Latest news with #interventions
Russia Today
21-07-2025
- Business
- Russia Today
Graham threatens Putin: US war hawk escalates rhetoric in alignment with military lobby
US President Donald Trump will 'whoop' his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and punish countries importing Russian oil, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has stated. In an interview with Fox on Sunday, Graham suggested that China, India and Brazil could face 100% tariffs for 'helping' Putin. He claimed that Trump has been 'tough on Iran' and warned that similar action would soon be directed at Russia, claiming that Putin's 'turn is coming.' Graham previously introduced a bill to impose 500% tariffs on states conducting business with Russia. However, the Senate later froze the legislation after Trump announced a 50-day deadline for Moscow to reach a settlement on Ukraine. If no deal is reached, the US president has threatened to impose 100% secondary tariffs on Russian oil buyers. History of promoting increased military spending and interventions Graham has consistently supported a hardline approach to countries the US deems its adversaries. He has backed nearly every major US military intervention of the past two decades, including the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the NATO-led campaign in Libya, and operations in Syria. He has also endorsed continued military aid to Israel and Ukraine, and praised US strikes against Iran. Public campaign finance records and Graham's long voting record have suggested an alignment of his interests with the US defense industry. In addition to his legislative support for military funding, Graham has also held key roles on Senate committees overseeing defense and foreign policy, including the Appropriations, Armed Services, and Judiciary Committees, which has given him direct influence over weapons spending, military aid, and foreign intervention policy. Donations from US defense companies According to OpenSecrets, he has received over $55,000 from Boeing since 2019, in addition to donations from Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and individuals employed by the Department of Defense. He has also received campaign contributions from Political Action Committees (PACs) specifically tied to defense‑industry interests, such as the Free Syria PAC, which supports US intervention in Syria, and L3Harris Technologies, a Defense Electronics PAC. In the 2015–2016 election cycle, Graham also received $760,244 from defense-linked donors, according to a joint investigation by Time and the Center for Public Integrity. The report noted that Senate Budget Committee Republicans received an average of $472,000 each from top contractors, placing Graham well above the committee average. Increasing US military budget In 2015, Graham backed a measure to increase military spending by $38 billion through a special fund known as the Overseas Contingency Operations account. The fund allowed the government to bypass normal budget limits, leading some critics to describe it as a way to finance wars off the books. Graham claimed the increase was needed to address 'the growing threats' to the US. In February 2025, Graham also introduced a budget plan to increase defense spending by $150 billion using a fast-track process that bypasses the Senate filibuster. He called the proposal a way to give Trump's team the resources they need 'in a troubled world.' Continued support for war The senator has been a staunch supporter of continued US military aid to Kiev, framing its conflict with Russia as a proxy war being fought 'on behalf of Washington.' Moscow has designated Graham a terrorist and extremist. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has called him an 'embarrassment' to the US.
News24
02-07-2025
- Business
- News24
Minerals Council warns against chrome export tax, implores govt to consult
The Minerals Council has warned of unintended consequences of proposed interventions which industry has not been consulted on.
The Guardian
20-05-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
Mental-health lessons in schools sound like a great idea. The trouble is, they don't work
It's Saturday afternoon and my friend's five-year-old daughter is lying next to me on her living room floor. She explains to me that she does this at school. She lies on her back with the rest of the class and they do something called the body scanner, where they all pay attention to various body parts in turn. I know she is describing a mindfulness exercise, because I'm a psychologist who researches mental-health lessons. I listen as she explains it all to me, but in my head I'm thinking something else: she shouldn't be learning mindfulness at school. On the face of it, mental-health lessons in schools seemed like an excellent idea. Young people's mental health is worse now than it was in the past, and one-to-one treatment is hard to access. If you teach young people about mental health at school – which often includes teaching techniques based on therapies such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or mindfulness – it's more accessible. If you teach these concepts to everyone in a class – so-called universal interventions – you avoid missing the under-the-radar kids who aren't seeking help, and avoid the potential stigma of singling anyone out. If you teach the information when pupils are young enough, even better: you might prevent mental-health problems from starting in the first place. At least, that was the idea. The reality is more sobering. Researchers have now run many studies testing the impact of universal school mental-health interventions and have found that they don't really improve mental health. When improvements are found, they're small – a tiny average shift on a symptom questionnaire – and the quality of the research is often poor, meaning it's hard to trust the findings. The best-designed studies show that interventions don't work at all: no improvement in mental health symptoms, either immediately after the course of lessons or later down the line. In fact, some studies have found that universal mental-health lessons actually make things worse. There are now high-quality studies showing that school lessons based on CBT, mindfulness, dialectical behavioural therapy (DBT) and general mental-health awareness lead to a small increase in symptoms of mental-health difficulties. There is evidence of other bad outcomes too, such as decreased prosocial behaviour or decreased relationship quality with parents. It is not every study, but it is enough that we should take this seriously – not least because all schools in England are now required to teach something about mental health. And these are the ones that have been tested: there are many, many interventions being sold to and taught in schools that haven't been evaluated at all. I have now reached the conclusion that we should stop these all-class mental-health lessons. My view is that the only information we should teach en masse is where a young person should get help, both inside and outside school, if they're struggling. That's it. Then we should focus the time, energy and money on supporting the smaller group of young people who are actually unwell. I have not come to this conclusion lightly. Like so many others, I was once enthusiastic about the potential of the universal approach. It is a logical, intuitive idea that mental-health lessons in schools are a good idea, an obvious solution to an obvious need. But once you can accept the evidence, something surprising happens. It starts to become clear why all-class mental-health lessons don't improve young people's mental health, and why they were never going to. In any one classroom, young people vary enormously. For starters, the majority of them do not have mental-health problems. This means some pupils are being asked to engage in effortful practices at home – mindfulness meditation, CBT-based thinking exercises – when they are not struggling in the first place. When you ask them in qualitative studies, where they can convey openly what they think, some young people say such lessons are irrelevant to them, and they are right. Proponents of these lessons would say that the exercises are still worth learning, that positive effects may appear later down the line – but this is not supported by the evidence. At the other extreme, in every class there will be students who already have significant mental-health problems, and thus will need more than what is on offer in universal lessons. They will need focused one-to-one support: therapy tailored to their specific challenges, built on a meaningful, trusting relationship with a qualified adult. Others will need changes in their external circumstances, not guidance about how to cope better in their own minds. For these students, mental-health lessons will be far too light touch, like being given plasters and paracetamol when they have a broken leg. Other students say that these lessons make them focus on negative feelings and memories, which then upsets them. Others simply do not understand what they are being taught, and find the exercises confusing and stressful. We have very little understanding about how specific groups – such as neurodivergent children or those with language difficulties – experience these all-class lessons and whether they are able to correctly implement what they are being told to do. Another problem is that the classroom may not be the right setting to learn about mental health. Some young people feel socially secure at school and have good friends, but others are lonely or bullied. Many young people do not feel safe at school. In one study, several students said they didn't want to do mindfulness meditation at school because they didn't trust what their peers would do to them if they shut their eyes. Hearing this, it suddenly seemed obvious: without resolving these social challenges, the classroom is just not the right environment for a young person to do vulnerable work on their mental health. Importantly, this doesn't mean there should be no mental-health support in schools. School is a logical, equitable place to provide help, and there is evidence that one-to-one and small-group support in schools, given to those who need or want it, can work well, at least in the short term. But when it comes to all-class lessons, we should listen to the evidence, and to young people themselves. We came up with a good idea, we spent a lot of time and money testing it, and we have our answer. Given the evidence, we should now stop doing those lessons. The people running this research, and those making decisions to teach these lessons in schools, really want a solution to this crisis. We all want to figure out what to tell young people about mental health, and how to best help them when they are struggling. Against a backdrop of ever rising mental-health problems, and lack of affordable alternatives, I completely understand why it feels wrong – unethical even – to call a halt to these lessons. Yet it is also unethical to ignore evidence, and to continue delivering something that doesn't work. At best, the universal lessons we have are a waste of time; at worst, they are harmful. The numbers tell us these lessons don't improve mental health. The qualitative data tells us that many young people don't like or want them. We need to listen. Dr Lucy Foulkes is an academic psychologist at the University of Oxford, where her group researches mental health and social development in adolescence. She is the author of What Mental Illness Really Is (and what it isn't), and Coming of Age: How Adolescence Shapes Us
Washington Post
09-05-2025
- Health
- Washington Post
Our relatives have autism. This is how the government should help us.
