People Before Profit blog

Obamas call for more perfect union stirs millions

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:15:00 +0000

Barack Obama’s appeal to the people to join in building a “more perfect union” touched a deep chord among millions of voters weary of division and hate peddled by the corporate ultra-right and their Republican agents in Washington.

His 37-minute speech at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, March 18, has been hailed as “a speech for the ages.” It has been likened to John F. Kennedy’s speech in defense of separation of church and state when his candidacy was threatened by anti-Catholic bigotry.

With the media whipping up hysteria over the sermons of Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the speech was seen as a challenge to save his campaign. It was heard live by millions on cable and network TV. Afterwards, commentators said the speech had turned danger into triumph, reaching once again across racial and partisan divides to build support for his presidential candidacy.

NAACP Chairman Julian Bond said he was moved to tears by the speech.

Theodore Sorenson, President Kennedy’s speechwriter, said no campaign speech in history “had as much courage and principle and long-term importance on the most fundamental problem that has faced this country since its founding … the problem of race.”

Sitting in Obama’s audience was Bill Hamilton, president of Teamsters Joint Council 53. Obama “didn’t shirk any of the issues — he attacked them head on. This guy is for real,” Hamilton said. The Teamsters have endorsed Obama.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the nation’s only Latino governor, who recently ended his own presidential bid, reacted to the speech by announcing his endorsement of Obama to a cheering crowd at Memorial Coliseum in Portland, Ore., March 21. Obama, he said, “spoke to us as adults. He asked us to ponder the weight of our racially divided past, to rise above it and seize the opportunity to carry forward the work of many patriots of all races who struggled and died to bring us together.”

Richardson said, “As a Hispanic, I was particularly touched by his words. I have been troubled by the demonization of immigrants — specifically Hispanics.”

He added, “Hate crimes against Hispanics are rising as a direct result and now in tough economic times, people are looking for scapegoats. We all know the real culprit — the disastrous economic policies of the Bush administration.” The crowd erupted in cheers.

Richardson also rebutted insinuations by John McCain and the Clintons that they, but not Obama, are equipped to lead in foreign and military affairs. He hailed Obama for understanding “the security challenges of the 21st century,” adding, “you will be an outstanding commander in chief.”

Richardson, who served in the Clinton administration, said it is “time for Democrats to stop fighting amongst themselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the fall.”

In the Portland crowd were hundreds of members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees’ Oregon council, which has endorsed Obama despite national AFSCME’s endorsement of Clinton. Doreen Wood, an AFSCME Local 328 member, said Obama’s Philadelphia speech “was as honest and convincing an act of patriotism that I have seen in a long time. This one man could change our nation for the better.” She characterized the speech as “the bravest act by a politician I have ever seen and the most inspiring moment in a presidential candidacy that I have ever heard.”

Obama told his Philadelphia audience that the media may broadcast Wright’s sermons “on every channel, every day” until the November election. The other choice, he said, is to focus on the real issues: crumbling schools, neglect of children of all races, a broken health care system, a war that never should have been fought. He called for common ground against the “real culprits” that impoverish all working people, “a corporate culture rife with insider dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many.”

Obama spoke of African Americans still fighting discrimination 145 years after the Emancipation Proclamation. Yet he also spoke of white workers who “don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race … They’ve worked hard all their lives only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pensions dumped … They are anxious about their futures and see their dreams slipping away.”

Obama decried a longstanding “racial stalemate,” adding, “But I have asserted a firm conviction, a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people, that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.”

greenerpastures21212 @yahoo.com

Health care workers demand health care

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:28:00 +0000

BRONX, N.Y. — Union rights and the right to health care are on the minds of many in this Bronx neighborhood, where 220 health care workers at the Kingsbridge Heights Nursing Home have been on strike since Feb. 20.

Picket lines are staffed 24/7, and the workers, who are African American, Latino, Caribbean, Polish, Polish American and other nationalities, are standing firm against Helen Sieger, the home’s millionaire owner.

KHNH workers have been without a contract since 2002, and in the past year faced cuts in sick days and holidays.

The “straw that broke the camel’s back” was the cancellation of health care benefits in November 2007, at which point Sieger was almost $3 million dollars behind in payments to the union’s benefit fund. Workers are also quick to point out that there are other issues, including overt union-busting efforts, and a long history by the home of unfair labor practices and reneging on court-ordered obligations.

That irony of health care workers with no health care coverage has contributed to the outpouring of support the strikers have received, from community residents, elected officials and the families of KHNH patients.

At a rally on March 15, attended by thousands of 1199 SEIU members, union president George Gresham said, “For however long it takes, our entire union is here to support you.” Mary Soliday, who lives on the same street as the home, said, “When my dad was sick, I only saw the doctor once, out in the hall. These are the people who take care of patients.” Angel, a resident of the nearby Amalgamated Housing cooperative, said he’d come to the rally “because there’s so much injustice around, and here’s a chance to play a small part in undoing some of that.”

Workers attending the rally traveled from as far away as Gouverneur, N.Y. (near the Canadian border) and Washington, DC. They sounded the same theme: “If Sieger can get away with this, we’ll be next.” One sign read, “Bronx-Lebanon Workers against ALL Kinds of Injustice.”

Less than a week later, at a community “Fact-Finding Town Hall Meeting,” workers and neighbors testified about the reasons for the strike, and its impact on patients and on the community. A 22-year old dietary worker spoke — and was greeted by the crowd — with passion, declaring, “Where is the government? They need to shut Sieger down.”

Another worker, who started as a scab but quit and joined the picket line after a day, described how he was hired very quickly, without having had required blood or TB tests. Others talked about the hiring of security guards without proper background checks, and neglect of patients.

The union has expressed frustration with the inability to make progress to settle the strike and restore the workers’ benefits, despite having tried every avenue, including meetings with arbitrators, appealing to the city and state government, and filing charges with all regulatory agencies dealing with nursing home operations.

Obama speaks with empathy and compassion about racism in America

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:40:00 +0000

I am profoundly impressed by Barack Obama's speech on racism in American politics. It is a speech that Hillary Clinton could not have made about any issue, a speech that John McCain would probably sneer at as 'weak,' a speech with broad historical analysis and insight about what has been a central material force or roadblock to progress in North American history from colonial times to the present.

It is a speech that sheds light on the social resentments which have been manipulated throughout American history to divide and conquer working class people. Senator Obama showed what a national leader can be in this speech, however mass media may seek to talk it to death and then forget about it. It is a speech that progressives can rally around the way they did Franklin Roosevelt's speeches encouraging workers to join unions, denouncing reactionary corporate leaders as 'economic royalists,' and pointing to the 'third of a nation, ill housed, ill clothed, and ill fed' as those whose poverty government had to address.

Senator Obama addressed the specific rhetorical comments of his former pastor which have given right-wing media the opportunity to use the classic guilt by association tactic against him. He repudiated these comments in strong language, but he didn't repudiate the pastor or the church of which he has been a member for a generation. He spoke with respect for a man who had preached love, peace and social justice along with the statements that Obama considered destructive and divisive. Obama showed that he would not reduce his pastor or his fellow parishioners to cartoons the way mass media does — that human beings are not either/or, but complicated and developing in their consciousness.

The Senator also spoke about the resentments that many African Americans feel against the dehumanizing effects of institutional and ideological racism, and how those resentments can be counterproductive in defeating racism. He spoke of the resentments of working class whites, many from immigrant backgrounds, who see themselves fighting to make ends meet and sometimes see civil rights gains as their losses, as contrary to their own interests.

He didn't speak with anger or bitterness, but with clarity. Most of all, he saw U.S. society as dynamic, not static, in the process of development and capable of enormous social advances. Some in the mass media are calling the speech eloquent, rhetorically brilliant, which is true. But what should be important is its substance, its high level of analysis.

To me, it is further evidence that Senator Obama has the potential to become a transforming president in the tradition of Lincoln and Roosevelt, to respond to and provide leadership for masses of people struggling to create a new politics and a new social reality.

Norman Markowitz is a history professor at Rutgers University.

UN panel finds two-tier society in U.S.

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:56:00 +0000

UNITED NATIONS, Mar 11 (IPS) - The United States government is drawing fire from international legal experts for its treatment of American Indians, Blacks, Latinos and other racial minorities.

The U.S. is failing to meet international standards on racial equality, according to the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) based in Geneva, Switzerland.

Last Friday, after considering the U.S. government's written and oral testimony, the 18-member committee said it has found 'stark racial disparities' in the U.S. institutions, including its criminal justice system.

The CERD is responsible for monitoring global compliance with the 1969 Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, an international treaty that has been ratified by the United States.

In concluding the CERD report on U.S. record, the panel of experts called for the George W. Bush administration to take effective actions to end racist practices against minorities in the areas of criminal justice, housing, healthcare and education.

This is the second time in less than two years that the U.S. government has been found to be falling short of its treaty obligations. In March 2006, The CERD had harshly criticized the U.S. for violating Native Americans' land rights.

Taking note of racial discrimination against indigenous communities, the Committee said it wants the U.S. to provide information about what it has done to promote the culture and traditions of American Indian, Alaska Native and indigenous Hawaiian peoples. It also urged the U.S. to apply the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The CERD also voiced strong concerns regarding environmental racism and the environmental degradation of indigenous areas of spiritual and cultural significance, without regard to whether they are on 'recognized' reservation lands.

The Committee recommended to the U.S. that it consult with indigenous representatives, 'chosen in accordance with their own procedures -- to ensure that activities carried out in areas of spiritual and cultural significance do not have a negative impact on the enjoyment of their rights under the Convention'.

In its 13-page ruling, the U.N. body also raised serious questions about the death penalty and in the sentencing of minors to life without parole, which it linked to racial disparities between whites and blacks.

In their testimony, Bush administration officials held that the treaty obligations do not apply to laws or practices that are race-neutral on their face but discriminatory in effect. The Committee outright rejected that claim, noting that the treaty prohibits racial discrimination in all forms, including practices and legislation that may not be discriminatory in purpose, but in effect.

The CERD panel also objected to the indefinite detention of non-citizens at Guantanamo prison and urged the U.S. to guarantee 'enemy combatants' judicial review.

The panel said the U.S. needs to implement training programs for law enforcement officials, teachers and social workers in order to raise their awareness about the treaty and the obligations the U.S. is required to uphold as a signatory.

Human rights defenders who watched the CERD proceeding closely said they were pleased with its observations and recommendations.

'The U.N. is telling the U.S. that it needs to deal with an ugly aspect of its criminal justice system,' said Alison Parker of Human Rights Watch, which has been monitoring discriminatory practices in the United States for years.

In a statement, Parker hailed the U.N. panel for rejecting the U.S. government's claim that more black children get life without parole because they commit more crimes and held that the U.N. criticism of the justice system was fair.

'Once again, the Bush administration has been told by a major human rights body that it is not above the law,' said Parker in of the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo prison.

Other rights activists also held similar views about the outcome of the CERD hearings in Geneva.

'[It has] exposed to the world the extent to which racial discrimination has been normalized and effectively made permissible in many areas of American life,' said Ajamu Baraka of the Human Rights Network, an umbrella group representing more than 250 rights advocacy organizations.

As part of its recommendations, the Committee has asked the U.S. government to consider the establishment of an independent human rights body that could help eliminate widespread racial disparities.

Lenny Foster, Diné (Navajo) and representative of the Native America Prisoners Rights Coalition, was a member of the indigenous delegation to the CERD. He observed during the examination that the United States was 'in denial'.

'Spiritual wellness and spiritual healing is paramount to the very survival of the indigenous nations,' he said. 'There are efforts to prohibit and impede the spiritual access. Corporations cannot be allowed to prohibit access and to destroy and pollute and desecrate the sacred lands.'

Bill Larsen of the Western Shoshone Defense Project delegation also testified before the Committee, making a strong case concerning environmental racism and the deadly pollution caused by mining on their ancestral lands.

In March 2006, the Western Shoshone leaders had received a favorable response from the Committee to its complaint about the U.S. exploitation of their sacred lands. The U.S. is obligated 'to freeze, desist and stop further harmful activities on their lands', but failed to take any action.

Indigenous leaders said they welcomed the Committee's decision to ask the U.S. to submit its report on compliance within one year.

'It is important that all Native Peoples within the U.S. know that they have rights that are recognized by international law even if the United States refuses to recognize them or act upon them,' said Alberto Saldamando, one of the indigenous delegates attending the Geneva meeting.

'Now it is not just us,' he continued, 'but the international community that has recognized that indigenous peoples within the United States are subject to racism on many levels and has called for effective steps by the U.S. to remedy this situation.'

What will it take to bring progressive change?

Sat, 15 Mar 2008 07:58:00 +0000

“I never looked at the primaries before, but this year they got my notice,” a former factory worker now stuck in a low-wage health care job exclaimed to me recently. She stays glued to the election news on TV whenever she can.

A few days later at a MoveOn house party calling voters in Texas, the woman sitting next to me smiled and said quietly, “I better listen for a while — I haven’t done this for 30 years.”

Both women are typical of voters all over the country. They’re scared about the economic security of their families and worried about the future for their kids and grandkids. They want the war in Iraq to end. They’re registering to vote, changing parties where need be, and braving rain, sleet and snow to vote in the primaries.

“I’ve never seen anything like it,” said a friend across the country. “Especially the young people getting engaged to make a change.”

What will it take to change course in our country?

The Take Back America annual conference convenes Mar. 17 to map out its national progressive agenda. The meeting comes at the completion of the fifth year of the Iraq war.

Economists now agree that as long as the resources of the nation are squandered on the occupation of Iraq, it will not be possible to pursue an agenda of green job creation, health care for all, affordable housing or funding public education. The economy and the war are interlinked, and voters, including in swing states, are angry and aware.

Republicans have chosen as their nominee one who envisions staying in Iraq for 100 years and who supports pre-emptive war regardless of the consequences. John McCain is in lockstep with U.S.-based global corporations who are out to dominate the world, destroy our constitutional rights, and drive down wages, benefits and economic security here at home.

McCain represents a continuation of Bush or worse.

Hillary Clinton’s statement that only she and McCain are tested to take an emergency call at 3 a.m. is wrong and dangerous. It raises false doubts about Barack Obama and runs the risk of discouraging voter turnout or sending swing voters back to the Republicans in the general election.

A fear campaign cannot serve to change the course of the country. Hope, not fear, is the agent of progressive change. Racism, bigotry and anti-immigrant bashing also stand in the way of changing course.

A poll released by USAction last month found swing voters favorable to an Invest in America’s Future program which redirects spending from the Iraq war and tax cuts for millionaires “to invest in our own people.”

In Illinois’ 14th Congressional District, voters stunned the political world by electing Democrat Bill Foster to fill the seat vacated by former Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. Obama campaigned for Foster as “the change we need.” This victory shows solid red districts can be turned blue in November.

In Maryland’s 4th Congressional District, progressive Donna Edwards’ decisive primary victory over Democratic incumbent Al Wynn proved a strong program to end the war and change priorities can win. “Our messages of change and returning Congress to focus on the interests of working families resonated loudly and clearly with voters all across our district,” she said.

Like the Texas primaries, changing the course of our country is a two-step process. First, it will take a groundswell of voters to deliver a landslide victory in November for a Democratic president and to expand the Democratic majority in the House and Senate. But that is just the beginning.

The energy, finance, pharmaceutical and military corporations will be hard at work to secure another Republican administration. Win or lose, they will exert their pressure on the next president and Congress. Corporate control can only be rolled back by organized grassroots pressure from union, African American, Latino, women, youth, senior, peace and environmental voters.

Labor’s campaign for the right to organize, and coalition organizing by peace and community groups for such needs as “not-for-profit” universal health care, affordable housing, equal quality public education, safe, clean energy and green job creation are at the heart of achieving a change of course in our country.

At the top of the list to change direction is bringing all the troops home from Iraq and establishing a new foreign policy for real security based on peaceful negotiations and nuclear nonproliferation.

It will take the organized participation of millions like the women I spoke with last week, and the young people standing up across this country, for a landslide victory in this historic election.

Joelle Fishman (joelle.fishman @pobox.com) chairs the Communist Party USA Political Action Commission and is also chair of the Connecticut Communist Party.

What will it take to bring progressive change?

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:31:00 +0000

“I never looked at the primaries before, but this year they got my notice,” a former factory worker now stuck in a low-wage health care job exclaimed to me recently. She stays glued to the election news on TV whenever she can.

A few days later at a MoveOn house party calling voters in Texas, the woman sitting next to me smiled and said quietly, “I better listen for a while — I haven’t done this for 30 years.”

Both women are typical of voters all over the country. They’re scared about the economic security of their families and worried about the future for their kids and grandkids. They want the war in Iraq to end. They’re registering to vote, changing parties where need be, and braving rain, sleet and snow to vote in the primaries.

“I’ve never seen anything like it,” said a friend across the country. “Especially the young people getting engaged to make a change.”

What will it take to change course in our country?

The Take Back America annual conference convenes Mar. 17 to map out its national progressive agenda. The meeting comes at the completion of the fifth year of the Iraq war.

Economists now agree that as long as the resources of the nation are squandered on the occupation of Iraq, it will not be possible to pursue an agenda of green job creation, health care for all, affordable housing or funding public education. The economy and the war are interlinked, and voters, including in swing states, are angry and aware.

Republicans have chosen as their nominee one who envisions staying in Iraq for 100 years and who supports pre-emptive war regardless of the consequences. John McCain is in lockstep with U.S.-based global corporations who are out to dominate the world, destroy our constitutional rights, and drive down wages, benefits and economic security here at home.

McCain represents a continuation of Bush or worse.

Hillary Clinton’s statement that only she and McCain are tested to take an emergency call at 3 a.m. is wrong and dangerous. It raises false doubts about Barack Obama and runs the risk of discouraging voter turnout or sending swing voters back to the Republicans in the general election.

A fear campaign cannot serve to change the course of the country. Hope, not fear, is the agent of progressive change. Racism, bigotry and anti-immigrant bashing also stand in the way of changing course.

A poll released by USAction last month found swing voters favorable to an Invest in America’s Future program which redirects spending from the Iraq war and tax cuts for millionaires “to invest in our own people.”

In Illinois’ 14th Congressional District, voters stunned the political world by electing Democrat Bill Foster to fill the seat vacated by former Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. Obama campaigned for Foster as “the change we need.” This victory shows solid red districts can be turned blue in November.

In Maryland’s 4th Congressional District, progressive Donna Edwards’ decisive primary victory over Democratic incumbent Al Wynn proved a strong program to end the war and change priorities can win. “Our messages of change and returning Congress to focus on the interests of working families resonated loudly and clearly with voters all across our district,” she said.

Like the Texas primaries, changing the course of our country is a two-step process. First, it will take a groundswell of voters to deliver a landslide victory in November for a Democratic president and to expand the Democratic majority in the House and Senate. But that is just the beginning.

The energy, finance, pharmaceutical and military corporations will be hard at work to secure another Republican administration. Win or lose, they will exert their pressure on the next president and Congress. Corporate control can only be rolled back by organized grassroots pressure from union, African American, Latino, women, youth, senior, environmental and environmental voters.

Labor’s campaign for the right to organize, and coalition organizing by peace and community groups for such needs as “not-for-profit” universal health care, affordable housing, equal quality public education, safe, clean energy and green job creation are at the heart of achieving a change of course in our country.

At the top of the list to change direction is bringing all the troops home from Iraq and establishing a new foreign policy for real security based on peaceful negotiations and nuclear nonproliferation.

It will take the organized participation of millions like the women I spoke with last week, and the young people standing up across this country, for a landslide victory in this historic election.

Joelle Fishman (joelle.fishman @pobox.com) chairs the Communist Party USA Political Action Commission and is also chair of the Connecticut Communist Party.

And the race goes on

Sat, 08 Mar 2008 07:15:00 +0000

It’s all about beating McCain

Texas labor leader Ed Sills reported that at his Travis County Democratic caucus, March 4, there was both a record turnout and strong cooperation between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton supporters in setting up the delegate selection process.

It suggests that the media focus on Democratic in-fighting may be missing an important trend — the overwhelming desire of Democrats to unite to defeat John McCain in November.

March 4 bounced Clinton back after a string of Obama wins made him the frontrunner. Ohio and Rhode Island voters handed her decisive victories. The Texas primary was much closer, with Clinton beating Obama by three percent. Obama won Vermont and still holds the pledged delegate lead. But his campaign’s goal of clinching the nomination by winning at least one of the two big states proved elusive.

Like previous primaries and caucuses, there were huge voter turnouts in all four states. Democratic turnout dwarfed the Republican turnout 2 to 1. In Ohio’s Cuyahoga County, some polling places were kept open for an extra hour and a half because they ran out of paper ballots.

Meanwhile, John McCain clinched the Republican nomination, allowing him to focus on attacking and creating division among the Democrats and on raising money. His goal will be to try to peel away conservative voters who have migrated towards Clinton or Obama because of their disgust with President Bush.

But grassroots unity against the GOP was strong at the Texas caucuses. Sills, communications director for the Texas AFL-CIO, told a labor meeting in San Diego, that the crowd of 308 Democrats at his precinct easily agreed on procedures. Obama got about 70 percent of the caucus votes. The Obama and Clinton organizers worked together so well, Sills said, and the good feeling was so strong that all procedures and resolutions were passed by acclamation.

Everyone was happy, he said, that the number of Democrats was so large that they were able to fill the cafeteria in the Caraway Elementary School.

Texas Democrats held caucuses after primary voting to pick additional delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

Sills noted that he has been attending the Travis County caucus since 1994 and that he was the only Democrat at that first gathering. There were 30 Republicans.

In 2006, two Democrats showed up, Sills and Michael Murphy, a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

In 1994, the precinct was 2-1 Republican. In 2006, Rep. Mark Strama, a Democrat, was elected to Congress there with a strong margin.

“If we can bottle what happened tonight, our precinct may be turning from purple to blue as surely as Texas may be going from red to purple,” Sills said.

Nationally, the Democratic presidential contest now turns to Wyoming (March 8), Mississippi (March 11) and then the next big prize, Pennsylvania, on April 22.

In her March 4 victory speech, Clinton said she would stay in the race, despite failing to win by large enough margins to overcome Obama’s lead. “We’re going on, we’re going strong and we’re going all the way. Millions of Americans haven’t spoken yet and they want their turn,” she told a small but exuberant crowd in Columbus, Ohio.

The Obama campaign said Obama leads in the popular vote for all 41 primaries and caucuses to date, has a more than 100-point delegate lead, and has won in 28 states to Clinton’s 13. They say Clinton cannot overcome the delegate gap.

The increasingly nasty tone that the Clinton campaign took in the last weeks is worrisome for many who want a united coalition going into the general election against McCain.

Clinton launched a media offensive combining security scare ads, complaints of unfair media treatment followed by appearances on “Saturday Night Live” and “The Daily Show,” and waving about a memo purporting to show Obama duplicity on NAFTA. This media onslaught seemed to sway undecided voters towards Clinton, and put Obama on the defensive.

McCain, Bush and their surrogates also attacked Obama. One far-right radio talk show host, introducing McCain in southern Ohio, delivered a racist diatribe against Obama. McCain apologized afterward, but the damage was done.

Obama was forced to combat Clinton’s national security offensive in the last few days, allowing Clinton to claim the number one issue for voters, the economy.

In Ohio, voters from union households numbered approximately 35 percent of the total vote and backed Clinton by about a 4 percent margin.

Obama, who has called for a new kind of politics, may have to put that aside for now and challenge Clinton more strongly.

But with six more weeks until the next big primary, Pennsylvania, many are concerned that the increasingly negative campaigning may hurt the Democrats.

In order for the Democrats to decisively defeat the Republican-right attack machine and win the White House – and Congress – a united party and coalition focused on the issues and one candidate is necessary, they say. The experience in Travis County’s Democratic caucus holds out promise that on the ground, determined voters will make that unity happen.

Joel Wendland contributed to this article.