TOON

The Military Invades U.S. Schools

.....

In Chicago, there's a push to replace public schools with military academies. This model may soon spread to the rest of the country.

Brian Roa
July 1, 2009 - TruthOut.org

.....

For the past four years, I have observed the military occupation of the high school where I teach science. Currently, Chicago's Senn High School houses Rickover Naval Academy (RNA). I use the term "occupation" because part of our building was taken away despite student, parent, teacher and community opposition to RNA's opening.

Senn students are made to feel like second-class citizens inside their own school, due to inequalities. The facilities and resources are better on the RNA side. RNA students are allowed to walk on the Senn side, while Senn students cannot walk on the RNA side. RNA "disenrolls" students and we accept those students who get kicked out if they live within our attendance boundaries. This practice is against Chicago policy, but goes unchecked. All of these things maintain a two-tiered system within the same school building.

This phenomenon is not restricted to Senn. Chicago has more military academies and more students in JROTC than any other city in the US. As the tentacles of school militarization reach beyond Chicago, the process used in this city seems to serve as a model of expansion. There was a Marine Academy planned for Georgia's Dekalb County, which includes 10 percent of Atlanta. Fortunately, due to protest, the school has been postponed until 2010. Despite it being postponed, it is still useful to analyze the rhetoric used to rationalize the Marine Academy. Many of the lies and excuses used to justify school militarization in Chicago and Georgia may well be used in other cities as militarism grows.

Not for Recruiting?

A favorite lie used to defend the expansion of military academies is that they are not used to recruit for the military.

"This is not a training ground to send kids into the military," Dekalb Schools' Superintendent Crawford Lewis told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in March. Those same words could have come straight from Col. Rick Mills, director of military academies and JROTC in Chicago, who explained away recruitment in a similar fashion.

"This is not a recruiting tool, but a way to help students succeed at whatever career they might choose," Mills told the Chicago Tribune.

Yet military academies receive money from the Department of Defense (DoD). The DoD would be derelict in its responsibilities were that money not spent as an investment in future soldiers. Accepting the claim that there is no recruiting in military academies makes about as much sense as allowing gangs to fund and operate within schools, on the assumption that they won't recruit on school grounds.

Moreover, since military academies are staffed with ex-service members (many don't even require valid teaching certificates), students are likely to receive career advice that favors a military path.

There are more blatant examples of recruiting at RNA. The cadets - the label applied to students at military academies - have taken a school-sponsored field trip to the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. Furthermore, last year the school hosted Adm. Michael Mullen, the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mullen told the cadets that the Navy was a "great career choice." RNA has hosted ten admirals in their short four-year history.

In addition to these direct tactics, the academies use more insidious approaches. A military culture permeates these schools. Students dress in uniform, receive demerits, and are introduced to the military hierarchy and way of life. For example, I have witnessed students marching with fake rifles. This cultivation of a militarized mind is the best explanation for why 40 percent of all Naval Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps program graduates wind up entering military service. This statistic is especially telling, considering that less than one percent of the population has served in the military at any given moment since 1975.

The Choice Argument

Military academies are promoted as an option within the public school system for parents. We heard it from Arne Duncan (ex-CEO of CPS and current secretary of education) and we hear it from Dale Davis, public information officer for the Dekalb County School System, who calls the military school "an addition" for parents to consider. Compare that with what Colonel Mills said in December 2007 in the Online News Hour: "The purpose of the military academy programs is to offer our cadets and parents an educational choice among many choices in Chicago Public Schools and to provide an educational experience that has a college prep curriculum, combined with a military curriculum."

We must dissect what kind of "choice" parents are given. If one's only choices are a school in desperate need of repair or a shiny new military academy, parents will often "choose" the "better" school.

The unbalanced funding presents an incredibly difficult decision for many parents, as Marivel Igartua, mother of a cadet inside the Naval Academy, told me. She didn't want to have to send her daughter to RNA, but she felt squeezed into the choice because her area school was in such bad shape. The unequal allocation of resources, which favors military academies, can serve as a form of economic coercion upon parents.

If public schools were given the resources they need to improve, then we could offer parents a more real choice.

Military pushers also argue that the academies are a popular option among parents. According to Mills, quoted in In These Times in 2005, "These kinds of programs would not be in schools if there weren't kids who wanted it, parents who supported it and administrators who facilitated it."

Arne Duncan claimed there were waiting lists filled with children hoping to attend a military academy. However, CPS has never released the so-called waiting lists, and concrete numbers tell a different story. RNA's goal for student enrollment for this year was 500-600 students. RNA finished the year with 376 students. Where's the demand?

Military Academies in the Context of Dismantling Public Education

Viewing militarization in the broader scope of "school improvement" can provide a helpful lens. In Chicago, military academies often represented one offshoot of a general plan to break down public education and replace it with charter schools and contract schools, siphoning public money to business people and "nonprofits." However, these "chosen" schools don't perform any better than public schools. A recent Chicago study compared ACT scores between charter schools and neighborhood schools, and no statistically significant difference was found. There was a difference in the number of English language learners and special-needs students accepted. Charters received fewer of both students. We see the same dichotomy with Senn and RNA.

What may be more problematic is that sometimes the charterization movement masks hidden agendas Sometimes the hidden agenda is union busting. Sometimes it's gentrification. Sometimes it is militarization. We have seen all of these hidden agendas in Chicago. We all agree that public schools are in desperate need of renovation and repair. But simply demonizing public schools as failing without giving them the resources to succeed - and replacing them with experimental schools - is unjust.

The push to destroy public schools and replace them with military academies and charter schools was further facilitated under the mayoral control of schools in Chicago. Mayoral control means that a city's once publicly elected school board is replaced by mayoral appointees partial to the agenda set forth by the mayor. In Chicago, it also meant replacing the school superintendent, who was legally mandated to have public education experience, with a CEO, who is only mandated by his scruples. Duncan served as the CEO for several years. He helped administer and finish off the largest militarization of a school system in the US, under the banner of "school improvement."

If we look at the history of Chicago's "school improvement" plan, we can see the hidden agenda pushed by the charter movement. According to Pauline Lipman, writing in Substance News in 2005, it is a plan whose blueprint was ripped from the Commercial Club of Chicago, a conglomerate of Fortune 500 companies in Chicago. Schools are closed and reopened while students are shuffled around to other schools, which are often performing worse than their original school. Little regard is paid to the education of the majority of students, almost all of them poor, black and Latino/a. Simply put, Chicago's plan is not a school improvement plan. It is the dismantling of a public good for the benefit of a chosen few. School militarization was accelerated as this plan was being implemented in Chicago.

The pushing of similar plans can be expected throughout the US now that Duncan is secretary of education. With the stimulus bill's $100 billion in emergency aid for public schools and colleges, Duncan is in an incredible position of power. He could use it to promote renovation and increase resources to existing public schools. Or he could spend it on costly privatization and militarization, squandering our tax money and endangering our children's futures.

Sarah Palin story sparks Republican family feud

.....

Jonathan Martin
6/30/09 - Politico

.....

A hard-hitting piece on Sarah Palin in the new Vanity Fair has touched off a blistering exchange of insults among high-profile Republicans over last year's GOP ticket – tearing open fresh wounds about leaks surrounding Palin and revealing for the first time some of the internal wars that paralyzed the campaign in its final days.

Rival factions close to the McCain campaign have been feuding since last fall over Palin, usually waging the battle in the shadows with anonymous quotes. Now, however, some of the most well-known names in Republican politics are going on-the-record with personal attacks and blame-casting.

William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard and at times an informal adviser to Sen. John McCain, touched off the latest back-and-forth Tuesday morning with a post on his magazine's blog criticizing the Todd Purdum-authored Palin story and pointing a finger at Steve Schmidt, McCain's campaign manager.

Kristol cited a passage in Purdum's piece in which "some top aides" were said to worry about the Alaska governor's "mental state" and the prospect that the Alaska governor may be suffering from post-partum depression following the birth of her son Trig. "In fact, one aide who raised this possibility in the course of trashing Palin's mental state to others in the McCain-Palin campaign was Steve Schmidt," Kristol wrote.

Asked about the accusation, Schmidt fired back in an e-mail: "I'm sure John McCain would be president today if only Bill Kristol had been in charge of the campaign."

"After all, his management of [former Vice President] Dan Quayle's public image as his chief of staff is still something that takes your breath away," Schmidt continued. "His attack on me is categorically false."

Asked directly in a telephone interview if he brought up the prospect of Palin suffering from post-partum depression, Schmidt said: "His allegation that I was defaming Palin by alleging post-partum depression at the campaign headquarters is categorically untrue. In fact, I think it rises to the level of a slander because it's about the worst thing you can say about somebody who does what I do for a living."

But Kristol's charge was seconded by Randy Scheunemann, a longtime foreign policy adviser to McCain who is also close to the Standard editor and was thought to be a Palin ally within the campaign.

"Steve Schmidt has a congenital aversion to the truth," Scheunemann said. "On two separate and distinct occasions, he speculated about about Governor Palin having post-partum depression, and on the second he threatened that if more negative publicity about the handling of Governor Palin emerged that he would leak his speculation [about post-partum depression] to the press. It was like meeting Tony Soprano."

Schmidt said Scheunemann's charges were "categorically untrue."

"It is inappropriate for me to discuss personnel issues from the campaign," Schmidt continued. "But suffice it to say Randy is saying these things not because they're true but because he wants to damage my reputation because of consequences he faced for actions he took."

Schmidt is alluding, without saying so directly, to the stories that emerged after the campaign that Scheunemann had been fired.

Scheunemann said Schmidt did try to fire him but added: "I've got a paystub through November 15th."

The questions about Scheunemann being terminated are central to the larger battle about who was trashing Palin, something that quickly came to the surface in the back and forth between Schmidt and Kristol on Tuesday.

The vitriol also suggests the degree to which Palin remains a Rorschach test not simply to Republicans nationally but within a tight circle of elite operatives and commentators, many of whom seem ready to carry their arguments in 2012. Was Palin a fresh talent whose debut was mishandled by self-serving campaign insiders, or an eccentric "diva" who had no business on the national stage? Going forward, does she offer a conservative and charismatic face for a demoralized and star-less party? Or is she a loose cannon who should be consigned to the tabloids where she can reside in perpetuity with other flash-in-the-pan sensations?

Schmidt, who has returned to his California-based political and public affairs consulting business, said that he "worked incredibly hard during the campaign to defend Sarah Palin and her family against a lot of attacks that I thought then and think today were very unfair."

And he got in a dig at Kristol, who frequently offered unvarnished assessments of McCain's campaign from his perch at the Standard, on Fox News, where he is a contributor, and in his then-New York Times column.

"Bill Kristol, going back to the time of the campaign, has taken a lot of cheap shots at the campaign without ever offering a plausible path to victory," Schmidt said. "He's in the business of ad hominem insults and criticism."

Responding to Schmidt's counter-attack, Kristol directly fingered Schmidt: "It's simply a fact that when the going got tough, Steve Schmidt trashed Sarah Palin, both within the campaign and (on background) to journalists. This was after Steve took credit for the Palin pick when, at first, he thought it made him look good. John McCain deserved better."

At this, Schmidt unloaded in a lengthy telephone interview, suggesting that Kristol was carrying out a personal vendetta based out of anger over the attempt to fire Scheunemann in the final days of the campaign.

In doing so, Schmidt revealed what has been whispered about for months following the campaign: that he and another top aide had ordered a leak hunt in the campaign's internal email system.

"What this is about is a personal issue that happened late in the campaign relating to a close, personal friend of Bill Kristol and people at the Weekly Standard," Schmidt said, refusing to use Scheunemann's name.

"At the end of the campaign there were a series of leaks that were so damaging that it was consuming the 24-hour cable news cycle. Leaks to reporters where Sarah Palin was called all manner of names. [McCain senior adviser] Rick Davis and I jointly felt that was outrageous. So we made an attempt for the first time in the campaign to try to ID who was leaking information that was so damaging and demoralizing to a campaign that was in very difficult circumstances," Schmidt said, noting that an IT professional executed a system-wide search by keyword.

"What was discovered was an email from a very senior staff member to Bill Kristol that then entered into the news current and continued the negative in-fighting stories for an additional news cycles. I recommended tough medicine for that individual that was carried out," Schmidt said, again referring to Scheunemann. "Bill Kristol might not have liked that decision, and he might be mad about what happened to his friend, but going all the way back he has been a part of this story and I've preserved his confidentiality in that until now. But his use of his public forums to take a personal fight and make character attacks is just simply dishonest and wrong."

Scheunemann, confirming that his email had been searched, accused Schmidt of "acting in a manner of Iranian secret police" in going to his account.

The foreign policy hand said what was discovered was a message from Kristol inquiring who was the source in the campaign of the "diva" leak, the now-famous complaint from a senior McCain campaign official to CNN's Dana Bash that Palin was acting like a spoiled and selfish celebrity.

Schmidt suggested that Scheunemann had fingered Nicolle Wallace, a senior McCain adviser who helped work with Palin, to Kristol in the message.

