<h2>A stealth maneuver to require electronic cattle tagging?</h2><p>Did the recently passed 2024 Omnibus spending bill include “trojan horse” agricultural measures that will mean trouble for America's small ranchers? The spending bill, meant to keep the government operating through September 2024, includes $15 million allocated for RFID (radio frequency identification) infrastructure for tagging cattle and bison moving across state lines. Proponents of the measure claim it will improve tracing in cases of livestock diseases.</p><p>Bringing to light the stealth maneuver, <i>Law Enforcement Today</i>'s Pat Dorney <a href="https://lawenforcementtoday.com/provision-tucked-inside-massive-omnibus-spending-bill-could-spell-the-end-of-small-ranchers-in-the-united-states" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">wrote</a> that,&nbsp;</p><blockquote><p>[m]any people have long warned about items hidden inside 1,000-plus page omnibus spending bills. The devil is in the details.</p></blockquote><h3>Culling the herd?</h3><p>Dorney cited <i>ZeroHedge</i>'s report on the bill, which stated that,</p><blockquote><p>the recently passed spending bill in Congress directs $15 million to electronic livestock tracking, stoking fears that the ever-radical government could weaponize this system to limit beef consumption, long a dream of environmental extremists.&nbsp;</p></blockquote><p>Dorney also cited <i>The Epoch Times</i>'s<i> </i>interview with cattle rancher Shad Sullivan who believes the new electronic tags will mean the end for U.S. small ranchers:</p><blockquote><p>“They are going to use it as a taxing mechanism to eventually control the livestock,” Sullivan said. “In the European Union, they used these measures under the guise of climate change lies to limit the cattle supply and if they do that here, it will destroy our industry.”&nbsp;</p></blockquote><h3>In the name of efficiency</h3><p>As described in the video below, proponents of the electronic tracking system believe it will streamline operations and make life easier.</p><div class="raw-html-embed"><iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DzT6aaOW_qQ" title="Livestock Tracking with RFID Ear Tags" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div><p>&nbsp;</p><h3>Resistance</h3><p>Alexia Kulwiec, an attorney and executive director of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund <a href="https://www.farmtoconsumer.org/blog/2024/03/11/the-burden-of-electronic-rfid-animal-identification-on-independent-livestock-producers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">explained</a>, that Big Tech and Big Agriculture have been trying to implement electronic tagging for decades but have faced too much opposition:</p><blockquote><p>For decades, multinational meatpacking corporations and high-tech companies have pushed mandatory electronic identification for livestock, to promote international trade and maximize the meatpacking companies’ profits. In 2010, the initial proposal for electronic ID was defeated by massive opposition from organic farmers, conventional ranchers, sale-barn owners, homesteaders, and consumers who want to buy from American producers.</p></blockquote><blockquote><p>The 2013 Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) rule requires that all dairy cattle and adult beef cattle that cross state lines have some form of “official identification.” &nbsp;The rule specifically provides that people can use either electronic or traditional forms of ID. In 2020, the USDA APHIS issued a mandate that cattle and bison be tagged with Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags. Following litigation, in March 2021 this mandate was revoked.</p></blockquote><p>In May 2021 <i>KOSU</i>'s Jonathan Ahl <a href="https://www.kosu.org/technology/2021-05-04/lawsuit-against-usda-over-electronic-livestock-tags-continues" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reported</a> that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) had been unsuccessful in its attempts to compel livestock producers to use electronic ear tags to track their animals.&nbsp;</p><p>The USDA tried in 2019 and 2020 to compel the use of the radio frequency tags by 2023 but backed off due to opposition from a variety of livestock producers. In order to totally quash the measure, he continued, the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a lawsuit alleging that the USDA's information on RFID usage was obtained illegally:&nbsp;</p><blockquote><p>The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Wyoming, alleges the committees the USDA created to get information on RFID usage violated its rulemaking process. Specifically, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) from 2013.</p></blockquote><p>Properly following rule-making procedures would have revealed overwhelming opposition to the rule.</p><blockquote><p>Hageman said following the proper rulemaking process will show the overwhelming opposition to electronic ear tags. . . .</p></blockquote><blockquote><p>“They said they are going to go through a rulemaking procedure,” Hageman said. “What we’re trying to do stop them from doing is being able to use the work product from these two illegal committees in order to further that effort.”</p></blockquote><h2>Deck stacked against ranchers</h2><p><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(22,23,25);">Rather than creating an impartial committee, the USDA chose committee members who were known to support the measure, stacking the deck in favor of tagging.&nbsp;</span></p><blockquote><p>“They handpicked people they knew were in favor of RFID,” said Harriet Hageman, an attorney working on the suit. “We’re going to continue holding them to the law, which is they have to comply with the administrative procedure act.”</p></blockquote><h2>Too heavy a burden</h2><p>Kulwiec <a href="https://www.farmtoconsumer.org/blog/2024/03/11/the-burden-of-electronic-rfid-animal-identification-on-independent-livestock-producers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">detailed</a> the burden the RFID tags would place on those who could least afford them. She argued that “[t]<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(0,0,0);">he proposed rule</span><strong> will not improve traceability and will disproportionately harm small ranchers and farmers.”&nbsp;</strong>(Original emphasis.)&nbsp;</p><p>The first problem with the rule, which she observed, was that independent ranchers would bear most of the program's costs. A 2009 study showed that tagging would only cost large operations $2.48 per head whereas independent ranchers would pay almost three times as much, or $7.17 per head.</p><blockquote><p>Problems with the Rule<br>1. &nbsp;. . . costs of the program will disproportionately be borne by independent producers. A 2006 Kansas State University report found that costs of an RFID-based system are significantly higher for people with smaller herds due to the expense of the electronic infrastructure. USDA’s 2009 analysis affirmed this by finding that significantly greater costs would be imposed on small producers. Specifically, the agency found that large operations would pay $2.48/head as compared to $7.17/head for what the agency termed the “smallest operations.”</p></blockquote><p>The other problem she found with the rule, was that it would not increase livestock traceability. She cited a 2010 Congressional Research Service Report that found that the cattle producer participation in the national animal identification system, which was 18% at the time, was too low to be effective. Yet, the USDA had previously estimated that the new rule would affect only 11% of America's cattle.</p><blockquote><p>2. The Proposed Rule Will not Improve Traceability: USDA-APHIS and multinational corporations claim that the rule will improve disease traceability. Yet the USDA-APHIS previously estimated that the new rule will impact approximately 11 million cattle per year, or only 11% of the cattle in the country. This is in part due to the allowance for group identification described above. In a 2010 Congressional Research Service Report, the CRS noted that 18% participation by cattle producers in the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) was too low to be effective, and to respond effectively to animal disease outbreak.</p></blockquote><h3>Technical issues</h3><p>The measure would also increase error rates.</p><blockquote><p>In addition, the proposed rule will be ineffective because of the probable error rate in implementing the program. The proposed rule provides that the EID tags will include visual ID numbers so that they can be read either electronically or visually. Yet error rates that exists with current nine-digit tags will surely increase with the proposed 14-digit codes.</p></blockquote><h3>No need</h3><p>Independent farmers have not had a problem with traceability. So why the need for tags?</p><blockquote><p>Moreover, traceability from independent ranches and farmers has not been found to be a problem. When consumers purchase from their local ranches or farms, they know where the meat is produced and can easily trace any illness back to that producer if necessary (which the USDA has not established is in fact necessary).</p></blockquote><p><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(0,0,0);">Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who himself owns livestock, also opposed the measure, in this tweet, shared by Dorney. Massie contends that this is an illegal measure that will be used by climate change proponents to limit beef and by Big Agriculture to small ranchers.</span></p><div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"> Hidden in this week’s Omnibus:<br><br>Lobbyists got $15 million dollars to implement ELECTRONIC TRACKING of all cattle in the U.S.<br><br>No law authorizes this!<br><br>It will be used by the GREEN agenda to limit beef production, and by the corporate meat oligopoly to DOMINATE small ranchers. <a href="https://t.co/jNsmDcxUGT">pic.twitter.com/jNsmDcxUGT</a></p>— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1765362003080527903?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 6, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><h2>Where's the consumer?</h2><p>Missing from the discussion is the consumer, whose voice is unheard but also stands to lose if the measure is used to jack up prices for small farmers and contract the beef industry.</p>

smart livestock farming.jpg

Technology

surveillance

'EU used these measures under guise of climate change lies to limit cattle supply'

Spending bill's 'trojan horse' - RFID livestock tagging may lead to cattle limits

<h2>How much of your safety should you delegate to government?&nbsp;</h2><p>In the name of safety, the government has taken steps that critics say have denied citizens what used to be considered inalienable constitutional rights.</p><p>The First Amendment right of free speech, they way, has been curtailed to, ostensibly, keep citizens safe from "harmful misinformation," while the Second Amendment right to bear arms has been infringed to combat gun violence. Watchdogs further contend that the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to face one's accuser are denied when technology is used to gather evidence.&nbsp;</p><p>The fear now is that the use of technology will soon mean an even greater loss of privacy and further erosion of the 5th and 6th Amendments, due to certain provisions in Joe Biden's infrastructure bill which will soon become mandatory. Under the guise of keeping citizens safe by preventing drunk driving, it may amount to ceding the freedom to travel to government control.</p><h2>H.R.3684 - Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act</h2><h3>Drunk and Impaired Driving Prevention Technology&nbsp;</h3><p>The infrastructure bill, <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HR. 3684</a>, passed by both chambers of Congress and signed by Biden on November 15, 2021, includes a provision for several vehicle monitoring technologies to be installed in cars, which have recently or will soon be required in new vehicles, including technology to determine if a driver is drunk or impaired.&nbsp;</p><p>The Center for Automotive Research's Eric Paul Dennis <a href="https://www.cargroup.org/a-brief-overview-of-the-light-vehicle-safety-provisions-of-the-infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reviewed</a> the bill and summarized “key sections.” Dennis, a senior transportation systems analyst, reviewed the section on “Drunk and Impaired Driving Prevention Technology” (HR 3684 Section 24220) and explained that Congress gave the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) the role of determining exactly what this section means and how it will be implemented:</p><blockquote><p>This provision directs NHTSA to issue a rule to<strong> require “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology” in new light vehicles.</strong></p></blockquote><blockquote><ul><li>Congress tasked NHTSA with interpreting this law, including<strong> establishing the statutory meaning of “impaired.”</strong></li><li>The legislation directs NHTSA to adopt a new safety <strong>mandate by 15 November 2024</strong> and begin enforcing it by September 2027 (at the latest) if this is feasible. [Emphasis added.]</li></ul></blockquote><p>&nbsp;</p><h3>Impaired driving not defined</h3><p>Others, such as Michael Satterfield, writing as The Gentleman Racer®, were more detailed in their review of the legislation. Satterfield <a href="https://www.thegentlemanracer.com/2022/01/infrastructure-bill-includes-kill.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">poured</a> through the 1,039-page infrastructure bill. He agreed that good roads, bridges, and safety are important to automotive enthusiasts, but wrote that he uncovered some concerning legislation "buried deep within HR.3684." The legislation calls not only for changes in crash testing and advanced pedestrian crash standards but also for a "<strong>kill switch</strong>" to be standard for all new vehicles by 2026.</p><p>Satterfield explained that all new vehicles will be required to have passive monitoring systems for the driver's behavior and an algorithm will determine if the driver is too impaired to operate the vehicle. If the algorithm decides that the driver is too impaired to operate the vehicle the car, the program will have some means of taking control of the vehicle. But what constitutes impairment and what the program will actually do was not explained by the legislation, as Satterfield noted:</p><blockquote><p>What is not outlined in the bill is what constitutes impairment, outside of the blood alcohol standard, how does the software determine the difference between being tired and being impaired? Passive blood alcohol testing won’t detect impairment from prescription painkillers or other narcotics. &nbsp;</p><p>The bill also doesn’t outline what happens when a vehicle detects a driver may be impaired other than that the system must “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected” which is all well and good in a bar’s parking lot. But <strong>what will this system do if an “impairment is detected” while traveling at 75 mph on the highway?</strong> [Emphasis added.]</p></blockquote><h3>Accused by your own car's surveillance system</h3><p>Satterfield's greatest concern was the question of individual privacy that a vehicle that monitors the driver raises, including who will have access to the data, and other issues such as the right not to self-incriminate under the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment right to face your accuser. Will the attempt to drive while deemed to be impaired be automatically reported to law enforcement?</p><p>He also expressed concern that most drivers will not be aware of the new technology until it affects them in some way;</p><blockquote><p>Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the legislation is the lack of detail. The main concerns expressed by many, including former U.S.Rep. Bobb Barr, come down to privacy. <strong>Who will have access to the data? </strong>How long will it be stored? Will this capability be exploitable by third-party or government agencies to shut down vehicles outside of the function of preventing impaired driving?&nbsp;</p><p>Privacy concerns and the 5th Amendment’s right to not self-incriminate, and the 6th Amendment’s right to face one’s accuser, have already been used to challenge data collection from license plate readers and redlight cameras. Automakers have little choice but to comply with new federal mandates and the majority of consumers will likely be unaware of this new technology until it impacts them in some way.</p></blockquote><h3>Freedom or control?</h3><p>John Stossel recently <a href=" https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-kill-switch/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">interviewed</a> former vintage race car driver Lauren Fix (video below) about what she believes are the implications of the soon-to-be-implemented impaired driving technology, as reported on <i>FrontPage Magazine</i>.&nbsp;</p><p>Fix pointed out that the algorithm cannot determine what exactly is happening in the car and with the driver and asks Stossel how much control over his life he is willing to give up:&nbsp;</p><blockquote><p>Are you willing to give up every bit of control of your life? &nbsp;Once you give that up, you have no more freedom. This computer decides you can’t drive your vehicle. Great. Unless someone’s having a heart attack and trying to get to the hospital.”</p></blockquote><p>California, Fix pointed out, already requires vehicle software to limit excess speed to 10 miles over the limit, legislation about which Frontline News <a href="https://frontline.news/post/cars-to-be-programmed-to-limit-speed-if-california-bill-becomes-law" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reported</a>.</p><p>Fix also revealed to Stossel that some companies already collect and sell driver data and proceeded to outline further abuses that could occur as a result of computer surveillance technology such as charging for mileage or monitoring your “carbon footprint” and deciding that you maxed out on your monthly carbon credits and you can't drive anymore till the following month. &nbsp;Or perhaps the car won't start because the software determines you may be on your way to purchase a firearm.</p><div class="raw-html-embed"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N29AaHnzGGM?si=NFbrmdgVVYm75xvs" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</div><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>What about hackers?</h2><p>Can hackers access a vehicle's software and take control of someone's car? This possibility is another worrying aspect of the infrastructure bill, which <i>Frontline News</i> will discuss in an upcoming report.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Related articles:&nbsp;</strong></p><p style="margin-left:0px;"><a href="https://frontline.news/post/cars-to-be-programmed-to-limit-speed-if-california-bill-becomes-law">Cars to be programmed to limit speed if California bill becomes law</a></p>

car tech.jpg

Questions not answered - how can it be sure, what will happen next, and what about your privacy?

'Kill Switch' to be mandated in cars by 2026 with software deciding if you're too impaired to drive 

Raisman.jpg

US News

More than 100 claims that DOJ grossly mishandled allegations of sexual assault but aggressively prosecuted J6 trespassers

Taxpayers foot $138.7 million bill for DOJ's failure to stop sexual assaults; hush money silenced victim

<p>By Alex Newman</p><p>Flush with taxpayer cash from the federal government, state and local officials are rapidly transforming public schools into “full-service community schools” that will address far more than just “education.”&nbsp;</p><div class="raw-html-embed"><div style="position:relative;width:100%;height:0;padding-top:56.25%;"><iframe src="https://subsplash.com/+78fw/embed/mi/+5j2py6v?audio&amp;video&amp;shareable&amp;embeddable" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreenallowfullscreen="" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></div></div><p>In fact, under the guise of caring for the “whole child,” these “community schools” are increasingly taking over the few remaining duties left over to parents — mental health, dental health, vision, nutrition, healthcare, social and emotional wellbeing, and more.&nbsp;</p><p>The plan is to get children into government hands earlier and earlier, too. The U.S. Department of Education boasted last year in a&nbsp;<a href="https://blog.ed.gov/2023/06/community-schools-fostering-innovation-and-transformation/">blog post</a>&nbsp;that community schools will “support” students “from cradle to career,” something long considered the exclusive domain of parents.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>The Biden administration, led by a man who notoriously sniffs and touches children while claiming they “are all our children,” has been showering federal funds on the scheme since taking office, as The Newman Report&nbsp;<a href="https://www.freedomproject.com/2022/08/02/newman-report-42/">documented</a>&nbsp;in 2022. Congress has been fully complicit, even under&nbsp;<a href="https://thenewamerican.com/us/education/obama-and-gop-unleash-community-schools-to-replace-parents/">GOP control</a>. &nbsp;</p><p>Just last year, the Biden Department of Education&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/biden-harris-administration-announces-nearly-74-million-expand-full-service-community-schools">announced</a>&nbsp;yet another $150 million in additional “community school” grants to 30 education agencies — many of them in conservative states where lawmakers would be unlikely to participate if not for the federal tax money. Responding to the federal funding, states have already spent billions on the scheme. &nbsp;</p><p>Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, who famously denied that parents were the “primary stakeholders” in their children’s education, could barely contain his glee as he announced the new funds.</p><p>“We know that comprehensive, wrap-around approaches—including nutrition assistance; mental health services; early childhood education; and access to high-quality afterschool summer learning, and enrichment programs—all are crucial for accelerating our students’ academic success and their recovery from the pandemic by helping them thrive both inside and outside of school,” said Cardona.&nbsp;</p><p>“I am proud that the Biden-Harris Administration is expanding the number of community schools across the country as an evidence-based strategy to Raise the Bar in education and to deliver on our commitment to support students, families, and whole communities,” added the education boss, calling the latest round of taxpayer funding “vital” for supporting the “holistic needs” of children.&nbsp;</p><p>Already, an estimated 10,000 “community schools” exist across the United States thanks to such grants, launched in the waning months of the Obama administration with&nbsp;<a href="https://thenewamerican.com/us/education/obama-and-gop-unleash-community-schools-to-replace-parents/">RINO support in Congress</a>. And with the federal government funding them and the teachers’ unions pushing them hard, that number is expected to keep ballooning quickly. &nbsp;</p><p>The far-left National Education Association (NEA), the nation’s largest union with more than 3 million members, touts “community schools” all over its website as essential for all children.&nbsp;</p><p>It describes them as institutions offering “services and supports like free healthy meals, health care, and tutoring, or systemic changes like shifts in school culture, policies, and approaches to teaching and learning.”