That’s going to have to be it for tonite. I would have gotten more covered if the board was not down for most of the evening.
Tomorrow I will start on my replies to pepperlandgirl.
Reading her post, WOW. I find it easy to see why she wishes to be a lawyer. She packs quite a wallop. Her post isn’t very long, but it is chock full of questions and assertions. I think I will have to answer it in separate posts.
See you tomorrow.
Pax
First, an advance apology: It is unlikely for me to post in snippets, or one point at a time. To me, this would require me to think in sound bytes, which I don’t generally do. All the pieces of my response go together, for me, as part of a cohesive world view.
Didn’t say he belived in Communism. He believed in very powerful government.
If that were the reasoning, yes, it would be nonsensical. My actual reasoning is along the lines of, “That government governs best which governs least.” In which case, I think it to be quite, er, sensical.
I cannot disprove this, because it is true. However, there is an underlying assumption that, were this not the case, this more-powerful government would have solved all these problems. It is this underlying assumption that I dispute. You imply that the solution is more powerful government. However, history has generally shown that more powerful governments do more harm than good. If this is not proof enough, then I cannot satisfy you.
Perhaps you have a model for an entirely different kind of government?
Here is what led me to this assumption:
You say Campaign Finance Reform would be good for Americans. I say that it would be good for Democrats and Republicans, bad for Libertarians. However you slice it, it is a limiting of political speech. This is a topic for another debate, obviously, but I’m pointing out that you threw this opinion as if it were some kind of self-evident fact. It is, obviously, not self-evident to me that failure to pass campaign finance reform laws is evidence of failure of the system.
Well, then, this is the crux, isn’t it?
It appears to me that this is an issue that I can’t rationally discuss with you because we are diametrically opposed in fundamental views:
-You think that strong government is good, and that “hamstrung” government is bad. I think that one of the most important precepts in government is that the power of government must be limited.
-You think that the government’s purpose is to solve problems. I think that the government’s purpose is to protect fundamental rights.
-You think it is possible for the government to solve problems. I think that government, in general, is an inefficient mechanism and is definitely a poor choice for problem solving.
-You think that problems that we have are due to problems with the Constitution. I think that the problems are due to failure to uphold the Constitution.
Simply put, I think that the purpose of government is the protection of fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the enjoyment of personal property. If you want to see more on this, I posted quite a diatribe in the “Deaf People Sue Movie Theaters” thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001791.html
If you want to debate any of these points, I’m game. But given the underlying disagreements, we are bound to be talking at right angles to each other in this topic. Which means that I probably don’t belong in this debate.
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.
Aaack!! I’m agreeing with a Libertarian. . . Oh the horror, Oh the pathos 
pepperlandgirl:
I figure it has something to do with those prisons that you see across the land.
I have not said that we do not. However it is silly to believe something without ever questioning it. (Not that I have never done this.)
There are votes and then there are votes. Are you familiar with the electoral college?
I would like a government that is fair and flexible. I think that our constitution is too inflexible. This could cause trouble in a rapidly changing world. Think about how much faster the rate of change is now, compared to 200 years ago.
(I do not respond to Nazi analogies on principle. Unless National Socialism is the issue.)
This misunderstanding is my fault. So I apologise again. Look at the end of my long reply to The Ryan for clarification.
I don’t think of the provisions in the law to protect the innocent as holes.
Then why do we have all those expensive prisons. Do you not think that people like the Son of Sam need to be controlled?
I find the sentiment “America, Love it or Leave it” inappropriate in any rational disscussion. Also, pointing out that there are worse alternatives does not automaticly make yours the best.
I would like to see the vote of The People be more important in our system of government. As for protesting, many have done so with positive results. This can be an effective factor in change. But it could lead, once again, to prison.
You can read my 1st reply to Asmodean for my intent. It is near the top of the thread.
Obviously. Your point?
I’m not so sure. Who knows where we might be now if this idea was adopted. Great Britain has a monarchy. Do you think GB is not a democracy?
What do you think this purpose was? Do you agree with it?
Wow. I got through that in 1 post. And my computer did not kick me out! 
Thanks for the post, pepperlandgirl. I hope you will reply.
BTW- What area of law are you thinking of going into?
