Speaker 1: Welcome to an All Glasses and Mustachers episode of the Nonprofits.
Speaker 1: For our first segment this week, we're looking once again
Speaker 1: at the Ten Commandments in the classroom. Demian take us
Speaker 1: to Louisiana.
Speaker 2: I'd rather not, but if I really have to, it
Speaker 2: is a long way from Australia as well, mind you.
Speaker 3: But look look.
Speaker 2: In an article from Newsweek published on October twenty third
Speaker 2: and written Bay and Natalie Venegas, we learned that Christopher Deer,
Speaker 2: the winner of Louisiana's Teacher of the Year award for
Speaker 2: twenty twenty, has filed a lawsuit against the State of
Speaker 2: Louisiana for its controversial statute HB seven to one, a
Speaker 2: mandate requiring all public classrooms in all schools in Louisiana
Speaker 2: to have a poster size display of the Ten Commandments
Speaker 2: alongside a paragraph explaining the Ten Commandments role in the
Speaker 2: early stages early stages of American education and history. However,
Speaker 2: numerous individuals and groups have claimed that the display of
Speaker 2: the Ten Commandments is tantamounts of the violation of the
Speaker 2: separation of church and state, as well as conscripting teachers
Speaker 2: into promoting religious doctrine with the State of Louisiana entering
Speaker 2: into a legal battle on numerous fronts. It seems that
Speaker 2: HB seven to one may not have been the most
Speaker 2: prudent or most well thought out idea, But I would
Speaker 2: love to get everybody else's thoughts on the matter.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Damien, I think we'll stick with you at first
Speaker 1: here before we rip into this, What are the arguments
Speaker 1: in favor of this law? And do those arguments hold wider?
Speaker 1: Is there a legitimate secular purpose to displaying the Ten
Speaker 1: Commandments in the classroom?
Speaker 3: Look?
Speaker 2: In all my research, that the closest I could find
Speaker 2: was that there was a twenty twenty one Supreme Court
Speaker 2: decision that did actually uphold the idea that the Ten
Speaker 2: Commandments does have a place in the history of education
Speaker 2: in America. Now, whether you agree with that judgment or
Speaker 2: I haven't read through the whole judgment, all I know
Speaker 2: is that it exists. Yeah, that is that a sufficient
Speaker 2: reason to mandate the putting the Ten Commandments in the classrooms?
Speaker 2: I'm not too sure, but that is honestly the only
Speaker 2: secular argument I.
Speaker 1: Could find interesting. Interesting. All right, let's jump over to
Speaker 1: Kelly then for a little bit. Kelly, what do you
Speaker 1: think about this law as far as the effect it'll
Speaker 1: have on teachers in Louisiana. How will this affect teachers who,
Speaker 1: like Christopher Dear from the article, he opposes displaying religious
Speaker 1: materials in his classroom due to his personal beliefs and
Speaker 1: constitutional concerns. So what's the effect going to be on teachers?
Speaker 3: First off, kudos to him for bringing the lawsuit, and
Speaker 3: I'm so happy that he was like the Teacher of
Speaker 3: the Year because it brings a certain amount of legitimacy
Speaker 3: with it too, So he's not just some crazy guy
Speaker 3: who's teaching at some small school in Louisiana that nobody
Speaker 3: cares about. Right, So kudos to him to begin with.
Speaker 3: But one of the things that really bother me about this,
Speaker 3: since you bring it up, is that the state is
Speaker 3: making and Damien even mentioned it in the intro, the
Speaker 3: state is making teachers into religious teachers, right. They are
Speaker 3: now having to push a religion in their classroom, and
Speaker 3: not every child is going to be a part of
Speaker 3: that religion. If these were the five Pillars of Islam
Speaker 3: up on the wall, I bet some of the people
Speaker 3: that parents in those classes would be really up in arms.
Speaker 3: But I don't I really feel for the teachers in
Speaker 3: this case because me with geology and healing crystals, people
Speaker 3: are always trying to turn me into a shaman. So
Speaker 3: I totally get it, you know, and it really breaks
Speaker 3: my heart to see the state kind of forcing this
Speaker 3: onto the teachers.
Speaker 4: Like this so interesting. Interesting.
Speaker 1: I want to get Steven's take on this too, and
Speaker 1: then I'm going to open it up to some questions
Speaker 1: for the panel. But Stephen, as half of our panel
Speaker 1: this week is not American, including yourself, I'm curious as
Speaker 1: to how does this look from the outside you what
Speaker 1: would it? What would this How would you react if
Speaker 1: this happened in your local school?
Speaker 5: Oh no, dude, buddha Ey, it'd be pretty wild, you know, Eh, yeah, no,
Speaker 5: it's I I can't. I can't. I can't imagine religion
Speaker 5: having such an impact in our government set up here
Speaker 5: in Canada. And maybe I'm naive, and I know that
Speaker 5: things can vary from province to province. Like obviously we
Speaker 5: all know everybody on this side of the border knows
Speaker 5: that Alberta is little Texas, that there's a lot of
Speaker 5: similarities between Alberta, Colorado, Texas, and so like maybe I
Speaker 5: think that's probably the most right leaning province that we
Speaker 5: have up here right now, So maybe something like that
Speaker 5: could possibly be entertained out there, But anywhere else in
Speaker 5: the country, I can't see the church trying to insinuate
Speaker 5: itself so brazenly into our education system and into our
Speaker 5: into any system that has, you know, under the auspices
Speaker 5: of provincial or federal government. It's just wild to me
Speaker 5: how much sway and control religious institutions have in other
Speaker 5: parts of the world, such as Louisiana, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: Now in Canada, though they don't have there's not an
Speaker 1: explicit separation of church and state like in the United States,
Speaker 1: right is that?
Speaker 4: Am I correct with that? Or is there like it?
Speaker 3: Well, don't like Catholic schools can still be funded by
Speaker 3: the Canadian government in.
Speaker 1: Or maybe it's maybe there is, but it's just a
Speaker 1: little different than than what we have here or what we.
Speaker 4: Used to have or should have here.
Speaker 5: Like I don't think it ever enters into the converseate
Speaker 5: or maybe it hasn't been a part I think are foundationally.
Speaker 5: It's just never been in our DNA quite in the
Speaker 5: same way that we've our neighbors to the south have experienced,
Speaker 5: and so it's just like we have a Charter of
Speaker 5: Rates and freedoms, which you know, it makes a firm
Speaker 5: and a firmer differentiation between what religion Canada cannot be
Speaker 5: involved in.
Speaker 3: I'd like Americans Canadians actually read their documents and understand, well, if.
Speaker 2: I could jump in for a second, seven is in
Speaker 2: the same place as I. So Canada and Australia are
Speaker 2: both constitutional. Monarchy is run by currently run by King
Speaker 2: Charles the Third. King Charles the Third literally has his
Speaker 2: own church. The Anglican Church is run by the current monarch.
Speaker 2: So technically there is no church state separation. The church
Speaker 2: that the Anglican Church is the state sponsored church. However,
Speaker 2: and I can speak for the Australian the Australian experience.
Speaker 2: If someone tried to put croationists or even I suppose
Speaker 2: fundamentally religious principles into a school classroom, we tell him
Speaker 2: to bugger off is an way. Now, what I did
Speaker 2: want to do here was I've actually got the Louisiana
Speaker 2: Statute HB seven to one on the screen in front
Speaker 2: of me, and I did want to just read a
Speaker 2: couple of sections out just to get your thoughts, get
Speaker 2: the collective thoughts about it. So Section three says, in
Speaker 2: twenty nineteen, the Supreme Court of the United States further
Speaker 2: recognized that the Ten Commandments have historical significance as one
Speaker 2: of the foundations of our legal system in American Legion
Speaker 2: versus American Humanist Association five eight eight, and the Court
Speaker 2: also ruled that the displaying of the Ten Commandments on
Speaker 2: public property may have multiple purposes, such as historical significance
Speaker 2: and represent a common cultural heritage. So that's Part three.
Speaker 2: Part four says, recognizing the historical role of the Ten
Speaker 2: Commandments accords with our nation's history and faithfully reflects the
Speaker 2: understanding of the founders of our nation with respect to
Speaker 2: the necessity of civic morale to a functional self government.