Programs to support autistic people who have high support needs are vastly underfunded. I would love to see the federal government do something about that, such as funding existing programs like TEACCH at the University of North Carolinaat Chapel Hill, as well as research methods to help these people and their families function better. Our daughter has benefited greatly from the right medications and a service dog. She just turned 41, and her autism has affected our family in so many ways — good and not so good. There have been many years when it was very hard to afford her care, especially in the early going, when there was so little support. Here in North Carolina, she receives support through a Medicaid waiver. It has been lifesaving for us, but the current wait time for those slots is 10 years. Want to help autistic adults? Fund programs like that! Jan Boike, Matthews, North Carolina Nix ABA I've had close relatives with autism for the past 50 years. The policies families with autism need are greater support for interventions that are not based on applied behavior analysis, especially in public school and workplaces. ABA is a therapy that focuses on eliminating common autistic behaviors, often through aversion training rather than learning new skills. Because policies on which autism therapies and interventions insurance must cover vary widely from state to state, families might end up turning to ABA because it is the most affordable option, not because it is the best one. The heavy focus on ABA is tragic because it has been proved to traumatize some people with autism to the point that they develop post-traumatic stress symptoms. Instead of promoting ABA, the Education Department should require guidance on how to accommodate neurodiverse students in schools so they can learn in a comfortable environment, not be trained to make neurotypical people comfortable. We also need workplaces to offer accommodations such as flexibility in hours, remote work and sensory-friendly work environments. Some people with autism love detailed, repetitive work such as finding coding errors and organizing inventory, but they need support and understanding to be able to work. Inclusive education and employment is key to helping people with autism lead full lives. Michelle Mood, Gambier, Ohio Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Prioritize autism funding The government should prioritize policies to help support autistic people, including my grandson who is nonverbal. It should increase funding for teachers and programs to help families get the treatments that will benefit them. The recent 180 from the government has been alarming. One of President Joe Biden's last acts in office was to sign a bill that provided funding for autism research. The current administration is cutting funding for autism research. And Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said 'autism destroys families.' I would like my government not to be cruel. That seems to be a big ask because our government is now run by people who seem to have no regard for families such as mine. My grandson is not a burden. A society will always be judged by how it treats the most vulnerable. Our country is failing that test. Karen Deal, Georgetown, Texas Parents need schools' support I have two sons, ages 17 and 20, who are on the autism spectrum. There are already many demands on insurance companies for autism-related treatments, including speech, occupational and behavior therapy. And, as a result of the Affordable Care Act, more kids are insured. However, parents need even more support. That support should be delivered through public schools. Many parents cannot take enough time off work to attend the sheer number of medical appointments our children require, even when those appointments are covered by insurance. And many parents also lack private transportation and have to balance the needs of their other children. But kids' transportation is already provided to and from school, and children are there most of the day. Therefore, a meaningful amount of speech, behavior and occupational therapy should be provided at school. To the extent that a child is a good candidate for video modeling, some, but not all, additional speech and behavior therapy could be cost-effectively provided through videos and interactive programs on a computer. A child might need the same lesson repeatedly, and a computer never gets bored. Occupational therapy could facilitate a child dressing himself or using a pencil. Many elementary schools have a number of students who need this help, but they are not getting anything remotely adequate due to lack of funding. Additionally, schools need more counselors, especially in middle and high schools. Many people on the spectrum, including my sons, have comorbid mental health