Home Blog Page 22

Children don’t like school because they love freedom

3

“If freedom, personal responsibility, self-initiative, honesty, integrity, and concern for others rank high in your system of values, and if they represent characteristics you would like to see in your children, then you will want to be a trustful parent. None of these can be taught by lecturing, coercion, or coaxing. They are acquired or lost through daily life experiences that reinforce or suppress them. You can help your children build these values by living them yourself and applying them in your relationship with your children. Trust promotes trustworthiness. Self-initiative and all of the traits that depend on self-initiative can develop only under conditions of freedom.”

― Peter Gray, Free to Learn: Why Unleashing the Instinct to Play Will Make Our Children Happier, More Self-Reliant, and Better Students for Life




The following essay is by Dr.Peter Gray:

32515-78210Someone recently referred me to a book that they thought I’d like. It’s a 2009 book, aimed toward teachers of grades K through 12, titled Why Don’t Students Like School? It’s by a cognitive scientist named Daniel T. Willingham, and it has received rave reviews by countless people involved in the school system. Google the title and author and you’ll find pages and pages of doting reviews and nobody pointing out that the book totally and utterly fails to answer the question posed by its title.




Willingham’s thesis is that students don’t like school because their teachers don’t have a full understanding of certain cognitive principles and therefore don’t teach as well as they could. They don’t present material in ways that appeal best to students’ minds. Presumably, if teachers followed Willingham’s advice and used the latest information cognitive science has to offer about how the mind works, students would love school.

Talk about avoiding the elephant in the room!

Ask any schoolchild why they don’t like school and they’ll tell you. “School is prison.” They may not use those words, because they’re too polite, or maybe they’ve already been brainwashed to believe that school is for their own good and therefore it can’t be prison. But decipher their words and the translation generally is, “School is prison.”

Let me say that a few more times: School is prison. School is prison. School is prison. School is prison. School is prison.

Willingham surely knows that school is prison. He can’t help but know it; everyone knows it. But here he writes a whole book entitled “Why Don’t Students Like School,” and not once does he suggest that just possibly they don’t like school because they like freedom, and in school they are not free.

I shouldn’t be too harsh on Willingham. He’s not the only one avoiding this particular elephant in the room. Everyone who has ever been to school knows that school is prison, but almost nobody says it. It’s not polite to say it. We all tiptoe around this truth, that school is prison, because telling the truth makes us all seem so mean. How could all these nice people be sending their children to prison for a good share of the first 18 years of their lives? How could our democratic government, which is founded on principles of freedom and self-determination, make laws requiring children and adolescents to spend a good portion of their days in prison? It’s unthinkable, and so we try hard to avoid thinking it. Or, if we think it, we at least don’t say it. When we talk about what’s wrong with schools we pretend not to see the elephant, and we talk instead about some of the dander that’s gathered around the elephant’s periphery.

But I think it is time that we say it out loud. School is prison.

If you think school is not prison, please explain the difference.

The only difference I can think of is that to get into prison you have to commit a crime, but they put you in school just because of your age. In other respects school and prison are the same. In both places you are stripped of your freedom and dignity. You are told exactly what you must do, and you are punished for failing to comply. Actually, in school you must spend more time doing exactly what you are told to do than is true in adult prisons, so in that sense school is worse than prison.

At some level of their consciousness, everyone who has ever been to school knows that it is prison. How could they not know? But people rationalize it by saying (not usually in these words) that children need this particular kind of prison and may even like it if the prison is run well. If children don’t like school, according to this rationalization, it’s not because school is prison, but is because the wardens are not kind enough, or amusing enough, or smart enough to keep the children’s minds occupied appropriately.




But anyone who knows anything about children and who allows himself or herself to think honestly should be able to see through this rationalization. Children, like all human beings, crave freedom. They hate to have their freedom restricted. To a large extent they use their freedom precisely to educate themselves. They are biologically prepared to do that. That’s what many of my previous posts have been about (for an overview, see my July 16, 2008, post). Children explore and play, freely, in ways designed to learn about the physical and social world in which they are developing. In school they are told they must stop following their interests and, instead, do just what the teacher is telling them they must do. That is why they don’t like school.

As a society we could, perhaps, rationalize forcing children to go to school if we could prove that they need this particular kind of prison in order to gain the skills and knowledge necessary to become good citizens, to be happy in adulthood, and to get good jobs. Many people, perhaps most people, think this has been proven, because the educational establishment talks about it as if it has. But, in truth, it has not been proven at all.

In fact, for decades, families who have chosen to “unschool” their children, or to send them to the Sudbury Valley School (which is, essentially, an “unschool” school) have been proving the opposite (see, for example, my August 13, 2008, post). Children who are provided the tools for learning, including access to a wide range of other people from whom to learn, learn what they need to know–and much more–through their own self-directed play and exploration. There is no evidence at all that children who are sent to prison come out better than those who are provided the tools and allowed to use them freely. How, then, can we continue to rationalize sending children to prison?




I think the educational establishment deliberately avoids looking honestly at the experiences of unschoolers and Sudbury Valley because they are afraid of what they will find. If school as prison isn’t necessary, then what becomes of this whole huge enterprise, which employs so many and is so fully embedded in the culture (see my posts on Why Schools Are What they Are)?

Willingham’s book is in a long tradition of attempts to bring the “latest findings” of psychology to bear on issues of education. All of those efforts have avoided the elephant and focused instead on trying to clean up the dander. But as long as the elephant is there, the dander just keeps piling up.

In a future post I’ll talk about some of the history of psychology’s failed attempts to improve education. Every new generation of parents, and every new batch of fresh and eager teachers, hears or reads about some “new theory” or “new findings” from psychology that, at long last, will make schools more fun and improve learning. But none of it has worked. And none of it will until people face the truth: Children hate school because in school they are not free. Joyful learning requires freedom.

Yes, IQ Matters and it’s Time to Stop Acting Like it Doesn’t

2

The idea that standardized tests and “general intelligence” are meaningless is nothing more than wishful thinking. Though people find it cruel that something outside of ones control could matter so much, the truth is that much of life is outside of your control – from where you were born, to what parents you have, and many of the traumatic events inflicted upon you at an early age.  It turns out, IQ is also out of your control, as it is almost entirely genetic.

High IQ is directly correlated with better performance ratings in every occupation tested. High IQ individuals are also more likely to have a higher income, a lower violent crime propensity, and a longer life span.

The fact that general intelligence test can be illegal in certain cases is demonstrable. 



(Slate) The College Board—the standardized testing behemoth that develops and administers the SAT and other tests—has redesigned its flagship product again. Beginning in spring 2016, the writing section will be optional, the reading section will no longer test “obscure” vocabulary words, and the math section will put more emphasis on solving problems with real-world relevance. Overall, as the College Board explains on its website, “The redesigned SAT will more closely reflect the real work of college and career, where a flexible command of evidence—whether found in text or graphic [sic]—is more important than ever.”

A number of pressures may be behind this redesign. Perhaps it’s competition from the ACT, or fear that unless the SAT is made to seem more relevant, more colleges will go the way of Wake Forest, Brandeis, and Sarah Lawrence and join the “test optional admissions movement,” which already boasts several hundred members. Or maybe it’s the wave of bad press that standardized testing, in general, has received over the past few years.



Critics of standardized testing are grabbing this opportunity to take their best shot at the SAT. They make two main arguments. The first is simply that a person’s SAT score is essentially meaningless—that it says nothing about whether that person will go on to succeed in college. Leon Botstein, president of Bard College and longtimestandardized testing critic, wrote in Time that the SAT “needs to be abandoned and replaced,” and added:

“The blunt fact is that the SAT has never been a good predictor of academic achievement in college. High school grades adjusted to account for the curriculum and academic programs in the high school from which a student graduates are. The essential mechanism of the SAT, the multiple choice test question, is a bizarre relic of long outdated 20th century social scientific assumptions and strategies.”

Calling use of SAT scores for college admissions a “national scandal,” Jennifer Finney Boylan, an English professor at Colby College, argued in the New York Times that:

“The only way to measure students’ potential is to look at the complex portrait of their lives: what their schools are like; how they’ve done in their courses; what they’ve chosen to study; what progress they’ve made over time; how they’ve reacted to adversity.”

Along the same lines, Elizabeth Kolbert wrote in The New Yorker that “the SAT measures those skills—and really only those skills—necessary for the SATs.”



But this argument is wrong. The SAT does predict success in college—not perfectly, but relatively well, especially given that it takes just a few hours to administer. And, unlike a “complex portrait” of a student’s life, it can be scored in an objective way. (In a recent New York Times op-ed, the University of New Hampshire psychologist John D. Mayer aptly described the SAT’s validity as an “astonishing achievement.”) In astudy published in Psychological Science, University of Minnesota researchers Paul Sackett, Nathan Kuncel, and their colleagues investigated the relationship between SAT scores and college grades in a very large sample: nearly 150,000 students from 110 colleges and universities. SAT scores predicted first-year college GPA about as well as high school grades did, and the best prediction was achieved by consideringboth factors. Botstein, Boylan, and Kolbert are either unaware of this directly relevant, easily accessible, and widely disseminated empirical evidence, or they have decided to ignore it and base their claims on intuition and anecdote—or perhaps on their beliefs about the way the world should be rather than the way it is.

Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, it’s not just first-year college GPA that SAT scores predict. In a four-year study that started with nearly 3,000 college students, a team of Michigan State University researchers led by Neal Schmitt found that test score (SAT or ACT—whichever the student took) correlated strongly with cumulative GPA at the end of the fourth year. If the students were ranked on both their test scores and cumulative GPAs, those who had test scores in the top half (above the 50thpercentile, or median) would have had a roughly two-thirds chance of having a cumulative GPA in the top half. By contrast, students with bottom-half SAT scores would be only one-third likely to make it to the top half in GPA.

Test scores also predicted whether the students graduated: A student who scored in the 95th percentile on the SAT or ACT was about 60 percent more likely to graduate than a student who scored in the 50th percentile. Similarly impressive evidence supports the validity of the SAT’s graduate school counterparts: the Graduate Record Examinations, the Law School Admissions Test, and the Graduate Management Admission Test. A 2007 Science article summed up the evidence succinctly: “Standardized admissions tests have positive and useful relationships with subsequent student accomplishments.”

