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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/02
Everywhere, all the time,
eventually.
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 think they’ll look where you intended?
They’ll look wherever they damn please.
they’re people, now laugh.
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
Don’t be cool,
be you,
that’s ice enough.
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
I have known several suicidal people,
often quite intimately,
too much so.
What is one to do there?
Consider:
Life from their point of view.
Life not as something visual,
but life as a sentiment inside.
What is that feeling for them?
Enter the ‘skin’ of the other,
not too long, not a fun place.
The feeling for them, immense:
“Pain swells as the future closes.”
“I am ruined beyond repair.”
“Alone, unwanted, and a burden.”
“Body screams, then goes numb.”
“Mind tunnels; choices vanish fast.”
“Fear fades; action feels impossible.”
“Storm rises, control slips away.”
“Sudden calm hides imminent danger.”
Ruined, unwanted, numb, tunnel,
fear, storm, slip, calm, danger,
immanence.
What is one to do there?
Often,
your presence,
to their immanence,
is all you can do,
for 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): 2025/09/01
I wanted to kiss you,
but I was waiting,
for you to stop the high horse,
of criminal law and superiority;
Waiting for you,
to hold your breath,
so I could, maybe, ‘take it away.’
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): 2025/08/31
Sometimes,
the stars are brighter in the 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): 2025/08/31
1990
“Music accompanies everything in my culture… This music is not dead; it will never die.”
1996
“You need to go further beyond expectation.”
“My idea of being an artist is… a musical identity.”
“Third world artists are criticised… This is a double standard that is no longer acceptable to many of us.”
“My music comes from my heart… I want to be universal.”
2016
“I couldn’t continue living for all these years with the deep wound I left Uganda with.”
“I would like to close the sad chapter and start a new beginning.”
“From today, I want to make Uganda and France meet because they are both very important to me.”
2017
“That moment to me was like ‘life is an onion,’ because sometimes when you peel off the layers of an onion, it makes you weep.”
“Music and karaté played vital roles to help close those dark chapters.”
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): 2025/08/30
Excluding the rest of the world,
to understand,
and whether you or others are kidding,
is there a peace to be made,
with ourselves,
when all that’s left to contemplate is ourselves,
and our contents?
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): 2025/08/30
You are given two hands in your life.
Each has a set of cards.
You start and play one hand,
at once.
One palm exposed.
That’s your finity.
You play the other hand over time.
New cards get added to that hand, sometimes.
Time is the deck on the table.
If you lay the second hand fully,
then you have two palms exposed.
The second palm is forever.
So, you get one finity and one forever,
in life.
Your forever is the most valuable,
while valued only within finity.
Forever palm gives finity palm value,
urgency,
finity palm gives forever palm value,
limitation.
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): 2025/08/30
When you break up with a man,
do not make them a type,
acknowledge the reality of the love,
as it is,
rather,
as it was,
every conditionality has comparative rhymes,
sits individually on its own terms.
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): 2025/08/30
Skip.
I used to walk down the sidewalks as a kid.
Skip.
In Fort Langley.
Skip.
Seeing the concrete.
Skip.
Watching my step.
Skip.
And the lines were drawn.
Skip.
When the sidewalks were made.
Skip.
On my way to BJs.
Skip.
Or IGA.
Skip.
Or Veggie Bob’s.
Skip.
Sometimes not knowing where.
Skip.
Just going out and seeing.
Skip.
Where my legs would take me.
Skip.
Rarely.
Skip.
I’d reflect.
Skip.
Why am I jumping the gaps?
Skip.
Makes no sense.
Skip.
Same either way.
Skip.
Negligible loss.
Skip.
So I would walk.
In the crack line.
Nothing happened.
My mind would skip. (Skip.)
It’d jump for me. (Skip.)
Then I’d forget.
Skip.
But I wonder.
Skip.
What is the jump gap?
Skip.
For you.
Skip.
In your life.
Skip.
Inside your head.
Skip.
And you miss out on a part of your part of life.
Skip.
You skip it without physically skipping it.
Skip.
It’s just a moment in reflection.
Skip.
I missed out.
Skip.
I made a.
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): 2025/08/30
To understand the core Christian point of view,
what Christianity is, to them,
who Christ is, for them,
when they speak of Christ being killed,
and asking who are individuals culpable for this,
who is responsible,
imagine them speaking this,
not to you,
but into a mirror,
human sin makes the Passion necessary, to them.
It’s in all the language:
“My Saviour.”
“Theosis.”
“Our Lord and Saviour.”
“Propitiation.”
“Our Lord Jesus Christ.”
“Expiation.”
“Our Lord and Savior.”
“Atonement.”
“My Redeemer.”
“Sanctification.”
“My Shepherd.”
“Repentance.”
“Redemption.”
“New Creation.”
“Agnus Dei.”
“Paschal Mystery.”
“Absolution.”
“Suffering Servant.”
“Kyrie eleison.”
“Lamb of God.”
“King of kings.”
“Lord of lords.”
“Great High Priest.”
“Light of 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): 2025/08/30
Be gentle with them,
as you may misapprehend them,
silence, a bit, your inner voice,
reality is never quite so loud,
if you’re all bad to them,
perhaps,
then they need a break too,
from you.
Rarely, but at times, though,
a permanent break is necessary,
if they split you now,
apart from many positive sentiments before.
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): 2025/08/28
This ‘East’ and ‘West’ dichotomy is framed for the narrowminded,
to produce the narrow minds.
The science is clear.
It is the same species.
No gods necessary.
We do not need morality plays of Us vs. Them.
We do not need revolutionary paradigms.
We merely need an evidentiarily attuned view.
We are more each other than not, than we realize.
Therefore, inasmuch as possible,
we belong to ourselves,
and to one another.
No magic necessary,
and unity.
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): 2025/08/28
Still’d space,
interiority,
spaced still,
exteriority,
my insides all out,
inversion,
our outsides all in,
recursion,
Until when?
Who ‘til?
I see what seems as infinity,
before me.
Blind to appearances,
behind me.
Who ‘til?
Until when?
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): 2025/08/27
Everything hinges on women’s bodies, then women’s choices over the former with ‘fetal personhood’ as a false fulcrum to garner leverage over women’s destinies.
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): 2025/08/26
Remember the old woman admiring the owl in excitement?
She didn’t do this for every fantastic backyard moment,
flower or bird,
or moment alone when a good phrase was said.
Love’s a little bit like that.
Some are only for a moment.
Not all are admired,
and many, possibly most,
aren’t even noticed,
by you, at times,
or them, at other times.
The owl had other plans, 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):
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/07
How do AI systems and rare earth supply chains tied to East Turkistan enable China’s surveillance architecture—and what strategic response should the United States and its allies adopt?
Salih Hudayar is the Foreign Minister of the East Turkistan Government-in-Exile and a leading advocate for the rights of the Uyghur and Turkic peoples. Born in East Turkestan and raised in exile, he has dedicated his career to exposing the Chinese Communist Party’s repression, including mass surveillance, internment camps, forced sterilizations, and resource exploitation. Hudayar studied International Studies and Political Science in the United States before entering public service. He frequently testifies before the U.S. Congress and international bodies, urging recognition of the Uyghur genocide and calling for support of East Turkistan’s independence as a path to both justice and global security.
In this 2-part conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Hudayar discuss U.S.-China trade tensions, rare earth supply chains, and population decline within the context of Uyghur repression. Hudayar details how AI and surveillance technologies—powered by minerals extracted from East Turkestan—are used to control Uyghurs through predictive policing, biometric data, and forced assimilation. He argues that China’s demographic engineering, including sterilizations, coerced marriages, and organ harvesting, aims to suppress Uyghur growth while exploiting resources. Hudayar calls on the United States and its allies to treat East Turkestan strategically, not just as a human rights issue, emphasizing independence as essential to countering China’s influence.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, once again, we are here with Salih Hudayar. We will be discussing outsourcing in the rare earths industry, tariffs, and population decline. The sources today are The Washington Post, Reuters, and AP.
Let us start with rare earths. Trump has been stating that the U.S. will be obtaining rare earths from China, and tariffs on Chinese goods will total 55%, which is a significant amount. From your point of view, you have seen the back and forth about the importance of rare earths for semiconductors, AI hardware, and infrastructure. We may not yet know the full potential of the technology, but we already know it will be significant. What are your thoughts on that, either from a political perspective or from an oilier interest perspective?
Salih Hudayar: Regarding AI, from our perspective, it has not been used in a positive way in Xinjiang (which we call East Turkestan). Chinese authorities have deployed an expansive surveillance regime there, including so-called “predictive policing,” where data about everyday behaviour is analyzed to flag people for questioning or detention. This is documented in reports about the Integrated Joint Operations Platform (IJOP), which aggregates personal data and issues alerts that can lead to arbitrary detention.
The targets are primarily Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslim minorities—who are Chinese citizens—not simply “non-Chinese people.” Factors that can trigger scrutiny include religious practices, cultural expressions, travel histories, language use, or even lawful behaviours that authorities label as “suspicious.” Since late 2016, credible estimates have found large-scale arbitrary detentions alongside political indoctrination, movement restrictions, and religious repression.
To make this concrete: I had a relative who received a lengthy prison sentence labelled “extremism” after encouraging local youths not to smoke, framing it as unhealthy and against our religious values. This kind of ordinary advice has been treated as evidence of “extremism” within the broader repression that rights groups have documented.
Religious life is tightly controlled. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is officially atheist and forbids its members from religious affiliation, while the state recognizes a limited set of religions under strict oversight. In practice, policy in Xinjiang has entailed coercive “de-radicalization” targeting religious expression.
On the technology side, companies tied to China’s surveillance build-out—including Hikvision—have been reported to market or develop analytics that can detect Uyghurs or “ethnicity” as a category, and U.S. authorities have sanctioned several Chinese firms for supporting biometric surveillance of minorities. This illustrates how AI and camera networks have been weaponized for authoritarian control—and exported abroad via Chinese vendors.
Meanwhile, in the West, AI is typically used for routine tasks like drafting emails or information retrieval, though abuses are possible anywhere. The difference in Xinjiang is scale, intent, and integration with state coercion—surveillance tools feed into detention and social control, as multiple investigations and human-rights assessments have shown.
At the same time, we want countries that have ethnic, cultural, and linguistic ties to the people of East Turkestan to support us. We want the United States to pressure those countries to stop helping China crack down on our diaspora communities. Ultimately, what we want is for the United States to cut economic ties with China and instead support East Turkestan’s independence. Our homeland contains many critical minerals, and we would gladly provide them to the United States at steep discounts—cheaper than they could obtain elsewhere—because China is stealing our resources every day. They are extracting hundreds, if not thousands, of tons of our resources daily, using them to fuel their economy, strengthen their military, and oppress us. That poses not only an existential threat to us, but also a strategic threat to the international community, including the United States, which China openly positions as its primary rival. Replacing the U.S. is China’s endgame.
From that perspective, we have been advising both Congress and other American officials that America needs to start viewing East Turkestan through a strategic lens, not just a human rights lens. At the end of the day, genocide does not stop itself. You cannot name a genocide in history that suddenly ended on its own. Stopping the genocide is impossible while China continues colonizing and occupying East Turkestan. Supporting our independence is the only way forward—both from a humanitarian perspective, ending the genocide, and from a strategic perspective, countering China’s expansion.
This is why we have been arguing so strongly. Returning to U.S. trade policy, part of the deal has been access to critical minerals. In exchange, the U.S.—even though it had previously banned exports of high-tech video chips to China—is now allowing China access to some of those chips. Moreover, what is China doing with them? They are building massive AI data centers in the deserts of East Turkestan, essentially constructing an entire miniature city dedicated to AI infrastructure. Bloomberg and other outlets have reported on this.
From that perspective, these new AI facilities will not only be used against the people of East Turkestan, but could also be leveraged against the international community. Whether you look at it from the humanitarian front, the economic front, or the security front, it is in the U.S. national interest to support East Turkestan in regaining its independence.
Jacobsen: To the expansion of the Chinese state, let me check my notes here. I pulled up information on the surveillance of Uyghurs. The system is called IJOP, the Integrated Joint Operations Platform. It compiles massive amounts of data. What is included are phone surveillance, checkpoints, cameras, Wi-Fi monitoring, and even information fed by neighbours. Is that incentivized in some way—the snitching?
Hudayar: Yes, of course. It is incentivized. People can be given financial rewards, better job opportunities, and a more favourable lifestyle. In other words, collaborators can enjoy more freedom than others.
Jacobsen: Police also collect DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, and voice samples. Neighbourhoods are carved into units so local officials can maintain tighter surveillance.
Even on the phone side, in East Turkestan, the government forces people to download mandatory government apps. These apps have access to all the data on the phone. For example, if you receive a call from someone the government deems suspicious, or if you get a call from overseas, the app automatically alerts the nearest police station. Police then summon you for questioning.
If you have photos, videos, texts—anything remotely religious, cultural, or political—the same thing happens: the app alerts the police, and you are picked up. People cannot refuse these apps; without downloading them, you cannot even get a SIM card, since phone numbers require registration with your national ID. So nearly everyone has one of these apps, which constantly monitors all activity.
Many believe that even if you turn off your phone, authorities can still listen to your voice and track your movements. That means there is no privacy, not even in your own home. People live in constant fear: “What if I say something wrong? What if someone sends me the wrong message?” The fear of being flagged is pervasive.
Jacobsen: People can be flagged as suspicious and sent to camps. What we discussed years ago—mass internment, forced labour, political indoctrination—continues, and the leaks we have seen describe camp rules as harsh as “shoot to kill” for those who try to escape. The UN has said these may constitute crimes against humanity. “May” seems like an understatement, but it tracks with the UN’s cautious style and the slow pace at which it often acts. Do you see the Uyghur population as a test case for how these tools might be deployed against an entire population?
Hudayar: Yes, China has been using East Turkestan as a testing ground for virtually everything—from nuclear weapons to conventional weapons, and now the latest surveillance and AI technologies. The so-called “vocational training centers,” which are in fact internment camps, were first established in these areas. Then they began separating our children from their families, forcing them into boarding schools where they are required to learn Chinese and undergo indoctrination. Now Beijing has extended similar policies into Tibet, because what worked in East Turkestan is being rolled out elsewhere. The international community, beyond issuing statements of condemnation and concern, has done little to stop it. Seeing that no one acted decisively, China is repeating the same strategies in Tibet.
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): Bishop Accountability
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/23
How does Joelle Casteix explain coordinated Catholic clergy abuse, why settlements vary, and what reforms are needed for real accountability?
Joelle Casteix is a leading advocate, author, and educator on child sexual abuse prevention and institutional accountability. A survivor of abuse at a Catholic high school in Southern California, she became a spokesperson and Western Regional Director with SNAP, supporting survivors and exposing cover-ups. Her book, The Well-Armoured Child(River Grove Books, 2015), equips parents to recognize grooming, build safeguards, and empower children without fear. A former journalist, Casteix lectures widely, consults on safeguarding policies, and writes about transparency, restitution, and reform. She champions evidence-based, survivor-centred change through public education, media engagement, and practical, accessible tools for families and institutions.
In this discussion with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Casteix explains coordinated Catholic clergy abuse through Orange County cases involving Eleuterio Ramos, Siegfried Widera, and Michael A. Harris, detailing settlements including $10 million to a single survivor in 2024 and prior awards of $5.2 million in 2001 and $3.5 million in 2024. She outlines why outcomes vary—evidence of diocesan knowledge, scope of abuse, and victim impact—and describes the 2004 $100 million global settlement’s grid for allocating compensation. Casteix exposes institutional gaslighting, misogynistic binaries, strategic transfers, and opaque data practices, while acknowledging limited reforms. Her central point: only transparency, external oversight, and survivor validation can counter reputational protectionism.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is an example of a coordinated clergy abuse case?
Joelle Casteix: One of the coordinated clergy abuse cases in Orange County involved a priest named Eleuterio Ramos, who was accused of sexually abusing children. His abuse led to multiple civil settlements; most recently, a California case involving Ramos and Siegfried Widera resulted in a $10 million settlement to a single survivor in 2024. Another set of cases involving Michael A. Harris—a former principal at Mater Dei High School and later founding principal at Santa Margarita Catholic High School—produced a $5.2 million settlement in 2001 to Ryan DiMaria and, separately, a $3.5 million settlement in 2024.
Jacobsen: Why such differences in outcomes?
Casteix: Because the cases are still under protective orders, we do not know the full details. But generally, a higher settlement or verdict usually means there was much more evidence showing that the diocese knew—or should have known—about the abuse and failed to act. It can also depend on the extent of the abuse or the number of victims.
When the Diocese of Orange reached the $100 million global settlement in 2004, one of the most challenging tasks the attorneys faced was dividing the money among survivors. The diocese said, “Here is the money—now you figure out how to split it.” That is when they used the grid: How many instances of abuse occurred? What were the damages? How has each survivor been affected?
It is harrowing work. Unfortunately, our civil justice system has only one real form of punishment for wrongdoing—money. It is not a perfect system, but it gives survivors something tangible. Many have never been able to live their lives to their full potential. They have hospital bills, addiction issues, and decades of trauma. These settlements at least help them begin to rebuild.
Just as importantly, the process gives survivors validation. It provides proof—official documents and depositions confirming: “Yes, this happened. Yes, it was covered up. No, it was not your fault. Yes, it was illegal.” That acknowledgment is the most healing part.https://ff512a195178562804b09bc8af479180.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-45/html/container.html
If you ask many survivors, they will tell you, “I would not have settled. I did not want the money—I just wanted them to admit what they did.” The Church often denies it, even to your face. They will tell you, “It never happened,” or “You are crazy.” But when you have hundreds of pages of documents showing the truth, you finally have something undeniable.
Jacobsen: How does the Church internally frame these cases?
Casteix: As short-term liabilities. And this is just my opinion. The Catholic Church operates on what I call “geological time.” It thinks in centuries. It is run by men who have never had to feed a family or pay bills. Their understanding of money is limited to what appears on a ledger.
For most of its history—until maybe eight or nine years ago—the Church saw abuse survivors as temporary problems. The thinking was: “Yes, the kid was abused, but now the kid is a mess, a drug addict, a liar.” So they wrote that child off. Their loyalty lay with the priest, not the victim, because the Church had already invested heavily in that priest’s education, housing, and lifelong support. It was easier to protect him than to face accountability.
And priests are not exactly employable outside the Church. They cannot simply become plumbers or lawyers. So the institution doubles down on protecting them. Survivors, meanwhile, are treated as disposable—people to be vilified, marginalized, or discredited. The goal is to run out the statute of limitations, label them as enemies of the Church or even of Jesus himself, and move on.
Jacobsen: When the Church treats survivors as short-term liabilities, part of that seems to involve institutional gaslighting—essentially trying to convince victims that they are misremembering or exaggerating what happened. By “gaslighting,” do you mean that in the institutional sense?
Casteix: Yes, absolutely. Institutional gaslighting. The Church tells survivors things like, “You’re the only one,” or, “We found no evidence that anything happened.” I once had an attorney for the Diocese of Orange look me directly in the eye and say, “I went through your file—there was no evidence whatsoever that anything happened to you. I’m so sorry you feel that this happened.” That was the language: I’m sorry you feel that way, instead of I’m sorry for what we did.
They frame it as, “Let bygones be bygones,” or, “Things happened in the past, but let’s move forward.” It is a way to erase accountability. The gaslighting is intense, and they have done an equally effective job conditioning ordinary Catholics to believe that speaking out about abuse is wrong or disloyal to the Church.
When I came forward in 2003, other Catholics—even people I knew—wrote to me saying, “Joelle, how dare you do this? Are you even sure it happened?” Years later, some of those same people admitted, “The reason I was so mad at you is because I was ashamed about what happened to me. You made me face it.” The gaslighting operates on multiple levels: it isolates the survivor, controls the community’s perception, and protects the institution.Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
Jacobsen: In my research on evangelical denominations, I have noticed some of the exact mechanisms—pastors or leaders using coded theological language to stigmatize victims. For instance, a woman who speaks out against abuse might be labelled a “Jezebel” or referred to as “that woman,” which in their community is shorthand for someone deceitful or morally corrupt. To outsiders, it doesn’t sound very sensible, but within that theology, it signals that she should be shunned. Does something similar occur in Catholic settings?
Casteix: Yes. Absolutely. In the Catholic Church, women are stereotypically placed into one of two categories: the virgin or the whore. You are either the saintly mother or the fallen woman. There is no middle ground.
When it comes to abuse, this mindset becomes devastating. If you have seen The Keepers on Netflix—a six-part documentary—you know that many of those young women were sexually abused by priests in high school. But the Church did not see them as victims. It saw them as temptresses.
Abuse of boys was treated as abhorrent and sinful. Still, abuse of girls was rationalized—”at least he’s not abusing boys.” That is the mindset. I believe that there are far more female survivors in the Catholic Church than have ever come forward, precisely because they were conditioned to believe it was their fault all along.
Women are not empowered in the Catholic Church. They are not taught that they are equal or that their voices matter. So when abuse happens, it is easy for them to internalize blame: “The priest is the embodiment of God on Earth; if he sinned, I must have caused it.” That is the underlying theology that enables silence.
Women in this system are trapped in a binary—the virgin or the whore—and both categories serve to keep them powerless. It is not an easy place to be a female survivor of abuse in the Catholic Church.
Jacobsen: Not in the negative evaluation, the negative balance of “whore,” although certainly that is within the implication. Also, in popular culture in the United States, I am aware of the Madonna–whore complex that is colloquially discussed. But in terms of what women are supposed to be within the theology—and therefore the social gender roles derived from it—it is Mother Mary or Virgin Mary.
Casteix: Yes, right. A great point, yes.
Jacobsen: That duality. Then another might be the barren woman, the inverse of the mother.
Casteix: The Catholic Church—although they do not emphasize it as much now—has a long tradition of consecrated virgins. These are women who, and I had not even heard of this until I was an adult and visited Rome, dedicate their lives to God through a formal consecration ceremony. They are not nuns; they are everyday women who have jobs and lead normal lives, but they take vows of perpetual virginity. It fits neatly into that same mould of idealized femininity.Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
Jacobsen: I do not suspect that they are Ceausescu’s henchmen going in to check on whether or not they are having sex—or how do you confirm this label?
Casteix: It is a vow. You cannot confirm the celibacy of any person who has taken such a vow. You cannot verify it for men either.
Jacobsen: That is right. From the research with which I am familiar—for instance, Pokrov was active, and then Prosopon Healing compiled data to build a database further from them—there is enough evidence for a rough four-quadrant analysis. Anyone can be a victim, but statistically, based on verified cases and legal filings, pedophilic assaults tend to involve boys, while sexual assaults against adults are more often against women. Does that align with your understanding of how things have played out?
Casteix: I do not think there is sufficiently reliable data on that, because within the Catholic Church, there is such a repressed view of sexuality that priests will never be forthcoming about their relationships with adults. For example, there was a bishop in Santa Rosa, G. Patrick Ziemann, who was accused of coercing adult men into sexual relationships. One of them sued him, and all of them were adults.
Some studies suggest that around 80% of priests are not celibate. Still, many of them are engaging in consensual relationships with adults, so they are not committing crimes. Historically, the priesthood also became a refuge for closeted gay men. When I graduated from high school in 1988, I had three male friends who were gay but had not come out. They went to their priests for guidance, and the priests told them, “You should join the priesthood because you have to be celibate there.” So these poor kids were funnelled into that life. Two of them became priests and later left.
Once you are inside that culture, there is a kind of quid pro quo—it is “everybody’s doing it.” So I do not think we will ever have reliable data on whether men or women are victimized more in the adult sphere.
In the case of children, we have seen many different kinds of perpetrators. Some were what I would call omnisexual. Take Oliver O’Grady, for instance—he sexually assaulted boys and girls alike. Also, he had relationships with women to gain access to their children. He did not care about gender or age. Michael Baker did something similar: he groomed mothers to get close to their sons. That was how he cultivated access and control.
There’s another priest in the Bay Area who did the same thing. That pattern was familiar. You see these priests who are what I call the “omnisexual” types—they do not have a specific preference. Others, however, have a clear pattern or “type” and build entire communities around that access.
For example, in Orange County, we had Richard Coughlin, who abused prepubescent boys. To gain access, he founded a boys’ choir that operated for more than thirty years. The chorus still exists today, which is astonishing to me—people still send their sons there. And we are now seeing more survivors come forward, including women who were abused as little girls.
Especially in Southern California, where there is a large Latino Catholic population, the culture has made it even harder for girls to speak out. If a girl came forward and said, “Father so-and-so did something to me,” her mother might slap her across the face and say, “You’re sinful.” If a boy said something, the family might at least sense that something was wrong. So the reaction toward girls was very different.
That is why I do not think we have good enough data. We probably never will, because the people we would need data from—the Church hierarchy—are not honest brokers. It is not that they are insane; it is that no one in that system is going to fill out a form saying, “Yes, I prefer prepubescent boys,” or “Yes, I assault adult women.”
We regularly see cases of adults being sexually assaulted as well. There was a case in San Diego, where he invited a nineteen- or twenty-year-old woman to his rectory on New Year’s Eve and violently raped her. She went to the police and filed a report. The priest claimed, “There were lots of people there; I just patted her on the back.” Then he organized parishioners to protest the victim’s mother’s Bible study classes and had her brother expelled from the church. The District Attorney tried to prosecute, but the victim withdrew, even though the evidence was strong.
A few years later, I received an email from someone in Oklahoma City who said, “Hey, this priest is at our parish—we think it’s the same guy.” And it was. The Church had quietly transferred him out of San Diego and hidden him in Oklahoma. The bishop in Oklahoma City was reportedly furious—he had not been told the truth. The priest went on to assault women there as well and was eventually arrested.
The Church did not see it as a problem. Suppose the perpetrator had abused children or stolen money. In that case, they might have acted quickly to remove him or bury the story. But when the victims were women, it was not treated as seriously.
Jacobsen: Within the Catholic Church, the pattern is distinct and, in a way, easier to classify than in the Eastern Orthodox case. In Orthodoxy, even though Patriarch Bartholomew is considered “first among equals,” the churches are self-governing, decentralized, and more complex to map institutionally. The Catholic Church, by contrast, is pyramidal—hierarchical, centralized, and global.
Suppose an order comes from the top to conceal wrongdoing. In that case, the system ensures that the cover-up continues for decades, three, sometimes four generations of leadership. Much of this traces back to the era of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), who led the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which handled abuse cases.
So, let’s say hypothetically that five out of every hundred priests commit acts of sexual abuse. If Church policy then transfers each of those priests to four new parishes, the apparent rate—based on observed incidents—would inflate to twenty out of every hundred priests, even though the actual number of abusers remains five. The institutional practice of relocation multiplies the harm and distorts the statistics.
If the Church had implemented meaningful canonical reforms and mandated external reporting—say, to independent civil authorities rather than internal ecclesiastical channels—it could have contained the crisis decades ago. Instead, its secrecy policy perpetuated systemic abuse and compounded the suffering of survivors.
Jacobsen: Is that basically what generally happened?
Casteix: So, I am not a data person. There are two people you should talk to about the data: one is Patrick Wall, and the other—ironically—is my husband. He was responsible for compiling a lot of that information.
The main data set comes from the John Jay College Study, commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. They compiled and cross-referenced lists of known priest perpetrators and reports from dioceses across the country. At its peak, the study found that roughly four percent of priests had credible accusations of abuse. But when survivor networks and advocates expanded the dataset through lawsuits and archives, that number—based on identifiable, named individuals—rose to closer to 20% in certain dioceses. These were not anonymous complaints; these were named priests or priests flagged by their superiors as known problems.
The pattern of movement is one of the most evident warning signs. When a priest is ordained, there is usually a predictable career trajectory: their first parish lasts around five years, their second around seven, their third about fourteen, and so on. If someone deviates sharply from that pattern—say, they move every year or two, take unexplained leaves, or are suddenly transferred to obscure assignments—that is when advocates start to pay attention.
Survivors and watchdog groups often use the Official Catholic Directory—that enormous annual publication listing clergy assignments—to track these movements. It is now online, which makes it easier to map a priest’s history. Most priests follow a steady pattern: seven years here, fourteen there, maybe a short sabbatical. But then you will find the outliers—priests who bounce around erratically. That pattern usually indicates one of two things: they are either on the fast track to the Vatican or they are a problem being quietly moved.
So that irregular trajectory often tells us who the Church itself has identified as a risk. We cannot say with certainty, “This person is a perpetrator,” just by looking at the record—but we can say, “The Church clearly thought something was wrong.” Those men are often sent away to remote places—Guam, an Indian reservation, or Alaska—or quietly retired to isolated communities like San Dimas, with restrictions on being around children.
The data we have is not inflated. In fact, they are almost certainly underreported. When the first wave of cases came to light in the early 2000s, the peak appeared to be in the 1980s. But that was only because it takes survivors an average of thirty years to come forward. As time passes, the bell curve shifts—now the data show higher peaks in the 1990s and early 2000s. The Church tried to argue that the problem was unique to “the crazy eighties,” but that is simply false.
So yes, the actual numbers are higher. This is one of the most underreported crimes in existence, mainly because of complications with order priests versus diocesan priests.
Diocesan priests belong to a specific diocese and report to a bishop. Order priests—such as Jesuits, Franciscans, or Oblates—belong to religious orders with distinct chains of command and international mobility. That makes accountability harder. Survivors often only know a priest by his first name—”Father Mike” or “Father Steve.” If there are nineteen “Father Mikes,” identifying the right one can be nearly impossible.
So, the numbers are likely far higher than what is reported. The apparent decline in cases does not necessarily reflect fewer perpetrators—it reflects fewer priests. The pipeline has collapsed.
Not my generation, but the one before—those men were entering seminary at thirteen. That is part of a larger shift. Christianity itself is in decline, and the priesthood is no longer attracting young men. Those who do enter are often older, sometimes second-career seminarians. But yes, abuse still happens. The difference is that the pool of priests is smaller, and the institution’s capacity for cover-up—while not gone—has shrunk along with it.
Jacobsen: In religious organizations, is abuse increasing or decreasing?
Casteix: I do not know. I do some work with evangelical churches—the Southern Baptist Convention, for instance—and I can tell you this: anytime you have a hierarchical structure combined with a charismatic personality, you are prone to abuse. People often accuse me of being “anti-church.” I am not. Churches themselves do not make bad people.
Bad people are attracted to churches because those institutions provide instant credibility, instant access, and instant cover. The same applies to other environments. When people say, “Oh, there are teachers abusing children,” it is not because public schools are bad—it is because people with predatory inclinations seek out environments where they can access vulnerable populations. A person who wants to abuse children might think, “You know what would give me access? Becoming a gym teacher.”
So the real issue is not the church or the school—it is about training institutions to identify problematic personalities early and remove them before they cause harm.
The Catholic Church, oddly enough, has been forced to do this somewhat effectively simply because fewer people are entering the priesthood. The seminaries are empty; it is no longer a sustainable lifestyle. Many of the priests now being ordained are from Africa and Vietnam, where vocations are still growing. Even so, the Church is losing ground in Latin America, where large portions of the population are turning to evangelical Christianity.
So, the institution is changing, but problems persist—especially with volunteers, choir directors, and teachers within Catholic settings. They are protected by the same internal systems that once shielded priests.
For example, I was not abused by a priest. I was abused by a choir teacher at my Catholic high school, which was under the Diocese of Orange. He was protected by the exact mechanisms that protected priests—the same kind of confidential file, the same pattern of documentation, and the same layers of institutional silence. The only real difference between his file and a priest’s file was that the diocese withheld taxes from his paycheck. That was it.
Jacobsen: Where has the Catholic Church done well in addressing these issues—aside from what we already know they did wrong?
Casteix: That is a fair question. I do not know if I would call it “doing well.” Still, the Catholic Church was the first large organization to be placed under such intense public scrutiny. The scope of exposure forced them into a kind of institutional reckoning. Many people in the Church—perpetrators, enablers, and even those who were simply negligent—were exposed for committing terrible acts or making disastrous decisions.
As a result, other organizations under similar scrutiny, such as the Boy Scouts of America, have learned from those mistakes. They have studied both the Church’s best and worst practices to improve their own responses.
Jacobsen: Has the Church learned from this?
Casteix: In some ways, yes. They now have policies and procedures designed to keep children safer than before. Programs like Virtus—which focus on awareness and prevention—exist to educate clergy, staff, and volunteers. But the Church remains deeply insular. They rarely invite outside experts or organizations to review their procedures or offer oversight.
I work with organizations that enter evangelical churches to teach practical safeguards—how to conduct background checks, design safe environments, and recognize red flags. The Catholic Church, by contrast, keeps these efforts in-house. If they opened the doors to outside professionals and allowed absolute transparency, not only would they become safer, but they would also rebuild trust with their communities.
So, the reluctance to let outsiders in—despite having improved internal mechanisms—is still part of the culture of secrecy. The Church could be a model for institutional reform, but only if it learned to share what it has learned—and to let others look honestly at the cracks still left in the walls.
Unfortunately, the Church is still litigating aggressively against survivors. I understand they have a fiduciary duty—a financial responsibility to protect Church assets—but they also claim to be a moral institution. You cannot claim moral authority while simultaneously re-traumatizing people you know were abused.
They are more open now, yes, more transparent—but that is a relative statement. They are better than they were twenty years ago, but I would still never feel comfortable sending my own child to a Catholic school or camp. They have not implemented the most basic safety protocols that any responsible institution should have in place.
If you walk into a well-run organization and ask, “What are your policies and procedures for protecting children from sexual abuse?”, the person in charge should be able to respond instantly: Here they are. They’re posted here, here, and here. Staff are trained regularly, and here’s the number to call if you suspect abuse. You can ask a teacher: Do you know the policy? And they’ll say yes.
But in Catholic schools, that infrastructure is often missing. Ask about reporting, and you’ll get, “Just come to me—I’m the principal.” It’s as if they’re still running on dial-up—metaphorically pulling out the old AOL disk and waiting for the connection. The culture is decades behind.
Will they make the pivot they need to make? Not anytime soon. But to be fair, we have come a long way since 2002, when the Boston Globe’s Spotlight investigation blew this open. Twenty-three years later, I never would have imagined we’d see even this level of exposure and reform. So progress exists—but it is slow, inconsistent, and far from enough.
Jacobsen: Let’s connect this to a broader question. If you look at the Larry Nassar cases, the #MeToo movement, lots of Hollywood cases, and the Catholic Church scandals—and even similar problems in the professional class of the handful of atheist organizations—what structural through-lines do you see?
Casteix: You always see the same architecture: a hierarchical system that prioritizes the charismatic personality over the welfare of the people it serves. Whether it is a priest, pastor, coach, or professor, the institution invests its energy in protecting that individual and the organization’s image, not the victims.
These organizations behave like corporations that only care about shareholders. But in this analogy, the shareholders are not the public—they are the institution itself and its power holders: the priest, the pastor, the principal, the president. Protecting reputation comes before protecting people.
You also see an ingrained belief that transparency is a flaw. Discussing abuse publicly terrifies these institutions because it risks exposure. So they suppress conversation, which allows the abuse to continue. You see fear, intimidation, and retaliation against survivors who speak up.
There’s also a hierarchical culture among children and young people in these systems. Look at the Nassar case: if you wanted to be a top gymnast, you learned not to complain. Speaking up meant losing your career. In Catholic schools, the student who complains is punished. In evangelical settings, the child who speaks up is told they are disobedient or unfaithful. Religious children often internalize this to mean, “If I complain, God will not love me.”
In secular institutions, the barrier is bureaucracy and the human tendency to avoid confrontation. People do not want to believe that someone they know—”Mike,” for example—could be a predator. So when a complaint comes in, the administrator says, “Mike, don’t do that again,” and Mike says, “Okay, I won’t.” And then, inevitably, Mike does it again.
It’s a universal human flaw: our wish to believe the best in others. In public schools, this dynamic has been devastating—principals not wanting to confront teachers, afraid of the fallout. They settle for a weak warning instead of accountability. “Don’t do it anymore,” they say. But without real consequences, the cycle repeats.
Jacobsen: So across sacred and secular spaces, the pattern is the same—hierarchy protecting hierarchy, and good intentions shielding evil.
Casteix: Until institutions start valuing truth and accountability over image and authority, this pattern will keep repeating—just with different uniforms. And then they think, “Okay, I’ll stop—or at least I’ll hide it better.” Those are the through-lines I keep seeing.
Jacobsen: Understood. Thank you so much for your time and expertise.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Thanks so much, Joelle.
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): Bishop Accountability
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/23
Why must the Vatican adopt a universal zero tolerance canon law to protect children and restore accountability?
Timothy D. Law is a Catholic advocate for survivors and accountability. A founding leader with Ending Clergy Abuse, he campaigns for a universal zero-tolerance canon law that permanently removes abusers from ministry. Law helped advance clergy mandatory reporting legislation in Washington State and has worked alongside Ugandan and Kenyan communities for decades. He and advocates met Pope Leo to press for enforceable reforms after years of Vatican resistance. Sanctioned by his archbishop for supporting reform, Law continues to serve at the parish level while challenging hierarchical impunity. His approach combines legal strategy, media engagement, and collaboration with survivor leaders.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Timothy D. Law traces the clergy abuse reckoning from the 1984–85 Gauthe case and Boston’s 2002 Spotlight exposé to UN scrutiny in 2014 and the 2018–19 crisis that forced a Vatican summit. He argues that policies without sanctions produce “no there there,” urging a universal canon law mandating permanent removal of abusive clergy. Law describes Vatican resistance, especially from parts of Africa and Asia, and recounts meeting Pope Le, who acknowledged “great resistance.” He outlines poverty, church–state entanglement, and weak mandates as barriers, praises parish-level service, and champions transparency, civil investigations, and survivor-centred reforms, including Washington State’s clergy reporting push.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the history of your work?
Timothy D. Law: The first significant date is 1984–1985, when the Gilbert Gauthe case in Louisiana became the first widely publicized criminal trial of a U.S. Catholic priest for child sexual abuse; civil suits followed, and the scandal broke into national view.
The Church initially framed the abuse as the work of “a few bad apples.” The next major year is 2002, when The Boston Globe’s Spotlight reporting exposed systemic cover-ups in the Archdiocese of Boston and beyond.
Rome first minimized this as an “American problem.” However, one concrete result was that U.S. bishops adopted the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People and companion Essential Norms—effectively a zero-tolerance policy in U.S. canon law for clergy who abuse a minor, requiring permanent removal from ministry. The Holy See granted formal recognition to those Norms in December 2002. To date, the Vatican has not mandated a universal zero-tolerance law; advocates continue to push for it.
After 2002, the next major year is 2014. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Committee against Torture (CAT) reviewed the Holy See. Both committees criticized the Holy See for prioritizing institutional reputation over child protection and issued recommendations that included: ending impunity for abusers and for cover-ups, mandatory reporting to civil authorities, greater access to files, and reparations. As a state party, the Vatican is expected to report periodically; another CRC report was due in 2017, and advocacy groups later complained about the lack of follow-through.
The next pivotal year is 2018, a perfect storm: Pope Francis’ troubled trip to Chile amid a national abuse crisis there; the Pennsylvania grand jury report detailing decades of abuse and cover-ups; and the Theodore McCarrick revelations that led to his removal from ministry in 2018 and laicization in 2019. These events prompted Francis to convene a global summit on the protection of minors in February 2019, which brought together about 190 participants, including the presidents of 114 bishops’ conferences. Survivor advocates were not official participants in the closed-door sessions, though survivor testimonies were presented to the assembly.https://db2d6925c9150ac345bc49b511cdcebf.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-45/html/container.html
Two primary outcomes followed. First, on December 17, 2019, Francis abolished the “pontifical secret” for cases of clergy sexual abuse of minors, sexual violence, and child pornography offences—intended to allow cooperation with civil authorities and improve transparency. Observers welcomed the step but noted that other forms of canonical confidentiality still limit practical access to files in many places.
Second, Vos Estis Lux Mundi (May 2019, made permanent and expanded in 2023) established universal procedures for receiving and investigating allegations against bishops and religious superiors, and for handling reporting and case management. It is a procedural framework, not a universal zero-tolerance penalty law, and its effectiveness has varied from country to country.
Jacobsen: When these policies and announcements are made, what usually happens next?
Law: They make a big show of these things, and at the moment they sound terrific—full of potential.
Jacobsen: I really love that phrase, “at the moment.”
Law: Because when the smoke clears, there’s no there there. The bishops face no real accountability. They can choose whether to follow the procedures, and there are no sanctions if they don’t.
There was no zero-tolerance law made part of this, so it was a toothless public relations effort.
Jacobsen: If there’s no there there, then when our time comes, there’s no here here.
Law: Pope Francis is beloved by much of the world community, and people think he’s doing a great job. He talks about zero tolerance, but he wasn’t a canon lawyer—he’s more of a theologian, someone who gives statements and guidance. The current officials in charge of canon law could, in theory, put those principles into legal form, but they haven’t.
The Vatican often co-opts our language. They start using phrases like “zero tolerance” and other terms we use, but they don’t translate them into enforceable law.
Our goal has been to get inside the tent—to be part of the conversation and push for real change. We managed to get our foot in the door a year ago, in November, when we were invited into the Dicastery for Legislative Texts. I believe there are eight major dicasteries in the Vatican, and this one handles canon law.
