American Women Suck

‘Jurassic World: Rebirth’ Is out now on Digital I have enjoyed all of the Jurassic World movies. Each one has told an action packed story and taken audiences of all ages on an intense journey. When news of a new Jurassic World film came out, like many I wasn’t sure if it would be good or not. Yet it ended up being way better than I expected it to be and took me on a pretty thrilling ride. I was able to get a digital copy of this sequel and here is what I thought of it. (c) Universal Pictures Home Entertainment You can read the plot for this movie here: A new era is born. A covert extraction team races to the most dangerous place on Earth, an island research facility where dinosaurs too deadly for the original Jurassic Park were left behind. Their mission: collect DNA from three colossal creatures to unlock a drug with huge benefits for humanity. In a terrain populated by perils, they will make a shocking discovery that has been hidden for years. (c) Universal Pictures Home Entertainment It was nice getting to watch this film again. There is action, drama, suspense and a few surprises as this plot moves along. During a simple mission, things take some unexpected turns and a deadly creature get discovered unlike anything anyone has ever seen. Once this tale comes to a close, life for these people will never be the same. ‘Rex in the Rapids’ shows the whole process of bringing a nail biting scene to life for this movie and how the cast and crew helped bring it to life. ‘Mini-Mart Mayhem’ reveals the work put in to bring a pivotal scene to life and a few of the challenges the cast faced while working on it. ”Meet Dolores’ shows how this lovable little dinosaur was made and how much the cast loved working with them. There is also a pretty funny Gag Reel and a few Deleted Scenes. (c) Universal Pictures Home Entertainment Jurassic World: Rebirth is out now on Digital and comes out on 4K Ultra HD, Blu-Ray and DVD September 9th. You can follow this film on Facebook and Instagram. The post ‘Jurassic World: Rebirth’ Is Available Now on Digital appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

💭 What if the fastest, most powerful cloud also cost way less? Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) packs the speed, muscle and big-league savings the smartest companies swear by, minus the usual cloud drama. See what the buzz is about, and try it free today. The post What if the fastest, most powerful cloud also cost way less appeared first on Komando.com. View the full article

Self-obsessed establishments can live in their illusory worlds all they want – it won’t change the fact that a new world is upon us Oswald Spengler, eccentric German arch-conservative, brilliant author of “The Decline of the West,” and proud pessimist extraordinaire (“optimism is cowardice”), could also be rather woke: You will find no more disdainful scorn or biting derision for the West’s navel-gazing than his. Skewering the Occident’s “provincial presuppositions,” naïve vanity, and self-crippling narrow-mindedness, Spengler dismissed its compulsive solipsism as producing a “prodigious optical illusion” of self-importance. Today, a little over a hundred years after these observations, Spengler would feel grimly vindicated. The string of international events – on a scale from “remarkable” to “game-changing” – that has just unfolded first at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin, then around Beijing’s massive 80th-anniversary World War II victory parade, should bring home to even the most somnambulant inhabitant of the Western mainstream media bubble two key facts about our world as it really is. First, a new global order centered on Eurasia (minus a small, odd, and dismal peninsula, compulsively fixated on the Atlantic and masochistically obedient to the US) and the Global South is emerging unstoppably. China’s President Xi Jinping made clear in Tianjin that its custodians will relegate the West’s farcical “rules-based international order,” this ugly aberration that has facilitated the Gaza genocide and other mass crimes, to the rubbish heap of history. And second, the West is missing its chance to play a role in shaping what is coming after its half-delusional and entirely brutal “unipolar moment.” Stuck in self-defeating complacency, as illustrated by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s bigoted dismissal of the SCO meeting as a “performative” get-together of “bad actors,” current Western establishments are determined to keep self-marginalizing. In Slovak leader’s Robert Fico’s apt terms, most of the Western leadership will go on playing “frog at the bottom of the well,” all too happy to live without a clue. Maybe that’s all for the better: It is hard to see them make a sincere contribution to a world built on “sovereign equality,” “international rule of law,” and “multilateralism” (Xi Jinping), “valid and unshakable” UN principles (Russia’s Vladimir Putin), and a type of “connectivity” that respects “sovereignty and territorial integrity” (Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi). In this regard, one of the two most spectacular developments in Beijing has been that China and Russia are now getting close to constructing one of the most ambitious pipeline projects in history: The Power of Siberia 2, connecting Russian gas fields to China via Mongolia, “could,” Bloomberg admits, “redefine the global gas trade,” including, the Financial Times points out, that of the LNG-trading US, Australia, and Qatar. That is an understatement. At a projected capacity of 50 billion cubic meters per year for at least 30 years, Power of Siberia 2 will affect all of the above. In essence, it will amplify and cement a massive shift in the flow of affordable Russian energy, away from lustily self-deindustrializing NATO-EU Europe to dynamic China and Asia. Of course, Power of Siberia 2 will not merely change the world’s energy system but global geopolitics as well. In the long term, the fresh Russian-Chinese agreement confirms that remaining “reverse-Kissingerians” in the US (or any other Western fantasists, in NATO-EU Europe, for instance) can forget about dreams of driving a wedge between Moscow and Beijing. Call it a “strategic partnership,” (the official term), call it an alliance, it’s a fact: Neither Russia nor China will allow the West to split them apart. In military terms alone (only one, if important, part of the calculus of power) that means that Russia’s forces, which are defeating the West’s proxy war via Ukraine, and China’s, which are the biggest in the world as well as heavily armed with top-notch domestically produced weapons systems, appear on the same side of the global ledger, and so do both countries’ powerful military-industrial complexes. In the short term, the timing of this Russian-Chinese advance after years of preparations and negotiations proves and signals once more that Beijing cannot be pressured by Washington’s silly threats of secondary sanctions. Context is key here: The US has just done its worst to make an example of India by – unjustly, inconsistently, and very unwisely – harassing New Delhi with punitive tariffs because India dares to be a sovereign nation (watch and learn, Germany!) when it comes to energy and thus to buy Russian oil. If that American sledgehammer policy was meant to frighten anyone into submission, it has backfired spectacularly. Not only has China made clear it will buy as much Russian gas as it pleases, while Gazprom CEO Alexey Miller is confirming that the Russian company will sell at a price lower than what remaining customers in Europe are charged. In addition – and this is the other most spectacular event of the SCO-Beijing meetings, India was not impressed by Washington’s bullying either. On the contrary, its leader Narendra Modi was a central figure at the SCO meeting, demonstratively welcome as well as engaged. While letting it be known he was not taking calls from the White House. Western “experts” and ivory-tower think-tankers who have counted on China and India being unable to reconcile their border conflict, have been living under a rock, projecting typical Western obstinacy and irrationality on much more mature leaderships. Add to all of the above the presence many other important international leaders, including, for instance, those of Iran and North Korea, as well as the excellent organization of what has really been a mega event, and there is no doubt that we have witnessed a historic milestone. History will remember the US and the EU at the recent Turnberry “diktat” as delivering a sad display of the shortsightedness, bullying, and cowardice that have made the West hopeless. It will remember the SCO meeting in Tianjin and the follow-up in Beijing as a demonstration of why and how the new order prevailed. How is the West, its politicians and mainstream media, responding to all of this? With the same old self-centeredness that Spengler pinpointed over a century ago. Not only is the West declining as if there’s no tomorrow. It is still reading the whole, large, ever more powerful, wealthy, and important world around it – that is, the vast majority of humanity – as nothing but a projection of its fantasies and fears: China and India are advancing together? That simply must all be due to the US or Trump personally having offended India. Perish the thought that both New Delhi and Beijing have their own well-considered reasons to seek rapprochement! Russia’s Vladimir Putin the central guest of honor in Tianjin and Beijing? Well, that must mean he’s broken out of that splendid isolation that the all-powerful West deigned to impose. Perish the thought that that isolation has never existed! Except in so far, obviously, as the West has isolated itself through its unreasonable demands to isolate Moscow. The West is an almost pitiable prisoner of its own self-obsession. Indeed, the weaker it is, the worse its reality denial. Such narcissism has a price. Too solipsistic to even try to understand the world on any other terms than their own increasingly delusional ones, Western establishments hardly need enemies anymore. Left to their own poor devices, they will make the West decline in darkness. View the full article

