Jump to content

KYHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    4550
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by KYHorn

  1. We're looking to replace all of our cabinet doors in order to get slow-close hinges. We've got 3 young boys and will stay in this house till we die. What's the right way to go on this? Local cabinet makers, big box store, or order online?

    I think the big box stores only offer MDF doors. We'll hire someone to paint the doors (or buy them painted) and the existing cabinets, though. I've read MDF works better with paint? If you recommend hardwood, what kind? Looking over the online for options and there's a huge variety of woods at different price points. 

    Thanks in advance.

  2. Lindsey Graham's Russian sanctions bill is likely to go through in July, though the president will have the decision on implementation

    'It's time to move your bill' — Senator says Congress will soon vote on new Russian sanctions after talks with Trump

    https://kyivindependent.com/its-time-to-move-your-bill-after-discussion-with-trump-senator-says-congress-will-soon-begin-to-vote-on-new-russian-sanctions/amp/

    Spoiler

    ld two new reactors.

    After holding a discussion with U.S. President Donald Trump, Senator Lindsey Graham said on June 29 that the U.S. president was ready for the Senate to vote on a bill to impose new sanctions on Russia.

    Voting on the bill is expected to begin following the end of the July congressional break, Graham said.

    "For the first time yesterday the president told me... he says, 'it's time to move your bill'," Graham said in an interview with ABC News, stressing that it would be Trump's purview as to whether the bill would ultimately be signed into law.

    When asked if Graham expected Trump to sign the bill, the senator responded: "Yes, I think we're in good shape... But he has a waiver. It's up to him how to impose it."

    Graham said he held the talk with Trump during a round of golf on June 28. No specific timeline was provided as to when the bill can be expected to be moved, although Congress is set to reconvene on July 9.

    Signed by 84 co-sponsors, Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) have been working on a revised version of their bill that would impose secondary sanctions on Russian trading partners, while shielding Ukraine’s allies from penalties and making technical adjustments.

    "So what does this bill do? If you're buying products from Russia and you're not helping Ukraine, then there's a 500 percent tariff on your products coming into the United States. India and China buy 70 percent of Putin's oil. They keep his war machine going," Graham explained.

    Despite pressure, Trump has thus far refused to impose additional sanction against on his own accord. Amid discussion around the Senate bill, Trump has reportedly asked Graham to to soften his proposed sanctions, having previously postponed a vote on the bipartisan measure.

    Amid the slow process of moving the proposed bill, Graham described the move as a "big breakthrough."

    Ukraine has repeatedly urged the United States to impose additional sanctions on Russia as Moscow continues increase the frequency and magnitude of its attacks on Ukrainian cities.

    Graham's comments come just hours after Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto claimed that Washington lifted sanctions that hindered the expansion of the Paks Nuclear Power Plant, where Russia's state-owned energy company Rosatom is to build two new reactors.

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  3. Things not going well in the motherland

    Nearly 140K Russian Soldiers Back From War Are in Need of Reintegration, Kremlin Says

    https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/06/26/nearly-140k-russian-soldiers-back-from-war-are-in-need-of-reintegration-kremlin-says-a89581

    Spoiler

    Almost 140,000 Russian soldiers have returned to civilian life after fighting in the war against Ukraine and now require reintegration support, a Kremlin official said Thursday.

    “Around 137,000 fighters have already returned home from the front lines of the special military operation,” said Sergei Novikov, who heads the Kremlin’s Directorate for Social Projects, at a state-funded youth forum.

    “These are mostly young people... under 35,” Novikov was quoted as saying by the TASS news agency. “They need help retraining, finding new jobs. Not just any jobs, but decent ones. Because right now, in the combat zone, they’re earning solid pay.”

    Soldiers earn at least 204,000 rubles ($2,600) per month while deployed in Ukraine.

    “They need to return home in a way that doesn't cause a drop in household income,” Novikov added.

    Russia’s government, which estimates that just over half of demobilized war veterans have found employment, has introduced job support programs, vocational training and financial incentives for employers to hire veterans with disabilities.