&nbsp;</p><p>On its&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/ts-communityschools.asp">website</a>, the California Department of Education, which is working hard to get community schools all across the state, highlights some of the differences between them and traditional government schools.</p><p>“A community school is a public school … has community partnerships that support improved academic outcomes, whole-child engagement, and family development,” the radical leftwing agency declares, listing “integrated supports services” and “extended learning time” as key features.</p><p>“Community schools support the needs of the whole child,” it continues, with “approaches that sustain mental and behavioral health through healing-centered practices, social–emotional learning, and restorative justice.”</p><p>The California Department of Education also boasts that the new model increases access to social workers and counselors. These tax-funded experts in the schools can help children transition to new made-up genders, access abortion, and get dangerous psychotropic drugs to enrich Big Pharma.&nbsp;</p><p>In addition to sidelining parents, community schools also seek to marginalize and ultimately replace institutions such as churches that for centuries have served as “community hubs.”&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>Illinois is one of many states that, using federal funding, have unleashed the “community school” model on the population. Despite junk taxpayer-funded “studies” claiming the model “helps” children, the results suggest just the opposite is true.&nbsp;</p><p>The prominent “sustainable community school” known as Richards Academy in Chicago, for instance, graduated about two thirds of its victims in four years — yet it did not have one single student proficient in either reading or math on standardized tests, Illinois State Board of Education data show. Almost 80 percent of student are chronically absent. And the school costs taxpayers some $4,000 more per victim.&nbsp;</p><p>Unsurprisingly, though, the Chicago Teachers Union wants to replicate that “success” across the district.&nbsp;</p><p>“We have committed as an entire union to using our contract to create more sustainable community schools like Richards Academy,” said CTU boss Stacy Davis Gates at a press conference, calling it the “type of school community that is necessary to nurture, to educate, to reimagine, to ameliorate injustice and disparity.”</p><p>Using the notorious “Delphi” tactics for manipulating a group of people into a particular outcome while making them think they came up with the ideas, governments across the country are&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wkdzradio.com/2024/03/25/first-of-3-meetings-about-community-schools-grant/news-edge/">holding meetings</a>&nbsp;with taxpayers and parents on the issue. They all end up at the same: Government schools must tax more, spend more, and usurp more control over the lives of children.&nbsp;</p><p>Ultimately, the goal of these government-controlled community schools is total government. They seek to become the center of the community and life — a replacement for family, church, and genuine community. Universal mental-health screening and government intervention in everything are already being deployed as part of the process.&nbsp;</p><p><img class="image_resized" style="width:374px;" src="https://i0.wp.com/www.freedomproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/3364780_1225x377_2500.jpg?resize=696%2C214&amp;ssl=1" alt=""></p><p>Rather than fight back against the latest outrage from government schools and the Biden administration, parents should do something far more effective: opt out altogether. Parents, children, families, and communities would all be better off leaving the whole system.</p><p>Families, voluntary associations, and churches — not “community schools” — should be placed back in their central role in the lives of children. Government must be stopped from encroaching any further. Civilization and liberty depend on it.</p><p><a href="https://libertysentinel.org/author/admin/"><span style="background-color:transparent;color:#1155cc;"><u>Alex Newman</u></span></a><span style="background-color:transparent;color:#000000;">&nbsp;</span></p><p><span style="background-color:transparent;color:#000000;">Alex Newman is an award-winning international journalist, educator, author, and consultant who co-wrote the book “Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians Are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children.” He writes for diverse publications in the United States and abroad.</span></p><p>Originally published at <a href="https://www.freedomproject.com/2024/04/24/tnr20240424/">FreedomProject Media</a>.</p>

school bus.jpg

Education

Public schools transforming into 'full-service community schools' that address far more than 'education'