We met with the president of the Dicastery and asked him directly: why no zero-tolerance law? They gave several responses, often contradictory. Some said, “We already have enough laws; we just need to enforce the ones we have.” Others said, “It’s cultural. We can’t have one law that fits the entire world. We’re a global Church.”https://db2d6925c9150ac345bc49b511cdcebf.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-45/html/container.htmlDon’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
We pointed out that the Church does, in fact, enforce universal laws on issues like abortion or the death penalty.
Jacobsen: Religion is a transnational movement.
Law: That’s true—but consistency should apply to protecting children as well.
They said that in some places, such as parts of Africa, attitudes toward sexuality differ. But one of our board members, Janet Aguti from Uganda, who runs a remarkable sexual violence awareness program there, told the Holy Father directly: “There is nowhere in the world where sexual abuse of children is culturally acceptable.”
The next significant milestone was our meeting with the Pope in October. We were genuinely surprised to receive the invitation. It was the first time in history that a Pope had met with a survivor activist organization. Usually, the Vatican arranges meetings only with hand-picked individual victims.
Jacobsen: What was the significance of your meeting with the Pope?
Law: Normally, the Vatican arranges private, emotional meetings between the Pope and individual survivors—what we call “kiss and cry sessions.” They generate much publicity but little systemic change. For a Pope to meet with a group like ours was different. More than half of our delegation are survivors of abuse, but we approached it as a professional meeting. We weren’t there to recount our trauma; we were there to say, “We need to be part of the solution. We need to be part of the conversation.”
We began by saying the Church must adopt a zero-tolerance policy. The Pope told us there is excellent resistance to such a law. That was new—previously, Vatican officials had claimed it wasn’t necessary. We knew the real issue was resistance, especially from bishops in Africa and Asia.
Jacobsen: That’s an interesting nuance. Why the resistance from those regions?
Law: The Pope acknowledged that Africa poses a serious challenge. He said many bishops there deny they have a problem, though he added, “I know better.” He told us that the days when he could sign a decree were over. He could, technically, do it, he said, but because of social media, if those under his authority aren’t willing to follow it, they’ll ignore it.
We understood that as an admission of a fundamental structural problem. Still, we said, if you can’t sign a universal zero-tolerance law now, then let us be in the room to help remove that resistance. Survivors and advocates have expertise that can help address cultural or institutional objections. The Pope agreed to that in principle.
What form that collaboration will take is yet to be seen. The question now is whether he meant it sincerely or was deflecting. He mentioned that we should meet with the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, and I thought to myself, “That’s a toothless commission.” If he’s relegating us to that body, it means he’s punting on the real issue.https://db2d6925c9150ac345bc49b511cdcebf.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-45/html/container.htmlDon’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
That said, he seemed straightforward. He told us, “I won’t promise what I can’t do, but I hear you. Let’s try to work together.”
Notably, he also revealed something we hadn’t expected: he didn’t know that the U.S. bishops’ zero-tolerance policy had been formally recognized as canon law. He believed it was just a voluntary initiative by the American bishops. I said, “No, Holy Father—it’s an essential norm approved by the Vatican.” That was news to him.
The significance of that moment is enormous. It shows we’re not asking for something new or impossible. The U.S. has had this in place since 2002. For all our ongoing problems, the United States is probably the safest place in the world for children within the Church because of those protocols and the zero-tolerance policy. Our question to him was simple: if it works here, why not make it universal?
He said again that there’s strong resistance to that. Our reply was: “Let us help you remove it.”
Jacobsen: Do you have any further reflections on why Asia and Africa are regions of acute concern regarding clerical abuse and institutional resistance?
Law: Yes, and it’s essential to understand the historical pattern. This crisis has moved in waves. It began in the United States, then spread to Western Europe, and then to Australia. Now we’re seeing it emerge in South America, though resistance remains strong in Asia and Africa. Their time will come.
The main reason for resistance is the tight interconnection between Church and State in those regions. They protect one another. For over thirty years, I’ve been travelling to Uganda and Kenya. I first became involved through a group of Ugandan Catholic nuns I met by chance three decades ago, and since then I’ve worked with them on various community projects.
The faith of the people there is firm, and their bond with the Church is almost inseparable. The bishops are deeply intertwined with the government. Corruption runs deep. When abuse occurs, even if it causes an uproar locally, it’s quickly suppressed. The people don’t want to believe their priests or bishops could commit abuse, and civil authorities protect the Church. Cracks are forming, but the reckoning hasn’t yet arrived.
Jacobsen: Why do laypeople remain in denial? Why do secular institutions of the state protect religious institutions complicit in systemic or individual crimes?
Law: Poverty is the central factor. When I visit every other year, even for a few weeks, I see how profound it is. For many people, faith is their only constant. They literally depend on it to survive. If that faith were shaken, they feel they would have nothing left. They wake up thanking God they’re alive. A bowl of food is a miracle. The Church often provides that food, and that charity cements loyalty.
But the tragedy is that this dependency prevents systemic change. People won’t fight for functioning economies, infrastructure, or accountability. I’ve seen regions where farmers all grow tomatoes but have no roads to transport them elsewhere. If they had decent infrastructure, they could sell to markets beyond their village. Deep poverty, in that sense, serves both the Church and the State very well. It maintains control. It’s heartbreaking.
At the same time, I see how meaningful faith is to them, and I feel conflicted about challenging it. When I stay in village rectories, I see firsthand how priests live and work. Africa is overwhelmingly young—about 75-80% of the population is under 30. It’s a continent of children and youth. Priests there are overwhelmed by poverty. A single priest may serve 15,000 to 30,000 parishioners, all of them struggling. He has limited resources but access to some aid. That dynamic—scarcity and power—creates a dangerous imbalance.
Many priests in Africa are also principals of schools. Their parishioners’ children will do anything to get an education—literally anything. Some even resort to prostitution to pay school fees. With that kind of power and pressure, it’s not hard to imagine how widespread abuse can become in a system like that.
These are good people, compassionate people, but when you’re living under immense pressure and poverty, people cope however they can—through alcohol, drugs, sex. Abuse grows out of that environment. I believe that when the truth eventually comes to light, the scope of abuse in Africa will be ten times worse than anywhere else in the world.
That’s why the bishops are so resistant. Deep down, they know that if a universal zero-tolerance law were implemented, they would lose much of their power—and many of their own.
Jacobsen: On a broader level, this brings us to international ethics. There’s only one real place where nations have agreed—at least formally—to play by the same moral rules: the United Nations, through its human rights framework. That principle of universalism means the same ethical standards apply everywhere. You’re calling for a universal zero-tolerance law. Why is it crucial that such a standard exist?
Law: It’s essential to call it a law, not a policy. The Church keeps saying it has a “zero tolerance policy.” But a policy is optional—it can be ignored. A law is binding. A law means that if you sexually abuse a child, you must be permanently removed from ministry. No exceptions.
That removes discretion from the bishops and shifts power toward the victims. That’s the fundamental struggle here—who holds power.
Of course, even if the Pope were to sign such a law, that wouldn’t be the end. It’s not a cure-all. It would still have to be enforced. But it would be the critical first step—the Achilles’ heel. Once that domino falls, everything else follows: full disclosure, independent review, perhaps even a truth and reconciliation commission. That’s why they’re so afraid of it.
When we met with the Pope, he was caught off guard. We were scheduled for a 20-minute meeting—it lasted about an hour. We began with a statement explaining who we were and what we were asking for, then introduced ourselves. The Pope was warm and personable, and the tone throughout was professional and respectful on both sides.
We got the Pope’s commitment to work with us. As the meeting was wrapping up, I debated whether to ask one last, pointed question. Finally, I did. I said, “Holy Father, you don’t have to answer this, but I must ask: why can’t the U.S. zero-tolerance law be made universal throughout the Church?”
He hesitated, fumbled a bit, and then said there was “great resistance” to it. That’s when he made the statements I mentioned earlier—the ones acknowledging the opposition, particularly from Africa and Asia. His response revealed just how aware Church leadership is of the potential consequences such a law would have for them.
Jacobsen: You were, shall we say, rather bold in asking that. It got right to the heart of the issue—universalizing a law that already exists in America.
Law: Yes, and his acknowledgment of resistance was significant news. From that moment, we decided to focus our efforts laser-like on this single goal: establishing a universal zero-tolerance law. We believe it’s the one thread that, once pulled, could unravel a culture of impunity.
Jacobsen: The slow progress raises a question. Is this delay simply because the Catholic Church is vast and bureaucratic—a 2,000-year-old institution with layers of canon law to navigate? Or is it more self-serving—an attempt to shield itself from exposure? Could it even stem from lay resistance or people protecting their own crimes under the cover of faith? What’s really driving the inertia?
Law: That’s a complex question. In one sense, things haven’t moved slowly at all. If you look at the last forty years, child sexual abuse wasn’t even a topic of public conversation. Now it’s part of global discourse. The clergy abuse crisis in the Catholic Church helped catalyze broader social awareness. Movements like #MeToo and increased attention to institutional accountability all owe something to the exposure of these crimes.
We now have a safer Church in many regions, and many other organizations—religious and secular alike—have adopted safeguarding protocols inspired by these reforms. So, in that respect, progress has been real. Every time we speak about this, every time you interview this one, it has a ripple effect. It makes the world a bit safer.
That said, we’re dealing with an institution that instinctively protects itself. It’s a self-preserving organism, and no one likes to confront such horror within something they love. Many good people have left the Church over this, leaving behind those who prefer to look away or trust that the hierarchy has it under control.
I may be the only person in our organization who still actively practices Catholicism. I still attend the same parish where I was baptized seventy-six years ago. I love the Church. I believe deeply in its spiritual message. But the hierarchy—since its earliest days—has always been susceptible to corruption. Power is intoxicating, and it corrupts. It always has, and it always will.
This issue affects different parts of the world in various ways. In Africa, for example, the people are not demanding accountability from their bishops. So yes, it’s both leadership and laity that allow the system to persist. It takes a few activists—people willing to keep pushing, to keep prodding the institution—to create a movement. Change happens, but it tends to occur in bursts rather than gradually.
We’ve seen this pattern before: 1985, 2002, 2018—each year marking a significant crisis or revelation that forced the Church to respond. My view is that if we’re in the room with a “shovel-ready law,” ready to be enacted, then when the next scandal inevitably breaks, they’ll call us. They’ll say, “We have to do something. We’re losing people. Let’s move on to this law.” Unfortunately, it often takes a catastrophe to create momentum. That’s why we have to be present and prepared when that moment comes.
