I think the odds are we all fail with modern warfare.

Is biology destiny...?

I ask Putin to reflect on what we know about war itself in the big picture and the real difficulty of making peace.

Unless the Government wants to have me cease I plan on using this blog to get Russia (Government) to change their mind about the war, and that is in the realm of the possible. I can't stop myself from doing impossible things anyway! Truth Russia likes me enough already! They will hear me out!

Nobody owns me, thank God for non-slavery!

Humans are not computers.

Smile, its Science!

It is plausible that elements of AB 715-style approaches will influence other states, though not automatically or uniformly, and California’s size gives it outsized visibility rather than direct control.California is the most populous state and often acts as a policy laboratory on education issues (curriculum standards, ethnic studies requirements, civil-rights enforcement in schools). Supporters of AB 715 explicitly hoped it could serve as a national model—the first statewide Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator paired with an Office of Civil Rights focused on K-12 discrimination. Critics also treated it as a potential template they wanted to block elsewhere. When a high-profile, large-state law survives court challenges and begins implementation, advocates in other jurisdictions frequently cite it.What is already happening nationallyA broader trend predates and parallels California: dozens of states (roughly 37 by recent counts) have incorporated the IHRA working definition of antisemitism into policy. Several have advanced or enacted K-12/higher-ed measures requiring stronger handling of antisemitic discrimination, Title VI-style coordinators, or explicit inclusion of antisemitism in codes of conduct (examples include Tennessee and others tracked in 2025). At the federal level, legislation such as the No Antisemitism in Education Act of 2026 has been introduced and advanced in the House, aiming to require schools receiving federal funds to treat antisemitism as vigorously as other Title VI discrimination. Massachusetts and other states have used commissions, reporting requirements, or curriculum guidance rather than an exact replica of California’s office-and-coordinator structure. California’s influence is real because of its media reach, the scale of its Jewish community, the intensity of its ethnic-studies and campus debates, and the fact that national advocacy groups (AJC, ADL, etc.) can point to its law as proof-of-concept. Blue states or those with similar political dynamics are the most likely to consider comparable civil-rights expansions. Red states have tended toward different tools (IHRA adoption, parental-rights bills, or restrictions on certain curricular content).Spread is not guaranteed or identical. Local politics, teachers’ unions, free-speech concerns, and competing priorities shape outcomes state by state. Federal action or further court rulings could accelerate or constrain it more than California alone. In short, the national conversation around school antisemitism is already active; California’s law adds a visible, detailed example that advocacy groups on both sides will continue to reference.