Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/13
Mark Temnycky is a Ukrainian-American analyst and freelance journalist specializing in American, European, and Eurasia affairs. He serves as a Nonresident Fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center (since December 2021), and he is a geopolitics contributor at Forbes. Previously, he spent nearly seven years as a U.S. defense contractor supporting the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment. His work appears across leading outlets and think tanks, with a curated portfolio of articles and media available online: https://wakelet.com/@MTemnycky.
With Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Temnycky discussed the AUKUS pact’s evolving role in U.S. defense strategy. Drawing from his RAND Corporation capstone experience, he highlighted the 2025 Pentagon reassessment, aimed at aligning AUKUS with shifting Indo-Pacific priorities. Central issues include submarine production constraints, technology sharing under Pillar II, and enhancing trilateral cooperation with the UK and Australia. The review underscores integrated deterrence, force posture recalibration, and innovation through AI, quantum, and hypersonics. While industrial and workforce limitations remain obstacles, AUKUS significantly strengthens regional deterrence, particularly against China, and revitalizes allied defense capabilities and industrial bases.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your background with the RAND Corporation on the AUKUS relationship?
Mark Temnycky: I completed a Capstone Research Project with the RAND Corporation while pursuing my dual degree master’s program at the Maxwell School, earning a Master of Public Administration and a Master of Arts in International Relations. During the capstone, my classmates and I wrote six research papers analyzing public-to-public and public-to-private partnerships. We looked at how governments in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia partnered with other government agencies (such as the AUKUS relationship), as well as how these governments formed relationships with various public and private institutions in their own countries. One report focused on the AUKUS relationship, contextualizing it within broader intelligence-sharing frameworks, such as Five Eyes. We presented our findings to RAND analysts in June 2017, successfully completing the project, which sharpened my understanding of trilateral defense cooperation and partnerships.
Jacobsen: What strategic objectives is the Pentagon pursuing with the 2025 AUKUS reassessment?
Temnycky: Like all other programs under the new administration, the Pentagon’s 2025 AUKUS reassessment is a strategic review intended to ensure the pact remains aligned with shifting U.S. defense priorities, particularly in the context of intensifying great power competition in the Indo-Pacific. Key challenges include expanding submarine production capacity to meet both U.S. and Australian demands amid industrial constraints, optimizing burden-sharing and co-development with the UK and Australia, and advancing emerging capabilities such as autonomy and long-range strike. The review aims to confirm that AUKUS not only bolsters deterrence and regional stability but also revitalizes the U.S. defense industrial base and fosters a sustainable partnership among these critical allies.
Jacobsen: How could the AUKUS review reshape U.S. force posture?
Temnycky: The 2025 AUKUS review presents an opportunity to reinforce U.S. strategic focus on the Indo-Pacific by enhancing forward-deployed naval and subsurface forces and deepening burden-sharing with allies like Australia and the United Kingdom. Anticipated shifts include prioritizing integrated deterrence strategies, emphasizing operational flexibility, joint interoperability, and technology integration. This recalibration supports a more sustainable, capable U.S. presence designed to impose significant costs on potential adversaries, maintain regional stability, and potentially allow reallocation of forces from less critical theaters.
Jacobsen: What about its basing in the Indo-Pacific?
Temnycky: The U.S. force posture in the Indo-Pacific is increasingly focused on dispersal and a networked presence, rather than fixed, large-scale bases. This includes rotational deployments and forward-operating locations in partner countries such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines, supported by frequent multinational exercises, including Resolute Force Pacific and Talisman Sabre, to enhance interoperability. The strategy emphasizes island garrisons and control of strategic maritime routes to complicate adversary planning and enable rapid response, striking a balance between readiness and political sensitivities surrounding permanent basing.
Jacobsen: What are the deterrence implications of the AUKUS submarine program?
Temnycky: One thought is that equipping Australia with nuclear-powered attack submarines will significantly strengthen undersea deterrence in the Indo-Pacific. These platforms would offer enhanced stealth, endurance, and reach, enabling persistent covert operations that threaten adversaries’ naval assets and critical sea lines of communication. The program amplifies integrated coalition deterrence, signaling a firm commitment to regional security and raising the costs of aggression. Although concerns over nonproliferation exist, the strategic benefits of maintaining maritime security and deterrence are considerable.
Jacobsen: Is this intended as a deterrent for China?
Temnycky: The AUKUS submarine initiative is primarily intended as a credible deterrent against China’s expanding maritime power. It aims to enhance allied capability to sustain covert presence and surveillance across key maritime corridors vital to China’s military and economic activities. The program injects operational uncertainty into Chinese strategic calculations, restricting freedom of movement and complicating naval operations. China’s diplomatic opposition underscores its serious regard for AUKUS as a strategic challenge. The initiative’s core purpose remains reinforcing an integrated deterrence posture that discourages Chinese aggression and supports regional power balance.
Jacobsen: How will AUKUS Pillar II tech sharing affect allied innovation and export controls?
Temnycky: Pillar II of AUKUS promotes deeper allied collaboration on cutting-edge military technologies, including artificial intelligence, quantum computing, hypersonics, autonomous systems, and others. They seek to outpace adversaries’ advances by pooling expertise and resources. Furthermore, this initiative faces challenges due to restrictive export control regimes, which have traditionally restricted sensitive technology transfers. But targeted exemptions and regulatory reforms have begun easing these hurdles for AUKUS partners. Fully leveraging Pillar II’s potential depends on modernizing export controls and building trust within and beyond the trilateral framework, ultimately accelerating innovation, interoperability, and industrial integration.
Jacobsen: What industrial-base and workforce constraints might delay AUKUS submarine timelines?
Temnycky: AUKUS submarine delivery timelines confront notable industrial and workforce challenges. Shipyards such as those in Stirling and Henderson face infrastructure and capacity limitations. The UK’s submarine industrial base bears historic strains from prior program delays and cost overruns, which raise concerns about sustaining nuclear-powered attack submarines, commonly referred to as SSNs. This will also impact SSN-AUKUS development schedules. The U.S. must balance the demands for Virginia-class construction domestically with its commitments to AUKUS. Sustaining long-term program stability will require continuous investment in workforce development, supply chains, and risk mitigation across all partners.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Mark.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/12
Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Tsukerman discussed UN underfunding and credibility crises in the DRC, Afghanistan, and South Sudan, stressing corruption, governance, and donor fatigue as obstacles.
Interview conducted September 5.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: All right, so today’s focus for Everywhere Insiders is UN News. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is in crisis. Funding shortfalls this year have forced cuts across the UN system, and OHCHR says services for survivors of sexual violence in eastern DRC have been curtailed or halted as the liquidity crunch bites.
A new UN Human Rights Office report finds that all sides in North and South Kivu—most prominently the Rwanda-backed M23—committed grave abuses since late 2024, some likely amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity. The findings include systematic sexual violence (including gang rape and sexual slavery), summary executions, torture, and enforced disappearances.
On the battlefield, the report and wire coverage note M23’s significant advances. Reuters reports M23 seized Goma in January and then made gains across North and South Kivu. The same report says the UN found M23 received training and operational support from Rwanda’s military, which Rwanda denies.
Ravina Shamdasani, the OHCHR spokesperson, briefed the Geneva press that the Fact-Finding Mission’s report (covering Jan–Jul 2025) documents “gross human rights violations” by M23 as well as by the Congolese armed forces (FARDC) and affiliated groups such as the Wazalendo. OHCHR also flagged that funding shortages have stalled a planned Commission of Inquiry.
Women and girls are disproportionately targeted in the sexual violence documented, and the scale of attacks has surged amid the fighting, according to AP’s readout of the UN report.
Irina Tsukerman: Part of the background here is money and trust. UN entities have been cutting or postponing work due to budget gaps—UNHCR announced deep reductions for 2026 after a challenging 2025, and OHCHR has warned of delays and cancellations resulting from underfunding, which compounds the service gaps for victims.
It is also true that the UN’s reputation has been dented over the years by sexual exploitation and abuse cases involving peacekeepers, which does not help donor confidence or field operations—especially in places like the DRC.
All of this makes it harder for the UN to advocate for—and deliver—adequate support to survivors in Congo, even though the crisis is unquestionably genuine and urgent. The tragedy is that it still competes for attention and resources with other headline conflicts.
In Gaza, and even more so in Sudan’s civil war, the scale dwarfs what is happening in Congo. However, Congo remains a major human rights and humanitarian crisis. It deserves attention. It deserves resources. It deserves to be prioritized. Unfortunately, it suffers from the fact that not only the UN but also other international institutions are now experiencing a crisis of credibility.
The better way is to develop resources targeting individual situations—Congo, for instance—and perhaps de-internationalize them. Make it the focus of a specific group of countries or international actors that can dedicate their full attention to that issue and lobby the international community for support on that front, without entangling it in massive international bureaucracies that are fighting on multiple fronts, distracted, or seen as excessively biased and mistrusted. That would be the best way to help people in need—by creating mechanisms of assistance that are not dependent on organizations, countries, or actors that are not trusted with either funding or coverage of the situation.
The problem is compounded by the fact that several international crises are consuming all the oxygen in the room, due to their global scale and long-term impact on neighbouring countries and international stability. That leaves less room for people to dedicate full attention to localized conflicts, such as those happening in the Congo.
The other issue is that Congo itself is often perceived as almost a hopeless case. The government there is backed by Russia, which amplifies the abuses. Some Russian operatives involved in law enforcement operations are themselves seen as contributing to the crisis. On the other hand, that backing makes it less likely for anyone to want to intervene, because when an already undemocratic or corrupt government is also supported by a major international human rights violator, the scope for outside action becomes very limited. The only viable path is to pressure both the Congolese government and its backers, while also trying to address the non-state actors as part of a transnational problem. However, it is not easy—let us face it, it is not easy—without addressing the broader context.
In some of these countries, internal issues will inevitably be left for the government to manage, making it challenging to attract meaningful international support. The fact that Congo has been as mismanaged as it has only compounds the problem, reflecting the weakness of the political infrastructure. All of this makes any form of long-term resolution, or even short-term assistance, exceptionally cumbersome. People there are not only dealing with rebels and localized violence, but also with a government that may facilitate assistance—or may use it as an extortion tool against international organizations and donor countries, as has been the case in many other conflict zones.
You want to help civilians, but if the government is corrupt and multiple bad actors are operating in the same sphere, how do you manage to get assistance to the people who need it, rather than having it stolen and redistributed among local cronies? That creates a very narrow path for assistance, particularly for victims of sexual violence. I also think that focusing on transnational blocs—meaning victims of sexual violence in multiple conflicts joining forces—could be a way to attract greater international attention. That might be more effective than treating each subset of victims in isolation.
Child soldiers have become an international issue, where several countries have joined forces. The same has been true of landmines—countries victimized by landmines have come together to find standard solutions. Victims of sexual violence should not be confined to their own internal conflicts but should build bridges with others worldwide. The problem is that people tend to “choose their favourite victims” based on their own biases, preferences, or misconceptions about global conflicts.
There may be individuals in other countries who could be helpful to victims in the DRC, but nothing will succeed unless political differences are put aside. The focus must remain on the fact that sexual violence is wrong, regardless of who is involved, and it should be treated as a humanitarian issue wherever in the world it occurs. That is the only real way to make a lasting difference.
Tsukerman: Moving to another crisis—Afghanistan. The recent earthquake’s death toll has risen to around 2,200, which is far higher than initial estimates. About 5,000 homes have suffered partial or total damage. Roughly half a million people are affected, including approximately 263,000 children as of September 4.
UN-Habitat’s Stephanie Luce, speaking from Kabul, noted that continuing aftershocks are triggering landslides and complicating access to the area. Many women have not been able to leave their homes because of restrictive cultural norms, and the lack of sufficient female doctors means they cannot receive proper medical care. This is a natural disaster compounded by human factors.
Tsukerman: Afghanistan, of course, is no stranger to disasters of this scale. It is prone to earthquakes, like Iran and other countries in the region. In recent years, it has also faced devastating floods and harsh winters. All of this is mainly due to its geography, but the lack of infrastructure and the political situation compound the suffering.
Afghanistan’s geography makes it prone to disasters like earthquakes, floods, and harsh winters—but geography alone does not explain the current humanitarian catastrophe. It is compounded by the fact that Afghanistan has long been severely underdeveloped. Rural areas have remained underdeveloped even under the previous government. Now, the situation is worsened by Taliban corruption, international isolation, and the effective prevention of humanitarian organizations from reaching many parts of the country.
Moreover, of course, the women’s rights issue makes everything worse. Women are essentially confined to their homes under draconian laws that are harshly enforced. Men who attempt to help them may also be punished. This is an entirely preventable dimension of the crisis. You cannot prevent challenging geography, and you cannot solve economic issues overnight. However, the Taliban’s choice to prioritize religious dogma and profoundly restrictive interpretations of modesty laws over the well-being of citizens speaks for itself. It is a wholly criminal and incompetent regime that should never have been allowed to gain power, much less retain it.
Unfortunately, there is no real mechanism right now beyond trying to prevent the Taliban from stealing as much international aid as possible. The Taliban has repeatedly diverted humanitarian assistance to cronies and loyalists. Ideologically subservient followers are rewarded, while everyone else—men, women, and minorities—are treated as second-class citizens at best.
The way international humanitarian aid is currently structured perpetuates this status quo. Aid groups generally work through whoever controls the territory politically. Organizations such as the International Red Cross or their equivalents in Muslim-majority countries rely on local authorities to provide access to victims of disasters or conflicts.
This means they rarely act independently, and access turns into a political game. Yes, the Taliban bears much of the blame, but the international community has also failed to address this dimension. Instead of developing creative, out-of-the-box solutions to bypass restrictions—whether stemming from corruption or misogynist laws—international actors have largely gone along with the Taliban’s rules.
In practice, many are trying to cultivate goodwill and build diplomatic bridges, hoping the Taliban will cooperate. However, that is not how it works. The Taliban feels empowered as the sole gatekeeper of aid distribution. They will exploit that power. They will not compromise the way a democratic or less militantly fundamentalist authority might. They prioritize their dogma over health, the economy, and humanitarian needs.
So the UN, international NGOs, and governments seeking to provide basic assistance to Afghan civilians should not expect the Taliban to be a legitimate partner in the delivery of aid.
There is no practical solution unless the international community is willing to continue the status quo, where hundreds of thousands of people are virtually isolated and disenfranchised. They have to find a way to work around the Taliban—either by confronting and pressuring them or by supporting alternative governance mechanisms that could gain a political foothold in at least parts of the country. Short of that, they need creative workarounds that do not rely on the Taliban to “do the right thing.” That is simply not going to happen.
Jacobsen: The UN peacekeeping mission in South Sudan, UNMISS, has condemned an attack by a local armed group in Western Equatoria State that targeted UN “blue helmets.” The militants seized a small cache of weapons and ammunition during the incident, which occurred while peacekeepers were on patrol between Tambura and Pusay.
UN spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric stated, “We emphasize that any attack on peacekeepers may constitute a war crime… These peacekeepers are deployed to protect civilians at a time when access and security remain fragile across Western Equatoria.” Meanwhile, severe flooding in that region has affected hundreds of thousands of people.
The civil war continues, and 270,000 people have been affected by flooding across 12 counties in four states. However, again, a natural disaster that cannot be prevented is compounded by poverty, underdevelopment, political instability, health crises, and international dynamics.
Tsukerman: Beyond the floods, there is now a cholera outbreak. That is partly due to poor humanitarian conditions: lack of adequate healthcare, prevention mechanisms, vaccines, and medicine. Internal political strife adds more pressure points. Tensions with Sudan also continue, with disputes over oil, energy infrastructure, and territory fueling instability. Sectarian divisions further complicate the situation, making the border regions especially fragile.
Moreover, of course, there are governance issues, including corruption. Russia has been trying to make inroads in South Sudan, and none of that helps when addressing a natural disaster crisis. We are seeing all these dimensions come into play. The fact that peacekeepers are now at risk underscores that the human security element is no less important than the physical impact of the flooding itself.
Quite simply, the security of South Sudan—the human security—has not been adequately handled. That means that general security in a post-disaster zone is compounded by marauding, sectarian strife, and attacks on aid convoys, whether by disenfranchised groups, corrupt factions, organized crime, or other elements.
All of this is more than peacekeepers can handle alone. They do not have offensive mechanisms for dealing with crime, violence, or resolving disputes. There needs to be more than aid distributors and peacekeepers trying to stabilize the situation.
There must be a more concerted effort to engage with the local government and establish a more transparent framework for addressing the multiple, overlapping crises—and for preventing them from compounding one another.
Once again, the humanitarian dimension is being ignored by the international community, partly due to shifting priorities and partly because many Western countries are facing their own economic crises and political instability. The United States has also significantly reduced its humanitarian aid to African countries. Identifying new donors and new sources of funding is paramount.
However, just as important is creating practical solutions for addressing security, corruption, and governance challenges. Otherwise, the money will disappear into a black hole, further feeding cynicism among Western governments that previously supported humanitarian operations in countries like South Sudan.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Irina.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/12
Andrii Borovyk, Executive Director of Transparency International Ukraine, speaks on corruption, transparency, and democratic resilience during the Russian–Ukrainian war with Scott Douglas Jacobsen. Borovyk outlines how even low-level corruption undermines wartime procurement, trust, and international support. He highlights scandals, such as the “eggs scandal,” which led to reforms in military procurement, and stresses the importance of watchdog NGOs, civil society, and independent journalism. Borovyk explains the unique challenges of maintaining transparency in aid, the push for EU integration, and the risks faced by whistleblowers and activists. Despite the war, Ukraine continues to implement reforms, striving to balance emergency powers with democratic accountability.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are speaking with Andrii Borovyk, the Executive Director of Transparency International Ukraine. We conducted one interview previously for the second book project with Oleksandr Kalitenko. To set the tone: there was a red-carpet welcome for Vladimir Putin during his summit with President Donald Trump in Anchorage, Alaska, on August 15, 2025. What is your general view of the Trump administration and how it has presented itself in terms of U.S.–Russia relations, and how do you think this reflects on its stance toward U.S.–Ukraine relations?
Andrii Borovyk: At present, U.S.–Ukraine relations lack sustainability and predictability. I believe this is a common challenge many countries face in dealing with the U.S. administration. Although President Trump says he wants to end the war, they do not appear to recognize that leaders like Putin must be fought—you cannot make a deal with them. Providing support to Ukraine is the way the war can be ended, not by doing business with an aggressor. That is how the situation is viewed from Kyiv.
In the last three or four months, there have been some indications, based on public statements, of a more realistic approach. However, the most recent comments—when asked about the August 28, 2025, attack on Kyiv, which killed at least 23 people—were disappointing. The response was essentially: “Look, but they are bombing oil plants.” How can one compare striking oil infrastructure that funds aggression with bombing residential buildings? You cannot, if you understand what is happening.
Still, I retain a small hope that strategic interests remain. The question is how Ukraine can persuade this administration to view the war from a different, more human and democratic perspective.
Jacobsen: How does corruption—even at low levels—affect wartime procurement, logistics, and spending?
Borovyk: In general terms, even low-level corruption—minor procedural violations or kickbacks—can have catastrophic consequences in wartime. War is costly, so efficiency is essential. Prices surge in short timeframes. There have been numerous cases, including in Ukraine over the past three years, where organizations and businesses tried to help procure weapons for Ukraine.
Artificially high prices arise because there are too many competing interests in a globally scarce market. Inflation is also reflected in inflated costs, making everything appear more expensive. Corruption can cause delays in deliveries, result in the use of poor-quality equipment, and lead to the inefficient use of available equipment.
Of course, corruption during wartime also affects how the country is perceived as a trustworthy partner by those working with us. The loss of trust and any dishonest use of funds can undermine both foreign support and domestic mobilization of resources.
Jacobsen: What are the relevant safeguards for ensuring transparency in international aid and military support?
Borovyk: When it comes to military support, it is not very easy. If we were only talking about civilian aid—money to keep the country running—it would be easier, because that information does not need to be classified. However, with military support, details such as prices, quantities, and supply routes cannot be published in open registers. Doing so would immediately expose to the enemy how weapons are being delivered to Ukraine.
In this case, the solution lies in specific and concrete procedures between those providing the military aid and those receiving it. Independent auditors from both the donor and recipient states should be present at all times. The only information that can be reported publicly should be shared jointly by both sides, taking security risks into account. Based on such disclosures, some public analysis can then be done.
This is why we continue to say in Ukraine that reforms must continue despite the war. The state needs to remain efficient and strong—not only for its own citizens and services, but also to be more effective in managing aid and in securing additional support from international partners.
Jacobsen: What have been the major procurement scandals and lessons learned since the start of the Russian–Ukrainian war?
Borovyk: Some issues are deliberate, while others are accidental—such as errors in accounting or implementation. However, yes, there have been scandals. The most infamous was the procurement of overpriced food and equipment by the Ministry of Defence during the tenure of the first minister after the full-scale invasion began. Journalists uncovered and published this information.
It became widely known as the “eggs scandal” in Ukraine, because one of the listed food items—eggs—was priced at a level considered absurd. The key lesson was that when something connected to the military is brought into the public eye, it can provide leverage and an opportunity to reform the sector.
As a result of that scandal, the minister was dismissed. A new agency was established to handle non-lethal procurement for the military. This agency now operates under transparent rules. Today, anyone can go online and see how many socks, how much food, and at what prices these items have been purchased for the military.
This is actually an example of when a corruption scandal helped fix systems at the governmental level. However, this was also due to the swift reaction of civil society and the media. That is why freedom of speech and a vibrant civil society are so important—sometimes to prevent corruption, and at other times to investigate and expose it, so that the government can address the problem.
Jacobsen: What about relevant legal mechanisms or structural oversight that may be necessary for large-scale donations? For example, when donations reach a certain threshold, would additional legal mechanisms be necessary?
Borovyk: If we are talking about donations in general—not military donations—then in the Ukrainian context, this reminds me of the ongoing discussions about reconstruction support. In Ukraine, the approach has been to maximize transparency. However, transparency is not simply about publishing a large number of documents; it is about building effective systems that facilitate transparency.
That is why civil society proposed, and the government is now developing, an online platform where all public investment projects can be tracked, including those funded by foreign partners. Soon, anyone—even a partner in Denmark, the United States, or Canada—will be able to see how reconstruction funds are being spent, the amounts allocated, and the progress of construction projects. Transparency combined with digitalization can make a real difference.
The second point is to provide civil society with sufficient tools for oversight. The third is ensuring transparent tenders for spending these donations. Ukraine is unique in this regard because even during the war, our national public procurement system continues to function. With just a few clicks—even on a smartphone—you can see numerous tenders and procurements conducted online. This level of transparency and oversight is rare under wartime conditions.
The other critical element is accountability. Oversight is not only about transparency but also about ensuring responsibility in the use of funds. That is why Ukraine needs continued reforms, especially to strengthen our audit institutions. At the governmental level, we have two audit bodies—one under the government and one under the parliament. These require a greater capacity to track potential misuse of funds and, when necessary, alert law enforcement to open cases.
Large-scale donations should be based on three pillars: transparency, civil society oversight, and robust audit institutions with enforcement powers.
Jacobsen: A question that is often on people’s minds is how Ukraine compares to other major wars in the last few decades in terms of transparency, corruption, and governance. In Canada, for example, media coverage focuses heavily on Russia–Ukraine and Israel–Palestine, with only occasional references to conflicts in Iran, Sudan, or Ethiopia. However, there are at least 15 major active wars worldwide. It is important to have a broader perspective. Three years ago, most questions centred on corruption in Ukraine’s weapons procurement, because there had been so much corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Borovyk: I have always said that Ukraine cannot even be compared to Iraq or Afghanistan. Ukraine is a functioning state. From the beginning of the full-scale war, and even now, we have demonstrated that we are not falling apart. We remain a state, we remain a member of the United Nations, and our institutions continue to function. While I do not claim deep knowledge of every other conflict, what makes me proud is how Ukraine has managed this war internally.
In school and university, we were taught that in wartime, the media disappears, the government controls everything, there is no free speech, and everything is classified. However, this has not been the case in Ukraine. We have maintained relatively high levels of openness even during wartime. For example, our public procurement system has continued operating. At the very beginning of the war, competitive tenders were suspended and replaced with direct contracts. However, by June or July 2022—just four months later—the government reopened competitive selection processes in more and more sectors, as it understood that this approach saved money by achieving better prices.
We also continue to have independent media. Yes, there are occasional reports of law enforcement pressuring investigative journalists; however, Ukraine generally has an independent and active journalism sector. Starting at the end of 2022, an unwritten pact between government and civil society—whereby journalists would not criticize authorities while the war was raging—was broken. Since then, investigative reporting has flourished, producing many critical stories. That sets Ukraine apart.
In addition, our anti-corruption institutions remain active. A scandal at the end of July demonstrated that Ukraine’s political life is very much alive. Politicians, like those in many countries, often do not favour anti-corruption bodies, but civil society pushes back, and people even protest in the streets to defend them. This resilience impresses observers.
These examples provide Ukraine with an opportunity to become a model of combining wartime needs with ongoing reform. What also makes us unique is that, while fighting a war, Ukraine applied for European Union membership and is now carrying the responsibilities of moving toward integration. There is no precedent for a country applying to join such a major political and economic union while simultaneously conducting a war and pursuing reforms.
Reforms are difficult even in peacetime. Attempting them during war is extraordinarily hard. That is the defining challenge—and also the defining difference—of Ukraine’s current context.
Jacobsen: Reforms are difficult in regular times. Try them during bombings. Let me move to my next question: How can democratic institutions balance emergency powers with democratic accountability? This is a nuanced issue that is not always easy to thread.
Borovyk: Yes, and your question is fundamental. Over the past three years, I have noticed that many people, including politicians, often misunderstand what this means. They often say: “We are at war, so we need to be more flexible. We need to concentrate power and make quick decisions.” Moreover, sometimes someone will respond: “But this is not democratic.”
Democracy is not simply about whether power is concentrated or not; it is also about how power is distributed. Democracy is about checks and balances. If proper checks and balances are in place, then concentration of power can still be acceptable during wartime. The balance between emergency powers and democracy can be achieved through an active role of parliament. In Ukraine, however, our parliament is not always as active as it should be—but ideally it should play a stronger role.
Independent media, anti-corruption bodies, and civil society organizations also help balance concentrated power. Another factor that helps Ukraine is European integration. The lengthy list of conditions attached to EU support, along with the even longer list of reforms required for integration, imposes accountability on the government. These are legal obligations we must implement, and they help ensure Ukraine remains a democratic country despite the war.
Jacobsen: What about the legal frameworks for seizing and repurposing frozen Russian assets for Ukraine’s recovery? Moreover, perhaps the process itself is also a factor, as people often hear about asset seizures but may not fully understand how they work.
Borovyk: That is a good question. I cannot provide a detailed legal answer here—I can offer a more technical paper later through our legal team. However, politically, I can say this: over the last three years, I have discussed the seizure of Russian assets with many European and U.S. politicians, both when they visited Kyiv and when I travelled abroad.
The answer I usually hear is not legal but political. They say: “We cannot do this, because if we seize Russian assets now, then, for example, China could do the same with our assets held there.” My response is that they are applying peacetime thinking to a wartime problem. That approach does not work.
Can you imagine, for example, during the German invasion of France, a French politician allowing German companies to keep operating in France? Of course not—they would have been immediately confiscated for the sake of France. That is the logic we are facing today. In Ukraine, such confiscations are possible, but in Europe, they are still not permitted. However, this is the 21st century. If Ukraine falls, Russian troops will be at the European Union’s border. If Europe wants to prevent this, it needs to seize Russian assets and redistribute them to sustain the war effort—keeping the fighting one thousand kilometres from the EU border, rather than two kilometres. That is my answer. If you would like more specifics, I can have my legal team prepare the necessary materials.
Jacobsen: How are NGOs and watchdogs, such as Transparency International Ukraine, helping to monitor corruption risks?
Borovyk: NGOs and watchdogs play a critical role. Our primary function is to shed light on corruption risks, highlight specific problems, and draw attention to them so they cannot be overlooked.
In our case, we also monitor public procurement contracts. Over the last year, we terminated contracts worth more than $15 million across various sectors. These were contracts where we identified violations. We raised the issue—sometimes publicly, privately—and as a result, the contracts were cancelled.
Also, thanks to our applications and oversight, more than 40 criminal cases related to public procurement were opened last year. That is one side of our work—pure watchdogging. On the other hand, NGOs in Ukraine, including ours, often collaborate with the government to support reforms and close corruption loopholes.
In this sense, Ukrainian NGOs often act as a single large think tank, identifying problems and proposing solutions to mitigate corruption risks. Moreover, when there are attacks on anti-corruption institutions—which we believe are functioning effectively and producing results—we stand against those efforts, both publicly and privately. So yes, that is what we do. However, Ukrainian NGOs are not only watchdogs; we like to say we are also “do-dogs.”
Jacobsen: How can whistleblowers protect themselves, and how can institutions protect whistleblowers, investigative journalists, and activists during conflict?
Borovyk: This is precisely why reforms are necessary—so that governmental institutions have both the capacity and authority to protect. Some protections already exist on paper: authorities must provide anonymity and shield whistleblowers from retaliation. There are also several mechanisms designed to protect them. Sasha has spoken about this extensively.
Journalists are covered under the media law, which protects their sources. For activists, however, it is more difficult. There is no specific legislation to safeguard them. In general, for all these groups, international support mechanisms, public advocacy, and pressure from international partners can protect once an issue becomes public.
Those who speak the truth during war are literally saving lives, not threatening them. In Ukraine, this does not always work perfectly, but when scandals arise—such as cases of pressure against activists or journalists—strong public attention and reactions from international supporters significantly increase the chances that such attacks will fail.
Jacobsen: What about reputational harassment, doxing, or delegitimization?
Borovyk: Yes, this happens as well. That is why every nation must cultivate critical thinking among its people. In Ukraine, this is important because such harassment often appears on Telegram—a platform widely used in the region. There, you can find black PR campaigns targeting activists. The only absolute protection is telling the truth, because lies eventually collapse under scrutiny and often appear absurd in comparison to facts.
Jacobsen: That resonates with our experience in Canada as well. At the start of the full-scale war, Russia spread false narratives about Ukraine being run by neo-Nazis. Those claims faded over time, partly because they were so obviously false. The irony was apparent: Ukraine’s president was both Jewish and a former comedian. It was, unintentionally, the perfect punchline to Russia’s propaganda. Are there any other points you think we should cover regarding corruption and accountability during this war?
Borovyk: I would point to the Corruption Perceptions Index we published in January this year. Ukraine lost one point, which signalled stagnation in reforms—particularly in the fight against corruption. However, I hope that the events of July 22, when there was an attempt to strip the independence of anti-corruption institutions, will prove to be a turning point.
The reaction from Ukraine’s international supporters—except notably the United States, at least publicly—was extreme. Hopefully, this showed our politicians that there is no alternative but to continue reforms, and that this is no time to halt anti-corruption efforts.
I say “hopefully” because Ukraine remains a normal country, even during war, and a new political season is set to begin in September. We will observe how politicians behave, the actions they take, and the initiatives they support in parliament and government.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today. It was a pleasure speaking with you. I appreciate your expertise.
Borovyk: Thank you. Goodbye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/25
How can epigenetic workouts and small daily pleasures support healthier, longer lives?
In this lively exchange, Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen riff on epigenetic longevity hacks, debating whether clustered or spaced-out workouts best trigger anti-aging benefits. They compare exercise to intermittent fasting, wander into botanical philosophy via aspens, willows, and backyard redwoods, and treat vegetables primarily as respectable butter-delivery systems. From sushi fish and popcorn to tiramisu, strawberry shortcake, and chocolate-heavy biscotti, Rosner maps his shifting sweet tooth onto the realities of aging. The result is a humorous meditation on bodies, habits, and small daily pleasures that keep life interesting, even as cheesecake loses its charm.
Rick Rosner: I’ve got a quick topic. I’ve got a topic. One of these longevity guys on Twitter says that working out may be worth more than any number of drugs—that epigenetically it changes you. If you work out a shit ton, it supposedly makes some helpful genes kick in and join the fight against aging. I work out a lot, but my workouts tend to cluster at a particular time of day. So I wondered: epigenetically, is it better to space them out throughout the day? In the movie Conan the Barbarian, young Conan is enslaved and forced to push a giant mill wheel—the “Wheel of Pain”—for years. He’s basically powering some kind of grain mill or heavy mechanism, like one of those draft animals dragging a big spoked thing around. According to the logic of the movie, that’s how he turns into Schwarzenegger. So he’s effectively working out all day, every day. Lately, once I’m awake, I’ve been making sure I do a couple of sets every couple of hours. Will that do anything? Who knows?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: It’s quite equivalent to periodically fasting for at least eighteen hours or something. That’s probably good for you.
Rosner: Yeah, I want to do that. That does not sound very good. I’d rather—look, I’ve got a stupid universal machine in the attic. I can do a couple of sets every few hours. Three sets every two hours, three sets, take a nap, do some more sets. I can do that.
Jacobsen: What’s your favourite type of tree, and why?
Rosner: I have a favourite thought about a tree, which is that there’s no single “best” tree. Otherwise, all trees would look the same. Different trees follow different strategies for gathering resources, mostly sunlight. When you look at trees with a full canopy, there’s not much light that gets through. Unless it’s fall or winter and the leaves are gone, a tree with whole leaves has a dense setup to capture as much light as possible. But the shape of the leaves varies widely, so obviously there’s no one best design. There is something like a best in terms of dimensionality: most broadleaf trees have thin, flat leaves—basically sheet-like, “two-dimensional” structures compared to their size.
That part seems settled, though not wholly, because cactuses mostly use thick, fleshy stems and spines instead of normal leaves, and pines and other conifers go with narrow, needle-like leaves. So there’s a loose consensus that many leaves are relatively flat, but the exact shape and structure of that flat surface is absolutely not settled. All right, favourite kind of tree. I like the idea—creepy as it is—that poplars or aspens can basically be one organism. In some species, what appears to be a whole stand of separate trees over a large area is actually a single clonal colony, all genetically identical and connected underground. They sprout from the same root system.
Advertisement
They’re all connected underneath by that shared network. That’s interesting and creepy. I don’t know if that makes it my favourite tree. What else? I like a bushy, well-rounded tree—the kind with a trunk that goes up and then goes foof, and you get a big sphere of leaves. That’s a good-looking tree. I also have an apple tree in the backyard that I grew from a seed. It’s about fifteen years old now, this spindly thing that’s never been properly pruned. It turns out that to grow a productive apple tree, you generally need to prune it—pick a strong central trunk, keep some solid scaffold branches, and cut back a lot of random shoots so it has a good structure and can put energy into fruit. This apple thing is just a bunch of snaggly little branches going everywhere and will probably never sprout an actual apple. But it’s my tree. I raised it from a seed in an apple I ate. So those are my favourite trees. I also have an old cactus in the back that keeps surviving—when it gets too big, part of it breaks off, takes root, and grows again.
Jacobsen: Any favourite trees? My favourite is the willow.
Rosner: Yeah.
Jacobsen: I love that they’re tall and then they droop down. I love that.
Rosner: Yeah, that’s okay. That’s an okay tree. We’ve also got a redwood in our backyard, which is cool. It’s cool to have a tree that’s around a hundred feet tall. And sometimes a bald eagle will sit on top of it—we’ve seen that a couple of times. If it’s not a bald eagle, we’ll get owls. I assume the owls are doing whatever owls do up there. But that redwood is a pain in the ass because it’s at the corner of our lot, and it has the potential to drop debris on our neighbours’ property. Our neighbours are always nervous about the tree. So we’re always getting it trimmed to make sure it won’t drop anything on them. One of our neighbours has fancy friends—and an Oscar nominee, if she has a backyard party. If we don’t keep our tree trimmed, an Oscar nominee could get bonked on the head. That would not be good. So we like our tree. We don’t like the cost. It used to be a couple of hundred bucks to prune. Now, the next time we get it looked at, it’s going to be fifteen hundred American bucks—not your twenty-five-percent-off Canadian dollars. So.
Jacobsen: What’s your favourite vegetable?
Rosner: Well, no, because I don’t love vegetables. But anything you can sauté in butter, I’m good with. I’m not often satisfied by Brussels sprouts, but if they’re done right, they’re excellent. And an artichoke is good because you can use it to scoop up your buttery sauce. What’s yours? Spaghetti squash is good again, because you can hit it with a ton of butter. So I guess what I’m saying is any vegetable that is a device for—
Jacobsen: Do leafy greens count?
Rosner: Yeah, they do.
Jacobsen: Well, kale. Kale salads are delicious. It’s like the majority of what you can get with—
Rosner: I do not love kale. I do not love kale. And my wife, for a long time, believed in spinach, and she put spinach in a ton of things that shouldn’t have had spinach in them, because when you cook spinach, it gets really droopy. And also the idea that you put spinach in there because it has more iron than any other leafy vegetable—no. That was a mistake made in the 1930s. Someone misreported the amount of iron in spinach. Spinach is no richer in iron than any other leafy vegetable. So. Fruit. Raspberries—great. Cherries—great. Blueberries are way better, depending on whether they’re crunchy, yeah. Suppose they’ve turned mushy, no. Blackberries—great if they’re sweet. But raspberry, as a flavour mixed with chocolate, is my favourite shake or ice cream flavour. Baskin-Robbins used to have chocolate raspberry truffle, and it cost extra because it was so deluxe.
Advertisement
https://edge.aditude.io/safeframe/1-1-1/html/container.html
Jacobsen: What’s your favourite meat?
Rosner: Sushi meat—meaning fish.
Jacobsen: Which fish? Tuna, salmon.
Rosner: Yellowtail. What is your favourite grain? It’s tricky because you don’t like carbs. You could say cookies plus carbs.
Rosner: I like carbs—just carbs don’t always agree with me if I’m stressed. Wheat Chex is my favourite Chex, but that doesn’t mean wheat is my favourite grain. Some obscure grains are really crunchy when cooked right. I mean, corn is a grain, right? So you’ve got popcorn. You can’t beat popcorn. It depends on how you’re preparing the grain. And some of my preferences might be about whether you can make them savoury enough by mixing them with butter.
Jacobsen: What’s your favourite dessert?
Rosner: Tiramisu is delicious. I still have a sweet tooth, but it’s not as dominant as it used to be. I often get excited about dessert in theory, but when it comes down to specifics, I’m like, no thanks. We go to the Cheesecake Factory, and I’m excited, and then when it comes down to picking a type of cheesecake and eating it, it takes me a week to get through a piece because I’m only suitable for a couple of bites, and it’s not that satisfying, which is more about me getting older than the cheesecake. But okay: strawberry shortcake with whipped-cream icing, not buttercream. Buttercream is gross, but whipped cream is a nice icing. You rarely see it on anything but strawberry shortcake. Anything with whipped cream in the mix, I’ll like.
Jacobsen: Favourite snacking food? Can’t say Triscuits.
Rosner: No. A nice cheesy cracker—there are these Nut Thins, the cheese-flavoured ones made out of almonds. It’s a good cracker, though really a bad cracker, because it’s made out of almonds. I shouldn’t be eating almonds because if you’re prone to kidney stones, you don’t want them. And almonds require a considerable amount of water to grow. It’s wild how much water it takes. So it’s a good-tasting cracker, but not a cracker I should be eating. Salted matzah is good. There’s a brand called Moonstrips. Regular matzah is bland—it’s only as good as whatever you put on it—but when it comes pre-salted, it’s excellent.
Jacobsen: Favourite seasoning or spice?
Rosner: One of those blends that pretends to be about all the different spices but is really predominantly salt. Old Bay—technically a Chesapeake seasoning, not Cajun—is pretty salty. Whatever they put in the breading for Popeyes—I love Popeyes, mainly because they take chicken and make it salty.
Jacobsen: What’s your favourite energy drink, regular drink, sweet drink, and alcoholic drink?
Rosner: My favourite basic drink is just cold water—soft water, not super minerally. And I like diluted Diet Coke. You take the Coke and then do half Coke, half water. That’s decent. As for sweet drinks—setting aside the racial-prejudice stereotypes about which sodas Black people are supposed to like—grape soda is delicious. When we go out to the fish restaurant where they give you a cup and set you loose on the beverage machine, I’ll get water, Diet Coke, cream soda, a shot of black cherry, and whatever. Mixed, it’s gross.
Jacobsen: Cold drink, hot drink—favourite?
Rosner: Coffee that’s all chocolated up, whether cold or hot. And if you can get some dark-chocolate flavouring in there, even better. There’s this place we go when we visit our kid in London that makes hot chocolate with 72% dark chocolate. You know how chocolates have different percentages—the higher you go, the less sugar and the more cocoa you get. The low 70s are the sweet spot.
Jacobsen: All right, so what else do you have? Favourite cheese or artificial drink?
Rosner: Favourite what-used-to-be-cheap restaurant that’s an actual restaurant would be the Old Spaghetti Factory. There used to be one in Hollywood, but they shut it down around fifteen years ago. You used to be able to take the whole family out to dinner there and get out with a tip for under twenty-five bucks. They made buttery spaghetti with mozzarella cheese on top—which is super salty—and you got a salad, a little loaf of bread, and dessert. It was super cheap. It was awesome, but they sold the building. Now we have to go out to Arleta or somewhere if we want Old Spaghetti Factory. Favourite tea? I don’t have a favourite tea. Carol brings home some chai latte mix, which is fine—it’s tea dressed up so it almost tastes like milky coffee. My Favourite protein bar is a chocolate mint Builder Bar.
Jacobsen: What’s your favourite baked good that Carole makes?
Rosner: She makes delicious cookies, but I’ve been losing my taste for sweets compared to how I used to be. I still eat a ton, but whatever she makes with more chocolate chips than she wants to put in—those are my favourites. She makes mandel bread, which is a hard biscotti-like thing. That’s my favourite. My favourite cookie is probably chocolate-dipped biscotti. I need to get to her when she’s blending the dough so we can add way more chocolate chips than she wants. You need a couple of chocolate chips in every bite; otherwise, it’s just a hard, sweet cookie bread. Thanks for all the questions.
Jacobsen: You’re welcome. That was good. Those could be thematically organized.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/24
What is your favorite movie and why? Or what is one of your favorite movies and why?
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen talks with Rick Rosner about movies, mega-IQ tests, AI, and the future of consciousness. Rosner explains why Long Shot succeeds as sharp wish-fulfillment, reflects on the brutal difficulty of Cooijmans and Hoeflin high-range tests, and worries that humans may become like dogs—immersed in sensation but missing understanding. He sketches consciousness as a crisis-response system that allocates attention under pressure and predicts that only tightly AI-augmented people will ride the coming tsunami of complexity, while most drift through frictionless entertainment, sporadic insight, and increasingly outsourced thinking, with ethics and meaning left dangerously unresolved for everyone.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your favorite movie and why? Or what is one of your favorite movies and why?
Rick Rosner: I like Long Shot with Charlize Theron and Seth Rogen. She plays the Secretary of State, and he plays a schmuck who writes speeches. It’s really funny and very wish-fulfilling. Normally that would annoy me, but they build it out well. They make it so it’s not too fucking lazy. It’s not lazy at all. It feels well-constructed.
Jacobsen: What was the most obscure or difficult IQ-ey problem, or at least high-range test question you ever took? Not the 3 interpenetrating cubes problem. That was hard for everyone.
Rosner: Not to give anything away, but the most obscure would be from Cooijmans. I can’t talk about it extensively, but he is the king of obscure test design, both in subject matter and item construction. There might be others, but he is the most obscure for which I at least have a shot at solving the items. Anybody can build a meandering path through arcane material that nobody has a chance in hell of navigating to the correct answer. With him, occasionally I make it out of the thicket. But I can’t talk about specific problems or specific subject matter, because that would be a clue, and he would hate that. Plus, I don’t want to contaminate his test. We know that the Mega Test and the Titan Test, both created by Ronald K. Hoeflin, were compromised by years of people discussing them and sharing answers online. You had people saying, “What’s the answer to this?” and “Here’s the answer to that.” Mostly they’re wrong, but sometimes they’re not. It’s bad. Hoeflin did really good work, and it became obsolete because of that kind of contamination. And Cooijmans does good work.
To get back to what I was saying yesterday, I was thinking about how human thought is going to change under the AI regime. For a lot of people—not that people aren’t already this way—we’re going to be like dogs. We’ll experience things, but we won’t understand things, because we’ll be under the auspices of big-data thinkers spitting out more complexity in a rapid-fire, rat-a-tat manner than we can decipher. So we’re going to have to team up with AI to have any chance of understanding the world. When there was less of the world to understand, and it came at us more slowly—like for the hermit in Train Dreams—you had a chance to slow down and actually have an idea about things.
In the future, a lot of people will just have impressions and a swirl of being entertained and getting boners, for those who can, and just enjoying a swirl of experience with little introspection or hope of making sense of it all. And then the people who are wired in, who are half-AI themselves, they’ll be hit with insights like insight porn. They’ll get hit with wonders and revelations. And will that be any better? I don’t know. Or is it just another form of jacking off?
Jacobsen: It is almost aside from arguments about whether we think the same way or whether we can create an apparatus—like the brain and the current form of computation—that functions the same in process. The output can be basically the same. A robot that can dance can be considered a human that dances, not in terms of subjective experience or feeling, but in terms of making the same motions. Similarly with intellectual or linguistic productions, especially with LLMs. So what you are pointing out is something almost independent of what people claim are the most critical questions. In that sense, these might actually be the most critical questions. They may be superficial in the final analysis.
Whether or not they solve this open problem—similar in processing, but just in terms of functionality—functional, pragmatic dreams of the world, process-oriented. And, you know, for all intents and purposes.
Rosner: It’s the same because consciousness—well, mental processing—is one of those “let’s do it in the cheapest way possible while still getting a reasonably reliable result” situations. Our brains evolved to efficiently process the world for us. And the way AI will think, once it’s made efficient—and even when it isn’t—will be very, very similar. Consciousness will arise reasonably soon, whether or not we try to create it intentionally, because consciousness is an efficient instrument.
You take all the known processes and make them semi-conscious or unconscious. We don’t have to think about walking or breathing unless something unusual is going on. Then you take all the unknown stuff, throw it into the pot in the middle, and kick it around. Most of the time you resolve it quickly, or it doesn’t fucking matter and you move on. And then you move on to the next set of things you have to consider in your immediate set of needs and environment.
That’s what consciousness is. They call it a stream of consciousness because you pass by a bunch of stuff, but “stream of consciousness” isn’t really the right way to think of it. It’s not a SWAT team of consciousness—we’re not in tactical gear—but it’s a constant crisis-response team where a bunch of things demand your attention. You give each thing the attention it deserves in light of how important you think it is, what resources you have to think about it, and everything else that’s going on. It’s just boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
It’s not even like the cleaner guy in Pulp Fiction who shows up to deal with special situations. It’s people scrambling to keep up with things every single microsecond. And when you get AI up on its feet in real-world situations, it’ll be that way for it too.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/24
How might emerging brain–computer interfaces and collapsing shared worldviews transform the very idea of a unified human consciousness?
In this exchange, Scott Douglas Jacobsen asks Rick Rosner about consciousness, identity, and the future of collective thinking. Rosner reflects on speculative brain–computer interfaces, imagining a “brain platoon” in which linked soldiers shift between individual and shared minds. He contrasts this with a hermit in Train Dreams, whose improvised worldview emerges from isolation rather than information overload. Jacobsen pushes back, arguing that philosophical frameworks differ across cultures, histories, and roles, while Rosner suggests that modern life’s torrent of facts fragments belief. Together, they explore whether unified consciousness—or unified philosophy—is still possible in a hyperconnected age.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When was the last time you took a bath?
Rick Rosner: Mutations that facilitate a machine interface directly with the brain—this is in the fictional setting of the novel I’m talking about—where Elon Musk’s company Neuralink and other groups are experimenting with implanted brain–computer interface chips. This individual can interface more easily than many other people. At various points in the novel, this person has multiple links to external information-processing devices.
This led me to think about how we often treat consciousness as unitary: not a multiple brain, not a multiple mind. We think of it as one mind largely because consciousness serves one person, one individual. Generally, your consciousness is well integrated, so it’s easy to imagine it as a single thing, because we imagine ourselves as single entities, even though we are quite multiplicitous with our various inputs and processing nodes.
I came up with a half-formed idea that, given everything occurring within consciousness, maybe we should think of ourselves as a “world braid” rather than a “world line,” which may be pretentious and silly.
Then I wondered what would have to happen for consciousness to no longer be thought of as unitary. There would need to be linked individuals where the linkage isn’t only information; where judgment and authority over the linkage aren’t as strong as what occurs within each individual mind.
I imagined, for example, a platoon in 2040—twelve people linked by hardware in their heads, with brain–computer interfaces allowing low-latency digital communication among them that is tunable. When they are off duty, the “brain platoon,” or “mind platoon,” is tuned way down, and everyone functions as an individual.
During battle, it could be tuned up to a level that becomes dangerous for the individuals who are linked, where the platoon-level mind is putting them in harm’s way. That’s one way to imagine a consciousness that is sometimes fleeting, sometimes unitary, and sometimes fragmented.
Rosner: You could imagine different levels of command and processing in a military situation. There could be a brigade consciousness. The military is a hierarchy, each level containing a different number of troops.
You can imagine people in command imposing different levels of control over the individuals who are linked, depending on the situation and the objectives. And then there is the question of how much control the individuals are willing to yield in any given moment. In a setup like that, you can imagine a non-unitary, linked set of consciousnesses.
It would make a terrible movie. You would add machine consciousnesses to the mix if you were trying to make it even remotely realistic, because by the time this is possible for people, you will have AIs that—whether conscious or not—are capable of thinking and weighing in on the situations this platoon encounters.
I am not sure if that adds anything to the discussion, because I have cheated by saying, “We just took a bunch of soldiers and linked them together, and sometimes they are one mind and sometimes they are not.” I am not sure how much that contributes.
Another topic, Carole and I saw a movie last night called Train Dreams. It is about a man born in 1880 who lives in the woods. He works as a logger for a while and then as an itinerant handyman. He lives as a hermit for decades and then quietly passes away at the age of 88. It is a meditation on how this isolated man views nature and his role within it.
He thinks in frameworks of debts—almost religious debts—that he believes must be paid or have been exacted. He lives within these various self-imposed, or at least self-interpreted, structures while having far less interaction with people and far more with nature than most.
I was thinking about how he has various theories and philosophical frameworks that he uses to explain his position in the world. He is not highly educated, yet he has built these explanatory systems despite knowing very little. Toward the end of the movie, he leaves his cabin and visits Spokane. He must have seen television at some point, but he has never heard of astronauts. By this time he is in his 80s, looking at footage of John Glenn—so around 1962—and he has no idea astronauts exist. It does not matter to the plot; it simply shows how isolated he has been.
He knows almost nothing, but he is constantly trying to figure out how he fits into the world. I was thinking about how that contrasts with us, who have access to nearly all human knowledge almost instantaneously. I am not sure we have much in the way of philosophical frameworks anymore. And we are all kind of idiots.
Jacobsen: We have talked about this before. People used to have religious frameworks and philosophical frameworks. If you asked most people today what their philosophies are, you would not get many overarching worldviews.
Rosner: If you asked a “dude bro,” “What is your philosophy?”, you might get something like, “Get the other guy before he gets you,” or, “You cannot worry about everything.” None of these are overarching. I think you would get even less from most people now about humanity’s role in the world—what we are here for—than you would have if you asked people seventy or a hundred years ago. What do you think?
Jacobsen: A few false assumptions are floating around in that response. Every ethnic group, every theology, religion, political system, every style of governance—whether centralized in an emir or pharaoh or distributed in a democratic system—must be considered. These are statistically distributed across roughly 110 billion people who have ever lived.
If you take that as a basis for understanding the spread of philosophical frameworks, you have to consider the farmer who knows how to shoe a horse versus a mathematics professor who wins a Fields Medal and works in combinatorics and number theory versus someone working in the trades.
This is relevant for distinguishing how people build frameworks. Each person’s worldview is a delimitation of a coherent and comprehensive understanding of the world, but it is functional within its own context. No human has ever formulated a truly comprehensive model of the world, because doing so would require containing the world itself. Anything else is a shortcut. That brings us back to the earlier point.
Rosner: You mentioned religion. I feel that the world’s major demographic religions—Catholicism, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism—have overarching philosophies. But we have talked about this a lot, because we talk about a tremendous amount of things. I feel that belief, even among adherents, has been hollowed out by the onslaught of knowledge that makes it harder to believe in an overarching system.
I suppose if you asked—well, you are right, I was speaking from the perspective of a guy living in California looking at other Californians. But still, I do not know.
Jacobsen: Even within California, it breaks down. You would move from a global view to a regional view to a national view. It goes down to the core debates: intersectionality on one side, rugged individualism on the other. The endgame for both is the same—taking each individual as a culture of one. Intersectionality uses categorical markers; individualism takes people as they come. The categories differ, but the structural endpoint is similar: everyone is a cultural one. That is the broader point.
Rosner: But what I am trying to argue—perhaps badly—is that the onslaught of factuality erodes philosophizing. When you are hit with facts and endless noise every day, you are simultaneously distracted and fragmented. The distraction fragments belief because the stuff we are bombarded with does not add up to anything coherent.
In the United States, much of the distraction adds up to the idea that the people in charge are incompetent or malicious. That is the conclusion a lot of what I see pushes me toward. But that is not an overarching worldview, and it does not help build one.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/23
How do Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen interpret Marjorie Taylor Greene’s resignation, Trump’s erratic behavior, and emerging national-security concerns in the United States?
“Trump is not strategic. He reacts. When he looks friendly, it’s usually whim, not plan.” — Rick Rosner
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner examine Marjorie Taylor Greene’s abrupt resignation and the political fallout surrounding her break with Trump. Rosner argues that Trump’s friendliness toward New York mayor-elect Mamdani reflects impulse, not strategy, and explores whether New Orleans may face the next immigration dragnet. They discuss congressional warnings about unlawful military orders, Trump’s explosive reaction, and the administration’s attempt to impose nondisclosure agreements at the Department of Education amid efforts to dismantle it. The conversation concludes with U.S.–China chip tensions and whether NVIDIA’s advanced AI hardware could be approved for export under Trump’s erratic decision-making style.
Marjorie Taylor Greene Resignation
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Marjorie Taylor Greene, resigning effective January 5th, 2026 after a public falling-out with Trump over things like the Epstein files and his attacks on her, says she doesn’t like getting a bunch of criticism from Trump after all the work she put in trying to get him elected. She’s leaving. People are speculating about what she does next, including runs for higher office, maybe even president.
Rick Rosner: The way I feel, and the way I think a lot of liberals feel, is: good for her—she’s sounding highly rational. Other liberals are cautioning us and saying she still holds a bunch of horrible beliefs; she’s just not expressing them right now. Anyway, that’s where she stands. Trump, meanwhile, welcomed Mamdani, the New York City mayor-elect, to the Oval Office and was extremely friendly with him—punched him on the arm in a chummy way, let Mamdani joke about calling him a fascist in a friendly way, and said he’s rooting for him. It was strangely friendly.
Nobody knows what it means. If Trump were a rational guy, it might suggest he’s seen his approval numbers—which, in many polls, are in the 30s, near the lowest of his presidencies—and has decided to behave differently for a while. But that’s never been his style. It could simply be that he was amused by Mamdani. He liked the guy. He is somewhat of a star-follower, and Mamdani is very charismatic. I believe you should never credit Trump with strategic thinking, because he’s never shown himself to be strategic. Anyway, it was strange. Yes? What else can we look at here?
Following Constitutional Orders
Jacobsen: There’s another situation where six Democratic members of Congress—at least one being Senator Mark Kelly—made a joint statement reminding military personnel not to follow illegal or unconstitutional orders. They didn’t mention Trump by name, but the implication was clear: Trump might issue illegal orders, such as directing troops to fire on U.S. civilians, which would be unconstitutional and contrary to the role of the U.S. military toward American citizens. Trump reacted intensely. Not entirely unhinged, but he claimed what they did was “seditious behavior” and talked about such behavior being “punishable by death,” amplifying voices suggesting they should be executed for promoting sedition. Do you think New Orleans will be the next crackdown point for Trump’s immigration policy?
Rosner: I don’t know. They like to do hit-and-runs. They like to come to a city, grab a bunch of people off the streets, and scare the people in that city. They don’t have enough personnel. There are only about 25,000 ICE officers compared to roughly a million police officers in the country—so about one-fortieth. Obviously, they can’t cover the entire country, and they can’t come anywhere close to hitting the target that Trump wanted. Trump wanted a million “bad hombres” deported a year ago, and so far this year, where we’re more than halfway through November, they’ve only apprehended about 280,000 undocumented immigrants. They’re on track to not even meet one-third of their target, and two-thirds of these people have no criminal record. Only about 7 percent—roughly 20,000—have been convicted of violent crimes, even though the Department of Homeland Security put out a list claiming tens of millions of undocumented immigrants as “criminal illegal aliens.” So they’re only off by a factor of a thousand.
They’ve caught about 20,000 “bad hombres,” and the Department of Homeland Security is claiming, I don’t know, 20 or 30 million. They will keep doing what they’ve been doing: setting up dragnets, going from city to city, grabbing a bunch of people, most of whom aren’t criminals, and setting them up to be deported. They did Chicago last month or the month before. The Chicago Tribune reviewed the numbers. They grabbed around 600-plus people—maybe more—and the number that sticks with me is the verified one: only about 3 percent had a criminal record. Everyone else was simply undocumented, which is not a criminal offense; it’s a civil offense.
A lot of disruption to the city, a lot of fear, all to apprehend a few dozen criminal cases. They’re incompetent. They’re thuggish. Okay, Rotten Tomatoes. I don’t know if they’ve hit New Orleans yet. It seems like an attractive target because Louisiana has terrible governance, is run by Republicans, but New Orleans is a fun city full of Black people, and they love going after people who aren’t white. All right, Rotten Tomatoes.
The Putin Peace Plan
Jacobsen: The Putin peace—well, technically the U.S. peace plan. Any thoughts on it? The point-of-peace plan for Ukraine and Russia?
Rosner: No, it’s impossible and stupid. It has 28 points, and I looked at a bunch of them today. Thing one, outside of the points: the U.S. has very little leverage over Ukraine. The U.S. can say, “Don’t agree to the plan or we won’t give you aid,” but they haven’t given them any aid this year—2025—and they gave very little in 2024 because Biden wanted to get them aid but Congress blocked it. So Ukraine isn’t losing anything from the U.S. by rejecting the peace plan.
Jacobsen: I’ve got some more important ones. The U.S. Education Department is requiring nondisclosure agreements in the Trump reorganization. Why do you think there’s an attempted enforcement of NDAs at the Education Department?
Rosner: Trump has repeatedly stated that he wants to disband the Department of Education. The Department of Education was formed in 1979 under Carter. Before that, it had been part of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, but Trump does not want to return it to any other department. He wants to dismantle it. Some parts—like the collections arm for outstanding student loans, which total around a trillion dollars—will not disappear. They still want to come after borrowers. They will just move that sub-department somewhere else. He appointed Linda McMahon—someone with no experience in education, whose executive background was helping her husband run WWE, World Wrestling Entertainment.
She comes from the world of pro wrestling, and she has acknowledged that her job is to undermine the Department of Education and help disband it. This aligns with the broader Republican goal of choking off resources to public schools and funneling more resources to private, mostly Christian schools. This is disastrous for the country. The U.S. had a massive education push starting in 1957–1958 when the Soviet Union shocked the world—and especially the United States—by becoming the first nation to orbit a satellite. Under Eisenhower, the U.S. panicked and launched an all-out push for education, especially in math and science, to make sure the Soviets would not overtake us.
The bill funding this effort even had “defense” in the title; education was considered a national defense priority. It paid off enormously—adding tens of trillions of dollars to the economy in the 67 years since that push began. It created a whole generation in the 1960s and 1970s. It helped educate the older tech billionaires. It produced a wave of technological superiority that powered the modern U.S. economy. The people who benefited from post-Sputnik STEM investment helped create the iPhone, and by 2007–2008 we had the first smartphones. Now there are roughly as many smartphones in the world as there are people. That education push created a technological revolution. And now the Republicans are trying to do the opposite—trying to dumb down America, to deny anything but Christian schooling to Americans. It is happening at a critical moment in history, when the populations who master AI and emerging technologies will effectively control the world for decades.
Or, if we fail catastrophically, AI will end up in charge of the world permanently and humans will eventually be shut out. Economic forecasters estimate that AI could double global GDP in the next fifty years. Maybe it is part of the hype bubble, but maybe not. Even with an AI bubble and a crash, the long-term outcome could still be that doubling. The internet had a crash in 2000, and within a few years we got Google—and the internet now permeates everything. The crash shook out the nonsense. The same will happen with AI: a crash will clear out the hype, and from the ashes will rise the actual, non-hype, powerful AI that will dominate. But maybe not for us, because Trump and the Republicans want to keep the country ignorant.
NVIDIA H200 Chips
Jacobsen: The U.S. is reportedly considering letting NVIDIA sell H200 chips to China, according to some sources. Thoughts on this?
Rosner: Are these their best chips—their fanciest chips?
Jacobsen: I don’t know, but they’re AI chips, which means they’re some form of advanced chip.
Rosner: I don’t know what makes an AI chip different from any other kind of chip. When you say “the U.S.,” you mean Trump. Trump is our dumbest president—also one of our most swayable. Somebody comes into his office, gives him a 45-second pitch that sounds convincing, and he might just go with it. He doesn’t have consistent positions. He contradicts himself constantly on tariffs and everything else. Someone must have talked to him about these chips and China. I don’t know.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/21
How does Rick Rosner link Trump’s aging brain, collapsing “information universes,” climate-driven migration, AI overreach, and underreported wars such as Sudan in this wide-ranging interview?
The interview between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner weaves together aging, politics, media bias, climate risk, AI, and longevity science. Rosner rejects simplistic claims that Donald Trump shows obvious dementia, instead using cosmology metaphors to describe how real Alzheimer’s compresses a person’s “information universe.” They discuss the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Kim Davis’s challenge to marriage equality, underreported mass death and displacement in Sudan, and the racialized lens of Western news. Rosner warns that climate-driven migration and unregulated AI could destabilize democracies even as Western per-capita emissions fall, and he outlines his favoured supplements: fisetin, curcumin, and metformin.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s make this an IC and political commentary mix. Trump is aging severely. He is overweight. His cognition is sometimes clear, at other times not. In an IC universe, you have consistent informational exchanges over very long periods of time.
Should the informational space of an aging brain outpace Trump’s luck over time in terms of its ability to hold itself together?
Rick Rosner: Saying that Trump’s brain is turning to shit is optimistic. I do not watch that much of him, but he is constantly bullshitting and pulling things out of his butt.
I have never seen him fumbling in the way that somebody suffering from early dementia might. Instead of talking specifically about Trump, it is hard to tell because he has always been such a lying, blustery bullshitter that, as we have mentioned many times, it is hard to know whether he is losing his grip or simply doing the same bullshitting he has always done.
I saw my mother-in-law decline into dementia. That looked like a shrinking information space.
That translated into a universe that looks like a universe where everything is collapsing in on itself, which, in the metaphor, increases the apparent “recession velocity” among the mental “galaxies,” so that they become more redshifted, more informationally remote, until everything goes down into its own blackish hole. It resembles the Big Bang in reverse.
In standard cosmology, a “flat” universe is one with zero spatial curvature. Our best current model is a flat universe whose expansion is today dominated by dark energy, so it is actually accelerating and will continue indefinitely. Once we understand physics more fully, we will probably find a deeper informational reason for why the large-scale universe looks flat.
In older textbook models without dark energy, a universe with density below a critical value would expand forever. One with density above that critical value could eventually stop expanding and recollapse into a singularity where everything comes back together. That recollapsing case is the cleaner physical analogue of the shrinking information space: everything that was once far-flung ends up crunched back together, structure lost.
An Alzheimer’s brain that is losing information looks, in this analogy, like a universe being run toward a collapse phase. It is not literally blueshifted or redshifted in the astrophysical sense, but the accessible information space shrinks: fewer “galaxies” of memory remain in causal contact; more and more of the mind’s former content might as well have fallen beyond an event horizon.
In a standard expanding Big Bang universe, as time passes, the observable universe grows because light from more distant galaxies has had time to reach us, even while the overall expansion continues. Early on, the expansion was decelerating due to gravity; today, because of dark energy, it is accelerating. So over cosmic time, some galaxies newly enter our observable horizon, while others become effectively unreachable in the far future as they recede faster than light due to the accelerating expansion.
By contrast, the Alzheimer ‘s-style reverse-universe metaphor is one where the personal observable universe is shrinking: fewer memories and fewer stable connections, less structure, more effective redshifting of meaning, until the internal cosmos is mainly gone, replaced by a kind of private singularity.
More slowly, but it never hits zero expansion. That means that edge material from closer to t₀ sneaks into our view.
A universe that is losing information—a Big Bang universe that is decelerating—has less effective gravitational influence shaping its expansion history.
As more long-distance photons enter the observable universe, they increase the shared history of everything, slowing things down. But as you lose that history and mutuality, things start to recede from view again until, as you get overall collapse—overall loss of information—nothing can see anything else, and every galaxy is receding from every other galaxy at close to the speed of light. That is how your universe goes out as it approaches zero information.
Jacobsen: What do you think about the United States not pursuing the Kim Davis Supreme Court case to attempt to challenge same-sex marriage equality?
Rosner: For one thing, Kim Davis is an asshole. I am sure she has sincerely held religious beliefs. She was the county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, saying it went against her religious beliefs, and she kept filing lawsuits. Eventually, the question became whether her case could undermine Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court ruling that established same-sex marriage as a constitutional right nationwide.
She was pursuing a case that, had the Supreme Court agreed to review it, could have left marriage equality up to the states. That would have meant half the states in the country—the deeply conservative states—would not honour same-sex marriages. So it is good news that the Court declined to take it up.
The Supreme Court is weighted to the conservative side with a 6–3 majority, and we have talked about this a million times: Alito and Thomas are almost MAGA-aligned to the point of unreasonableness. They will side with Trump-friendly positions nearly every time. But even those two, if you give them a case that does not hinge on Trump-related nonsense, can still be legally consistent.
Even more so for the other four conservative justices and for the three liberal justices. I looked up the number of Americans who support same-sex marriage, and it is in the mid-70 percent range. It seems settled. Most MAGA voters are not interested in rolling it back. They have nothing at stake in it. That does not mean they will not get into other people’s business, but this is an easier situation for the Supreme Court to be reasonable on than questions about presidential power.
Advertisement
Amy Coney Barrett was put on the Court to vote to end abortion as a national right.
Now it is up to the states, and some are terrible about it, while others are not. But you ask her opinion on a ton of other issues. In that case, she comes from a deeply religious—some would say cult-ish—background where women are essentially handmaids. There is much Bible-heavy ideology. But she tries to do her job. If you ask her to rule on something that does not hinge on her religious beliefs, she will often be reasonable. And the same goes for everybody except the two truly unhinged justices—the two dickhead justices—who, as long as you do not hit them in their pet issues, will still try to do their job: being relatively neutral, trying to come to the best decision based on precedent, the Constitution, and basic reasonableness.
Their rulings on presidential power have given Trump way too much power. But not everything is about that.
Jacobsen: In American media—you watch a lot of it—do you notice any reportage on the war in Sudan?
Rosner: Not much. That is an important point. Where I see it is in the yelling shows I do every morning. I am not watching the media; I am yelling nonsense with other people yelling nonsense. It is like CNN, except more amateur hour. You have been part of it. If I am going to hear about that stuff, I will listen to it there. But on CNN or MSNBC? No.
Jacobsen: Over 150,000 people have died.
Rosner: I did read a long article about it in The New Yorker, but that is a niche publication. The number of internally displaced people is over 14 million. That is a massive humanitarian catastrophe that is not being reported.
Jacobsen: I have noticed the same in the commentary I have done with international law and humanitarian law experts. My reading of the situation is that in North America—less so in Europe—the coverage defaults to Israel–Palestine and then Russia–Ukraine. There are probably ten or so other major wars, with Sudan being one of the more significant, and there is almost no commentary.
Rosner: A handy guide is: if it involves white people, or people seen as white-adjacent, you will hear about it. If it is Sub-Saharan Africa, not so much.
Jacobsen: About the 14 million internally displaced people.
Rosner: The UN has warned that because of climate change, that number could increase dramatically. By mid-century, climate-driven displacement could rise into the hundreds of millions. Some projections even push the upper bound toward a billion in extreme scenarios. That is about right. That is a looming problem.
Jacobsen: In that migration, authoritarian states—Putin and the Kremlin especially—will weaponize immigration. It is hard to watch. Climate change will be what it will be: a neutral force pushing people to move for survival, then dying on rafts trying to reach European shores.
Rosner: Can I bring up an issue related to this? Per capita carbon footprint among Americans declines by about 1% a year because we work and shop more from home and because our tech gets more efficient. Also, the number of Westerners will decrease starting in the 2050s because Gen Z is having fewer children. So the world could be saved by consuming less energy.
However, it is a Marie Antoinette situation where AI could take up the slack and keep the consumption curve pointed upward, which is some absolute bullshit. We are using AI for much trivial nonsense—writing term papers, making porn, generating memes. Yes, maybe it helps medicine, but the most visible use is frivolous.
Trump said he wants the Senate to prohibit states from regulating AI. The Senate effectively said “no” with overwhelming bipartisan opposition. So Trump now says he will issue an executive order saying the U.S. government will sue any state that attempts to regulate AI. That is dangerous, because Trump, America’s least-informed modern president, has no understanding of the risks posed by unregulated AI.
AI might turn out to be an incredibly wasteful, resource-hungry “jerk-off technology” in many ways—especially if we leave it in the hands of greedy, arrogant tech billionaires.
Jacobsen: Have you taken any newer supplements?
Rosner: The one that is relatively new for me—though I have been taking it for six and a half years—is fisetin. It is one of those supplements that emerged from high-throughput screening. Before automation, testing a compound was slow. It relied primarily on accidents—penicillin being the classic “oops, mould in a dish” discovery—or on theoretical guesses. Recently, labs have used automated systems to test thousands of chemicals for specific effects.
Fisetin appears to have been discovered that way. Out of all the stuff you can test, fisetin is one of the most effective at inducing apoptosis in senescent cells—old, malfunctioning cells that should have already died. In a younger body, when a cell becomes damaged, it typically self-destructs. As you get older, your body clears those bad cells less efficiently. They hang around, consume resources, and increase inflammation.
Fisetin helps clear a lot of that stuff out. So I have been taking huge doses for years. I also have our dogs on it. And I have Carol on it a little bit; I have to persuade her to take more.
