The MOVE bombing and police militarization/misconduct

Have you heard of the MOVE bombing in Philly in 1985? US gov't forces actually dropped a bomb on US civilians on US soil.

MOVE was a Panthers/Rasta-esque militant black group. They armed themselves and built a makeshift fortified compound in a residential part of West Philly. I don't know the group's history, but they probably came about in response to decades of abuse, racism, and neglect by the police and other city authorities. MOVE members allegedly killed a cop in 1978, thereby increasing hostilities.

I'm not sure what transpired in 1985, but it got to a point where the mayor (Wilson Goode, a black man) and police chief gave the OK to forcibly disarm and disband MOVE. About 500 cops descended on the compound vs. about 6 MOVE members who were barricaded inside. Like Waco, they had an ultimatum to give themselves up. Instead they opened fire on the cops, and the police returned the favor with about 10K rounds into the building. They discharged so much lead all day that they needed to call the police academy to get more ammo.

But the MOVE members remained behind their defenses. Eventually the city approved the police to drop an IED from a helicopter above the MOVE building, in the hope of creating a hole that the cops could use to enter the compound. Not making this up. The IED was some sort of gasoline/incendiary device, because it created a huge fire that eventually consumed 61 homes and 11 lives (5 kids). Only 2 people got out of the compound alive. Bystanders compared it to Vietnam. No one was fired or convicted over the decision.

And why have we not heard of this until now? There was no social media in the 1980s, and the MSM didn't want to discuss ugly race issues, police misconduct, and urban unrest (until Rodney King - which was captured on tape). This stuff can't happen in America, right? But the incident did motivate US cops to become more martial. They found that they were rendered ineffective by dug-in suspects, so that likely led to more powers for SWAT like armored vehicles with battering rams (and then 9/11-Iraq took that to another level, as we've seen in Ferguson).

---

Where was the effort at negotiations and deescalation? Is violence their only tool in the kit? Of course community policing and outreach aims to preempt such conflicts, but this was pre Rodney King.

Cops sometime remind me of Marty McFly - if you challenge their manhood, they will react very stupidly. MOVE attacked them, so now they need to be taught a lesson, regardless of the costs to the community. This is especially bad when they are authorized to use deadly force, often with little accountability.

---

Please watch the movie.  I believe it's very even handed since most of the news coverage was very biased toward the police.  MOVE, as a group, did not attack them.  This was collective punishment.  The police under Frank Rizzo's watch were notoriously racist. Philadelphia PD are still notoriously racist. 

SPOILER ALERT:

At one point, a little boy (between 3 and 5, I think) crawls out of the house as it fills with smoke.  He falls and one of the cops wanted to run and help the little boy.  The other cops told him not to do it that it was a trap.  the man's better nature got to him and he ran to save the little child.  That cop ended up losing his job in the Philadelphia PD within months after that incident.  The police wanted to leave the boy to die.  The punishment for death of one of theirs was collective-all MOVE family had to die, women and children.  Ramona Africa, the sole adult survivor of this brutal attack, was put in jail after losing her entire family.  If someone shot back from the house,(and, I'm not sure if there's any evidence of that)  was it Ramona? 

Charter school fraud in Philly

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/27/137444337/what-happens-when-charter-schools-fail

Maybe some social services aren't designed for market competition and entrepreneurship, especially when they're funded by taxpayers with little public oversight, and run by former business sharks with minimal educational experience. I think charter schools can be a good innovation in certain circumstances, and of course there are plenty of problems with stagnant public schools, educational bureaucracies, and teacher unions.

But look at their logic: public schools are underperforming, so let's establish charter schools to pressure them to shape up, and act as a teaching lab to develop better methods. But charters are risky "nonprofit" ventures that are trying to win grants and other funding, so why would they share their successful practices with rivals? Like a new entrant into an industry, they are fighting like hell to survive and eventually dethrone the top dog. They are not there to make friends. And the more successful a charter is, the more funding it gets (which means nearby public schools are getting less, and per-pupil K-12 funding in the US is already criminally low), so that only increases the likelihood that the public schools will underperform. And if word gets out that the charter is good, parents of talented students may pluck them out of the public system in favor of the charters, creating a selection bias that further brain drains public schools. So it's pretty much a zero-sum game; there is no way charters can make publics better. But that's probably the point, and it's not a level playing field. Charter teachers are non-union (they are paid a bit more but forced to work longer hours, so their per-hour compensation is actually worse) and not fettered with as many rules, so that's almost like Bar-roid Bonds vs. me in the Home Run Derby. Plus it creates a rift and culture clash among educators - already one of the least respected professions in the US. Education needs to be collaborative, open, and trusting to be successful, and charters are an impediment to that (some may say unions are too, and they have a point).

Like we've seen in other parts of gov't, when free-market conservatives want to do away with some public program, they demonize and de-fund it. They say the program is a failure, and they create the negative conditions to fulfill that prophecy, instead of taking measures to prevent it. Maybe all this is part of the larger movement to destroy employee unions wherever they exist. Some charters have changed lives and put underserved students on a much better life path, but overall charters are about on par with publics and in some cases lagging behind. Just imagine how much better the public schools could have done with the additional resources wasted on sub-par or corrupt charters. As we all know in business and in research, most attempts end in failure. So it's not like every charter is destined to be a gem, especially when it's run by corrupt people.

In the greater Philly area, 19 of 74 charter schools are under federal investigation for improprieties. And that percentage may be fairly uniform across the nation (CA, OH, and TX have also launched recent investigations). Charters are designed to be free of regulation (but from our experiences with Wall Street and energy, we know how that goes), and there are 7 full-time employees tasked with monitoring ALL of the Philly charters (soon to be 4 due to city budget cuts, of course). Most of the problems are abuse of funds, COI, and nepotism. Like corporations, CEOs hire friendly boards who rubber-stamp ludicrous pay raises (as much as $1M for some execs) and hirings of unqualified buddies. One CEO set up his school in buildings he owned, making the charter pay inflated rent directly to him. Another director also owned the school's vending machines. His team would buy discount junk food and soda and hike up the prices to the students. Well, maybe the corruption isn't actually hurting anyone? In another school, looting by the leaders caused the special ed program to be underfunded. When parents complained to the trustees, they basically told them to piss off. 

Profits are getting in the way of education. I hope people will wake up and recognize the risk of charters as being just another pro-business scheme to undermine the public sector and embezzle precious scarce resources. Maybe charters can work and make education better, but if so, then we shouldn't compromise that potential by tolerating bad charters and improper conduct.