"It led to a whole another round of speculation, including Fred Barnes the next night attacking Nicolle Wallace on the air," Schmidt said, suggesting without saying directly that was why an effort was made to terminate Scheunemann. Barnes, another Weekly Standard editor and Fox News contributor, accused Wallace on Fox News in late October of being "a coward" for running up tens of thousands of dollars in high-end clothes for Palin and then letting the governor take the blame for the purchases. After Wallace denied she had purchased the clothes, Barnes apologized on the air the following night.

But Scheunemann said the clothes controversy was an entirely separate issue and one which he made no mention of in his email to Kristol.

Asked directly if he accused Nicolle Wallace of being the source behind the "diva" leak in his message to Kristol, Scheunemann said: "My e-mail did not accuse Nicolle Wallace. It said something very disparaging about Nicolle but it did not accuse her of being the leak."

A source familiar with the contents of the email said that Scheunemann actually accused Nicolle Wallace's husband, Mark Wallace, of being the source of the leak.

When Kristol questioned the likelihood of a male like Mark Wallace using such a gossipy term as diva, this source said, Scheunemann wrote back that Mark Wallace knows something about divas because he's married to a diva.

Asked about the e-mail, Nicolle Wallace said: "I did not have any knowledge of this. This is all news to me."

As for being called a "diva," Wallace laughed for a few seconds.

"I don't have anything to say on that," she said.

Mark Wallace, taking the phone from his wife, also laughed about the diva accusation but wouldn't respond when asked whether he had been the source of the "diva" leak. He explained that he had followed a "zero talk policy with the press" regarding the campaign and wanted to honor that.

But, after an early version of this story was posted on-line, he made an exception and offered a flat denial: "No, never. I don't think Sarah Palin is a diva."

The leak-hunting, Scheunemann said, began after POLITICO's Ben Smith wrote a story in late October suggesting that Palin had "gone rogue" and began ignoring the advice of her campaign handlers.

"So after that, they went nuclear with 'diva' the next day," Scheunemann said, referring to the Palin-bashing done to CNN's Bash the day after the POLITICO story. "But did anybody search Mark or Nicolle Wallace's emails for leaks to Dana Bash?"

Schmidt said Kristol was driven by a personal vendetta over the attempt termination of his decades-long friend, Scheunemann.

"Nonsense," Kristol replied. "My post today was (self-evidently) triggered by the Todd Purdum article that appeared today, which had Schmidt's fingerprints all over it. I hadn't thought about Schmidt in months, and will be happy now to return to more pressing issues, like the presidency of Barack Obama."

As for the charges of being a sunshine soldier with regard to Palin, Schmidt said: "Nonsense. I'm a team player. That's a reflection of [Kristol's] values. He's the Washington, D.C., talking head and glitterati. I live in Northern California and I really don't give a s--- about that stuff."

The nasty back-and-forth between the two well-known Republicans and re-litigating of internal backbiting underscores the degree to which the internecine and very personal battle over last fall's ticket between those seen as Palin allies and Palin detractors still rages on nearly six months into President Obama's term.

And it comes as Palin struggles to find her footing, at times appearing to want to take a strictly Alaska-first approach, but then re-emerging on the national stage – something chronicled in the nearly-10,000-word Vanity Fair article.

Loyalists to Palin, including Kristol, were outraged at Purdum's piece, believing it to be another example of what they see as elite media contempt for the Wasilla native.

In his post, Kristol also criticized Purdum for writing that several Alaskans had told him during the reporting of the piece that they had checked the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders definition of "narcissistic personality disorder" and found it fit their governor.

"Is there any real chance that 'several' Alaskans independently told Purdum that they had consulted the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders?" Kristol wrote. "I don't believe it for a moment. I've (for better or worse) moved in pretty well-educated circles in my life, and I've gone decades without 'several' people telling me they had consulted the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders."

In response, Purdum, a Princeton graduate, wrote of his Harvard-degreed critic: "I'm not nearly as well-educated as Bill, but the great Irving Berlin taught me that 'you don't have to go to a private school not to pick up a penny near a stubborn mule.' In the age of Google, I'm confident that plenty of Alaskans know more about finding medical reference works -- and all sorts of other knowledge -- than Bill thinks they do."

Zen Price Rollback of the Day

Has the corporation Americans love to hate (and shop at) seen the light? Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, teamed up with the SEIU and Center for American Progress on Tuesday to announce its support of a health-insurance mandate requiring large companies to provide their workers with coverage. The New York Times notes that the company has a specific condition: "In its letter, the company says that if Congress imposes a requirement that employers offer insurance, it must also offer a guarantee to business that health-care costs will in fact be contained, perhaps through a so-called trigger mechanism that would impose reductions if certain spending targets were not met."

- The Daily Beast