Click here for the entire post

An Open Letter to Time Inc.
On the occasion of the first article reflecting your yearlong commitment in Detroit.
By SHEA HOWELL

I just read Daniel Okrent’s article “Detroit: the Death—and Possible Life—of a Great City.” If this is your best effort, you might as well sell the house and move back to New York. The article offers nothing new and is a recycling of stories already told. Moreover, it continues to perpetuate the myths that Detroit’s ills are because of myopic auto companies, self-interested unions, riots and racial tensions. While there are measures of truth in these images, they are caricatures of the people and events you chronicle. You don’t need to be in Detroit to drag up these tired images and superficial views.

For example, to characterize Coleman Young as a “black politician who cared more about retribution than about resurrection” or as someone who spent most of his time “insulting suburban political leasers and alienating most of the city’s remaining white residents,” is simply not true. Nor is your tying of the decline of Detroit’s population to the uprising in 1967. These are the tales told by some suburbanites to frighten their children away from the city. They are not be supported by any historical analysis of the Young administration or the decline of city and they miss the real issue. Young believed that the rebuilding of Detroit rested on the return of some single new industry or development. He was not alone in this. This belief was shared by most other mayors around the country and encouraged by federal and state policies. From the building of the Ren Cen to the opening of casinos, Young and subsequent administrations, like Okrent, were looking for the simple solution.

The story of Detroit’s decline, and its great gift to those of us who live here, is that as the epitome of American industry in the last century, we are the first to have to deal fundamentally with deindustrialization and all that entails.

Okrent makes much of his early memories of the city and uses them to legitimize his current perceptions, but he has done little to provide a matured understanding of the people of this city, who are nearly invisible in his account. Instead he looks to worn out ideas, arguing for “regional government,” “moving occupants,” and positioning us as one of the “cheapest” labor markets encouraged by the government to produce “hydrogen” autos. Urban farming, where Detroit leads the nation, gets one short sentence. Green belts get a clause, and the possibility of creating a new definition of city already in the making gets no mention at all.

The tragedy of this piece is that so many other journalists have done better. In addition to our own local papers that have chronicled much of the imaginative redevelopment in the city, Rebecca Solnit writing in Harpers presented a compelling picture of the new agricultural movement forming a basis for a new economy in “Detroit Arcadia.” Flypmedia.com did a wonderfully imaginative presentation of the emerging trends in the city in its “Breath of Hope.” Even Al Jazeera had a stronger picture of the possibilities of what cities can become in the 21st century, as they are turn toward local economic structures. Last week a former UM student, Diana Flora, writing in the Michigan Daly captured more of the city’s reality in her “Viewpoint: Two sides of the same Detroit” than Okrent.

Okrent has much to offer in both his capturing of the devastation of the city as a slow Katrina and his recognition that the rebuilding of Detroit is tied to the redefinition of America. But he and subsequent journalists in your series need to shed a lot of baggage to recognize that Detroit is not just a bombed out city. While you are busy thinking of us as Baghdad, and consulting that bureau for how to approach our city, many see much stronger parallels with Chiapas and the rising movements of the global south. If you’re not willing to explore something new, spare us the effort.

RICH FELDMAN responds to the Time Magazine article.

I just read Danny Okrent’s article in Time Magazine. I am disappointed at how little Danny has been able to reflect on his own history to provide any new insights into his home town. Danny was raised in Detroit, went to UM in the 1960s, and became a nationally known writer. I was raised in Brooklyn, went to UM in the 1960s and have engaged with Detroit for more than 30 years, much of that time in an assembly plant, learned from and listened to people on both sides of 8 Mile. I spent 20 years on the line and ten years as an elected Union Official. Since 1970 when 30 of my activist friends from Ann Arbor moved to Detroit, many of us have been involved in community and social movement activity. When I moved to Detroit in the 1960s, I was looking for a return of the union power of the 1930’s, Danny Okrent seems now in 2010 to be looking for signs of 1960s solution. He is 40 years out of date. The abandonment of Detroit is about much more than the structural economic crisis brought on by a one industry town surrounded by racist policies and attitudes. Detroit represents the end of the industrial epoch in human history and requires deep and new thinking and imagination to re-define, re-spirit and re-build our city from the ground up.

Danny missed the significance of Detroit’s great transformation. While on the surface it is about the auto industry, it is really the end of the economic American Dream and the birth of a 21 century American dream based upon local sustainable economics and community building. The crisis of Detroit wasn’t only about pursuing wrong strategies, it was a fundamental failure to recognize that for the first time in human history, people will not be needed in our country to produce and make goods. The new stage of technology, starting with automation, the rise of the global market and global sourcing, the rising global urbanization would create world wide permanent unemployment. In 1963, James Boggs wrote about the rise of the “outsiders” and “the permanent underclass” that would no longer be part of the success of the economic American Dream. Detroit is now faced with the questions of what are people for, if not to be cogs in mass production? What is the reason for cities? How and why should they be sustained?

Today 2 million people live in prisons in our country. Detroit, Rockford, Youngstown, Bessemer have been left behind almost 30 years. These people, deemed expendable by our society are, like the problems of Detroit, often hidden from view, but telling the tale of a deep transformation in our society.

The auto industry defined Detroit and America. Through it we have seen the slow transformation of most Americans from producers of goods and services to consumers. In this transformation, we lost more than the auto industry. As a people we came to value things more than people, profits more than communities. What was good for GM became the standard by which we judged what was good for America, and if it meant destroying whole communities quickly as in Poletown (something Danny doesn’t even mention) or through vast unemployment through automation and plant closings, no one objected.

It was this transformation to a “thing oriented society” that compelled Martin Luther King Jr. to talk about a radical revolution in values and the struggle against racism, materialism and militarism.

Danny defines the crisis in economic and mechanical terms. He gives your readers no sense of the spirit of the people and the dreams of dignity motivated both the Labor Movement of the 1930s and the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements that shaped Detroit .

Danny is looking for economic answers and sees Detroit in economic terms. He holds onto the belief that the past will return and the middle class will be rebuilt, only greener. He cannot image the future except in terms of an economic standard of living. My own experience in the plant, working every day with folks trading lives for dollars and overtime, living on credit cards, believing that “a job was the answer” to all our problems has given me a much deeper understanding of today’s crisis. Simplistic formulations of the self-interest of labor, the bad decisions of management miss the challenge we all face to develop new ways of living that are sustainable, that develop local capacities and that encourage civic life.

Continued concerns about growing violence, totally failed educational systems, discussing and working for insurance reform rather than working to create healthy communities, continuing to rely on food sold in party stores or gas stations and a leadership with no vision are not the result of the auto industry failing, or the politicians and leaders not creating good strategies, but the failure to see Detroit as the canary in our country.

While Time seems to be missing it, many others are not. Next summer 30,000 people are coming to Detroit in June 2010 as part of the US Social Forum. The call for this historic gathering is: Another World is Possible!, Another US is Necessary! and Another Detroit is Happening! Most of these people, struggling with similar challenges as those we face in Detroit, see the city as a source of hope emerging at the grassroots as individuals and organizations create food security, new schools committed to community building, neighborhood based cultural centers and villages, urban gardens and farms with community mobile markets. Artists and activist bringing new life, creating new art forms, and offering visions in music, color and words in every neighborhood and community center across the city.

Danny needs to stop circulating the same old stories and take a look at what is emerging in the cracks of this city. Otherwise, Time will have missed one of the best stories of this new century.

This essay will appear in Grace Lee Boggs’ Living For Change column of the Michigan Citizen.

Manufacturing can save our cities.  We should not view it only as dying.   Instead, we must rethink it within a “community-scaled” framework that produces products, jobs, skills, relationships, and stronger neighborhoods.

The familiar narrative about manufacturing in the U.S. begins at the turn of the 20th century.  Manufacturing gave us prosperity.It gave us global economic power. It created a robust middle class.  It ramped up at unprecedented scales to meet the demands of mass consumption, particularly in the automobile industry.  Cities like Detroit (“Arsenal of Democracy”) and Philadelphia (“Workshop of the World”) were hailed as success stories of the Industrial Revolution.

This revolution did not last forever.  Deindustrialization began in the post World War II years.  With automation the number of workers required on the line declined significantly.  As the labor movement grew in strength, companies left for the suburbs. Today corporate urban flight extends overseas, and the bastions of American industry struggle with the devastating effects of disinvestment and rising unemployment rates.

Economic development solutions for de-industrialized cities often fall into two categories.  The first looks at the physical conditions of thousands of derelict buildings sitting idly across the landscape and devises programs that rehabilitate neglected industrial buildings for commercial or residential uses.  E.g.  former factories are converted into luxury condos. The second approach focuses on job creation by building a “knowledge-based” economy. Advances in digital technologies have sped up globalization, placing a premium on jobs in this sector. To become a “knowledge city”, cities invest in research institutions that develop technological innovations in science and engineering. Advocates believe that cities with a strong knowledge economy will increase their global competitive edge.

These prevailing approaches do not leave much room for viewing  manufacturing as part of the equation for urban revitalization .  Should every abandoned factory become high-end residential lofts? Is the knowledge economy the panacea for all de-industrialized cities?  Instead,  manufacturing is caricatured as an industry encumbered with union lobbyists or associated with a dying era, one that should step aside for the Information Age.

A Brooklyn-based non-profit is demonstrating the viability of community-scaled manufacturing.  Through the acquisition, rehabilitation, and management of neglected industrial spaces, Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center has transformed six properties into top-rate facilities.  These buildings mainly house custom-made artisanal operations, like woodworkers, upholsterers, and fabricators.  Over 100 businesses reside in GMDC’s buildings, supporting over 500 workers. The majority of employees are residents from the surrounding neighborhood, showing that community-scaled manufacturing can deter fears of gentrification and displacement.

Economist E.F. Schumacher said, “If you get too many useful machines , you will get too many useless people”. By encouraging  the reuse of supposedly obsolete industrial infrastructure, community-scaled manufacturing is a place-based strategy that  roots manufacturers in their local areas. It addresses workforce development concerns about the lack of skilled workers. The apprentice-style education provides a way for people to discover and develop their own abilities.

Thus manufacturing becomes a step towards broadening  hands-on opportunities for many people. Jobs in trade and craft are good skills;  community-scaled manufacturing recovers the societal value of jobs in which people make things.  Its inherent small-scale demands a localized economy and has the capacity to advance craftsmanship, promote education, and build stronger communities.

Manufacturing can, should, and is taking place in our cities.  More communities are recognizing the need to localize  goods and services.  The local food security movement reflects this understanding.  Community-scaled manufacturing can realize similar outcomes. It has the ability to bring the consumer closer to the producer, decrease the ecological footprint of manufacturing, improve local economies, and encourage self-sufficiency. We can let go of the old way of manufacturing – its polluting factories and menial labor — and embrace the future of community-scaled manufacturing.

Thanks Mary for sharing this “open letter” by Phonte. It captures a lot of what I’ve been trying to articulate about Michael Jackson and my frustration with the U.S. media’s portrayal of his life and work. R.I.P Michael Jackson (1958 – 2009)

My Hero Ain’t Molest Them Bitch Ass Kids: A Kaing’s Tribute

I haven’t been compelled to blog in a long time.

In an era where everybody is twittering and text-messaging their lives away, a well-thought out essay that extends past 140 characters is quickly becoming a thing of the past.

But when our universe lost its brightest star on June 25, 2009, I felt a deep, overwhelming sadness that I haven’t experienced in many years and I felt moved to say….something.

My hero, Michael Joseph Jackson, is dead.

Honestly I’m still trying to process it, almost like the loss of a much-loved family member. I mean, hell, to many of us Michael WAS family. Much like Nike, or Coca-Cola, or McDonalds, Michael Jackson wasn’t so much a person as he was a living, breathing, American institution; a ubiquitous force that has seemingly existed forever and one that we couldn’t imagine a world without. Seeing Michael onstage was less like watching a musician perform and more akin to witnessing a magician at work.

But contrary to his otherworldly stage presence and magical aura, the man we called The King of Pop proved to be a mere mortal. And now my hero, Michael Joseph Jackson, is dead.

What isn’t dead, unfortunately, is the cloud of false accusations, unsubstantiated rumors, myths, slander, and outright lies that surround his life and his legacy. The greatest myth regarding Michael Jackson is that he was a pedophile who preyed on young children.

It is my belief now, just as it was 16 years ago, that the charges brought against Michael during his 1993 sexual abuse case were false. The allegations made by Jordan Chandler (the accuser) and his father Evan Chandler always seemed suspect to me for a few reasons:

1. Ask the average parent whether they’d want justice or money for their abused child and more than likely they’d say justice, if for no other reason than to protect their child (and other children) from a future attack. The fact that Evan Chandler was willing to essentially let Michael off the hook for a few million (reportedly 2-3), made their case seem like a well-orchestrated extortion attempt. In regards to the case, Evan was later caught on tape saying, “If I go through with this, I win big time. There’s no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever…Michael’s career will be over.” Notice that homeboy ain’t mention jack shit about his son. So much for being a concerned father…

2. Generally when victims of abuse come out with allegations against someone, other victims come forward to corroborate their story (i.e. the Catholic Church scandal, where a few parties came forward and it later led to thousands).

Very rarely do child molesters stop at just one kid, or even two for that matter. An alleged pedophile with only two accusers is kinda like an alleged serial killer with only one body. Or an alleged sneaker addict with only two pairs of Jordans in his closet. It just doesn’t make any logical sense, nor does it coincide with the recurring psychological characteristics of most people who fall into those categories.

In the case of Michael Jackson vs. the Chandler family, not a single corroborating witness could be found to help prosecute the case and after raids were conducted on several of Jackson’s homes, no hard evidence of sexual abuse was gathered.

Michael later settled the Chandler case out of court, not as an admission of guilt, but at the behest of his lawyers and financial advisors who warned him that a criminal trial could cost him millions of dollars in legal fees, as well as the loss of hundreds of millions in touring and endorsement revenue. With the Chandler case finally over, Michael continued to tour and released his greatest hits package “HIStory” in 1995. Ten years later though, he would face another trial that, in my opinion, would be the one to literally and figuratively, kill him.

Martin Bashir’s heinous, Machiavellian documentary “Living With Michael Jackson” aired in 2003. It was in this documentary that Mike (albeit foolishly) talked about his fondness for sharing his bed with children, and was seen holding hands with a young boy. Shortly afterwards the young boy from the documentary, 13 year-old Gavin Arvizo (a cancer survivor who had all his medical bills paid for by Michael), accused him of sexual abuse.

When Mike’s case against Arvizo hit airwaves in 2005, I must admit that I had my doubts. Much like the Chris Rock joke, I too shook my head in disbelief and said “ANOTHER kid!?! Mike, what the fuck?!! How could you be THAT stupid?!?!” As the case unraveled though, the financial motivations of the accuser’s family became much more apparent.

Similar to the Chandler case from ‘93, the prosecution couldn’t produce any credible witnesses to corroborate Arvizo’s testimony against Michael. Many of the prosecution’s witnesses were either former employees of Michael who had financial disputes with him, or had criminal convictions themselves. Arvizo’s testimony contradicted previous statements he’d made to officials saying that nothing ever took place between him and Michael, and Arvizo’s mother Janet Arvizo, an eccentric woman with a prior conviction for welfare fraud, single-handedly killed the case with her flippant remarks on the witness stand and overall bizarre courtroom behavior.

Actor Macaulay Culkin came forward in Michael’s defense and testified that no inappropriate behavior ever took place during their many times together, as did many other associates who had spent time at Neverland. Ultimately, Michael emerged from the Arvizo case with a Not Guilty verdict on all counts, but it proved to be a pyrrhic victory. The damage was already done. In the court of popular opinion, The King of Pop was an unrepentant child molestor.

When defending Michael Jackson against his detractors, I am often asked if I would let one of my sons sleep over at his house. The answer is no. Shit, I wouldn’t let my sons sleep over at YOUR house. But that doesn’t make you a pedophile, it just makes me a concerned and protective dad who doesn’t leave his kids around people I personally don’t know well enough to trust.

When it came to children, the only thing Michael was guilty of in my opinion, was naivete. While cuddling in the bed with children isn’t technically illegal, it does violate several social norms; norms that a man who dresses funny, lives at an amusement park and refers to himself as “Peter Pan” would certainly pay a higher price for breaking. When I hear the tales of Michael laying in bed with those children, watching movies, tickling, and engaging in general horseplay, it sounds less like the work of a pedophile and more like the actions of a man trying to experience a childhood he never had. (emphasis added)

During his investigation for the Arvizo trial, Michael was examined by Dr. Stan Katz, a clinical psychologist who concluded that Michael didn’t fit the profile of a pedophile but instead that of a regressed 10 year old, an analysis which I agree with wholeheartedly. I mean after all, only a person with the simple, unsuspecting mind of a child could truly believe they could sleep in the same bed as their pre-pubescent buddies and not pay a price for it.

Still, the most saddening myth surrounding Michael’s life is that he was ashamed to be Black. During the mid 80’s, in the midst of his ever-changing skin complexion and facial features, popular opinion in the Black community was that Mike was a sellout. This was an opinion that would unfortunately haunt him for the rest of his life, but a closer look reveals quite the opposite.

As echoed by my man Scorpeze of the house music duo Windimoto in his excellent blog, Michael Jackson never tried to disown or separate himself from his Blackness at any point in his career. In fact, he was probably the most openly pro-Black pop entertainer of his time. Michael Jackson ashamed to be Black? I mean, this was the same guy who:

-portrayed Black people as kings and queens in ancient Egypt (“Remember the Time” video)
-called Tommy Mottola (his then label boss) a devil and a racist
-sang “white man’s gotta make a change” live on the Grammies in ’88
-sang about a beautiful African woman in “Liberian Girl”
-featured an African chant at the end of “Wanna Be Startin Somethin”
-donated over $25 million to the United Negro College Fund
-sang “I ain’t scared of no sheets” in “Black or White” and upped the ante by morphing into a BLACK PANTHER at the video’s end
-wrote a song called “They Don’t Really Care About Us,” with a Spike Lee-directed video that featured prisoners raising the Black power fist
-uhhh “We Are The World” and USA for Africa, anyone?

What about this man wasn’t Black enough? Was it his battle with vitiligo and how it caused skin discoloration? Was it his excessive facial surgeries, due I’m sure in no small part to the teasing and ridicule he faced about his looks as a teenager?

Why did we turn our collective backs on a man who always reminded us that he never forgot who he was, or more importantly, whose he was?

This essay is my plea to all people who consider themselves a fan of Michael Jackson, but especially to Black people: Don’t let them talk about our Brother. Don’t let his naysayers convict him of crimes that were never proven. Don’t let people reduce the memory of one of our greatest heroes to that of a weird guy who wore a shiny glove and molested little boys.

When Elvis Presley died, did the media remember him as an overweight, drug-abusing racist who dated a 14 year-old, or was he eulogized as The King of Rock and Roll?

When Woody Allen dies, do you think the media will focus on the controversy behind him marrying his own stepdaughter, or on the films “Annie Hall” and “Manhattan” and how great they were? (Ditto for Jerry Lee Lewis, the rock and roll pioneer who married his 13-year old cousin.)

When people accuse Michael of being a pedophile or a child molester, ask them to provide hard evidence. Ask them to provide an opinion rooted in fact, rather than one based on gossip, hearsay, and conjecture. Chances are, they won’t be able to. The Black community has done a great disservice in not reciprocating the love that Michael Jackson showed us when he was alive. The least we can do in honoring his death is ensure that his legacy is remembered properly for future generations.

Was Michael Jackson a weirdo? Of course he was a weirdo.

But maybe if you had been in the public eye since you were 7, had grown ass women throwing themselves at you since you were 13, suffered physical abuse at the hands of your father, watched your father and older brothers engage in sex with groupies on tour as a child, were called “Big Nose” and “ugly” by both family members AND fans, developed a skin disease that took away the one thing you repeatedly expressed your pride for, and spent the last half of your life as the most famous person on Earth, you’d probably be a bit of a weirdo too.

I am not attempting to paint Michael Jackson as a saint, as no man ever lives up to such a lofty title. But to me, the phrase “no good deed goes unpunished” seems to sum up Michael Jackson’s life more than ever.

Why would people try to tear down a man who constantly used his power, money, and influence to help others?

Why would people express such disgust and contempt for a man who constantly sang of love and peace, and used his talent to entertain, uplift, and inspire millions?

Tell em that its human nature, I suppose…

Rest in Peace, Brother Michael. I love and miss you dearly.

-Phonte

Amidst the discussion of what designers can do about social inequities, a related question emerged: should design education address the root causes of those inequities? “There’s no lack of design-build studios going out to poor neighborhoods to build houses, but there’s no discussion [in architecture school] of why those neighborhoods exist,” said architect Kian Goh. But isn’t there a trade-off between expertise and generalism? Some participants thought so, and urban designer Felipe Correa countered: “It is important that we not overextend the net, that we bring it back to what we know how to do best,” he argued. “Allow sociologists to deal with the sociology.”

For urban dwellers who have no backyards, the country’s one million community gardens can also play an important role, Mrs. Obama said.

When the Obamas made made the call for people to get more involved with volunteering and service projects in their communities, I witnessed thousands turning out on MLK Day in DC.  Imagine the new surge of urban residents participating in community gardens, urban farms, CSAs and other local food programs!

…the loss of Chin Tiki is an example of bad city planning…with the right people behind it, Chin Tiki could have been a downtown success story, like the once-mothballed Cliff Bell’s, the deco-style jazz club nearby that reopened recently.

More urgently, Detroit should steer away from relying on big box entertainment venues placed in the heart of the city, where a tangle of freeways already intersect once-intact neighborhoods. What Detroit needs is to find a new direction for the economy, one that could foster small local businesses, less auto-dependent infrastructure, and even promote urban agriculture/community gardens.

We’ve got an amazing line-up, so check out the website when registration opens on February 15.

Thanks to Joanie for sharing this op-ed with me.

City is a slots laughingstock

By Helen Gym

IT’S HARD TO imagine how answering a call to revitalize American cities could go wrong for Philadelphia, but somehow it happened.Last month, the Nutter administration submitted a $2.6 billion wish list for President-elect Obama’s economic stimulus package. Out of 400 cities, Philadelphia ranked No. 2 in the amount of money requested. And second on the city’s list (in dollars) was $125 million for the redevelopment of Market East in anticipation of a proposed casino.

Never mind that city officials rushed through a rezoning process saying the casino itself would be the catalyst for development in the area. Never mind that four months later, there isn’t even a plan in place.

As one city official explained it: “We just want to make sure the opportunity for funding doesn’t go away just because the project’s not ready to be defined.”

It’s not only Philadelphians who raised an eyebrow at that logic. Earlier this month, national GOP leaders flagged the development as a prime example of a pork-laden stimulus package. It also got top billing in the Washington Post and on CNBC, which ridiculed the request.

As one TV commentator put it: “These projects are supposedly shovel-ready. The question is what are they shoveling?”

Regardless of the characterization, the city’s request for $125 million for Market East and related casino costs raises many questions. First and foremost: How much will casinos end up costing the city in these hard economic times?

While the city has been quick to add up supposed revenue, it has budgeted zero costs. The mayor said he wouldn’t even pay for added public safety since he expects the casino to pay for it.

Turns out that even the city doesn’t believe its own hype because we’re apparently hoping U.S. taxpayers will foot the bill.

This includes:

* $100 million in infrastructure, acquisition and construction costs.

* $25 million in public safety costs for the “Casino Entertainment Corridor.”

Now, if we’re paying for this development with our tax dollars, remind me again why we need a slots house on top of the Gallery? And if Philadelphia doesn’t get that $125 million for the casino corridor, what then? Who pays for this development and what are we getting for our money?

Meanwhile, the city is crunched for financial and human resources. The mayor apologizes for not making time to meet and talk about issues like library closings. How then does a “casino corridor” with no plans (and maybe insufficient financing) eat up so much time and city resources?

To view gambling solely as a revenue generator and not realize the cost of a predatory industry is a major failure for the city and state leaders, who are already planning gambling expansion. It’s easy for Atlantic City and Las Vegas to ignore those costs. They’re gambling destinations where the money stays and the problems go home.

BUT IN Philadelphia, placing slots atop the central transit line at a prime youth hangout where everyone is a SEPTA fare away is asking for trouble on a scale that no U.S. city has dared. And as the casino industry tanks nationwide, the city stubbornly continues to hitch its wagon to this crapshoot, wasting time and resources and earning itself a sorry national reputation to boot.

In these times, we need stimulus dollars for investments in energy, education and sustainable economic development. But rather than make a compelling case for the city’s future, it feels like our leaders squandered a chance to put forth a thoughtful vision. And while nobody wants to see the city get a bad rap, maybe the administration is getting what it needs: motivation for a course change to re-evaluate its priorities. *

Helen Gym is a board member of Asian Americans United.