Search This Blog

Tuesday, June 10, 2025

'If I Let My Kid Play Outside, They’ll Be Bullied!'

 by Lenore Skenazy

“I want my child to play outside unsupervised, but what about bullies?”

That’s a question that comes up pretty often when I suggest free, unstructured, unsupervised play as a great thing to support kids’ social-emotional health. (Not to mention a wildly fun alternative to keeping kids “safe inside.”) And while “What about bullies?” automatically turns playtime into a minefield of worry, this question actually shows progress.

Because the automatic question used to be, “But what if they’re kidnapped???”

For two generations now, people have become accustomed to imagining the worst-case scenarios whenever we suggest taking their eyes off their kids even for a second — rarely thinking about the fact that they played and explored outside, and these are usually the best memories of their childhood.

Back then, neighborhood play groups were loose and spontaneous, and they usually spanned a bunch of ages. They were made up of whoever was around and available. Younger siblings (I was one) often tagged along.

If you believe in the importance of some playtime that is not adult-organized and supervised — the old-fashioned kind recommended in The Anxious Generation’sFour New Norms — here are eight points I like to share when hesitant parents pose the bully question. (And if you’re a little hesitant yourself, these should provide you some peace of mind, too!)

1. Mixed-age play reduces bullying

Bullying is less common when kids play in mixed-age groups, which is what usually happens when they're not in organized activities. Older kids often (imperfectly, of course) step into the caregiver role. They instinctively tone down aggressive behavior and look out for younger kids. It's actually how they start to build empathy.

As my Let Grow co-founder Peter Gray noted on his SubstackPlay Makes Us Human:

In a review of cross-cultural anthropological studies of children’s social interactions, Beatrice Whiting (1983) concluded that boys and girls everywhere demonstrate more kindness and compassion toward children who are at least three years younger than themselves than they do toward children closer to their own age. In a study in a subsistence farming community in Kenya, Carol Ember (1973) found that boys, age 8 to 16, who had regular experience caring for and playing with younger siblings were, on average, kinder, more helpful, and less aggressive in their interactions with peers than were boys who did not have such experience. More recently, a large study of bullying involving data from many classrooms, at many schools, revealed that bullying occurred significantly less often in mixed-grade classrooms than in single-grade classrooms (Oldenburg et al, 2015).

2. A little discomfort is a good thing

No child will be happy — or even totally comfortable — every moment they're playing. And that’s a good thing. Children need love, safety, and great experiences. That’s their sunshine. But they also need some confusion, anger, sadness, fear, and even betrayal. That’s their rain, and it helps them grow. Not a tsunami! Not a hurricane! A little rain.

As Jon (another of my Let Grow co-founders) likes to say: Just as kids need exposure to germs to build a robust immune system, they also need some imperfect, even rotten experiences to build up tolerance for the inevitable slings and arrows of life. This is how they become “antifragile.”

3. Not all meanness is bullying

Not every unkind moment is bullying. There will inevitably be spats when kids get together. I listen to kids playing outside during the summer and the phrase I hear most often is, “That’s not fair!”

Bullying is something different: It’s intentional and persistent harassment and/or intimidation. And it’s much rarer than the everyday bumps and slights that are part of growing up.

4. Teach “social jiu jitsu”

Unfortunately, we will never be able to get rid of all bullies — whether play is supervised or not. So what we can try to do is teach kids how not to be victims (per “bullying expert” Izzy Kalman). We know that kids cannot control other people’s actions, and we don’t believe in blaming the victim. But teaching kids to ignore or even respond cheerfully to jerks (when possible) can be empowering. So instead of, "Don't call me a fatso! That's not nice! Stop it!" a response like "OMG, I wish I looked like you! I see you eat a Twinkie every day at lunch and yet you are so buff! How do you do it?" throws the bully for a total loop.

He has nothing to push on now. Learning that sort of "social jiu-jitsu" can change a kid's whole life! (It works with adults, too.)

Note that this doesn’t work with physical bullying, just verbal.

