Gordon Smith spins me right round baby, right round
Carla Axtman
..like a record baby, right round...round, round.
For those of you keeping score at home, Gordon Smith's frozen food plant has been smacked down by Willamette Week for hiring illegal workers.
The story has national legs. Politico picked it up on Wednesday.
Smith's campaign is in a hurry to quash this sucker, calling the story ""false" and "wholly compromised of unsubstantiated and ridiculous allegations from a liberal tabloid whose purpose is to advance a left-wing agenda rather than the truth.
But Willy Week wasted no time pushing back against Smith's lame response:
“There is no purpose other than to seek to tell the truth about an important story,” Zusman said in a phone interview with PolitickerOR.com. “It’s not unusual for a food processing plant to hire illegal immigrants as workers. But this is unusual because Smith is a United States senator.”
Not that the Smith campaign is interested in additional factual information, but Willy Week hasn't exactly been pushing a "left-wing agenda" when it comes to reporting on politicos. They are the paper that finally had the balls to report on Goldschmidt and lord knows they've mysteriously tried to beat Betsy Johnson into the dirt.
It shouldn't be that tough for Smith to come clean on this if the story is false. They can either show that all of the company's workers are legally documented or they can't. If they can't--then Smith is a hypocrite. If Smith's company knew that some of the workers were undocumented when they hired them--that's a big violation of the law. Either way, WW's story shows that something at Smith's plant in Weston sure doesn't smell right. Along with the recent environmental violation at the plant, Gordon Smith isn't exactly going for "above reproach".
On the local front, KPOJ and KGW have coverage as well as The Oregonian, where Jeff Mapes even has a snippet from the Lars Larson show, in which Lars says, "They've nailed him pretty well." Bummer, Gordo.
The story is also spreading in the wider blogosphere. See also Open Left, Daily Kos, Sandstorm, and Dream Act Texas .
Smith will no doubt continue to try to spin his way out of this one--and certainly his online surrogates will continue to scramble to his defense. But they've got a tough job ahead. Smith has to prove that his workers are legally documented, if for no other reason than to assuage the concerns of his base. While they may not vote for Merkley, they can certainly leave that part of the ballot blank.
And all the spinning in the world can't fix that.
That's why this song is for you, Gordo:
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
1:16 p.m.
Sep 11, '08
"Smith has to prove that his workers are legally documented, if for no other reason than to assuage the concerns of his base."
Actually, unless WWeek can prove they aren't, where does this story go once Smith says (as he has) "not true?" He just has to deny it; it's the newspaper that has the job of making it impossible to credibly deny (and even then who knows, as Palin has shown us).
Curious whether this hurts him more with conservatives (ala Larson) than anyone else? Smith has never been one of the firebrands on the issue, to disappointment from the hardcore right crowd in OR. To what extent do the revelations paint Smith as someone who's not really concerned about stemming immigration?
Sep 11, '08
Holy crap! That was my all time favorite clubbing song (from when I did that sort of thing). I've never seen the video - what a treat. Thank you Carla!
oh yeah, ummm... something intelligent about the topic... whatever, I'm just tickled about the song.
1:32 p.m.
Sep 11, '08
The story goes to continual seeds of doubt among Smith's base, frankly. It's another link in the chain of problems with his base. Especially given that Smith is refusing to use the E-verify system, which the anti-immigration folks seem to consider the holy grail.
Will this hurt him with Dems and progressives? I can't see how it helps--considering that Smith has said that those who "incentivize" undocumented workers should be held accountable. I don't see how that isn't complete hypocrisy on Smith's part..and that kind of crap really rubs progressives the wrong way, at least from what I've seen.
The likely outcome from this story is a removal of any wind Smith had in his sails from his base and from independents.
Sep 11, '08
It's not the actual activities that irk me; it's the continual patterns of hypocricy from Republicans -- those that try to mandate behaviors to the rest of us, while they themselves simply decide not to walk the walk:
And this isn't about simply changing a position on an issue: It's about working towards one rule for the rest of us and a totally different standard for themselves. It's the antithesis of democracy.
What a bunch of goofballs.
