theindependent--2019-12-26--My one holiday wish is for an end to the cult of Christmas

I do wish Christmas wasn’t so awful. I also wish I could drink a bottle of wine and not have a hangover the next day; I wish I could eat brownies for every meal and not get diabetes; I wish I could get a novel published without actually sitting down to write it.  Sorry to break it to you, but Christmas – no matter what Hallmark movies and John Lewis ads have led us to believe – is a deeply cruel, elitist institution that needs to end.  Don’t get me wrong, I like twinkly fairy lights, mince pies and gaudy jumpers just as much as the next person, but the reality of Christmas is that it’s reserved for the most privileged in our society. So are many things of course, such as trips to the Caribbean and buying property and truffle ravioli, but the difference is that we acknowledge the reality of the latter. When it comes to Christmas, we have apparently become blind to the fact that the vast majority of people aren’t able to celebrate it in the way we’ve been told we should, and that creates a painful sense of loss, inadequacy and failure.  Christmas in Britain today is first and foremost about spending money. The average British person will spend £54,000 on Christmas over the course of a lifetime, and last year one in three of us relied on credit cards to pay for it. The pressure to spend is unparalleled: gifts, decorations, food, events, travel… these aren’t considered luxuries at this time of year. Families are shamed and guilt-tripped into it, with hundreds of thousands of people falling into debt in order to create the “perfect Christmas” society has indoctrinated us into believing we need to achieve.  Almost more terrifying than the rampant consumerism is the forced narrative towards family “togetherness”. You’d be hard-pressed to find a positive depiction of Christmas that doesn’t portray a happy nuclear family sitting around a dinner table. This must create a lovely sense of smug conformity for those who can achieve it, but it’s to the detriment of the mental health of everyone else who cannot or will not.  It’s not a small minority that will face a Christmas Day so vastly different to what we’ve been taught to expect. The two million single parents, almost half of whom live in poverty, the people working in the service industry who have to work on Christmas Day, when there is no transportation available for them to travel home, people whose families are Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist and do not celebrate a holiday rooted in organised Christianity, the 3.5 million people who are homeless, including the 24 per cent of young homeless people who identify as LGBTQ+.  Homeless Christmas shelters stop recruiting volunteers in July because there’s such high demand from people displaced at this time of year, hoping to do something meaningful in the face of the inevitable disappointment at spending 25 December alone.  I have spent Christmas alone; I’ve spent it volunteering at homeless shelters; I’ve spent it working. I spent one Christmas eating baked Camembert on the floor of my best friend’s shared house in Cape Town, grateful to have each other but still bittersweet in the knowledge that there were no gifts under a tree or roast turkey with extended family. I’ve been taken in by another friend’s parents, whose kindness knew no bounds, and who treated me like a member of their family. Last year I spent Christmas in my dad’s flat, the two of us getting drunk and watching a three-part documentary about the death of JonBenét Ramsey.  When I was a child I spent Christmases with my mum – a reluctant host, to say the least – and my stepfather. Despite their kindest intentions, my recollections of these times are a blur of complicated family dynamics involving three different languages and clashing traditions that no one really cared about but couldn’t bring themselves to let go of at least attempting.  Despite my incredible luck of having family and friends to spend it with, I have never gone to bed at the end of a Christmas Day feeling anything but exhaustion, anxiety and a deep sense of emptiness, mixed with the frustration of knowing that social conditioning has pushed me into a pit of negativity that could so easily have been avoided.  Christmas may have become a secular institution, more a celebration of consumerism than spirituality, but we can’t fully rip it from its roots. As someone who abhors organised religions and everything they stand for – judgement, suppression of critical thought, promotion of reactionary and arbitrary “values” – I cannot bring myself to buy into one of the last bastions of church indoctrination that we still blindly indulge.  I am not suggesting we don’t allow people to celebrate the holiday if they so wish, but as a society we need to reframe our attitude towards Christmas. No other day of the year is steeped in such high and mostly unattainable expectations. Most of us are either forced to take the day off work even if we have nothing else to do, or forced to work while feeling guilty about not being with our family. The entire country shuts down and for some reason it’s considered not just acceptable, but obligatory, to express cheer and glee.  Think, for just one moment, what our manic obsession with Christmas does to a person with depression, a person who has been shunned by their family or who has none to speak of. Think of how it must feel to struggle to put food on the table every other day of the year, yet feel pressured into providing a feast in order to be a good parent. Imagine Christmas when you’re homeless or simply far from home, or when you know you’ll receive no gifts or cards or texts, and will be sitting on your bed wondering why you feel so dislodged from the rest of the world.  It is a cruel paradigm we have created, which benefits the wealthiest and pressures us into conformity. It’s one of the biggest frauds of our time – the idea that Christmas is about kindness, when it serves only to further beat down the most disadvantaged among us.  If we really want to embrace the Christmas spirit we’re told about, one focussed on generosity and love, we must do so by treating 25 December like any other day. One where those who have a family they wish to spend it with can do so, and those who do not are not forced to the fringes of society. If we want to be inclusive and honest about the very real injustice and complexity of the world we live in, we must put an end to the cult of Christmas once and for all.


theindependent--2019-08-02--Americaaposs only black Catholic archbishop rips Trump in first public speech aposHe diminishes

America's only black Catholic archbishop rips Trump in first public speech: 'He diminishes our national life'

The District of Columbia's new Catholic leader – the country's lone black archbishop – on Thursday issued his first public statement since his installation, lambasting President Donald Trump's recent tweets about members of Congress of colour as "diminishing our national life."  Wilton Gregory, who came to Washington in May, is known through his long, prominent career for being non-confrontational on hot-button issues in public, but working quietly behind the scenes – a model similar to the man he replaced, Cardinal Donald Wuerl.  But on Thursday, Gregory signalled that he wants to use his higher-profile perch in the nation's capital to challenge the use of identity – racial, national origin or otherwise – as a tool of attack.  "I have stressed that I am a pastor and fellow disciple of Jesus, not a political leader," he said in a statement.  "There are, however, sometimes, when a pastor and a disciple of Jesus is called to speak out to defend the dignity of all God's children."  He said in his statement, which drew attention from many prominent Catholic leaders for its direct address to Trump, that he has been meeting privately with major Catholic lay groups, including the massive Knights of Columbus, to press them to "promote respect" and to work to "reject racism, disrespect or brutality in speech and action."  His comments come as other high-profile religious leaders in the Washington area, including those at Washington National Cathedral, have begun increasingly decrying Trump's recent attacks on lawmakers of colour.  Most recently, Trump ignited controversy by going after Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., by describing part of the African-American lawmaker's district, the majority-black Baltimore, as "disgusting, rat and rodent infested."  In the days before that, Trump tweeted attacks on four congresswomen of colour by saying they should "go back" to their countries of their ancestors if they were going to criticise aspects of this country.  Polls show most Americans find Trump's comments about the four women racist.  Earlier this week, leaders of Washington National Cathedral – the national cathedral of the Episcopal Church denomination – issued a striking critique of the president.  "As faith leaders who serve at Washington National Cathedral ... we feel compelled to ask: After two years of President Trump's words and actions, when will Americans have enough?" they wrote in an impassioned statement entitled "Have We No Decency? A response to President Trump."  Also this week, faith leaders in Baltimore, including Catholic Archbishop William Lori, reacted to Trump's tweets about Cummings.  "It was horrible, demeaning and beneath the dignity of a political leader who should be encouraging us all to strive and work for a more civil, just and compassionate society," wrote leaders including Lori and the local heads of the Presbyterian Church (US), the United Methodist Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.  "Cities, which bring together diverse races, languages, cultures, economic and social conditions, are frequent targets for those who cannot – or will not – see their beauty through the eyes of God and in their inhabitants.  "To their detractors, cities are seen only through the lens of social evils such as poverty, crime, violence and racism. To God, however, cities are seen primarily as vessels of hope, lights of God's reign, and opportunities for living in blessed community."  Gregory's message will likely face a mixed greeting among Catholics. Recent polls show Catholic approval of the president is about 36 per cent but among white Catholics the figure is around 44 per cent, Pew Research said in March. About 60 per cent of US Catholics are white.  The letter by Maryland clergy was not signed by any evangelical Protestant pastors. Evangelical Christians – who tend to be more politically conservative – have supported Trump in very high numbers throughout his administration.  Stephen Schneck, the former director of the Institute for Policy Research at Catholic University and an adviser to then-President Barack Obama on Catholic issues, said Thursday that while Mr Wuerl and several other bishops have made recent public comments about lack of civility, Gregory's statement means more because he's an African American speaking in the US capital.  "That can't be underestimated," Mr Schneck said. He said US bishops have shifted since Trump took office towards critiquing specific policies – on immigration, capital punishment and climate, among others – but not regularly naming names, which Schneck said was more common under Obama.  "Where Obama was mentioned over and over in those statements, it's a clear pattern now to speak in more general terms and there might be something telling there. Maybe they're afraid of getting tweets from the president," he said.  In an interview with The Post on Thursday, Gregory said he decided to speak out a few weeks ago, after meeting with lay Catholic groups, where the topic of civil discourse came up as a cause of concern. Participants in the meetings had asked what specific things Gregory wanted them to focus on.  "And that's the opportunity I had to share: I wanted them to stress in their business communities and parishes and neighbourhoods to tone down the rhetoric," he said.  Gregory's statement was addressed broadly. It mentioned "President Trump's tweets on some members of Congress, deploring Baltimore and related matters." Asked if he was speaking about Cummings or the four congresswomen or anyone specifically, he said those were parts of a whole.  "It touches on all the recent conversations that have just heightened the level of hostility," he said. The women, he said, "were not the focus although they are an example."  Asked whether it's possible to separate the morality of Trump's comments with policies many religious conservatives like – such as his call to overturn Roe v Wade – Gregory said it is not.  "I don't see how one can pursue a conversation with an individual that degenerates into character assassination and say, 'Oh, that's acceptable because we agree with their message.' "


theindependent--2019-07-01--Louis Theroux to revisit aposAmericaaposs Most Hated Familyapos in new BBC documentary about W

Louis Theroux to revisit 'America's Most Hated Family' in new BBC documentary about Westboro Baptist Church

Louis Theroux is returning to one of his most controversial subjects for a new BBC Two documentary.  In Louis Theroux: Surviving America's Most Hated Family, the filmmaker will re-vist the family at the centre of the Westboro Baptist Church 13 years after his first encounter with them, and explore the changes they have gone through.  Theroux first encountered the group, which is known for its inflammatory homophobic hate speech, for his 2007 documentary The Most Hated Family In America. He visited again for a follow-up in 2011 in America's Most Hated Family In Crisis.  In the new programme, Theroux immerses himself into their world again to find out what happens when a hate group largely populated by one family loses its patriarch – church founder and figurehead Pastor Fred Phelps, known as Gramps, in 2014.  He meets Pastor Phelps's granddaughter Megan, who has defected from the church and is now one of its biggest critics. He also meets a Bradford-born man who admires Westboro's rhetoric, given his own struggle to fit in with modern day Britain.  “I am always interested in how people change over time – physically and in their outlook – and even more so when they are involved in lifestyles that are somehow wrong-headed or self-sabotaging," Theroux said in a statement.  “With our unique access to the inner workings of the Westboro Baptist Church over the last 13 years, we've been able to track the changes in an extreme religious group from the inside, and also from the perspective of its ex-members.  “We've been able to tell a story about indoctrination, where it comes from, how it is enforced, but also about de-radicalisation, and the way in which a handful of those who were formerly zealots have managed to break free and take a kinder, less hateful view of the world.”  He added: “Gramps' angry and bigoted outlook had been the bedrock of Westboro's practices and I was curious to see whether his death might have caused any kind of break up or re-evaluation within the church, especially since there had been rumours that Fred Phelps might have had some kind of change of heart at the end of his life.  “It was exciting going back for thirds. For their own reasons – to do with spreading their twisted take on the gospels – Westboro let me back in. For my part, it was a chance to see the strange machinations of psychology, religion and social conditioning.”  Patrick Holland, controller of BBC Two, said the new documentary “could not be more timely and important”.


theindependent--2019-02-04--If Venezuela slides towards war itaposs down to more than Trumpaposs know-nothing approach to

If Venezuela slides towards war – it's down to more than Trump's know-nothing approach to world politics

Is Donald Trump about to launch a war against Venezuela? Judging from the president and his supporters’ recent rhetoric it appears that they are laying the ground for such a possibility. In a CBS interview on Sunday Trump said that sending US troops to crisis-ridden Venezuela is “an option”. He also affirmed that he had rejected a request from Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro for talks.  Trump, his close supporters in the White House and now European leaders have recognised Juan Guaido as Venezuela’s interim president. This is despite the inauguration of Maduro for his second term as president on 10 January. The pretext is the grave crisis afflicting Venezuela, where around 3 million people have fled the country over the last four years, as a consequence of economic collapse and Maduro’s increasingly authoritarian tendencies.  The US might not intervene directly. It could foment a proxy war waged by the mini-Trumps of the region, Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro and Colombia’s Iván Duque Márquez. Both have publicly stated their wish to bring down Maduro’s government.  A war in the region would be a humanitarian disaster. All parties directly involved – Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia and of course the US – have strong militaries, capable of inflicting massive civilian casualties and infrastructural damage.  It is tempting to interpret this slide towards conflict as another example of Trump’s know-nothing approach to world politics, backed by his “team of morons”. But such interpretations hide a two-centuries-long US project of carving out and maintaining Latin America as its backyard.  Trump certainly deployed anti-interventionist rhetoric during his 2016 election campaign. But his “America First” agenda is based on re-positioning the US internationally, which, by definition, requires a re-shaping global geopolitics.  Far from Trump being advised by “morons”, two of his closest allies, Vice president Mike Pence and Bolton are both guided by the principles of the Monroe Doctrine. The doctrine, articulated by President James Monroe in 1823, stated that the US would guarantee the new-found sovereignty of its Latin American neighbours. Its underlying objectives were to establish the region as its economic backyard.  Through a combination of gunboat and dollar diplomacy – real or threatened force combined with loans – the US facilitated the emergence of agro and mineral exporting ruling classes across the region. These supplied cheap raw materials, produced by impoverished labouring classes, to the industrialising north of the US and provided markets for manufactured goods.  Monroe doctrine principles informed US support for dictatorships and counter-insurgent movements up to the present day. From backing the Argentinian Junta’s dirty war in during the 1970s and early 1980s (30,000 dead) to direct intervention in El Salvador in the 1980s (75,000 dead), US intervention was explained as an essential counter to the threat of Communism and the protection of Latin American sovereignty.  Following the collapse of Communist Russia in 1991 it looked as if Latin America was now firmly under US influence, with free-market, export-orientated regimes in place across the continent. But from the early 2000s onwards, US authority in the region suffered death by a thousand cuts. One regime after another shifted leftwards, and embraced social democratic and even socialist principles.  Nowhere was this movement stronger than in Venezuela under Hugo Chavez. His socialist agenda was based on pumping receipts from oil revenues into the social economy – via the so-called Misiones social programmes dedicated to fighting poverty and increasing literacy through mass democratic participation. Minimum wages were increased and land redistributed to the rural poor.  Initially, these objectives were more successful than any other social programme in the country’s history. But this strategy offered diminishing returns before turning into a vicious downward spiral.  Chavez’s oil-financed socialism was beset by a dual contradiction. First, without a strategy for non oil-based wealth, the edifice was built on high world oil prices. In the late 1990s 67 per cent of Venezuela’s external income came from oil; by 2017 the figure was 95 per cent. And when oil prices fell, which they did precipitously in 2014, the strategy was undermined fatally.  The channelling of oil wealth through social programmes did initially serve to draw hundreds of thousands behind Chavez. But the Misiones’ dependence on state funds gradually transformed these potential hubs of social transformation into units competing for government money. When it dried up, not only did the objective of improving social conditions of the masses falter, but so too did its popular support base.  Without an upsurge in oil finances, Chavez’s successor Maduro has presided over a declining economy and a rising social crisis. Short of a mass democratic counter-movement from below, he has been able to use diminishing oil receipts to buy off elements of the state bureaucracy and military and to deploy increasingly authoritarian means to maintain control.  The attempts by Guaido, supported by the Trump administration, to proclaim himself interim president of Venezuela offers no hope to the country’s increasingly desperate masses. US intervention in Latin America over the last two centuries has been driven by its own perceived self-interest. It has occurred in collaboration with local elites who are happy to dip their beaks into the proceeds of US-orientated low-wage export economies.  The Achilles heel of the Monroe Doctrine, despite overwhelming US power, has always been its America First mentality at the expense of the Latin American masses. The attempt to install Guaido may or may not be successful but it will not solve the social crisis gripping Venezuela. That can only come from within the country, by a social and political force capable of putting the needs of its population first.  Benjamin Selwyn is Professor of International Development at the University of Sussex, and author of The Struggle for Development     The Independent has launched its #FinalSay campaign to demand that voters are given a voice on the final Brexit deal.      Sign our petition here


theguardianuk--2019-12-29--The Guardian view on pubs: the heart of the community | Editorial

The church has become home to the flower-arranging few. The local high street is losing its appeal. But the disappearance of the British pub feels like it represents something more profound about the ebbing away of community. Hence it is good news that after a decade of decline the number of pubs is rising. The reason that one in four of them had gone since 2008 is down perhaps in part to social conditions. Drink driving is not just unlawful but culturally unacceptable. Smoking is banned. A younger generation of drinkers has different tastes and different lifestyles: why go out when you have Netflix and a fridge full of hand-picked beers? More and more young adults are teetotallers.  There is also less money about, and the pub’s image was perhaps not helped by Nigel Farage’s obvious joy at being inside one. While there are now fewer pubs than a decade ago, they are better run – offering higher-quality food served from bigger kitchens. Revenue per venue increased by 13% between 2008 and 2016. Our immoderation has probably also helped: drinkers in the UK get drunk more than those in any other nation in the world, though not necessarily in pubs.  While getting the finances sorted is important, it is the fact that they are the beating heart of many places that makes them stand out. Little wonder that community groups have sprung up to rescue local watering holes. In Scotland there are women-only clubs to provide a “safe space” to discover the world of craft beer. The inn, tavern and public house represent a solid link to the past in a world that appears indifferent to tradition. History was made in them. Karl Marx is said to have downed beer at the Flask in north London. In central London, the Crown and Anchor on the Strand was a regular haunt for political radicals in the 18th century.  Pubs mirror the society they exist in. Shakespeare had the Boar’s Head, a rough dive frequented by Falstaff and his gang of reprobates in Henry IV. David Copperfield ordered a glass of “the Genuine Stunning ale” in what Dickens’ illustrator Phiz portrayed as a middle-class emporium, complete with a splendid gasolier. The bucolic image often painted is one of a drinkery amid an idyll of cricketers on a village green. Perhaps it is disconcerting to note that today’s most famous pub is the Queen Vic in EastEnders, one of Britain’s most popular TV soaps, and the scene of extramarital affairs and murder.  Britons cling to their pubs because they have been engraved on to their hearts. Hilaire Belloc remarked that “when you have lost your inns drown your empty selves, for you will have lost the last of England”. They represent to us what cafes are to the French: a way of seeing ourselves and our condition. It was painful to see a British institution sadly and slowly disappearing, and that trend risked losing an important part of our culture. With more pubs opening, Britain feels like we can overcome the social isolation and cultural confusion of the age. We ought to raise a glass to good news in these dark times.


theguardianuk--2019-10-18--My partner’s ex texts him every day. Should I be worried?

Two years ago, I started a relationship with a wonderful older man, but from the beginning something seemed a little off. After we celebrated our first anniversary, I had the shameful impulse to ask to see his phone. He agreed. There I saw what was bothering me: a previous girlfriend had been texting him every day, and he had been replying: photos, kiss emoticons, five-minute-long voice messages. It had been going on every day for the year we had been together.  They apparently had an intense, somewhat problematic, two-year relationship, but she moved abroad. He says they were going to break up anyway. I felt they were being disrespectful towards me and towards themselves, putting all this energy into something that had theoretically ended and not allowing new relationships to fully blossom. He said they texted because they remained good friends, that’s all. That is hard for me to believe. He said he was not aware this could be so damaging to me. He told me he had stopped messaging her so often and that, for him, it made no difference.  A year has passed and everything is great. However, I still have moments of doubt. He travels a lot and works in the same field as his ex, sometimes travelling to the same places. I can’t help but imagine emotionally charged encounters, if not more. Does my insecurity have some sort of foundation, or I am making a bit too much of this?  I wonder what made you ask to see his phone after a year? And I wonder what made you write now?  I think we can become insecure when we know something’s not right, and that some people make us feel more insecure than others. We tend to lack confidence in situations, or people, when we feel information is being withheld and we don’t know the full story – so we fill in the gaps with our own imagination.  I would have liked to know a bit more about your past relationships and if you’ve always been like this. If so, then it’s worth looking at why relationships make you feel insecure. Or maybe this is your first serious relationship and you don’t have exes, so you can’t understand why people stay in touch with theirs. When I found out my first boyfriend still occasionally saw his ex, I couldn’t understand why, either. But people stay in touch with exes for all sorts of reasons, some of them benign and some not so much. Some people like to have their exes on the back-burner to bolster their ego. I’ve known men like that.  Five-minute-long voice messages and texts every day is quite a commitment, however: does he lavish the same attention on all his friends? What’s the context? I’m also intrigued that he’s older, has experience of relationships, but doesn’t seem to think that being in touch with his ex might bother you. Plus, so much texting yet it “made no difference to him”? Then why do it? I think he’s being disingenuous.  Gavin de Becker writes (brilliant, fascinating) books about how we ignore our intuition, often to our detriment. It has made me realise the power of intuition, which social conditioning has largely taught us to ignore for fear of seeming silly or paranoid. We don’t feel we can trust our instincts, so often look for proof instead – as you did with your boyfriend’s phone.  In De Becker’s book The Gift Of Fear, he writes about giving a talk and asking how many people in the audience had children. Then he asked: “How many of you have left your children with a babysitter?” And finally he asked: “How many of you aren’t absolutely sure about your babysitter?” A few hands went up. So he said: “What are you doing here? Go home.”  This isn’t really about who your boyfriend is in contact with or not; it’s about the fact that you feel something isn’t quite right. Pay attention to that feeling and explore it. There may be nothing going on, or you may just feel doubtful about him and have pegged all those doubts on to this one thing. For this relationship to have a future, you need to be able to trust him with your fears and know he will try to understand them; he should not only respect them, he should assuage them. A relationship where you doubt both him and yourself will eventually exhaust you. • Send your problem to annalisa.barbieri@mac.com. Annalisa regrets she cannot enter into personal correspondence  Comments on this piece are premoderated to ensure the discussion remains on the topics raised by the article. Please be aware that there may be a short delay in comments appearing on the site.


clashdaily--2019-11-06--WATCH: Instagrammer Says That Students Learning About WWII Is Bad For Their ‘Mental Health’

Critics tore him a new one on social media. Was his larger point misunderstood, or did he really deserve the internet dragging he got hit with?  Eddie Bentley is an ‘Influencer’ in the UK who made some controversial statements that landed him in hot water.  For context, Bentley had been on an episode of the UK version of ‘The Apprentice’ in which he and some other contestants were trying to figure out when WWII first began, and the topic of what is and isn’t taught in school came up.  Bentley said: ‘It was a hard situation World War II, and I don’t want anyone to think I’m being disrespectful in that way whatsoever. ‘However I do stand by the point that it’s not as educational the way that we… there’s so many problems going on in the world at the moment, like Brexit that’s not taught in schools.’ Freddie Bentley went on: ‘Climate change, which is a situation that I think we should be aware of. ‘When I left school it hit me like a ton of bricks. I didn’t know anything about general life.’   Source: Extra  He seems to have been TRYING to make the point that WWII is far enough removed in time from us that it is now more of an academic point to be generally understood, in the way we might understand, say, the Revolutionary War, or the war of 1812. They played significant roles in our history, but we don’t really feel as closely attached to the events anymore.  Other guests brought up the dizzying body-count of those who fought to beat back the Nazis.  “I totally get that, but I don’t think it need to be put in such a way to young children mentally, to their mental health, that ‘this many people died for you,’” he said. “My God, it’s so intense.” The Gen Z influencer believes the past is best left in the past. “I don’t think encouraging death or telling people how many died in a world war is going to help someone in the future,” he added.   Source: NYDailyNews  How in the Sam Hill does he arrive at the conclusion that talking about WWII is somehow ‘encouraging death’?  Here he is defending what he said:  What do our readers think?  The Effeminization Of The American Male   by Doug Giles  Doug Giles, best-selling author of Raising Righteous And Rowdy Girls and Editor-In-Chief of the mega-blog, ClashDaily.com, has just penned a book he guarantees will kick hipster males into the rarefied air of masculinity. That is, if the man-child will put down his frappuccino; shut the hell up and listen and obey everything he instructs them to do in his timely and tornadic tome. Buy Now:The Effeminization Of The American Male


cnn--2019-03-13--DeVos wants to cut budget funding for student loan forgiveness again

DeVos wants to cut budget funding for student loan forgiveness, again

Washington (CNN) For the third year in a row, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has proposed ending a loan forgiveness program for public service workers and eliminating subsidized loans for low-income students.  The budget put forward this week by President Donald Trump has little chance of being accepted by Democrats who control one chamber of Congress, but lays out a clear set of priorities for the administration.  Lawmakers have rejected the Trump administration's previous efforts to cut funding, increasing the Education Department budget instead, even when Republicans controlled both the Senate and House.  DeVos proposed a 12% decrease in funding for her departmentfor fiscal 2020, with similar cuts to student aid that were included in her previous two budgets. The proposed reforms to student aid would save the government more than $200 billion over the next decade, according to the White House document submitted on Monday.  About a quarter of those savings would come from eliminating the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program for future graduates. The program currently forgives remaining student debt after eligible workers make 10 years of on-time payments. It's meant to encourage people with student loans to remain in lower-paying jobs that serve the public -- like teachers, primary care doctors, public defenders and social workers.  The program, which was created under President George W. Bush, has some critics on the Republican side. But Democrats have often come to its defense.  "I'm greatly troubled that at a time when we face a physician shortage, a growing shortage, you propose to eliminate all of the loan forgiveness programs that are available to get those physicians -- as well as law enforcement and teachers -- into under-served areas," said Texas Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett Tuesday at a hearing on the White House budget.  Under the administration's proposed budget, these workers -- and other student loan borrowers -- would be eligible for a separate student loan forgiveness program that would cancel debt after paying 12.5% of their discretionary income for 15 years for undergraduates and 30 years for those with a graduate degree.  "We consolidate programs to be able to offer one student income-driven repayment plan that we think will provide certainty and allow anyone that's receiving a payment now to be eligible under that," said acting White House budget director Russell Vought at the Tuesday hearing.  Currently, there are several versions of the income-driven repayment program available to students -- which sometimes causes confusion for borrowers.  The typical plan caps payments at 10% of discretionary income and offers forgiveness after 20 years for undergraduates and 25 years for those taken for graduate-level degrees-- regardless of whether someone works in public service or not.  DeVos' budget also would eliminate subsidized loans which are currently available to low-income students. They don't accrue interest until after a student finishes college.  But it proposes maintaining current funding levels for Pell Grants for low-income students that don't have to be paid back -- and expanding the program so that the funds are available to students enrolled in short-term career training programs. Though, advocacy groups, like the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrator, criticized the proposal for cutting $2 billion from the Pell reserve fund.  In the past, DeVos has acknowledged problems with the way student aid is administered.  But Democrat and ranking member on the education committee, Sen. Patty Murray, said the proposed budget suggests that DeVos' priorities lie elsewhere.  "It speaks volumes that instead of proposing steps to help students afford college and pay back their student loans, Secretary DeVos wants to gut hundreds of billions of dollars in financial aid and perpetuate our nation's student debt crisis," Murray said in a statement provided to CNN.  The secretary's budget also requests new funds for K-12 school choice tax credits, called Education Freedom Scholarships. They could be used for both private and public schools. The agency is asking the Treasury Department for $5 billion a year for the new program.  "This budget fully funds what is necessary to continue to educate our children," Vought said.


cnn--2019-03-19--Analysis Admissions scandal is just the tip of the iceberg of college inequity

Analysis: Admissions scandal is just 'the tip of the iceberg' of college inequity

(CNN) With its toxic blend of arrogance and entitlement, the college admission cheating scandal has touched a deep nerve across the country. But it represents only the most visible inequity in a higher education system that many critics believe now does more to stratify privilege than to expand opportunity.  "From an equity perspective, this is just the tip of the iceberg," says Anthony Carnevale, director of the Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University. "This system is, in many respects, an aristocracy posing as a meritocracy."  As the nation inexorably grows more racially diverse, the higher education system has become a chokepoint to narrowing the gaps in economic opportunity between whites -- particularly those from upper-income families -- and minorities.  Although nonwhites will soon reach a majority of the under-18 population and already constitute a majority of public school K-12 students nationwide, most of them who attend college are still being channeled toward the least selective private and public postsecondary schools operating with the least resources. Meanwhile, whites still fill most of the seats at the most selective institutions, which spend the most on their students.  That "dual system," as Carnevale has called it, threatens to generate a growing level of social tension as minority young people become a majority of the nation's future workforce -- yet find the most reliable pathways to success at the nation's elite higher education institutions still reserved mostly for whites.  "Everybody likes education as a way to allocate opportunity, because as Americans we all sort of agree education attaches to individual responsibility: You've got to take the test, go to the school, do the homework and so on," Carnevale says. "But in practice it has become another form of institutional race and class stratification."  The disparity isn't difficult to explain: The selective public institutions can afford to spend about three times as much on their students as the least selective institutions. Amid sustained cuts in taxpayer funding for public higher education, that spending gap is now about one-fourth larger than it was a decade ago. It's one reason why the gap in college completion is also widening between whites on the one hand and African-Americans and Latinos on the other, even though the latter groups have significantly increased their share of the total postsecondary population.  The most visible problem in higher education admissions is the one illuminated by the college cheating scandal: the tilt toward children of the wealthy and connected at the most elite private institutions. Many of these schools have intensified their efforts in recent years to recruit more students of color or from lower-income backgrounds, and have offered more financial aid based on need. But even so, they remain bastions of privilege.  Looking at a broader universe of the 146 most selective private colleges and universities, 63% of their entering class is white, according to calculations by Jeff Strohl, research director at the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce. Whites compose only 54% of the college-age population.  These trends have understandably kept a spotlight trained on the admissions choices of the marquee private schools. But those schools represent only a small sliver of the higher education landscape. According to Center on Education and the Workforce research, only 5% of white students and 3% of nonwhite students attend one of the top-tier private colleges; only about a quarter of white students and a fifth of nonwhite students attend any private institution at all.  That means even aggressive efforts to expand access to the elite private institutions through affirmative action programs or targeted recruitment can do only so much to widen the pipeline of opportunity for kids from lower-income and minority families.  "It's very clear that there is not enough capacity at all the elite universities combined," said Michele Siqueiros, president of the Campaign for College Affordability, a California group that works to expand access to higher education for underrepresented groups. "I have always said to my friends that focusing just on affirmative action ... is not a solution."  Any effort to dismantle higher education's "dual system" must focus heavily on public higher education because that encompasses the vast majority of students: 77% of whites and 79% of nonwhites attend public colleges or universities.  The most elite public universities admit a considerably larger percentage of students from lower-income backgrounds than do the elite private schools. But those top-shelf public schools are not immune to the stratification that defines admission at their private counterparts.  The Georgetown center's "Separate & Unequal" study found that whites make up 64% of the entering students at the top-tier public institutions, almost exactly their same share at the most exclusive private schools. In these top-tier public schools, African-American and Latino students compose only 19% of the entering class. That's only about half of their share of the overall college-age population: 36%. It's even slightly less than their share (22%) of entering students at the top-tier private schools.  By contrast, blacks and Latinos represent fully 43% of the entering class at the less competitive and less-funded open-access community colleges and public four-year institutions. Asians represented 12% of the students at the selective public schools and just 5% at the less-selective institutions.  Viewed from the other direction, a solid 56% majority of all college students of color attend these low-resource public institutions, compared with just 41% of white students, according to Strohl's calculations.  "We need to be supporting institutions that serve large numbers" of minority and first-generation students, said Siquieros. "And we need to hold them accountable. It's not just a matter of sending money their way. I am very concerned about whether these institutions are doing a good enough job at getting these students to graduation."  For all the understandable outrage at the wealthy parents accused of using bribes and cheating to secure spots for their children, experts agree it will take structural changes in both private and public schools to reverse these trends toward solidifying inequality in higher education.  Carnevale's group has proposed a flat requirement that all institutions that receive federal student aid reserve 20% or even 25% of their entering positions for recipients of Pell Grants. That could open a substantial number of spots for low-income students in private schools but would not change the dynamic as much in public institutions, many of which exceed that threshold.  In public schools, the fight may center on other fronts. One is an effort to reduce admissions office reliance on the SAT, which critics have long complained benefits students from wealthier families, particularly in the era of widespread test coaching -- largely unavailable to lower-income applicants.  States are also rethinking community colleges by demanding they move a greater share of students to graduation, easing the path to transfer to four-year institutions (an initiative in which California has been a leader) and eliminating tuition on the theory that just as changes in the economy after World War II demanded 12 years of publicly funded education, the information-age economy now requires a minimum of 14 years. California, for instance, already provides a year of free community college, and new Gov. Gavin Newsom's first budget proposed extending that to a second year.  Dismantling the obstacles that inhibit more of them from obtaining the college degrees now critical for upward mobility isn't just a matter of fairness -- it's a question of self-interest for an American society in which these kids of color will constitute a growing share of workers, consumers and taxpayers.


cnn--2019-05-05--Is Melania Trumps Be Best platform making headway one year in

Is Melania Trump's Be Best platform making headway one year in?

