A history teacher at the Great Hearts Monte Vista Charter School (in San Antonio, Texas) distributed an assignment consisting of a worksheet titled “The Life of Slaves: A Balanced View” to eighth graders. The idea was for student to list the positive and negative aspects of slavery. After parent Roberto Livar posted to social media the worksheet his son Manu brought home to complete, the teacher was placed on leave and the school said it would audit the textbook associated with the lesson. Aaron Kindel, the superintendent of Great Hearts Texas, which operates 28 public charter schools in that state and Arizona, said in a statement posted on the Great Hearts Facebook page, “To be clear, there is no debate about slavery. It is immoral and a crime against humanity.” He said the school’s headmaster plans will explain the mistake to the history class.
I can’t wait to hear what that explanation is. How does any American living in the 21st Century not flinch at a title like “The Life of Slaves: A Balanced View”? It sounds like a joke, in fact: there is a whole genre of galley slave cartoons that rely on the idea that there is anything positive about being a slave is inherently ridiculous. (“It’s not a paid position but I’m gaining invaluable experience in the rowing sector!”). Yes, this teacher is incompetent, and leave is too good for him (or her). If you can’t trust a teacher not to hand out something that stupid, what else might be handed out? Hand grenades? “What Happened”?
Sadly, Mr. Livar couldn’t maintain the high ground, and had to say this:
“We are fully aware that there is a concerted effort by the far-right nationally to reframe slavery as being ‘not that bad’ and trying to revise the Civil War as being about ‘states rights’ and not about slavery. We were concerned that this assignment fell in line with that ideology and were naturally concerned, as well as other parents. These issues are not isolated to one school or one book. These issues are systemic and continue up the chain all the way to the Texas School Board of Education.”
He also said this likely happened because the school is short on diversity.
No, it happened because someone mistakenly hired an idiot as a teacher.
I hardly monitor the communications of the lunatic right, but I do read a lot, and if there is anyone but mouth-breathing mutant Hell-spawns of an assignation between a Klan Grand Wizard and a fugitive Nazi who seriously argues that slavery was “not that bad,” I’ve missed him entirely. Manu’s father appears to have swallowed whole the progressive smear that Republicans, as Joe Biden so eloquently put it, “want to put y’all back in chains.” Moreover, the historical analysis that the Civil War was about states rights as well as slavery is not in any way part of an effort to justify slavery, but rather to avoid simplifying a complex event to an infantile level, if a politically useful one.
Fact: there is nothing in the Constitution that suggests that states did not have the right to secede, and a lot of legislative history and common sense that suggests the opposite. Legally, the American Civil War was indeed about states’ rights, and later, President Lincoln made it more specifically about slavery. I guess pointing that out makes me a far-right racist. That far right racist Steven Spielberg, in his movie adapted by that far right racist Tony Kushner from the book by that far-right racist historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, made the states rights/slavery dichotomy rather explicit. “Lincoln” shows that even as the war was ending, many in Congress assumed that the South would be allowed to re-enter the union with slavery intact in those states.
Diversity doesn’t prevent anyone (or a school faculty) from being ignorant or foolish. I read Livar’s statement as gratuitous white-bashing, and conclude that he is a bigot, as well as uninformed about the Civil War.
Ethics Alarms 
Well, many people today think there is a lot of benefits to slavery. I mean, you get a guaranteed job for life, all the healthcare you need for free, food for free, housing for free, and all the education you need for free. I hear a lot of people telling me they want their state to provide all that. I tell them we had a state that provided all that. That state was slavery.
A lot of people also compare the welfare state to slavery.
Jewish law said a person could only be a slave for seven years. at that point, they could elect to be free to stay a slave. A lot chose to stay because of the welfare and security it gave them. However, there is plenty of documentation that ancient slavery was quite different from 19th-century slavery. Many slaves had freedom of movement, owned property, and even held high positions.
I imagine if there are any benefits to slavery they are economic and unethical.
Yup. I wouldn’t even call the servitude of the Mosaic era “slavery” although I wouldn’t quibble someone did.
That was a time before currency notes. People wanted food, clothing, and shelter (and in some cases discharge of debt,) and if you worked in exchange for all of those it was considered a good deal. The qualifier that made it like slavery was the inability to, you know, quit (hence the 7 year time limit on such arrangements.)