SAT scores even predict success beyond the college years. For more than two decades, Vanderbilt University researchers David Lubinski, Camilla Benbow, and their colleagues have tracked the accomplishments of people who, as part of a youth talent search, scored in the top 1 percent on the SAT by age 13. Remarkably, even within this group of gifted students, higher scorers were not only more likely to earn advanced degrees but also more likely to succeed outside of academia. For example, compared with people who “only” scored in the top 1 percent, those who scored in the top one-tenth of 1 percent—the extremely gifted—were more than twice as likely as adults to have an annual income in the top 5 percent of Americans.

The second popular anti-SAT argument is that, if the test measures anything at all, it’s not cognitive skill but socioeconomic status. In other words, some kids do better than others on the SAT not because they’re smarter, but because their parents are rich. Boylan argued in her Times article that the SAT “favors the rich, who can afford preparatory crash courses” like those offered by Kaplan and the Princeton Review. Leon Botstein claimed in his Time article that “the only persistent statistical result from the SAT is the correlation between high income and high test scores.” And according to aWashington Post Wonkblog infographic (which is really more of a disinfographic) “your SAT score says more about your parents than about you.”

It’s true that economic background correlates with SAT scores. Kids from well-off families tend to do better on the SAT. However, the correlation is far from perfect. In the University of Minnesota study of nearly 150,000 students, the correlation between socioeconomic status, or SES, and SAT was not trivial but not huge. (A perfect correlation has a value of 1; this one was .25.) What this means is that there are plenty of low-income students who get good scores on the SAT; there are even likely to be low-income students among those who achieve a perfect score on the SAT.

Thus, just as it was originally designed to do, the SAT in fact goes a long way toward leveling the playing field, giving students an opportunity to distinguish themselves regardless of their background. Scoring well on the SAT may in fact be the only such opportunity for students who graduate from public high schools that are regarded by college admissions offices as academically weak. In a letter to the editor, a reader of Elizabeth Kolbert’s New Yorker article on the SAT made this point well:

“The SAT may be the bane of upper-middle-class parents trying to launch their children on a path to success. But sometimes one person’s obstacle is another person’s springboard. I am the daughter of a single, immigrant father who never attended college, and a good SAT score was one of the achievements that catapulted me into my state’s flagship university and, from there, on to medical school. Flawed though it is, the SAT afforded me, as it has thousands of others, a way to prove that a poor, public-school kid who never had any test prep can do just as well as, if not better than, her better-off peers.”

The sort of admissions approach that Botstein advocates—adjusting high school GPA “to account for the curriculum and academic programs in the high school from which a student graduates” and abandoning the SAT—would do the opposite of leveling the playing field. A given high school GPA would be adjusted down for a poor, public-school kid, and adjusted up for a rich, private-school kid.

Furthermore, contrary to what Boylan implies in her Times piece, “preparatory crash courses” don’t change SAT scores much. Research has consistently shown that prep courses have only a small effect on SAT scores—and a much smaller effect than test prep companies claim they do. For example, in one study of a random sample of more than 4,000 students, average improvement in overall score on the “old” SAT, which had a range from 400 to 1600, was no more than about 30 points.

Finally, it is clear that SES is not what accounts for the fact that SAT scores predict success in college. In the University of Minnesota study, the correlation between high school SAT and college GPA was virtually unchanged after the researchers statistically controlled for the influence of SES. If SAT scores were just a proxy for privilege, then putting SES into the mix should have removed, or at least dramatically decreased, the association between the SAT and college performance. But it didn’t. This is more evidence that Boylan overlooks or chooses to ignore.

What this all means is that the SAT measures something—some stable characteristic of high school students other than their parents’ income—that translates into success in college. And what could that characteristic be? General intelligence. The content of the SAT is practically indistinguishable from that of standardized intelligence tests that social scientists use to study individual differences, and that psychologists and psychiatrists use to determine whether a person is intellectually disabled—and even whether a person should be spared execution in states that have the death penalty. Scores on the SAT correlate very highly with scores on IQ tests—so highly that the Harvard education scholar Howard Gardner, known for his theory of multiple intelligences, once called the SAT and other scholastic measures “thinly disguised” intelligence tests.

One could of course argue that IQ is also meaningless—and many have. For example, in his bestseller The Social Animal, David Brooks claimed that “once you get past some pretty obvious correlations (smart people make better mathematicians), there is a very loose relationship between IQ and life outcomes.” And in a recent Huffington Post article, psychologists Tracy Alloway and Ross Alloway wrote that

“IQ won’t help you in the things that really matter: It won’t help you find happiness, it won’t help you make better decisions, and it won’t help you manage your kids’ homework and the accounts at the same time. It isn’t even that useful at its raison d’être: predicting success.”

But this argument is wrong, too. Indeed, we know as well as anything we know in psychology that IQ predicts many different measures of success. Exhibit A is evidence from research on job performance by the University of Iowa industrial psychologist Frank Schmidt and his late colleague John Hunter. Synthesizing evidence from nearly a century of empirical studies, Schmidt and Hunter established that general mental ability—the psychological trait that IQ scores reflect—is the single best predictor of job training success, and that it accounts for differences in job performance even in workers with more than a decade of experience. It’s more predictive than interests, personality, reference checks, and interview performance. Smart people don’t just make better mathematicians, as Brooks observed—they make better managers, clerks, salespeople, service workers, vehicle operators, and soldiers.

IQ predicts other things that matter, too, like income, employment, health, and even longevity. In a 2001 study published in the British Medical Journal, Scottish researchers Lawrence Whalley and Ian Deary identified more than 2,000 people who had taken part in the Scottish Mental Survey of 1932, a nationwide assessment of IQ. Remarkably, people with high IQs at age 11 were more considerably more likely to survive to old age than were people with lower IQs. For example, a person with an IQ of 100 (the average for the general population) was 21 percent more likely to live to age 76 than a person with an IQ of 85. And the relationship between IQ and longevity remains statistically significant even after taking SES into account. Perhaps IQ reflects the mental resources—the reasoning and problem-solving skills—that people can bring to bear on maintaining their health and making wise decisions throughout life. This explanation is supported by evidence that higher-IQ individuals engage in more positive health behaviors, such as deciding to quit smoking.

IQ is of course not the only factor that contributes to differences in outcomes like academic achievement and job performance (and longevity). Psychologists have known for many decades that certain personality traits also have an impact. One is conscientiousness, which reflects a person’s self-control, discipline, and thoroughness. People who are high in conscientiousness delay gratification to get their work done, finish tasks that they start, and are careful in their work, whereas people who are low in conscientiousness are impulsive, undependable, and careless (compare Lisa and Bart Simpson). The University of Pennsylvania psychologist Angela Duckworth has proposed a closely related characteristic that she calls “grit,” which she defines as a person’s “tendency to sustain interest in and effort toward very long-term goals,” like building a career or family.

Duckworth has argued that such factors may be even more important as predictors of success than IQ. In one study, she and UPenn colleague Martin Seligman found that a measure of self-control collected at the start of eighth grade correlated more than twice as strongly with year-end grades than IQ did. However, the results ofmeta-analyses, which are more telling than the results of any individual study, indicate that these factors do not have a larger effect than IQ does on measures of academic achievement and job performance. So, while it seems clear that factors like conscientiousness—not to mention social skill, creativity, interest, and motivation—do influence success, they cannot take the place of IQ.

None of this is to say that IQ, whether measured with the SAT or a traditional intelligence test, is an indicator of value or worth. Nobody should be judged, negatively or positively, on the basis of a test score. A test score is a prediction, not a prophecy, and doesn’t say anything specific about what a person will or will not achieve in life. A high IQ doesn’t guarantee success, and a low IQ doesn’t guarantee failure. Furthermore, the fact that IQ is at present a powerful predictor of certain socially relevant outcomes doesn’t mean it always will be. If there were less variability in income—a smaller gap between the rich and the poor—then IQ would have a weaker correlation with income. For the same reason, if everyone received the same quality of health care, there would be a weaker correlation between IQ and health.

But the bottom line is that there are large, measurable differences among people in intellectual ability, and these differences have consequences for people’s lives. Ignoring these facts will only distract us from discovering and implementing wise policies.

Given everything that social scientists have learned about IQ and its broad predictive validity, it is reasonable to make it a factor in decisions such as whom to hire for a particular job or admit to a particular college or university. In fact, disregarding IQ—by admitting students to colleges or hiring people for jobs in which they are very likely to fail—is harmful both to individuals and to society. For example, in occupations where safety is paramount, employers could be incentivized to incorporate measures of cognitive ability into the recruitment process. Above all, the policies of public and private organizations should be based on evidence rather than ideology or wishful thinking.

U.S. Student Sentenced to 15 Years Hard Labor in North Korea

2
Otto Frederick Warmbier (C), a University of Virginia student who was detained in North Korea since early January, is taken to North Korea's top court in Pyongyang, North Korea, in this photo released by Kyodo March 16, 2016. REUTERS/Kyodo

Otto Warmbier, a 21-year-old University of Virginia student, was detained in January for trying to steal an item bearing a propaganda slogan from his hotel in Pyongyang, North Korean media said previously.





(Reuters) North Korea’s supreme court sentenced American student Otto Warmbier, who was arrested while visiting the country, to 15 years of hard labor on Wednesday for crimes against the state, a punishment Washington condemned as politically motivated.

The U.S. State Department called the sentence “unduly harsh” and White House spokesman Josh Earnest said it was “increasingly clear” that North Korea sought to use U.S. citizens as pawns to pursue a political agenda.

Warmbier, a 21-year-old University of Virginia student, was detained in January for trying to steal an item bearing a propaganda slogan from his hotel in Pyongyang, North Korean media said previously.




“The accused confessed to the serious offense against the DPRK he had committed, pursuant to the U.S. government’s hostile policy toward it, in a bid to impair the unity of its people after entering it as a tourist,” the state-controlled KCNA news agency reported, using the acronym for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Japan’s Kyodo news agency published a picture of Warmbier being led from the courtroom by two uniformed guards, with his head bowed, but visibly distressed.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner called on North Korea to pardon Warmbier, a student from Wyoming, Ohio, and release him immediately on humanitarian grounds. Speaking at a regular news briefing in Washington, Toner said the case underscored the risks associated with travel to North Korea, and added: “The Department of State strongly recommends against all travel by U.S. citizens to North Korea.”




