Wont you join?
Click on title above to learn more about this wonderful new GLOBAL organization.
http://earth-folk.blogspot.com/2009/07/world-future-counsil-for-sustainability.html
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Saturday, July 4, 2009
U.S. 'ready' for N. Korean missile
July 2, 2009
By Bill Gertz
COLORADO SPRINGS | U.S. missile defenses are prepared to try to knock down the last stage of a Taepodong-2 missile that North Korea is expected soon to launch if sensors detect the weapon threatens U.S. territory, the commander of the U.S. Northern Command told The Washington Times.
"The nation has a very, very credible ballistic-missile defense capability. Our ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California, I'm very comfortable, give me a capability that if we really are threatened by a long-range ICBM that I've got high confidence that I could interdict that flight before it caused huge damage to any U.S. territory," said Air Force Gen. Victor E. "Gene" Renuart, Northcom commander.
The general said the United States won't activate its missile defenses if the North Korean missile appears it will fall safely into the water as the country's last test missile did.
(Corrected paragraph:) Asked if North Korea is likely to conduct a July 4 Taepodong-2 test, as occurred in 2006, Gen. Renuart said in an interview this week with The Times at Northern Command headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base, "I think we ought to assume there might be one on the first of July and continue to be prepared and ready."
Gen. Renuart, who is commander of the military's first combatant command devoted to defending against threats to U.S. territory, is also the commander of the U.S.-Canada North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, which monitors missile launches around the world and also foreign military aircraft intrusions of U.S. air space. Since Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD is also in charge of tracking civilian aircraft to be ready to respond to a terrorist hijacking.
Gen. Renuart said North Korea's leaders are unpredictable and their "decision logic does not always follow in the same vein as ours does."
The four-star commander said that in addition to long-range interceptors, U.S. missile defenses in the Asia Pacific region include U.S. ground- and sea-based defense systems.
They include ground-based Patriot anti-missile defenses deployed in South Korea, and U.S. Navy Aegis system missile-defense ships deployed to waters near Japan. Recently, the Pentagon also activated units of the Army's new Theater High-Altitude Area Defenses that were undergoing testing in Hawaii, in response to indications that North Korea is set to fire a Taepodong-2.
The regional defenses augment the long-range interceptors based at two sites, one in Alaska and one in California, Gen. Renuart said.
The Pacific Command missile defenses provide "a pretty well-integrated ground-based theater defense capability," he said.
"I think we are certainly ready and capable of responding," Gen. Renuart said.
The wild card in any future North Korean missile test remains the many unknowns about the regime in Pyongyang and whether it will attempt the test or irrationally fire a warhead toward Hawaii, he said.
"In terms of what North Korea's decision process may be, or their logic, you got a Ph.D. in intentions, and you probably can't figure that out," Gen. Renuart said.
The recent U.N. Security Council resolution condemning North Korea's May 25 nuclear test and authorizing unified international action to stem Pyongyang's arms and missile proliferation has affected the regime, he said.
Additionally, North Korea has said that any attempt to interdict its ships, an action authorized in a limited way by the U.N. resolution, would be regarded as an act of war.
"We've all been watching the North Korean ship that was headed south, and it continues to be one in a number of ways the North Korean leadership seems to try get attention and create an effect," Gen. Renuart said.
The North Korean ship, Kang Nam 1, was being tracked with a suspected weapons-related shipment to Myanmar, but a defense official said Wednesday the latest reports indicate the ship had turned away from its planned route.
Asked the threshold for a U.S. military missile-defense strike on the North Korean missile, Gen. Renuart said, "We will not intercept something that is not a threat to North America or U.S. land space in Hawaii."
If the missile falls harmlessly in the ocean, there is no reason to conduct an attempted intercept using regional or strategic interceptors, he said.
"The system is designed to tell us, A, where it's coming from, and roughly where it's going," he said. "And if that where-it's-going piece begins to threaten U.S. land mass, whether we know it's a live or training [warhead], the system will allow us to engage it.
"Prudence will dictate that, even if the warhead configuration of the missile is not a real warhead," Gen. Renuart said, "It's hard to allow that to threaten our territory without doing something about it. It would be hard to tell the American people we didn't do anything."
The current system is "up and ready" for any North Korean launch, he said.
However, a U.S. defense official said it is unlikely that the Taepodong-2 being monitored at a North Korean launch site will be ready for launch by July 4. The liquid-fueled missile takes days to prepare for launch, including the loading of large amounts of liquid rocket fuel. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.
The North Koreans could launch short- or medium-range missiles around the July Fourth holiday, however, the official said.
Press reports from South Korea and Japan recently stated that North Korea planned to launch the Taepodong-2 toward Hawaii, but U.S. defense officials said the direction of the shot will not be determined until shortly after launch.
The National Air and Space Intelligence Center, in its latest report on missile threats made public in May, lists the single-warhead Taepodong-2 as having a range greater than 3,400 miles.
"The missile can hit Hawaii and Alaska, and it may be able to reach the western continental United States with a lighter, chemical warhead," said Richard Fisher, a specialist on missiles with the private International Assessment and Strategy Center.
Gen. Renuart said a large sea-based X-band radar, a very high-powered radar system used to track and target missiles, has sailed from Hawaii in preparation for the test.
The ground-based missile-defense interceptors, the ground-based radar and the Aegis cruisers around Japan "have been in place for a period of time," he said.
"I'm comfortable we have all we need," he said.
Gen. Renuart said he had requested using the X-band radar, which is built on a floating oil-rig platform, for use in an April test-firing of a long-range rocket by North Korea.
Defense officials said the general's request at that time was turned down by the Pentagon, prompting some critics to say that not deploying the radar -- which was undergoing maintenance at the time in Hawaii -- was a missed opportunity to collect test data on the missile.
"We had requested the X-band radar [earlier this year] before we really knew what was going on at the launch site," Gen. Renuart said.
A risk assessment was done on whether to halt the upgrading of the radar and send it to sea.
"Once it became clear that this was not an ICBM launch, but rather a space-launch test, and understanding that we don't intercept space launches, there really wasn't the need to interrupt the modification and improvements," Gen. Renuart said.
Regarding the current North Korean preparations, Gen. Renuart said current indications are "this seems to be that if something occurs, it will be ICBM-focused."
The X-band radar will provide technical information on the North Korean missile, he said without elaborating.
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewContent.act?clipid=321118231&mode=cnc&tag=3.7280%3Ficx_id%3D%2Fnews%2F2009%2Fjul%2F02%2Fus-ready-for-n-korean-missile%2F
By Bill Gertz
COLORADO SPRINGS | U.S. missile defenses are prepared to try to knock down the last stage of a Taepodong-2 missile that North Korea is expected soon to launch if sensors detect the weapon threatens U.S. territory, the commander of the U.S. Northern Command told The Washington Times.
"The nation has a very, very credible ballistic-missile defense capability. Our ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California, I'm very comfortable, give me a capability that if we really are threatened by a long-range ICBM that I've got high confidence that I could interdict that flight before it caused huge damage to any U.S. territory," said Air Force Gen. Victor E. "Gene" Renuart, Northcom commander.
The general said the United States won't activate its missile defenses if the North Korean missile appears it will fall safely into the water as the country's last test missile did.
(Corrected paragraph:) Asked if North Korea is likely to conduct a July 4 Taepodong-2 test, as occurred in 2006, Gen. Renuart said in an interview this week with The Times at Northern Command headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base, "I think we ought to assume there might be one on the first of July and continue to be prepared and ready."
Gen. Renuart, who is commander of the military's first combatant command devoted to defending against threats to U.S. territory, is also the commander of the U.S.-Canada North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, which monitors missile launches around the world and also foreign military aircraft intrusions of U.S. air space. Since Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD is also in charge of tracking civilian aircraft to be ready to respond to a terrorist hijacking.
Gen. Renuart said North Korea's leaders are unpredictable and their "decision logic does not always follow in the same vein as ours does."
The four-star commander said that in addition to long-range interceptors, U.S. missile defenses in the Asia Pacific region include U.S. ground- and sea-based defense systems.
They include ground-based Patriot anti-missile defenses deployed in South Korea, and U.S. Navy Aegis system missile-defense ships deployed to waters near Japan. Recently, the Pentagon also activated units of the Army's new Theater High-Altitude Area Defenses that were undergoing testing in Hawaii, in response to indications that North Korea is set to fire a Taepodong-2.
The regional defenses augment the long-range interceptors based at two sites, one in Alaska and one in California, Gen. Renuart said.
The Pacific Command missile defenses provide "a pretty well-integrated ground-based theater defense capability," he said.
"I think we are certainly ready and capable of responding," Gen. Renuart said.
The wild card in any future North Korean missile test remains the many unknowns about the regime in Pyongyang and whether it will attempt the test or irrationally fire a warhead toward Hawaii, he said.
"In terms of what North Korea's decision process may be, or their logic, you got a Ph.D. in intentions, and you probably can't figure that out," Gen. Renuart said.
The recent U.N. Security Council resolution condemning North Korea's May 25 nuclear test and authorizing unified international action to stem Pyongyang's arms and missile proliferation has affected the regime, he said.
Additionally, North Korea has said that any attempt to interdict its ships, an action authorized in a limited way by the U.N. resolution, would be regarded as an act of war.
"We've all been watching the North Korean ship that was headed south, and it continues to be one in a number of ways the North Korean leadership seems to try get attention and create an effect," Gen. Renuart said.
The North Korean ship, Kang Nam 1, was being tracked with a suspected weapons-related shipment to Myanmar, but a defense official said Wednesday the latest reports indicate the ship had turned away from its planned route.
Asked the threshold for a U.S. military missile-defense strike on the North Korean missile, Gen. Renuart said, "We will not intercept something that is not a threat to North America or U.S. land space in Hawaii."
If the missile falls harmlessly in the ocean, there is no reason to conduct an attempted intercept using regional or strategic interceptors, he said.
"The system is designed to tell us, A, where it's coming from, and roughly where it's going," he said. "And if that where-it's-going piece begins to threaten U.S. land mass, whether we know it's a live or training [warhead], the system will allow us to engage it.
"Prudence will dictate that, even if the warhead configuration of the missile is not a real warhead," Gen. Renuart said, "It's hard to allow that to threaten our territory without doing something about it. It would be hard to tell the American people we didn't do anything."
The current system is "up and ready" for any North Korean launch, he said.
However, a U.S. defense official said it is unlikely that the Taepodong-2 being monitored at a North Korean launch site will be ready for launch by July 4. The liquid-fueled missile takes days to prepare for launch, including the loading of large amounts of liquid rocket fuel. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.
The North Koreans could launch short- or medium-range missiles around the July Fourth holiday, however, the official said.
Press reports from South Korea and Japan recently stated that North Korea planned to launch the Taepodong-2 toward Hawaii, but U.S. defense officials said the direction of the shot will not be determined until shortly after launch.
The National Air and Space Intelligence Center, in its latest report on missile threats made public in May, lists the single-warhead Taepodong-2 as having a range greater than 3,400 miles.
"The missile can hit Hawaii and Alaska, and it may be able to reach the western continental United States with a lighter, chemical warhead," said Richard Fisher, a specialist on missiles with the private International Assessment and Strategy Center.
Gen. Renuart said a large sea-based X-band radar, a very high-powered radar system used to track and target missiles, has sailed from Hawaii in preparation for the test.
The ground-based missile-defense interceptors, the ground-based radar and the Aegis cruisers around Japan "have been in place for a period of time," he said.
"I'm comfortable we have all we need," he said.
Gen. Renuart said he had requested using the X-band radar, which is built on a floating oil-rig platform, for use in an April test-firing of a long-range rocket by North Korea.
Defense officials said the general's request at that time was turned down by the Pentagon, prompting some critics to say that not deploying the radar -- which was undergoing maintenance at the time in Hawaii -- was a missed opportunity to collect test data on the missile.
"We had requested the X-band radar [earlier this year] before we really knew what was going on at the launch site," Gen. Renuart said.
A risk assessment was done on whether to halt the upgrading of the radar and send it to sea.
"Once it became clear that this was not an ICBM launch, but rather a space-launch test, and understanding that we don't intercept space launches, there really wasn't the need to interrupt the modification and improvements," Gen. Renuart said.
Regarding the current North Korean preparations, Gen. Renuart said current indications are "this seems to be that if something occurs, it will be ICBM-focused."
The X-band radar will provide technical information on the North Korean missile, he said without elaborating.