I actually have met one or two people who started down a rabbit hole of “slavery was actually good” and “the South was right” type propaganda and turned weird. One of them was a Puerto Rican from here in SoCal. It’s a phenomenon not unlike the new rash of Flat Earthers.
Frederick Douglass saw welfare and government handout as just another route into slavery. If he were a white guy in modern America, that kind of verbiage would be derided with scorn.
At least the slaves had to work.
I seem to vaguely remember a time in my life when idiocy wasn’t newsworthy.
All employment is slavery.
Just with fewer benefits.
I probably would have filled out the columns as follows:
“positive aspects”
Get to build kick-ass Pyramids.
Get to fight exotic animals in a coliseum.
Get to keep an eye on the high society villains of the Human Race.
Get an excuse for missing my uncle’s next birthday party.
“negative aspects”:
Micro-managers. Everyone’s a critic.
I like whips, but not THAT much.
Ritual Mayan sacrifice negates my organ donor card.
Yes, both I and my both dad got in trouble is school reacting to really, really stupid assignments that way. A kindred spirit!
The teachers were never amused.
Most teachers are union members. Those rarely have a sense of humor (ot the ability to think outside the box, it having atrophied when they joined a union)
Your opinion on unions must be almost as high as mine.
My experiences with them (as a college graduate, and therefore despised as ‘management’ even though it was totally untrue: just an excuse to be biased) made me question my normal sunny outlook that most people are basically good.
I know of hard workers they maneuvered to fire because they were too productive, as in ‘made the lazy union look bad.’
Unions are essentially labor cartels. Anti-competitive and coercive.
Which is just the tip of the ice-berg of the problems I have with ’em. Fortunately, Texas is a right-to-work state.
And you’d have been frog marched to the principal’s office. Who presumably wouldn’t have been able to keep a straight face once he was presented with the evidence.
Nah. I think you underestimate a teacher’s desire to avoid conflict. The teacher would have graded it on a curve in line with how they commiserated or were offended. In an adversarial situation, they’d slap a Zero with a one word admonishment (“Nope!”) on the homework assignment and call it a day.
I know this is sarcastic, but recent evidence suggests slaves didn’t build the Pyramids. Furthermore, while it is often attributed to “biblical events” the Bible never makes this claim.
I believe that what they actually would have built were storage cities.
That is the direct claim made in Exodus 1:11.
It was aliens.
Beat me to it.
And they were used to land spaceships.
+5 Stargate reference!
(But it was a History Channel reference…)
…then I get to keep the 5 points.
you mean un-scrolled aliens?
huh?
I missed the reference
Great trivia for historical perspective?
We are closer to Cleopatra in time than Cleopatra was to the building of the Great Pyramid…
Dudes were paid workers, it seems.
You know, a great teacher could have handled that topic. Positives of slavery? How about creating a shared legacy of adversity overcome by a heroic people and a race, leaving today’s descendants of slaves stronger, more confident, forged in fire and uniquely equipped to succeed once the chains were removed?
If only that were true…
Surely you have read the Book of Exodus.
The best teachers I had would have struggled to manage that topic positively in an 8th grade classroom (and I’ve had some great teachers).
As fascinating as this assignment could have been, I think you need at least an extra couple of years and a really good school/culture/student body to make it work.
Or maybe, they could have asked to create a list of rationalizations the southerners used to justify slavery. At least then, the students would have a better understanding of why it took so long for attitudes in the U.S. to change.
Serious observation: This is a great example with the problem of US Centrism. A lot of people seem to say “slavery” and the inference is that there is only one kind of slavery and that is of black slaves in the U.S. and that it’s never happened in the world before and it hasn’t happened since and it won’t happen again. Which…none of that is true.
Another fascinating idea if we were really looking at history to understand the full scope in context with the proper academics teaching it: I’d love to understand how US Slavery was different than other slave systems to that point. Ingenuity, efficiency, cruelty, etc etc etc.
Tim, that may be more difficult than you imagine. Every culture that owned slaves was different, as were the rules for the slaves. The Indigenous People of the Americas who insist on calling themselves ‘Native Americans’, although they were no more native than the Europeans were, were the first slave owners in the US, among other Pre-Columbian cultures. Then you have the Mesopotamians, the Hebrews, Egyptians, Hittites, Greeks, Persians, Romans, Jews, Saracens and most of the European cultures of the Middle Ages, including the Church.. Currently, several African and/or Arab nations are either turning a blind eye to slavery or actively endorsing it. Slavery has actually existed much longer than universal freedom has, in many variations.
Don’t forget modern North Korea is essentially one gigantic slave camp, as is most of the area of rural China (unlike what their presentation cities of Beijing, Hong Kong and Shanghai would have us believe).
I had hoped that it would be obvious that it would be impossible, in this venue, to present an exhaustive list of cultures and/or governments endorsing or practicing slavery.
You mean certain Blue cities, like Detroit and Baltimore? Looks a LOT like soft discrimination slavery from here deep in the heart of Texas.
Of course, this moran teacher was from San Antonio, so there is that…
Hey, DD! Did you hear about the little tiff going on to our south in San Antonio? The GOP wants a bid from our fair city to host their 2020 Convention. So there is money to be made (gobs of it!) but it means Blue SA has to host those deplorable Republicans. The mayor is hoist on his own petard.
Strangely enough, since I’m only 20 miles south of SA, I haven’t heard about this yet. Interesting, since the CC is as liberal as they come.
That area is sparsely populated enough to tell me several towns you likely live in.
Be careful: the NSA is listening!
WHO ONLY HAVE OUR BEST INTERESTS AT HEART, being great patriots themselves.
(…think I fooled them?)
It was on WOAI yesterday morning: wonder where the story went since then?
I donno. I watch KENS and I have yet to see it reported, though only before and after Jeopardy>/I>
This reminds me of Carl Sagan’s comments about Pythagoras & Plato and how their philosophy was used help justify slavery, but mostly “You could get richer if you owned a lot of slaves”: https://youtu.be/eSDRIuHTZnM?t=329
It starts about six minutes in.
“This is a great example with the problem of US Centrism. A lot of people seem to say “slavery” and the inference is that there is only one kind of slavery and that is of black slaves in the U.S. and that it’s never happened in the world before and it hasn’t happened since and it won’t happen again.”
17th-19th Century Western Hemisphere – centrism.
Slavery in the Caribbean and Latin America was *as* abhorrently practiced as it was in the United States…we just kept it around longer.
Maybe the teacher had been reading Grotius, who argued that the positives of slavery were:
1. It gives soldiers an incentive to spare the lives of their conquered enemies, enslaving instead of killing them.
2. Some people may wish to sell their liberty rather than only their labor, if the terms of their slavery are sufficiently attractive.
3. A powerful master who owns a valuable slave has an incentive to protect the slave against harm; and the master is likely to have a greater ability to provide protection than the slave himself would have if he were a powerless free man.
4. Slavery is often a just punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
5. Some people are natural-born slaves and naturally fare better under slavery than freedom.
The negatives were:
1. Some nations may wage unjust wars solely for the purpose of capturing slaves.
2. Some people may become slaves unjustly through mistake, trickery or fraud.
3. Some masters may act unjustly towards even their rightful slaves.
4. Many people don’t like being slaves, even when they become slaves without injustice and their masters act justly.
Final score: 5-4 in favor of slavery. And in a world where justice prevails, the score becomes an overwhelming 5-1 pro-slavery.
Well, you sold me.
…Not really; I still think slavery fares poorly regarding the principal-agent problem (holding the master accountable for their behavior towards a slave). I just couldn’t resist the pun.
Pro and Con lists are useful, but incomplete. Even if the Pro column has “5” and the Con column has “4”, some of the individual line items have different “weights” that could change the balance.
While you raise some good points about the political aspects of the parent’s statement, there is nothing “white-bashing” in it at all; he is taking aim at a political ideology, not a race.
Says the guy whose side of the ideological aisle consistently associates “pro-Confederacy” arguments with white people.
I’m not sure what you mean by that, or what it’s relevance is. It is a fact that most of the pro-Confederacy arguments are made by white people, for obvious reasons. How does that fact make this parent’s critique of pro-Confederacy arguments anti-white? Does that make all critiques of pro-Confederacy arguments anti-white?
*its
Robert Anson Heinlein once wrote, quoting Lazarus Long, “You can’t enslave a free man. The most you can do is kill him.”
The vice-president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens :
MR. STEPHENS rose and spoke as follows:
Mr. Mayor, and Gentlemen of the Committee, and Fellow-Citizens:- . . . We are in the midst of one of the greatest epochs in our history. The last ninety days will mark one of the most memorable eras in the history of modern civilization. . . .
I was remarking, that we are passing through one of the greatest revolutions in the annals of the world. Seven States have within the last three months thrown off an old government and formed a new. This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood. [Applause.]
This new constitution, or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited. . . .
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other — though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind — from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just — but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
p.s. They lost.
pps The herrenvolk lost in Europe in 1945 too. This time, not just beaten, but crushed.
It’s not too late to complete the job in the US too, the more gentle alternative having proven inadequate. It was worth a try though, and is greatly to America’s credit that it was attempted.
“It’s not too late to complete the job in the US too, the more gentle alternative having proven inadequate. It was worth a try though, and is greatly to America’s credit that it was attempted.”
What do you mean by that? Before I read into that statement, I would like further explanation.
(it’s trolling)
Let her answer… as I heard a dog whistle that I want to confirm
Start with treating the works of the Daughters of the Confederacy the same way you’d treat the works of the Daughters of the Third Reich.
Freedom of speech is too valuable to treat the stars n bars the same way the swastika is treated in Germany, but a ban on them both in government buildings would not infringe this freedom.
Education is the key. Much of the Lost Cause BS can be refuted merely by making VP Alexander Stephens’ words more widely known, and part of every school curriculum, along with the similar words from Mein Kampf.
Social Re-Engineering in other words. But with a basis of fact, not the mendacity of the original Southron Social Engineering so successfully used from 1845 onwards.
If that proves insufficient, treat Confederates and Confederate Sympathisers like Communists and Communist Sympathisers in the late 40s and 50s. To the degree that was consistent with the US Constitution.
Umm.. now we’re in Cure Worse Than The Disease territory though. Replacing the statues of Confederate Generals in Atlanta with ones of William Tecumseh Sherman would be cruel, though would get the point across.
I’m with Sue.
There are a lot of fallacies and leaps here 1. Vice Presidents have their own opinions, and are only cited as definitive when it suits certain critics’ agendas. 2. Not believing that the Confederacy was a evil cabal, like the Third Reich, isn’t denial or “Sympathizing with the Confederacy,” but rather a mature and fair acknowledgment that many, many otherwise good people were tragically wrong, conflicted, confused or trapped by the slavery issue. The kind of extreme presentism and hindsight bias that allows us to smugly assume that we wouldn’t be among those on the wrong side is an ethical flaw, not enlightenment. 3. People are. fairly and intelligently, sympathetic with those who were wrong, not the position they were wrong about.
The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time…
Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago.
The first new government – but not the last.
And it *was* new, even in the 1840s the Herrenvolk concept was not universally ascendant over its rival We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all Men are create equal.. even in the South.
Feel free to argue that what the Southerners said about themselves was not what they actually meant. That this statement by the Vice President of the Confederacy was just his personal opinion, with little or no support in either the government or populace. That this Herrenvolk concept was fundamentally different in some way from the Aryan Master Race of the Third Reich. That the applause in the record was merely politeness, not the fanatic enthusiasm of the Nuremberg rallies.
As for Mr Stephens – he sounds like a decent man. Learned. Intelligent. Well meaning. A Utopian Idealist, much like me. Very, very wrong though, and not just in hindsight, as the Declaration of Independence had gotten it right nearly a century before.
p.s. they lost.
p.p.s. so did their offspring, the Third Reich.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/28/lynching-memorial-backlash-montgomery-alabama?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=fb_us#link_time=1524920074
My view is that such stirring is necessary. The problem hasn’t gone away by covering it up. Tolerance is one thing, but it needs to be two way, with tolerance of anti confederate monuments in every southern town too.
How about 40,000 plaques like these ones in Germany.
The depth of your astounding ignorance of living conditions in the modern South is staggering.
There is no way to get that across to you, as you are judging from a cozy armchair in a progressive haven.
Try this one on for size: the NORTH denied civil rights to blacks before, during and for a century after the Civil War. NORTHERN politicians said similar things regarding blacks. In fact, some northern states did not ban slavery until the 14th was adopted. They then made laws where blacks could not move north in to Union states.
All were a product of their times. The Confederacy was no more evil than the North. They opposed each other, that is all.
You chose to ‘otherize’ those you do not know for political purposes, Sue.
PS: by appealing to the Nazis, you lose the moral high ground. It is an uncalled for smear and a lie as well.
One can criticize human rights abuses in Communist countries while acknowledging Jim Crow, Manzanar, and Wounded Knee.
“One can criticize human rights abuses in Communist countries while acknowledging Jim Crow, Manzanar, and Wounded Knee.”
Sure. Sue goes way beyond that
1. Vice Presidents have their own opinions, and are only cited as definitive when it suits certain critics’ agendas.
Vice President Stevens’ opinion in the cornerstone speech is cited as definitive because it’s true, Jack. Every single state listed fear over slavery being banned as their primary concern in their declarations of secession. The Confederacy was, indeed, based on the premise that the Negro was inferior to the white man.
2. Not believing that the Confederacy was a evil cabal, like the Third Reich, isn’t denial or “Sympathizing with the Confederacy,” but rather a mature and fair acknowledgment that many, many otherwise good people were tragically wrong, conflicted, confused or trapped by the slavery issue. The kind of extreme presentism and hindsight bias that allows us to smugly assume that we wouldn’t be among those on the wrong side is an ethical flaw, not enlightenment.
I don’t see any indication in Sue’s comment that she assumes she wouldn’t have been on the wrong side of the slavery issue. Where do you see that? Calling the Confederacy “evil” doesn’t rely on the premise that one wouldn’t have been a part of it at the time; I think most people are capable of evil, or at least of going along with evil due to upbringing and social pressure. That doesn’t make it any less evil.
And as Sue has pointed out, the idea that slavery was wrong was hardly new at the time. It may be unfair to judge the pro-slavery faction by the standards of our time, but plenty of people of that time had higher standards and judged the slavers based on those.
Sue cited Stephens as authority that the Civil War was fought over slavery. “It’s true” doesn’t equal authority. Circular reasoning. And nothing you or Stephenson said changes the political fact that the issue launching the war was federal supremacy. There was no threat to slavery in the South: the battle was over new states. The Fugitive Slave act was the law of the land. Yup—slavery was the cultural feature that was the tipping point, and once seceded, Stephens’ speech and message followed.
There was no threat to slavery in the South:
And yet they were certain there was, and acted accordingly.
It did not work out too well for then.
You used the term “Southron”….which technically means “Southerner”. But it hasn’t been used in that regard since maybe just after the Civil War. I mean…I was born and raised here and still live here and never heard the term Southron outside of Tolkien novels until last year on THIS blog…when another progressive used the term.
My gut instinct is that you’ve never spent any real time in any state of the “South” or interacted meaningfully with many “Southerners”. “Lost Cause-ism” is literally not a thing outside of boogey-man prognostications of professors in elite universities. Sure there may be some confederates in the attic somewhere, but really….
I do know, the larger culture being driven by the Left that is increasingly forcing people into Tribal modes of thought is simultaneously leaving a lot of young boys without tribal “homes” who will slowly begin to think that if they are left out of a tribe, they’ll be screwed…so they’d better pick a tribe even if it is a distasteful one.
“Everything Right-Wingers Do Bad is the Left’s Fault: Part 10 Billion”
Didn’t read this.
As long as you’re in a mood to walk back from hot headed red lines about leaving the blog, then you can also walk back from your comment about me being mealy-mouthed.
Until then, don’t expect interaction from me.
Come on. It was twelve words. You read it.
Didn’t read this.
As long as you’re in a mood to walk back from hot headed red lines about leaving the blog, then you can also walk back from your comment about me being mealy-mouthed.
Until then, don’t expect interaction from me.
And I mean…you would have had to have read it to know whether or not I walked back calling you mealy-mouthed, wouldn’t you?
So if you’re gonna be this petty and overly sensitive, you don’t have to be dishonest at the same time.
Didn’t read this.
As long as you’re in a mood to walk back from hot headed red lines about leaving the blog, then you can also walk back from your comment about me being mealy-mouthed.
Until then, don’t expect interaction from me.
That last line was funny.
ps they lost…