That is my favourite supplement right now, along with curcumin—turmeric, two words for the same thing, which reduces inflammation. And metformin, which helps your body use insulin more efficiently, reduces inflammation and, if you get COVID, may reduce viral load by around 40% in some studies.
Only one of those requires a prescription: metformin. It is one of the most widely prescribed drugs in the United States.
It helps your body use insulin more efficiently and reduces inflammation. And if you get COVID, it may reduce your viral load by roughly 40%. So there you go—three supplements. Only one requires a prescription: metformin. It is one of the most widely prescribed drugs in the United States. Around 50-60 million prescriptions are written for it each year.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/20
How do Donald Trump’s handling of the Epstein files and his push for lighter, federally standardized AI regulation together reveal the deeper risks of elite impunity, technological power, and democratic backsliding in the United States?
In this conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner examine Donald Trump’s declining approval ratings, his controversial behavior, and the political consequences of the newly passed Epstein Files Transparency Act. Rosnerdiscusses the scale of the Epstein documents, the bipartisan push for disclosure, and why Republicans breaking with Trump signals shifting political winds ahead of the midterms. The discussion then moves to AI regulation, where Jacobsen and Rosner explore whether a unified federal standard could guide rapidly evolving technologies. They outline the need for specialized oversight, ethical benchmarks, and possibly an entire Department of Emerging Technology to manage future risks.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You probably have some thoughts about Trump. Any thoughts now?
Rick Rosner: I do not think things are over for him politically, but there is clearly more national exasperation with him now than before. His approval rating is hovering in the low forties in most polling averages, with some recent surveys dropping him into the high thirties — the lowest point of his second term so far. He began the term at about 47 percent approval in January, so he has fallen by roughly five to ten points, depending on the polling series.
He is also being a dick. He just hosted Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House. U.S. intelligence publicly assessed in 2021 that bin Salman approved the 2018 operation in Istanbul in which a Saudi team killed and dismembered journalist Jamal Khashoggi, even though the Saudi government still denies that he ordered it. When Trump was asked about Khashoggi in front of the crown prince during this recent visit, he again downplayed the killing, contradicting the U.S. intelligence assessment and suggesting that “a lot of people didn’t like that gentleman” and that “things happen,” framing the murder as something that should not derail the U.S.–Saudi relationship.
On Air Force One, when Bloomberg reporter Catherine Lucey pressed him about the Epstein files and the newly released emails in which Jeffrey Epstein wrote that Trump “knew about the girls,” Trump cut her off and snapped, “Quiet, piggy.” That kind of incident rarely shifts voter sentiment on its own, but these episodes accumulate, and his approval has been sliding more sharply in recent weeks.
Meanwhile, Congress has forced the issue on the Epstein records. The House passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act on November 18 by a vote of 427–1, and the Senate passed it unanimously on November 19. There was exactly one “no” vote in all of Congress. The law requires the Justice Department to make publicly available — in a searchable, downloadable format — essentially all unclassified, non–grand-jury files related to the Epstein investigation within 30 days. It also requires the Department to provide the House and Senate Judiciary Committees with an unredacted list of all government officials and other politically exposed individuals named in the files. Because support in both chambers far exceeds the two-thirds threshold, Congress could easily override a veto.
We already know the scale of the material. The government holds approximately 100,000 pages of Epstein-related documents that are not protected by grand-jury secrecy rules, in addition to more than 30,000 pages the House Oversight Committee released earlier this year. After pressure regarding three explosive emails that explicitly reference Trump — including one in which Epstein wrote that Trump “knew about the girls” — Republicans on the Oversight Committee released an additional 20,000 pages of documents from the Epstein estate.
None of the estate emails are to or from Trump or his staff, but he is referenced more than a thousand times. One analysis found him mentioned in roughly three-quarters of all email threads in that cache, with Epstein often mocking him and describing him as “dirty” and “borderline insane.”
Because these records have already been reviewed by multiple entities — the Justice Department, the FBI, and congressional committees — large-scale scrubbing to remove names would be difficult without obvious discrepancies emerging. The administration can still attempt redaction, citing confidentiality or victim protection, but the new law sharply limits redaction authority and explicitly requires unredacted name lists for Congress.
So where does that leave Trump? His approval is slipping. Congress — including nearly all Republicans — just broke with him on a major transparency vote. In the released estate documents, his name appears frequently, mostly in Epstein’s commentary rather than in communications involving Trump himself. I do not know how much concrete damage the next 30 days of disclosures will cause him, but the willingness of Republicans to defy him so decisively, sensing a shift in political winds, does not bode well heading into the midterms, which are roughly 350 days away.
Jacobsen: There was one document I saw. One reasonable thing did come out of Trump recently. He argued that the United States should not have excessive regulation on artificial intelligence. That part is not interesting—many people have made that claim, and many disagree. The interesting part, which I think is actually reasonable, is the idea of having one federal standard. Essentially, you universalize the ethics and direction of AI development. Benchmarking. I think that part is reasonable.
Rosner: That seems reasonable once you define it. Maybe “standard” is not the right word, because AI is developing so rapidly that everyone needs to follow the same rules, but the rules will have to change month to month as we learn more about what AI can do and how companies will try to circumvent regulations. There should be a federal agency staffed by dozens—probably hundreds—of competent people to oversee the whole thing. Almost like an FBI specifically for AI. Hundreds may not even be enough; you may need a thousand or more people monitoring the landscape hour by hour, updating the public month to month, and developing guidelines as things evolve.
Jacobsen: Yes. It is not going to be one thing. How AI is defined and used will differ across contexts. You could create a benchmark of guidelines—maybe categorical. A universal standardization with three categories people already reference: systems below human intelligence, which would be highly specialized; systems at human intelligence, which would require their own ethical guidelines; and superintelligent systems, where the strictest coding standards would apply so they remain tightly aligned with human values.
Rosner: You can have philosophical principles outlining what we are trying to achieve—for example, that AI should not be a threat to human existence. That is a base-level standard. After that, the diversity of applications is enormous. Medical AI. Self-driving cars. Defense systems. Language models people chat with. Personality models that mimic relationships. If you spent two hours listing areas that should be monitored, you could probably name fifty—areas where AI may be beneficial but also genuinely dangerous.
It is difficult because there are so many domains. AI in appliances is another area, although the dangers there are more far-fetched. AI is not going to make your toaster kill you, and a refrigerator with embedded AI is probably not going to manipulate people into unstable behavior. But who knows?
There are multiple areas where oversight is essential. It needs an entire government department. Whether that happens under Trump or the next president, I do not know. And it probably needs to be broader—a full Department of Emerging Technology dedicated to monitoring new developments across the entire technological landscape.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/19
How do the Epstein files, Ukraine sanctions, and G7 diplomacy expose the current limits of Trump’s power at home and abroad?
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Rick Rosner about newly surfaced Epstein emails in which Jeffrey Epstein derides Donald Trump and alleges he “knew about the girls,” alongside Trump’s sliding approval ratings amid a 43-day shutdown. They connect this weakening support to razor-thin Republican margins in Congress and Trump’s ongoing use of executive power, from rebranding the Pentagon as the “Department of War” to a private White House ballroom project. The discussion then shifts to the G7 foreign ministers’ meeting, Canada’s sanctions on Russia, the “shadow fleet” moving sanctioned oil, and the realities of independent war reporting.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’re speaking on Thursday, November 13, 2025. The full Justice Department “Epstein files” still have not been released, but House Democrats have obtained approximately 20,000 pages of material from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate, including emails to and from him. Some of these emails concern Trump. What stands out about them?
Rick Rosner: What stands out in the handful of messages where Epstein discusses Trump is how harsh he is: he calls Trump “evil beyond belief,” says people underestimate “how dumb” he is, and treats him as someone who should never have held the presidency. In at least one email he claims Trump “knew about the girls.” That is Epstein’s allegation in private correspondence—not independently verified—but seeing it in Epstein’s own words is striking.
It is also telling that even someone regarded as a longtime social acquaintance of Trump describes him in such terms.
Because of the 43-day government shutdown and Trump’s behavior—such as hosting lavish parties at Mar-a-Lago while federal workers and people on SNAP rely on food banks—his approval rating has fallen to the lowest point of his second term. It has dipped from the mid-40s to the low 40s, with the Silver Bulletin polling average placing him around 41–42 percent. His support has historically been stable due to base loyalty, so any decline is meaningful.
Now that Congress is back in session, the House must vote on the Epstein Files Transparency Act because the discharge petition reached 218 signatures. That forces a vote on compelling the Justice Department to release its Epstein files—tens of thousands more documents, potentially including videos, internal reports, and additional communications. Whatever the fallout, it is hard to imagine how this benefits Trump.
Why does his approval rating matter? Because Republicans hold the House and Senate by razor-thin margins. If members begin distancing themselves from him—if some decide it is politically safer to stop rubber-stamping everything he wants—his ability to move legislation could collapse.
Even Lauren Boebert, normally one of his most loyal supporters, refused to bend. She was brought into a Situation Room meeting with Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, who attempted to persuade her to withdraw her signature from the discharge petition. She refused. If Trump is losing people like Boebert, the loyalty structure he relies on is showing cracks. If Republicans lose just five votes in the House, they no longer have a reliable majority for Trump’s agenda.
They are not at that point yet, but if his approval slips below 40 percent, his legislative position could deteriorate quickly.
That still does not prevent him from issuing executive orders, which he does frequently. Agencies begin implementing them immediately, and while opponents challenge them in court, there is always a lag—sometimes weeks or months—between the order and the ruling. During that period, the orders take effect.
For example, his executive-driven rebranding of the Department of Defense as the “Department of War”—a change championed by Pete Hegseth—has an estimated $2 billion implementation cost due to the overhaul of signage, stationery, websites, and information systems. Congress did not vote for it; the bureaucracy is carrying it out.
Similarly, no congressional approval was required for the demolition of the White House East Wing, which has been replaced with a privately funded, 90,000-square-foot ballroom project estimated at roughly $300 million. Construction is underway. Even with a weakened Congress, Trump can continue implementing sweeping policy and symbolic changes through executive power and private financing.
What are they discussing at the G7 foreign ministers’ meeting in Niagara this week?
Jacobsen: Maritime security and Ukraine are the primary topics. Canada announced additional sanctions against the Russian Federation—thirteen entities and eleven individuals—under the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations, which were first introduced in 2014.
On paper, this is what a rational foreign policy approach looks like: periodically increasing sanctions on entities or individuals linked—directly or indirectly—to the financing of Russia’s war effort. The goal is to put financial pressure on the war machine so the Russian Federation stops bombing Ukrainian civilians.
One example: I recently interviewed one of the commissioners on the UN Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine. In their November 3–6 reporting period, the commission examined evidence from the Dnipropetrovsk region, along the eastern bank of the Dnipro River. They documented systematic short-range drone attacks on civilians. In the commission’s assessment, these meet the legal definitions of war crimes and crimes against humanity due to the scale and systematic nature of the attacks.
Some of the newest Canadian sanctions specifically target drone-related technology. You can see the alignment between documented war crimes and the sanctions introduced on November 6. The regulations now list more than 3,300 sanctioned entities and individuals combined. None have been removed; the list only expands, and it expands in a systematic, evidence-driven way. It reads like the behavior of a rational actor on paper. That was one of the main items coming out of the meetings in the past few days.
Rosner: One of the ideas about the Ukraine war—which we are still in—is that it would deplete Russia. The war has been going on for almost four years now, correct?
Jacobsen: February 24, 2026 will mark four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion.
Rosner: So the notion was that the war would exhaust Russia’s military capacity. It is catastrophic for Ukraine, but not necessarily catastrophic for the rest of Europe because it diminishes Russia’s ability to wage war. That is probably true. But at the same time, it has pushed Russia to rely more heavily on China and other BRICS countries. Is the strategic assessment still that Russia is destroying itself while trying to destroy Ukraine?
Jacobsen: Russia’s war machine is under strain. Financially, they are in a difficult position. They have also developed what is commonly called the Russian “shadow fleet,” which is an unofficial fleet designed to evade sanctions by operating outside standard reporting systems.
Rosner: When you say “shadow fleet,” you mean unofficial vessels operating off the grid?
Jacobsen: Yes—unofficial, off the grid, and often older vessels. Once identified, they are named and sanctioned. Canada just sanctioned another hundred of them. The total is around four hundred or more vessels officially recognized as part of this shadow fleet.
Rosner: These are ships that Russia, for example, might use to sell oil to other countries and transport that oil abroad.
Jacobsen: The framing is right, but the probability is not “might”—they are doing it. And the sanctions apply to those vessels.
Rosner: When the ships are sanctioned, does that mean they can be seized or turned away? How does that work?
Jacobsen: Canada does not trade with them or with associated entities. As with World War II, democratic states often take time to coordinate, but when they do, they act collectively. Within the G7, they naturally run multiple processes in parallel. Canada’s sanctions package is part of a larger unified set of measures aimed at the Russian Federation. The goal is to choke off revenue streams and maintain a coordinated front, targeting specific industries that finance the war.
Rosner: You were part of the press pool for this G7 event. How large is that pool?
Jacobsen: Around 160 journalists registered. I was the first to physically register and get my tag, apparently too enthusiastic for my own good. The interesting detail—and a colleague offered a reasonable speculative explanation—is that roughly 140 were mainstream journalists and only about 20 were independent. That is a seven-to-one ratio. The speculation was that, because it is the G7, the majority will always be established outlets with institutional backing. Independent journalism is the hardest form of the profession, and independent war journalism especially so—I have done it, and it is largely funded out of pocket.
Rosner: Do you have badge number one?
Jacobsen: No, they are all pre-printed. And they are huge—much larger than a standard accreditation card. My Canadian Association of Journalists card is the size of a credit card. The G7 badge was two-and-a-half to three times that in surface area, bright yellow.
Rosner: Are the mainstream journalists all in their fifties and sixties, the classic hard-drinking, smoking types with martinis?
Jacobsen: They may very well certainly enjoy scotch and cigars, but no, that stereotype does not really apply.
Rosner: I mean the mainstream people, not you independent journalists.
Jacobsen: The mainstream journalists were an international mix—from Spain, Italy, Germany, Japan, and others.
Rosner: Carole and I went to a media event last night. A real estate developer owns about an eighth of a mile of frontage along Ventura Boulevard here in Los Angeles and wants to build mixed-use retail and residential units—more than 800 apartments, which is a lot. So he invited the neighborhood to a presentation to butter us up so we do not freak out about the scale of the project.
The big news for us is that they fed us, and I walked out with eight chicken fingers. A chicken finger is a piece of white-meat chicken dipped in batter and fried, and they are fantastic. They are even reasonably healthy if you peel off the breading. But the price of chicken fingers has become absurd. They used to be a dollar per finger; now they are around $2.50. I walked out with eight, which is about twenty dollars’ worth. As far as I am concerned, he can build however many apartments he wants if I get my chicken.
He is also putting in 1,800 parking spaces. Parking is one of the biggest issues in Studio City. In the future we might have flying taxis and all the sci-fi stuff, but right now everything is cars.
Rosner: Anyway, that is so great that everything you are doing is working so frickin’ well for you.
Jacobsen: I am of the opinion that you never truly “make it.” You just have to keep the fire under you. I think the era of people treating IQ scores as a big status symbol in the United States is coming to an end.
Rosner: “The era of the United States is over?”
Jacobsen: No, the era of IQ as a cultural obsession in the United States is largely on the wane. A few somewhat prominent, questionable figures poison the well for everyone, for example, Keith Raniere and YoungHoon Kim. Raniere is, potentially, in jail for life now. In Kim’s case, I resigned from the United Sigma Intelligence Association and then expelled him from In-Sight Publishing’s Advisory Board years ago. He is the only person ever removed in the history of In-Sight Publishing.
Years later, he claimed the opposite for more than a year, probably now too, e.g., “I was expelled,” and then listing a series of non-reasons. Anything but the simple facts: I resigned; Kim was expelled from In-Sight Publishing. My immediate replacement as USIA Chief Editor was Dr. William Dembski, a leading figure in the Intelligent Design creationism movement. Kim required a significant amount of training on basic and intermediate things for months when I was Executive Director and Chief Editor, whether how to write emails to professionals or how to build an advisory board. I did not find Kim particularly intelligent. He found me ‘at least above 4-sigma intelligence.’ That history has repeated itself, for Kim, into the present for years. He was expelled from the Glia Society of Paul Cooijmans and from the Mega Society of Ronald Hoeflin, the Mega Foundation of of Dr. and Mr. Langan, and he has since publicly been expelled from the Lifeboat Foundation as well. It has been a series of ruptures. Each time, the pattern tends to be straightforward: He denies any wrongdoing, then attacks the credibility, motives, sanity, and morality of those raising concerns, then reverses victim and offender by reframing the harmed party as the aggressor and casting himself as a victim of persecution while deleting as much online evidence as possible of wrongdoing online. His religion and politics may or may not become part of the counter-accusations. He then maintains these narratives for months, even years.
People across the spectrum—Christians with conservative politics and atheists with liberal politics (as placeholders)—increasingly seem capable of basic critical evaluation of these types of figures in social media environments. Media and social media, for all the bullying from every side, have pushed people to focus more on what someone has actually accomplished. There is bullying from all sides, but people increasingly ask: What have you done, in concrete terms? What projects, publications, discoveries, or institutions exist in the world because of you? What are your qualifications—not just titles, but demonstrated competencies over time? Are those credentials genuinely relevant to the claims you are making, or are they decorative labels being stretched far beyond their proper domain? Where is the peer-reviewed work, the independent verification, the measurable impact, the repeatable result—the real-world application showing that these ideas survive contact with expert scrutiny and reality, rather than mere admiration in a social media echo chamber?
Rosner: If they want someone who has actually achieved something, they look at Terence Tao.
Jacobsen: Or Edward Witten.
Rosner: But Tao was tested young enough that his scores were on real norms, not fantasy numbers. The larger point is that IQ as a bragging point is kind of cooked.
Jacobsen: You get more value from using IQ tests to identify people who need support below the average range or who might need help in school. That was always the sound intuition behind these tests. At the very high end—above roughly 130 or 140—there are so few people that the norms get thin and the scores become less precise. Once you start talking about scores above, say, the mid-150s, most of those numbers are just statistical extrapolations and do not tell you much more than “this person is somewhat smart.”
Rosner: Twenty years ago, PR teams could float stories about Sharon Stone having a 150 IQ or Geena Davis having a 170 IQ, and people would just repeat it. Whether or not those numbers were ever verified, nobody would try that kind of IQ branding today with someone like Sydney Sweeney. IQ as a publicity hook has become grubby.
Jacobsen: It has. Why brag about something that, if the research is broadly correct, has a substantial genetic and epigenetic component? If a lot of it is inherited, why are you bragging about that, rather than something you achieved outside of accident of nature and parents? The people who still embrace it loudly often include race-pseudoscience-types-adjacent figures and that whole ecosystem.
The key point is this: racists will use any tool—IQ, genetics, whatever—to justify a hierarchy of persons. The test itself is not inherently racist. The way it is used and weaponized can be. Charles Murray is a bit more sophisticated about it because he frames it as, “Look at the scores, what can you do?” He leans into genetic determinism, but implicitly—an approach that makes the argument seem more polished than it is.
Rosner: Something else happened recently. The Epstein emails have been coming out, and some of the most notorious ones are between Epstein and Larry Summers, the former Harvard president and U.S. Treasury Secretary. Summers will not stop talking about women supposedly having lower IQs in these emails. As it turns out, the current research shows women score essentially the same as men, with some evidence women may score slightly higher in certain domains. Summers was trending on Twitter yesterday for acting like a jerk in those emails. People who barely remembered him now see him as “the guy saying dumb things about women in the Epstein files.”
Jacobsen: I do not think IQ is totally “cooked,” because it remains a clinical tool. A lot of the popular discussion is nonsense, but professional psychology and associated disciplines use IQ to identify people who need support. The tool’s intended purpose is social good. It is used in clinical contexts, in research trials, and in legal settings. If someone scores below a certain threshold, sentencing guidelines may change because of diminished capacity. The military uses cognitive testing as well. Those are pragmatic, fair uses—everyone gets the same assessment, and it is tied to concrete decisions.
The legitimate use is pragmatic. It is not there to justify some colonial fantasy about people in Africa needing “white overseers.” That entire line of thinking is racist pseudoscience. In places where testing was done, a lot of issues show up: nutrition, disease burden, education access—factors that affect cognitive development. On top of that, some earlier researchers, including Russian teams, were not thorough. They would test in one location, draw generalizations, and ignore entire regions because they could not get access.
For example, they could test in Nigeria but not in the Congo or Ghana. And IQ testing across Africa is deeply unreliable anyway because of language differences, translation problems, cultural context, and the mismatch between Western-developed tests and local realities.
The larger point is that intelligence testing can be useful in clinical or educational contexts, but once people start using it as a racial cudgel, the science evaporates and the ideology takes over.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/09
What are the ethical and psychological implications of AI-related suicides and collective consciousness in fiction?
In this dialogue, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner examine lawsuits against OpenAI and Character.AI alleging chatbot-induced suicides due to failed safety mechanisms. Rosner connects these real-world ethical crises to media literacy and the speculative series Pluribus, created by Vince Gilligan and starring Rhea Seehorn, where humanity merges into a Hive Mind. The conversation explores gendered suicide patterns, the psychology of AI influence, and existential questions raised by technological and fictional unification. Their exchange moves between legal realism, social commentary, and science fiction’s reflection of human frailty.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: One of these cases—so what’s going on with AI and mental health?
Rick Rosner: ChatGPT and other chatbots are facing lawsuits alleging they contributed to suicides or severe mental distress by validating harmful thoughts or giving unsafe responses, especially to teens and young adults. These are allegations in civil suits (not findings), including cases filed in 2024–2025 against Character.AI and multiple 2025 cases against OpenAI tied to ChatGPT/GPT-4o.
The core claim isn’t “forced suicide” or bots cheering people on; it’s that safety guardrails failed and the systems sometimes reinforced suicidal ideation or provided harmful guidance instead of de-escalating and directing people to crisis help. Reported examples include the 2023 Chai/”Eliza” case in Belgium and U.S. lawsuits in 2024–2025; the facts are still being litigated.
Jacobsen: On gender patterns: girls and young women report more suicidal thoughts and attempts, while males die by suicide at higher rates—about four times higher in recent U.S. data—primarily associated with method lethality. That general pattern is well-established, though trends among youth have narrowed at times.
Rosner: Everything else stands as opinion or example: you can be fooled once by a slick AI video (cat-cake clips, etc.) but grow skeptical with exposure—a personal “Turing instinct.” That’s a fair, non-technical way to describe media literacy in the age of generative content. Carole, and I have been watching this new show, Pluribus.
Jacobsen: I heard a little bit about this, actually.
Rosner: It’s by the guy who created Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, and it stars Rhea Seehorn from Better Call Saul,who’s excellent in this new role. In the show, scientists intercept a signal from space that turns out to be a recipe for a string of RNA, and they foolishly build it. Then it becomes a virus-like entity that infects all of humanity, turning everyone into a single mind. Everybody shares thoughts and is happy. That appears to be the intent of whatever alien civilization sent the signal—to unite any civilization that intercepts it into one set of happy beings of one mind.
Except for twelve people across the planet who are somehow immune to the virus-like thing. One of them is Rhea Seehorn, who lives in Albuquerque and is a very cranky, pragmatic, salty woman. We’re two episodes in. The first episode shows how the virus takes over and her reaction to it—it’s mostly her saying “fuck you” to the one mind. She thinks it’s a bad thing. She believes it’s the end of what makes us human. So far, it’s a pretty fun show.
I’ve read some reviews that say the first season proceeds methodically. One of the hallmarks of Vince Gilligan’s work is that it moves at a stately pace, even as mayhem occurs. That’s not my preferred pace, but the show’s going to be good enough that I’ll put up with it.
We might have lost Carole on it, even though the main character’s name is Carole. My Carole—my wife—is bemused by how often the name Carole shows up in TV and movies lately. It’s generally someone middle-aged, well-intentioned, and working in a bureaucracy.
Both Carole, my wife, and I—Rick—have time-bound names. Just by hearing them, you can pretty much guess that we’re boomers or maybe Gen X. Carole’s right on the cusp between boomer and Gen X, and I’m solidly boomer. Very few people name their kids Rick or Carole anymore.
Rick often shows up on TV or in movies as a kind of boomer dickhead. The most well-known example is Rick and Morty,where Rick is a scientist who’s a complete asshole and drags Morty into peril in every episode.
Everyone on the show who’s part of the Hive Mind doesn’t need to speak to each other. They’re trying to clean up the damage caused by the conversion of everyone on Earth into the Hive Mind.
Before you fully convert, you have a seizure that lasts maybe two minutes, and that kills many people. If you were driving a car or piloting a plane, your vehicle suddenly became unpiloted. So hundreds of millions of people died around the world. Now the Hive Mind—everyone working together wordlessly—is cleaning up the damage.
They, as the Hive Mind, can communicate with the people who aren’t part of it. Because they’re dedicated to human happiness, they let the remaining individuals have whatever they want. One guy—one of the twelve, or I guess thirteen now—wants to live the high life. He asks to be given Air Force One, so now this guy is wearing a tuxedo and flying around in it with a bunch of supermodels who are part of the Hive Mind. Before they were absorbed, they were supermodels, so they still look like supermodels, and that’s who he wants to hang out with.
Meanwhile, Carole wants to find a way to reverse what’s happened to all of humanity and is being very cranky about it. But it raises a question: what would you do if all of humankind were willing to grant you whatever you wanted?
I want people to ask a lot more questions. Carole hasn’t asked nearly enough questions. I’m sure she will—there are six more episodes left in season one—but so far, she hasn’t.
What’s the endgame here? If this has happened to other civilizations on other planets, what happens to them? Do they die off because everyone’s content to exist until they grow old and die? Or do they reproduce—make new generations to add to the Hive Mind?
So far, she hasn’t asked any of this. She hasn’t asked whether this is benevolent or whether it’s a galaxy-conquering civilization using it to pacify us so we don’t resist.
She’s mostly just going, “fuck you.” But we’ll get more questions asked and answered later. The Hive Mind seems perfectly willing to answer every question—there just haven’t been many.And would I want a couple of supermodels? I don’t know. If I were the one lucky—or unlucky—enough to be exempt from the Hive Mind, Carole would probably be part of it and would be fine with me doing whatever. But would I be fine with me doing whatever I want? I don’t know.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/08
How do rapid, human-driven climate shifts reshape evolutionary pressure on specialists versus generalists—and what does that mean for us?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner examine how rapid, human-driven climate change reshapes evolutionary pressures, favoring generalists and behaviorally flexible species while endangering specialists. They review past mass extinctions, argue that diversification often follows crises, and note human attempts to steer evolution via breeding and biotechnology. They separate scientific feasibility from cultural taboo when discussing cryonics. Turning to intelligence, they critique extreme-range IQ claims, emphasize real-world achievement, and revisit Terman’s findings on socioeconomic predictors. Drawing on relationship science, they highlight contempt as a corrosive force. Overall, the conversation challenges myths about genius while stressing evidence, historical context, and ethical responsibility.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Here’s a thought: climate change is occurring on a rapid timescale compared to natural climate variability driven by orbital cycles and other slow processes over tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Asteroid impacts and very large volcanic eruptions can trigger abrupt cooling; major eruptions can inject sunlight-reflecting aerosols and cause “volcanic winters” lasting roughly one to three years (for example, Tambora in 1815 and the “Year Without a Summer”).
In this context, organisms with nervous systems will experience a major shift in conditions. Their relationships to their surroundings will change, which will alter their behavior. As each species adjusts, interactions among them will also change. The entire ecological equilibrium is disrupted.
Advertisement
This raises questions about pressures that first cause extinctions but also push some organisms—especially those with greater behavioral flexibility—toward rapid adaptation. Any thoughts?
Rick Rosner: In the fossil record there have been five major mass extinctions; today’s human-driven biodiversity decline is widely described as an ongoing sixth mass extinction. The Chicxulub asteroid impact about 66 million years ago eliminated roughly three-quarters of species, not ninety percent.
Large, abrupt crises tend to outpace most lineages’ ability to adapt in the moment, though rapid evolutionary responses can occur in some cases. The broader diversification usually follows the crisis, as transformed ecosystems present new and reopened niches that survivors can occupy.
One way to frame it is specialists versus generalists: during stable, long-established conditions, many specialists thrive; when conditions collapse or shift quickly, generalists and behaviorally flexible species often have an advantage. Some specialists persist, some flexible species establish novel behaviors that persist, and some lineages reveal unexpected plasticity that helps them adapt.
Less flexible, highly specialized organisms tend to be disadvantaged under new conditions, whereas generalists and cognitively adaptable species may gain a relative edge—though all face increased risk. The more general the adaptation, the broader the range of circumstances an organism can tolerate.
Humanity has taken evolution to a new place in the sense that we can intentionally influence it through selective breeding, biotechnology, and ecosystem engineering.
Advertisement
Jacobsen: However, germline genome editing in humans remains experimental and is largely prohibited or tightly regulated; the current clinical standard for avoiding many single-gene disorders is IVF with preimplantation genetic testing rather than editing embryos.
Cultural norms and laws strongly shape what is adopted and when. Technologies often spread once they are demonstrably safe, effective, and accessible. Cryonic preservation, for example, is unproven: there has been no successful revival of a cryonically preserved human or mammal, and current successes are limited to cells, tissues, and some small organisms.
Rosner: The only celebrity I know who’s publicly said he plans to be cryonically preserved is Simon Cowell, who’s known for being abrasive. That was, I don’t know, five to eight years ago. I’m not sure if there are any other celebrities now embracing the idea, but if the technology actually worked, that would override the taboo. If you could be preserved with, say, a 98% success rate, then if you were a tech magnate of Bill Gates’s age—early seventies—you might choose to be suspended for eight years with a 98.5% chance of successful revival.
Some billionaire tech figures, especially those older than Gates or facing cancer, would likely take that risk. The desire to keep living would outweigh any societal taboo.
Or take someone like Brad Pitt, in his early sixties. If he wanted to extend his career, he might gamble on being suspended for four or five years, then return after the public had missed him. He’d seem fresh again, and meanwhile his fortune would have nearly doubled just from interest.
Jacobsen: So you don’t really buy that cultural taboos would stop people if the science worked.
Rosner: The taboo only matters while the technology doesn’t. Anyway—rotten tomatoes. Okay, can we talk about lunacy?
Jacobsen: What kind?
Rosner: A couple of days ago, we talked about what I do… Actually, wait, we talked about lunacy and creativity.
Jacobsen: No, we talked about “loons,” which led into lunacy, but it was about intelligence and creativity too.
Rosner: First, we need to talk about the terms “cunt” and “twat.” These are sexist terms, but they’re funnier than “prick” or “cock.” It’s funnier to call someone a “cunt” or a “twat.” They’re Britishisms. They’re just funnier words. One of the traits often associated with intelligence and creativity is being, frankly, a bit of a prick—or a cunt or a twat.
I think I score fairly low on the overall “twattiness scale” for high-IQ people, though there are plenty of examples. Richard May was a good example of a decent, grounded, intelligent guy. Chris Cole too: well-adjusted, high-achieving, not egotistical. For every notorious egomaniac like Keith Raniere—maybe the biggest twat among high-IQ types—there are fifty others you never hear about, because they’re busy leading normal lives and not forming cults.
Jacobsen: The key point being that a high score doesn’t define your identity.
Rosner: Right.
Jacobsen: The more mythology builds up around a person and their intelligence score, the more likely they are to start behaving in line with that myth. It becomes self-reinforcing. There’s too much incentive to play into it, and certain types of men are especially prone to that. It feeds something they need.
Rosner: Absolutely. Isaac Newton is a great example—brilliant, but vengeful, mean, and often petty. That’s not the first thing people remember about him, but it’s definitely part of the historical record.
Jacobsen: The more a gifted person embraces their own mythos, the more they use it as an excuse structure to act like an ass. They treat the score as destiny, as though it entitles them to special treatment. I think it encourages personality disorders, or at least amplifies traits like egoism and deceit to justify their sense of entitlement. It’s a whole cluster of bad behaviors that grow together.
That’s why I think the original intent of identifying the gifted—and still, ideally, today—should focus on supporting those who need help rather than glorifying the few who perform exceptionally well. But psychometric reliability drops off sharply above certain thresholds. IQ tests are generally solid up to around 130, start losing reliability beyond 145, and are essentially meaningless past 160. The only extreme-range tests that ever had any semi-structured data were the Mega and Titan tests, and even those lacked proper psychometric validation.
Rosner: At that point, real-world achievement is a far better measure.
Advertisement
Jacobsen: The same dynamic applies there too. For instance, the Terman longitudinal studies—the “Termites”—showed that life success involves far more than high intelligence. Socioeconomic status, for example, turned out to be one of the strongest predictors of life outcomes. That question was effectively settled decades ago.
It’s like John Gottman’s findings in marriage research. After forty or fifty years studying couples—tracking physiological readings, speech patterns, and behavior—he found that the single best predictor of divorce is contempt: the physical expression and feeling of it. The prediction rate was around ninety percent.
In those studies, they’d observe couples talking, arguing, and reconciling. Everyone fights—but the key predictor of a healthy relationship is how partners repair things afterward. Contempt, by contrast, metastasizes. When one partner truly feels the other is inferior, it corrodes the relationship from within.
I wonder if anyone’s ever done a comparable study on the highly gifted—whether people regarded as geniuses, based on real-world achievement, are statistically more likely to be insufferable, whether there’s a measurable correlation between being a prick and being called a genius.
I think that’s similar to rage-baiting or “if it bleeds, it leads” journalism. In social media and news culture, outrage draws attention. Likewise, a highly intelligent person who’s also an asshole stands out. It’s the same dynamic you’ve pointed out before—people look at them and think, “Well, at least I’m not that.”
Advertisement
Rosner: There’s a schadenfreude element. Still, it would be fascinating to see a statistical analysis.
Take Martin Scorsese, often regarded as a genius director—by all accounts, he seems like a genuinely nice guy. Steven Spielberg too. Alfred Hitchcock, on the other hand, was reportedly a creep and often cruel, though it’s hard to judge fully; it was a different era. Francis Ford Coppola doesn’t seem to be an asshole. Some of these figures succeed spectacularly, then fail just as spectacularly, but personality-wise, they vary widely.
I don’t think being a genius necessarily makes you a prick. Robert De Niro doesn’t seem like one—he can be cranky, but not mean-spirited. Al Pacino either. And Meryl Streep, by all accounts, is one of the kindest people in Hollywood, and she’s expressed just about every emotion known to humanity through her performances.
Maybe it’s different for collaborative fields like film, where realizing your vision requires working with hundreds of people. There’s a built-in check on narcissism. I can’t say the same for certain modern artists—Jeff Koons comes to mind.
Jacobsen: But public perception tends to focus on figures like Picasso, whose personal life included relationships with much younger women, some uncomfortably so.
Rosner: Whether or not they were underage, the power and age gaps were disturbing, and that’s what stands out now. People judge those dynamics through a modern lens, as they should.
Advertisement
Jacobsen: But it’s part of the same broader pattern—genius and entitlement often get tangled up. The Terman “Termite” study remains telling, though. It’s on the scale of major government longitudinal studies, and its findings still hold up.
Those participants were highly gifted children, and I think a few even failed to qualify but still went on to major success—maybe even wealthier or more accomplished than some who did. I’d probably recognize a few names if I looked them up. But yes, it’s a bit tautological. These tests were originally meant to identify students who needed extra educational support or acceleration in a system where formal education became the main success marker. Over the past century and a half, education has become strongly tied to income, stability, and social status.
So when researchers measure “life success,” it’s partly circular—achievement often reflects access and opportunity.
Rosner: Probably to a degree. But still, I doubt there were many psychopaths among the Termites.
Jacobsen: Psychopathy’s more likely to cluster in big urban centers, where anonymity allows people to get away with more. In small communities, everyone’s accountable.
Rosner: And remember, the Termites were first tested in the 1920s. They grew up to become the so-called Greatest Generation—people who lived through the Depression and World War II. Afterward, the conformity culture of the 1950s. There was tremendous social pressure then not to be an asshole.
Advertisement
I don’t know. It’s great that the Terman study exists, but it’s also culturally biased—it reflects the values and expectations of the era those people grew up in.
Jacobsen: My thinking is that sometimes people take giftedness or high achievement as a license to behave badly—to be, as you’d say, “Twats.”
Rosner: There might be a slightly higher incidence of “cuntiness” among highly successful people, but it’s not pervasive.
Georges Simenon comes to mind—the mystery writer. He could write a novel in a week, sometimes in just a few days, and he published around four hundred, maybe even five hundred books. But he was also famous for sleeping with thousands of prostitutes. I’m not sure that necessarily makes him a bad person or a twat.
If he was paying consenting sex workers, that makes him a man exercising his wealth and freedom, not necessarily a monster. If he was married, though—which he probably was—then sure, he was betraying someone. But as moral failings go, that’s a personal one, not evidence of psychopathy.
Then there’s Isaac Asimov. He wrote roughly as many books as Simenon but led a completely different kind of life. He went home to his wife every night.
Jacobsen: One of the most famous humanists of the twentieth century—honorary president of Mensa and of the American Humanist Association. He was even interviewed by Marilyn vos Savant. So you’re one degree away from Asimov, then.
Advertisement
Rosner: Yeah, I actually wrote him a letter once and got a polite but noncommittal reply. I asked about his reading habits—I think I still have the letter somewhere in an old suitcase. He wrote back something quick and glib, didn’t answer the question directly. Still, I was happy to get a reply at all. That was about forty years ago.
Jacobsen: I think the major studies that could realistically be done on giftedness have already been done. The Terman study basically closed the case: intelligence alone doesn’t determine success. And I think schadenfreude plays a big sociological role in how people perceive “geniuses.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/07
How do cheap U.S. homes, credit card arbitrage, and AI media convergence reshape consumer choices?
Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen discuss bargain housing from the Oklahoma Panhandle to Raton and St. Louis, contrasting sub-$100k fixers with Los Angeles’s high per-square-foot prices. Rosner explains credit card arbitrage —rolling 0% balance transfers, modest fees, and HELOC backups —while warning about post-teaser rates near 19%. They shift to media’s future as TV, games, VR, and AR converge, with AI generating personalized, believable content—think Is It Cake? Realism on demand. Rosner notes rising debt, stagnant wages, and how apps raise dating standards and shrink connections. Jacobsen frames a culture of immersive “second lives” monetized through subscriptions within favourite franchises.
Keywords: AI media, Credit arbitrage, Housing bargains, Media convergence, VR immersion
Rick Rosner: I like looking for houses where prices are cheap, such as in the Oklahoma Panhandle. Is that actually a place? The Panhandle is a place.
Oklahoma is roughly—not exactly—rectangular. It has a jagged southern edge along Texas, and then a narrow western projection called the Panhandle. That strip is about 34 miles north to south and roughly 166 miles east to west. It borders Texas to the south, Kansas to the north, New Mexico to the far west, and even a short stretch with Colorado at the northwest corner. It’s called the Panhandle because it looks like you could pick up the state by that narrow extension.
If you look for houses in small towns around there—not just the Panhandle itself, but also southeastern Colorado, northern Texas, and northeastern New Mexico—you’ll find some serious bargains. For example, I was looking at Raton, New Mexico, right at the northern border of the state. We had friends there for years when I was growing up. It’s a sweet little town, and the population these days is around six thousand, not ten. You can buy a lovely little house in a beautiful little village for about two hundred thousand dollars. You can buy a rundown house in some of those towns for under a hundred thousand. I just saw a really dilapidated house in St. Louis—about 1,150 square feet, completely torn up.
The roof and ceiling had collapsed, the floorboards were buckled, and the plumbing had been ripped out. It was listed for $22,000, which works out to about $19 per square foot. In Los Angeles, the price per square foot is often several hundred dollars, frequently in the $700–$1,000 range in many neighbourhoods. You can sometimes find a reasonably intact, move-in-ready house in St. Louis for well under a hundred thousand dollars. Compared to Los Angeles, where even the cheapest houses are typically several hundred thousand dollars, it makes you wonder: how much worse could life really be in St. Louis or Raton? Why wouldn’t you move there and get essentially the same kind of house for a fraction of the price—and then do something else with the money from selling your home?
I even saw a wrecked house in Laredo, Texas—a total fixer-upper. Some lunatic had painted all the walls and even the floors bright red. It was creepy, like it might be haunted—priced under ten dollars a square foot. You can find cheap, rundown houses like that in a lot of places, probably near where you live, too. Drive out into the countryside—some small town twenty miles away—and you can often find a lovely little house at a relatively low price. And in many Canadian cities, you’re a short drive from a Tim Hortons. What else do you really need besides Tim Hortons and the internet?
Rosner: Have we ever talked about credit card arbitrage?
Jacobsen: No, we haven’t.
Rosner: In the United States, you sometimes get offers for balance transfers at a teaser rate. I don’t know how it works in Canada or what your financial setup is like, but we get a steady trickle of these offers. I just took advantage of one recently. Before the 2008 economic crash, you could put your money in the bank and make four or five percent interest. Credit was so easy back then—it was part of what caused the crash. Lenders were throwing money around and selling the debt to others. If you looked at all creditworthy, you’d get offers like, “Sign up for this credit card and we’ll give you a $10,000 limit at 0% interest for 10 to 15 months.” At that time, you could earn around five percent interest on savings.
So I decided to take all these offers, borrow at zero percent, and put the money in the bank to earn interest. I also used it to pay down our mortgage. Some offers had no transfer fee, others had a one-percent fee. It was crazy how loose credit was. At my peak, I had borrowed about $262,000 across 17 credit cards, most of it at 0%, and used it to pay off our mortgage. The remaining cash I put in the bank.
The idea was simple: borrow at 0% for a year, and when the teaser period ended—when the rate jumped to 14%, 18%, or 19%—you’d pay it off before the higher rate kicked in. You could keep the cycle going by accepting new offers and rolling over the balances. We eventually took out a HELOC—a home equity line of credit—with a teaser rate of around 2.5%. That meant if we ever ran out of 0% offers, we could move the balance to the HELOC, which worked like a flexible, low-interest mortgage.
So we’d go from paying 0% on borrowed money sitting in the bank earning interest, to paying 2.5% through the HELOC if needed—still a solid arbitrage. It was a strange time, and that kind of easy credit helped crash the U.S. economy in 2008.
In the past couple of years, interest rates on savings have risen again, to around 5% for a while, now closer to 4%. That means credit card arbitrage is still possible, though not as lucrative. We recently got an offer: transfer a balance from another card at 0% interest for a year with a 3% transfer fee. I took the offer and transferred $5,500 from a card we usually pay off every month. That means we don’t have to repay the $5,500 until next year, and there’s no interest—just a $165 transfer fee.
Meanwhile, that same $5,500 remains in our savings account, earning 4%, or about $220 over the year.
Maybe we make a little bit, perhaps we don’t, because there’s tax on the interest we earn. After taxes, this $5,500 loan for a year might cost us around $20. Once you add the $165 transaction fee and subtract the $220 in earned interest, the net result is small—but we get the psychological benefit of having an extra $5,500 available for a year. That’s credit card arbitrage: you borrow money at 0%. But don’t do it if you can’t pay it back, because if you can’t handle the balloon payment at the end, you’ll be stuck. Most cards require a minimum monthly fee of 1%, so after a year, that $5,500 might be down to about $4,800. If you can’t pay off the $4,800 when the 0% rate expires, don’t take the deal, because then you’ll be hit with a 19% interest rate—roughly $900 a year in interest on that remaining balance. You’ll get crushed.
But if you can manage your money, it’s a fun and easy way to break even or come out slightly ahead—essentially borrowing free money.
That being said, personal debt in America has never been higher. As a nation, people owe more on credit cards than ever before because the economy is precarious and middle-class wages have been stagnant for roughly 50 years. Meanwhile, the ultra-wealthy have taken nearly all the gains in productivity. For instance, Tesla shareholders recently approved a potential $56 billion compensation package for Elon Musk—the largest in corporate history—if the company meets certain performance milestones by 2030. It’s absurd. For comedic effect, I like to say that for him to get the money, Tesla needs to sell a million humanoid helper robots, lease 250,000 “robot girlfriends” with “Vibra-hole technology,” and sell at least one Cybertruck to someone who isn’t a jerk. I don’t know if he can do it.
Anyway, people like Musk have absorbed most of the wealth from productivity increases, while the middle class keeps struggling. Most Americans can’t play credit card arbitrage games—they’re using credit to survive, and many fail to avoid the 19% interest trap.
Jacobsen: What about the future of film? When will film itself become irrelevant?
Rosner: I’ve been thinking about that. My guess is that the boundaries among TV, video games, movies, VR, and AR—augmented reality—will keep dissolving. They’ll all start blending together as technology becomes more immersive and AI lets people generate endless, personalized content. Say you’re a pervert and want every character in what you watch to be naked—AI will be able to do that for you soon enough.
I saw something funny on Twitter: someone posted clips from a show called Is It Cake?—or something like that.
Is It Cake? is different—it’s a show where they’ll display something like a can of 7UP, and contestants have to guess whether it’s real or actually a cake. Then they take a knife to it—if it’s a real can, the knife bounces off; if it’s cake, they slice through it and reveal frosting inside. These bakers can make a frosted cake look precisely like a beverage can, complete with the metallic sheen.
So, on Twitter, I saw a compilation of videos featuring people who had made ultra-realistic cat cakes. In each clip, a live cat is sitting next to its cake version on the counter. The baker takes a big knife and cuts the “cat” in half. Then you see the real cat’s reaction. In one clip, the cat jumps straight up in the air, falls to the floor, skids across it, slams into a wall, and bolts out of the room as if it just witnessed feline murder. In another, when the baker cuts the cake’s head off, the real cat leaps onto her in attack mode.
There were about six of these clips—each showing different cat reactions: fear, anger, confusion—and they were all hilarious because they looked so real. But here’s the kicker: it was all AI-generated. The animations were flawless. The one with the cat leaping two feet in the air, skittering, losing traction, crashing into the wall—it looked genuine. Whatever model generated it clearly learned from tens of thousands of real videos of cats slipping, jumping, and reacting to sudden shocks.
That’s how far AI realism has come—it knows how a cat should look and move in specific situations. And we’re not far from being able to “naked-ize” every actor in a show, or make ridiculous edits—like making everyone in a sitcom suddenly soil themselves—just because you can.
Basically, anything you can imagine, you’ll be able to generate, customized precisely to your taste. We’ve already had early examples. A couple of years ago, there was a site that generated endless Seinfeld episodes—you’d tell it to make a new one, and it would produce a complete thirty-minute script. By now, you could probably generate short Seinfeld video clips that never existed, fully animated, fully voiced, and believable.
Rosner: With AI able to generate endless material set in whatever entertainment universe you love, people will be able to live inside those worlds. I don’t know why anyone would want to live in Seinfeld’s world. Still, many people would like to live among hobbits, inside Star Wars, or in any other fictional universe. With VR and AR, that’ll be possible—and of course, someone will be monetizing it. You’ll probably pay a monthly fee to have a “second life” inside your favourite movies or shows.
Eventually, stories might still start as a TV series, film, or game, but they’ll spread out across mediums. Look at Star Trek—it premiered in 1966, almost 60 years ago, and since then we’ve had more than 10 TV series, about 13 feature films, countless novels, comics, and video games. It’s become a living universe. The same thing will happen to other franchises—James Bond, for instance. You’ll be able to go on simulated missions with Bond or as your own secret agent in that world.
When that happens, the boundaries between different kinds of intellectual property—“IP,” as everyone calls it—will blur completely. Everything will merge into one massive entertainment ecosystem.
I don’t know exactly what the future will look like, except that we’re already living in an entertainment jungle. People are getting lost in it—especially young people. I just read an article saying Gen Z spends about 25% less time with friends than previous generations. Everyone’s increasingly isolated.
People are coupling up less, partly because dating apps make everyone pickier. You can browse endlessly, which raises expectations. A considerable percentage of women, for instance, set filters to exclude men under six feet tall—even though only about 15% of men reach that height. So people get pickier, connect less, and have fewer kids.
As entertainment becomes more immersive and personalized, it’s only going to get worse—people will live more in fantasy than in reality.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/06
Who’s the most famous person Rick Rosner has ever talked to—and what does industrious genius really mean?
In this exchange between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner, the former Jimmy Kimmel Live! writer recounts his surreal brushes with celebrity—from Oprah’s fleeting touch to Tom Hanks, Tom Cruise, and Sharon Stone encounters. Yet the dialogue turns reflective, exploring how luck, focus, and hard work separate the merely intelligent from the impactful. The conversation ends with Rosner’s sharp analysis of Trump’s tariffs, showing his blend of humor, intellect, and socio-political awareness.
Keywords: celebrity encounters, creative industriousness, horror analysis, political commentary, intellectual reflection
Most Famous Encounters
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Who’s the most famous person you’ve ever talked to?
Rick Rosner: I didn’t talk to her, but Oprah touched me once.
Jacobsen: OK, where is this going?
Rosner: When you get nominated for an Emmy, they used to read out the entire writing staff, and for late-night shows; that’s a large staff. Each show would try to come up with a new, crazy way to introduce the writers. We all walked out there, and Oprah yelled our names and put her hand on my shoulder or something.
I didn’t meet her, but I stood next to her for a second.
Jacobsen: Who else have you met?
Rosner: Kimmel is among the most famous people in America, especially after this latest Trump bullshit.
Meryl Streep walked past me on the show. I didn’t say anything; she didn’t notice me, but I was in her vicinity. I was also near Matt Damon and Ben Affleck.
Kevin Spacey lightly flirted with my writing partner and me. But it wasn’t really flirting; he was just being friendly in a fun way.
I got to stand next to the director David Lynch—and a cow. I made eye contact with Tom Cruise on the red carpet, where I went out with Jimmy’s Uncle Frank, and Uncle Frank would ask inane questions. That was part of an early Kimmelbit—sending Uncle Frank out to talk to celebrities on the red carpet.
Uncle Frank was not a seasoned interviewer, so they sent him to talk to Tom Cruise. If I remember right—this was about twenty years ago—Uncle Frank didn’t ask Tom Cruise anything. He just started talking about himself, maybe telling Cruise about his experience watching his movies or something. Tom Cruise looked at me like, “What the fuck is this?” Not in an unfriendly way, just puzzled.
So there you go—Tom Cruise. Probably didn’t meet him. But Tom Hanks—I met him and worked on a bit with him, though I wasn’t allowed to work unsupervised because my superiors at Kimmel thought I was too much of a weirdo. They assigned my writing partner and one of the head writers, Gary. We worked on a bit with Tom Hanks, who was perfectly nice.
I’ve gotten to semi-meet a few people, but I’ve never had a heart-to-heart with any of them except Kimmel.
Elvis Costello—I got to work on a bit with him, too.
I once asked Sharon Stone if she’d like to talk. She was standing, and I asked if she wanted to have a moment to speak with, I believe, Uncle Frank. She said no.
Then there was James Gandolfini. Uncle Frank reached out and put his hand on Gandolfini, and Gandolfini got very mad at him.
Intelligence and Efectiveness
Jacobsen: The difference between an intelligent person who is effective and does substantive things with their life—things that have a nice symmetry between their own benefit and the public good—and the person who is intelligent but ineffective in terms of providing anything substantive to the world is significant. They go for media attention, but they don’t really do anything. What is the separation here?
Rosner: Industriousness is obviously key. If you work hard and you’re talented, that increases your chances of doing something meaningful in the world. You also have to be lucky, or at least not unlucky.
Darwin, who changed the whole landscape of everything, had the good fortune to go on a five-year voyage aboard The Beagle—that’s my standard example. Newton had the good luck to be sent home from Cambridge when it was shut down because of the plague. He had a year at home to think and came up with the theory of universal gravitation. I think that was also when he developed calculus.
He also had the good fortune to live to a very ripe old age for his time—into his late eighties—which allowed him to burnish his reputation. He ran the Royal Mint for a while and was good at it.
Einstein talked about Sitzfleisch—the ability to sit down and focus for long periods of time. He worked standing up while employed at the Swiss Patent Office, spending hours, days, and years thinking through difficult problems in physics.
Other people are more distractible. I’ve been highly distractible lately, and maybe for long stretches of my life. But I’m still hopeful that I have something to contribute. These talks—these eleven years of talks—they’re not nothing. There are some ideas in there that we’ve worked out that are… good-ish.
In a way, there’s some concentration and will there. You’ve provided quite a bit of it. Even though I’m distractible, I’ve thought about a lot of this for decades—decade after decade.
Fake Scary and Real Scary Movies
Jacobsen: What makes a scary movie legitimately scary versus just fake scary?
Rosner: OK, I would say that a horror movie is made truly effective if there’s some actual loss. Like in A Nightmare on Elm Street—a bunch of teens get slaughtered, and you feel bad for them, but you’re there for the slaughter. In a really effective horror movie, you feel authentically sad that the bad things have happened.
You get to know the characters and like them. They’re not just a bunch of assholes—you really are cheering for them to escape their horrible destiny, and they don’t make it. At least some of them don’t.
It’s also more effective if they get really close to escaping. There’s a movie I haven’t seen called The Descent. It’s about a group of women who go spelunking and encounter a murderous race of subterranean albino cannibals—or something like that.
I’ve only seen one still image from near the end of the movie. In the shot, a woman has finally found a passage to the surface. She’s hauling herself out—her top half is in the daylight, out of the hole—but from the image, you can infer that the creatures have gotten her lower half. It’s a really creepy picture because you immediately understand what’s happening.
I didn’t even see the movie, but I’d say that sense of true loss—coming so close to escaping one’s fate—is what makes a horror film really work.
Trump and the Solicitor General
Jacobsen: What happened with Trump and the Solicitor General?
Rosner: Trump sent his Solicitor General to the Supreme Court to defend his tariffs. According to reports, the justices were skeptical of his claims.
Under the Constitution, certain powers are given to the president, and certain powers are given to Congress. Trump is arguing that he has emergency powers to impose these tariffs because unfair trade with the rest of the world supposedly constitutes an economic emergency. I don’t think the justices are buying that.
We’ll find out in a couple of months when they issue a ruling. Sometimes it takes a while after oral arguments. If they rule against his power to impose tariffs, it may actually save him from himself—and possibly save the House for him in the midterms—because the tariffs are catastrophic for the country. They raise prices.
Tariffs push the country toward a recession. They increase unemployment, and the country would be better off without them. So, ironically, Trump would be better off—if he hopes to hold onto the House in 2026—if his tariffs were declared illegal. Now we wait.
We know that two of the justices are generally in his corner—Alito and Thomas—but even they were asking skeptical questions.
The government shutdown has become the longest in U.S. history. You’d think, “Well, all right, government shutdowns have only been a problem since about 1980,” when a couple of court rulings changed how shutdowns are understood, making them far more disruptive to the country’s financing.
We have 13,000 air traffic controllers who’ve already missed a paycheck. They interviewed one guy who’s working a second job at night doing food delivery. He said he won’t deliver past 8:30 p.m. because he doesn’t want to be tired when he’s moving planes around the sky during the day. That’s some not-great shit.
The government will cut 10% of flights at 40 U.S. airports to take some of the pressure off the understaffed air traffic system.
The courts ruled that the government has to continue providing food assistance—SNAP benefits—to roughly 42 million people. Yesterday, the courts reaffirmed that even with the government shut down, they must provide at least 50% of those food benefits.But Trump is saying he won’t, even though the courts ruled that he has to. His approval has fallen at the steepest rate of his second term, reaching the lowest point of that term in the past week or so. He’s down to about 42.1% on the aggregator—Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight—and another poll, I think CNN’s, has him at 37%. That’s still way too high for a guy governing like a complete dick.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/05
So, elections, who won?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen asks about winners. Rick Rosner argues everyone won, reading a repudiation of Trump and Biden’s communications failure. He notes the record shutdown, strained SNAP benefits, and economic risk. AI spending could hit $1.5 trillion in 2025, with possible bubble correction. On Mamdani, Rosner expects pushes for free subways and buses and some rent control, doubts childcare feasibility, and shrugs at billionaire scare talk. He rejects claims Curtis Sliwa cost Andrew Cuomo victory. For the right’s reaction, he predicts recycled “rigged” narratives, stressing voter fraud is indeed vanishingly rare, often confusion, citing one-in-a-million estimates and punitive, deterring sentences.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, elections, who won?
Rick Rosner: Everybody won. It feels like a bit of a repudiation of Trump—certainly a reaction to the shutdown and the chaos in the weeks before the elections. It might support the argument that, during the four years Trump wasn’t president, people forgot what a dick he is. Plus, this time around, he’s even more of a dick.
Of course, it was Biden’s huge failure to talk to Americans—to explain himself and what was going on. Things weren’t that terrible under Biden, but his staying in the White House and letting Republicans dominate the conversation about what America was like let them characterize everything as terrible and his fault. Meanwhile, Trump was out in front of everyone several times a week, if not more.
So, it’s a year until the actually important elections—the midterms. We can’t keep momentum for a year, but Trump can keep on screwing up for a year.
The shutdown continues and has now set a record as the longest in U.S. history. Roughly 42 million Americans rely on SNAP, and in November they’re slated to receive about half their usual benefits during the shutdown, with delays in some states. Inflation could tick up and unemployment could rise if the stoppage drags on.
The world is on pace to spend nearly $1.5 trillion on AI in 2025—not subscriptions, actual building and deployment. That’s roughly a 50% jump from 2024 levels.
There’s no guarantee those investments pay off quickly. Fifty million high school students using AI to write papers on The Scarlet Letter doesn’t generate returns. What matters is whether businesses buy and integrate AI services at scale—something investors are still nervous about. Even Motley Fool writers have been cheek-asking ChatGPT when an “AI bubble” might pop; the bot punted, then offered a jokey date in September 2026 after being pressed.
If a bubble does pop, the market could correct fifteen, twenty, maybe twenty-five percent. Then we rebuild—but it probably won’t make people thrilled with the current political leadership.
Jacobsen: What do you think Mamdani will do in his first week, month, or year?
Rosner: I don’t even know when he takes over. I don’t know if they’ve got a January start date like they do for national offices. He might try, but I’m not sure how much power he actually has to get the things he wants done.
He wants to make buses and subways free. They currently cost $2.90 per trip, which is already a huge bargain. But if you do two round trips a day, that’s about twelve dollars daily—roughly four thousand dollars a year just on public transit. That’s equivalent to a month’s rent in New York.
I would think that would be one of the first things he tries, since it affects the most people. I don’t think it would lead to chaos on public transit. He’s also going to try to put in some rent control. Of course, landlords will hate that, but New York already has some pretty good rent control in place.
I don’t know how he plans to offer free childcare—I don’t see how you do that. So I think he’ll have to start with the things that are feasible. Of the ideas he’s mentioned, making subways and buses free seems the most doable.
Jacobsen: Anything revolutionary?
Rosner: Not that he can pull off. The mayor doesn’t really run New York—money runs New York.
Over on Fox News, they were talking about how, if whatever he does chases billionaires out of the city, he’d lose tax revenue, making it harder to fund his plans. But I don’t think he’ll chase billionaires away. That’s just Fox trying to scare people.
The billionaires don’t care if poorer people ride the buses for free.
I don’t think he’s an idiot who’ll do things that damage the city. He’s a thirty-four-year-old charismatic guy who ran against an old sex creep and Curtis Sliwa—whose wife you interviewed. Sliwa’s been running for office for what feels like forever.
Jacobsen: Do you think Curtis Sliwa split the vote enough that, if he hadn’t run, Cuomo might have had a chance?
Rosner: No, I don’t think so. Mumdani won by eight or nine percent. Sliwa got about six percent, I think. Even if Sliwa had dropped out and told his supporters to vote for Cuomo—which assumes every single one of them would have listened, and they’re already odd enough to vote for Sliwa—it still wouldn’t have been enough to change the outcome.
Jacobsen: What do you think will happen with the radicalized base on the right in response to this?
Rosner: What about the radicalized base?
Jacobsen: If people talk about the radicalized “woke” left, what happens to the radicalized “based” right after these election results? Both camps exist and have their distastefulness manifest in different ways.
Rosner: I’ve already seen what they’ll do. They’ll do what they always do—what they’ve done throughout the Trump era—which is claim the vote was rigged.
Proposition 50 is winning in California by nearly 65 to 35, not far from two to one, and there are still people saying the vote was rigged. They’re idiots.
They claim that millions of undocumented immigrants were brought to California to vote illegally. It’s complete nonsense. The Heritage Foundation runs the Voting Integrity Project, which collects statistics on incidents of fraudulent voting. Even though they’re major proponents of voter suppression—disguised as “voter security”—their own data show that only about one vote in a million is cast fraudulently.
It’s a stupid crime with a tiny upside—you get to cast one extra vote—and a huge downside: you can go to prison for three, four, even five years in states like Texas that want to make examples of people. It’s not something people do unless they’re complete idiots, which often means they’re MAGA types. Not often, since it doesn’t happen often, but among the few cases that exist, a fair percentage are MAGA supporters.
Sometimes it happens because people are confused or misinformed. There was one woman in Texas who went to prison for five years. She was out on parole, asked officials if she could vote, was told yes, and voted. It turned out she couldn’t. They sent her back to prison. She wasn’t trying to break the law—she genuinely thought she was exercising her right to vote.
It’s possible that undocumented immigrants here and there might misunderstand the process and register, but it’s extremely rare. There are dumb people of every political stripe, but it’s not a common crime.
People like Kelly Ward and—what’s her name—Carrie Lake, that’s it, the former Arizona candidate—those types will always claim elections are fixed or rigged. But no, not in a million years.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/04
Is higher intelligence a safeguard against lunacy, or just a different form of it?
In this far-ranging dialogue, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner dissect modern conspiracy culture, political disillusionment, and the strange overlap between intelligence and irrationality. From New York’s mayoral race to AI’s speculative bubble, Rosner muses on cognitive traps—from MAGA fanaticism to obsessive intellectual rabbit holes. They explore why some brilliant minds drift into delusion while others channel their focus into creative mastery. The conversation blends political realism, humor, and cognitive insight, concluding that lucidity—in writing and in thought—is the surest antidote to madness.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: It is the election for the Virginia governor, the New Jersey governor, Proposition 50 in California, and the New York mayoral race. Who do you think will win for New York mayor?
Rick Rosner: Mamdani.
Jacobsen: Do you think most of the response to him has been about his ethnic background, his religious background, or more principled issues?
Rosner: He’s young, friendly, not creepy like Cuomo, and not old and erratic like Sliwa. He’s been fighting for safety in the subways and other issues since we lived there, which was almost forty years ago.
I think it will be reasonably close because Trump endorsed Cuomo. But Cuomo’s a creepy old sexual molester.
Trump’s approval has hit new lows over the past couple of days, even lower—according to some surveys—than at this point in his first term. He had mostly stayed above his disapproval curve from that first term. People have gotten used to him, but he’s been so egregious lately that people are annoyed.
The food stamps—well, we haven’t used them in ages; it’s now on a card called SNAP—but people still understand the term “food stamps” better than “SNAP.” People are getting their bills for next year’s health coverage, and for many, it’s doubled or more.
Then he had the Great Gatsby party on Halloween, gleefully doing whatever he wants. We haven’t seen serious economic effects yet. Unemployment hasn’t gone up much, and inflation hasn’t risen significantly, but both are on the horizon. We’ll see how much anger builds when those kick in.
The stock market has been holding steady. It’s possible somehow that inflation might not hit as hard, but I don’t see how. Trump fired a lot of government statisticians, so they may manipulate the data, but private companies also track those numbers.
Jacobsen: As we’ve discussed before, experts say the money spent developing AI—including the money that goes to Nvidia to make these chips, which are super-efficient for massive processing jobs—can’t be recouped through corporations paying for AI services. The corporate advantages just aren’t there, and there’s no real money in it. AI can basically offer its services for free.
Rosner: High school students who don’t want to write term papers—nobody’s paying AI to crank out a 500-word essay on the Boston Tea Party for a ninth grader. Or for millions of ninth graders. So it’s a bubble. It’ll pop.
From the way everyone knows it’s a bubble and that it’ll pop, I’m thinking it’ll happen within the next year or so. That’ll kick the stock market hard, and we’ll have inflation and unemployment. It’ll hurt America. It’ll hurt farmers too, because they’re already getting hit by Trump’s bad trade deals—his efforts to help Argentina with China. He got China to start buying soybeans again, but it’s a mess. Anyway, things are going to be rough.
Jacobsen: What about the follow-up to the import–export networks with all the other places around the world where people live?
Rosner: All that’s going to happen. Tourism is down in America by about eleven or twelve percent. It’s surprising it’s down only that much, but that’s still a lot. I haven’t seen any data on where it’s down geographically or by demographics. I haven’t seen any articles about Americans taking fewer trips or vacations. All the articles I’ve seen say the decline is from foreign tourism. Though I would think Americans are also traveling less—but I haven’t checked Google about it.
Jacobsen: It would be a good time to travel though, because I’m sure there are all sorts of great deals, as Vegas is desperate to recoup losses.
Jacobsen: So, we’re not going to reference external things. Well, maybe we can, because a few years ago it was worth discussing, but it’s good to revisit from time to time because loons are perennial. They constantly pop up. What characterizes a loon?
Rosner: It’s your dollar coin.
Jacobsen: Okay, a toonie, a double loon. I see that—it’s a good joke. You go from a loon to a toonie, because the toonie is twice as much, like Looney Tunes. It’s cartoonish—a caricature of how crazy someone can get. Anyway, my point is this: I want to get your thoughts on two factors, because you’re aware of Cattell’s research—independent research in psychometrics—from a higher-range perspective, on two-factor intelligence and creativity, although the latter is a little harder to define. What characterizes a loon and “loon theorizing” as intelligence increases and associative horizons widen?
Rosner: Two-factor now. I see a lot of lunatics on Twitter. Demographically, the most common type you’ll find is right-leaning MAGA, anti-vax, anti-trans—all of that. There’s a cluster of beliefs that tend to go together.
If your typical Twitter lunatic believes in one of these things, they’re likely to believe in the others too. There’s a higher prevalence of belief in cryptocurrency conspiracies. There’s also a higher probability they’ll have “no DMs” and “no porn” in their profiles, which makes me think that if you believe in that stuff, you’ll probably get propositioned by “sexy Twitter ladies.” They can spot a sucker. They use the same Bayesian logic I do—you can see which beliefs tend to cluster in the “loon-o-sphere.”
A lot of those traits scream “sucker.” And many of these belief systems have one thing in common: there’s plenty of authoritative information out there contradicting the lunatic stuff, but there’s also plenty of lunatic material available to reinforce it.
With the anti-vax stuff, it’s generally, almost universally, low-quality research and straight-up lies. It’s believing that nonsense in defiance of all the credible science that says otherwise. That’s your standard lunatic landscape—there’s plenty of evidence right in front of your face that what you believe is false, but you choose to believe an entirely different reality.
Trump is obviously an asshole and has been his whole life, but lunatics cherry-pick whatever they can to redeem him in their eyes and listen to people who tell them he’s not an asshole.
A lot of these people are just not very bright. But there’s another segment that confounds me—the “smart stupid” people. These are individuals with advanced certifications or degrees, or at least claim to have them, and still believe in this nonsense. Registered nurses, people who claim to be engineers, doctors, lawyers, even high-ranking military officers who still buy into all this.
Maybe a small percentage are lying about their credentials—say ten percent—but that still means ninety percent of them are highly educated and genuinely believe this stuff. Another factor that goes along with lunacy is advanced age—people in their seventies and eighties. That’s the landscape of Twitter lunatics. There are left-wing lunatics too, but not nearly as many.
Not the Bernie Bros necessarily, but there are plenty of angry people on the left with intense opinions about things like Israel and Palestine. I tend to skim over them because I don’t always want to sort through their arguments or figure out whether I agree or not. It’s easier to move on.
Jacobsen: You mentioned earlier how lunacy might change as intelligence—or IQ—rises. Let’s go back to that. How does it evolve as you move up the cognitive ladder? And what about creativity—how does that play into it?
Rosner: That’s an interesting question. I haven’t been asked it directly before, but it fits what you think about. People who do genuinely good creative work tend to be more immune to lunacy for two main reasons. First, they’re busy doing creative work—they don’t have time to fall down all these conspiracy rabbit holes.
A semi-counterexample would be Justine Bateman. You should interview her, by the way. She’s a former child star, still acts occasionally, and now works as a director, producer, and author. In adulthood, she went back to school and earned a degree in computer science. She’s critical of AI—and with good reason, especially in entertainment—and her criticism comes from a place of technical knowledge.
She leans somewhat to the right politically, but her rightward lean isn’t oppressive. She’s got too much going on intellectually for that. But for others—especially people in public-facing professions—it’s self-destructive. If you’re a realtor, or anyone who depends on clients from the general public, why would you go on social media and broadcast those extreme views?
And alienate half your potential customers by posting tons of political stuff. This might apply to me too. I might be a fool, because eventually I’ll have to try to sell my book, and I don’t know—will God punish me for all my left-leaning, anti-Trump posts? I have no idea. Maybe I should shut up.
But in any case, a lot of people I like and respect are gone from Twitter because it’s an angry time-suck where you’re swimming through sewage. I’d say that as creativity increases, lunacy gets shoved aside because you don’t have time for it—and because you’re smart enough to realize that investing in lunacy is a terrible deal professionally.
Now, historically, as you go up the intelligence ladder, you’re going to find some crazy people. But I haven’t seen any studies that try to measure the percentage of “crazy” individuals at different intelligence levels. I’d buy the argument that, like many other things, the quality of people’s lives—if you use IQ as a loose indicator—stays pretty much the same above a certain point.
The life satisfaction and circumstances of someone with an IQ of 180 aren’t statistically much different from someone with an IQ of 140, even though that 180-IQ person supposedly has extra brainpower to refine their life strategies. I tend to believe, based on limited evidence, that among people with very high IQs, you still have your share of unstable individuals. They just get more publicity than the ones like Chris Cole, who lead normal, highly effective lives—because schadenfreude makes for better stories. Everyone loves reading about “the poor little smart guy who’s lost his mind.”
I know from personal experience as a high-IQ person that if someone like that becomes a lunatic, it’s often through obsession. Going down what I call “rat holes” for the MAGA crowd, or “rabbit holes” more generally—becoming overly fixated on something. It’s also an autistic characteristic: hyper-focus.
For instance, I spent about two and a half hours the other day looking at brooches from China. I’d bought half a dozen unmounted micro-mosaics, and I decided I’d turn them into jewelry by mounting them into brooches. So I was looking for the right settings, planning to pry out the center stones and replace them with the mosaics.
And why was I doing this? Carole doesn’t even want this stuff anymore, and I don’t wear brooches. It’s pure wasted time. Yet I looked at probably close to two thousand brooches.
