ICE overkills, trying to run up enforcement numbers

ICE overkills, trying to run up enforcement numbers

An execution in Biddeford, Maine

Gordon L. Weil

 

Many years ago, I commuted from Maine to New York City via Boston airport every week.  I could walk across the terminal, past the gate agent and step onto the plane.  There was no security line.   I could arrive at the gate just before it closed.

The world has changed, and that will never happen again.

From trust, we’ve gone to distrust.  From safety, we’ve gone to danger.  From rare shootings, we’ve gone to firing at will.  From avoiding threats, we’ve gone to “stand your ground.”  Is this progress?  Are we making America great again?

This week, where we’ve arrived was Biddeford, Maine.  ICE sought a person who had entered the country illegally.   They tried to make a driver stop his car so they could arrest him as that person.  He wasn’t that person.  He may have panicked.  There no evidence he wanted to harm the ICE agents, though he may have wanted to drive away.  The ICE agents killed him.

This was the second fatal shooting this week by ICE agents of a person who was not a threat.  There have been 11 ICE fatal shootings during President Trump’s second term.  They are part of his policy to reduce the number of potentially illegal immigrants, with 2,000 arrests daily as the target.    

He promised to halt the flow of unlawful entrants and has been generally successful, gaining wide public support.  Beyond that, he promised to rid the country of undocumented residents who are criminals, again receiving broad public support.  

But his ICE has gone after easy targets, productive members of the community who entered illegally perhaps many years ago.  They are neighbors of American citizens who have no problem with their presence, and he does not have wide public support for their removal.  His poll ratings on immigration became negative.

The reaction to Trump’s immigration policy shows that, like many public issues, there is a grey zone.  While ending illegal entry is generally what people want, they do not want wholesale deportation or an official army of vigilantes.

ICE has become a political football, but it enjoys Trump’s full backing. It is only restrained when its excesses become liabilities to his standing.  Some Democrats call for its outright abolition, but that demand has an echo of former President Biden’s excessively loose immigration policy that added to the scope of the problem.

The U.S. needs to enforce its immigration laws to ensure national security and the ability to carry out an agreed population policy.  If not called ICE, the country needs responsible policing of its laws.

The question boils down to whether the removal of any illegal person is worth the death of anybody – that person, ICE agents, protesters or innocent bystanders.  The answer should be that immigration enforcement is not worth any deaths, especially because each incident is not the life-or-death last chance the federal government will have to apprehend a violator.

It is evident that the use of firearms by ICE has become the first tool that comes to mind and comes to hand.  It should be the last.  ICE agents should be banned from using their weapons for enforcement.  They should only be used for self-defense when there is no other alternative.  Or disarm ICE agents, requiring them to call for armed help in limited situations.

In Biddeford, ICE agents had options they ignored. They include (a) step back, get out of the way, (b) damage the vehicle, not the driver, (c) let the driver get away at this time or (d) interview neighbors to find out about the person, making identification more certain and establishing where the person can be approached peacefully.

None of these options is possible if the object is mostly to add to the numbers of people removed, no matter what the cost.

Why has the world changed so radically from the time when I could stroll onto a plane to one where an innocent and friendly woman in Minneapolis is killed by an ICE agent who refused to step clear of her slow-moving car?

One cause is terrorism.  It’s a world-wide challenge.  Still, authorities seem to have ended ordinary crime by labelling every violent act as terrorism.  That allows for a violent response, often providing prompt justice at the end of a gun barrel.

Another is guns themselves.  The Second Amendment authorizes broad gun rights, but the Supreme Court initially allowed some limits.  Gun advocates see an absolute right, and the Court has been inching in their direction.  Increasing availability and access have been the path to the acceptance of greater use.

Perhaps most important is Trump and his partisans turning political opponents into the embodiment of evil.  That has led to the death of innocents and the growing threats to elected officials and judges.  Clearly, this is overkill.

  

The Platner affair and what it does and doesn’t mean

 

The Platner affair and what it does and doesn’t mean

Maine goes it own way, not what the pundits say

Gordon L. Weil

 

“As Maine Goes, So Goes the Nation.”

When Maine formerly voted in September, the result might predict the national result in November.  It didn’t, and the saying died.

But it seems to be making a comeback.  The selection of a replacement candidate for the U.S. Senate has led the national media to act as if Maine is again the great predicter.  They’re wrong, and the saying can stay dead.

Having been involved in Maine Democratic politics for decades, here is my perspective in the selection a replacement for scandal-prone Graham Platner.

What is the focus of the Maine Senate election?

Donald Trump.  Many voters have tired of him and see Sen. Susan Collins as a Republican enabler, who should be replaced. The Democratic candidate needs to be the person most likely to keep her from a sixth term, as the best way to control Trump.

How did Platner get the nomination?

Maine Gov. Janet Mills was the pick of the Washington Democratic leaders as the most likely person to defeat Collins.  Their judgment was based on her having won two statewide elections.   But they ignored that she has been a center-right governor, sometimes overriding her own Democratically dominated Legislature.  Plus, she would be the oldest first-year U.S. senator ever.

Platner is younger and aligned with a progressive state Democratic Party. He ran with nothing to lose, when the Party had automatically accepted Mills, the conventional choice.   Without much competition, he quickly began polling better than Mills.  Her money dried up.

Did Platner’s selection reflect a split between progressives and moderates?

Possibly, but not much.  First, there’s not a deep split in Maine.  The Democrats are generally progressive.  Second, it was a matter of age.  Collins is old. Sen. Angus King is old. Mills is old.  While the state itself has the oldest median age, old people recognize the limits of age, and younger people feel disenfranchised.

In the 2016 Maine Democratic caucuses and convention, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the progressive, defeated Sec. Hilary Clinton, the moderate, by 64% to 36%.  The progressives won 10 years ago.  Platner’s win was not a major shift, though it revealed the Party’s disappointment with Mills.

To be clear, the pundits are wrong.  They read too much into the split among Democratic hopefuls.  It’s about ambition and not ideology.  None of the aspirants is as right-leaning as Mills.  The race is not focused on a struggle between progressives and moderates, though some aspirants may try to promote themselves as moderates, fulfilling the false scenario.

Should Platner have been better vetted?

Sanders’ endorsement of Platner made his candidacy.  Based on his platform, in line with Sanders-Warren, there’s no indication that any attention was paid to his character.  It was much like Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s endorsement of Mills, based on his superficial finding that she could defeat Collins, while ignoring her problems with Maine Democrats.

The endorsements of Mills and then of Platner tried to impose judgments “from away” on Maine Democrats.  Mainers might have expected that national leaders had vetted their choices.  That didn’t happen.   Perhaps Trump’s success has made personal defects irrelevant to political choice. 

In the end, in Maine at least, personal issues finally mattered.  His potential ability to beat Susan Collins was not enough to keep Platner in the race.

Was Platner forced out by establishment Democrats?

His candidacy achieved credibility when he received endorsements, with accompanying funding, from national Democrats.  Any doubts about his legitimacy were erased.  He was largely created by the establishment.  After he abused their trust and confidence, they dropped him and with them went credibility and cash.

How will his replacement be selected?

Seeking to avoid any mistake that would recall the choice of Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential candidate, the Maine Party has decided to hold a weekend convention July 25-26 with about 600 participants, composed of the State Committee members and delegates selected by caucuses in each of Maine’s 16 counties.

The delegates will not be pledged to candidates. The convention will hear from all of them, before voting.  The Party will inform State Government of the candidate on July 27.

Who is in the race?

Three kinds of candidates.  First, present or former officeholders.   Second, losers in the recent primary for governor or Second House District, including people who have never won an election.  Third, outsiders who offer a new face.  Each must get voter signatures to run.

It’s probable that the first group will produce the candidate, either Secretary of State Shenna Bellows or former Senate President Troy Jackson.   Both ran for governor, but did not gain the nomination. 

Bellows ran well in central Maine, might appeal as a female candidate, and has a strong anti-Trump record, having fought him in court.  Jackson ran well in northern Maine, where his appeal could help the Party, and was endorsed by Sanders.  He will appeal to former Platner supporters.  Both he and Bellows are well-liked former legislators and not hostile to one another.

In the second group is Nirav Shah, the former State CDC director, who did well in the governor’s primary.   A relatively recent Maine resident, he has not held elective office.

It’s possible the two-week campaign will draw positive attention to the Democrats, allowing them to leave Platner behind.  The Platner affair could end up helping the Democrats. Collins has already signaled that her backers will go on the attack, no matter who is the nominee.

If Democrats are communists, so is Trump

 

If Democrats are communists, so is Trump

Reckless charges keep flying

 

Gordon L. Weil

The Democrats are communists.  Donald Trump is a communist.

The Democrats push national health insurance, a key element of European socialism.  Communists claim to be socialists and are the dedicated opponents of the American political and economic systems.  MAGA Republicans say that pro-government Democrats undermine the U.S. and are communists.

Donald Trump cultivates one-person rule à la Joseph Stalin, the late leader of the Communist Party’s Soviet Union, America’s enemy.   An authoritarian regime, it always won sham elections and ruthlessly suppressed any opposition.  It hijacked socialism, using it as a myth to cloak outright dictatorship by one person.

Like Stalin, Trump sanctions the killing and persecution of people who oppose his policies and gladly tries to ignore due process.  He seeks to skew elections so that his party never loses.  If he deploys a presidency like Stalin’s regime, does that mean Trump can be called a communist?

Nobody calls Trump a communist, because communism is understood as a left-wing political theory that favors a powerful government, while Trump is a conservative who opposes big government. 

In practice, the Soviet Union was a right-wing dictatorship, as Vladimir Putin, Stalin’s latest successor as Russia’s leader, now reveals.  Stripping away the mythology, Soviet Communism was as conservative and authoritarian as most dictatorships.   The false ideology aside, the difference between Stalin’s rule and Trump’s is a matter of degree, not intent.

Trump freely asserts that Democrats are communists.  This is remarkably unfair, like calling Trump a Nazi.  He aims to link his political opponents, for whom he shows no respect, with an international conspiracy that has threatened the U.S.  Some of his followers take him seriously.   

Trump distorts the political label used by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders – Democratic Socialist.  Sanders’s allies have begun to win elections, notably Zohran Mamdani’s successful run for New York City mayor.   Trump broad brushes all Democrats as Democratic Socialists and Democratic Socialists as communists, the enemy.

America’s Democratic Socialists aren’t communists.   They are in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, roughly equivalent to right-wing MAGA Republicans.  Neither is the branch of foreign enemy.  Each probably believes itself to be loyally American, while charging the other side is not.

It’s often said that the U.S. is divided.  Division is caused by divisiveness, sometimes becoming “weaponization.”  The opposition is described in harshly negative terms to turn opinion against it.  The nature of politics is mostly about getting voters to reject the opposition because of its faults, true or false, rather than convincing them to support your side.

Pundits point out that American politics has always involved mudslinging, so today’s divisiveness should not be taken as unusual.  This “two-wrongs-make-a-right” justification winks at actions that might otherwise be rejected if they stood alone.   Besides, it’s historically wrong.

The Civil War was the most divisive time in U.S. history.  Neither President Abraham Lincoln nor rebel leader Jefferson Davis regularly used the same kind of attacks on one another as President Trump applies to Democrats and their leaders.  Lincoln wanted to preserve the possibility of reconciliation, but Trump seeks domination.

Trump calls Democrats “godless communists” and labelled Kamala Harris, his competitor for the presidency, as “Comrade Kamala,” pushing the supposed communist linkage

He insults people with whom he should work, calling them “Dumocrats.”  Former President Biden is “Crooked Joe.”  Democrats may call Trump derogatory names as well, but he alone is President of the United States, the chief of state, responsible for and responsive to all Americans.

Trump’s exalted view of himself, accepted by his GOP, gives him a free hand in running the government and using his presidency for personal enrichment.   That self-esteem leads him to expect submission and to allow the government’s use of force.

People want to enjoy freedom from fear.  The American system has gradually given people a greater sense of security, with the government’s use of force becoming less likely.  Members of previously endangered minorities have been able to gain more equality and enhanced roles.  Trump now retracts their progress as having been a mistaken gift of the historical majority.

Under Trump, fear has been increasing and seems to be a tool to gain his goals.  The killing of two innocent white demonstrators in Minneapolis increased national uneasiness, as have his undisciplined and harmful references to Africans, Muslims, and women.

Governments holds the most physical power and can instill fear to induce acceptance of their demands.  When an arbitrary regime strips people of due process of law, its threat becomes menace, and menace produces obedience.

Both Trump now and Stalin decades ago have used the enormous power of government to force compliance with their individual will.   Trump is not a communist, but neither was Stalin.  Both qualify as authoritarians, flaunting their power and promoting their greater glory, no matter what the cost.

NEW: Amerexit: Trump’s version of failed Brexit COMPLETE POST

Amerexit: Trump’s version of failed Brexit

You can’t go home again

 

Gordon L. Weil

Ten years ago, the British decided to leave the EU.  It was a bold but flawed move, and recovery will take many years, if ever.

The seeds that yielded Brexit have been planted on this side of the pond.  The U.S. version might be labelled Amerexit.  Britain left Europe; the U.S. is leaving the world. 

Brexit was driven by three forces – sovereignty, identity and history.   The U.S. is now being driven by the same forces.

In the British referendum, the majority opposed compromises with British sovereignty required by the EU’s rules and courts.  Reverence for the monarchy, though outmoded compared with other countries, promoted a sense of special status for its laws and customs.  England dominated the result, while Scotland and Northern Ireland rejected British exceptionalism.

The vast and unrestricted, EU single market gave British production access to a huge market, a real benefit to small businesses.  But a single market must have a single set of rules, and that took exclusive control away from Parliament and the U.K. courts.  That change was a price too high to pay, even if markets were lost.

Throughout its history, the U.S. has been reluctant to enter into international agreements that could limit its sovereignty.  It might accept accords only when they served American interests, and the U.S. could dominate.

NATO provided the U.S. a buffer against Soviet expansion and a guarantee that European nations would no longer drag it into war.  The organization, always led by the U.S., successfully served both purposes.  But its success led President Trump to mistakenly see it simply as a European plan for free-riding on American military protection.

Similarly, the U.N., created by an American initiative, aimed at reducing the chances of war, and maintained U.S. global influence.   It ended or contained some conflicts and provided humanitarian aid in line with U.S. priorities.

Trump’s policy is “America First,” and he seeks to quit international agreements.  Other countries see the policy as “America Alone,” a return to isolationism.  But Trump sees it as “America Only,” where others are expected to fall in line with unilateral U.S. policy, imposed by a superpower.  That explains his disappointment that NATO did not back his Iran war.

The EU requires the free movement of labor among its member countries, just as within the U.S.   But the Brexiteers worried about immigrants from Poland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, who could undermine the essence of British identity.

U.S. opposition to immigration reflects a similar concern about new Americans changing the nation’s ethnic mix.  American identity has become more narrowly defined, while the flow of immigrants, legal or not, has slowed.

To maintain the U.S. as a white, Christian country, as he sees its historic origin, he prefers immigrants from Norway or the white population of South Africa over Muslims and people of color. 

The third focus might easily have been dominant, overriding any potential costs from Britain’s leaving Europe.  Great Britain was once among the world’s great powers.  Its empire extended around the globe.  It is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.  In a nation whose military has more royal parade horses than battle tanks, the trappings of empire still matter.

The EU thwarted recognition of British history.  As an historical great power, Britain might emerge again to rise above being a mere member of Europe’s club.  Its worldwide recognition could bring it trade deals that would surpass the gains from being an EU member. For Brexiteers, “Leave” meant gaining rightful independence, while “Remain” made that impossible

Britain simply could not get over its history and adhered to an exalted view of itself not shared by other.  To the leavers, the EU was a trade deal that came at too high a cost for a great country.

Trump’s Make American Great Again is much the same.  In his view, glorious days in America’s past must be recovered.  The country was “Great” and it should be great “Again.”  To achieve this goal, the tariff policy of President McKinley should be revived as should the territorial policy of President Polk.   Its view of itself is decreasingly shared by others.

Brexit is failing.  Trade did not grow.  Small businesses closed.  Prosperity did not occur. Immigrants from outside Europe entered to staff essential services, especially healthcare.  The military became almost irrelevant.  If Brexit is not yet a catastrophe, it is a serious handicap.

Amerexit is also beginning to fail.  Tariffs do not improve the trade balance.  The U.S. loses the support of traditional European allies, who are realizing the changing nature of war and the Russian threat.  The limitations of American power have become clear.  Domestically, government policies make personal lives more costly.