Sep 11, '08
Well, Carla, let's hope you're right about the outcome for this story. Last time Ms. Slovic reported on "illegals"*, the authorities swooped in 6 weeks later to arrest over one hundred hard working folks, including single parents.
*In most progressive circles, people without proper work documents are called "undocumented workers".
Sep 11, '08
It hurts Smith pretty much across the board. A very large number of Dem and NAV households side with the political right on this issue. When Saxton attacked Kulongoski on immigration, Kulongoski's people weren't sweating buckets because of the right wing. They jumped to respond to the story because it was killing them in union households and with independents. If this story has legs, or if Merkley figures out how to capitalize on the story without stepping in it (could be tricky), this will be very big in what could easily be a 5-10 thousand vote margin race.
Sep 11, '08
As I said last night on that new program on KGW-Ch 8 ...
There are Possibilites and Realities.
Possibility is that those maybe Immigrants are amongst the 2 Million+ Legal immigrants that come every year.
Reality is that his opponent, Jeff Merkley, as House leader had 3 chances to make E-Verfiy the Law in Oregon in '07, he stopped all 3 from any Public Hearing or a Vote.
Possibility or Reality? It IS your choice.
Most of you Democrats (as R's & I's do) must understand by now that a Non-Stop flow of desperate 3rd World workers will work for far less pay & benefits than You and no Jobs for Illegals = E-Verify, is the only way to stop this. Or what else do you recommend?
Sep 11, '08
And now it looks like Gordon Smith will not be accepting City Club's invitation to debate.
Sep 11, '08
If you are a plutocrat you have 2 things going on, one: an illegal work pool is easy to repress; two: you can't have that if they either can't get in or they are legalized. Smith's behavior is perfectly understandable in those terms. Hire them, don't let them be legal or shut out.
Sep 11, '08
Chris #12 wrote:
Last time Ms. Slovic reported on "illegals"*, the authorities swooped in 6 weeks later to arrest over one hundred hard working folks, including single parents.
If the federales raid Smith Frozen Foods I'll eat my green card.
And seriously, more folks than Smith's base should be concerned with with a US senator flouting federal law in order to keep wages low and increase his profits.
6:29 p.m.
Sep 11, '08
And seriously, more folks than Smith's base should be concerned with with a US senator flouting federal law in order to keep wages low and increase his profits.
Other than the fact that (a) Willamette Week never claimed that Gordon Smith was violating, much less "flouting," federal law and (b) there is no evidence that hiring "illegals" keeps wages low, that is a great comment.
Sep 11, '08
flout - to treat with contemptuous disregard [from middle English for playing the flute]
Whether not noticing the employment of many undocumented workers is illegal or not, it most certainly exhibits contemptuous disregard of the law.
In the absence of definitive studies, I will rely on the hallowed principle of supply and demand to predict that increased supply of economically insecure workers tends to depress wages in the industry employing them.
As to Gordon Smith's future, perhaps this gives a clue:
A federal judge in Ohio ruled that an employer’s top executives are subject to a lawsuit for hiring undocumented alien employees. Hager v. ABX Air, Inc., No.2:07-CV-317 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 25, 2008). RICO, the "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act," is usually associated with attempts to bring down mob bosses and the "legitimate businesses" they use to launder money. Here, an employee is using the statute to sue his bosses, alleging that the CEO and other top corporate executives hired undocumented aliens in an effort to depress wages. Even though the judge noted that the claims are "novel," he found that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded the requisite "criminal enterprise." Bad news if the plaintiff wins: RICO allows for triple damages.
Sep 11, '08
Mr. Roberts, certainly you can set aside your partisan ideology long enough to admit that employers across the agricultural sector are a) generally aware of the large number of illegals they employ, and b) lobby and spend great sums of money to preserve the status quo and/or expand the H-2A program because they like their labor cheap. Hoping that I haven't over-estimated you, can someone as intellectually capable as you truly suggest with a straight face that hiring illegals has no impact on domestic wages?
As for Senator Smith flouting the law, I don't think he has flouted it any more than any other food processor or farmer has in order to compete in the current market, which is, of course, 100% distorted by the widespread flouting of our immigration laws.
8:55 p.m.