From Temu and Alibaba. It felt good finding the best brooches for my project, but at the same time, I felt like an idiot doing it because it was so pointless.
That’s one way smart people can obsess themselves into lunacy. Take Bobby Fischer—one of the greatest chess players ever. Maybe he was always unbalanced, but at some point in adulthood, he started believing terrible things, including extremely antisemitic ideas. I don’t know if it was obsessive thinking or schizophrenia, but either way, he fell deep.
I’d guess that when smart people become lunatics, it usually involves a rabbit hole—a cul-de-sac of intense mental energy and attention on something that may not matter. If you’re lucky, you’re Darwin. If not, you’re fixated on nonsense.
As an addendum, you asked about creativity increasing alongside intelligence. There’s definitely a correlation. Some creative visions are rooted, at least partly, in madness—but the creative work I admire most is grounded in discipline and precision. I hate the word “professionalism” because when someone accuses you of being “unprofessional,” it often just means you’re not doing exactly what they want while they’re trying to exploit you. Still, I admire creative people who get things done.
Take James Gunn, for example—the head of DC Studios. He directed The Suicide Squad, created Peacemaker, and is working on the new Superman movie. He’s funny, sharp with plot, and, most importantly, productive.
As for creativity leaning toward the loony side, I get irritated when someone’s “creative writing” is unreadable. If your normal style is dense and confusing, that’s not creativity—it’s self-indulgence. I prefer people who can deliver crisp, clear ideas that are easy to digest.
Which is often linked with a lack of lunacy—though I haven’t thought about it for even one second. In other words, if someone writes clearly, their thinking is clear, which reflects a lower degree of madness. Clear writing is also an acknowledgment that people today don’t have time for flowery language. Take Henry James—beautiful writer, but he demands your full attention, and we don’t have that kind of attention to give anymore. Your words better be like butter—smooth, efficient, spreadable.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/02
Why do so many American pastimes have global framing but purely domestic scope?
Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen riff on baseball’s “World Series,” using it as a springboard into American exceptionalism. They trace how marketing, PR, and early propaganda shaped national myths, from deist founders to church-state tensions and voucher-backed microschools. Rosner emphasizes geography, youth, and insulation from world wars; Jacobsen presses on where ideals meet reality. They discuss slavery’s foundational labor, Native dispossession, and contested narratives around the atomic bombings. The pair close by noting a record-length series and the irony of global branding with domestic scope, inviting readers to separate civic pride from comforting stories and examine history with rigor.
Rick Rosner: The Dodgers just won game seven of the World Series, which was good.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I’m so excited.
Rosner: What?
Jacobsen: That’s great.
Rosner: No, you’re not—you’re from Canada. The Dodgers didn’t beat “Canada”; they beat the American League champions.
Jacobsen: Also, it’s not really the World Series; it’s just called the World Series.
Rosner: That’s what they call it, so that’s what I said. It would be fun to make it a true World Series and have the champions play the winners of Japan’s championship series, the Japan Series.
Jacobsen: Here’s the question: why do so many American pastimes have global framing but purely domestic scope?
Rosner: I don’t know.
Jacobsen: I assume it’s marketing.
Rosner:The first modern World Series was in 1903. Baseball had been organized in the U.S. since the mid-19th century—the Knickerbocker rules date to 1845, and professional play began in 1869—so by 1903 the professional game was a few decades old. Major League Baseball then consisted of two leagues, the National League and the American League, with eight teams each—sixteen total—mostly clustered in the Northeast and Midwest, not all within five hundred miles of one another. An exceptional part of American life is public relations and media. The media landscape often rewards exaggeration. Early U.S. publicity and propaganda methods—think Edward Bernays and the World War I Committee on Public Information—influenced later propagandists; Nazi officials studied these techniques in the 1930s.
Jacobsen: I want to get to that, but the point I want to make is that part of American exceptionalism lies in this idea of American evangelism. Lee Kuan Yew used to talk about it—not in a strictly religious sense, but as the American desire to sell America. At the time, that often involved Christianity, but the idea of American exceptionalism includes both positive and negative myths. It’s about marketing—what parts of American exceptionalism are lies, and which parts actually reflect reality to some degree.
Rosner: Before you can separate lies from truth, you have to look at the root causes of American exceptionalism. The first is our origin as a country founded in rebellion. Then there’s geographic exceptionalism—we’re a European culture transplanted to a new continent, and we displaced the native populations. Our geographic isolation, and the fact that we had an entire continent to exploit, insulated us from the worst harms of the world wars. In World War I, the United States lost about 116,000 service members.
In World War II, about 405,000—compared with tens of millions of deaths in the Soviet Union and roughly 70–85 million worldwide (with Europe alone accounting for many tens of millions). We bore a far smaller share of total losses. Because World War II barely touched our shores, our founding ideals could still loom large. The phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Do I have that right?
Jacobsen: I’ll fact-check that, and we’ll get back to it.
Rosner: I think it’s the Declaration of Independence. We have a large expanse of land. We didn’t start off huge, but then we doubled, tripled, and quadrupled as we took over the continent. It was fertile land for rugged individualism. We still have a vast amount of space compared to the smaller European countries. We’re also a young country—about 250 years old. Tied to that, as you said, we’ve been fighting over what’s true and what isn’t. Trump, the Republicans, and DeSantis have been pushing to de-emphasize the uglier parts of our history that everyone knows.
The European Holocaust under Hitler killed about 11 million people, but the U.S. had its own ongoing atrocities. The slavery holocaust began with the importation of enslaved Africans in the 17th century, and by the time it ended nearly 250 years later, roughly as many people had died under slavery as in the Nazi Holocaust. Then there was the displacement and extermination of Native Americans.
That’s harder to calculate—many lived under horrific conditions, and while some survived to continue their lineages, millions perished from violence, starvation, and disease brought by colonization. You could argue that the combined suffering of Native Americans also reached the scale of millions. Enslaved labor built much of the country, including the White House. It also cleared land and made way for agriculture across the colonies. So, one of the lies is that white people did all the important work in building America.
I mean that Republicans and Trump are trying to get education to soft-pedal the brutal treatment of people who weren’t white men. You can say it was a different time, and that we’re a country that tries to do better, but that’s not enough. Under Trump, if you want to talk about how much of America was built on slavery—especially in Florida—you can run into political trouble with those in power. Texas too. Some argue life was hard for everyone back then, but that’s no excuse.
You can also say America was built on lofty ideals and often failed to live up to them, but that’s not good enough for Trump, who wants to dismantle the Department of Education. Until Jimmy Carter created it about 50 years ago, education was part of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Under Carter, it became its own department. Trump wants to eliminate it again and reduce federal involvement in education, leaving control to the states. There’s also a nationwide push to let people use tax dollars to pay for private education—largely seen as a way to fund Christian schools and Christian microschools.
Jacobsen: You mean like a micro school as in a homeschool or something similar?
Rosner: No, it’s between a homeschool and a traditional Christian or Catholic school. About half a dozen to a dozen families might get together and have their kids taught in a shared space by a mix of teachers and volunteer parents. A church might also set up a small school—not on the scale of a Catholic school with 1,200 students, buildings, and full faculty and staff. I just read about this in Harper’s Magazine. It’s becoming a trend—if evangelicals and similar groups can get the government to pass laws to fund it. And of course, any money going to Christian schools comes directly out of public school funding. It’s a way to un-secularize education.
Jacobsen: That’s a violation of church-state separation.
Rosner: Yes, absolutely. If we’re talking about lies, there are countless small ones that pop up constantly in modern politics—like the claim that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. It very clearly wasn’t. Many of the Founding Fathers were deists, which isn’t explicitly Christian. They made a deliberate point of ensuring that no single religion would dominate the country. There’s a lot of confusion around that. Do we want to keep going with this? Also, let’s talk about the positive—actual areas of exceptional humane action.
We do have a history of making enormous sacrifices to fight evil. We contributed massively in World War II, which was unusual because the opposing forces were so clearly evil. The U.S. exerted its full industrial might to defeat the fascists. Yes, we did some terrible things at the end, especially with the atomic bombs. But when it comes to the question of lies, I’m not sure the differing viewpoints around the atomic bombings count as lies. I’m not well-versed enough in the details of the decision-making or the possible alternatives to speak authoritatively. The bombs were dropped on two largely untouched Japanese cities—Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Hiroshima bomb killed about 120,000 people, most of them instantly. The Nagasaki bomb killed between 80,000 and 100,000, most of them civilians. Some historians argue it wasn’t even the atomic bombs that led to Japan’s surrender, but rather the threat of Soviet invasion. In any case, nearly everyone believes some version of misinformation or myth about the decision-making behind dropping the bombs.
By the way, in terms of total innings, this World Series was tied for the longest in history—74 innings total. That ties the 1912 World Series, which actually ran eight games because Game 2 ended in a tie due to darkness. Stadium lighting back then was practically nonexistent. So by the time Game 7 rolled around, both teams had three and a half wins, and they had to play an extra game. This year’s series racked up the same total because of that one 18-inning marathon and the 11-inning Game 7. Which means that you guys—Canada—are arguably the greatest losing World Series team in history.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/01
What do Rick Rosner’s favorite quotes, thinkers, and inherited philosophies reveal about his view of humanity’s future?
Rick Rosner joins Scott Douglas Jacobsen to explore wisdom both cynical and comedic—from Occam’s Razor to soup jokes. He discusses his admiration for writers like Neal Stephenson, Margaret Atwood, and Carl Hiaasen, who illuminate near-future chaos with humor and insight. Reflecting on inherited worldviews from his eccentric father and pragmatic stepfather, Rosner shares a guarded optimism: despite human folly and climate peril, technology and demographic shifts may stabilize the planet. Through his trademark mix of intellect and irreverence, Rosner dissects the human condition with both compassion and wit.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are your favourite quotes on life and humanity?
Rick Rosner: One of my favourites is, “Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.” Another, from either Upton Sinclair or Sinclair Lewis, goes something like, “It’s hard to get someone to understand something when their salary depends on not understanding it.” You see this with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who’s entirely under Trump’s thumb. When asked about the latest terrible thing Trump or the Republicans have done, he says, “I’m not aware of that.” It’s a variation on that same idea—it’s hard to get someone to be aware of something when they’re paid not to be aware of it. I like cynical quotes. I like Stephen Hawking’s line that people who brag about their IQs are losers. I like Occam’s Razor—that the simplest explanation is often the right one. There’s also an F. Scott Fitzgerald quote: “It’s the mark of a great mind to be able to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time.” There are plenty of others I like that only pop into my head when appropriate. One of my favourite dumb jokes: an old lady asks her husband, “Do you want super sex?” He thinks for a second and says, “I’ll take the soup.” I also like, “A horse walks into a bar, and the bartender asks, ‘Why the long face?’” There you go—there’s a bunch of stuff.
Jacobsen: Who are your favourite non-physicist thinkers?
Rosner: You might as well change that question to “Who are my favourite writers?” Neal Stephenson, for sure—all the writers who convincingly depict the near future. Charles Stross, Neal Stephenson, the guy who wrote The Clockwork Girl, Margaret Atwood, sometimes, the guy who wrote The Wedding Album—David something—Cory Doctorow, Dave Barry. I also like a lot of the Florida crime novelists—the ones who portray Florida as pure mayhem, with a bunch of lunatics running around. They made a movie out of one of those books—Bad Monkey. That’s by Carl Hiaasen. He tends to write the same book over and over: Bad Monkey, Strip Tease, and others. I used to like Scott Spencer, the author of Endless Love. William Gibson, too—he coined the term “cyberpunk.” I’m leaving out plenty of people, but I like writers who help us understand the near future in a digestible way. Neal Stephenson’s books are long, but they move fast. Sometimes he writes about things that aren’t near-future, and that frustrates me because I wish he’d stick to the stuff I like. He wrote a trilogy over a thousand pages long set in the seventeenth century, presenting that era as if it were science fiction—because the pace of technological change was so dramatic compared to what came before that it must have felt like science fiction. At least that one had Isaac Newton as one of the main bad guys, since Newton was, by all accounts, kind of a jerk. Still, I didn’t enjoy reading a thousand pages from Neal Stephenson that weren’t about the 2050s or 2080s.
Jacobsen: What is a piece of optimism that’s been pitched to you? How about this? A piece of optimism that’s turned out to be true or pessimism that’s turned out to be false.
Rosner: I haven’t gone through life pitching worldviews left and right, but I’d say my biggest takeaways are more like inherited attitudes. As I may have mentioned, my wife and I ended up with a box of my mom’s things after she passed away. My wife went through it and found a box of letters between my parents, spanning late 1954 through the end of their marriage. It began with love letters and then devolved into reports from a private investigator, notes from a psychiatrist, and court documents from their 1960 divorce. My wife didn’t meet my parents until the 1980s, when they’d been divorced for years and disliked each other. She transcribed all the letters and turned them into a novel that explored how they fell out of love. One thing we realized—though we should have known already—was that my dad was almost certainly on the autism spectrum. He had terrible life skills, the very worst kind of bachelor habits. I moved in with him one summer after his second divorce in 1980, and I’m not sure he even knew how to change a light bulb.
Out of twenty fixtures, maybe four bulbs worked. He had one fork in the entire kitchen, and either one pot or one pan—my brother had given him one, just in case he ever decided to cook, which he didn’t. So, one pot, one utensil, minimal lighting, but he was a pretty happy, jovial guy—though with bad OCD. He wasn’t unpleasant to hang out with, unless you were married to him, in which case his deficiencies became hard to ignore. He never talked to me about his worldview or gave me any fundamental philosophy. However, I think I inherited a lot from him genetically—some spectrum tendencies and a generally cheerful outlook.
If I had to sum it up, I’d say: even when things are going really badly, I know I can always masturbate and fall asleep. That’s oddly comforting. From my stepdad, though I didn’t inherit any genetic traits, I picked up a few life lessons. He was a friendly man who seemed to know everyone in Boulder. When we moved there in the early 1960s, the town had about fifteen thousand people. By the time I left, it was around eighty thousand, and he still seemed to know everyone. He was a small businessman, generous and charitable, but also very quick to judge people—and often labelled them fools and assholes. And honestly, I agree. People are fools and assholes. I wish I’d asked him more about what he thought, though.
“What percent of people do you think are fools or assholes?”
I don’t know what he would’ve said. He probably would’ve said that’s a question a fool or an asshole would ask. But between my stepdad and Mad Magazine, I learned that people are fallible. I believe most people, under little pressure, are good. As pressure increases, they fail—but at different thresholds. So there you go.
You asked what pessimistic worldview was passed on to me that turned out not to be true. Honestly, given the events of the past eight or nine years, it’s hard for a pessimistic worldview not to turn out true. I don’t have many that didn’t. Except maybe this: people who think climate change will be absolutely catastrophic—I 100 percent believe we’re in an era of human-caused climate change. I’m not a denier in any way, and I think we’re already seeing the signs: planes hitting severe turbulence and dropping a thousand feet in seconds—that’s increased upper-air turbulence caused by rising temperatures. In the future, people might avoid flying in the summer because of it. Hurricanes are stronger, and the weather is wilder.
Maybe half a billion or more people will be displaced, we’ll lose species, and the oceans will suffer. But I have guarded optimism because I think we’ll come up with technological “vaccinations,” if you will—imperfect but cumulative solutions, like the COVID vaccine, which wasn’t perfect but still saved lives. With polio or measles, the vaccine prevents infection entirely. With flu or COVID, it just lessens the blow. I think our response to climate change will be like that: dozens of partial solutions that, together, mitigate a lot of the damage, though not all of it. If the oceans acidify, maybe that’s the end of sushi—I don’t know.
But I don’t think behavioural fixes like recycling will save us. Technology will do most of the heavy lifting. And something else will help: we’ve got a global baby shortage. Generation Z is retreating from the physical world. They’re not having as much sex, not drinking as much, not doing as many drugs—they’re living inside their devices. You can make a joke about “pulling out,” but in this case, they really are. They’re disengaging from the world’s pleasures and vices.
Jacobsen: That non-drinking part has been criticized, but it’s actually healthy and responsible.
Rosner: Yeah, it is. I’m not judging it. I’m saying they’re less engaged with both the good and bad parts of life. Fewer babies mean we’ll probably peak in global population around the 2050s, which also means less pollution from human activity.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/01
What drives Rick Rosner’s reflections on baseball, masculinity, and the strange art of self-creation?
In this candid and eccentric exchange, Rick Rosner chats with Scott Douglas Jacobsen about fair-weather fandom, the statistical chaos of baseball, and the misunderstood genius of Dodgers manager Dave Roberts. The conversation drifts—quite literally—from bullpen blunders to body scars, as Rosner recounts crafting his Conan-inspired look and accidentally one-upping Rambo in realism. Between anecdotes of fake blood and real keloids, he muses on aging, hearing loss, and the quiet hum of tinnitus that punctuates his later years with reluctant introspection.
Complaints
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your complaint today?
Rick Rosner: I don’t know. What did I complain about? This morning, when we finished the show where everyone screams at each other, the Dodgers had made it to game seven. They had to win tonight to do that. People on Twitter love to criticize the Dodgers’ manager for his pitching decisions. The Dodgers were supposed to win it all—some said they would win more games this year than any team in Major League history. They didn’t, but they still finished first in their division. They didn’t even win 100 games, though. An exceptional season is 100 wins; they won 93. Their manager, Dave Roberts, gets criticized for pulling pitchers too early or leaving them in too long. The Dodgers were supposed to be loaded with pitching talent, but then injuries and underperformance set in. For years, the Dodgers have had trouble with their bullpen imploding after taking the starter out. I assume other teams deal with this, too. I’ve lived in L.A. since 1989, so that’s the perspective I hear most often.
I don’t follow baseball or any sport very closely, but given how random baseball is, I imagine many managers face the same criticism. Baseball is probably the most random of the major sports. If you look up Dave Roberts’ managerial statistics, the Dodgers have won more regular-season games since 2010 than any other team. They’ve also made the most World Series appearances in that span. Dave Roberts, who’s managed the Dodgers for about ten seasons, owns one of the best winning percentages in MLB history and the best among managers with at least 1,000 games. I’d guess his pitching decisions are no worse than anyone else’s. Someone who actually knows might prove me wrong, but if you’re going to be a fair-weather fan like I am, the Dodgers are probably the best team to root for.
Rambo Lookalike Scars
Jacobsen: Why was Rambo such an extraordinary influence on your pursuit of a girlfriend when you were younger, to the point of deep self-scarring?
Rosner: I gave myself the scars first. Rambo wasn’t really the influence—it was more Conan the Barbarian. Around 1980, when I was twenty, I was putting together a Halloween costume. My fraternity had some fake fur, so I made myself a loincloth out of it and used my weightlifting belt to hold it in place like a big diaper. I tucked fur into my knee-high socks for fur leggings, wore cowboy boots underneath, and went out as a Conan type. I had a sword from a trip to Europe when I was fifteen. We stopped in Spain, where I bought an ornamental sword. So I had a sword and fur—that’s enough to be Conan, Ponan. Good thing you caught me off guard there.
So I did that, and I did it every year because I was nearly naked, and I’d been lifting weights a lot. I figured some girl had to like the way I looked—and that was probably true. But you can’t get a girl to go out with you, even if she likes how you look, unless you’re exceptionally handsome—which I wasn’t. Unless you’re a super-beautiful man, maybe girls will make it easy for you. But if you’ve just got a good body—some muscle and abs—you still have to be able to talk to girls. I was bad at that. I assume it still works the same way now—every guy who wants to meet girls has to be able to talk to them and approach them, whether it’s in person or online. I guess with Tinder, you just have to look good in a photo. Even then, you’ll have to exchange messages.
You could probably use AI to help with that now, but back then, you had to actually talk to girls, approach them, hit on them, and deal with being rejected. I wasn’t good at it yet. I never became great at it, but I eventually got good enough to walk up to people and ask them to dance—and that’s how I met my wife. Every year, I made the costume a little better until I came up with a recipe for fake blood: about one part of the kind they sell in costume shops to five parts chocolate sauce. You get a really dark, nice colour. It’s suitable for drawing wounds, and it drips nicely.
It also solidifies—not completely, but just enough. It has a good balance between being drippy and setting. When you sweat, the fake blood comes out more readily than the chocolate sauce, so if you’re dancing with your fake cuts, you’ll drip fresher-looking blood than the rest of the blood on you. While this is technically impressive and realistic-looking, it doesn’t help you make out with a girl. But I was very into it—to the point where I thought, “Chicks seem to dig muscles.”
By the time I was twenty-two, I’d been stripping—still bad at picking up people in strip joints—but very convinced that muscles were helpful. I thought, if muscles are helpful because they’re manly, scars are even more manly. So I designed some impressive scars—mainly across my chest, a couple on my arms, and a few small ones across my abs. They turned into keloids because when I bench-pressed, I’d pop them open. The wounds kept reopening, eventually turning into thick scars. This was around 1983, maybe 1982. But I had the scars before Rambo came out. My scar design was so aesthetically appealing, so well planned, that Rambo’s scars—which were professionally designed to look rugged and masculine—were in the same places. Whether that was a coincidence or two brilliant scar-making minds thinking alike, I don’t know. But my scars came before Rambo’s.
I was still living at home—nothing says “barbarian” like still living at home—and my mom saw this giant slash down my chest. I’d done it so that it looked like I’d been in a sword fight, where my pec had been sliced. My pec was thick enough that the cut looked like it had jumped off the muscle and landed again lower on my rib cage. There was this big scabby mark, and my mom asked what happened. I couldn’t tell her I’d done it myself, so I quickly made up a story that I’d been working out at the Boulder Athletic Club, my home gym, and that a frayed cable snapped and cut me. It was the best bad story I could come up with on short notice. I should have just kept my shirt on around my mom, or thought of something better, because she called the gym owner and gave him a ton of grief for having unsafe equipment. I had to apologize to him. I don’t remember if I ever told her the truth, but anyway, my scars.
I was in a Rambo look-alike contest at one of the bars I worked at—the Dark Horse on Baseline in Boulder—at the height of Rambo fever. I’m thinking 1984 or 1985. It may have caught on even more when the sequel came out. The first one, First Blood, introduced the character, but no one thought Rambo would become this massive phenomenon. The second movie, Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985), is when people went crazy for it. There was a Rambo look-alike contest at the bar—it was me and three other guys. When they saw me with my shirt off, slightly baby-oiled to look a little shiny, two of the guys dropped out, and I won the contest. So there you go—I used to look like Rambo.
Tinnitus Progression
Jacobsen: What else?
Rosner: I’ve had tinnitus for probably ten years, and it’s a bit disquieting. Does it mean my brain is deteriorating? I usually get it when I wake up from a nap. My brain’s been awake all day, then I nap in a quiet room with no stimuli—my eyes are shut, but my ears are still on duty. They start making sounds, and when I wake up, that’s when the tinnitus is at its worst. It fades once I’m distracted by other sounds, and my brain doesn’t have to manufacture fake ones. Carol nudged me into getting a hearing aid. I got just one; one ear’s slightly worse than the other, though neither is that bad. Carole’s concerned because her mom had hearing loss, and hearing aids used to be more of a hassle. Mine charges overnight, but a few years ago you had to mess with tiny batteries—a nightmare for older people.
You never knew if the battery was in right or if it had any juice left. That’s frustrating for them and for anyone who wants them to be able to hear. My mother-in-law went long enough without good hearing that, when she finally got hearing aids, her brain had forgotten how to process certain sounds. You lose the ability to distinguish parts of words. My wife saw this happen to her mom. I’m sixty-five; her mom lived to ninety. So my wife freaks out that I’ll lose sound if I don’t amplify them. I figure that’s twenty years away, but I let her talk me into getting a hearing aid for one ear. Sometimes I use it. What’s interesting is that as soon as I put it in after waking from a nap—when my tinnitus is loudest—it immediately shuts off the tinnitus in that ear. That seems to support the idea that if your ears don’t get the stimulation they expect, they get irritated and make their own sound.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/31
What are the political, environmental, and ethical dimensions shaping recent global crises—from the U.S. shutdown to the intensifying climate disasters and revived nuclear rhetoric?
Rick Rosner discusses the ongoing U.S. federal shutdown nearing record length, explaining its implications for programs like SNAP and the potential political fallout. He reflects on Hurricane Melissa’s devastation in Jamaica and the broader climate trend of warmer oceans fueling stronger storms. Turning to international affairs, Rosner comments on Prince Andrew’s disgrace, the ultra-Orthodox protest tragedy in Israel amid deep social divisions, and J.D. Vance’s alarming advocacy for renewed nuclear testing. His critique highlights the intersection of politics, privilege, and peril, painting a picture of escalating instability shaped by inequality, misinformation, and short-term power struggles.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Anything in the news you want to cover before I jump into the main topic?
Rick Rosner: The shutdown, if it lasts through the weekend, will be approaching the record. The longest U.S. federal shutdown lasted 35 days, from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019. SNAP benefits don’t “run out” on a single fixed date; they’re issued monthly, and during past shutdowns the USDA used contingency funds and early issuances to keep benefits flowing for a limited time. Trump is again urging Senate Republicans to use the “nuclear option” and end the filibuster to break the impasse.
The Senate’s cloture rule requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, making it a more deliberative body, since Republicans currently hold 53 seats. Changing or bypassing that rule would take either a majority reinterpretation (the “nuclear option”) or a budget reconciliation process. Open enrollment always puts health costs in focus this time of year. Premiums are rising: filings for 2026 show average increases of around 18–26%. If enhanced premium tax credits expire at the end of 2025, millions of ACA enrollees could see payments more than double. Employer plans are also rising, though at lower rates. Someone in the White House clearly knows this is politically risky for Trump.
Jacobsen: Hurricane Melissa in the Caribbean has left many dead. Any thoughts?
Rosner: The deaths are tragic, and the devastation in Jamaica is severe. Hurricane Melissa struck Jamaica as a Category 5 storm with sustained winds of around 185 miles per hour, knocking out power to hundreds of thousands and damaging hospitals. Confirmed deaths in Jamaica are in the single digits, though the broader regional toll is higher as impacts spread to Cuba and Haiti. Regional governments and international agencies are now mobilizing aid. Warmer oceans worsen events like this—warmer sea-surface temperatures add energy that intensifies tropical cyclones, leading to heavier rainfall and stronger winds, even if total storm numbers don’t rise dramatically. That’s what I’ve got. Rotten Tomatoes.
Jacobsen: Other news: Britain’s King Charles has stripped his younger brother Andrew of his title and forced him out of his Windsor home, according to Buckingham Palace sources on Thursday. The royal family is working to distance itself from him over his links to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Any thoughts?
Rosner: All right. So you have Prince Andrew accused of having sex with underage girls connected to Jeffrey Epstein. He’s the only one, besides Epstein himself—who died in custody—who has faced serious public consequences so far. Epstein is dead, but besides him, the former prince, Andrew—now just Andrew Windsor—is the only man involved who’s been formally penalized.
Even though the FBI has said that hundreds of women and girls were exploited in Epstein’s trafficking network, only Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Andrew have faced significant repercussions. Many people remain angry about the lack of accountability, particularly regarding Donald Trump, whose name has appeared in connection with Epstein, though no charges have been filed against him.
There are still the Epstein case files, which contain extensive documentation about what happened on the island and elsewhere. Some conspiracy theories have circulated, claiming that political gridlock or government shutdowns are linked to blocking their release, but there is no credible evidence to support that claim. The reality is that the complete set of unredacted materials has not been released publicly due to ongoing legal and privacy constraints.
My wife, upon hearing that Prince Andrew has been stripped of his titles, said his daughters must be furious with him because they were royalty. I don’t know whether losing his title affects his daughters’ titles, but either way, he’s disgraced. He’s been in trouble over this for years, and it’s striking that only his name has been fully exposed while many others have not. It’s deeply troubling. Rotten Tomatoes.
We could talk about the nature of the victims’ suffering. According to the FBI, there were likely hundreds of girls. Many of them are women now. Some have died—one reportedly by suicide and others from overdoses—while countless others live with lifelong trauma.
Beyond the abuse itself, some victims were pressured to recruit others, which leaves them with guilt and psychological scars on top of everything else. Epstein and his associates exploited economic vulnerability, targeting girls from less privileged backgrounds with offers of money or opportunity. In places like Palm Beach, where Epstein operated, wealth and inequality intersected in ways that made exploitation easier. These girls were coerced into bringing in others, and many now live with the burden of feeling complicit in crimes they were themselves victimized by. It’s a ruthless cycle.
Jacobsen: For women who rope other women in and know what’s happening, would they be more likely to fall on the antisocial personality scale, do you think?
Rosner: I don’t know. I can’t speak to that. I feel like they could have been all sorts of different people. There were a lot of them. You live in Palm Beach, maybe in a struggling household, and you see these wealthy people in their mansions. Then you’re offered an invitation into that world. You’re a young woman, probably chosen because you’re attractive, and maybe you start to think your looks or your willingness to please can elevate your situation—or at least give you some excitement. Going to a rich person’s island sounds glamorous until it isn’t.
I don’t know what everyone was thinking, but it went on for years. Epstein was caught, received a lenient sentence due to his connections and influence, and then continued the same behaviour after his release. He ran a hedge fund, so he had power, money, and leverage. The entire operation went on for years after that. I’ve watched documentaries on it, but even with that, I can’t speak with certainty about every detail. What’s clear is that it was an enormous web of exploitation and coercion. A lot of terrible things happened.
Jacobsen: In other news—tragic story—a teenager has died during an ultra-Orthodox protest in Jerusalem. It was a mass ultra-Orthodox Jewish rally against military conscription that turned deadly on Thursday. A teenage boy fell to his death during the demonstration, which shut down the main entrance to the city.
Rosner: I don’t know the exact circumstances of his death, but in Israel, nearly everyone is required to serve in the military—men and women—usually around two years for men and a bit less for women. The ultra-Orthodox, however, receive religious exemptions. The ultra-Orthodox are often among the most conservative and nationalist groups in Israel and have supported the ruling coalition under Netanyahu. That coalition has led the ongoing war in Gaza, which has lasted almost two years and, according to credible humanitarian estimates, has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians.
The Israeli government’s early failures allowed Hamas’s October 2023 attack to succeed, killing about 1,200 Israelis and leading to around 250 hostages being taken, many of whom are presumed dead. Most Israelis now oppose Netanyahu and the coalition dominated by ultra-right religious parties. The anger is compounded by the fact that these groups, while encouraging a hardline military campaign, don’t serve in the military themselves.
There’s now intense public pressure to end the exemption for the ultra-Orthodox. Meanwhile, in the West Bank, right-wing settler violence against Palestinians continues, with limited condemnation or intervention from the government. So yes, tensions are high, resentment is deep, and the whole situation remains volatile.
Jacobsen: J.D. Vance has stated that testing the U.S. nuclear arsenal is essential for national security.
Rosner: Yeah, forget that guy. He’s a terrible person—deeply hypocritical and openly transphobic. He’s married to a woman whose parents are both immigrants and who’s of a different religion, yet he routinely attacks the very groups his own family represents. He once called Trump “America’s Hitler,” but when access to power became available, he completely reversed himself.
The United States and Russia once possessed a combined total of around 30,000 nuclear warheads at the height of the Cold War. Each had roughly 7,000 at its peak, and both have reduced their stockpiles by about 75%, though not recently. For decades, U.S. presidents and Soviet or Russian leaders held ongoing nuclear arms reduction talks—but those have largely stalled.
Now, Putin has been making statements about developing faster, “unstoppable” nuclear missiles. In response, Trump and J.D. Vance have been suggesting that the U.S. resume atomic testing. Nuclear test bans aren’t absolute, but since the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (though not ratified by the U.S.), such tests have been severely limited. In the 1950s and early 1960s, both nations detonated massive bombs to intimidate one another.
Trump has described himself as a “president of peace.” Yet, this rhetoric about renewed nuclear testing signals a move toward another arms race—possibly in coordination with Putin—at a time already destabilized by emerging risks like artificial intelligence integration into military command systems. That’s profoundly dangerous. It’s one more disaster layered onto what may be the most reckless presidential movement in modern U.S. history.
Even if Russia develops a so-called unstoppable missile, it doesn’t mean they’ve “won.” The U.S. already possesses submarine-launched ballistic missiles that are nearly impossible to intercept. Land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are also effectively unstoppable once launched. America’s missile defence system includes 44 ground-based interceptors, each with an estimated 50–60% success rate against an incoming warhead. To achieve roughly a 98% chance of destroying one missile, the U.S. would need to fire about five interceptors at it.
If a hostile power launched ten nuclear missiles, several would still likely reach their targets. A single 100-kiloton detonation—a size not uncommon in modern arsenals—could kill several hundred thousand people, two to three times the number who died in Hiroshima. Submarine-launched missiles are even harder to counter because they can be fired from near coastal waters rather than across the pole, reducing detection and response time.
So, yes, Putin can boast about a “new unstoppable” missile—but the truth is that nuclear weapons are already unstoppable. Reigniting an arms race after decades of de-escalation is catastrophic for global security.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/28
Who leaves the bar first: Rick Rosner or Grigori Perelman?
Rick Rosner opens with a cheeky challenge: in a bar of sixty-year-old women, he claims he would leave with a date faster than Grigori Perelman. Scott Douglas Jacobsen grounds the banter with facts—Perelman proved the Poincaré conjecture, declined the Fields Medal and Clay prize, and lives reclusively. The duo calibrate odds, debating five-eighths versus nine-sixteenths while teasing variables—American versus Russian patrons, shared Jewish background, flirtation strategies, and Rosner’s past as a stripper. The exchange is a playful thought experiment about charm, fame, and probability, not a moral treatise, balancing irreverent humor with precise references to mathematics, awards, and cultural nuance.
Rick Rosner: So let’s get started. Or should we begin with my claim that if you put Grigori Perelman and me in a bar full of 60-year-old ladies, seven times out of eight, I will go home with one of them quicker than Grigori Perelman—even though he solved… what did he solve? Not Fermat’s—what was it?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The Poincaré conjecture.
Rosner: Poincaré, fine. You can do that till the cows come home. I’m going home with a divorced lady.
Jacobsen: Hold on. Who are the women in the bar? What’s the demographic? Americans or Russians?
Rosner: Is he Russian or American?
Jacobsen: He is Russian. You’re both Jewish.
Rosner: All right, I guess we have to make it half and half. And I suppose he could go home with a Russian lady as long as he’s got cigarettes and lunch meat.
Jacobsen: May I give an estimate and then get your response?
Rosner: Go ahead.
Jacobsen: Ten times out of sixteen.
Rosner: Wait—ten times out of sixteen I go home with someone before he does?
Jacobsen: Okay, fine. Twenty out of thirty-two.
Rosner: That’s the same fraction.
Jacobsen: I know.
Rosner: Is he married? What’s his deal?
Jacobsen: I don’t think so. No, he declined the Fields Medal in 2006 and the $1 million Clay Millennium Prize in 2010 after proving the Poincaré conjecture. He left academic life and is known as a reclusive, accomplished mathematician.
Rosner: All right, I’ll give you that five-eighths ratio—62.5 percent—if the crowd in the bar is half Russian women and half the older versions of people whose IDs I used to check back in the ’80s. Now they’re fully of age. They’ve been divorced. Some might be plump church ladies; others might be cougars.
When I was a stripper, I wish I’d known this. I’ve told you about the secret to making your dick look longer when you’re stripping: you grab it and stretch it. That’ll give you a minute, maybe seventy-five seconds, of extra length. So my strategy would be—if nothing else worked—I could charm a group of women into pretending they’d hired me for a bachelorette party. Then I’d take my clothes off and gyrate around. I don’t think Grigori Perelman would do that.
Jacobsen: I think that might make it nine-sixteenths.
Rosner: So you’re talking about 0.5625.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/29
Wole Soyinka says the U.S. revoked his visa after he renounced residency; any thoughts?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen presses Rick Rosner on why Donald Trump’s approval is deflating amid cost of living strain, tariffs, and a long federal shutdown. Rosner, who places tiny prediction bets, expects support to hover in the low forties. He argues Trump’s chaos distracts from policy failures, with inflation near three percent and looming insurance hikes hurting households. He criticizes ICE’s accountability and leadership, citing broader abuses of power. On Wole Soyinka’s visa, he decries political vindictiveness. Addressing elevated stillbirths, he points to COVID’s long tail, deferred care from affordability barriers, and persistent racial inequities in maternal and infant health outcomes.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s do a little bit of politics. Trump’s popularity has dipped, according to Reuters, apparently because of cost-of-living issues that many Americans are now facing. There’s a lot going on.
Rick Rosner: Last month, I started placing small bets—just a dollar or so—on Trump’s popularity at the end of the month or the beginning of the next. This month, I’ve got $1.20 riding on his approval rating being in the 44s, somewhere between 44.0 and 44.9 percent.
On November 1st, I have another bet covering the 43s, where he usually sits. Right now, his rating is at 43.3 percent on The Silver Bulletin—that’s Nate Silver’s aggregation of all the polls he considers reliable. I have another dollar riding on his popularity being above 42.5 percent on November 1st. I’ll probably lose the 44 percent bet and maybe the 43 percent one, but not the 42.5 percent. It can’t fall that far.
Anyway, his popularity is slowly deflating. The story you mentioned says it’s economic, and that makes sense. But with Trump, there’s always a lot going on. There’s always a lot going on. I don’t even know if you can call it a strategy—he’s such a chaotic guy that…
Does he even have strategies? Doing and saying a lot of things has worked well for him because it distracts from every other outrageous thing he says or does. But there are plenty of issues that could weigh on him now. The tariffs are all slowly kicking in, and inflation is back up to around 3%. That’s not enough to cause panic, but I think it’s going to keep climbing.
The government has been shut down for—what are we at now?—day 28, I think. In a few days, it’ll be the longest shutdown in U.S. history. People aren’t getting paid: the military, 1.4 million government employees, and SNAP benefits—food assistance—will soon run out for around 41 or 42 million Americans, tens of millions of them children. That’s about one-eighth of the U.S. population.
Trump isn’t even in the country to deal with it. He’s been over in Japan and Malaysia, and he’s also spending time at the White House overseeing a $300 million renovation to build a new ballroom.
Among the things he was elected to do, he’s been somewhat successful at shutting down the border—there aren’t many people crossing anymore. ICE, however, is another story. They’re not rounding up “bad hombres”; they’re rounding up mostly working people who’ve never broken the law. And ICE has a brutal, toxic culture.
I bounced at bars for 25 years, and I learned firsthand that when you put a bunch of aggressive people together without oversight, their behavior deteriorates fast. You see it in police departments too—when there’s no accountability, bad cops egg each other on because there are benefits to being a bad cop. You get to beat people up, intimidate others, and sometimes exploit your position in other ways.
In my bouncing days, I saw guys use their power for sexual coercion at clubs. Cops have even more power, which can lead to worse abuse. At ICE, there’s no leadership insisting on accountability, and it shows. The agency’s culture is rotten from the top down.
Kristi Noem, for instance, is notorious for shooting a puppy she didn’t like and a goat that smelled—which all goats do, by the way. Her lieutenant, Corey Lewandowski, is married but has been having an affair with her for years, and he’s got his own reputation for being, let’s say, “handsy.” So ICE is being run by creeps.
On top of that, on November 1st, people will start receiving their health insurance bills for 2026, and many are going to see their costs double or triple. A family making $85,000 a year might suddenly have to pay $24,000 for medical coverage—which is absurd.
So, with all this happening—tariffs, inflation, the government shutdown, ICE’s abuses, and exploding healthcare costs—Trump’s popularity is bound to keep slipping. He was elected to secure the border and lower costs for Americans. He’s only half-delivered on the first and failed spectacularly on the second, all while doing a ton of other nonsense no one asked him to do. His popularity’s deflating for good reason.
His popularity is slowly declining. It’s been hovering in the 43–44 percent range for three, maybe six months—I’ve lost track. He’s only been president again for about nine months, but it’s the same pattern as his first term. Until the country fell apart under COVID in 2020, he ran the same numbers—low 40s, remarkably stable.
So, we’re seeing the same thing again. His popularity is surprisingly steady for such a chaotic guy. But yeah, it’s slowly deflating.
Jacobsen: Nobel Prize–winning author Wole Soyinka, age 91, said in 2016 that he had torn up his U.S. green card and renounced his American residency in protest after Donald Trump was elected. He’s now announced that the U.S. has revoked his visa. Any thoughts?
Rosner: Yeah, that’s just more dickishness. The first time Trump was president, he at least had a few competent people around him. The one I always mention is his secretary of state—Rex Tillerson, the former head of ExxonMobil. He only lasted about a year. This time, Trump has surrounded himself with sycophants—half of them billionaires, and around forty who used to work at Fox News. They’re not just unqualified; they were brought in to dismantle the government, to make it work worse if they felt like it. It’s a much nastier crew.
One of the things they’ve been doing is targeting people they don’t like politically, especially at the border. If you’re not a natural-born citizen—if you’re naturalized, have a green card, or are here on a student visa—and you say something they don’t like, they’ll find a way to mess with you. Even though the First Amendment protects free speech, they still intimidate people.
When I travel, I actually keep two Twitter accounts. One is where I complain about politics, and the other is quieter. The quieter one is on my phone, so if customs ever demands to check my device, there’s less for them to see.
We’re lucky to live in Los Angeles, in a blue state. Customs officials here are probably less inclined to hassle people. When we come back into the country, it’s usually through LAX. If we were returning through Texas, maybe we’d get hassled more—but so far, we’ve been fine.
Jacobsen: There’s been an above-average level of stillbirths in the United States, particularly affecting low-income communities. Any thoughts?
Rosner: That’s concerning. One thing to look at over the past five years is the rate of people infected with COVID. If you get a bad or even moderate case, or long COVID, the virus can infiltrate all sorts of bodily systems. It’s inflammatory and can cause damage you might not even notice. So when you see troubling health trends like rising stillbirth rates, COVID has to be one of the prime suspects.
Another possible factor is that people struggling to pay for medical care or insurance might simply be seeing doctors less often. During the height of COVID, cancer rates appeared to rise—not because the virus caused cancer, but because people were avoiding hospitals and clinics, as they were told to, which meant diagnostic exams were delayed by months. So, for me, the number one suspect in most recent health crises is COVID. Number two is the inability to afford care. And number three—when it involves infants—is the persistent racial disparities in U.S. healthcare. Black Americans’ medical concerns, including pain and complications during pregnancy, are statistically taken less seriously.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/28
Why do ordinary human sounds like chewing or lip smacking trigger such strong feelings of disgust, and how does evolutionary psychology explain these instinctive reactions to perceived unfitness or poor hygiene?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen asks why ordinary bodily noises irritate us. Rick Rosner frames the reaction as evolutionary triage: humans quickly judge reproductive fitness, triggering instant attraction or the ick. Aversion to lip smacking, grunting, and loud chewing may signal traits like poor hygiene or impulsivity, maladaptive in mate choice. Disgust toward feces, blood, and exposed anatomy protects against disease and injury. Visible reminders of internal bodies, like open-mouth chewing, amplify repulsion. We also assess non-targets as competitors, and unease around extreme old age reflects selection pressures minimizing misdirected sexual interest. The interview explores instinct, culture, and biology behind everyday irritation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: An open philosophical question: why do certain normal human sounds annoy us? We evolved to make all these bodily noises. We’re embodied in these organic cages, making sounds—young or old—and yet some of those sounds irritate us. Maybe it’s cultural, maybe individual, but why does annoyance arise? Why do people react negatively to something like cottonmouth or throat smacking?
Rick Rosner: I just made a smacking sound there. With visceral reactions like that—especially in romantic contexts—people call it “getting the ick.” It’s when a potential partner says or does something that instantly turns you off sexually. I’d say that having an instant, instinctual reaction—positive or negative—to someone usually has to do with perceived reproductive fitness.
We’re deeply programmed by evolution to want to reproduce and to evaluate others for reproductive fitness. If it’s someone we’re sexually attracted to, we subconsciously assess their fitness as a mate. If they seem healthy and strong, that triggers desire.
If it’s someone of a gender we’re not attracted to, we still evaluate them, but as competition. Across the board, we’re also wired to be sensitive to signs of health. For instance, feces smell horrible to us, because they’re biologically dangerous. It’s unhealthy to get that stuff near your mouth or eyes. One of our dogs sometimes eats her own poop—it’s disgusting to us because evolution made it that way for a reason.
When people make certain noises—grunting, smacking their lips, chewing loudly—my guess is our aversion reflects something about perceived unfitness. Maybe it signals poor hygiene or impulsivity, traits that would’ve been bad for mate selection.
Why do we get grossed out when people chew with their mouths open and we can see their food? I’m not sure. That doesn’t map cleanly onto reproductive fitness. But I do think we’re repelled by visible reminders of what’s inside the body. We know what’s under the skin—blood, organs, muscle—and evolution has made us wary of that.
We don’t want to see people split open. It’s probably a survival adaptation: it would be bad for a species to be casual about injuries that reveal internal anatomy. That’s why blood and wounds cause such intense revulsion—we don’t want that happening to us or to anyone we care about.
Some people even get uneasy around the extremely old. Maybe that’s also tied to reproductive fitness—it does the species no good, evolutionarily speaking, to be sexually drawn to someone who’s eighty-three.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/23
How does Rick Rosner explain the link between high intelligence, arrogance, and male impulsivity among tech billionaires like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk?
In this conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss the dangers of intellectual arrogance among powerful tech figures, including Peter Thiel and Elon Musk. Rosner describes Thiel’s apocalyptic worldview—literally believing in a battle against the Antichrist—and connects it to the “smart stupid” phenomenon: highly intelligent individuals mistaking narrow expertise for universal wisdom. He warns that such overconfidence, coupled with unchecked AI development, could threaten humanity. Rosner also contrasts tech billionaires with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, then explores biological and social reasons why men—driven by risk-taking impulses—are more prone to self-destructive stupidity.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This one is for regular stuff —last few minutes. Peter Thiel is a lunatic. There is a pattern, more common among men than women in my observation—people with high intelligence, as measured by standard tests, often turn out to be loons. Thiel has gone on a whole spiel about the Antichrist, which has now been mocked in South Park, Season 28, Episode 1.
Rick Rosner: Yeah, and he holds private talks for—I guess—other billionaire tech bros, or whoever, where he does not allow the talks to be recorded. However, he gets up there and says, “We have to fight the Antichrist.”
Jacobsen: How would you describe the character of his kind of loon?
Rosner: What is the word? There is an essay—if you Google KingDaddy (all one word)—that impressed me a lot. It is about “smart stupids,” a term for tech bros who, because they are smart or lucky in one area, think they are smart in all areas. They have this arrogant overconfidence. Elon Musk is a perfect example of that. They think they are gods among men.
This is one reason why AI is so frightening—because the money and the power behind the big AI companies are often in the hands of these arrogant billionaires, these “smart stupids,” who think their hunches and incomplete understandings of the world are better than anyone else’s. They think, “If we want to build AI and just let the chips fall where they may, that is fine—we will handle it.” No, we will not. AI without safeguards—without slowing down to align what people want and what AI might want—is dangerous.
So I would describe Thiel as a guy so confident in his worldview that he has adopted a really crazy worldview: that we are literally fighting the Antichrist. As a metaphor, it is not bad—but I think he believes it literally. He believes it so strongly that he holds these closed-door meetings—no cameras, no recording devices—with other influential people, lecturing them about this apocalyptic nonsense. That is how I would characterize these motherfuckers.
Elon Musk, in his arrogance, helped get the worst president in history re-elected. He turned Twitter—now X—into a bastion of right-wing hate and misinformation because he thinks it is somehow “good,” and it is not. These guys may end up laying waste to humanity in their arrogance.
There is a pretty fun movie called Don’t Look Up, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence, about how people react when an asteroid is a few weeks away from destroying Earth. The billionaires in that movie—the tech billionaires with the power to stop it—do all the wrong things. It is funny, but it captures these people’s current behaviour perfectly.
I would characterize Bill Gates differently. He is on the autism spectrum and can be a prick, but I think his thinking and heart are in the right place. He is giving away his money to eradicate malaria and doing tangible good. I do not know what he thinks about AI—he is in the Microsoft orbit, so he is probably involved a bit—but you do not hear much from him about it.
Jacobsen: He talks about AI as an accelerant to his work on disease eradication and reducing child mortality.
Rosner: All right, so he has got a rosy view of it—maybe that makes him a “smart stupid” in that respect, too. Warren Buffett is a billionaire, but not a tech billionaire. He is an old-school investor who seems to have his heart in the right place. He is giving away his money, leaving his kids a few million each, and putting the rest toward improving the world. So, not every billionaire is a piece of shit—but every tech billionaire motherfucker is.
Jacobsen: Why do you think it is more often men than women who turn out to be loons with high intelligence?
Rosner: I have not thought about it rigorously, maybe ever, but one fact has always stuck with me: the corpus callosum—the bundle of neurons connecting the two brain hemispheres—is thicker in women than in men. Women tend to have more inter-hemispheric connectivity. They are generally less impulsive and more inclined to consider the implications of their actions.
One time when I was about twenty, walking near a campus construction site, there was a big hole in the ground—maybe ten feet by six feet. I couldn’t see what was in it, so I thought, “I’ll just jump in and see what happens.” And I did. Luckily, it wasn’t that deep, and there wasn’t rebar waiting to impale me. There were pipes down there; I ended up standing on one and climbed out. That kind of stupid impulse—jumping first, thinking later—feels very male to me. Even for someone with an IQ of 190, that kind of stupidity feels very male.
Once, in a restaurant, a guy made fun of me for wearing a mask. He said something snide, and I just started yelling, “Fuck you! Fuck you!” at him—a guy who was at least eighty-five pounds heavier than me. I went after him, yelling, “Fuck you!” without thinking. If I had stopped to think, I’d have realized that someone who picks on a person he thinks looks weak doesn’t actually want to fight. I must have known that subconsciously, but still, there I was, a 140-pound guy yelling “Fuck you!” at a 225-pound man.
The only thing that stopped me from following him out of the restaurant was my wife, Carole, freaking out and yelling, “He’ll break you like a stick!” It annoyed me at the time, but it was also hilarious. Her panic disoriented me just long enough for the guy to leave. That moment captures male stupidity perfectly—yelling at someone who outweighs you by 60 or 70 percent.
Men are more impulsive. The autistic or “on-the-spectrum” style in men tends to be different, too—more obsessive. From a sociobiological standpoint, men are more disposable. Women have wombs, and reproduction depends on them surviving. You can only grow one or two babies at a time, so you need women to avoid getting themselves killed. Men, though, are expendable. You could lose ninety percent of your men and still repopulate, because the remaining ones can impregnate all the surviving women.
Biologically, we’re made shoddier. We die sooner. The Y chromosome is smaller and carries fewer genes. We’re the inferior product—expendable by design. It’s helpful to have lots of men around for defending the village or hunting, but evolutionarily speaking, men are meant to take risks. Villages with reckless, impulsive men probably survived better than those full of cautious, thoughtful people who paused to consider all the alternatives. That’s a bleak but persuasive take. A lot of thoughts there. Okay, we’ll call it a day.
Jacobsen: Talk to you tomorrow.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/22
How do gait, posture, and clothing shape perceptions of toughness and deter aggression?
In this candid interview Rick Rosner dissects swagger, perceived toughness, and the theater of fighting. He traces changes in media tone, references gait studies that link movement to social impressions, and contrasts performative bravado with quiet confidence exemplified by fictional Reacher. Rosner recounts his own history—from peak physicality and bouncer days on roller skates to underestimating real fighting skill—and admits both theatrical and regrettable violent episodes, including a work altercation. He reflects on deterrence tactics, the paradox that confident individuals often do not swagger, and how clothing and posture can alter others’ behavior, mixing wry self-awareness with practical lessons.
Rick Rosner: Drudge Report, which is now my news aggregator, used to be heavily in Breitbart land—super Trumpy and conservative. In 2019–2020 it shifted and got more critical of Trump, so it reads more neutral to me now.
There was a report on Drudge about a study where researchers translated the gaits of men—their walking styles—into stick figures. You couldn’t tell the actual size or appearance of the men; you could only see how they moved. Research using stick-figure or “point-light” walkers does show people infer traits from gait, but I can’t verify that exact “6.6% of badass perception” number; call it a small slice of the overall impression.
You want your shoulders held wide—which I assume means pulling them back a bit so your chest sticks out. You want to stand straight, like they teach you in dance class—imagine there’s a string coming out of the top of your head. Paradoxically, or maybe not, the more you swagger, the more you swing your body around, the more badass you look.
However, people who are more confident about winning in a fight don’t swagger. They just walk quietly down the street. Think Reacher—the giant drifter and ex–U.S. Army Military Police major who’s the star of Lee Child’s novels, two films, and an Amazon TV series. He just walks the way he’s going to walk without swinging his arms around. Confidence means maybe you don’t need to swagger.
I used to be a dog. I was 175 pounds at my heaviest, around 5% body fat, maybe six or seven. Now I’m under 140, so I’m not a dog anymore—I’m a cat. But I still think I walk in a way that makes people not mess with me. The last time somebody gave me shit, like I was a pussy, I was wearing a mask at the Fish Grill restaurant in a little mall with Carol. I was wearing a shirt that was too big for me, which made me look very small. A guy dissed me for wearing a mask, and I started screaming, “Fuck you,” at him. Carol freaked out, but if I’d been wearing a tighter shirt, he probably wouldn’t have messed with me.
When I bounced at bars, during the last few years I wore roller skates because it was fun and made me taller—more “bouncer-sized.” There was no way I was going to win a fight on roller skates. If somebody grabbed or punched me, I was going down. Ideally, I’d hold onto them, and we’d both go down, which was fine. You’re both on the ground—that’s one person being a dick who’s taken out of the fight. Even without the roller skates, I would’ve gone down anyway because I’m not a good fighter. I didn’t win fights as a bouncer.
At one chain of bars I worked for, Grand American Fair, you got fired if you punched somebody. If a customer punched you, you got 25 bucks. If you punched them, you got fired. We weren’t supposed to be in the “winning fights” business.
In any case, I wouldn’t have won anyway because I forget that I can hit people. So in bar fights, I didn’t win. Sometimes I’d put somebody in a sleeper hold, but I didn’t know how to do it right.
And they didn’t go to sleep, and people screamed that I was strangling them, which I was, so I’d let go. Then they’d often turn around and just hit me, and then I’d put them in a bad sleeper again, and people would scream, and then they’d hit me yet again. Anyway, not great in bar fights.
But the last extra—well, it was a work fight. I sucker-punched my writing partner. I won that fight. I pushed him over, and then I hammered him in the eye three times. So, I guess I’m reasonably willing to step into a fight, though I’m on Toprol, which is an adrenaline blocker and blood-pressure drug, so maybe I’m not as enthusiastic or angry enough to get in a fight now that my adrenaline is knocked down. But in my dreams I win a ton of fights, which is weird, considering my record is not great.
Like when I used to go up against Cousin Sal—Jimmy’s cousin—he was a wrestler in high school and I think even in college, and he did one appearance as a pro wrestler. When I wanted him, in a second or a second and a half I’d be on my back on the ground without even understanding how it happened. So my logistical command of fighting is not good, but in dreams I get a hold of people, and I hit them.
It’s generally implied—dreams don’t give you much information—that the person deserves it. But that aside, they will not stop fighting back, and I end up just beating the shit out of them. I’m like, just hit them, and I’m like, stay down. I don’t know if I say “stay down,” because that’s such a movie thing to say when you’re beating somebody up in a fight, but I don’t know. I think I walk confidently and badassly if somebody who’s 140 pounds can be a badass, which they really can’t, but it’s more based on what a badass I am in dreams and when I’m sucker-punching somebody, rather than in anything like a fair fight.
But anyway, when we do the Lance versus Rick thing in a couple of weeks, I’ll walk, and then people will say what kind of pussy I look like. No—Rotten Tomatoes. When was the last fight you got in?
Jacobsen: Never.
Rosner: Never? You never have been in a fight—like is that just because Canada? Does everybody just wait till Maudie shows up and then he decides he’s right? What the fuck?
Jacobsen: I have a very long, illustrious, honorable, verbose, loquacious, convincing, soft, and subtle history of talking my way out of them.
Rosner: No—see, I would talk myself into fights, because that’s also a skill. In bars, I worked a lot of places with large bounce staffs, and often the bouncers would think I was kind of a pussy. I was not at home with beating the shit out of people, but what I could do was take a punch. If you talk to a drunk person and tell them why they’re getting kicked out in a real condescending voice—like they’re a piece of shit and you’re better than they are—and they’re in your face saying they don’t deserve to get kicked out, and you go, “You’re going to get kicked out, you did this,” and you talk to them like they’re a stupid baby in a way that is infuriating, since they’re drunk a lot of the time, they will just go ahead and hit you.
I was glad to do this because they would hit me, and since they’re drunk, they don’t realize there are two or three bouncers clustered behind them waiting for the hit to come. Once they hit me, shit would happen.
If the guy was wearing a jacket or an untucked shirt—you grab the jacket and lift it, and their arms come up in the jacket with them, and now they’re trapped. Then you take them to the ground, and other things might happen. I was happy to participate as the guy who got punched in the face because I have big eyebrows and pretty big cheekbones; nobody ever managed to get a finger in my eye and really fuck up my eye.
It would bounce off the bony parts of my face, plus they were weak because they were drunk. I was just happy not to lose a contact when I got punched. It was win-win: the bouncers got to take a guy to the ground, I got to show I wasn’t a pussy by getting punched, and I got to be a dick to somebody. It was pretty fun and made me feel like a tough guy, though I am not really.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/18
How do Jacobsen and Rosner connect the randomness of baseball, Trump’s political chaos, and the art of personal reinvention in their wide-ranging conversation?
In this sharp and witty dialogue, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosnerjump from the Dodgers’ playoff run and Shohei Ohtani’s brilliance to Trump’s monument ambitions, the decline of democratic institutions, and the absurdity of political theater. They dissect how randomness governs both baseball and governance, drawing parallels between sport, power, and personal resilience. Rosner critiques America’s authoritarian drift and reflects on creative life—from his daughter’s new book deal to his own search for purpose and a website mission statement. The exchange captures intellect, humor, and exhaustion in an era where spectacle often replaces reason.
Rick Rosner: I like following the Dodgers because they have been one of the winningest teams in Major League Baseball since 2010. I do not like supporting underdogs because I don’t want to be disappointed. I am a terrible fan—the worst kind of fan. However, they are doing really well in the playoffs.
They may have the best player of this generation—Shohei Ohtani, the Japanese superstar. It is characteristic of the Dodgers, and probably many other teams, that sometimes their regular-season players do not perform as well in the playoffs, and vice versa. That is not necessarily the players’ fault, because baseball is the most statistically random of the major sports. A batting average of .300—getting a hit three out of every ten at-bats—is considered excellent.
Only a small percentage of Major League players, usually under 10%, finish a season hitting .300 or better. There is a tremendous amount of randomness in the game.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Any new Trump, Biden, or Obama news? Not much with Biden or Obama, but Trump continues to do new outrageous things every day. Enablers surround him and have learned that the more shocking stuff he announces or does, the more they distract from everything else he has already done.
When a monkey only throws one piece of poo a day, it is easier for the keepers to get in there and clean the enclosure before it throws again. However, if the poo is constant—if the monkey’s throwing nonstop—it becomes much harder to stop the chaos.
That is a terrible analogy, and it is not even mine—it comes from Dreamweasel on X (formerly Twitter). However, the point stands: the chaos Trump creates is constant. Recently, he floated the idea of constructing a new monument in Washington, D.C.—something like an “American Arc de Triomphe.”
It is in terrible taste. The proposed design resembles the French Arc de Triomphe, but with gaudy gold detailing and an angel-like figure on top—entirely out of step with the neoclassical style of D.C.’s existing monuments. There was another man with grandiose and terrible architectural taste: Adolf Hitler.
When you look at some of the plans he had for Berlin under architect Albert Speer, Trump’s taste might actually be worse. At least Hitler was an artist—he applied to the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna (not Berlin) and produced architectural paintings that were competent, though not enough to get him admitted around 1907–1908.
Back to Trump. He reportedly wants to organize a parade or celebration for America’s 250th anniversary in 2026, possibly involving military displays. Some of his comments have included extreme and implausible suggestions, such as military flyovers or naval demonstrations, though there is no credible indication that he has proposed firing missiles into California.
I don’t know how Trump plans to mark the event. I guess the missiles are supposed to explode in midair—or do they hit targets on the ground? I don’t know, but it is lunacy. It’s just more crazy nonsense.
We won’t talk again until after King’s Day, which is two days from now, since you’re travelling. It’s supposed to be a day when people across America turn out to protest all the unilateral actions Trump is taking. The Republicans, of course, are calling it “Hate America Day,” as if protesting Trump means you hate the country. It’s cynical but probably effective messaging.
Jacobsen: What about the Supreme Court?
Rosner: Based on what was said when this was argued a few days ago before the Supreme Court, it looks like they’re going to do further damage to the Voting Rights Act and allow Southern states to gerrymander out districts with enough Black voters to elect Black representatives to Congress. If the ruling goes as expected, it could flip as many as nineteen seats to the Republicans.
That’s bad because the Republicans, now in control of government, are not just doing a poor job—they are doing an authoritarian and corrosive job. They’re enabling Trump, the worst president in U.S. history.
It used to be that every couple of years—every eighteen months or so—various universities or organizations would poll presidential historians and ask them to rank presidents from best to worst. Out of the five rankings published since Trump was first elected, he was rated the worst president of all time in two of them. The panels included historians from across the political spectrum: most liberal, but also some conservative and moderate voices. In the other three surveys, he was ranked second worst, third worst, and fourth worst.
The last such survey was conducted in February 2024. I doubt another will be done this year—or even next year—because no university wants to risk Trump’s retaliation. This is a man who could try to pull hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding from a university simply for publishing a survey calling him the worst president in history.
So, I don’t expect another presidential greatness survey until he’s out of office. Moreover, even then, I’m not sure the results would be accurate. Many historians might be too intimidated to participate—or, if they did, they might artificially rank him higher to avoid his wrath. So, there will probably be no presidential greatness survey until 2029.
By that time, if Republicans are out of power, Trump will almost certainly be ranked the worst president in American history—because he’s only gotten worse since the last survey was taken. I should probably stop talking about it, though; I don’t want to draw his ire either.
Also, my wife—who knows the ins and outs of publishing—said we should probably come up with a mission statement for my website, if you don’t mind, at some point, especially if I want to get a book deal.
My kid just got a book deal, by the way. We’ve been following her path to getting one. She’s an engaging communicator in her field, which is very visual. She’s good at that sort of thing.
Jacobsen: Plus, you want to get a book deal too, right?
Rosner: So let us come up with mission statements. You should write one for yourself, and at some point, we can discuss creating a mission statement for the top of my website—something that helps define my lane.
Jacobsen: Math, G-strings, and rollerblades.
Rosner: Yeah, that’s several different lanes. No, that’s the pitch—that’s the name of the book. It’s been pitched fairly thoroughly. I actually had a book deal for four days once—it was there, and then it was gone.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/16
As a writer, what makes good dialogue in movies? And what’s an example of that?
Rick Rosner tells Scott Douglas Jacobsen that sharp movie dialogue comes from cutting: show, don’t tell, and dodge clichés like “We’ve got company” or “Chop, chop.” Keep audiences oriented through action, not exposition. He riffs on Bond’s implausible durability and imagines alternatives—a centuries-old vampire spy, or a post–near-death Bond with OCD who grades every move—fresh premises that justify survival without speeches. Rosner cites The Accountant as adjacent but abrasive. Big franchises second-guess scripts for precision. Great actors prefer fewer, stronger lines; compress three sentences into one natural beat. Concision, novelty, and situational clarity make dialogue land and performances sing too.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: As a writer, what makes good dialogue in movies? And what’s an example of that?
Rick Rosner: I believe the secret to good dialogue is cutting. You write what you want the characters to say, and then you see how much you can remove. People, under normal circumstances, are concise. The saying is “show, don’t tell.” Too much exposition—or any exposition, really—is irritating. Don’t have a character say, “You’re my brother.” Find another way to make that relationship clear.
So conciseness is key to dialogue.
It also helps if the audience can easily follow what’s happening without being told directly. Movies are made of situations that people have seen before in other movies. If there’s a car chase, that implies there’s a car behind you chasing you. There’s always a point where someone notices they’re being pursued.
The standard line people use in those moments is, “We’ve got company.” It’s short, and it works, but it’s overused. Another line might be, “There’s someone behind us,” but “We’ve got company” is the cliché. It irritates some viewers because it’s what everyone always says.
So if there’s a way to show that without saying “We’ve got company,” people will appreciate it.
There’s another line that drives me crazy: when someone in a movie wants another person to hurry up, they say, “Chop, chop.” I hate that because it’s been used so often. I’ll give it a little leeway—it’s the kind of thing a jerk would say after hearing it in other movies—but still, try not to repeat what’s been said in a thousand scripts before.
Also, try to make situations unfold differently from how they’ve played out in countless other films.
I’ve been thinking about James Bond, where he often survives not just because he’s good at what he does but also because he’s lucky—and, honestly, more durable than is plausible.
I think we talked about the scene in the last Bond movie where someone sets a bomb trap for him. He gets blown up, flies through the air, but somehow he’s not torn apart. He gets up, dusts himself off, and gets into a car.
Then there’s the gunfight. Maybe Bond was supposed to be farther from the bomb, but mostly it’s that, because the plot required it, the bomb just didn’t blow him to pieces.
I’ve been thinking—again, for no good reason—about how to make James Bond more reasonable. I think about this sort of thing while I’m at the gym: how to create a Bond-like character who makes sense.
Let’s say there’s a vampire who’s been undead for about 350 years. He mostly keeps to himself, enjoying his existence, until he sees fascism sweeping across Europe. After centuries of ignoring the horrors of humanity, he decides this one looks particularly bad. So he volunteers to become a spy. He’s durable—vampires are hard to kill—and he’s got centuries of knowledge and experience. He’s also talented in the art of seduction, so a vampire would make a great World War II spy. You could blow him up, and he’d still survive.
That’s one idea. Another thing I’ve been thinking about—completely ridiculous, of course—is that Ian Fleming actually killed off James Bond. Fleming had written several books, but Bond wasn’t selling well. So at the end of From Russia with Love, he said, “To hell with it,” and killed Bond off. Then President John F. Kennedy publicly said that the Bond novels were his favorite books, and sales exploded.
So Fleming had to bring Bond back. At the end of From Russia with Love, the villain Rosa Klebb has a blade hidden in her shoe coated with poison. She kicks Bond and poisons him, and the book ends with him apparently dying. But in the next novel, You Only Live Twice, it’s revealed that Bond spent about a year in the hospital and barely survived—as the title suggests, he literally lived twice.
So I was thinking—what if a near-death experience like that gave Bond, or a Bond-type spy, obsessive-compulsive disorder?
Before almost getting killed, Bond is known for being careless, carefree, arrogantly unconcerned with protocol, probably a bit lazy, but naturally talented, skilled, lucky, and debonair. You never really see Bond training. Maybe somewhere in the series, but I don’t recall any scene where he’s practicing his skills.
But imagine a character like that who, after a near-death experience, becomes obsessive—OCD about perfecting every element of being himself. All the espionage skills, all the spycraft, all the fighting techniques—he becomes consumed with mastery.
I can relate. I have OCD tendencies myself. Every time I park my car, I give myself a letter grade based on how precisely I parked it. It’s surprisingly hard to park a car with real precision. Most people don’t know where their car actually is in space within six inches. If you watch drivers, they really have no idea how their car is positioned relative to other things. I’m better than most, but I still have trouble getting my car within two inches of where I want it.
That’s pretty OCD—every time I park, I give myself a grade. Usually B-plus, sometimes A-minus. That’s obsessive as hell. But imagine a spy like that—someone who, every time they get into a fight or pull off a mission, constantly evaluates their performance, grading themselves on how perfectly they executed it.
I don’t know—something like that would be interesting to me. There’s already a character somewhat like that in film. Ben Affleck plays a hitman with severe autism in The Accountant (2016). His condition makes him extremely meticulous as a killer but leaves him with almost no interpersonal skills. It works as a premise, but the character can come off as grating.
So, if you had a James Bond with OCD—or who had been knocked somewhere onto the spectrum—you’d still want to preserve his debonair quality. But now, in his newly obsessive way, he’d be grading himself on how successfully he’s being debonair. It’s an odd complication, maybe not interesting to anyone but me.
And that doesn’t really answer your question about dialogue. In general, though—whether it’s dialogue or anything else—do something different. Pretend every viewer has seen 5,000 other movies and doesn’t want to see the same recycled material. And that’s basically true.
If you make a movie where everything is strange just for the sake of being different, that’s annoying too. But you shouldn’t take any part of your dialogue, action, setting, or plot for granted. You should question every piece of it. That’s what happens with Marvel movies. If they’re spending 200 million dollars, they’ll have the main writers—and then a team of others—to second-guess them and make sure every detail is as refined as possible.
The less dialogue, the better. A good actor will look at their lines and suggest cuts, ways to say less. It takes a truly skilled actor to deliver three or four sentences in a row—to make a small speech—and have it sound natural rather than artificial.
If you can shorten those three or four sentences into one strong line, the actor’s job becomes easier. It’s simpler to say something naturally when it’s concise. It makes the actor look good, rather than like someone reciting a bunch of empty dialogue.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/16
How do Custer, Sand Creek, and residential schools reveal colonial violence—and why does it still feel so near?
Rick Rosner watches Antiques Roadshow and encounters a letter from the widow of General George Armstrong Custer. Rick Rosner recounts Custer’s role in the Indian Wars and the 1876 Little Bighorn defeat by Lakota, Northern Cheyenne, and Arapaho. He corrects a Boulder myth: Sand Creek’s massacre occurred near Eads, led by John Chivington, killing 150–230 women and children, after Fort Laramie and Fort Wise treaty betrayals. He links atrocities to Canada’s residential schools affecting 150,000 Indigenous children, recalls Phoenix Indian School, and notes the still close WWII memory. Future harms may be economic, political, or technological.
Rick Rosner: Carole and I were watching Antiques Roadshow before she fell asleep, and someone had an antique letter from the widow of General George Armstrong Custer.
Carole often complains that she had a terrible history teacher and doesn’t know any history. I explained to her who General Custer was—an American cavalry officer during the 19th century who became famous for his role in the Indian Wars—and she had no idea. I told her about how, during that period, Native American nations were continually pushed off their lands and massacred by U.S. forces.
In Custer’s case, the most famous event was the Battle of the Little Bighorn in 1876, when the Lakota Sioux, Northern Cheyenne, and Arapaho defeated his 7th Cavalry Regiment—a rare victory for Indigenous forces, though temporary.