Brexit and Amerexit fail for the same reason – their failure to recognize and adjust to change. You can’t go home again.

  

Amerexit: Trump’s version of failed Brexit

 Amerexit: Trump’s version of failed Brexit

To read this post, please goto:

substack.com/@gordonlweil

Democrats need common platform to oppose GOP

Democrats need common platform to oppose GOP

Core message should unify party

 

Gordon L. Weil

The Democrats like to fight.

But they are getting it wrong.  Instead of fighting against Trump and his MAGA Republicans, they fight with one another. 

Progressives and moderates each argue that their party must adopt their message as its platform.  Each group claims to know what will give Democrats control of Congress, while charging the other side is doomed to lose.

Will Rogers, the prairie humorist, famously proclaimed, “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.”  For many, the thought still rings true.  The party struggles to organize a winning campaign.

The master of forming winning coalitions was President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  He had to unify northern Blacks and blatantly racist southerners behind a common program.   He stressed issues that they shared, while making some concessions to each side.   The result was his 1936 reelection, when he carried all but two states.

Progressives want a more activist federal government, social reform, and political change.  Moderates want to focus on bread-and-butter issues, to avoid social issues, and political restoration. Each side’s commitment to its own beliefs gets in the way of their finding a platform built from issues that both believe are important.

Obviously, the Democrats’ best hope of winning is as the alternative to an unpopular President Trump.  While merely opposing Trump may not be enough to yield a congressional majority, it is their campaign’s basis.  Beyond defeating Trump, his practices and policies, the Democrats lack a unified program based on shared views and concerns.

The party might rally around a platform recognizing the needs and hopes of most Americans and refraining from ideas, however worthy to either wing of the party, that fail to recognize the practical and current concerns of voters.  The Democrats should build on the opportunity Trump has given them and should avoid either looking too far back or too far ahead.

Here’s what a core Democratic platform could include.

Tariffs are a traditional source of revenue and protector of emerging economic sectors, but they have become the president’s political plaything, raising raises costs for consumers.  His policy cuts trade deficits by limiting imports rather than boosting exports.  Democratic policy should stress American strengths and no longer enhance its vulnerability.

The Abraham Accords were meant to foster peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors through cooperation rather than confrontation.  Why not extend that thinking to Iran?  A closer economic relationship could do more to defuse Iran’s threat than futile acts of war.  

Ukraine, Taiwan and Palestine policy should emphasize the traditional American opposition to territorial takeovers, reversing the Canada and Greenland blather.  The U.S. freed the Philippines and other countries and has fought against the territorial expansion of aggressors.  It should oppose attempts to subjugate others. 

Science does not have all the answers, but it has brought much longer lives and much less disease.  Abandoning research harms the American people and makes the U.S. dependent on others.  With a leading role in the sciences, the U.S. is assured of worldwide influence.  Without it, America risks becoming a dependent country.   Saving science is a must for the Democrats.

The judicial system should be based on the concept of justice for all.  Trump packed the Supreme Court to produce a loyal ideological majority, fixed on boosting his presidential power.  The Court’s bias needs to be brought into balance.   A Democratic government should restore a nonpartisan rule of law. 

Americans are losing health care insurance. While “Medicare for all” is too glib to persuade voters, the Democrats can promise coverage for all, which can be done through private insurers as in Germany and Switzerland.

The failure of immigration policy reveals the unwillingness of the parties to compromise.  The country needs both real border security and more immigrants.  The Democrats should declare their willingness to compromise to reach a viable, long-term policy.  They should take the lead in promoting bipartisan negotiations.

It is unrealistic to expect an early return to cooperation and negotiations between the two parties. Their differences are too deep, and the undisciplined use of social media has transformed disagreement and reasoned debate into impulsive fury.  Voters say they want pragmatic compromise, but it’s not likely. 

Voters also want less heated charges and claims.  The Democrats should pledge division without divisiveness. And practice civility.

Disagreements among Democrats are normal.  Congressional elections are not a presidential vote; what wins in New York need not be identical with what works in Georgia.  One wing of the party need not dominate it everywhere, and each can make its case district-by-district while all promote the common agenda.

Moderates and progressives can pursue their agendas and avoid speaking ill of one another.  And all Democrats could now create a unified platform that states their party’s core goals. It’s not an either-or choice.

Saving Social Security before it's broke

 

Saving Social Security through simple tax reform

Planning for the coming crisis

 

Gordon L. Weil

Tax reform.  Everybody talks about it but nothing happens.

President Trump might disagree.  After all, taxes were cut for the wealthiest sliver of the population and partially removed on tips.  Unlike traditional Republicans, he does not promote tax cuts to trickle down to create jobs; it’s simply a reward to the rich.

Trump’s critics say that everybody ought to “pay their fair share.”  Billionaire Warren Buffet says he pays at a lower rate than his secretary.  Paying his “fair share” would increase his taxes.  If the people like him are not taxed appropriately, the cost of government boosts the public debt, ultimately raising the tax tab through inflation.

Government spending could be reduced.  Social Security benefits will automatically be less without reform.  In 2032, its retirement reserve fund will be gone and payroll taxes will only cover 78 percent of benefits, which would have to be cut.  There’s a surplus of talk about the problem and a deficit of action.  The clock ticks on.

The 1986 tax act produced real reform.  Taxes were simplified, loopholes were eliminated, and rates were reduced.  Then, with the help of Congress, the big players went to work gaming the new rates and cutting their taxes.  Simplification was lost, together with real reform.  Renewed tax reform could recover some of the 1986 progress.

Taxes could be simple, with fewer loopholes – deductions, exemptions and special rates.  Revenues could increase with lower rates.  Administering the tax system would cost less.  The wealthiest would pay their fair share, supporting government services from which they benefit.  But the wealthiest would get around a new round of tax reform. 

What worries some people about the talk of tax reform is the language of the most aggressive would-be reformers.  Advocates make the system sound so deeply unfair today, that confiscating wealth would be justified.  These extreme reformers attack “oligopoly.”  In turn, they are attacked as “socialists.”  The result?  Talking about tax reform makes a lot of people feel uneasy.

The temperature of the debate could be lowered by learning a couple of lessons from the current tax system.

Trump falsely claims that he eliminated taxes on Social Security.   Instead, he successfully added a limited, three-year tax cut for many seniors, which he claimed cancelled the tax on their benefit payments.  Though it did not fully cover the tax, Trump successfully sold the temporary measure as a major Social Security reform.   Marketing matters.

Social Security contributions are paid at the source.  The party that pays a person’s income also pays the Social Security contribution for itself and the recipient directly to the government.  It’s a flat rate, with no loopholes.  The contribution base is capped at a specific income ($184,500 in 2026); any higher payroll income is free from any contribution.

Social Security can be saved and taxes reformed with no increase for more than 90 percent of taxpayers by a simple reform.  It would not touch the Internal Revenue Code and could readily be adopted by Congress.

The cap on income subject to a Social Security contribution should be eliminated and the definition of income should be changed.  Income to any taxpayer from any source could be subject to the contribution.

The Social Security contribution is now based only on wages paid to individuals.  The base could include all income paid for wages, government payments and investments.  That way, tax evasion by failing to accept a wage could be avoided.

The annual amount of U.S. personal income above $200,000 is estimated at $7.5 to $8 trillion.  The Social Security self-employed tax rate of 12.4 percent would produce about $1 trillion a year from individuals. That would cover the Social Security shortfall, with the surplus going into general federal revenues to fund debt payments, tax cuts or increased benefits.

(Medicare contributions are not subject to an earnings cap.) 

This reform would increase taxes on the wealthiest without allowing loopholes.  With payments to the government coming directly from the source, the taxpayer would not take any action.  Benefits need not be changed.

Companies could also be made subject to making Social Security and Medicare contributions on their retained profits. No loopholes would be available. If corporations have the rights of individuals, they should be treated like them and be contributors.   These contributions would have to be meshed with existing corporate taxes. 

Major individual and corporate contributors might argue that higher taxes thwart their investment in growth.  Economic studies question that argument.

This reform could be marketed, à la Trump, as “Save Social Security,” reassuring lower-income recipients and getting an indecisive Congress off the hook.  Social Security already has elements of income redistribution, so the reform would be doing nothing new.

This could be one way to deal with deficit spending and Social Security.  It’s worth a look.