Althouse: 8 Presidents on an energy independence mission.

June 17, 2010

8 Presidents on an energy independence mission.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

An Energy-Independent Future

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Tea Party

62 comments:

Anonymous said...: oh the dreaded SEJS

"Single Embed Jon Stewart"

Only to be used in dire circumstances, Althouse! It's an extreme measure, you know...; 6/17/10, 2:14 PM
Moose said...: Um, yes. Stewart is a fucking idiot.; 6/17/10, 2:16 PM
master cylinder said...: He's equal opp. here; 6/17/10, 2:17 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Don't knock it until you've watched it, righties. It's very pro-Nixon!; 6/17/10, 2:18 PM
LouisAntoine said...: Lots of presidents wanted health care reform, too. One got it done.

WV: nixones. presidential cojones.; 6/17/10, 2:20 PM
Patm said...: Starts off funny and loses its way. Stewart is talking about getting us off all oil. These presidents were talking about ending our foreign dependence, which we could DO, if the enviros had not made drilling and refining so damn difficult. We should be looking at our oil shale refining too. Oil is not the enemy.; 6/17/10, 2:21 PM
Patm said...: MM: "Lots of presidents wanted health care reform, too. One got it done."

Yeah, he "got it done" by encouraging the congress to deliberately ignore the will of the American People. Very presidential. I bet you also loved it when Bush moved on the surge against the will of the American People, too.; 6/17/10, 2:23 PM
kent said...: Infinitely funnier (and more truthful) Stewart: brutally dismantling former holy icon Obama bit by dissembling, deceitful bit.; 6/17/10, 2:25 PM
Joe said...: 1) It is IMPOSSIBLE to move us “off oil.” Unless you also want to wean us off Technic Society and retreat to the 1700’s.
2) It is IMPOSSIBLE to move us off “Foreign Oil” as oil and money are fungible, UNLESS you are willing to wall off the US from any foreign trade in oil at all. Otherwise, when oil prices rise overseas , they will rise here, too.
“Energy Independence” is something that Presidents seem obligated to talk about, even though it is, as a concept, completely IMPOSSIBLE.; 6/17/10, 2:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Wait a sec... Was Robert Duvall president before Jimmy Carter?

I'm too young to have experienced Nixon-- I was born when he was President. But maybe we can learn a thing or two from his take-chargedness?; 6/17/10, 2:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Wait a sec... Was Robert Duvall president before Jimmy Carter?

I'm too young to have experienced Nixon-- I was born when he was President. But maybe we not-so-old people can learn a thing or two from his take-chargedness?; 6/17/10, 2:33 PM
Joe said...: I'm too young to have experienced Nixon-- I was born when he was President. But maybe we can learn a thing or two from his take-chargedness?

You didn’t miss that much, between Nixon, Watergate, Smelly Hippies, Disco and Jimmy Carter, the whole era is pretty dismal. Nixon is only revered by the Right because of his enemies and reviled by the Left because…well, he was Nixon. Nixon’s “take chargedness” involved Wage and Price Controls, too. Beyond that fact that he WASN’T McGovern I can’t really say much of anything good about Nixon, and I’m a Conservative GOP’er. But I’m sure someone will speak well of the man.; 6/17/10, 2:34 PM
Hagar said...: I do not care much for Jon Stewart, but he is right about one thing: Though not being a reporter, he is more of a reporter than anyone the MSM news divisions have got.; 6/17/10, 2:42 PM
Hagar said...: One of his biographers wrote that when Nixon got out of the Navy and was considering entering politics, he rather thought to go as a Democrat.
It just so happened that the incumbent in his home district was a Democrat, and the Republicans were looking for a natty looking vet in uniform for a candidate.

It sort of beggars the imagination to think of what could have been.....; 6/17/10, 2:47 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Lots of presidents wanted health care reform, too. One got it done.

Other than Hillary...I mean Bill, I don't recall much push for socialized medicine from the Oval Office.

Although I am just giddy for when that provision kicks in where all the yout who voted for him actually have to start, you know, buying their health insurance.

hee hee; 6/17/10, 2:47 PM
rcocean said...: You notice how truly stupid Gerald Ford was? The man could barely talk. Yet, he was the darling of the 'moderate Republicans' unlike "Right-wing Extemist" Reagan.

Romney = Jerry Ford Mark II.; 6/17/10, 2:50 PM
master cylinder said...: for sure Hagar.
Stewart is smart tv.; 6/17/10, 2:51 PM
rcocean said...: BTW, Stewart always comes off as a smug prick. He couldn't solve the energy crisis, he can't even write his own jokes.

But Bravo to the writers who wrote the script and come up video.; 6/17/10, 2:54 PM
Cedarford said...: Ann Althouse said...
Don't knock it until you've watched it, righties. It's very pro-Nixon!
=================
Nixon was the only one who grasped how serious the long-term problem was and made a series of executive orders and starting laws after the 1973 Embargo that would bring us closer to energy independence. Nixon's plan was he would finish his Presidency with two major domestic accomplishments in 1975 - Universal Health Care and a National Energy Program.

Teddy Kennedy later said that Watergate and general antagonism towards Nixon made him rally Dems to sabotage Universal Health Care - "my greatest legislative mistake, my deepest regret of all the tings I did as a Senator".

Watergate also cost us a national energy policy that was primarily focused on getting off Arab oil. Then 30%, America is now 72% dependent on foreign oil.

After Nixon, we all know what happened. Carter propped up solar panels on the White House for show, Reagan thought oil was everywhere and private enterprise would find it for the next 1,000 years and big cars were "a right". The Bushies and Clinton went with the idea that deficits and foreign oil dependence didn't matter beacause we had built a perfect American-led International System that ensured Freedom! and Unlimited Resouces!!

The Nixon proposal?

1. More nuclear power.
2. More oil from alternate oil sources like coal and nat gas synthesis, oil shale, drilling in areas once off-limits or opened up by new technology.
3. More energy efficiency required by industry, homes, vehicles.
4. Substitution for oil with other energy sources wherever possible. (that was done in electricity gen nationwide, prior to Watergate, as most oil-fired power plants were shut down).
5. Use of new energy sources like solar (Nixon threw that in as a sop to Dems) - but "when economically justified and feasible".
6. Nixon wanted a 25 cent tariff on foreign oil - something Republicans hated as "Smoot-Hawley!! stuff". And a 30 cent a gallon tax on gasoline and diesel - to be used for R&D and encouraging further development of domestic energy sources, inc biofuels and synth oil.

Now, Nixon was driven by the problem of foreign oil, not by solar is good and coal is evil thinking. Not by eliminating carbon as polar bear unfriendly, but by thinking "any energy but foreign, esp. Muslim nation, oil".

But 40 years later, as energy programs are sporadically revived..you apparantly get a bunch of praise and condemnation in DC by saying "Why, this whole thing is like the old Nixon plan!"; 6/17/10, 2:54 PM
Unknown said...: Montagne Montaigne said...

Lots of presidents wanted health care reform, too. One got it done.

By bribery and illegal measures. Get used to the word, Repeal.; 6/17/10, 2:57 PM
pm317 said...: Oh, boy! I dread to think what this Stewart challenge will do to Obama's ego. I dread even more Obama's reaction. Don't get me wrong -- I want the President (any President) to do something about it instead of just talking about it. But with Obama I am just happy to have him talk about it. I wish America had a "no confidence" motion and a "recall" for the presidency in its constitution.; 6/17/10, 2:57 PM
Anonymous said...: John Stewart is hilarious, and like all great satirists, he skewers anything that moves. Stewart is a great physical actor, too. It doesn't matter who he is eviscerating--that magnificent bastard is funny.

Right on cue, Monty makes a fool of himself (again). Obama "reformed" healthcare like Hitler reformed Europe.; 6/17/10, 3:01 PM
Cedarford said...: Dead Julius - "I'm too young to have experienced Nixon-- I was born when he was President. But maybe we not-so-old people can learn a thing or two from his take-chargedness?"

In a sense, what Nixon managed to do with a hostile Congress that hated him, a progressive Jewish media that hated him - was remarkable. A long list of major accomplishments in office. More noteworthy than what Reagan did. Who worked with the same Congress as MSM progressive Jews - but both liked him a good deal more than Nixon.

Both Nixon and Reagan were effective take charge Presidents. So too were LBJ and to a lesser extent, Clinton.

All had their flaws, but were far above Carter, Bush II, and Obama.; 6/17/10, 3:07 PM
Joe said...: Not only is C4 an Anti-Semite, like so many he’s an Economic Illiterate.

1. More nuclear power.
Nuclear Power is not cheaper than other forms of electrical power. Why not Coal Power, rather than Nuclear, which is costly and ahs long-term waste storage issues? All this does is drive up energy costs, for people and businesses.

2. More oil from alternate oil sources like coal and nat gas synthesis, oil shale, drilling in areas once off-limits or opened up by new technology.

Dood/doodette, again NOT CHEAPER than oil. The Nazi’s only did it because they needed more oil! Again, you’re no different than Obama, you want higher fuel prices, for US consumers, and lower growth and a lower standard of living. Sure, Obama wants it to combat “Global Climate Change” and you want to make us independent of Nasty Arabs, but the results are the same, artificially high energy prices.

3. More energy efficiency required by industry, homes, vehicles.
You get that with higher energy costs, not government mandate. AND efficiency is merely another form of reducing energy costs….IF you do more with less, you don’t use less, you make MORE with the saved energy. Energy Efficiency does NOTHING to reduce energy dependence.

4. Substitution for oil with other energy sources wherever possible. (that was done in electricity gen nationwide, prior to Watergate, as most oil-fired power plants were shut down).
Again, not cheaper than oil and no different than what the Greenies like AlGore want…higher energy costs, and less living….I might add that in Spain for every green energy job created over 2 OTHER jobs were lost.

5. Use of new energy sources like solar (Nixon threw that in as a sop to Dems) - but "when economically justified and feasible".
My G*d, must I say it again?! Solar is NOT cheaper than oil or coal….ergo you pay more for less energy. Plus solar isn’t reliable and can’t serve as a base load generator. Lastly, Indian Head Nuclear Power Plant, to replace it with Solar only requires that about 2/3 of Connecticut, in area, be given over to solar panels! It’s only not cost effective, it’s land intensive!

6. Nixon wanted a 25 cent tariff on foreign oil - something Republicans hated as "Smoot-Hawley!! stuff". And a 30 cent a gallon tax on gasoline and diesel - to be used for R&D and encouraging further development of domestic energy sources, inc biofuels and synth oil.

Yeah great plan, artificially drive up the cost of gasoline…truckers and drivers thank you. And the 30 cent tax on gas, we could have had the current synth fuels boondoggle in 1973? Wow, how marvelous is that?

Julius now you see why Conservative HATE Nixon, too….he had stupid ideas. On top of this he gave us OSHA and Affirmative Action, too. IF Ted Kennedy hadn’t hated him no one in the GOP would like him, at all.; 6/17/10, 3:09 PM
AllenS said...: Ann Althouse said...
Don't knock it until you've watched it, righties. It's very pro-Nixon!

Now I have to watch it. Pro-Nixon, is that a good thing? Was there a memo?; 6/17/10, 3:14 PM
chuck b. said...: "It's very pro-Nixon!"

There's a lot of wonderful historical footage in the PBS documentary Earth Days. I recommend it.; 6/17/10, 3:17 PM
David said...: Health care for all is "done" now?

All we have now is deeply flawed, horridly expensive legislation, unworkable in its current form, that does not take effect for several years, and will have to be radically altered as the time for implementation nears.

Talk to any health care administrator, to any person who really understands delivery, and you will see what a mess Obama has presented us with.; 6/17/10, 3:20 PM
Franklin said...: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me eight times, what am I, a fucking idiot?!"

What a sparkling wit.; 6/17/10, 3:22 PM
AllenS said...: You're full of shit, Althouse.; 6/17/10, 3:23 PM
chuck b. said...: Here's another Nixon clip from Earth Days that I took on my iPhone. Sorry the volume's a little low.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/82479320@N00/4665570392/; 6/17/10, 3:24 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Ann Althouse said...
Don't knock it until you've watched it, righties. It's very pro-Nixon!

I'm sorry, I'm an (ex) Californian. We knew Nixon. He was a crook and a liar.

smart, but a liar.; 6/17/10, 3:28 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Montagne Montaigne said...
Lots of presidents wanted health care reform, too. One got it done.

News: assing an unworkabe bill that is going to cause millions of people to lose the HC the have now, raise costs, stifle innovaton, and reduce quality is not good HC reform.

Tort Reform and Nation-wide insurance competition would be good and lower costs; 6/17/10, 3:33 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Joe said...
1) It is IMPOSSIBLE to move us “off oil.” Unless you also want to wean us off Technic Society and retreat to the 1700’s.

and all you AGW folks things ae shitty now :)

let's go back to 1790, recut down mllions of acre of trees again, to clear land to feed those big green-house gas emitters (called horses)

just like Pol Pot, we can move all the peope who can read back out to the farms to get reeducated.; 6/17/10, 3:39 PM
kent said...: "In order to protect the new national health care law from legal challenges, the Obama administration has been forced to argue that the individual mandate represents a tax -- even though Obama himself argued the exact opposite while campaigning to pass the legislation."

As always, read the whole thing.; 6/17/10, 3:42 PM
888 said...: Oil is a very useful commodity. No oil, no Vegas.; 6/17/10, 3:44 PM
Eugene said...: As president, I will do everything in my power to increase our dependency on foreign oil. Then when everybody else runs out, we'll still have ours (plus all our coal, uranium, and natural gas)! In the immortal words of Nelson Muntz, "Ha ha!"; 6/17/10, 4:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Presidents must go behind the curtain after speeches like these and burst out laughing. "Suckers!"

I've seen a montage of these clips. Even Truman made the Oil Promise.; 6/17/10, 4:24 PM
Patm said...: The fakery of obamacare. Lies from start to finish. But he "got it done,"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704198004575310773636609374.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond; 6/17/10, 4:24 PM
Anthony said...: “Energy Independence” is something that Presidents seem obligated to talk about, even though it is, as a concept, completely IMPOSSIBLE.

Pretty much end of thread right there. When anyone talks of energy independence, you may as well stop listening.; 6/17/10, 4:49 PM
Cedarford said...: Joe, as a doctrinaire, true believer, free market and free trade for Freedom Lovers!! -conservative extremist - is oblivious to reality.

Had the country adapted a National Energy Program, had a strategic direction - we would be far better off almost 40 years later than with the lies and reactive drifting DC has given us instead.; 6/17/10, 4:50 PM
Blue@9 said...: The Left never wants to hear it, but Nixon was a liberal by today's standards, at least as far as domestic politics. He came of age in the New Deal era and believed in the power of big government to shape America. He believed in strong environmental protection, gov't control over the economy, hell, he had the most progressive policies toward Native Americans of any President. If he were alive today, he'd be to the left of Al Franken.; 6/17/10, 4:54 PM
AllenS said...: Cedarford said...

Had the country adapted a National Energy Program, had a strategic direction - we would be far better off almost 40 years later than with the lies and reactive drifting DC has given us instead.

How so? Would we all be driving GEO Metros? Explain National Energy Programs. Would Al Gore be using less electricity? Would rock stars not be brought to the concert in limos? Would John Travolta not invested his money in jets? What do you drive?; 6/17/10, 4:58 PM
Eric said...: 1) It is IMPOSSIBLE to move us “off oil.” Unless you also want to wean us off Technic Society and retreat to the 1700’s.

Not true. We could use nuclear instead of oil if we wanted to. France generates 80% of its electricity with nuclear, and if you have power you can make diesel fuel from the air.; 6/17/10, 5:47 PM
halojones-fan said...: @Joe:

Nuclear power is costly because of terrified idiots getting in the way of it. It's expensive because of people who watched too many sci-fi movies while nursing from big bottles of Ovaltine and licking the filling out of Oreos. It's expensive because of grandstanding governors who see a chance to get their name on TV. It's because of suburban moms who've been conditioned since birth to believe that "unknown equals fear equals danger equals deny".

Oh, Chernobyl? Hey, you're right. We should go with more oil-burning instead, right? I mean, the Gulf Coast will eventually be clean again in another decade or so; at least that's what all the talking heads on the news say. And I'm sure all those coal miners would agree that hey, better to be suffocated in two hours than maybe get cancer forty years from now.

Storage? Try "storing" the output of a coal-burning power plant. Coal burning produces heavy metals, which are immediately toxic; it produces sulfur, which causes acid rain; it produces soot, which directly affects air quality and promotes asthma. And all these things are dispersed widely through the atmosphere in an uncontrolled way. Meanwhile, nuclear waste just sits there in a jar, and all you have to do is not go near the jar. Nuclear waste is not some kind of Cthulu monster that will break out of the jars at night and terrorize the populace.

You want to know why nuclear never works? It's because of people like you lying in the road in front of it.; 6/17/10, 5:55 PM
Cedarford said...: AllenS -

If that is your philosphy, then we also didn't need"

1. A national interstate highway policy.
2. A space program.
3. A rural electrification program.
4. An immigration policy.
5. No need for standards and measures.
6. No need for diplomacy or detente.

No need for any long-range objective or policy.
Just let stuff happen, and when it does, react to it with "market forces". Eventually.; 6/17/10, 5:55 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: Cedarford, you're the one that said we'd be so much better off if we had a National Energy Program. It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask you to actually list some of the benefits.

If you can't actually tell us what a National Energy Program would do (other than "make things better"), it's just so much hot air.; 6/17/10, 6:02 PM
Joe said...: You want to know why nuclear never works? It's because of people like you lying in the road in front of it.

Yeah people like me....
Of course the US Navy found nuclear power to be extremely expensive and never found it EFFICIENT to use it widely...it is EFFECTIVE, especially for submarines, but it is not EFFICIENT. I'm willing to bet kilowatt for kilowatt nuclear costs MORE, but if it makes you feel better blaming a free market advocate, fell free.; 6/17/10, 6:03 PM
Joe said...: You want to know why nuclear never works? It's because of people like you lying in the road in front of it.

Yeah people like me....
Of course the US Navy found nuclear power to be extremely expensive and never found it EFFICIENT to use it widely...it is EFFECTIVE, especially for submarines, but it is not EFFICIENT. I'm willing to bet kilowatt for kilowatt nuclear costs MORE, but if it makes you feel better blaming a free market advocate, fell free.; 6/17/10, 6:05 PM
Joe said...: You want to know why nuclear never works? It's because of people like you lying in the road in front of it.

Yeah people like me....
Of course the US Navy found nuclear power to be extremely expensive and never found it EFFICIENT to use it widely...it is EFFECTIVE, especially for submarines, but it is not EFFICIENT. I'm willing to bet kilowatt for kilowatt nuclear costs MORE, but if it makes you feel better blaming a free market advocate, fell free.; 6/17/10, 6:05 PM
Ron said...: So it comes down to lil ol' me to mention the Helena Bonham Carter (that OTHER peanut farmer!) tag? Oh, where have the commenters of yesteryear gone.....; 6/17/10, 6:14 PM
Joe said...: Oh and C4 Europe HAS adopted many of these policies...is it INDEPENDENT of that Stinkie A-Rab erl? Or does France not spend an inordinate amount of time panderin' to them Sand ***gers an' Towel Haids?!?! Also provid'n with guns an' what not with which to attack White Christian folk an' to lust after our white wominz!

Sotrry to lampoon you, the question still stands...Has not Europe adopted these policies? Yeah 80% of France ELECTRICITY comes from nuclear and yes gas costs a lot per gallon in Europe, due to confiscatory tax rates....and Europe still depends on foreign energy sources.

Nixon, you Mitterand, or Kohl or Merkel are barking up the wrong tree, chasing a chimera.

Of course a bonus, to you is that many of those Frainch wepons can, at least rhetorically, be pointed them Jooooos in Is-RILE, so there is SOME consolation.; 6/17/10, 6:25 PM
AllenS said...: Cedarford,

I'm all for the national interstate highway.

Space programs are good if its satellites and weapons programs.

I am rural and I approve of electricity.

Stop immigration now. There's too many people in this country.

Now go ahead and explain your National Energy Program.

Does it involve the space programs? Rural electricity? Immigration? What are you driving?; 6/17/10, 6:31 PM
Phil 314 said...: We want energy independence

and...

cheap gas

and....

cool cars

and.....