Human Rights Watch also condemned the sentence. “North Korea’s sentencing of Otto Warmbier to 15 years hard labor for a college-style prank is outrageous and shocking, and should not be permitted to stand,” Phil Robertson, deputy director of HRW’s Asia division, said in an emailed statement.

Warmbier’s defense attorney said the gravity of his crime was such that he would not be able to pay even with his death but proposed to the court a sentence reduced from the prosecution’s request of a life sentence, KCNA said.

Last month, Warmbier told a media conference in Pyongyang that his crime was “very severe and pre-planned.”

Warmbier’s parents could not immediately be reached.

A spokesman for the University of Virginia said the school was aware of the reports about the sentence and remains in touch with Warmbier’s family, but declined further comment. Warmbier majors in economics with a minor in global sustainability, according to his social media profiles.

Warmbier was at the end of a five-day New Year’s group tour of North Korea when he was delayed at airport immigration before being taken away by officials, according to the tour operator that had arranged the trip.

Warmbier’s sentencing comes as North Korea is increasingly isolated, with the U.N. Security Council imposing tough new resolutions earlier this month following the North’s January nuclear test and last month’s long-range rocket launch.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said this week the North would soon test a nuclear warhead and ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, in what would be a direct violation of U.N. resolutions backed by its chief ally, China.

North Korea has a long history of detaining foreigners and has used jailed Americans in the past to extract high-profile visits from the United States, with which it has no formal diplomatic relations.

North Korea is also holding a Korean-Canadian Christian pastor it sentenced to hard labor for life in December for subversion. The North is also holding a Korean-American and three South Korean nationals.

It has previously handed down lengthy sentences to foreigners before freeing them.

In 2014, North Korea released three detained Americans.

Ohio Governor John Kasich, who is also a Republican presidential candidate, called on North Korea to immediately release Warmbier, saying his detention was completely unjustified.

Former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who had previously traveled to North Korea, met the North’s ambassador to the United Nations on Tuesday to press for Warmbier’s release, the New York Times reported.

“I urged the humanitarian release of Otto, and they agreed to convey our request,” Richardson was quoted as saying.

While most tourists to North Korea are from China, roughly 6,000 Westerners visit annually, although the United States and Canada advise against it. Most visitors are curious about life in the reclusive state and ignore critics who say their dollars prop up a repressive system.

Must-Watch: Marine Drops A Truth Bomb & Blows the Whistle on the US War Machine

0

“We have tortured and killed and maimed and raped around this planet. We don’t operate under international law; we have the law of the jungle”





Ken O’ Keefe is a former US Marine turned anti-war campaigner who appeared on a Press TV debate called Syria: War of Deception, and proceeded to destroy his pro-war opponent.

Though the video was recorded in August 2013, with the eruption of the European refugee crisis it holds as much resonance now as it did then. His passion, vast knowledge, and ability to articulate demonstrates that he was made to be an activist. He hit so many crucial points on the subject, that we felt we had to share it.




“We have tortured and killed and maimed and raped around this planet; who in their right mind would consider the United States or the West in general to be in any position to punish anybody?” the veteran begins angrily, going on to outline the evidence for Syria being a false flag attack

From pointing out that the US regularly arms those who it calls its enemy, to the vast violence carried out by the US government around the world, and the truth about the War on Terror, he just hits the mark on every point.

“We don’t operate under international law; we have the law of the jungle in which the rich and powerful basically determine what goes and what doesn’t go.” O’Keefe shouts.

Ken O’Keefe renounced US citizenship in 2001 and now holds Irish, Hawaiian & Palestinian citizenship. He says on his blog: “My ultimate allegiance is to my entire human family and to planet Earth.”




Thanks to True Activist for bringing this video to our attention

Clinton: The US “Did Not Lose a Single Person” in Libya

1

Hillary Clinton is proving, yet again, that she doesn’t care about the truth or human lives.

During a town hall meeting in Illinois, Democrat Hillary Clinton said the United States “didn’t lose a single person.” The claim was made in to justify the NATO invasion in 2011 following the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.



 



“Now, is Libya perfect? It isn’t,” Clinton said. “Libya was a different kind of calculation and we didn’t lose a single person We didn’t have a problem in supporting our European and Arab allies in working with NATO.”

She seeming forgot about the attack on 9/1//2012 in Benghanzi, which lead to the death US ambassador Christopher Stevens, CIA contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty, as well as Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith.

The snide omission is in keeping with Clinton’s response to a demonstration held at the mission and the subsequent attack and murders. “What difference at this point does it make?” she asked the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after pressed by Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin on her role in the incident.

Christopher Stevens, who died in the attack, was working with the Turks in an arms transfer from Libya to Syrian at the time of the attack. The State Department’s Special Mission Compound in Benghazi was the center of that secret activity.