Peace
JDeMobray:
I believe that the amendment process is unwieldy and inflexible. I do not consider 27 changes is 200+ years to be “numerous”.
We have discovered a lot in the past 2 centuries.
Unneccesary. As long as The People can review the laws themselves.(By reviewing those who pass them.)
Well, since I have their example plus 200 years of hindsight to work with, the exercise in improved flexibility is simple.
If you take the document as it is, remove the Presidential veto, remove all references to the Senate, transfer it’s powers to the Congress(only the House of Representatives), then change the amendment clause (Article 5) to read,“All Amendments must be passed by a simple majority vote in Congress, followed by a simple majority vote of The People.” then you have a government that is much more flexible.
As to staying power, I do not agree that this is desirable. Having the oldest constitution in the world is not something that I am proud of.
I do not think that America is a bad place to live. I do think it can improve.
If the FF had done things differently, things would be different. Would they be better or worse? That would depend on the changes.
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the time you are spending on my topic. You are a regular poster here. And I am grateful.
Salaam
Thanks for the clarifications, 2sense, on both your “right and wrong” comments, and what you would think would make a better constitution. The purpose of a constitution is to assert the principles by which the government must act, and what the government bodies actually are (how it is “constituted”). In your system, the only principle is “majority rule.” This might seem good because it’s flexible, but the flexibility is what makes it bad. Under your system, evil things can be done if only 51% of the people can be convinced they’re okay. And they can be convinced, as history shows.
The ff’s chose to make the principles (constitution) very difficult to change, while the application of the principles (laws) easy. That’s why we’ve had so few amendments, but this is a good thing. While changing times requires a constant look at the applications, our underlying principles do not change every year or even with each generation. It’s the resistance to change in the people, not in the government, that causes the slow process of righting older wrongs. If majority rule were the only principle, wrongs could only be righted when the majority agreed to it. In our system, it isn’t necessary to wait that long.
As for review of the laws by the judiciary, you don’t like that judges aren’t interested in what is right but in what is constitutional. But consider, what they are doing is making sure laws are in agreement with our principles. The principles are already assumed to be right, so those judges really are interested in what is right after all. They just don’t call it that. Also remember that while we don’t for the judges directly, we vote for the presidents who appoint them; and even then the appointments must be confirmed by the legislature. So the people do retain control over the court, even if it is control once removed. Here again, this process prevents the court from acting on the majority’s whim, as the legislature does. Both bodies represent the people, but with a different breadth.
This debate has wandered a bit, and I want to go back to the original post, because the entire premise of it is completely flawed. In the first place wondering if we picked the right founding fathers is a little like wondering if you picked the right parents, but that’s a little flippant.
But our good friend 2sense here has stated that:
Quote: "The People should not allow a government to be founded by people that do not believe in government
The men who founded America did not believe in government…
Okay pal, a little American history. The Founding Fathers were all men of government. They were also loyal subjects of the British Crown. They were all elected as representatives of their respective colonies to be the voice of those communities of citizens, also loyal British subjects, in dealing with the mother government in England. They, in fact, considered themselves British citizens, with the same rights as any John Bull living in London. Remember this point.
One of the great misunderstandings of the American Revolution is that it was a true regicidal, social uprising against an oppressive, uncaring murderous regime like the French or Russian revolutions. Hardly. The other most widely held misconception, is that it was a revolt against the power of the government to levy taxes. Not even. The Boston Tea Party was a specific example of guerrilla terrorism designed to protest a particular tax, true; but it was not the basis for a dissolution of ties to the King and Parliament.
The principle upon which the Declaration of Independence was issued was that the Parliament did not consider the American colonists to be equal citizens of England - see above. The had decided that it was within their discretion to levy taxes upon the Colonies whenever they saw fit and for whatever purposes. The Americans petitioned for representation in the house of commons in matters relating to laws directed at the colonies as well as taxes levied. Parliament saw no reason to allow the Colonists the equal rights of English citizens since the colonies only existed to serve British purposes and refused. Our FF correctly understood that this made us little more than chattel slaves. Thus the slogan “No Taxation Without Representation”, (NOT, No Taxation, Period) and the basis for the revolution was at hand.
The FF never intended to shake off the bonds of government, merely to bring the place of government closer to home where it could be watched, and local representation assured.
Argeable:
Sorry that I didn’t answer your post. I missed it when I was making my replies.
