The point is; Trump's 48 billion ultimatum to universities: Drop Israel boycotts or lose funding The memorandum defines a "discriminatory forbidden boycott" as "refusing to engage, severing commercial relations, or restricting commercial relationships specifically with Israeli companies." by Dudi Kogan Published on 04-22-2025 11:50 Last modified: 04-22-2025 12:38 Trump's 48 billion ultimatum to universities: Drop Israel boycotts or lose funding Reuters/Nicholas Pfosi Demonstrators rally on Cambridge Common in a protest organized by the City of Cambridge calling on Harvard leadership to resist interference at the university by the federal government in Cambridge, Massachusetts, April 12, 2025 | Photo: Reuters/Nicholas Pfosi The National Institutes of Health (NIH), a federal agency that regulates medical research in the United States, published a memorandum on Monday that conditions research grants on not boycotting Israel and eliminating all DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs. Enlarged Prostate Has Nothing To Do With Age: Just Stop Doing This One Common Thing Enlarged Prostate Has Nothing To Do With Age: Just Stop Doing This One Common Thing Natural Healthy Way This Game is So Beautiful. If You Have a Computer it's a Must-Have. This Game is So Beautiful. If You Have a Computer it's a Must-Have. Raid: Shadow Legends According to the memorandum, the agency "reserves the right to cancel financial aid and return all funds" if grant recipients do not comply with federal guidelines prohibiting diversity and equality research and "forbidden boycotts." The memorandum defines a "discriminatory forbidden boycott" as "refusing to engage, severing commercial relations, or restricting commercial relationships specifically with Israeli companies or with companies conducting business in Israel or with Israel, or those authorized, licensed, or incorporated under Israeli law." According to the announcement, "By accepting the grant, recipients confirm that they are not engaged in and will not engage in a discriminatory forbidden boycott during the grant period." Demonstrators take part in an "Emergency Rally: Stand with Palestinians Under Siege in Gaza," amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, October 14, 2023 (Photo: Reuters/Brian Snyder) REUTERS The new policy will apply to "local recipients of new grants, renewals, additions, or continuations" issued from April 21, as stated in the announcement. The NIH is the world's largest public funder of medical research. It awards approximately 60,000 grants annually to nearly 3,000 universities and hospitals. More than 80% of its annual budget of $48 billion is directed toward these research grants. The battle against DEI programs, which the Trump administration views as discriminatory, along with the fight against anti-Israeli demonstrations and actions, is also driving the American administration's recent moves against elite universities in the US. Officially, boycotting Israel in American institutions is not widespread, but anti-Israeli student associations and faculty lead petitions and calls to boycott Israel. Some institutions accepted some of these students' demands during the wave of anti-Israeli protests throughout the war. Harvard University recently decided not to comply with the administration's demands, which could cause the university to lose $9 billion in grants and other financial transfers. The university responded yesterday with a lawsuit against the administration. In a letter to the Harvard community, university president Alan Garber argued that the administration's recent escalation against the prestigious institution "has serious real-world implications for patients, students, faculty, staff, researchers, and the status of American higher education in the world." Credit rating agencies have warned that the administration's actions could lead to damage to the financial strength of these institutions, which hold enormous budgets.
-
-
-
-
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