We currently live in a society that is over stimulated, undernourished and expected to sit still and not make too much of a fuss. I recently spent some time in Peru and one of the things I noticed is they allow children to get on with things. Kids are running around the streets doing flips, handstands and playing football. In a store you will see kids walking down aisles picking things up and curiously exploring. Other adults talk to the kids and there is not the incessant need to control. This is a far cry from what I am used to in the UK and what seems to be the trend in the US also. One of the things that is really upsetting is the need for children to be still. I was at a school assembly for my son recently and the teachers are obsessed with the children being silent and not moving. Could you imagine this anywhere else? When do we ever sit still, in a non interactive and silence way for long periods of time? There are some exceptions for this of course, but it is pretty exhausting to be silent and still, day in, day out. This spills out onto society and what is expected manifests into external expectations of our children. This often leaves parents feeling hopeless and unsure of how best to raise their children.
The following facebook post came from a young single Mum who was struggling in a supermarket and was verbally attacked:
It finally happened. As I stood in the customer service line of Walmart to cash my paycheck with a cart of groceries(and some wine), Sophie sat/stood/did heads stands in the cart, whining over a bag of chips I took away and because she called me a butthole in line. She’s relentless. I know this. I live with it. Her ADHD and obsessive little heart gets on these subjects of things she finds unjust and wrong and it doesn’t stop until she eventually falls asleep or something very dramatic happens to snatch the attention off the obsessed about subject. We stood in line for several minutes, me ignoring her whining and refusing to give in. What’s giving in to bad behavior going to do but reinforce the bad behavior? I’ve walked out of stores hundreds of times because of her. Almost every time, actually, I end up leaving with nothing I came for and a tantrum having four year attached to my hand and a baby on my hip, but this time I had to stick it out to get the groceries. I tell her for the tenth time to sit down so she doesn’t fall and the next thing I hear is a woman behind me in line saying “oh, for Christ’s sake give her a cookie so she’ll shut up!”. I could’ve responded in a nicer way. I could’ve explained to her that my four year old has pretty severe ADHD, I raise both my children alone, I’m doing my best, and had no choice but to wait it out for the groceries. Instead, I heard “she’s four years old and you need to mind your own f***ing business” come out of my mouth. I kept my composure until I finished what I was doing and walked to self check out so I could avoid facing anyone else as “that person”. The person with the misbehaving child. The person who seems lazy because they’re ignoring the behavior. The person who knows doing anything but ignoring it is only going to make it worse. By the time I made it to self check out, tears are pouring down my face. I’ve lost it. I’m angry, my feelings are hurt, I’m offended, and I’m just freakin sad that I can’t have one good experience in a store with my children. As I scan my things, a woman walks up and begins to talk to Sophie. She asks her questions to distract her, but backs me up when Sophie begins to go on about wanting the chips. “No, you can’t have those today. You have to be good for your mommy. She needs you to be good for her. I have a little girl just like you. How old are you? How old is brother?”. Honestly, this woman could’ve been the antichrist and I would’ve had more appreciation for her kindness and compassion than I have for anyone else I’ve ever encountered. It only takes one comment to break someone down. You never know what someone’s going through. You never know the problems a child has that causes them to misbehave and unless you know the struggle of being a parent to a child like mine, you cannot judge me. But It also takes one small act of kindness to make a mama feel comfort and validation. Thank you to the woman in Walmart today, for showing that kindness to my children and I. Thank you for walking us out. Thank you for backing me up. Mamas have to stick together.#lovewhatmatters #MamasUnite
This story had a happy ending and I like to believe that for every person who is inconsiderate of someone who is struggling there is at least 10 people who care. Apathy is the problem and the sooner we speak up in the face of injustice the sooner we encourage others will follow suit and do the same- the takeaway from this, is you can and should speak up and be that ray of light that is needed in times like these! Please share this beautiful story!
I am Luke Miller the author of this article, and creator of Potential For Change. I like to blend psychology and spirituality to help you create more happiness in your life.Grab a copy of my free 33 Page Illustrated eBook- Psychology Meets Spirituality- Secrets To A Supercharged Life You Control Here
The director of Common Weal, a pro-Scottish Independence think tank, told RT that recent events unfolding in Catalonia are a wakeup call for the EU. If it wants to “survive,” it must take into account the political, cultural and ideological differences between its member states.
Catalonia, a wealthy autonomous region in the north-east of Spain, voted last week in an illegal, non-binding independence referendum, in which 90 percent of voters chose to break away from Spain.
The vote was marred by violence, as Spanish police attacked polling stations and protesters.
Robin McAlpine said Catalonia’s crisis is indicative of a wider trend across the EU, where various geopolitical entities are pursuing self-determination to break free from centralized governments.
Disputing the claim that Scotland and Catalonia’s autonomy movements are one and the same thing, he said: “Why do people assume that self-determination will always look the same? It doesn’t,” he said, pointing out the varying political, cultural and ideological triggers.
“The significance [of the Catalonia referendum] is for Europe and its nation states, who eventually will have to understand that it cannot repress discussion in regions that forsake self-determination forever,” McAlpine said.
So although it is hard to distinguish clear ties between the two countries’ independence movements, it seems like they were triggered by the same attempt by the EU to ignore its member states’ thirst for freedom.
McAlpine suggested, in fact, that the Catalan referendum is more of a stark reminder that not everything in the EU can be “symmetrical” and that in order for the bloc to survive it must recognize the distinctness of each and every political movement across its union.”
“You cannot impose that level of uniformity on that diverse a continent,” said McAlpine.
“Unless the EU can understand that there are different people in different places and with different priorities, it will never represent the diversity of citizens’ hopes and aspirations.”
Scotland held its own, binding independence referendum in 2014, which saw a majority (55 percent) voting to remain a part of the United Kingdom.
However, there has been widespread speculation in recent months about a second vote taking place in the near future. Scottish National Party (SNP) leader Nicola Sturgeon would like to see a repeat once the terms for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU are hammered out.
As almost 900 people were injured during clashes with the extra 4,000 national police officers deployed by Spain in the aftermath of the Catalan vote, McAlpine said Scotland “feels an enormous human solidarity” with Catalonia.
While Madrid responded with physical violence, the British government responded to the Scottish referendum in 2014 with a raft of existential threats, widely referred to at the time as “Project Fear.” London warned that banks, companies and businesses would withdraw from Scotland if it chose to go it alone.
The EU too, McAlpine said, threatened to “throw” the country out of the bloc if it saw through its plans for independence.
McAlpine’s views are echoed by Mike Small, editor of the political magazine Bella Caledonia, who told RT that Spain and Britain’s attempt to clamp down on liberation struggles in more than half their regions cannot be sustained much longer.
He compared the differing responses of central government in London and Madrid. While acknowledging Spain’s reaction was “overtly violent,” he called the UK’s “a far more insidious response,” as it was based on “large-scale propaganda and misinformation.”
“Both centralized states face a total crisis and I don’t see how it is possible to repress over a long time country, regions and nations, half of whom don’t want to be part of Spain or Britain,” Small remarked.
Small believes a second independence referendum could be on the cards for Scotland when the detrimental effects of Brexit surface in a couple of years’ time.
“Brexit is an economic disaster for almost everybody and it will cause shockwaves through Britain in a way that is barely recognized yet,” Small said.
One thing both Scotland and Catalonia hold in common, therefore, is that their future as independent nations could rest in the hands of the EU and its willingness to accommodate the continent’s regional diversity.
Catalonia is gearing up for an independence referendum on Sunday despite attempts to hinder the process by the government in Madrid, which considers it illegal. Police trying to seal polling stations have faced resistance from occupiers keen to vote.
Catalans have staged numerous protests and occupied polling stations to secure their right to vote. Over six thousand ballot boxes will be used, and there are more than 2,300 polling stations across the region.
The referendum was not authorized by the federal authorities and Spain’s Constitutional Court has ruled that it is illegal. Police have been ordered to remove people occupying polling stations, located in schools and other facilities, Reuters reports citing a government source.
The federal authorities said on Saturday that police had sealed off 1,300 of 2,315 schools in Catalonia which had been designated as polling stations, according to Reuters.
Prior to the vote, Madrid launched a crackdown on Catalonia, local government buildings were raided and top-ranking Catalonian officials, including Junior Economy Minister Josep Maria Jové, were arrested over referendum documents.