I do not understand your argument. Are you saying that legal means right. And illegal means wrong?
If so, then you are saying that the government decides what is right and wrong.
I think that perhaps some of the posters on this thread MIGHT disagree with this. 
peace
Smartass:
1st of all, no need to apologise. If it works for you, fine. Please post any way you like. I want to hear your ideas. It is easier for me to reply to shorter posts. I am trying to reply to every point. However I can abandon this.
Allow me to apologise for missing the point in your Stalin statement. It makes no difference if he believes in Communism or Totalitarianism. You are correct in pointing this out.
I think that we can have a rational discussion on this topic. We may not ever agree. But we can still discuss rationally.
I think we might find that we do not understand each other’s position right now. Maybe if we clear up some ideas we will not be so far apart.
I do not think of a flexible government as a powerful government. I think of it as a responsive government. I want flexibility so that the government can respond both to new situations and to the will of The People.
I think of powerful and strong governments as those which are strong in comparison to the power of The People.
I am not looking to see more people in prisons. Or for the government to be more involved in my personal life. I am a leftist. I complain about the conservative mainstream media.
I do not believe that entrusting them to the courts is the best way to preserve basic human rights. I believe that the best way is to teach people about their rights. And give them a say in how these rights will be respected.
Some freedoms must be infringed upon for security reasons. I would not be comfortable, for instance, with you exercising your freedom to experiment with atomic energy next to my home.
I also believe that rights are infringed upon in America every day.
OK, I still do not understand the assumtions conversation. I thought you were chastising me for being bull-headed. Let me give an example 1st.
When I am driving on the interstate, I pass people. I believe that they will not swerve out into my lane and hit me. But, I have never met them. So, I do not know that they will not. I have places to be. I pass. I try to be carefull. I use turn signals. I maintain as much of a gap between myself and the car in front of me as possible. But, I pass.
Why (or How) should I not act as if my belief is true? I believe it to be. You never Know something is true.
I am open to the idea that I can be wrong.
I think that you belong here. It appears that JDeMobray feels the same. Please don’t run off.
peace
2sense:
[bowing slightly] As you wish. Self-proclaimed Libertarian vs. self-proclaimed “leftist”. I cannot help but think that this is going to get ugly.
This is certainly possible, but the point I was making is that we may be so far apart as to make the discussion ridiculous.
Hmmm, where to begin? Okay, are you saying that you want a responsive government that is not powerful? And this response to the will of The People, what form does it take? New laws? New government outlays?
More fundamentally, what is “the will of The People”? How does government measure this? What if some of The People are willing one way and some another? Which group’s will gets responded to? Can I reasonably rephrase this as, “Which group’s will gets legalized?”
How do you measure the relative power of the government vs The People?
Oh, my. [gulp] The, um, conservative mainstream…I’m sorry, I tried. I just can’t put those words together that way.
To say you don’t want more people in prison doesn’t give me much to go on. Does this mean you also want to see less people in prisons? How would you accomplish this? Kill them all? Let them all go? Work out some sort of exchange with another country?
Also, you say you don’t want the government more involved in your personal life. What about my personal life–you want in more involved there? For that matter, what, for you, constitutes “personal life”? And how would you refer to those things that don’t fall into this category? I have to ask these things because I think the two statements, “I don’t want the government more involved in my personal life” and “I am a leftist” are mutually exclusive. Maybe I’m not sure what you mean by “leftist”.
So, are you saying that if people just had a better understanding of “basic human rights” then they would naturally refrain from violating them? btw, what do you think of as “basic human rights”?
Are you saying that people don’t have a “say” now? What form would this “say” take if not in the form of electing rule-makers and sitting on juries?
And what are the conditions for justifying this infringement? And how far do you let it go? Are you saying I shouldn’t be allowed to experiment with atomic energy at all, or just not next to your home? What about, say, down the road a piece?
I definitely agree with you there. I suspect, though, that we would offer different examples.
Thank you. Maybe some time I will. Right now, I just don’t have the time.
No, that was not my point, although I admit that I believe your thinking to be wrong-headed. I was pointing out how your descriptions of government and its problems are so foreign to me that I think we are coming from two totally different places. Were my assumptions about your thinking correct? If so, the point is, we’re going to have to start at the beginning and debate stuff like human nature and the purpose of government or the debate won’t make any sense.