(CNN) Exactly one year after announcing her long-awaited Be Best platform , Melania Trump is scheduled to return to the Rose Garden on Tuesday to push the campaign forward.  Trump unveiled her somewhat grandiose official plan, a three-pillar initiative aimed at issues facing children: well-being, social media, and opioid abuse, after 16 months of serving as first lady.  "I feel strongly that as adults, we can and should be best at educating our children about the importance of a healthy and balanced life," said Trump at the announcement, speaking to an audience that included her husband, President Donald Trump , seated in the front row.  One year in, Trump intends to push forward with her platform, and it is anticipated the first lady will reveal more plans for Be Best's sophomore year, according to her spokeswoman, Stephanie Grisham.  "I don't want to get too far ahead of any announcements she will make at the [anniversary] celebration, but we have expanded two of the three pillars based on information and lessons learned over the past year," Grisham tells CNN. "Her expansion of the opioids pillar will now include speaking to children of all ages, and her expansion of the social media pillar will now focus on online safety as a whole."  Trump has put her focus in the opioid sector primarily on Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome, a little-discussed but medically challenging side effect of the country's drug crisis, affecting babies born into addiction. Trump has made several learning trips to children's hospitals and care centers directly focused on NAS programs, including a visit last year to Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, and Lily's Place in Huntington, West Virginia, a non-profit facility that focuses on infant recovery and family therapy.  As for online safety, much of the American public zeroed in on Be Best when it was first unveiled on the unavoidable link between Trump's championing of online kindness and the President's frequent use of Twitter to name-call, bully, and otherwise impose negativity. By way of including the topic in Be Best, the first lady was essentially implying it's not OK to do what her husband does, and, further, that despite continuing to point out the irony of the topic and the behavior, the first lady intended to forge ahead.  "It is not news or surprising to me that critics and the media have chosen to ridicule me for speaking out on this issue, and that's OK," said Trump during a speech in November of last year at the Family Online Safety Institute conference. "I remain committed to tackling this topic because it will provide a better world for our children, and I hope that, like I do, you will consider using their negative words as motivation to do all you can to bring awareness and understanding about responsible online behavior."  Clearly, Trump cared very little that there were cries of hypocrisy -- she was delineating between her platform, and her husband's penchant for a Twitter battle. Grisham has told CNN Trump is "well aware" of the peripheral challenges involved with tackling cyberbullying, as the leader of the free world so often uses the platform of Twitter for just that.  "I would hope most people in this country are proud that they have a strong and independent first lady who only has the best interests of children at heart," Grisham told CNN last August.  "Michelle Obama's 'Let's Move' campaign was effective in part because it complemented her husband's main objective, which was overhauling the health care system," says CNN contributor Kate Andersen Brower, author of First Women: The Grace and Power of America's Modern First Ladies.  "It's smart to leverage what the West Wing is doing for an East Wing initiative because that way there's no real competition, it's more about working together in tandem and using the first lady's power, which is very real, to make change," she says.  Brower says that while Trump's agenda might not on its surface appear to succinctly dovetail in certain areas with those of the President, the first lady does utilize strategic partnerships with other parts of the Trump administration.  "You do see this in terms of Kellyanne Conway and her work on opioid addiction and how she's worked with Melania," says Brower. Trump has also aligned Be Best with the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Be Best funding comes partly from the first lady's office's allotted budget, with support from other government agencies, says Grisham.  Yet the first-name basis the public enjoyed with Obama's "Let's Move," or former first lady Laura Bush's literacy campaign, or even Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" anti-drug initiative, has remained somewhat elusive for Trump and Be Best. The announcement of the platform was overrun shortly thereafter by headlines about the first lady's health challenges concerning a kidney procedure she had a week later . Similarly, news cycles in general are often filled with stories about the chaos plaguing the West Wing, be it the Russia investigation, staff turnover, or President Trump's own bombastic style. Breaking through to a wider audience for brand recognition, while perhaps not a concern of Melania Trump's, is certainly a challenging endeavor in the current political climate.  Like most things she does, however, Melania Trump remains publicly unaffected. Unconcerned with whether or not Be Best would be better served if she did the talk show circuit or made YouTube videos, places in which Michelle Obama found success marketing her initiatives, Trump is committed to rolling out Be Best her own way, at her own pace, clearly unhampered by a need to breakthrough to the media, and not bothered by the President's activities casting too broad a shadow over her efforts. Trump, says Grisham, cares most about hearing directly from children and families affected by issues of health and well-being, or social media mores, or how opioids can destroy a home.  "In just this past year, Mrs. Trump has visited several schools, childrens' organizations and hospitals," says Grisham. "She has been to 15 states to promote and highlight some of the successful work being done by so many on behalf of children. She has used every opportunity she's had -- whether it be with foreign visits, speaking opportunities, policy briefings and roundtables -- to speak on the importance of supporting our children so they grow up to be happy and healthy adults who will contribute positively to their communities and the world."  There remain those critics who wonder if Be Best is too complex, and too overreaching, especially for a political neophyte first lady whose staff is a scant dozen people, only a handful of whom are focused on policy issues. Obama and Bush both had more than 20 staffers on their East Wing teams, many of those dedicated to pushing and enhancing multiple platform agendas, including Obama's Joining Forces and Let Girls Learn, and Bush's commitment to working with women in Afghanistan.  "I think [Be Best] is well-intentioned, and it showcases how well the first lady does when she interacts with children, but I think it's too broad and unfocused," says Brower, who adds it was first lady Lady Bird Johnson who, as a modern first lady, set the bar at selecting one specific topic of interest; for Johnson, that was highway beautification. "If Trump could drill down on one part of it, like opioid addiction and babies born to mothers who are addicted, it would be more successful. Being single-mindedly focused would also serve to help people see her contributions to this administration, which I think get lost amid the turbulence," adds Brower.  In a statement, Trump says Tuesday's announcement about the ongoing path of Be Best will "set plans for expanding the initiative in the coming year as we work towards building a greater future for our children."  She remains committed to her multi-pronged platform, which while disparate in topic, centers on children. According to a news release about Tuesday's Be Best anniversary event, in addition to the first lady, there will be three special speakers, "each representing one of the three pillars of her initiative, and other guests who embody what Be Best is all about."  "I do think Melania is so fiercely independent that it might be difficult to make a change to her approach," says Brower of how year two of Be Best might not look fundamentally different from year one. In terms of promoting a legislative agenda tied to Be Best, Grisham says the first lady and her staff aren't ruling out getting involved in more complex political goals.  "As we work with agencies, groups and various stakeholders, our office continuously monitors legislation, private sector initiatives, and the work that our agencies are doing," says Grisham. "As appropriate and if it makes sense in terms of aligning with Be Best, Mrs. Trump will support, sign on to, endorse, those initiatives."  Grisham isn't concerned about Trump recalibrating Be Best, something she and the first lady both underscore hasn't been, nor will be, necessary.  "Talking to children, parents, teachers, medical professionals, government and foreign officials and the country about the importance of character education, online safety, and the dangers of opioid abuse are all top of mind for Mrs. Trump in all that she does," Grisham says.


cnn--2019-05-29--Joe Biden unveils education platform that boosts funding for low-income districts

Biden's campaign released his education platform just before Biden and his wife, Jill Biden -- a longtime high school and community college teacher who has a doctorate degree in education leadership -- began a town hall hosted by the American Federation of Teachers in Houston.  "Vice President Joe Biden was our north star in the last administration," federation President Randi Weingarten said as she introduced him. While teachers' unions often fought President Barack Obama's education policies, she said, "we had a go-to guy who always listened to us."  The plan comes at the start of a stretch of Biden's candidacy in which he and his aides have said he'll roll out policy proposals. He has also said he will soon offer a detailed approach to combating climate change.  Biden argued Tuesday that "the bulk of" his education proposals can become law even if Republicans maintain control of the Senate after the 2020 elections.  A fact sheet provided by the campaign calls for the tripling of federal Title I funding for schools that serve low-income areas -- closing what his campaign called a $23 billion funding gap between majority white and nonwhite school districts. That, his campaign said, would allow schools to increase teacher salaries. The plan would prioritize competitive pay for teachers, access to preschool for 3- and 4-year-olds and districts offering rigorous coursework. After those, Biden's plan would leave it to school districts to identify their biggest needs to address with the remaining funding bump. The fact sheet doesn't detail the cost of Biden's proposal, but he said in Houston that Title I funding would increase from $15 billion to $45 billion annually under his plan. Biden's plan also calls for the existing Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program -- which discharges federal student loan debt after 10 years of payments -- to be "fixed" and "simplified" so that it "actually helps teachers." Biden said Tuesday that teachers should have their student loans "basically paid off." Recounting his sons graduating from law school with more than $100,000 in student loan debt each, Biden said that "there has to be a means by which (teachers) get to total debt forgiveness." His plan also calls for new funding to help teachers earn additional certifications in high-demand areas like special education and bilingual education, as well as funding for mentorship programs. Biden's campaign did not offer details on how much the plan would cost overall or how he proposed to pay for it. Biden's plan also aims to address what his campaign says is a massive shortage of health professionals -- psychologists, guidance counselors, nurses and social workers -- in schools by doubling the number of those employees. It does not explain the mechanisms through which he would do so. That would cost $2.5 billion per year, Biden said in Houston. The plan identifies other priorities for increased funding, including: grants to help school districts diversify their schools building new school buildings and improving existing ones expanding "community schools" that connect parents with doctors and other support their children need allowing Pell grants to be used for dual-enrollment programs that allow high school students to take community college classes launching a new competitive program that would reward innovative approaches to high school education in low-income areas dramatically increasing funding for schools to support children with disabilities. Biden argued in Houston for "free community college for every single person," saying the $6 billion price tag would increase the United States' gross domestic product and reduce spending on four-year college. His plan does not address charter schools. But he said at the town hall that for-profit charters should not receive any federal funding because they "siphon off money from our public schools, which are already in trouble." In the plan, Biden pledges to "defeat the National Rifle Association" and enact gun control measures. "In the months ahead, he will release additional proposals to address the gun violence epidemic in our country," the plan says. The rollout came in the same city one of Biden's rivals, California Sen. Kamala Harris, unveiled a 10-year, $315 billion plan she said would increase the average teacher's salary by $13,500 per year.


cnsnews--2019-01-29--How Parents Can End Socialism in Americas Schools School Choice

How Parents Can End Socialism in America’s Schools: School Choice

January 20 marked the beginning of National School Choice Week. This year, more than 40,000 events were held to highlight the benefits of school choice—an important effort considering the abysmal track record of the nation’s public schools and the fact that government schools have a near-monopoly on education. In 2018, nearly 90 percent of American K–12 students attended a public school.  Although National School Choice Week is traditionally a time to celebrate freedom, it also provides an important opportunity to reflect on the disturbing fact that the U.S. government-run school system abhors individual choice and now serves as one of the world’s largest socialist propaganda organizations.  The government’s education monopoly emboldens an army of left-leaning administrators and teachers to indoctrinate students with their political ideology, which is much closer to Karl Marx than James Madison. It’s no wonder then that 51 percent of Americans aged 18 to 29 and 57 percent of self-identified Democrats now have a positive view of socialism, according to a 2018 Gallup poll.  How did this happen? Could it be that the majority of those surveyed flunked U.S. and world history? Did they fall asleep during the history lessons on the horrors of the Soviet Union and Mao’s China? Probably not. It’s much more likely these people, like millions of others, have received an education teeming with socialist propaganda.  One doesn’t have to look far to find evidence socialism has permeated government schools. The National Education Association (NEA), which includes more than three million members (the largest union in the United States), doesn’t even try to hide its socialist philosophy. Among its “Core Values,” NEA lists: “Collective Action. We believe individuals are strengthened when they work together for the common good … we improve both our professional status and the quality of public education when we unite and advocate collectively.”  Additional examples abound of teachers and administrators engaging in socialist activities inside and outside classrooms. For instance, Jesse Sharkey, president of the Chicago Teachers Union, is a member of the International Socialist Organization (ISO). He even moderated two panels at the 2018 Socialism Conference in Chicago. Other participants on the panel have been linked to the ISO and Democratic Socialists of America, the largest socialist organization in the United States.  During the 2018 West Virginia teachers strike, Zac Corrigan, a member of the International Youth and Students for Social Equality, called for “living wages,” single-payer health care, a government-run universal jobs guarantee program, and the need for getting students—your children—more involved in teachers’ union activities.  Many parents recognize that something is amiss in the government-run school system, but they feel trapped because they cannot afford to transfer their child to a private school or don’t have the time or money to homeschool. It doesn’t have to be that way, however. Parents can break this broken model by demanding universal education choice, which can best be provided through a universal education savings account (ESA) program.  ESAs allow parents to remove their children from socialist classrooms by providing them with a tax-free account that can be used to pay for education-related expenses at other public schools, private schools, or even for homeschooling. ESAs, which are funded using the money already allotted for public schools, would empower parents to enroll their children in schools that teach our nation’s founding principles of freedom, self-reliance, and limited government.  Giving parents and students education freedom would finally bring robust competition to the education sphere, forcing government-run schools to rethink the wisdom of maintaining their socialist-driven curriculum programs, including those linked to Common Core.  The best way to stop the march toward socialism in the United States is to provide all parents the opportunity to choose the educational path that most aligns with their values. Until parents have the freedom to choose their children’s education, students will be unable to escape these socialist indoctrination centers.  As President Ronald Reagan so eloquently warned us: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is if we fight for it.”  The fate of freedom hangs in the balance. Unless Americans demand education freedom, Reagan’s warning will become reality: “you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.”  Lennie Jarratt (ljarratt@heartland.org) is project manager for the Center for Transforming Education at The Heartland Institute. Chris Talgo (ctalgo@heartland.org) is a former public education teacher and editor at The Heartland Institute.


cnsnews--2019-02-21--Sen Elizabeth Warrens Child Care Proposal Unlikely to Boost Education Outcomes

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s Child Care Proposal Unlikely to Boost Education Outcomes

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., unveiled Tuesday a proposal to subsidize universal early education and child care through federal subsidies.  According to The Huffington Post, “no family would have to spend more than 7 percent of its household income on child care, no matter the number of kids.” Providers would have to meet safety and curriculum standards, and the proposal would be financed through a “tax on wealth.”  But the fact is that a new large-scale federal subsidy day care is unlikely to improve educational outcomes for children. It will cost billions—according to one estimate, $700 billion over 10 years for the Warren plan—and furthermore, it may not reflect the preferences of families when it comes to their children’s care in their formative years.  Although the Warren plan talks about day care subsidies rather than “preschool” subsidies, the reference to “curriculum standards” suggests the effort will be about more than child care for parents.  Warren’s plan reportedly calls for “requiring child care providers that receive federal funds [to] meet standards similar to those that now apply to Head Start.”  Well, Head Start is far from a success story when it comes to participant outcomes.  The Department of Health and Human Services released the scientifically rigorous Head Start Impact Study in 2012, which tracked 5,000 3- and 4-year-old children through the end of third grade. The results? Head Start had little to no impact on the parenting practices or the cognitive, social-emotional, and health outcomes of participants. Notably, on a few measures, access to Head Start had harmful effects on participating children.  Taxpayers have spent nearly $200 billion on Head Start since its inception in 1965. Yet, as the federal evaluation found, by the time the children finished third grade, there was no difference between those who attended Head Start and the control group of their peers who did not.  At the state level, proponents of government-funded early education and care programs have long held up Tennessee’s Voluntary Pre-K program as a model state-based preschool program. They note the fact that the child-adult ratio is limited to 10-to-1, teachers must be licensed, and a structured “age appropriate” curriculum must be used in classrooms.  But a randomized control trial evaluation conducted by researchers at Vanderbilt University reported no significant differences between the control group and the preschool group on any achievement measures by the end of kindergarten.  Government-funded preschool advocates also tend to draw on one of two studies that found benefits of preschool attendance. One is the Perry Preschool Project (conducted in 1962) and the other is the Abecedarian Preschool Study (conducted in 1972).  But there are significant issues with these two examples.  First, no study has replicated the findings of these two.  Second, these programs had small sample sizes (just 58 children were in the experiment group in the Perry project), and the programs were comprehensive, boutique programs that included social and nutritional programs and parent counseling.  These two half-century-old programs look quite different from current programs and proposals. Russ Whitehurst of the Brookings Institution sums up looking to the Perry Preschool Project as instructive today this way, noting that the findings:  In addition to the lack of educational impacts and the cost to taxpayers, it’s also unclear whether parents want this federal “solution.”  For instance, a 2012 Pew Research Center study found that two-thirds of moms want to work part time or stay at home, not work full time. Among moms who currently work full time, over half would rather work part time or not at all.  Already, low-income families have access to the federal Head Start program for childcare—a program that should be reformed, at the very least, to allow participants to attend a private provider of choice.  Creating another benefit for universal child care merely establishes a new federal subsidy for middle-class and upper-income families.  At the same time, an expansion of federal early education and care is more likely to create new problems of its own, rather than address these deeper social issues, such as the crisis of unwed parenting.  Finally, as my former Heritage Foundation colleague Salim Furth and I explained in a 2016 paper, additional federal subsidies for early childhood education introduce a large distortion into the market and must be funded by higher tax rates.  Ultimately, a universal early education and care program is unlikely to boost educational outcomes, may not reflect the preferences of families, and will cost taxpayers billions over time. This is the wrong way to help America’s kids.  Lindsey M. Burke researches and writes on federal and state education issues as the Will Skillman fellow in education policy at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research.  : This piece was originally published by The Daily Signal.


cnsnews--2019-03-19--Why Voting Age Shouldnt Be Lowered

Why Voting Age Shouldn’t Be Lowered

The left really wants to give kids the right to vote.  This idea is so popular on the left that a majority of House Democrats voted in favor of lowering the voting age to 16.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., endorsed the idea as well.  Why would Pelosi and others on the left want to give high school children—hardly known for deep wisdom and sound judgment—a vote?  A new poll perhaps demonstrates why.  The Harris Poll, released exclusively by Axios, shows that roughly half of young Americans say they would prefer living in a socialist country.  It also reveals that many young Americans think the government should provide free health care, education, and medicine, among many other things.  This is very much in line with a poll released in late 2017 by the Victims of Communism Memorial Fund that found similar support for communism among young people, along with widespread ignorance about what communism is.  Most of those surveyed couldn’t define communism or socialism. Many believed, for instance, that President George W. Bush killed more people than Josef Stalin, the ruthless Soviet dictator whose regime murdered tens of millions.  The fact is, socialism attracts widespread support from millennials and members of Generation Z who at the same time are ignorant about socialism.  It’s no wonder that left-wing groups are desperately trying to find ways to get children to vote or be used as useful tools for their agenda, which now appears to include outright socialism.  While young people embrace at least the word “socialism” in disproportionately high numbers, Americans as a whole find the term toxic, as far as who they’d be willing to vote for.  According to a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, just 25 percent of respondents found “socialist” to be a desirable trait for a presidential candidate. It was among the least-liked traits in the entire poll.  Perhaps America’s older cohorts simply have a better understanding of what socialism is, having lived through the Cold War and faced the existential crisis of the Soviet threat to our country.  Young people, born after the fall of the Berlin Wall, have less of a real-world example to draw on in relation to the evil that socialism creates for a society that adopts it in total.  It’s clear that in the debate over socialism, education is where we have failed. A generation or generations of young Americans are falling under the impression that socialism, whatever they think it is, will bring more prosperity.  History, of course, demonstrates the opposite.  The reason America is so prosperous, and why it remains a place where so many people around the globe aspire to live, is because it rejected these ruthlessly collectivist doctrines.  Our nation held tightly to the ideas of the rule of law, private property, and the Constitution, all of which do far more for the common citizen than the doctrines of socialism, which put absolute power in the hands of a few.  Yet, our education system is failing to transmit those basic ideas to upcoming generations, a failure that this country desperately needs to change if we are to remain a free country.  In a recent survey of how Americans perform on a basic citizenship test, most failed and young people fared by far the worst.  This ties back into the current debate over voting age.  It’s a good thing that young people participate in politics, develop an instinct for informed citizenship, and take the future of the country seriously.  However, we shouldn’t fetishize youth as itself an advantage, especially when it comes with such a disturbing lack of understanding about history and civics.  The left has a sort of Rousseauian concept of young people as being free from the shackling norms of civilization, as being capable of drawing from wisdom unclouded by the built-up prejudices of experience.  But the demands of citizenship are not fulfilled by mere youthful energy. They require an education in civics, an understanding of our institutions, a certain independence of thought and action.  At the same time progressives demand the lowering of the voting age, we increasingly infantilize young Americans, who are not really seen as “adults” until the age of 26, long after most graduate college.  From smoking to gun ownership, progressives are stripping the rights and life choices of young adults.  Meanwhile, they demand that we put increasing power in the hands of 16-year-olds to determine our leaders and laws.  This has things entirely backward.  Noah Rothman said it best in Commentary magazine:  So lowering the voting age is both reckless in its ethos to put voting power in the hands of people who are not ready for responsible citizenship, yet also is reduced to a mere palliative.  “Democracy” is expanded as liberty recedes, making democratic participation worth little more than a pat on the back.  While this may seem fine for generations raised in the milieu of the “self-esteem” movement, it’s hardly a recipe to strengthen the republic or produce better leaders.  Further lowering the voting age—which at 18 is already quite low—degrades the positives of democracy in America and turns it into the sad caricature of mob rule that the Founders feared.  Let us do more to create responsible adults and citizens rather than perpetually apply “democracy” in places where it is unwarranted.  Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of "The Right Side of History" podcast. Send an email to Jarrett.  : This piece was originally published by The Daily Signal.


cnsnews--2019-04-16--Buttigieg Advocates National Service to Boost Social Cohesion

Buttigieg Advocates National Service to Boost 'Social Cohesion'

(CNSNews.com) - South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, now running for the Democrat presidential nomination, says he wants more young Americans to mix with people of different backgrounds, but he doesn't want them to have to go to war to do that.  He told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Monday night that a national service program could repair the "fraying...social cohesion" that made the Trump presidency possible, in his opinion.  That's one of the reasons I think national service will hopefully become one of the themes of the 2020 campaign. Because if we really want to talk about the threat to social cohesion that helps characterize this presidency, but also just this era, the one thing we could do to help change that would be to make it -- if not legally obligatory but certainly a social norm -- that anybody after they're 18 spends a year in national service. So that afterwards, whether it's civilian or military, it's the first question on your college application if you're applying for college; or it's the first question when you're being interviewed for a job if you're going right into the work force. Now to do that, we're going to have to create more service opportunities and we're going to have to find a way to fund it. But I think it's worth approaching.  Buttigieg used his own military service as an example. He enlisted in the Navy Reserve several years after graduating from Harvard University and Oxford University.  "The thing that put me over the edge was actually a campaign visit," Buttigieg said:  I was knocking on doors as a volunteer for Barack Obama in some very low-income, very rural counties in Iowa, and was blown away by how many times I would knock on a door, talk to a young person who was on their way to basic training or on their way into recruitment. And I began to realize just how stark the class and regional divides had become. I could count on one hand the number of people I knew at a place like Harvard who had gone on to serve. And I began to feel like I was part of the problem. You know, I grew up on the tradition of people like John F. Kennedy -- a young John F. Kennedy, experienced in military service, the most probably racially integrated environment that he could have been in at the time, found himself on equal terms with the sons of farmers, laborers from the Midwest. George H.W. Bush, same thing. As the scions of wealthy and powerful families, it was expected of them that they would serve. And it helped them get to know people of different backgrounds. I was by no means the scion of a wealthy or powerful family, but I did have the privilege of this amazing education. And again, I began to think, like maybe that's a reason I should be contributing and should be as liable to getting called up as anybody else in this country, rather than kind of one more thing that separates me from other people I knew from my region or my hometown who had served. So I went in for the commission in intelligence in 2009. I'd studied Arabic. I thought that might be useful. But it later came back that the recruiter wrote down that I had studied aerobics.  Buttigieg said national service is an idea that "everybody likes" but it's never "urgent."  He said the idea "requires policy intervention" to gain traction.  "I get the obstacles, he said. "I get that it would be challenging. If we made it more of a priority, I think we could establish that as a norm by the time my kids are going to college."  Buttigieg and his husband do not have children right now, but he said they hopes to have them some day.


conservativehome--2019-02-02--Holly Whitbread Promoting parental responsibility is the key to address anti-social behaviour

Holly Whitbread: Promoting parental responsibility is the key to address anti-social behaviour

Holly Whitbread is an Epping Forest District councillor and currently works as a Parliamentary Researcher.  Up and down the country, unruly teens plague our streets. They are often fueled by alcohol and in some circumstances illegal substances. Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) is a nuisance, which disturbs the tranquillity of neighbourhoods. Stoking fear into innocent residents and exposing cracks in public civility. There has been a particularly noticeable rise in suburban communities.  This conduct is unacceptable and the tide of such incidence needs to end. Unfortunately, addressing ASB is a wobbly tightrope in terms of its legality. Due to its wide-ranging definition, many examples of anti-social behaviour is not in itself illegal. In can be difficult to pin down the culprits and their accomplices. The offenders of ASB can be subject to punishments which attempt to limit movement and association. This includes a civil injunction, a community protection notice or criminal behaviour order. Although, these responses are often deemed to be not wholly effective.  There is certainly a place for action by the police, local organisations, agencies and local authorities. They have a responsibility to address ASB and to help people who are suffering from it. For example, beyond the action of local authorities and police, there are merits in arguments in relation to education, the re-introduction of national service, investment in youth services and activities. However, whilst they can help ease the issue, and it is vital that they do take action, such bodies cannot solve it alone.  In fact, where I serve as a district councillor in Epping Forest, we have been proactive and adopted an innovative approach to tackling ASB. The council has funded three Essex Police officers which are tasked by the authority. In addition, we fund park-guard officers, their role is to provide high visibility targeted engagement. One of their core functions of this additional resource is to address ASB. Their work is targeted and focused. They work alongside ASB officers from the council building which plays host to a community safety hub, enabling efficient and effective multi-agency working.  This initiative has seen positive results in addressing ASB. Such as, pre-planned operations neutralised situations throughout the district on Halloween. In addition, increased visibility is important in terms of reducing the fear of crime.  Beyond practical action, there is also an important role for public engagement. In my locality, I have established an Anti-Social Behaviour and Youth Strategy working group, through the town council. This is an apolitical group which works cross-community with stakeholders including the police, local authorities, schools, businesses and youth organisations. Its primary function is one of communication, ensuring that problems are exposed and reporting back on action which has been taken by the relevant authorities. Furthermore, consideration is being given to various projects for youth engagement.  Whilst the multi-faceted approach to tackling ASB, demonstrated in my district is positive. There is continued and increasing pressure to exert more cost and resource to address ASB, however, it seems clear to me that the greatest issue cannot be solved through financial investment.  We can continue pontificate and preach about how to address ASB, although, in this modern day and age to often do we look for someone else to provide an answer. Interestingly, those I have spoken to in the teaching profession have commented that there is a frustration that they are often blamed for incidents which occur outside of the school gates, outside of school hours.  It is clear that more focus must be placed on parental responsibility. Indeed, this is a duty enshrined in law, in s 3(1) Children Act 1989, where it sets out the definition for parental responsibility as, “all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property.” Unfortunately, too many parents need a reminder of their legislative as well as their moral duty.  At the risk of sounding nostalgic, the fear of consequences for misbehaviour has been lost for many. The liberal parents of ‘Generation Z’ have a duty to set some boundaries and discipline. Rules need to be set out and if rules are broken there must be consequences. It is vital parents of are more aware of where their children are and what they are doing.  A crucial ingredient is missing in some of today’s generation, a value which hasn’t been instilled or cultivated in many: respect! It is clear that there has been a gradual degeneration of the esteem which young people hold supposedly authority figures and the value they place on the community which they live. Addressing this problem is an intergenerational challenge, at the heart of which is the need to strengthen family units and societal values.  Young people need to feel as though they have a stake in society, a sense of active citizenship. They need to identify their position in its hierarchy and there needs to be a re-asserting of respect for authority figures. The re-establishment of more community-centric policing may be one way of helping to address this. However, these values must begin at home and they must be cultivated to protect our environment.  Although, it is clear that turning the tide will not be easy. The role of responsible parenting has never been more important. If a police officer knocks at your door to complain about your child, accountability must be taken and immediate action is required to turn the situation around. It should go without saying that parents need to address the bad behaviour of their children and the onus should be placed on them to stop it.  Whilst, the majority of parents and guardians fulfil their responsibilities, those who fail to set out limitations and sufficient chastisement are facilitating the swell of anti-social behaviour which is disturbing the life of their fellow residents. As a nation and in individual communities we must evaluate expectations and reassert bread and butter values. This is far easier to assert that change. It requires wholesale societal change. The war on ASB is won through the battle of hearts and minds.