In 2011 Stevens was appointed by the Obama administration as the chief liaison with the Libyan rebels, who were interchangeable with al-Qaeda. Proof of that comes from the State Department and Stevens working directly with Abdelhakin Belhadh of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Who has direct connections with al-Qaeda? You guessed it, Belhadh.

Moreover, Clinton also chose to ignore the death of over 10,000 Libyans as well as the murder of Libyan leader Muamaar Gaddafi. Hillary was so overwhelmed with glee in her role in the leaders death – which she take credit for – that she was filmed stating “We came, we saw, he died.”

 



Naji Barakat, the Health Minister of the National Transitional Council in Libya, said the death toll amounted to 30,000 according to figures taken from hospitals, local officials and former rebel commanders.

The media justified the attack. They claimed that NATO, the United States, and its partners were implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 to impose “an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians,” which the globalist organization said ”constitute crimes against humanity.”

In actuality, this was not the case. On April 2, 2011 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent an email  which revealed the actual objective- to ensure the strength of the petrol dollar.

Gaddafi was planning to establish a pan-African currency that was back by Libya’s gold Dinar.

According to document posted on the US State Department website advisors to Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the second son of Muammar Gaddafi, told sources the Libyan government held 143 tons of gold and a similar amount in silver valued at more than $7 billion. The gold and silver was to be used to establish an alternative currency to the French franc for African Francophone countries.

“French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began,” the email states, “and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.”

Libya had a plan to no longer sell oil in US dollars, which would put the financiers of the war machine at risk. Gaddafi was also urging other African and Middle Eastern countries to do the same. The truth is, neither Hillary nor the US state department gave a damn about peace in Libya. The fact that Hillary is refusing to even acknowledge the massive loss of life in Libya is even more proof.

John Oliver Destroys the FBI’s Case Against Encryption

0

John Oliver Destroys the FBI’s Case Against Encryption



 





Apple’s refusal to create a backdoor that would help the FBI get into an iPhone that once belonged to a terrorist caused a number of reactions from businessmen, IT experts and politicians.

Few, however, have the ability to summarize different aspects of a complex issue (and throw in a few jokes) as comedian John Oliver, who dissected the case in Sunday’s episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.

In the 18-minute segment, Oliver reminds us of a similar case in the ’90s, when the U.S. government was bent on creating the Clipper chip, an encryption device with a built-in backdoor for monitoring phone calls — a plan that fell through a few years after its inception in 1993.

Oliver also points out that those who need encryption can get apps that support it — such as messaging app Telegram — regardless of Apple.

Ultimately, Oliver sides with Apple, though he does admit that backdoor-free encryption comes with a price.

“There is no easy side to be on in this debate. Strong encryption has its costs, from protecting terrorists, to drug dealers, to child pornographers. But I happen to feel that the risks of weakening encryption, even a little bit, even just for the government, are potentially much worse.”

At the end of the video, Oliver throws in a fake Apple ad, showing how tough it is for the company to be ahead of hackers and protect their users’ privacy in the first place. Even if you’re sick of the Apple/FBI iPhone encryption debate, check out this part of the video just for the laughs; it starts at the 15:50 mark.




How I became a “Self-Hating Jew”

10

Cary Wedler breaks down why she is a “self-hating Jew,” and the horrendous atrocities carried up by Zionists against Muslims in the state of Israel and abroad.

 



In a world where being against male genital mutilation and ethnic cleansing can be considered anti-semitic, the line between “hate speech” and telling the truth is getting more and more confusing. 

The Jewish state of Israel is presently practicing genocide against Palestinians, and is using the “culture of victimhood” to justify it. If you call out the atrocities against Palestinians done since the founding of Israel, you’re sure to be lumped in with the Nazi’s quicker than a skin head with a swastika tattooed on his head.

Leave no doubt about it, the state of Israel has been in the business of ethnic genocide since it’s beginning.

four-panel-map
You don’t take over huge segments of well populated land this quickly without bloodshed.




In 1948, the State of Israel created a Jewish majority by destroying approximately 500 Palestinian towns and driving over 700,000 Palestinians out of their homeland. They were able to use the victim-hood status granted by the holocaust to justify many of their violent actions, and had the help of the British and Americans in doing their bidding. 

The lessons from the holocaust should include a hatred of racism, an abhorrence to tribalism, and a realization that good people can be lead to do terrible things when hatred subsumes a culture.

This is not the lesson that the Israelis have taken from the Holocaust. As war journalist Johnathan Cook puts it:

“The Holocaust’s lesson for most Israelis is not a universal one that might inspire them to oppose racism, or fanatical dictators or the bullying herd mentality that can all too quickly grip nations, or even state-sponsored genocide.

Instead, Israelis have been taught to see in the Holocaust a different message: that the world is plagued by a unique and ineradicable hatred of Jews, and that the only safety for the Jewish people is to be found in the creation of a super-power Jewish state that answers to no one. Put bluntly, Israel’s motto is: only Jewish power can prevent Jewish victim-hood.”

The continued backing of the state of Israel by the United States -through subsidization and wars carried out in its favor – is one of the greatest crimes carried out by the government.

I will leave you with a few charts to demonstrate the Israeli forces brutality.

article-2582344-1C60CF1000000578-460_964x642 (1)

Source: Remember These Children, a coalition of groups calling for an end to the killing of children and a fair resolution of the conflict.



peoplekilled

Source: B’Tselem, The Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. (Visit their statistics page, last updated September 30, 2015.)

militaryaid

Source: The Congressional Research Service’s report “U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel,” written by Jeremy M. Sharp, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs, dated June 10, 2015.

israel

Statistics Source: The Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions estimates that over 28,000 houses have been demolished in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza since 1967 (as of March 2012).

normal

 

 

Judge Exposes CPS’ History Of Rape And Abuse

1

Child Protective Services has routinely abused children and families across the country, and now a judge is coming out and admitting that’s the case.

Rob Dew breaks down how Texas CPS has been abusing children and destroying families for years and how now someone may be about to do something about it.

 

The attack on families by CPS in America has been cataloged many times on the Think About Now website. The truth of the matter is, CPS was never meant to protect families, it was always about controlling children. In the same way that public education was started to create predictable citizens who would become obedient workers, CPS was created as a tool to be used to ensure that obedience.

In both cases they’ve done a terrific job. In New York City you have a illiteracy rate of 80% among high school graduates, which makes sure that you have a perpetual dependent class.  With Child Protective Services, you have over 400,000 children being taken out of their homes and into the shackles of violent foster homes. Many of these children were taken away by their parents for marijuana  (resulting in the child’s death in a foster home), for allowing their kids to play outside, or even for simply homeschooling their children.

Once more, when those children get into a foster care system they are regularly abused. Foster kids are 7-8 times more likely to be abused than normal children, nearly half will end up homeless, they are 3 times more likely to be put on psychotropic drugs, seven times more likely to develop an eating disorder, more likely to have PTSD than veterans of war and less likely to recover from that PTSD, more likely to become pregnant as a teenager, 20% more likely to be arrested, and are 6 times more likely to die than if they stayed in an abusive household.

When a child ends up into the hands of the state, the chances of that child doing well drop dramatically. This is not an issue of inefficiencies, because the aim is not to create individualistic free thinking children. The aim is to create a two class system on purpose. As president Woodrow Wilson put it:

“We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity in every society, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.”



There is no way to reform the state to benefit the individual, because the state is antithetical to the very notion of individualistic ethics. We need to free ourselves from the idea that we should be controlled by a monolithic agency that is parasitical in its nature.

In order to do that we need to be able to protect ourselves first. One way to do that is to know what to do when CPS comes knocking, which is outlined here. Another form of protection is education yourself and others about what CPS is, and a thorough breakdown of how the system works. The best way to do that is by actually reading a book on the subject, which can be found here.

Always remember that the government is not here to help you, and thankfully because of the internet and government whistle-blowers coming out, that information is getting out exponentially.


10257847_10101407106334675_3394232571286694773_nCarlos Morales is a former Child Protective Services investigator, president and founder of Child Protective Services Victim Support, the host of the Libertarian Atheist Podcast, and a committed legal advocate for family reunification.

Since leaving his career as an investigator, he has actively helped families throughout the country fight for their children in and out of court. His pursuit of a radical overhaul for child protection programs has taken him from university lecture halls, to television and radio studios, and the pages of a variety of publications. This has culminated into the publication of his new book, Legally Kidnapped: The Case Against Child Protective Services (http://www.legallykidnapped.net/)

The War on Drugs is a War on the Family

1


When most people hear “war on the family”, they think of conservatives bringing up gay marriage or liberals bringing up a lack of government welfare. In fact, the greatest war enacted against families has been the war on drugs.

Author of “Legally Kidnapped: The Case Against Child Protective Services,” and whistle-blower, Carlos Morales exposes the fact that the war on drugs is a war on the family.


Sources for Video :

http://books.google.com/books?id=hI9FkmdGkoMC&pg=PA314&lpg=PA314#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2014/03/04/first-study-of-lsds-psychotherapeutic-benefits-in-four-decades-breaks-research-taboo/

http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/soac-2012-handbook.pdf

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Families#sthash.cONXnbSL.dpuf

http://www.lycaeum.org/research/researchpdfs/0746.pdf

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Schizophrenia/Pages/Causes.aspx

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/drugs/linkletter.asp

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/surveillance89/HDS07.pdf

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/pcp.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892036296001213

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20142293

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862811

Sources: Foster Home Stats

1. Child Protection and Child Outcomes: Measuring the Effects of Foster Care by  Joseph J. Doyle, Jr
http://www.mit.edu/~jjdoyle/doyle_fosterlt_march07_aer.pdf
2. Dubner, AE; Motta, RW (1999). “Sexually and physically abused foster care children and posttraumatic stress disorder”. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
3. Casey Family Programs, Harvard Medical School (2005.04.05). “Former Foster Children in Oregon and Washington Suffer Posttraumatic Stress Disorder at Twice the Rate of U.S War Veterans”

4. http://www.fostercarealumni.org/resources/foster_care_facts_and_statistics.htm.
5. Hobbs, GF; Hobbs, CJ; Wynne, JM (1999). “Abuse of children in foster and resident ial care”. Child abuse & neglect 23 (12): 1239–52
6. “Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study”. Research.casey.org
7. “Throwaway kids”. Pasadena Weekly. 2006-06-22
8. Lopez, P; Allen, PJ (2007). “Addressing the health needs of adolescents transitioning out of foster care”.Pediatric nursing 33 (4): 345–55
9. V.Roman, N.P. & Wolfe, N. (1995). Web of failure: The relationship between foster care and homelessness. Washington, DC: National Alliance to End Homelessness
10. http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/pdf/ImprovingFamilyFosterCare_FR.pdf
11. Zito, JM; Safer, DJ; Sai, D; Gardner, JF; Thomas, D; Coombes, P; Dubowski, M; Mendez-Lewis, M (2008). “Psychotropic medication patterns among youth in foster care”. Pediatrics 121 (1): e157–63.
12. Cascade, EF; Kalali, AH (2008). “Generic Penetration of the SSRI Market”. Psychiatry (Edgmont (Pa. : Township)) 5 (4): 25–6
13. Racusin R, Maerlender AC Jr, Sengupta A, et al. Psychosocial treatment of children in foster care: a review. Community Ment Health
14. Johansen-Berg, H (2007). “Structural plasticity: rewiring the brain”. Current biology : CB 17 (4): R141–4.
15. http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?SEC=%7B5433EE7C-6775-4D17-A2A1-CE4686AE1697%7D
16. American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. pp. 271–280

3 Ways Corporations Profit Off Harvesting Baby Foreskin

1


Presently in the US, a baby is circumcised every 25 seconds. The surgery involves cutting the foreskin off a part of a penis, generally without anesthesia, for absolutely no medical benefit in the hopes that a baby will look like their dad. Is this over exaggeration? Not exactly.

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of a male’s body – other than the head of the penis itself – with more nerve endings per square inch than any other body part. Surgical removal of the foreskin  involves immobilizing the baby by strapping him face-up onto a molded plastic board. In one common method, the doctor then inserts a metal instrument under the foreskin to forcibly separate it from the glans, slits the foreskin, and inserts a circumcision device. The foreskin is crushed and then cut off. The amount of skin removed in a typical infant circumcision is the equivalent of 15 square inches in an adult male.

As journalist Sara Burrows puts it, “Circumcision has been likened to having a sharp metal instrument jammed under one’s finger nail, down to the base, and shoved around, back and forth, until the entire nail is separated from the nail bed, and then sliced off.”

So what does removing one of the most sensitive organs from a man due to his sexual ability?

Circumcising men takes away 75 percent of their capacity for sexual sensation and. They are 4.5 times (450%) more likely to suffer from erectile dysfunction, according to the British Journal of Urology International.

But, there’s a medical benefit to robbing men of sexual sensation, right? No. There are no professional medical associations in the United States or anywhere else in the world which recommend routine circumcision as medically necessary. In fact, leaving boys intact is becoming the norm in the U.S., as parents realize the risks and harms of circumcision.

Still, circumcision is readily done within the United States, and just as corporations make money off war, they also make money off the suffering of babies.

There exists a Holy Grail in the cosmetic industry to create a cream that sheds years off your skin. Scientists have discovered such a ingredient, fibroblast cells. Fibroblasts cause the skin to regrow the elasticity and elegance of youth for whoever uses a fibroblast-based cream. What is the best source for these wonder cells? Baby foreskins.

Infant’s foreskin has special cell properties , similar to those found in stem cells. Their versatility means that they can be used to cultivate skin cells.

Because of this, they’re not tossed out with the rest of the medical waste after a birth. Instead, hospitals sell them to companies and institutions for a wide variety of uses. Companies will pay thousands of dollars for a single foreskin.

Some of the strangest purposes they’re put to:

  • Cosmetics: Foreskins are used to make high-end skin creams. The skin products contain fibroblasts grown on the foreskin and harvested from it. One foreskin can be used for decades to produce fancy face cream like the SkinMedica products hawked on Oprah.
  • Skin grafts: In addition to making products for skin, a baby’s foreskin can be turned into a skin graft for a burn victim. Because the cells are extremely flexible, they’re less likely to be rejected. Currently, this technology can be lifesaving in providing a real skin “band aid” to cover an open wound while a burn victim heals. Researchers at Harvard and Tufts are working on advanced skin replacements that use human foreskins.
  • Cosmetic testing: All those cruelty-free cosmetics you buy? Some of them are tested on foreskins. This yields better results, since they’re human skin. And it saves the lives of the rodents your shampoo would otherwise be tested on.



It is estimated that a single male foreskin can retail for around $100,000, which means that companies like SkinMedica  – who use baby foreskin to create their skin care product – sell their foreskin facial creams for $150 an ounce.

Now, you also have companies like Pfizer—the creator of Viagra— making money off of Erectile Dysfunction that is directly linked to circumcision. So if you’re wondering why various institutions are backing such a barbaric practice, think about the amount of money being made. Is it really ethical to rob a male of their sexual pleasure in the name of religion or profit?

Now that we live in the age of information—and we have the evidence that conclusively shows that routine circumcision is heinous— there is no reason to continue this horrendous practice. We must remove the idea that babies need to be primed like domesticated dogs as soon as they come out of a woman. We must remove the blade from the birthing process, and stop mutilating children for no justifiable reason.