Jacobsen: Why is the movement so catastrophe-driven?
Law: Because the survivors and advocates—people like us—are motivated by conscience, not power. We believe what we’re doing serves the good of both victims and the Church. The hierarchy knows what it must do—be transparent and accountable—but it won’t act voluntarily. It takes public outrage and those catastrophic shocks to jolt them into reform.
A pope would never have convened a global summit on clergy abuse or publicly acknowledged it as a worldwide crisis if not for the convergence of scandals that came to a head in 2018. That was a perfect storm—years of revelations building until he had no choice but to respond. It’s human nature, unfortunately.
Jacobsen: Within the theology itself, shouldn’t they fear God’s wrath for allowing such evil?
Law: I don’t think it works that way. I believe God gave us intelligence to solve our own problems. It’s our responsibility to use that—to act justly and fix what’s broken.
Jacobsen: Where has the Church done well, on the other hand?
Law: Well, credit where it’s due. The Apostle Paul wrote that before God, there is no male or female, rich or poor, that we are all equal in His eyes and share a common humanity. That idea—radical in its time—helped transform the world. It inspired the foundational ideals of equality in the modern era. You see echoes of it in the American Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” That philosophical lineage traces back to Christian thought.
Throughout history, the Church has also founded universities, hospitals, and charitable institutions. The impulse to love, to serve, and to care for humanity is deeply rooted in the Church’s teaching. It’s just that the institution often falls short of its own ideals. The principles are there—the implementation, far less so. But occasionally, we do get it right.
It’s exciting to wake up each morning and work toward justice. We all feel that way. If we didn’t believe that what we’re doing makes a difference, it would be unbearable. That drive—to seek truth and justice—comes, in part, from the very moral teachings we grew up with in our churches, across all faith traditions.
Jacobsen: You’ve supported the civil investigation in Washington State. What lessons from that effort could apply nationally or even internationally?
Law: What we’re doing in Washington is really a microcosm of what needs to happen around the world. We’ve asked the bishops of Washington State to enter into a truth and reconciliation process with us—to grant access to their files, to protect victims, of course, but above all, to put all the cards on the table. We need to understand why the abuse happened, how it happened, and how to prevent it from ever happening again.
This has to be a partnership between the people and the Church leadership. It can’t be a self-contained, internal process. That’s what needs to happen locally, and it’s also what must happen internationally. I do believe it will, eventually.
Each U.S. state has different laws governing access to Church records. Some, like Pennsylvania, allow grand jury investigations with broad powers. That’s how the Pennsylvania grand jury was able to force the Church to release decades of internal files, exposing systemic abuse. Washington State’s laws aren’t as clear.
So, we initiated a process with the state attorney general’s office to gain access to those files. We lost the first round in the trial court, but the case is now on appeal. The briefs are filed, the hearings are done, and we’re awaiting a decision on whether the attorney general has the authority to access those records.
Jacobsen: The argument for transparency seems foundational—what’s at stake in that decision?
Law: Full disclosure is essential. The Church, especially when dealing with children, cannot be above the law. It must be accountable to parents, to grandparents, to the public. We have a right to know. Those abuse files belong, in a moral sense, to the victims. They’re not the Church’s property—they’re the stories and the pain of human beings.
There are two reasons we want access. One is informational: we need to understand the scope and details of what happened. But the second is preventative. If the Church knows the public has a right to access its records, that knowledge itself acts as accountability. It’s a safeguard against future cover-ups.
Jacobsen: Survivors have sought justice through various paths—such as independent compensation funds, civil litigation, or hybrid models. While each case is individual, what tends to feel most like justice for survivors?
Law: The biggest thing is acknowledgment. Survivors want the Church to publicly admit that the abuse happened and that it was allowed to happen. Many survivors were told for years, “You’re the only one,” or “We didn’t know.” Then they discover that the Church had known for decades that there were thick files documenting the same abuser harming child after child.
That revelation—that they were lied to, that the institution they trusted knew and did nothing—is devastating. So when the Church finally acknowledges the truth, it validates survivors’ pain and their humanity. It’s not about money first—it’s about being believed.
When they acknowledge to the victim, “We hurt you. We did wrong,” that’s huge. That’s validating. The financial part—settlements and compensation—is good, but it’s not deeply satisfying. It doesn’t make anyone whole. No matter the size of the settlement, nobody feels whole afterward. Their soul have been shattered, and they can never be restored to what it was. That can’t be undone.
But it is accountability. When the Church has to sell off property to make funds available for compensation, that’s a form of justice. Unfortunately, they’ve begun using bankruptcy strategically—to limit compensation and to block access to the files. So, the accurate measure of justice is holding them accountable: making them pay, where possible, and forcing them to acknowledge wrongdoing.
Jacobsen: How realistic are transnational bodies—like UN treaty committees or regional courts—as avenues for action on behalf of survivors?
Law: It has to be a multi-pronged approach. No single system will fix it. Over time, you build a patchwork of solutions—legal, moral, and social. The United Nations and similar institutions can’t enforce much; they don’t have legal power over sovereign or religious entities. But they do have moral authority—what’s sometimes called “moral suasion.”
That matters. Speaking out always has an effect. Silence is never neutral. Every voice adds pressure. So we keep saying something, always. It’s a long game.
We have a board member named Janet Aguti—she’s 32. I’m 76. That gives you a sense of the timeline. There’s no quick fix, no “kill shot.” This work will outlast us. Independent lay groups like ours are new, both in civil society and within the Church’s context. That’s historic in itself.
Our existence must be permanent. These groups need to keep watch—to monitor, to hold the institution accountable. Centuries ago, the Church functioned as a law unto itself. That era has to end. We’re part of a movement meant to ensure it does, permanently.
Jacobsen: Many people—whether victims, advocates, or simply believers learning these truths—have struggled with their faith. How did you process this personally? Did you ever question your faith? Once? Several times? How did that reconciliation unfold?
Law: Yes, I’ve questioned it—more than once. I still do, sometimes. I don’t really know why I have faith—it’s a mystery, something larger than logic.
Until about 2014, I was oblivious to the depth of this issue. I’m relatively new to it. I knew about the 2002 Boston Globe investigation, of course, but I believed the bishops had solved the problem afterward with their so-called “safe environment” programs. I lived in a kind of bubble, thinking the crisis was over. I was wrong.
I lived in a lovely little religious bubble. Then local events here in Seattle burst that bubble, and I could no longer see my faith in quite the same way.
Jacobsen: What do you mean by that?
Law: The comfort I used to draw from ritual—from the daily Mass, from the rhythm of it all—was shattered. I went to Mass every day. Some of my best friends were priests and bishops. Some still are. But when I discovered that several of them were complicit in covering up abuse, that sense of comfort dissolved.
Even so, other experiences have convinced me there’s something rather than nothing—something divine, something loving. I believe there is a God of love. I realized that faith has been part of me since childhood.
When I was seven years old, I had a terrible experience with a nun in first grade. She called me up to read in front of a class of sixty children. I stumbled over a word, and she told me to stick out my tongue—then she punched me in the jaw. It wasn’t discipline; it was terrorism. Later, I started to recall how often she struck other children, too.
That was the start of understanding that there’s both good and evil within the Church’s ranks. My parents were people of deep faith, and I suppose I inherited that from them. The priests and nuns I knew—some were kind, others cruel—but none of them destroyed my belief in God.
The real challenge was this: I can believe, but why do I still belong to the institution? I had to decide. I remain a member of the parish where I grew up. These are my people. They do good work—serving the poor, fighting for justice. At the ground level, in local parishes, the Church can be a dynamic, life-giving community.
But once you move up the hierarchy, that’s where everything breaks down. Leaders seem to be chosen not for moral courage, but for their willingness to protect their fellow bishops. That creates and perpetuates a culture of corruption at the top.
Another reason I stay in the Church—and in my parish—is that it’s more effective to work from the inside. I get to educate people on the issues and, frankly, disturb their peace a little bit. Recently, I lobbied for and helped pass a bill in the Washington State Legislature to make clergy mandatory reporters, even when they learn of abuse in a confessional setting. That specific confessional clause was later set aside, but the law itself passed.
There’s a photo of my wife and me standing beside the governor as he signed the bill. Because of my public support, my archbishop sanctioned me—told me there were specific duties I could no longer perform in my parish. Ironically, that only amplified the story. Rolling Stone even covered it, and my grandkids now think I’m pretty cool.
This institution—the Catholic Church—has been around for two thousand years and will probably be around for thousands more. It’s 1.3 billion people strong and operates across national borders. That means it has an enormous responsibility to clean up its act. That’s what we’re working toward: reform from within.
Jacobsen: What about the push to vet cardinals’ abuse records and monitor the next papal election? I believe that’s connected to the Conclave Watch effort.
Law: Yes, that’s right. Peter Isely and Sarah Pearson led that project. They were both part of Ending Clergy Abuse (ECA) until last year—Peter was actually our public spokesperson. He’s an incredibly talented guy. They later moved to SNAP—the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests—and took a more confrontational approach.
SNAP has always been bold and direct. Without SNAP, our movement wouldn’t exist in its current form. Their confrontation created space for us to take a complementary role—to work the inside track while they maintain external pressure.
Jacobsen: The classic “good cop, bad cop” dynamic?
Law: Exactly. We need each other. The Pope never would have met with us if we had taken SNAP’s approach. It was risky for both sides—for him to meet with us, and for us to accept the meeting. It brought us a lot of attention and goodwill, but also the danger of being co-opted.
We’re aware of that. Now we have to use the opportunity to push our advantage—to secure a genuine seat at the table. And if we don’t, we must be ready to call it out publicly: “You promised change. Where is it?”
The Pope took a real risk by meeting with us. I’m sure many bishops were furious—his own advisors have long argued the best way to handle us is to ignore us entirely, to deny our existence, to give us no oxygen. So for the Pope to acknowledge us was huge—for him and for us.
And now, after years of effort, the media finally understands what we’ve been saying: that the Church doesn’t need another policy on zero tolerance—it needs a law. For five years, reporters weren’t getting it. Now, they’re asking those questions themselves: “Where’s the zero-tolerance law?” That shift in understanding is a breakthrough.
That breakthrough with the press has created real momentum—momentum that can carry forward beyond us.
Jacobsen: You’re essentially talking about making accountability legally independent of bishops—canonically and jurisdictionally separate?
Law: Canon law is the Church’s internal legal system—its code of conduct and operating manual. It’s already there. What we’re proposing is quite simple: a canon law stating that if a clergy member sexually abuses a child, they must be permanently removed from ministry.
We’ve worked with canon lawyers to draft a version of that law that the Pope could sign tomorrow. It’s ready. It could become part of the Church’s binding legal framework immediately.
Right now, the Vatican’s approach borrows from the U.S. model—not a perfect fit, since it doesn’t hold bishops accountable for cover-ups. It focuses only on priests, not bishops. But even that—making permanent removal mandatory for any priest who abuses a child—would be a dramatic first step if formally enacted into canon law.
Jacobsen: You and Mary Dispenza have engaged major media outlets. What’s your advice for journalists or communications professionals trying to cover these issues with both sensitivity and firmness—enough pressure to get accountability, but without retraumatizing survivors?
Law: That’s a great question. We don’t have an institutional platform like the Pope does. We depend entirely on the press to carry our message. Without journalists, our work doesn’t reach anyone. So we need you—plain and simple.
The media landscape has changed. It used to be that if The New York Times or Associated Press covered you, that was it—you’d reached the world. Now, social media often carries more weight. We’ve had to adapt to that reality.
The Church says it isn’t a democratic organization, but in truth, every institution responds to pressure. Some do it formally through votes or policy, while others do it informally through reputation and visibility. What we’re doing—organizing, lobbying, forming alliances—is the same process I used in the Washington State Legislature to get the clergy-reporting law passed.
We lobby. We find allies. We look for people inside the Vatican who are quietly sympathetic. The organizational chart doesn’t show where the real power lies. The Pope surrounds himself with advisors he actually listens to—so our task is to find those people.
It takes time, energy, and persistence. Every time we’re in Rome, we try to meet with someone significant. On our last trip, in October, we met with someone extremely influential.
This person we met in Rome doesn’t have a big title, but he has real influence—and he knows exactly who the real power players are. Building those kinds of relationships is crucial to moving things forward.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts on the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors after your October 20th meetings?
Law: The commission was established with limited power and funding. It was a brilliant public relations move by Pope Francis. The problem is that it doesn’t have a real mandate. There are a lot of good people on it—people who genuinely care—but several have resigned out of frustration once they realized there’s “no there there.”
If we could work with the commission to make its recommendations more direct—more pointed—toward the Pope, that could have value. Right now, they issue reports but rarely challenge the Vatican to act. They should be the ones pushing for a zero-tolerance law. They were close to doing that last year, but then they backed away.
Because it’s a papal commission, they’d essentially have to go rogue to demand a zero-tolerance law. And of course, if they did, the Pope could dissolve the commission altogether—which, honestly, might not be a bad thing if it led to something more substantial and more independent.
Jacobsen: Tim, are there any other areas we should explore today, or does that cover the main ground?
Law: I could talk about this all day, but I think we’ve covered much territory. I appreciate your time. Thank you for listening and for what you’re doing. It’s essential work. Keep it up.
Jacobsen: Thank you. Cheers.
Law: Bye 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): Cascade Institute
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/20
Cascade Institute Director Thomas Homer-Dixon discusses how complexity science can help us make sense of today’s interconnected global challenges in this recent interview with In-Sight Publishing editor Scott Douglas Jacobsen. The two discuss how small shifts in complex systems can lead to major social and political change, and how understanding those dynamics can help us steer toward more resilient futures.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I’m grateful you could join me today—it means a lot. To start us off, how can complexity science help us make sense of immense global challenges like man-made climate change and widespread economic instability, and what tools does it give us to confront them more effectively?
Thomas Homer-Dixon: Right, you’re getting straight to the point. That’s a terrific question.
As most people do, I came to complex systems science somewhat indirectly. However, within my discipline—political science, conflict studies, and international relations—the conventional ways of thinking about causation didn’t help me untangle what was happening in my study areas. They didn’t adequately explain the underlying causal dynamics.
Over about 15 years, I transitioned into complexity science and developed a much clearer understanding.
At its core, complexity science helps us understand non-linear phenomena—situations where relatively small changes in a system, whether in an economy, climate, geopolitical structure, or ecological system, can lead to significant and sometimes unexpected consequences. Conversely, it also helps us understand why, in some cases, considerable interventions appear to have little or no impact.
The proportionality of the relationship between cause and effect in complex systems breaks down. In our everyday world, we think of small changes causing minor effects, small causes having minor effects, and significant modifications producing significant effects. So, there’s a proportionality.
But in complex systems, that breaks down. This means that complex systems—again, we’re talking about everything from ecologies to economies to the climate system to even the way the human brain works—have the capacity to flip from one state to another, from one equilibrium or stability zone to another, often in quite unpredictable ways.
The business of complexity science is identifying the various possible stability zones, what configuration of an economy or a political system will be stable, and what factors can reduce that stability and cause it to flip to another state.
To give a contemporary example, we’ve just seen a flip in the United States political system—a reconfiguration—from one equilibrium to something else yet to be determined. Mr. Trump generates enormous uncertainty, so the nature of that new equilibrium isn’t entirely clear yet. We have some ideas, but that is a classic example of non-linearity.
In an ecological system, a non-linearity would be something like the cod fishery collapse off the east coast of Canada in the late 1980s and early 1990s. That was one of the most productive ecosystems in the world, and it has wholly reconfigured itself. It will never return to its previous level of productivity, which was incredibly abundant in biomass production.
The 2008–2009 financial crisis was another example of non-linearity. Complexity science aims to identify the factors that produce these sudden changes—these flips—and anticipate them. However, the other side of this work is that once we understand those connections and causal relationships better, we may be able to induce changes in a positive direction.
We might be able to cause positive flips—positive in a value sense—good flips instead of bad ones. At the Cascade Institute, we divide our work into two areas. One focuses on anticipating pernicious cascades or harmful non-linearities, and the other on triggering virtuous cascades that benefit humankind. We then drill down in these areas to identify threats and opportunities using complexity science.
Top view of Highway road junctions at night. The Intersecting freeway road overpass the eastern outer ring road of Bangkok, Thailand. Adobe Stock.
Jacobsen: Around the world, ideological polarization seems to be intensifying, not only in the United States during the Trump years but across a range of societies. Complexity science suggests that when several tipping points are reached—whether all at once or in succession—they can unleash powerful non-linear effects. Do you see today’s deepening polarization as one of those moments, where competing ideologies could drive us into a new wave of unpredictable, destabilizing dynamics beyond the recent election?
Homer-Dixon: Yes. So, part of the framing of complexity science—and it’s almost inherent in complexity itself—is the recognition that a lot is happening. Within conventional social science, or even conventional science, there’s a strong emphasis on parsimony—identifying relatively straightforward relationships between causes and effects.
Within complexity science, there’s less emphasis on parsimony. There’s an initial recognition that the world is complex, with numerous factors operating and interacting in ways that are, at least at first, difficult to understand. You won’t develop a good understanding by focusing on single variables or isolated factors. You have to examine multiple elements simultaneously. That is the foundation of all complex systems work.
Frankly, that’s what initially attracted me to complexity science. I was grappling with the broader issue of the relationship between environmental stress and violent conflict. As I studied factors like water scarcity, forest degradation, and soil depletion—and how they interacted with conflict—it became clear that multiple causal pathways were involved. Many interconnected factors had to be taken into account. So, I needed a different framework rather than a simplistic approach that looked at single causes and effects.
That’s the background. Now, you can find more details on polarization on the Cascade Institute website. We have developed a set of hypotheses about the factors driving social polarization and deepening social divisions—factors that are far more complex than standard analyses suggest. We use a four-pathway model to explain polarization. The first pathway consists of economic factors—rising inequality and economic precarity- fueling polarization.
The second pathway involves social and managerial factors, precisely the decreasing capacity of societies to address complex problems. Our technocratic elites and experts are increasingly perceived as incompetent in handling crises, whether related to healthcare, climate change, or managing the pandemic. This leads to a delegitimization of expertise and expert governance—a growing rejection of specialists and institutions.
The third pathway is connected to our information ecosystem—social media, information overload, and how these influence communication. These dynamics amplify emotional negativity, making people more inclined to engage only with those who share their views rather than those who think differently.
The fourth pathway is more fundamental: epistemic fragmentation. People increasingly live in their knowledge bubbles, developing their versions of reality and dismissing alternative perspectives on truth. This fragmentation fuels a breakdown in shared understanding.
We have four distinct pathways and are studying how they interact. These interactions can create precisely what you suggest—tipping points in people’s attitudes.
However, these four pathways can be considered underlying stresses in our social systems. Over time, these economic, managerial, cognitive, informational, and epistemic factors make our social systems less resilient. They make people angrier, more afraid, and more distrustful of institutions.
Many of these changes can occur gradually, but then suddenly, you get a significant event—like the political shift in the United States—where the institutional arrangement of an election triggers a system-wide flip.
The best way to think about these polarization processes is that they have drained resilience from our social systems, making them more vulnerable to abrupt shifts that ultimately harm people. In this case, the flip was an institutional one. However, the long-term changes in people’s attitudes, ideologies, and belief systems haven’t been so much a flip as a gradual erosion of resilience.
That erosion manifests in institutions where a radical right-wing regime comes into power in the United States. This is a clear example of non-linearity—where long-term trends, or stresses, accumulate relatively linearly over time, much like tectonic pressure before an earthquake. Once they reach a certain threshold—bang—you get the quake, and the system flips to another state. In this case, that flip was a shift in control of federal institutions in the United States.
Jacobsen: Let me put this in two parts. First, do you think President Trump will go down as one of the most consequential presidents in American history? Second, there’s now a massive nine-figure investment on the table for artificial intelligence.
AI has moved well past being just a trendy buzzword—it’s become a driving force for high-tech firms, major investors, software development, and breakthrough innovation. Do you see these areas steering the development of AI, or is it more accurate to say that AI will end up reshaping them instead?
Homer-Dixon: Yes, 100%. These are related but distinct questions. Let’s talk about Trump first.
The answer is clearly yes—he is already one of the most consequential presidents in American history, alongside Lincoln and Washington. In a recent piece in The Globe and Mail, I argued that he would also be one of the most consequential figures in human history, and I laid out the reasons for that.
One reason is that he is one of the most influential individuals in the world—perhaps alongside Elon Musk. However, he and many people around him are profoundly ignorant of how global and national systems function, even at a basic level.
