How do I view the security of Jews? I figure that as long as Jews are alienated both in Israel and other countries it is a flashing red light. Why all this alienation? Perhaps we will never know and perhaps we will know better. But obviously there are some people who have resentment or envy about Jews. They don't open the doors to healthy relationships enough. And this can seem like a two way street, but it is not. We all want to live in a better world, therefore better relations would be desired by everyone. The current situation probably came by a desire to exploit the opportunity to wage their own war against Jews by joining with Hamas and calling themselves pro-Palestinian. These are profiteers or scallywags essentially. As a Marin guy who knew some of Gavin when I was a kid, thanks: SACRAMENTO, CA — This afternoon, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced that he was signing three of JPAC's top priority bills into law. These new laws counter campus antisemitism and expand Holocaust and genocide education in K-12 education. Governor Newsom Signs Major Campus Antisemitism & Holocaust Education Bills Into Law JPAC’s Top Priorities – AB 2925 (Friedman), SB 1287 (Glazer), and SB 1277 (Stern) – Will Take Effect January 1, 2025 September 28, 2024 SACRAMENTO, CA — This afternoon, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced that he was signing three of JPAC’s top priority bills into law. These new laws counter campus antisemitism and expand Holocaust and genocide education in K-12 education. This announcement comes just days ahead of the Governor’s September 30th deadline to sign or veto bills. AB 2925, authored by Assemblymembers Laura Friedman and Josh Lowenthal, will mandate that California’s college campuses include the five most targeted groups in their trainings to combat and address discrimination. Currently most campus trainings do not teach about antisemitism at all or cover it inadequately relative to its prevalence. With the Jewish community consistently among the most targeted groups, this law ensures that antisemitism is included in campus anti-discrimination or Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) trainings. SB 1287 (by Senator Steve Glazer) requires college campuses to update and enforce provisions in their student codes to prevent instances of intimidation, harassment, and violence. The law also requires each system of higher education to develop training programs to educate students on civil discourse. SB 1277 (by Senator Henry Stern) makes the California Teachers Collaborative on Holocaust and Genocide Education an official state program. The Collaborative is led by the JFCS Holocaust Center in San Francisco and brings together 14 leading genocide education institutions across the state to create curriculum and training materials for K-12 teachers. It work will reach one million students by 2027, helping schools reach their Holocaust and genocide education mandates. All three of these bills faced fierce opposition from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP). However, they passed out the legislature with overwhelming, bipartisan majorities in both houses. JPAC led advocacy efforts throughout the legislative process – building a coalition of over 40 Jewish organizations – and organized over 3,500 letters to the Governor. These bills were also top priorities for the California Legislative Jewish Caucus. Earlier this year, JPAC and the Jewish Caucus secured from the state budget $160 million ($80 million annually for two years) for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program and $5 million to further the work of the Collaborative. “In a post October 7th world, our school and campus leaders need more tools to keep students safe and provide accessible educational opportunities for all,” said David Bocarsly, JPAC Executive Director. “This is true for both Jewish students and other targeted students. These bills meaningfully counter antisemitism and hate by creating greater empathy and understanding, and ensuring all students feel safe on their campus. We are incredibly grateful to our partners and champions in the Legislative Jewish Caucus, led by Assemblymember Gabriel and Senator Wiener, and we thank Governor Newsom for signing these bills into law.” JPAC is also supporting several dozen other bills. To date, 16 have been signed into law, and few others await his decision before Monday’s midnight deadline. Track the status of all of JPAC’s priority bills here. Unless stated otherwise in the bill, new laws take effect on January 1, 2025.
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
-
-
-
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment