#defiance related conduct

[brent-emery-pieczynski]

Social media age limit? If I roleplaying a pre-teen or younger, this involves removing social media. So stinking diapers as a adult-pre-teen without adult baby niceness is possible.

[mii-ruby]

Yona did nothing wrong (chapter 267)

Given that we're getting the next chapter soon, I wanted to comment on this matter a last time. Akatsuki no Yona is not a fatalistic story. It showed us that things could be changed to the better through hard work. That's why, this story will never promote the idea that one should surrender to their abusers and accept their fate for the greater good. Because yes, the dragon gods are abusers: they're akin to the toxic controlling partner (or parent) who gaslights you and claims to know what's better for you, who claims their unreasonable behaviour is justified in the name of love, that it is your fault for not appreciating it, and that everything bad that happens, will be because you didn't listen to them.

Neither Yona nor Hiryuu are selfish, foolish or evil for seeking to escape a toxic environment. It is never the victim's fault for rejecting their abuser. And whatever natural disasters befall the innocent people in Kouka will be because the gods chose to unlish destruction with their own hands, not because Yona refused to yield to their suffocating love and oppression.

In fact, Yona's defiance isn't only morally justified, but also logically sound for several reasons:

1- the gods have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, by attempting to kill the very people they promised to turn human and send back to earth, leading to their current descent to madness from repetitive contract breaking. If Yona had trusted them and they later went back on their word, she'd be called dumb and naïve instead.

2- The contracts they're imposing are one sided and self serving. A contract should allow both parties to put their own terms and conditions, yet Yona is denied this right. They're desperate to regain their strength, and once that happens nothing will stop them from breaking a contract or two. Ooryuu confirms that they'll keep imposing increasingly absurd conditions, but Yona is expected to comply with these absurdities?

3- The gods had already started withdrawing their "devine protection" the moment Yona entered the chalice. They were already planning to abandon humanity all together. Their protection of humans so far was only linked to Yona's well-being, that's why, if anything, Yona returning to earth would actually coerce them into maintaining their devine protection out of fear for her safety.

4- by returning to earth, Yona isn't severing all ties with the gods. She can go back to heaven and negotiate a contract whenever she wants thanks to the chalice and a drop of her own blood. Far from "abandoning" her people to certain death, she's giving herself the opportunity to assess the situation firsthand. Is this "devine protection" really necessary? Would its absence really affect the country in an irreversible way? Can't the people actually work through this crisis hand in hand and overcome it? After all, nothing guarantees the images shown by the gods are real, or much absolute. Yona has already defied fate: saving Hak from Zeno's attack, and seeking out the dragon worriers to prevent his death, proving that nothing is set in stone, and that you can change the future through analysing the current situation to decide on the best course of action

5- Kouka isn't facing "immediate" destruction. The sun didn't disappear, it merely got veiled by clouds, much like in winter. People are able to walk down the streets without using torches or candles. While Photosynthesis may decrease, crops will not wither overnight. Kouka also ought to have its own food reserves for similar crises. It also now posses several vassal states that could help providing food and housing for the most affected areas.  This leaves enough time to evaluate the situation and decide on the best conduct to adopt

6- The fundamental problem remains that the gods are apathetic to humans. They're unable to relate to them, and often minimise their suffering. Yona's return to heavens won't be more than a fleeting remedy to a lasting problem. As the protagonist of the story and Hiryuu's reincarnation, Yona ought to treat the problem at its root and find a way to bridge the gap between gods and humans, eventually making a contract that cannot be broken. Can this be achieved through surrendering yourself to vicious fickle beings? What was Akatsuki no Yona about all along? Was it a story praising self sacrifice and martyrdom as the absolute form of strength, selflessness and generosity? Or was it a story about struggling through the mud, relying on your actions, efforts and choices to shape your outcome? About challenging injustice, resisting fate and finding alternative paths? Which of these best describe Yona's actions in this chapter? Think about it, and find your answer.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Matt Shuham at HuffPost:

After days of defying a federal judge concerning the expulsion of hundreds of migrants to a brutal prison in El Salvador, the Trump administration told the judge Wednesday to be more “respectful.” In turn, the judge gave the administration 24 more hours to fulfill a demand for information related to the administration’s defiance of his previous orders. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s demands for information about flights carrying hundreds of migrants were actually “a picayune dispute over the micromanagement of immaterial factfinding” the Trump administration said in a new filing, which urged Boasberg to “stay,” or pause, his order for more information. In response to the administration’s hissy fit, the judge said the government’s “grounds for such request at first blush are not persuasive,” but he nonetheless gave the administration 24 more hours to provide information he’s ordered about the expulsion flights, or otherwise to explain why it wanted to keep the information secret, setting a new deadline of noon Thursday. Three planes carrying migrants expelled by the United States landed in El Salvador on Saturday night, hours after Boasberg verbally ordered the administration to turn them around and told Justice Department lawyers in court to effectuate the order “immediately.” But the government didn’t do that. Instead, all three flights were allowed to land in El Salvador, where President Nayib Bukele published a video showing the migrants, who had been living in the United States, being manhandled and having their heads shaved by prison guards. Bukele has said the migrants will do at least a year of forced labor. He and members of the Trump administration later mocked the judge’s order.

In its filing Wednesday morning, the Trump administration asserted “the Court’s continued intrusions into the prerogatives of the Executive Branch, especially on a non-legal and factually irrelevant matter, should end.” The brief also claimed: “The Court has no basis to intrude into the conduct of foreign affairs by the Government, and a more deliberative and respectful approach is warranted.” That wasn’t all. Throughout the seven-page filing, the Trump administration railed against Boasberg, the chief judge for the Washington, D.C., district court, and said his request for supposedly “immaterial information” represented “grave usurpations” of the president’s power. The government again asserted that the case was “not even justiciable” — that is, that Boasberg had no right to even involve himself in Trump’s expulsion powers.

[...] White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on Wednesday referred to various district court judges’ rulings as “lunacy” and “the gravest assault on democracy” that “must and will end.” And on Tuesday, Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, said ���We’re not stopping. I don’t care what the judges think.” After Trump and others called for Boasberg’s impeachment, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare two-sentence rebuke. [...] Wednesday’s Trump administration filing repeatedly referred to the judge’s verbal order instead as a “comment,” which it said represented a “complete misunderstanding” of the situation. The government has not provided any detailed information on the expelled migrants — other than asserting they are gang members — and the migrants were given no due process because the expulsions were largely carried out under the Alien Enemies Act, a centuries-old law that previously has only been used three times during declared wars. Multiple family members and lawyers say they know of people with no gang affiliation who were nonetheless sent to the Salvadoran prison. The Trump administration contends that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua is actually a terrorist group and a part of the Venezuelan “hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States.”

Cry more, Trump Administration! 🐓🍭

See Also:

HuffPost: What Happens When The Trump Administration Disobeys The Courts

[equalperson]

I decided to reflect on My PD status recently, and it's honestly something to see how much I've changed as well as the things I perhaps missed.

firstly, I'm barely even avoidant anymore. I don't fit either the main or alternative DSM-5 criteria for AvPD (not to say that criteria is everything, OFC), only fitting a preoccupation with criticism in the former and anxiousness, withdrawal, and intimacy avoidance in the latter.

even aside from the DSM, I've noticed this in Myself. I still show signs of being avoidant, but most of them feel "residual," so to speak: I still have social anxiety, I'm still inhibited, and I still have shame spirals under physical stress (hunger, sleepiness), but I generally have pretty decent self-esteem and take criticism easier than before nowadays.

but on the other hand, I've been wondering as of late if I have antisocial or negativistic personality in addition to My narcissism.