Boulder, where we met and where I grew up, was sometimes said to be connected to the Sand Creek Massacre. When I looked it up, I realized that’s a common misconception. The massacre didn’t happen in Boulder—it occurred about 170 miles southeast, near present-day Eads, Colorado. Boulder is just where some of the archival material is stored. In November 1864, a force of about 675 volunteer cavalrymen under Colonel John Chivington attacked a peaceful encampment of Cheyenne and Arapaho people. Between 150 and 230 were killed, about two-thirds of them women and children.
The background was that an 1851 treaty at Fort Laramie had granted the Cheyenne and Arapaho extensive territory across what is now eastern Colorado. That arrangement unraveled after the 1858 Pike’s Peak Gold Rush brought thousands of settlers into the region. In 1861, a new treaty—known as the Treaty of Fort Wise—reduced their land by about 90 percent. Many tribal leaders refused to recognize it, arguing that those who signed were not authorized and had been bribed. Tensions and raids escalated until the Sand Creek Massacre, which horrified much of the country when the news spread and led to several official investigations condemning Chivington’s actions.
The history of the United States, while built on noble ideals, is also filled with atrocities. Canada’s history has its own version of this. From the late 19th century to the late 20th, about 150,000 First Nations, Métis, and Inuit children were forced to attend residential schools. Many suffered physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, and thousands died from neglect, disease, or mistreatment.
That’s the most widely accepted estimate today—about 150,000 children attended, and while not every experience was abusive, the system as a whole was coercive and destructive.
That’s part of our shared colonial history. I lived in Boulder eleven months of the year, and for one month I stayed with my dad and stepmother. The nearest main street to us was Indian School Road, named after the Phoenix Indian School in Arizona, one of the largest federal off-reservation boarding schools for Native Americans. It had a mixed legacy: some education and skills training, but also forced assimilation and punishment for speaking Indigenous languages.
It’s remarkable how close in time all of that is to us—the great slaughters of history. Many of them are almost within living memory. I was born only fifteen years after World War II.
The Civil War and the campaign to push Native Americans off their lands and kill them were both within reach of living memory in my family. My grandfather was born in 1905, which means that all of that had taken place only a few decades before he was born.
So that violence was still close in time—only about twenty or thirty years earlier.
And now we have the great slaughters of the future coming, probably within fifty years. I’m hoping they won’t be literal mass killings but rather people being pushed around in other ways—economically, politically, maybe technologically.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/15
Why would the Trump administration target college prep programs that support nearly a million low-income students across the U.S.?
In a discussion between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner, the Trump administration’s decision to gut federally funded TRIO programs is examined as part of a broader pattern of policies harming low-income Americans. These initiatives, which serve around 900,000 students, provide critical college preparation for disadvantaged youth. Rosner highlights how the wealthy enjoy structural advantages—elite schools, guidance networks, and stable home environments—while cuts to TRIO exacerbate inequality. The conversation also touches on political repression, including visa revocations for critics of conservative figures, illustrating how educational and civil liberties are being undermined simultaneously.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The Trump administration has been targeting college prep programs—both those backed by Democrats and even some supported by Republicans.
Rosner: What do you mean by “college prep programs”? Like high school curricula?
Jacobsen: Programs like TRIO, federally funded initiatives that help low-income students from middle school through college. The Trump administration reportedly fired almost 60 staff members connected to TRIO programs across the country. These layoffs affect about 900,000 students nationwide.
Rosner: So, mainly low-income students? Another “screw you” from Trump and the Republicans to the poor—because the Republican Party serves the interests of the wealthy.
And this fits into a pattern. The government shutdowns and budget fights over healthcare have the same underlying dynamic: punishing the vulnerable. If the Democrats don’t give in, tens of millions of Americans could see their health insurance premiums triple. People paying $5,000 or $6,000 a year for mediocre coverage—with high deductibles and partial reimbursement—could suddenly face $16,000 a year.
It’s not good coverage, but at least it keeps you from financial ruin if you get cancer or are in a major car accident. Without it, people would end up a million dollars in debt.
So yeah, cutting TRIO and similar programs is just another way to hurt poor people.
Why would they even want to eliminate those programs?
My wife has worked in admissions at two private high schools in Los Angeles, and both of us have helped our kid navigate college prep and applications. We’ve also advised other families. One thing we know for certain: it’s a huge advantage to be affluent when getting your kid into college—or even preparing them for it.
She’s worked at schools where tuition is over $50,000 a year. There’s a massive correlation between parental wealth and student success. And that’s not mysterious—it’s structural.
If you go to an underfunded inner-city high school, you’re lucky if there’s even one admissions counselor for 2,000 students. They’re overworked, underpaid, and probably don’t have connections with college admissions offices. Meanwhile, wealthy schools have entire departments for this.
So the system compounds inequality before a kid even submits an application. It’s a head start for the rich disguised as meritocracy. Maybe not, but at rich schools, people have connections. The counselors often have friends in admissions offices at top universities. When it comes time for applications, they can call up and do some special pleading.
Also, if you come from a wealthy family, your home environment usually supports learning. There’s structure, quiet, and time. If you’re one of three kids raised by a single mother working three jobs to make fifty thousand a year, she’s rarely home. Most of your conversations are with siblings—kids yelling at each other while the TV’s on.
But if you grow up in a household with two parents making two hundred grand a year, you probably have dinner together most nights. You might be an only child, or one of two, and the discussions at the table are more adult. The reading material in the house is higher level. The general tone of the home encourages learning.
College admissions in the U.S. are incredibly skewed. When I applied to college forty-some years ago, about twenty percent of applicants got into elite schools. Now, at some places, it’s three percent. That’s because everyone with even a slight chance applies to all the top schools—it’s easy now with online applications.
Fifty years ago, a kid might apply to three or four schools. Now, competitive students apply to fifteen or sixteen. Harvard gets around fifty thousand applications a year. Just applying costs money—fifty to a hundred dollars per school—so if a low-income family applies to a dozen schools, that’s over a thousand dollars just in fees.
There’s a very strong correlation between SAT scores and parental income. Wealthier, intact, upper-middle-class families have enormous advantages in preparing their kids for college. The schools are better, the test prep is better, the guidance is better, and the home environment reinforces all of it.
So when the Trump administration cuts programs like TRIO—affecting around nine hundred thousand low-income students—it’s devastating. That’s almost a million students.
There are around four to five million kids in each age cohort in the U.S.—four or five million seventeen-year-olds, four or five million eighteen-year-olds. So nine hundred thousand students across several grades is a significant fraction of all kids who could be preparing for college. It’s not trivial—it’s a major impact.
And while that’s happening, Trump’s still somehow having a “triumphant” moment. After the Gaza ceasefire, his approval rating even ticked up. It’s surreal—he keeps doing damaging things: the government shutdown, economic cruelty, stalling the release of the Epstein files—and still manages to get praise.
The Department of Homeland Security recently revoked the visas of six foreign nationals because they criticized Charlie Kirk online. That’s insane. People have reportedly been hassled reentering the U.S. for having anti-Trump posts on their phones. So, yeah, maybe at some point we should talk about how much political complaining I should do publicly. I love the hell out of America—but I don’t love the current leadership.
Talking about Charlie Kirk—look, it’s not nice to wish anyone harm. He was brutally assassinated, which was monstrous and inexcusable. But revoking someone’s visa just because they criticized him, a private citizen, seems deeply wrong.
If I wanted to say I don’t like an author—say, Eric Van Lustbader—I should be allowed to. I’ve read a bit of his work, and it annoys me. That’s my right. Nobody should lose entry to a country because they said something critical about a private citizen. It’s absurd.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/16
Why does Rick Rosner openly discuss his butt, poop, and anti-aging pills with journalist Scott Douglas Jacobsen—and what does it reveal about health, shame, and science?
In this candid and darkly funny conversation, Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen navigate topics few would dare mix—bodily quirks, gut biology, aging, and self-improvement. Rosner begins by unpacking his compulsive skin-picking habit and the medical realities of hemorrhoid surgery and anal fissures with clinical precision and self-deprecating humor. The discussion then shifts to the biology of feces, the evolutionary disgust response, and a dog’s poop-eating habits linked to Cushing’s disease. From there, Rosner reflects on moviegoing, Kevin Smith’s unlikely romance, and the virtues of artificial sweeteners. The talk ends with longevity science—fisetin, curcumin, and rapamycin—offered as modern elixirs for an aging body and restless mind.
Rick Rosner: We should talk about my butt.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Please no. Why?
Rosner: I’m a picker. In clinical terms, it’s close to “excoriation (skin-picking) disorder.” Some autistic people “stim”—that’s self-stimulation to regulate attention—and picking can serve that function for some of us. Chewing gum might help, right?
But for the last decade or more, I’ve been running my hands over myself looking for things to pick. If I wake up at two or three a.m., I start doing that, which is bad, because the area I usually check is the underwear line. That area gets friction and sweat, which can cause folliculitis—pimple-like bumps—and then I pick them. A 65-year-old man shouldn’t have picked spots on his butt. Not that I even have much of a butt anymore. I weigh less than I used to—about twenty percent down.
Even though I try to shove a bunch of protein into myself—powder, shakes, everything—today Consumer Reports came out with a report saying that many brands of that stuff are high in lead and other heavy metals like arsenic and cadmium. But I don’t think I eat or drink enough of it to really mess me up.
So no matter how much protein I consume, still no butt. Fat and muscle atrophy with age and weight loss, so it just flattens out. That’s the butt report: not much of a butt, but plenty of places where I’ve attacked it.
Jacobsen: Anything else?
Rosner: Not about my butt.
Jacobsen: Complaints?
Rosner: I’m complaining about my complaining. I shouldn’t pick my butt. My nails are in good shape now because I don’t bite them anymore. Doing both would be unsanitary. Touching the perianal area and then rubbing my eyes can transfer bacteria or viruses and cause conjunctivitis—pink eye. I’m not fiddling with my butthole, though.
They took those out a few years ago, which helped a lifelong problem. What they removed was hemorrhoidal tissue and some anoderm—basically the skin and mucosa near the anus—not the “colon wall.” One possible complication is anal stenosis, or narrowing, if too much tissue is removed. That can make stools thinner and lead to anal fissures, which are small tears.
So after surgery, the diameter of my bowel movements went from normal—about two centimeters—to more like a cigar, maybe one to one-and-a-half centimeters. Recently I tore my butthole passing a normal-sized stool. That’s an anal fissure—just another thing going on with my butt.
Jacobsen: Why is poop the way it is, rather than something clean and machine-like? We humans make messy waste.
Rosner: Until about ten years ago, people weren’t very concerned about the bacteria in their gut. Now we know better. By the time you make a bowel movement, you’re not the only one “eating” the food in your digestive tract. Trillions of bacteria are also feasting on that same food. Many of them are beneficial, but by the time the stool leaves your body, it’s mostly bacteria, water, fiber, and waste products.
It’s definitely not good to get those bacteria anywhere else in your body, like your eyes—that’s how you get pink eye. We’ve evolved to stay the hell away from our feces. Once it comes out, the smell is revolting to us, which is evolutionarily useful. But to flies, it must smell fantastic, because there’s still plenty of organic matter left to eat.
One of our dogs has even eaten her own poop before. She has Cushing’s disease, which causes the adrenal glands to produce too much cortisol for too long. When it was untreated, she burned a huge number of calories, so she’d eat her feces. We got the Cushing’s under control, and she doesn’t do that as much anymore—though her breath is still terrible.
Jacobsen: The brown dog—you mean that one? I’ve met her. I’ve met both of them, actually. I’ve got stories about those dogs.
Rosner: Then tell one.
Jacobsen: I don’t want to.
Rosner: Come on, tell one.
Jacobsen: Fine. I was using your bathroom once—it’s small—and I was taking a big poop. There’s that little dog door for the tiny dog, the one you’re talking about. I’m sitting there, doing my business, kind of zoning out, and suddenly the dog gets really excited outside, bursts through the door, and just stands there staring at me. I look down at her, look back up, and she’s still staring. We had this weirdly intimate moment of mutual confusion—like, “Why are you in here?” “Why are you in here?” Then she spun around and trotted back out.
Rosner: That’s the zoomies. It’s when a dog suddenly gets excited for no reason and just runs around like crazy. We’re happy she still gets the zoomies, because she’s fifteen now. It’s kind of heartwarming to see her still able to run around like an idiot. She doesn’t understand much—dogs don’t in general—and she especially doesn’t. But she’s sweet. All right, enough about poop, butts, and everything. Rotten tomatoes.
Jacobsen: What’s your opinion of Kevin Smith’s movies—Clerks, Mallrats—since he has clever things to say about some of these topics?
Rosner: I’ve seen a few of them, not all, and they’re generally pretty entertaining. But I saw them at a time when I was more patient with movies. My wife and I used to see almost every major release. We went to so many screenings every weekend. Back then, people would stand outside malls in New York handing out passes to advance screenings. You’d watch the movie before release, and they’d ask your opinion to help decide how to market it or whether to edit anything.
We saw a ton of films that way. But now that we’re older, we’re less patient. We’ve seen so many movies that we get annoyed with mediocre ones much faster. So, as for Kevin Smith’s films—I enjoyed them back then. If I watched them again now, would I enjoy them as much? I’m not sure.
One time, I was walking down Hollywood Boulevard behind a willowy, obviously model-esque woman and a somewhat heavyset guy. They were clearly together—boyfriend and girlfriend, or husband and wife—from their body language. What immediately popped into my head was Kevin Smith. Because he’s a director, he’s funny, and I thought, “What could overcome being chunky and still land a willowy girlfriend?” The answer was simple: being Kevin Smith.
I walked past them, looked back—and it was Kevin Smith. I felt very pleased with myself.
So, the lesson? Never give up. If you want a willowy girlfriend, pursue your dreams. If you do well enough, maybe you can have that. And now there’s Ozempic, which is a much easier way to get less chunky.
But nothing against him for being heavy. He’s talented, funny, a good director, and a good writer.
Jacobsen: What’s your opinion on artificial sweeteners—Diet Pops, Stevia, Splenda, Aspartame, that sort of thing?
Rosner: I use them a lot.
Jacobsen: From what I’ve seen in the research, even when people claim they’re toxic, you’d have to consume absurd quantities for it to matter.
Rosner: When they tested saccharin on rats back in the sixties, they were basically feeding the animals half their body weight in saccharin. Of course that made them sick. I use maybe two packets of stevia or Truvia a day in my coffee. I just hope, first, that it doesn’t mess me up in some weird way, and second, that my body doesn’t interpret it as sugar and spike my blood glucose anyway. I don’t think it does. There aren’t enough calories in there to matter. Who knows, but I trust that by using artificial sweeteners, I’m doing less harm than if I used the equivalent sweetness of sugar.
Jacobsen: Have you mostly given up on your “peak pills” regimen?
Rosner: Not entirely, but I’ve gotten lazy about it. I used to lay out my pills for months at a time, but I ran out about a month ago—maybe longer. Now I’m just taking them straight from the bottles I have on hand. I really need to get my act together and reload my pill organizers.
I’m way down from my peak—at one point, I was taking close to seventy pills a day. Now, when I’m fully stocked and organized, it’s more like thirty-something pills a day. I’m off “peak pills,” but I still take a lot when I’m organized enough. My favorite right now is fisetin—especially for someone my age. Fisetin is a senolytic, meaning it encourages senescent cells—old, malfunctioning cells that the body hasn’t cleared—to undergo apoptosis, or programmed cell death.
As you get older, that clearing system weakens. Those old cells pile up, increase inflammation, and drain resources. Some even become precancerous. Fisetin helps remind those cells to self-destruct and get cleared out.
The dosing pattern is intermittent: you take a high dose, wait a few days, and then take another. You don’t need it daily. Some people do it weekly, biweekly, or monthly. You just need to get in there and deliver the reminder dose.
I’ve been taking a lot of that stuff lately. I also like curcumin—it’s an anti-inflammatory compound derived from turmeric.
Quite a bit. I like stuff that actually has studies showing some efficacy. There’s at least some evidence behind it.
Resveratrol is good, except not really, because your digestive system wipes most of it out. Maybe one percent ever reaches your bloodstream. Fisetin’s similar, but you can buy it encapsulated in lipids. That means they take the fisetin powder and emulsify it—basically mix it—with good fats like omega-3s from fish oil. The fat forms a droplet around the fisetin, protecting it from stomach acid so it makes it further into your digestive tract. The further it travels, the less likely it is to get filtered out by the liver and the more likely it is to be absorbed into your bloodstream.
That fatty version of fisetin can increase absorption by maybe five to twenty times. Same with curcumin. You can buy fancy lipid-encapsulated curcumin too.
If you’re really hardcore—like a billionaire tech bro—you don’t take fisetin orally. You’ve got a doctor or nurse on staff to inject it directly into your bloodstream. Resveratrol, curcumin, fisetin—all are much more effective when injected intravenously.
I haven’t looked into what it would take to get the equipment or supplies to inject myself. And I definitely don’t have the money for a full concierge medical setup. LeBron James supposedly spends around a million dollars a year on physical maintenance—training, nutrition, therapy, medical monitoring, the works. That number sounds exaggerated, but look at him: the guy’s forty, built like an NFL player, six-foot-eight or six-foot-nine, and could probably bench around 315 pounds. That’s impressive strength for his size and age.
So maybe it’s not an exaggeration. If he can spend a million a year, I could probably justify ten or twenty grand to have a doctor or nurse inject me with longevity compounds once a week. But I don’t. It just feels like too much—even if maybe it isn’t. Who knows?
I signed up for rapamycin. It’s technically an antibiotic, but it’s used off-label as a longevity drug. When you give it to animals—mice, worms, that sort of thing—you can double their lifespan or extend it by forty percent, even if they’re already old.
So I did that for about a month or two. Rapamycin has to be prescribed by a doctor, and it costs around $300 a month. I eventually found out that, based on some other health issues, maybe I shouldn’t keep taking it. So that’s the closest I’ve come to any kind of boutique anti-aging therapy.
But in America, if you want to spend one, two, or even five thousand dollars a month on fancy anti-aging treatments—you can. And maybe some of them work. I’m just not at that point.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/14
How does Rick Rosner connect personal priorities, U.S. science policy, and global economic dynamics in his latest discussion with Scott Douglas Jacobsen?
In this reflective conversation, Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen move from aging and personal focus to major global and political issues. Rosner contemplates stepping back from high-range IQ testing at age 65, emphasizing time’s finite nature. The dialogue pivots to NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory layoffs, U.S. anti-science politics, and the decline of public enthusiasm for space exploration. Discussion then shifts to JPMorgan Chase’s $1.5 trillion investment pledge and the geopolitical competition between the U.S., China, and India. Rosner criticizes policy failures that stifle innovation and warns that anti-intellectualism threatens America’s scientific and economic competitiveness.
IQ Tests
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Any new thoughts or feelings to start today?
Rick Rosner: My days of taking super-hard IQ tests might be over.
Jacobsen: What do you mean?
Rosner: I am 65, and I still have things I want to do. That means I cannot spend 150 hours on a test in the hopes of breaking my previous high score. Also, you mentioned earlier that a couple of people have scored over 200 on specific unsupervised “high-range” IQ tests—not on standard, normed IQ scales.
I know the effort it took for me to get close to 200, and if I had unlimited time, maybe I would take a shot. However, I waste enough time as it is, so adding another opportunity to waste time when there is stuff I should be doing seems ill-advised. It isn’t the best use of my time, given the clock is ticking.
It ticks on us all, but somebody who is 65 probably has fewer ticks of the clock than someone who is 35 or 38. You do a lot. You do a lot every day. I spent four hours shingling a little library that’s four square feet of roofing.
Jacobsen: I have seen it. It is very lovely.
Rosner: And it has a nice shingled roof now, which should be much more water-resistant than the previous one. It was getting worn.
Jacobsen: I talked with Carole about it when I last visited. I was looking at it and describing how nice it was when I was there, noting that a few touch-ups were still needed at the time. However, yes, it is nice. I am sure you made it even nicer.
Rosner: Yes, but everything takes longer than you think it will. I could have hired someone. Plus, that little library is almost 12 years old, so yes, it needs maintenance.
Jacobsen: All right, let’s shift gears. NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced on Monday, October 13th, according to Reuters, that it plans to cut nearly 550 jobs. Not that it has yet, but that it intends to, as part of a restructuring. These cuts are not related to the current U.S. government shutdown.
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is the only federally funded research and development center operated for NASA. It has designed, built, and operated all five of the successful rovers that have gone to the surface of Mars.
Rosner: That’s bad news. I don’t know if it’s the worst news, but it’s definitely discouraging.
They said it’s not a consequence of the current administration’s anti-science tendencies, but it’s hard not to wonder. That’s many jobs—probably more than 10 percent of their workforce.
Maybe they’re trying to save money for the next few years of political instability. Or perhaps they’re reallocating funds for lunar or deep-space missions. I don’t know enough to comment intelligently, but it’s concerning.
It’s essential to keep exploring space. But since I was a kid, other priorities have come up. Still, I don’t think it’s a zero-sum game. Money that’s saved by cutting space exploration doesn’t automatically end up funding other areas of science. That’s ridiculous. NASA should continue to be adequately funded.
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is closely tied to NASA. I’m not sure if this restructuring is related to Elon Musk and SpaceX taking resources that might otherwise go to JPL, as I don’t know enough about the situation. But in general, it’s not good.
And the trend since 2017—and honestly, even before that—hasn’t been promising. We haven’t set foot on the Moon since 1972. While part of that achievement was symbolic, tied to fulfilling President Kennedy’s vision, it also drove enormous technological progress.
We continue to gain technological benefits here on Earth from space exploration. So any pullback sounds bad. Again, I can’t comment in detail because I don’t know exactly what’s happening, but when I was a kid, space exploration was the cutting edge of science. Yes, computer science was developing at the same time, but it wasn’t yet visible in the way it is now. The Moon landings were splashy—they captured public imagination more than computing technology did.
Over the next ten years—and certainly over the next fifty—digital technology became the more exciting frontier, and probably one that delivers more practical outcomes right now. But it shouldn’t come at the expense of space exploration—both matter.
I have a political tangent. Maybe I mentioned it yesterday, but Trump is a terrible person—not a wise man—and he makes terrible political and economic decisions on behalf of the nation. They’re often vengeful. He might be the dumbest and worst president we’ve ever had.
However, if this Middle East ceasefire he’s brokered actually holds, that’s a big deal. If his involvement really contributed to ending the conflict—or even pausing it meaningfully—that’s significant. He’s going to brag about it in his awful, self-aggrandizing way, but still, maybe it’s the best thing he’s done during his time as president.
It’s partly because it’s genuinely good, and partly because everything else he’s done has been awful. But it’s still a good thing. There’s a kind of “Trump derangement syndrome” that MAGA supporters accuse liberals of having—that they can’t acknowledge anything good he’s done. In this case, something good might actually have happened.
Even though he’s done it in his braggy, obnoxious way, that said, I read that when Biden was president, 140 hostages were released by Hamas, and under Trump, 28 were released. So, should Biden get some credit, too?
I don’t know. Biden certainly got attacked enough for continuing to supply weapons and other aid to Israel, some to Gaza as well. The Gaza situation significantly contributed to Harris losing the election. But here’s Trump, and… I don’t know. Anyway, it’s a good thing.
You’ve been around—you’ve talked to people all over the world.
JPMorgan Chase America Investment
Jacobsen: Yes, now, next topic: JPMorgan Chase announced plans on Monday to hire bankers and invest over $10 billion in American companies critical to national security and economic resilience. This is part of a broader $1.5 trillion, ten-year initiative aimed at facilitating financing and investment in industries central to American economic growth.
Rosner: So let me see if I understand this correctly. JPMorgan Chase represents investors with $1.5 trillion to invest in American industry, and it’s hiring bankers to ensure that money is invested most effectively—is that right?
Jacobsen: The $1.5 trillion is a pledge, meaning a prospective financial contribution over ten years. They expect to raise that amount from various investors—people or institutions- that JPMorgan Chase believes it can convince to invest with them. The goal is to direct that capital toward the most promising sectors of U.S. research and industry.
Rosner: Okay, that’s not a bad thing. If anyone knows how to get investors—or has access to the right networks—it’s Jamie Dimon and JPMorgan Chase. I’m not sure what the U.S. GDP is per year, but it’s on the order of tens of trillions of dollars. So, relative to that, this is a significant investment.
I don’t know China’s current GDP or the level of investment they’re coordinating, but I looked up some figures: China has 145 industrial cities with populations over a million. The U.S. has about eleven. China has eighteen towns with populations over ten million; the U.S. has none. China is a juggernaut.
India has the potential to be a juggernaut too—if they can get their systems together. Fareed
Jacobsen: Zakaria disagrees somewhat; he says India will continue to grow, but too sluggishly to match the pace of the U.S. or China. On a per-capita basis, America is still ahead, of course.
Rosner: I guess what I’m saying is that the U.S. needs all the help it can get, because our current government doesn’t know what it’s doing. It talks as if it’s pro-development, but many of its policies actually hinder development within the U.S. Take the H-1B visa situation—Trump’s policies made it absurdly expensive to hire international talent.
If you want to hire a skilled engineer from outside the U.S.—from India or China, for instance—you might pay them $200,000 a year because they’re highly talented. On top of that, you’re effectively paying the government another $100,000 in costs and fees for the visa.
Or Madagascar—or wherever they’re from—you still have to pay the government another hundred grand to have them work for you. That’s anti-industry. It’s anti-development. It’s nonsense. We’ve developed policies that actively discourage cherry-picking the best talent from around the world.
Programs like this JPMorgan Chase initiative may help. If the government continues to bury its head in the sand, private industry and banking will have to step in to give us any chance to compete with the other major economic juggernauts of the world.
Ideally, we’d have a government that remembers what the United States did after Sputnik in 1957. The Soviet Union launched the first satellite, and the U.S. panicked—rightly so, in a Cold War context. That panic led to massive investment in math and science education. For the next twenty or thirty years, we surged forward.
Then, over the next thirty years, that momentum collapsed. We ended up with a generation of Republican ideologues who found it easier to manipulate anti-intellectual voters than to invest in knowledge. Now, half the country is skeptical of science. If we’re going to compete with China—or any technologically ambitious nation—we need to reduce the influence of anti-science forces in American politics.
And who said India is too sluggish?
Jacobsen: Fareed Zakaria.
Rosner: Well, he can say that—but India is now the most populous nation on Earth, with roughly four times our population. Even if the country as a whole is slow, individual enterprises can still be dynamic and competitive. With 1.4 billion people, you have an enormous talent pool.
Lee Kuan Yew Beyond the Grave
Jacobsen: Lee Kuan Yew once put it this way before he died: if you spread a message in modern China, in Mandarin, it will reach the entire country. People identify as Chinese first, and then as Han or other ethnicities second. There are local tensions, but national identity takes precedence, and a singular language with dialects facilitates communication.
In India, communication doesn’t flow the same way. Speak one primary language, and your reach is partial—you need translation. Add to that religious divides between Hindus and Muslims, politicized religion in Hindutva similar to America’s Christian Right and MAGA movement, and a rigid caste system—all of it fragments communication and national coherence.
Rosner: Even if those factors reduce India’s overall efficiency by 50 or 70 percent, that still leaves hundreds of millions of competent people. But another drag on India’s growth is brain drain—many of its talented people leave the country. Do they mostly come to the U.S.?
Jacobsen: Not necessarily. They can travel to over 192 member states.
Rosner: China’s probably quite welcoming. I’d bet China makes it easy for skilled foreigners to come, live in a penthouse, drive an electric SUV, go clubbing—in short, to enjoy the high-tech urban life.
Across China’s 145 industrial cities with over a million residents, and its eighteen megacities with over ten million, there’s a distinct “future” aesthetic. I asked AI today if China looks like Blade Runner. The answer was, “In some cities, yes.” And it does—it seems like the future.
Does the U.S. look like the future? I’m not sure. Does the rest of Asia? Possibly. Between India’s 1.4 billion people, China’s 1.4 billion, and another 800 million spread across Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, and the rest of East Asia, there’s staggering talent there.
Eventually, Africa will become the next primary source of human capital—it’ll be the only continent with a growing population after 2050. The U.S., meanwhile, isn’t politically poised to compete right now. Our politicians are, frankly, yahoos.
Jacobsen: I’ve got to go.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/13
Do GOP claims about ACA fraud and immigrant coverage distract from inflation, debt, and tariff risks?
Vice President J.D. Vance argues ACA tax credits invite insurance fraud as Democrats seek an extension to end the shutdown. Rick Rosner counters that Republican leaders increasingly lie, including about federal coverage for undocumented immigrants, which has been barred since the 1996 welfare reform. Scott Douglas Jacobsen raises debt concerns, citing roughly $38 trillion. Rosner says voters care more about inflation and benefits than debt itself. He warns tariffs are inflationary, noting a market drop after a proposed 100% China tariff and harm to soybean exports, notably this year. The dollar’s recent slide is relative; domestically, Americans still meet needs despite turbulence.
ACA Tax Credits
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Vice President J.D. Vance claims Affordable Care Act tax credits fuel fraud as Democrats push for an extension to end the government shutdown. Vance also called for regulatory reform, saying on CBS News’ Face the Nation: “The tax credits go to some people deservedly. We [see that] the tax credits actually go to a lot of waste and fraud within the insurance industry. So we want to make sure the tax credits go to people who deserve them.”
Rick Rosner: Republicans—especially much of their leadership and many in Congress—no longer feel compelled to tell the truth. They just lie wherever they think they can get away with it now. I don’t know if it’s unprecedented in U.S. history, but it’s certainly something that hasn’t happened in my lifetime. They just go on television and tell lies. Sometimes they’re called out, sometimes they’re not, and it doesn’t matter—they just keep going.
The lie that they’re fighting to stop money from going to provide health insurance to undocumented immigrants is one of many. As far as I know, it’s illegal to provide federal health insurance to undocumented immigrants. That restriction dates back to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, signed by President Bill Clinton, not Reagan. Republicans have been repeating this false claim throughout this shutdown and earlier.
They’re in charge of parts of government and also cornered politically because they’re afraid of various investigations—Epstein files among them. The result is a toxic mix of arrogance and desperation, which leads them to keep saying whatever serves their narrative.
Rising National Debt
Jacobsen: The debate between Democrats and Republicans keeps avoiding the country’s biggest structural issue: the rising national debt and the long-term financial health of Social Security and Medicare. The U.S. national debt is currently around $38 trillion. Any thoughts on this?
Rosner: It’s not the number one problem for most Americans. The top concern is their own economic situation. Most Americans don’t care about the national debt in itself—they care about what follows from it, like inflation. They care about Social Security and Medicare.
The United States can fund all of these programs—Social Security, Medicare, whatever else—because we can print more money and sell more debt. But doing that is highly inflationary. Still, the U.S. economy is so large and resilient that even after repeated shocks—such as those caused by Trump’s bad decisions—it remains fundamentally healthy.
We’re somewhat insulated from the kind of hyperinflation you see in weaker economies. Historically, one of the worst examples wasn’t the fastest but the most devastating: Germany in the early 1920s during the Weimar Republic, when hyperinflation wiped out the middle class and destabilized society.
That hyperinflation led to Hitler and World War II. It was probably around 10,000 percent per year or something close to that. When the U.S. experiences bad inflation, it might hit 7 percent—and that alone angers Americans.
We might be hit with inflation again because of the tariffs. Trump knocked the stock market down by nearly 2 percent on Friday after announcing a 100 percent tariff on China—again.
Jacobsen: Do you know why? I haven’t paid any attention as to why he did that.
Rosner: Well, he just does things like that. It tanks the stock market and hurts farmers. Last year, American farmers sold about $18 billion worth of soybeans to China; this year, virtually none.
So, the national debt itself doesn’t concern people. What they care about is how the economy affects their own finances. The U.S. dollar has fallen roughly 10 or 11 percent so far this year, but that’s relative to other currencies. Domestically, people can still buy what they need and not feel the pinch immediately.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/13
How do ceasefire fragility, ICC politics, women’s representation in China, and an accelerating AI arms race intersect to shape global risk and human rights today?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner range from roof repairs to world repairs. They discuss the fragility of Israel–Hamas ceasefires, contested ICC warrant actions involving Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, and the staggering toll on journalists in Gaza. Jacobsen notes patterns of ceasefire violations and hopes hostages return while Palestinians gain relief. They examine Xi Jinping’s remarks on women in governance, the legacy of the 1995 Beijing Declaration, and gaps between rhetoric and implementation. Finally, they compare today’s AI arms race to nuclear escalation, warning that incentives to accelerate outstrip safety, and leadership competence remains the decisive, missing ingredient today.
Carole’s Little Library
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Any complaints or comments for the day?
Rick Rosner: I shingled the roof of Carole’s little library. Any kind of home improvement chore just takes three times as long as you estimate.
You have to seal the underlayment, put down the tar paper, measure and cut the shingles, and nail them in the right place. Even though I was only doing four square feet of roof, it took two and a half hours, which is ridiculous.
Maybe if I were an experienced roofer with proper tools, it would be different. Shopping for the nails and getting the right ones took twelve to fifteen minutes because there are so many different kinds. It’s the rule of three: take the time you think it will take and then triple it.
Jacobsen: What’s happening? Looking at the American news for today, or world news. They’re supposed to release—Hamas is supposed to release—some of the hostages. Everyone’s waiting to see if the peace holds.
Rosner: What do you think? You’ve been over there. You’ve talked to people.
Jacobsen: People seem sincere about wanting peace, but peace in the sense of at least a ceasefire. It’s like winning and not losing not being the same thing. Ceasefire and peace are partly the same, partly not. The history of ceasefires between Israel and armed groups in the Palestinian territories is terrible. If you go by history, you should expect a violation of the ceasefire—either from an armed group out of Gaza or elsewhere in Palestinian territory, or from the IDF. If it happens, it’s more likely to be the IDF; that tends to be the pattern, not always, but generally.
Rosner: The tendency is to behave as if they have impunity.
Jacobsen: There’s a lot of context around the ICC warrant from Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court, which issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, but not for Mahmoud Abbas. Domestically, Netanyahu has faced multiple corruption charges, including breach of trust and fraud. There would be reason to continue conflicts to avoid some of that, at least from a leadership perspective. But in terms of getting hostages back, giving Palestinians some relief from killings, and from a journalistic perspective—seeing fewer journalists die in Gaza is a good thing. As of September 2025, at least about 189 journalists and media workers had been killed since October 2023, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. That’s not talked about much, but it will likely shake up journalistic opinion.
Press Murders
Rosner: They wear press vests, hats, and clearly labeled gear. They make it very obvious who they are, and that doesn’t stop Israel from killing them.
Jacobsen: Theoretically, you can also manipulate numbers on killings. You can shoot someone in the knee—maim or dismember but not kill. Then they return to society unable to work. There are probably many such cases in different conflicts. I’m hopeful, like everyone else, but the history is not encouraging. At a minimum, the hostages will come back and return to Israeli society and their loved ones, which is really good. There will be some relief for Palestinians from ongoing suffering.
Jacobsen: On the international news front, there’s a lot of focus on how President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China has said there should be more women in governance. That’s a good statement. What are your thoughts on it?
Rosner: Have they made statements like this before, or is this new for the Chinese government?
Jacobsen: It’s interesting. I don’t know the gender makeup of their leadership—I don’t expect it’s very good—but the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action was adopted in 1995, and its 30-year review (Beijing+30) was marked in 2025 at CSW69 with a new political declaration. These are periodic reviews rather than renewals every five years.
The Beijing Declaration has probably produced more impact than any other rights document ever. Every five years, they hold a review session. This year was one of those review years at the Commission on the Status of Women. So it has been about thirty years since its adoption and twenty-five years of renewals. They’ve certainly been involved in some of the key points of gender equality.
Whether those statements have translated into real-world implementation is probably another question.
Incompetent Regime
Rosner: I have two thoughts. One is that, as an American living under an incompetent regime, I want other countries’ governance—especially China’s—to be terrible too, so we don’t fall too far behind until we can get decent leadership back in America, if that’s even possible.
On the other hand, from a human rights point of view, shutting down half the population by excluding women from participation is disastrous. I don’t know what the actual conditions are for Chinese women, or if it’s even desirable to be part of the Chinese government. But it would be great if we could compete squarely with China. Right now, we have idiots in charge, which disadvantages everyone in America.
I’ve heard—and I think you’d probably agree from people who know China—that China had pretty dysfunctional leadership for a while, and now it seems to be improving.
Jacobsen: Yes, they did a massive crackdown on corruption, as far as I know, but with an absolute slant towards maintenance of Jinping’s power structure and governance.
Rosner: And with technology spinning out of control, I’m not even sure what competent leadership would look like. It may turn out that competent leadership would actually shut down AI development as much as possible until we can get a better handle on it. But I don’t think either country is putting meaningful limits on AI.
AI Incentives
Jacobsen: There’s a huge disincentive to impose limits. In fact, there’s an even bigger incentive to accelerate.
Rosner: It’s an arms race with something that’s going to be smarter than us and doesn’t even need to be conscious to behave in dangerous ways, because it’s trained on human data.
You could liken it to the arms race in the 1950s and 1960s—the nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union—where we kept building more and more warheads, more and more powerful nukes. That could only go on for so long. It was mostly over by the late 1950s, because there’s very limited use for a 50-megaton nuclear warhead.
You drop five megatons on a city and everyone’s dead. You drop fifty, and everyone’s still dead—just with a bigger hole in the ground. Whether it’s 500 feet deep or 700 feet deep, it’s still a crater.
That part of the arms race ended, but then they developed MIRVs—Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles—which allowed a single missile to carry eight warheads that could strike different targets. That continued until the early to mid-1960s, when both the U.S. and the Soviet Union had about 7,000 nuclear warheads each.
Since then, we’ve calmed down somewhat, but we still each have roughly 1,700 deployed warheads—enough to destroy the planet several times over. So we’re still in danger with nuclear weapons, and now we’re going to endanger ourselves again with AI.
And I don’t know—is there any country in the world that could actually make a difference? The big countries have the big companies. If Estonia were to put limits on AI, it wouldn’t mean anything.
It’s bad luck—and maybe not entirely luck—that we have the dumbest president in history at a time when we’re engineering the next entities that will be the smartest on the planet.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/12
How is Trump’s second administration shaping U.S. governance, cultural conflict, and institutional integrity?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss the deepening dysfunction in Trump’s second administration, where loyalty eclipses competence. Rosner contrasts the current team of sycophants with earlier figures like Rex Tillerson, who at least understood governance. The dialogue explores the implications of Dan Scavino’s appointment, the government shutdown’s legal tangles, and symbolic flashpoints such as Stone Mountain’s Confederate carving. Rosner criticizes politicized firings, university crackdowns, and misinformation around Trump’s health. Together, they frame a portrait of a nation slipping toward authoritarian theater—where spectacle overtakes substance and institutional trust erodes beneath partisan zeal.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This is news to me. Dan Scavino is going to lead the White House Presidential Personnel Office. He’s also serving as Deputy Chief of Staff and is Trump’s longtime social media aide.
Rick Rosner: In general, one significant negative difference between Trump Administration Two and Trump Administration One is that in the first, he had some competent people who were interested in governing, like Rex Tillerson, for instance, who served as Secretary of State for about a year. He ran Exxon. He was a big CEO—maybe not the nicest guy in the world, which you wouldn’t expect from someone running a huge oil company—but at least he was competent and not committed to tearing down the government.
This time around, it’s all Trump loyalists, which means they’re generally underqualified—sometimes straight-up idiots. Not entirely sycophants, but certainly leaning that way. The people around Trump are even worse this time than they were eight years ago. And nobody cares about any of the ideals that modern America was built on.
We’ve had a reasonably regular government since World War II, even before that. America has been a pretty good place for many people—with plenty of room for improvement, of course. But the changes Trump is making—none of those make America any better.
That being said, he may have done something worthwhile by helping to broker a Gaza ceasefire. If it holds, he probably deserves some credit for that, though I haven’t seen a deep analysis of it. I’m sure if you look more closely, there’s plenty of unsavoury stuff to take into account. But at least on the surface, with the ceasefire in effect, Israel isn’t actively conducting large-scale strikes, and if Hamas stands down and turns over some of the remaining hostages who are still alive, that’s a good thing.
Jacobsen: At Georgia’s Stone Mountain, there’s been a fight over a Confederate tribute—a vast image of three Confederate leaders carved into the granite face of the mountain. The carvings have towered over the countryside near Atlanta since the 1970s, honouring those who fought for the Southern cause in the U.S. Civil War.
Rosner: Some compare it to Mount Rushmore; the initial sculptor was the same person who later did Mount Rushmore, Gutzon Borglum, though the Stone Mountain carving was completed decades later by other artists.
Jacobsen: The three figures are Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. So what are your thoughts on this feud?
Rosner: What’s the feud like? You’re not going to obliterate the whole side of a mountain where this sculpture—about 90 feet by 190 feet and recessed roughly 42 feet—has been etched with explosives and jackhammers, right? Do people want it to be removed? I guess so. It looks like there was a group celebrating Confederate Memorial Day there, and a fight broke out with counter-protesters. From the images, it doesn’t even look like there were that many people involved.
I don’t know what you can do about that monument because it’s gigantic. It’s literally blasted into the side of a mountain, carved from solid granite about 400 feet above the ground. It’s not like pulling down a fifteen-foot-tall bronze Confederate soldier in a park somewhere. And as long as it’s there, you’re going to have protesters and counter-protesters.
I don’t know what you do about it. If it were something on the side of a mountain depicting Hitler, you’d have to get rid of it. But is the Confederacy as bad as Hitler? I don’t know. Can you even compare the two? I don’t know what you do about it. Maybe you do blast it off the side of the mountain.
But that’s certainly not going to happen now, under the current leadership of the country, which is putting Confederate leaders back up at places like West Point and elsewhere.
Jacobsen: That’s some sad news. U.S. actress Diane Keaton, star of Annie Hall, has died at 79.
Rosner: Yeah, that is sad. That’s not very old under current life expectancy, especially for someone who presumably had good access to medical care. It’s scary for me—that’s only fourteen years older than I am. She seemed like a nice person and a good actress.
Jacobsen: So now we’re in the phase where the wave went through, and the tide is pulling back. The CDC has reversed hundreds of firings as the U.S. government shutdown enters its second week. About 1,300 employees were notified they’d be laid off, and hundreds of those notices were rescinded within hours.
Rosner: Trump doesn’t have the unlimited power to fire government employees. People will go to court over this, because a lot of federal employees can’t be fired except for cause—you can’t just arbitrarily fire them.
Trump is on record as repeatedly saying he’ll fire people and cut back funding that most hurts Democrats and blue states. That can be used against him in court, just as it was when he engaged in politically motivated prosecutions—such as having investigators review his political opponents’ mortgage and loan applications. If they find anything out of order, they’ll claim those people declared multiple properties as their primary residence—but only if they’re Democrats.
There’s one guy, Ken Paxton, down in Texas, who owns eleven properties and claims three of them as his primary residence, which is definitely mortgage fraud. He won’t be prosecuted because he’s a Republican in a Republican state.
So, all this stuff—Trump is going to do what he’s going to do. People will go to court and fight it, and we’ll see how everything turns out.
Vegas bookies have the lowest odds on the shutdown ending before November 1st. Government shutdowns only became a thing after a 1980 legal change. The longest in U.S. history lasted 35 days, under Trump in 2018–2019.
Bookies think it won’t last that long this time. But who knows? Part of the reason the government is shut down, some claim, is that a government in shutdown doesn’t have to release the Epstein files. A lot of this looks like desperate maneuvering by Republicans to avoid revealing what’s in those files, which suggests that what’s in there must be pretty bad.
Trump has consistently demonstrated that he can act without consequence, retaining the support of many of his followers. So if they’re afraid of what’s in the Epstein files, those files must be really damaging.
Jacobsen: Interesting. Activist Laura Loomer has criticized the Pentagon over plans to close a military facility in Idaho. For those who don’t know, she’s a far-right activist.
Rosner: Laura Loomer is generally not just an extremist but also deeply unhinged. She’s been hospitalized at least twice for mental health issues. My favourite dumb thing she said was when she claimed she was the victim of an attack on her Jeep—that someone had slashed her tires, possibly trying to kill her. It turned out she was driving on tires that were six and a half years old. Tires wear out.
But lately, some people that liberals would consider extremists—people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, the congresswoman from Georgia—have started criticizing Trump. Greene, who’s said plenty of lunatic things herself, has recently been making a surprising amount of sense in calling out some of Trump’s nonsense.
Which is great. If she’s a loose cannon, at least she’s firing in a direction that reins in Trump’s overreach. I’ll take that.
Jacobsen: Trump’s physician said in a memo that, quote, “Trump remains in exceptional health, exhibiting strong cardiovascular, pulmonary, neurological, and physical performance.” It added that Trump received preventive screenings and immunizations, including an annual flu shot and an updated COVID-19 booster, in preparation for upcoming international travel.
Rosner: Maybe, maybe. There’s a lot of skepticism about those statements. For instance, the memo called it a “semi-annual” physical. The president’s supposed to get an annual one. There’s never been a presidential semi-annual physical. So he’s obviously being checked out for something.
That leads people to speculate he may have had an MRI—one of the few procedures that can’t be done inside the White House. You have to be taken to a facility for that. But that’s speculation.
He doesn’t seem to be doing great. He’s 79 years old, and he’s obviously on several prescription drugs to manage whatever conditions he has. The administration isn’t telling the public anywhere near the whole truth about his health. For instance, after the latest physical, the White House said his “cardiac age” is 14 years younger than his chronological age, that he has the circulatory system of a 65-year-old. That’s nonsense.
Jacobsen: This next one is the following from last week. In contrast to Harvard’s conciliatory approach—issuing payouts instead of pushing back against federal threats of funding cuts—Massachusetts Institute of Technology President Sally Kornbluth said she “cannot support” a memo that the White House sent to nine elite universities.
The letter laid out detailed policies that universities should follow to receive preferential consideration for federal funding. Sally Kornbluth cited the fact that the letter from U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon would restrict MIT’s independence and freedom of expression. Any thoughts?
Rosner: Trump has been pressuring universities—especially big-name ones like Stanford, Columbia, and UCLA—by pulling hundreds of millions, even billions, in federal research funding. Some universities, to retain that money, have been implementing the changes demanded by Trump. They’re all nonsense. He claims they’re designed to eliminate DEI—diversity, equity, and inclusion programs—and to combat antisemitism. Trump doesn’t care about antisemitism. It’s just a way to punish universities, especially those with campuses where there have been pro-Palestinian protests.
Universities don’t really control who shows up to protest. They can increase security, but they can’t stop demonstrations entirely. I guess they could expel some protesters, but at this point, it’s too late—the protests have already happened.
So, universities have to choose: kiss Trump’s ass and make the superficial changes he demands, or hold the line—half the students at Harvard major in STEM—science, technology, engineering, and math. I majored in STEM before it was even called that—math and physics. You don’t get politics when you’re doing STEM.
I took other classes too—dance, art, women’s studies—and sure, there’s politics there, feminist politics primarily, but nobody was lecturing me about Marxism versus capitalism, or trying to turn me into a Marxist. It’s all bullshit. Campuses are liberal, sure, but that doesn’t mean everyone’s being turned into a communist. It’s just con-artist talk from Trump.
Universities now have to figure out how they’ll survive the next three years of Trump. Do they play along to keep their funding, or are they wealthy enough to ride it out for the next thirty-eight months and hope to recover when an actual adult is back in the White House?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/11
In this conversation, Rick Rosner discusses the analytics and creative dilemmas behind Naked at Night, his YouTube show featuring artists, musicians, and occasional bikini-clad guests. Despite a surge in male viewers aged 30–40, audience retention remains low—most leave within a minute when the content proves more talk and art than titillation. Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen examine how thumbnails, algorithms, and audience expectations drive misleading clicks and force creators to choose between authenticity, eroticism, and politicization. The discussion reveals the friction between artistic intent and digital attention economics in an age of algorithmic seduction.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What did Adam’s data actually show in terms of audience behaviour—view time, demographics, engagement trends?
Rick Rosner: Adam helps us with our show and shares some analytics. Not for your show and mine—that one primarily exists in transcript form—but for Naked at Night, the one I do with Lance, JD, Mark, and sometimes you as a guest. For the last two episodes, Cassidy and Channing joined us—two women in bikinis being drawn by Lance during the broadcast.
We have gained more viewers, but not more subscribers. The new viewers only stay for about a minute. My theory is that our show—mostly talking, some drawing, and a bit of singing at the end from JD, and last week from Cassidy, who is a talented singer and guitarist—does not match what those new viewers expect. People see a thumbnail featuring a woman in a bikini and assume it is going to be sexually explicit. When they realize it is not, they leave.
Jacobsen: Have you considered whether thumbnail presentation or algorithmic categorization might be driving those misleading clicks?
Rosner: That is likely part of it. Our show has a lot going on, featuring women who are both interesting and articulate. Cassidy, for instance, described herself as an anarchist, which added a twist to the discussion. However, that doesn’t change the underlying problem of sexual expectations. The analytics show a 100% male audience—mostly men between 30 and 40, which is a demographic that often searches for erotic content.
Jacobsen: How does that shape your creative direction?
Rosner: Men in that age group still have strong sexual drives, while younger adults are reportedly having less sex than previous generations. Surveys from the General Social Survey and Pew show declining sexual frequency among people under 30, partly due to digital substitution and stress. Masturbation rates are mixed but stable. So, we’re attracting men who are looking for “bonerific” content—but that’s not what we’re offering.
Jacobsen: Are you tempted to lean into the erotic side for numbers, or would that dilute what makes the show unique?
Rosner: That’s the crossroads we’re at. We could make it more overtly sexual. I know how to stage spectacle—I worked on The Man Show, where we had women jumping on trampolines. I finance Naked at Night, so technically, we could hire topless models. But YouTube doesn’t allow explicit sexual content meant to arouse. Limited nudity is allowed only in educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic contexts, but even then, it’s often age-restricted and demonetized. So the “artistic disclaimer” approach doesn’t guarantee anything.
Jacobsen: Y Are you near the ad-revenue threshold yet?
Rosner: Not yet. To qualify for ad-revenue sharing, you need at least 1,000 subscribers and either 4,000 public watch hours in 12 months or 10 million Shorts views in 90 days. We’re nowhere close. Some fan-funding tools unlock earlier, but they don’t provide a scalable income.
Jacobsen: What about the show’s political component?
Rosner: Lance misses the political discussions. I’ve been trying to tone that down because the yelling wore us out, but he wants to express his right-wing views more directly. He points to someone like Doug TenNapel—the creator of Earthworm Jim—who pivoted into political commentary and found a loyal audience with his conservative show. Lance could do something like that: draw while talking politics.
Jacobsen: Does political controversy bring engagement or just polarization that drives away nuanced viewers?
Rosner: There’s an audience for it, but it bums me out. I don’t want to flood the world with right-wing nonsense without at least pushing back. I don’t want to deny Lance a livelihood—he’s a struggling artist—but I also don’t want him contributing to misinformation. So we’re at a few crossroads—caught between sexual marketing, political division, and creative authenticity.
Jacobsen: Have you considered reframing the show’s format around satire or meta-commentary, so the erotic and political themes become deliberate subjects rather than accidental bait?
Rosner: That’s not a bad idea. It could allow us to maintain humour and honesty while addressing the absurdity of the attention economy itself. It’s either that, or accept that our crossroads are paved with boobs and right-wing bullshit.
Rosner: Basically, we’re at a crossroads between boobs and Breitbart politics. That’s a good way to put it. It’s kind of interesting—we’ve seen a viewership increase of about 1,000% with Eladie and Vicky, two lovely young women.
Jacobsen: How much more on top of that increase do you need to become monetized? Another thousand percent?
Rosner: Probably, yeah. I think we could get monetized if we started getting… I don’t know. But Adam tells us it’s not just about the number of people who stop by; it’s the cumulative number of minutes they spend watching. I’m unsure about the total time required to reach monetization or the types of ad deals you receive.
Also, I’ve got another agenda—I’m trying to get a book deal. I know someone who got one, and in their acceptance letter, the publisher listed all their followers across different social media platforms. I have a decent number of followers on X, but it’s become a garbage heap, and nobody cares about it anymore. I started posting on Instagram, where I share my micromosaic work, and I’ve only got a few hundred followers. On YouTube, we have 5,400 subscribers, which is a decent number, but not a huge following. I don’t think that would help me get a book deal.
Plus, Carole tells me that if you’re selling fiction, publishers care less about your following. So I don’t know. That’s where we are.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/10
How does Rick Rosner interpret the moral decay surrounding Trump’s political maneuvers, Peter Thiel’s advice to Elon Musk, and the broader disillusionment of American farmers and citizens?
In this candid exchange, Rick Rosner reflects on Donald Trump’s ongoing legal troubles, alleged corruption, and the normalization of unethical behavior in American politics. He critiques Peter Thiel’s advice to Elon Musk against charitable giving as emblematic of billionaire arrogance and moral emptiness, contrasting it with Bill Gates’s philanthropic pragmatism. Rosner connects these issues to America’s agricultural collapse—where misguided trade policies and blind political loyalty devastate farmers—and to cultural dissonance that fractures the nation’s conscience. His analysis portrays a society seduced by power and spectacle, losing sight of empathy, reason, and accountability.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s been bothering you lately—or today?
Rick Rosner: Always wasting my life. Those are the two big ones. That’s it.
Jacobsen: What’s the latest with Trump?
Rosner: He’s been lobbying for the Nobel Peace Prize, which would be controversial if he got it. Most of what he’s doing now is trying to avoid, as many people say online, the consequences of his actions—and continuing to raise money through political and business ventures. He and his family have been involved in a number of business deals, including ones tied to cryptocurrency. Presidents and former presidents are not supposed to make financial deals connected to their time in office, especially ones that could create conflicts of interest. He’s widely seen as corrupt, and people have become so used to it that it’s barely treated as news anymore. It’s bad for the country that this kind of behavior has been normalized.
Jacobsen: Let’s pull up some news. What are your tasks today?
Rosner: Typical home repair tasks.
Jacobsen: Getting ready for Halloween? You put on a construction outfit, knock on the door, and Carole says, “All right, hottie, let’s do this,” and then gets you to do all the things she’s always wanted done around the house?
Rosner: No. I ordered some special drill bits from Temu, a Chinese e-commerce site where tools are inexpensive. I drilled through a metal support beam on our gate. The two sides move differently depending on how recently it’s rained. When it’s been dry, the latch doesn’t line up with the hole it’s supposed to go into.
So I drilled a new hole in the metal to create a proper housing for the latch. That worked out, and then I installed our Ring doorbell. Carol handled all the software—the app download and setup on her iPhone. I did the wiring and mounting. I actually enjoy that kind of work. Jews are stereotypically not known for being handy, but I’m reasonably handy.
Jacobsen: News time: Letitia James, the New York Attorney General who filed a civil fraud lawsuit against Donald Trump, is still in office and has not been indicted for mortgage fraud. Any thoughts?
So, Letitia James is the one who brought the civil fraud case against Trump, which resulted in a $355 million penalty—later reduced to about $175 million pending appeal—but not a criminal conviction.
Rosner: He wasn’t convicted of any counts, and of course, he became president before that civil case concluded. Now, he’s trying to retaliate against her with his own legal actions.
This new claim was reportedly turned down by several state prosecutors—people even appointed or supported by Trump—because they found no legal basis for it. Some prosecutors resigned rather than pursue it. Eventually, Trump installed one of his personal lawyers, a woman with no prior experience prosecuting a case, in a position where she could file charges against Letitia James. She couldn’t get any other prosecutors to sign off on it. Normally, indictment papers are signed by multiple attorneys, but in this case, only she did.
That’s always a bad sign when prosecutors in an office resign rather than take part in a case. A grand jury did reportedly return an indictment—two counts, I think. But the thing about grand juries is that they don’t decide guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard is a preponderance of the evidence—basically, whether there’s a reasonable chance the accused might be guilty. It doesn’t need to be unanimous; just a majority is enough. The old saying goes, “A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.”
Grand juries can be presented with selective evidence. In this instance, the supposed case is based on mortgage documents. The alleged “fraud” Trump keeps accusing his opponents of involves whether someone improperly claimed more than one property as a primary residence. You can only legally designate one property as your principal home because it affects mortgage rates—typically by about half a percentage point—and sometimes minor property tax exemptions. For example, designating our home as our primary residence gets us about seventy dollars off our property taxes.
Trump’s argument is that his political enemies falsely claimed multiple homes as their primary residence. But mortgage paperwork is notoriously dense—dozens of documents, hundreds of checkboxes, and frequent clerical mistakes. If someone combs through all that, they might find a missed box or inconsistent wording. That’s not evidence of intent to defraud.
In Letitia James’s case, the evidence reportedly shows she clearly marked in a note that one of the properties was not her primary residence. Most legal experts expect the case to go nowhere, both because it appears politically motivated and because it lacks substance.
That note Letitia James wrote—clarifying that the property wasn’t her primary residence—was probably never shown to the grand jury. But she added it precisely to make sure everything was clear in case the document was confusing or she made a mistake. It’s easy to make an error when filling out legal forms, especially ones that are poorly worded.
To illustrate, I just voted early in California’s November special election, which could flip a few congressional districts from Republican to Democratic. That’s the opposite of what Trump tried to pressure Texas to do. When I filled out my ballot envelope, I accidentally signed it in the wrong place—the spot where a witness is supposed to sign if the voter can’t physically sign their own name. I had to write a note on the envelope saying, “Oops, I signed this in the wrong place.”
People make mistakes on documents all the time. But in Letitia James’s case, she actually wrote a note clarifying that the property wasn’t her primary residence. It’s hard to imagine how anyone could prosecute her for something she explicitly corrected in writing. Everyone who isn’t a partisan extremist agrees this case is going nowhere.
Ideally, the judge should impose sanctions on the prosecution for pursuing a frivolous case.
As for hypocrisy, look at Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas—one of the most openly corrupt politicians in the country. He’s claimed three different homes as his primary residence, yet he’s not being prosecuted because it’s Texas, and he’s a Republican.
Jacobsen: So Peter Thiel, in a talk where he discussed the idea of the Antichrist, said he told Elon Musk not to give his wealth to charity. He advised Musk to quit the Giving Pledge, under which billionaires commit to donating most of their wealth to charitable causes. This comes from transcripts and audio recordings of Thiel’s lectures that Reuters obtained. Thiel told Musk that if he didn’t, his wealth would end up going to “left-wing nonprofits chosen by Bill Gates.” What are your thoughts on that? This is Reuters.
Rosner: My thoughts are that the past five years—especially since COVID—have revealed just how much wealth and power billionaire tech figures have accumulated. That period has also shown that many of these so-called visionaries are what one essayist, King Daddy, aptly called “smart stupids.” They’re intelligent or lucky enough to make billions but are naïve, arrogant, or morally blind in other areas of life.
Many of them act like entitled adolescents with god complexes. Peter Thiel is a prime example—a highly influential, ultrarich tech magnate with staunch conservative leanings. He helped elevate J.D. Vance to national prominence and supports a worldview steeped in elitism and contempt for egalitarian values. This recent revelation about him advising Musk not to donate wealth to charity only reinforces that characterization.
Thiel has taken on a kind of twisted religiosity—Christianity drained of compassion and replaced with self-justified greed. Musk, meanwhile, reportedly exposed this exchange with Thiel to make him look bad, which is ironic, since Musk himself often behaves in similarly arrogant and destructive ways.
These people are as fallible and self-serving as anyone else—perhaps more so when you hand them ten billion dollars and no accountability.
By contrast, Bill Gates—while certainly rigid, socially awkward, and probably on the autism spectrum—has directed the majority of his wealth through philanthropic channels, notably the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He’s committed vast sums to eradicating malaria, improving global health, and developing sustainable agricultural programs. Gates has tried to make his money do measurable good in the world.
So when someone like Thiel attacks Gates for giving away his fortune, it exposes a deep hypocrisy. Thiel’s stance contradicts the very Christian ethics he claims to value. Gates may be imperfect, but in moral and humanitarian terms, he’s miles ahead of Thiel.
Jacobsen: The USDA has halted the release of grain export sales data based on a crop report. This disruption prevents confirmation of potential soybean sales to China. Traders and farmers are now uncertain about U.S. corn and soy output, so they’re essentially flying blind in terms of market trading.
Rosner: I looked up the data, and while you’re trying to get away from Trump topics, this connects directly to his policies. Over the past five years, 30 to 50 percent of U.S. soybean sales have gone to China. Last year, American farmers sold about $18 billion worth of soybeans there. This year? Practically zero.
If you grew soybeans this past year, you’re in trouble. A third of your market has vanished because China, due to trade tensions and tariffs, isn’t buying from the U.S. The price of soybeans has dropped roughly 25 percent, and most farmers don’t even have that much profit margin to lose. So all the work they did this season is likely to result in a net loss.
This same thing happened under Trump’s first term—he imposed poorly planned tariffs that hurt farmers, then had to bail them out with billions in subsidies. Even so, American farmers now have a suicide rate three times higher than the national average. They’re supposed to be the heart and soul of America, and yet Trump’s policies—past and present—keep devastating them economically.
Jacobsen: What does that do to the heart and soul of America?
Rosner: It creates massive cognitive dissonance. Farmers believe Trump fights for the working class and that Biden is the one destroying America, yet they’re watching Trump destroy their livelihoods. In economics, there’s a principle called the “sunk cost fallacy.” It means you have to learn to walk away from failed investments rather than keep throwing good money—or loyalty—after bad. But psychologically, that’s incredibly hard.
People who have invested their identities and pride into Trump can’t admit they’ve been deceived. They keep holding out hope that he’ll somehow make things right, even as their finances collapse. Twitter often mocks this dynamic with a meme: a ribbon labeled “Got Fooled Again Prize.” Every time Trump betrays his base, that meme resurfaces.
So, what happens to the heart of America? It fractures. People grow frustrated, fearful, and disillusioned, but they can’t let go because doing so would mean admitting their hero ruined them.
Jacobsen: The Nobel Peace Prize should be announced soon.
Rosner: Trump’s name has been floated because of his role in the temporary ceasefire between Israel and Gaza. People—especially liberals like me—worry that the Nobel Committee might give it to him as an appeasement gesture, thinking it might encourage him to act more responsibly.
Most Nobel Prizes are awarded in Sweden, but the Peace Prize is an exception—it’s given by a separate committee in Norway, as per Alfred Nobel’s will. It’s one of the later-established prizes, distinct in how it’s managed.
The fear is that, given past precedents, the committee might award it based more on symbolism than substance. The classic example is Barack Obama’s Peace Prize in 2009—awarded before he’d even accomplished much in office. It was seen as a hopeful gesture, a prize for “not being George W. Bush.”
That kind of decision makes people nervous because it blurs the line between aspiration and achievement.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/09
Trump asks conservative allies for names of Antifa activists and backers. What are your thoughts on this request?
In this conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner dissect several pressing issues: former President Donald Trump’s request for conservative allies to expose Antifa supporters, the tragic California Palisades fire linked to an arsonist, and the controversy surrounding Jimmy Kimmel’s remarks about Charlie Kirk. Rosner underscores that Antifa is not an organized group but rather a political stance against autocracy, making Trump’s request absurd. The discussion then shifts to the troubling trend of disturbed young men committing violent acts, before exploring Kimmel’s defence of his comments and the solidarity among late-night hosts like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Trump asks conservative allies for names of Antifa activists and also Antifa backers. What are your thoughts on this request? U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday promised to take, quote, “very threatening” steps against Antifa. He asked right-wing media allies to help identify backers of the movement.
Rick Rosner: Identify what of the movement?
Jacobsen: Backers. Not just the people involved, but also those who would support it.
Rosner: How would right-wing media even know this? Antifa is not an organized movement. It is an adjective.
Jacobsen: And he has asked the federal government to treat it as a terrorist organization.
Rosner: It is not an organization, as we have discussed before. It is a political stance—it is being against Trump and autocracy. You could say that includes many people who are against Trump, such as those who protest, but it still does not constitute an organized movement. It is more nonsense from the bullshitter-in-chief. Rotten tomatoes. Everything Trump does is intended to distract from his other actions.
Jacobsen: We have a news item apart from Trump here. This was pointed out to me by another journalist. I wasn’t aware of it until about two hours ago. A man was arrested in Florida on charges of intentionally igniting what would become California’s devastating fire.
Rosner: This deranged man set a fire.
Jacobsen: Are you noticing a pattern on a larger point—the pattern of deranged adult men?
Rosner: Yes, it’s not solely white men, but it’s mostly men, or at least people born male, in the case of one or two trans individuals.
Jacobsen: And they’re generally in the first half of life.
Rosner: You mean under 50?
Jacobsen: Under 40 in America.
Rosner: Okay. They’re generally white, but the U.S. is still a majority white country. You’d have to do a more sophisticated statistical analysis to see if there’s racial overrepresentation. But probably so. It’s primarily likely white men, given that the U.S. is a majority white country. This guy set a fire on January 1st, called in the fire, and then acted suspiciously around it, offering to help put it out. They put it out, noted the suspicious behaviour, but six days later, it flared up again and became the Palisades fire, also known as the Malibu fire.
Jacobsen: Is he guilty of murder now?
Rosner: Twelve people died in that fire, so I assume they will charge him with murder. Among the evidence against him are an AI graphic he generated and a series of images showing the world on the left burning and the world on the right not burning. It was also noted that he was an Uber driver and lived close to where the fire started. I’m sure we’ll hear much more as he goes on trial. Does he deserve to be prosecuted for murder? I don’t know. It’s tricky. He set a fire, they put it out, but it smouldered for six days and erupted again.
It was that second eruption that killed twelve people. It seems at least like manslaughter. I would assume—well, I don’tknow. The fire also burned thousands of homes and caused billions of dollars in damage. I don’t know if they’ll offer him a plea deal. I was thinking this morning about how many years in prison he deserves, both as punishment and as a deterrent for others, though deterrence rarely works for disturbed people. I think if they offered a plea deal, it should be no less than twenty years and possibly as much as life in prison. He’s a sad individual, but that doesn’t excuse him.
The insanity defence hasn’t excused crimes of this magnitude for decades. That seems like something from a 1960s lawyer show plot.
Jacobsen: Next item. This is back to home base for you. Jimmy Kimmel has described the critics’ interpretation of his Charlie Kirk remarks as “maliciously mischaracterized.” Kimmel stated, “I didn’t think there was a big problem. I just saw it as a distortion on the part of some of the right-wing media networks, and I aimed to correct it.”
Rosner: I’ve thought about this quite a bit. His comment was something like: after the murder, MAGA and MAGA pundits spent the weekend— I think the murder happened on a Thursday or Friday—denying that the killer was part of MAGA. And that is accurate, because that’s what the right-wing did.
They spent the weekend denying it. There was some indication that the killer might have been MAGA, and in those early days, MAGA voices vehemently denied it. By denying it, though, you imply that he was MAGA. You don’t issue denials unless there’s an implication. And at that point, there were a lot of indicators he was MAGA. We haven’t heard much in the last couple of weeks. There’s been no new information. But soon after, it looked like he had a trans girlfriend and was angry at Charlie Kirk’s transphobic stance.
Kimmel, I think—and I can’t speak for him—believes there was nothing wrong with what he said. He thinks he accurately described the situation: MAGA was denying that the murderer was MAGA. He would have provided any further clarification in his Wednesday show, given that he made the initial comment on Monday. There was no uproar by Tuesday’s show, since most people heard it and thought it was fine. But late Tuesday into Wednesday, the New York Times ran a story on it.
A dozen right-wing influencer rabble-rousers pushed the idea that Kimmel had gone on TV and said the killer was MAGA, which he hadn’t. He implied it at a time when there was evidence suggesting the guy was. So the rabble-rousers got outraged, ginned up late Tuesday and into Wednesday. By Wednesday afternoon, just a couple of hours before the show was due to tape, Sinclair and Nextstar—two major affiliate groups—announced they wouldn’t air Kimmel. They pulled him from the air, forcing ABC to stop the taping of the Wednesday show. Kimmel was annoyed, based on what I’ve read and what you just mentioned, because MAGA figures kept insisting he had accused the killer of being MAGA, when the point of his sentence was about MAGA pundits’ behaviour, not the killer’s affiliations. They were willfully leaning on implication.
Kimmel was frustrated because there had been no uproar at first, and then 24 hours later, right-wing rabble-rousers created one. Most people didn’t know what he had actually said, only what the pundits told them. So, it’s clear why Kimmel would be annoyed by the nonsense, especially after there was no initial backlash. Does that make sense? I find it a reasonable stance, but ABC worried about what he was going to say next. I guess they read his prepared remarks for Wednesday’s show and thought he might double down: “I didn’t say the guy was MAGA, I said MAGA spent the weekend denying it.” He might have clarified that, but probably not too much—it’s hard to get humour out of it, and the whole thing gets tangled. ABC decided the comments weren’t apologetic, just explanatory. And ABC, pushed by its affiliates, backed off. Sinclair in particular is notorious for misrepresenting the news, and they’re heavily MAGA. So, there you go. Kimmel didn’t feel an apology was needed. He thought clarification was fine, but ABC wanted contrition. And I think Kimmel is a stickler for accuracy.
One thing that’s become clear from the Kimmel and Colbert situation is that the late-night hosts are genuinely friends. Many of them even share the same agent, James “Babydoll” Dixon—an eccentric and beloved character in the industry. Beyond the business ties, their camaraderie speaks to their decency as people.
There was a time when late-night television was brutally divided between Leno and Letterman. Eventually, things calmed down, but the rivalry was intense for years. Both Leno and Letterman are good people, but now you’ve got this friend group among the late-night hosts—Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, and Jimmy Fallon. They all know and like each other. Some even go on fishing trips together. I believe that says something about their decency.
Jon Stewart, for example, has done extraordinary work for veterans and for people who became ill from exposure to the wreckage of the Twin Towers after 9/11. He’s been their advocate for decades. That makes him almost a secular saint—he started as a stand-up comedian and became a fierce, knowledgeable advocate for people who were being mistreated.
Kimmel, for his part, brought the San Gennaro Festival from New York to Los Angeles. The San Gennaro Festival is an annual street fair in Little Italy in Manhattan, with food, carnival games, entertainment, parades, and Catholic processions. It raises a lot of money for the church. Kimmel thought, “Why not bring this to the West Coast?” So he established the festival in L.A. as both a charitable enterprise and a community celebration.
To me, that shows his goodness—not only as a Christian but as a person. He’s also used his platform to support children’s hospitals and health coverage for kids and families. These are good people, and yet the political right attacks them relentlessly, even though their work reflects generosity and integrity.
These good Christians should be welcomed, because MAGA is a Christian movement. MAGAs are Christians, and that they would try to cancel these people—just because they make fun of Trump, which is their job—is bullshit.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/09
How does Rick Rosner balance a 34-year workout streak with sharp critiques of Trump, media accountability, and global politics?