issues and benefit from weekly counseling, but school counselors are often too busy, especially in the context of the teen mental health crisis, to provide the help needed. Kids with autism need adequate services. We should all pitch in to make sure the burden of cost and time is not squarely on their parents. Charity Bartell, Austin Meet my family Much of the discourse regarding Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s ignorant and cruel remarks about autism lacks the full context of what it's really like. So, I would like you to know about my family. Indeed, I'd like to challenge everyone considered neurologically 'able' to go up against any one of my three autistic nieces and nephews, or their father (my brother), in a competition to solve an array of highly complex mathematics, computing or chemistry questions. I bet Team Douglas will win hands down. If you'd like to experience honest love from people with a knack for comedic timing, there's no one better than my family. They will make you feel loved and understood. I know that what I have portrayed briefly here are not the characteristics of everyone on the autism spectrum, but they are the qualities and dimensions of the autistic people I know and love, who amaze and challenge me intellectually and creatively. Penelope Douglas, Sausalito, California Misinformation fuels ableism and bullying Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s recent comments about autism were disconcerting. Instead of celebrating April as Autism Acceptance Month, Kennedy chose to disparage autistic kids like my brother, who are students in classrooms across this country. Kennedy said, 'These are kids who will never pay taxes, they'll never hold a job, they'll never play baseball, they'll never write a poem, they'll never go out on a date.' His words are not only misinformed — my autistic peers do, in fact, hold jobs, play sports and have relationships — but also deeply dehumanizing. By suggesting that a person's intrinsic value depends upon arbitrary standards of social behavior and a narrow set of milestones, he encourages bullying and ableism in our schools. Sadly, his rhetoric also fuels harmful stigmas around disabilities, stigmas his own family has fought so hard against. Eunice Shriver, Kennedy's aunt, founded the Special Olympics, and his cousin's son, Tim Shriver Jr., co-founded the 'Spread the Word' campaign, which combats ableist language in schools. Put simply, Kennedy's comments hurt autistic kids like my brother and alienate families like mine. Leela Uppaluri, Boston Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Families are overwhelmed My son Daniel is 28. He was once verbal and perceptive, but at age 2, he regressed severely. We believe this regression was triggered by a combination of factors: a triple vaccine, a large dose of Rocephin for an inner ear infection and verified lead poisoning. Our family's bloodwork showed elevated lead levels, and the county intervened — relocating us to a lead-safe environment after detecting dangerous lead dust throughout the house. The landlord had failed to notify us about the deteriorating lead paint on window frames and exteriors. I also believe there is a genetic predisposition in our family. Three of my four children exhibit traits linked to sensory integration challenges, but Daniel's condition is the most severe. He is now nonverbal, is only somewhat toilet-trained and requires constant one-on-one supervision. He understands when he needs to use the toilet and wears Pull-Ups, even though he cannot clean himself after. What brings him joy is running forest trails with his father — sometimes logging up to 120 miles a month. The federal government must recognize the full spectrum of people with autism, not just those who are verbal and self-sufficient. Families such as mine are overwhelmed. We need long-term care solutions, respite programs, and research that seriously considers environmental triggers, immune response and sensory disruption alongside genetic factors. Given the lack of answers for families such as mine, I have spent decades developing a wave-based computer model that attempts to capture what I believe to be the cognitive dissonance that happens when Daniel's brain can't integrate the information from his senses in a synchronized way. It's shaped by my close observation of Daniel's repetitive, short-cycle behaviors and difficulty with sequence processing. That model is the lived effort of a father, through prayer and persistence, to reach his son. Daniel is why I do this. America needs to fund bold, independent autism research and build policy around the daily realities of families such as ours. America's future depends on how we treat its most vulnerable. Thomas Young, Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio