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewContent.act?clipid=321118231&mode=cnc&tag=3.7280%3Ficx_id%3D%2Fnews%2F2009%2Fjul%2F02%2Fus-ready-for-n-korean-missile%2F
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
A Military "Take-Over" of Local High School?
Brian Roa | The Chicago Model of Militarizing Schools
http://www.truthout.org/062909T?n
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.
--------
Brian Roa is a science teacher at Chicago's Senn High School and a member of CORE (Caucus of Rank and File Educators), a caucus in the CTU which works for equitable education for all students and against the charterization schemes in Chicago
Click on title above to see original article and a place for comments;
http://www.truthout.org/062909T?n
http://www.truthout.org/062909T?n
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.
--------
Brian Roa is a science teacher at Chicago's Senn High School and a member of CORE (Caucus of Rank and File Educators), a caucus in the CTU which works for equitable education for all students and against the charterization schemes in Chicago
Click on title above to see original article and a place for comments;
http://www.truthout.org/062909T?n
Friday, June 12, 2009
UN Security Council imposes tough new sanctions on North Korea for its nuclear test
By EDITH M. LEDERER , Associated Press
UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Security Council imposed punishing new sanctions on North Korea Friday, toughening an arms embargo and authorizing ship searches on the high seas in an attempt to thwart the reclusive nation's nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
The unanimous support for the resolution reflected international disapproval for recent actions by North Korea, which defied the council by conducting a second nuclear test on May 25 and heightened global tensions with recent missile launches that raised the specter of a renegade nuclear state.
North Korea has repeatedly warned that it would view new sanctions as a declaration of war, but it boycotted Friday's vote — in sharp contrast to the October 2006 Security Council meeting where sanctions were imposed after the country's first nuclear test. Then, the North Korean ambassador immediately rejected the resolution, accused council members of "gangster-like" action and walked out of the council chamber.
U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, who shepherded the resolution through two weeks of complex and sometimes difficult negotiations, told reporters in Washington that the administration was "very pleased" with the council's "unprecedented" and "innovative" action.
She cautioned that North Korea could react to the resolution with "further provocation."
"There's reason to believe they may respond in an irresponsible fashion to this," she said.
North Korea said Monday in its main newspaper that it would respond to any new sanctions with "corresponding self-defense measures." On Tuesday, the North said it would use nuclear weapons in a "merciless offensive" if provoked.
The resolution seeks to deprive North Korea of financing and material for its weapons program and bans the communist country's lucrative arms exports, especially missiles. It does not ban normal trade, but does call on international financial institutions to halt grants, aid or loans to the North except for humanitarian, development and denuclearization programs.
China and Russia, the North's closest allies, supported the resolution, but stressed that it did not authorize the use of force against North Korea, a key demand by both countries. Diplomats said during the negotiations both countries pushed to ensure that the measures not hurt ordinary people in North Korea who face daily hardships.
Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin called the North's repeat nuclear test "a serious blow" to efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and said the resolution was "an appropriate response," targeted at the weapons programs.
China's U.N. Ambassador Zhang Yesui said the nuclear test had affected regional peace and security. He strongly urged North Korea to promote the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and return quickly to Beijing-hosted six-party talks aimed at dismantling its nuclear program.
The resolution demonstrates the international community's "firm opposition" to the atomic test, Zhang said, but it also "sends a positive signal" by showing the council's determination to resolve the issue "peacefully through dialogue and negotiations."
The provisions most likely to anger the North Koreans deal with searches of cargo heading to or from the country.
The resolution calls on all countries to inspect North Korea cargo at their airports, seaports or on land if they have "information that provides reasonable grounds to believe" it contains banned arms or weapons, or the material to make them.
It also calls on all 192 U.N. member states to inspect vessels carrying suspect cargo on the high seas if approval is given by the country whose flag the ship sails under. If the country refuses to give approval, it must direct the vessel "to an appropriate and convenient port for the required inspection by the local authorities."
The resolution does not authorize the use of force. But if a country refuses to order a vessel to a port for inspection, it would be violation of the resolution and the country licensing the vessel would face possible sanctions by the Security Council.
As a sign of China's uneasiness about ship searches, Zhang stressed that "countries have to act prudently, in strict accordance with domestic and international laws, and under the precondition of reasonable grounds and sufficient evidence."
Rice said the United States would "intensify our existing efforts to gather information that would allow us to determine if there is a suspect vessel on the high seas," she said.
If a vessel refuses inspection, Rice said, the United States will "shine a spotlight on it, to make it very difficult for that contraband to continue to be carried forward."
However, she said, while the U.S. will work to ensure that full implementation is achieved and "the bite is felt ... we're not going to get into a tit-for-tat reaction to every North Korean provocative act."
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, a former South Korean foreign minister, urged all concerned parties "to refrain from taking any measures that can exacerbate tensions in the region and to exert their best efforts to re-engage in dialogue, including through the six-party talks," U.N. spokeswoman Michele Montas said.
In other key provisions, the resolution demands a halt to any further nuclear tests or missile launches and reiterates the council's demand that the North abandon all nuclear weapons, return to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, allow U.N. nuclear inspections, and rejoin six-party talks.
The previous sanctions resolution imposed an arms embargo on heavy weapons, a ban on material that could be used in missiles or weapons of mass destruction and a ban on luxury goods favored by North Korea's ruling elite. It also ordered an asset freeze and travel ban on companies and individuals involved in the country's nuclear and weapons programs.
The new resolution calls on all countries to prevent financial institutions or individuals in their countries from providing financing or resources that could contribute to North Korea's "nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related, or other weapons of mass destruction-related programs or activities."
U.S. deputy ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo called the measures "innovative" and "robust."
"This resolution will give us new tools to impair North Korea's ability to proliferate and threaten international stability," she told the council.
http://www.startribune.com/nation/47921737.html?elr=KArksUUUU
UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Security Council imposed punishing new sanctions on North Korea Friday, toughening an arms embargo and authorizing ship searches on the high seas in an attempt to thwart the reclusive nation's nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
The unanimous support for the resolution reflected international disapproval for recent actions by North Korea, which defied the council by conducting a second nuclear test on May 25 and heightened global tensions with recent missile launches that raised the specter of a renegade nuclear state.
North Korea has repeatedly warned that it would view new sanctions as a declaration of war, but it boycotted Friday's vote — in sharp contrast to the October 2006 Security Council meeting where sanctions were imposed after the country's first nuclear test. Then, the North Korean ambassador immediately rejected the resolution, accused council members of "gangster-like" action and walked out of the council chamber.
U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, who shepherded the resolution through two weeks of complex and sometimes difficult negotiations, told reporters in Washington that the administration was "very pleased" with the council's "unprecedented" and "innovative" action.
She cautioned that North Korea could react to the resolution with "further provocation."
"There's reason to believe they may respond in an irresponsible fashion to this," she said.
North Korea said Monday in its main newspaper that it would respond to any new sanctions with "corresponding self-defense measures." On Tuesday, the North said it would use nuclear weapons in a "merciless offensive" if provoked.
The resolution seeks to deprive North Korea of financing and material for its weapons program and bans the communist country's lucrative arms exports, especially missiles. It does not ban normal trade, but does call on international financial institutions to halt grants, aid or loans to the North except for humanitarian, development and denuclearization programs.
China and Russia, the North's closest allies, supported the resolution, but stressed that it did not authorize the use of force against North Korea, a key demand by both countries. Diplomats said during the negotiations both countries pushed to ensure that the measures not hurt ordinary people in North Korea who face daily hardships.
Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin called the North's repeat nuclear test "a serious blow" to efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and said the resolution was "an appropriate response," targeted at the weapons programs.
China's U.N. Ambassador Zhang Yesui said the nuclear test had affected regional peace and security. He strongly urged North Korea to promote the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and return quickly to Beijing-hosted six-party talks aimed at dismantling its nuclear program.
The resolution demonstrates the international community's "firm opposition" to the atomic test, Zhang said, but it also "sends a positive signal" by showing the council's determination to resolve the issue "peacefully through dialogue and negotiations."
The provisions most likely to anger the North Koreans deal with searches of cargo heading to or from the country.
The resolution calls on all countries to inspect North Korea cargo at their airports, seaports or on land if they have "information that provides reasonable grounds to believe" it contains banned arms or weapons, or the material to make them.
It also calls on all 192 U.N. member states to inspect vessels carrying suspect cargo on the high seas if approval is given by the country whose flag the ship sails under. If the country refuses to give approval, it must direct the vessel "to an appropriate and convenient port for the required inspection by the local authorities."
The resolution does not authorize the use of force. But if a country refuses to order a vessel to a port for inspection, it would be violation of the resolution and the country licensing the vessel would face possible sanctions by the Security Council.
As a sign of China's uneasiness about ship searches, Zhang stressed that "countries have to act prudently, in strict accordance with domestic and international laws, and under the precondition of reasonable grounds and sufficient evidence."
Rice said the United States would "intensify our existing efforts to gather information that would allow us to determine if there is a suspect vessel on the high seas," she said.
If a vessel refuses inspection, Rice said, the United States will "shine a spotlight on it, to make it very difficult for that contraband to continue to be carried forward."
However, she said, while the U.S. will work to ensure that full implementation is achieved and "the bite is felt ... we're not going to get into a tit-for-tat reaction to every North Korean provocative act."
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, a former South Korean foreign minister, urged all concerned parties "to refrain from taking any measures that can exacerbate tensions in the region and to exert their best efforts to re-engage in dialogue, including through the six-party talks," U.N. spokeswoman Michele Montas said.
In other key provisions, the resolution demands a halt to any further nuclear tests or missile launches and reiterates the council's demand that the North abandon all nuclear weapons, return to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, allow U.N. nuclear inspections, and rejoin six-party talks.
The previous sanctions resolution imposed an arms embargo on heavy weapons, a ban on material that could be used in missiles or weapons of mass destruction and a ban on luxury goods favored by North Korea's ruling elite. It also ordered an asset freeze and travel ban on companies and individuals involved in the country's nuclear and weapons programs.
The new resolution calls on all countries to prevent financial institutions or individuals in their countries from providing financing or resources that could contribute to North Korea's "nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related, or other weapons of mass destruction-related programs or activities."
U.S. deputy ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo called the measures "innovative" and "robust."
"This resolution will give us new tools to impair North Korea's ability to proliferate and threaten international stability," she told the council.
http://www.startribune.com/nation/47921737.html?elr=KArksUUUU
Thursday, June 11, 2009
25 House Progressives Can End the Wars
1.
On Monday, we said just 40 House Progressives could end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan (Af/Pak) by opposing the Pentagon's demand for another $95 billion. That's because all 178 Republicans will vote no over $5 billion for the IMF.
Nearly 10,000 of you emailed your Representatives, and 15 House Progressives responded to you by opposing the $95 billion. So now we need just 25 more.
Tell Congress: Healthcare Not Warfare
http://www.democrats.com/healthcare-not-warfare
For a glimpse of the impact of U.S. bombs on the children of Afghanistan, watch this 1 minute video from our friends at BraveNewFilms:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzyfAHvvXDU
If you have time to call Congress, pick a few from this list:
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/Supplemental
Report the response you get using the webform.
If you use Twitter, you can "retweet" four quick messages to key Members of Congress:
http://www.democrats.com/tweet-against-war-funds
You can follow my tweets here:
http://twitter.com/bobfertik
And you can follow our action-only tweets here:
http://twitter.com/democratscom
Thanks for all you do!
Bob Fertik
2. Help With Local Event for David Swanson's Book Tour
David Swanson's exciting new book is " Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union " which will be published on September 1. With help from many of you, David has scheduled events all over the country:
http://davidswanson.org/book
There is contact info for a local organizer for each event, and all could use some help. Can you email friends, distribute flyers, place notices in calendars, book interviews to promote an event, or otherwise spread the word? If so, please contact our local organizer. Thanks!
http://davidswanson.org/book
Forward this message to everyone you know!
To subscribe, create a free Democrats.com account here:
http://www.democrats.com/user/register
On Monday, we said just 40 House Progressives could end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan (Af/Pak) by opposing the Pentagon's demand for another $95 billion. That's because all 178 Republicans will vote no over $5 billion for the IMF.
Nearly 10,000 of you emailed your Representatives, and 15 House Progressives responded to you by opposing the $95 billion. So now we need just 25 more.
Tell Congress: Healthcare Not Warfare
http://www.democrats.com/healthcare-not-warfare
For a glimpse of the impact of U.S. bombs on the children of Afghanistan, watch this 1 minute video from our friends at BraveNewFilms:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzyfAHvvXDU
If you have time to call Congress, pick a few from this list:
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/Supplemental
Report the response you get using the webform.
If you use Twitter, you can "retweet" four quick messages to key Members of Congress:
http://www.democrats.com/tweet-against-war-funds
You can follow my tweets here:
http://twitter.com/bobfertik
And you can follow our action-only tweets here:
http://twitter.com/democratscom
Thanks for all you do!
Bob Fertik
2. Help With Local Event for David Swanson's Book Tour
David Swanson's exciting new book is " Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union " which will be published on September 1. With help from many of you, David has scheduled events all over the country:
http://davidswanson.org/book
There is contact info for a local organizer for each event, and all could use some help. Can you email friends, distribute flyers, place notices in calendars, book interviews to promote an event, or otherwise spread the word? If so, please contact our local organizer. Thanks!
http://davidswanson.org/book
Forward this message to everyone you know!
To subscribe, create a free Democrats.com account here:
http://www.democrats.com/user/register
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
U.S. War Funding Bill Loaded w/ Pork
U.S. war funding bill brims with unrelated extras
Mon Jun 8, 2009 5:47pm EDT
By Jeremy Pelofsky
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A $100 billion bill to fund U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is rapidly accumulating extra items such as money for military aircraft the Pentagon doesn't want and possibly a scheme to jump-start sagging auto sales.
The cars and planes are not directly linked to the U.S. war effort. But they are typical of Congress' penchant for loading bills with unrelated spending in hopes the funds will sail through on the strength of the main legislation.
President Barack Obama originally sought $83.4 billion for the two wars and more foreign aid for countries like Pakistan.
But then he too sought more -- $4 billion extra to combat H1N1 swine flu and $5 billion to back credit lines to the International Monetary Fund, which is trying to help developing countries weather the global economic downturn.
The unrelated provisions have slowed the bill down, especially for the IMF because Republicans have argued the extra items should be vetted through the normal congressional process rather than jammed into an emergency spending bill.
Fights have also erupted about add-ons for the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and an attempt to bar the release of photos of detainee abuse. While Republicans do not have the votes to block the bill, they have said they will oppose it and that forces Democrats to ensure most of their members back it.
"This supplemental was supposed to be about providing funding for our troops," one House Republican aide said. Instead, it has become a mish-mashed, taxpayer funded 'Christmas tree' bill that will propagate bad policies and unnecessary spending."
Some 51 anti-war House Democrats had opposed the bill but now are under pressure to switch to give Obama a victory. But a House Democratic leadership aide said Republicans will have to answer to constituents for opposing a war funding bill.
CASH FOR CLUNKERS
The House and Senate are working out differences between the two versions of the war funding bill they each approved last month and hope to pass a final, single version this week.
Congress was on the verge of giving Pakistan roughly $1 billion in the bill, but Obama last week sought another $200 million for Islamabad as it fights Taliban militants crossing its border from Afghanistan.
And lawmakers are also considering adding money for a plan to spur domestic car sales by offering up to $4,500 in vouchers for buyers to trade in their less fuel-efficient vehicles for ones that get better mileage, known as "cash for clunkers".
The White House declined to directly address adding in extra provisions, but said officials continue to work with lawmakers "about the core priorities in the legislation and hope that it can get to the president soon."
When the House and Senate originally approved their separate versions of the war bill, the White House praised lawmakers for not inserting their own pet projects in the legislation -- though some pet priorities were included.
Democratic Representative John Murtha, who heads the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, managed to get $3.1 billion for eight C-17 and 11 C-130 military transport planes included. However, that has been pared back by four C-130s.
The Pentagon did not request the aircraft but lawmakers want them to preserve jobs in their home states and Murtha disputes the military's contention that they are not needed.
A senior Democratic House aide said the requests for flu and Pakistan money were appropriate to include in the bill because they were emergency needs Obama cited. The aide also noted that Republicans in the past backed items like the IMF funds.
"This is a dangerous game Republicans are playing by jeopardizing the well-being of our soldiers to score political points," the aide said. "The supplemental will be passed, but they will have to answer for their actions if they oppose it."
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5575ZG20090608
--------------------------
Monday, June 8, 2009
Israel Behind 9/11 Attacks?
Click on title above to see the preponderance of circumstantial evidence; http://theinfounderground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5367
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
