James' World 2

Click the link below the picture

.

As of January 15, the Trump administration has walked back a plan to slash U.S. federal funding for mental health and addiction programs, a move that experts have said would have exacerbate the country’s already acute drug crisis.

The loss would have totaled some $2 billion in grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), NPR reported, citing unnamed sources. The number of grants targeted may have been as high as 2,800, according to STAT.

Before the cuts were rolled back, Daniel Ciccarone, a professor of addiction medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, told Scientific American that “this is going to cost American lives, no doubt.”

“It’s an utter shame, given the fact that overdoses are on the decline,” he said. “Now is not the time to let up on our efforts.”

On Wednesday, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released data showing that estimated drug overdose deaths between August 2024 and August 2025 declined by nearly 21 percent compared with the previous year.

The decline in overdose deaths in the U.S. is not by chance, said Regina LaBelle, a professor of addiction policy at Georgetown University, to SciAm on Wednesday.

“The federal government invested in state and community-based efforts to prevent substance use, treat people with substance use disorder, and support recovery. The funding cuts made by the administration today reflect a retreat from these investments,” she said.

Ciccarone noted to SciAm that the opioid epidemic has disproportionately affected red states. “The Trump administration, in both terms, could be claiming some credit for the reduction in deaths,” he said. “It doesn’t make any sense.”

Speaking to SciAm on Wednesday, Caleb Banta-Green, a research professor at the University of Washington, who studies drug trends, said that the then proposed cuts would effectively “gut” lifesaving services for people all across the country. “In addition to saving lives and supporting recovery, treating substance use disorder is the most impactful way to reduce ‘demand’ for drugs, with its upstream impacts on drug trafficking and manufacturing,” he said. Combating drug trafficking has been a priority of the Trump administration.

“The bottom line is that federal investment in mental health and addiction services saves lives,” said Arthur C. Evans, Jr., CEO of the American Psychological Association, in a statement on Wednesday. “Abruptly cutting this support, including to school-based and other youth-focused mental health programs, threatens to destabilize mental health care in our communities and puts our most vulnerable populations at risk.”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and SAMHSA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

.

dragana991 via Getty Images

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

When asked if he was “worried” about the troops in the archdiocese he oversees, Broglio responded: “I am obviously worried because they could be put in a situation where they’re being ordered to do something which is morally questionable.”

Broglio, who has served as the head of the Washington, D.C.-based archdiocese of the U.S. military since 2007, specifically pushed back against Trump’s repeated threats to annex Greenland. 

“Greenland is a territory of Denmark,” the archbishop said. “It does not seem really reasonable that the United States would attack and occupy a friendly nation.”

Read more: Trump Warns There’s ‘No Going Back’ on Greenland and Accuses U.K. of ‘Act of Great Stupidity.’

A number of other high-ranking Catholic bishops and Pope Leo XIV have also raised vocal concerns in recent weeks as U.S. forces deposed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and the President has levied threats against several other countries and territories, including in his renewed push to acquire Greenland. The Pope, who—along with a number of U.S. bishops—has also challenged Trump’s immigration crackdown, recently condemned a “diplomacy based on force” in an annual speech at the Vatican.

“War is back in vogue and a zeal for war is spreading,” the pontiff stated. He went on to call for respect for “the will of the Venezuelan people,” given “recent developments,” and spoke about several other areas around the world afflicted by conflict.  

On Monday, three senior cardinals leading U.S. dioceses released a joint statement inspired by Leo’s comments, in which they called into question “the moral foundation for America’s actions in the world.”

“The events in Venezuela, Ukraine and Greenland have raised basic questions about the use of military force and the meaning of peace,” Cardinals Blase Cupich, archbishop of Chicago; Robert McElroy, archbishop of D.C.; and Joseph Tobin, archbishop of Newark wrote, adding, “Our country’s moral role in confronting evil around the world, sustaining the right to life and human dignity, and supporting religious liberty are all under examination.” 

They went on to call for a “genuinely moral foreign policy” and stated that “military action must be seen only as a last resort in extreme situations, not a normal instrument of national policy.”

Trump has also faced pushback over foreign policy from a number of world leaders and congressional lawmakers, including some members of his own party.

In November, six Democratic lawmakers released a video in which they told members of the military and intelligence community not only that they could decline to follow unlawful orders, but that they must. 

“Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders,” the lawmakers said. “You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”

The group of politicians, all of whom are either veterans or former intelligence analysts, included Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Rep. Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, and Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado. They didn’t reference any specific orders troops might be receiving. But the video came as Trump faced scrutiny over his deployment of troops to multiple cities in the U.S. amid his crackdown on crime and immigration and the deadly strikes his Administration was carrying out on boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific that it alleged were transporting drugs.

Trump accused the group of “seditious behavior, punishable by death” in the wake of the video’s release, and the lawmakers have said they are being investigated by the Administration over their participation in it. 

Read more: Is It ‘Seditious’ or ‘Illegal’ to Urge the Military to Refuse Unlawful Orders? Legal Experts Weigh In

Deluzio, Houlahan, and Goodlander said last week that they had received inquiries from the Justice Department over the video last week, while  Slotkin and Crow said that Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney general in D.C., had reached out to them for interviews. 

The Pentagon has also taken steps to demote Kelly, a retired Navy captain, and thereby reduce his military pension. Kelly sued Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, saying the move was unconstitutional. 

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, members of the military swear an oath of enlistment to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me.” There is a strong presumption that orders are lawful under military law, but service members are allowed to disobey unlawful orders and can even be prosecuted for carrying out patently illegal orders, such as war crimes. Though Trump and other Administration officials have contended that the lawmakers’ comments in the video were “seditious” and violated the law, legal experts told TIME that there was nothing illegal about their message.

Broglio’s comments come as Trump is set to arrive in Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum, where his plans to take over Greenland are expected to be discussed with European leaders in what is being seen as an emergency summit.

.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio conducts an Easter Sunday Mass at Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, Sunday, April 12, 2020.Jose Luis Magana—AP Photo/File

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

“One year into Trump’s second regime, we face an escalating fascist threat,” the Free America website reads. “It is time for our communities to escalate as well. On January 20 at 2 PM local time, we will walk out of work, school, and commerce. We will withhold our labor, our participation, and our consent. A free America begins the moment we refuse to cooperate. This is not a request. This is a rupture. This is a protest and a promise. In the face of fascism, we will be ungovernable.”

The Women’s March, one of the organizing partners behind the walkout, shared a video on X of the protest beginning in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday afternoon, as well as photos of a similar demonstration in Brooklyn, New York, in which protesters can be seen holding “Free America” signs.

“This is what democracy looks like,” the Women’s March wrote on X. “This is what fighting fascism looks like.”

The Women’s March also shared a video of a walkout in Oklahoma City, writing on X, “Red state. Real resistance. Feminists and their allies are walking out on fascism.” And the account posted photos of protesters in Minnesota, some of whom can be seen carrying signs that said, “ICE out for good” and “Do your job, Congress.”

Minnesotans walked out today. In the face of weeks of dehumanizing rhetoric by the right. In the face of weeks of violent and unlawful attacks by ICE agents. In the aftermath of the tragic murder of Renee Good. In freezing temperatures,” the Women’s March wrote on X. “They organize. They fight back. They walk out. We stand with Minnesota.”

Earlier this month, Renee Nicole Good—a 37-year-old U.S. citizen and mother of three—was shot and killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. Trump Administration officials have accused Good of attempting to run over the agent with her car, claiming the shooting was an act of “self-defense.” But videos of the incident appear to contradict that characterization, and local leaders have strongly disputed the Administration’s portrayal. Good’s death sparked widespread outrage, and ignited protests in Minneapolis and across the country—from major cities to small-town America—over the Trump Administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement tactics.

About 4 in 10 Americans approve of the President’s performance in his second term thus far, according to an AP-NORC poll conducted earlier this month. That’s roughly the same approval rating that Trump received at the start and end of his first term, though there were periods where that number fluctuated, according to AP-NORC data. Approval of his policies in different areas varied, however. The most recent poll—which was conducted after the fatal shooting of Good—found that only 38% of Americans approve of how the President is addressing immigration issues, a double-digit decline from the 49% who approved of his immigration policies in March.

.

People participate in the “Free America Walkout” on Fifth Avenue in New York City on January 20, 2026.Michael M. Santiago—Getty Images

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

President Trump’s intensifying standoff with European leaders over the fate of Greenland prompted a sharp response from investors Tuesday, with the value of U.S. stocks, the dollar, and government bonds all falling.

The S&P 500 dropped over 2 percent for the first time since October, as investors reacted to Mr. Trump’s increasing threat of higher tariffs on European allies unless they supported his plans for America to take control of Greenland. The Vix volatility index, known as Wall Street’s fear gauge, rose to its highest level since November.

Tuesday’s opening decline was the index’s biggest since April, when Mr. Trump first proposed sweeping tariffs on nearly all of America’s trading partners. And while the sell-off remained contained for now, with the S&P 500 still close to its record high, the moves showed a clear increase in investor concern over the future of the established world order. Investors had become inured to geopolitical upheaval in recent years because it has typically had little impact on corporate profits.

Investors’ confidence wavered on Tuesday even as Mr. Trump boasted about a long list of embellished achievements in remarks to reporters, among them the strength of investments in the United States and the stock market’s returns over the course of his first year in office.

“We have the hottest country in the world right now,” Mr. Trump said.

The moves in financial markets told a different story. Often when stocks are roiled by geopolitical upheaval, investors flock to the safety of other U.S. assets, like the dollar or government bonds. But in a sign that investors were embracing a “sell America” trade and moving away from U.S. assets altogether, both the dollar and U.S. government debt lost value on Tuesday.

Eric Teal, chief investment officer at Comerica Wealth Management, said investors should be “playing defense at this juncture,” focusing on geographic and sector diversification while the current uncertainty lingers.

The dollar index, which pits the currency against a basket of currencies that represent America’s major trading partners, fell 0.8 percent. The dollar weakened against the euro, British pound, and Norwegian Krone.

The Swiss Franc, another haven in times of uncertainty, strengthened almost 1 percent against the U.S. dollar. Gold and oil prices also climbed higher, with the precious metal up 1.8 percent in another sign of investor caution.

The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield, which moves inversely to price, also rose, meaning its value declined. This yield acts as one of the most important interest rates in the world by underpinning interest rates across consumer and corporate debt.

The yield rose to its highest level since August, undermining the administration’s efforts to move interest rates lower. Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, pointed to rising bond yields in Japan as a factor helping push U.S. yields higher.

Andrew Brenner, head of international fixed income at National Alliance Securities, said that Mr. Trump “has a path to lower rates and less controversial path with Greenland, but the question is will he take it?” He warned investors on Tuesday to expect “major volatility.”

Tuesday’s trading was the first chance U.S. markets had to react to Mr. Trump’s escalating threats toward Europe over the weekend with the U.S. stock market closed on Monday in honor of Martin Luther King’s Birthday.

Despite the modest sell-off, major stock indexes remain close to record highs after a third consecutive double-digit rise in 2025.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, speaking on a panel discussion at the World Economic forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Tuesday, defended the Trump administration’s “America First” policies even as it has rattled investors and trading partners.

“Everyone said, ‘You are going to do all these tariffs, you are going to destroy the world,’” he said. “The world’s stock markets are up. Which ones of them? All of them.”

Investors have mostly looked through geopolitics in recent years, as the tangible detrimental effect to corporate profits has been limited. The sharp moves on Tuesday suggest a heightened nervousness among investors about the administration’s persistent pursuit of a European ally’s territory.

European stock markets also fell on Tuesday, with bourses in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom all moving roughly 1 percent lower.

.

Stock Drop– Greenland

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article {sound on to listen}:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

For more than five decades, the Clean Air Act has prevented millions of premature deaths, hospitalizations, and lost work and school days. By one official reckoning in 2011, the act’s limits on harmful pollution has benefited the U.S. economy to the tune of $2 trillion by 2020, in contrast with $65 billion in costs to implement regulations.

But now the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is abruptly changing how it enforces at least parts of the Clean Air Act by not calculating the economic benefits of some regulations. The seemingly inevitable result is that Americans will soon breathe noticeably dirtier air and see worse health outcomes, experts say.

“I don’t think anyone wants to go back to … not being able to see anything,” says Camille Pannu, an environmental law expert at Columbia University.

The EPA will no longer consider the dollar value of lives saved or other ill effects averted by placing limits on fine particulate matter with the designation PM_2.5 or ozone emissions in at least some cases, the New York Times reported on Monday. Instead, the agency will only calculate the cost to industry to enforce the act’s rules.

To get a sense of why this matters, it is important to understand what ozone and PM_2.5 do to our body. PM_2.5 describes particles that have a diameter smaller than 2.5 microns. They are tiny enough to enter the bloodstream, lodge deeply in the lungs and cross the blood-brain barrier. PM_2.5 has been liked to diabetes, obesity, dementia, cancer, low birth weight, and asthma. Ozone, a key ingredient of smog, is particularly dangerous for people with asthma and other lung diseases, especially children.

The Clean Air Act was enacted precisely because the health effects of bad air are population-wide and difficult to evaluate. In other words, without estimating costs, even imperfectly, “everything is costly, and nothing is worth regulating,” Pannu says.

In a document reviewed by the New York Times, an EPA official cited language that argued that how the dollar value of the benefits of the regulation was calculated “provided the public with false precision and confidence.” Yet experts point out that that is part of the point: the act’s authors “wanted to have EPA regulate even if the science was uncertain,” says Lisa Heinzerling, an environmental law expert at Georgetown University.

Different presidential administrations have taken distinct approaches to totaling up the value of those benefits, but the science underlying these estimates is well established.

For decades, researchers have compared places with higher and lower levels of pollutants and have looked at differences in premature deaths and other negative health outcomes while controlling for other factors that could affect those numbers. Those analyses are then combined with economic studies that estimate the “value of a statistical life” by looking at, for example, the amount of lost wages incurred when a parent stays home with a child who is experiencing an asthma attack. Because this work has been going on for so long, it means researchers can feel confident in the value they arrive at, says Rachel Rothschild, an environmental law expert at the University of Michigan.

Independent analyses have also been conducted that showed PM_2.5’s “harms were so significant” and “the benefits [of the Clean Air Act] were so enormous” that they far outweighed the costs of implementing the law, Rothschild says. The Clean Air Act’s regulations “pay for themselves; they pay for the entire EPA,” Heinzerling agrees.

A 2016 analysis from the University of Chicago found that people in the U.S. had gained 336 million life-years, a measure of how long people are expected to live in a healthy condition, since amendments to the Clean Air Act were passed in 1970. And in 2011, the EPA estimated that updates to the act made in 1990 would prevent more than 230,000 early deaths, 75,000 cases of bronchitis, 120,000 emergency room visits, and 17 million lost workdays by 2020. About 85 percent of these benefits stem from deaths avoided because of reductions in particular matter alone.

Estimates of cost are also inherently uncertain. And according to Rothschild, past EPA analyses have almost always found the agency overestimated those costs. She and others expect this move to be challenged in court.

It is also unclear how widely this new policy may be applied. Documents cited by the New York Times’ reporting suggest it will apply to proposals from the agency’s Office of Air and Radiation, with the consequences including repeals of limits on greenhouse gas emissions. The Times also cited similar language to what the EPA emails mentioned in a regulatory impact analysis posted on Monday concerning limits on nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide from combustion turbines at gas-burning power plants. Such plants are in demand at data centers to fuel their considerable power needs.

The EPA is legally required to provide its rationale and any data it is relying on to make such decisions, Heinzerling says.

In a statement in response to detailed questions from Scientific American, an EPA spokesperson said the agency is continuing to consider the impacts of PM_2.5 and ozone on human health, adding that “the agency will not be monetizing the impacts at this time.”

“EPA is fully committed to its core mission of protect human health and the environment,” the statement continued.

The EPA spokesperson also noted that the previous Biden administration did not calculate the value of health benefits for some rules under the Clean Air Act, including for PM_2.5. Rothschild says that some past administrations may have not quantified the benefits of every proposed regulation—particularly those that were very difficult to calculate. But, she says, “the health benefits from reducing particulate matter and ozone are some of the easiest to quantify and monetize out of all types of environmental pollution.”

“It’s disappointing that the EPA isn’t interested in making the best decision for the public,” Rothschild says.

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

On Instagram, Morgan also shared a photo of an X-ray that showed his fracture.

Piers Morgan apologizes to Jay-Z and Beyoncé after Jaguar Wright interview

According to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, femoral shaft fractures usually require surgery and take between three and six months to completely heal.

“A broken femur is a serious injury that requires immediate medical care,” the Cleveland Clinic explains. “Broken femurs are treated with surgery and physical therapy. It can take months for your broken femur to heal. You can break your femur by being in a car crash, falling or being shot. Elderly people who are prone to injuries from falls can break their femurs.”The Mayo Clinic also notes that a hip replacement is a surgery to remove and replace damaged sections of the hip joint, and replacement parts “are usually made of metal, ceramic, and hard plastic.”

Piers Morgan doubles down on Duchess Meghan’s Oprah interview: ‘I still don’t’ believe her

Morgan currently serves as host of the online talk show “Piers Morgan Uncensored.” He previously hosted “Piers Morgan Live” on CNN and has held roles at British tabloids, including News of the World and The Sun. Morgan, who has stirred backlash over the years for his commentary on topics including Duchess Meghan, is also a former judge on “America’s Got Talent.”

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Around the world, governments are contending with falling birthrates. But the problem is more acute for China: Fewer babies mean fewer future workers to support a rapidly growing cohort of retirees. A worsening economy has made addressing the challenge even more difficult.

“China is facing a severe challenge posed by an extremely low fertility rate,” said Wu Fan, a professor of family policy at Nankai University in eastern China.

China’s top leaders have redoubled their efforts to try to boost the national birthrate enough to reverse the decline, something that demographers have said is probably impossible now that China has crossed a demographic threshold where its fertility rate, a measure of the number of children a woman has over a lifetime, is so low that its population is shrinking.

Xi Jinping, China’s top leader, has called for a “new type of marriage and childbearing culture,” entreating officials to influence young people’s views on “love and marriage, fertility and family.” Local officials have responded with increasingly ham-handed measures to get citizens to have babies, including tracking women’s menstrual cycles and issuing guidelines to reduce abortions that are medically unnecessary.

.

Despite sweeping efforts to boost births, China’s population has shrunk and aged for a fourth straight year as deaths again outnumbered births. Credit…Wu Hao/EPA, via Shutterstock

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Americans are proud of their country’s science prowess: a majority believe it is important for the U.S. to be a world leader in science, according to the Pew Research Center’s latest report on trust in science.

The number of people who hold this view is five percentage points higher than it was in 2023, the last time Pew asked the same question, according to data from more than 5,000 people surveyed in October 2025.

But people who voted Democratic in the 2024 presidential election tended to hold a very different view than Republican voters on whether the country is living up to its promise. Between 2023 and 2025, the proportion of Democrats who believe that the U.S. is losing ground in science compared with other countries jumped by 28 percentage points. About two-thirds of Democrats now hold this view.

Republicans are more positive about the country’s standing in science—a complete switch in sentiment since the last time Pew asked this question, says Brian Kennedy, one of the authors of the new report and a senior researcher at the Pew Research Center. And the split between both groups is far wider than it was at previous times when Pew asked the same question in the past five years, he says.

In 2022 and 2023, the difference between Democratic and Republican opinion was “far more modest,” Kennedy says, with both groups responses’ within 7 percentage points of each other. “Now we see this much bigger difference between Republicans and Democrats in our relative standing in science compared to other countries.

Last year, the Trump administration cut federal funding for science. The administration slashed millions of dollars in grants for science across myriad disciplines and walked back its own research and regulations based on science, particularly in the areas of climate change, health, and medicine. Meanwhile, experts have warned of a “brain drain,” partly motivated by the administration’s strict immigration policies, with researchers choosing to study or live overseas instead of in the U.S.

Despite these cuts, the majority of Americans—84 percent—thought federal investments in science aimed at advancing knowledge were worthwhile. Republican voters, however, were more likely than their left-leaning peers to be open to private companies playing a key role in science, Kennedy says.

“One thing we’ve seen in our surveys over a number of years is that support for science funding is pretty widespread among both Republicans to Democrats,” he says. “This is a pretty consistent finding.”

Indeed, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have advanced several legislative efforts to claw back some of the targeted federal funding for science agencies.

Ultimately, the report shows that Americans’ trust in science and scientists remains broadly strong—but not as strong as it was before the COVID pandemic. During 2020 and 2021, public trust cratered. And while it has recovered somewhat, it remains lower than it was before that period.

“There’s a broader context of trust and confidence going on in society,” Kennedy says. Still, he points out that Pew survey participants have consistently ranked scientists among the most trustworthy groups in society for the past 10 years. “Scientists have consistently ranked toward the top with the military, while elected officials generally were ranked toward the bottom,” he says.

.

Houston Chronicle/Hearst Newspapers / Contributor via Getty Images

Amanda Montañez; Source: Do Americans Think the Country Is Losing or Gaining Ground in Science? Pew Research Center, January 15, 2026 (data)

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

I’ll never forget the moment the nurse asked me, “Are you ready to hold your daughter?” With tears running down my cheeks, I nodded.

It was nearly six years ago that I became a father, and I can say without a doubt that being a dad has made me a more emotional and well-rounded person. I never used to cry at a sad movie—not even Bambi’s mom got me! Now, I’m probably sobbing at 50% of Bluey episodes.

I certainly wasn’t the type to acknowledge, let alone have, deep, introspective thoughts about my emotions. I still have room to grow in that department, but my 5- and 3-year-olds have helped me improve tenfold.

While we often discuss how parenthood impacts mothers, too little attention is given to fathers and the changes they, too, face as they enter this chapter of their lives.

One father who recently discussed the topic is rapper and fashion icon A$AP Rocky, who spoke about parenting, among other topics, during a recent lengthy interview with W Magazine.

How A$AP Rocky Says He’s Changed Since Becoming a Father

The New York City native rose up through the rap scene in the early 2010s, blending fashion, innovative music trends, and pure confidence into a highly successful multi-decade career. These days, the 37-year-old rapper, born Rakim Mayers, is in a new era: fatherhood.

The rapper, who shares three children with fellow musician Rihanna, said that becoming a dad has caused him to let his guard down.

“I am way more emotional,” he told W Magazine, adding that before kids, he was “probably cold-hearted.” 

But now? “I’m a loving kind of fella,” he shared.

This is a noticeable change from the guarded persona that once defined his music and public identity. Fatherhood, he said, opened doors he didn’t even know were closed.

However, that doesn’t mean he’s lost his edge. When asked what he’d do if someone tried to date his daughter, Rocky said, “I’m going to pray for them.”

Jokes aside, Rocky’s perspective reflects a bigger evolution that many fathers experience for the first times in their lives. I’m no exception to that.

How These Changes Reflect My Own Experience

I wouldn’t say that I was necessarily emotionally guarded. It’s more that becoming a parent has made me realize certain emotional traits about myself I probably wouldn’t have paid much attention to otherwise.

For instance, I’ve always struggled with anxiety and, sometimes, a crippling need to be achieving something. Most people who know me well could tell you that. However, it was really put into a new perspective when I saw my children with my exact anxiety mannerisms.

I’m not exaggerating when I say exact. It was like going into a time machine to see a 3-foot-tall me having the same nervous reaction. This has helped me prioritize identifying when anxiety is taking over, or ideally, even before it gets to that point.

And conversely, I’m now more able to connect with my daughter and son. When I can see them going through that emotional anguish, I tell them I know how those butterflies in the stomach or weight on the chest feels. I’ve been there, and that’s OK, I say.

This is not a self-awareness I would have had without children.

So while I cry at movies more, and can help my kids work through tough emotional moments, becoming a father has made even more of a difference than that. It feels like my whole DNA has changed.

It makes sense, according to Zachary Barnes, PhD, a father of two and associate professor of literacy who researches self-regulation in children at Austin Peay State University. He adds that we need more fathers speaking up about the emotional demand of fatherhood.

“Being a father literally unlocks a part of your brain that deals with attachment. That is such a powerful thing,” says Dr. Barnes. “The moment I was able to hold my sons for the first time, I cried. And parenthood is all about meeting the emotional needs of your children. You are now practicing empathy every single day, and that will make you more emotional.”

How Other Fathers Can Embrace Their Own Emotions

Many fathers are probably caught off guard, experiencing this flood of emotions for the first time. I know I was. I did expect it to be a world-changing experience. But I definitely wasn’t expecting the waterworks. And I didn’t expect to feel the level of foundational pride and joy with every life stage my kids enter.

Aneal Bharath, an educational psychologist, former school counselor, and child protection officer, says that if fatherhood has “cracked you open in ways you didn’t expect, you’re not broken.”

“You’re changing,” Bharath says. “That emotional intensity isn’t weakness; it’s evidence that you care. Permit yourself to feel it. You’re not just raising children, you are reshaping what fatherhood looks like for them when it’s their turn, if they so choose.”

Like myself, Dr. Barnes says there are certain videos or TV episodes that he just can’t watch the same way now as a parent. The same is true with my social media habits.

Now, more than probably half of the accounts I follow online are dad content. That isn’t just for the funny and relatable TikToks, but also for the content creators who open up and discuss the hardships that come with day-to-day fatherhood.

“When we see those with big platforms talking about it, that is extremely helpful,” says Dr. Barnes. “I still think it can be hard for us fathers to talk about how we are feeling about fatherhood. The ups and downs. The happiest moments when your children walk for the first time, and the scary moments when you have to rush your kid to the hospital because of how sick they are. These experiences are all training your emotional capabilities.”

The emotional growth isn’t just a benefit for myself. Experts agree it’s also a huge gain for your family.

“That softer, more present, emotionally available version of you? That’s not a downgrade,” Bharath says. “That’s the dad your family actually needs.”

And it feels great to be the dad your children need. After all, that’s what it’s all about, right?

.

A$AP Rocky. Photo: GettyImages/Mike Coppola

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Hmmmm … Is this what fear in politics looks like inside? Do sycophants live in fear?

.

.

__________________________________________