The Second Chance

One of the worst parts of the acceptance of an apology is to decide whether or not we want to give the person who hurt us to have a second chance at life. Everyone deals with conflict differently, and our own experiences accumulated, our ability to forgive and move on.

With the offer of forgiveness or a second chance at life, it's a difficult situation, and it requires responsibility, maturity, and the input of both parties.

It makes sense to focus on your feelings, and if someone is doing something bad, but try to understand the context of the person’s activities to be able to help you in the process. This is not an excuse for them, and that it's not to devalue your feelings, but it also adds a context to their work, but you can make it easier for you to at least try to express empathy and to offer forgiveness or to move in the forward direction.

As hard as it's, the practice of forgiveness and a second chance at life will help you to grow as an individual. Learn how to get to “choose your battles”, it will help you to understand the solving the conflict is well worth the effort.

Life is too short to do all the bad ways of doing this. Of course, the best solution is to, in some cases, walk away, especially when it’s to correct the situation itself may lead to further damage. However, when you have become full of repentance for what it was, giving a person a second chance, can lead to a better outcome.

Think of the times when they were forced to ask for forgiveness or have a second chance at life. Why did you do this? Because it is a second chance at life, a chance to be a better person and develop as a person. If you want others to be able to see this kind of growth potential in you, and you will need to ask them if they can see the potential in the other person.

Try to keep the treatment in a negative situation as a learning opportunity. You can also learn how to avoid negative situations, but you can also learn how to be a better messenger to them-for both the person who you want to be forgiven, and you will be able to meet each other later in life.

An insult is like an emotional anchor. This will make sure that you are in a swimming pool, the negatives, and it drains you emotionally. Forgiveness and a second chance at life to be your wind, and the sails to move forward.

To deny a person a second chance, you have to deny yourself of the peace that comes with forgiveness and moving forward. Free yourself from the burden of it because it is not for you.

Times when it’s Okay to Give a Second Chance

1. If It is More Than Just Love

Not just by anyone, but only because of your love for each other. There has to be something more than love. Of course, this is one of the most important factors in a relationship, but don’t forget about trust, loyalty, and respect for each other. When love is all that holds you together but do not have that, any other issues, do not give your partner another chance. If you have a solid foundation for a happy and healthy relationship, you need to consider it to have a second chance at life.

2. If It is Severe Enough To Destroy Your Foundation

The decision to give your partner a second chance in life, depends, really, on what they have done to get to that point in the first place. If you have the feeling that what he was doing was not serious enough to destroy the foundation of the relationship, it’s worth taking the time to think about it. There has been some resentment that the destruction of the relationship, and there is no going back. However, other things are a pair of close-by. If you feel like that’s the last one, of course, is to do whatever your heart (and mind) will force you to do so.) be happy.

3. If Actions Speak Louder Than Words

To find out whether your significant other is still a window of opportunity, you waive all of his or her actions. The words are nice, but to be honest, sometimes they don’t mean anything. If your partner says that he or she is going to change, but there has been no action to prove it, so why should I trust him or her? It’s good to get your significant other to have a chance to work with you if you have the feeling that he or she is making a big effort to find out what he or she deserves.

4. When The Both Of Them, Are Determined To Make It Work

Give your partner a chance, therefore, that there is hope, it is that what has happened is the first time it won’t happen again, but the old patterns of behaviour, don’t stop. We have to actively work to change the dynamic. If you are committed to making things work, and a trip to the therapy doesn’t make you want to jump out of the window, you don’t get another chance at what you love is hot.

5. When A Lesson is Learned

If someone does something bad it is, how do we know that they will not have to re-do it? As a rule, they do not do so because they have learned their lesson. However, if your partner has to conclude what he was doing, and now that she knows how to do it right, it’s good to have a second chance at life in order. If you feel you have to ensure that he or she does not understand the consequences of her actions, it just means that you need to learn about — and, unfortunately, nothing is going to change.

6. If They are genuinely Sorry

I am Sorry, but that does not work here. To profoundly move forward after you have done something wrong, you need to be aware of your role in this. They need to understand the pain that they have caused and are sorry.” If your spouse is not regretting what he did, what is it that keeps him or her from doing it again? It is the difference between an apology and an honest mistake. You will find out if your partner is being honest about your excuses. If it is genuine enough it will work out.

Mother's toxic love

Manipulative mothers and the effects of toxic love on their children

“A mother has two duties: to worry and to avoid it”.

Being, not being a mother, is a path as exciting as full of pitfalls, overflowing with bridges and abysses, tears and repairs. It is a bond that starts from afar, when the child is not yet in the womb but lives in the heart, when she is not yet in the flesh but is a ghost child; bond that then continues for the rest of life, even when the child is an adult by birth. The emotional relationship between mother and son (or daughter) should walk the balance between presence and the right distance, between care, nurturing and autonomy.

The alternation of love and the right distance, however, is almost never easy to implement. It is a chimerical dance between the needs of the mother and those of the son, between the mother's projections and her fears. Between the submerged and the unsolved that move the strings of many behaviors or needs of the heart and a child who tries to come out with difficulty from the egg-family.

The ability to be good mothers, or good mothers, depends on a variegated kaleidoscope of factors: on the mother's personality structure, on the child's character, on the parental bond - therefore on the "health" of the couple - and on the family dynamics that they came to be created. The mother walks in the balance like a tightrope between her being her mother, her being her woman and life partner. The balances are complex and sometimes one area looms over the other with the risk of engulfing it.

When the child is small, the mother is usually particularly attentive. Her psycho-physical growth, her well-being and her future depend on her care and attention. The child grows up, and the mother-child relationship gets underway. The balances change, or should change, the balance needle moves towards the pole of autonomy: physical and psychic. The mother, although she is always present, takes or should take a step back.

She teaches him to tie his own shoes, to eat alone, to take the bus to school without getting lost, to cross the street without being run over. The first conquests appear and consequently the first anxieties. Some mothers find it difficult to detach themselves from their child because they think that he, or she, cannot move freely in the world without her indispensable presence, and because she, the mother, no longer has a reason to exist without the maternal role and identity of she.

They consider it small, to be looked after, fragile for a world so full of pitfalls and threats. A child who is raised on bread and anxieties will in turn become an anxious and insecure adult, fragile and scared of the new, with low self-esteem. He won't be able to manage on his own, with a good chance he will seek out dominant partners to guide him in the hope of receiving parental care and psychological support in return.

When a mother's love suffocates

Sometimes a mother's love becomes a noose, a handcuff, an encumbrance. She becomes morbidly asphyxiating. It takes away the air, the living spaces, it clips the wings to the growth and adult dimension of the child's existence. Some mothers, due to their personality structure, because they in turn were raised by cumbersome and omnipresent mothers whose footsteps they reproduce again, because they are unhappily married, and for many other reasons they become asphyxiated mothers. Hyper vigilant, controlling, exuberant, super present, substitutes for the needs of the children.

In practice, they make a very dangerous shift from their lives and their most secret needs to that of their children. They try to have control over everything thinking they know what is the best choice for their child, an attitude that becomes more acute when the child grows up and starts making his own decisions independently. Which high school to attend, which boyfriend or girlfriend to love, how to dress, make up, or not to shave.

The child who becomes an adult leaves a void that cannot be filled, thus, when the mother has made only the mother, she cannot stand detachment, she cannot transform the bond into an adult and resolved bond, veering dangerously and in spite of herself towards a dimension of selfishness, narcissism and manipulation, of extreme seduction.

Moms who love too much

Badness or previous traumas? The script that repeats itself

Except in cases of previous psychopathologies, a mother does not become engulfing or aggressive out of pure pleasure or out of innate malice, but because of the childhood they have lived, which she has not elaborated and which she tends to re-propose in a dangerously unchanged way. These are mothers who in turn have suffered mothers or bulky, icy, rigid parents. Women who have themselves been humiliated, as well as controlled and manipulated.

These mothers were trapped in their childhood bloody wound which they attempted, amateurishly and inadequately, to heal by establishing a compensatory bond with their children. One of the most powerful mechanisms of the psyche is the compulsion to repeat, a sort of trap that leads to repeating ancient relational scripts, even the most dysfunctional.

History repeats itself, but this time the roles are reversed: the victim becomes the perpetrator, and the unloved daughter becomes an unbearable mother. In other cases, the behavior of manipulative mothers is due to character and personological traits that are difficult to change: women with a strong and dominant character who always need to keep everything under control, to control, to command.

Another case of unhappiness for children is their permanence in dysfunctional families. Unhappily married women shift their denied needs onto their children, sublimate and compensate. They promote him as a substitute partner, they make him a boyfriend, a lover, a husband who frantically tries to satisfy their need for care.

In the shadow of the mother no child grows.

 
The recurrent use of lies and denials

Between guilt and the need to fix, a child doesn't understand why he's sick, because he struggles to feel independent. Because he feels wrong, out of the box, inadequate. He feels the links of the maternal grip on his skin, but he doesn't see them, he doesn't know how to loosen it, how to get rid of it. He is afraid of hurting and disappointing her, of causing her further pain by her independent or rebellious behavior. To love in freedom, to dress as he wants and to choose the job he likes. In short, to become himself.

The cumbersome shadow of an intrusive or too present mother can have serious implications in the achievement of independence and happiness. A child raised under the hegemony of a manipulative mother had to get by as well as she could. You have learned the recurrent use of lies or half-truths in an attempt to carve out a corner of the sky.

Lying is for him a way out of the maternal grip, a real survival mechanism. At first he implements it so as not to disappoint his mother, to avoid the sense of guilt following her non-approval, in some way to try to survive; over time, he learns to use this "resource", he makes it his own, so he will automate its saving use even in adulthood, to avoid assuming responsibility for his actions as an independent person. The lie defends him from reality testing, protects him, will cloak himself to hide his emotions and fears, with the sole purpose of not disappointing his mother, in a vain attempt to live or rather to survive in any context.

Unresolved and intrusive mothers treat their children as if they were personal property. A precious asset to take care of and worry about, always and forever. This toxic bond has a whole range of implications for the child's emotional, psychic and sexual development. In the love and sexual sphere, a child who becomes an adult will live in bonds of love in a limping way: on the one hand he wants to love and be loved, on the other he fears unconsciously betraying his mother and finding an engulfing woman like her.

He thus develops a clear difficulty in establishing intimacy and a genuine emotional connection with an adult partner. He will look for unequal ties without real planning to defend his fears, and his immobilism of the heart. On the sexual level, he may experience an erectile deficit due to an excess of anxiety - from performance and from relationships -, premature ejaculation, due to the ambivalent relationship with the female figure, or delayed ejaculation due to hyper emotional control.

Even the choice of the ideal woman will be a path fraught with difficulties.

For the invasive mother no woman can be good for the heir. Too high, too low. Demanding, uncompromising. Accommodating, resigned. foreign.

Functions and dysfunctions of a family.

How a mother manipulates: from sweet to hostile words to symptoms

Taking care of a child doesn't (not always) mean worrying about them. Keeping fear to yourself for a symbolic and tiring stage in her life is equivalent to giving him the opportunity to take flight. Ensuring that the child who has now become an adult, at least in terms of age, can access his adult dimension of existence: the psychic one and autonomy.

An invasive mother does not give up and manipulates her as she can. She seduces with grace and an excess of fuss and kindness, she wounds with sharp and judgmental words. And when she's not getting what she wants, she manipulates with the symptoms, developing an anxiety neurosis, and blaming her illness on her wayward and ungrateful son.

A good mother, or rather a good mother, should take a step, sometimes even more than one, backwards to make her child fall and get up again; her that she makes mistakes and fixes, that she chooses wrong loves to then understand what she no longer wants from her life; that she finds her psychic center of gravity, without crutches or vicarious maternal substitutes.

Il burino di periferia

Immagino lo sconcerto e la tristezza di papa Francesco. Sono mesi che invita, chiede, implora la pace per l'Ucraina o almeno una tregua. Viene suo ospite a Roma il presidente Zelensky e si presenta in Vaticano come un burino di periferia, in maglione girocollo e gli dice che la pace non gli serve e che semmai ci sarà solo come e quando vorrà lui, che non ha bisogno né di consigli né di diplomazia, tanto - avrà aggiunto - di armi ne ho e ne avrò a volontà, me le regalano USA, UE e GB fin quando mi serviranno ed in modo illimitato, quindi non si parli neppure di un armistizio, il Vaticano non mi serve e anche le proposte cinesi vanno rifiutate.

Un'ora dopo - sempre in maglione - viene ricevuto a palazzo Chigi e al Quirinale con tutti gli onori, addirittura abbracciato da una Premier che sembra aver perso al suo confronto ogni logica od autorevolezza. A sera Zelensky è già in Germania e poi in Francia presentandosi sempre come emblema della pace. A Londra addirittura lo riforniscono anche di missili a lunga gittata, strano modo di costruirla la pace visto che sono armi offensive e non certo difensive.

Nessuno che nelle varie tappe gli chieda mai conto di come spenda i fondi, come usi le armi, come venga controllato, che fine abbia fatto l'opposizione interna e come intenda rappresentare in futuro le minoranze etniche, se mai in Ucraina ne esisteranno ancora e, anzi, lo invitano ad entrare in Europa al più presto quando altri paesi più meritevoli dell'Ucraina, attendono invano da decenni.

Domande addomesticate, mai stringenti (vero Vespa?) o tantomeno imbarazzanti: con Zelensky non si usa. Lui, presentandosi come campione della libertà, con la guerra ha comunque fatto l'affare della vita e se intanto gli ucraini (e i russi, ma quelli non contano nulla) muoiono a centinaia… chissenefrega.

So di essere critico su di lui e forse non condiviso, ma mi piacerebbe chiedere ai lettori del Blog se la mia posizione – nonostante una pressione quotidiana costante e martellante di tutti i media a favore di Kiev – sia così isolata o è invece più diffusa. Perché, a dispetto dei media tutti schierati con Kiev, incontro in giro tanta diffidenza, tanti timori e riserve sulla posizione italiana ed europea nei confronti di Kiev. Possibile che gli scettici capitino tutti a me?

Catena di comando

Nove giorni e nessuna risposta alla domanda con la D maiuscola: chi, la sera di sabato 25 febbraio, ha deciso che, ad uscire in mare per controllare quel barcone segnalato da un aereo di Frontex nel mare Ionio, dovessero essere le motovedetta della Finanza e non i mezzi specializzati della Guardia costiera?

Chi ha deciso che, per quella che era in tutta evidenza una imbarcazione che trasportava migranti, doveva essere avviata una operazione di polizia e non di soccorso?

Prima alla Camera e poi al Senato, strappando una standing ovation che stride (quantomeno) con la gravità della vicenda, Matteo Piantedosi non chiarisce assolutamente nulla sulla catena di comando che, nelle sei ore antecedenti al naufragio di Cutro, avrebbe potuto cambiare le sorti di quel barcone lasciato solo nel mare in tempesta con il suo carico di 180 vite, più di metà delle quali andate perdute.

Si autoassolve il ministro dell’Interno, non spiega, partecipa allo scaricabarile di Stato che fa risalire alla segnalazione di Frontex tutte le scelte fatte nelle ore successive. E, soprattutto dà risposte che, oltre ad ignorare prassi consolidate nel soccorso in mare, sono palesemente false.

Una su tutte: “L’attivazione di un soccorso – afferma Piantedosi - non può prescindere da una segnalazione di una situazione di emergenza. Solo ed esclusivamente se c'è tale segnalazione, si attiva il dispositivo Sar. Laddove, invece, non venga segnalato un distress, l'evento operativo è gestito come un intervento di polizia. È esattamente quanto avvenuto nel caso in questione".

Ignora evidentemente il ministro dell’Interno non solo le regole del Piano Sar, riscritto dalla ex ministra dei Trasporti Paola De Micheli nel 2021 e attualmente vigenti, ma ignora soprattutto quella che da anni è una delle linee guida indiscusse della Guardia costiera, sancita peraltro da innumerevoli sentenze della magistratura: e cioè che tutte le imbarcazioni che trasportano migranti “devono essere considerate subito in distress, in ragione del fatto che sono sovraccariche, inadeguate a percorrere la traversata, prive di strumentazione e del personale competente”.