Speaker 2: And then, as Chapter seven says, sorry, Part seven says,
Speaker 2: the Mayflower Compact of sixteen twenty was America's first written
Speaker 2: constitution and made a covenant with Almighty God to form
Speaker 2: a civic body politic. This was the first purely American
Speaker 2: document of self government and affirmed the link between civil
Speaker 2: society and God.
Speaker 3: How do you call a document written by a bunch
Speaker 3: of people that just came here from England an American
Speaker 3: fucking document. If you're not even they're not calling themselves Americans,
Speaker 3: they're still calling themselves British. How is that an American document?
Speaker 3: I don't get that just because it was written in America. No,
Speaker 3: that's bullshit, you know. So this is one of the
Speaker 3: problems is that we're going to start picking and choosing
Speaker 3: these things that we're going to use to justify to
Speaker 3: do things that are unconstitutional. And let's face it, this
Speaker 3: is unconstitutional what they've done. We actually predicted her unknown
Speaker 3: privates when we first covered this story. We predicted it
Speaker 3: was going to go to court really quick. And I
Speaker 3: am sure that our Teacher of the Year is going
Speaker 3: to win because this is strictly an unconstitutional thing and
Speaker 3: you can't pull up some document that was written before
Speaker 3: America was even thought about being pissed upon and use
Speaker 3: that as your justification for going over the American Constitution.
Speaker 3: That's ridiculous. Sorry, well look.
Speaker 2: But look, look I can see the historical value argument. However,
Speaker 2: I'm not sure what mandating that it is shown in
Speaker 2: every classroom, So it's not just it's not actually just
Speaker 2: the Ten Commandments, it's the Ten Commandments plus like an
Speaker 2: explanatory paragraph that includes like the MAYFA like that explains
Speaker 2: the Mayfair Charter or whatever it's called as well may
Speaker 2: fake American.
Speaker 3: It's all good.
Speaker 2: I can see that, and I think it would be
Speaker 2: really good in a Civics class or like a history
Speaker 2: class or a social social studies class. But from my perspective,
Speaker 2: mandating it in every classroom is clearly.
Speaker 5: Sorry, in every kindergarten classroom.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, well.
Speaker 2: He's clearly I suppose pushing a religious what's the word,
Speaker 2: viewpoint or a religious position.
Speaker 1: Right, right, So yeah, and it's from what you were
Speaker 1: saying when you were Damien, when you were reading it,
Speaker 1: it sounds like they're using the old chestnut, you know,
Speaker 1: you can't have morality without God kind of argument, but
Speaker 1: they're applying it on a national level, and so, I
Speaker 1: don't know, you know, to me, these seem very flimsy arguments,
Speaker 1: as is common when discussing this this type of topic.
Speaker 1: It seems like they're not actually trying to base decisions
Speaker 1: off of sound reasoning and.
Speaker 4: History.
Speaker 1: What they're doing is they're starting with their desired conclusion
Speaker 1: and seeing if they can piece meal a sound break
Speaker 1: out the duct tap and the and the w D.
Speaker 1: Foy and then put together some kind of Frankenstein support
Speaker 1: for this, and it just seems like it's a like
Speaker 1: kind of a backwards way of approaching it.
Speaker 4: But sorry, go ahead, demon.
Speaker 2: So I was going to say, add one more thing.
Speaker 2: And this is a common thing that I find when
Speaker 2: discussing religion online with Christians is that they do make
Speaker 2: the argument that modern modern laws are based upon the
Speaker 2: Ten Commandments, you know, especially Western Western Western liberal laws
Speaker 2: are inherently based on the Ten Commandments, which is an
Speaker 2: argument that I personally find I wouldn't say goaling, but
Speaker 2: just incredibly stupid, because you know, we don't have any
Speaker 2: laws about working on the Sabbath, we don't have any
Speaker 2: laws about committing adultery, you know, and where it says
Speaker 2: do not murder, you know, Louisiana is I think if
Speaker 2: I'm not, if I'm not mistaken, Louisiana still has the
Speaker 2: death penalty on it books. So it's like, go.
Speaker 1: Figure right, right, yeah, yeah, Stephen, what do you what
Speaker 1: do you have to say about that?
Speaker 5: Like, like if I tried to imagine, like what would
Speaker 5: if I were that teacher, if I was in that situation,
Speaker 5: what would my response be what would I do? Like,
Speaker 5: would I like, could I be disobedient? Could I like, okay,
Speaker 5: I will put this poster up backwards? Like would would
Speaker 5: that count? Would I get my wrist to slap for that?