5. The Three R’s > Stranger Danger

One of the best ways to keep kids safe is to teach them The Three R's. This lesson will keep them safer than locking them inside, or supervising every interaction. It’s also more practical than teaching “Stranger Danger,” which can leave kids thinking that they can’t ask anyone for help, even when they need it. The Three R’s are:

Recognize — No one can touch where your bathing suit covers.

Resist — If someone bothers you, fight, kick, scream, yell.

Report — to you. Tell your kid: "If someone hurts you or makes you do something you don't want to do, tell me and I won’t be mad at you. Even if they make you promise not to tell me, Do tell me. Nothing bad will happen, I promise." This takes away the greatest weapon the bully (or molester) has: secrecy.

6. Who says it’s safer to stay inside?

Do the other parents really think their child will encounter more bullies outside than online?

7. Ask: What kind of childhood do you want for them?

Ask other parents to try to remember how much they loved playing as a kid.

Then ask: "Do you wish your mom was watching you the whole time? Do you wish she was in the tree house with you? Do you wish she was there when you were talking to your friends? Do you wish you were kept 'safe' by never having any unsupervised play time, so you'd never possibly deal with a bully?

If so, then do the same for your kids. But if you think you got something out of your time with friends, outside, playing and dealing with the inevitable conflicts, why not give that same gift to your kids?

8. There is no risk-free choice

If we wait for a perfect, risk-free world before giving kids any freedom and trust, your child will be 88 years old in a rocking chair, reminiscing about the good old days on Instagram.

Here’s the big picture: There is no such thing as a risk-free choice. Every decision we make as parents carries some degree of risk — whether it’s keeping kids home (likely glued to their screens), driving them to school, or allowing them to play unsupervised. So the real choice isn’t between risk and no risk, it’s between different kinds of risks, and different rewards.

The reward for allowing our kids time to hang out with other kids of different ages — in real life, on their own, figuring out what to do, arguing, running, and laughing along the way — isn’t just that they learn how to be social, active, self-directed, happy human beings. It’s that they get a part of their childhood that is truly their own.

And that is irreplaceable.

NOTE: To give your kids the gift of ample, kids-only time, try to find some other nearby families who are game to let their kids play. Or ask your school to start a Let Grow Play Club (school stays open for minimally supervised free play). Or be like the town of Piedmont, California, and declare “Free-Play Fridays,” when everyone sends their kids to the park — and the parents stay home.

https://www.afterbabel.com/p/what-to-do-bullying

Medi-Cal and Asset Tests: Hit by Reality

 By Mark J. Warshawsky

Governor Gavin Newsom of California recently proposed reinstating the asset tests formerly used to determine eligibility for Medi-Cal health and long-term care benefits for disabled individuals and those aged 65 years and older. He is responding to the state’s large budget deficits, driven in part by an explosion of costs in the state’s Medicaid program over the last two years. Although the state Legislative Analyst’s Office claims that the increase in costs for seniors—three times higher than the estimates made when the legislation removing the asset tests was enacted in 2021—was unexpected, my own research in 2023, which focused specifically on long-term care, identified an obvious methodological mistake in the state’s estimates and projected such large increases.  Even with the reinstatement of asset tests, California’s Medicaid long-term care benefits apparently remain the most generous in the country and may still be inconsistent with federal law. 

Medicaid was designed as a jointly financed federal-state program to provide health care for the poor. It also covers nursing home care and, increasingly, home healthcare, particularly for the disabled and elderly. Eligibility for benefits for these groups is determined by a set of income and asset tests, which differ by state and have evolved over time but operate within a federal framework.

California has long taken a loose approach to eligibility, benefits, and other Medicaid rules. For example, under “Phase I” of the state’s 2021 reform legislation, its asset-test maximum for Medicaid eligibility was $130,000 for individuals (compared to the federal standard of just $2,000) and $195,000 for couples (compared to $3,000). In 2024, the state eliminated the asset test entirely.

California’s “look-back” period to identify and disallow strategic asset transfers aimed at gaining Medicaid eligibility is only 30 months, whereas federal law calls for 60 months. Moreover, California’s look-back does not apply if the applicant is not in a nursing home at the time of application. In contrast, federal law penalizes such transfers regardless of whether the person is institutionalized. California has also overlooked transfers of up to $12,000 in transfers to relatives per day—allowing individuals to shift as much as $4.4 million annually in order to pass the asset test when it was still in effect.

California also completely disregarded applicants’ net housing equity, which other states count as an asset if the value exceeds $730,000 (or $1,097,000 in some states). Retirement assets, including spousal retirement assets, were also excluded from consideration, unlike in most other states.

In California, estate recovery from deceased Medicaid recipients only applies to long-term care benefits, and only if the recipient had no surviving spouse. Recovery is limited to assets that pass through probate, effectively excluding retirement and insurance assets entirely, as well as many homes.  Despite the substantial wealth held in California—where median home values now reaching $910,000—the Medicaid program’s estate recovery efforts have lagged over the years, falling from $72 million collected in 2015 to just $17 million in 2020.

These legal shortcomings were either overlooked or approved by regulators at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). California officials told CMS that the total disregard of assets would cost the federal government only $115 million annually. However, the state’s own budget showed an increase of 37,000 newly eligible individuals and a total cost of $400 million. My own rough calculation in 2023—based on data from the Health and Retirement Study and additional survey data on long-term care needs—suggested that the annual additional cost to Medicaid for long-term care benefits alone would be at least $1.2 billion, with more than 100,000 newly eligible individuals. Based on actual experience in 2024, the California Legislative Analyst’s Office now calculates a caseload increase of 112,000 enrollees at a total cost of $1.4 billion, split evenly between the state and the federal government. Note that these latter statistics include both health and long-term care benefits; the increases in costs from long-term care benefits, especially for nursing home care, is likely to emerge more gradually over time.   

So, hit by reality and ignoring the complaints of advocates oblivious to costs, law, and fairness, Governor Newsom is proposing to reinstate the $2,000/$3,000 asset limits on January 1, 2026, but apparently not otherwise toughen the asset-related Medicaid eligibility rules. He also proposes changes to eliminate Medicaid long-term care benefits for illegal immigrants, the workforce and quality incentive program, and the requirement to maintain a backup extended power system for skilled nursing facilities. In total, these changes would save $1.7 billion annually on an on-going basis for a program estimated to cost $194.5 billion in 2025-26—an increase of $15.5 billion from 2024–25. These and other changes are likely insufficient, but at least they are in the right direction.

https://www.aei.org/economics/medi-cal-and-asset-tests-hit-by-reality/

Rogue NGOs Prepare For Nationwide Color Revolution; Walmart Heiress Calls For "Mobilization"

 A network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with known affiliations to Marxist-aligned political ideologies initiated coordinated protest activity across Los Angeles last Friday. Almost immediately, these protests escalated into widespread unrest, including acts of vandalism, arson, and looting, consistent with patterns observed in previous color revolution-style mobilizations by the Democratic Party. 

In response, President Trump authorized the deployment of National Guard units and Marines to secure high-risk areas and prevent further civil unrest, with looting and chaos continuing in the overnight hours...

There is reason to believe that an early staging of a coordinated national mobilization effort is underway to unleash a color revolution across cities, similar to BLM-style protests that morphed into riots in 2020, spearheaded by a group identifying itself as "No Kings." This organization appears to function as a front entity for broader far-left networks, with affiliated support from established rogue leftist NGOs, including Indivisible, a Soros-funded nonprofit previously linked to a failed color revolution targeting Elon Musk's Tesla earlier this year. 

Leftist news outlet Common Dreams stated that Indivisible's Leah Greenberg is one of the leading groups behind the "No Kings" movement.

This weekend's planned protest is receiving organizational backing—or, at the very least, logistical support—from nearly 200 groups, including a wide range of NGOs (get ready for the bussing of professional protesters to cities near you).

Here's a partial list of those groups...

Notably, the timing coincides with June 14, a symbolic convergence of Flag Day, President Trump's birthday, a military parade in Washington, DC, and the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary, suggesting deliberate political signaling behind the mobilization effort. 

Map: Nationwide Mobilization Effort 

FBI Director Kash Patel told media outlet Just the News, "The FBI is investigating any and all monetary connections responsible for these riots." 

Patel might want to take a look at the funding Billionaire Walton Family Heir Christy Walton (one of the heirs to Walmart) could be involved in; the 50501 movement, the leftist group also partnered with No Kings, re-posted Walton's protest mobilization ad in the New York Times. 

"Who had Christy Walton, Walmart Heiress, on your Bingo Card paying for ads in The New York Times to promote: "No Kings", June 14, Nationwide Protests? Anyone?!?" 50501 movement wrote on Facebook. 

Riots and chaos in Los Angeles are creating terrible optics for the Democratic Party. The NGOs' deployment of migrants and radical leftists as frontline actors—some of whom are burning vehicles, looting, and causing chaos while waving foreign flags—has strongly reinforced President Trump's mandate from the American people regarding the urgent need to deport criminal illegal aliens.

"The protests the Left is calling "No Kings" for next Saturday should be consistently messaged as "the Left's Anti American Flag Day protests." That's what they are," author and commentator James Lindsay wrote on X. 

All in all, early indications suggest staging efforts nationwide are underway with the Democratic Party's color revolution operation against Trump, supported and funded by rogue NGOs, in an effort to shift public opinion polls. Democrats are using the same playbook from their 2020 BLM riots. 

There is growing public awareness of the Democratic Party's deployment of dark NGO networks to orchestrate domestic unrest through tactics resembling the 2020 BLM riots. The ongoing unrest that could potentially spread nationwide by the weekend is best characterized as a hybrid war—cultural and informational against the sitting president of the U.S.  

The central unresolved question remains: To what extent are these leftist NGO-linked operations influenced or financed by foreign actors?

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rogue-ngos-prepare-nationwide-color-revolution-walmart-heiress-calls-mobilization

Dr. Naomi Wolf: War On Ranchers And Erosion Of Food Freedom

 Breeauna Sagdal, Senior Policy Fellow at The Beef Initiative, sat down with author and journalist Dr. Naomi Wolf, a longtime liberty advocate, and her husband, counterintelligence specialist Brian O'Shea.

Discussing Brian and Naomi's new podcast together "In the Lair," the three launched into a hard-hitting conversation about what may be the most important—yet overlooked—battleground in modern warfare: the nation's food supply chain.

The trio exposes how multinational corporations, global health bureaucracies, and hostile foreign interests have plagiarized and hijacked the fight for freedom and food.

The result? A rapidly vanishing Frontline. 

For starters, Wolf explains how a group of volunteer researchers who had spent three years laboriously exposing internal Pfizer documents that the FDA attempted to hide for seventy-five years, were not given proper accreditation for their efforts.

"At Steve Bannon's kind of initiative, I spent the last three years of my life overseeing a very historic effort in which 3,250 doctors and scientists - who worked pro bono with the War Room and Dailyclout research team - read through the 450,000 pages of internal Pfizer documents that were released under a court order, subsequent to a successful lawsuit by attorney Aaron Siri against the FDA," Wolf recaps.

Recap: Wolf and Bannon late last year.

Wolf, a former political consultant, was contacted by Senator Ron Johnson to ask about the most important findings, as hearings would be held after the inauguration of President Trump. 

Ed Burkovich and Amy Kelly, upon filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), built a timeline from emails and texts related to myocarditis. Wolf says this is the most significant finding, as it reveals a cover-up at the highest levels.

"White House staffers were being notified by the Israeli Ministry of Health and pediatrician organizations that they were seeing a signal of myocarditis in kids," Wolf says. "And instead of these people coming clean and telling the parents of America, 'Stop right away. Don't inject your kids' what you see in the emails is a cover-up." 

While the information was presented in a Senate hearing, Wolf's team was neither invited to share testimony nor even attend. An issue that boils down to safety for the academics who risked everything to get the truth out.

"In my latest essay about why credit matters, it's not about me. It's not about, you know, narcissism," Wolf explains. "It's about safety and protection." Pointing to her husband, Wolf shares the security risks. 

"Brian spends maybe three-quarters of his time dealing with the death threats I get every month. He and other people with deep intelligence and you know, security backgrounds have warned me that the way to stay safest is to be loudest, right? And that's true for these researchers as well. I mean, they took tremendous risks, you know, during the Biden administration."