I was already wondering if I was negativistic, as I have a major aversion to doing what people want Me to (even beneficial things, like using My inhaler or eating) and often feign forgetfulness to get out of it.

but I especially started considering antisocial personality recently. I've found that I relate a lot to antisocial people, sometimes even more than prosocial narcissists.

for instance, I don't really care to abide by social or moral norms (especially as I've gotten less avoidant) and I don't feel much of any shame for My "disordered," "immoral," or irresponsible actions.

meanwhile, I notice a lot of other narcissists care less than other people, but will still beat themselves up for doing things "wrong," which I just can't relate to. I want to be admired, sure, but not at the expense of My own hedonism. I can have My cake and eat it, too.

by DSM-5 standards, I mostly fit the criteria for ASPD through deceitfulness, irritability, and irresponsibility, although rather than a history of conduct disorder (which I know not all antisocial people actually have), I also fit the criteria for oppositional defiance (though I have contemplated many of the actions used to diagnose CD on countless occasions).

I fit the broader, alternative criteria even closer, fulfilling basically every criterion there.

I arguably fit the definition of "ASPD" better than I do that of "NgPD" (negativistic, not narcissistic), as I don't experience the aimlessness and ambivalence often attributed to the latter. like I said, I know what I want and I do whatever I can to get it, even if I do need to be a bit dishonest in the process.

overall, I definitely want to look into the possibility of being antisocial, but I'm sorta dreading it; not only are the narcissistic and antisocial personalities so similar that it's pretty hard to distinguish the two unless one or the other is incredibly blatant, but they're both so demonized that I just know any searches I do to distinguish them will be filled with sanist pop psychology.

much to think about, for sure.

[misfitwashere]

ROBERT REICH

JAN 31

Friends,

It can be overwhelming. Trump is trying to “flood the zone” so we focus on a few outrages that we find most offensive and lose sight of the big picture — the larger strategy he and Musk and their cronies are pursuing. 

Their major goal is not only or even mainly to impose white Christian nationalism on America, nor to downsize the federal government, nor to wreak vengeance on Trump’s enemies. 

It is to concentrate ever more power in Trump’s hands, so he can concentrate ever more wealth in the oligarchy’s hands. 

The overall strategy boils down to five tactics. 

1. Replace federal civil servants with Trump loyalists. 

It’s like the communist witch hunts of late 1940s and early 1950s, only not with loyalty oaths to the United States but loyalty oaths to Trump.

Under one of Trump’s first executive orders, known as “Schedule F,” job protections shielding tens of thousands of senior career federal workers will be eliminated, making it easier to replace them with loyalists.

This week, Trump (via Musk) issued to all 2.3 million federal workers an offer to quit and get 8 months pay or face possibility of being furloughed without pay or fired. This, too, is aimed at getting rid of the professional civil service and installing people more loyal to Trump than to the United States.

Dozens of career officials at the National Security Council have been sent home while their loyalty is being reviewed. Dozens of other career officials, at the U.S. Agency for International Development, have been put on leave for suspicion of resisting an order by Trump.

Trump has conducted a mass purge of more than a dozen Inspectors General (in direct violation of a law requiring written notice to Congress with a “substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons” at least 30 days in advance). The only Inspector General who remains is a Trump loyalist. 

2. Take over independent decision making across government.

Last Monday night, Trump froze up to $3 trillion in federal grants and loans to determine whether they “meet his priorities,” even though they had been passed by Congress — in direct violation of the Impoundment Act of 1974. (Later in the week, the freeze was rescinded but it is expected to be reimposed in a form less vulnerable to legal challenges.)

He fired Democratic members of independent agencies — the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — leaving each without enough members to legally act.

This action is also unlawful. The law creating the labor board makes it independent of the White House in part by limiting a president’s ability to fire its members at will, stating: “Any member of the board may be removed by the president, upon notice and hearing, for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause.”

3. Put current officials on notice that defiance will be punished. 

The media calls this Trump’s retribution for past perceived wrongs, but as a practical matter it’s Trump warning to current officials that he will punish any disloyalty or defiance.

Trump has fired more than a dozen prosecutors from the Justice Department who worked for the special counsel Jack Smith on investigations into Trump.

A memo to the fired prosecutors from the acting attorney general, James McHenry, says a major factor in firing them was disloyalty to Trump: “Given your significant role in prosecuting the president, I do not believe that the leadership of the department can trust you to assist in implementing the president’s agenda faithfully,” he wrote.

Trump’s Justice Department has also opened an investigation into the actions of career prosecutors who criminally charged the Trump supporters who attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. 

Trump has withdrawn security details from former public officials who have criticized him, although the threats on their lives continue — Anthony Fauci, John Bolton, and General Mark Milley. Trump has also rescinded additional protections for certain senior civil servants whose lives have been threatened. 

4. Eliminate or intimidate sources of news and facts that have criticized Trump. 

Trump has threatened to throw journalists in jail and revoke broadcast licenses of television networks he perceives as unduly critical of him. He is also threatening universities, scientists, and government research agencies whose findings he dislikes. Trump’s education department plans to control classroom curricula.

The threats are escalating. Days ago, Elon Musk lashed out at the nonprofit Wikipedia, after his page was updated with a description of his controversial Nazi-like salute during Trump’s Inauguration Day celebrations. 

5. Divide and conquer. 

Trump wants Americans to get so riled up against one another that we don’t look upward and see where all the wealth and power have gone. This, too, is a tactic for consolidating ;power. 

Yesterday, for example, Trump blamed the tragic air crash on Biden and Obama initiatives to make the federal workforce more diverse, claiming they “came out with a directive — ‘too white’”, but that “we want the people that are competent.”

***

It’s important to see Trump’s strategy as a whole. It is designed to consolidate his power. If we see it as a whole, the rest of us are better able to counter it — by demanding and fortifying our members of Congress, organizing for the midterm elections in 2026 to take back both chambers, conducting boycotts, and supporting and defending those who are vulnerable to Trump. 

Americans don’t want a dictator. We don’t want an oligarchy. We were founded in rebellion against a king and his aristocracy. 

Trump’s consolidation of power comes at a time when huge wealth has been consolidated in hands of 640 billionaires, including many who are in Trump’s White House — including the richest person in the world, who is now giving out orders as if he were Trump. 

This concentration of power increases opportunities for oligarchic transactions — more power for more wealth, and more wealth for more power — that siphon off wealth and power from everyone else and undermine democracy. 

This is the central reality of what has happened during the first ten days of the Trump regime.

[roses-of-the-romanovs]

Do you relate to any of the Romanov / hesse if so which sister and why?

Hello and thank you for the question!

Of the Romanovs, I relate the most to Olga and Anastasia. Like Olga, I have a pretty hot temper and my tongue often flies loose and becomes absolutely scathing. (Online, I can sometimes be pretty blunt. Not a good thing, and definitely something I'm trying to curb.) Like Anastasia, I can be very silly and cheerful, lazy, and (another character defect) criticize and make fun of others. Although I like to think of it more as social satire! These two sisters also have some overlaps in their merry, lazy characters, so you can see why'd I could be both of them!

I also relate to both of the Marias--specifically, Dagmar and Maria Nikolaevna. Perhaps it's simply mental illusions, but I am often convinced that I am being excluded or less valued in a group. As for Maria Feodorovna, I can understand her frustration as she nagged at Alix to get out more into society. Although I lack her willpower. (And although I've got a hot temper like Olga, I don't have the obstinacy of either Maria! I'm rather a pushover!)

Moving on to the Hesse family.

Firstly, not Ella. I don't have her sweet and innocent ways, nor the strength of will she ultimately showed in pursuing Sergei, Nicholas's marriage to Alix, and her monastic life.

I do admire Victoria very much, and I think I may resemble her the most. I'm chatty, but reserved (as in intensely shy!), and I feel as though if I had any siblings and beloved Grandmamma entrusted them to me, I could also rule with an iron rod. (I'm kind of fond of power ...) Also I am interested in "intellectual" pursuits.

Irène I don't think I resemble much. My morals are somewhat lax and focused more on the basic goodness and betterment of humanity rather than "conduct." Nor am I fond of dancing. I'm in awe of Ernie because of his divorce in defiance of his relatives, but maybe he did that because he couldn't bear it any longer (and his grandmother was dead). As for Alix, I can understand her trial of coming to a foreign country and feeling that crippling shyness.

[mariacallous]

The Trump Administration is arguing that the Supreme Court did not mean what nine Justices unanimously ruled in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran man illegally sent to a Salvadoran prison because of what the Administration contends was an “administrative error.” On Thursday, the Court ordered the government to “ ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador.” The government, in an insolent filing on Sunday evening, rewrote that instruction. “Facilitate” means only “taking all available steps to remove any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien’s ability to return here,” it argued. “Indeed, no other reading of ‘facilitate’ is tenable—or constitutional—here.”

Forget any effort to repair the Administration’s admitted mistake by seeking Abrego Garcia’s release from Salvadoran authorities—authorities who, according to news reports, are being paid to jail him and others shipped there by the United States. That, the government argued, would intrude on the President’s sole power to conduct foreign relations. So the government’s responsibility here is to, what, maybe issue Abrego Garcia a Global Entry card to cut the immigration line if he somehow turns up at a U.S. airport? This defiant position cannot stand—not if the rule of law is to survive.

The Court sought in its order to insure what it termed “due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.” By instructing the government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release, the Court questioned whether a lower court went too far in telling the Administration to “effectuate” his return, not merely “facilitate” it. Still, the Court added, “For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.” During ordinary times, this accommodation would reflect an appropriate respect for the constitutional separation of powers. In dealing with this Administration, with its maximalist conception of executive authority and its contemptuous attitude toward the judiciary, the Justices are being played for fools.

In the interplay between the courts and the executive branch, judges apply what is known as the “presumption of regularity.” Courts generally proceed on the assumption that government officials have acted properly. “The presumption of regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties,” the Court ruled in a 1926 case.

But the presumption of regularity is not an imperative of ignorance or a rule mandating that judges be ostriches. The Trump Administration has, repeatedly and flagrantly, squandered its entitlement to the presumption. It has dismissed lower-court judges as pesky underlings whose orders can be disregarded. Now, with its escalating defiance in the case of Abrego Garcia, it is treating instructions from the Justices themselves with similar disrespect. The country is about to see whether the judiciary will insure that it suffers consequences.

The courts have to confront the Abrego Garcia mess for the simple reason that “the government screwed up here,” in the words of J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, one of the most respected conservative jurists in the nation. The Trump Administration describes Abrego Garcia, a twenty-nine-year-old father of three, as a “ranking member of the deadly MS-13 gang” and a “foreign terrorist” whose return would pose a threat to the public. The federal district-court judge hearing his case, Paula Xinis, said that the evidence of his gang membership consisted of “nothing more than his Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie, and a vague, uncorroborated allegation from a confidential informant claiming he belonged to MS-13’s ‘Western’ clique in New York—a place he has never lived.” The federal appeals court found that “Abrego Garcia has no criminal history, in this country or anywhere else, and that Abrego Garcia is a gainfully employed family man who lives a law abiding and productive life,” as a sheet-metal apprentice in Beltsville, Maryland.

It doesn’t matter who is right, because even the Trump Administration agrees that Abrego Garcia should never have been returned to El Salvador—where, an immigration judge had found, he faced threats from another gang, Barrio 18, that was extorting money from his family pupuseria. The Administration contends, instead, that its hands are tied; nothing can be done now that Abrego Garcia is being held by Salvadoran authorities.

In a hearing on Friday, the day after the Supreme Court ruling, Xinis could not extract basic information from the government lawyer, including about Abrego Garcia’s whereabouts. (The lawyer who had originally appeared before her, and acknowledged the government’s error, has been suspended for failing to follow instructions, along with his supervisor.) Xinis found that the government had failed to comply with her order, and instructed it to file daily reports about where Abrego Garcia was and what the government was doing to retrieve him. On Saturday, she received this grudging update: “Abrego Garcia is currently being held in the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador. He is alive and secure in that facility. He is detained pursuant to the sovereign, domestic authority of El Salvador.” Nothing about what was being done to obtain his release.

President Trump followed with a Truth Social post on Saturday night. Trump, who was scheduled to meet with the Salvadoran President, Nayib Bukele, on Monday, wrote, “President Bukele has graciously accepted into his Nation’s custody some of the most violent alien enemies of the World and, in particular, the United States. These barbarians are now in the sole custody of El Salvador, a proud and sovereign Nation, and their future is up to President B and his Government.” So much for that order from the high court.

Sunday made matters even worse. An affidavit by Evan Katz, an assistant director at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, asserted that the government had “no updates”—and that, in any event, Katz said, Abrego Garcia would no longer be shielded from removal even if he were in the United States because Trump has declared MS-13 to be a foreign terrorist organization. This argument ignores the reality that numerous federal judges have now questioned whether there is actually evidence that Abrego Garcia was a gang member—something that, in a world of due process, he would have been able to argue had he not been snatched off the street and hustled onto a plane.

Monday saw Bukele in the Oval Office, where Attorney General Pam Bondi misstated the holding of the Supreme Court, asserting that the Justices had only said if El Salvador “wanted to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane.” In her telling, and that of deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller, there was no acknowledgment of a mistake by the government here—although the Administration’s own Solicitor General informed the Supreme Court that Abrego Garcia’s removal was an error. Unsurprisingly, Bukele indicated no such desire: “How can I return him to the United States—I smuggle him into the United States . . . the question is preposterous.” The Trump Administration acts as though it has no obligation to ask Bukele for Abrego Garcia’s return, while Bukele pretends that he could not possibly suggest it. This is a convenient impasse, which satisfies everything but the interests of justice.

The government’s conduct in Abrego Garcia’s case is bad enough standing on its own. It is worse because it is part of a pattern of high-handed obstructionism. Consider the case challenging the Administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to send, also to El Salvador, hundreds of Venezuelan men it claimed were members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Trump signed in secret an executive order invoking the 1798 law, then put the alleged gang members onto planes bound for El Salvador before they could protest their removal. When lawyers sought emergency intervention before U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, a lawyer for the government proclaimed no knowledge of the flights that were taking off even as he appeared in court. When Boasberg instructed the lawyer that any flights in the air should be turned around—“this is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately”—the government ignored him. (“Oopsie . . . Too late,” Bukele posted on X the next morning.) And when Boasberg later sought to obtain information about the flights and the defiance of his order, the government brazenly insisted that it was not bound by his verbal order, only a subsequent written one, and then went so far as to invoke the “state secrets” privilege. Boasberg is now considering whether to hold the Administration in contempt of court.

Even when this Administration obeys a court order, it does so reluctantly—indeed, contemptuously. Take how Bondi complied with an order, from U.S. District Judge John Bates, that she inform federal agencies about his suspension of Trump’s executive order against the law firm Jenner & Block. Bondi wrote of Bates, who was named to the bench by President George W. Bush, “On March 28, 2025, an unelected district court yet again invaded the policy-making and free speech prerogatives of the executive branch, including by requiring the Attorney General and the OMB director to pen a letter to the head of every executive department and agency. Local district judges lack this authority, and the Supreme Court should swiftly constrain these judges’ blatant overstepping of the judicial power.” If that insubordination weren’t clear enough, Bondi added pointedly, “Of course, as noted in the court order, agencies are permitted to carry on their ordinary course of business which carries with it the authority to decide with whom to work.”

We have been here before, during the first Trump Presidency, when the Administration, at least at times, reaped from the courts the distrust that it had sowed. In 2019, Chief Justice John Roberts, joining with the liberal Justices to form a five-person majority, rejected the Administration’s disingenuous effort to add a question about citizenship to the census. The Administration’s stated rationale—that the question was necessary to help the Administration enforce the Voting Rights Act—“appears to have been contrived,” an apparently exasperated Roberts wrote. “Our review is deferential,” he added, “but we are ‘not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free.’ ” No ordinary citizen, and certainly no federal judge, can afford naïveté in the face of this Administration’s lawless behavior. It has earned the presumption of irregularity. 

[xtruss]

All That’s Left For Them Now Is To Murder Me – But I’m Not Afraid To Die! The Former Pakistani Prime Minister Writes Exclusively For The Telegraph From His Prison Cell

— BY IMRAN KHAN | 2 May, 2024 | The Telegraph

Former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan is currently serving a prison sentence for controversial corruption charges. Credit: AP Photo/K.M. Chaudary

Today, Pakistan and its people stand in confrontation with each other. Almost two years ago, an engineered vote of no confidence was moved against my government and a government cobbled together by the military establishment came into being.