I’ll be honest. I have no idea what you’re getting at with this, but I’ll take a stab at it. Am I saying you should act against your beliefs? No. Am I saying that there is some objective measure of the correctness of beliefs? Well, that wasn’t what I was trying to say, although I think the answer depends on what sort of beliefs we’re discussing. btw, after you’ve passed the person, you know whether or not your belief was correct.
To throw a random wrench into it, what if you think the car won’t swerve, but I think it will, and we’re both in the same car?
My guess is that we are now both pretty confused. I know I am.
Maybe it would be better if I just state some things that I believe and that will help to define the debate, because, at this time, I’m not exactly sure what we’re discussing.
Smartass’ Proclamations:
Government cannot solve societal problems.
Government should not solve societal problems.
For each person, there is a different set of values and beliefs. What I think is right or just may be totally different from what you think is right or just.
People achieve benefits from living together in society that they cannot achieve living alone “in the woods”.
In order for people to live together in society, there must be some set of accepted principles, or ground rules, which must serve as the final arbiter when disagreements arise.
Our Constitution lays down a set of principles that are meant to be the final measuring stick against which all government action should be measured. The premise is that all individuals are entitled to (or “have a right to”) life, liberty, and the ownership/enjoyment of personal property. I refer to these three rights as “fundamental” rights because they are more important than smaller or subsidiary rights.
The purpose of government is to protect the fundamental rights of individual citizens.
It is my personal belief that many of the political debates that are currently happening may be resolved on the basis of an examination of the effects on these fundamental rights. Because of this, I find that my opinions closely match those of the Libertarian Party, of which I am a member.
Now, do we need to go
2Sense, the people who are in prisons broke the law,was found guilty in a court of law, and therefore, all rights were forfeited for a certain amount of time. They are being controlled because they effectively stated that they do not wish to be law abiding citizens, or part of the country. They do not count as citizens because they don’t have a vote while in prison.
I am familiar with the electoral college system, however there is only one time in the history of voting that the electoral college voted against the majority. That was during the 19th century. So while it may appear that they have all the power, they have not traditionally abused that power.
Can you name a particular problem with the Constitution that needs to be changed? If you have already stated one, my apologies. But could you restate it.
The only things that could possibly be called holes, or “unjust” in anyway are the provisions to protect the innocent as far as I can tell.
Again, once criminals are convicted of a crime and sent to jail, they are not considered citizens for that duration, mainly because they do not have the right to vote. They forfeited those rights when they commited the crime.
Protesting CANNOT lead to a federal prison, perhaps jail over night, but not to prison. THere’s a little amendment in the constitution you might be familiar with that states that people have the right to peacefully assemble, and the right to freedom of speech. Also, passive resistance and civil disobediance will not lead to prison time.
My point about them not believing in a facist government was that you made a generalized statement. There are many governments and to simply say “They didn’t believe in one” is far to vague.
The problem with GB is that they DO NOT HAVE A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION. You know what that means? THere is really nothing stopping anybody from passing whatever law they wanted. Look at the centuries of corruption in GB, caused by a monarchy. True, NOW it’s more for show then anything, but it hasn’t always been, and a monarchy is definately not something we would want. There needs to be something governing the government and in a monarchy, there is nothing like that.
The men who wrote the Constitution that way did it because they did not want one area to have too much power.
I have a belief why the constitution was written the way it was. I will address that next time, I need to find evidence and quotes etc etc.
BTW, I plan on going being a trial lawyer. Hopefully for a private firm. I don’t really want to work for the state.
“The bitch, oh the bitch, the bitch is back…I’m a bitch cuz I’m better then you, it’s the way that I move
The things that I do…” Elton John
“People try to tell me thoughts they cannot defend…” The Moody Blues
“To start, press any key. Where’s the any key?” Homer Simpson.
Gilligan:
Thanks for continuing to post here.
True. No system is perfect. There will allways be problems. 1 of my problems with the present system is that evil has been done, as history shows. By making your government inflexible, you hinder reform. So evil can continue, even if more than 51% of the people disagree.
I agree with the principles stated in the constitution. I think that the system set up by the constitution is what slows down reform.