mercurynews--2019-06-01--Three years into legal marijuana and California still doesnt have a reliable test for driving while

Three years into legal marijuana and California still doesn’t have a reliable test for driving while high

Nearly three years after California voters approved a cannabis legalization bill that promised, among other things, to clarify the issue of driving while high, researchers and law enforcement have few concrete answers about a potentially deadly problem.  It’s unclear, for example, if marijuana-related arrests or car crashes have increased statewide. It’s up to each county to track that data, and many still don’t distinguish between cannabis and other drugs in their arrest and accident reports.  There also aren’t yet any reliable methods for testing whether drivers were actually impaired by marijuana when they’re behind the wheel. Research in this area is hampered by federal law and left scrambling to catch up with the wave of marijuana legalization that continues to sweep the country.  These are some of the challenges police officers, attorneys, politicians and leading cannabis researchers discussed Friday during a day-long forum on marijuana and driving at UC Irvine’s Center for the Study of Cannabis.  “We need more data to understand what is happening, what isn’t happening, and to even begin to measure the effects,” said Rep. Katie Porter, D-Irvine, who spoke during the forum.  There are signs that some clarity could be coming soon.  The Center for Medical Cannabis Research at UC San Diego is “weeks” away from releasing findings of a three-year, state-funded study into effective roadside tests for marijuana impairment, according to Dr. Robert Fitzgerald, a clinical pathologist involved in the project.  Also, some law enforcement agencies are starting to track data on cannabis and driving. And legislation is pending from State Sen. Pat Bates, R-Laguna Niguel, that would require testing for cannabis in all fatal crashes.  “We have a lot of work to do,” said Bob Solomon, a UCI law professor who serves as co-chair of the school’s cannabis research center. “But we will get there.”  The rules with cannabis and driving are pretty much the same as with alcohol. Adults can’t consume marijuana while driving. They can’t have an open container that’s accessible. And they can’t be under the influence of marijuana while behind the wheel, since it’s been shown to cause increased weaving and other problems — particularly if combined with alcohol.  The problem is how to measure marijuana impairment.  While alcohol and harder drugs like methamphetamine are generally filtered out of the system in less than a day, signs of cannabis use can turn up in blood and urine tests long after the drug’s mind-altering affects have worn off. And since marijuana is stored in fat cells, many factors affect how quickly the body metabolizes the drug, including the person’s tolerance, how they ingested it, the pot’s potency and even their gender.  Research shows it generally takes women longer than men to filter marijuana out of the system, according to Dr. Marilyn Huestis, a toxicologist and world-renowned expert on drug testing who spoke during Friday’s UCI forum. Huestis also said she’s seen blood levels of THC (the main compound in cannabis that makes people high) actually go up over time if people were physically active, releasing chemicals stored in their fat cells.  All of that makes it tough to tell with traditional drug tests whether a driver was impaired while behind the wheel or simply used cannabis hours, days or even weeks before. That’s particularly true when it comes to medical marijuana patients, who may use small amounts of cannabis daily, and frequent recreational consumers, who may show high levels of THC even when they’re not impaired.  That’s why, unlike with the established legal threshold of 0.08 percent blood alcohol content, there’s no clear scientific standard in California to determine when a driver is illegally impaired by marijuana.  Six states have adopted “per se” limits on the amount of active THC allowed in the blood before drivers can be considered impaired. The amounts range from 0.5 nanograms per milliliter in Pennsylvania to 5 nanograms in Washington. But studies by the AAA Foundation and others have found no scientific basis for such numbers. Huestis agreed, saying there’s not a good scientific case right now for per se limits.  UC San Diego hopes to have recommended solutions soon. Researchers are having 180 volunteers smoke marijuana and then participate in driving simulations. Those volunteers also are asked to complete tasks on an iPad, which could become a cannabis field sobriety tool. In addition, they undergo blood, breath and saliva tests at regular intervals.  In the meantime, if an officer sees signs of impaired driving, and a blood test shows that person has any amount of cannabis in their system, they can be charged with driving under the influence.  Drug-related DUI cases nearly quadrupled in Los Angeles County over the past two years, according to Ricardo Santiago, spokesman for the district attorney’s office. The LA County office reviewed 375 cases in 2017 and 1,469 cases in 2018, which is the year shops could begin legally selling recreational marijuana.  But those figures include all drug impairment cases, without distinguishing between cannabis and illegal narcotics. That’s also how Riverside County District Attorney’s Office tracks impaired driving cases.  The Orange County Crime Laboratory is one of just a few in the state that for years has tested all fatally-injured drivers for a range of drugs, including cannabis, according to the lab’s assistant director Jennifer Harmon.  In 2016, 5 percent of drivers who died in crashes had only marijuana in their systems. In 2018, that number rose to 11 percent.  There were similar increases in that same time frame of drivers in fatal crashes with alcohol and other drugs in their systems.  Where does California’s cannabis tax money go? You might be surprised. It’s expected that more people would be using marijuana now that it’s legal. So until those tests can more effectively measure impairment vs. past cannabis use, it’s tough to draw conclusions about how legalization is impacting the safety of California’s roads.  There’s also no centralized collection point in California that aggregates driving under the influence violations by drug type, according to Fran Clader, spokeswoman for the California Highway Patrol.  The CHP — which is supposed to get $3 million from cannabis tax revenue each year through summer 2023 to develop better testing protocols — has preliminary data for crashes in 2018 and this year so far where officers suspected cannabis was involved. But Clader said that data isn’t yet verified by toxicology samples, which can take months. And the figures don’t distinguish between crashes where the driver only consumed cannabis vs. cases where drivers had other substances in their systems.  The agency is working on new methods to track and separate that data, Clader said.  “We don’t want to be complacent,” she said, only to learn accidents and deaths could have been prevented.


ageofautism--2019-11-18--Controlled Human Infection Method: ‘Unethical’ clinical trials of vaccines pose threat to human live

Controlled Human Infection Method: ‘Unethical’ clinical trials of vaccines pose threat to human lives

In the USA, we might call this "The Tuskegee method." As I watched Vaxxed II last week, it was the Gardasil stories that affected me the strongest. The fact that the placebo in testing was not by even the lowest scientific standards a placebo haunts me. As for CHIM - controlled human infection method, it's astounding how easily those in medicine can pencil in the ethics line under the guise of science for the greater good. We have featured Dr. Puliyel's writing many times. We thank him for his diligent, surely lonely, work.  By Dr. Jacob Puliyel, Pediatrican  Published 11/11/19 in Sunday Guardian Live, an Indian e-paper  Primum non nocere—“first, do no harm”—is a basic tenet of medical ethics. That is about to change in India. “Controlled Human Infection Method” (CHIM) studies are planned to be introduced here. Humans are to be deliberately infected with diseases to test the efficiency of experimental vaccines. It will provide a shortcut to vaccine licencing and reduce costs to manufacturers.  At Hotel Taj Palace, from 19 -21 November, under the rubric of the “World Conference on access to medicinal products”, the ICMR and the DBT plan to introduce CHIM studies. According to the Economic Times, even vaccine manufacturers are advising caution before allowing such a radical departure from standard practice.  The Translational Health Science and Technology Institute (THSTI), under the DBT, is spearheading the efforts under the banner of a mysterious “India Volunteer Infection Research Consortium”. Dr Y.K. Gupta, principal advisor, THSTI, has said that “initially, such studies should only be allowed in high-quality academic institutions… Similarly, at least initially, only healthy, educated adults should be included in a CHIM study”. The promoters are clear that such concessions are needed only initially.  So, the “initial” studies are to be done on drug-responsive malaria, typhoid and flu (which is self-limiting). It is claimed that CHIM volunteers are to be infected with a weakened strain of the pathogen. However according to biologics development consultant Dr K.B. Walker “a safe, well characterised strain will lose some semblance to the real “challenge” organism and so weaken the relevance of CHIM in informing further clinical development”. This defeats the main objective of doing such studies. Read more at Sunday Guardian Live.