers who told her to "just get rid of it" because that "it" is her little girl!

    sure there are crisis situations but abortion is NOT A GOOD SOLUTION. There are other non-violent ways to deal with a problem. If you take the abortion mentality I could say "I am broke this month and my toddler is driving me nuts so i'm just going to abort! I'll just post-natally abort him---afterall he is dependent on my for survival so its my choice." Anyhow I'm irritated and rambling...

    Posted by: Sydney M at October 26, 2009 9:27 AM


    correction.... he said he thought most pro life people were for the death penalty..

    Posted by: Maria at October 26, 2009 9:28 AM


    Law & Order:

    We have a wonderful friendship. There's a reason that you're my favorite show. :)

    Posted by: Vannah at October 26, 2009 9:35 AM


    Does anyone know where I can watch one of the other abortion-related Law & Order episodes for free, Season 5, Episode 12: Progeny?

    Posted by: Rachael C. at October 26, 2009 10:21 AM


    Nevermind, found the video. But hmm, notice how in all the L&O abortion episodes the doctors were wearing a bullet-proof vest, but were still killed by a shot to the head? Ironic, isn't it. They were wanting to protect themselves, but didn't protect the most important part of their bodies, the brain. Maybe they should've been wearing army helmets...sorry, being crass.

    Posted by: Rachael C. at October 26, 2009 11:14 AM


    Maybe I should've included a disclaimer to my above comment: I was referring to the television show and not real life. I oppose anti-abortion violence in any form and the ends do not justify the means. *steps off soapbox* Ok, I've had enough abortion-related original Law & Order, now onto my favorite, Law & Order: SVU, used to watch it Saturday nights at midnight, but it's no longer on :(

    Posted by: Rachael C. at October 26, 2009 11:20 AM


    I was able to watch and found it very moving and shockingly fair. I was very surprised to find that the pro life movement was portrayed in a positive light while not condoning the violence of some protesters. And yes, some parts brought me to tears...and I was glad to see that the more "pro abortion" character was in tears also. Finally, something worth watching!!!!!

    Posted by: Jennifer at October 26, 2009 1:19 PM


    apparently proaborts (oh, sorry pro choicers :P ) are really upset about this L&O episode:

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/oct/09102603.html


    @ Rachael: proabortion doctors wearing bullet proof vests is actually very symbolic - their hearts are enclosed in metal (hence the term "hard-hearted) ;)

    Posted by: angel at October 26, 2009 1:23 PM


    Hmm, a harden heart enclosed in metal, reminiscent of Darth Vader ;-) But in all seriousness, pro-choicers may see the bulletproof vests also as symbolic, symbolic of threats and violence directed at abortion providers. Just another perspective.

    Posted by: Rachael C. at October 26, 2009 2:33 PM


    I didn't see the episode, but would like to. Was there any mention as to why the patient refused to appear in court? Was she traumatized as well? Maybe this in itself will illustrate the other consequence of abortion--psychological damage to the mother.

    Posted by: Lee at October 26, 2009 2:54 PM


    "Why do pro-aborts call pro-lifers anti-choice?"

    Why is this even a question? It can't be that hard for you guys and gals to understand...

    "pro-choice" and "pro-abort" mean essentially the same thing: people who support abortion and thus support the right of a woman to choose.

    "pro-life" and "anti-choice" mean the same thing: people who don't support abortion and thus do not support a woman's right to choose.

    If people called pro-choicers "anti-life" it would be wrong, because no one who supports abortion rights is asking that everyone be required to have abortions. "Pro-life" on the other hand, is a movement built on denying the right to choose, and thus "anti-choice" is a logical and practical labeling.

    I'm worried that my logic will fall on deaf ears, but I felt compelled to bring it to the table. Comments asking why "pro-life" are labeled "anti-choice" are just silly if this little bit of logic is employed.

    PS. No need to respond with "what about the fetuses right to choose?" because the fact is they don't have a choice. Arguing that some cells have a choice would be akin to telling us to ask bacteria if it wants to die when we take antibiotics. Let's be realistic.

    Posted by: Jaime at October 26, 2009 3:55 PM


    One things for sure, Tiller will never slaughter another baby.

    Force stopped Hitler. Force stopped Saddam. Force stopped Tiller.

    If they were gassing Jews downtown would people be so "religious" to say using force to stop Nazis from killing Jews doesn't justify the means? Or demonize those who stopped Nazis from killing Jews? Or would they be hypocrites like Randell Terry and call for the deaths of those who killed Nazis to save Jews the same way he said he said he would murder Paul Hill? So much for his "pro-life" rhetoric.

    Jews could defend themselves. Babies cannnot!

    Rescue those being led away to slaughter.

    If abortion is murder, act like it.

    Posted by: Mark Potok at October 26, 2009 4:23 PM


    Jaime,

    That's ridiculous.

    Pro-lifers support choices in many different instances. The choice to kill another human simply isn't one of them.

    Consequently, pro-choicers also feel like life should be protected, except in the case of a fetus whose mother wants to abort.

    Therefore, the argument that pro-life=anti-choice or that pro-choice=anti-life is a shallow ad hominem attack that does us no good in furthering our cause. On either side.

    I will openly accept the label anti-abortion. I am adamantly anti-abortion, yes. Generally, "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are the most accurate labels for members of either camp. but pro-choice and pro-life work as well. The reality of the fact is, I've met very few people in my life who could accurately be labeled as "anti-choice" OR "anti-life" as these labels imply that they are against life or choice as a whole.

    Pro-death, on the other hand, is a somewhat confusing issue, as anti-aborts are in fact in support of the mother's right to have the fetus killed, thus supporting the death of select unborn humans. However, similar arguments could be made about anyone who eats meat by any vegetarian or vegan. So pro-death really is a term I try to avoid.

    There. I've said my piece. This has been weighing on me quite a bit lately, as I constantly see the term "anti-choicers" thrown around and it's simply inaccurate. Anti-aborts is much more appropriate.

    Posted by: MaryRose at October 26, 2009 4:36 PM


    PS. No need to respond with "what about the fetuses right to choose?" because the fact is they don't have a choice. Arguing that some cells have a choice would be akin to telling us to ask bacteria if it wants to die when we take antibiotics. Let's be realistic.

    What is sad about people like Jaime is that they almost always seem to have such a poor understanding of biology and fetal development.

    Please go back to school and learn what an "organism" is. An unborn child is not a single "cell" but a complete living human organism.

    It is anti-life to support killing any innocent human beings, period.

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at October 26, 2009 4:39 PM


    The Law & Order episode is a huge break through for the pro-life's side on late term abortions, not on the abortion issue in general. That is still saying a lot, given the usual slant of the main stream media. If you haven't seen it yet...try to find it...you will be amazed. The most important parts are in the second half of the show...the trial and the witness testimonies.

    Posted by: Fred at October 26, 2009 4:48 PM


    Thank you MaryRose for your explanation of why anti-choice may not be the right label, that makes sense to me.

    To Bethany, who feels my understand of human development is poor: I didn't claim a fetus is a single cell, I said it is many cells. You are saying that a fetus is a "complete human organism" and that's simply not the case. A complete human organism has cognitive thinking, a conscience, other things that set us apart from instictual cells. A fetus simply does not, and at that point that it can still be aborted it does not.

    Stories of "I woulnt be here if my mom had gone through with her abortion" are ineffectual to the cause because the person who would've been aborted wouldn't ever have existed if that had taken place. They wouldn't have felt it, they wouldn't be agonizing that their fate has reached its climax, they simply wouldn't know anything because their brain isn't yet wired for them to see, know, or understand anything. This is why I feel abortion is not the killing of a human being - a human being lives from birth to death. There's nothing before birth and nothing after death that is part of the human life.

    Posted by: Jaime at October 26, 2009 5:00 PM


    Posted by: Jaime at October 26, 2009 3:55 PM

    "pro-choice" and "pro-abort" mean essentially the same thing: people who support abortion and thus support the right of a woman to choose.

    I agree with you on this, but some pro-choicers would argue with you on this point. They say they don't support abortion, but they support another woman's right to choose. It's not a simple as it seems.

    Posted by: Janet at October 26, 2009 5:09 PM


    To Bethany, who feels my understand of human development is poor: I didn't claim a fetus is a single cell, I said it is many cells. You are saying that a fetus is a "complete human organism" and that's simply not the case. A complete human organism has cognitive thinking, a conscience, other things that set us apart from instictual cells. A fetus simply does not, and at that point that it can still be aborted it does not.

    You only confirmed my original statement that your understanding of biology is poor, Jaime. I am not sure whether your ignorance is willful or not.

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at October 26, 2009 5:13 PM


    Yes, I am anti-choice. Anti-choice to kill, that is. That includes infanticide and the death penalty!

    Posted by: Phillymiss at October 26, 2009 5:36 PM


    Arguing that some cells have a choice would be akin to telling us to ask bacteria if it wants to die when we take antibiotics. Let's be realistic.
    Posted by: Jaime at October 26, 2009 3:55 PM

    a simplistic and inaccurate analogy

    you need to answer two questions:

    Is an unborn baby a human being?

    Are all human beings persons?


    to say that a complete human being is one who has a conscience would mean that most 6 year olds would not qualify. a person with a conscience is someone who can distinquish between right and wrong. Most 6 year olds cannot do this with any degree of certainty.
    If you mean "conscious" than where does this place persons in coma's or who have limited cognitive abilities.
    Just where do you draw the line Jamie? Who decides? You? Your local hospital board? The surgeon general?

    Posted by: angel at October 26, 2009 5:40 PM


    Bethany,

    Thanks for locating the link to this Law & Order episode.

    yor bro ken

    Posted by: kbhvac at October 26, 2009 8:01 PM


    That L&O episode completely crossed the line of reality - the plot line about how the murdered doctor terminated a live baby in the OR (and the patient being conscious to tell the doctor to 'finish' the procedure). What rubbish. That propagates a popular myth that late-term abortionists kill 'babies' and that there is such a thing as 'partial birth abortion.'

    Yes, we pros are upset. Upset when myths are used in what should have been a believable work of fiction.

    Posted by: Dhalgren at October 26, 2009 8:06 PM


    What do late-term abortionists kill? Puppies? Guppies? Wormies?

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at October 26, 2009 8:45 PM


    You're very welcome, Ken!

    Posted by: bethany at October 26, 2009 8:50 PM


    Having been a Law & Order viewer since it's inception I can say with some authority that this is the first incident I can remember the writers conceding the 'possibility' of the humanity of the pre-natal child.

    I am pleasantly surprised at the evenhandedness of the production.

    I could not have voted to convict the defendant of murder. Not after the judge allowed the use 'defense of others.'

    If the judge had disallowed that defense and the jury had been instructed to restrict their deliberations to the law and facts presented at trial, and had sworn an oath to do so, then I could believe a verdict of guilty was within the realm of possibility, even probability.

    Even having been convicted by a jury of my fellow citizens (some of them pro-life christians) for trespassing at late term killing mill in an attempt to prevent what was scheduled to happen, I am still skeptical about the 'verdict' in this show.

    Every member of the jury would have had to disregard the humanity of prenatal children and the violence that men like this abortionist practiced against them on a daily basis.

    I cannot believe that at least one person of conscience would have refused to convict.

    And just for the record, I will assert again that the 'pro-life' movement is not monolithic. There are some of us out here who believe that captial punishment is not always immoral. In some cases it is called for.

    There are some men who just need 'killin'.

    Jesus never condemned capital punishment. The 'millstone around the neck and thrown into the sea' thing kind of argues against a viable outcome for the one being given the heave ho into the sea of out of sight/out of mind.

    Then there is that place where Jesus ensured his followers would have at least one sword (which by the way was a violation of Roman law, most likely punishable by death.) when the soldiers came to arrest him in the garden of Gethsemene.

    Some how you have to reconcile that with what Jesus meant by 'living by the sword'.

    If, as most pro-lifers believe, humans are endowed by their creator with an unalienable right to life, then whose has the primary responsibility to preserve and protect his/her own life and the life of his/her fellow woman/man?

    If you answer that God alone bears that responsibility then why do you lock your doors or keep your money in a bank or contribute taxes to pay the salaries of soldiers and poice officers?

    yor bro ken

    Posted by: kbhvac at October 26, 2009 8:54 PM


    Jaime, my son at birth was no different from a fetus in that he had no conscience, no cognitive thinking...could I kill him then? would that be alright?

    If I am knocked unconscious at that point I have no cognitive thinking and no conscience. Is it then permissible at that point to kill me?

    A human being is a member of the human family and a person no matter what their abilities and functions at any given point.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at October 26, 2009 9:21 PM


    "Stories of "I woulnt be here if my mom had gone through with her abortion" are ineffectual to the cause because the person who would've been aborted wouldn't ever have existed if that had taken place"

    If they don't "exist", what exactly did you kill?

    And since there's supposably nothing after death, if you were to be killed now, would you cease to "exist" or would you simply be dead?

    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 26, 2009 9:40 PM


    Jaime: "To Bethany, who feels my understand of human development is poor: I didn't claim a fetus is a single cell, I said it is many cells."

    Yes, a fetus comprises many cells. So do you, Jaime.

    "You are saying that a fetus is a 'complete human organism' and that's simply not the case. A complete human organism has cognitive thinking, a conscience, other things that set us apart from instictual cells. A fetus simply does not, and at that point that it can still be aborted it does not."

    Let us know when you sign up for your first-ever biology class. A human being's life begins at the moment of fertilization. That is a scientific fact; to argue that "cognitive thinking" or "a fully developed nervous system" are criteria is to rely on non-scientific, feel-good, touchy-feely ways of defining the term "human being."

    Dhalgren: "That propagates a popular myth that late-term abortionists kill 'babies' and that there is such a thing as 'partial birth abortion.'"

    What's not to get? Babies are partially born and then totally killed. You prefer the more clinical name because it's also the more euphemistic name. "Ethnic cleansing" has a nice ring to it, too, Dhalgren -- when contrasted to what it really SHOULD be called.

    Posted by: bmmg39 at October 26, 2009 11:01 PM


    He should have been found innocent. Babykilling abortionists need to be stopped from murdering innocent children

    Posted by: Rev Donald Spitz at October 26, 2009 11:49 PM


    That's absolutely right Don. Perverted man-made laws confuse the morality of the simple.

    Posted by: SharonG at October 27, 2009 5:31 PM


    This episode was suprisingly thought-provoking, but still far too deferential to the pro-abortion side. Near the beginning, a nurse at the abortion mill says that New York law allows late term abortions to protect the life of the mother. Of course, none of the cases presented in the show involved any kind of threat to a mother's life. Moreover, the Supreme Court's Doe v. Bolton ruling mandated that states allow abortion throughout pregnancy to protect the "health" of the mother, as determined by the abortionist. In other words, abortion is unrestricted to the point of birth.

    I also wish the show had alluded to the fact that Obama even opposed granting legal protection to babies that survive abortion attemps.

    Posted by: HuckFinn at October 31, 2009 10:26 AM


    Not all babies have a place in this world, and not all of those women pregnant with babies (as well as the associated fathers) have any place bringing one into this world.

    Adoption is always an option, but many disregard the costs involved in giving birth and then putting one's child up for adoption. For economic reasons many women must make the difficult choice to not carry to term because they are unable to incur any of the related burdens.

    To disregard any of the specifics surrounding a particular abortion and instead argue that no abortion should be allowed is a naive stance.

    Posted by: Anna Williams at October 31, 2009 8:05 PM


    You have no place telling any baby they don't have a place in this world.

    Posted by: xalisae at October 31, 2009 10:06 PM


    Adoption is always an option, but many disregard the costs involved in giving birth and then putting one's child up for adoption. For economic reasons many women must make the difficult choice to not carry to term because they are unable to incur any of the related burdens.

    Most adoption agencies pay all of the birth mothers' pregnancy-related medical expenses, which are then passed along to the adoptive parents. Having adopted twice, I know this full well.

    Posted by: HuckFinn at October 31, 2009 10:45 PM


    Abortion is needed because children with "defects" might "die young" and so the solution is to Kill the Children months earlier when they are in the womb so the don't "die young". I so agree with Sydney M. that this is the such a stupid statement.

    Posted by: Jane S at November 6, 2009 3:59 PM


    Late term abortions are only performed in the USA in the case of a pregnant woman will likely die giving birth. That is a choice that as a man I think should be allowed.

    Posted by: Jack at November 6, 2009 5:10 PM