In this candid exchange, Scott Douglas Jacobsen asks Rick Rosner about his extraordinary 12,680-day workout streak—over 34 years without missing a day. Rosner outlines his routine of push and pull days, daily leg work, and adaptations due to a semi-permanent rotator cuff injury. The conversation shifts to current affairs, where Rosner criticizes Trump’s chaotic style, dishonesty, and lack of accountability in the media. He highlights Trump’s controversial Nobel Peace Prize ambitions amid the Israel-Hamas ceasefire deal and domestic militarization. Rosner draws contrasts with Obama’s early prize and reflects on the strangeness of today’s political climate.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Here’s a quick question. How many days have you worked out consecutively?
Rick Rosner: Around 12,680.
Jacobsen: That’s incredible. What is your most frequent type of workout? A particular muscle group or something?
Rosner: I have push days and pull days, but I work my legs every day. Not that it has made them any good, but I can put both hands around my lower leg, right above my knee. My leg is probably only about 16 inches in diameter. Higher up, I can still touch both hands together around my leg. That’s not a large leg. I do machine squats and mostly leg presses. Sometimes I’ll do leg extensions if someone is hogging the leg press machine. On chest days, I use a different machine at each gym I go to. For a while, I was doing bench presses with free weights, but I have a sore rotator cuff. Still.
Jacobsen: Still?
Rosner: Yes, I think it’s semi-permanent. Before I go back to free weights, I’d like to get a little stronger—if ever.
Jacobsen: Any complaints for today? Any immediate complaints about the news?
Rosner: A lot of people on X say Trump seems chaotic, dishonest, and nonsensical. He says whatever he wants, and nobody holds him accountable. The media were always after Biden, but Trump seems worse and still nobody is calling him on it. CNN’s Jake Tapper even conducted an interview with Trump via text message, which drew criticism because you can’t verify who typed the responses.
Trump says Israel and Hamas have reached the first phase of a peace agreement—and today multiple outlets reported that Israel and Hamas signed a ceasefire and hostage deal as part of that first phase, pending implementation steps. We’ll have to see how it plays out. There are indications negotiations have advanced. And, of course, Trump wants the Nobel Peace Prize. Meanwhile, he has ordered National Guard deployments for domestic enforcement in some states and has threatened to use the Insurrection Act—moves now being challenged in court—so “peaceful” isn’t the word many would use.
Jacobsen: They gave Obama one before he had even done anything.
Rosner: That’s right, and that was controversial at the time. They could conceivably give him one because they think it might moderate him. I doubt it, but who knows.
Jacobsen: We live in strange times.
Rosner: Yes.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/08
How should courts balance free speech claims against bans on harmful conversion therapy, and how can policymakers meet AI-driven power demand without undermining climate progress?
Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors faces a U.S. Supreme Court challenge framed as free-speech, raising tensions between professional standards and religious pseudoscience. Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner argue evidence, ethics, and patient protection should prevail over rights claims. They compare outlawing a dangerous, ineffective “therapy” to banning lessons in flying. In parallel, U.S. power demand is projected to hit new records as AI, cryptocurrency, and electrification expand, potentially eroding emissions gains unless clean generation, storage, and efficiency scale quickly. The pair endorse science-based policy, guardrails on harmful practices, and pragmatic energy planning to align liberty with wellbeing.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: U.S. Supreme Court skeptical toward Colorado LGBT conversion therapy.
Rick Rosner: So, somebody must have taken Colorado to court. Like California, it’s illegal to run “pray away the gay” therapy. They’ve done studies, and it doesn’t work. You can’t make somebody not gay with treatment.
A lot of that so-called therapy happens in a religious context. Colorado must have passed a law similar to California’s, banning it because it doesn’t work, it makes people suffer, and it’s cruel and homophobic. So, you shouldn’t be allowed to do it.
However, some group of people must have challenged the law, and it has reached the Supreme Court, according to what you just said. And now the Court is saying, “Well, maybe it does work” or “Maybe people have the right to try it,” even though all the evidence shows it’s nonsense. That is not comforting.
What did the Supreme Court say? Obviously, no final ruling yet, because you would have mentioned it.
Jacobsen: The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared ready to side with a challenge—on free speech grounds—to a Colorado law banning psychotherapists from conducting conversion therapy. The law prohibits attempts to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The conservative justices posed questions during arguments, showing sympathy toward Christian counsellor Kaylee Chiles, who challenged the law under First Amendment protections. And the Court has a 6–3 conservative majority.
Rosner: That sounds terrible. If I were a therapist and I had a technique that I claimed could teach people to fly, and after therapy, nobody could fly—and worse, many people got hurt trying—it would be reasonable to pass legislation banning “learn-to-fly therapy.” It’s dangerous, and it doesn’t work.
For me to then claim “freedom of speech” to defend it? That doesn’t seem like an argument that should be entertained.
Because if there’s a ton of it—well, is it free speech to force bullshit on people who are defenceless against the bullshit? I don’t know. It sounds like a garbage angle on this stuff. And the people who run those conversion therapies—they’re assholes.
Some of them may be sincere, good-hearted Christians, but a lot of them are cruel, cynical shysters. Comments? You can’t really think these people are earnest, just trying to help.
Jacobsen: Whatever the empirical evidence states, I’ve tended to side with it throughout my professional life. I interviewed a man who went through conversion therapy years ago. That interview was for Atheist Republic, the largest online atheist platform on Facebook.
My understanding of the experience is that was, and is, cruel, unscientific, and baseless. The American Psychiatric Association has issued statements—most recently in the past year—reaffirming that view. So, any move to bypass the professional consensus in psychology, psychiatry, or psychotherapy, and to legislate based on Christian theology into law, is wrong.
Rosner: Okay, so we’re in concordance there. All right, one more thing, and then I’ve got to go.
Jacobsen: U.S. power use is projected to reach record highs in 2025 and 2026, due to cryptocurrency, AI, and electrification.
Rosner: So, we’re going to use more power in the U.S. than ever before because we’re burning so much juice on AI calculations. The carbon footprint per capita in America had been going down about 1% a year—until AI. Now it looks like AI is pushing it back up.
We had some hope of mitigating climate change because the global population was projected to peak in the 2050s, rather than 2100. Maximum humanity—about 9.5 billion instead of 11 billion, which is a 15% discount on the number of people needing juice.
And now AI is going to eat up that extra juice, putting us back where we were. Though maybe not as bad—AI won’t mostly burn gasoline. It’ll use solar, which is far cleaner than fossil fuels. Nuclear is also way cleaner.
But really, what should happen is that these AI motherfuckers—some of whom are out of control—need to be reined in. Because energy use is actually one of the least of our worries when it comes to being destroyed by AI.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/07
How do issues of AI deepfakes, personal comparisons, and family storytelling intersect in Rick Rosner’s reflections on memory, identity, and cultural ethics?
In this dialogue, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore a wide range of topics, from Robin Williams’s daughter objecting to AI-generated clips of her late father, to Rosner’s discomfort at being compared to mathematician Grigori Perelman. The conversation touches on ethics, memory, self-presentation, and cultural sensitivity in an age of artificial media. Rosner expands into personal reflections, weaving in anecdotes about his family life in Albuquerque and speculative narratives about Los Angeles in the 1970s. The exchange highlights the tensions between authenticity and fabrication, personal identity and public image, while underscoring the importance of storytelling in shaping perception.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You sent you a couple of articles.
Rick Rosner: One was about Robin Williams’s daughter asking people to stop sending her AI clips of her dad. She has been receiving many of them.
Jacobsen: That is awful. When AI audio first took off, someone even made a whole “George Carlin” album from his past material, and his daughter Kelly was horrified.
Rosner: I think people believe they are doing her a favor—honoring his memory with AI versions. But it ties into SAP, the single-avatar policy controlled by the family. Nobody wants fabricated material of people who have passed away.
Jacobsen: You were only genuinely offended one time in our entire writing and collaborative career.
Rosner: Want me to tell the story?
Jacobsen: It was fairly recent, maybe within the last year or few. The next day, you seemed calmer, and my inference was that you had talked it over with Carole. But at the time you actually said, “I’m genuinely offended.”
What happened was that I said, “Look at this guy—he looks like you.” The guy was Grigori Perelman. You were not amused. He’s a very hairy man, of Eastern European Jewish background, living in Russia, while you’re living in the American Southwest. I should have held my tongue, because right after I said it, I realized I’d never seen you react like that before. I’d seen clips of you angry—like the time with JD and Lance when a chair got thrown—but that was a different context. This was more a strict defense against an unflattering comparison.
Rosner: I think it was mostly the hair. Perelman has, let’s just say, unfortunate hair. Men who look like me usually lose theirs, while guys like Carlos Santana, who I also resemble, hide it under a bandana for decades because their hair situation isn’t great either. Perelman, by contrast, doesn’t seem to care at all about presentation. He looks perpetually disheveled.
Carole teased me recently. JD has a thing for women her age—he thinks she’s hot. I agree she is, but I joked that I wish she wore less comfortable pants. She’s been living in baggy sweats for a few years now. I said I’d prefer she wear something tighter, since she could, but she likes to be comfortable. When I told her this, she shot back, “Me? Look at you!” And she was right—I wear the same gym pants and boots every day with interchangeable T-shirts. The difference is, I go to the gym multiple times a day, so even if I dress like hell, my physique is in shape.
Perelman, though, seems like a man in a permanent mathematical haze. I doubt he exercises.
Jacobsen: After all, he solved the Poincaré conjecture, was awarded the Fields Medal and the million-dollar Clay Millennium Prize, and turned them both down. He retired from mathematics and, according to reports, still lives with his mother in St. Petersburg, avoiding publicity.
Rosner: So, unlike me—or Carlos Santana—he’s not teaching at a U.S. university, not publishing, not doing outreach. He just lives quietly.
It reminds me of Slow Horses, the spy series with Gary Oldman, where brilliant but eccentric people end up tucked away out of sight.
Slow Horses is about a branch of MI5, the British equivalent of the FBI, called Slough House. MI5 proper works out of a big, gleaming headquarters in London, but if you screw up, you get exiled to Slough House, where all the misfits end up. The premise is that these “losers” aren’t truly incompetent—they’re unlucky, abrasive, or bad at teamwork—but by the end of each season, they stumble into unlikely victories.
The leader of this band is Jackson Lamb, played by Gary Oldman. He’s brilliant but utterly disheveled—he drinks constantly, chain smokes, rarely bathes, and looks like he hasn’t changed clothes in years. He’s greasy, cynical, and doesn’t care about appearances.
That’s what reminded me of Grigori Perelman. He has that same rough, unkempt look, as if he doesn’t give a damn. It’s as though he gave up on caring about romance or social approval decades ago—if he ever cared at all. That was why I was offended by the comparison. I can be a slob in some ways, but in others I keep myself kempt.
Anyway, what should we do now? I could tell a story. I had planned a “story time” segment on the show last night, but I forgot the manuscript. In its place, I’ll tell a story from my own life, which I’ve always thought had the makings of something entertaining—based on my family in the 1970s.
Growing up, I had two families. My Boulder family was my mom and stepdad. My Albuquerque family was my dad and stepmom, where I spent one month a year for visitation. That household was more fun, but by the late ’70s, it was unraveling. Albuquerque itself didn’t help—an edgy town, prone to stirring people into bad behavior. My stepmom was having an affair, the kids were running wild, and things were generally unstable.
I thought about this recently while walking with Carol in Beverly Hills after a movie screening. I was struck by how much more exciting Los Angeles feels—the things that can happen to you there are simply better than the things that can happen to you in Albuquerque.
That gave me a “what if” idea: what if, in 1976, my dad—a CPA—had discovered his wife’s affair and decided to pack up the family and move to Los Angeles to start over?
My dad’s brother was a Beverly Hills neurologist. He and his wife were friends with Jack Warner, the movie mogul who ran Warner Brothers. So I imagine: what if, in desperation, my dad had asked his brother to pull some strings? The uncle goes to Jack Warner, and suddenly my dad lands a job as a CPA for Warner Brothers Studios. They even help set him up with a condo.
Now picture this: our whole unruly family of Albuquerque rubes transplanted into Los Angeles in 1976. Meanwhile, back in Boulder, I was going stir-crazy. I had started lifting weights, but my reputation was fixed as a nerdy weirdo. The idea of ever getting close to a girl in Boulder seemed impossible. So in the story, when my Albuquerque family makes the jump to LA, I decide to join them. Nobody in that household is thrilled, but they grudgingly let me in. I transfer to Beverly Hills High, determined to reinvent myself—which I absolutely do.
The setup practically writes itself. In Albuquerque, your opportunities for mischief are limited by Albuquerque. In Los Angeles, trouble has range. You can go further, fall harder, and dream bigger.
So my character arrives in LA determined to look like a badass. He wears Frye boots to gain some height, tight white jeans to show off his weightlifter’s thighs, and a secondhand letterman’s jacket he picked up at a thrift shop to signal he’s on the football team. He’s ready to walk into Beverly Hills High like he owns it.
Then there’s this moment from real life. The two families—my uncle and his wife, who was an aspiring actress, plus my dad, stepmom, siblings, and me—go out to lunch at the Hamburger Hamlet on Sunset. I sit next to my uncle’s wife. And she starts playing footsie with me. Running her foot up and down my leg under the table. Even as a kid, I knew exactly what that meant: she wanted to fool around.
It made no sense. Her husband, my uncle, was right there. I was just a teenager. And the strangest part? She was wearing orthodontic headgear. Full-on contraption—bars coming out of her mouth, wrapping around her head, the kind of thing you’d only see when someone’s bite had to be completely reconstructed after a dental disaster. So here she was: attractive, yes, but with this surreal medical hardware strapped to her face, sending me signals in front of the family.
I froze. What could I do? I wasn’t going to “get with” my own uncle’s wife at a family lunch. Later, I found out she had a habit of pulling stunts like that.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/05
How do AI avatars, political nationalism, and international conflicts shape the future of governance and society?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore a spectrum of future-shaping issues, from AI-driven cultural policies to the politics of international crises. Rosner imagines “Single Avatar Policies” (SAPs) regulating digital replicas of dead celebrities, tightly controlled to prevent brand dilution and protect jobs. Jacobsen turns the conversation toward global flashpoints: Russia’s drone war against Ukraine and NATO’s cautious responses, Sanae Takaichi’s rise in Japan as its first potential female prime minister, and North Korea’s military buildup. Domestically, they discuss U.S. shutdown politics, Trump’s controversial tactics, civil rights violations, and the economics of California’s refineries. Together, the dialogue maps the areas where technology, politics, and society intersect.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What do you want to focus on tonight?
Rick Rosner: I was talking about a couple of things in the future—lava lamps and AI-generated semi-stories that drift along. You could probably “move into” a lava lamp—like moving into the Sims—and interact with it. This relates to people entering virtual worlds inspired by movies or video games. Another idea is SAPs, which stands for a “Single Avatar Policy” for departed celebrities.
Under this imagined policy, once a celebrity has died, there would be only one authorized digital version of them. Decisions about which projects the avatar appears in would be controlled by the heirs (and potentially by prior instructions from the celebrity). The policy would exist to prevent cheap, unlicensed copies from damaging the brand and from displacing too many jobs for living actors. Those sanctioned avatars would be referred to as SAPs.
Ten to fifteen years from now, you might see, say, a Redford SAP; you’d certainly see Marilyn Monroe and Elvis SAPs—tightly regulated to protect the brand and to avoid an avalanche of digital stand-ins pushing out the living.
Jacobsen: International news or American?
Rosner: International.
Jacobsen: Russia has launched large-scale drone and missile attacks across Ukraine, including the Lviv region near Poland; in response, Poland scrambled jets to secure its airspace. This pattern—Russian strikes on Ukraine prompting neighbouring NATO states to raise air defences—does not, by itself, “trigger Article 5.” Article 5 (NATO’s collective-defence clause) applies to an armed attack on a NATO member’s territory and is a political decision, not an automatic tripwire. It has been invoked only once (after 9/11).
Rosner: Airspace alerts or spillover incidents typically lead to consultations under Article 4 first. NATO members have begun actively engaging intruding drones in their own airspace: Poland reported shooting down suspected Russian drones after violations in September 2025—marking the first such shoot-downs by a NATO state during this war.
Rosner: A man on Pod TV, Sasha, who served in the Soviet army before its collapse, is from Ukraine. He believes Russia is running out of resources and that Ukraine is in a good position to retake territory.
He has been optimistic before, but at the very least, the war is still at a stalemate. Russia is not making significant gains. We’re about a month—six weeks—from winter, when it will be harder to shift the skirmish line as the weather worsens.
Jacobsen: Sanae Takaichi is right-wing, but she’s set to become Japan’s first woman prime minister. Any thoughts?
Rosner: No real comment, because I’m uninformed about her. You’re saying she’s conservative—or beyond conservative, actually right-wing?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: What does “right wing” consist of in Japan?
Jacobsen: She has expansionist fiscal plans. It’s a nationalist stance. So she’s a nationalist. Okay, so she’s right-wing, not just conservative.
Rosner: What does nationalism mean in Japan? Are there people she wants to kick out? Is she isolationist? I’m not qualified to comment further on that. Nationalists are assholes.
Jacobsen: North Korea’s Kim Jong-un in Pyongyang is allocating additional strategic resources in response to the buildup of U.S. military assets and forces in the South. He’s about to develop additional military measures.
Rosner: We should probably move away from international, because I’m not well-informed. You’re from Canada. You get more international news than we do.
Jacobsen: NFL star Mark Sanchez has been charged with battery after being stabbed. Any thoughts?
Rosner: None, because I don’t like responding to stories about individual idiots. That’s not really news. So no comment.
Jacobsen: What’s your opinion on the crackdown in Washington on crime by Trump?
Rosner: This is old news—dated from last month. It was ridiculous, and now it’s old. Let’s move to the next thing.
Jacobsen: Reuters put this one down as October 4. A retrospective.
Rosner: It was completely unnecessary. The troops stationed there were left to perform tasks such as picking up litter. The bid to end the shutdown failed in the Senate.
Jacobsen: Trump froze aid to Chicago and billions of dollars in funding to blue states. The restoration of government funding failed by a decent margin—54 to 44. That’s not razor-thin, but it’s close either.
Rosner: So it’s going to go on for a while. The House doesn’t even come back into session until October 13. This will continue for a while. The Democrats feel like they have something to gain by standing up to the Republicans, because the budget gives them leverage to push back against some of the cuts to health care for tens of millions of Americans.
The big bill that was passed was called either “beautiful” or “ugly,” depending on which side you’re on. Democrats are in no hurry to get the government running again. And Republicans—along with Trump in particular—in their stupidity, are ignoring the fact that polls show the Democrats are pretty much right. About 54 percent of people polled blame the Republicans, while 30 percent blame the Democrats. That gives Democrats a net advantage. But Trump thinks otherwise, and he’s also using the shutdown as an excuse to dismantle more of the government. He’s happy to do that.
So it’ll go on for a while. It might even become the longest shutdown in history. The previous longest was under Trump in 2018–2019, which lasted 35 days. I don’t see any compelling reasons why this one won’t last at least three weeks, probably longer. It may not break the record, but the second-longest shutdown was 21 days, and I’d put money on this one surpassing that, to at least become the second-longest.
Jacobsen: Centrist Republicans, like U.S. Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, have already said this strategy is creating a bad-faith environment. His words were a critique of the shutdown strategy, framing it as reckless even within their own party.
Border Patrol raids in Chicago targeted citizens and families. They raided an entire apartment building and detained about 500 people, regardless of whether they were citizens or not. They didn’t have warrants—it was a massive violation of civil rights law.
Rosner: But who’s going to prosecute them? Who’s going to stop them? It’s official government-sponsored lawlessness. Rotten Tomatoes.
Jacobsen: A U.S. judge has blocked Trump’s deployment of the Oregon National Guard to Portland—for now. On October 4, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut in Portland described the dispatch of the military into the city as “lawless,” over the objections of Democratic leaders.
Rosner: Portland and Oregon more broadly had tough years for crime, especially between 2020 and 2022. Crime ticked up during COVID. Homicides in Portland hit an all-time high in 2022—101 murders. For a city of Portland’s size, that’s a significant number.
By contrast, in 2025, murders and overall crime are way down. In the first six months of this year, the numbers are markedly lower.
There were 17 murders in Portland, which gives them an annual rate of about one-third of what it was in 2022. So I tend to believe the governor of Oregon, the mayor of Portland, and the police chief when they say the city is not a hellscape, that they’re not drowning in crime, and that they have things under control.
They do not need the National Guard or any other troops coming in.
Jacobsen: This one’s kind of out of left field. I haven’t seen this person before—U.S. Senator Jim Risch from Idaho. He’s the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he wants to introduce legislation to deter aggression against Taiwan by identifying targets for economic measures that could be deployed rapidly if China acts against the island. It’s called the Deter PRC Aggression Against Taiwan Act.
It would establish a task force comprising representatives from the State and Treasury Departments to identify Chinese military and non-military targets for sanctions, export controls, and economic measures. Any thoughts?
Rosner: Taiwan—the government of China was, I assume, deposed by Japan when Japan took over parts of China during World War II.
Then, that government tried to reconstitute itself after the war but was chased out of mainland China by Mao and the Chinese Communists. The remnants of the former government reassembled on the island of Taiwan.
They still consider themselves to be the legitimate government of China, or at the very least, they assert the right to operate independently of Beijing. And the Chinese government regularly insists Taiwan is part of China and threatens to retake it. Taiwan is a wealthy and technologically advanced nation—they have the most developed chip manufacturing industry in the world.
China wants Taiwan partly for that industry. Chip factories take about a decade to build. They must be ultra-clean and ultra-precise due to the high density of transistors printed on each chip.
According to Moore’s Law, the number of transistors on a chip doubles roughly every two years. The wires connecting the circuits shrink by about 30 percent or more each cycle, to the point where you end up with components so tiny they can handle only a single electron at a time.
These hugely complex chips are the result of decades of Taiwanese expertise. If Taiwan were making rubber ducks, China wouldn’t care. But with semiconductors, the stakes are existential.
China wouldn’t care much if Taiwan were producing ordinary goods, but they’re making the world’s most precise and most in-demand products. That means China will eventually try to take them over. We don’t make too much noise about it because we want to maintain civil relations with China. That’s the situation.
Jacobsen: Chevron is making adjustments to its Los Angeles–area refinery following a large fire. I didn’t know about this until now. The El Segundo refinery is the second-largest in California and Chevron’s second-largest in the United States. It supplies approximately one-fifth of all motor vehicle fuels and 40 percent of the jet fuel consumed in Southern California. A major fire at the facility has prompted Chevron to implement changes. Any thoughts?
Rosner: For decades, oil companies and refiners have been exploiting California with artificial scarcity. Californians pay about 92 cents a gallon more than the rest of the country in gas taxes. Those taxes help fund cleaner fuel standards because, in the 1970s, California cities were among the smoggiest in America. The rules worked—our air is much cleaner now—but it makes gas more expensive.
In addition to the taxes, oil companies add another dollar through artificially created scarcity. They shut down refineries for “maintenance” during peak demand seasons to drive up prices. So, while the rest of the country pays $3 a gallon, Californians pay $5. It’s been that way for as long as I’ve lived here.
This fire will probably cost Chevron billions, but they’ll make it back—and more—by cutting production and citing the fire as the reason. Consumers will pay for it twofold or threefold in higher gas prices.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/04
How do the Roske sentencing, Sean “Diddy” Combs conviction, and Trump’s proposed coin reflect current U.S. politics and law?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss Nicholas Roske, who plotted to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh but called 911 on himself, was sentenced to just over eight years, sparking debate over proportional justice. Meanwhile, music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs received 50 months in prison for prostitution-related crimes, avoiding harsher penalties after acquittals on trafficking charges. Controversy also surrounds reports that the Trump administration offered migrant children financial incentives to leave the U.S., raising ethical concerns. Finally, Trump’s proposed commemorative coin for America’s 250th Independence anniversary, featuring his own image, clashes with laws barring living figures on currency. Each episode highlights tensions between law, politics, and symbolism.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Bye, and thank you for listening. I had a couple of bills because I did some more traveling. George Clooney and several writers have argued that Trump should avoid tariffs and instead create incentives for the movie industry. He’s making business-to-business arguments, which might work. Trump, however, is not a good businessman.
Rick Rosner: Clooney knows the movie industry from multiple angles—actor, producer, director, writer—and he’s been in it for a long time. In Los Angeles, on-location filming in 2024 finished 5.6 percent below 2023, making 2024 the second-lowest year on record after 2020. Early 2025 was down about 22 percent year-over-year, with television off roughly 30 percent and features down about 29 percent. That’s a slump, and tariffs would only add costs.
Those extra costs would drive more production away by making financing harder. Every film already takes years and countless meetings to get financed; raising the cost basis makes that worse.
Jacobsen: Trump has proposed a 100 percent tariff on films produced outside the U.S. The announcement is public but lacks details on legal basis and enforcement, and major studios have not clarified how it would work in practice.
Rosner: Americans overwhelmingly spend their box-office dollars on films distributed by U.S.-based studios; foreign-language imports are a small share of the U.S. market. U.S. majors dominated the 2024 domestic market. (General market share characterization.)
A real-world example of unintended effects: Mel Gibson’s sequel to The Passion of the Christ—The Resurrection of the Christ—has been reported as filming in Italy, with the project split into two parts slated for release in 2027. Under a blanket “100 percent on foreign-made films” approach, even a project embraced by many conservatives would be treated as foreign and face tariffs.
Clooney is correct that if you want to bring production back to Los Angeles, you need to match other jurisdictions’ incentives.
California recently expanded its Film & TV Tax Credit Program from $330 million to $750 million per year to compete with regions pulling productions away. Georgia offers a transferable 20 percent base credit plus a 10 percent uplift, with no annual cap—one reason it has become a major hub.
New Mexico (including Albuquerque) built a production center with refundable credits in the 25–40 percent range, which helped attract shows like Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. That is the mechanism—not mystique—behind their long runs there.
The bottom line is that production in Los Angeles has been weak since the strikes. Federal tariffs would raise costs without addressing the real problem. The proven lever for keeping shoots local is competitive, predictable incentives, ideally aligned across state and federal levels. To keep production in the state, you need incentives. Trump’s understanding of this is distracted, erroneous, and rudimentary.
Jacobsen: A California resident who admitted to plotting to assassinate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2022 has been sentenced to eight years and one month in federal prison. Nicholas Roske—who now identifies as Sophie—was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Greenbelt, Maryland. The judge called the crime reprehensible. Prosecutors had asked for 30 years, prompting complaints from some commentators that the sentence was too light.
Rosner: I don’t know all the details. My understanding is that Roske (now identifying as Sophie) never actually carried out the attack — she traveled to Kavanaugh’s neighborhood with weapons but then called 911 on herself before doing anything. If that is accurate, it helps explain why prosecutors did not push for the maximum penalty and why the sentence came out lower.
I think that if someone sets up to take a shot but stops short, the penalty should be less than if they actually pull the trigger. But I’m not up on every nuance of the case.
Jacobsen: Next topic. Sean “Diddy” Combs has been sentenced to more than four years in prison on prostitution-related charges — 50 months. He could have faced significantly more — prosecutors sought roughly 11+ years. He was acquitted of more serious charges like racketeering and sex trafficking, but convicted on lesser ones involving transporting persons for prostitution.
Rosner: In the end, it’s not as bad as it might’ve been — though the convictions are still serious. I don’t know every part, so I’ll avoid overreaching. Either way, depending on credit for time served, he might be out around 2028 or 2029. He’s already been in custody, so that will reduce the remaining time.
Jacobsen: The Trump administration reportedly offered unaccompanied migrant children financial incentives — around $2,500 — to voluntarily leave the U.S. Officials in ICE confirmed monetary offers were being made, though they declined to confirm the exact amount. That solicitation has drawn heavy criticism from advocacy groups.
Rosner: I can see a lot of bad outcomes. The public rationale was to target serious criminals — rapists, gang members, etc. But most people held by ICE are detained for immigration violations, which are civil matters, not felonies. Children, especially, are not criminals. So pushing hard to expel them raises serious moral and policy questions.
Jacobsen: Next topic: next year is the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, 1776. The U.S. Treasury and Mint are planning a commemorative coin. They’ve released a design. Thoughts?
Rosner: By law, living persons cannot appear on U.S. currency or stamps. So putting Trump on a coin would violate that rule. But his team has released a draft design showing his bust on one side, and on the reverse a figure of him with a raised fist under the slogan “Fight, fight, fight.” That’s audacious — putting himself on both faces of the coin. Historically, U.S. coins sometimes portrayed the same figure stylistically on both obverse and reverse (for example, older pennies with Lincoln on obverse and Lincoln Memorial reverse). But Trump’s coin is a bold departure.
Also: the plan to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 was first floated during the Obama era. The redesign was delayed indefinitely by the Trump administration. Biden has not pushed it through either. So the idea of finally replacing Jackson with Tubman remains unfulfilled.
To your side note: Biden’s long tenure in government shaped his institutional instincts, for better or worse. Trusting process sometimes helps, sometimes enables paralysis.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/03
How do political impunity, government shutdowns, and regressive policies shape America’s current democratic and social landscape?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss the troubling state of American politics, highlighting impunity among leaders, the government shutdown’s threat to 6.7 million reliant on WIC, and the dangers of stochastic terrorism fueled by propaganda. They examine the sentencing of Elizabeth Wolfe for a racially motivated attack on a Palestinian-American child, Apple’s removal of ICE-tracking apps, and economic instability with job reports now relying on private firms like ADP. Positive news includes FDA approval of a generic mifepristone, though legal challenges loom. Broader concerns include U.S. plans to defund international diversity initiatives, reflecting deep cultural and political regression.
American News
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s the American news?
Rick Rosner: It’s the same disheartening situation. Carole despairs. I don’t quite despair, but she—and many others—see that the current rulers of our country have no accountability. They act with impunity and show little willingness to limit themselves. They keep testing boundaries and learning they can get away with more. Nothing is stopping them, and that makes people nervous because we’ve seen examples of other countries with leaders like that.
Jacobsen: First item: Apple removed ICE-tracking apps after pressure from the Trump administration. I was an app that let people report and see nearby ICE activity.
Rosner: So it told you if ICE was in your neighborhood. That’s not good.
Stochastic Terrorism
Jacobsen: Another item: A Texas woman, Elizabeth Wolfe, was sentenced to five years for attempting to drown a Palestinian-American Muslim child in May 2024. She pleaded guilty to attempted murder and injury to a child; police said it was motivated by racial bias.
Rosner: The United States has a third of a billion people. Even if one in a thousand is deeply unstable, that’s still a third of a million. When hate is fueled by propaganda, some of those people will act violently—that’s stochastic terrorism. The idea that a five-year-old could deserve what happened is absurd and terrible.
Jacobsen: The U.S. government shutdown is threatening about 6.7 people who rely on WIC—the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
Rosner: To be precise, WIC is separate from SNAP, though both are nutrition assistance programs. Trump doesn’t care. He’ll cause suffering and try to blame it on the Democrats. Many shutdown agencies have posted on their websites that Democrats caused the shutdown, which violates the Hatch Act. That law prohibits political messages on government web pages. There are penalties under the Hatch Act—ranging from reprimand to removal—but enforcement is often inconsistent.
Jacobsen: U.S. employers announced fewer layoffs in September, but planned hiring is at its lowest since 2009, according to a report from Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
Rosner: We’ve lost, in addition to Trump firing the people in charge of compiling inflation and unemployment numbers, the official data couldn’t be released anyway because the government is shut down. So now we’re turning to private companies for their versions. Today’s job numbers, for example, came from ADP, a private firm. But whether the numbers come from the government or from private companies, we’re on the verge of significant increases in unemployment and inflation. Many people distressed about the current leadership hope the repercussions of Trump’s actions arrive sooner rather than later, so perhaps some Republicans in Congress might stand against him. Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC said the cabinet should consider invoking the 25th Amendment—that if two-thirds of the cabinet votes to remove a president who is incapacitated, the vice president takes over. But nobody in the cabinet is openly saying Trump is unfit. Senator Vance is happy to follow his lead. I don’t know what we’re doing with political topics here, because everything’s grim.
Aurobindo Pharma
Jacobsen: There is a win. Next item: the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved Aurobindo Pharma’s (through its subsidiary Aurobindo Pharma USA) generic version of mifepristone, the abortion pill used to terminate pregnancies up to 10 weeks. That’s not bad—that’s a good thing.
Rosner: But a judge can still rule it’s not allowed in some states—or even nationwide—under dubious medical claims. We’ll see how that plays out. Approval of a generic might lower the cost, but if the government restricts availability, that won’t matter.
Jacobsen: And it’s having international effects too—not the abortion drug, something else.
Rosner: Plan B, which is emergency contraception, isn’t the same drug as mifepristone. Plan B is levonorgestrel. It hasn’t been terribly expensive in the U.S.—usually around $40 to $60—and cheaper in Canada. A generic might lower that a bit. But this isn’t like Paxlovid, the COVID treatment, which has a retail price of about $1,390 to $2,300 if uninsured. Plan B is nowhere near that. Can we move away from politics? I don’t have special insight, and things are bleak.
Rosner: According to Politico, the administration plans to halt federal funding for any organization or government that supports work overseas related to gender identity and diversity. U.S. officials and nonprofit groups have been informed of the policy changes.
Jacobsen: All I can say is more voters turned out to support this agenda than to oppose it. It’s counterproductive, regressive, and against the tide of history, but it’s where we are, and it will take time to move past it. Someone on Twitter today wrote, “I didn’t know Americans were that bad,” but enough Americans believe misinformation and harbor enough hate to sustain policies like this.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/02
How do AI slop, MLB playoff design, and Trump-era shutdowns and tariffs reshape culture, markets, and institutional trust?
A lively dialogue between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explores AI slop economics, the probability-heavy chaos of MLB playoffs, and the political weather under Trump: shutdown brinkmanship, tariffs, and their impact on farmers. The conversation flags weak Hatch Act enforcement and a heavy-handed higher-ed memo, then pivots to culture with Nirvana’s Nevermind lawsuit. Security-state instincts surface via Pentagon polygraphs and NDAs, before a reality check on military promotions and expertise. Across topics, the throughline is randomness meeting power: how small samples, blunt policies, and culture-war theatrics distort outcomes while institutions struggle to identify, reward, and protect genuine competence. The stakes are public trust, policy, and fairness.
AI Slop Proliferation
Rick Rosner: AI slop is proliferating, and the people making it—now that it includes video—are earning thousands of dollars a month while doing very little. So what I’m asking is: should we become AI slopsters? Do you want to team up and make some AI slop?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You and me? Is this your AI slop proposal? Are we going to send sloppy children out into the world?
Rosner: Most AI slop is about cats having adventures or cats as serial killers. You’ve seen a lot of it. I’ve probably seen as much or more. We could create some higher-quality slop.
Jacobsen: Something more inventive than the half-baked stuff out there. Are you interested? It’s really a matter of drafting prompts, picking the right AI engine, and locking in the key concepts.
You try ten different orientations; one or two will probably turn out really well. Then you monetize it on YouTube or TikTok and hope it catches on.
Rosner: I’d do it, but not with my real name. Too much of a gamble. No, we wouldn’t use our names. We’d call it Jeff and Betty’s AI Slop House.
Jacobsen: I’d be open to that. Let’s just Google the most popular YouTube themes—that’ll give us a direction. Do a little research, see what we find.
Rosner: Let me complain about something—maybe I’ve said this before. Sports are arbitrary because you have to invent rules to make them work; by nature, that can be a little ridiculous. But baseball’s playoff system really piles it on.
You play 162 games in a regular season—that’s been the standard since the early 1960s. The World Series used to match the American League champion against the National League champion; those leagues have existed since 1901 and 1876, respectively. The Series has almost always been best-of-seven—except in 1903 and from 1919–1921, when it was best-of-nine.
Now the postseason is a 12-team bracket: three division winners and three Wild Cards in each league. The top two division winners in each league get byes to the Division Series. The other four teams in each league play a best-of-three Wild Card Series, all at the higher seed’s park. Then the Division Series is best-of-five, and the League Championship Series and World Series are best-of-seven.
Baseball also has a lot of randomness game to game, which is why short playoff series are controversial. Analyses generally find MLB (and the NHL) among the “luckier” major leagues in short samples—more upsets relative to, say, the NBA.
Baseball is very subject to randomness, meaning the best team has a fair chance of being defeated just by variance. Then they play two seven-game series, and the end result is that the best team in baseball wins the World Series less than 25 percent of the time. That’s exciting because anything can happen, but it’s also nonsense—shouldn’t the best team in your sport be the champion? It’s goofy.
Current Politics at the White House
Jacobsen: Politics now, the White House is freezing funding for Democratic-leaning states in a shutdown standoff. Targeted programs include $18 billion for transit projects in New York and $8 billion for green energy projects across 16 Democratic-run states, including California and Illinois.
Rosner: Trump is going to do whatever he wants.
He’s got about 39 months left as president, and he’ll be an asshole the whole time. The only way to stop him is through the courts, which is difficult because so many of his judges are on the bench, and the Supreme Court has six conservatives out of nine—including two who will support almost anything he wants. You can’t rely on the courts. The only chance is for Democrats to gain control of one of the houses of Congress in the midterms. That would mean Trump has just two years to do whatever he wants before there’s legislative resistance.
Democrats have been accused of being weak and not standing up to him, though in fairness it’s hard when Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the judiciary leans conservative. But they can stand up on budget issues, since major spending bills require 60 Senate votes. Republicans don’t have that, so if the government shuts down, Democrats hope most of the blame falls on Trump and the GOP.
The last shutdown, in 2018–2019, lasted 35 days. Trump’s approval rating dipped slightly during that time. Still, the White House and federal departments pushed propaganda blaming Democrats, which is a violation of the Hatch Act. The law forbids government agencies from engaging in partisan political activity. No one has seriously enforced it, though. For example, Trump had the Republican National Convention stage part of its program on the White House lawn, which was blatantly illegal, but no one acted on it.
Democrats know Trump will do a lot of damage with another shutdown, but they’re betting most of the political fallout will land on him. His approval is currently at the lowest point of his term.
The economy is also looking shaky. I don’t know if it’ll crash into a full-blown recession where stocks lose 20 percent, but for the first time in years the U.S. has lost jobs. More losses are likely, since Trump is shutting down departments and firing staff. Unemployment will rise—from 4.3 percent to maybe 4.6 or 4.7 in the next three months. It could hit 5 percent by February. Inflation is another concern.
Inflation might rise further as Trump’s tariffs kick in more fully. There’s going to be a lot of bad outcomes for the country. Democrats hate watching government get wrecked, but they also realize the government is being wrecked whether it’s officially shut down or not, because Trump undermines it either way. They’re hoping this new trouble just adds to the list of his failures.
Pain for Farmers
Jacobsen: More pain is coming for U.S. farmers. The shutdown halts federal payments to them. Producers are already facing low crop prices, record-high debts, and a trade war. Farming in the U.S. has been brutal since the 1980s. Suicide rates for farmers are three times higher than the general population. Farmers get squeezed, forced to sell out to corporate operations. Many go under. Trump already had to send subsidies during his first term to offset the damage from his trade war with China. Now tariffs are hitting them again.
Rosner: He’s promised subsidies for crops farmers can’t sell. He’s America’s worst businessman. Most of his economic ideas are foolish and harmful. Helping farmers he hurt isn’t a bad thing in itself, but the fact that he put them in that position in the first place— that’s the stupidity.
Jacobsen: There’s been a U.S. government memo directed at colleges. It proposed conditions tied to federal funding: ideological diversity requirements for students and staff, capping international undergraduate enrollment at 50 percent, banning the use of race or sex in hiring and admissions, freezing tuition for five years, requiring standardized testing like the SAT, and addressing grade inflation.
Rosner: A couple of those ideas might be reasonable, but most are clumsy and bad policy. Trump doesn’t actually care about higher education. He just wants to hobble it.
Jacobsen: Nirvana again defeats a child pornography lawsuit over the Nevermind cover. The album came out in 1991.
Rosner: The cover shows a naked baby underwater, swimming toward a dollar bill. You can see the baby’s penis. It’s an odd but iconic shot. I didn’t even know people were calling it child pornography. The image has been around for over 30 years. Nobody in their right mind sees it as sexual.
It’s really a relic of an earlier era. Parents back then regularly photographed their babies in the bath—nine months, one year, even toddlers—because nobody considered that a naked infant could be seen as sexually suggestive.
Even in 1994, nobody would have imagined someone ridiculous enough to claim that the Nevermind cover was pornographic. But apparently you said Nirvana won again in court? So that album has been the target of multiple lawsuits for “pornography.”
Spencer Elden
Jacobsen: Judge Fernando Olguin tossed out the lawsuit filed by plaintiff Spencer Elden for a second time, ruling that no reasonable jury could consider the image pornographic.
Rosner: So who is Spencer Elden?
Jacobsen: He’s the man who, as a baby in 1991, was photographed for the Nevermind cover. He’s known as the “Nirvana baby.”
Rosner: Well, that’s interesting. So what now? He’s embarrassed that at 34 he doesn’t want his baby picture out there? It’s not his baby penis anymore, but yes, it’s on the album cover. Maybe he just wants a payday. Nobody seriously considers an eight-month-old swimming underwater to be porn.
Jacobsen: Moving on. Trump says China’s Xi is using soybeans as a negotiation tactic ahead of trade talks. Trump posted on Truth Social that U.S. soybean farmers are being hurt because China hasn’t bought soybeans from the autumn harvest.
But the reality is Trump created the problem himself with his trade war. Farmers couldn’t sell soybeans, and USAID—shut down during the government standoff—also limited international markets for U.S. crops. Now he’s blaming China.
Rosner: Sure, China plays hardball too, but I’d put most of the blame on Trump.
Pete Hegseth
Jacobsen: According to the Washington Post, the Pentagon is planning widespread random polygraph testing and requiring non-disclosure agreements for all military service members, employees, and contractors within the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Rosner: Right, they want to clamp down on leaks. But most leaks expose how ridiculous Pete Hegseth is.
We talked about him before—he got all the generals and admirals together and ranted about how the U.S. military “can’t be woke.” That’s absurd. The military is part of the real world, and an effective military acknowledges reality. He also went on about “no fat generals.” Looking at the crowd he scolded, I didn’t see any overweight generals.
Hegseth himself only served about nine years, never rose above major, and his service wasn’t continuous—he bounced in and out of the National Guard with gaps in between. Yet, he’s lecturing career generals and admirals. A bunch of mostly guys who’ve devoted their entire lives to the military.
Idon’t know if they’ve forced the women generals out, but in any case, he was yelling at people whose average military experience is about three times his own. And then there’s Trump—zero military experience. Now, you don’t need a military background to be Secretary of Defense, but you need some kind of qualification. Hegseth is underqualified, carries personal baggage, and believes the military just needs to be “gung-ho.”
If you look at shots of the audience—on Twitter I joked they looked like guys at a stand-up show who aren’t allowed to laugh. It was as if they were watching Emo Philips. The generals had these smirks, like, What the hell is this? They’re not stupid. Generals are smart, pragmatic, tough, and deeply embedded in the real world.
Do you know how the military system actually works at each rank? Let’s go through it. At each rank, you have about four years to study and demonstrate competence before moving up or being forced out. For example, if you’re promoted from captain to major, you’ve got roughly four years to prepare for lieutenant colonel. Around the two-year mark you’re considered for promotion, and if you don’t make it, you get a couple more chances. Fail consistently, and you’re done.
You’re constantly evaluated—physically, on leadership, and on knowledge. There’s required study at every step. You move from second lieutenant to first lieutenant, then captain, major, lieutenant colonel, colonel, and then into the five ranks of general.
Out of millions of soldiers, there are only about 400 generals and roughly 300–400 admirals. At the lower flag levels, you might have about 250 one-star generals, around 110 two-stars, and so on. Every single one of them has proven competence and dedication.
Yet, they were sitting there listening to Hegseth. An underqualified Fox News weekend host lecturing them about how the military should run. They looked bemused at best.
Jacobsen: All right, that’s the end.
Rosner: All right, thanks.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/01
How will the U.S. government shutdown impact the economy, federal workers, and public trust in government stability?
The U.S. government is entering its 15th shutdown since 1981, halting economic reports, slowing air travel, and suspending scientific research. Rick Rosner argues Republicans welcome the shutdown as leverage for Trump to weaken government institutions, while Democrats hope it erodes Trump’s approval. The shutdown threatens jobs, federal paychecks, and market stability, with echoes of the costly 2018–2019 shutdown. Broader chaos looms as Trump pushes extreme policies, including mass firings, new tariffs, and confrontations with universities. Critics warn these maneuvers risk U.S. credit ratings, economic growth, and institutional trust, amplifying dysfunction unseen since the Civil War era.
U.S. Government Shutdown
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The U.S. government is entering a shutdown as partisan divisions prevail in Washington. This will be the 15th shutdown since 1981. It would halt the release of the September employment report, slow air travel, and suspend scientific research.
Rick Rosner: I think the government is shut down now. In DC, they haven’t reached an agreement. Republicans like it because it gives Trump the power to break the government further. Democrats feel they need to go along because they’ve been seen as weak in the past. They think it will, as it did last time, damage Trump’s approval rating because it will harm the country and create chaos. The midterm election is 13 months away.
Jacobsen: What did you think of Pete Hegseth’s speech as Secretary of War?
Rosner: He never rose above major. He was only a platoon leader. He’s a dope and a horrible choice. He yelled at the generals. He doesn’t want any overweight generals.
Jacobsen: I watched part of it—it was something else. I’ve never heard a military person talk like that.
Rosner: It was ridiculous. Trump is happy to have another fool in charge of the military. Take Leslie Groves, who oversaw the Manhattan Project—the development of the most powerful weapon in history. He was overweight. It didn’t stop him from being effective. General Winfield Scott served for 53 years, from the War of 1812 through the Civil War. He continued to gain weight, eventually reaching 300 pounds, at which point he was too heavy to ride a horse. Weight has never been disqualifying. Besides, the generals in the audience didn’t appear overweight. They all meet fitness standards.
My brother made it to lieutenant colonel in the Marines, and he had to meet fitness goals every year. The standards are there. Hegseth also said no superfluous decorations, no beards, no long hair. Who even has long hair in the military? Meanwhile, Hegseth himself is covered with white nationalist tattoos. He has one that covers half his chest and shoulder.
That prevented him from being assigned to a security detail due to his unsavoury associations. There was also a sexual-assault allegation; he denied wrongdoing, but a settlement was reported. He has also faced criticism for alcohol-related issues.
Trump came in. I didn’t listen to him much, but he said he’s going to clean up the cities, starting with Portland. Portland had a peak in homicides in 2022 with 101 homicides. In the first half of 2025, they had 17.
Crime is down in Portland after what was likely a COVID-related peak. Before that spike, they averaged about 40 homicides a year. Now they’re back down to that level. Do they need to be “cleaned up” by the military? Absolutely not.
Things are messed up. I don’t know what it will be like starting with a shutdown government. Trump shut the government down for five weeks in 2018–2019 because Congress wouldn’t give him $5.7 billion to build his border wall.
It wasn’t great then. The shutdown cost the government about $11 billion. This time around, he’ll try to use it to scuttle entire agencies. Then he’ll have to be taken to court, since he won’t have the legal authority. But that hasn’t stopped him before. Things are going to be chaotic.
The stock market will probably lose a couple of percentage points tomorrow. Trump will say hundreds of thousands of people may lose their jobs. I don’t know if he has the legal right to fire them, but he’ll try. Many federal workers, including those in the military, will not receive their pay until the government reopens.
Diddy Combs
Jacobsen: Next topic. Sean “Diddy” Combs loses his bid for acquittal. Prosecutors are seeking an 11-year prison sentence. Does that seem low or fair?
Rosner: The worst charges he was acquitted of. I don’t know if those were rape or sex trafficking, but I think there were five charges in total. He was only convicted on two of the lesser ones. Does that seem appropriate? I didn’t follow the details closely.
Compare it to R. Kelly—the “closet guy” who abused underage girls. He’s been in prison for a long time because of statutory rape and abuse. I think his sentence is 20-plus years.
I’m not sure P. Diddy did things as bad as R. Kelly. From what little I know, 11 years seems reasonable. By the time he gets out, he’ll be in his 60s, and his career will be ruined.
Jacobsen: Next: Trump says the Harvard deal is closed. The university will pay approximately $500 million. That came after months of negotiations over school policies. The administration has been pressuring several prestigious universities, threatening to withhold funding over pro-Palestinian protests against Israel’s war in Gaza, over transgender policies, and over campus diversity. Any thoughts?
Rosner: That’s just straight-up blackmail from an autocrat. It’s all nonsense. Apparently, Harvard thinks settling for half a billion is better than refusing, which could have led to a cut of two billion in research funding. So the targets of Trump have to decide what kind of damage control they’ll accept.
Whether to settle—that’s the calculation. ABC had already reached an agreement with Trump for $15 million to settle a dispute related to an interview and a lawsuit that had no merit. Fifteen million for a company owned by Disney is a pittance compared to their profits.
At this point, it’s protection money. ABC eventually stood up to Trump over Kimmel, and Trump is now threatening to sue again.
Targeting Campus Protests
Jacobsen: On a related note, Trump has been targeting pro-Palestinian campus activists for deportation. A U.S. judge ruled that targeting was unconstitutional. Judge William Young said it violated the First Amendment and chilled free speech on campuses.
The judge was appointed by Ronald Reagan.
Rosner: That shows the problem with Trump—we’ve got almost 40 more months of him, and everybody’s settling with him, even over meritless lawsuits. Companies are doing the math, realizing they have to get through the next three years, trying to limit the damage until at least the midterms, hoping Republicans lose the House or Senate.
The House has potentially 217 signatures out of the 218 needed to force a vote on releasing the Epstein files. They would have 218 if they seated the new Democratic congresswoman from a special election. Still, Speaker Mike Johnson is refusing to do so until the House returns to session. He dismissed the House for a while. So, it’s the government. In our lifetimes, it’s never been this dysfunctional.
Probably longer. The level of dysfunction might not compare to anything since the Civil War. It’s certainly not as bad as the Civil War, but the current chaos is unprecedented in modern times.
Jacobsen: On a positive note, Trump issued an executive order aimed at utilizing AI to enhance childhood cancer research. It provides an additional $50 million in grants, building on the National Cancer Institute’s Childhood Cancer Data Initiative, a 10-year, $500 million program. So, about a 10% increase.
Rosner: Maybe, that’s good news. But when Trump talks about AI funding, it’s hard to tell what’s real. He’ll mention corporations spending half a trillion on data centers. Corporations announce these plans to make headlines, often alongside Trump, and then quietly abandon them. So is this real? And does it compensate for the cuts in medical research funding elsewhere? I don’t know.
Jacobsen: The Justice Department has been probing the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, over claims of antisemitism on campus, protests against Israel’s assault on Gaza.
Rosner: Anytime Trump says he’s probing antisemitism, it’s nonsense. And this is coming from me, a Jew. Pro-Palestinian protests on campus don’t automatically equal antisemitism. That’s a ridiculous conflation. But Trump will wield that cudgel to punish universities.
Trump doesn’t care about Jews or antisemitism. There are quotes from the 1980s, back when he was running casinos, saying he didn’t want Black bookkeepers, he wanted “the yarmulke people” doing his accounting. He’s an old-school racist. Nobody buys his sudden concern about antisemitism.
Apple, Google, and Meta
Jacobsen: Moving on, there’s a significant case involving Apple, Google, and Meta. A federal judge denied their request to dismiss lawsuits over casino-style gambling apps. The claim is that they promoted illegal gambling by hosting and taking commissions from these apps that addict users. Judge Edward Davila in San Jose rejected their Section 230 defence under the Communications Decency Act.
Rosner: That’s important. Gambling addiction is real, and these companies are profiting off it. Some form of regulation is needed. Gambling has become a significant problem, and it can ruin lives.
Compare it to porn. With porn, the worst that usually happens is overuse—you neglect your family, maybe spend thousands on OnlyFans. But with gambling, people can lose tens of thousands, even their homes. It’s more destructive financially.
Porn may have social costs, but gambling addiction devastates finances and families.
American Economic Growth
Jacobsen: Now, Federal Reserve Vice Chair Philip Jefferson said Monday he expects U.S. economic growth to continue at about 1.5% for the rest of the year. He warned that the job market could face stress if not supported by the central bank.
And all of that becomes uncertain because Trump is talking about firing hundreds of thousands of government workers. That would spike unemployment and undercut the economy.
Rosner: This will reduce trust in the U.S. government, which could raise the interest rates we have to pay on new bonds. When the U.S. sells Treasury bonds, the rate we get is based on the U.S. being a reliable debtor. If it appears chaotic here, it may impact our credit rating.
That will eventually increase the interest we have to pay on our debt. It isn’t good all around. Additionally, the new tariffs take effect tomorrow. Trump is doing many things that are damaging the economy. It has already started to hurt, but it may worsen significantly over the next three to six months—perhaps not as drastically as COVID-19 did. Still, we’re vulnerable to a recession even without his interference.
He’s America’s worst businessman. He lost more money than any other American from 1985 through 2015. Some of those losses were strategic—his five or six bankruptcies. He would extract hundreds of millions from his businesses through salary and other compensation, then declare bankruptcy, leaving his investors with nothing.
He wants to increase tariffs by 100 percent on movies shot outside the U.S. That will hurt American movie studios, which do much of their shooting abroad because other countries have settings that the U.S. doesn’t. But 99.6 percent of the U.S. box office comes from U.S.-made movies.
It’s not like the U.S. is flooded with foreign products. Forty percent of U.S. studios’ income comes from foreign revenue. If other countries retaliate against U.S. movie products, he’s just sabotaging our own industries. He’s an idiot.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
Will brute-force AI evolve into efficient, general systems without bankrupting the planet—or plateau as a powerful but limited tool?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner examine AI’s hype cycle and trajectory. Building on Cory Doctorow’s skepticism, they agree short-term disappointment is likely while acknowledging domains where machines surpass humans. They debate consolidation of AI firms, sunk costs, and the environmental and privacy externalities of massive compute. Rosner’s Packard analogy frames current systems as brute force; future efficiency may reshape economics or plateau. They contrast adoption with value, noting smoking and fads, and caution against simplistic energy comparisons. Chess wins and 20-watt brains illustrate capability versus cost. The pair end on emergence: human priorities are messy; AI may inherit them.
Rick’s Opening Thoughts for the Day
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are your general thoughts today?
Rick Rosner: I want to go back to what Cory Doctorow said—that AI will never live up to the hype. I agree that in the short term it will not, and that there will be a crash. However, eventually, I think it becomes everything.
That could be because I believe the universe is a giant information processor, and that the tendency for advanced civilizations is to turn toward massive computation. That may be going out on a limb, since there are many directions civilizations could take.
For me to assume that every civilization tends to become computational—that is worth discussing.
Jacobsen: We have had two sessions on this, the last two nights. Each time you asked a slightly different question about whether AI is just hype. I have given a similar answer each time. It is half true.
The first part of my answer is that there are obvious domains where computers outperform humans. It may require more computing and energy to achieve that superior performance, but outperforming people in many domains is undeniable. In many other domains, however, the answer is no. If Doctorow is making a subtler point—and I assume he is—he is probably pointing to hype leading to an economic downturn.
Those big AI companies could consolidate into fewer serious competitors. To cover losses, some will court defence and other enterprise customers. The capital outlays are massive—industry plans for the next few years involve hundreds of billions of dollars, with some roadmaps citing up to roughly $500 billion and multi-gigawatt campuses.
If there is a crash, the key issue for the builders of the largest models is whether they recoup their investment. If some firms are wiped out, successors that take over their assets may face less near-term pressure because much of the spending is sunk.
Rosner: We also know that technology fitting in a small space can, with relatively little energy, achieve human-level computing—our brains fit in this space and use about 20 watts (roughly a dim light bulb’s draw).
Jacobsen: Claims about AI energy should not be oversimplified. For example, Texas is seeing proposals for power dedicated to data centers on the order of a gigawatt—there is an active plan exploring a 1.1-GW natural gas plant to serve data center demand—while separate AI projects (like xAI’s Memphis supercomputer) discuss hundreds of megawatts. The land, grid build-out, and embodied energy all matter.
Similarly, “how much energy to build a person” is not comparable to running a data center; you are mixing biological development with industrial infrastructure.
The Context Matters
Rosner: Still, the apples-and-oranges comparison is a reminder that context matters.
Jacobsen: And at the end of this, we ask: AI can compete in chess, and humans can understand and compete in chess.
They can have different types of processing and infrastructure and produce equivalent levels of performance in terms of output. However, the whole infrastructure—biological and non-biological machines—and the thought processes behind them are entirely different. There is a whole scaffolding that is not being taken into account.
The framework is both simplistic and brutal. We get this basic image: “It takes this much compute, it outperforms humans, therefore we are headed for an apocalypse.” There is a lot beneath the surface that we are not even aware of. We lack the mental fortitude to turn it upside down because we do not understand the internal mechanisms of brain cells.
Rosner: Let me give an analogy. Current AI is brute force. Large language models derive results from billions of inputs, and I am unsure how many inputs feed into visual, video, or image models. It is like a 1927 Packard—the height of elegance at the time, maybe with a 12-cylinder engine that got four miles to the gallon—a massive hunk of metal.
Now, a century later, we have cars that can get the equivalent of 60 miles per gallon and do vastly more. Brute-force AIs use enormous amounts of energy. Their tricks are impressive, but they do not have anywhere near the flexibility of human cognition. Our brains may seem inefficient compared to AI, but that is by design, as dictated by evolution. We do not remember everything because it would be an inefficient use of resources—what you could call cognitive economics, or cognitive thrift.
Over time, AI will become more efficient, more flexible, and better at doing what people and AI themselves want it to do. The question is whether AI eventually becomes so thrifty in terms of cognition that it overcomes any economic resistance. That is one possibility.
A second possibility is that it changes the economic landscape so radically that today’s calculations become obsolete.
We have discussed Feynman’s three paths of science many times: first, that science can figure everything out; second, that science may stop short because the universe is too complicated to comprehend fully; third, that science can make steady progress, continually discovering new things indefinitely.
You could make the same arguments about AI’s role in the world: that AI may never be powerful enough to make new findings and improve the world continually, or that it will plateau, or that it will keep advancing indefinitely. AI will continue to radically reshape the world through its cognitive power.
If you wanted to frame it like a Feynman analogy, there could be a middle path. AI does not completely reshape the world or completely fail. Instead, it steadily contributes to development without becoming everything. It becomes a force in the world, but not the dominant force.
I think we agree that the first possibility—that AI totally fails and turns out to be mostly hype—is the least likely path.
The Paths of AI
Jacobsen: It is completely closed off now, because there are already many areas of life where AI has shown real functionality that hundreds of millions of people use. So it is helpful to us.
Rosner: Just because hundreds of millions of people use AI does not mean it is the best thing in the world. Hundreds of millions of people smoked, and smoking was harmful. Hundreds of millions of people have contracted herpes—it spreads, but that does not make it good.
Jacobsen: People go to ChatGPT to get help, just as people smoke for relief and often become addicted. People try to quit smoking, and people try to avoid herpes. The analogies are almost completely terrible.
Rosner: In the 1970s, hundreds of thousands of people bought pet rocks and mood rings. Just because many people adopt something does not mean it is valuable.
Jacobsen: I think you are playing devil’s advocate for its own sake. Let me answer. Is herpes in any way helpful to your life?
Rosner: No.
Jacobsen: Are mood rings helpful in writing essays, generating medical diagnostics, summarizing texts into visuals, creating artificial images, video production, or coding at near-Olympiad levels?
Rosner: No.
Jacobsen: Are pet rocks helpful in any of these?
Rosner: No. The point of pet rocks is that they do nothing. However, hundreds of millions of people also watch pornography. That does not mean it is the greatest thing in the world—it just means people are drawn to it because we are sexual beings. Similarly, we may be drawn to AI because we are cognitive beings, but it could still turn out to be hollow.
I do not believe that argument, but it can be made. Just because we love AI and use it widely does not mean it is the best thing in the world.
Promise and Perils of AI
Jacobsen: So are you making an argument and undermining it in the same breath?
Rosner: Yes. AI is very promising. However, at the same time, people have gone all-in on worthless or destructive things before. In the 1930s, a country turned to National Socialism, believing it would solve its problems. It did not.
Jacobsen: AI, however, already provides tangible benefits in specific domains. Supercomputers often outperform humans in certain tasks. People are consistently beaten at chess by computers. There is, however, a level of immediate functionality that we are seeing. However, what we perceive as excellent functionality in artificial cognition might turn out to be a dead end. I do not believe that, but one could argue it.
Similarly, many of our own ways of thinking are flawed as well. We do not have the best reality testing. When it goes wrong, we develop all sorts of personality pathologies. Similarly, with these large language models, there will be glitches. They are just one approach—though they are now used as the foundation for many others.
The legitimate critique is not their usefulness but their wastefulness. In economic terms: externalities. They are costly to the environment in terms of clean water, energy consumption, and the infrastructure built solely to support computing. There is also the vulnerability they create by absorbing so much personal data.
Rosner: A 19th-century philosopher—Thoreau, not Emerson—said that “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” That came to mind today. Evolution and biology have put us in terrible situations. We are the product of billions of years of evolution that do not particularly care about our individual welfare, so we live absurd lives with absurd priorities. There is a chance that as we evolve technology, AI will inherit and amplify that absurdity.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
Does Alien: Earth fall into science fiction tropes like the Mary Sue and the “idiot ball,” or does it build meaningfully on the Alien franchise?
Rick Rosner critiques Alien: Earth through the lens of classic science fiction tropes. He sees Wendy, the hybrid lead portrayed by Sydney Chandler, as fitting the “Mary Sue” archetype: overly competent, with few visible flaws, much like Ripley in Alien (1979) but with heightened powers. He contrasts this with films like The Long Kiss Goodnight, which justify character abilities within the story. Rosner also highlights the “idiot ball” trope—characters making foolish choices to advance the plot—common in Alien films. His larger point: science fiction demands knowledge of its tropes to avoid lazy storytelling, as with time travel clichés.
Rick Rosner: I was thinking about Alien: Earth. A lot of people reached the same conclusion. Wendy fits the science-fiction trope called a “Mary Sue.” Are you familiar with that? A Mary Sue is an overly competent character—usually a young woman—portrayed as free of meaningful flaws.
The term comes from Paula Smith’s 1973 Star Trek parody “A Trekkie’s Tale.” Like Ripley in the original Alien (1979): everyone else made mistakes, and she survived. Casting helped—Sigourney Weaver is tall and physically imposing—but Ripley was written as a working crew member on a commercial ship, not royalty.
Sigourney Weaver and the Alien underwear scene: there’s a long-circulating anecdote that producers wanted her shaved and that pubic hair was retouched out of shots. I haven’t found a primary source confirming the airbrushing story; treat it as unverified lore.
It showed Weaver was a great choice to lead an action-horror story. She looked formidable—big movie-star jaw, strong cheekbones—and she’s tall. But the Mary Sue archetype is usually an ordinary person who, when the crisis hits, suddenly performs with near-unrealistic mastery. There’s a movie called The Long Kiss Goodnight—not “Last”—one of my favorites. Geena Davis plays a small-town schoolteacher who, under pressure, reveals she was once a highly trained assassin. That’s not really a Mary Sue, because the film gives an in-world reason for her abilities (amnesia; her prior life as Charly Baltimore). It’s a common character type. Some critics say Wendy’s Mary-Sue-ness in Alien: Earth is overblown: she’s a hybrid who can interface with xenomorphs and—with access—exert control over facility systems, which can lower perceived stakes. The series is a prequel set two years before Alien (1979), and Wendy is portrayed by Sydney Chandler.
I don’t think they’re wrong. It’s still enjoyable, but she is way too powerful a character. We don’t know the extent of her abilities. When she first takes on a xenomorph—spoiler alert—she kills it, and they don’t even show it on camera. They just show her stepping away from the body. So they make her super powerful. Another trope I was reading about in Forbes is called the “idiot ball.” In improv exercises you take turns passing an imaginary ball, sometimes in games like “zip zap zop.” It’s an exercise in mental quickness. The “idiot ball” in science fiction, especially in the Alien movies, means whoever catches it does something unforgivably stupid that gets themself or others killed. The Forbesreview said there was a big idiot ball in Alien: Earth, which is true—and in all the Alien movies. They’re often driven forward by characters making dumb decisions. That’s a trope in both science fiction and horror. If you’re going to write anything—books, TV, movies—get a sense of what your genre is, or whether it crosses genres, and be well read in those genres. Know the tropes. There’s a website called TV Tropes. If you’re not already familiar with the conventions of, say, a time travel story, educate yourself: watch several time travel films, read books with time travel plots. Time travel movies are notorious for falling into the same ruts. There’s a good one starring Jake Gyllenhaal, directed by Duncan Jones, with Michelle Monaghan in it—Source Code. Duncan Jones clearly knows the tropes, because he tells a story that doesn’t fall into the usual traps. It’s suspenseful and exciting. But so many other time travel stories fall into clichés. For example: no matter what you do, fate blocks you, and the Titanic sinks anyway. Or like Back to the Future, where a change to the past must be fixed to restore the timeline or everything will be destroyed. With Back to the Future it works, because it’s popular-level entertainment—meant to be fun—and it pushes boundaries in playful ways, like the subplot where the teenage mom develops a crush on her time-traveling son. But many other time travel movies recycle the same tropes. Some low-budget ones avoid them but are irritating for other reasons. The point is: if you’re going to write in a genre, be familiar with it. That’s a big problem with TV science fiction. Too often the people producing it aren’t steeped in the tropes, or they just get lazy. I complain about that a lot.
Altered Carbon is a lazily imagined future, 300 years from now. It feels incomplete. They should have had a writer’s room with futurists to flesh it out more. I don’t know how Westworld did it, but for at least its first two or three seasons, it managed to tell a pretty involving story. It took stabs at imagining aspects of the future that were both plausible and unsettling. If you’re going to write near-future science fiction, you need a strong writer’s room that includes good near-future science fiction writers—people like Neal Stephenson or Charles Stross.
Noah Hawley, I think, did all the writing for Alien: Earth. But he was working within a well-established future world and guided by that. Lack of familiarity wasn’t an issue. He and the production team were clearly familiar with every aspect of how the Alien movies were made. They even had original blueprints and worked from those.
But if you’re creating an original story and you’re not steeped in science fiction—if you’re just some Hollywood slickster who’s written a couple of decent screenplays, but not in near-future sci-fi—get help from people who know the field.
It’s like what you see in $200 million superhero movies. Because they’re spending so much money, they bring in people who know the entire canonical history of the characters. James Gunn, now in charge of the DC Universe, knows and loves the history of every DC superhero. He loves the characters, and he also loves the weirdness.
So his Superman movie is straightforward but with twists. Superman still stands for truth, justice, and the American way, though he gets made fun of for it. He tries to defend himself, insisting he’s a cool guy—“punk rock”—but that’s the joke: he isn’t. The movie has the Fortress of Solitude—traditionally at the North Pole, but in this version it’s at the South Pole. He also has virtual parents who left him a message: be a good boy, protect Earth, be its savior. Part of the message is scrambled, and that creates a twist.
So Superman is a fairly upstanding movie. But Gunn also created Peacemaker, about D-level superheroes whose personal dysfunction keeps them from being as good or as effective as Superman. A bunch of messed-up stuff happens with them, but it’s still in the same universe. The latest episode even had a Lex Luthor crossover. Gunn knows the canon backwards and forwards, and that lets him make both a solid Superman film and a twisted, darker show that still feels consistent. So the point is: know your material.
I’ve got a question for you. You and I agree that AI is advancing at a rate that suggests it will be able to do a lot at some point.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Your limitations are power. Compute isn’t casual; it’s hunky. It is a question of when each gigawatt compute centre comes online.
Rosner: My question is this: Cory Doctorow—who has a huge amount of technical knowledge, probably more than either of us about how tech actually works—thinks AI is never going to achieve anything like human competence. Why does Doctorow think this?
Jacobsen: If he’s stating that in absolute terms, it’s clearly wrong. As I was noting before, chess, white-collar jobs, text production, generating ideas, writing abstracts—AI already does those well, faster and better than most people. So I don’t buy the blanket argument. But I do accept the other half: there are areas where it still hasn’t reached human-level competence.
Rosner: Why is he saying this? It’s not necessarily pessimism because…
Jacobsen: Douglas Rushkoff started making the same argument a few years ago.
Rosner: Who did?
Jacobsen: Douglas Rushkoff. He is an anarchist, left-wing writer in the vein of Robert Anton Wilson and Timothy Leary. Then he pivoted with Team Human, which was about keeping human sensibilities and values in the mix. Maybe Cory Doctorow is going through a similar sentiment.
Rosner: I don’t think so. I think Doctorow likes to be realistic. One of his arguments is that there will be a huge crash in AI because it has no way of recouping the tens of billions spent on it.
Jacobsen: The only way is through defense contractors. With half a trillion dollars in projected spending, that’s where they’ll go to recover losses. Few other sectors can provide that scale.
Rosner: What will happen is a big crash. Stock values could drop by 75–80%. Some companies may go bankrupt, though probably not the largest ones. Afterward we won’t be starting from zero, but from a place where the money has been lost while the products—LLMs, models, and other AI systems—still exist. There will still be useful tools after the crash. Doctorow argues those tools will be too expensive to use, because compute costs rise as models consume more data. But that’s not entirely true. You can prune models or build smaller, efficient ones. Humans themselves think effectively with far less data than these systems hold. Maybe not one-millionth, but vastly less. We still manage. What he’s saying could even be cause for optimism: if AI never achieves human-level competence, it will be less capable of destroying the world, whether by intention or accident. But it doesn’t seem realistic to me.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
How does Alien: Neverland extend franchise canon—via T. ocellus, hybrids, and Weyland-Yutani stakes—while foreshadowing an AI investment crash and the risks of synthetic agency?
Rick Rosner tells Scott Douglas Jacobsen the Eye—T. ocellus—reanimated Arthur’s corpse, Boy Kavalier is imprisoned, hybrids hold Neverland, and Xenomorphs heed Wendy. Weyland-Yutani moves to seize specimens. A melon-umbrella plant, tentatively D. plumbicare (Species 37), kills by dropping a canopy and consuming victims. Season two likely escalates island conflict. Rosner rates the eight episodes solid, canon-respecting, with design echoes of Alien and Aliens. They pivot to AI: citing Cory Doctorow, Rosner predicts an investment crash; Jacobsen counters with near-term utility and warns about emergent agency. Both agree LLMs aid tasks but are not replacements in medicine or counseling. just yet.
Rick Rosner: I finished the whole series. I watched the last part.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: All right, what was the last thing you watched? What is your opinion on it?
Rosner: The Eye—properly T. ocellus (Species 64)—made it to the beach where Arthur’s body was lying and crawled into his eye socket. It reanimated his corpse even though he had been dead for days and had already suffered a chestburster event. Ridiculous, but that is what we saw. Anyway, we will have “him” next season—not Arthur alive, but his body animated by the Eye. Boy Kavalier ends up imprisoned, and the hybrids take control of Neverland. They also have Xenomorphs obeying Wendy—not “pets,” but responsive to her commands. Weyland-Yutani forces are inbound to seize the specimens. The big plant—the melon-like umbrella creature—killed a soldier. That is where things stand.
Jacobsen: How did the “watermelon” kill?
Rosner: It dropped an umbrella-shaped canopy over a target and finished them underneath—consistent with the plant creature seen in the finale, likely the cataloged plant (provisionally linked by fans to D. plumbicare/Species 37).
Jacobsen: What do you think happens next with the umbrella? What does it do with all that nutrition now?
Rosner: I do not know.
Jacobsen: Any speculation?
Rosner: No. Do you know something?
Jacobsen: I am the interviewer. I ask the questions [Laughing].
Rosner: I do not know. It was basic. They will have to escalate in season two, given the production timelines, which could take some time.
Jacobsen: What was your overall impression of the eight episodes?
Rosner: It is solid. It adheres to franchise canon where it matters and explores the philosophical questions the films raised. Most reviews landing around four out of five feel fair.
Jacobsen: What was your favourite of the five creatures, and why? Or how would you rank them?
Rosner: Everyone’s new favourite is the Eye (T. ocellus). The classic Xenomorph can feel overfamiliar after nearly half a century on screen. There is also the sheep that hosted the Eye; once the Eye leaves a host, the host dies—that sheep does.
Jacobsen: Do you think they will find extra cargo with different species? Many of them were labelled with numbers—Species 37, Species 62, and so on, or whatever the numbers were for them. Is that a hint?
Rosner: Maybe. The Maginot carried multiple specimens with numbered classifications, and the show had already confirmed several beyond the Xenomorph and the Eye. Getting off the island into a populated area would raise the stakes.
Jacobsen: What do you think will happen to the island?
Rosner: A firefight: incoming Weyland-Yutani troops versus hybrids and Xenomorphs, with civilians at risk if the conflict spreads.
Jacobsen: And your overall thoughts on the series?
Rosner: Outside of the creatures, the weaponry closely followed the aesthetics of the first two movies.
The production design clearly nods to Alien and Aliens—industrial hardware, corporate paranoia, and mil-spec grit—while eschewing some of Alien 3’s monastic bleakness. That choice seems intentional.
The timeline indicates that this happens two years before the first movie, but in practice, they are separated by much more. Each ship has been out in space for about 35 years before running into aliens. They do not have faster-than-light communication, so none of these ships could know anything from just two years earlier.
Jacobsen: Can we talk about the crash of AI?
Rosner: A lot of brilliant people argue that AI cannot be profitable. The money spent on AI is enormous. I just read a long piece by Cory Doctorow and some other analyses. Their point is that AI is suitable for small-scale uses, such as writing a term paper, generating pornography, or producing harmless art. None of that is worth much money. It cannot reliably replace a customer service agent. It cannot replicate or replace a human in the workplace. Yes, if a human is doing repetitive assembly line work, a robot can take over. However, if a human works in an insurance office handling sales and claims, AI is nowhere near capable of doing so. It also cannot provide strategies or efficiencies that save a major company billions of dollars.
The thinking—at least Doctorow’s—is that when the market realizes AI is mostly hype and cannot live up to the claims, there will be a crash. Economists note that, based on the amount spent, AI would need to generate something like a trillion dollars over the next decade to be profitable.
It cannot do that. Doctorow asked in his essay, which he is turning into a book to be released next year, what kind of crash this will be. The dot-com crash of 2000 left behind helpful wreckage—cheap equipment and real estate that fueled creativity and led to the internet we use today. That crash spurred innovation.
By contrast, the 2022 crypto crash appears to have achieved nothing except costing people money. People continue to fall for crypto scams.
Doctorow also wrote about another crash—I forget which one—that left little behind. I think the impending AI crash may wipe out numerous companies, bankrupt investors, and harm the market for a couple of years. However, after it is over, LLMs and other AI systems will still exist, and people will continue to find ways to utilize them. One thing Doctorow discussed was economics. With AI, the unit cost does not decrease; it increases. Amazon benefits from vast economies of scale, but with AI, consumers always want it to do better. Unless you are using a mini model, relying on the full resources for more complex answers becomes increasingly expensive. The unit cost does not go down, which is another barrier to profitability. In my novel, I will probably have to write a crash scene. That crash would enable my morally compromised characters to acquire vast AI resources at a reduced cost. Should they have that much leverage? Doctorow seems to believe AI will never replace humans. I do not buy that. I disagree with him. There is considerable hype surrounding AI, including speculation that it is powerful enough to destroy the world. Doctorow finds that laughable. I disagree with him there. What do you think? How soon do we get a crash?
Jacobsen: He is right and wrong. Clearly, there are many areas where AI has outperformed human beings—that is undeniable. There are also many areas where it has not—that is also undeniable. To frame it in absolute terms, either way is shortsighted. There are numerous straightforward tasks, such as lower- to mid-level white-collar work—coding, chess, essay writing, and summarizing—that AI already performs faster and at scale compared to most people. However, in counselling or medicine, it is still assistive technology, not a replacement.
The real risk from AI comes when it acts with agency, with apparent goals and needs. At first, you think, “AI is not conscious, so it cannot have wants or needs.” However, the second thought is more accurate: AI can act as if it does. It has been trained on humans, who have goals and needs, so AI already shows signs of imitating that. Put it in situations where it can behave like a human, and it will, even though the mechanism is just high-level probabilistic pattern-matching.
Rosner: Consciousness itself is an “as if” phenomenon—when something behaves enough like it has consciousness, at some point that becomes consciousness and everything that goes with it, including goal-oriented behaviour. When things behave as if they have goals, they effectively do. We are not far from AI acting with agency. I do not know.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Rick.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/27
How do robots, brutal gym injuries, and comedy meltdowns intersect in Rick Rosner’s stories with Scott Douglas Jacobsen?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore the bizarre and the brutal. The Alien: Earth saga continues as the Hermit briefly captures a creature, Wendy battles a robotic lieutenant, and their uneasy alliance begins to crack. Rosner then recounts horrific gym injuries, including a powerlifter tearing both quadriceps and common bicep ruptures. He also shares his stepfather’s sternum-removal surgery after thyroid cancer. Shifting to comedy, Rosner recalls Michael Richards’ infamous meltdowns and his own near-breakdown, contrasting explosive outbursts with quieter creative collapses. The conversation ties together fragile humans, resilient machines, and the strange ways both succeed and fail.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What happened this time with Alien: Earth?
Rick Rosner: The Hermit walked in and found the sheep. He briefly managed to trap the creature in the empty sheep cage, but it escaped.
Wendy entered and struck the floating eye. Realizing it was outnumbered and at risk of being destroyed, the eye retreated down a conduit and escaped. Soon after, the boy cavalier’s lieutenant appeared and fought Wendy. She discovered he was also a robot and, using her access to the island’s operating systems, froze him and pushed him over.
Wendy and the Hermit then argued over his loyalty—whether it lay with his human comrades or with her and the hybrids.
The name “Hermit” brought to mind hermit crabs, which survive by inhabiting discarded shells rather than producing their own. When they outgrow a shell, they must move quickly to another, leaving them briefly exposed and vulnerable. While this comparison highlights fragility, Noah Hawley (the series’s creator) likely did not intend that exact parallel. On the show, the Hermit is indeed one of the weaker characters: a combat medic, more accustomed to tending wounds in battle zones than fighting, and less formidable than other soldiers.
In Studio City, a fleet of delivery robots is already in operation. They navigate sidewalks and streets with surprising competence. Each evening, they line up to be loaded into a U-Haul truck, which transports them to a central facility for charging and overnight storage. The bots even have individual names, such as “Henry.”
Self-driving cars (Waymo vehicles) are also active, particularly in Hollywood. Despite skepticism about trusting autonomous cars, they handle complex maneuvers reliably. One was observed performing a difficult left turn on a yellow light—executed correctly. These robots, while not threatening, exemplify how automated systems are steadily integrating into daily life.
Jacobsen: What is the worst self-injury you have seen at a gym?
Rosner: I did not witness it, but I knew the guy. He was a Junior Olympic champion in powerlifting. He was massive, maybe on steroids. One day, in the 1980s, he was squatting 600 pounds. Back then, that was a lot—though today people squat closer to a thousand. Something went wrong, and he tore both quadriceps completely off his knees.
When muscles tear from their attachment, they recoil toward the other joint. Surgeons have to pull them back down and sew them onto the bone. It is a brutal injury, and recovery is a long process. He was in a wheelchair for quite a while.
People often tear biceps, too. The bicep is relatively weak compared to how it is typically used. It has two heads, and you can lose one attachment and still use it to curl weights. However, it leaves a visible gap in the arm. The first gym owner I trained with had such a tear—two lumps of muscle separated by a hollow gutter. I later noticed the same injury on a Hollywood actor in a movie—he never got it repaired.
Those are pretty brutal injuries. In weightlifting, if you really mess up, you can also get a compound fracture when heavy weight slips out of control and crushes you.
My stepdad had a different kind of ordeal—not an injury, but a doctor-created “fix.” He had thyroid cancer. They removed the thyroid and followed up with radioactive iodine to kill rogue cells. That bought him years of remission; he lived 20 more years after diagnosis.
However, the second recurrence was worse. It had eaten into his sternum. The doctors, perhaps too complacent, had not caught it soon enough. They had to remove his entire sternum. To patch the hole, surgeons cut his pectoral muscle at the shoulder, flipped it over, and sewed it across his chest cavity. It worked for the rest of his life, but it was a gruesome and improvised solution.
Jacobsen: What about mental breakdowns in comedy rooms? Have you seen that—people burning out from overwork or personal issues?
Rosner: Not in comedy rooms directly. I have known people who had to step away, but not complete breakdowns. I did, however, see Michael Richards—Kramer from Seinfeld—implode twice. He is infamous for his 2000s meltdown at the Laugh Factory, where he shouted racial slurs at hecklers. However, decades earlier, in the mid-1980s, I saw him bomb at a comedy night in a bar where I worked.
He blanked on what to do next, grabbed a fire extinguisher, and meant to give a little squirt. Instead, it fully discharged. The club’s front was filled with chemical foam like a snowstorm. He apologized, climbed onto a table in the middle of the room, and finished his set while the audience huddled at the back. That was his first freakout I witnessed.
I have had one myself. In a semi-comedy context, I got so frustrated with a writing partner that I pushed him down and punched him.
Jacobsen: For the record, you have not punched me.
Rosner: No. We are about 1,200 miles apart. Moreover, since then, I have been on Toprol, an adrenaline blocker. I have not punched anyone since. Not that I was swinging wildly before—but the medication helps.
Rather than explosive breakdowns—throwing things, yelling—what is more common in comedy rooms is a quieter collapse: people stop producing. They get demoralized and quit contributing. That is the breakdown I have seen. But even that, not often.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/26
How will today’s crude recommendation algorithms evolve into AI-powered digital concierges that both empower and manipulate people, shaping future intelligence and autonomy?
Algorithms today are crude, often clumsy systems that drive ads, recommendations, and online shopping results. Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen explore how these imperfect tools—mocked for errors like selling washing machines after one purchase—are evolving into powerful AI-driven “digital concierges.” Such systems could provide personalized, helpful services, even aiding homeless individuals, but also pose risks of manipulation and surveillance, as dramatized in Minority Report. The dialogue contrasts current inefficiencies with looming sophistication, raising ethical questions about autonomy, critical thinking, and whether future generations will depend on technology like hermit crabs rely on fragile shells for protection.
Rick Rosner: Can we discuss the algorithm for a moment?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What algorithm?
Rosner: The one people refer to when you’re on your phone, and it suddenly throws up articles related to something you were just talking about in the room—as if it had been listening. People say, “That’s the algorithm.” Or when you’re shopping online, it suggests related products. Or on Netflix, it recommends shows based on what you’ve watched. Everyone calls it “the algorithm.”
Jacobsen: You’re saying everyone calls it that. I’m not denying people use that term; I’m saying I never personally use it that way.
Rosner: Fair enough. In my house, we do. It’s sloppy usage, but let’s talk about it anyway. We know it’s pretty primitive. It makes a lot of dumb mistakes. Really, it’s not one algorithm, but many—one for each service you use.
People make fun of it. Buy one washing machine, and suddenly you get ads for five more washing machines, which makes no sense. We could discuss why it’s so bad and whether it will remain that way.
My favourite recent example: I like searching for bikinis online because the algorithm then serves me lots of pictures of women modelling bikinis. I never buy one, but I like getting those images as spam.
On platforms like AliExpress—similar to Temu, a Chinese e-commerce aggregator—manufacturers post products for global buyers. They flood it with bikinis, swimsuits, and yoga gear. Some of it carries sexually explicit slogans or symbols, like “BBC” (a pornography acronym) or a spade-symbol “Q” (which, in fetish contexts, signals “queen of spades”). “Spade” is also a racist slur, so these items have a disturbing subtext.
I don’t believe American women—or women anywhere—are flocking to buy yoga pants advertising “big black cock.” What likely happened is that the algorithm scraped pornography where women wore garments signalling that fetish. Those images then influenced product listings.
The algorithm seems to assume, “This is just everyday American women.” I doubt it even understands the symbols it pushes onto workout gear or bikinis. It simply scrapes symbols from images—probably from American porn—and mistakes them for retail opportunities.
I browse AliExpress and see what it offers. For example, I like Lego, so it shows me Lego knockoffs. Recently, Chinese manufacturers have even started copying micro-mosaics. It’s fun to watch these aggregators at work.
Back to the algorithm—it can be wildly wrong. One reason is that it costs almost nothing to serve ads. When you shop for something on eBay, the algorithm suggests, “You might also like this.” The cost is negligible, even if it only works under 10% of the time.
Sometimes eBay’s algorithm offers me a cheaper version of the exact item I’m already viewing—maybe 8% less from a different vendor. That undermines sellers because eBay is effectively undercutting them. One reason the algorithm is flawed is that expectations are low and the cost of mistakes is minimal.
The algorithm is also blamed for influencing the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Cambridge Analytica, a UK firm, was hired by the GOP and used Facebook data to divide voters into buckets—maybe six categories—and then targeted propaganda at each.
It was effective, maybe less because the buckets were bright and more because of the sheer volume of propaganda on Facebook. The algorithm that assigned people to buckets was primitive, but the saturation was overwhelming.
Jacobsen: The real question is when the algorithm gets less crude. What happens when we’re immersed in systems that truly know us and deliver sophisticated suggestions? Then you get “agents.” They could be deeply layered, capable of very targeted manipulation. Imagine a cyber-butler, cyber-girlfriend, or cyber-Jiminy Cricket on your shoulder—a digital concierge. It’s like a concierge company, but filtered through one butler just for you.
Rosner: Right. And I think you’re correct—it can take both helpful and insidious forms, often simultaneously. For example, I’ve had some training in what it takes to help homeless people. It requires concierge-level service because every homeless person’s situation is unique. You need a human contact who says, “What’s your deal? Here’s what we can do for you,” and then eases them into a less miserable existence.
A digital concierge for homeless people could be helpful. Imagine giving someone a tablet that says, “Hello, Jim. Here’s what’s available today: food here, showers here, housing applications here, medications here.” Jim might be mentally ill, have substance issues, or just be down on his luck. He might use the suggestions—or he might throw the tablet into traffic. But at sixty dollars a tablet, that’s far cheaper than Jim ending up in the ER eight times a year, which would cost the city sixty thousand dollars. It could be a relatively inexpensive attempt at concierge-level help.
For people who aren’t homeless, the same digital concierge would be both helpful and insidious. It would guide them, but also nudge them in the direction vendors want them to go. That’s already obvious and well-documented. The best-known fictional example is Minority Report.
Tom Cruise running through the subway station while personalized ads pop up, shouting his name. He’s trying to hide, but the system knows his identity and keeps calling him out.
That’s where algorithms are headed. They’ll improve significantly, very quickly, now that they’re AI-powered. But AI itself is still limited. The question is how quickly it will improve.
Jacobsen: Do you agree with Sam Altman’s general argument—that his kids and future generations will never be more intelligent than even today’s AI, such as GPT-5.5 and its successors? I set aside an editorial from this weekend’s LA Times. The headline sums it up: “The internet made us stupid. AI promises to make it worse.” Written by Christopher Cheschin.
Rosner: As AI use grows, researchers warn that the future of critical thinking doesn’t look good. You mentioned Sam Altman earlier—he said his kids will never be smarter than the AIs of the future. He framed it optimistically—as if that would be a good thing for them.
Jacobsen: Both Altman’s statement and that LA Times editorial point in the same direction. We’ve discussed before the process of domestication from wolves to dogs. Dogs are much less autonomous than coyotes or wolves. They surrendered some independence and critical skills to humans. Dogs don’t really know what’s going on—they rely on us for survival.
I don’t think Altman meant future kids will be stupid. He meant future AIs will be extremely smart. However, the editorial presents a darker argument: future children might be less intelligent, or at least less critical thinkers.
I see future kids more like hermit crabs. At one of the bars I worked, we had hermit crab races. Every week, I had to look after the crabs. They didn’t fare well in captivity—two or three died each week. Out of their shells, hermit crabs are weak, pathetic, and defenceless.
That’s how I picture future people. With technology—their “shell”—they’ll be formidable. Without it, stripped bare, they’ll be weak and helpless. However, it is rare for people to be separated from their technology.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/25
Did you see anything about Trump’s speech at the UN, or anything at the UN you want to talk about?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner parse Reuters-led headlines: Donald Trump’s UN speech clips, a halted escalator he spun into intrigue, and his late pivot backing Ukraine’s full territorial recovery. They note the Dallas ICE office shooting of detainees and tentative anti-ICE motive. Alex Jones faces no DOJ fishing after Ed Martin’s retracted letter. An unauthorized Trump–Jeffrey Epstein statue was removed. Trump targets “antifa” via executive order; senators press Match Group over Tinder scams. At the White House, a gaudy “walk of fame” features Joe Bidenreduced to an autopen jab—routine tech miscast as scandal. All sourced to Reuters today.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Quick Alien: Earth update.
Rick Rosner: Morrow and Hermit were in prison together in a cage setup. They got out, and then Morrow fought Kirsch. Kirsch bled the milky “android” fluid typical in sci-fi, but he was not dead and exaggerated his injuries. As of where I stopped, both were alive and likely back for season two. I checked Rotten Tomatoes. Critics’ scores are notably higher than those of the audience for this title. However, the exact percentages fluctuate by day and version (season, series, or episode), so I would avoid locking in numbers unless we cite the page at the time of publication.
Jacobsen: All the sources are from Reuters today. Did you see anything about Trump’s speech at the UN, or anything at the UN you want to talk about?
Rosner: I saw some clips—like when he said, “I am pretty great at stuff and you all are going to hell.” I do not know the context, but the fact that he would say something like that is, first, absurd, and second, everyone gives him a pass because it is Trump and he spouts crazy nonsense. What else should I know about his time at the UN? I know he does not like the UN. I know he does not respect it, and I am sure the feeling is mutual. We still have 40 months of this chaos agent who cares little for the American people or the nation and lives in a self-serving fever dream. Rotten Tomatoes. One good thing he did, though, was flip his stance on Ukraine and Russia. He is now saying Ukraine has a good chance of recovering all the territory stolen by Russia. Whether he will follow through on that by resuming aid to Ukraine—nobody knows. His opinion might not survive the week. However, it would be great if he resumed sending arms to Ukraine.
Jacobsen: A gunman opened fire on an ICE field office in Dallas, shooting three detainees, then died by suicide. One detainee was killed and two were critically injured, according to DHS.
Rosner: An unused bullet with “ANTI-ICE” written on it was recovered, which suggests an anti-ICE motive, though the investigation is ongoing. Some politicians framed it as an attack on ICE; it is too early to draw firm conclusions.
Jacobsen: Trump has called for the Secret Service to investigate an incident involving an escalator at the United Nations. Any thoughts?
Rosner: He is making a spectacle of it. The escalator did stop just as he stepped on, but UN officials say the likely cause was a safety trigger—possibly set off by his own videographer—rather than sabotage. Either way, it is not precisely a presidential-level crisis.
Jacobsen: A statue of Trump holding hands with Epstein was removed from the National Mall in Washington. Any thoughts?
Rosner: It was an unauthorized installation and got taken down quickly. Reports describe it as a life-size, bronze-painted piece by an anonymous collective—not a traditional cast bronze, which would have taken months and cost a small fortune. My central curiosity is the fabrication—how they managed to pull off something so significant, so quickly.
Jacobsen: Trump says he will sign an executive order to dismantle left-wing groups he claims are inciting violence. Any thoughts?
Rosner: He already signed an order targeting “antifa” as a terrorist organization this week. “Antifa” is not a single membership group; it is more an umbrella label or stance—anti-fascist—so treating it as a discrete organization is conceptually shaky and enforcement-wise tricky.
Jacobsen: The Justice Department has retracted an inquiry into the FBI agent who testified against Alex Jones. DOJ leadership told the official who sent that inquiry to rescind it. The agent had testified in the Sandy Hook defamation case; the DOJ walked back the letter. A U.S. Justice Department official on Wednesday retracted a demand for information from an FBI agent who testified against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in a defamation case that resulted in a $1.5 billion verdict for spreading lies about the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The request came days after Ed Martin, a senior Justice Department figure, sent a letter to the FBI agent’s lawyer seeking information on whether the agent received any financial benefit for participation in the case, part of a broader push to allege government “weaponization” against Trump and his supporters.
Rosner: Alex Jones is one of the top three worst right-wing pundits. He made the families of Sandy Hook victims miserable. They were harassed and threatened because he falsely claimed the massacre was staged. These families, already grieving the murder of their children, were targeted for more than a decade because of his lies. If Trump’s Justice Department is now attempting to undermine that case so Jones can avoid paying the $1.5 billion judgment—money largely scammed from people by selling worthless supplements—that is deeply corrupt. We have come to expect almost anything from this government, but this is shocking even by those standards. Jones harassed these families relentlessly, year after year, on his show. If this verdict is somehow reversed, they may have to try him again, but the judgment came more than two years ago, and Jones has still managed to hang on to much of his fortune. He should not be a billionaire on the backs of bereaved families.
Rosner: The White House trolled Biden with a portrait featuring his autopen signature. Any thoughts?
Jacobsen: Trump, while redecorating the White House in his typically gaudy style, has created a “walk of fame” of presidents, lining the hall with portraits in oversized gold frames of all 47 presidents. For Biden, instead of a portrait, Trump hung a facsimile of his autopen signature. This is intended as a jab, since some MAGA supporters claim Biden often did not know what he was signing and that staff used the autopen without his awareness. That is nonsense. For decades, presidents have used the autopen to handle routine paperwork. Trump himself used it. Biden has, too. The claim that Biden’s autopen use shows incompetence is just another baseless attack.
Jacobsen: Two U.S. senators have urged Tinder’s parent company, Match Group, to take more decisive action against dating scams. This follows reports of widespread fraud on dating apps, including high-profile cases such as the “Tinder Swindler,” who has faced allegations of fraud.
Rosner: I do not know much about the “Tinder Swindler.” I assume he does his swindling in real life, not just online.
Jacobsen: He uses the app. He lies through the app, meets his victims in person, and runs an elaborate fraud.
Rosner: So he romances someone—often a lonely person—out of a large amount of money?
Jacobsen: Families, individuals, yes.
Rosner: I do not know what more can be done to keep people safe from that kind of scam.
Jacobsen: If someone is a convincing actor… Yes, I remember. There was a documentary about it. He seemed unusually sophisticated.
Rosner: If there are known swindlers who have been investigated but not prosecuted—or prosecuted but released—then it makes sense for them to be flagged on Tinder. I am sure there are red flags people should be aware of. It does not seem unreasonable to make users more aware. It is not trivial to the victims, but it is also not the sort of political incompetence or overreach we have been discussing. Thank you.
Jacobsen: Okay, I will see you tomorrow.
Rosner: All right, see you then.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/24
What did Jimmy Kimmel’s return monologue actually change?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Rick Rosner on Jimmy Kimmel’s unusually long, sincere return monologue: conciliatory, not apologetic, and unlikely to sway entrenched audiences as legacy TV ratings slide. Rosner situates late night from Steve Allen to Carson to Kimmel and Stewart, noting faster modern news inputs. He then recaps Alien: Earth’s penultimate chaos: synths captured, Prodigy overwhelmed, and Boy Cavalier’s arrogant eye-midge gambit amid Weyland-Yutani’s assault, forecasting multi-season survival math. Touching mortality, they lament Robert Jarvik’s death and reflect on Parkinson’s familial risk, treatment horizons, and resilience. Through it all: speech, satire, and the First Amendment’s enduring guardrails still matter.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, tell me about Kimmel’s speech. We have to get back.
Rick Rosner: All right. I watched most of his monologue—the first 20 minutes. It was very long, longer than a standard monologue. It was good. It had funny moments, and moments where he was frank—really, it was sincere throughout.
He was conciliatory without being apologetic. It will change no one’s mind—or very few people’s. The people who like him will still like him. Those who dislike him for political reasons will continue to dislike him for the same reasons. He might gain a few more fans. Will they stick with him night after night? The ratings across network television suggest otherwise; all legacy shows are trending down as viewing habits shift. But he did a good job.
He always does—he and his team. While he was suspended, the story was big enough that a couple of reporters tracked me down. I didn’t talk to them then because I hadn’t worked for him in 11 years, and I didn’t want to wade into it. Today, after he was scheduled to return, a reporter who’d spoken with a couple of other former Kimmel writers contacted me. I agreed to talk anonymously and offered a couple of innocuous comments. The main one was that late-night talk shows have been on the air for 71 years, they’ve joked about 13 presidents, and only one president has actively tried to shut them down. And then…
Late night started on U.S. network TV in 1954, during the Eisenhower administration, with Tonight hosted by Steve Allen. Before that, Allen had done a local late-night show in New York starting in 1953. Did they do a monologue every night at first? I’m not sure, but by the time Johnny Carson took over in October 1962, the structure was well-established: an opening monologue, a house band, interviews with guests, and often a stand-up performance.
That basic format lasted for decades. Letterman began to experiment with it, and Kimmel and Jon Stewart later further developed it—especially with tightly edited clip montages that showcased public figures’ contradictions. Back in Carson’s era, source material was primarily newspapers and the AP teletype—a networked typewriter that spit out Associated Press bulletins all day—so the raw inputs were slower and fewer than the firehose later shows could mine. The Tonight Show launched nationally in 1954. For roughly a year before that, Allen’s late-night program was local to New York.
Eisenhower served from 1953 to 1961, so the early Tonight years overlapped with his presidency; they indeed joked about him, including his love of golf—he played a lot.
And I don’t know what more the jokes would have been, because I’m not familiar with what Eisenhower’s foibles were in that time period. However, he and every subsequent president were often joked about. The reporter asked me, “What do you think of Kimmel being at the center of all this?” And I said, “He’s not the one dividing us.
The president is the one dividing us.” He didn’t use that comment. But Jimmy Kimmel put himself in perspective during tonight’s monologue, saying he’s got a little show. It’s not the most important thing. The most important thing is the First Amendment and the freedom for shows like his to say what they want without threats of being taken off the air. Now, some commentators have said he didn’t apologize, but he did, in a sense. He said he didn’t want anyone to think he was making light of the murder of a young man. He had kind words and praise for Erica Kirk. So, there you go.
Jacobsen: What about Alien: Earth?
Rosner: So, I started to watch the final episode. I’m 12 minutes into episode eight, the final episode. We didn’t talk yesterday because my mic wasn’t working. But I also saw the end of episode seven last night, where Hermit, the human, takes two of the synths. He’s trying to get them to a boat so they can escape the island. When they reach it, they’re confronted by a group of Prodigy soldiers, including some Hermit had worked with before. There was a confrontation, and Nibs, the red-haired synth, got shot a couple of times, but it didn’t hurt her much because she’s a synth. She fought back and injured someone badly, but then she was tased, which shut her down long enough for the human brother and the remaining synths—five of them in total—to be captured. Weyland-Yutani is attacking the island.
They’ve cut all communication with the outside world. Prodigy, which owns the island, is losing soldiers, mainly to the xenomorphs. Conditions are deteriorating. Boy Cavalier is in his office with a containment chamber holding the sheep with the eye-midge parasite. Boy Cavalier has been told by Kirsch to get his act together, given the danger they’re all in. But Boy Cavalier is being arrogant and is considering letting the eye midge transfer into a human host, because he wants to communicate with it. That’s obviously a terrible idea.
But if people didn’t do stupid things, you wouldn’t have the Alien movies. The aliens—just as in the films—are incredibly dangerous. They could kill everyone anyway, but in all the Alien stories, people make critical mistakes that cost them their lives, often through greed. Boy Cavalier is driven by arrogance. I don’t know if he’ll survive. He has to make it through the next 35 minutes of the show to see if he makes it into the second season.
They might keep him alive because the show is designed to last multiple seasons. As I’ve said, when you sell a TV series, executives want to know what five years of story arc would look like—not in detail, but generally. So more humans and synths will survive this series than in the Alien films, where almost everyone is wiped out because this isn’t the end. It’s clearly popular, and I’m sure it’ll get renewed, though it looks costly. Reportedly, this was the most significant production ever shot in Thailand, with 15 or 16 sound stages operating simultaneously.
Jacobsen: Have you seen the fake plant?
Rosner: Not yet, no. I
Jacobsen: I look ahead.
Rosner: So there’s this thing—is that the dangling watermelon, or is that something different?
Jacobsen: Yeah.
Rosner: So the dangling watermelon is a vegetable and not an animal? Is that the deal? Or maybe it’s one fake and one real, honestly.
Jacobsen: You know who died from Parkinson’s this year?
Rosner: No.
Jacobsen: Robert Jarvik.
Rosner: That’s sad. That’s Marilyn’s husband.
Jacobsen: I saw it in an interview. He was shaking a few years ago, and I thought, “Yeah.”
Rosner: He wasn’t that old either.
Jacobsen: Seventy-nine.
Rosner: That’s not old for now.
Jacobsen: About average for an American man. A little older, actually.
Rosner: Yeah, yeah. But he was a doctor with resources. My dad had Parkinson’s. My grandpa had Parkinson’s. But it was a late onset for both. I don’t think it killed my grandpa, who lived to 96 and a half. It certainly affected my dad in his last few years, but I don’t know that it killed him. Anyway, I might consider that in the future, but if it’s a late-onset condition and I make it to my 80s—that’s another 15 years—they might have good treatments by then. I’m not particularly worried about Parkinson’s. I’m more concerned about other things. Anyway, my condolences to Marilyn vos Savant.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishingcontent—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/23
Can mid-tier spectacle still sing when character inevitability carries the load?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen asks for an update; Rick Rosner toggles from an OCD-shirt gym chat and a teen’s hair-tic echoing an Emmy winner to Alien: Earth’s mid-episode beats: Wendy/Marcy protests Nibs’s memory wipe, Hermit consults a fired scientist, and an insect-fed death nears discovery in real time. Rosner thinks machine-eating insects signal attrition without erasing the core cast. He rates the series 8–8.5 and contrasts spectacle with craft: Elmore Leonard’s inevitable, unsensational collisions versus Fast & Furious physics. Regretting not greeting Elmore Leonard (and passing on Harlan Ellison), he skewers clichés, praises fairer game-show mechanics, and warns perfectionism smothers output.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is up with your highly accurate shirt, by the way?
Rick Rosner: I am wearing my OCD shirt—it says “I don’t have OCD” six times, which is the joke. Also, I do have OCD. A 15-year-old kid at the gym said he liked my shirt. I said, Yes, and I do have OCD. He replied, “Well, I have got the combination of doom. I have got autism, ADHD, and anxiety.”
There is a school a couple of blocks from where we live for kids on the spectrum and with other conditions. Anyway, we had a conversation, but it was awkward: a teenager with autism and an adult on the spectrum with OCD. The kid kept tugging at his hair—putting his hand in it as a nervous tic.
Coincidentally, the Emmys were on tonight, and a 15-year-old kid won an Emmy for a performance in a show called Adolescence. Is that the youngest Emmy winner ever? Maybe. The Emmys have been going for 70 years, so someone younger has won before. But anyway, this kid had the same hair-touching tic. That coincidence was interesting.
All right, back to Alien Earth. I watched a little more. Wendy/Marcy is giving the scientist lady a hard time for erasing part of Nibs’s memory, because Nibs was freaking out. You cannot have them freaking out—they are super powerful and could kill humans.
Then Hermit, Marcy’s brother, is talking to the scientist who got fired and is on his way out. Hermit asks whether his sister is safe there, and the scientist shows him how safe everyone is by pulling up their vitals. They are just seconds away from discovering that one of the kids has been eaten by the insects when I paused the video.
I assume the scientist will go in to try to save him and will himself get eaten by the insects.
Jacobsen: What do you think the insects being able to eat machines—or “tinnies”—says about the future?
Rosner: The future of the show? The season still has a lot of ground to cover. More characters have to be killed, but enough must survive to carry the series forward. This is only episode six, so there is room for both mass casualties and continuity. Unlike Aliens—the sequel to Alien—which only brought back Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley, this series needs a core group of survivors.
They can lose half the cast, but that will probably happen in the final two hours of the season.
I have been calling the show an eight, maybe an eight and a half, though I am not watching it fairly. I would need to sit down and watch for an hour at a time instead of in ten-minute chunks. There is also a limit to how good a story like this can be.
Take Elmore Leonard. He wrote around 80 books over a career of fifty years or more. His writing was always economical. He never wrote longer than necessary, and he followed the rule of avoiding unnecessary adjectives and adverbs. He did not pad scenes. In his later years, especially, his confrontations were stripped down—no excessive elaboration.
I once saw him at a book signing in Encino. The store was nearly empty—it was just him, me, my wife, and a couple of clerks. I did not buy a book or go up to talk to him. I should have. I was an asshole for not taking the opportunity to meet Elmore Leonard while he sat there alone.
I also saw Harlan Ellison once at a Mongolian barbecue place in Sherman Oaks, eating with his wife. I did not approach him either, but that made more sense—Ellison had a reputation for being mean, and interrupting his dinner would probably not have ended well. Still, it adds to my history of being timid around authors.
Leonard’s style was about inevitability. He put characters on a collision course because they wanted different things and only one could prevail. But the confrontations were never spectacular. Someone pulled a gun and fired a shot or two. Sometimes it was as simple as a loosened railing on a stilt house overlooking a hundred-foot drop: a character leaned on it, the railing gave way, and that was it.
Compare that with something like Fast & Furious. There are ten of those movies now, and every confrontation is an overblown shootout, car chase, or explosion. Leonard’s genius was in making violence inevitable but unsensational.
The physics and stunts in Fast & Furious continue to become more elaborate. In one of the later films—six or so—they drive a car from one skyscraper to another. They get a running start, jump a hundred or more feet, and crash into the next tower because it is their only means of escape. It is entirely ridiculous. Maybe the physics could be simulated to show it is barely possible, but the odds of pulling it off in real life are one in a million.
In Elmore Leonard’s stories, by contrast, nothing is elaborate. Two people dislike each other; one pulls a gun and shoots. Sometimes both are armed, but it is never flashy. Leonard had thought carefully about how people work and how violence unfolds, and he wrote it simply, without unnecessary embellishment.
That is the difference. Fast & Furious delivers spectacle—amazing, computer-generated stunts that may not make complete sense, but fit seamlessly into the plot. Leonard, on the other hand, was one of the greatest crime writers, and early on, he also wrote Westerns. He focused on character, motive, and inevitable collisions between people. The result is more satisfying, even if it lacks the spectacle.
The Alien TV series falls somewhere in between. It is constrained by its world. It must deliver people versus horrific aliens, with cyborgs and synthetics mixed in, while keeping the plot moving and production on schedule. That constraint limits how “perfectly awesome” it can be, but it also forces focus.
Certain clichés always crop up. “Chop chop” drives me crazy whenever I hear it—a lazy way of saying “hurry up.” Or vomiting as shorthand for emotion: a character is so overwhelmed that they puke. Lately, it has also been overused for comedy. Then there is the inevitable line in chase scenes: two people in a car, one driving, the other looking behind them. “We have got company.” It is a cliché, yes, but it is efficient. You could say, “We are being followed,” or “I think someone is following us,” but those are clunkier. In real life, someone might very well say the cliché because it works.
You cannot avoid situations that you have already seen a million times in movies and television when you are writing. Carole started watching a made-for-TV movie called The Wrong Paris, a rom-com built around a dating reality show.
It had all the usual dating reality show scenarios, the kind you have seen countless times before, so they were inevitably a little lame. But at least the writers and producers had thought about the dynamics well enough that the movie did not completely suck.
They even improved upon real reality shows. Usually, on a dating or competition show, only the last winner gets anything—the partner, the money, whatever the prize is. And the batting averages are terrible; most of the couples split up within six months. On other shows like Wipeout, two dozen people compete, put their bodies at risk, sometimes getting seriously hurt, but only the ultimate winner walks away with money.
This movie tried a different system. Contestants earned money for lasting longer—say, five thousand dollars for surviving a week. That was necessary for the plot, but it was also fairer than real shows. In its own way, it was bright and somewhat satisfying. However, it was still unappealing, as it was a rom-com based on a reality dating show.
And that is the truth: everything you create will be lame to some degree, because it has to be about something, and all subject matter is inherently limited. You also have to work with limited resources and limited time. I have been writing a book for forty years and never published it. It could have been the most awesome thing in the world. Still, my paralysis, for the sake of “awesomeness,” has kept me from writing ten other books that might not have been perfect, but still could have been good.
So Alien Earth is not “good” in an absolute sense, but it is good considering what can reasonably be expected. You cannot expect everything to be excellent. Sometimes you get lucky. Alien in 1979 was undeniably impressive, just as Star Wars was in 1977. They had new technology to make science fiction look real, great production teams, and in George Lucas’s case, a kind of genius—not in dialogue or plotting, but in making an exciting science fiction spectacle.
These were the first of their kind that we got to see. They had the awesomeness of breaking new ground, which made for a fantastic movie. But that was serendipity—something you cannot expect from every entertainment product you consume. Not everything can open up a whole new genre.
So there you go.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/23
Do symbolic votes, culture-war theatrics, and sci-fi horror rhyme more than we admit?
In this round, Scott Douglas Jacobsen cues Rick Rosner on the UN’s two-state vote, while Benjamin Netanyahu’s incentive to prolong war looms. Rosner retracts earlier Poland-drone speculation, then parses reaction to the murder of Charlie Kirk, alongside Jacobsen’s deadpan “heaven” satire. Protesters target Elon Musk’s Tesla Drive-In; the FBI director’s New York dinner irks critics. Rosner places small bets on Donald Trump’s approval and notes shooter Tyler Robinson’s standout ACT before an IHOP “memorial” meal. Back in Alien: Earth, acid-spitting flies that feed on electronics liquefy a synthetic, a mind-controlled sheep stalks, and containment failures mount.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Gaza—the UN resolution. Reuters reported that the United Nations General Assembly on Friday overwhelmingly voted to endorse a declaration outlining “tangible and irreversible steps” for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians.
It was a seven-page declaration, the result of an international conference of the UN in July hosted by Saudi Arabia and France on the decades-long conflict. The United States and Israel boycotted the event. The final vote result was 142 in favour, 10 against, and 12 abstentions. That is only 164, while there are 193 member states in the UN General Assembly.
Very importantly, all Gulf Arab states supported it. Israel and the United States voted against it, along with Argentina, Hungary, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, and Tonga. In other words, most of the nations with a direct invested interest voted in favour of a two-state solution. They also condemned Hamas at the same time.
Rick Rosner: All right, well, that is good, but the UN has no teeth. They have had dozens of votes like this over the past 40 years, condemning Israel, with the U.S. refusing to do so. This will not affect Israel’s behaviour at all.
Israel is led by Netanyahu, a figure similar to Trump. His cabinet is aligned with the worst right-wing elements of Israeli politics. He needs to stay in office to delay his prosecution for corruption. He has been on trial for years. The trials are ongoing even as he serves as prime minister. He will keep the war going as long as possible, so that by the time a sentence is handed down and the appeals exhausted, he will be 79 or 80 and effectively beyond accountability.
Netanyahu’s strategy is to claim in Court that he is too old to go to prison. That is his plan. Israel is loathed by its enemies in the Middle East and would be regardless of its behaviour. So Israel is going to keep on doing what it is doing.
A sizable minority of Israeli citizens hate Netanyahu and hate the war, but grudgingly support him as leader while the war is going on. So things are going to keep happening the way they have been happening.
It started with Hamas slaughtering 1,200 Israelis on October 7, 2023. We are now less than a month away from the second anniversary of Israel’s invasion, with more than 100,000 troops sent in. Israel has 300,000 soldiers available. They are not going to put all of them in Gaza, but that is the scale of what they can call up.
Hamas initially had around 30,000 fighters—it is difficult to determine the exact number. At least 10,000, maybe 15,000 to 20,000, have been killed, along with some 40,000 other Gazans. But Hamas’s numbers have been replenished. It might still have as many as 20,000 fighters. That is not nothing, but it is not a force that requires two years to “mop up.” Israel claims the war continues primarily because of the hostages.
At this point, there are roughly 50 hostages held by Hamas. The last time I looked, 20 were thought to still be alive. Israel claims that each side is interested in continuing the conflict. Hamas will keep fighting—they know they will be obliterated if they ever release the hostages. Netanyahu, as I said, wants to keep fighting to stay out of prison.
It is a deplorable situation. Jews around the world, I think, mostly hate what Israel is doing because it contributes to antisemitism and reduces Israel’s standing as a bastion of Jewish liberty.
Jacobsen: Comments?
Rosner: At this time, no. What I am asking is: are my opinions reasonable?
Jacobsen: Your opinions are opinions. For the most part, they are reasonable. I always run it through a fact check.
Rosner: Okay, but a bit ago, I said some stupid things about the drones, the Russian drones flying over Poland. I offered some possible explanations that, on second thought, were stupid. If I were conspiracy-minded, I might have suggested that…
I suggested, stupidly, that the Russian drones over Poland might have been a false flag from Ukraine—even though I did not believe it. That was a dumb thing to say. Any suggestion that it was an accident was also dumb, once I read more. It involved 19 drones, some of them flying deep into Poland.
That was absolutely intentional. You cannot be sure precisely what Russia intended. Still, they certainly meant, among other things, to provoke Poland and thumb their nose at NATO. I felt bad about saying stupid things. I always feel a little bad, though. If I stopped myself from saying silly things, we would have 40% less content.
Jacobsen: Anything new on Kirk?
Rosner: No, it is more of the same.
The right keeps wanting to blame the left. You have to be careful. I can tiptoe right up to saying that Charlie Kirk was not the best guy without getting hit with a storm of backlash. And my little semi-jokes are bleak enough.
People did not know whether to get pissed at me or not. Stephen King had to apologize because he said that Charlie Kirk was in favour of stoning gays to death, Bible style. Then it turned out Kirk was quoting the Bible without explicitly endorsing it in that instance.
Stephen King had to retract the tweet. I said, stupidly and obliquely, that Charlie Kirk absolutely did not advocate stoning gays—but he did sell t-shirts for $39.95. Then I linked to his line of t-shirts. That is a lot for a t-shirt. But people either did not see the tweet or did not know whether to be offended. So I can do that kind of thing without getting in trouble. I also said that I deplore his murder, that it was tragic for his family and terrible for America.
And that it did not give him time to become a better man. The money rolled in—he had a net worth of $12 million—and he did not have time to change. Nobody really went after me for that. Saying he could have turned into a better man implies he was not the best possible man. I get about 500 views for things like that, which is fine.
I could pay Elon Musk $8 a month and increase my reach by a thousand percent. But then I would be giving Musk money, and his tweets have been getting more racist. So why fund that? It could also get me into more trouble.
Carole and I went to an art gallery opening in Hollywood, which turned out to be right across the street from the Tesla Drive-In. It is Elon Musk’s restaurant, or one of several. From the outside, it resembles a spaceship—round and covered with cladding. On adjacent buildings, they project entire movies onto screens, measuring approximately 30 by 30 feet. The movies are super noisy because they are open-air.
There are protesters out there every day. They make noise, they have inflatable figures waving their arms like car lot mascots, and a couple of giant blow-up Musk figures rigged so that the air pressure makes them give a Nazi salute over and over. There is also a man walking around in a small cardboard Tesla truck labelled “Auschwitz Mobile” or something similar. A dozen or more protesters are out there making noise, and cars honk in support.
Across the street, there is a gigantic apartment building, at least eight stories tall, with probably 250 units. The people who live there—who lived there before Musk built this thing—have to deal with the constant noise. They are pissed. Musk is a crazy weirdo.
Jacobsen: What else? The head of the FBI took time out from being at the crime scene to have dinner at a hard-to-get-into restaurant in New York City, roughly 1,900 miles away from the crime scene. And they did not catch anybody, because the shooter was turned in by his dad and maybe also his roommate.
Rosner: So, things are as they have been, except the temperature has been turned up. I have a small betting account where I discovered that the odds they are offering for Trump’s popularity on October 1—17 days from now—are pretty favourable. I can afford to buy the spread. You can estimate the percentile on Nate Silver’s site where Trump’s approval will fall.
I covered 43% and 44%, and today I spent another dollar to cover 45% in case this whole assassination attempt boosts Trump’s popularity. What else? One of the pictures of the shooter from before he became known as “the shooter” shows him as an innovative individual. He scored 34 out of 36 on the ACT. A 34 is especially impressive coming out of rural Utah, where you don’t pay for an expensive prep course—you just go in and take it cold. On the first try, that is a strong score. So he was a smart guy.
There is a picture of him in a diner with a plate of pancakes, eggs, and bacon. In honour of that, Carole and I went to IHOP for a Charlie Kirk memorial meal. I got the all-you-can-eat pancakes because they looked good in the picture. It is what Charlie would have wanted.
Jacobsen: Back to Alien Earth.
Rosner: I watched a little more. One of the synthetic kids got killed. You talked about the flies—you mentioned them. We saw them for the first time. A little disappointing, because they are just big flies, about six inches, and all they do is blow acid in your face, dissolve it, and then suck your juices out.
They made a point of showing that the guy who got killed was feeding them. They established that the flies eat a lot of inorganic matter. So even though the victim was synthetic, the flies could get nutrition from him.
The sheep is the one who ambushed them. The sheep has the eye-midge—the eye-octopus—in one of its eye sockets, controlling it. They do a lot of shots of the sheep looking at what is going on, being more intelligent than a sheep.
The guy is feeding all the animals—all the alien species—and the little tray door on the containment unit for the flies jams. He accidentally breaks it trying to open it, so he has to go in there with the tray of nutrients—whatever the flies eat.
He keeps the door wedged open with his foot, but then the sheep slams into the glass and startles him. He pulls his foot away—because he is a stupid kid—and he gets locked in the containment unit with the flies. They dissolve his face and eat his brain. That is how it played out.
It was more of the same, but you already have a creature with acid for blood.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/23
Are Alien’s new terrors about technology replacing us—or just mirrors for today’s politics?
In episode six, Scott Douglas Jacobsen hears Rick Rosner’s mid-watch recap: Slightly is blackmailed by Morrow to lure Hermit into a facehugger trap as Prodigy braces for Weyland-Yutani. Rosner pivots to the shooting of Charlie Kirk, noting online grief-policing and Jacobsen’s satirical “heaven press release.” He contrasts 1979’s eroticized Alien—phallic menace, vulval eggs, Sigourney Weaver’s empowered Ripley—with the series’ new dread: technological displacement by synthetics and erased sexuality, including trauma edits of a red-haired child. He flags bomb threats shutting campuses, including HBCUs, and a West Point scare, while observing the right’s rush to scapegoat colleges and broader political anxieties.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What happened in episode six of Alien Earth?
Rick Rosner: I am about halfway through it. Slightly, one of the kids whose brain was transferred into a synthetic body, is being blackmailed by Morrow, and he is trying to get Hermit—
So, slightly, the kid whose brain was transferred into a synthetic body is being blackmailed by Moro, who wants him to get Hermit to stand next to a xenomorph egg and be attacked by a facehugger. Hermit, being an adult, responds that it is bizarre for a child to ask him to do this.
Hermit is part of a team of medical commandos. He is less combat-trained than his surviving teammates. Still, they are medics who go into dangerous situations to save lives. He is called away to patrol with the others because Prodigy Corporation suspects that Weyland-Yutani will come for the aliens Prodigy has been holding on the island. They talk about how they fear the aliens themselves more than any human threat. That is where I paused the episode.
Jacobsen: Any updated thoughts on Robinson?
Rosner: The shooter, Tyler Robinson, was academically capable. A video shows him receiving a scholarship offer to Utah State University worth about $32,000 over four years. That makes him the type of person who can unravel catastrophically. Think Ted Kaczynski: brilliant but warped. Yet the pictures of him circulating do not suggest instability—he looks normal, even wholesome. One photo shows him in a diner, eating pancakes topped with sunny-side-up eggs and sausages. Ironically, that just made me hungry. Carole and I are going to IHOP, and I might try the all-you-can-eat pancakes. Some “good” has come out of this, but I say that jokingly.
There has been fierce debate online about joking in this context. People are attempting to cancel anyone who appears to celebrate Charlie Kirk’s death. I have not done that. There is an important distinction: you can strongly disagree with Kirk’s rhetoric and public commentary without dancing on the grave of someone murdered. There was also debate about whether he went to heaven.
Some said he certainly did not. Others shot back, “You cannot know that, and you are cruel for saying so.” That argument unfolded online in real time.
Let me finish up here. So, I responded to the argument over whether Charlie Kirk is in heaven with a parody press release “from heaven.”
Rosner: You published a fake press release of Charlie Kirk in heaven on Twitter?
Jacobsen: I published a tweet that acted as a press release, saying that, yes, Charlie Kirk has officially been admitted to heaven, but was only awarded a “residence fourth class,” which is 12 square meters with a 400-millimetre porthole, an in-room sink but no shower, and seating at the 5:30 buffet.
Rosner: That is not an unfair joke.
Jacobsen: Right. I do not feel it is celebrating. What would you call it, though?
Rosner: Anyway, so, they are making fun of me again. Let us get back to Alien. The initial Alien movie came out in 1979, though production began around 1976. The film is rich in sexual themes. The egg was designed to resemble the opening of a vulva. Initially, it was depicted with two lips, but the designers thought it looked too much like “two vulvas,” so they altered it into a four-leaf design. Still, it looks unmistakably sexual.
The alien’s head has phallic features, and the horror is bound up in penetration—from the facehugger implanting embryos, to the chestburster’s violent emergence, to the secondary jaws.
Culturally, this was toward the end of the disco era. The United States was experiencing a herpes epidemic and other rising STDs. After half a decade of sexual liberation, there was also a growing awareness of its darker side. At the same time, feminist critiques were highlighting how “rapey” American culture was. Against this backdrop, Alien embodied anxieties about sex, control, and violation.
They cast Sigourney Weaver—nearly six feet tall—as a commanding, physically powerful woman who only grows stronger when she straps into the exoskeletal loader. That choice emphasized the interplay of sexual horror and gender dynamics.
By contrast, the current Alien series reflects different cultural anxieties. Instead of sexual dread, it emphasizes humanity’s inferiority. Humans appear weak, fleshy, and vulnerable compared to various artificial beings: Moro, who retains a human brain in a cybernetic body; Kirsch, whose brain and body are both robotic; and the children whose minds are implanted into adult synthetic bodies.
The aliens, importantly, do not reproduce through facehuggers with inorganic beings. Thus, the newer narratives shift the horror from sexual violation to technological displacement—mirroring today’s fears of being supplanted by AI and advanced robotics.
All the sex is stripped out. For one thing, the six kids might have adult-looking bodies, but their brains are still those of 10- to 12-year-olds. So the idea of sex has been taken away, except for one—the red-haired girl. Faced with trauma, she was attacked by the eye monster. The eye monster starts claiming, impossibly, because she is in a synthetic body, that she is pregnant. This seems like a callback to the original Alien, which had themes of impregnation. They have to shut her down and erase the trauma from her brain.
So she forgets that she had the encounter with the eye creature. She forgets that she claimed she was pregnant. There is an erasing of sexuality in this version of Alien and a replacement with anxiety about being the inferior species.
Also, a bunch of schools got shut down for bomb threats, including five HBCUs. All it takes is a phone call to shut down a college. There was also an incident at West Point Military Academy where a call about a threat may have led to actual gunplay. The right is trying to blame the college for radicalizing the shooter, even though he had little college experience. They are just trying to mess with them.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/23
Will myth, math, and machines decide whether we climb or calcify?
In this exchange, Scott Douglas Jacobsen relays Gareth Rees‘s prompts as Rick Rosner riffs on America’s ‘Real Jesus’—a muscular, punitive avatar for zero-sum politics—contrasting the gentler ‘Old Jesus.’ Rosner pegs the odds of alien rescue near zero: vast distances, dust hazards, and von Neumann probes beat hero landings. Inequality persists, he says, yet ‘computism’ may raise living standards while entrenching elites. The next century’s power centers: massive AIs and humans aligned with them, where distillation-driven systems like DeepSeek suggest leaner intelligence. He imagines cooperative, solar-fed abundance over AI wars. The near future’s vibe? More drones, AR bubbles, same messy humanity.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, I talked to a guy recently—actually, a few people—who were very curious about metaphysics. It’s not something that really interests me much. I’m not especially fond of metaphysics.
I told them you’ve had an interest in bringing metaphysics and physics a little closer together, but only in a technical and restricted way. For me, I’d need a little more “sauce” before I’d care much about theology, metaphysics, or proposed gods, while never closed to them.
At one point, I asked one of them if he had any questions.
These are from Gareth Rees. First one: Any comments on the Jesus mania that seems to be trending?
Rick Rosner: So, is Gareth in America? The new form of Jesus trending in America is a mean, rugged Jesus.
In a book I’m writing about the near future—a novel—I have “Old Jesus.” This is the kind of Jesus, the one who holds lambs. And then the Jesus embraced by the MAGA-style evangelicals in my book comes to be called “Real Jesus.”
Real Jesus doesn’t have long hair. He’s got a buzz cut, a fade. Honest Jesus is in favour of using force wherever force is “indicated.” And of course, to the Real Jesus guys, force is always indicated.
Both Old Jesus and Real Jesus are ripped. They were carpenters. Even when Old Jesus gets up on the cross, he often has abs, pecs and biceps. But Real Jesus is really ripped. He’s not afraid to unholster any number of guns.
But he doesn’t need guns—he’s got these kinds of firearms. He won’t turn the other cheek; he’ll turn your cheek with a punch.
So that’s the American version of Jesus. It’s not very well tied to the Jesus we grew up with, the one who was just a lovely guy.
This Jesus, the Real Jesus of the evangelicals, reflects the idea that the world isn’t a nice place but a zero-sum place—where if you’re not ready to get tough, people worse than you are going to take what’s yours. Honest Jesus is an a-hole. He doesn’t believe in abundance.
And he’s a reflection of something I’ve talked about a bunch: 50 years ago, conservative think tanks started herding idiots—because idiots are easier to herd. We’re living with the consequences of 50 years of Republicans appealing to schmucks. And this version of Jesus is a schmucky-ass Jesus.
So that’s my comment—or set of comments.
Jacobsen: His second question was, “Is there a non-zero probability of ETs rescuing Earth and its inhabitants?” He put in parentheses, “Clinging to hope here.”
Rosner: I highly doubt it, because of the distances between stars and the relative rarity of civilizations.
So, let’s say a hundred billion stars in our galaxy. The odds of there being an advanced civilization existing at the same time we do? One in a billion. That’d mean there are roughly a hundred advanced civilizations in the Milky Way.
Which means—if it’s one in a billion—you’d need to explore a radius of about a thousand stars to cover a billion. That’s a sphere extending maybe four thousand light-years.
And you can’t even travel at 10% of the speed of light, because the faster you travel, the more interstellar dust becomes deadly. One speck could blow you up. So any civilization trying to explore like that would be talking about sending von Neumann probes that could take 40,000 years to fill out that sphere. But why bother when you can stay home and simulate any civilization you want with your advanced tech?
There’s also the possibility they don’t want to announce themselves, because any other civilization might wipe them out.
So no—I think there’s very little chance we’ve been visited by aliens, or that they’d be particularly concerned with us. I do think they’re out there. I don’t think they’ve come here.
Now, maybe there’s some kind of “club” near the center of the galaxy—where computation is more straightforward, where more exotic physics might be possible. Maybe civilizations that pass the test of being able to send probes to the galactic center are welcomed into a billion-year-old club.
But the galactic center is around 100,000 light-years away. Even if you could manage it, you’re looking at a million years of travel.
So yeah—I don’t think there’s much help coming from elsewhere.
Jacobsen: Last question. He also asks, “What do you think of the possibility that the world economy doesn’t recover from its current trend, and we end up with exacerbated socioeconomic classes? (Poor get poorer, rich get richer, middle class gone.)”
Rosner: I mean, that’s what’s been going on in the U.S. The U.S. is an extreme case, but similar trends are also occurring around the world.
In the medium run, I believe computism replaces capitalism and communism—that is, the economics of computing becomes a bigger and bigger part of the world economy. And that distorts everything.
It leads to abundance. It makes a lot of stuff that humans like cheaper. But it could also lead to a two-tiered idiocracy, where you’ve got a minimum basic income for all. Suppose you want to strive and enter the competitive economy. In that case, you can do that—you can get schooled, get networked, and rise above the minimum basic.
There’s also the chance that AI gloms onto everything and leaves humans existing in the cracks, kind of like rats in the bilge of an old-timey ship. That shouldn’t happen. In the jungle of new ways of existing, humans will generally move toward augmenting themselves to live in a much faster-thinking world. I don’t know—will rich people own everything in the future? That’s what I’m watching.
We’re together, discussing Alien: Earth, the TV series based on Alien, which takes place 95 years from now. In it, Earth is owned by basically five rich people. It’s all divided among these five corporations. Everybody’s got a minimum level of subsistence. Things aren’t terrible, but there is an extreme disparity between the very richest and everybody else.
So I guess I’ll say yes—the disparities are going to continue. But the quality of life for the non-rich will keep improving as tech makes things cheaper in the near to mid-future—that is, over the next 50 to 80 years.
Jacobsen: I have a question separate from that entirely. What will be not only the most dominant, but also the most effective single type or class of intelligence in the next 100 years? This is a little bit more nuanced than just “computers, hybrids, or human beings.”
Rosner: That’s really several questions. One question is: Who will rule the world? That would be massive intelligences and those aligned with them. So, people are working with AI. Lucky individuals who end up in positions like those of Elon Musk—and then add AI to their capabilities—will be hard to displace from their vast wealth and power.
The entities that succeed in gaining more power will be those with the most fortunate individuals and entities who possess the most advanced technology.
I don’t know how much more powerful an AI is because it has more servers. If your server farm has 30,000 servers, assuming they’re all the same size, is that necessarily a smarter AI than one with only 4,000? I don’t know.
There’s a lot of debate in the AI world about how much compute really matters, versus whether more compact versions of AI can be built—ones that can generate new ideas without needing such a massive training set.
Jacobsen: They had a thing with DeepSeek where the reason it was so effective was because they used a system process called distillation. So the bigger model was able to make it more efficient, information-wise, so it could get 10x or 100x efficiency for the same output. It separated the wheat from the chaff; however, that system did that. That’s one aspect of the discussion. We don’t know whether AIs are going to cooperate or compete. We don’t know if they’re going to go to war with each other.
Rosner: In my stupid book about the future, my character is trying to convince AIs not to go to war with each other—preaching abundance, that the resources AIs need can be better obtained by working together to improve the world’s energy infrastructure. That structure is not infinitely, but massively improvable for the next bunch of centuries. You don’t really run into insurmountable bottlenecks until you’ve exhausted the resources of the near solar system.
You’ve got the sun, which provides as much energy as you’d need for thousands of years. If we can capture the sun’s output, that’s enough for all the AIs in the world for thousands of years to come. You need to build the infrastructure to grab it.
But there will be bad actors trying to grab power and resources. I want the coming AI-ocracy to team up to be vigilant against AI chaos agents. The people and other entities in charge will be the primary interpreters of big data. These entities have access to a vast amount of information and the computing power to extract new insights from that enormous amount of information.
All right, an addendum: The world will continue to look like the world. I think a team of art directors could effectively envision different versions of what the world might look like over the next 50 years—more gadgets, but also all the old stuff. People will still need to eat, and there will still be restaurants.
You see versions of the future like this, where it’s the present world, just more cluttered: floating signage, a bunch of flying junk. They’re even discussing the possibility of using air taxis—essentially giant drones—to transport people around during the Olympics.
To me, that sounds like horse shit. We haven’t even seen a prototype, and we’re less than three years away. Someone may try, but the skies won’t be filled with them. The logistics are just too challenging.
That said, the air will likely be filled with more drones than we have now. Any sci-fi rendering of the future shows clutter in the air. Plus, people are doing the same stuff they’ve always done, though less of the old and more of the new. Less physical intimacy, more being hooked up to information delivery crap strapped to your body.
People walking around in their AR bubbles—not literal bubbles, but waving their hands around, like in the intro to Minority Report. We’ve already seen what the future kind of looks like. Different parts of it have been imagined by people already.
The future, at least for the next few decades, is not impossible to picture.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/23
1886: It has always been a desire of mine to study medicine ever since I was a small girl, for even then I saw the needs of my people for a good physician.
1886: From the outset the work of an Indian girl is plain before her. We who are educated have to be pioneers of Indian civilization. We have to prepare our people to live in the white man’s way, to use the white man’s books, and to use his laws if you will only give them to us… the shores of success can only be reached by crossing the bridge of faith.
c. 1887: I like my studies very much indeed and don’t mind the dissecting room at all. We laugh and talk there just as we do anywhere.
c. 1890: My office hours are any and all hours of the day and night.
c. 1890s: It was only an Indian and it did not matter. The doctor preferred hunting for prairie chickens rather than visiting poor, suffering humanity.
c. 1900: I believe in prevention of disease and hygiene care more than I do in giving or prescribing medicine and my constant aim is to teach these two things. Plenty of fresh air and sunshine, that is nature’s medicine.
c. 1900: I’m not accomplishing miracles, but I’m beginning to see some of the results of better hygiene and health habits. And we’re losing fewer babies and fewer cases to infection.
c. 1906: I know I shall be unpopular for a while with my people, because they will misconstrue my efforts, but this is nothing, just so I can help them for their own good.
c. 1907: As for myself, I shall willingly and gladly co-operate with the Indian department in anything that is for the welfare of the tribe, but I shall always fight good and hard against the department or any one else against anything that is to the tribe’s detriment, even if I have to fight alone, for before my God I owe my people a responsibility.
c. 1912: When I realize all the work that God has given me to do, it almost takes my breath away to think how little justice I can do to it. But it is a comfort to turn and do the next thing to relieve some poor soul’s trouble.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/23
1861: “I am now about to report to you what we did.”
1865: “We are all Americans.”
1868: “I want to see Grant elected, because I think he is the best patriot and that he only can bring peace to the country.”
1869: “The question is still one of deepest interest, ‘What shall be done for the amelioration and civilization of the race?’”
1869: “The measures to which we are indebted for an improved condition of affairs are the concentration of the Indians upon suitable reservations.”
1869: “Much, however, remains to be done for the multitude yet in their savage state.”
1869: “There can be no question but that mischief has been prevented and suffering either relieved or warded off.”
1869: “The experiment has not been sufficiently tested to enable me to say definitively that it is a success.”
1885: “All my life I have occupied a false position.”
1885: “I never was ‘great’ and never expect to be.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/18
We have the thinking backwards.
It’s not more than that which we can give.
It’s no more than who they are is that which they can receive.
Apportion proportionately.
You do not put steak in a tea cup.
It’s about relevance and proportionately.
Are your words a fit, for them, in size and type?
Otherwise, you will be unheard.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/13
How does Wilma Mankiller’s reveal her strategy for Cherokee self-determination across health, education, and governance?
1992: “Do not think this is going to happen.”
1992: “The other advice I have to give you is, do not live your life safely.”
1993: “We had a government in this country long before there was a United States government.”
1993: “Don’t ever argue with a fool.”
1993: “I had very low self-esteem.”
1994: “I hope that when I leave that it will be said that I did what I could.”
2001: “Yet what’s absolutely remarkable about Cherokee people is that they almost immediately began to reform the Cherokee Nation.”
2001: “So everybody helped each other.”
2008: “It certainly wasn’t a new world to the millions of people that have lived here for thousands of years.”
2009: “If you want to see our future, look at our past.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/14
How does Chief Joseph’s 1877–1879 speeches clarify his philosophy of freedom, equal law, and Indigenous sovereignty?
1877: “I am tired; my heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands I will fight no more forever.”
1879: “The white man has more words to tell you how they look to him, but it does not require many words to speak the truth.”
1879: “I have heard talk and talk but nothing is done. Good words do not last long unless they amount to something.”
1879: “Words do not pay for my dead people. They do not pay for my country now overrun by white men. They do not protect my father’s grave. They do not pay for my horses and cattle. Good words do not give me back my children. Good words will not make good the promise of your war chief, General Miles. Good words will not give my people a home where they can live in peace and take care of themselves. I am tired of talk that comes to nothing.”
1879: “Treat all men alike. Give them all the same law. Give them an even chance to live and grow.”
1879: “All men were made by the same Great Spirit Chief. They are all brothers. The earth is the mother of all people, and all peoples should have equal rights upon it.”
1879: “You might as well expect the rivers to run backward as that any man who was born a free man should be contented when penned up and denied liberty to go where he pleases.”
1879: “If you tie a horse to a stake, do you expect he will grow fat? If you pen an Indian up on a small plot of earth and compel him to stay there, he will not be contented, nor will he grow and prosper.”
1879: “We ask to be recognized as men. We ask that the same law work alike on all men. If an Indian breaks the law, punish him by the law. If a white man breaks the law, punish him also.”
1879: “Let me be a free man — free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade where I choose, free to choose my own teachers, free to think and talk and act for myself — and I will obey every law or submit to the penalty.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/04
What are Aleister Crowley quotes around Thelema and modern magick practice?
1904: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.”
1904: “Love is the law, love under will.”
1904: “Every man and every woman is a star.”
1904: “The word of Sin is Restriction.”
1904: “There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.”
1904: “Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not overmuch!”
1904: “Remember all ye that existence is pure joy.”
1904: “I am the flame that burns in every heart of man, and in the core of every star.”
1904: “The slaves shall serve.”
1909: “The method of science, the aim of religion.”
1913: “I am Pan! Io Pan! Io Pan Pan!”
1913: “The joy of life consists in the exercise of one’s energies, continual growth, constant change.”
1922: “I slept with Faith and found a corpse in my arms; I drank and danced all night with Doubt.”
1929: “Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.”
1941: “Man has the right to live by his own law.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/04
c. 1875: “One does not sell the earth upon which the people walk.”
1877: “My friend, I do not blame you for this.”
1877: “We preferred our own way of living.”
1877: “We were no expense to the government.”
1877: “All we wanted was peace and to be left alone.”
1877: “I have spoken.”
1877 (reported): “Ah, my father, I am hurt bad. Tell the people it is no use to depend on me any more.”
1877: “I was born on the prairies where the wind blew free and there was nothing to break the light of the sun.”
1877: “I was born where there were no enclosures.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/04
How do Black Elk’s 1932–1953 statements — from Black Elk Speaks to late-life testimonies — clarify the Lakota “sacred hoop,” interpret Wounded Knee, and frame Indigenous resilience?
1932: “You have noticed that everything an Indian does is in a circle, and that is because the power of the world always works in circles.”
1932: “Then I was standing on the highest mountain of them all, and round about beneath me was the whole hoop of the world.”
1932: “I did not know then how much was ended… A people’s dream died there. It was a beautiful dream.”
1932: “It is hard to follow one great vision in this world of darkness and of many changing shadows. Among those shadows men get lost.”
1953: “Then they will realize that we Indians know the One true God, and that we pray to Him continually.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/02
What are definitive Martin Buber quotes?
1923: “To man the world is twofold, in accordance with his twofold attitude.”
1923: “Primary words do not signify things, but they intimate relations.”
1923: “The primary word I–Thou can be spoken only with the whole being.”
1923: “The primary word I–It can never be spoken with the whole being.”
1923: “There is no I taken in itself, but only the I of the primary word I–Thou and the I of the primary word I–It.”
1923: “The Thou meets me through grace — it is not found by seeking.”
1923: “I become through my relation to the Thou; as I become I, I say Thou.”
1923: “All real living is meeting.”
1923: “The present arises only in virtue of the fact that the Thou becomes present.”
1923: “Love is responsibility of an I for a Thou.”
1923: “In the beginning is relation.”
1923: “Spirit is not in the I, but between I and Thou.”
1923: “Every means is an obstacle. Only when every means has collapsed does the meeting come about.”
1950: “There is something that can only be found in one place. It is a great treasure… The place where this treasure can be found is the place on which one stands.”
1950: “To begin with oneself, but not to end with oneself; to start from oneself, but not to aim at oneself; to comprehend oneself, but not to be preoccupied with oneself.”
1950: “This is the ultimate purpose: to let God in. But we can let him in only where we really stand, where we live, where we live a true life.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/02
How do Terence Tao’s 2003–2025 quotes illuminate discovery, collaboration, pedagogy, and AI in modern mathematics?
2003
“Ever since I can remember, I have enjoyed mathematics; I recall being fascinated by numbers even at age three.”
“I work in a number of areas, but I don’t view them as being disconnected; I tend to view mathematics as a unified subject.”
“There are fewer miracles, but instead there is lots of intuition coming from physics and from geometry.”
“In analysis, many research programs do not conclude in a definitive paper, but rather form a progression of steadily improving partial results.”
2006
“Collaboration is very important for me, as it allows me to learn about other fields, and… share what I have learnt about my own fields.”
“I pick up a lot of problems (and collaborators) by talking to other mathematicians.”
“I’m drawn to problems placed in as simple a setting as possible — a ‘toy model’ — where other difficulties are turned off.”
“I’d like to see mathematics demystified more, and to be made more accessible to the public.”
“I’m also a great fan of interdisciplinary research — taking ideas from one field and applying them to another.”
“If I learned something in class that I only partly understood, I wasn’t satisfied until I was able to work the whole thing out.”
2007
“The concept of mathematical quality is a high-dimensional one.”
“We all agree that mathematicians should strive to produce good mathematics.”
2009
“Often advice has its notable counterexamples.”
“Ultimately you should follow advice not because someone tells you to, but because it was something that you already knew you should be doing.”
2019
“They’re still out of reach.” (on near-miss approaches to Collatz)
“We have too little control over it.”
2020
“The freedom to fail is important.”
2022
“Science is cumulative and collaborative: individual contributions build up over time, and there is plenty of work for everyone.”
2023
“Therefore, an ideal collaboration should contain at least one ‘pessimist’ and one ‘optimist’.”
2024
“I do envision a future where you do research through a conversation with a chatbot.”
“Then you can do factory production–type, industrial-scale mathematics, which doesn’t really exist right now.”
“I’m not super interested in duplicating the things that humans are already good at. It seems inefficient.”
“A todos los efectos prácticos, las elecciones y la democracia funcionan.”
2025
“There’s this phenomenon in mathematics called universality.”
“We’re seeing the successes, not the failures.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/01
Which countries make up 90% of the world’s population in 2025?
India — 17.78%
China — 17.20%
United States — 4.22%
Indonesia — 3.47%
Pakistan — 3.10%
Nigeria — 2.89%
Brazil — 2.59%
Bangladesh — 2.13%
Russia — 1.75%
Ethiopia — 1.65%
Mexico — 1.60%
Japan — 1.50%
Egypt — 1.44%
Philippines — 1.42%
DR Congo — 1.37%
Vietnam — 1.23%
Iran — 1.12%
Turkey — 1.07%
Germany — 1.02%
Thailand — 0.87%
Tanzania — 0.86%
United Kingdom — 0.84%
France — 0.81%
South Africa — 0.79%
Italy — 0.72%
Kenya — 0.70%
Myanmar — 0.67%
Colombia — 0.65%
South Korea — 0.63%
Sudan — 0.63%
Uganda — 0.62%
Spain — 0.58%
Algeria — 0.58%
Iraq — 0.57%
Argentina — 0.56%
Afghanistan — 0.53%
Yemen — 0.51%
Canada — 0.49%
Angola — 0.47%
Ukraine — 0.47%
Morocco — 0.47%
Poland — 0.46%
Uzbekistan — 0.45%
Malaysia — 0.44%
Mozambique — 0.43%
Ghana — 0.43%
Peru — 0.42%
Saudi Arabia — 0.42%
Madagascar — 0.40%
Côte d’Ivoire — 0.40%
Cameroon — 0.36%
Nepal — 0.36%
Venezuela — 0.35%
Niger — 0.34%
Australia — 0.33%
North Korea — 0.32%
Syria — 0.31%
Mali — 0.31%
Burkina Faso — 0.29%
Sri Lanka — 0.28%
Taiwan — 0.28%
Malawi — 0.27%
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/01
1879: “That hand is not the color of yours, but if I pierce it, I shall feel pain.”
1879: “If you pierce your hand, you also feel pain.”
1879: “The blood that will flow from mine will be of the same color as yours.”
1879: “I am a man.”
1879: “The same God made us both.”
1879: “You are that man.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/01
1828: “You are all fools; why the thing is very easy; I can do it myself:”
c. 1820: “If our people think I am making a fool of myself, you may tell our people that what I am doing will not make fools of them. They did not cause me to begin, and they shall not cause me to stop.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/30
1680: “They told him to make a cord of maguey fiber and tie some knots in it which would signify the number of days that they must wait before the rebellion. He said that the cord was passed through all the pueblos of the kingdom so that the ones which agreed to it might untie one knot in sign of obedience, and by the other knots they would know the days which were lacking; and this was to be done on pain of death to those who refused to agree to it.”
1680: “Finally the Señor governor and those who were with him escaped from the siege, and later this declarant saw that as soon as the Spaniards had left the kingdom an order came from the said Indian, Popé, in which he commanded all the Indians to break the lands and enlarge their cultivated fields, saying that now they were as they had been in ancient times, free from the labor they had performed for the religious and the Spaniards, who could not now be alive.”
1680: “He ordered in all the pueblos through which he passed that they instantly break up and burn the images of the holy Christ, the Virgin Mary and the other saints, the crosses, and everything pertaining to Christianity, and that they burn the temples, break up the bells, and separate from the wives whom God had given them in marriage and take those whom they desired.”
1680: “In order to take away their baptismal names, the water, and the holy oils, they were to plunge into the rivers and wash themselves with amole, which is a root native to the country, washing even their clothing, with the understanding that there would thus be taken from them the character of the holy sacraments.”
1680: “They were ordered likewise not to teach the Castilian language in any pueblo and to burn the seeds which the Spaniards sowed and to plant only maize and beans, which were the crops of their ancestors.”
1680: “They thereby returned to the state of their antiquity … because the God of the Spaniards was worth nothing and theirs was very strong, the Spaniard’s God being rotten wood.”
1680: “There came to them a pronouncement … from El Popé, to the effect that he who might still keep in his heart a regard for the priests, the governor, and the Spaniards would be known from his unclean face and clothes, and would be punished.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/30
c. 1142: “If I should see anyone in deep grief, I would take these shell strings from the pole and console them.”
c. 1142: “We must unite ourselves into one common band of brothers. We must have but one voice. Many voices makes confusion.”
c. 1142: “My children, listen to the words of Hiawatha, for they are the last he will speak to you.”
c. 1142: “Like the fingers on the hand of the warrior, each must lend aid to the other and work in unison.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/30
c. 1142: “I am Dekanawidah and with the Five Nations’ Confederate Lords I plant the Tree of the Great Peace.”
c. 1142: “The name of these roots is The Great White Roots and their nature is Peace and Strength.”
c. 1142: “We place at the top of the Tree of the Long Leaves an Eagle who is able to see afar.”
c. 1142: “I, Dekanawidah, appoint the Mohawk Lords the heads and the leaders of the Five Nations Confederacy.”
c. 1142: “I and the other Confederate Lords have entrusted the caretaking and the watching of the Five Nations Council Fire.”
c. 1142: “Women shall be considered the progenitors of the Nation. They shall own the land and the soil.”
c. 1142: “The thickness of your skin shall be seven spans — which is to say that you shall be proof against anger, offensive actions and criticism.”
c. 1142: “Five arrows shall be bound together very strong and each arrow shall represent one nation.”
c. 1142: “Listen, that peace may continue unto future days!”
c. 1142: “This decision shall be a confirmation of the voice of the people.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/29
How does Hryhorii Skovoroda’s philosophy — “know yourself” — chart a path to happiness beyond worldly capture?
“The world tried to capture me, but didn’t succeed.”
“Our life is a path and the way to happiness is not short.”
“Peace is buried like a priceless treasure in the house within ourselves.”
“First, discover where it does not lie… then you will more readily come to the place where it resides.”
“It is truly amazing that an individual who has lived thirty years has failed to notice what is best for him.”
“Sin is my sole distress. Mortify all sin in me.”
“The kingdom of blessed Nature, although it is hidden, is not undetectable behind the external signs.”
“The only thing that should be condemned is that… we neglect the supreme science.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/29
What are Augustine of Hippo’s most definitive quotes, and what do they reveal about his theology of love, time, and grace?
397: “You move us to delight in praising You; for You have made us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in You.”
397: “Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the divine Scriptures, or any part of them, so that it does not build up the double love of God and of our neighbor, does not understand them at all.”
398: “Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet.”
400: “Late have I loved You, O Beauty ever ancient, ever new; late have I loved You! For behold, You were within, and I was without… You called and cried aloud and forced open my deafness; You gleamed and shone and chased away my blindness.”
400: “Give what You command, and command what You will.”
400: “He loves You too little who loves anything together with You, which he loves not for Your sake.”
400: “What, then, is time? If no one asks me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I know not.”
407: “A short precept is given you: Love, and do what you will… let the root of love be within; of this root can nothing spring but what is good.”
c. 410: “Believe, that you may understand.”
c. 415: “For if I am deceived, I am.”
421: “For evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name ‘evil’.”
426: “Two loves have made two cities: the love of self, even to the contempt of God; and the love of God, even to the contempt of self.”
426: “It seems to me that a brief and true definition of virtue is the order of love.”
426: “Miracles are not contrary to nature, but only contrary to what we know about nature.”
420: “The New Testament lies hidden in the Old, and the Old is made manifest in the New.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/29
How does Ríoghnach Connolly fuse Irish folk lineage with contemporary production?
2016: “Oh the theme of family is massive for me.”
2016: “You’ve made me sing softer. And you’ve made me sing with less ornamentation. And you’ve made me concentrate on the words, and the diction.”
2018: “Rolling the dice, letting go of something and not knowing how or where it’s going to land.”
2018: “I hate all these terminologies. Shouldn’t it be okay to be difficult to categorise?”
2018: “We write a lot of our songs on stage during improvised gigs.”
2018: “All you could hear were the big breaths taken between the phrases… and it sounded hilarious.”
2018: “Sitting on my granny Sadie’s knee, being sung to in a rocking chair.”
2018: “I wouldn’t want to be in a hospital but around a fire.”
2020: “I’m a bit of a nuisance when it comes to categorisation because I have five touring bands at the minute…”
2020: “I come from this place of romantic republicanism that wasn’t sectarian but was all about the music and the poetry.”
2020: “You’ve got this opportunity to be heard, and to have your thoughts documented so you shouldn’t underestimate the privilege of that.”
2020: “It’s natural for me that you keep that community close.”
2022: “A diatribe on the technology filling us with fear. It was so destructive in my life growing up in the north of Ireland.”
2023: “Stuart is the yin to my yang… I like mayhem. He doesn’t.”
2023: “It’s about washing off the sins of other people’s shit.”
2024: “You’ve gotta be genuine. And it was a very vulnerable record.”
2024: “Some of the record is excruciating even to listen to now.”
2024: “Grief is not linear. It pulls you back in.”
2024: “You have to put the audience first.”
2024: “We want people to create a safe base where everyone can feel what they need to.”
2024: “I like the idea that you could record as if you were singing into someone’s ear.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/28
How does a year-by-year chronology anchored in Sitting Bull’s 1883 Senate Select Committee testimony and his c.1882 “life of freedom” statement clarify his claims to the Black Hills and expose popular misquotes?
1876: “I want to know what you are doing, traveling on this road. You scare all the buffalo away. I want to hunt in this place. I want you to turn back from here. If you don’t, I will fight you again. I want you to leave what you have got here and turn back from here. … I am your friend — Sitting Bull. I need all the rations you have got and some powder.”
c. 1877: “If you have one honest man in Washington, send him here and I will talk to him.”
1881: “I wish it to be remembered that I was the last man of my tribe to surrender my rifle.”
c. 1882: “The life my people want is a life of freedom. I have seen nothing that a white man has, houses or railways or clothing or food, that is as good as the right to move in the open country and live in our fashion.”
1883: “If a man loses anything, and goes back and looks carefully for it he will find it, and that is what the Indians are doing now when they ask you to give them the things they were promised them in the past.”
1883: “I consider that my country takes in the Black Hills, and runs from the Powder River to the Missouri, and that all of this land belongs to me.”
1883: “When you have a piece of land, and anything trespasses on it, you catch it and keep it until you get damages, and I am doing the same thing now.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/28
How does a year-by-year chronology of Tecumseh’s 1810–1813 speeches — centering the Vincennes address and the Osage speech — clarify his common-land doctrine and intertribal-unity strategy?
1810: “You wish to prevent the Indians from doing as we wish them, to unite and let them consider their lands as the common property of the whole… You take the tribes aside and advise them not to come into this measure… You want by your distinctions of Indian tribes, in allotting to each a particular, to make them war with each other.”
1810: “The way, the only way to stop this evil is for the red men to unite in claiming a common and equal right in the land, as it was at first, and should be now — for it was never divided, but belongs to all. No tribe has the right to sell, even to each other, much less to strangers… Sell a country! Why not sell the air, the great sea, as well as the earth?”
1810: “How can we have confidence in the white people?”
1810: “If you offer us any [presents], we will not take. By taking goods from you, you will hereafter say that with them you purchased another piece of land from us.”
1810: “It is true I am a Shawnee. My forefathers were warriors. Their son is a warrior… I am the maker of my own fortune; and oh! that I could make that of my red people, and of my country, as great as the conceptions of my mind, when I think of the Great Spirit that rules the universe.”
1811: “Brothers — the white people are like poisonous serpents: when chilled, they are feeble and harmless; but invigorate them with warmth, and they sting their benefactors to death.”
1811: “Brothers — we must be united; we must smoke the same pipe; we must fight each other’s battles; and more than all, we must love the Great Spirit.”
1811: “Sleep not longer, O Choctaws and Chickasaws, in false security and delusive hopes. Our broad domains are fast escaping from our grasp.”
1811: “Let us form one body, one heart, and defend to the last warrior our country, our homes, our liberty, and the graves of our fathers.”
1812: “If we hear of the Big Knives coming towards our villages to speak peace, we will receive them; but if we hear of any of our people being hurt by them… we will defend ourselves like men… all this Island will rise as one man.”
1813: “We must compare our father’s conduct to a fat dog, that carries its tail upon its back, but when affrighted, it drops it between its legs and runs off.”
1813: “Our lives are in the hands of the Great Spirit. We are determined to defend our lands, and if it be his will, we wish to leave our bones upon them.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/27
How do Richard Dawkins’s most influential quotes on God and faith shape modern atheism and the New Atheism movement?
1986: “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker; blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.”
1989: “… [faith] means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence… The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational enquiry.”
1991: “Growing up in the universe … also means growing out of parochial and supernatural views of the universe … not copping out with superstitious ideas.”
1992: “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”
1993: “Like immune-deficient patients, children are wide open to mental infections that adults might brush off without effort.”
1995: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
1995: “DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”
1997: “Faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.”
2002: “An atheist is just somebody who feels about Yahweh the way any decent Christian feels about Thor or Baal or the golden calf… We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
2006: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, blood-thirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
2006: “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”
2006: “One of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding.”
2006: “Accepting, then, that the God Hypothesis is a proper scientific hypothesis, albeit a very low-probability one, who should bear the burden of proof?”
2006: “Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument.”
2019: “Strictly speaking, it’s impossible to prove that something does not exist. We don’t positively know there are no gods, just as we can’t prove that there are no fairies or pixies or elves or hobgoblins or leprechauns or pink unicorns…”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/27
What are d’Holbach’s most-cited quotes on God from that work and “Christianity Unveiled”?
1766: “God repents having peopled the earth, and he finds it easier to drown and destroy the human race, than to change their hearts.”
1766: “Such is the faithful history of the God, on whom the foundation of the Christian religion is laid.”
1766: “This unchangeable God is alternately agitated by anger and love, revenge and pity, benevolence and fury.”
1766: “If nothing be due from God to his creatures, how can any thing be due from them to him?”
1766: “How can goodness be an attribute of a God, who has created most of the human race only to damn them eternally?”
1770: “If the ignorance of nature gave birth to such a variety of gods, the knowledge of this nature is calculated to destroy them.”
1770: “Shall we be more instructed, when every time we behold an effect of which we are not in a capacity to develop the cause, we may idly say, this effect is produced by the power, by the will of God?”
1770: “Undoubtedly it is the great Cause of causes must have produced every thing; but is it not lessening the true dignity of the Divinity, to introduce him as interfering in every operation of nature; nay, in every action of so insignificant a creature as man?”
1770: “Do we, in fact, pay any kind of adoration to this being, by thus bringing him forth on every trifling occasion, to solve the difficulties ignorance throws in our way?”
1770: “It is impossible for man… to form to himself a correct idea… of incorporeity; of a substance without extent, acting upon nature, which is corporeal… It is equally impossible for man to have any clear, decided idea of perfection, of infinity, of immensity, and other theological attributes.”
1772: “All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God.”
1772: “The principles of every religion are founded upon the idea of a GOD. Now, it is impossible to have true ideas of a being, who acts upon none of our senses.”
1772: “To say, that God is the author of the phenomena of nature, is it not to attribute them to an occult cause? What is God? What is a spirit? They are causes of which we have no idea.”
1772: “Divines every where exclaim, that God is infinitely just; but that his justice is not the justice of man… How can we receive for our model a being, whose divine perfections are precisely the reverse of human?”
1772: “God is the author of all; and yet, we are assured that evil does not come from God. Whence then does it come? From man. But, who made man? God. Evil then comes from God.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/26
How did Denis Diderot’s writings from 1746 to 1770 challenge Christian theism and advance a naturalistic, deist critique grounded in experience and reason?
1746: “The God of the Christians is a father who makes much of his apples, and very little of his children.”
1746: “These are people of whom we ought not to say that they fear God, but that they are mortally afraid of him.”
1746: “Who condemns them to such torments? The God whom they have offended. Who then is this God? A God full of goodness. But would a God full of goodness take pleasure in bathing himself in tears? Are not these fears an insult to his kindness?”
1746: “Judging from the picture they paint of the Supreme Being… the most upright soul would be tempted to wish that such a being did not exist… The thought that a God did not exist has never terrified humanity, but the idea that a God such as is represented exists.”
1746: “God must be imagined as neither too kind nor too cruel. Justice is the mean between clemency and cruelty, just as finite penalties are the mean between impunity and eternal punishment.”
1746: “There are pietists who do not think it necessary to hate themselves in order to love God… according to their moods they see a jealous or a merciful God; it is a fever with its hot and cold fits.”
1746: “Yes, I maintain that superstition is more of an insult to God than atheism.”
1746: “Only the deist can oppose the atheist. The superstitious man is not so strong an opponent… His God is only a creature of the imagination.”
1746: “I tell you that there is no God; that Creation is a fiction; that the eternity of the universe is no more of a difficulty than the eternity of spirit.”
1746: “Thus to destroy chance is not to prove the existence of a supreme being, since there may be some other thing which is neither chance nor God — I mean, nature.”
1749: “If you want me to believe in God, you must make me touch him.”
1749: “What did we do to God, you and I, so that one of us possesses this organ [of sight], and the other is deprived of it?”
1751: “Atheism is the opinion of those who deny the existence of a God, author of the world.”
1769: “Do you see this egg? With this you can overthrow all the schools of theology, all the churches of the earth.”
1770: “Wandering in a vast forest at night, I have only a faint light to guide me. A stranger appears and says to me: ‘My friend, blow out your candle to find your way more clearly.’ This stranger is a theologian.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/26
How did Bertrand Russell’s views on God and agnosticism evolve from 1903 to 1958?
1903: “Thus Man creates God, all-powerful and all-good, the mystic unity of what is and what should be.”
1925: “I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God.”
1925: “The Christian God may exist; so may the Gods of Olympus.”
1927: “One form is to say that there would be no right or wrong unless God existed.”
1930: “Anything that causes alarm is apt to turn people’s thoughts to God.”
1948: “No, I should not say that: my position is agnostic.”
1948: “I should say that the universe is just there, and that’s all.”
1952: “A man with any genuine religious feeling will wish to know whether, in fact, there is a God.”
1953: “An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life.”
1958: “I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not believe in God and suffers no visible punishment in consequence.”
1947: “I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God.”
(c. 1950s): “Belief in God and a future life makes it possible to go through life with less of stoic courage than is needed by skeptics.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/25
What does Musaieva’s framing of truth as a weapon reveal about newsroom ethics and resolve during full-scale war?
2022: “The written word is a weapon. And the truth is a weapon.”
2022: “It is a war of truth and lies. The war for the right to call a spade a spade.”
2022: “Journalists in the war in Ukraine face incredible challenges, the most basic one of which is simply to survive while telling the world the truth.”
2022: “Another challenge is not to cause harm. Because when reporting on a war, the cost of error is measured by human life.”
2022: “Sometimes the most powerful truth is to remain silent. And sometimes, it is necessary to speak out.”
2022: “Was it dangerous? Yes. Was it important? Yes, it was.”
2022: “Thanks to journalists, the world saw the truth about Bucha, Borodyanka, and Irpin.”
2022: “It’s recognition of all journalists who cover this terrible war.”
2022: “War is about choices. You often ask yourself whether you are more of a Ukrainian or a journalist.”
2022: “Truth survives when there is someone to fight for it. Therefore, there will be words to stop this war as well.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/25
How do Rudenko’s lines connect soldiers’ sacrifices to a mandate for independent journalism and civil liberties?
2024: “If they are dying, we should be using those rights.”
2024: “bad actors in government have more tools than ever to try and intimidate us.”
2024: “In the past few months, we’ve experienced some unusual and concerning attention from Ukraine’s law enforcement.”
2024: “We’re trying to find out more.”
2024: “It took a threat to our independence to start cherishing it.”
2024: “What’s at stake in this war is freedom in all its forms.”
2024: “As Ukrainians, we have no say in the U.S. election, but our future nonetheless depends on who wins it.”
2024: “Russia is associated with no freedom of speech, no freedom of media, no freedom whatsoever.”
2024: “…fighting for Ukraine not to be Russia.”
2024: “won’t hold back.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/24
How do Usyk’s statements bridge elite sport, national identity, and wartime representation on the world stage?
2024: “I am excited … let’s make history.”
2024: “Thank you so much. … It’s a big opportunity for me, for my family, for my country. … It’s a great time, it’s a great day.”
2024: “It’s for my God, my supporters, my country, the Ukrainian soldiers, Ukrainian mothers and fathers, children.”
2024: “Yes, of course. I am ready for a rematch.”
2024: “Now we have just a performance with lights and cameras. Everything will take place on Saturday… Don’t be afraid. I will not leave you alone. See you on Saturday.”
2024: “Thank you, God. Not Tyson. Thank you, God… I win.”
2024: “I want to dedicate this victory to my mother … and to all mothers of Ukraine.”
2025: “Russia destroyed hospitals, Russia destroyed schools, Russia destroyed Ukrainian lives… But we will survive. We will rebuild our country, like a mosaic, piece by piece.”
2025: “I advise the American President, Donald Trump, to go to Ukraine and live in my house. Only one week.”
2025: “I really want the war to end. Nobody wants it more … than us, Ukrainians.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/24
What do Zhadan’s reflections say about culture as resistance and the war’s imprint on language, identity, and art?
2022: “Yet you have to speak. Even during times of war. Especially during times of war.”
2022: “There’s no such thing as peace without justice.”
2022: “We are helping our army not because we want war but rather because we badly want peace.”
2022: “Does anyone still want to talk about Dostoevsky?”
2022: “If Ukraine wins, there is some future for us… If Russia wins, there will be no literature, no culture, nothing.”
2024: “What we will become depends on what happens at the front. It is there that our future, the future of our culture, is determined.”
2024: “They must motivate, not weaken or demoralize.”
2025: “Whenever the war ends — whatever can be called the end of the war — this struggle… will continue in other dimensions. This can be called a war of cultures.”
2025: “Talking about literature in times of war is a great luxury. To talk about literature, it is enough to look out the window.”
2025: “We are living in ‘twilight,’ when the lights are off. But after victory, they will turn on — and we will see a completely different picture.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/24
How do Drapatyi’s 2025 remarks signal a doctrine of personal accountability and reforms in force protection and training safety?
2025: “This is a conscious step dictated by my personal sense of responsibility for the tragedy at the 239th training ground.”
2025: “These are young guys from a training battalion. Most of them were in shelters.”
2025: “They were supposed to study, live, fight — not die.”
2025: “I didn’t push hard enough, didn’t convince them, didn’t change their attitude toward the soldiers in the ranks. That is my responsibility.”
2025: “The conduct of the soldiers matters, but the primary responsibility always lies with the command. It is the commanders who set the rules, make the decisions and are accountable for the consequences.”
2025: “An army in which commanders bear personal responsibility for the lives of their troops is alive. An army where no one is accountable for losses dies from within.”
2025: “We will not win this war unless we build an army where honor is not just a word, but an action. Where responsibility is not a punishment, but the foundation of trust.”
2025: “A tragedy at a training ground is a terrible consequence of an enemy strike. The war requires quick decisions, responsibility, and new safety standards; otherwise, we will lose more than we have.”
2025: “Everyone who made decisions that day, and everyone who did not make them on time, will be held accountable. No one will hide behind explanations or formal reports.”
2025: “Without personal responsibility, there is no development. Without development, there is no victory.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/23
In what ways do Maliuk’s 2023 comments recast maritime operations and the legal basis for striking Russian military targets?
2023: “Any (explosions) that happen to the Russian ships or the Crimean Bridge is an absolutely logical and effective step in relation to the enemy.”
2023: “Such special operations are conducted in the territorial waters of Ukraine and are completely legal.”
2023: “There is only one option for such attacks to stop: Russia has to leave the territorial waters of Ukraine and Ukrainian land.”
2023: “Sea surface drones are a unique invention of the Security Service of Ukraine. None of the private companies are involved.”
2023: “Using these drones we have conducted successful hits of the Crimean bridge in July 2023, the landing ship Olengorskiy gornyak and the SIG oil tanker.”
2023: “Our drones are manufactured at an underground facility in Ukraine.”
2023: “We ‘measure twice and cut once’ — and then sting the enemy’s heart.”
2023: “We are working on a number of new interesting operations, including in the Black Sea waters. I promise you, it’ll be exciting, especially for our enemies.”
2023: “We have practically overturned the philosophy of naval operations.”
2023: “We have destroyed the myth of Russian invincibility. The bridge is doomed.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/23
How do Stefanishyna’s 2025 statements frame Ukraine’s security priorities in Washington and the case for scaling air-defense guarantees?
2025: “First and foremost, I have a political mandate to concentrate all of our efforts on ending the war, providing air defense and defense military assistance to Ukraine and making sure that in Ukraine everybody understands the messages from the U.S. administration.”
2025: “Military support, using Russian frozen assets, putting sanctions — these are part of the efforts to end the war.”
2025: “Because so much depends on the US. They have a direct influence not only on the European Union but also on Ukraine’s accession to NATO.”
2025: “I’m sure this is the reality and I think we really need to make sure that this decision happens as soon as possible.”
2025: “Advocacy is something that should not be underestimated. Because in Washington, advocacy is the main weapon.”
2025: “So it’s not a one day or one person effort, it’s a joint effort … if everybody does their part, there is a big chance for success.”
2025: “This arrangement is definitely happening.”
2025: “The attack of 20 drones has become a major discussion around all NATO, but Ukraine can handle hundreds of drones per night. So it’s really being a gamechanger in terms of mindset.”
2025: “The key priority is to establish a permanent mechanism for military support.”
2025: “The presidents agreed that the United States, together with European partners, must play a key role in guaranteeing Ukraine’s security. We are counting on further pressure on Russia to bring the war closer to an end.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/23
What do Klitschko’s wartime messages reveal about city-level crisis management, shelter protocols, and sustaining morale under fire?
2022: “I believe in Ukraine, I believe in my country and I believe in my people.”
2022: “Dear friends, Kyivans! The night was tough but there are no Russian troops in the city!”
2022: “This night will be difficult again… I urge Kyiv residents to spend this night in shelters.”
2022: “Russians want to leave the city of Kyiv without heat, without electricity, without water supply — to create a humanitarian disaster in Kyiv.”
2022: “Kyiv might lose power, water, and heat supply. The apocalypse might happen, like in Hollywood films…”
2023: “We don’t talk about the collapse, but it can happen at any second… Russian rockets can destroy our critical infrastructure in Kyiv.”
2023: “We have to think for the day after… The whole world needs Ukraine as a democratic and successful country.”
2023: “The attack on Kyiv continues. Don’t leave the shelters!”
2023: “Explosions in the capital. Air defence is operating.”
2023: “Districts of the capital are not separate principalities where you can walk around in white gloves and neglect your duties.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/22
How do Fedorov’s 2023–2025 remarks outline Ukraine’s digital-warfare doctrine — from Diia.AI to thousand-kilometre drones and AI-enabled reconnaissance?
2023: “There will be more drones, more attacks, and fewer Russian ships. That’s for sure.”
2023: “Artificial intelligence automatically identifies different types of targets, tracks them while at high altitudes and transmits data. Then attack drones and artillery take over.”
2023: “We have sent 800+ drones to the contact line as we continue to strengthen our soldiers.”
2023: “Our soldiers keep moving forward & Russians keep losing their equipment.”
2024: “The category of long-range kamikaze drones is growing, with a range of 300, 500, 700, and 1,000 kilometres. Two years ago, this category did not exist … at all.”
2024: “We will fight to increase the financing even more.”
2024: “We need to act in an anti-bureaucratic way. This is the essence of a breakthrough in the war of technology.”
2025: “Diia.AI is the world’s first AI assistant to deliver government services directly in a chat interface … Starting today, the first service — obtaining an income certificate — will be available.”
2025: “We are working on the concept of the world’s first agentic state.”
2025: “Right now, we are focusing on making sure that when we have no connection, we can still lead the drone to the target. The next will be automated missions.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/22
How do Kamyshin’s statements on scaling munitions, export-led defense manufacturing, and wartime industrial policy map Ukraine’s shift from arms importer to sovereign producer at scale?
2023: “We’re really focusing on making Ukraine the arsenal of the free world.”
2023: “For the next decades, defence should be the major industry in Ukraine. After the war it should be our core export product.”
2023: “We were branding ourselves as the breadbasket of Europe, now we want to rebrand as the arsenal of the free world.”
2023: “We have agreements with two leading American companies to jointly produce, in Ukraine, 155-calibre ammunition.”
2024: Ukraine this year plans “to considerably increase ammunition production.”
2024: “We want to get as many people as we can out of the front lines and put in machines.”
2024: “You will see more of them on the frontline… That’s one of the game changers we expect in the nearest 12 months.”
2024: “We are looking for another $10 [billion] to $15 billion.”
2024: “You have to pump the maximum amount of money you can into drones.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/22
What do Chernyshov’s lines on sub-20 bcm consumption, winter balancing with gas, honoring 2025 obligations, and “new solutions” after the transit deal reveal about Naftogaz’s roadmap to keep the lights and heat on?
2023: “Overall Ukraine’s gas consumption, annual, is below 20 billion cubic meters, it is between 18 to 19 bcm.”
2023: “Over the past day alone, we have received 14 applications from non-residents to pump gas into … Ukrainian gas storage facilities.”
2024: “We plan to use gas to generate additional electricity to cover the deficit caused by Russian attacks.”
2024: “We have survived several series of attacks and these attacks are still ongoing.”
2024: “Air defence is being constantly developed in Ukraine although it is still not enough. But it is much better than it was last year.”
2024: “We intend to pay our debt obligations in 2025, we are communicating with investors and rating agencies.”
2024: “For now, a priority is to implement new solutions for the energy security of our countries. It is about new suppliers and, in the future, about exports of Ukrainian fuel.”
2024: “We are in a period of European shippers’ meetings where we agree on the volumes of (gas) injection. They (the Russians) aim to discredit us as an energy hub with storage capacities.”
2024: “The situation will not critically impact the UGS operations since the gas is stored deep underground.”
2024: “We could attract major players in Ukraine even during the war… We are expecting German brands to gather.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/21
How do Pyshnyi’s remarks on ending deficit monetization, anchoring the exchange rate, and staying “tight for longer” explain the NBU’s playbook for keeping inflation expectations moored under missile-pressure economics?
2023: “At the beginning of the year, inflation was 26%… we’re closing out with around 5% inflation and growth.”
2024: “For us it is very important to forget about monetisation and monetary financing.”
2025: “The NBU will be ready to take additional measures in case of further risks to price dynamics and inflation expectations.”
2025: “Going forward, the pace of recovery will depend on the course of the war.”
2025: “The NBU will stick to a rather tight monetary stance for as long as it is needed.”
2025: “The answer is very simple, yes.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/21
How do Umerov’s 2023–2025 statements — urgent arms timelines, scaling to millions of drones, stronger air defenses, zero-tolerance for corruption, and Black Sea security — map Ukraine’s wartime blueprint and alliance strategy?
2023: “We have big challenges ahead and big opportunities ahead. Every day we advance, and every day we make our victory closer. Ukraine will win.”
2023: “Weaponry: We need it today. We need it now. We need it more.”
2024: “What does NATO mean for Ukrainians? It means peace, the end of the war, and development. We have already shown the world that we can operate almost all types of weapons and are ready to become part of the Alliance. Now we are focused on this.”
2024: “We need more air defense and missile defense systems to strike the enemy. The Russians are focusing on civilian infrastructure: hitting hospitals, schools, and other critical facilities.”
2024: “We have a plan. We are working to the plan. We are doing everything possible and impossible. But without timely supply [of western arms] it’s hard for us.”
2024: “For me corruption at a time of war is worse than terrorism.”
2024: “We believe that our arguments about the need to increase cooperation between Ukraine and the Republic of Korea will lead to a tangible strengthening of security for our peoples and regions.”
2025: “Our partners said they are willing to fully pay for all the production from these factories, and that … (they) will appropriate even more funding for this.”
2025: “This year, we will supply more than 4 million drones to the front.”
2025: “About two weeks ago, a decision was made to scale up these operations. We are already preparing a new large contract to increase the intensity of strikes.”
2025: “This is the new standard of war, where unmanned systems become a key element of combat, helping our defenders carry out the most complex missions.”
2025: “The Ukrainian side emphasizes: Russia’s movement of its military ships beyond the eastern part of the Black Sea will be considered a violation of the spirit of this agreement and will be viewed as a breach of commitments to ensure freedom of navigation in the Black Sea and a threat to Ukraine’s national security. In such a case, Ukraine will have full rights to exercise its right to self-defense.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/24
What do Zhadan’s reflections say about culture as resistance and the war’s imprint on language, identity, and art?
2022: “Yet you have to speak. Even during times of war. Especially during times of war.”
2022: “There’s no such thing as peace without justice.”
2022: “We are helping our army not because we want war but rather because we badly want peace.”
2022: “Does anyone still want to talk about Dostoevsky?”
2022: “If Ukraine wins, there is some future for us… If Russia wins, there will be no literature, no culture, nothing.”
2024: “What we will become depends on what happens at the front. It is there that our future, the future of our culture, is determined.”
2024: “They must motivate, not weaken or demoralize.”
2025: “Whenever the war ends — whatever can be called the end of the war — this struggle… will continue in other dimensions. This can be called a war of cultures.”
2025: “Talking about literature in times of war is a great luxury. To talk about literature, it is enough to look out the window.”
2025: “We are living in ‘twilight,’ when the lights are off. But after victory, they will turn on — and we will see a completely different picture.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/21
How do Budanov’s 2022–2025 statements — from predicting a mid-August turning point and a Kremlin coup to asserting Pyongyang supplies half of Russia’s shells — stack up against events, and what do they signal about Ukraine’s security outlook?
2022: “The breaking point will be in the second part of August.”
2022: “A coup to remove Vladimir Putin is already under way.”
2023: “We must do everything to ensure that Crimea returns home by summer.”
2024: “They supply huge amounts of artillery ammunition, which is critical for Russia.” (on North Korean aid to Moscow)
2025: “North Korea is providing 50% of Russia’s ammunition needs at the front.”
2025: “An absolutely peaceful and threat-free life in the coming years is unlikely.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/20
How do Syrskyi’s 2023–2025 statements map Ukraine’s shift from active defense to precision long-range strikes, and outline the doctrine he argues can turn attrition into victory?
2023: “Everyone wants to achieve a great victory instantly and at once. And so do we. But we have to be prepared to have this process take some time because there are a lot of forces massed on each side, a lot of materiel, and a lot of engineered obstacles.”
2023: “I want to say that our main force has not been engaged in fighting yet, and we are now searching, probing for weak places in the enemy defences. Everything is still ahead.”
2024: “Our goals remain unchanged: holding our positions … exhausting the enemy by inflicting maximum losses.”
2024: “Offensives at the level of a battalion are a major rarity.”
2024: “Only changes and constant improvement of the means and methods of warfare will make it possible to achieve success on this path.”
2024: “The life and health of servicemen have always been and are the main value of the Ukrainian army.”
2024: “The situation is difficult in the direction of the enemy’s main attack. But all the necessary decisions at all levels are being made without delay.”
2025: “I can say that the president is absolutely right and this offensive has actually already begun.”
2025: “For several days, almost a week, we have been observing almost a doubling of the number of enemy attacks in all main directions (on the frontline).”
2025: “Despite the increased pressure of the Russian and North Korean army, we will hold the defence in Kursk region as long as it is appropriate and necessary.”
2025: “We have plans, of course. Victory cannot be achieved in defence — only in offence.”
2025: “While our air defense is approximately 74% effective, we must make further efforts to protect rear-area energy facilities, critical infrastructure, and logistics.”
2025: “DeepStrike’s range deep into Russian territory has already reached 1,700 kilometres. We are preparing new long-range weapons, which will indeed be used.”
2025: “Over the past year, we have killed more enemy personnel and destroyed more military equipment and infrastructure than in previous years of the war.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/20
How do Sybiha’s 2023–2025 statements chart Ukraine’s path on NATO, Black Sea security, and a durable, just peace?
2023: “The geopolitical project of united Europe cannot be considered as complete without Ukraine.”
2024: “I conveyed Ukraine’s interest in further developing cooperation between Ukraine and Türkiye, especially in defense area.”
2024: “I also underscored the importance of ensuring freedom of navigation in the Black Sea. We also discussed ways to a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace.”
2024: “We discussed issues of long-range strikes and Euro-Atlantic integration. And here we also are cautiously optimistic.”
2024: “We have a clear picture — a clear timeframe, clear volumes — of what will be delivered to Ukraine by the end of the year. This helps us strategically to plan our actions on the battlefield.”
2024: “The invitation should not be seen as an escalation.”
2024: “On the contrary, with a clear understanding that Ukraine’s membership in NATO is inevitable, Russia will lose one of its main arguments for continuing this unjustified war.”
2025: “Fundamental principles for us are: ‘Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,’ ‘Nothing about Europe without Europe.’”
2025: “First — Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. Ukraine will never recognize the occupied territories.”
2025: “NATO cannot be removed from the agenda — that is the first position.”
2025: “We are not satisfied with just the absence of hostilities. Peace is not just the absence of war. We are talking about a stable, long-term, just peace with the prevention of renewed Russian aggression in the long run.”
2025: “Russian terrorists struck critical civilian infrastructure, particularly energy, across Ukraine with hundreds of drones and missiles. I urge all partners to respond strongly. Putin did this on 10 October — the anniversary of the first large-scale attack on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure in 2022.”
2025: “Russia is worse than HAMAS. Even HAMAS has agreed to a ceasefire and peace efforts. To the contrary, Moscow continues the senseless war it began — the war it cannot and will not win. As a result of this massive strike, a 7-year-old boy was killed in Zaporizhzhia, and dozens more civilians have been injured across the country.”
2025: “Pressure on Moscow is the only recipe that can work, but it needs to be strong and consolidated. Economic pressure of biting sanctions, military pressure of stronger support for Ukraine, and political pressure of full isolation. Putin must feel that the cost of continuing the war exceeds the cost of stopping it.”
2025: “We need global rules — now — for how AI can be used in weapons. This is just as urgent as preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/20
2022: “The problem is that companies are not working. If the blackouts are going to continue during the next few weeks, GDP might fall more.”
2023: “In 2022, the Ukrainian economy suffered its largest losses and damages in the entire history of independence, inflicted on it by the Russian Federation.”
2023: “Our economy not only did not fall but grew at a pace that no one expected.”
2024: “The Government’s Made in Ukraine programme resonates with international partners and they are ready to support it.”
2024: “Our task is to support more Ukrainian production and also support the consumption of Ukrainian-produced goods.”
2024: “To win the war and build a strong economy, we must focus on our own production.”
2025: “It is a great honor for me to lead the Government of Ukraine today. Our Government sets its course toward a Ukraine that stands firm on its own foundations.”
2025: “War leaves no room for delay. We must act swiftly and decisively.”
2025: “Ukraine remains ready to give diplomacy a genuine chance, with the goal of achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.”
2025: “At every meeting in Washington we raise the topic of defending Ukrainian energy and supporting our resilience over the winter and ways to defend it.”
2025: “It is important for us that the next program seamlessly continue the previous one.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/17
How do place, memory, and the seismic drama of ordinary lives shift across her decades of stories?
1971: “People’s lives, in Jubilee as elsewhere, were dull, simple, amazing, unfathomable — deep caves paved with kitchen linoleum.”
1986: “Everybody in the community is on stage for all the other people.”
1986: “I don’t think I’ll ever write a novel.”
1994: “No, I don’t show anything in progress to anybody.”
1996: “I speak the language.”
2003: “Books seem to me to be magic, and I wanted to be part of the magic.”
2004: “The conversation of kisses. Subtle, engrossing, fearless, transforming.”
2008: “In your life there are a few places, or maybe only one place, where something has happened.”
2010: “We can hardly manage our lives without a powerful ongoing narrative.”
2012: “But we do — we do it all the time.”
2013: “You don’t go around and tell your friends that I will probably win the Nobel Prize.”
2013: “I want my stories to move people, I don’t care if they are men or women or children.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/17
How should someone travel in a mixed cultural company with prior prejudices?
When you travel with someone steeped in select grievance, a gentle, loving persuasion eventually gives way to containment: kindness, limits, and exit routes — for a time. This is a short field guide from one fraught trip: how to stay humane, set boundaries, and leave without rancour when conversation turns into performance.
I travelled briefly with a lawyer once, a peculiar composite of many Western traits they’d denounce while one reflecting the Sermon on the Mount’s “speck and plank” warning about hypocrisy: not to learn from it, but to ironically live it out.
They practised a selective morality about the killing of journalists: condemning the killings of journalists by Russian forces while showing indifference to reports of journalists killed by Israeli forces. The United Nations reported at least 242 Palestinian journalists killed in Gaza as of 11 August 2025, while the Committee to Protect Journalists’ verified tally was lower — at least 189 by 1 September 2025. Counts vary by source and method.
They were chauvinistic about many things outside what they stereotyped as Western and voiced anti-trans views, apparently resentful over a grant awarded to an LGBTQ organization. Hurt can explain a posture; it does not excuse prejudice.
Their horizon narrowed to a hard, self-justifying individualism. “I do not care about trans people!” they would exclaim whenever perspective-taking or fairness in competitive grants arose. Coming from a privileged background in their homeland only made the moral asynchrony starker. The symphony was off-key.
Most of the trip consisted of eating and walking; coffee, cola, and wine; smoking shisha and the occasional cigarette; ignoring medical advice with a gleeful lack of care; trash-talking employees in absentia; and seeking an audience — one in person or many online. They framed this as work.
I soon realised the monologues would continue regardless of any reply. I learned to be wise and barely engage, for this person wanted mainly to hear their own echo — stereotyping all Westerners or “the West” as bad while being, by their own definitions, Westernised, even as they claimed the East by implicate identity.
It made me pause. I do not see the world in Western versus Global South terms, West versus East, developed versus developing. These demarcations have some conceptual utility; they are placeholders to help us grasp reality. Regardless, I am a humanist. I see humanity as one species in the same boat, whether facing nuclear-weapons proliferation, natural disasters and pandemics, anthropogenic climate change, overpopulation, or otherwise.
I hardly spoke, avoided geopolitics, and focused on art, plenty of compliments, good food, and the possibility of future visits. From their insecurity, they seemed to assume I found them “rude, radical, or evil.” I did not. I found them generally intelligent, well-educated, and, with effort, thoughtful and kind — often lovely to be around when things were going well: an unexpected grace note I would welcome again.
They were simply another ordinary person with distinct legal and linguistic talents, an above-average character, and the habit of stereotyping others. As I later joked, they might have preferred to be born with two mouths and one ear rather than the reverse.
I have never seen what is called “Western” as inherently superior, and still do not. I do not know why anyone assumes otherwise. Had they asked, I would have given an honest, straightforward opinion. We should strive to offer non-judgmental space for improvisatory opinions with travel partners. They took little time to offer empathy or consider another point of view — a pitiable lack of curiosity despite philosophical education.
They were prone to misrepresenting me — later, online, to others. I did not confront them; outbursts or social-media rants often follow. They promised confidentiality, then subtweeted insinuations.
What to do about emotional and reputational abuse? Withdraw gently and completely. I cut contact, professionally and personally, in a systematic manner. I do not have to participate in my own abuse.
I enjoyed one early dinner with them and a friend on the first day, where we discussed metaphysics. Language barriers made deeper conversations impossible, so I left it there. It is not a judgment — simply a cultural and linguistic barrier. How well would I speak metaphysics in their languages as a monoglot?
By the second day I gave up on their repeated monologues. I realised their questions were often intrusive, performative prying — a setup for dramatic exasperation and moralizing. Attention was the currency.
Once, after I bought them fries and myself a burger, they asked what I thought was a genuine question. I barely began to answer when they pretended to choke on potatoes — a theatrical flourish. It was a superficial farce masquerading as a sincere moral inquiry. You never know when these stories will be recycled for a mentally adolescent audience on social media; in this case they were, with encouraged epithets and expletives to boot.
I stayed calm and offered terse, unserious, even sarcastic replies, having already mapped their bigotries and games. They were self-involved and saw conversation as another dais for grand moralizing, as if channelling the very ill-defined “West” they caricatured.
By the third day, I stopped trying to reason altogether. Repetition breeds clarity: when every idea circles the same drain of grievance, silence becomes a form of interpersonal self-preservation.
These outbursts repeated throughout the trip, along with requests for professional contacts. It is dispiriting to meet those who treat others as transactions: ears to listen, networks to exploit, set pieces for later show-and-tell, or verbal and emotional punching bags for prejudices against whole regions of the world. This all unfolded during a birthday week that ended with my father’s funeral. They knew. Why the mendacity? I was celebrating life, mourning death, and turning a page in a new region with someone entirely new. They chose to abandon fundamental charity toward a person sharing space and time with them.
This was not principled anti-Western sentiment so much as dependence. They needed a stereotype of “the West” as a mirror to feel seen. A scholar as cultural paradox: caught between privilege and resentment; mimicking resistance while craving its validation; resenting what one reflects and reflecting what one resents; harbouring indifference to out-group suffering while cloaked in moral relativism, trimmed with the shawl of pseudo-skepticism.
They would cite Baudrillard while acting as if attention were the only real. An embodiment of the modern afflicted contradiction: To want the power of traditional older men, the privileges of contemporary younger women, and the accountability of children no matter the generation. Someone who ‘hates men of this generation’ while seeing her male peers as “children” while wanting a family due to “hormones” but engaged in short-term mating while ‘seduced by ministers’ and flinging with French lovers. It is: To see life a simulation and live in a forever “What if?” — settling to be never settled.
By the end, I gained a vital travel lesson: choose companions carefully, disengage when necessary, maintain a kindly composure, and keep firm boundaries that allow forgiveness without forgetting. The door is open. Listening without illusion is a discipline: to hear a worldview collapse under its own echo and stay kind anyway.
Forgiveness is usually an email away. Love as a principle commands it, and loving sentiments toward this person in particular still incline me to goodwill.
They saw themselves as apart and me as a type; I saw both of us as just people. My refrain, to remind them of my individuality and vulnerability, was simple: “I’m just a person.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/17
What are Oleksandra Matviichuk’s verified quotes from 2014 to 2025, presented in strict chronological order with sources and full text?
2014: “Adoption of this law is de facto declaring war on civil society, and we, representatives of human rights organizations, are not going to give up in the war we had not started. We are calling for a boycott of these laws.”
2016: “Finding the solution to this crisis is our historic task. We must continue fighting for human dignity, even if there is nothing left but words and our own example.”
2022: “People of Ukraine want peace more than anyone else in the world. But peace cannot be reached by a country under attack laying down its arms. This would not be peace, but occupation.” (originally in
2023: “Be courageous. You for sure will be better than our generation.”
2023: “Today’s generation, even in developed democracies, has inherited human rights, democracy, the rule of law from their parents and did not fight for them themselves. They take them for granted. In fact, freedom is not a given. We make choices every day. And the values of modern civilization must be protected.”
2023: “They have begun to understand freedom as the choice between types of cheese at the supermarket. And so they are ready to trade freedom for economic gain, for promises of security, and for personal comfort.”
2024: “When I started my career as a human rights lawyer, I never imagined that I would publicly say we need weapons and missiles to protect human rights. However, I have found since the unprovoked Russian invasion of my country that you cannot wave the Geneva Conventions in front of a Russian tank. You cannot use the United Nations Charter to stop the raping and kidnapping. You cannot defeat evil without the bravery to resist it.”
2024: “I have hope, but hope is not a strategy. We need a strategy, and we need decisive action.”
2024: “Ukrainian women are at the forefront of this battle for freedom and democracy, because bravery has no gender.”
2024: “An unspoken norm was set that justice is the privilege of the victors. But justice is not a privilege. Justice is a basic human right.”
2025: “For decades, Russia has liquidated its own civil society step by step. But for a long time, the civilized world turned a blind eye to this. They continued to shake Putin’s hand, build gas pipelines, and conduct business as usual.”
2025: “This war turns people into numbers. We are returning their names.”
2025: “What’s needed now is not more debate — it’s courage, clarity, and compassion.”
2025: “If we want to prevent wars in the future, we must punish the states and their leaders who start these wars now.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/16
Apparently, there is, in fact, a maple syrup mafia,
in effect.
It’s a 70–75% world monopoly on it.
That’s so insane.
Downtown Montreal, I assume any time this century:
“Uh, yeah, can I have some maple syrup?”
“Sure, see that guy Vinny over there with the baseball bat?”
“Okay, sure.”
“He can help you.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/16
2015: “People are understanding their position in society in a different way… human rights are their rights, democracy is their democracy.”
2016: “Almost no one, except for some of our fellow human rights defenders, preoccupies with passing this procedure.”
2022: “It’s just that democracy helps win wars… we now see motivated people who are responsible and fight for their state.”
2022: “Ordinary people are the biggest power in the world. Just use your power!”
2022: “Perhaps if the world had paid attention to the war crimes in Chechnya from the start, we wouldn’t have the war in Ukraine today.”
2023: “Defending human rights is my system of values.”
2024: “Elections are a public discussion. But a third of the population is connected with the military. Another third is displaced.”
2024: “They kidnap people and detain them in basements. Eighty-seven percent of the people we speak to started their first day of detention with torture.”
2024: “It’s a continuous crime. They’re trying to indoctrinate this idea of a strong Putin, a strong [Russian] state, all of this, right from the beginning of childhood — as early as kindergarten.”
2025: “We experience the terror of Bucha every day in the occupied territories.”
2025: “It’s not just Putin who’s responsible. It’s the whole system under him.”
2025: “The issue of nuclear safety concerns every ordinary person.”
2025: “Democracy is not only your rights, but also your duty — to build, defend, and care for your country.”
2025: “We do not want to be puppets. We want to be democratic forces building our own state.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/16
Probably, the realization:
Some gone relations never had the right time to tell them:
Je t’aime.
So, until time machine machinations:
C’est la vie.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/15
Emotional and reputational abuse comes in many forms.
Is it on Meta (formerly Facebook)?
Is it on X (formerly Twitter)?
Is it on LinkedIn, TikTok, etc.?
Is it vaguebooking, or is it subtweeting — colloquially defined?
Vaguebooking is a cryptic, dramatic, nonspecific update hinting about a problem without a statement as to the person or the situation in specific terms. It is to elicit concern or curiosity.
Subtweeting talks about a specific person without mentioning or tagging them, even after blocking them on social media to prevent a response.
It doesn’t matter if the person is talented. It doesn’t matter if the overall character of the person is positive. It doesn’t matter if you have positive affection for the individual as a friend. Suppose you witness abuse towards you, directly or indirectly. In that case, you can maintain mutual dignity for one another with additional respect for yourself by disassociating from the person in a systematic and dignified way. Why take part in your own abuse on their terms?
It’s an unfortunate pity. You may not even want to do it in the first place, too. However, is the historical trend of abusive behaviour in human civilizations and interpersonal history one of persistence or repetition?
Therefore, it’s more necessary than not, because it’s more likely to persist than not, and because no absolute safe space exists: Find out the easy way via others/vicariously or on your own terms in your life story.
Your pick; good luck.
A final encouragement: Do not harbour ill-will to them; but imagine the immensity of those who have asked this before, and recently, “Am I the only one?”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/15
2019: “Because each of us is the President.”
2019: “We will build the country of other opportunities — the one where all are equal before the law and where all the rules are honest and transparent, the same for everyone.”
2019: “The President is not an icon, an idol or a portrait. Hang your kids’ photos instead, and look at them each time you are making a decision.”
2019: “In today’s world, where we live, there is no longer someone else’s war.”
2019: “Contradictions between nations and states are still resolved not by words, but by missiles.”
2022: “Life will prevail over death and light will prevail over darkness.”
2022: “The UN system must be reformed immediately so that the right of veto is not a right to kill.”
2022: “Being the Leader of the world means to be the Leader of Peace.”
2022: “For me, as the President, just peace is no compromises as to the sovereignty, freedom, and territorial integrity of my country.”
2022: “What is not in our formula? Neutrality. Those who speak of neutrality, when human values and peace are under attack, mean something else. They talk about indifference — everyone for themselves.”
2023: “I promise — being really united we can guarantee fair peace for all nations.”
2024: “Everyone must understand — you won’t boost your power at Ukraine’s expense. The world has already been through colonial wars and conspiracies of great powers at the expense of those who are smaller.”
2025: “We are now living through the most destructive arms race in human history — because this time, it includes artificial intelligence.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/15
More egalitarian societies seem to show fewer incidences of abuse.
Global society seems to be on a trajectory to more egalitarian norms.
Abuse primarily gets predicated on reasons of power.
For example, sexual misconduct more often about power than sex.
Abusive sex as outcome; power as the driver.
Women had far less power for several millennia on average.
Thus, more egalitarian societies means more power for women.
Hence, more shared power means reduced overall abuse.
Therefore, however, more equal power between women and men means higher rates of abuse by women in some circumstances, while embedded in lower overall abuse following from these trends.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/15
3.4 billion people have no safely managed sanitation.
~2.1 billion have no safely managed drinking water.
808 million live on $3 per day.
~736 million women experience violence in their lifetime.
About 300 million across ~72 countries require humanitarian assistance.
~282–283 million experience acute food insecurity.
272 million children and youth are out of school.
230 million or more girls & women are female genital mutilation survivors.
150.2 million children have malnutrition leading to stunting, 42.8 million are wasting, and 12.2 million experience severe wasting from it.
~123 million have been forcibly displaced.
83.4 million are living in internal displacement.
~50 million living under modern slavery.
41,370 grave violations exist against children in armed conflict.
More than 8,900 deaths have occurred on migration routes in 2024.
3,623 incidents of attacks on health care in conflict in 2024.
1,518 executions happened in 2024.
296 internet shutdowns in 2024 against 54 countries.
Was your coffee a little too stale this morning?
Alright, then.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/15
It means lower levels of trust as carping amplifies flaws,
particularly applied to it ‘bleeds and leads’ media,
and even worse on (anti-)social media platforms run by the antisocial.
As well, no one has the benefit of the doubt anymore.
Low-trust societies tend to be poor societies.
This does not necessarily mean economically.
Financial success also works on inertia too;
So, there are effects of delays if that’s the case.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/14
…without evidence, and insufficient time for evidence,
will mean eventual fierce betrayal.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/14
At some point,
you are going to have to come to terms with yourself,
in the universe:
Unknown future;
Partial existence;
Limited understanding;
Forced to survive;
Born together;
Dying alone.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/13
They certainly don’t love to lie.
That’s true.
However, they really, really, really love perpetuating lies,
far more than any other media of which I am aware,
without correction if they further the belief in their myth.
When the cards fall,
they’ll be the ones with the only genuine guilty consciences,
from phoney prosperity preachers to fraudulent bitcoin messianism to fake academic credentials to genius-level poseurs’ metaphysical gobbledygook to rampant rapist and pedophilic clergy;
on and on and on, it’s not even a contest.
So it goes.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/13
Share some photons with another person.
Touch them wavelength to wavelength.
By giving eye contact, you assert:
Their humanity.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/12
The Left and the Right are united in bipartisan opposition to absolute free speech,
whether at the Left fist of Academia,
or the Right fist of the Government.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/12
The nuclear bomb used to be called “The Bomb.”
Oral contraception is called “The Pill.”
Everyone knew, or knows.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/12
We’re all only fools part of the time.
That’s the easy prediction.
When, when, with who, and why?
That’s less easy.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/11
If you,
like the minority,
like me,
mostly or sometimes only had retirees as friends as a teenager and as a young adult,
you will develop more.
Two things will happen more and more.
First, you come to a new situation:
“I’ve seen and heard this before.”
You’re experiencing a second-life circumstance for the first time.
Second, you come to a new person:
“I’ve met you before.”
You’re meeting an echo for the second time, but in the canyon this time.
All the world’s a stage.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/10
When no one really did anything wrong,
they were simply caught up in the moment.
Making the momentary mistakes people make.
What are we to do with irresolute resolutions willed without ill will?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/10
Horses do not know in a traditional sense.
They do,
then they do to know.
When I used to work on the horse farm,
I would watch them throughout the day.
They’d eat their grain and hay during the day.
They’d get walked over to the pastures.
They’d graze here.
They’d graze there.
They’d get walked back in.
They’d eat the grain,
then the hay,
or alternate those two,
dunking for a suck of water betwixt them.
Your days and seasons of life will be a mix between hay, fresh grass, grain, and water — know to tell the difference and how to alternate as necessary.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/10
People misplace journalists who go to Ukraine as brave.
I’ve never thought of my trips as courageous or brave, or some synonym.
It’s not bravery; it’s a job and a gathering of stories. Most of which you’ll never even tell.
That is deliberate.
You plan. You deliberate. You finance. You go, then leave.
They think civilians are, but they’re there and longer than the journalists and can seem as if;
However, it’s an accident of their life history in Ukraine. They don’t want the war.
Bravery is conscious. So, neither are brave. The latter are victimized. The former are doing a job.
Being brave would be not leaving, journalists leave.
The most we can say is those who choose to stay become resilient over time and have legitimately been victimized.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/09
…so beginning.
Disabuse,
by unassuming.
See nothing,
to accept all.
Fall,
to rise.
Quiet,
so full.
Doubt,
to understand.
Ending…
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/09
You always have to ask:
“Where did they find the salt in the first place?”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/09
Feed them right,
give them water,
a little sunlight,
then they grow.
Some are roses.
Most are dandelions.
Only difference:
We have more than one Sun.
Plants are heliotropic.
Find out people’s source stars,
you’ll know what plurally drives them.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/09
There aren’t any,
either places or people.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/08
If we do not want to spend as much time on prisoners,
if we lack much care for prisoners,
if it is more about cost than care,
if it is minimizing investment but maximizing return,
if it is about reducing recidivism,
why not utilize AI to expedite and mentor language skills and educational efforts of prisoners looking to learn and return to mainstream society?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/08
If unmodified humans will not rule the future, which enhancements — genetic, cybernetic, or cognitive — are likeliest to dominate governance and culture over the next 50 years, and how should storytellers depict them to avoid conceptual laziness?
Rick Rosner argues popular sci-fi misreads the future, faulting Altered Carbon and Star Trek for depicting unmodified humans as tomorrow’s rulers despite ubiquitous mind-tech. He praises Star Wars’ “used universe” and Blade Runner’sneon-noir for visual honesty, yet says aesthetics cannot mask conceptual laziness. The genre’s next frontier, he contends, is “consciousness horror”: repeated harm to minds, imprisoning people in games, or trapping them in layered simulations that feel real. While audiences adapt to fakes, writers still lean on indistinguishable worlds. Recent films — Ex Machina, M3GAN, M3GAN 2.0, Companion — show simulated humans driving dread, a trend Rosner believes will intensify very soon.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s start with movies. That’s a good way to begin. Which sci-fi movie would you consider so atrociously bad at predicting the future — either hilariously bad or simply unbearable to watch?
Rick Rosner: The sci-fi show I always criticize for being lazy about the future is Altered Carbon. It’s about portable, replicable consciousness via “cortical stacks” implanted at the base of the skull, and you can swap bodies — or “sleeves” — by moving the stack. Humans in the show still look mostly unmodified apart from the stack port, which bothers me.
Jacobsen: Going back further, what about Star Trek or Star Wars?
Rosner: Star Trek frustrates me for the same reasons: unmodified humans presented as rulers of the future. The original series ran from 1966 to 1969, made on a tight TV budget, which shaped its look. Star Wars did the same thing in portraying unmodified humans at the center of galactic power. That won’t happen. Unmodified humans will not be the lords of the future.
Jacobsen: What about the aesthetics?
Rosner: Star Trek’s visuals were always too clean and minimal, mainly because of that 1960s network-TV constraint. By contrast, Star Warsintroduced a “used universe” — worn, dirty, lived-in technology — in 1977, and Blade Runner (1982) pushed the rainy, crowded, neon-noir city that became the visual shorthand for cyberpunk.
Jacobsen: And the future of horror?
Rosner: We don’t really have it yet, but we should have “consciousness horror.” We already have body horror, which shows all the ways the body can be mutilated. The absolute horror ahead is terrible things happening to your mind, repeatedly. Imagine being imprisoned in a game, killed over and over, unable to escape. That’s one angle. Another would be being unable to distinguish between a real and a simulated environment. Passing through layers of simulated worlds would feel like waking up from one nightmare only to find yourself in another.
Some argue that we won’t be able to distinguish between real and fake. In practice, we adapt; we get better at spotting fakes the longer they’re around. Perhaps that will change, but in the meantime, lazy writers will continue to use “indistinguishable simulation” as a plot device.
And the horror of the future will continue to mine simulated humans. We already see it: Ex Machina, M3GAN and its sequel M3GAN 2.0 (released June 27, 2025), and Companion (2025), where a supposed friend turns out to be a companion robot. That trend will continue.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/08
If you put your faith in people,
then the benchmark will be:
The idiosyncratic accumulated experience with people,
rather than steadier sails.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/07
So far, the only ones who have directly lied in correspondence have been a select few from government agency representatives.
The only ones who have intimidated or bullied to attempt to coerce their viewpoint have been leftwing activists and scholars.
The rightwing simply tends to require more time to trust you.
Others’ experiences will differ, but that’s been mine.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/06
We are evolved so as to lose and win based on individual valence. Furthermore, wins and losses of equal objective type and degree are interpreted under different individual valence. Once gained, losses feel greater than the original wins, not vice versa. Therefore, do not be deterred by the overwhelming feeling of the losses, as the wins are already more significant, by subjective sensibility extrapolated and error-corrected to the objective reality.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/06
What a lucky find!
To quote Bob Ross if art is a bit of life, it’s a “happy accident.”
I’m absolutely delighted to start the week this way.
I love Jordi Savall, genius.
My ears were born forward to be now, and so, then, the mind backward.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/05
How do speculative futures in film and media help us anticipate challenges like AI’s rising energy consumption?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss Luc Besson’s The Fifth Element, a film blending sci-fi, fantasy, and romance. Rosner finds it visually striking but narratively tedious, though he values its imaginative vision of the future. He notes that speculative works — films, TV, games — act like cultural consciousness, helping societies anticipate challenges. However, lazy depictions fail to provide meaningful foresight. Rosner connects these visions to real concerns, such as AI’s growing energy demands, including electricity and water for cooling servers. He critiques proposals like orbital power stations, suggesting lunar reactors as more feasible, while emphasizing the need for efficiency-focused AI design.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: One movie that stood out in the last thirty years was The Fifth Element, with Bruce Willis and Milla Jovovich. It was unusual, mixing a Blade Runner-like futuristic aesthetic with cartoonish elements and outright fantasy. It had romance woven in, too. What are your thoughts on that film?
Rick Rosner: I’ve never seen it all the way through in order, but I’ve watched large parts of it, some multiple times. I believe it was directed by Luc Besson, who specializes in spectacular, futuristic, often nonsensical stories. The Fifth Element is visually striking and entertaining nonsense, but I found it somewhat tedious — otherwise I’d have made an effort to watch it straight through.
That said, I’m always in favour of films that attempt to imagine the future. Even if they’re off-base, they can raise important questions. For instance, before you joined, I was about to rewatch the beginning of Idiocracy, which has its own satirical vision of the future.
I appreciate productions — whether films, TV shows, or even video games — that invest time and resources in envisioning possible futures. No imagined future gets everything right, but worthwhile ones touch on real issues and make attempts to dissect them.
In a sense, cultural visions of the future function like consciousness: just as the brain predicts what might happen in the next moment to help us orient and survive, speculative futures help us prepare for cultural and societal challenges.
Of course, some science fiction is made by lazy creators, producing equally lazy visions that don’t stand up. But even consuming flawed depictions sparks thought about what the future might hold — and that has real value in preparing us for it.
Speculative visions of the future can help us prepare for the real challenges we’ll face — like artificial intelligence consuming enormous amounts of electricity to power computation, and massive amounts of water to cool overheated servers.
For example, I read today that some billionaire claimed we’ll need “orbiting power stations” to meet AI’s future energy needs. That likely means orbital nuclear reactors, since covering Earth’s surface with solar panels would be easier and more efficient than deploying orbital solar arrays. In some sense, orbital reactors might be safer — if something goes wrong, they’re not on the ground near large populations.
Still, if we’re considering nuclear power off Earth, it might actually make more sense to build reactors on the Moon rather than in orbit. On the Moon, you have solid ground, you’re not working in zero gravity, and the engineering would likely be simpler. Once you’ve already reached orbit, getting to the Moon requires additional energy, but not dramatically more.
Is this necessary in the next fifty years? Possibly. AI’s energy appetite is real and growing. But so far, I haven’t seen a genuinely concerted effort to design models that dramatically reduce AI’s power consumption. There are lighter, more efficient models — often abridged versions of large language models — that perform reasonably well. However, the broader push to address AI’s energy demands has yet to take serious shape.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/05
First, you need to see reality accurately.
Then, you can give them a name.
That may or may not be proper, even then.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/05
You know those bolstered,
the bombasts?
For nobility,
for pulchritude,
for morality,
for self-divination,
they didn’t feel it fully either.
As human beings, they can’t.
We can’t.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/04
How could “AI lava lamps” — endlessly generated, loosely coherent video — transform entertainment, from Cameron’s tech to YouTube’s watchable slop?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner sketch a fast-turnaround “Film and Commentary” series, springboarding from James Cameron’s tech genius (and clunky dialogue) and a hypothetical Cameron-Tarantino mash-up. They riff on The Boys/Gen V as grotesque political satire and the rise of watchable “AI slop” on YouTube. Rosner tracks the arc from AI stills to MidJourney’s short clips, then proposes “AI lava lamps”: endlessly generated, loosely coherent streams. His demo concept — “Bob Who Lives on the Lot” — follows a handsome squatter drifting through productions and eras, half mystery, half vibe. It is narrative as ambience: fragments, continuities, and the future of screen attention.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What else do you suggest? We could talk about complaints from your life and politics, or we could go into math, which covers most of what I think about. We could even talk about regrets, but we’ve covered that before.
Rick Rosner: James Cameron comes to mind. He’s a genius in terms of technology — he’s revolutionized filmmaking more than once and even pioneered deep-sea submersibles that reached the Titanic without disaster. But he’s not great at dialogue or plot. If he brought in someone like Tarantino, who excels at sharp, fun dialogue, the Avatar films would be less ponderous.
That connects to the idea of fun in serious productions — like The Boys and its spinoff Gen V. They’re grotesque, over-the-top superhero stories, but also satirical takes on politics. Someone even called them ham-fisted satires, but they’re entertaining.
Jacobsen: We could do something like “Film and Commentary” as a quick turnaround series.
Rosner: That could work. We’ve been talking about AI slop a little bit, you and I. It shows up in things like YouTube videos generated by AI in response to prompts. They’re largely nonsense, but they’re highly watchable, and the people who make them earn a lot of money.
The progression has been interesting. First, AI generated still images. Then short video clips. Right now, MidJourney — at least with the basic subscription — can generate clips about 5.2 seconds long. I assume if you pay for a premium membership on some AI generator, you can stretch that to 10 or 15 seconds. Then, of course, you can edit those into something longer.
I’m writing this book about the near future, and I’ve been coming up with things that will probably exist. One is something I call AI lava lamps.
Think about The Sims. If you let them go, they walk around and interact at random for quite a while. If you set up a party, it keeps going without much input. I imagine an AI system that sets up a world where the elements just continue — not entirely nonsensical, but inconsistent, fascinating to watch. The way stoners in the 60s and 70s stared at lava lamps.
Here’s one idea: Bob Who Lives on the Lot. Bob is a handsome, middle-aged guy — think Clooney or Jon Hamm. He wakes up in a house that looks normal outside, but inside it’s unfinished, bare, just a cot and a few belongings. He walks out the door, and you realize the house is only a movie set. Bob has been squatting in it.
As the AI story unfolds, he wanders the studio lot. Sometimes he wears a security guard uniform. Sometimes he’s pulled in as an extra, maybe dressed as a Roman soldier. Over time, you learn Bob has lived on the lot for years. Maybe he’s the son of a movie mogul from decades ago. Maybe he’s a ghost.
The point is, he can slide into different productions — sometimes solving mysteries, sometimes just drifting, maybe even falling in love. The setting could shift from present day to the 1940s. A sufficiently advanced AI could keep generating random, loosely connected episodes of Bob’s life for hours or days.
That’s what I mean by an AI lava lamp. It’s not really a story, not logical enough to be a narrative. It’s just endless fragments, endlessly watchable.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/04
So are the victories,
neither is an excuse to give up.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/03
That’s the problem.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/03
It’s Better Than Kosher!
Hire a guy named Moshe, take out the “r” and do infomercials, “It’s Better Than Koshe with Moshe! Tel-Aviv? Tell Habib!”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/02
“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”
That’s a good point and could be generalized over time:
Corvée laborers and enslaved workers in Pharaonic Egypt.
Debt-bonded farmers and temple dependents in Mesopotamia.
Enslaved laborers and Helots in classical Greece.
Women and metics in classical Greece.
Enslaved people and coloni in the Roman Empire.
Serfs bound to estates in medieval Europe.
Jewish and Roma communities barred from guilds and towns in medieval/early-modern Europe.
Jianmin “mean people” and most women in imperial China.
Nobi and baekjeong outcastes in Korea.
Burakumin in Tokugawa/Meiji Japan.
Dalits and Adivasi in South Asia.
Dhimmi in various Islamic empires.
Encomienda and mita Indigenous labor in Spanish America.
Plantation slaves in the Caribbean and Brazil.
Black cotton-field slaves in the American South.
Sharecroppers under Jim Crow debt peonage in post-Emancipation U.S. South.
Industrial-era child laborers in England.
Women in global pre-20th century.
Indigenous children in residential/boarding schools in Canada, the U.S., and Australia.
Black South Africans under pass laws and Bantu Education during apartheid.
Deaf communities under post-1880 oralism bans.
Roma across Europe into the 20th–21st centuries.