While every American can understand having credit taken for their work, from simple X posts to memes, most have no idea this is happening within their food supply

The USDA's Labeling Scam Is IP Theft

Sagdal connects the dots by outlining what she calls "plagiarism": the quiet removal of mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL). In 2015, under pressure from the Big 4, and the World Trade Organization, Congress removed COOL. That move, Sagdal explains, let multinational meatpackers repackage foreign meat as "Product of USA"—so long as it was processed domestically.

"It's not just deception. It's intellectual property theft," Sagdal says.

Similar to Wolf's research team, it takes American ranchers 2-3 years to bring a product to market. Yet, without proper credit, farmers are being erased from their own supply chain, their labor, their genetics, their standards—it's all being plagiarized. 

According to Sagdal, this has led to the hollowing out of rural America. 

Naomi Wolf responds bluntly: "That's a betrayal of trust at the highest level" ...

"So I can't even know if I'm feeding my kids Chinese beef from subhuman conditions? That's outrageous. I'm doing my best to source what I think is grass-fed, hormone-free beef from American producers. But I can't even know if this came from Brazil or China and was just run through a conveyor belt in Nebraska? That's a betrayal of trust at the highest level."

Smithfield, the PLA, and Pork for the Party

Things get darker.

O'Shea reveals that Chinese-owned Smithfield Foods has begun genetically modifying pork with triple the protein—only to ship that meat back to China, earmarked for the People's Liberation Army. The leftovers? Sold to the American public.

"They're augmenting the meat for their military," O'Shea says, "and offloading the rest on us. That's not just bad policy—it's national suicide."

"Oh, I get it," Wolf exclaims. "They're selling it as if it's American beef, but it's not American beef. And all the resources that go into making American beef are being appropriated." 

"That's exactly the same as IP theft," Wolf concludes, jaw on the floor. 

One Health: The WHO's Trojan Horse

O'Shea warns that under the WHO's One Health framework—now endorsed by 193 nations—global authorities are redefining disease control to include land use, water rights, and food production.

"But really if you look at One Health, it's the same thing that Mao was doing," O'Shea says. "As we learned from the pandemic, if they come to Breeauna's ranch, and they say 'hey you know what? We don't really like the way you're raising your cows. We're going to send in some of our specialists.' Which O'Shea says the Surgeon General has a uniformed army of. "This is how they seize your food."

Wolf adds, "This is the most invasive tyranny ever devised. And it's wrapped in the language of care."

"It's Maoism with a lab coat. One Health lets unelected bureaucrats in Geneva redefine anything they want as a biosecurity threat. If your ranch doesn't meet their climate goals? That's a health emergency. If your cattle don't get the right injections? Another emergency. This is how they seize your food—by declaring war on your independence." — Brian O'Shea

Unrestricted Siege Warfare

O'Shea, drawing from his counterintelligence background, explains how China's unrestricted warfare doctrine is already playing out on U.S. soil.

"They've said it," O'shea says of the Chinese Communist Party. "They have said they want to be the global hegemon by 2049, the 100-year anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party and they say they will get there by several means, all outlined in that 1999 document 'Unrestricted Warfare.'"

Sagdal and O'Shea connect the dots between the mysterious destruction of hundreds of food processing facilities nationwide, and the rapid loss of the American family farm.

"If you wanted to destroy or greatly sideline the United States by 2049, how would you do it, and I think of siege warfare," O'Shea explains. "If you kill all of our food, and you poison all of our water… it's what happens in siege warfare. You surround them and run them out of food."

"We're losing 77 family farms per day," Sagdal confirmed before adding "cattle volumes are at 70-year lows. We're losing the ability to feed ourselves as a nation."

The Solution: Radical Self-Reliance

The message is clear: liberty begins with taking back control of the food supply

There’s no better feeling this summer than waking up early in the AM, brewing a fresh cup of coffee, and stepping outside to gather eggs from the chicken coop and greens from the garden, without stepping one foot in the supermarket controlled by globalists.

 

* * *

Watch the Full Interview for Key Insights on Food Sovereignty... 


.  .  .