White House funding 'community schools' that aim to replace parents 

<h2>Technology harms children's development</h2><h3>Technology not a substitute for in-person teachers&nbsp;</h3><p><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(28,28,28);">Anna Brambila, a therapist and parent, recently expressed concern that the use of Chromebooks by children during COVID-19 school closures has led to their developing ADHD and autism-like symptoms. She had hoped that when they went back to school the use of Chromebooks would be discontinued. &nbsp;She soon found, however, that they were here to stay.&nbsp;</span></p><p><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(28,28,28);">Brambila made the below TikTok clip to explain the tremendous disservice this is to children who, from elementary through middle school, as research has shown, do not learn nearly as well through a screen as they do from an in-person teacher. Children who are using screens too much, she said, &nbsp;develop ADHD and autism-like symptoms:</span></p><blockquote><p><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(28,28,28);">&nbsp;. . . so much research . . &nbsp;shows that kids, so like elementary schoolup through about half of middle school just do not learn through a screen anywhere close to the same way that they do with an in person teacher. . . .There's so much research that shows that kids who spend more time in front of portable devices with things like ipads and Chromebooks, there are impacts to the way that their brains are developing. So things like ADHD and autism and symptoms that look like ADHD and autism, those things can be incredibly exacerbated with too much screen time. &nbsp;. .&nbsp;</span></p></blockquote><div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="tiktok-embed" cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@brambila_bits/video/7342227288425106734" data-video-id="7342227288425106734" style="max-width: 605px;min-width: 325px;"> <section> <a target="_blank" title="@brambila_bits" href="https://www.tiktok.com/@brambila_bits?refer=embed">@brambila_bits</a> Anyone else finding themselves tempted to start using the school issued portable devices as frisbees? Just me? <a title="motherhood" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/motherhood?refer=embed">#motherhood</a> <a title="momlife" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/momlife?refer=embed">#momlife</a> <a title="millenialmom" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/millenialmom?refer=embed">#millenialmom</a> <a title="technology" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/technology?refer=embed">#technology</a> <a target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Andrea Brambila" href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7342227437553552170?refer=embed">♬ original sound - Andrea Brambila</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async="" src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script></div><h3>“Impoverished stimulation of the developing brain”</h3><p>Before COVID-19 hit, research was already being compiled about the effects of technology use on children.&nbsp;</p><p>“Screen time and the brain,” a June 2019 article by Harvard Medical School researcher Debra Bradley Ruder, <a href="https://hms.harvard.edu/news/screen-time-brain" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">quotes</a> Pediatrician Dr. Michael Rich who is concerned with the negative effect of technology on the developing brain referring to the stimulation provided on the screen as “impoverished.”&nbsp;</p><blockquote><p style="margin-left:0px;">The growing human brain is constantly building neural connections while pruning away less-used ones, and digital media use plays an active role in that process, according to Rich. Much of what happens on screen provides “impoverished” stimulation of the developing brain compared to reality, he says. Children need a diverse menu of online and offline experiences, including the chance to let their minds wander.</p><p style="margin-left:0px;">“Boredom is the space in which creativity and imagination happen,” he says.&nbsp;</p></blockquote><h3>Cleveland Clinic — too much screen time elicits ADHD-like behaviors</h3><p>The Cleveland Clinic <a href="https://health.clevelandclinic.org/screen-time-and-adhd" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">raised</a> similar concerns about ADHD-like symptoms as Brambila did. In an article entitled: “Does Heightened Screen Time Cause Attention-Deficit Disorder (ADHD) In Children?” the Clinic referred to a 2018 study of 2,587 high school children who had not been diagnosed with ADHD and found that those who had more screen time exhibited behaviors similar to ADHD:</p><blockquote><ul><li>Inattention, such as difficulty organizing and completing tasks.</li><li>Hyperactivity-impulsivity, such as having trouble sitting still.</li></ul><p>. . . “Does this mean that too much time gaming or commenting on Facebook can give kids ADHD? Absolutely not. But these activities may cause symptoms that are similar to ADHD, even though they can’t cause ADHD itself,” [pediatric behavioral health specialist Michael Manos, PhD] says.</p></blockquote><p>Attention span and development were affected as well:&nbsp;</p><blockquote><p>So, while social media and device use may not directly cause ADHD, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have an effect on your child’s attention span and overall development. And, as Dr. Manos points out, our attention span is greatly tied to how we relate and socialize with others.</p></blockquote><p>The technology was also found to inhibit the development of social skills:</p><blockquote><p>“As children increasingly relate to each other through digital media, including social media and video games, it calls into question how we communicate on a human level,” he adds.</p><p>He also notes that while things like video games do help with team building and problem-solving, they shouldn’t be the only kind of interaction kids are having. Too much time on devices means less time having real face-to-face communication, where facial expression, voice and body language all come into play.</p><p>“These are the nuances of understanding relationships,” Dr. Manos says.</p></blockquote><figure class="image image_resized" style="width:75%;"><img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1714059797/three_teenagers_on_smarthphones_d657f7996a.jpg"></figure><p>&nbsp;</p><h3>“Students need explicit instruction on how to interact with others in person”</h3><p>A June 2020 <i>EdWeek</i> article <a href="https://www.edweek.org/technology/why-principals-worry-about-how-mobile-devices-affect-students-social-skills-attention-spans/2020/06" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reviewed</a> the results of the EdWeek Research Center's February 2020 survey of principals regarding students and technology. They found that students had a hard time interacting personally with others - they did not know how:</p><blockquote><p>Prior to the pandemic, in February, the EdWeek Research Center surveyed 965 principals and teachers on a host of questions related to the use of digital devices by K-12 students in, and outside of, school. The nationally representative survey shows, for instance, that more than half of educators said their students are less skilled at in-person interactions than they and their peers were at the same age, because they are so accustomed to interacting via devices. And about 40 percent said students need explicit instruction on how to interact with others in person because so much of their experience with human interaction comes from devices.</p></blockquote><p>Interviews with several principals further revealed that children were no longer conversing and can't deal with emotions:</p><blockquote><p>[The principal of Riley Elementary School in Gold Beach, Ore.,Tom] Denning recalled when he used to have to tell students to stop talking so loud on the bus ride to a field trip. Now the ride is quiet: All the students have their earbuds in or are on their cellphones.</p><p>“They’ll send a text and not deal with anything face to face,” Denning said. “There’s a concern that they are not learning how to deal with people. They don’t know how to deal with emotions, and it’s not a good situation.”</p></blockquote><h2>Don't raise “iPad kids”</h2><p>The situation with Gen-Alpha kids, born from 2010 to date, is so bad, that even Gen-Z'ers, those born between 1997 and 2012, are complaining about Gen-Alpha's inability to read and bad behavior. <i>Today</i> author Rosie Colosi <a href="https://www.today.com/parents/family/ipad-kids-rcna142059" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">shared</a> Gen-Z's frustration, linking to the TikTok video below, in which 20-year-old Gen-Z'er Gabe Escobar exhorts his fellow Gen-Z'ers not to raise “iPad kids.” &nbsp;</p><blockquote><p style="margin-left:0px;">As a result of staring at screens, Gen Alpha's "iPad kids" have developed unwanted, unhealthy and downright strange behavior, say Gen Z critics (born between the late 1990s and 2010), who have been posting their thoughts about the younger generation on TikTok.</p><p style="margin-left:0px;">Gabe Escobar (<a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@gabesco/video/7298870719755111722?q=gabe%20escobar%20ipad%20&amp;t=1710179207478">@gabesco</a>) shared a rant about "iPad kids" in November 2023. The video has 23 million views to date. He said, "I need everyone else in my generation to <i>promise</i> that we are not going to raise 'iPad children.' ... You've been shoving media and screens in these kids' faces since birth."</p><p style="margin-left:0px;">Escobar said that these kids likely "can't read" and "have no imagination." Horrified by seeing kids using screens in restaurants, he asked parents, “Can you <i>not</i> make your child behave for more than five seconds?”</p></blockquote><div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="tiktok-embed" cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@gabesco/video/7298870719755111722" data-video-id="7298870719755111722" style="max-width: 605px;min-width: 325px;"> <section> <a target="_blank" title="@gabesco" href="https://www.tiktok.com/@gabesco?refer=embed">@gabesco</a> seriously pls we cant let it happen <a title="genz" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/genz?refer=embed">#genz</a> <a title="genalpha" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/genalpha?refer=embed">#genalpha</a> <a title="ipadkid" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ipadkid?refer=embed">#ipadkid</a> <a target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Gabe Escobar" href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7298870761563917098?refer=embed">♬ original sound - Gabe Escobar</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async="" src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script></div><p>Colosi also linked to TikTok'er Andra's video (below), in which she agreed with Escobar and included her own observations of Gen-Alpha kids as a nanny of eight years. Andra found that the kids who were easiest to handle were those whose parents limited screen time.