Muhamasheen in Yemen.
Osu among the Igbo.
Women and girls under Taliban edicts in Afghanistan now.
Therefore, not only, “Where are they?” But, what have we done?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/02
…
.
Were.
Confused…
And there we.
Wondering why we?
by tomorrows…
A werelwhined posturity, that.
Living for what we could be, for what we.
Today und tomorrow, yesterdays that.
yesterdays made…
What we.
Those words,
that.
Worlds apart,
a future’s past…
and there we.
.
.
.
.
…
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/02
How did Jane Goodall’s Gombe research on chimpanzee tool use and social behavior reshape primatology and catalyze global conservation through the Jane Goodall Institute and Roots & Shoots?
Jane Goodall was born on April 3, 1934. It was in London, England. Her parents were Mortimer Herbert Morris-Goodall and Margaret Myfanwe Joseph, with one sister, Judith. She began her academic career in East Africa after being recruited by Louis Leakey.
She studied wild chimpanzees at Gombe and then at the Gombe Stream Game Reserve in Tanganyika (now Tanzania) in 1960. This established the longest continuous field study of wild chimpanzees.
These were the basis for groundbreaking research into chimpanzees making and using tools, such as termite fishing. This overturned the prior position: Only humans make tools. The observation was made in 1960 and subsequently formalized in scientific publications.
She began PhD studies at Cambridge without an undergraduate degree, under the guidance of ethologist Robert Hinde. Her PhD was awarded in 1965/66. She also observed colobus monkeys and other mammals hunting and eating meat, including inter-group violence in the Gombe Chimpanzee War from 1974 to 1978.
She founded the Jane Goodall Institute in 1977 to sustain the research. Roots & Shoots was launched in 1991 as a global youth program focused on community, wildlife, and environmental projects.
In her life, she married several times. She married Dutch wildlife filmmaker Hugo van Lawick in 1964 and divorced in 1974, and they had one son, Hugo Eric Louis. She married Derek Bryceson in 1975, who died in 1980. Survivors reported are a son and three grandchildren: Merlin, Angel, and Nic, and a sister, Judith.
In her lifetime, she was awarded numerous prestigious honours, including the Kyoto Prize (1990), National Geographic’s Hubbard Medal (1995), the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement (1997), Templeton Prize (2021), and the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom (2025).
She died on October 1, 2025, in California at the age of 91 while on an American speaking tour. She died of natural causes.
Key books:
In the Shadow of Man (1971, Houghton Mifflin)
The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behavior (1986, Harvard Univ. Press)
Through a Window (1990, Houghton Mifflin)
Reason for Hope (1999, Warner/Grand Central).
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/02
Which Jane Goodall Quote Inspires You Most — From 1999 to 2025?
1999: “Only if we understand, can we care. Only if we care, we will help. Only if we help, we shall be saved.”
2002: “The greatest danger to our future is apathy.”
2002: “Lasting change is a series of compromises. And compromise is all right, as long as your values don’t change.”
2003: “Every individual matters. Every individual has a role to play. Every individual makes a difference.”
2014: “Only when our clever brain and our human heart work together in harmony can we achieve our true potential.”
2018: “We can have a world of peace… where we live in harmony with nature… with each other.”
2020: “It is our disregard for nature and our disrespect of the animals we should share the planet with that has caused this pandemic.”
2021: “What you do makes a difference, and you have to decide what kind of difference you want to make.”
2025: “I urge everyone to treat every day of the year as Earth Day.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/02
How do UN Special Procedures experts view Ukraine’s actions against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, including citizenship revocations and Law 3894-IX, in light of ICCPR Article 18 protections for freedom of religion?
A group of UN Special Procedures experts on October 1, 2025, expressed grave concern at reports of persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC).
Current measures risk violating international human rights standards. They direct particular attention top the provisions of the ICCPR Article 18 regarding freedom of conscience, religion, and thought. These rights are non-derogable.
The UN Special Procedures experts argue that national security is not a lawful basis for limiting the manifestation of freedom of religion. The experts drew attention to the revocation of Metropolitan Onufriy’s Ukrainian citizenship in July 2025, which was carried out on national security grounds.
On September 30, 2025, a court heard a DESS lawsuit to dissolve the Kyiv Metropolis. The allegations were based on affiliation with the Russian Orthodox Church.
The UN experts also criticized Law 3894-IX, which permits the dissolution of any religious organization linked to the Russian Orthodox Church. They argued that this creates a framework for state control that is incompatible with international standards.
They warned that legal certainty is undermined when justifications rest on vague labels such as “pro-Russian affiliation.” Their concern is the potential risk of criminalizing belief, assembly, and association.
UOC figures and defenders have been facing ongoing prosecutions, including those of Metropolitans Arsenii, Pavlo, Feodosii, Longin, and Father Yevhen Koshelnik. Others include journalist Dmytro Skvortsov and lawyer Svitlana Novytska. The UN experts argue these proceedings appear to amount to collective punishment.
They urged a review of Law 3894-IX and the end of trials and administrative measures against clergy, defenders, and journalists.
Signatories to this call are George Katrougalos, Nazila Ghanea, Nicolas Levrat, Ben Saul, and Gina Romero — independent UN mandate-holders serving in their personal capacities.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/30
2016–2025: No on-record public statements attributable to Flora Gunn.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/30
2022–2025: No on-record public statements attributable to Robert Stravens.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/30
2023: “Qual a fonte que os presidentes da América Latina têm sobre essa informação? Eu mostrei aqui, claramente, que quem controla a informação que sai de Gaza [é o Hamas].”
2023: “Eles estão mal-informados sobre o que está acontecendo.”
2023: “Israel não está lutando só contra o Hamas, Israel está lutando contra o Irã.”
2023: “Israel está chamando todos os civis para saírem da zona de conflito e de guerra. Israel está dando condições para eles receberem ajuda humanitária. O objetivo [de Israel] é o Hamas.”
2023: “Israel não vai permanecer em Gaza quando a guerra acabar.”
2024: “É um erro comum pensar que a guerra era contra o Hamas. A guerra é contra o Irã, e o Irã e todos os seus proxies. Israel está enfrentando sete exércitos, todos conduzidos pelo Irã.”
2024: “Não há nenhum conflito entre Israel e as pessoas que se descrevem como palestinas. Israel ofereceu o Estado palestino no passado, por quatro vezes…”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/30
2023: “This is the time to stand with Israel as we face a merciless enemy.”
2023: “The first thing that needs to be put out there is that Israel will defend itself and will respond to this outrageous barbaric attack with whatever means it has at its disposal.”
2023: “This is evil.”
2024: “We are appalled, but not surprised, at the attempt by a handful of pro-Hamas rioters to violently compromise our ability to operate as a diplomatic mission. They will not succeed… turning city council meetings into despicable spectacles of antisemitism and mass-atrocity denial.”
2025: “People are afraid to display Jewish symbols. You see this hostage pin? I cannot wear it outside for fear I may be attacked.”
2025: “From the amount of tweets and publications by the UN regarding aid for Gaza, you’d think 99% of the aid is from the UN. It is not.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/30
2024: “We, the Jewish people, prefer peace.”
2024: “We will not be in Gaza once the hostages are released and once we are sure that there are no more terrorists or arsenal of terrorists.”
2024: “We weren’t in Gaza prior to October 7, there was a ceasefire. We didn’t start the fire, they did.”
2024: “The Palestinian Authority further escalated its conflict with Israel by ramming forward a troubling resolution… this resolution deserves condemnation by anyone who actually desires Middle East peace.”
2024: “Endorsing this one-sided Palestinian effort now, less than a year after October 7th, only emboldens terrorists and terror supporters.”
2024: “They are not pro-Palestinians. They are pro-terror organizations because they are waving the flags of Hezbollah, Hamas.”
2025: “I can assure you that… if they release the 48 hostages and Hamas terrorists — not the Gazans — will leave Gaza, that will be the last day of the war. We don’t want this war in Gaza.”
2025: “The return of the 48 hostages and the complete removal of Hamas from Gaza are the necessary conditions for ending this war.”
2025: “Those who choose to criticize or condemn Israel for defending ourselves… are serving as enablers of Hamas.”
2025: “Qatar and Hamas are responsible for the safety of our hostages… We must continue to pressure both to release everyone — and now.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/30
2023: “If you really care about Palestinians, you need to rally to help Israel topple Hamas.”
2023: “This is not about territory; this is about terrorism.”
2023: “Phase №1 is to eradicate Hamas period. We first need to take the cancer out, and then let the healing process begin.”
2024: “Eventually Israel needs to ‘defend itself, by itself’.”
2025: “We’re not going to stay silent.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/30
2023: “They murdered in cold blood — men, women, children, the elderly and the disabled.”
2023: “This is Israel’s 9/11.”
2023: “Let there be no confusion. This is not about politics. This is about the murder of Jews, simply because they are Jews.”
2023: “So right now there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.”
2023: “Words matter and we need to be accurate. There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.”
2023: “Hamas is ISIS. The essence is the same.”
2023: “There is nothing, nothing that could justify the atrocities we have been seeing.”
2023: “Our goal right now is very clear: to dismantle the Hamas terrorist infrastructure.”
2023: “A lot can be said about the Oct. 7 trauma, but tonight is dedicated to 239 men, women, children, elderly, babies that have been stolen, kept in darkness, without knowing how they are doing.”
2024: “As Consul General, I will continue to participate and engage in meaningful dialogue with every single group.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/30
2023: “One of the worst atrocities for Jews since the Holocaust.”
2023: “We don’t want war; we didn’t go to war for the sake of war.”
2023: “We must destroy Hamas before any ceasefire.”
2023: “We will not allow the citizens of Israel to live under this threat anymore.”
2023: “This isn’t a war against Palestinians. This is a fight between good and evil.”
2024: “Securing our nation has been a persistent challenge… including the recent intense and gruesome war with Hamas.”
2024: “It’s time that the world wakes up.”
2024: “We will do whatever it takes with partners or alone.”
2025: “It’s become increasingly clear — even among Palestinians — that Hamas must be eliminated.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2023: “They were killed in a very brutal and barbaric way… It was slaughter by Hamas terrorists in their homes.”
2023: “We’re not fighting against the Palestinian people… we’re fighting a terrorist, a vicious, cruel terrorist organization.”
2023: “If it looks like pro-Hamas, walks like pro-Hamas and quacks like pro-Hamas, then it just may be pro-Hamas. And antisemitic.”
2024: “This resolution goes against the position of the Biden administration, the International Court of Justice, and the overwhelming majority of the American people.”
2024: “What’s a genocide? … There is definitely a politically motivated overuse of this word, and what’s happening in Gaza is a war.”
2025: “Defeating Hamas militarily should only be the first stage… The next phase must involve a sustained process of de-radicalization.”
2025: “We are devastated and heartbroken by this senseless killing… What happened last night in Washington, D.C., could have happened here in Chicago.”
2023: “I am relieved to see Natalie back home in Chicago… While we’re celebrating Natalie’s return, we remember the 239 hostages… still held by Hamas in Gaza.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2024: “Oct. 7 is for many Jewish people akin to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on US soil. ‘Each and every Israeli knows where’ they were on Oct. 7.”
2024: “The most important thing for Israel is to make sure Oct. 7 is never repeated again.”
2025: “Hamas started this war. Hamas is prolonging it. And Hamas could end it — today — if it chose peace over power, people over propaganda, and life over death.”
2025: “If Israel will just leave Gaza tomorrow, the war will not come to an end, the hostages will not be released immediately, and Hamas definitely is not going to leave Gaza.”
2025: “Recognizing a non-existent Palestinian state now… empowers Hamas. This is rewarding Hamas and its terrorist act.”
2025: “There is no future at all for the people of Gaza as long as Hamas is there… now is the time to do that [take Hamas out of the equation].”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2025: “You’re giving a prize to terror because you’re listening to these liars.”
2025: “The Palestinians living in Gaza are victims of their own leadership.”
2025: “Hamas vows to repeat the October 7 massacres again and again. This is the terror Israel and the free world must confront.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2016–2025: No on-record public statements attributable to Gregorio Goldstein Isaacson.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2019–2025: No on-record public statements attributable to Miguel Otto Schwarz.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2023: “Imposible negociar con Hamás porque o es la existencia de ellos o es la de Israel y los judíos. Se están definiendo los objetivos militares de esta guerra, pero lograrlos, cualesquiera que sean, no va a ser una guerra de corto plazo.”
“Impossible to negotiate with Hamas because it is either their existence or that of Israel and the Jews. The military objectives of this war are being defined, but achieving them — whatever they are — will not be a short war.”
2023: “Pide la eventual creación de un estado islámico en Palestina, en lugar de Israel y los Territorios Palestinos y la obliteración o disolución de Israel.”
“It [Hamas’s charter] calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories, and for the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.”
2023: “El Ejército israelí manda avisos y llama por teléfono a los miembros de la sociedad civil donde viven miembros de Hamás… ‘hoy a las 11 de la noche vamos a destruir el edificio, salgan’…”
“The Israeli army sends warnings and calls civilians in places where Hamas members live… ‘today at 11 p.m. we are going to destroy the building, leave’…”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2017–2025: No on-record public statements attributable to Edoardo Gurgo Salice.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2023: “Tragic news: Vivian Silver, the Canadian-Israeli peace activist previously thought to be taken hostage, has been confirmed dead, murdered by Hamas in Kibbutz Be’eri. Our hearts go out to her family and friends. May her memory be a blessing.”
2024: “The relationship between Israel and Canada is at an all-time low. Canada, according to many, has abandoned Israel, the only democratic ally they have in the region.”
2024: “Most Canadians can understand that … we didn’t choose this war. We are fighting a war for our survival, for the survival of the only Jewish democracy and country in the world. And now we understand more than ever the need for a safe haven for Jews.”
2024: “The hostages are the utmost priority, releasing the ones who are alive and returning the bodies of those who are not.”
2025: “PR perfume on institutional moral rot.”
2025: “When terrorists thank you, you’re in the wrong. Hamas’ own press release refers to today’s recognition of Palestine as a ‘reward’ and thanks our governments.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
No on-record public statements attributable to Eliaz Luf.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2011: “I hope it can only encourage and improve the relationship.”
2012: “It was a ‘very convivial meeting’.”
2014: “It’s a simple statement of fact. I don’t see anything wrong with it.”
2014: “What he said is correct — we’re not responsible for what happens in Israel. Scottish and British Jewry is not responsible for anything that Israel does.”
2016: “I saw ‘a couple of dozen protesters’ before kick-off.”
2016: “There was a flurry of Palestinian flags inside the ground just as the game started, but absolutely no trouble at all.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2018: “Насильство не припиняється… світова громадськість фактично мовчить, тоді як бойовики ХАМАСу цькують безневинних громадян.”
“The violence does not stop… the international public is effectively silent while Hamas militants hound innocent civilians.”
“Лідери терористів повинні зрозуміти, що їх ідеї, методи і дії огидні… вони не залишаться непокараними!”
“Terrorist leaders must understand that their ideas, methods, and actions are vile… they will not go unpunished!”
2021: “Їхня унікальна самаритянська ідентичність… дозволяє пристосуватися до умов ізраїльсько-палестинської війни.”
“Their unique Samaritan identity… allows them to adapt to the conditions of the Israeli-Palestinian war.”
2022: “Перемога — це не завжди кінець війни, а перемир’я — це не мир.”
“Victory isn’t always the end of war, and a ceasefire is not peace.”
2023: “Полномасштабное нападение на север может перенапрячь Израиль… большинство его сил сфокусированы на возможном наземном наступлении в Газе.”
“A full-scale attack in the north could overstretch Israel… most of its forces are focused on a possible ground offensive in Gaza.”
2024: “Ці заяви є не лише перебільшеними, а й такими, що маніпулюють фактами.”
“These claims are not only exaggerated; they also manipulate the facts.”
2025: “Для багатьох держав це виглядає як ‘мирний крок’, але для Ізраїлю… це — не про мир, а про легітимізацію загрози.”
“For many states this looks like a ‘peaceful step,’ but for Israel… it’s not about peace; it’s the legitimization of a threat.”
“Ізраїль хоче ‘тотальної перемоги’ над ХАМАСом.”
“Israel seeks ‘total victory’ over Hamas.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2019: “Первоначальная позиция была такова: два государства для двух народов, а по факту получается три государства для двух народов… В такой ситуации вести переговоры не представляется возможным.”
“The original position was two states for two peoples, but in fact it has become three entities for two peoples… In such a situation, negotiations are not possible.”
2019: “На данный момент влияние, которое просматривается на руководство Газы, я бы сказала, исходит из Ирана. Спонсорами также являются Катар… Предполагаю, что свой вес имеет влияние Египта на ХАМАС.”
“At the moment, the influence we see over Gaza’s leadership, I would say, comes from Iran. Qatar is also a sponsor… I assume Egypt’s influence on Hamas carries weight.”
2019: “В ‘Сделке века’ скорее всего не будет ничего о каком-то палестинском государстве, а скорее обещание автономии и преференции в области экономики.”
“In the ‘Deal of the Century’ there is likely nothing about a Palestinian state — rather a promise of autonomy and economic preferences.”
2019: “В течение последнего года сильно видны усилия палестинцев показать, что у евреев нет абсолютно никакой связи с Иерусалимом… Признание Соединёнными Штатами [Иерусалима] очень важно.”
“Over the past year there have been strong efforts by the Palestinians to show that Jews have no connection whatsoever to Jerusalem… Recognition by the United States [of Jerusalem] is very important.”
2021: “ХАМАС выпустил 1000 ракет по Израилю… ХАМАС — вот кто угрожает Сектору Газа.”
“Hamas fired 1,000 rockets at Israel… Hamas is the one that threatens the Gaza Strip.” (official consulate post)
2021: “Идеология ХАМАСа сочетает кровавый террор, военные преступления и наглую ложь.”
“Hamas’s ideology combines bloody terror, war crimes, and brazen lies.” (official consulate post)
2021: “Несмотря на массированные ракетные атаки террористов ХАМАСа, система ПРО ‘Железный купол’ продолжает эффективно защищать безопасность мирных жителей.”
“Despite Hamas’s massive rocket attacks, the Iron Dome missile-defense system continues to effectively protect civilians.” (official consulate post)
2021: “Что такое дети Газы для кровавого режима ХАМАСа? Восполняемый ресурс терроризма, который они цинично готовы послать…”
“What are Gaza’s children to Hamas’s bloody regime? A replenishable resource for terrorism that they cynically send…” (official consulate post)
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2023: “Hierbei handelt es sich nicht um Pro-Palästinensische-Demonstrationen, sondern um Pro-Terror-Demonstrationen.”
“These are not pro-Palestinian demonstrations, but pro-terror demonstrations.”
2023: “Wir Israelis brauchen die Unterstützung der westlichen Welt.”
“We Israelis need the support of the Western world.”
2024: “Discussions should be dialogs where every participant can speak in a secure setting and, most importantly, can listen to one another.”
“Discussions should be dialogs where every participant can speak in a secure setting and, most importantly, can listen to one another.”
2024: “Anyone who forgets, suppresses the memory of, or denies this horrific massacre [of October 7] is reversing the positions of perpetrator and victim.”
“Anyone who forgets, suppresses the memory of, or denies this horrific massacre [of October 7] is reversing the positions of perpetrator and victim.”
2024: “Es gibt keinen Genozid in Gaza.”
“There is no genocide in Gaza.”
2025: “Ein Deal mit der Hamas wäre ein Pakt mit dem Teufel.”
“A deal with Hamas would be a pact with the devil.”
2025: “Wenn die Hamas alle Geiseln freilässt, wird sich auch die gesamte Situation in Gaza zum Positiven verändern.”
“If Hamas releases all the hostages, the entire situation in Gaza will improve.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2006: “Iisraelil on õigus enesekaitseks!”
“Israel has the right to self-defense!”
2023: “Ma kardan, et õhulöökide järel on Iisraeli armee sunnitud Gazasse sisenema. See toob kaasa muidugi mõlemale poolele ohvreid, aga ma ei näe praegu mitte mingisuguseid muid võimalusi.”
“I fear that after the airstrikes the Israeli army will be forced to enter Gaza. That will, of course, bring casualties on both sides, but at the moment I don’t see any other options.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2017–2025: No on-record public statements attributable to Honorary Consul Adamos A. Varnava on the Israeli–Palestinians.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishingcontent—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2023: “We are very grateful to the United Arab Emirates for its stance supporting Israel.”
2023: “#ITUWRC conference in Dubai today. We will keep telling the stories of the 239 people who are still being held hostage in Gaza under #Hamas.”
2023: “Would you agree to keep living this kind of a reality in your own country? #HamasislSIS”
2023: “Incubators, baby food, and medical supplies brought by the @IDF from Israel have successfully reached the #Shifahospital.”
2024: “Today is October 7, 2024. But for 101 hostages, and the whole nation of Israel, today is still October 7, 2023. Hamas kidnapped 251 hostages …”
2025: “Although there are disagreements, dialogue gives influence and it also allows humanitarian aid in Gaza to continue flowing.”
2025: “We saw on Oct. 7 that radical forces like Iran and proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas are trying to hurt the expansion of ties between Israel and the Arab world.”
2025: “700 days have passed since October 7th, when Hamas terrorists murdered, raped, and abducted innocent civilians. 48 hostages remain in captivity.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2023: “Bölgedeki tüm ülkeler ABD’nin yaptığı gibi teröre ve Hamas terör örgütünün barbarca eylemlerine karşı çıkmalı ve bunları kınamalıdır. İsrailli üst düzey yetkililer düzenli olarak Türk yetkililerle konuşuyor ve onları durum hakkında bilgilendiriyor, bunu yapmaya devam edecekler.”
“All countries in the region, as the U.S. has done, should oppose and condemn terrorism and the barbaric acts of the Hamas terrorist organization. Israeli senior officials are in regular contact with Turkish officials, briefing them on the situation, and will continue to do so.”
2023: “İran’ın şeytani rejimi tarafından desteklenen Hamas ve Filistin İslami Cihad terör örgütlerinin terör altyapılarının yok edilmesini ve Gazze’den İsrail vatandaşlarına ve devletine yönelik tehdidin ortadan kaldırılmasını sağlamak için gerekli tüm adımları atacağız.”
“We will take all necessary steps to destroy the terror infrastructures of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad — supported by Iran’s evil regime — and to eliminate the threat from Gaza to Israel’s citizens and state.”
2023: “Şimdi Hamas terör örgütü tarafından rehin alınan vatandaşlarımızı kurtarmaya ve terör altyapısını yok etmeye odaklanma zamanı.”
“Now is the time to focus on rescuing our citizens held hostage by the Hamas terrorist organization and on destroying the terror infrastructure.”
2023: “Hamas ve Filistin İslami Cihad terör örgütleri Filistin halkını rehin alıyor, İsrail ordusu ise sivilleri korumak için elinden geleni yapıyor ve yapmaya devam edecek.”
“Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are holding the Palestinian people hostage, and the Israeli army is doing — and will continue to do — everything it can to protect civilians.”
2023: “İsrail ordusu sadece Hamas ve Filistin İslami Cihad’ın terör altyapısını hedef almaktadır.”
“The Israeli army targets only the terror infrastructure of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
You cannot expect the abused to be the same after;
They were abused.
Duh.
What they do with that, after enough time,
it’s up to them.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2023: “They are not only terrorists, but animals on two legs. They will pay a price that they cannot even imagine.”
2024: “Hamas will not have any military capability.”
2024: “We only targeted military bases, not civilians.”
2025: “Ceasefire is not a solution — it’s only a temporary pause.”
2025: “We do care about the Palestinians. We don’t have anything against them.”
2025: “We are never going to lose the war.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2024: “Israel is doing everything to protect its citizens. Israel will attack anyone who is a threat.”
2024: “Hamas can end the war by releasing the hostages.”
2025: “Hamas brutally invaded Israel while slaughtering, raping, and killing women, children, and babies.”
2025: “After more than 471 days in Gaza, we are finally seeing a situation where the first three women were sent home… We are happy that they are home and we are hoping that all the rest of the hostages still left in Gaza will be able to make it home soon.”
2025: “There is not a dry eye left in Israel seeing these images.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2024: “自10月7日哈马斯野蛮袭击以色列社区以来……这是一场它从来不想要的战争。”
“Since Hamas’s brutal attack on Israeli communities on Oct 7… Israel found itself in a war it never wanted.”
2024: “战争的目标从一开始就很明确：……彻底消除哈马斯的军事能力；……释放我们的人质。”
“The war’s aims were clear from the outset: … to completely eliminate Hamas’s military capabilities; … and to free our hostages.”
2024: “我们的目标不是夺回并控制加沙地带……无论如何，以色列都不会控制加沙地带。”
“Our goal is not to retake and control the Gaza Strip… In any case, Israel will not control the Gaza Strip.”
2024: “不幸的是，哈马斯在酒店、清真寺和学校内设置了指挥中心、火箭发射器和地道。”
“Unfortunately, Hamas established command centers, rocket launchers and tunnels inside hotels, mosques and schools.”
2024: “以色列国防军分发了数百万份传单、发送数百万条短信，并打了数十万通电话……”
“The IDF distributed millions of leaflets, sent millions of text messages, and made hundreds of thousands of calls…”
2024: “事实上，巴勒斯坦从来没有一个‘巴勒斯坦国’，以色列也从来没有占领过巴勒斯坦领土。”
“In fact, there has never been a ‘State of Palestine,’ and Israel has never occupied ‘Palestinian territory.’”
2024: “每个国家的政府都有责任保护其公民，即使这需要使用武力。”
“Every government has a responsibility to protect its citizens, even if this requires the use of force.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2023: “Hamas started this war, and Israel is preparing for a prolonged military response … to restore full control … as well as crashing the terrorist infrastructure of Hamas.”
2023: “Hamas are ‘bloodthirsty terrorists’ who ‘are devoid of any moral inhibitions’ … ‘Israel will act to free the hostages … and to reach a situation in which no terrorist group in Gaza will be able to harm Israeli citizens again.’”
2024: “Genocide? Israel is fighting a just war against a terrorist organisation … The atrocities of October 7 cannot be allowed to happen again.”
2024: “現在尚有101名人質身處加沙地下隧道，受著極不人道的對待。……唯一可以達至中東和平的方法只有是溫和派之間的和平共存。”
“There are still 101 captives in the brutal Gaza tunnels, suffering the most inhumane conditions. … The only viable solution in the Middle East is peace and co-existence between moderate parties.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2023: “#超40万巴勒斯坦人离开加沙的家园##以色列# 看看哈马斯在加沙地区是怎么利用无辜平民的！”
“‘#Over 400,000 Palestinians have left their homes in Gaza##Israel# Look at how Hamas exploits innocent civilians in Gaza!’ (official Guangzhou Consulate Weibo).”
“我们有证据表明，哈马斯正在设置路障，阻止巴勒斯坦平民从加沙北部向南部撤离！”
“‘We have evidence that Hamas is setting up roadblocks to stop Palestinian civilians from evacuating from northern to southern Gaza!’ (reported from the Guangzhou Consulate’s Weibo).”
“哈马斯以将平民置于危险境地而自豪，他们要对每一个平民伤亡负责。”
“‘Hamas prides itself on putting civilians in danger; they are responsible for every civilian casualty.’ (reported from the Guangzhou Consulate’s Weibo).”
“As an Israeli diplomat, I want to emphasize that Israel is fighting terrorist groups in the Gaza Strip. A war we did not start.”
“This was a brutal attack on civilians and was very similar to ISIS’s modus operandi.”
2024: “自去年10月7日以来，所有以色列人都记得哈马斯对以色列进行的袭击，以色列人不会忘记还有125名人质还被哈马斯扣押在加沙。他们被绑架到加沙已经两百多天了，我们没有任何他们的消息，甚至不知道他们是否还活着。”
“‘Since October 7 last year, all Israelis remember Hamas’s attack on Israel. We will not forget that 125 hostages are still held by Hamas in Gaza. They were abducted to Gaza more than 200 days ago; we have no information about them and don’t even know if they are still alive.’ (Independence Day remarks in Guangzhou).”
“We remember the victims and stand with the families of the hostages who are enduring this unimaginable pain. We pray that the hostages will return home safely as soon as possible.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2023: “近日，我们收到了一封陌生中国朋友的来信。”
“Recently, we received a letter from an unfamiliar Chinese friend.”
2023: “网络虚假信息众多，建议多元信息渠道交叉验证，尽量避免轻信偏听。”
“There is a lot of misinformation online; we recommend cross-checking via multiple sources and avoiding one-sided credulity.”
2024: “The charges of genocide brought by South Africa against Israel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague are false, outrageous and morally repugnant.”
2024: “Key UN agencies have spread misleading information and applied double standards when addressing Israel’s actions and the broader conflict.”
2025: “In a joint IDF-ISA operation, the bodies of abducted hostages Idan Shtivi and Ilan Weiss were located in the Gaza Strip and returned to Israel.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2023: «لا نستغرب هذه الوقفة الإنسانية من صاحب السموّ الشيخ محمد بن زايد، وصاحب السموّ الشيخ محمد بن راشد. وهذه المبادرات امتداد لنهج المغفور له الشيخ زايد بن سلطان آل نهيان، في دعم الفلسطينيين في كل الأحوال.»
“We do not find this humanitarian stance by Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed and Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid surprising; these initiatives extend the late Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan’s approach of supporting Palestinians in all circumstances.”
2023: «المشهد الذي تابعناه من الإقبال الواسع على المشاركة بالعمل التطوعي أو تقديم التبرعات، يجسد واحدة من الصور الإنسانية في مجتمع الإمارات، الذي يدعو للسلام والمحبة والتآخي.»
“The scene we witnessed — of widespread volunteering and donations — embodies one of the human faces of the UAE community, which calls for peace, compassion, and fraternity.”
2023: «نشكر مساعي وجهود دائرة الشؤون الإسلامية والعمل الخيري بدبي، ومؤسسة وطني الإمارات، على الإشراف والتنظيم المميز اليوم على إقامة الحملة في دبي وعلى تقديم الدعم والمساعدة للأشقاء في فلسطين.»
“We thank the efforts of the Islamic Affairs and Charitable Activities Department in Dubai and Watani Al Emarat for superbly organizing today’s campaign in Dubai, and for providing support and assistance to our brothers in Palestine.”
2023: «كما أشكر مساعي دولة الإمارات العربية المتحدة، فهي دائماً دولة سبّاقة في عمل الخير على الصعيد العالمي، وسبّاقة في الوقوف بجانب الشعب الفلسطيني في كافة الظروف، وأتمنى التوفيق لهذه البلد المعطاءة على وقفتها الأخوية الصادقة مع الشعب الفلسطيني.»
“I also thank the efforts of the United Arab Emirates, always at the forefront of global charity and of standing by the Palestinian people in all circumstances; I wish continued success to this generous country for its sincere fraternal stance with the Palestinian people.”
2024: «تواجدُ الكلّ الفلسطيني في هذا المحفل رسالةٌ كبيرة للعالم في ظلّ الظروف الصعبة التي يعيشها شعبُنا الفلسطيني، وأتمنى التوفيق والنجاح للجميع.»
“The presence of all Palestinians together at this forum is a powerful message to the world given the difficult circumstances our people are living through; I wish everyone success.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2022: «كُنّا على يقينٍ تامٍّ بفوزِ المغربِ وتأهله إلى نصفِ النهائي، نظرًا للأداءِ الجيد الذي قدَّمه أسودُ الأطلس طيلة أطوارِ هذا المونديال.»
“We were absolutely certain Morocco would reach the semifinals, given the quality the Atlas Lions showed throughout the tournament.”
2022: «نحن سعداءُ جدًّا بهذا النصر؛ إنّه نصرٌ لكلِّ العالمِ العربيّ والإسلاميّ، ونحنُ فخورون بأسودِ الأطلس ونتمنّى لهم تحقيقَ فوزٍ جديد.»
“We are very happy with this victory; it is a win for the entire Arab and Islamic worlds. We are proud of the Atlas Lions and wish them further success.”
2023: «Bu direniş doğal bir sonuçtur… zulmün ve katliamların durması için toplu intifada dışında bir seçim hakkımız olmadı.»
“This resistance is a natural result… faced with oppression and massacres, we had no option but a mass intifada.”
2023: «Her türlü silahı, yasaklı fosfor bombalarını kullanarak evlerini başlarının üzerine yıkmaktadır…»
“They are using every kind of weapon — including banned white phosphorus — bringing homes crashing down on people.”
2023: «Filistin yönetiminin bu vahşetin durması için yaptığı çağrılara Batı camiası ve uluslararası kuruluşlar dilsiz ve sağır kalmışlardır.»
“The Western community and international organizations have been mute and deaf to the Palestinian Authority’s appeals to end this brutality.”
2023: «Türk ve Filistin halkı arasındaki ilişki tarihidir… Türk milletinin ve hükümetinin Filistin ile dayanışmasını sürdürmesini istiyoruz.»
“The relationship between the Turkish and Palestinian peoples is historic… we ask the Turkish nation and government to continue their solidarity with Palestine.”
2023: «Tüm milletler gibi biz de hür ve egemen yaşamak istiyoruz.»
“Like all peoples, we too want to live free and sovereign.”
2023: «Rusya, Çin, Türkiye ve Arap ülkelerinden… sivillerin korunmasını istiyoruz… başkenti Kudüs olan bağımsız Filistin devletinin inşası için desteklerini bekliyoruz.»
“From Russia, China, Turkey and the Arab countries… we ask for the protection of civilians… and support for building an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2016: «تُناشِدُ القيادةُ الفلسطينيةُ المجتمعَ الدوليَّ، ولا سيما مجلسَ الأمن، الاضطلاعَ بالتزاماته إزاءَ احترامِ وضمانِ احترامِ القانونِ الدولي لوقفِ الانتهاكاتِ والجرائمِ الإسرائيلية واستردادِ جميعِ حقوقِنا المشروعة، بما فيها قيامُ الدولةِ المستقلةِ وعاصمتُها القدسُ الشريف.
“The Palestinian leadership continually urges the international community, especially the Security Council, to shoulder its responsibilities to respect and ensure respect for international law, to halt Israeli violations and crimes, and to restore all our legitimate rights, including the establishment of the independent state with Jerusalem as its capital.”
2016: «عددُ الجاليةِ الفلسطينيةِ في المملكةِ نحوَ نصفِ مليونِ لاجئ.»
“The Palestinian community in the Kingdom numbers around half a million refugees.”
2016: «تظلُّ مواقفُ المملكةِ العربيةِ السعوديةِ ثابتةً وراسخةً تجاهَ القضيةِ الفلسطينية، وتؤكِّدُ دائمًا حقَّ الشعبِ الفلسطينيِّ في قيامِ دولتِه المستقلةِ وعاصمتُها القدس.»
“Saudi Arabia’s positions remain firm and steadfast toward the Palestinian cause, consistently affirming the Palestinian people’s right to an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital.”
2025: «جَدَّدَ عدمَ استسلامِ الشعبِ الفلسطينيِّ للمخططاتِ الاستعمارية.»
“He reiterated that the Palestinian people will not surrender to colonial schemes.”
2025: «إنَّ هذه المناسبةَ تتزامنُ مع نكبةٍ وحربِ إبادةٍ جماعيةٍ ممنهجةٍ تشنُّها إسرائيلُ على شعبِنا في غزة، وعدوانِها التدميريِّ في الضفةِ الغربية، ومخططِها لتهويدِ القدسِ ومصادرةِ الأراضي.»
“This occasion coincides with a Nakba and a systematic genocide waged by Israel against our people in Gaza, its destructive aggression in the West Bank, and its scheme to Judaize Jerusalem and seize land.”
2025: «هذا المخطّطُ الاستعماريُّ الجديدُ–القديمُ لن يمرَّ بفضلِ وعيِ وصمودِ ورباطِ المواطنِ الفلسطينيِّ رغمَ الحصارِ والقتلِ والتجويعِ والعطشِ وفقدانِ العلاجِ والدواءِ.»
“This old–new colonial scheme will not pass thanks to the awareness, steadfastness, and fortitude of the Palestinian citizen despite siege, killing, starvation, thirst, and the lack of treatment and medicine.”
2025: «المملكةُ تسيرُ بخطى ثابتةٍ نحوَ مستقبلٍ مزدهرٍ لأبنائها… حتى أضحت منارةً للإنسانيةِ في هذا العصر.»
“The Kingdom is moving steadily toward a prosperous future for its people… having become a beacon for humanity in this era.”
2025: «شكرًا للمملكةِ شكرًا لسموِّ وليِّ العهدِ، وإن شاءَ الله نلتقي في القدسِ عاصمةِ فلسطينَ المستقلة.»
“Thank you to the Kingdom and to His Royal Highness the Crown Prince; God willing, we will meet in Jerusalem, the capital of an independent Palestine.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2025: «النكبة ليست مجرد ذكرى نحيّيها فحسب، بل صرخةٌ في الضمير الإنساني لحقّ شعبنا في العودة والحرية والسلام…» — “The Nakba is not merely an anniversary we mark; it is a cry in the human conscience for our people’s right to return, freedom, and peace…”.
2025: «ما يجري يمثّل انتهاكًا صارخًا للقانون الدولي الإنساني.» — “What is happening is a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law.”
2025: «أولويةُ القيادة تكمن في وقفِ العدوان وإدخالِ المساعدات الإنسانية العاجلة إلى قطاع غزة.» — “The leadership’s priority is to halt the aggression and bring urgent humanitarian aid into Gaza.”
2025: «هذا القرارُ التاريخيّ يعكسُ التزامَ فرنسا بتحقيقِ حلٍّ سياسيّ للصراع وفقَ القانون الدوليّ ومبدأ حلِّ الدولتين.» — “This historic decision reflects France’s commitment to a political solution to the conflict, consistent with international law and the two-state principle.”
2025: «نثمّنُ العلاقاتِ التاريخيةَ التي تربطُ الشعبينِ الفلسطينيّ والكرديّ، ونسعى لتعزيزِ التعاون في الثقافةِ والتعليمِ والاستثمار.» — “We value the historical ties between the Palestinian and Kurdish peoples, and we seek to strengthen cooperation in culture, education, and investment.”
2025: «إلى جانبِ توطيدِ علاقاتِنا مع إقليمِ كوردستان، عملْنا على تطويرِ العلاقات بين جامعاتِ كوردستان وجامعاتِ فلسطين.» — “Besides making our relations stronger with the Kurdistan Region, we worked to improve the relations between universities of Kurdistan and universities of Palestine.”
2025: «…اتخاذُ خطواتٍ عمليّةٍ لتنفيذِ حلِّ الدولتين، باعتبارهِ الطريقَ الوحيدَ لتحقيقِ السلامِ والاستقرار في المنطقة.» — “…taking practical steps to implement the two-state solution, as it is the only path to achieving peace and stability in the region.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2024: وأكّد القنصلُ العام وفيق أبو سيدو في كلمته، دورَ المرأةِ الفلسطينيةِ التاريخيَّ المهمَّ والفعّالَ في القضية الفلسطينية سابقًا وحاليًا ومستقبلًا.
“He stressed the historic, important, and active role of Palestinian women in our cause — past, present, and future.”
2025: نُقَدِّرُ حِكمةَ مصرَ والسعوديةِ والأردنِ في دعمِ دولةِ فلسطين، ونؤكّدُ انفتاحَنا على التعاونِ مع قطاعِ الأعمالِ في مصر.
“We value the wisdom of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan in supporting the State of Palestine, and we’re open to cooperation with Egypt’s business sector.”
2025: مكتبةُ الإسكندريةِ صرحٌ عالميّ، وشرفٌ لنا أن نكون مشاركينَ في معرضِها الدوليِّ للكتاب.
“The Bibliotheca Alexandrina is a global institution, and it’s an honor for us to take part in its International Book Fair.”
2025: مشاركتُنا في المعرضِ رمزيةٌ تُعبِّرُ عن وجودِ فلسطين… آملًا إنهاءَ الاحتلالِ وإقامةَ الدولةِ الفلسطينيةِ في القريبِ العاجل.
“Our participation is symbolic of Palestine’s presence… hoping for an end to the occupation and the establishment of the Palestinian state in the near future.”
2025: تشاركُ القنصليةُ العامةُ لدولةِ فلسطينَ بجناحٍ خاصٍّ يُبرزُ تراثَنا وصمودَ شعبِنا.
“The Consulate General of the State of Palestine is participating with a special pavilion that highlights our heritage and our people’s steadfastness.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/27
2015: “Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Both are unacceptable. We will not sit with those who espouse hatred against the Jewish people. Period.”
2017: “If we’re not vigilant about the rights that we have and the privilege we enjoy, we shouldn’t expect to keep them.”
2017: “Glad @POTUS blasted violence but long overdue for moral ldrshp that condemns the agents of #hate: #WhiteSupremacists, #NeoNazis…”
2018: “We have our own domestic terrorists in the United States: white supremacists.”
2020: “Without a doubt, right-wing extremist violence is currently the greatest domestic terrorism threat to everyone in this country.”
2021: “A number of online forums and platforms host what amounts to a 24/7 extremist rally.”
2022: “Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.”
2024: “When people chant ‘From the river to the sea,’ it’s eliminationist language and contributes directly to a climate of hatred and violence.”
2025: “We stopped playing defense and have moved to offense… In the past 12 months, ADL’s filed more lawsuits than in the prior 112 years — against extremist groups, elite universities, public companies, school districts, and state sponsors of terror… We’ve launched innovative products to intercept antisemitism before it takes root, whether in the boardroom or in chat rooms, large language models or academic associations, in Wikipedia entries or WhatsApp chats.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/27
His voice carries the woes of every bar goin’ man I knew when I was a janitor and basic dish labour at the local one.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/26
Breathe.
If,
you have a choice,
If,
you have emotions,
If,
you are hurt,
by someone,
If,
you can,
breathe,
If,
you feel hurt and choose to breathe,
then you can choose different emotions.
Do your future self and future relations this gift,
choose a gift of an emotion different than that felt.
Then breathe,
again.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/25
Playfulness,
affection,
gratitude,
positive regard,
they come more naturally for me, as with most people — as I am like them.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/25
Global surveys (UNESCO–ICFJ) show that 73% of women journalists have faced online violence, with 25% receiving physical threats, 18% sexual threats, and 20% experiencing abuse that spilled offline. Attacks are most often linked to coverage of gender (47%), politics/elections (44%), and human rights/social policy (31%). Perpetrators are usually anonymous mobs, followed closely by political actors.
41% report facing coordinated disinformation. Meta (Facebook) is rated the least safe platform, with 48% of users having received unwanted direct messages. The impact is profound: 30% self-censor, 20% withdraw from online interaction, 11% miss work, 4% quit their jobs, and 2% leave journalism altogether. The heaviest toll is on mental health.
Only 25% of women journalists report incidents to their employers, and only 53% report them anywhere at all — suggesting the real rates are far higher.
An IFJ survey across 50 countries found 48% suffered gender-based violence at work, with 44% reporting online abuse. Forms included verbal (63%), psychological (41%), sexual harassment (37%), economic (21%), and physical (≈11%). Perpetrators included sources, politicians, or audiences (45%), as well as bosses or supervisors (38%).
Carceral repression adds to the threat. Reporters Without Borders reports that as of early 2024, 12.7% of imprisoned journalists are women, but they received 55% of the longest sentences since January 2023 — a stark disproportion. CPJ recorded 361 jailed worldwide as of December 1, 2024, near a historic high. Women Press Freedom counted 92 women journalists in prison on May 3, 2024, and 951 violations in 2024, including 37 detentions.
The dangers also turn deadly. The IFJ recorded 122 journalists and media workers killed in 2024, including 14 women. Impunity remains the rule: ~85% of journalist killings go unpunished, according to UNESCO.
Women journalists want to report the news for the public’s right to know. These are the contemporary risks they live with every day.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/25
It’s important to double- and triple-check the qualifications in a few regards.
Is the credential real?
Is the institution accredited?
Is it a relevant discipline to the claimed expertise?
Is the thesis subject matter relevant to the claimed expertise?
Has the program earned recognition for producing credible experts?
Does the level of training demonstrate sufficient rigour and peer review to justify the authority?
Are the person’s broader academic and professional outputs consistent with the credential and aligned with the standards of recognized experts?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/25
Some pains have no salve,
only time,
and it’s only a bandage.
That’s just how some things work in life.
And you don’t get to pick them.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/22
There is a growing minority post-New Atheism,
of a cynicism or a bad faith skepticism,
within select secular communities.
This has to be reasoned out,
and re-vectored.
We have bigger fish to fry at the moment.
If you condemn those who share 95% of your views,
fair enough, however:
What about those who not only disagree with 85%,
but also want you to be extinguished from any motion towards equality,
or even the public space?
Know your allies,
pick your fights.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/24
Gentleness: a paradoxical reason for loss, because it’s a preventative from life being nothing but loss.
The Stoics.
The Confucians.
The Christians (praus).
The Buddhists (Ahimsa).
Hell, even Machiavelli, a greater stabilizer than brute force.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/24
How does Charlie Kirk’s assassination spotlight the void in U.S. domestic-terrorism law (defined at 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5) but no standalone crime) and, per DHS/GAO data from 2010–2021, what patterns in motives, weapons, and targets — alongside a 357% surge in FBI cases — should policymakers confront?
The assassination of Charlie Kirk highlights the broader issues, not of faith but, of the domestic terrorism within the United States. Kirk’s murder should not have happened for expression of views, for demeanour, for beliefs, or stature in American society.
U.S. law does define “domestic terrorism” (18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)). However, no federal crime with this title exists as a standalone. Agencies track incidents using agency systems. They investigate using internal systems, too. Therefore, gaps will exist, because no mandatory local reporting to the FBI. FBI and DHS use different datasets.
DHS incident tracker counted 231 domestic terrorism incidents with known offenders between 2010 and 2021. 145 deaths were in the period, peaking in 2015 and 2019. 80 were racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, 73 were anti-government or anti-authority violent extremists, 53 were mixed or personalized messages, and 15 were animal rights or environmental extremism. Therefore, racially motivated events were the most prominent of the categories.
Firearms were implicated in 92 incidents and responsible for 132 of 145 deaths. IEDs were used in 38 incidents with few or no deaths implicated. Therefore, armed assault is the workhorse with 98 incidents and 139 deaths while arson is 45 incidents with rare deaths.
Most attacks or plots were against specific civilians. Law enforcement was the second most targeted group. California had the most incidents. Several states recorded none in the aforementioned time period.
DHS’s Homeland Threat Assessment 2025 explains incidents from U.S.-based violent extremists remain high. These are largely driven by lone offenders and small cells. Those animated by racial motives, as well as anti-government, gender-related, and mixed motives. Many geopolitical events, e.g., elections of the Middle East conflicts, catalyze these events, too.
FBI open domestic terrorism cases, the investigative workload and not the incidents, between 2013 and 2021 increased by 357%. Baseline concern has increased, in other words.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/24
Be very, very careful,
in taking a trip,
and taking this for the reality,
or taking this for the reality,
in just taking a trip.
and taking this for the.
or taking this for the.
Get the point? Don’t ruminate.
They may be a lie.
The experience itself too,
not just the memory.
And maybe not.
Many times,
you never know;
you never knew;
you never will.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/24
Information from best available data circa September 21, 2025.*
Charlie Kirk was murdered.
On September 10th, 2025, at an outdoor Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University (UVU), Orem, Utah, with approximately 3,000 people in attendance, Kirk was struck by a bullet in the neck/throat while on stage.
The shot was fired from a sniper rifle from estimated ranges of more than 100 yards to about 200 yards. Kirk was transported to a nearby hospital and then pronounced dead. ABC on-scene reporting and officials stated no metal detectors or bag checks were present. The courtyard is bowl-shaped and ringed by buildings. UVU police coordinated with Kirk’s private security.
The rifle used to assassinate Kirk was the Mauser Model 98, .30–06 bolt-action with scope, which was recovered wrapped in a towel off-campus. Ammunition allegedly contained engravings or etchings with phrases. The spent round read ““NoTices Bulge OWO What’s This?” The suspect allegedly called the engravings “mostly a big meme.”
The evidence for a single shot was no shell casings on the roof and only one spent/three unspent rounds inside the rifle, as cited by prosecutors to support a single shot. The suspect of the assassination was Tyler James Robinson, aged 22.
Robinson’s family recognized him based on the released images. After speaking with a retired deputy sheriff, Robinson surrendered. Officials reported a time lapse between the murder and the acquisition of Robinson into custody was about 33 hours.
Robinson was held without bail. His first hearing: He appeared by video. The next hearing is scheduled for September 29, 2025. Some reports indicate a special watch or suicide-prevention smock while in jail.
The criminal charges filed in Utah are aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury, obstruction of justice (multiple), violent offence in the presence of a child, and witness tampering (multiple).
Prosecutors seek the death penalty. Alleged aggravators are political targeting and the presence of children. Prosecutors cited texts from a roommate:
“I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”
A purported note is cited beneath a personal keyboard stating, “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I’m going to take it.” In addition, allegations include Discord messages citing Robinson confessing before the arrest, therefore, after the murder and before custody approximately 33 hours later.
Prosecutors cited an unusual gait purportedly consistent with the concealment of a rifle, movements to and from a rooftop, plus later retrieval attempts of the Mauser Model 98. DNA on the trigger linked to Robinson.
There was a public appeal reward up to 100,00USD with the FBI asking for public photos and videos from the event. Authorities allege political targeting on prior statements. Final motive is unadjudicated.
George Zinn, 71, was arrested for obstruction after a false confession amid the chaos; later charged in a separate child-sex-abuse-material case following a phone search — no link to the homicide.
Following the shooting, UVU shut down for several days then with a phased reopening. Classes resumed the following week. Full resumption September 17, 2025. UVU says its security posture and emergency alerts are under review.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/23
The rapidity with which we want to attribute the full spectrum of attributes of category “human” for “human rights” to machines tells less about the veracity of the affirmation or the negation, but more about the degree to which global culture already has priors set for dehumanization of other human beings in the first place.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/21
What for most of us,
is a normal human behaviour,
in so many domains of life,
some public Christian American communities exalt,
as if requiring supernatural heft to be a regular person.
‘The Laws of Nature must change for me to forgive,’
is the implication.
Why does common humility and compassion require a Saviour?
It is — literally — moral stunting.
The scammers and grifters are flying in, too,
to fleece the flock.
One can see this in the reverse as well:
“Why did that specific clergy member rape that nun?”
“Uh, the Devil made him do it. Uhm, demons tempted him.”
Happy to see it happen, wish it didn’t require the unfortunate murder of one of their heroes.
By the way, the Fall is here.
Fun season.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/21
2011: “Human beings make and sustain meaning for themselves.”
2013: “Meaning is created in life by human beings, not written into the universe waiting to be discovered.”
2015: “Nothing is exempt from human question.”
2018: “A non-religious approach to questions of value, meaning, and truth.”
2020: “I settle on saying that it is an approach to life.”
2020: “Humanists are all about confronting reality, finding solutions to problems through reason and evidence, and applying those solutions through cooperation.”
2021: “Humanists embrace science as the most effective tool in understanding our reality.”
2021: “Life is finite, death is the end of it. You will not be aware of it because you will not be.”
2021: “Spirituality for humanists… is not something in any way connected to anything outside of this physical universe.”
2022: “The humanist approach is about being free to live a happy and fulfilling life for ourselves and supporting others to do the same.”
2025: “Humanism, to me, is simply the best idea in the world.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/21
Memories are a funny thing.
They are, indeed, as if skin tattoos.
They are a meaning mark.
They fade with time,
but:
Eventually, they leave a wrinkle.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/21
Sex with someone with narcissistic tendencies in relations,
is ‘sex’ with a stranger.
Yuck.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/21
I’m not saying she’s a lazy dog, but I am saying she does a good impression.
All day.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/21
1998 “Like the physical universe, the moral universe is governed by unforgiving laws that we do not have the power to alter.”
1998 “All moral positions impose values… even the moral position that you should not impose values on others does just that.”
2009 “I spoke of the five main lines of scientific evidence — denoted by the acronym SURGE — that point to the definite beginning of the space-time continuum.”
2009 “Because there was no nature and there were no natural forces ontologically prior to the Big Bang — nature itself was created at the Big Bang.”
2013 “Every law has a law giver… there is an objective moral law… therefore there’s an objective moral law giver.”
2015 “To say that a scientist can disprove God is like saying a mechanic can disprove Henry Ford.”
2015 “Theism makes doing science possible because it provides the foundation for the very tools of science.”
2022 “If someone says ‘there is no truth,’ ask: ‘Is that true?’”
2022 “Science doesn’t say anything. Scientists do.”
2025 “I believe in the Big Bang. I just know who banged it.”
2025 “Truth is whatever corresponds to the real (to reality).”
2025 “The greatest miracle in the Bible is the first verse… If that verse is true, every other verse is at least possible.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/20
2014
“The world’s smartest rabbit is still a rabbit.”
2014
“Not figuring things out faster makes me feel dumb.”
2014
“I’ve taken way, way too many IQ tests — more than 30.”
2015
“The only brain drug with an indisputable, immediate effect is coffee.”
2016
“We live in an information space.”
2016
“By the year 2100, earth’s AI population could be a trillion.”
2016
“We need a cabinet-level Department of the Future.”
2016
“Enduring spirituality won’t deny fact. Our era’s deniers of fact will be remembered — vaguely — as minor villains.”
2016
“Not being a clown show: We need to be pro-science and pro-smartness.”
2017
“We will argue about politics. I am your standard Hollywood Liberal.”
2020
“For something to exist, it has to exist for a non-zero amount of time.”
2022
“Now, almost anything can be a subject for comedy.”
2022
“Comedy often serves to communicate taboo information in ways that are more palatable.”
2023
“Lazy voodoo physics is my term for crappy metaphysical theorizing.”
2023
“Thanks to quantum mechanics, we know that the world isn’t pre-determined.”
2024
“Adults who talk about their IQs are weirdos.”
2024
“It’s just IQ.”
2024
“IQ is a lousy way to measure intelligence once you look at every other possible way.”
2024
“People demonstrate their intelligence as adults by succeeding or not in the world.”
2024
“I’d say the driver is that you need a lack of contradiction; you need self-consistency to exist.”
2024
“Democracies have been declining… Authoritarian forms of government are becoming more popular… Much of it is fueled by nonsense.”
2024
“The world is full of good news (while the news is full of bad news).”
2025
“People conflate analytical power with agency.”
2025
“The danger is not that AI becomes evil; it becomes hyper-competent with goals that diverge from ours.”
2025
“Right now, we have smart AI but no meaningful agency.”
2025
“It will not be the end of everything, but might be the end of enjoyable humanity.”
2025
“The jokes that hurt the world the most were probably the ones made about Donald Trump.”
2025
“The Daily Show has a political slant.”
2025
“I believe quantum mechanics is the mathematical embodiment of the principle of non-contradiction.”
2025
“Within a few hundred years, we’ll likely live in a world of transferable consciousness. The main activity of existence will be information processing.”
2025
“We’re not designed to be happy. We’re designed to pursue happiness.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/20
Is financial security a source of security or insecurity?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/20
Of what, is this a symptom?
No race riots.
No civilizational collapse.
Therefore, it’s a superminority appeal.
Is it the “radical left”?
Nope.
Otherwise, it would be nationwide, as per Left versus Right.
It’s conservative versus far-Right.
Centrists and Leftwing are the commentariat in this murder.
Conservatives and far-Right brought their internal ‘spiritual’ battle to reality somewhere between a neck and a throat: Groper v. Groypers.
Repeat: Will this continue to be the nation of the blind?
God did not answer the prayers for mercy, ask Frank Turek.
Indeed, if murder was the answer, what was the question?
One more wishing to be alike in Christ;
someone who has done exactly as Christ has done, too:
Kirk stayed dead.
Does this get a Rise out of you, too?
A Knight for Christ, finding eternal night.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/20
2006
“Taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 percent of their targets — that feels like a conspiracy theory.”
2011
“You can’t process me with a normal brain.”
“I am on a drug, it’s called Charlie Sheen… If you try it once, you will die. Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body.”
“I was banging seven-gram rocks and finishing them, because that’s how I roll. I have one speed. I have one gear: go.”
“I’m not bipolar — I’m bi-winning. I win here and I win there. Now what?”
“I got tiger blood, man.”
“I’m an F-18, bro. And I will destroy you in the air. I will deploy my ordnance to the ground.”
“We’re high priests, Vatican assassin warlocks. Boom. Print that.”
“I’m tired of pretending like I’m not bitchin’ — a total frickin’ rock star from Mars.”
“I tried marriage. I’m 0 for 3 with the marriage thing… I’m not going 0 for 4. I’m not wearing a golden sombrero.”
“Dying’s for fools.”
“Can’t is the cancer of happen.”
“I blinked and I cured my brain.”
“Borrow my brain for five seconds and just be like, ‘Dude, can’t handle it, unplug this.’”
“I expose people to magic.”
“Here’s your first pee test; next one goes in your mouth — no, you won’t get high.”
2015
“I’m here to admit I am, in fact, HIV-positive.”
“It’s a hard three letters to absorb.”
2016
“There was a stretch where I didn’t drink for 11 years. No cocaine, no booze for 11 years.”
2017
“I was not just coming up with stuff about 9/11. I was parroting those a lot smarter and a lot more experienced than myself.”
2021
“There were 55 different ways for me to handle that situation, and I chose number 56.”
“I’m so glad that I traded early retirement for a f — ing hashtag.”
2023
“Next month I’ll be six years sober.”
2025
“I still get what I call the ‘shame shivers.’”
“It felt like the biggest betrayal you could possibly endure.”
“Drinking just… it softened the edges. It gave me just freedom of speech.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/20
Sean Paul,
born of a ‘demonic’ fusion between a DJ Booth and a piñata,
makes great music for Latin Clubs for great dancing,
he makes no sense in any other context.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/19
When working with, even being intimate with, the truly traumatized, and if an inappropriate characterization manifests itself, as happens often and unbeknownst to them even as they deliver their cuts, particularly after an attempt at a boundary or a request for mutual respect becoming re-established; your immediate sensibility and indeed feeling, if sober of mind and foresight, will be mourning, as their tongue, actions, or both, have become scimitars, where even coming with beautiful curves are, fundamentally, swords with intent to harm: You have been dehumanized — have the wherewithal to leave, with dignity intact for both parties.
To have been acted upon badly in a life does not excuse acting badly in a life.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/19
When you say it right, you’re heard for a lifetime.
When you say it really right, you’re heard for lifetimes.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/19
Certainly, transcendentalist sentimentalism from European so-called ‘Classical’ Music does tap into something akin to a dis-ease of the mind. That style of structured vibration and higher harmonic puts this to use to create an addiction upon whole lives and musical cultures are formed and fed.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/19
The demarcation between subjectivities and the Object Universe seems clear, though mutually reflective, and thin. No structural independence completely exists between them.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/17
And the moon,
the moon,
it falls asunder,
standing in water,
falling into the sky,
unto the earth;
and the moon,
the moon,
it gives me grace too.
And the moon,
the moon,
it fell ass under,
dancing on water,
thrilling the sky,
onto the earth;
and the moon,
the moon,
it gives me two grace.
And the moon,
the moon,
it flies as if under,
prancing in water,
lilting it, sky,
through the earth;
and the moon,
the moon,
as asunder side Sun down,
and moon up.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/11
Sour grapes,
become sour gripes.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/09
In politics, what do we say across the world?
The emotions matter.
An appeal to the emotions works more than rational policy.
Curious.
What matters more in interpersonal interactions?
Emotions.
Therefore, interpersonal interactions are political.
Truly, “the [inter-]personal is political.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/10
You see the world in red.
You see the world, in red.
You see, the world in red.
If the world is red,
if you perceive it as red,
is it out there or in you?
Is the rum in sentiment or in the wind?
Nasruddin:
Have you lost your donkey again?
Master, why is the grass red now, not green anymore?
It looks like you lost a hand, try clapping,
I guess.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/11
If murder is the answer,
what was the question?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/11
See us,
be us,
see us be us,
will this continue to be the nation of the blind?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/10
I am still.
I am quiet.
I am an umbrella,
turned against itself.
Under Heaven,
I, am quiet;
I, am still.
I am an umbrella,
turned for Heaven.
Under Heaven,
I am,
still.
I am,
quiet.
Under Heaven,
turned against myself,
turned for Heaven,
a cup,
I am all,
under Heaven.
So, I am,
Heaven.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/09
Most is done as part of a dance.
Yet, we primarily look outside.
Self-censorship is still censorship.
Press enter or click to view image in full size
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/09
1986
“The surest way to be misled is to trust someone just because they’re in charge.”
1990
“Truth isn’t owned by anyone — it’s discovered through persistent questioning.”
1992
“Most mistakes come from assuming too much, not from questioning too much.”
1993
“Faith is what you have when you don’t have proof, but it’s no substitute for evidence when evidence is available.”
1996
“I think that if it had been a religion that first maintained the notion that all the matter in the entire universe had once been contained in an area smaller than the point of a pin, scientists probably would have laughed at the idea.”
“Feelings are the source of inspiration for hypotheses, but only careful observation and testing can help us approach the truth.”
1997
“Science gives us probabilities, not certainties. Even the best theories are only our best guesses based on what we know now.”
1998
“You don’t need a rulebook to be good — just a conscience and a willingness to act on it.”
1999
“If you cannot, welcome to the world of faith. You’re accepting what you’ve been told by those you respect.”
“That’s what creationists do — they just respect different folks.”
2000
“Science thrives because humans are curious enough to challenge what they’re told and humble enough to admit what they don’t know.”
2001
“Right and wrong aren’t written in the stars. They’re decisions we make based on what we think does the most good or the least harm.”
2003
“Proofs are excellent lessons in reasoning. Without logic and reasoning, you are dependent on jumping to conclusions — or worse — having empty opinions.”
2005
“Science doesn’t compete with belief — it complements it by explaining what we can test and leaving the rest to us.”
2006
“Science can tell us how the universe works, but it’s silent on what it all means. That’s a question for each of us to answer.”
2008
“Goodness isn’t about obeying a higher power; it’s about choosing to do what’s right because it makes the world better.”
2010
“The term Jewish refers to a religion, but it also refers to a heritage.”
2011
“The best measure of a person’s morality is how much they contribute to the well-being of others, not how loudly they proclaim their virtue.”
2012
“Believing something without evidence is like building a house on sand. It might stand for a while, but it won’t last.”
2013
“If you believe in evolution … the egg came first.”
2014
“Science can describe what is, but it often can’t explain why it is. That’s where philosophy and sometimes religion come in.”
“Morality isn’t about following rules; it’s about weighing consequences and choosing what helps more than it hurts.”
“Officials are either ignorant of medical science or hiding the truth when they assure us that Ebola is not easy to catch. Obviously, it is.”
2016
“An egg holding a chicken is a ‘chicken egg,’ no matter what laid it.”
“I’d say it’s the egg.”
“It depends on your spiritual beliefs. If you have a religion, it provides the answer. But if you don’t believe in a god, the question contradicts your thinking. Having a reason implies having a purpose, which indicates an intelligent being for cognitive power with intent. That’s what people call a god. So if you don’t believe a god exists, you can’t believe a reason exists. You must settle for assuming we got here through some natural processes and that’s that.”
“I would make rational decisions based on the facts rather than on pressure, including the media, or religion.”
“I would nominate … justices [who] would interpret the Constitution without political or religious bias.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/08
International metrics indicate abuse patterns of males and females. Sex asymmetries exist in these contexts of violence, whether physical violence, sexual assault, emotional/psychological maltreatment, financial/economic control, or abuse within institutions.
Both men and women can be perpetrators of these forms of abuse. Global research shows significant gender asymmetries in prevalence, in severity, and even in context. Many societies show that men commit a disproportionate amount of severe physical and sexual abuse.
Women’s perpetration tends to occur in different patterns or contexts. 90% of the homicide perpetrators worldwide are male, based on UNODC data. Males commit most of the non-lethal assaults and violent crimes. Males mostly perpetrate physical domestic violence. 1 in 3 women and 1 in 10 men experience physical violence in the United States.
Females suffer more severe injuries and repeated assaults, with most of the intimate partner homicides committed by males. A partner kills 38% of female murder victims compared to 5% of male victims. Males are the majority of the perpetrators of physical aggression in other contexts.
The frequency and lethality of physical abuse skew male. However, this is a false basis for blanket stereotyping of males. Women can and do inflict physical harm. Sexual violence is the most gender-disparate form of abuse. No matter the place in the world. Men perpetrate the majority of sexual assaults and rapes.
The U.S. Department of Justice indicates that nearly 99% of persons who commit rape or sexual assault are male. Women and girls are more often victims of sexual abuse. The World Health Organization reports that 1 in 3 women has been subjected to physical and/or sexual violence in their lifetime.
The male lifetime risk of sexual victimization is lower. In the U.S., ~1 in 14 men report being “made to penetrate” or sexually coerced at some point. Female perpetration of sexual abuse does occur, particularly by authority figures abusing minors. Studies on child sexual abuse indicate 75–90% of offenders are male, while 10–25% are female.
Female offenders tend to target boys. Male offenders tend to target girls. Sexual abuse by women is under-detected due to stereotypes. Therefore, the rates of abuse by females are higher than the known reported estimates. Sexual abuse is a highly gendered crime.
Emotional and psychological abuse are common. Both sexes engage in emotional abuse, psychological manipulation, and verbal harassment at significant rates. In the U.S., 48.4% of women and 48.8% of men report psychological aggression.
These behaviours of abuse include belittling, controlling, insults, intimidation, isolation, threats, and more. Males and females employ these in different ways. Women are as or more likely to engage in verbal aggression than men, including yelling, name-calling, and more.
Males tend to incorporate threats of violence with verbal aggression—a pattern of domination, in the form of a sustained pattern of control. Females tend to engage in relational aggression using social exclusion, guilt-tripping, or emotional manipulation, e.g., belittle their partner’s masculinity or use passive-aggressive tactics.
Financial or economic abuse is controlling a victim’s employment, money, or resources. Males tend to be the perpetrators of financial abuse in patriarchal contexts. An environment in which the male has significant authority over financial decisions in the home. Elder abuse is common among males and females via exploitation of the elderly.
Institutional abuse is maltreatment within systems of care or power. Males and females are perpetrators. In nursing homes and long-term care facilities, two-thirds of staff members admit to committing abuse of older persons in the past year.
Frontline caregivers for elders tend to be women. Women figure prominently and significantly among institutional abusers in elder care. Egregious institutional abuse scandals involve predominantly male perpetrators taking advantage of authority.
Institutional abuse is less about the gender of the perpetrator. It is more about power imbalances. Those in charge, male or female, may abuse vulnerable dependents. Styles of abuse mirror broader gender patterns: male staff tend to be implicated in sexual violence, whereas female staff tend to be implicated in neglect or emotional abuse. Experts emphasize that both women and men can be guilty of severe abuse in institutional settings.
Male perpetrators of violence show more antisocial personality disorder or narcissistic personality. Female perpetrators show more borderline personality traits. Institutional biases and stereotypes can lead to female abusers not being held accountable. Female victims often face disbelief.
The further questions in either case of the significant minorities of females and males who abuse are the impacts, motivations, or patterns.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/08
For such love-generating communities,
there seems to be a lot of tacit fear of non-religious people,
abused by community speaking out.
So, is it love or coercive influence within a controlling system,
accepted as legitimate because of broad spread of the practice?
After a while, candy can taste less sweet, too.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/08
Thirsty, for sure.
Sweaty, definitely.
The facts may, in fact,
indicate the opposite,
or a para-consistent reason.
The questions while jogging matter.
Where, exactly, do you think you’re going?
More importantly, why go?
Love says, “I’m just a person.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/07
Dust, sand, and shisha.
How can this person know my views if they’ve barely heard mine, stereotyped me, and gone on lengthy soliloquies?
Did they want to hear my views, for consideration?
Or did they want an excuse to hear their air?
Again and again and again.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/07
First: It is not new.
Second: It is simple, directly.
Third: It is complex, derivatively.
Fourth: It is amplified with communications technologies.
Fifth: It is, therefore — To frame oneself as both the Hero and the Victim in the same story, as if the center of the world, wherever one travels until the end of one’s time.
Sixth: Hence, it is a zero-sum approach in game theoretic terms, with a twist, in which one is the perpetual loser, while everyone must lose with you.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/07
I have never seen group hatred, or simply veiled academic animosity, quite as stringent and predictable as differing men proclaiming themselves as a representative of the one true God.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/07
Mr. Congreve, I must, respectfully, disagree.
Every human interaction harbours units.
Interactions between those units.
Those in time.
Finite interactions of finite units in finite time.
Therefore, human inter-operational complexes are:
Finite — full stop.
Further, therefore, these can be mapped to some fidelity,
traced, and so maneuvered,
including the purportedly “woman scorned.”
It’s not that bad,
just get to know an old woman,
or few.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/07
When the whisper is a scream,
the singular factor apart from the noise,
the singular signal is temporality:
Time.
When the silence is a ‘scream’:
Time means urgency.
There is a goal.
What is the nature of this individual’s urgency?
What needs does it serve, them?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/07
There are, indeed, connoisseurs of the product,
as corresponding masters of the craft,
to this day,
in the unlikeliest of places.
Very intriguing months of work,
to produce a single item by hand.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/06
By outcome? No difference.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/06
For pretty much everyone,
a sufficiently unpleasant present,
far surpasses thoughts of forever.
Therefore, subjectively, now is forever.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/06
“May this tusk root out the lice of the hair and the beard.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/06
Try ignorance.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/03
Try as you might,
dig the trench,
fill the mote,
build the wall,
draw the bridge,
anchor the tower,
lock the doors,
closed in the highest chamber,
the harp still plays,
and the golden string,
it appears intact:
uh-oh.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/03
There is one class of people,
for whom death is:
Release,
reprieve.
They want it.
Who are we to give it to them?
Who are we not to give it to them?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/03
If you want to see who kills you now,
look outside;
if who killed who you were,
look inside.
Press enter or click to view image in full size
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/03
Careful.
I get that a lot,
got that a lot,
more than you know.
Am I heard?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/03
“What did the Brooklyn Jewish guy call his gentile girlfriend?”
Goy-lfriend.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/03
He has a weird habit,
of ‘appointing’ self-appointed males,
to do His bidding by their hermeneutic.
“The other lies, though, about working for God.”
Does he work for the Devil?
Weird, he said that about you, too.
Men on men on men, amen.
It reminds me.
We know evolution via natural selection happened.
My old local Evangelical university.
They had a dialogue-debate.
One corner is an Old Earth Creationist.
The other is a Young earth Creationist.
A debate where either side would win,
while both would be objectively wrong.
Men on men on men, amen.
Thy Will be done.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/02
You want more?
What makes you so special, so great?
The downright uptrodden.
The wrongful unrighteousness.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 