Fonte: Alessandra Ziniti per Repubblica.it

 

C’E’ DEL MARCIO (PURTROPPO) ANCHE IN EUROPA

Pochi anno saputo (la censura sulla notizia è stata quasi totale) che nei giorni scorsi il New York Times ha denunciato la Commissione Europea per non aver reso pubblico lo scambio di messaggi tra la presidente Ursula von der Leyen, e il CEO di Pfizer Albert Bourla, relativi al contratto che ha portato all'acquisto del vaccino Covid da parte dell’Europa.

Il quotidiano (di solito citatissimo ogni volta che parla male di Trump e dei repubblicani, sempre ripreso in TV e sui giornali italiani) sostiene che la Commissione aveva l'obbligo di rendere pubblici i messaggi, in nome della trasparenza, visto che hanno portato ad un contratto per miliardi (non milioni!) di euro.

Le accuse alla Von der Leyen per il suo rapporto privilegiato con Pfizer (il cui vaccino è costato all’ Europa 10 VOLTE di più rispetto ad AstraZeneca) risalgono ad aprile del 2021, quando il New York Times, sulla scorta di un'inchiesta di neztpolitik.org, rivelò che i due avevano trattato direttamente tra loro tramite “chiamate e sms” una fornitura di 1,8 miliardi di dosi di vaccino anti Covid. Da qui l’intervento della mediatrice europea,

Emily O’Reilly (la “mediatrice europea” è la garante sulla trasparenza delle operazioni della Commissione Europea), che invano ha chiesto di avere accesso alle conversazioni confidenziali. La Commissione tramite la ceca Vera Jourovà – commissaria alla trasparenza - aveva spiegato che i messaggi potevano essere stati cancellati, a causa della loro "natura effimera". (bel modo di fare inchieste…)

Nella vicenda si è ora inserito anche il Parlamento europeo con molti eurodeputati che hanno chiesto alla Von der Leyen e a Bourla di comparire in audizione, ma finora nessuno dei due ha accettato di farlo.

Lo scorso ottobre, la Procura europea aveva annunciato di avere aperto un'inchiesta sull'acquisto dei vaccini anti Covid dopo che una relazione della Corte dei conti dell'Ue aveva sollevato non poche perplessità sulla gestione della trattativa tra Bruxelles e Pfizer.

La presidente UE avrebbe infatti trattato personalmente con la casa farmaceutica senza neppure coinvolgere il gruppo negoziale in cui sono rappresentati gli Stati, rifiutandosi inoltre di rispondere alle richieste di chiarimento della Corte.

E’ inammissibile che una politica “tratti in proprio” questioni di questo tipo, soprattutto quando è tuttora senza risposta l’altra indagine sul coinvolgimento di Heiko von der Leyen (il marito della presidente!) in un progetto di ricerca sui vaccini a mRna, la tecnologia usata dalla tedesca BioNTech e da Pfizer per il loro farmaco contro il Covid.

Il progetto è finanziato anche dall'Italia con 320 milioni di euro provenienti dal Pnrr (cioè lo paghiamo tutti) e prevede la partecipazione della società biotech statunitense Orgenesis, di cui Heiko von der Leyen era direttore scientifico. Dopo le polemiche, il marito della leader Ue si è dimesso dall'incarico all'interno del progetto, ma resta aperta la questione di un pagamento esorbitante a Pfizer per i vaccini se poi vengono pagate dalla UE anche le ricerche scientifiche.

Ma queste non vi sembrano notizie importanti e degne di dibattito? Eppure il “Corriere della Sera” non mi risulta abbia pubblicato una riga, così come molti altri quotidiani italiani, a parte “La Verità” che dei vaccini ne ha fatto una campagna quotidiana. Ursula è santa per definizione, ma mi sembra che invece ci sia davvero del possibile marcio a Bruxelles a livello anche di Commissione (ovvero di governo) e dovremmo cominciare tutti a farci delle domande su forniture, vaccini, armi, gestione delle risorse che fanno impallidire perfino il “Qatargate”. "