My problem with the judiciary is that Justice is Blind. We are not. I have heard of stories of judges who are reduced to tears as they are forced by mandatory sentencing to condemn men to death. Also I believe that some judges who sentence people to jail for marijuana go home and smoke some themselves. These judges obviously do not feel that the sentence they delivered was right.
What the Supreme Court is doing, basicly, is guessing what people long dead might have thought about 1 of the problems of today. I am much more interested in what people alive today think of today’s problems.
(You will note that I am not discussing this with dead people. )
I do not have a problem with the legislature appointing judges. I just want The People to decide if they agree with the actions of the legislature. Based on the principles that they hold dear.
peace
Give me a day to come up with some examples, 2sense, but it might be more interesting to look at some unsolved “problems” and how a more immediately responsive government would “solve” them:
Gun Control
Abortion
Capital punishment
Social Security
The people have this tendency to vote in legislators one year who can form the required majority to enact laws one way or the other on these issues, and then the next year turn around and vote in a majority to the opposite. (exaggerating, of course) Does this mean abortion laws should be passed and repealed every other year? How could anything be considered right or wrong in such a system?
LBJay:
That’s OK, so is “Did we pick the right founding fathers”.
We all have plenty of misunderstandings of American history pretending to be understandings. Although I do not claim to be an expert on British government, then or now, allow me to give my understanding of some points.
In British governmental theory, every Member of Parliment represents the nation. Even if the MP is elected by the people of say Manchester, He/She is presumed to hold the welfare of all of the citizens as her/his primary responsibility. Supposedly this cuts down on “pork”.
“Taxation without representation” did not make sense from the British POV. Precisly because the colonists did have the same rights as any John Bull living in London.
When Americans began to complain loudly they were advised to buy up some MPs to voice their opinions in Parliment. This is what the West Indian planters had done. By the 1770’s they had an important “interest” (read: bought officials) in Parliment.
From the British POV this was logical. Every other “interested” party pulled strings to get what they wanted. This was how things worked back then.
I see the American revolt as an economic war. Would the colonies be run for the good of the Empire as a whole? Or would they be run for the good of themselves?
Hmm. Hot sure if we are making any headway here. Let me know what you think.
BTW- Did you choose your screen name out of admiration for LBJ? If so, then that is a view we share.
Peace
Smartass:
OK, I think that if we boil our differences down and find ourselves just butting heads, then we should agree to stop. I started this thread, so if it comes to this I will allow you to have the last word.
A few points:
I was talking about my beliefs to establish my credentials as a good little liberal. I was not making any point. But as for your understanding that liberals are interested in your personal life I would like to point out that use of the phrase “keep your laws off my body” indicates that the user is a liberal. But, I understand that what freedoms you and I are willing to sacrifice for the greater good are different. Let’s try to keep this discussion revolving around government.
What is the “the will of The People”?
How do you measure the relative power of the government vs The People?
Does this mean you also want to see less people in prisons? How would you accomplish this?
So, are you saying that if people just had a better understanding of “basic human rights” then they would naturally refrain from violating them?
Ok, I think I will stop here. I will respond to your beliefs seperatly. I skipped some of your points. If you want me to respond to any of them, just let me know. As long as they do not have to do with the whole bullheaded/wrongheaded thing. I think it best just to drop that. The same with the basic human rights disscussion. That might be contentious. If we need to cover some of that later, I think it would best be done “as we cross that bridge”.
I hope you consider opening that Campaign Finance debate we talked about before, after this winds down. Or I might.
I would like to say that while we do not agree on much (yet), I have developed some respect for you.
Salaam
Smartass’ Proclamations:
Government cannot solve societal problems.
Government should not solve societal problems.
For each person, there is a different set of values and beliefs. What I think is right or just may be totally different from what you think is right or just.
People achieve benefits from living together in society that they cannot achieve living alone “in the woods”.
In order for people to live together in society, there must be some set of accepted principles, or ground rules, which must serve as the final arbiter when disagreements arise.
Our Constitution lays down a set of principles that are meant to be the final measuring stick against which all government action should be measured.
The premise is that all individuals are entitled to (or “have a right to”) life, liberty, and the ownership/enjoyment of personal property. I refer to these three rights as “fundamental” rights because they are more important than smaller or subsidiary rights.