Sep 11, '08
Mr. Roberts, certainly you can set aside your partisan ideology long enough to admit that employers across the agricultural sector are a) generally aware of the large number of illegals they employ, and b) lobby and spend great sums of money to preserve the status quo and/or expand the H-2A program because they like their labor cheap.
This isn't about partisan ideology. My views on this issue are not embraced by the vast majority of my party. In fact, I think they are shared by more Democratic officeholders than Republicans across the country.
I also strongly disagree with the notion that illegal immigration is about cheap labor. It is about having an adequate labor supply, and the it is by no means limited to agriculture. But in the agricultural sector, if we didn't have so-called "illegals," the result would not be more expensive food so much as it would be largely imported food.
9:41 p.m.
Sep 11, '08
Jack --
Activists on both sides often dismiss these sorts of investigative reports when the sources are all anonymous, or from people without anything at stake.
But that's not what's happened here. There are all sorts of people, with relationships in that small community, who are willing to put their name to their allegations in this story. To me, that raises their credibility and increases the likelihood that they're telling the truth.
Let me simply point to one example:
So, we've got an attorney - for whom lying is an offense that could get her disbarred or, at minimum, wiping out her credibility when negotiating with other attorneys. She's willing to use her name publicly. And, she's willing to admit that large number of her clients are illegal immigrants -- an admission against interest.
She claims that 70% of Smith's workers are undocumented.
Now, let's give Gordon Smith the benefit of the doubt. Let's imagine that Ms. Siemers is a wild and crazy exaggerator of the truth (despite the assumption of credibility above.) Let's assume she's off by a factor of ten.
That still means that 7% of Smith's workers are undocumented. Some 35 of the 500 at the peak employment season.
That would still be an outrageous number.
Right?
Sep 11, '08
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution; take a bow for the new revolution. Smile and grin at the change all around; pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday. Then I'll get on my knees and pray; that we don't get fooled again - No, No. - Thanks Pete.
Some historical context might be helpful here and I am by no means defending the unfounded allegations reported in WW. The Bracero program that ran from 1942 until 1964 was a very successful program that brought Mexican nationals into work in the western agricultural markets for 22 years before its demise at the hands of cynical unionists and progressives.
The next 20 years there was basically no guest worker program and virtually no immigration control culminating in the mass amnesty program of 1984 and the requirement for employers, beginning in 1986 to "make a good faith effort" to insure new employees had the legal right to work in the US by paperwork compliance under the I-9 program. To this day I-9 verification does not require e-Verify.Why? It is a PITA, slow, cumbersome and even if you accept the self serving 1% error rate results in tens of thousands of inaccurate answers nationwide annually.
In the ensueing 22 years there have been virtually no increased efforts at immigration control at the borders and only half hearted efforts to control illegal immigration through the employer-employee relationship. The I-9 paperwork requirements have been updated only twice in that time period.
The employer's mandate is to make a good faith effort to determine legal eligibility through review of dcouments present to them w/in the first 4 days of employment. Once reviewed, the documents (unless temporary) can not be reviewed again. Overtreview and/or in depth questioning by the employer places them at jeopardy for EEOC claims under national origin discrimination.
Placing the burden on employers for our federal governments consistant refusal across both party and idealogical lines to address immigration is cynical at best; Machiavillian at worst. Some might say that the federales have a built in incentive to maintain the status quo - that being the millions paid into Social Security that illegals will never be able to claim.
There have been no federal claims levied at Smith Foods. However, even a cursory review by an experieinced HR professional would be able to point to the potential of a systematic failure on hiring officials part to meet the meager requirements of I-9 verification. Most employees present two forms of ID - a drivers' license and a social security card. Up until July of this year it was possible for anyone to get an Oregon drivers' license without showing proof of legal immigrant status or citizenship. Excellent fake social security cards can be purchased with ease and many are only discovered problematic (even with vaunted e-Verify) at year end when the Social Security Administration sends out their infamous "No Match" letters.
If an investigationinto Smith Foods hiring practices reveals systematic ignoring of I-9 verification requirements, then all company officals involved, including Senator Smith should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Until then, slime by allegation and innuendo reeks of opportunistic political cynicism.
There should be enough substantive differences between Smith and Merkley to keep the campaign on track.
7:04 a.m.