    Reintegration efforts have also gained urgency amid a reported rise in violent crimes involving returning veterans. Court records show Russian soldiers have killed at least 378 people after returning to civilian life since the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

    Russia’s Defense Ministry estimates that one in five war veterans suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, according to lawmakers. Russia has fewer than one therapist for every 7,000 adults, and even fewer with experience treating combat trauma

     

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
  4. 36 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

    Cliffs? It’s behind a paywall. 

    Free link: https://archive.is/Hsgl7 

    China’s bet on Iranian oil and Middle East influence turns sour

    President Xi is likely to double down on energy independence drive as Strait of Hormuz risks rise

    Spoiler

    Edward White in Shanghai

    Published9 minutes ago

    Israel’s attacks on Iran threaten to cut China off from critical oil trading partners, highlighting its need for greater energy independence and disrupting Beijing’s hopes for a bigger role in the region. 

    For years, China has used its relationship with Iran to expand its influence in the Middle East, while making cheap Iranian crude, and Gulf supplies more broadly, a bedrock of the energy mix for the world’s biggest buyer of oil.

    Chinese President Xi Jinping said this week that all parties to the conflict between Israel and Iran should work “as soon as possible to prevent further escalation of tensions”. China has said the US should not interfere with its “normal trade” with Iran and has opposed US-led sanctions.

    “Of course, China is worried [by the latest attacks],” said Gedaliah Afterman, an expert on China and the Middle East at the Abba Eban Institute for Diplomacy and Foreign Relations in Israel. 

    “If this situation continues to escalate, then they lose quite a bit, both in terms of their energy security and Iran as a strategic card that China holds.”

    Since US-led sanctions on Iran’s nuclear programme were stepped up in late 2018, Beijing and Tehran have strengthened ties.

    Beijing has become Tehran’s most important economic lifeline, buying the vast majority of Iranian oil shipments and supplying the country with electronics, vehicles and machinery, and nuclear power equipment. 

    Last year, Iranian oil accounted for as much as 15 per cent of the crude shipped to the world’s second-biggest economy. Overall, China last year imported about 11.1mn barrels of oil a day, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

    Chinese purchases of Iranian crude edged higher through most of 2023 and 2024 but started to ease late last year as the threat of new US sanctions increased, according to data from cargo tracking research group Kpler and Bernstein.

    Iran exported 2.4mn barrels of crude a day in September 2024, with China accounting for 1.6mn barrels. By April, Iranian shipments had fallen to 2.1mn barrels a day, of which China accounted for 740,000 barrels. Malaysia is also an important exporter to China as cargoes shipped from Iran are relabelled or transferred to avoid sanctions, analysts said.

    Analysts from Fitch Ratings this week said that, “even in the unlikely event that all Iranian exports are lost”, they could be replaced by spare capacity from Opec-plus producers.

    Other, more severe, energy disruptions could emerge. The war, which is at risk of spilling over into a broader regional conflict, has already sparked threats from Iran that it could block the Strait of Hormuz.

    Hundreds of billions of dollars in oil and gas are shipped through the waterway to China from nearby Gulf States each year, including Saudi Arabia, China’s biggest supplier of crude outside Russia.

    A view of a ship on fire in the area of reported collision between two oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz © European Union/Copernicus Sentinel-2/Reuters

    China does not officially publish the volumes of its strategic petroleum reserves. But Michal Meidan, head of China research at the Oxford Institute of Energy Studies, estimates that across all storage types there is around 90-100 days of cover in the event that flows into the country are restricted.

    Beyond a growing reliance on Saudi oil, S&P Global analysts have noted that more than 25 per cent of China’s liquefied natural gas imports last year came from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. While China holds 15 LNG supply contracts with these two Gulf states, importers could be forced to purchase from the spot market at higher prices, S&P analysts said.

    For China, the Israel-Iran crisis war comes amid a tectonic shift in the country’s energy mix. The country has for decades been the world’s biggest oil user. Under Xi, China is racing to boost its energy independence, a transition that ultimately requires a massive increase in renewable energy and the electrification of the country’s transport and manufacturing base.

    A boom in solar and wind has taken renewables’ share of electricity power plant capacity to 56 per cent last year, up from around one-third a decade ago.

    The “key takeaway” for Xi’s administration from the crisis, according to Neil Beveridge, head of Asia-Pacific research at Bernstein, will be to double down on its self-sufficiency drive.

    “If it wasn’t happening fast enough before, it will be happening even faster now,” he said.

    Storage facilities for petrochemical resources and products in Longkou in east China’s Shandong province © Tang Ke/Future Publishing/Getty Images

    Analysts said China might benefit in the short term as Washington’s attention is more focused on the Middle East, rather than tensions with Beijing.

    However, longer term a weakened Iran threatens to undermine China’s diplomatic influence in the region and potentially disrupts its desire to portray itself, at least domestically, as a credible mediator in global conflicts.

    In 2021, Beijing signed a 25-year co-operation programme with Tehran. Iran also joined the China-led Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in 2023, part of China’s efforts to position itself as a responsible power and offer developing economies an alternative to US-led global institutions.

    In 2023, Beijing touted its role mediating a Saudi-Iran deal and released a 12-point peace proposal for the Russia-Ukraine war.

    Recommended

    News in-depthMiddle East war

    Fuel and fury: energy becomes a Middle East battlefield

    Despite these moves, Beijing appears likely to remain on the sidelines in the Iran-Israel conflict, as was the case with the fall last year of ally Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, highlighting the limits of China’s foreign policy influence.

    Jingdong Yuan, director of the China and Asia security programme at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, said that while China rhetorically supports countries “seen as receiving unfair treatment or coercion from the west”, in reality Beijing’s approach to regional conflicts was “always cautious”.

    Beijing will be concerned about the impact on other allies in the region, such as Saudi Arabia. “The demise or the collapse of the Iranian system or the Iranian power as we knew it is not good news for China,” said Yun Sun, an expert on Chinese foreign policy with the Stimson Center, a US think-tank. “That indirectly means that American influence has expanded.”

    Additional reporting by Wenjie Ding in Beijing

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  5. 1 hour ago, Bateshorn said:

    I posted it above, but the White House said Trump was leaving G-7 to deal with Israel-Iran.

    Macron, when asked, said President was leaving to deal with Israel-Iran. 

    Trump goes on Truth Social and says I didn't leave because of Israel-Iran and Macron is talking out of his ass. 

    That's just in the last 18 fucking hours. 

     

    Gaslighting and bullshit is default for this administration.  They are the fuckboi of Presidential Administration. 

    I don't have a dog in the fight, but just for clarity, I think the disagreement was over Macron's use of the phrase "ceasefire". 

  6. On 6/13/2025 at 1:37 PM, Laxtonto said:

    Here is a big one... 

    I say this because now Israel is in visible negotiations with Iran regarding their response and now put the Iranian oil fields on the table as a viable target. 

    The fact that so far this has only been explicit military/nuclear capability targets is probably more restraint than expected, and now Israel is openly dictating the terms of what is a viable response if the current leadership wants to stay in power long-term. The destruction of the Iranian refineries on Kharg Island would essentially destroy all oil/natural gas export capabilities of Iran and their only real avenue for hard currency. 

    Can Iran be restrained in their response while saving enough face to keep their proxies in line? I am guessing no, and Israel torches only a portion of the infrastructure of the Khuzestan Basin at the start and tells OPEC to get Iran in line or they are going to hit Kharg Island. That is the real jewel economically for Iran and OPEC will either have to demand Iran to play ball or Iran gets economically neutered and most of the major players in the ME no longer have a financial reason to put up with their bullshit. 

     

    On 6/14/2025 at 1:59 PM, Laxtonto said:

    A few new things...

    1. Israel has been fairly restrained "so far" vs the Iranaian economic targets. Not sure how long it stays that way.

    2. Estimates are that before this all started, Iran had approximately 2,200 ballistic missiles. Of those, there are reports of 200+ that have already been launched and at least that (with estimates much higher) being destroyed in the initial round of air strikes. Being pessimistic, Iran has less than 20 sets of active large-scale strikes. Essentially Israel knows that Iran has only so many mass strikes available. 

    3. The drone strikes (a la the Ukrainian truck carrier approach) has had a large enough impact that Iran has in essence, grounded truck traffic in most of the country. To me that is fucking wild. 

    4. Lots of non-military adjacent politicians and their families are heading to Russia right now. Not a major surprise, but interesting to see them accept that Israel has operational control of the air and can attack all cities at will. This forces them to either live in bunkers for the foreseeable future or pull out to Russia, with many doing the latter. 

    5. The wild idea of China being an impartial arbitrator in all of this ignores the simple fact that they (and India) are a major destination for Iranian crude and natural gas shipments from the fabled "ghost fleets. That being said, they actually might be a good choice because their interests align with Iran only if the Iranian refineries still exist. That would put an impetus on Iran to negotiate if their major destination of exports for hard currency is the one trying to be the middleman in this situation. 

    6. The BBC reports that Israel has been "ineffective" in stopping refinement capabilities in the more hardened facilities is partially true. That being said, I expect Israel to flatten everything they can and then go from there. This is why they keep pushing for US involvement because they do t have an airframe that can deliver the knockout blow to these hardened facilities. I do wonder at some point if we see Israeli troops on the ground in a few specific sites, just to finish the job. 

    7. It is staggering how the rest of the big players in the ME are just staying out of this. Not a peep out of Egypt, Saudi and Jordan are allowing fly overs. Iraq is trying to be as noncommittal as their current situation allows them. I am really surprised we have not seen more blowback from the rest of the ME. Outside of the rogue groups within Yemen, Lebanon, and Syria, causing some issues, this has been extremely localized. In truth, I am stunned....

    8. Iran can still threaten to try and close the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, but with how the rest of the ME has reacted so far, I would be surprised if they allow anything more than a token disturbance to happen.. 

     

    Just to add to some of your points, I think the motivations and pressure behind SA's push to maintain high oil production via OPEC over the last 6 months has become much clearer.

  7. 20 hours ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

    So they have 6 airframes, and this would be the third they've destroyed. Highly doubtful all 6 were airworthy, and they cost around $350M to build. 

     

    15 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

    Screenshot_20250603_135103_Reddit.thumb.jpg.4a8833bfb5b54c2dd5b1fb3dba1b84ad.jpg

    Sounds expensive.

    I heard a report from the Telegraph estimate they have 5-6 left. They also noted that it's believed Moscow has constant AWACS coverage, which would require 2 planes at all times, plus one on the ground for refueling. This means they are extremely limited for the actual frontline 

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Like 2
  8. 6 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

    Very hard to compare because so different in terms of targets, environment, capabilities on both sides. And this early, it’s still hard to tell the full impact. Ukraine’s for sure carries much higher risk of severe and unacceptable retaliation so on that note, it’s far more audacious and a sign of a state  actor under serious stress. 

    In terms of value, it’s very different things. It is likely that Russia values the survival of top-echelon political leadership over survival of all three legs of its nuclear triad. But, only just, because the latter is seen as a guarantor of the former. 
     

     

    I was trying to think about what follow-up attacks similar to the pager double-tap might be possible in this scenario. Maybe the ensuing scramble helps reveal the locations of remaining air assets and air defense, which can then be targeted in smaller-scale attacks. 

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 1
  9. On 5/22/2025 at 10:57 PM, Harrison Stafford said:

    Good news all around for UUUU.

    Trump Orders Faster Build-Out of Nuclear Power Plants

    https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/23/climate/trump-executive-order-nuclear-power.html

    Spoiler

    Trump Orders Faster Build-Out of Nuclear Power Plants

    Among a flurry of executive actions, Mr. Trump directed the nation’s nuclear safety regulator to speed up approvals for new reactors.

    Listen to this article · 8:16 min Learn more

    Share full article

    150

    A cooling tower is seen at the nuclear-powered Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Waynesboro, Ga.Credit...Megan Varner/Reuters

    By Brad Plumer

    Reporting from Washington

    May 23, 2025

    President Trump signed four executive orders on Friday aimed at accelerating the construction of nuclear power plants in the United States, including a new generation of small, advanced reactors that offer the promise of faster deployment but have yet to be proven.

    One order directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the nation’s independent safety regulator, to streamline its rules and to take no more than 18 months to approve applications for new reactors. The order also urges the agency to consider lowering its safety limits for radiation exposure, saying that current rules go beyond what is needed to protect human health.

    Another order directs the Energy and Defense departments to explore siting reactors on federal lands and military bases, possibly alongside new data centers. That could allow the agencies to bypass the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and develop their own, faster processes for approving reactors.

    The Trump administration also set a goal of quadrupling the size of the nation’s fleet of nuclear power plants, from nearly 100 gigawatts of electric capacity today to 400 gigawatts by 2050. One gigawatt is enough to power nearly 1 million homes.

    Advertisement

    SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

    “This is a huge day for the nuclear industry,” said Doug Burgum, the interior secretary, as he stood behind Mr. Trump at a signing ceremony in the Oval Office. “Mark this day on your calendar. This is going to turn the clock back on over 50 years of overregulation.”

    In one of his first acts in office, Mr. Trump declared a “national energy emergency,” saying the country did not have enough electricity to meet its growing needs, particularly for data centers that run artificial intelligence. While most of Mr. Trump’s actions have focused on boosting coal, oil and natural gas, administration officials have supported nuclear power, too.

    Nuclear power enjoys bipartisan backing in Congress. While some Democrats remain opposed because of concerns about safety and disposal of nuclear waste, an increasing number have embraced the technology because it doesn’t produce planet-warming emissions. It also gets backing from Republicans who say nuclear power plants strengthen U.S. energy security.

    Image

    House Speaker Mike Johnson at a podium after the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in the House at the U.S. Capitol. Credit...Kenny Holston/The New York Times

    The far-reaching domestic policy bill passed by House Republicans this week aimed to halt federal support for most types of emissions-free power. But the nuclear industry got an exemption: Companies aiming to build new reactors would still be able to get a tax break as long as they begin construction by the end of 2028.

    Advertisement

    SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

    Even so, developing new reactors in the United States has proved enormously difficult.

    While the country has the world’s largest fleet of nuclear power plants, only three new reactors have come online since 1996. Many utilities have been scared off by the cost: The two most recent reactors built at the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia totaled $35 billion, double the initial estimates, and arrived seven years behind schedule.

    Trump’s Moves on Climate and the Environment

    In recent years, more than a dozen companies have begun developing a new generation of smaller reactors a fraction of the size of those at Vogtle. The hope is that these reactors would have a lower upfront price tag, making them a less risky investment for utilities. They might also be based on a design that could be repeated often, as opposed to custom-built, to reduce costs.

    Advertisement

    SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

    So far, however, none of these next-generation plants have been built, although projects are underway in Wyoming, Texas and Tennessee.

    Some nuclear proponents and companies have blamed the sluggish pace on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which must approve new designs before they are built. Critics say that many of the regulations that the agency uses were designed for an earlier era and are no longer appropriate for advanced reactors that are designed to be less susceptible to meltdowns.

    “This is an agency that needs be shaken up a bit,” said Jacob DeWitte, chief executive of Oklo Inc., a startup that has developed a small advanced reactor that it plans to build at Idaho National Laboratory. He called the executive orders “incredibly exciting on multiple fronts.”

    In one executive order, Mr. Trump directed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to undertake a “wholesale revision” of its rules within 18 months and reorganize itself in consultation with the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, the group formed by Elon Musk. That reorganization could include layoffs, the order said.

    Advertisement

    SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

    While Congress established the nuclear agency to be independent from the White House, Mr. Trump has sought to exert greater authority over independent agencies in recent months.

    “The N.R.C. is assessing the executive orders and will comply with White House directives,” said Scott Burnell, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “We look forward to continuing to work with the administration, DOE and DOD on future nuclear programs.”

