Wednesday, 19 November 2014

How Barack Obama's presidency has come undone

He held out hope and promise, but so many of those promises went unfulfilled

By Neil Macdonald, CBC News Posted: Nov 19, 2014 5:00 AM ET

Barack Obama must — must — spend time daydreaming nowadays about the old rallies, the ferocious belief of his original volunteers, the millions of tiny, happily given donations that added up to such record-breaking sums, the ecstatic stupefaction he was once able to provoke just by walking out onto a stage and standing there, the way he did that January day in 2008 when a  languid Caroline Kennedy, backed by her uncle Teddy, endorsed him and not Hillary, and called him the future of his party and of America, expressing something this nation loves to believe, that even the most Gordian political knot can be cleaved with a single moral stroke by a good person, and that that person was him, and that his promise to bridge America's ideological rift was credible, and that even as wars were going calamitously wrong and the culmination of financial rot and corruption was wiping away Americans' wealth on a scale never seen by most voters, he, Barack Obama, could see the nation through it by inspiring hope, and hope, according to American myth, conquers all.
That was just about seven years ago. Anyone who was there will never forget it.
The original Obama movement was so rapturous that stating the obvious — you can't eat hope and the rhetoric was mostly empty — seemed small-minded and a cynical snub to those people who clearly felt they were about to see real change, especially black voters who were feeling the kind of fierce emotions that most of us could never understand.
"We are the ones we've been waiting for," he'd tell the crowds. Whatever that meant, it sounded good.
Today, though, Obama must — must — at least be contemplating the possibility that he has failed.
Six years after he assumed power, nearly 120 of his promises remain unfulfilled, according to the Pulitzer-prize-winning website Politifact.
Some of them are relatively minor in the grand scheme of things — like his pledge to defy Turkey, America's NATO ally, and recognize the Armenian genocide, or to resume human missions to the moon, or double the size of the Peace Corps.
But others are betrayals of the mission, for lack of a better term, that Obama promised to carry into the White House.
For example, he promised to "hold accountable" the financial firms whose criminal negligence — let's dispense with euphemisms — nearly destroyed the economy in 2008.
Obama's attorney-general eventually decided not to charge a single Wall Street executive, fearing the "collateral consequences" might be too hard on shareholders and office workers who might lose their jobs if a corporate collapse resulted.
Obama also promised a foreclosure prevention fund to protect homeowners threatened by Wall Street's behaviour, and a law allowing judges to modify people's mortgages as the vultures descended. Never happened.
Obama has not enacted protections for striking workers, or made it easier to unionize, or required employers to provide at least seven days of paid sick leave per year, all of which he promised.
He has not raised the federal minimum wage.

The list goes on

He has done nothing — and this one is huge — to accommodate the 11 million immigrants who legally shouldn't be here but are, and who are feeding America's craving for cheap labour.
In fact, federal authorities have deported more people under the first six years of Obama's watch than they did in the same period of George W. Bush's presidency.
He has not, as promised, allowed Americans to import cheaper prescription drugs from other developed countries, notably Canada.
He has not enacted a hard cap on carbon emissions (merely stated another promise to take effect, maybe, years after he is gone). He has not met targets he set himself for renewable energy.
He has not limited the ridiculous subsidies enjoyed by big agribusiness at the expense of taxpayers and to the misery of farmers in smaller countries.
He didn't change, as promised, the military commissions used by the Bush administration to judge so-called enemy combatants, commissions that circumvented the Geneva Convention and, in some cases, the due process guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
He has neither closed the Guantanamo Bay prison camp nor extended habeas corpus rights to enemy fighters, as promised.
His promise to oblige American companies to publicly divulge breaches of their customers' personal data became utterly risible when a former CIA contractor, Edward Snowden, exposed the fact that his administration not only scoops up personal data on an industrial scale, but legally gags the country's biggest technology companies from discussing it.
He's unleashed government prosecutors on news organizations that dare to report secrets.
He tried to extricate America from Bush's disastrous war in Iraq, only to plunge back in when it became evident Iraq's American-trained and equipped army is almost useless.
He is now wading into the Syrian conflict, fighting the extremists of ISIS by aligning America with some groups that are barely more palatable.

Executive orders

It is true that Obama did keep some promises, and there are explanations for some of the ones he broke.
Reality intruded on his worldview once he took power. And Republicans have systematically obstructed his efforts at reform.
  • But then, one of Obama's most surreal promises six years ago was to "turn the page on the ugly partisanship in Washington, so we can bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda that works for the American people."
As ridiculous as that sounds now, he did promise to make it happen.
His great achievement was Obamacare, passed in the early days of his presidency, before voters gave Congress back to the Republicans.
But even that fell short of the promised Canadian-style public option. And the Supreme Court has just agreed to hear another legal challenge to Obamacare.
Now, as a lame duck president facing a Republican-controlled House and Senate, Obama is promising a robust burst of executive power to thwart his congressional opponents, who, ironically, greatly expanded executive power when one of theirs, George W. Bush, held the White House.
He clearly intends to implement some immigration reform with just the presidential pen.
But executive orders last only until the next chief executive decides to change them.
As the president sits in his office, reflecting on his lousy approval ratings and his party's loss of the Senate this month, I have a modest suggestion: Make another official visit to Canada.
Polls continue to suggest Canadians admire Obama more than any of their national leaders, and perhaps more than almost any other country.
He could hold big rallies; it would be just like the old days, except that the adoring crowds wouldn't be able to vote for him, which doesn't matter, because he isn't running again.
Maybe we're the ones he's been waiting for.

Tuesday, 18 November 2014

The most dangerous man in Amerika

[The following post is by Director of TDV Offshore, Paul Seymour]
I'm coming to you this week from the banks/beaches of the Rio Plata between Montevideo and Punta del Este, Uruguay.  
Crossing the Rio Plata from communist leaning Buenos Aires to libertarian leaning Uruguay was an incredible contrast that everyone should experience one day.  Seeing the sharp contrast is an eye opener.  It was while I was tossing around those sharp contrasts, that I came across even more information about my “home” senator, Charles E. (Chuck) Schumer, (Fasco-Communist - NY).  It seems like this guy is on a one man crusade to make my analogies of current Amerika and 1930’s Germany a reality.  I finally got so angry that I became inspired to start doing my part to expose, who I think, might well be the most dangerous man in the Amerika.
Although my home now, and going forward, is in South America, and has been for 11 years after living several years in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, I remain interested in my birthplace politics.  Why?  Because I’d greatly prefer that the spread of Amerikan fascism be nipped in the bud, before it has a chance to morph like cancer around the world, and possibly creep back into my life after I successfully extracted myself from behind the curtain.
In that regard, over the past few years, I’ve continually run across his name in association with his attempts to spread said fascism, and it seems that the time has come to shine a light on this Nazi poster boy for term limits in Congress.  
Without going to very much trouble, I’ll quickly compile an extremely short list of very recent activities in order to support my statements.  Keep in mind that these few examples date back only to May of 2014, and this menace to personal freedom has somehow managed to remain a US Congressman for 34 years, doing untold amounts of damage….  
Last month, for example, he spearheaded a movement to further enhance airport screenings under the guise of protecting citizens from Ebola... as though the current iron curtain like treatment isn’t already egregious “screening”.  It’s an obvious ploy by the fascist leaning Senator to impose even further restrictions on your ever-dwindling personal freedoms.  Another step to see just how far the sheeple will let their public servants go while setting the stage for an easy transition to martial law. 
Even the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Senator Tom Carper, a Delaware Democrat, criticized fellow members of Congress for using political “scare tactics” over the spread of the Ebola virus.  According to Bloomberg he was quoted as saying  “Some of my colleagues have been shameful in the way, frankly, they’ve manipulated this for purposes that I think we can all understand.  The way people have just been playing the scare tactics is just, I think, shameful.”  
Then, two months ago in September, Schumer led the charge to try and entice companies to stay in the US, and pay higher than necessary taxes, by introducing a bill that would further financially punish companies for making the prudent business decision to move offshore.   Way to go Schumer.  Make it obvious that they made a huge mistake by ever incorporating in the USA to begin with.  
Even more laughable, his proposed bill would have effected these penalties on a retroactive basis.  Thereby penalizing companies like Tyco, Ingersoll Rand, Eaton and Lucent Technologies (AT&T Bell Labs), who all moved offshore more than a decade ago.  Who has ever heard of imposing penalties on a retroactive basis?  In fact, the US Constitution states, in Article I, Section 9, Clause 3—“No Ex Post Facto Law Shall be Passed".  And this tyrant has several times sworn an oath to protect and defend that Constitution.
The kind of message that proposal sent to the business community, regarding the stability of the US as a business friendly nation, is just staggering in its potential implications.  I won’t even get started on what it implies about Schumer’s feelings towards the basic rights of both natural persons and legal entities to live where they want to.  
It should come as no surprise then, that just a few months prior in May of 2014 he said, to paraphrase him, “Either stay in Amerika, or we’ll exile you”.  
Just six months ago he made another swastika waving proposal to change the laws of the US.  This was just after a highly successful dual US-Brazilian citizen, born and raised in Brazil (where I’ll be travelling to next), decided to move to Singapore, and renounce his burdensome US citizenship. Soon afterward, this Constitution and freedom-hating fascist sponsored a bill to punish such US citizens who have made the choice to flee from, and then cut legal ties to, the Amerika.  He actually thought it somehow patriotic to sponsor legislation barring one who renounces US citizenship from ever returning to even make a visit to family members.  Nor even if one day in the future, after say, a successful and hopefully bloodless revolution, the country becomes worthy of ever visiting again.
As a result of this proposed legislation, the Washington Examiner correctly characterized him as totalitarian, and Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform, correctly pointed out that Schumer’s proposed legislation was similar to laws written in 1931 Germany, in order to make Jews pay to leave the country. "He probably just plagiarized it and translated it from the original German," said Norquist.  
How did Schumer respond?  He actually said in front of Congress “The law that Norquist refers to in Nazi Germany was purely discriminatory.  It targeted a particular race of people. The Jewish People.  And punished them for nothing other than being Jewish, and exercise freedom of movement.  It was meant to constrain their freedom, by forcing Jews to reside in Germany.  Our proposal targets no single race, creed, or class.  It doesn’t punish you for factors beyond your control like who your parents were.  It applies based on actions you take.”
Could he possibly be any more self-contradictory?  Is he saying that he’s not trying to constrain our freedom? Unless he’s trying to say that only Jewish people have the right to “exercise freedom of movement”, he lost me.  Isn’t his bill intending to force people to remain citizens of the USA?  Just exactly like he said was the case in Nazi Germany with the Jews?  Aren’t people who choose to leave the US a particular class of people?  Even though he states out the other side of his mouth that he’s not discriminating against any particular class?  
I had no choice of who my parents were either.  As a descendent, on both sides of my family, of the founders of the former America, I feel extremely discriminated against, in that I’m in a particular class of people which are genetically predisposed to respond very poorly to tyranny.  Such people are clearly being targeted by the Amerikan government in general, and by Nazis such as Schumer in particular, and it’s time it stopped.
Not one to pause from his fascist oppression Schumer is now out to implement dangerous laws to “regulate” the internet.  In this recent article it’s noted that Schumer “has called for a crackdown on the dark web (Nazi style smear campaign terminology, evidently) following reports that illicit marketplaces are thriving even after the government shutdown of Silk Road (surprise, surprise!).  
In an open letter addressed to Attorney General Eric Holder and published by Schumer’s office on 27th October, the senator pledged to both secure additional funding for anti-dark web activities and continue pressing for increased oversight of technologies that facilitate such activities. The letter cited the Tor network and bitcoin as mechanisms used by criminals to help conceal the global drug trade.
Of course, that’s not discriminatory either... attacking those who favor freedom as expressed on an open, uncensored internet.
The article also noted that “The senior senator from New York has sent mixed messages to date to the digital currency industry. For example, Schumer has voiced opposition to bitcoin, once calling the technology a tool for money launderers (but still a tiny percentage of the amount of money laundered using US Federal Reserve Notes). Yet nearly a year ago, the senator said on Twitter that the technology held promise ahead of a then-upcoming hearing on digital currency.”
Apparently his opinions fluctuate based upon the level of control he thinks he and the government can exert over digital currency transactions, and their ability to monitor same and capture data to achieve statist goals.  He went on to say in his open letter, “These websites, by allowing users to rate the delivery services of sellers and by offering any drugs imaginable under the sun, are nothing less than an all-you-can order buffet of contraband that need to be investigated and targeted with more intensity". Schumer’s office said in its statement that the requested funding would go to hiring more cybercrime experts at the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as state-based agencies in New York. These funds would address what Schumer called a chronic staffing issue that he says further encourages would-be substance traffickers who frequent dark web marketplaces.
“Currently, there are not enough people to target these websites,” the office added.
Certainly sir. Get more cops.  We wouldn’t want a free market operating at any level whereby consenting adults engage in commerce without outside interference.  I think Schumer in the US, and Queen Kristina in Argentina have more in common than they might think.  Both fascists and communists have the same ultimate objectives.  Control, power and money, which both require totalitarianism in order to maintain that power, as no group of people, except possibly current Amerikans, would ever just roll over and accept it without coercion of some sort.
Therefore, your best options are to implement strategies to counter fascists such as Charles Schumer, and his like-minded cronies in Congress on both sides of the aisle.  Your feeble and gutless countrymen will see to the continuance of the status quo.  
Do you really believe these people won’t confiscate your IRA or 401(k)?  Not continue passing laws to further enslave you?  If so, good luck with that.  If not, start taking steps to free yourself before it’s too late.
[Editor's Note: For more information on getting a self-directed IRA which enables you to get your IRA and 401k funds outside of the US without withdrawing them from your plan, or for any offshore banking, corporation or FATCA-proof trust needs you can contact Paul at pseymour@tdvoffshore.com or toTDVOffshore.com for more information.]
Paul worked for several years with Big 4 CPA firms in both the US and Saudi Arabia, and then spent many years as a multi-national corporate Controller and CFO in places like Florida, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Cairo, and MedellĂ­n. In his second, more free life, he has found a natural home in the offshore industry following almost 2 decades as a permanent expat from the former America. Contact him to learn more about the realities of economical offshore asset protection pseymour@tdvoffshore.com