</p><blockquote><p>A Gen Z creator named Andra (@hopeyoufindyourdad), who worked as a nanny for eight years, commented on Escobar's video saying that "the families that were the easiest to manage were the families that extremely controlled screen time for their kids."</p><p>She added that in her experience, "if you try to take an iPad out of an iPad kid's hand, not only will they throw a tantrum so large, but they will start physically hitting you."</p></blockquote><div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="tiktok-embed" cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@hopeyoufindyourdad/video/7299966592438488366" data-video-id="7299966592438488366" style="max-width: 605px;min-width: 325px;"> <section> <a target="_blank" title="@hopeyoufindyourdad" href="https://www.tiktok.com/@hopeyoufindyourdad?refer=embed">@hopeyoufindyourdad</a> @gabesco I am fully on board with what this creator is saying although kids having ipads is a bit inevitable at this point the real issue is regulation and parenting styles <a title="genz" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/genz?refer=embed">#genz</a> <a title="genalpha" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/genalpha?refer=embed">#genalpha</a> <a title="millennial" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/millennial?refer=embed">#millennial</a> <a title="parenting" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/parenting?refer=embed">#parenting</a> <a title="ipadkid" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ipadkid?refer=embed">#ipadkid</a> <a title="greenscreenvideo" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/greenscreenvideo?refer=embed">#greenscreenvideo</a> <a title="greenscreen" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/greenscreen?refer=embed">#greenscreen</a> <a target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Andra" href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7299966669533891374?refer=embed">♬ original sound - Andra</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async="" src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script></div><p style="margin-left:0px;">As <i>Frontline News</i> <a href="https://frontline.news/post/mental-illness-and-suicide-in-children-and-adolescents-linked-to-smartphones" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reported</a>, the effects of excessive screen time on the social and emotional development of Gen-Z'ers are profoundly negative:&nbsp;</p><blockquote><p style="margin-left:0px;">It's well known that Gen Z adults have much higher rates of mental illness than other generations, and [<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(0,0,0);">NYU social psychologist Jonathan] </span>Haidt pointed to data showing they are also more shy and risk-averse, more socially isolated, especially with respect to dating, less confident, less successful — the list goes on and on.&nbsp;</p></blockquote><h2 style="margin-left:0px;">What does the future hold?</h2><p style="margin-left:0px;">Gen-Z'ers were born before iPads were developed. The effect of technology on Gen-Alpha, who have grown up with iPads, may already be profoundly worse than the effect technology has had on Gen-Z. How will society continue to function if its children, soon-to-be adults, can't?&nbsp;</p><p style="margin-left:0px;"><strong>Related articles:&nbsp;</strong></p><ul><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/mental-illness-and-suicide-in-children-and-adolescents-linked-to-smartphones" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mental illness and suicide in children and adolescents linked to smartphones</a></li></ul>

children learning via technology.jpg

'There’s a concern that they are not learning how to deal with people; they don’t know how to deal with emotions'

IPads and Chromebooks linked to ADHD and Autism-like symptoms in children

Spending bill's 'trojan horse' - RFID livestock tagging may lead to cattle limits

'EU used these measures under guise of climate change lies to limit cattle supply'

Related Articles

Mental illness and suicide in children and adolescents linked to smartphones

Spending bill's 'trojan horse' - RFID livestock tagging may lead to cattle limits

Can't digest cheese? Maybe you can tolerate cheese made with natural rennet instead of Pfizer's GMO version

A little bit of Pfizer in your cheese? Fake rennet bypassed additive approval process

Latest Articles

'Kill Switch' to be mandated in cars by 2026 with software deciding if you're too impaired to drive

Taxpayers foot $138.7 million bill for DOJ's failure to stop sexual assaults; hush money silenced victim

White House funding 'community schools' that aim to replace parents

IPads and Chromebooks linked to ADHD and Autism-like symptoms in children