The purpose of government is to protect the fundamental rights of individual citizens.
Hmm. I agree with this. But not as in “sole purpose”. How about providing for the rights of future citizens?
It is my personal belief that many of the political debates that are currently happening may be resolved on the basis of an examination of the effects on these fundamental rights. Because of this, I find that my opinions closely match those of the Libertarian Party, of which I am a member.
Now, do we need to go further, or have we hit a source of major disagreement already?
Nothing yet. The examples might be killers though.
I look forward to your next post.
-curtis
Gilligan:
Take your time. You are responding to me much faster than I am responding to you.
Peace
2sense:
Okay, I think we’re still not quite ready to plant our flags for a debate, but we’re getting closer. How 'bout if I just go ahead and plant mine, and we’ll see where yours winds up.
Old Business:
One thing that I am distilling from your collection of statements is that, from your view, The People do not have a loud enough voice. This is certainly something that is debatable, and I think it is the direction from which I want to argue–see below.
Correction: I needlessly confused my first two “proclamations”. Just remove the word “societal”, and I still stand by those assertions. In which case, poverty, education, etc. would be relevant examples. However, to make sure that we don’t get too far off-track, I would like to specify that I am speaking of federal government, as I think of state government as being a different ball of wax–not totally different, but no need to bring it into this debate.
Two points of apparent contention from my “proclamations”:
-My statement that there must be an accepted set of principles…probably key–see below.
-The sole purpose of government is to protect fundamental rights…ditto.
New Business:
Okay, I am going to attack this from the angle that you feel that our government is defective because The People do not have a large enough voice. I assume you know that this was intentional. The founders had a great fear of the “tyranny of the majority”. This was probably compounded by a general belief that the average man is pretty stupid. While this is prety arrogant, I can’t say that my experience has been particularly different.
I think that you operate under the assumption that, if everyone’s voice is heard, then fair decisions will result. Thus, we can all get together, decide what’s best, and run with it. I contend that this assumption is incorrect. More to the point, if it were possible to implement a government where every decision was based on a majority vote, I contend that this system would not produce fairness or good policy.
I stated that government could not solve problems. This is actually a side issue. Government cannot solve problems because it is, by its very nature, inefficient. I don’t think that is our topic, though. I also stated that government should not solve problems. Probably seems counter-intuitive to you. Here is the thing, though: What you define as a problem, I may define as…shit, what’s the opposite of problem? A good thing? Anyway, get enough people together and they will never be able to come to unanimous agreement as to what the problems are, much less how to solve them. I think the threads in this board are a good example of that. So how do you resolve the differences? Through a vote? Works out pretty good if you’re in the majority, but, if you’re in the minority, you get hosed. The more “problems” are solved this way, the more people are getting hosed. You want government to provide the “greatest good” and seem to have nominated yourself to determine what that greatest good is. I say that you’ve got no business saying what is the “greatest good” for everyone, whether you are speaking for yourself or for a majority.
I think I know what constitutes the greatest good for me. You probably think you know what constitutes the greatest good for you. And we probably both have opinions about what would be the greatest good for everyone. However, when we legislate these opinions, we are demonstrating the tyranny of the majority that the founders were so concerned about.
So, here is the philosophical point: Is it better for the majority to decide what is right for everyone or is it better for individuals to decide what is right for themselves? The founders chose to go the latter route as much as possible, which is why we talk about individual rights to life, liberty, and Girl Scout cookies.
This is why our government was designed to be weak. The founders took it upon themselves to declare that the greater good could be achieved by protecting individual fundamental rights. Sure, a responsive government tries to solve problems. But, every time it does, someone is getting hosed. As an example, when the government tries to eliminate poverty, it uses my money to do it, whether I think it is a problem that needs to be solved or not. This is not to say that I have something against helping the poor, it is to say that this is an example of government forgetting its place. Sure, it’s easy to argue for helping poor people. Not quite as easy to argue for subsidizing farmers. And much harder to argue subsidies for the arts. The point is, either you believe in the founders’ philosophical position, or you don’t. If you do, then you are being hypocritical to support welfare, campaign finance reform, or income taxes. If you don’t, then you are living in the wrong country, my friend.
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.
2Sense, how come you have not responded to my post yet? I am interested in seeing what you have to say .
I am starting my reply right now.