Speaker 5: Would I want to like put up? Okay, here's the
Speaker 5: Ten Commandments and here's you know, the Hindu equivalent of
Speaker 5: whatever the ten Commandments are, and here's the wise sayings
Speaker 5: of the Buddha, and we're going to put them all
Speaker 5: and maybe we could just drown out this one or
Speaker 5: at least like add some global contextual context to what
Speaker 5: just the fact that there is more to morality than
Speaker 5: these ten really weird things like like the Ten Commandments
Speaker 5: are not that great of a list of documents, and like, hey, enough,
Speaker 5: like the first three are all about how God is
Speaker 5: jealous and if you don't love him completely, he will
Speaker 5: hurt you forever. And what is that doing in schools?
Speaker 4: Is that the message we want to give our students?
Speaker 5: Well, and my heart goes out, especially to the young kids,
Speaker 5: like we're talking about five years old, right, you want
Speaker 5: to put this list in front of them and then
Speaker 5: try to explain the deep significance of how this has
Speaker 5: impacted the law judicial system of their land. They can't
Speaker 5: understand any of that. Maybe they can't necessarily read the
Speaker 5: Ten Commandments either, but you're still planting that seed, and
Speaker 5: they are not able to understand why that seed is
Speaker 5: being put in front of them. Why are you putting
Speaker 5: the Ten fucking Commandments on the same levels as the ABCS.
Speaker 4: Motherfuckers?
Speaker 1: Right exactly exactly, Kelly, I want you to continue on
Speaker 1: with that thought about how this is going to affect
Speaker 1: the students, and so this is we've we've we've mentioned
Speaker 1: that this law will promote a single actually a single
Speaker 1: version of a single religion. How do you think this
Speaker 1: is going to affect students of other religions or of
Speaker 1: no religion.
Speaker 3: I think it's going to show them that their religion
Speaker 3: doesn't mean shit, not here in this classroom. You know,
Speaker 3: if if I got even if I got twenty eight
Speaker 3: Christians in the room and two Muslims, I'm just shitting
Speaker 3: on those two, those two Muslims. Like I was saying before,
Speaker 3: let's see, if we're going to put up the Ten Commandments,
Speaker 3: we also need to put up the five Pillars of Islam.
Speaker 3: We need to put up as as Stephen was just
Speaker 3: saying other things, from Hinduism, from other religions, maybe we
Speaker 3: should put up a creation If we're going to get historical,
Speaker 3: let's put up the creation story of the Choctaw Indians
Speaker 3: for crying out loud, you know, because they were there
Speaker 3: before us, so as honor as we're going back in time.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I think it's just kind of shitting on
Speaker 3: the students by showing in that their religious view viewpoints
Speaker 3: don't count at all. These are the ones to count.
Speaker 3: You're allowed, you have to follow this religion, these religious rules,
Speaker 3: and no other. And as it was pointed out too,
Speaker 3: I mean most of them don't even have anything to
Speaker 3: do with the law. The first four are just religious
Speaker 3: and nature.
Speaker 4: The first yeah, the first four commandments.
Speaker 3: Yeah, for the Ten Commandments.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if I can, if I can ask the question,
Speaker 2: sure for the American part of the audience, is there
Speaker 2: a valid and legitimate historical background to the Ten Commandments
Speaker 2: in American culture?
Speaker 1: You know, I've never heard about that, that particular approach
Speaker 1: until like in the last fifteen twenty years or so.
Speaker 4: I remember as a kid ever hearing that.
Speaker 2: For example, if you put a cross up on a
Speaker 2: like a gravestone or something, you know, we know cross
Speaker 2: as are associated with Christianity, but there is also like
Speaker 2: a very long historical association with marking the death the
Speaker 2: spot of someone's death with a cross. So a cross
Speaker 2: isn't necessary religious. But is there a valid historical purpose
Speaker 2: or meaning that can be tied to the Ten Commandments?
Speaker 4: I think yeah, I don't think so.
Speaker 1: On In fact, I think there's a you know, the
Speaker 1: only historical references to this kind of thing are really
Speaker 1: just the opposite. I mean, it's the separation of church
Speaker 1: and state. It's it's you know that that particular concept
Speaker 1: is foundational to the United States. You can see that
Speaker 1: in our foundational documents, and it specifically says that, you know,
Speaker 1: the United States began as people fleeing religious persecution and
Speaker 1: so and so here we are, you know, basically, I say,
Speaker 1: they say that you're bound to grow up to be
Speaker 1: your parents. I mean, is that what's happening here? Is
Speaker 1: that the United States are growing up to be their parents?
Speaker 4: Is that?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 3: I was just going to say that while we don't
Speaker 3: have that institutional connection or history, and I'm pretty good
Speaker 3: at American history and I don't know anything like that,
Speaker 3: but there is a strong personal history because you have
Speaker 3: to remember that America was founded by a bunch of
Speaker 3: freaking religious fanatics. So there is you know, we have
Speaker 3: in that sense. Yes, there is a historical connection, but
Speaker 3: it's a personal connection, not an institutional one.
Speaker 2: And Kelly's actually kind of made my point for me,
Speaker 2: was that the people who left England, yes they were,
Speaker 2: they were suffering religious persecution, so they came to the
Speaker 2: land of the United States of America in order to
Speaker 2: enact their own version of religious persecution.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so totally, yes, totally.
Speaker 1: So we've mentioned the Supreme Court and and and Kelly
Speaker 1: mentioned the Supreme Court in the same breath as saying
Speaker 1: going against the Constitution.
Speaker 4: Now, the Constitution.
Speaker 1: Lays out the duties of the various branches of government,
Speaker 1: and one of the duties of the Supreme Court is
Speaker 1: to interpret the Constitution. And so in a way, you
Speaker 1: could argue that the Supreme Court can't go against the
Speaker 1: Constitution because the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says.
Speaker 4: Yes, what's your what do you what do you think
Speaker 4: about that?
Speaker 3: And can I just say two words, real query, Bud Scott,
Speaker 3: that's all you need to hear.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, that's true.
Speaker 1: I mean yeah, because because you so Kelly, you're arguing
Speaker 1: doing that, it's the role of the Constitution to stand
Speaker 1: in and defend the people when the rest of the
Speaker 1: government won't.
Speaker 4: Is that kind of what you're.
Speaker 3: Saying, when even when Scotus is wrong, we still have
Speaker 3: the Constitution. And so what happened here in that case
Speaker 3: is it took generations, but we got the correct ruling
Speaker 3: decades later. Right, the Constitution was upheld, but the Constitution
Speaker 3: even overrode the bad justices and the Supreme Court.
Speaker 4: So Stephen, what do you say about that?
Speaker 1: What's your perspective on the United States Supreme Court pushing
Speaker 1: the Constitution in a particular direction. Do you think that's
Speaker 1: their their warrant or do you think that they're kind
Speaker 1: of crossing the line here?
Speaker 5: That's that's a really great question, Scott. That's absolutely I've learned.
Speaker 5: I've learned a lot about your judicial system down there
Speaker 5: in the States over the past few years, a lot
Speaker 5: more than what I knew before, and probably I know
Speaker 5: now less than what I will know in the future.
Speaker 5: But yes, you all have a constantution and a Supreme Court.
Speaker 5: Definitely interesting. Interesting.
Speaker 1: So one last question for the panel and then I'm
Speaker 1: gonna I just want to get a quick answer, will
Speaker 1: go down one at a time. And so we've we've
Speaker 1: seen successful challenges to religious displays on public property before,
Speaker 1: things like Christmas decorations, et cetera. Is this situation wanting
Speaker 1: to display religious materials in public schools? Is this different
Speaker 1: or the same to that kind of thing or is it?
Speaker 4: You know?
Speaker 1: And how so, so we'll start with Damien and then
Speaker 1: we'll go to Kelly and then to Stephen.
Speaker 2: I think from our atheist perspective, it looks like that
Speaker 2: this is going to go the same way, because from
Speaker 2: our perspective, it clearly looks like a display forcible display
Speaker 2: of religious materials. However, I think this is this is
Speaker 2: a lawyer's paradise, as I may say.
Speaker 1: So, you think a lot of people are going to
Speaker 1: make a lot of money out of the litigation that's
Speaker 1: gonna oh yeah, fall from this particular manna from heaven?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 2: Heck yes, heck yes.
Speaker 4: Kelly, what's what's your thoughts in there?
Speaker 1: Do you think this is kind of like displaying Christmas
Speaker 1: decorations or is it different?
Speaker 3: I think I think it is different than Christmas decorations
Speaker 3: because I mean, let's face that there isn't a real
Speaker 3: lot of religious aspect to Santa Claus. I mean, there
Speaker 3: are other religious aspects to Christmas, but you can make
Speaker 3: Christmas decorations totally secular, right. And I was reading the
Speaker 3: follow up on this story and apparently a federal judge
Speaker 3: hasn't monished the state of I mean, no legal action
Speaker 3: has been taken yet, but he has verbally admonished the
Speaker 3: state of Louisiana for this lot.
Speaker 1: So, okay, Steven, you what are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 1: How does this compare to trying to keep that Nativity
Speaker 1: scene off out of the community center yard? How does
Speaker 1: that compare to putting the Ten Commandments in front of
Speaker 1: students' faces?
Speaker 5: Think of the children, children, Oh, they need to if
Speaker 5: we don't like it. Just it feeds into that narrative
Speaker 5: of any time we try to act responsibly in differentiating
Speaker 5: ourselves from the past, that's when people are motivated to say, oh, well,
Speaker 5: you're trying to erase the past, and that means you
Speaker 5: don't want to learn from the past. I'm like, no,
Speaker 5: we're trying to. We're trying to implement what we have
Speaker 5: learned from the past in a responsible way.
Speaker 1: So it's so basically you're comparing progress versus conservatism based
Speaker 1: in a sense, right, yeah.
Speaker 5: Basically, yeah, like it it's for us to It's not
Speaker 5: a matter of trying to erase what may have been
Speaker 5: an influence in the founding of a nation, but it's
Speaker 5: about dealing with it responsibly and not just in a
Speaker 5: way that is empowering to the majority, right, right, exactly.
Speaker 2: If I could ask one more, one more question, really,
Speaker 2: why is Louisiana so concerned about the I suppose the
Speaker 2: history of American education, especially what happened in New England
Speaker 2: when I'm not American, but I think Louisiana is like
Speaker 2: the opposite side of the country almost to New England.
Speaker 2: So I'm not sure why a state that was almost
Speaker 2: literally lead the last into the Union and was originally
Speaker 2: French has decided that, you know, what happened in New
Speaker 2: England in sixteen twenty is really worth teaching the kids.
Speaker 3: That is totally not the question I thought you were
Speaker 3: going to ask. I thought you were going to ask,
Speaker 3: why is the state of Louisiana so interested in education
Speaker 3: when they are one of the worst states in the.
Speaker 4: Country like forty nine or something or forty eight.
Speaker 6: You're like, forty and if this public I suppose forcible
Speaker 6: teaching of the history of education and so a portion,
Speaker 6: why are they no other states that have similar mandates?
Speaker 2: Are there? Are there states that have similar mandates? If so,
Speaker 2: what are they and how has it gone in those states?
Speaker 3: We're dealing with that, and it's something similar in Oklahoma
Speaker 3: right now, where they were just ordered to teach the
Speaker 3: Bible in classes.
Speaker 4: So well.
Speaker 1: I think the issue though, is that it's they're not
Speaker 1: they're not concerned about the history of New England. What
Speaker 1: they're concerned about is getting their having their religious beliefs
Speaker 1: promoted in public schools. That just happens to be the
Speaker 1: convenient excuse du jour to use the French.
Speaker 4: For our folks down in Louisiana.
Speaker 2: And yeah, we are actually missing one important aspect of
Speaker 2: HP seven to one as well, is that the way
Speaker 2: they're getting around it is that they're not using state
Speaker 2: funds to fund the purchase and display of these They're
Speaker 2: soliciting private donations in order to get around You would think.
Speaker 1: That would be kind of tipping their hand, right isn't
Speaker 1: that kind of giving it away?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 1: Interesting? Okay, well, interesting conversation. I think we're gon, we're
Speaker 1: gonna have to cut it short here. Just give a
Speaker 1: chance if anybody has a last word, and now is
Speaker 1: the time to bring it up, all right, Well then
Speaker 1: we'll wrap things up here and we'll