D.C. Police Budget For Asset Seizures That Haven’t Occured Yet

November 17, 2014—For years police departments around the country have been seizing property under suspicion of its relation to a possible crime. “Civil asset forfeiture,” as it is called, is facing a reform effort from the D.C. City Council and in that process, the police department’s budget was found to be quite dependent on the loose policy of property confiscation.
From the article at The Washington Post:D.C. police have made plans for millions of dollars in anticipated proceeds from future civil seizures of cash and property, even though federal guidelines say “agencies may not commit” to such spending in advance, documents show.

From the Washington Post November 17, 2014:
The city’s proposed budget and financial plan for fiscal 2015 includes about $2.7 million for the District police department’s “special purpose fund” through 2018. The fund covers payments for informants and rewards.
The financial details emerged Wednesday, when the D.C. Council’s judiciary committee unanimously voted to forward a bill that would overhaul asset forfeiture laws in the nation’s capital. The bill would raise the threshold of proof required for a forfeiture, bolster the rights of individuals whose property has been taken and require that proceeds from seizures under federal law go into the city general fund, rather than directly to the police department. The full council is set to vote on the bill Tuesday.
Council member Tommy Wells, chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety, said police should not have a financial incentive to make seizures. He said the bill addresses problems that are common across the country.
“All across the nation, law enforcement agencies are directly benefiting from forfeiture,” said Wells, who is leading the effort to reform asset forfeiture in the District. “In those places, forfeiture proceeds go directly to the law enforcement entity, creating at best the appearance of a conflict of interest, and at worst, an unchecked incentive for slush funds.”
Civil forfeiture laws permit local and state police to take cash, cars, homes and other property from people suspected of involvement in drug trafficking or other wrongdoing without proving a crime has occurred. Police can make seizures under state or federal laws.
Since 2009, D.C. officers have made more than 12,000 seizures under city and federal laws, according to records and data obtained from the city by The Washington Post through the District’s open records law. Half of the more than $5.5 million in cash seizures were for $141 or less, with more than a thousand for less than $20. D.C. police have seized more than 1,000 cars, some for minor offences allegedly committed by the children or friends of the vehicle owners, documents show.
When D.C. police seize cash or property under District law, the proceeds go into the city’s general fund. But proceeds of seizures made under federal law go directly to the police department through the Justice Department’s Equitable Sharing Program, which allows local departments to join with federal agencies in forfeitures and keep up to 80 percent of the proceeds.
District financial records show that D.C. police receive about $670,000 annually from the Equitable Sharing Program. About $30,000 in proceeds from forfeitures under District law go into the general fund.
Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr declined to discuss civil asset forfeiture practices in the District. He said police agencies can participate in the program only if they comply with its guidelines. Among other things, the guidelines say that agencies “should not ‘spend it before you get it’ or budget anticipated receipts. Receiving agencies may not commit to the spending of sharing monies for a certain purpose in advance.”
In a statement, D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said the department is not building its budget with the proceeds of civil seizures but is using them “to augment the reward pool of funding and confidential fund programs (witness protection, rewards for information in homicides).”
Lanier said the department’s focus is not on generating revenue but on “removing the profit gained from facilitating a crime. By forfeiting those assets, the expansion of criminal activities can also be reduced.”
The council’s reform effort began last year after the Public Defender Service for the District filed a class action lawsuit against the city, alleging that police violated the constitutional rights of residents in the process of seizing their cars. Among other things, the Public Defender Service  focused on a city requirement that vehicle owners post bonds of up to $2,500 before they were permitted to challenge seizures.
In August 2013, all parties agreed to put the lawsuit on hold as the District worked to modify its forfeiture laws.
Wells said the proposed bill would create a fairer system under District law by scaling back the bond requirement, creating a clearer appeals process and imposing a requirement for notifying property owners within 10 business days of a seizure.
But the bill has been opposed by law enforcement officials, partly for the same reason other reform efforts across the country have been stymied: money. The officials also said it would create an administrative burden. In addition to tightening oversight and the rules for civil seizures, the District proposal would cut back on revenue.
“Enacting this Bill would almost certainly decrease the number of successful forfeiture ­cases, which would lead to a loss of significant forfeiture revenues,” D.C. Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan warned in a statement to the council last year.
Nathan, who has resigned effective Monday, did not respond to a request for an interview. But a knowledgeable official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the negotiations are ongoing said that Nathan was addressing an earlier version of the bill. The official said the attorney general’s office thinks that the current version is an improvement but declined to provide details.
The bill would require that the federal proceeds from seized property go into the city’s general fund rather than to the department. Because the Equitable Sharing Program requires that seizure proceeds go to the department, D.C. police would effectively be blocked from participating in the program and using the federal law. That would force city police to make all seizures under District law, which already requires that seizure proceeds go into the general fund.
Wells said the general fund provision in the bill cannot take effect until fiscal 2019, because the city has already budgeted the anticipated proceeds to that point.
“That is personally offensive to me,” said Wells, whose council term ends in January. “I want to make it fair. There is a financial incentive not to do that.”
In a fiscal impact statement Wednesday, the city’s chief financial officer, Jeffrey S. DeWitt, said that the bill “could reduce federal resources­ received by the District by approximately $670,000” each year if the general fund provision takes effect.
Wells and the Public Defender Service contend that the department’s aggressive use of seizure laws — originally intended to fight drug kingpins and deprive them of ill-gotten riches­ — has had a disproportionate impact on the poor and working class.
One case cited by the Public Defender Service involves Sharlene Powell, who had worked for three decades as a Postal Service employee. She loaned her car to her son, who was stopped and arrested on a misdemeanor drug offence. Prosecutors dropped the charges, but District police kept the car. To get her car back, Powell had to pay a $1,772 “penal sum” bond to challenge the seizure, the Public Defender Service said in a statement last year to the judiciary committee.
In response to questions about seizures, the police department directed The Post to a general order signed by Lanier called “Handling and Accounting for Seized and Forfeited Property.” The document, which spelled out procedures police should follow, was released two days before a council hearing in July 2013 about civil asset forfeiture.
“We know this has been getting a lot of attention nationally, and we agree that there have been troubling practices around the country,” Lanier said in her statement. “These programs must have strong oversight and supervision.”
Darpana Sheth, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm that advocates for seizure reform, said the District bill could have a wide impact.
“Short of eliminating civil forfeiture entirely, this bill is a good model to strengthen protections for property owners and remove the profit incentives that have been fuelling the District’s aggressive seizing of people’s property,” she said.

Canadian billed $950K US after giving birth in U.S.

Humboldt, Sask., resident gave birth 9 weeks early while vacationing in Hawaii

Posted: Nov 18, 2014 1:54 PM CT Last Updated: Nov 18, 2014 7:07 PM CT - CBC News

A warm weather holiday has turned into a hot mess for a Saskatchewan couple.
Jennifer Huculak-Kimmel gave birth nine weeks early while on holiday in Hawaii in November 2013. Her baby daughter had to be hospitalized.
"My water broke two days into our holiday," Huculak-Kimmel said. "I spent six weeks on bed rest and then baby Reece was delivered by emergency C-section on December 10th."
  • Reece had to stay in the hospital for just over two months. Huculak-Kimmel thought that her insurance would cover the almost $1 million US bill.
In the end, Blue Cross denied payment. In a letter to the family, a Blue Cross worker wrote, "We are unable to provide coverage for any medical expenses incurred for Ms. Huculak's baby" and "please note that Ms. Huculak's travel policy expired on Nov. 9, 2013."
The parents are now unsure what they'll do next.
"Blue Cross said that because I had a bladder infection at four months and hemorrhaged because of that, that they would not cover the pregnancy," she said. "We thought we had done everything right. We thought we had covered all avenues and we thought we were covered. We thought we were safe to go."
​Huculak-Kimmel said she tried everything possible to get back to Canada.
"We looked at all avenues to trying to get medevac [an air ambulance] home," she said. "One medevac company would not fly me in my condition and the other one would only do it with a surgical team on board and still recommended me not travel."
Huculak-Kimmel said she met with her own doctor, and Blue Cross, before the trip.
Steven Lewis, a health policy analyst in Saskatoon, says he doesn't have all the facts in the case, but if Huculak-Kimmel checked in with her doctor days before she left on the trip, and he gave her a clean bill of health, then she should have been covered by insurance.
"Well, I don't think we can be our own doctors," Lewis said. "Either we do, or we don't have a pre-existing condition. And we're not likely to know about them unless we've been told by our doctors that we have them."
Lewis said he doesn't often hear about cases like this, especially ones involving a medical bill that reaches almost $1 million.
He hopes the situation can be mediated.
"One would hope there would be an appeal mechanism," he said, "so the family and the company would sit down and discuss this, and at least agree what the facts are, before having to go to court."

Monday, 17 November 2014

Historian Reveals Unredacted FBI Letter to M.L.K.

November 14, 2014—According to historian and professor Beverly Gage, an uncensored version of the FBI’s “Suicide Letter” to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. offers “a potent warning” concerning the dangers of mass surveillance. The document illustrates the lengths that intelligence agencies are willing to go, using surveillance as a weapon for harassment and intimidation.

From the New York Times article:
Since then, the so called 'suicide letter' has occupied a unique place in the history of American Intelligence - the most notorious and embarrassing example of Hoover's FBI run amok. 
See NYT article for more...



Cops burst into school, weapons drawn, in surprise ‘active shooter drill’

Teachers and students at a Florida middle school got the shock of their lives as an unannounced ‘lockdown active shooter drill’ sparked panic as police burst into classrooms with weapons drawn, drawing sharp criticism from the community.
Students at Jewett Middle Academy in Winter Haven, Florida, spoke of the terror they experienced as police officers carried out their ‘active shooter drill’ inside classrooms – without informing teachers ahead of time about the exercise.
Lauren Marionneaux, a seventh-grader, told WTVT-TV that when the police officers crashed into her classroom with weapons drawn, she immediately imagined the worst. 

"A lot of people started getting scared because we thought it was a real drill," Lauren said. "We actually thought that someone was going to come in there and kill us."

Later, school officials sent an email to inform parents about the drill, which was compared to fire drills that schools regularly conduct.

“Parents, students and staff are typically not notified about lockdown drills. For example, we do not give advanced notice of fire drills in order to evaluate how safety procedures work...We regret any concern that parents and students might have experienced in how the drill was conducted," the letter stated.

But for many parents, however, receiving a letter from school officials after the fact was unacceptable.

Stacy Ray, whose daughter texted her during the police exercise, said she believed the school was experiencing a real live shooting.

"I'm panicking because I'm thinking that it's a legitimate shooter coming, that something bad is happening at the school," Ray told Fox 13. The video below shows police officers in an 'active shooter exercise' in the state of Massachusetts.
"It's very scary, especially from a parent's perspective," Ray said. "You hear all this horrible stuff on the news and you think it might be happening at your child's school."

Jason Geary, a spokesperson for Polk County Schools, called it “standard procedure” for such drills to occur without informing parents, students or teachers.
Meanwhile, Winter Haven Police Chief Charlie Bird said the unannounced lockdown drill enabled police to “evaluate a school’s response.”