Since then, the Corrupt Military Establishment, under direct guidance of General Asim Munir, The Corrupt Chief of Army Staff, has tried every tactic to decimate my party’s presence from the political environment of Pakistan.

The oppression, torture and denial of our election symbol have been extensively documented, but nothing has worked for the military and the powerless civilian leadership acting as its puppets.

Pakistan’s general elections on Feb 8 2024, showed the utter failure of their design.

With no single electoral symbol in a country where the vast majority of voters are guided by a party symbol, the people came out and voted overwhelmingly for candidates supported by my party, the Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf (PTI), despite standing as “independents” with a host of diverse symbols.

This democratic revenge by the people of Pakistan against the agenda of the military establishment not only was a national defiance by the people but also a complete rejection of the official state narrative of May 9 2023, when PTI supporters were falsely accused – as a pretext for a crackdown – of attacking military installations.

Pakistan's Corrupt to his Core Chief of Army Staff General Asim Munir (left) shakes hand with Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi CREDIT: Inter Services Public Relations via AP

Unfortunately, instead of accepting the people’s mandate, the military establishment went into a fit of rage and electoral results were manipulated to bring into power the losers.

The same vote tampering was seen in the recent by-elections.

As a result, today Pakistan is at a dangerous crossroads. The people have shown in no uncertain terms their rejection of state electoral machinations and of the oppression, incarceration and torture of not just the PTI leadership but also of its workers.

The military leadership has been subjected to overt criticism at a level unseen before in our history. The government is a laughing stock.

More Oppression and Violence

The response of the state has been to unleash more oppression and violence not just on party workers but also on journalists and human rights defenders. Social media restrictions have been put in place with a complete ban on the X platform.

Perhaps the most ominous development has been the systematic attempt to destroy the independent functioning of the judiciary at all levels.

Judges have been subjected to all manner of pressures including blackmail and harassment of family members. As a result, our trials on false charges are conducted with no proper defence allowed and no concern for the law of the land and the constitution.

The Corrupt Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) and of the Islamabad High Court have been found short of delivering unbiased justice.

But members of the senior judiciary have risen against the attempted destruction of the independence of the judiciary. Six brave judges of the Islamabad High Court have written a letter to the CJP highlighting instances of harassment and blackmail including of their families by intelligence agencies. Specific instances are cited and details given.

This is unprecedented in our history – although, informally, many knew what was happening to the senior judiciary but for such a letter to have come from these judges shows the level of despair, anger and frustration.

The sorry state of judicial affairs is reflected in the hesitancy shown by the CJP, who eventually felt compelled to act but instead of calling for a full bench hearing of the supreme court and summoning those named by the six judges, he has sought to put the six judges effectively in the dock.

With an economy in crisis, spiralling prices and a people politically angry at having their electoral mandate stolen and being economically beleaguered, the state stands isolated.

Unwilling to mitigate its grave errors which have led Pakistan to this precarious juncture and unable to go beyond its mantra of oppression and violence against critics, the State is treading the same path it trod in 1971, when it lost East Pakistan, now Bangladesh.

Upsurge in Terrorism

At the same time, it is seeing an upsurge in terrorism and a growing alienation in Balochistan where the issue of enforced disappearances is growing in severity. On Pakistan’s borders, India has already admitted to undertaking assassinations inside of Pakistan and the international border with Afghanistan remains volatile.

The military establishment’s expectation of unquestioning support from the US, in return for the provision of access to airspace and related facilities to the US for military purposes, has been punctured after the publication of the latest US state department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices which highlights the many human rights violations in Pakistan.

Again, seeking salvation by relying on support from the International Monetary Fund when there is a confrontation with the people will not result in any stability for Pakistan. There is no other way out of the crisis but to restore the people’s mandate and release all political prisoners including those being held for trial under military courts. The constitutional functioning of state institutions must be restored.

“The Corrupt Military Establishment has done all they could against me. All that is left for them is to now ‘Murder Me’. I have stated publicly that if anything happens to me or my wife, Corrupt General Asim Munir will be responsible. But I am not afraid because my faith is strong. I would prefer death over slavery.”

— Imran Khan is the leader of the Pakistan-Tehreek e Insaf (PTI) party. He is serving a prison sentence for controversial corruption charges.

[alokkhandelwal]

These zodiacs are true villains

Human nature is a complex interplay of light and shadow, and astrology gives a lens through which we can discover those elaborate sides. While each zodiac signal has its distinct strengths and virtues, in addition, they own tendencies that may be related to the darker aspects of human conduct. In this blog, we delve into the interesting world of astrology to find the top four zodiac signs and symptoms that are often related to the villain archetype.

Know more about zodiac are true villains. Get an online astrology consultation by the world-renowned astrologer Mr. Alok Khandelwal.

Scorpio: The Enigmatic Manipulator Born between October 23 and November 21, Scorpio is regularly depicted because of the mastermind of the zodiac. Their severe emotional depth and strategic thinking can lead them to control conditions and achieve their desires. This water sign’s capability to withhold information and its mysterious air of secrecy can contribute to their popularity as compelling villains. However, it’s critical to be aware that Scorpios also own sizeable loyalty and determination, tendencies that can be channelised positively as well.

Capricorn: The Ruthless Ambition Capricorns, born between December 22 and January 19, are recognised for their strong paintings ethic and ambition. While these characteristics can drive them closer to success, they can also lead them down a path of ruthless ambition. Capricorns’ preference for electricity and management can occasionally overshadow their empathy, giving an upward push to the photo of a calculating and cold-hearted villain. It’s well worth citing that Capricorns’ disciplined nature also can be a force for true when channelled into nice endeavours.

Aquarius: The Eccentric Rebel Aquarius, spanning from January 20 to February 18, is regularly associated with innovation and originality. However, their rebellious nature and unconventional wondering can every so often be interpreted as defiance against societal norms, making them appear as villains in certain contexts. Their detachment from emotions and tendency to project authority can cast them as antiheroes, disrupting the reputation quo. On the flip aspect, Aquarians’ humanitarian instincts can also drive them to be powerful advocates for wonderful alternatives.

Aries: The Impulsive Antagonist Born between March 21 and April 19, Aries is characterized by its fiery electricity and passion. While this could lead them to natural leaders and trailblazers, their impulsive nature might make them make rash decisions that harm others. Aries’ tendency to charge forward without considering effects can paint them as impetuous villains. However, their courage and determination can also propel them to be heroic figures, particularly once they champion causes they agree with.

Read Also:- Who is the most Emotional Sign out of all the Zodiac?

Balancing the Light and Dark: It’s important to consider that each zodiac sign possesses both fantastic and negative trends. The villain archetype attributed to those signs isn’t a definitive judgment but a representation of positive tendencies below certain instances. Just as these signs have the capability for darker behaviours, they also have the capacity for substantial boom and tremendous alternate. Understanding the tricky interplay of astrological energies lets us realize the multifaceted nature of people.

Astrology’s Deeper Message: Beyond the surface-degree portrayal of zodiac symptoms as villains, astrology offers a deeper message about embracing one’s shadow self and remodelling it into non-public growth. Just as we can pick out terrible tendencies in ourselves based totally on our zodiac signal, we also can understand the ability for recuperation and evolution. By acknowledging those developments, we can work toward harnessing their nice components and transcending their terrible implications.

Advice for All Signs: Regardless of your zodiac sign, the important thing lies in self-cognizance and aware choice. Recognize the ability of each light and shadow inside you. Embrace your strengths, and actively paint on areas that need improvement. Remember that astrology is a device for self-discovery and empowerment, not a fixed destiny. By cultivating empathy, understanding, and growth, you may shift from the villain archetype to the hero of your very own narrative.

In Conclusion: Astrology’s exploration of the villain archetype within certain zodiac signs and symptoms serves as a reminder that human nature is multifaceted. The bad developments associated with these symptoms can be converted into fine attributes with self-consciousness and conscious effort. 

As we delve deeper into the complex dance of cosmic energies, we find a more truth – that each individual has the power to shape their destiny, transcending labels and archetypes to become the hero in their tale.

Read Also:- Zodiacs which are great secret keepers

[mordictionary]

Quixote with a Cooler: Defining the Beer-Errant

beer-errant

Noun / Adjective | /ˈbɪəɹ ˌɛɹənt/

ბირ-ერანტ

[modern neologism • mock-chivalric slang]

Definition

As a noun: A person who engages in quixotic conduct involving beer. As an adjective: Describing bold, impractical, or idealistic behavior involving beer.

Etymology

From beer + errant (as in knight-errant, from Latin errare, “to wander”).

Example Sentences

Everyone else stayed home and watched the news—he went full beer-errant and flew into a war zone with nothing but a duffel bag and a case of Pabst.

There’s a fine line between bravery and being a beer-errant, and Chickie danced on it with every step through Vietnam.

They called him a fool, but every beer-errant starts with someone saying it can’t be done.

To be a beer-errant is to mistake sentiment for strategy—and do it anyway, grinning.

It was a beer-errant scheme from the start: a map drawn on a napkin, a borrowed truck, and a promise made in a bar.

The whole trip was beer-errant in nature—no plan, just beer, blind optimism, and a vague sense of purpose.

He made a beer-errant vow to show up for every friend who ever bought him a drink, no matter the distance.

His beer-errant logic was simple: if you care enough, you bring the beer in person—even to a battlefield.

The Greatest Beer Run Ever and the Beer-Errant Archetype

The Greatest Beer Run Ever (2022) is perhaps the most literal and sincere cinematic expression of the beer-errant: a figure who undertakes a quixotic journey involving beer, driven more by emotion than logic.

John “Chickie” Donohue’s decision to carry a duffel bag of Pabst Blue Ribbon into an active war zone reflects the core spirit of the term—bold, impractical, deeply personal, and rooted in misguided idealism.

Chickie’s beer-errantry is not heroic in the traditional sense. It lacks clear purpose, rational planning, or even consent from its intended recipients. What it possesses instead is raw sincerity: the belief that sharing a beer might bridge the gulf between home and war, civilian and soldier, life and death.

Rather than parody, the film offers a straight-faced case study: a person whose symbolic gesture, however absurd, becomes a vehicle for transformation. Chickie does not return triumphant, but altered—having followed through on a ridiculous mission only to discover something real beneath it.

Image credit: Film poster. Used under fair use for commentary and critical analysis.

beer-errant in The World’s End (2013)

The term beer-errant finds a natural embodiment in Gary King, the central figure of The World’s End. His doomed determination to complete the “Golden Mile”—a 12-pub crawl in his hometown—is a textbook act of beer-errantry: impractical, emotionally loaded, and carried out with a blend of nostalgia, denial, and misplaced heroism.

Though framed around beer, Gary’s journey is not about drinking per se, but about restoring a lost sense of self through ritualized excess. Like a knight-errant clinging to a code no longer relevant, the beer-errant clings to old narratives in defiance of present reality.

In this way, The World’s End functions as a darkly comedic case study of beer-errantry pushed to its limit—where the quest persists even when the world around it no longer exists.

Image credit: Film poster. Used under fair use for commentary and critical analysis.

Note: The term knight-errant derives from Old French chevalier errant, or “wandering knight.” It forms the linguistic and thematic foundation of beer-errant, preserving the idea of a quest driven by personal myth, but substituting beer for chivalry.

Related Terms

Pot-valiancy Noun — Bravery or boldness brought on by drunkenness, especially of the foolish or reckless sort. “He charged into the argument with pure pot-valiancy and no facts whatsoever.”

Liquid courage Colloquial Noun — Confidence gained from alcohol, usually temporary and unreliable. “He only talked to his crush after a shot of liquid courage.”

Quixoticism Noun — Behavior driven by impractical idealism, especially when detached from reality. “His plan to fix everything with one grand gesture reeked of quixoticism.”

References and Citations

The World’s End (2013) – Wikipedia

Film Poster – Wikimedia Commons

The Greatest Beer Run Ever (2022) – Wikipedia

Film Poster – Wikimedia Commons

[nursingwriter]

Psychiatric Evaluation: Adam First, describe the primary problem. Don't use labels, use descriptions. What stands out for you in the client's behaviors, thinking, and affect (feelings)? The primary problem for an adolescent like Adam is finding a secure personal and social identity. His difficult relationship with his parents seems to be the root of his defiance. Both of his parents are physically and emotionally incapable of exercising control and setting limits on Adam's behavior and their own behavior in relation to their son. Adam is about to enter adolescence, and to develop as normally as possible it is essential that he be placed in a stable family environment, and receive appropriate treatment for his psychiatric difficulties, whatever their cause. Sexual development and exploration is normal for adolescents within Adam's age group. Adam's sexual behavior may be a kind of cry for help, given how withdrawn he is at school and how little emotional support he has at home, from parents who are unable to set boundaries or show affection in an appropriate manner. It is unsurprising that a normally developing male would want to establish a friendship or a relationship with a girl his own age. The Internet is a sufficiently 'safe' and distanced format for Adam, as he cannot be rejected by the girl face-to-face, given how far away she lives, and exposing himself online may be the only way he knows to show affection. Although disturbing when viewed in consort with Adam's other social difficulties and behaviors, Adam's behavior with the girl over the Internet should not, in and of itself, be seen as psychiatrically abnormal in a clinical sense, and it is more symptomatic of Adam's difficulties in relating to others in his peer group, as well as with adults. This largely springs from his difficult situation with his parents. Question Look at the Axis 1 diagnosis. Does it match your description of what you believe is the problem. Do you agree with the diagnosis? The diagnosis seems to give insufficient attention to Adam's relationship with his parents. It is true that bipolar disorder runs in Adam's family. However, Adam does not seem to have the symptoms of mania or depression. He does not have hallucinations and has normal sleep and appetite patterns. This is inconsistent with full-blown bipolarity. His inability to concentrate could indicate ADHD, but given the stressors he has at home and at school (justifiably given the rating of 'five') having difficulty focusing might be a result of these factors, rather than the disorder. Conduct disorder is a fairly vague term, and while Adam's poor judgment and defiance of adults, especially with the young woman he interacts with on the Internet, seems to be fairly categorized as such, it is noteworthy that the definition of conduct disorder itself is rather vague. Calling Adam a perpetrator of sexual abuse against a girl his own age, with whom he has tried to establish a relationship with in a fashion that encompasses letter-writing as well as sexual behavior, seems both extreme and unfair. Question Look at the medications; look them up online. Do they fit the symptoms? Concerta is proscribed for individuals with a bipolar diagnosis, and given that so many of Adam's relatives have suffered mood disorders, it is odd that he was given Concerta, even if there is a question as to whether Adam's diagnosis was overly influenced by what the therapists knew about his family history. It seems sound to recommend that Adam stop taking Concerta, because it might aggravate underlying bipolar symptoms. Strattera not stimulating, but it can have side effects, like prolonged erections, and it is also a fairly new drug. It should be prescribed with caution. It is still uncertain whether Adam's conduct disorders are due to his unstable home environment, and not due to any biological factors. Prescribing Strattera seems like a normal course of therapeutic action, but should not be regarded as a panacea. Question If you were the clinician, counselor, or therapist, what would be the primary issue you would want to address? To be diagnosed with ADHD, the individual should exhibit the symptoms in two environments, and Adam's behavior seems to primarily assert itself in the home. With support, he seems functional in school, and he is substantially less functional at home than at school or with his peers. The first question that should be addressed is what is the most appropriate environment for Adam -- a foster setting, or remaining at home. Question Are there any discrepancies, contradictions, or concerns that stand out for you? In terms of evaluating Adam's personal strengths, to say that "Adam is a very personable young man," seems contradictory, given Adam's manipulative behavior and his sexually inappropriate displays via the young woman he met on the Internet. Also, to say that "Adam's family is supportive and wants him home with them when he leaves Vernia TF" seems strange, given that they claim that Adam has tried to engage in a sexual relationship with his mother, because of their health issues that make it difficult to exercise control over a fourteen-year-old boy, and also their apparent willingness to relinquish control of their child to the state. His mother is also observed to be very physically demonstrative with her child, and says that she loves him frequently. This is not in and of itself unusual were it not for the fact that she says Adam's sexuality makes her uncomfortable and the fact that she characterized it as 'molestation.' One great concern is if Adam has been or is being sexually abused by his mother or another adult. When Adam was eleven and accused his mother of sexual abuse he was placed in a half-way house. Apparently, it was eventually concluded that his allegations were baseless, because he was once again released to his family. His mother has claimed that Adam, not she, is the initiator of the sexual displays, although it is characteristic of children who are sexually molested to show sexual behavior that is inappropriate for their age -- and it is even possible that Adam's mother is making such an allegation as a cover for her own behavior. Adam's mother has problems with her memory, which makes her an unreliable source of information about what may have happened to Adam in the past. Further investigation into possible abuse is required.   https://www.paperdue.com/customer/paper/psychiatric-evaluation-adam-first-describe-28965#:~:text=Logout-,PsychiatricEvaluationAdamFirstdescribe,-Length3pages Read the full article

[angelo-the-whistleblower]

Read this: The Dialogue Between Angelo (POW) and Eva Mendes (@evamendes) - A Detailed Explanation:

The subject of this dialogue is the nature of boundaries, power dynamics in relationships, and the philosophy of kindness as a form of resistance.

It explores:

Personal Boundaries & Ethical Conduct – Angelo enforces strict personal limits, particularly regarding communication and in-person interactions, due to his moral principles and marital status.

Power & Influence in Gender Dynamics – Eva initially assumes that she can use her charm to exert influence over Angelo, but he consciously resists this, challenging the stereotype that men are always susceptible to seduction.

The True Meaning of Kindness – Angelo argues that kindness should not always be interpreted as having ulterior motives, especially in male-female relationships.

Kindness as Resistance Against a Cruel World – Angelo frames kindness as an act of defiance against societal norms that encourage self-interest and exploitation.

Thus, the core subject is a philosophical discussion on power, relationships, and the ethics of altruism in a world driven by personal gain.

I'll break down the dialogue step by step, analyzing the themes, motivations, and implications behind each exchange, much like a professor would dissect a complex literary text or philosophical argument.

1. Introduction: The Context of the Dialogue

This conversation takes place between Eva Mendes, a well-known actress, and Angelo (POW), a figure who presents himself as a military and political leader with strong personal principles. The exchange explores themes of personal boundaries, the nature of kindness, seduction, power dynamics, and philosophical perspectives on human interactions.

Now, let’s analyze each part of the dialogue with detailed explanations.

2. Initial Exchange: Gratitude and Deflection

Eva Mendes expresses gratitude: "Thank you for the remake of Carbone—it’s truly an outstanding film."

Eva begins by acknowledging the quality of the film and expressing appreciation. This sets the stage for Angelo’s response.

Angelo redirects credit to Adam Sandler: "The gratitude should go to Adam Sandler, as he is the driving force behind this project. He is the leader, the visionary. My involvement was merely in contributing an idea, nothing more."

Angelo deliberately shifts attention away from himself and emphasizes that Adam Sandler is the one leading the project.

This establishes a key theme: Angelo does not seek recognition for his contributions.

3. Eva’s Personal Inquiry and Angelo’s Firm Boundary

Eva moves from professional to personal matters: "Yes, I am well aware. Adam is an exceptional leader and a remarkably kind soul. That being said—when do you plan on calling me?"

Eva transitions the conversation from film-related matters to a personal level. This signals her interest in direct communication with Angelo, which will be met with resistance.

Angelo’s absolute refusal to make phone calls: "I do not make phone calls; it is a steadfast principle of mine."

Angelo introduces a strict rule: he does not engage in phone conversations.

His language—"steadfast principle"—suggests that this is not a casual preference but a deeply ingrained belief or discipline.

Angelo frames his help as unconditional: "You should understand that my assistance comes with no obligations, no ulterior motives. You are unbound—free as a bird."

He emphasizes that his actions are not transactional; he is helping her without expecting anything in return.

The metaphor of a "free bird" underscores that Eva is not under his influence or control.

4. The Question of Friendship and Further Rejection

Eva seeks an alternative: friendship: "Not even for the sake of friendship?"

She challenges his boundary, hoping that at least a friendship might be possible.

Angelo firmly denies even friendship in the real world: "No, not even under the guise of friendship. It is best that we never meet."

The phrase "under the guise of friendship" implies skepticism—that what may seem like a simple friendship could have underlying complications.

He introduces the idea that his responsibilities take precedence over personal relationships.

Angelo establishes virtual friendship as the limit: "Consider me a supportive but strictly virtual acquaintance—one you will never encounter beyond the confines of the digital world. I am a married man, and with that comes boundaries. I trust you will respect that."

He explicitly states that his presence in Eva’s life will be confined to the online sphere.

He brings up his marriage, reinforcing that his rejection is based on moral and ethical considerations, not just personal preference.

5. Power and Seduction: The Clash of Perspectives

Eva expresses disappointment but maintains interest: "But I had hoped we could spend time together, merely as friends."

She continues to test his stance, perhaps suspecting that he may soften his position.

Angelo reaffirms his decision with a metaphor of resistance: "Unfortunately, that will not be possible. However, you are more than welcome to spend time with Connie Orlando and Draya—I have no objection to you socializing with them. But as for me, I am off-limits. I refuse to fall under your spell."

By directing her toward other female friends, he implies that his issue is not with social interaction itself, but with his specific concern over engaging with Eva personally.

The phrase "fall under your spell" introduces a dynamic of power—Angelo sees Eva as possessing an almost supernatural influence over men.

Eva openly admits to her seductress agenda: "I must admit, I had every intention of seducing you, of making you submit to my charm."

She confirms that she saw him as a potential conquest.

This highlights a power struggle—she expected to dominate him, but he has resisted.

Angelo establishes his immunity to her influence: "I am not an entertainer, Eva. Only those in the entertainment industry have succumbed to your allure."

He draws a distinction between himself and the world of entertainment.

He reinforces his status as a man of discipline and boundaries.

6. Moral Reflection: The Nature of Kindness

Angelo explains the fundamental misunderstanding: "The lesson here is that you automatically assume kindness is rooted in romantic or physical interest. This is the misconception many beautiful women hold—they believe that any act of goodwill must be motivated by desire."

He critiques the assumption that men are only kind to women because they seek something in return.

He positions himself as different from the majority of men who might fall into this pattern.

He broadens his argument to human nature: "I have offered similar support to Rosario Dawson and Zoe Saldana, both of whom also struggled to grasp this concept—that kindness can be genuine, that it can exist without expectation."

By bringing up other women in similar positions, he presents his stance as a universal principle, not just a response to Eva specifically.

Eva acknowledges her mistake: "You are right—I often make the mistake of assuming kindness must come with a price."

She concedes that she has misjudged Angelo’s motivations.

7. Final Wisdom: Resistance Through Kindness

Angelo connects kindness to a broader philosophical stance: "We live in an era where cruelty is encouraged, where self-interest is glorified. But the way to resist such darkness is through acts of kindness. It is the ultimate defiance against a world that seeks to divide and dehumanize."

He introduces the idea that kindness is not just a personal virtue, but a form of rebellion against a corrupt society.

This transforms the conversation from personal boundaries into a larger ideological discussion.

Eva embraces his perspective and bids farewell: "Kindness as an act of resistance in a cruel world… I see your point now. Thank you, Angelo. Farewell."

She departs not in frustration, but with a new understanding of his philosophy.

Angelo’s final words reinforce his stance: "Goodbye, Eva. Stay strong."

His parting words suggest that he views Eva as someone who, despite their differences, can benefit from adopting this perspective of strength and kindness.

Conclusion: Key Takeaways

Personal Boundaries – Angelo establishes strict limits and does not waver.

Power Dynamics – Eva initially seeks to influence him, but he resists, reversing expectations.

The Nature of Kindness – Angelo argues that true kindness expects nothing in return.

Philosophy of Resistance – He sees kindness as a counterforce against societal corruption.

This conversation is not merely about attraction and rejection—it is a layered discussion on power, ethics, and human nature.

[numedhospital7567]

How Can a Pediatrician Help with Developmental and Behavioral Issues in Children?

A child’s development and behavior play a crucial role in their overall well-being and future success. Many parents notice concerns related to their child’s speech, motor skills, social interactions, or emotional responses but may not know where to seek help. This is where a pediatrician in Greater Noida can provide essential guidance and medical support. Pediatricians are trained to monitor and assess a child’s physical, emotional, and psychological development. They can identify early signs of developmental delays or behavioral disorders and offer appropriate interventions.

1. Early Diagnosis and Screening

One of the most important roles of a pediatrician in Greater Noida is to conduct regular screenings and developmental assessments during routine check-ups. Pediatricians use standardized tools and observation techniques to evaluate a child's speech, cognitive abilities, motor skills, and social behaviors. If any developmental red flags arise, they may recommend further evaluations by specialists such as speech therapists, occupational therapists, or child psychologists.

2. Managing Speech and Language Delays

Many children experience delays in speech and language development. A pediatrician in Greater Noida can assess the severity of the delay and determine whether it is within the normal range or requires professional intervention. If necessary, they can refer the child to a speech therapist who can work on improving their communication skills.

3. Identifying and Managing ADHD

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common behavioral conditions among children. A pediatrician in Greater Noida can help diagnose ADHD by evaluating the child’s attention span, hyperactivity, and impulsivity levels. They may suggest behavior therapy, lifestyle changes, and in some cases, medication to help the child focus better and manage their behavior effectively.

4. Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Support

Autism Spectrum Disorder affects a child's ability to communicate and interact socially. Early diagnosis can significantly improve outcomes. A pediatrician in Greater Noida can conduct preliminary assessments and guide parents toward specialized programs and therapies designed to improve social skills, speech, and overall behavior.

5. Emotional and Psychological Support

Children may experience anxiety, depression, or emotional outbursts due to various factors such as school stress, bullying, or family issues. A pediatrician in Greater Noida can help identify these emotional difficulties and recommend child psychologists or counselors for therapy. They also provide parents with strategies to create a supportive home environment.

6. Nutritional and Lifestyle Guidance

Diet plays a significant role in a child’s behavior and cognitive function. A pediatrician in Greater Noida can assess a child's nutrition and suggest dietary changes that improve focus, energy levels, and mood stability. They may also advise on sleep hygiene and physical activities to promote overall well-being.

7. Addressing Learning Disabilities

Children with learning disabilities often struggle with reading, writing, or mathematics. A pediatrician in Greater Noida can work with teachers and parents to identify potential learning disorders such as dyslexia or dyscalculia. They recommend strategies and therapies to help the child cope with academic challenges effectively.

8. Behavioral Therapy and Parental Guidance

Pediatricians play a vital role in guiding parents on behavioral management strategies. Whether it's dealing with tantrums, aggression, or defiance, a pediatrician in Greater Noida provides techniques to reinforce positive behaviors and reduce problematic ones. They also educate parents on age-appropriate discipline methods.

9. Social Skills Development

Some children struggle with making friends, maintaining conversations, or understanding social cues. A pediatrician in Greater Noida can recommend social skills training programs that teach children how to interact effectively with peers, boosting their confidence and emotional intelligence.

10. Specialized Referrals and Continuous Monitoring

When necessary, a pediatrician in Greater Noida refers children to specialized professionals such as neurologists, psychiatrists, or occupational therapists. They also conduct regular follow-ups to track the child’s progress and adjust treatment plans as needed.

Choosing Numed Hospital for Pediatric Care

When it comes to expert pediatric care, Numed Hospital is a trusted name in Greater Noida. The hospital offers top-tier medical services, state-of-the-art diagnostic tools, and a team of highly experienced pediatricians. Whether you need developmental screenings, behavioral therapy guidance, or specialized treatments, Numed Hospital ensures the best care for your child. Choose Numed Hospital for comprehensive pediatric services and give your child the support they need for a healthier future.

[letterstomyrepresentatives]

Subject: NIH Scientists Are Working Under Fear—Science Must Not Be Controlled by Political Ideology

Dear Senator Tillis,

I am writing to express my alarm over the deliberate and systematic effort to suppress scientific research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Recent reports make it clear that science at NIH is no longer being guided by evidence, but by a political ideology that punishes researchers for asking the wrong questions or reaching conclusions that contradict the administration’s preferred narrative. This is not just an attack on funding—it is an attack on free inquiry itself.

Despite multiple court orders instructing the NIH to resume grant funding, political operatives within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have maintained an unlawful freeze on scientific research. But beyond the financial crisis this has created for labs across the country, a more insidious effect is taking hold: fear.

Scientists at NIH and across the research community are being forced into silence, afraid that their work could lead to professional consequences if it challenges the administration’s political agenda. Key concerns include:

A Climate of Fear and Retaliation: Scientists who have spoken out against the funding freeze—or who have simply tried to follow court orders—have been silenced, reassigned, or outright fired. Over 1,200 NIH employees have already lost their jobs, and a new memo suggests more terminations are on the way. NIH hallways have gone silent, with researchers afraid to even discuss their concerns openly.

Research Priorities Dictated by Ideology, Not Science: Instead of following legal and scientific guidelines, NIH leadership has insisted that all funding decisions align with the Trump administration’s ideological directives, particularly on issues related to gender, diversity, global health, and climate science. Grants for critical health disparities research are under threat because acknowledging that some populations face higher risks for certain diseases does not align with the administration’s political worldview.

Political Appointees Overriding Scientific Experts: NIH’s acting director, Matthew Memoli, has no experience running large-scale research programs, but he does have a track record of aligning with Trump’s political appointees. Despite clear legal guidance that grants must be restarted, Memoli has stalled funding while he rewrites NIH’s mission to conform with administration demands. Scientists are now faced with an impossible choice: alter their research to fit government-approved narratives or risk losing their funding—and their careers.

Direct Defiance of Court Orders and the Law: The refusal to restore NIH grants is not just a matter of policy disagreement—it is unlawful. Courts have ruled that the administration must resume funding, yet NIH and HHS officials continue to block research based purely on political motivations. In any other context, this would be called contempt of court.

This is not how science is supposed to work. The pursuit of knowledge should be guided by evidence, not dictated by the ideological whims of those in power. Science has always been one of America’s greatest strengths—our commitment to discovery and innovation has led to breakthroughs in medicine, technology, and public health that have saved millions of lives. But today, that commitment is under threat from an administration that wants to turn NIH into a tool for enforcing political loyalty rather than scientific integrity.

I urge you to act immediately to stop this authoritarian control over American science by:

Demanding an Immediate End to Political Interference at NIH: The agency must comply with court orders, restore funding to all legally approved grants, and allow scientists to conduct their research free from political intimidation.

Investigating the Retaliation Against Scientists: Congress must hold hearings to expose how researchers have been silenced, reassigned, or fired for simply trying to do their jobs.

Passing Legislation to Protect Scientific Independence: NIH and other federal research agencies need stronger protections against political manipulation, ensuring that future administrations cannot weaponize science funding for ideological purposes.

If we allow this administration to dictate what science can and cannot say, we will lose something far more important than grant funding—we will lose the very foundation of scientific inquiry in this country. The role of science is to seek truth, not to serve power. I urge you to take a stand before it is too late.

[bllsbailey]

House Committee Drops Transcripts They Say PROVE Pentagon Ignored Trump's J6 National Guard Request

We’ve seen a lot of dishonest statements and allegations from the left about the events of Jan. 6 at the Capitol, with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the corrupt J6 Committee dropping the most disinformation. 

One of the longest-running allegations is that Donald Trump knew violence was coming but did nothing to stop it. He never requested the National Guard, the narrative goes. He didn’t care what happened.