    Image

    Inside the control room of the Three Mile Island facility, which is being revived to power a Microsoft data center.Credit...George Etheredge for The New York Times

    Skeptics of nuclear power fear that pressure from the White House could cause the agency to take shortcuts on safety. Since the partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1979, in which there were no fatalities, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has ratcheted up safety requirements. While that has made it harder to build new plants, the country has also not experienced another major nuclear accident.

    Advertisement

    SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

    “Simply put, the U.S. nuclear industry will fail if safety is not made a priority,” said Edwin Lyman, the director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists and a frequent critic of the industry. He added that if another large radiological release were to occur, it would “destroy public trust in nuclear power and cause other nations to reject U.S. nuclear technology for decades to come.”

    Even a few nuclear companies and proponents have been nervous about a major shake-up at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They note that the agency has already started streamlining its approval processes in response to bipartisan bills passed by Congress, and that a hasty reorganization could, paradoxically, end up delaying approvals for the nuclear companies that are in the process of getting permits.

    “Our assessment is that N.R.C. is already making significant progress on reform,” said Judi Greenwald, executive director of the Nuclear Innovation Alliance, a pronuclear think tank. “It is in everyone’s interest that this progress continue and not be undermined by staffing cuts or upended by conflicting directives.”

    Another order calls on the secretary of energy to develop a plan to rebuild U.S. supplies of enriched uranium and other nuclear fuels, which in recent years have largely been imported from Russia.

    Advertisement

    SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

    But speeding up regulatory approvals won’t be sufficient to revive the nuclear industry, some experts said. The first few reactors that do get built are likely to be enormously expensive, and some sort of government support would likely be required to help companies build reactors at a pace that could drive down costs.

    To that end, one of the executive orders directs the Energy Department’s Loan Programs Office, which currently has roughly $400 billion in lending authority, to make resources available for restarting shuttered nuclear plants and building new reactors. The order sets a goal of having 10 large reactors under construction by 2030.

    Yet the loan office has lost more than half its staff this year after a wave of Trump administration layoffs and buyouts, and House Republicans have proposed cutting its budget. Those cuts could hobble a key program for financing new reactors. nuclear supporters have said.

    “It’s good to see the focus on building a series of proven large reactors as well as smaller newer designs,” said Armond Cohen, executive director of the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group that supports nuclear power. “But you need serious government financial support to make any of this happen, and get to commercial scale and lower costs. To support the administration’s goals, Congress needs to boost support instead of gutting it.”

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  10. 23 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

    Boy, you and I are not meeting the same people, clearly. 

    I almost left that part out because I know people sometimes disagree. The full qualifier for this is: people behave irrationally all of the time. It's a standard focus of CBT to address irrational thoughts and behaviors. I'm using the term differently (and maybe I should just use "understandably" instead) to get across that if we could see it from their perspective, we would see that they aren't actually doing and thinking things without rationale. There are reasons for their behavior, even if the thoughts, actions, and feelings that follow from those reasons may not be proportionate, healthy, conducive to dialogue, etc. Once we understand the underlying rationale (fear, tiredness, jealousy, overwhelmed, overstimulated by screens, etc), it's much easier to know how to address and, in a child's case, redirect or teach different ways to handle the situation.

  11. It's also probably worth considering the role of technology in his attitude and temper. Adults, much less children, were not made to have constant dopamine surges at their fingertips. Coming down off of that screen time can have severe effects on anyone's mood, and even more so for a child. The impact it has differs child to child, too. Take note of when he has these dysregulated outbursts and consider his world at that point in time. Adopt a posture of curiosity about him and the situation. What has been going on in the last few minutes, hours, and days that might be playing a role here? People are generally rational and if they seem irrational, you might be missing important context that makes their behavior rational to them (this of course does not mean the behavior is desirable, acceptable, healthy, etc). Become determined to find the understandable part and then move from that towards walking him through how to handle those situations in a more healthy and regulated way. This of course requires a significant amount of patience and time and is not always possible or feasible in the moment, but can be addressed later that evening or the following morning when everyone has had some time to process.

×
×
  • Create New...