ANOTHER LOOK AT COMMODIFICATION

“I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”

--Attributed to Robert McCloskey, U.S. State Department spokesman, by Marvin Kalb, CBS reporter, in TV Guide, 31 March 1984, citing an unspecified press briefing during the Vietnam War.

“Counting words is merely a device and while quick, easy to grasp and convenient, a poor one…Turning texts into segments, calculating repetitions, quantifying the value of those segments based on so-called repetition, has directly contributed to what I believe has been referred to here as ‘commoditization’.”

            --Liz Lyons

MEANING IS NOT A COMMODITY

Previous articles on this blog have addressed the issue of “selling words” to refer to the way most freelance translators price their work.  While this concept has always been flawed, it represented a way of negotiating prices with purchasers of translation services which, with the advent of CAT tools, became even more problematic because translators found themselves faced with demands for discounts on previously translated words or “repetitions” and words that were “close to” words that had been previously translated or what came to be known as “fuzzy matches”.

All to no avail, I have tried to determine the targeted user of these “CAT tools”, a term which is used for software programs consisting, in their simplest form, of a translation memory and a terminology database.  My gut feeling, based on what I have gleaned from those who are pushing their use, is that these programs were designed to help the individual translator, who would develop an ongoing “translation memory” consisting of matched source- and target-language segments.  This translation memory would work in conjunction with a terminology database which the translator would constantly update.  The translator was led to believe that he/she would “never have to translate the same sentence again”. 

For many translators, it was a rude awakening to discover that translation agencies were developing translation memories for all their clients and that they, the translators, were expected to give discounts for previously translated words, whether or not they agreed that those previously translated words conveyed the meaning of the source document.  Sadly, most translators simply complied.  After all, there was no financial incentive to make changes and the only way to survive financially was to produce more words albeit at a reduced rate.

Texts were turned into segments that were matched with previously translated segments, previously translated source-language words were matched with target-language words to arrive at a “translation”, which supposedly conveyed the meaning of the source-language text.  The translator became a “language engineer” who manipulated segments and marveled at the way the software could reproduce formatting and put all those segments back together in a way that seemed to produce a target-language document that was identical to the source-language document. 

Machine translation, which incorporates some of the same technology, also works with words.  This technology may be based on rules of grammar and dictionaries or it may be statistically based on natural language usage, but ultimately it is based on words which have denotative and connotative values determined by context. 

All well and good were it not for the fact that writers in the real world use language that is not only idiomatic and/or idiosyncratic, but rather is language that I have come to call Humpty Dumpty language, a language characterized by the concept “a word means exactly what I choose it to mean”.  So, what does the human translator do when he/she encounters a word in the source language for which any of the possible alternatives in the target language would be somewhat bizarre?  I tend to think that the human translator would opt for the intended meaning.  No automated language program is capable of making that determination, and it is not something that can become part of a translation memory or a terminology database. 

In reality, what seems to have gotten lost is that the role of the translator is to communicate meaning.  While that meaning is of necessity couched in words, there is no direct correlation between the words in one language and the words in another language, nor can we be sure that the words used by a writer in one language convey the meaning that he/she intended to convey.  We are all aware that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find a document that is well written in any language.      

So, in the end, meaning is not a commodity.  It cannot be reduced to words to be sold to the highest (or lowest) bidder.  Although meaning is expressed in words, those words are constantly changing.  Any attempt to automate the expression of meaning is bound to fall short.

The automated language industry is actively trying to involve human translators in the machine translation process.  In reality, they need the work of human translators to provide the matched segments that is the basis of statistical machine translation.  However, they seem to ignore much of the advice that comes from translators.  In discussing the role of translators, Fred Hollowood of Symantec Corporation said:  “I relied heavily on the quality assessments of translators. They were not always favorable.  It was some time before I learned to temper these evaluations with automatic metrics and user evaluation of MT output.”

Automatic metrics will be the subject of a future article, but user evaluation of MT output is something that can be compared with user evaluation of human translation.  Oftentimes it is not the end-user of the translation who evaluates it but the entity contracting the translation.  This entity is not always capable of determining how it will be understood by the end user.

There is no doubt that the translation industry is in a profound state of change.  We cannot cling to the past, neither can we ignore it.  The merchant translator that Bernie Bierman mentioned in previous articles is gone forever.  The freelance translator has no “knight in shining armor” to protect his/her interests.  But we do know that our profession is not and should not be based on the sale of words.  The role of the translator is, has always been, and hopefully will always be the communication of meaning and that is something that defies commodification. 

I personally believe that CAT tools (Trados, etc.) as we know them, like the 8-track, will soon be part of the past.  This is not true of machine translation, and it is a force that all human translators must reckon with.  Dealing with the automated language sector (their term) is not easy in that they have their own “language”.  Navigating their websites and discussion groups involves constant googling to determine the meaning of acronyms and arcane language.  Nevertheless, I feel that only by attempting to come to grips with their goals, whether or not they are achievable given the idiosyncratic nature of human language, can we achieve a balance in human communication.

Right now, though, what we need is a real dialogue about post-editing, what it is, how it fits in with traditional translation, and how it should be remunerated. Ultimately, that is the bottom line because if translators are expected to contribute to the machine translation process, they should be compensated for their efforts.            

HOLIDAY MUSINGS FROM LANGUAGE LAND

THE CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST

(A Tale for the Holiday Season)

By Isidro Ludwig Burt Rand

Once upon a time (actually it was only three years ago), a very nice, kind and gentle woman who happened also to be translator, a writer and a poetess, wrote a piece about the impending demise of a certain species of human translators, a demise wrought by the advent and growth of a machine species formally called robotic translation, but more commonly known by its nickname PussyCAT.

This very nice, kind and gentle woman (whom we shall call Ms. Cognac), sent her article to an organization of translators of which she had been a most loyal, most non-controversial and most un-revolutionary member for many, many years.  Her article was received by one of the organization’s minor clerks, a young fellow named Mr. Mannerless, who informed the very nice, kind and gentle Ms. Cognac that her article was not worthy of publication in the organization’s monthly organ – a most professional journal – but that it could be published as a “letter-to-the-editor” if it could be reduced to about 200 or 300 words at the most.

Ms. Cognac did not readily understand the reasons for this rejection or reduction, but being the very nice, kind and gentle woman she was (and still is), she saw little reason to make waves, even small waves.  However, she did relate the incident to a certain Mr. Beast (sometimes known as Mr. Unprofessional and sometimes known as the Duke of Darkness or other times known as Mr. Vulgaritie). 

Mr. Beast inquired of the organization precisely why Ms. Cognac’s article had been given such treatment, particularly by the minor clerk Mannerless.  Suddenly, the wind changed direction and Ms. Cognac was informed that her article would be sent to a so-called Review Committee for guess what?  Review, of course.

The Review Committee was composed of one person, a fellow named Mr. Geek, who was the organization’s Supreme Grand Guru of All Matters Technological.  This struck both Mr. Beast and Ms. Cognac as quite strange since Ms. Cognac’s article had absolutely nothing to do with matters technological, except of course the future effect of matters technological on the species known as human translator.

Anyway, Mr. Geek gave the article to his wife for due perusal and equally due review.  Mrs. Geek liked the article very much (at least that is what Mr. Geek told Mr. Beast), and since Mrs. Geek liked the article, Mr. Geek decided to read it himself and he sort of liked it too.  Being the fair man that he was (and perhaps still is), he affixed his imprimatur of approval upon Ms. Cognac’s article.  And in relating all of these events to Mr. Beast, he (Mr. Geek) said to him (Mr. Beast) something most revealing, to wit:

“Ms. Cognac is a translator of another time”

There was no mistaking in Mr. Beast’s mind as to the meaning of that phrase:  To Mr. Geek (and all of his disciples), the time of translators like Ms. Cognac was over…finished…done…terminated…kaput!  This was the age of the robot and the PussyCAT (and Mr. Beast and Ms. Cognac and all other dinosaurs had better get with the program).

And so, with Mr. Geek’s imprimatur of approval, the article was returned to the organization for publication.  However, the minor clerk Mr. Mannerless refused to publish it (without further reasons given) and so informed Ms. Cognac, who in turn duly advised Mr. Beast.  While Ms. Cognac expressed the desire of having as little to do as possible with the organization, Mr. Beast’s flames of curiosity burned higher and hotter.

He thought about making some inquiries via electronic postal service of the organization’s president, a Mr. Cheery, but knew very well that Mr. Cheery never responded not just to mail, but to anything.  He therefore directed his curiosity and inquiries to the organization’s heir apparent, Czar Nicolai I, who it was known did on occasion respond to inquiries made of Him.

Czar Nicolai I did respond to Mr. Beast’s inquiry (noblesse oblige).  His Almost-Supreme Royal Highness informed the Duke of Darkness (Mr. Beast’s own aristocratic title) that the minor clerk Mr. Mannerless had absolute power and authority (and the blessings of the organization’s supreme rulers) to reject any article for publication that He (the minor clerk Mr. Mannerless) deemed worthy of rejection.  Thus Czar Nicolai I shut the door to any further inquiries, as well as any snooping and meddling.

But the curiosity of the Duke of Darkness knew no bounds and he called upon some of his spies and various and other traitor-like types within the realm, one of whom was a member of the royal court known as Count Oozy (as in the lyrics, “Oozing charm from every pore, he oiled his way around the floor”) or sometimes Sultan of Slime.

From this network of spies, informants and double-agent traitors, Mr. Beast learned that the organization and its royal rulers were petrified by what was contained in Ms. Cognac’s article.  In the neurotic and paranoid world of the organization’s royal court, the words scribed by this very nice, kind and gentle woman would truly upset the organization’s prime patron (called in the vulgate form of English “advertiser”) and/or any other potential patrons (or in the vulgate form of English “advertisers”) of the world of translation technology.  The fact of the matter was that the minor clerk Mr. Mannerless had been ordered by his superiors and rulers to affix the royal stamps and seals marked “Banned” and “Censored” to Ms. Cognac’s words.

“As time went on,

needless to say, along came another wind

and blew the PussyCAT away”.

The name given to this wind was “Google”. 

Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo went the “Google” wind like so:

“Google Translate Now Offers Alternate Versions for Each Word

“Google Translate is introducing a subtle but important new feature, the possibility to alter the translation on the fly and pick the best version from several options for each of the words translated. You can enter your own version if the ones listed aren't accurate. The feature also gives a glimpse at how the technology behind Google Translate works.

"’Sometimes translation can be pretty tough. Language is full of ambiguities and our system has to do its best to make the right choices. So why choose?,’ Josh Estelle, Senior Software Engineer at Google, writes.

“’We’ve launched a new feature to provide you with alternate translations for each phrase in the translated text. Just click the translated phrase and you’ll see a pop-up menu of possible alternates for that phrase, as well as the original phrase highlighted in your original text,’ he explains.

“Hover over any translated word and you will not only see the original word, or words, to which it relates, but also alternative translations. If you think something just doesn't sound right, you can click on the word for a drop-down list of other versions. You can also enter your own translation.

“This way, there is a great chance that one of the alternates makes a lot more sense in the context and you'll get a much better translation in the process. What's more, you'll also be helping Google do a better job next time.

"’Not only can these alternative translations give you a better understanding of a confusing translation, but they also allow you to help Google choose the best alternative when we make a mistake,’ Estelle explains.

“Google Translate uses a statistical machine translation system. Google's computers scours through vast data sources and look for translations of words, phrases and so on.

“When it's translating something, the system looks through its vast data set and finds the version that is the most likely, based on sheer number. It's not a perfect system, as anyone who has used Translate will know, but the beauty of it is that it gets better in time.

“So any time you make a correction, your input is added and weight against the data already available. This way, little by little, Google Translate will become more accurate”.

So you see, my children, the key word here is “alternatives”, for that is precisely what occurs in the brain of the species known as human translator, and precisely what doesn’t occur in the brain of PussyCAT.  And if the Lords of Google find their holy grail, then the fate of the subjects and disciples of PussyCAT, including Lords Treydoss, Slow-of-Words and Been-There-Done-That will be in the hands of the gods (or St. Jerome, le cas échéant).  Yes, those subjects and disciples, also known as Mr. Geek’s "translators-of-now" could very well by the time of the holiday season of 2012  become the "translators-of-another-time".  The chickens have come home to roost.

“PussyCAT.  c. 1998 – c. 2012.  R.I.P.”

Ho, Ho, Ho.  Merry Christmas!

ARE WE JUST SELLING WORDS?

“I am sure you are not following the trend.

If you are frozen in the 70s and want to keep working

with your typing machine there is nothing I can do”.

- Renato Cedin

  Link Translations (Brazil)

“Welcome to the 21st century: Computers are the future of translation

If you want to be as efficient a translator as possible, Microsoft Word and Excel

should not be your primary translation environments”.

- Jon Ritzdorf, Solutions Architect

  Introduction to Computer-Assisted Translation

  New York University - SCPS

♪ ♫ ♪

CAT for sale

Words perfect and unspoiled

Words never even slightly soiled

CAT for sale

Let the translators pipe of words

In their now extinct way

CAT knows every type of word

Better far than they ...

♫ ♫ ♪ ♫

- Inspired by Cole Porter’s “Love For Sale”

WORDS FOR SALE
(A Multi-Part Series)

Part 1

By Bernie Bierman

As far back as my memory can take me (and that is indeed many years), translators have been debating and arguing the question of the value of translation, and more particularly the best or most effective way to calculate that value.

My own memories and written records of this debate and argument reveal that various approaches were tried over the years in an attempt to calculate that value: per line, per word, per typestroke, per hour, by exotic formulas that combined the per line, per word and per hour criteria, and by all sorts and manner of esoteric calculations. 

For reasons that are still not clear, the per word method outlasted and outlived all the others.  Although many translation practitioners decried the per word calculation as inadequate, the consensus was that it was the most adequate of all the inadequates.  However, it did have the financially-redeeming virtue of consistency, that is, if one could agree on what precisely was a “word” for purposes of calculating a price.  Was a number in digital form a “word”?  And if the number in digital form was viewed or counted as a “word”, was 1000 really two “words” rather than one “word”?  Was 1,789,348 one “word” or nine “words”?   Was a name a “word”?  If the Italians called their city “Firenze”, was the English-language version of “Florence” a translated “word”?   And in the pre-computer and pre-CAT age, if names and numbers were viewed as countable or calculable “words”, the question or problem often arose as to how one precisely went about the actual counting of words?   Did the document really contain 8600 words, or was the real count 8492 or 8710 or 8628? 

And if the question of calculation and/or the method of calculation weren’t sufficient enough to stir the arguments, there was the matter of which words should form the basis of calculation: the source language words or the target language words.  Which was economically more equitable to the translator?  Which was economically more equitable to the client or user of the translation?  Was the source language calculation an accurate reflection of the overall translation process?  Or was the target language calculation a much more accurate reflection of that overall translation process?  And on and on the debate went…and raged.

* * * * *

Here in the United States, a man named Lewis Bertrand came upon the commercial-industrial translation scene in the 1920’s.  Bertrand was not merely a translator and writer (which has the same redundancy as “composer and musician”), but also a highly astute and (soon-to-be) successful businessman in the translation industry.  By the 1930’s Bertrand’s influence on the tiny U.S. commercial-industrial translation community was quite discernible and that influence grew in the following two decades.

Indeed, Bertrand’s incessant preaching of his gospel of translation economics brought many converts and spawned many faithful.  Henry Fischbach, the co-founder of the American Translators Association was a disciple of Bertrand’s translation economics, along with so many of the men and women who helped found and build what is arguably one of the largest translator organizations in the world.  (Sadly to a few, the leaders and members of the modern ATA haven’t the foggiest idea of who this Lewis Bertrand was, but even more sadly and more regrettably, the concepts developed by him respecting the essence and value of translation as a commercial endeavor and later promoted and fostered by such founding personages as Henry Fischbach, the Mins brothers, Robert Addis and so many others whose names are now long-forgotten, have been discarded like a piece of rusting machinery as a new generation of computer worshippers and technological “geek-speakers” have come along to proselytize and spread their own gospel.)

In economic and commercial terms, translation to Lewis Bertrand was not about words.  The idea that translation was about the sale of words was so anathema to him that he could literally break into a wild rage over the slightest suggestion in that direction.  To Bertrand, translation was about communication; translation, particularly in the commercial and industrial domains, was a communications service; translation was not about the supply of words; translation was about the supply of ideas, concepts, knowledge, a supply delivered by a person or persons having certain well-defined and unique skills…and talents.

I was only a teenager when I first heard one of the numerous Lewis Bertrand stories about translation and translation economics.  The one particular story that remained with me for a lifetime – as if it had been branded into my brain – went like this:

He was asked by one of his firm’s more difficult and chronically-complaining clients why it was being charged for “translating” names and numbers and what was the rationale for this “seemingly unfair charge”.  He was asked by this difficult and chronically-complaining client whether his firm could eliminate all the names and numbers from a translated document, thereby lowering the invoice by what could be a considerable sum.

Bertrand listened attentively to his client’s complaints and attempted to explain the nature and essence of a translation service.  But the client was adamant.  It did not need names and numbers “translated” and certainly did not want to pay for any such needless “translation”. Bertrand politely acceded to the client’s wishes.  The next translation job to be done for this client would be absent all non-translation elements, i.e., names, numbers and other “noise of like purport and tenor”, and the invoice would duly reflect a sharp reduction in the client’s translation cost.  The result was something like this:

“Dear Mr. [see original] :

“We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated [see original] and with regard to the delivery of [see original] tons of [see original] rolled steel scheduled for shipment on [see original] via the SS [see original], we would like to advise you as follows:

“Because of major dredging problems in the port of [see original], Captain [see original] of the Port Authority of [see original] issued Directive No. [see original] which prohibits vessels over [see original] tons displacement from entering port channels Nos. [see original] and [see original] until [see original] at the very earliest.  Although we could arrange for transshipment in [see original] between the dates of [see original] and [see original] to a vessel of lesser displacement, the costs would increase, and the letter of credit No. [see original] issued by the [see original] Bank in the amount of US$[see original] would be insufficient.

“Should you have any further concerns, please feel free to contact the undersigned by telephone at [see original] or telex at [see original], or his deputy manager, Mr. [see original], whose telephone number is [see original] and whose telex number is [see original].

“Yours, etc.

“[see original]

By: [see original]”

The upshot of this was a very quick telephone call from the chronically-complaining client: “Mr. Bertrand, we got your point.  Please provide us with a complete translation and charge us accordingly”.

Lewis Bertrand was never happy with or enamored of the per word method that was the dominant method in calculating the value of a translation service.  He saw it as a reference tool at best, a reference tool that was far too often not reflective of the true value of the service and all of the elements that went into providing the service. At worst, he viewed the per word invoicing method as a manifestation that the translator was really selling just words.    He and his contemporaries and competitors often tried combinations of various calculation methods, such as per word and per hour or various complex formulas that combined numerous calculation methods.  Bertrand believed fervently and passionately that translators possessed certain highly-defined skills and knowledge that could not be adequately compensated by the mere counting of words and attaching a figure to that count. 

“We are in the communications business”, he would often bellow.  “We are not a bunch of (expletive) clerks”, he would yell.  “We are not  (expletive) typists or transcribers”, he would scream.  [In the mid-1940’s, he charged a client US$100 to translate one word – it came out as two words in the target language.  “If an advertising agency can charge a client thousands of dollars to come up with a 5-word slogan or phrase”, he said, “then surely all of the thought, time and talent that went into finding the right expression in another language for that one English word makes the $100 fee not just a bargain, but a steal”.]

In his day, lots of people in the translation industry (both in the U.S. and Europe) listened to this fiery preacher of translation economics, and many followed his preachings.  Although Bertrand was certainly around in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, when the first attempts at computerized translation were undertaken, he and so many of his contemporaries dismissed this endeavor as a bad joke and as a need by certain people to robotize everything in sight (and even out of sight).

Clearly, if some “geek-speaker” appeared before a vast assembly of translators in the days of Lewis Bertrand and his contemporaries – or even in the days of their successors – and told the audience that “once a word or sentence or phrase or paragraph had been translated, that very same word or sentence or phrase or paragraph (or a close facsimile thereof) would never ever have to be translated again”, the laughter and howls in the assembly hall would have been of a decibel level that would have surely compromised the structural integrity of that assembly hall.

If Bertrand and virtually all of his contemporaries were blind to the coming of robotized translation, which was not merely on the horizon, but rather just around the corner, there was not so much as a nanosecond thought given to the possible economic impact upon the translation industry that this robotization would wrought.   Of course, there was only handful of people anywhere who saw a world connected through a place that didn’t as yet even have a name.  And never mind the word “globalization”, the concept alone was if not science-fiction, then certainly economics-fiction. 

[To be continued in Part 2]

THE COMMODIFICATION OF A PROFESSION

After years of working with the Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's international Dictionary, I recently purchased the American Heritage Dictionary because I had been led to believe that this dictionary looks to the future, that it is descriptive rather than prescriptive and offers advice on appropriate usage. So, when I looked for the word commoditization", I was surprised to learn that the preferred term is "commodification". No matter, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" or, depending upon your point of view, as foul.

Ten, even five years ago, I would never have imagined that translation could become a commodity in the way that it has. Now, overwhelmingly, it is sold on the basis of price, a price that is based upon the word count in the source language (before we even take into account TM, with repetitions, fuzzy matches, etc.), which assumes that translation is nothing more than matching words. This is a far-reaching topic and it deserves our attention.

Yesterday my friend and colleague Bernie Bierman copied me on an email he sent to his clients. This was an eye-opener for me in that I had just gone along with the general switch in the industry to payment being based on the target language. I had never even thought about how truly "unprofessional" those odd-ball amounts are.

I am posting Bernie's message because I feel that it is indeed an important message. The things that he points out are things that we should all be thinking about. The idea that translation is about words and numbers of words is taking us in a direction that I believe is dehumanizing. There will be more on that topic in future posts--and I promise that they will be forthcoming. In the meantime, I offer Bernie's message and invite everyone to comment on it.

Dear Client:

I am sending you this message not just to explain or re-explain my fees for translation and how I bill for them, but also more importantly to apprise you of a certain business philosophy which you yourselves might want to consider as applicable to your own clients.

The fees I charge for my translation services are based upon a TARGET LANGUAGE COUNT. The source language count means absolutely nothing to me except as a rough guide to the volume of the particular job or project. Indeed, source language counts are meaningless to me, both from the point of view of the end-product and the invoicing for that product.

Permit me at this point to impart some philosophy (or perhaps "philosophy") about translation and the translation process, and in an effort to catch your attention - which I hope will be undivided - I shall write what follows in larger, bold-face characters:

Translation (and) the translation process, is (are) not about words...big words, little words, short words, long words, whole words or particles of words. It is equally not about numbers or names or formulas or equations. Translation is about writing and communication. Indeed, before the so-called "wizards" of technology came long in the late 1990's or early 2000's, translation was viewed by many as one branch of the communications arts. Indeed, from any clear point of view, whether objective or subjective, translation is about writing and communication. It is not about word-matching, as some if not many of today's technologically-obsessed translators, CAT workers and CAT operators believe.

As a translator I am a writer and communications specialist. I think and write in the TARGET LANGUAGE (which in my case happens to be English). Indeed, what can be said with 10 source language words, oftentimes needs 15 or 16 or 17 target language words, and conversely what sometimes can be said with those same 10 source language words might require just a mere 5 or 6 target language words.

Thus, the end-product which you receive from me is a TARGET LANGUAGE product, and that precisely is the product which your client will read, use and act upon. In more than a manner of speaking, the source language text is merely a reference text. It is not the end-product of the service that I am rendering to you, and which you in turn are rendering your client.

Some of you may counter the foregoing by asking, "OK, How do we provide our client with an exact, down-to-the-penny quote?" If you would like an answer to that question, please feel free to write to me, and I'll be happy to provide you with an answer based upon my 35 years of experience as a successful translation service company owner and executive and that of literally hundreds of my former colleagues and competitors in the business.

Finally, permit me to reiterate another important aspect of my invoicing. You will never receive an invoice from me for so-called odd-ball amounts like $67.31 or $283.94 and $1,131.76. Why? Because on texts over 1000 target-language counts, I round off to the nearest 100. Hence 1234 words = 1200 words and 1278 words = 1300. For texts having less than 1000 words, I round off to the nearest 50. Hence, 724 words = 700 words and 832 words = 850. But in the final analysis, you are not paying me for words (the word count is used merely as an equitable basis for billing). You are paying me for a unique communications skill and my attendant knowledge and experience.

I thank you for your attention to this message, and should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Bernie Bierman