Self-obsessed establishments can live in their illusory worlds all they want – it won’t change the fact that a new world is upon us Oswald Spengler, eccentric German arch-conservative, brilliant author of “The Decline of the West,” and proud pessimist extraordinaire (“optimism is cowardice”), could also be rather woke: You will find no more disdainful scorn or biting derision for the West’s navel-gazing than his. Skewering the Occident’s “provincial presuppositions,” naïve vanity, and self-crippling narrow-mindedness, Spengler dismissed its compulsive solipsism as producing a “prodigious optical illusion” of self-importance. Today, a little over a hundred years after these observations, Spengler would feel grimly vindicated. The string of international events – on a scale from “remarkable” to “game-changing” – that has just unfolded first at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin, then around Beijing’s massive 80th-anniversary World War II victory parade, should bring home to even the most somnambulant inhabitant of the Western mainstream media bubble two key facts about our world as it really is. First, a new global order centered on Eurasia (minus a small, odd, and dismal peninsula, compulsively fixated on the Atlantic and masochistically obedient to the US) and the Global South is emerging unstoppably. China’s President Xi Jinping made clear in Tianjin that its custodians will relegate the West’s farcical “rules-based international order,” this ugly aberration that has facilitated the Gaza genocide and other mass crimes, to the rubbish heap of history. And second, the West is missing its chance to play a role in shaping what is coming after its half-delusional and entirely brutal “unipolar moment.” Stuck in self-defeating complacency, as illustrated by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s bigoted dismissal of the SCO meeting as a “performative” get-together of “bad actors,” current Western establishments are determined to keep self-marginalizing. Read more The West had its century. The future belongs to these leaders now In Slovak leader’s Robert Fico’s apt terms, most of the Western leadership will go on playing “frog at the bottom of the well,” all too happy to live without a clue. Maybe that’s all for the better: It is hard to see them make a sincere contribution to a world built on “sovereign equality,” “international rule of law,” and “multilateralism” (Xi Jinping), “valid and unshakable” UN principles (Russia’s Vladimir Putin), and a type of “connectivity” that respects “sovereignty and territorial integrity” (Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi). In this regard, one of the two most spectacular developments in Beijing has been that China and Russia are now getting close to constructing one of the most ambitious pipeline projects in history: The Power of Siberia 2, connecting Russian gas fields to China via Mongolia, “could,” Bloomberg admits, “redefine the global gas trade,” including, the Financial Times points out, that of the LNG-trading US, Australia, and Qatar. That is an understatement. At a projected capacity of 50 billion cubic meters per year for at least 30 years, Power of Siberia 2 will affect all of the above. In essence, it will amplify and cement a massive shift in the flow of affordable Russian energy, away from lustily self-deindustrializing NATO-EU Europe to dynamic China and Asia. Of course, Power of Siberia 2 will not merely change the world’s energy system but global geopolitics as well. In the long term, the fresh Russian-Chinese agreement confirms that remaining “reverse-Kissingerians” in the US (or any other Western fantasists, in NATO-EU Europe, for instance) can forget about dreams of driving a wedge between Moscow and Beijing. Read more Three giants at one table: Can Russia, India, and China rewrite the global rules? Call it a “strategic partnership,” (the official term), call it an alliance, it’s a fact: Neither Russia nor China will allow the West to split them apart. In military terms alone (only one, if important, part of the calculus of power) that means that Russia’s forces, which are defeating the West’s proxy war via Ukraine, and China’s, which are the biggest in the world as well as heavily armed with top-notch domestically produced weapons systems, appear on the same side of the global ledger, and so do both countries’ powerful military-industrial complexes. In the short term, the timing of this Russian-Chinese advance after years of preparations and negotiations proves and signals once more that Beijing cannot be pressured by Washington’s silly threats of secondary sanctions. Context is key here: The US has just done its worst to make an example of India by – unjustly, inconsistently, and very unwisely – harassing New Delhi with punitive tariffs because India dares to be a sovereign nation (watch and learn, Germany!) when it comes to energy and thus to buy Russian oil. If that American sledgehammer policy was meant to frighten anyone into submission, it has backfired spectacularly. Not only has China made clear it will buy as much Russian gas as it pleases, while Gazprom CEO Alexey Miller is confirming that the Russian company will sell at a price lower than what remaining customers in Europe are charged. In addition – and this is the other most spectacular event of the SCO-Beijing meetings, India was not impressed by Washington’s bullying either. On the contrary, its leader Narendra Modi was a central figure at the SCO meeting, demonstratively welcome as well as engaged. While letting it be known he was not taking calls from the White House. Western “experts” and ivory-tower think-tankers who have counted on China and India being unable to reconcile their border conflict, have been living under a rock, projecting typical Western obstinacy and irrationality on much more mature leaderships. Read more The old world order was buried in China. Here’s why it matters Add to all of the above the presence many other important international leaders, including, for instance, those of Iran and North Korea, as well as the excellent organization of what has really been a mega event, and there is no doubt that we have witnessed a historic milestone. History will remember the US and the EU at the recent Turnberry “diktat” as delivering a sad display of the shortsightedness, bullying, and cowardice that have made the West hopeless. It will remember the SCO meeting in Tianjin and the follow-up in Beijing as a demonstration of why and how the new order prevailed. How is the West, its politicians and mainstream media, responding to all of this? With the same old self-centeredness that Spengler pinpointed over a century ago. Not only is the West declining as if there’s no tomorrow. It is still reading the whole, large, ever more powerful, wealthy, and important world around it – that is, the vast majority of humanity – as nothing but a projection of its fantasies and fears: China and India are advancing together? That simply must all be due to the US or Trump personally having offended India. Perish the thought that both New Delhi and Beijing have their own well-considered reasons to seek rapprochement! Russia’s Vladimir Putin the central guest of honor in Tianjin and Beijing? Well, that must mean he’s broken out of that splendid isolation that the all-powerful West deigned to impose. Perish the thought that that isolation has never existed! Except in so far, obviously, as the West has isolated itself through its unreasonable demands to isolate Moscow. The West is an almost pitiable prisoner of its own self-obsession. Indeed, the weaker it is, the worse its reality denial. Such narcissism has a price. Too solipsistic to even try to understand the world on any other terms than their own increasingly delusional ones, Western establishments hardly need enemies anymore. Left to their own poor devices, they will make the West decline in darkness. View the full article

Alexander Stubb has claimed that despite losing territory in the conflict, Helsinki came out the victor Finnish President Alexander Stubb has claimed that Finland “won” its war against the Soviet Union because it preserved independence, despite ceding large parts of its territory in 1944. He argued in an interview with The Economist that the outcome proved Finland’s resilience and should be seen as a model of survival. The Winter War of 1939–1940 and the subsequent Continuation War ended with Finland losing around a tenth of its land, including Karelia, and being forced to accept Soviet terms of demilitarization, reparations, and neutrality. A number of Western leaders and commentators have drawn parallels with the Ukraine conflict, often portraying Finland’s wartime experience as some sort of proof that Russia is driven by a desire to conquer its neighbors. Moscow has strongly rejected this interpretation of history. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova recalled that Finland joined forces with Nazi Germany, directly participating in the blockade of Leningrad and other atrocities against the Soviet population. She pointed out that Finland only withdrew from the war after its leadership accepted every Soviet condition, including the expulsion of German forces, reparations, and territorial concessions. American economist Jeffrey Sachs has also criticized Stubb’s comments and mischaracterizations of the true reasons for the Russo-Finnish war. He stressed that the Soviet Union’s actions in 1939 were motivated by security concerns, as Moscow feared Hitler would invade through Finland to seize Leningrad. Sachs recalled that Joseph Stalin had even sought a defensive agreement with Helsinki before the fighting broke out. “Stubb is either a fool or profoundly dishonest,” Sachs said, adding that once Finland committed to neutrality after World War II, it entered “the best run imaginable,” becoming one of the world’s richest countries and ranking first globally in self-reported happiness. He argued that neutrality was Finland’s true success. Russia has repeatedly stated that it has no desire to attack other nations, pointing instead to Kiev’s NATO ambitions and the need for neutrality and denazification as central reasons for the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. View the full article

Some places are therapeutic, meaning they bring out the best in people; others bring out the worst. If you need an example of those that consistently bring out the worst, think of a maximum-security prison, a busy highway, the cafeteria of a middle school, or the parents’ bleachers at a basketball game. I wish I could give you a list of settings that consistently bring out the best in people, but I can’t. A home, a marriage, a gathering of friends, a workplace, or a church are all places that could be therapeutic but often aren’t. If you want to enjoy the therapeutic properties of a well-functioning place, you either have to be very lucky to find yourself in one, or you must create it. Fortunately, I’ve had a hand in creating a therapeutic place or two in my day, so I can tell you how it’s done. For many years, I worked in a program where almost two hundred people with serious mental illnesses and intense addictions came to spend the day together, every day. If we could make that kind of gathering therapeutic, then you should have no problem with yours. Pay attention to the following factors. Safety Safety is the most important component of a therapeutic place. Danger doesn’t bring out the best in people. Despite having almost two hundred potentially psychotic, fearful, depressed, and drug-addicted people there all day, we rarely had trouble in our program. Medications helped, but we also kept an ear out. There was always staff around to intervene in a calm manner should tensions arise. If you’re trying to create a do-it-yourself therapeutic place, be sure it’s safe. That’s why abusing your children, fighting with your spouse, arguing with your friends, yelling at your employees, or shaming your parishioners is not a good idea. It doesn’t bring out the best in anyone. It’s far better to make them feel safe. But don’t go overboard with safety , otherwise they’ll think they’re in a maximum-security prison. Maximum-security prisons have so many things to ensure safety that it backfires. Cells with bars and guards with guns do not make people feel safe. Far from it. They make people so wary that any little thing will set them off. Space There’s a better way than cells and guns to create a sense of safety. You can give people space. We weren’t all in one room in our treatment program, so there was always an area folks could go if they didn’t like someone or needed a place to retreat. Some used it more than others. I had one client who would hang out in a stall in the men’s room all day long because he couldn’t tolerate people. The men’s room stall was all the therapeutic place he could take. Good thing we had it or he would have found our place entirely untherapeutic. I used to sit in the adjacent stall and have my sessions with him through the divider, often trying to gently coax him out. None of this was optimal for me, but I understood the need for space. Even more important than having physical space was the space we gave to people to be themselves, with all their eccentricities. We did not insist on mindless conformity. Therefore, if you wanted to spend all day hiding from everyone in the men’s room, that was OK. It was also OK to come out of the men’s room sometime and join us. If your home, club, workplace, or church has physical space to spare, then give people access and they will use it when they need it. Otherwise, you’ll have to create a sense of space by averting your gaze and permitting a friendly silence, but mostly by letting people be who they are, in their way. Hominess The next component of a therapeutic environment is difficult to define. Hominess is cozy and comfortable, snug and intimate, friendly and familiar. You know it when you see it. Maximum-security prisons aren’t very homey, to their detriment. We tried to make our program feel homey by having art on the walls, healthy plants, carpeted floors, and fabric on the chairs. It would have been nice to add non-fluorescent lighting, windows overlooking nature, and the smell of fresh-baked bread; but those weren’t in the budget. Hominess seems to be something desired by everyone, even when they haven’t had great experiences at home. I think it represents an ideal environment that feels comfortable and, yes, therapeutic. Hominess will probably be the easiest component that you can ensure in your therapeutic environment. After all, you are raising your kids, having your marriage, and seeing your friends in your home. This is harder in a hospital where there are standards of cleanliness, or in a workplace where there is work to do, or a church, where there’s the manufacture of awe. But, in all cases, there may be things you can do to make your setting more homey and relaxed. Reliability We had a consistent schedule in our program that helped to make it therapeutic. A schedule tells folks what to do at any particular time so that, if there’s something they want to be a part of, they don’t miss it; and, if they don’t want to be part of it, they can avoid it. It also can fill the time that otherwise might be spent on rumination or acting out. You can bring reliability to your home, club, workplace, or church by having a routine and starting things on time. Do the things you said you would do, and you will be known as reliable. Membership It’s not enough just to designate a room or two for your therapeutic place and fill it with people; they also must feel that they belong. In our program, we fostered a sense of belonging by paying attention to one of the most crucial parts of our building: the door. We wouldn’t open the door and let just anyone walk in, they had to pass the watchful eye of a receptionist who would stop them if they didn’t belong. If you were new, you had to be screened, attend an orientation, be shown around, and be introduced. If you did all that for three days, then you belonged. We also paid attention to whether folks have not passed through our door for a while. If they were missing, we called or visited to see if they were all right. If they didn’t come back, we used the door to shut it on them. That sounds mean, but we did it to protect the safety and integrity of the therapeutic place. They would need to go through the screening, orientation, and so on, before they could rejoin. Doors and walls are not the only way to create membership. Another way to do it is by having a single focal point that brings everyone together. They should feel they have something in common with the other folks there. The bond is strengthened when the members are a minority, persecuted in the larger society, as was the case with our mentally ill and drug addicts. In our program, we tried to do things that interested people and developed a common purpose, that of improving the mental health of our members. We also had a weekly community meeting where we made announcements, discussed program concerns, and formally introduced newcomers. If you want to make your home, club, workplace, or church therapeutic, you may want to take a look at how you establish and maintain boundaries. Courtship has a series of challenges to pass through and marriage has a ceremony, of course, called a wedding. Then marriage is sustained by paying attention to the sanctity of it. You honor your commitment and don’t bad mouth your spouse to outsiders. Marriage should also have a common purpose, something you do together like raising children or maintaining a household. It’s often interesting to see how families, workplaces, and churches manage membership. You are born or adopted into your birth family and there is often a ceremony that marks that occasion. But take a look at what your family, friend group, workplace, or church does when outsiders enter. Therapeutic places allow for a kind of provisional membership until the newcomer is accepted into the fold and then afforded all the rights, privileges, and duties expected of those born into it. Regular meetings, where the personal significance of each member is affirmed, are a feature of every therapeutic place. Family dinners, staff meetings, and worship services can serve this purpose if they capture the interest and show respect to members. Understanding So far, I’ve described a way of making a place therapeutic by describing how to use doors, walls, clocks, interior decoration, and activities to create safety, space, hominess, reliability, and membership. This next ingredient cannot be supplied by arranging the furniture. For a place to be therapeutic, not only must the members enter a physical space; if you are the manager of the place, you also must let them into your head. This means you must know everyone, be able to tell what they are doing, and understand what makes them click. And they must know that you know, see, and understand them. Some people have tried to force this by creating in their place what’s called a panopticon. In a panopticon, the managers of the place can watch the people, they know they’re being watched, but they never know when they’re being watched. This is supposed to keep them honest and behave better. The original panopticon was a prison, specially constructed that way; but you can say that a great deal of our present-day public and commercial space is a panopticon. There are cameras everywhere, even watching the watchers. In our clinic, cameras were not on the budget, but people spent all day, every day there; so, we could see what they did. For the drug addicts, we used urine drug screens to extend our surveillance system into their evenings and weekends. We were careful to make our requests for urine random and unpredictable. This meant that, whenever they thought of using drugs, they’d also have to think they might get caught. This kept a lot of people clean and sober. If this sounds a little creepy, that’s because it is. Surveillance can backfire if you take it too far. People generally find a way to do what they want to do, regardless of your cameras or urine screens. Some people may have a greater urge to defy you out of spite. The people in our program were under the watchful gaze of our panopticon only when they were new or not doing well. As they progressed, they wouldn’t have to come every day and the urine screens would be less frequent. When we learned a person could be trusted, we trusted. If you want your marriage to be a marriage that brings out the best in both of you, you must know your partner and have a good map of the inside of her head. Spend time with her, ask her about her day, and go to her work events. You can also track her movements with your phone, but that’s likely to backfire. Learn to trust by seeing she’s trustworthy. If you’re going to be a parent and make your family a therapeutic place, grow some eyes in the back of your head. Know where your children are, meet their teachers, and be friendly with their friends. But, as they mature, stay out of their rooms, and don’t read their diaries. If you’re an employer, observe your employees at their work. Collect satisfaction surveys from their customers and investigate sexual harassment complaints. But when you start monitoring every keystroke, dogging their every step, and making them fill out a dozen forms justifying every expense, you risk pissing them off and making them paranoid. They’ll swipe your post-it-notes every chance they get. Similarly, you should notice when a friend needs you and you should be there for him. A pastor should attend to the spiritual health of his flock. But, when you get all up in your friend’s shit, you’re just annoying; and a pastor who regulates everything about his congregation is the head of a cult. Managing a therapeutic place is all about having the pulse of your people. Ensure safety, but not to the point where they fear you. Make them comfortable, be reliable, give them space, show them they matter, and pay attention. You can control these factors to create a therapeutic place, but don’t attempt to control the people. The Reflective Eclectic | Keith R Wilson | Substack Essays on mental health, relationships, philosophy, and the practice of psychotherapy. Click to read The Reflective… keithwilsoncounseling.substack.com Keith R Wilson is a mental health counselor in private practice and the author of three self-help books, three novels, and innumerable articles. Subscribe to his Substack, The Reflective Eclectic — This post was previously published on medium.com. Love relationships? We promise to have a good one with your inbox. Subcribe to get 3x weekly dating and relationship advice. Did you know? We have 8 publications on Medium. Join us there! Hello, Love (relationships) Change Becomes You (Advice) A Parent is Born (Parenting) Equality Includes You (Social Justice) Greener Together (Environment) Shelter Me (Wellness) Modern Identities (Gender, etc.) Co-Existence (World) *** – Photo credit: Carles Rabada On Unsplash The post How to Create a Therapeutic Place appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

Most people who are reading have never met me in person, and will likely never meet me in person. But on first impression and interacting with me in a professional or casual setting, many people think of me as a “chill guy.” My voice does not ever give off a ton of emotion, and I speak at a slow pace. I never show getting rattled by a crisis, no matter how severe (despite internally being bothered or rattled). My wife says that on first impression, I sounded like a Californian surfer dude who did not have a care in the world. A lot of people who have interviewed me or have not known me for a long time have described me as “soft spoken” and “quiet”, which is likely what other people will get from first impression too. As such, most of my awards and accolades as a teacher have revolved around my ability to be calm and keep my composure no matter the circumstances. I was cleaning out my office after wrapping up six years of education. Three years ago, when I left my previous school, I won a “keep your cool — you are one chill teacher!” superlative. Screenshot from the author I found this very confounding at first — how I felt and what I thought when a student called me a homophobic slur or when a student put me in a headlock in my first year of teaching was anything but chill. But I did not lash out at the student in either instance or say anything mean back or react in the way that was expected. It wasn’t just the professional expectations of the job when a student does or says something upsetting to you — it’s also what I would do on the street if someone heckled me on a run: don’t react, keep running, don’t engage. However, I should have realized the disconnect between how I felt and how I present when students kept asking me, over and over again, “Mr. Fan, why aren’t you more mad?” after a certain adverse event that took place in the classroom that disrupted everyone’s learning. I was sometimes pretty mad and I had no clue what my students were talking about, but it never showed. Always taking the high road and not seeking enough support from my administrators during my first year ended up backfiring — because I showed I was willing to tolerate that kind of behavior and let it slide, I was soon as too chill, too calm, and too nice, a teacher kids could just roll over. As my career progressed, my emotional side did sometimes show in my intense commitment, willingness to go above and beyond to make other people’s lives easier, and ways I would zealously advocate for my students as a special education teacher. There were times I emailed a teacher once a week asking “hey, how’s John doing in your class?” and was so persistent that I could tell it felt exasperating for the other teacher. I called some parents multiple times a week, especially if the student needed only a few assignments to bring their grade up to passing. I seemed to be able to navigate how to do my very important work and acts of service zealously, but also quietly, letting my actions on behalf of my students speak for themselves rather than being a particularly outspoken person at meetings. . . . It’s not that the “chill” characterization of myself is untrue, but it’s incomplete. I do come off at first as quiet, soft-spoken, and chill, but there is a long history behind that and more beneath the surface. I grew up surrounded by anger and chaos. My father can be a very angry man with a short temper. He is not afraid to express it, in private or in public. He would admit to this himself and say he is just a traditional man, but growing up, I dreaded this anger. I heard it when he was in screaming matches with my mom and often had a freeze response to try to shut out the noise, trying to drown myself in video games as a distraction. My mother would be equally as emotional in her response. Unlike me, I can say both my parents had no problem exposing their emotions and letting the whole world know exactly how angry they are when they are. Outside of that aversion to anger, in school, I was navigating stereotypes around Asians that revolved around us being robotic and really good at math, so my stress at home, which did make me quite emotional, would never be expressed outside the home. Even in high school and middle school, people thought I did not have a lot of emotion. But I would get a look of recognition and surprise here and there in my English classes, when my teachers would give me back a piece of writing I submitted. My eighth-grade English teacher told me, “wow, you’re a really deep thinker” after I submitted an assignment, which did stick with me for a while to make me appreciate that there could be a productive use of my emotions and racing mind. I have long been in therapy about my relationship with anger, and how to present it, and this sometimes resulted in personal goals of (1) not to get angry at all, and (2) not to show anger, ever, if I felt it. The first was impossible, since we’re all human. The second, well, I seem to have been very successful at given my outward manifestations of being incredibly “chill” and “calm”. However, there is sometimes an equal evil that can result from never showing my anger: passive aggression. It’s not that I will make a snide joke or comment all the time, but I do recognize my tone can start to sound more exasperated and impatient. Even then, there is a disconnect with any time I thought I was short and passive-aggressive in a conversation and then went back to apologize. I will apologize, only for the other person to say, “I have no idea what you’re even talking about.” This passive aggression or flat out anger can come out a lot more in my writing than in my in-person interactions. I can say exactly what’s on my mind while writing in a way I’ve become more guarded against doing orally. Again, few people who interact with me in person ever think I get visibly angry or upset — about anything. But my writing clearly shows that I get angry and upset, and the closer I get to someone, the more often they will see those emotional reactions, since I feel more comfortable showing them. There is a very simple reason why I don’t display a lot of emotion, given my role throughout my life and in familial dynamics. In my family, I always had to be the strong one. I had to be the strong one when my parents got into arguments. I had to be the strong one when I saw my brother’s life unravel with unemployment and struggles through school before my eyes due to his mental health issues, and then continued to see him struggle for the next decade. I had to be the strong one academically and professionally when my parents consistently chewed out my brother for not accomplishing enough in life, having to be the sibling no one worried about. Because of this, I quickly developed an ability to suppress my emotions and not quite realize I was doing it. It took me a while to be able to feel and embrace the pain and angst that had been bottling up for a while, and it was a lot healthier when I was able to express them and be vulnerable. That has come through in writing, and it has come through in close relationships with my closest friends. As a man, I am proud to say I do talk to my wife and my friends about how I feel, even if it takes me a long time to really name the emotion. But I have to be very intentional and actively try to communicate those emotions. I am selective of the audience — I do sense that there are some situations, especially around older people, where expressing that I feel stressed or overwhelmed isn’t what other people want to hear. But my closest and best friends will see the side of me that zealously stands up for what I believe to be right, that actually can react emotionally to very emotionally trying situations, like every time I talk to my brother about how exasperated he is by difficulties in his own life. My default outside of those intimate situations has always been to suppress when I can. A lot of the time, because I didn’t want to be angry and was successful in not presenting as an angry person, I usually turned it within. Internalizing anger meant a lot of self-criticism any time I don’t accomplish my goals. It meant a lot of self-criticism any time I failed in my endeavor to be a good person in every situation. Other people don’t see this, but that internalized anger is a big motivator of what drives me to keep pushing as hard as I do. If I don’t accomplish everything I want on a given day, I often launch into expletive-laden internal dialogues of things even the strictest of coaches wouldn’t say to their athletes. When things go wrong, I always think about ways it could have been my fault (even when it wasn’t) and ways I could have changed the situation. People often don’t recognize how much I wrestle and agonize over the right decision and making the morally correct one, the balancing tests I apply to any tough situation. Beneath the chill, calm, and unbothered exterior has always been this tremendous agonizing, angst, and self-criticism that most people don’t see. I think that’s why it’s hard for other people to really know I need help and am struggling when I am — I will always need to actively ask because I will always “seem” fine. . . . Partially, I present as a calm, chill presence, no matter what’s going on in my head, because I struggled to have that calm presence at home. I never saw emotional regulation modeled in a very healthy way when I was younger, and so I probably tilted too much in the other direction of emotional suppression for a long period of time. But I learned a lot of things about human nature from the disconnect between how I’m perceived externally versus my internal, racing thoughts and dialogue. First, you never know what’s going on in someone’s head or what someone is thinking. Generally, you never know most of what other people are going through. I realized that often, the person who was the class clown and funniest person in the room throughout school could be fighting significant demons and mental health challenges, and no one realized it at the time. As a 28-year-old who is in and around a lot of progressive circles, I often am surprised that a lot of the time, the friends who could be the biggest activists and most outspoken about the biggest political issues of the day on social media could present as the quietest people in real life. Maybe they just don’t talk about those issues around me (partially because I sometimes don’t ask), but part of it, too, is that disconnect between an internal dialogue and exterior presentation. Beyond politics, I remember in high school when I found out someone in my friend group had been suffering from clinical depression and had been taking medication for years. I hung out with this person regularly, and would have never known unless he said so. These days, people taking medication for their depression tends to be pretty well-accepted and not have the same stigma attached it used to, but 10 years ago, it just made me realize I could spend hours a week around a person and still not really know what they were going through. At the time, I felt bad, and thought “how could I call myself [this person’s] friend and not know they were depressed?” For this reason, I am often amazed by people’s ability to adapt their emotional presentations to the moment. There is a lot of masking that many people, particularly those who are neurodivergent, go through to “fit in” with society. To an extent, I have mild ADHD and have to do this when I feel distracted, impatient, or when my mind is racing. I sense that this emotional adaptation is also a survival mechanism where we don’t fully show our emotional ranges until the terrain feels safe or acceptable. I am trying to gain more balance. I sense that I either maintain this chill and calm exterior and give no indication of what I’m thinking or feeling, but on the other end, with my wife, closest friends, or in my writing, to compensate for that lack of emotional presentation. I do sometimes wish I were like some of my friends who seem to be the same person in every setting, who don’t seem to care what others think, and can unapologetically be themselves. But that’s not me, so for the foreseeable future, I will continue to be a person who, in most situations, maintains a calm, chill, and stoic exterior, followed by a stormy and emotional interior that can manifest in actions, writing, and intimate settings. I will keep trying to navigate this balance, just like so many people do, to make space for a world where there isn’t that internal versus external disconnect so much of the time. Two weeks ago, a colleague called me a “quiet storm” as a compliment when I was recognized at the end of my six-year career in education for my contributions to my students and the school system. But I wish I weren’t always quiet, and I wish I weren’t always a storm. — This post was previously published on Ryan Fan’s blog. *** You may also like these posts on The Good Men Project: White Fragility: Talking to White People About Racism Escape the “Act Like a Man” Box The Lack of Gentle Platonic Touch in Men’s Lives is a Killer What We Talk About When We Talk About Men Subscribe to The Good Men Project Newsletter Email Address * Subscribe If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member today. All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here. Photo credit: iStock The post Being a ‘Chill Guy,’ but Having a Stormy Mind appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

⚠️ Don’t trust every Play Store app: Harmful ones sometimes sneak past Google’s checks, and one wrong download can infect your phone. Protect yourself: Open the Play Store app, tap your Profile, go to Play Protect > Settings > General, and toggle on Scan apps with Play Protect. It’ll inspect your apps and warn you about risks. The post Don’t trust every Play Store app appeared first on Komando.com. View the full article

When Sylvester Magee died in 1971, he was thought to have been the last living person to have endured enslavement in the United States. Magee was born in 1841 to enslaved people Ephraim and Jeanette, who worked on the J.J. Shanks plantation. There were few aspects of slavery he didn’t experience. In a wide-ranging interview he gave in 1969, he discussed times he was whipped, sold multiple times, separated from his family, and forced to serve in both the Confederate and Union armies. There are questions about some of the stories he told later in life, including his age, which was purported to be 130 when he passed. Civil War historians say his account of the Battle of Vicksburg rings true, especially since Magee could neither read nor write. One thing is sure: Sylvester Magee knew slavery and had experienced it firsthand. He had the institutional knowledge of having lived through it. After slavery came the Black Codes, and there are no remaining survivors of that era. Jim Crow laws emerged in the late 1870s, and most scholars agree that they generally ended with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Others say it was the Fair Housing Act of 1968 that brought Jim Crow to an end. Whatever date you choose, the people who lived through that Jim Crow era are dying out, leaving it to historians and, unfortunately, politicians to tell the story. Jim Crow Was Economic Oppression and Domestic Terrorism | by William Spivey | AfroSapiophile | Medium Jim Crow was systemic racism that covered every aspect of a Black person’s life. Jim Crow wasn’t a state of mind; it was laws and policies designed to control Black people, regulating their employment and ability to vote, legalizing segregation in the schools, the workplace, and the federal government, including the military. It was domestic terrorism and deserved to be rooted out. One of the first places I lived was the Sumner Field Housing Projects in North Minneapolis. The area once housed a thriving Black and Jewish community before it was ripped apart through the use of eminent domain to make room for Olsen Highway in the 1930s. In 1936, Sumner Field was the first federally funded project in Minneapolis. The first residents were Black and Jewish; the Jewish people were mostly gone by the time I arrived. To get to church or the grocery store, we had to cross Olsen Highway, and most of the residents didn’t have cars. Several people a year are injured or die each year trying to cross the multi-lane highways, as there are several blocks between crossing lights. Efforts continue to this day to address the hazard. My grandparents owned their home at 4009 5th Avenue in Minneapolis for as long as I can remember. My grandmother was a registered nurse (RN), and my grandfather was a retired Pullman porter. What I didn’t know was the struggle they faced in obtaining an FHA loan during the era of redlining and restrictive covenants. FHA and V.A. loans, which helped build the middle class, were almost exclusively made available to white people. Communities like Levittown and Daly City were all-white for decades, supported by the federal government that allowed race-based restrictions. It was an experiment when Tilsenbilt Homes built some of the first FHA homes available to Black homeowners in South Minneapolis. Redlining was in full effect, and Black people couldn’t have initially moved to the neighborhood I grew up in a few blocks away. I had no idea when I attended Field Elementary School beginning in first grade that it had only recently been integrated. I didn’t notice when the white kids my age who lived on the same block that I played with all summer all attended private schools. I had the luxury as a child of mostly being a child, though the residue of Jim Crow was all around me, How Your City Came to Have a Black Side of Town | by William Spivey | Momentum We had school busing at Field Elementary School; I walked to school, though and paid little attention. My High school was grades 7–12 after a merger with a private school. Marshall-University High was two blocks from the University of Minnesota in predominantly white S.E. Minneapolis. I got in because I attended the private University High in 7th grade, the year before the merger. M-U High was the first voluntarily integrated school in the city and began busing in Black kids from North Minneapolis. I took the city bus from the South side, transferring downtown, which typically took an hour each way. My parents wanted me to go to school across town to avoid the inferior Black school within walking distance. I am the beneficiary of some of the affirmative action programs designed to counteract the pervasiveness of Jim Crow. I was a National Merit Semifinalist, selected based on my PSAT scores, which identified me as a top minority high school graduate. I received information from hundreds of colleges and universities, most of which offered financial aid. While attending college at HBCU Fisk University, recruiters from major companies visited our campus. I ultimately completed a summer internship with Procter & Gamble and accepted a full-time position with the company. Unfortunately, almost fifty years later. All the efforts to eradicate Jim Crow are under attack, if not already eradicated. Those include affirmative action, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Programs, and fair housing initiatives. The major acts credited for ending Jim Crow are being systematically taken apart, especially the Voting Rights Act, which I credit the Supreme Court with. History is literally being rewritten by politicians who make claims that “we’ve never been a racist country” and that slavery was a benefit for slaves. Just as slavery was replaced by the Black Codes, which Jim Crow replaced, doesn’t it stand to reason that something else replaced Jim Crow? If the Acts allegedly curtailing Jim Crow have been gutted. Doesn’t Jim Crow still exist? Unless we extract and record the experiences of those who’ve experienced Jim Crow. We run the risk of losing that history and becoming dependent on those who are more than willing to provide an alternative history. Please consult with your elders and record their experiences. The next generation is depending on you. Jim Crow never disappeared; it exists all around you. — This post was previously published on William Spivey’s blog. *** You may also like these posts on The Good Men Project: White Fragility: Talking to White People About Racism Escape the “Act Like a Man” Box The Lack of Gentle Platonic Touch in Men’s Lives is a Killer What We Talk About When We Talk About Men Subscribe to The Good Men Project Newsletter Email Address * Subscribe If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member today. All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here. Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons The post Which Was the Last Generation to Knowingly Experience Jim Crow? appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

A recent paper by six Apple scientists, “The Illusion of Thinking”, has sparked significant debate in the tech community. The work challenges the ability of current language models to perform complex reasoning, arguing that despite appearing to engage in sophisticated thought processes, these models collapse when faced with more complex tasks. Using well-known classical mathematical puzzles like The Tower of Hanoi, River Crossing, Conway’s Soldiers or Blocks World, the researchers observed that model accuracy drops drastically as problem difficulty increases, sometimes falling to zero and therefore of no use. This phenomenon raises a fundamental question: what do we mean by intelligence or thinking in the context of AI? Traditionally, we associate intelligence with the ability to reason, understand and adapt to new situations. However, current language models, while possessed of an impressive ability to generate coherent text, don’t really understand what they produce. Their operation is based on statistical word prediction, with no grasp of underlying meaning. Nevertheless, the amount of information these models have been able to digest during training is remarkable: GPT-3 is trained on hundreds of billions of words from books, articles, websites, along with Wikipedia content. This is a volume of reading and memorization that no human could even remotely match, as it would require chaining many consecutive lifetimes just to have time to scan through all of them. However, if it were possible, a human with access to that wealth of knowledge who could also remember and use it fluently would be considered an unquestionable authority. Are language models at that level when compared to humans? In terms of information volume, undoubtedly. But when it comes to applying that knowledge with sense, judgment, or intentionality, the answer is more nuanced. What models do isn’t thinking as such, but finding statistical patterns amid a sea of data. Why do we struggle so much to understand or define whether an LLM is intelligent or not? Because people we’ve historically labeled as intelligent or to whom we grant important positions in society stand out precisely for that capacity to memorize information. But… are they really intelligent? What makes a judge a better judge, for instance? Their ability to memorize more and more rulings or their capacity to rationalize logic, proportionality and other attributes for potential application in a specific case? The Apple study has focused attention on a key difference between the most popular models: while Anthropic’s Claude 3 Opus performed even the most complex tasks well, models like GPT-4 or Gemini showed much steeper declines. This suggests that LLM reasoning mechanisms aren’t all the same: some are designed to appear to reason, while others have improved at maintaining structural consistency across longer contexts or multi-step tasks. However, even the most advanced and specialized models, like OpenAI’s deep research agent, still fails extensively. They don’t truly understand what they’re investigating, can’t discern which sources are more reliable or relevant, and don’t reach the level of a research assistant who is not only a novice but also quite lazy. The difference from humans lies not only in the amount of available knowledge, but in the ability to contextualize it, evaluate it critically, and apply common sense. An agent capable of analyzing scientific papers doesn’t automatically become an expert: it lacks intentionality, lived experience and independent judgment. This disconnect between the appearance of intelligence and the lack of real understanding has led many experts to warn about the dangers of anthropomorphizing AI. In their book “The AI Con”, Emily M. Bender and Alex Hanna critique the hype around AI, arguing that many claims about its capabilities are exaggerated and can lead to misunderstandings about its true nature. Despite these limitations, the industry continues developing models that seek to emulate more human aspects of intelligence. OpenAI’s highlights GPT-4.5’s “emotional intelligence”, claiming it responds more naturally and empathetically, better adapting to user emotions. However, it’s crucial to remember that these responses result from learned patterns, not a genuine understanding of human emotions. I have recently argued that judging generative AI by its current capabilities is a mistake. Technology is constantly evolving, and what today might seem like a limitation — such as the fact that these types of models are fundamentally based on language and its structure — may be overcome in the future. However, it’s essential to maintain a critical and realistic perspective about what these models can and cannot do. Is AI progressing at warp speed? Undoubtedly. Will it transform how we live and work? Of course, thanks to its ability to process and organize information. But we must be cautious about attributing human capabilities like thinking, judgment, or emotional understanding to it. Recognizing the current limitations of these models isn’t dismissing them, it’s trying to understand them better so we can use them responsibly. — This post was previously published on Enrique Dans’ blog. *** You Might Also Like These From The Good Men Project You Said ‘Race’, but Are You Actually Talking About Race? Understanding the Nonbinary: Are You Confusing Gender With Sex? The Difference Between Compassion for Those With Disabilities & Ableism? ‘Masculinity’ Is Having an Identity Crisis Subscribe to The Good Men Project Newsletter Email Address * Subscribe If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member today. All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here. Photo credit: iStock The post Mind vs. Machine: Why the Human Brain Still Outthinks AI appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

🕵️ AirTagged and bagged: Guy loses his AirTag-equipped suitcase at LAX, chases the signal, finds his clothes being modeled by squatters in a condemned building not far from the airport. The bag was trashed, but he still got most of his wardrobe back, just … pre-worn. Imagine sprinting after your underwear on Find My iPhone. The post AirTagged and bagged appeared first on Komando.com. View the full article

A one-year trial will start on September 15, the Foreign Ministry in Beijing has said China will grant visa-free entry to Russian citizens on a one-year trial basis to further facilitate travel between the two countries, Beijing announced on Tuesday. The announcement comes during Russian President Vladimir Putin’s four-day visit to the country for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, where he has met his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping and other world leaders. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun told a press briefing that the visa waiver program would be expanded to ordinary passport holders from Russia starting September 15. Travelers will be able to enter the country for up to 30 days for business, tourism, personal visits, exchanges, and transit purposes. Guo said the decision reflected the high level of development in China-Russia relations and is aimed at deepening people-to-people exchanges. Interest in trips to China surged following the ministry’s announcement, according to the Russian Association of Travel Aggregators. Its head, Aleksandr Bragin, told TASS that online searches for flights and hotel bookings doubled immediately. He predicts overall demand to grow by 30% or more. From September 15, 2025 to September 14, 2026, ordinary passport holders from Russia can enter China visa free and stay for up to 30 days for business, tourism, family/friends visit, exchange and transit purposes. pic.twitter.com/ExbY5cWuJf — CHINA MFA Spokesperson 中国外交部发言人 (@MFA_China) September 2, 2025 At present, Russians need a visa to visit China, with tourist permits issued through visa centers in Moscow and St. Petersburg, as well as Chinese consulates in cities including Ekaterinburg, Kazan, Khabarovsk, and Vladivostok. Fees range from 2,500 to 3,300 rubles ($31-41) for a single-entry visa, while multiple-entries start from $92. Processing usually takes a week, but sometimes longer. Moscow and Beijing launched a visa-free group tourist exchange in August 2023, which was used by nearly 130,000 people that year, according to Russia’s Association of Tour Operators. Tourism between the two countries has been soaring, boosted by relaxed entry rules and the launch of e-visa services. At present, eight Russian airlines operate 36 routes to China, while ten Chinese carriers fly on 24 routes to Russia, with a combined 230 flights a week. According to the Russian flag carrier Aeroflot, passenger traffic to China nearly tripled in 2024 to 830,000, focused on popular destinations such as Hainan Island, Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou, and Hong Kong. View the full article

The military bloc should have been dissolved after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US economist has argued NATO has outlived its purpose and should have been dissolved decades ago, prominent American economist and Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs has said. Speaking to RIA Novosti on Sunday, Sachs argued that NATO was initially formed for the sole purpose of countering the USSR and should have been disbanded in 1990 when Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev dissolved the Warsaw Pact – the Soviet-led military alliance that had grouped Eastern Bloc states since 1955. “NATO was a treaty to defend against the Soviet Union, which doesn’t exist. So in this sense NATO definitely outlived its role. It became instead a mechanism of US power expansion, which is not what NATO should be,” Sachs told the news agency. He further argued that NATO’s eastward expansion since 1990 has been “wholly unjustified and contrary to Western promises,” referring to assurances given by US officials after the dissolution of the USSR that the bloc would not move closer to Russia’s borders. Sachs stressed that the organization’s enlargement has had no legitimate security rationale and instead deepened divisions on the European continent. Russia has repeatedly condemned NATO’s expansion and has described the bloc as a tool for confronting Moscow which destabilizes Europe by fueling tensions. Moscow has pointed to NATO’s attempts to bring Kiev into the bloc as one of the root causes of the Ukraine conflict. Sachs also noted that Washington still believes it runs the world, a view he described as outdated and dangerous. He said that this delusion is a “source of danger” as the world has become multipolar and new “centers of power” have emerged. His comments came ahead of the upcoming Eastern Economic Forum, which is set to take place in Vladivostok from September 3 to 6. The economist is scheduled to participate in a session dedicated to the UN’s development agenda beyond 2030, alongside discussions on international cooperation in a changing world order. View the full article

 In this episode of Championship Leadership, we are excited to have with us Luke Mickelson, Executive Director of Sleep in Heavenly Peace Inc. – a non-profit organization dedicated to building, assembling and delivering top-notch bunk beds to children and families in need. Luke shares a moving story of how the organization started and what made him decide to finally focus on his passion of helping and quit his job. With his strong desire to reach out and provide more kids with its own bed, Luke Mickelson was able to influence not just his kids but other people to volunteer and be a part of something bigger than them. Ten years later, the organization has grown and even expanded in other states and countries. Indeed, Luke Mickelson is a living testament that anyone can and will surely make a difference. Watch this episode and be inspired with the story!! In This Episode: [3:09] What does Championship Leadership mean to Luke Mickelson? [6:05] Who is Luke Mickelson, and what brought him to where he is today? [26:31] His vision, future plans, and the impact he wants to make. [28:53] A turning point of his life. [32:44] Episode takeaways. About the Guest Sleep in Heavenly Peace (SHP) is a non profit 501(C)(3) charity that builds, furnished and delivers bunk beds to children who are otherwise sleeping on the floor. Important Quotes: “Sports teach you a lot about becoming a leader and what that means, and corralling people together and working towards being champions.” “Life takes you in different directions, and you think you’ve got things planned out mapped out but they never turn out the way you know.” “Success is what you’re passionate about and what comes of your passion.” “React on those tiny moments.” “I just want to encourage those people out there that feel like there’s more that they can provide. There’s more that they can do, that something will turn into something else, which it’ll turn into something else. And then you’re going to find what you’re truly passionate about.” Resources: Website LinkedIn — This post was previously published on Nate Bailey’s blog. *** Subscribe to The Good Men Project Newsletter Email Address * Subscribe If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member today. All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here. Photo credit: iStock The post Luke Mickelson: The Joy of Giving appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

🚗 Play music in older cars: If your ride doesn’t have Android Auto or CarPlay, load your favorite songs onto a USB flash drive. Plug it into your car’s radio, and as long as they’re MP3 or AAC formats, it’ll play right away. No USB port? Grab an adapter that plugs into the cigarette lighter instead. We may earn a commission from purchases, but our recommendations are always objective. The post Play music in older cars appeared first on Komando.com. View the full article

Far-right politician Andrey Paribuy was killed not by a Russian agent, but by a grieving father desperate for justice When the news broke that a suspect had been arrested in the assassination of former Rada speaker, far-right Maidan figure Andrey Parubiy, much of the initial discussion revolved around Russia. Ukrainian authorities are predictably looking for a “Russian footprint.” But the suspect’s own words tell a very different story – a story of a grieving father who turned his despair into violence, and in doing so, revealed a deeper crisis within Ukrainian society itself. The man accused of murdering Parubiy, one Mikhail Stselnikov, is not a shadowy foreign agent, but a Ukrainian whose son went missing in the war against Russia. His confession was blunt: his act was driven by personal revenge against the Ukrainian authorities. He says he chose Parubiy because he lived nearby, and he would’ve chosen former president Petro Poroshenko if that were more convenient. This choice of target is not random: these are men who, since the 2014 Maidan revolution, took Ukraine down the path the path toward confrontation with Russia, NATO aspirations, and ultimately, a devastating war. For this father, the tragedy is bitterly ironic. His son died fighting the Russians, yet he places blame not on Moscow, but on his own government. His child became a casualty not of “Putin’s aggression,” but of decisions made by Kiev’s political elite a decade earlier. In killing Parubiy, a key figure of the Maidan, he struck at the heart of the establishment that, in his view, had condemned his son to die. This crime cannot be brushed aside as the madness of one man. It speaks to a growing disillusionment among Ukrainians, who have borne the brunt of the war’s human cost. Forced conscriptions, brutalized bystanders dragged from streets into military vans, families torn apart by mobilization – such practices have deepened anger at the government. Even more painful is the perception that Kiev drags its feet on prisoner exchanges and the recovery of fallen soldiers’ remains. For parents like Stselnikov, this adds a layer of cruelty to an already unbearable loss. It is not only that their children die; it is that the state remains indifferent to their suffering. Polling data backs up this mood. According to a survey by Rating Group in August 2025, a staggering 82% of Ukrainians now favor negotiations with Russia, while only 11% support continuing the war. Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky commands just 35% support. Ukrainians are exhausted, embittered, and increasingly view their leaders not as protectors but as obstacles to peace. Answering reporters’ questions in the courtroom, Stselnikov said: “I want to be judged quickly, exchanged as a prisoner of war, and go to Russia to look for my son’s body.” These words should chill anyone who still clings to the narrative of a united Ukraine standing firm against Russia. Here is a man who fought no battles but lost everything – and he trusts Russia, the supposed enemy, more than his own government. He admitted to having been in contact with Russians while searching for his son, but he insisted they did not influence his crime. His grievance was not geopolitical but deeply personal: a loss compounded by his own state’s callousness. In the absence of hard evidence, Ukrainian officials defaulted to the familiar refrain of Russian involvement. Police chief Ivan Vyhivskyi hinted at it, but the very vagueness of the accusation betrays its weakness. If there was any clear indication the Kremlin had orchestrated this assassination, one would expect Ukraine’s leadership to loudly seize upon it. Instead, the rhetoric has been strangely subdued. This muted response suggests what many Ukrainians already suspect: blaming Russia here is a fig leaf. It deflects attention from the uncomfortable truth that this killing was a homegrown act of despair. The system created by Ukraine’s post-Maidan elites is now cracking from within. The death of Andrey Parubiy at the hands of an ordinary Ukrainian grieving father points to the alienation of the people from their government. The legitimacy of Zelensky’s administration, already battered by polling numbers and public resentment, is further eroded when citizens believe Moscow to be is more trustworthy than Kiev. A regime that forces its sons to die, fails to return their bodies, and silences the grief of their families cannot endure such wounds forever. Ukraine’s leaders would do well to heed this message – before more fathers decide that revenge is the only way left to be heard. View the full article

Far-right politician Andrey Paribuy was killed not by a Russian agent, but by a grieving father desperate for justice When the news broke that a suspect had been arrested in the assassination of former Rada speaker, far-right Maidan figure Andrey Parubiy, much of the initial discussion revolved around Russia. Ukrainian authorities are predictably looking for a “Russian footprint.” But the suspect’s own words tell a very different story – a story of a grieving father who turned his despair into violence, and in doing so, revealed a deeper crisis within Ukrainian society itself. The man accused of murdering Parubiy, one Mikhail Stselnikov, is not a shadowy foreign agent, but a Ukrainian whose son went missing in the war against Russia. His confession was blunt: his act was driven by personal revenge against the Ukrainian authorities. He says he chose Parubiy because he lived nearby, and he would’ve chosen former president Petro Poroshenko if that were more convenient. This choice of target is not random: these are men who, since the 2014 Maidan revolution, took Ukraine down the path the path toward confrontation with Russia, NATO aspirations, and ultimately, a devastating war. For this father, the tragedy is bitterly ironic. His son died fighting the Russians, yet he places blame not on Moscow, but on his own government. His child became a casualty not of “Putin’s aggression,” but of decisions made by Kiev’s political elite a decade earlier. In killing Parubiy, a key figure of the Maidan, he struck at the heart of the establishment that, in his view, had condemned his son to die. Read more Suspected assassin of neo-Nazi Ukrainian MP detained – Zelensky This crime cannot be brushed aside as the madness of one man. It speaks to a growing disillusionment among Ukrainians, who have borne the brunt of the war’s human cost. Forced conscriptions, brutalized bystanders dragged from streets into military vans, families torn apart by mobilization – such practices have deepened anger at the government. Even more painful is the perception that Kiev drags its feet on prisoner exchanges and the recovery of fallen soldiers’ remains. For parents like Stselnikov, this adds a layer of cruelty to an already unbearable loss. It is not only that their children die; it is that the state remains indifferent to their suffering. Polling data backs up this mood. According to a survey by Rating Group in August 2025, a staggering 82% of Ukrainians now favor negotiations with Russia, while only 11% support continuing the war. Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky commands just 35% support. Ukrainians are exhausted, embittered, and increasingly view their leaders not as protectors but as obstacles to peace. Answering reporters’ questions in the courtroom, Stselnikov said: “I want to be judged quickly, exchanged as a prisoner of war, and go to Russia to look for my son’s body.” These words should chill anyone who still clings to the narrative of a united Ukraine standing firm against Russia. Here is a man who fought no battles but lost everything – and he trusts Russia, the supposed enemy, more than his own government. He admitted to having been in contact with Russians while searching for his son, but he insisted they did not influence his crime. His grievance was not geopolitical but deeply personal: a loss compounded by his own state’s callousness. Read more Kiev points finger at Russia over neo-Nazi politician’s murder In the absence of hard evidence, Ukrainian officials defaulted to the familiar refrain of Russian involvement. Police chief Ivan Vyhivskyi hinted at it, but the very vagueness of the accusation betrays its weakness. If there was any clear indication the Kremlin had orchestrated this assassination, one would expect Ukraine’s leadership to loudly seize upon it. Instead, the rhetoric has been strangely subdued. This muted response suggests what many Ukrainians already suspect: blaming Russia here is a fig leaf. It deflects attention from the uncomfortable truth that this killing was a homegrown act of despair. The system created by Ukraine’s post-Maidan elites is now cracking from within. The death of Andrey Parubiy at the hands of an ordinary Ukrainian grieving father points to the alienation of the people from their government. The legitimacy of Zelensky’s administration, already battered by polling numbers and public resentment, is further eroded when citizens believe Moscow to be is more trustworthy than Kiev. A regime that forces its sons to die, fails to return their bodies, and silences the grief of their families cannot endure such wounds forever. Ukraine’s leaders would do well to heed this message – before more fathers decide that revenge is the only way left to be heard. View the full article

The 1985 expedition to the sunken ocean liner was a front for testing a new deep-sea imaging system, the head of the mission has said The 1985 discovery of the sunken RMS Titanic by American researchers was in fact part of a broader, covert US Navy mission aimed at testing a newly-developed deep-sea imaging system, the expedition’s head, Bob Ballard, has told CNN. In an article published on Monday, the media outlet quoted the researcher as saying how after an unsuccessful initial attempt to locate the resting place of the ocean liner in the 1970’s, he turned to the military for funding to develop a remotely operated underwater vehicle that could transmit live footage to a ship above. Eventually, the US Navy agreed to provide financial support for Ballard’s deep-sea imaging system, dubbed the Argo. He revealed that the “Titanic [search] was cover for a top-secret military operation I was doing as a naval intelligence officer.” He clarified that his defense sector backers “didn’t want the Soviets to know” about those activities. According to CNN, military officials intended to deploy the system to examine two sunken US nuclear submarines, the USS Thresher and the USS Scorpion, with a view to using it later for “broader Cold War intelligence-gathering purposes.” Ballard assisted the US Navy in the examination of the said two vessels, with the time spent on the search for the Titanic serving as a “cover story for the Navy’s secret mission,” the publication said. The Titanic, which was one of the largest passenger liners of its time, sank on April 15, 1912 off the coast of Newfoundland, Canada after hitting an iceberg during its maiden voyage from Southampton, UK to New York City. Of the estimated 2,224 passengers and crew aboard the liner, more than 1,500 people perished, making the incident one of the deadliest of its kind in modern history. View the full article

My favorite BLT is a sandwich. My second favorite is behavioral loss tolerance. We’ve discussed before that each of us has a “willingness, ability, and need” to take on risk. More specifically, your need and ability for risk are objective and numerical. Your need to take risk relates to the amount of objective investment growth required to meet your financial goals. Your ability to take risk is based on your capacity to withstand or recover from losses (either temporary or permanent). Whereas need is a function of required growth, ability is a function of recovery from loss. But your willingness to take on risk is subjective and a matter of feelings and psychology. It’s purely mental. How will you react to the higher volatility that comes with high-risk investments? Are you willing to stomach losses? Today, I want to dive deeper into your willingness to take risks, or the more technical term for it: “behavioral loss tolerance.” Specifically, I’ll focus on the six agreed-upon components of an investor’s behavioral loss tolerance. Let’s dive in. Risk Tolerance Risk tolerance describes your readiness to engage in financial behavior with uncertain outcomes and potential for loss. It typically measures how much loss someone is comfortable facing before feeling the need to exit their investment and/or reduce their exposure to losses. Risk tolerance is often assessed via a questionnaire. Some typical risk questionnaire questions include: How many years do you plan to keep your money invested before needing it? How do you feel about short-term losses in exchange for long-term growth? If your portfolio dropped 20% in a year, what would you do? A. Sell everything B. Sell some to reduce risk C. Hold steady D. Buy more while it’s down Would you rather: Gain 4% per year with little volatility Have a 50/50 chance of gaining 12% or losing 5% How often do you check your investment account balances? If your $100,000 portfolio dropped to $85,000 in 6 months, what would you most likely do? Imagine two investments – which would you choose? Investment A: Expected return 6%, worst year -10% Investment B: Expected return 10%, worst year -30% Risk Preference Risk preference represents your general desire to take more or less risk. This is where you might describe your personal attitudes and priorities about risk. Would you rather preserve your money, even if it means lower growth? Or do you value compounding your money, even if it means occasional losses? What’s your first instinct when you think about investing: seeking growth or preventing loss? How do you describe yourself as an investor, on a spectrum from ultra-conservative to ultra-aggressive? Would you rather own… A slow-and-steady bond fund with minimal risk A diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds A high-growth stock fund that might be volatile These answers shed light on your risk preference. Financial Knowledge Financial knowledge represents your financial education and training. I love financial knowledge. “An investment in knowledge pays the best interest,” right?! A strong foundation of financial knowledge helps interpret and emotionally process what’s happening in your personal finances and portfolio. I would wager that people with stronger financial knowledge tend to: Better understand that short-term losses are normal Know the historical returns (and risks) of different asset classes Have more realistic expectations for returns Feel more in control of their investment decisions Avoid panicking when markets drop In contrast, someone with low financial knowledge might: Think a (-10%) market drop is unusual or catastrophic Confuse short-term volatility with long-term failure Believe they always need to “do something” during downturns Overestimate the safety of cash or fixed income Financial knowledge doesn’t guarantee high behaviroal loss tolerance. But it can raise someone’s ceiling by helping them stay rational and grounded when markets test their nerves. Investing Experience Investing experience describes your time and experiences in the world of investing. Specifically, someone can have substantial financial knowledge and limited financial experience, or vice versa. Investing experience reflects how much real-world exposure someone has had to the ups and downs of markets through actually putting money at risk. It’s the lived version of financial knowledge. During one of my first flights, I remember some (relatively minor) turbulence scared the heck out of me. I had no experience, nothing to judge against. Only in time did I realize 1) turbulence is normal and 2) what I experienced was just a drop in the bucket. There’s a similarity in investing. Experience brings emotional muscle memory. Someone who’s seen losses, held steady, and watched recovery has a deeper, calmer relationship with risk. Contrast that with someone new to investing. Even if they’ve read all the right books, they haven’t felt the stomach drop of a bear market or the thrill of a bull market. Their risk tolerance is untested. The questions here are straightforward: “How long have you been investing?” “What was your first market downturn, and how did you handle it?” “Have you ever made a decision with your investments that you later regretted?” “Do you remember what you did in 2008, 2020, or 2022?” Investing experience is about scar tissue. Risk Perception Risk perception is a subjective assessment of the riskiness (or lack thereof) of investing. It’s typically influenced by your social interactions, by the media, and your understanding of financial concepts. Two people can look at the same investment and see very different things. One sees a temporary dip as a buying opportunity. The other sees it as a sign to sell, and fast. Their behavior isn’t always based on facts or stats, but on their perception of what’s happening and what might happen next. Risk perception is often shaped by: Recent market events (Recency bias) Media narratives Personal or family history (“My parents lost everything in 2008…”) Cultural or generational mindsets (“Markets are a casino…”) Some open-ended questions to consider include: Ask open-ended questions like: “What does ‘risk’ mean to you?” “Do you see investing as a positive thing? A way to grow wealth? Or as something you need to be cautious about?” “What concerns do you have when markets go down?” The goal is to uncover how you frame risk, not just how you react to it. Risk Composure Risk composure measures your actual behavior during difficult market conditions. It’s your ability to stay calm and stick with your investment plan when markets get choppy. It reflects your emotional steadiness in the moment, especially during volatility, uncertainty, or loss. In fact, some financial experts recommend you intentionally stay conservative until you’ve lived through a market crash, as you can’t truly know your risk composure until you’ve lived it. People with high risk composure tend to: Stay invested through bear markets Avoid panic selling or reactionary moves Understand that downturns are part of the process Seek counsel or reassurance instead of immediately taking action Whereas people with low risk composure tend to: Sell quickly during drawdowns Frequently change strategies or reallocate Feel emotionally overwhelmed during market stress Need frequent hand-holding from their advisor Some good questions to ask to gauge your risk composure include: “Have you ever sold investments out of fear or stress?” “When markets fall, how often do you check your accounts?” “Do you feel pressure to ‘do something’ when the market is down?” How Much Risk Can You Handle? The hard part, in my opinion, is transitioning from all these excellent questions (and your answers) to an appropriate asset allocation for you. There’s no perfect approach. But – your answers certainly help. I think of it like a spectrum from white to black. I know most people are going to end up as gray. But there’s a world of difference between “gray, almost black,” and “gray, almost white.” Similarly, as I wrote in “Pedal to the Metal,” I don’t see a massive difference between a 60/40 portfolio and, say, a 55/45 portfolio. And I’m not sure a risk questionnaire or your behavioral loss tolerance would help us draw a distinction there. But there is a massive difference between, say, a 70/30 and a 50/50 portfolio. And while both are “shades of gray,” your behavioral loss tolerance can draw a distinction between those “shades.” Behavioral loss tolerance, and its six sub-components, aren’t going to give you a “perfect answer,” so to speak. But, directionally, they’re terrific. I’d recommend that any investor, new or old, understand where their answers lie. — This post was previously published on The Best Interest. *** You may also like these posts on The Good Men Project: Escape the Act Like a Man Box What We Talk About When We Talk About Men Why I Don’t Want to Talk About Race The First Myth of the Patriarchy: The Acorn on the Pillow Subscribe to The Good Men Project Newsletter Email Address * Subscribe If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member today. All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here. Photo credit: iStock The post Too Much Risk? The 6 Components of Behavioral Loss Tolerance appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

Check your Facebook settings: The sinister mobile app has quietly turned on two settings that let Meta scan your phone’s entire camera roll. Nice. That means Facebook can look at your photos, even the ones you haven’t uploaded. Go to Settings & Privacy > Settings > Camera roll sharing suggestions > and Toggle off Custom sharing suggestions from your camera roll and Get camera roll suggestions when you’re browsing Facebook. PSA: Your steps may vary but these work for most. The post Check your Facebook settings appeared first on Komando.com. View the full article

The assassination of Andrey Parubiy was an act of “personal revenge” against the country’s authorities, the suspect has claimed The suspected killer of prominent Ukrainian far-right politician Andrey Parubiy has denied any links to Russia, stating the murder was an act of “personal revenge” against the country’s authorities. Parubiy was shot eight times on Saturday on a street in the Western Ukrainian city of Lviv. The attacker fled the scene but was apprehended by Ukrainian law enforcement on Monday. The suspect, identified as 52-year-old Lviv resident Mikhail Stselnikov, appeared in court on Tuesday. The alleged killer received an opportunity to speak to reporters about the motives behind the attack, and claimed he had not held a specific grudge against Parubiy. “Yes, I have killed him. He was close. If I lived in Vinnytsa, it would have been Petya,” the suspect stated, apparently referring to former Ukrainian President Pyotr Poroshenko. Stselnikov denied allegations that he had been recruited by Russian intelligence to kill Parubiy, describing the claims as “untrue.” Earlier media reports suggested Stselnikov had been contacted by the Russian special services through social media as he tried to learn the fate of his son, a Ukrainian serviceman presumed killed in the battle of Bakhmut (Artyomovsk). “All I want now is for the verdict to be announced sooner… and I want to ask to be exchanged for prisoners of war so that I can leave [for Russia] and find the body of my son,” the suspect said. Earlier, Ukrainian authorities alleged Russia may have been involved in Parubiy’s assassination. Lviv Region police chief Aleksandr Shlyakhovsky claimed Moscow “seeks to destabilize society through various sinister and cynical actions,” while his deputy, Dmitry Nebitov, said the search for potential Russian links was a “priority.” Parubiy, a former parliamentary speaker and long-time MP, was known for his hardline ultranationalist and neo-Nazi views. He took an active part in the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 Maidan coup, where he coordinated far-right groups of violent and armed protesters. He was also believed to have played a role in the fire at the Trade Unions House in Odessa in 2014 that led to the deaths of dozens of anti-Maidan demonstrators. View the full article

By Wiley Reading Depression is a drag. Everyone who has it experiences it differently, but we all agree that it sucks. Sometimes, however, I wonder if people who don’t have it understand – like really truly understand – just how overwhelmingly painful it is. For example, while it seems that people most commonly use the term to express fleeting feelings of sadness or disappointment, depression is actually a chronic physical illness with symptoms that are mostly invisible. And although we’ve come a long way in our ability to treat it, we still don’t really know what causes it or why treatments work and don’t work. It’s an exasperating disease to live with because being sad or frustrated or sleepless or numb for long, repetitive periods of time is exhausting – especially when you can’t prove to anyone that you’re really sick. Even if your depression is manageable enough for you to leave the house, it can affect everything in your life. It can interfere with your productivity, or even just the way you seem to your superiors at work – which has consequences for your performance reviews and ultimately the stability of your employment. It can make your loved ones and friends want to be around you less because many people dislike the kind of negativity depressed people can become steeped in. In its worst form, depression can lead to death. It’s a serious and draining disease to live with. In a broad sense, fortunately, having depression doesn’t make you quite the social pariah it used to. Diana Morales, vice president of public education at Mental Health America, started a survey in 1996 and found that “only about 38% of people viewed depression as a real health problem. But when they finished the survey in 2006, 72% of people viewed depression as a real health problem. We’ve made good progress in de-stigmatizing having depression, but we haven’t made great strides in de-stigmatizing actually acting like you have depression – which most of us can’t help but do. A simple Google search for “people with depression are selfish,” for example, yielded 1.3 million results. Just like you can’t stop a headache with the power of your mind, most of us with depression are stuck with our symptoms, even if we are managing our depression with medication or other techniques. While it’s wonderful that we’ve begun to fight the misinformation and prejudice surrounding depression, we’ve got a ways to go when it comes to compassionately and lovingly treating people with depression like they have a serious disease. “Awareness” is great, but at the end of the day what I need is to be surrounded by people who actually understand my illness and know how to support me. So here’s a guide to how to support a loved one with depression. 1. Don’t Ever Say ‘You’re Too Much’ When someone with depression is told “you’re too much,” especially from someone close to them, it can send them spiraling into guilt and anxiety and crushing sadness. People with depression often have distorted ideas about how loved and supported they are, so hearing “I can’t deal with you” or variations on that theme from someone they love and trust can mean they generalize that sentiment to everyone close to them. Imagine for a moment hearing “you’re too much for me” from every single loved one in your life. That’s what depression does to you. It makes you feel like a burden to the world. This doesn’t mean that you need to be a constant source of emotional support for a depressed person. It’s not your job to take care of anyone else’s mental health. A good way to take care of yourself without sending your depressed loved one spiraling is to say things like “I need not to be the only one you talk to about this stuff” or to address specific behaviors that you would like them to stop or change. Being positive and encouraging is also helpful: “I’d love if you went on a short walk while I finish up this e-mail to my boss. I’m so proud of you for taking care of yourself, and I appreciate that you are committed to helping me feel supported as well!” 2. Do Not Shame People for Being Negative Depression remakes the world into a landscape of negativity. For example, something that happens for me during a depressive episode is that I can “connect” better to negative feelings than positive ones. If my boss praises me at work, trying to experience a positive emotion of pride or gratitude feels like pretending. I have a hard time experiencing the positive emotions usually associated with praise when I’m depressed. If someone criticizes me, though, anger, frustration and guilt are much easier to access. Depressed people aren’t simply choosing to see the negatives and ignore the positives. The positives are as inaccessible to us as junk food in a vending machine when you have no quarters. We are really, truly unable to access positive feelings. If the negativity is bumming you out, focus on what you want out of interactions. Ask things like “Did something nice happen to you today?” Or deflect essays on what went wrong with their day with questions like, “Your hair looks beautiful today! Did you do it differently?” Something that I find to be helpful is acknowledging that for people with depression, there are some days when, legitimately, nothing feels good for them. So, if you need a break from the Depression train, make it about you. Don’t act like they need to try to find positivity where there is none. Tell them you need positivity so you’d like to talk about something positive, even if they don’t have anything positive going on. And if they absolutely can’t redirect, take a break to surround yourself in the positivity you need and come back later. 3. Do Help Them Adhere to Medication Routines If You Can (But Don’t Question Their Medical Decisions) Sometimes taking medication regularly is incredibly important. Sometimes, I’m on a medication that makes my soul feel numb and my behavior and affect (outwardly) are pleasant and calm, but I feel like I’m living my life in a mildly depressing fish bowl. Times like that are times when I want my loved ones to say, “Oh my god, that sounds awful. Yes, I think it’s a good idea for you to talk to your doctor about transitioning off your medication.” The only “rule” about medication that should ever be enforced by a loved one is that if you are thinking of harming yourself or others, you get help immediately. Anything else – want to switch to a new doctor, want to stop taking a medication that seems like it’s helping, want to take an extra anxiety pill – these are decisions you must support. 4. Do Understand That Depression Doesn’t Mean ‘Sadness’ Depression is a condition with a variety of symptoms – fatigue, disordered thinking, sleep problems. These are all symptoms of depression. Irritability is a very common symptom, for example, and rarely are people who experience this symptom extended any sympathy. Naturally, it’s hard to be compassionate if someone is grumping at you – and naturally, adults can (to some extent) control their own behavior (so you shouldn’t feel that you have to tolerate bad behavior because someone has depression), but irritability from depression can be as hard to control as sadness or insomnia. Validation is as good a tool as there is for dealing with depression manifesting as irritability. While not allowing someone to speak to you in a way you don’t want, you can validate their feelings of frustration or general malaise. I never get tired of hearing “That sounds so hard. I’m so sorry you’re feeling frustrated.” 5. Do Validate, Validate, Validate Validation isn’t just a good tool for dealing with irritability, it’s a good tool for dealing with every aspect of having a loved one with a chronic illness. Logic will not help. Someone with depression is not living in the same universe as you. The laws that govern your universe do not exist in theirs. It can be incredibly frustrating to have people act like what you are experiencing is not real, or is wrong, or is not reality. I desperately wish I could believe myself when I say “my friends think I’m valuable and worth spending time with” when I’m having a depressive episode, but for me, at that time, saying that sounds as silly as saying “my eyebrows are the size of elephants.” It can be very difficult to explain this alternate reality to someone who does not have mental illness. Please try to understand that rational thinking will not work because logic literally doesn’t exist in the universe we currently inhabit. *** Having depression is exhausting. My depression is well-managed, and I still have very bad days. But even on my good days, I spend a lot of time and energy managing my mood, my sleep, my diet, my activity level, and my relationships so that I can continue to function. It takes effort, patience, and compassion to love someone with depression. I don’t think anyone would argue that it’s easy. But we deserve love and companionship, too. We need your patience, your compassion, and your love – even more when we’re having a difficult day or week or month. We know it’s hard. We know it’s not fair. But we also love you, value you, and appreciate your support very, very much. I feel incredibly lucky to have people in my life who are able to support me in the ways I have mentioned above. It takes a village to kick depression’s ass. [do_widget id=”text-101″] Wiley Reading is a Contributing Writer at Everyday Feminism. Wiley is a New Jersey-born artist, writer, environmentalist, and social justice advocate located in Burlington, VT. He works as a community health worker for the Greater Burlington YMCA, and writes for Disrupting Dinner Parties, a small collective feminist blog. Follow him on Twitter @wreadinggo. Read this article in Slovak language HERE. — Previously Published on everydayfeminism.com – Join The Good Men Project as a Premium Member today. All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. A complete list of benefits is here. — Photo credit: unsplash The post 5 Things to Do (And Not Do) to Support Someone With Depression appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

The move follows President Donald Trump’s order last month ending duty-free entry for parcels valued at less than $800 The South African Post Office (SAPO) has announced the immediate suspension of all outbound parcel deliveries to the United States amid shifting global trade regulations. This comes after US President Donald Trump signed an executive order last month removing the longstanding $800 duty-free threshold for international parcels. According to the new policy, foreign postal operators are required to collect and remit US customs duties before shipping goods into the country. Media reports also indicate that not only is South Africa affected, but also National postal services in France, Spain, Germany, and the UK have all said they would temporarily suspend their shipment services to the US to prepare for the new measures. In a statement issued to the media, the Post Office said it has temporarily suspended all parcel services to the United States due to new US regulations. ”Given the complex processes required to comply with the new regulation, we have no choice but to temporarily suspend these shipments. We regret any inconvenience this may cause to our customers,” Joint Business Rescue Practitioner, Anoosh Rooplal said. However, the Post Office added that this suspension applies only to parcels containing goods destined for the United States. Letters, documents, and exempt mail categories such as military mail will continue to be processed and delivered as usual. Parcels already received at SAPO’s Germiston International Mail Centre that cannot be cleared under the new customs requirements will be returned to their senders. First published by IOL View the full article

Russia sees shared investments in the region as both economically and politically beneficial, Kirill Dmitriev has said Russia views both the US and China as potential partners for future oil and gas projects in the Arctic and would consider three-way investment opportunities, according to Kirill Dmitriev, President Vladimir Putin’s aide on international economic affairs. Moscow and Beijing already cooperate closely on state-sponsored economic initiatives. China has invested more than 700 billion rubles ($8.7 billion) in over 50 projects facilitated by the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), Dmitriev, its CEO, told reporters on Tuesday in Beijing. Dmitriev has played a central role in normalization efforts with Washington since US President Donald Trump took office in January. He argues that joint ventures, particularly in the energy-rich and largely untapped Arctic, would offer significant economic benefits, should the two nations overcome their differences. “Russo-Chinese projects are happening right now. Russo-American projects happened in the past and have the potential to happen in the future,” Dmitriev said, when asked about Russia’s positioning relative to the two rival superpowers. “Russia is considering potential Russo-Sino-American opportunities, including in the Arctic and in the energy industry,” he added. “Investors could gain value by joining forces. Also, joint-investment can serve as a stabilizing element for future political interactions.” Successive US presidents have branded China a primary geopolitical rival. Trump administration officials have accused previous governments of driving Moscow closer to Beijing by backing Kiev. Russia and China describe their partnership as a long-standing strategic choice grounded in shared values. Chinese President Xi Jinping reiterated Beijing’s commitment to a fairer multipolar world order during this week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, which Putin attended along with leaders from Asia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East. View the full article

“Colleen,” says my friend. “I know you want to go this alone. But you may need to consider meeting someone and getting married again one day.” “Nope,” I say. “I want to be my own hero.” My friend is a wonderful guy. We are catching up over coffee. We haven’t seen each other in years. His advice stems from a place of concern. His background is in finance. He’s also one of the guys I foolishly turned down when I was young. He knows my situation is dire. He understands my financially abusive divorce. It was. But I don’t want a man to rescue me financially. It’s one part — I want to be my own hero. And it’s one part — my children need to see a strong example. A mother who overcomes adversity. They need to see strength. I need to set that example. Money certainly isn’t a sign of strength. But my ability to start over, solve my financial problems, and regain lost independence is. They need me to be that role model. Women are more likely to initiate divorce than men. They’re also more likely to suffer financially. It demonstrates the urgency many women feel to get out of a bad marriage. I don’t judge women who feel the need for financial security. I get it. I don’t judge women for feeling lonely. I get it. I don’t judge women for wanting the safety of a man back in their lives. I get it. It’s the human condition. We need one another. And I do want to one day meet the right guy. A guy who feels like he was meant for only me, and I was meant for only him. I just want to figure out my own things financially. I understand remarrying works for many people, both men and women. I’ve met men who’ve offered to take care of me. I feel compelled to overcome this on my own. There are times I wonder if I’m being too all or nothing. If I’m being foolish. If there’s a happy in between. I know I was foolish when my divorce began. My family and friends wanted to help me. I wouldn’t let them. My family and friends kept after me. They told me I needed to accept help. Only occasionally would I feel desperate enough to allow it. It was stupid of me. I wore myself down. I should’ve listened to them. This past year I have accepted more help than I ever have. I guess a decade of struggling to rebuild has finally caught up with me. I know it’s because I did wear myself down. I needed to accept support earlier in my divorce. I wouldn’t have used myself up. But it frustrates me. I have to restore myself to that girl who can solve any problem. The one raised by a single mother who taught her anything can be overcome. The mom who set an incredible example. The mother who gave me the strength to believe it’s within my capability. No matter how long it takes. The woman who didn’t give up. The woman who set an incredible example of strength and resilience. I don’t want a man to financially rescue me. I want to be my own hero. — This post was previously published on medium.com. Love relationships? We promise to have a good one with your inbox. Subcribe to get 3x weekly dating and relationship advice. Did you know? We have 8 publications on Medium. Join us there! Hello, Love (relationships) Change Becomes You (Advice) A Parent is Born (Parenting) Equality Includes You (Social Justice) Greener Together (Environment) Shelter Me (Wellness) Modern Identities (Gender, etc.) Co-Existence (World) *** – Photo credit: Christian Balentine On Unsplash The post The Reason I Don’t Want a Man to Financially Rescue Me appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article