“These types of drills are vital in order to evaluate not only law enforcement response, but more importantly to educate the students and school officials in case an actual event were to occur,” Chief Charlie Bird said in an email to media.

“How you train and how you prepare is how you’re going to react when everything goes bad.”

“It really is to protect the children and at no point in time would we endanger any of the children,”
 Bird stated.

Following the outpouring of criticism from teachers and parents, Winter Haven police said they had"evaluated procedures" for such drills and decided to change their tactics.

"Further lock-down drills that occur at schools within the city limits of Winter Haven will be performed by uniformed officers without weapons," the department said in a press release.
The police gave no indication, however, if they would inform students, parents and teachers about the ‘active shooter drills’ in advance.

Porn industry the main sex educator of kids, says child advocate

By Daniel Schwartz, CBC News Posted: Nov 17

More kids at ever more younger ages are accessing pornography online, according to a pile of studies. 
But while there's some research out there on pornography and young people, there's not much consensus about what, if anything, should be done by parents or in the classroom to address this. 
Today in Winnipeg, a children's advocacy group called Beyond Borders will host a symposium entitled "Generation XXX, the pornification of our children."
Cordelia Anderson, one of the experts scheduled to speak at the symposium, says, referring to the U.S., "the porn industry is the country's main sex educator of our boys and girls."
Anderson is the founding and past president of the U.S. National Coalition to Prevent Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation.
"Young people have never had this ease of access to this type of material at this young of age," she told CBC Radio. "This alone should encourage us to be talking about it and studying it."
Cathy Wing, the co-executive director of Ottawa-based MediaSmarts, another conference speaker, says "we really need to talk to kids from an early age, before they become exposed to online porn."

28% of boys look for porn at least once a week


In May, her group published the results of a survey that found 23 per cent of students in grades 7-11 say they have searched out pornography online. Twenty-eight per cent of the boys said they looked for porn at least once a week.
As Wing observes, "there seems to be less of a stigma about looking for pornography, because everybody's doing it, than there is for looking for good information about sexuality." 
Just eight per cent of the students surveyed said they had searched online for information about sexuality.
Of course, when it comes to viewing pornography, there may be a discrepancy between what kids say they do and what they actually do. 
A Spanish survey, for example, said that 53.5 per cent of Spanish youth aged 14 to 17 viewed online porn, while a poll by Opinium Research in June of 500 U.K. 18-year-olds had almost half saying that viewing pornography was typical by age 13-14.

Is porn damaging?

While almost half the U.K. teens said they saw nothing wrong with watching pornography, 70 per cent agreed with the statement that "pornography can have a damaging impact on young people's views of sex or relationships." Just nine per cent disagreed.
"Porn can have both negative and positive impacts," says Alice Gauntley, a sex education activist and a student in gender and sexuality studies at McGill University in Montreal.
"It can reinforce sexist, racist and trans-phobic  stereotypes and give us unrealistic expectations about sex and our bodies. But it can also be a source of pleasure and a means of exploring our sexualities."
But for young teens with no sexual experience, processing the porn on their screens may be quite the challenge. Gauntley argues, "it is necessary to equip teens with the tools they need to make sense of the erotic material they might come across."
Sex educators are concerned that young people are getting the wrong picture about sex from viewing online pornography.
As Cathy Wing points out, "you're not going to get realistic portrayals in the pornography industry. It's a business; everything is constructed, like all media." 
She advises teachers and parents to "make sure the kids understand that this is not reflecting reality, that it's a constructed reality that contains bias and it's there to make money."

Fantasy, not reality

Sex therapist Wendy Maltz says that while kids have a sense that they should view pornography as fiction, she doesn't think they do. 
"That takes a lot of high-order thinking to maintain that, especially under the influence of sexual arousal. It can start getting blurry when there's an excitement associated with it."
Maltz is the author of The Porn Trap: The Essential Guide to Overcoming Problems Caused by Pornography. 
And, as she says, "the image is the reality on the internet."
Maltz says you won't stop young people's curiosity about sex, but that it's important for them to know that curiosity is normal.
"It doesn't mean you're sick if you found this stuff exciting," she said.
It bothers Maltz that, because of the prevalence of pornography, "kids are getting robbed of having their own sexual conditioning come from real-life romantic experiences."
She would like to see kids start getting a healthy sex education before they start viewing pornography.