Chairman Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) of the Committee on House Administration's Subcommittee on Oversight has a different view, however, and he has newly released transcripts to back it up. In a press release Friday, Loudermilk said the Pentagon brass simply ignored Trump’s requests:

“Pentagon leadership prioritized concerns of optics over their duty to protect lives,” said Chairman Loudermilk. “President Trump met with senior Pentagon leaders and directed them to make sure any events on January 6, 2021 were safe. It is very concerning that these Senior Pentagon officials ignored President Trump’s guidance AND misled Congressional Leaders to believe they were doing their job, when they were not. The DoD IG’s report is fundamentally flawed. It does not draw conclusions from the interviews they conducted, but pushes a narrative to keep their hands clean. We have many questions for them, and we will continue to dig until we are satisfied the American people know the truth."

Related: RAGING BULL: New J6 Footage Shows Pelosi Admitting They 'Totally Failed,' Then Setting Sights on Trump

Army J6 Whistleblower Testifies That Pentagon Delayed National Guard Reaching Capitol

We’ve known some of this before, but the transcripts themselves are pretty startling. They all but tell the sitting president of the United States to shove off:

Then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley recalled that on January 3, 2021, three days before the protests, the commander-in-chief said he wanted a “safe event.”

Obviously, Milley did not fulfill his boss’ demands, and we all know how that turned out.

Then-Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller’s comments, though, are even more shocking; he too recalls the former president asking for troops but just assumed it was “presidential banter.” Are you kidding me?

[On January 6, 2021] everyone was like, “Did you listen to the President’s speech?”  I’m like “the guy speaks for 90 minutes like it’s Castro or something.’ I’ve got work to do."

Bias, much? Mocking the commander-in-chief while you’re serving under him? Disgusting. He flat-out admitted he was going to do what he was going to do regardless of what he was told:

“There was absolutely – there is absolutely no way I was putting U.S. military forces at the Capitol, period.”

Meanwhile, then-Chief Steven Sund of the Capitol Police said the Pentagon cared more about “optics” than keeping people safe:

[When Sund was requesting help] ...the representative from the Secretary of the Army said, “I don’t like the optics of the National Guard standing in a line with the Capitol in the background.”

Unbelievable. As I mentioned, some of this has been known, but to read their actual words and see the hubris and defiance toward their commander is astonishing. We’ve seen so many lies told about what really went down, but these transcripts certainly seem to prove that Trump not only anticipated possible violence—but tried to prevent it.

[morning9amnews]

OFAC Sanctions Key Rosneft Subsidiary and Executive for Operating in the Oil Sector of Venezuela

Key Points

On February 18, 2020, OFAC designated Rosneft Trading, S.A. (Rosneft Trading), a subsidiary of Russia-based Open Joint-Stock Company Rosneft Oil Company (Rosneft Oil Company), and its president, Didier Casimiro, on the SDN List for brokering crude oil shipments from Venezuela—activities that are restricted under E.O. 13850.

As a result of this action, U.S. persons are generally prohibited from doing business with Rosneft Trading, Didier Casimiro, and entities they own 50 percent or more, absent OFAC authorization. These sanctions do not apply to Rosneft Oil Company or related entities that are not 50 percent or more owned by Rosneft Trading or Casimiro.

OFAC has also issued General License 36, which authorizes U.S. persons to engage in otherwise prohibited activities in order to wind-down transactions involving Rosneft Trading and entities that it owns by 50 percent or more. This license is valid through 12:01 a.m. EDT on May 20, 2020.

Non-U.S. persons could be subject to sanctions if OFAC determines that they provide material assistance, goods or services to Rosneft Trading and/or Casimiro. OFAC states in an FAQ that non-U.S. persons will not be exposed to sanctions if they engage in activities with Rosneft Trading during the wind-down period that are consistent with General License 36, but such authorized wind-down activities would not include entering into “new business” with Rosneft Trading.

Background and Summary of Designations

On February 18, 2020, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, OFAC designated Rosneft Trading, a Swiss-incorporated subsidiary of Rosneft Oil Company, and its president, Didier Casimiro, as SDNs for engaging in activities deemed sanctionable under Executive Order 13850—specifically, operating in the oil sector of the Venezuelan economy, and in Casimiro’s case, acting on behalf of Rosneft Trading. In a press release accompanying the designation, the U.S. State Department explained that “[a]s the primary broker of global deals for the sale and transport of Venezuela’s crude oil, Rosneft Trading has propped up the dictatorial [Nicolás] Maduro, enabling his repression of the Venezuelan people.”

Over the past year, U.S. government officials have specifically mentioned Rosneft entities as potential targets of future U.S. sanctions due to Rosneft’s continued support of the Maduro regime in Venezuela. For instance, in March 2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated that “Russia’s state-owned oil company Rosneft continues to purchase crude oil cargoes from [Petróleos de Venezuela] PdVSA, Venezuela’s state-owned oil company in defiance of U.S. sanctions.” Earlier this month, White House National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien said in a press briefing that Rosneft’s continued support of the Maduro regime “is not a good business decision” and foreshadowed potential U.S. action “in the near future.”

Consistent with the administration’s “maximum pressure” policy against the Maduro regime, in announcing this sanctions designation, U.S. officials indicated that the administration will sanction additional persons who conduct business with the Maduro regime, which could occur as soon as the next several weeks.

Implications

As a result of the above designations, U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions or business with Rosneft Trading, Didier Casimiro and entities owned 50 percent or more by them, absent OFAC authorization. Additionally, U.S. persons that come into the possession or control of property or assets of these sanctioned persons are obligated to block them and report them to OFAC.

OFAC also issued General License 36 (GL-36) to authorize the wind down of transactions involving Rosneft Trading and entities owned 50 percent or more by Rosneft Trading through 12:01 a.m. EST on May 20, 2020. Furthermore, Rosneft Trading and entities owned 50 percent or more by Rosneft Trading, as well as other entities that Rosneft Oil Company owns by 50 percent or more, are also separately subject to Directives 2 and 4 of E.O. 13662 under the Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations (URSR). Directives 2 and 4 prohibit U.S. persons from engaging in transactions involving certain debt issued by and unconventional oil projects involving these entities; thus, any wind-down activities must comply with these separate sanctions restrictions. See OFAC FAQ #817.

Additionally, as noted in newly-issued OFAC FAQ #818, non-U.S. persons may wind-down transactions with Rosneft Trading without sanctions exposure under E.O. 13850, as long as such wind-down activity is consistent with GL-36 and completed prior to 12:01 a.m. EDT, May 20, 2020. However, engaging in “new business” with Rosneft Trading and entities owned 50 percent or more by Rosneft Trading will not be considered wind-down activity. Non-U.S. persons may be subject to future secondary sanctions if the Secretary of Treasury determines that such persons have “materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technical support for, or goods or services to or in support of” Rosneft Trading or Casimiro. Non-U.S. persons may also face primary sanctions risks in connection with any business they may conduct involving a U.S. nexus (e.g., U.S. Dollar-denominated transactions or U.S. origin goods) with Rosneft Trading or Casimiro.

Additional Considerations

While OFAC’s blocking action against Rosneft Trading does not apply to Rosneft Trading’s ultimate parent company, Rosneft Oil Company, entities owned 50 percent or more by Rosneft Oil Company remain subject to Directives 2 and 4 sanctions restrictions under the URSR, as described above. Furthermore, U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with Rosneft Oil Company if Rosneft Trading, Didier Casimiro or entities owned 50 percent or more by them are involved.

It is important to note that Didier Casimiro currently holds a prominent position as Vice President for Refining, Petrochemical, Commerce and Logistics at Rosneft Oil Company, sits on Rosneft Oil Company’s management board and serves in prominent roles in other Rosneft subsidiaries. We highlight this because even though Rosneft Oil Company is not an SDN or blocked person, OFAC has issued guidance, in light of its 2017 civil penalty action against ExxonMobil involving the company’s dealings with Rosneft President (and SDN) Igor Sechin,1 warning that “persons should be cautious in dealings with such a non-blocked entity to ensure that they are not, for example, dealing with a blocked person representing the non-blocked entity, such as entering into a contract that is signed by a blocked person.” See OFAC FAQ #398. Given Casimiro’s current position within Rosneft Oil Company, it will be important for U.S. persons to engage in due diligence to ensure that he is not involved in transactions in which they participate that involve Rosneft Oil Company.