The government also wanted to take direct control over the local police force in a bid to halt the upcoming vote. The action was denounced it as “intervention attempt” by Catalonia’s Interior Minister, Joaquim Forn, who also said that the local police refused to comply with the order.
The Spanish government forced Google to block an application which provided information to the citizens on where and how to vote. Madrid also ordered the shutdown of all polling stations and deployed thousands of its troops to the region.
On Saturday, the Civil Guard raided the Center of Telecommunications and Technologies of Information (CTTI) to switch off applications that could be used to count the results.
However, to make sure the vote happens locals staged numerous sit-ins at schools and other sites that are supposed to serve as polling stations.
“What you see here was not planned beforehand. We are all neighbors of this area of the city and we are defending the place where we want to vote on Sunday. If you turn around you will see more people, when the doors of this school open-we will just swap places in order to keep defending this voting place,” Juan Sebastian, one of the locals staying at a school, told RT.
“Due to the threat of the sealing of schools, people from the educational community have organized themselves, not only here, but all over Catalonia, to make sure we can vote freely on Sunday,” Miguel Angel Torrijos, a father of one of the school children, told RT’s Ruptly news video agency.
People across the region have been protesting the crackdown on the vote. Earlier this week, farmers staged a protest in Barcelona, flying Catalonian flags on their tractors and chanting “we will vote.”
On Thursday, Catalan firefighters unfurled a giant banner in front of the Museum of Catalan History in Barcelona, depicting a ballot box with the words “love democracy” written across it.
The Spanish government still says the referendum is illegal and vows that it will not allow this to happen.
“I insist: there will be no referendum on October 1st,” government spokesperson Inigo Mendez de Vigo said on Friday during a press conference following the weekly cabinet meeting.
Meanwhile, not everyone is happy over the upcoming referendum. On Saturday, the day before the vote, a protest was held in Barcelona to protest against the referendum.
Crowds gathered outside the Catalan government headquarters in Barcelona Thursday to protest against Sunday’s vote.
Activists held a mock referendum in the Spanish capital, Madrid, on Friday, giving residents the opportunity to “vote” on whether they want “Catalonia to remain part of Spain” and place their “ballots” into an improvised ballot box. Hundreds of anti-referendum activists took part.
As the division in Spanish society grows, Spain’s European partners are apparently not eager to intervene.
“I believe this is a Spanish problem in which [sic] we can do little. It’s a problem of respecting Spanish laws that Spaniards have to resolve,” Antonio Tajani, European Parliament President said answering journalists’ questions on whether any form of mediation could be offered.
Member of the European Parliament Stelios Kouloglou believes that the EU should intervene as the actions of the Spanish federal government are unreasonable, he told RT. Kouloglou will observe Sunday’s vote and has spoken with Catalan officials, who complained about “very brutal violations of the democratic rights” by Madrid.
“The EU should interfere not to take sides…but just to say that those measures taken by the government of Madrid are not acceptable,” Kouloglou said.
- Spain’s Civil Guard Seizes 2.5Mln Ballots for Catalan Independence Referendum
- Spain, Finland and Russia all under Jihad terror attacks: Cursed Saturday
- Turkey wants to join EU through referendum only days after threatening Europe
- Spain: 500+ African Migrants Celebrate After Breaking Through Border Fence
- Gunman Screaming “Allahu Akbar” Opens Fire In Spanish Supermarket
Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEuropeanUnionTimes/~3/xnq-LAYzcAM/
A top Trump administration official ended up conceding on Sunday that individuals with pre-existing medical conditions might end up with higher premiums under the latest effort by Senate Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
On “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace pressed White House director of legislative affairs Marc Short about a provision in the GOP repeal bill that would allow states to seek a waiver from rules barring insurers from charging people with pre-existing conditions higher premiums.
Short defended the provision ― referred to by Wallace as a “loophole” ― by saying Republicans do not want “Washington, D.C., choosing all the rates across the nation for all sorts of factors.”
The health care bill, proposed by Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, has been enthusiastically embraced by President Donald Trump but appears to face long odds of passing.
The Affordable Care Act ― known as Obamacare ― forced insurers to cover people in the individual insurance market who have illnesses or other medical conditions that qualify as “pre-existing.” It also mandated that insurers adhere to “community rating” guidelines when setting premiums, charging the same rates for an entire region, rather than charging people with pre-existing conditions more or otherwise differentiating between customers based on medical histories.
The Graham-Cassidy bill preserves the first of these regulations, known as “guaranteed issue.” But it allows states to seek a waiver from federal “community rating” provisions so long as it is shown that “adequate and affordable” coverage is available to people.
Wallace insisted that without a clearer definition of “adequate and affordable” coverage, the White House and congressional Republicans were opening the door for people with pre-existing conditions to pay significantly more in premiums because of their health histories.
“That’s a loophole large enough to drive a tank through,” he said.
Short responded with bromides about devolving federal power to the states, but little in the way of substance disputing Wallace’s characterization of the bill.
Here is the exchange between the two on the matter:
WALLACE: I want to press on this point of pre-existing conditions. Because the Republican bill says states can get a waiver ― let’s put this up on the screen ― States can get a waiver from Obamacare protections if they explained to federal bureaucrats how the states will maintain access to, and this is the key phrase, “adequate and affordable health insurance coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions” without ever explaining what adequate and affordable coverage is. And then on the very next page, the Graham-Cassidy bill says that “Yes, states can increase premiums for people with pre-existing conditions.” That’s a loophole large enough to drive a tank through.
SHORT: Chris, those are two separate questions. Do you want Washington, D.C., choosing all the rates across the nation for all sorts of factors. That is a different question than guaranteeing pre-existing conditions. The bill guarantees pre-existing conditions.
WALLACE: No, it doesn’t. No, it doesn’t. It just says that all they have to do is get a federal waiver that they have adequate and affordable coverage without ever explaining what “adequate and affordable coverage” is. That is not a guarantee.
SHORT: Adequate and affordable coverage will be guaranteed to everyone of those states that apply for a waiver.
WALLACE: What’s the definition of “adequate and affordable” and what does it mean when a state can raise premiums?
SHORT: That is a separate question. Do you want Washington, D.C., dictating across the country what those rates are for everybody regardless ―
WALLACE: What good is insurance coverage if you cannot afford to buy it?
SHORT: Because you are also providing additional financial support to those states so they can make sure those rates stay low for all different individuals and all different classes, including those with pre-existing conditions, Chris.
WALLACE: Well, there is no statement as to how much that is gonna be and in fact, it says states can raise premiums for coverage for pre-existing conditions without any guidelines. There is no question that is going to be higher in some states than it is under Obamacare.
SHORT: There is going to be some states higher, some states lower, Chris. Do you want Washington, D.C. ―
WALLACE: So if you have preexisting conditions in a state that’s higher, you’re out of luck?
SHORT: No, you’re not necessarily out of luck Chris. You’re gonna make sure that the vast majority of Americans are gonna benefit from lower costs. It doesn’t mean that every single individual will have a lower premium, because that is not what we want Washington, D.C. doing. We want states to have the flexibility to determine that for their own people.
Earlier in the interview, Wallace shot down Short’s claim that, under Graham-Cassidy, “every state’s a winner, including Maine, including Alaska.” Short singled out the two states because Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska are two of the Republican senators most skeptical of the bill.
But Wallace noted that independent analyses have projected that Graham-Cassidy would cause 34 states to lose federal health care funding they are currently entitled to receive. The bill would reduce federal Medicaid funding in those states ― which include Maine and Alaska ― and the District of Columbia by 2026, according to the health consulting firm Avalere. The drop is the result of a series of funding changes in Graham-Cassidy that include a new cap on Medicaid spending and a redistribution of funds from states that have expanded the program to those that have not.
Short insisted that Graham-Cassidy was merely trying to “equitably” distribute federal funds, and correct Obamacare’s practice of picking “winners and losers” from among the states.
Wallace disputed the “winners and losers” characterization.
“They get less money than they would have under Obamacare and the reason they are going to get less ― it wasn’t that the Obamacare law chose winners and losers, it was that the states [made such a choice] when they decided to go with Medicaid expansion or not,” Wallace said.
- This article originally appeared on HuffPost.
Source Article from https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-aide-struggles-defend-204812110.html