Sep 12, '08
So, we've got an attorney - for whom lying is an offense that could get her disbarred or, at minimum, wiping out her credibility when negotiating with other attorneys.
That was a joke, right Kari?
She claims that 70% of Smith's workers are undocumented.
No, she estimated that when it's going full bore (whatever that means) over 70% of Smith's workers are undocumented, apparently based on her unscientific sampling of Smith workers who get into trouble with the law and that hire her to represent them.
That still means that 7% of Smith's workers are undocumented. Some 35 of the 500 at the peak employment season. That would still be an outrageous number. Right?
Wrong. Like Claude Rains in Casablanca, you guys pretend to be shocked, shocked that there is gambling going on at Rick's. Undocumented worker are endemic throughout many parts of our economy, particularly agriculture. Contrary to what many of your posters maintain, it is not because nasty ag employers are exploiting undocumented workers, but because the American economy has relied on a steady supply of undocumented workers to keep our economy running.
I honestly don't remembering reading BlueOregon posts wailing about this until you figured you have a chance to dump on Gordon Smith. This is all about election year politics, not about dealing with the mess we have made out of this whole issue.
Gordon Smith supported the reform efforts in 2006 and only pulled back from the ill-fated 2007 efforts when Lars Larson and his ilk succeeded in labeling it an "amnesty" bill.
For the record, I believe there will ultimately have to be some form of amnesty for the 12 million plus undocumented workers who are already here because the only alternative is to allow them to stay, hiding in the shadows and unprotected from harrassment and from unscrupulous predators.
Almost nobody running for office in either party will publily acknowledge this, but the serious ones know this is true. Meanwhile, both parties will use this as a "gotcha" against the other side whenever possible--as you are doing now.
Sep 12, '08
Jack Roberts wrote:
I also strongly disagree with the notion that illegal immigration is about cheap labor. It is about having an adequate labor supply, and the it is by no means limited to agriculture.
I don't want to sound impolite, but that is a silly statement, Jack. If the wages are sufficient, the jobs will attract workers. That is, after all, the way the free market operates. Capitalism is all about cheap labor. That's why we need minimum wage laws and labor unions. That's why jobs are moved to lower and lower wage countries.
Americans work in deep coal mines. They collect trash for a living. They shoot and get shot at in the military. If they are paid well, they will damn well pack peas.
Sep 12, '08
Jack Roberts wrote:
...it is not because nasty ag employers are exploiting undocumented workers, but because the American economy has relied on a steady supply of undocumented workers to keep our economy running.
More silliness, Jack. You spin the facts to absolve business and instead blame the amorphous "economy." The economy does not hire undocumented workers. Businesses hire them.
You do not want to see exploitation of workers - like a good Republican.
Sep 12, '08
because the American economy has relied on a steady supply of undocumented workers to keep our economy running.
Again, for me the issue is hypocricy, not that Gordo hired illegal immigrants.
Jack Roberts brings up an interesting point: Yes, the economy has relied on this kind of labor. I actually don't fault Gordo on this, because we as Americans have (as Jack suggests) basically agreed to turn a blind eye to this practice in exchange for grocery bargains.
BUT... if this is true, then basically Jack is saying that Gordon Smith recognizes the value of undocumented labor... but when he gets to Washington DC, he simply ignores what his own experience has shown him and votes along party lines?
If Gordo feels that he needs to utilize undocumented labor, why has he been raising the anti-immigration banner when it suits him in Washington? Basically, Jack seems to be saying that there's a difference between the policies Gordo KNOWS to be needed and what he's been VOTING for in the Senate. Lame.
11:11 a.m.
Sep 12, '08
If the wages are sufficient, the jobs will attract workers. That is, after all, the way the free market operates. Capitalism is all about cheap labor. That's why we need minimum wage laws and labor unions. That's why jobs are moved to lower and lower wage countries.
At the risk of running an economics tutorial here, when there is a shortage of workers, wages go up resulting in (1) more workers entering the workforce and (2) employers reducing the number of jobs. Both supply and demand adjust. Workers do not just magically appear to fill all the jobs that would have been available at the lower cost.
And the idea that "Capitalism is all about cheap labor" is, of course, absurd. Capitalism has produced the highest paid labor in human history.
You spin the facts to absolve business and instead blame the amorphous "economy." The economy does not hire undocumented workers. Businesses hire them.
No, I'm not blaming the economy. I'm explaining the economic forces that draw immigrants here. The reason hese workers are here illegally is because the legal system of immigration hasn't been meeting the economy's demand for immigrants.
The U.S. and Mexico have the largest disparity in average wages of any two contiguous countries in the world. We have also had a growing demand for labor that our indigenous population has not been able to meet, even at something approximating full employment.
I'm not blaming the economy. I am blaming a government that has for too long ignored economic reality.
And JHL, you are on the wrong track when you say "when he [Gordon] gets to Washington DC, he simply ignores what his own experience has shown him and votes along party lines?" You obviously are not familiar with Gordon's record on this issue and simply assume all Republicans vote the same way.
Look, I expect mindless Gordon-bashing here, but can't you please educate yourselves on the immigration issue? We can't afford to have two parties brain-dead on this.
Sep 12, '08
Jack,
Your posts are consistent in trying to deflecting any responsibility from employers of undocumented workers. Your presentation is polished, but they're bull at heart.
You wrote:
when there is a shortage of workers, wages go up resulting in (1) more workers entering the workforce and (2) employers reducing the number of jobs. Both supply and demand adjust. Workers do not just magically appear to fill all the jobs that would have been available at the lower cost.
Of course - that IS the way is works in a closed system. In the US, though, pressure to increase wages in agriculture, construction, services, low-wage manufacturing and some other sectors is reduced by the hiring of undocumented workers who will work for low wages, not complain to government regulators, and not form unions. Employers have a larger labor pool to chose from and can keep wages low.
Also, I never appealed to magic. You are the one who feels the need for tutorial. I assumed that Blue Oregon readers understand the basic effects of supply and demand in the labor force.
You wrote:
And the idea that "Capitalism is all about cheap labor" is, of course, absurd. Capitalism has produced the highest paid labor in human history.
I should have used "business" instead of "capitalism". It is true that employers exploited workers long before capitalism was codified.
You wrote:
I'm not blaming the economy. I am blaming a government that has for too long ignored economic reality.
The government certainly has substantial responsibility for the present mess. The biggest impediment to sensible change is the conflict between Republican interest groups over immigration.
Much of the party base either doesn't like immigrants - especially non-English speaking, working class immigrants - around them or has a straightforward distaste for dark-skinned Latin Americans. Some of them correctly recognize the use of new undocumented workers to depress wages.
Business, which tends to support Republicans more than it does Democrats, wants a large pool of workers who will work cheap. It helps when those workers are reluctant to complain about their employers. Businesses simply don't want to be bothered by government. Though some businesses would rather operate legally, they will not forgo undocumented workers in the effort to maximize profit, and they will not switch their support to Democrats who would support a regularization of the employment environment. Instead, they lobby to create an exception in law for ignorance of employment status - or plausible ignorance, anyway.
So, Republicans are responsible for the present gridlock on immigration policy. Go complain to them, Jack. The rest of us see the problem, and we are not willing to pretend employers are blameless, especially employers who are U.S. senators, like Gordon Smith.
Regardless of Senator Smith's opinions on immigration, his company plays the same see-no-evil black-market game that other businesses play. As an elected official of the federal government, he is not entitled to get away with that.
2:04 p.m.
Sep 12, '08
Okay, we're finally getting down to the real points of disagreement between us:
(1) You think businesses want to keep immigration illegal so that they can exploit the workers. I know from working with these folks when I was labor commissioner that this is not true and that they have been lobbying hard for a legal immigrant workforce for decades.
(2) You think that only Republicans are responsible for the present gridlock on immigration policy. While I am quick to blame a lot of my fellow Republicans, I know there are plenty Democrats who are also to blame as well as Republicans who have trying to work with Democrats like Ted Kennedy on a bipartisan solution--a list that on this issue includes George W. Bush, John McCain and Gordon Smith.
(3) You really don't care about any of this except to the extent that you think you can use it to bash Gordon Smith.
2:43 p.m.
Sep 12, '08
Jack...