FREEDOM to go where ever we want and when ever we want.

and...

AND WE WANT IT NOW!!!!; 6/17/10, 6:40 PM
AllenS said...: Well said, c3.; 6/17/10, 6:45 PM
Unknown said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/17/10, 6:49 PM
Unknown said...: C Black said...

You Know, I'm an uptight prig who makes the media and it's liberal biases his futile, wind-mill tilting, Bête noire. But, seriously, If you can't ever laugh at shit like this... Well, You can go to HotAir and be a commenter (Where My Jingo-ism is Better than Yours!)
P.S. I check out HotAir at least twice a day; but the comments are usually pretty awful and rarely very informative.

WV: Consp: N. The beginning of the end of the expose' of a criminal act in progress. Ex. "This is the most dark and nefarious consp-(shot)"; 6/17/10, 6:59 PM
AllenS said...: Cedarford said...
AllenS -

If that is your philosphy

Exactly what is my philosophy?; 6/17/10, 7:07 PM
Revenant said...: Lots of presidents wanted health care reform, too. One got it done.

But enough about Richard Nixon. :); 6/17/10, 10:13 PM
Ironclad said...: Last in, problem with being on the other side of the world.

Energy Independence? You can break that down currently into three categories - supply, price and security. Now all you can have is 2 of the 3. And that is the dilemma.

The middle east has copious supply and low price and no security. In the US, we have have supply and price - at a huge additional cost.

And that in the end is the rub - unless you are willing to add a tax or a penalty to all of our transactions and exports (like they do in Europe), you cannot produce oil or energy here for less than you can in the middle east. It is just too easy to get out of the ground in that part of the world at a low price. The only way you can compete is to subsidize - that has worked really well with ethanol - right?

The other fly in the ointment is reliability - nuclear and coal has it - wind and solar do not. Since you can't store electricity, you have to have generation capacity available NOW - potential does not count.

When a president stands up and says - choose 2 of the 3 and is honest about it, then I will listen. Same as being honest about reliability and the need for "dirty power" now other than the butterflies and unicorns version that seems to be passed off as "just around the corner".; 6/18/10, 12:04 AM
John Stodder said...: Did nobody get the point of this? The joke is, every president since Nixon has promised energy independence, in part via technological solutions that will also improve the environment, and none of them have done it because no one has any idea how in fact to do it. It's just pretty words.

Righties shouldn't watch it because it's pro-Nixon. They should watch it because it's pro-common sense.

Although the mockery of Obama is shared with mockery of his predecessors, you can't say comedians are laying off Obama anymore. Implicitly, Stewart is calling bullshit on the president's energy policies.

Plus, the clip of Carter saying "gasohol" is unaccountably funny. Carter overall seems pre-McCluhanesque. He's got a terrible voice, and he sounds like a petulant old man pissed at his kids for mistreating his garden tools.

WV: greanist What each president thinks he is.; 6/18/10, 3:22 AM
jeff said...: "Lots of presidents wanted health care reform, too. One got it done."

Nope. None of them got it done. Unless you torture the meaning of "reform".; 6/18/10, 9:47 AM
Simone said...: Here is some basic oil info that seems to be forgotten on a regular basis.

According to the Energy Information Administration (May 27, 2010):
"The top five sources of US crude oil imports for March were Canada (2.020 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.149 million barrels per day), Mexico (1.086 million barrels per day), Venezuela (0.984 million barrels per day), and Nigeria (0.939 million barrels per day)."

The EIA has a table on US petroleum stats (mostly 2008).

Also, it's easy to remember high oil prices in the 1970s and 2000s. But also remember the cheap oil in the 1980s and most of the 1990s - world price under $15/barrel, due to the large new discoveries that were brought on line due to the preceding period's high prices. It was too low to sustain much exploration and development. So now there are fairly high oil prices paying for discovery and development of new oil fields, and for the development of technology (making the impossible possible and the possible cheaper and safer).

Oil prices go up and they go down, they are up again and they'll go down again. A big question IMO is whether the US will continue to benefit from oil, as a consumer, producer, and equipment developer.; 6/18/10, 12:51 PM