What you're basically aruging is that illegal immigrants are really critical to our economy, so it's OK for employers to violate the law.
If it's a bad law, then fix it. But until then, follow it.
You obviously are not familiar with Gordon's record on this issue and simply assume all Republicans vote the same way.
Clearly, Jack, you didn't get the memo. Gordon changed sides.
That's why the our right-wing friends at DeportGordonSmith.com celebrated and then shut down their website.
3:05 p.m.
Sep 12, '08
What you're basically aruging is that illegal immigrants are really critical to our economy, so it's OK for employers to violate the law.
For the most part, they aren't violating the law. The law requires them to get documentation and they do. The law only punishes them if they knowingly hire illegal immigrants and they don't.
The fact that some of these immigrants are illegal is a failure of the immigration system but that does not mean the employers are violating the law. I just personally don't expect them to go beyond the law because, frankly, I think this whole policy is crazy.
The Willamette Week article asserts that an ICE audit found some illegals working at Smith's Frozen Foods but says Smith's was not fined. That's because it isn't against the law to have illegals working for you unless you didn't collect the required documentation or knowingly hired undocumented workers.
And Gordon Smith did not change sides. He has always supported finding a path for more legal immigrants to come to the United States and work, especially in agriculture. Tom Tancredo, by contrast, wants a moratorium on legal immigration along with building a border fence and arming Minutemen to keep out the illegals.
And to show you how "extreme" I am, I applaud Merkley if he did in fact kill a bill that would have required Oregon employers to use the E-verify system.
Sep 12, '08
1) As I wrote, Jack, some employers want to hire legally and some do not care as long as they are left alone. What is clear is that most employers in the affected sectors prefer the current situation to one with strict enforcement under present laws.
2) Immigration debate puts up a wall in the GOP
Borderline catastrophe: how the fight over immigration blew up Rove's big tent
Immigration and the End of the Republican Party
3) Not true, Jack, but you are free to believe what you will of my motives. That does not effect the facts of the issue.
3:13 p.m.
Sep 12, '08
No Jack..I don't think you're getting down to it at all.
Smith is a U.S. Senator. As such, he should be doing everything he can to uphold the law. Not to mention that he's flip-flopped all over this issue, which makes him a hypocrite.
If Smith is against the law as it stands..then he should consistently work to change it. Flouting it because he doesn't like it is wrong--and unbefitting for an individual in his position.
3:19 p.m.
Sep 12, '08
What is clear is that most employers in the affected sectors prefer the current situation to one with strict enforcement under present laws.
As do I. Would you prefer keeping the current law but adding more stringent employer sanctions?
And your links under the second point all support my position. The Republican Party is strongly divided on this issue and it is therefore wrong to paint one side as representing the GOP view.
So if I agree that our respective motives are irrelevant and therefore concede the third point to you, would you agree that our difference basically centers on the first point?
Sep 12, '08
Jack,
You are getting mightily confused. I wrote that Republicans prevent any reform because they are internally divided. Their voters want no immigration. Their funders want lots of desperate workers.
I think our differences are two, primarily:
You see employers as victims of a bad law they had no part in. I see employers as a major part of the problem. They want a big supply of cheap labor no matter what. If they can have it legally, that's okay with them.
You believe Gordon Smith is just another of these employer victims. I believe Senator Smith has no good excuse whatsoever for failing to verify that his workers are documented.
6:05 p.m.
Sep 12, '08
I think a discussion on the merits of the current immigration law is interesting--but not especially relevant to this particular thread. Frankly, Smith is a U.S. Senator who is trying to get around the law. His surrogates are using the excuse that "everybody does it" and "the law is a pain-in-the-ass" or "doesn't work"..or whatever.
Gordon Smith is supposed to uphold the law--whether its convenient or not--or whether he likes it or not. Its evident from this WW story (the material from the lawyer and tax persons are especially compelling) is pretty damning for Smith.
He can either demonstrate that all of his workers are documented and legally working in the U.S. or he can't. All the whining and complaining in the world doesn't change those simple facts.
So how about it Gordo? Let's see the documentation.
Sep 12, '08
*In most progressive circles, people without proper work documents are called "undocumented workers".
And all criminals in general are called "victims"