For example, he doesn’t understand how tariffs work or their economic consequences. That ignorance is deeply consequential because there will be moments when deep system knowledge and strategic intelligence are needed to navigate an acute crisis.
I often point to John F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example. He surrounded himself with top experts, forming what he called ExComm, the Executive Committee of the National Security Council, to carefully think through the U.S. response to the Soviet placement of nuclear-capable missiles in Cuba.
I can’t imagine Trump doing anything remotely similar. He has surrounded himself with individuals who are radically ill-equipped to manage the complex systems they now control.
They have their hands on the levers of these systems, yet they are radically ill-equipped to know how to position those levers effectively. So, that’s point one.
Point two is that Trump’s relationship with his followers drives him in a more radical direction. I won’t go into all the details, but if he fails to implement his agenda, he will become more radical, not less. He will seek out more enemies, attempt to attack them, and crush and destroy both perceived enemies within the United States and those outside it.
Point three is that multiple global systems—climate, geopolitical structures, and more—are already highly stressed and near tipping points. Trump could push them past those thresholds in various ways. One prominent example is climate change. He is actively rolling back climate action.
Essentially, his policies amount to humankind giving up on addressing the climate crisis. That alone could change the trajectory of human history and civilization.
If he escalates tensions into a nuclear conflict, which his actions significantly increase the risk of, that too would mark a defining inflection point for humankind. So, when you take these three factors together—his radicalization, the fragility of global systems, and the existential risks he exacerbates—Trump is among the most consequential figures in human history.
That’s a controversial position, but it was interesting to see the response to my article, published three days before his inauguration; three weeks later, people are already reassessing and saying, “No, that view wasn’t exaggerated.”
Now, on artificial intelligence, which is equally relevant, AI dramatically accelerates what we call epistemic fragmentation. It enables the creation of multiple contradictory realities and allows for the substantiation of false narratives. People can manufacture evidence at will using AI, making it difficult—if not impossible—to discern whether information has any real-world grounding.
This is all part of the more significant shift toward anti-realism. Increasingly, people live in massively multiplayer game-like realities, and AI enhances the ability to generate convincing but completely false realities. Worse, these fabricated narratives can be weaponized against groups or political opponents.
So, regarding your point on AI, I am deeply concerned. I have been in contact with many experts who are central to this debate and the development of AI itself. One of the fundamental issues with our world today is that we don’t know. Due to the inherent complexity of our systems, we are witnessing an explosion in possible futures.
Take, for example, DeepSeek, a breakthrough that dramatically changed AI energy consumption estimates overnight. We previously assumed AI required massive energy and material inputs into server farms, but suddenly, DeepSeek cut those estimates by 90%.
Yet, despite these developments, we don’t fully understand the pathways AI will take. There are still enormous unknowns across technological, political, and social dimensions. This uncertainty offers some potential for hope. Within that very uncertainty, there will be positive outcomes—opportunities we can’t see yet, even from AI.
However, I am profoundly concerned about AI’s ability to exacerbate epistemic fragmentation, further entrenching the creation of multiple conflicting realities. These alternative realities will not only shape the way people see the world but will also be weaponized against one another. AI is likely to worsen polarization rather than help us overcome it.
Jacobsen: Your comments call to mind the perspectives of two intellectual figures who represent strikingly different traditions of thought—Margaret Atwood, the Canadian novelist, and Noam Chomsky, the American linguist. Each has reflected on the relationship between ignorance and intelligence, and Atwood once distilled her view with a stark observation: “Stupidity is the same as evil if you judge by the results.”
Homer-Dixon: That’s very good. That’s true.
Jacobsen: I’ve been thinking about the points you’ve made so far, and they bring me back to a question that Chomsky once raised—though it actually traces to Ernst Mayr. He suggested that “intelligence is a kind of lethal mutation.” It’s an unsettling thought when you consider that beetles and bacteria are thriving quite well without it. So when we look at AI and its implications, the question still lingers: could intelligence itself prove to be a lethal mutation?
Homer-Dixon: Yes, we are modifying our environment to such an extent that we may ultimately cause extinction. You’ve encountered this in your discussions—the famous estimate regarding the longevity of intelligent life in the universe, which is embedded in the Drake Equation.
Frank Drake was the head of SETI—the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. I once visited the SETI offices in the Bay Area. At least at one point, Drake had a custom license plate that read something like “IL = L,” “Intelligent Life = Longevity.”
In his equation, Drake included a series of factors that could contribute to the development of life: the size of planets, their distance from their stars, whether water exists on Earth, and other standard variables.
But the final factor, L, stood for longevity—essentially, the question of whether intelligent life would survive long enough to reach a stable and enduring state. That factor dominated everything else for him because intelligence might ultimately destroy itself.
I don’t think they are.
Human beings—and this is where I have a soft spot for accelerationism, people like Thiel and Musk—are extraordinarily creative, especially in moments of crisis and extreme stress. Things don’t look real right now, particularly existential problems like climate change.
The Peter Principle by Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull was published in 1969.
The basic idea is that within bureaucracies and organizations, people get promoted to their level of incompetence—they rise until they reach a position where they can no longer do their job effectively, and then they stop advancing.
What we may be witnessing with problems like climate change is that humanity has reached its level of incompetence. We have solved everything up to this point. Still, eventually, we will face a challenge too complex to overcome.
It’s an open question.
I’m not prepared to count humankind out yet. I have two kids—one is 19, the other 16—and they are very worried. But I keep returning to this: the world is so complex that we don’t know its game.
There may be an explosion of possibilities, but we can’t see the adjacent possible. These could be technological, institutional, ideological, or belief-system shifts. We don’t know. That is precisely why the Cascade Institute exists. We are trying to identify those possibilities and which ones can be leveraged.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. It was nice to meet you.
Homer-Dixon: Great questions.
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:
Keywords: Ed Hirs, U.S. education, energy economics, global trade, energy policy
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: May 29, 2025
Accepted: November 8, 2025
Published: November 8, 2025
Abstract
This interview with energy economist Ed Hirs, an Energy Fellow at the University of Houston and Yale alumnus, provides a sweeping economic and policy analysis of contemporary American education, manufacturing, and global trade. Hirs discusses the decline of U.S. public education funding since the 1980s, linking it to weakened workforce development, rising tuition, and overreliance on international students. He examines the limitations of protectionist policies and reshoring efforts, arguing that sustainable growth depends on renewed investment in STEM education, vocational training, and academic freedom. The dialogue also addresses the role of university endowments, ideological pressures in academia, and broader issues of global capital flow and trade. Drawing from decades of professional and academic experience, Hirs presents a data-driven, historically informed critique of U.S. policy trends and their long-term consequences for innovation and civic stability.
Keywords: Academic Freedom, Education Funding, Energy Economics, Higher Education Policy, Protectionism, Reshoring Manufacturing, STEM Workforce, Trade Deficits, University Endowments, U.S. Economic Policy
Introduction
The conversation between Ed Hirs and Scott Douglas Jacobsen situates the current challenges in U.S. education and manufacturing policy within a historical and global context. Hirs, a respected economist and educator, traces the erosion of public investment in education from the post-Sputnik boom to the austerity politics of the late twentieth century. His analysis exposes how ideological shifts have reshaped universities into financially strained institutions reliant on tuition revenue and international enrollment. Beyond economics, Hirs engages the cultural and political consequences of protectionism and academic polarization, noting that both phenomena distort long-term innovation and free inquiry. The discussion moves fluidly from the National Defense Education Act to the Trump administration’s trade policies, from the moral function of academia to debates about free speech and donor influence, forming an expansive portrait of a nation at a crossroads between knowledge and ideology.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Ed Hirs
Ed Hirs is a Yale-educated energy economist and an Energy Fellow at the University of Houston, where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in energy economics. Known for his precise, nonpartisan analysis, he is a trusted voice on energy markets, corporate governance, and public policy. Hirs frequently contributes to national and international media and co-chairs the Yale Alumni in Energy conference, promoting fact-based dialogue on global energy security and sustainable economic strategies. Hirs speaks with Scott Douglas Jacobsen about the decline of U.S. education funding, the challenges of reshoring manufacturing, and the economic impact of protectionist policies. Hirs also explores the financial dynamics of universities, academic freedom, and global trade. Drawing on insights into university endowments, ideological polarization, and real-world experiences in Ukraine, this wide-ranging interview provides a critical examination of American policy, public discourse, and the future of higher education and innovation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How would you describe the state of education in the United States today?
Ed Hirs: The U.S. made a significant investment in science and education during the 1950s and 1960s, especially after the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957. That moment spurred the passage of the National Defence Education Act in 1958 and later led to the expansion of public universities and increased federal research funding. There was a national realization that we needed to train the next generation of scientists, engineers, and civic leaders.
That urgency drove public investment in education and innovation. However, beginning in the 1980s, during the Reagan administration, a shift away from this model began to occur. We saw the rise of an anti-intellectual political current that distrusted higher education, particularly elite institutions. Since then, public funding for education—especially at the state level—has stagnated or declined in real terms while tuition has increased. At the same time, ideological movements have sought to divert public education funds to private and religious schools through voucher programs and charter systems.
This shift undermines long-term workforce development and the strength of civic society. One consequence is now visible even to policymakers pushing these changes: amid economic nationalism and trade wars, there is an expectation that major companies—such as Ford, General Motors, Hewlett Packard, and Apple—can rapidly bring manufacturing back to the U.S.
However, that’s not feasible in the short term. It requires a massive investment and a skilled workforce that does not exist at the necessary scale. The U.S. has underinvested in vocational education and STEM training for decades. Workforce development has not been treated as a strategic national priority.
Meanwhile, many leading American universities—such as UT Austin, Texas A&M, the University of Houston, Yale, and Harvard—have become more reliant on international students, particularly at the graduate level, because these students often pay full tuition and help offset budget shortfalls caused by declining public investment. This trend is especially pronounced in STEM fields.
It’s not accidental—it’s a financial survival strategy for universities that face flat or declining state funding.
Jacobsen: And that shifts access away from domestic students?
Hirs: Yes, it can. Countries like China benefit by sending students to U.S. universities rather than building out equivalent institutions at scale. These students often receive state backing and pay full tuition in the U.S. This creates a perverse incentive: American institutions prioritize full-paying international students, while domestic students—especially those from working-class or middle-income families—are increasingly priced out or squeezed by limited slots and inadequate financial aid.
This dynamic erodes the U.S.’s ability to cultivate homegrown talent in science, medicine, and public leadership.
This problem has been acknowledged in academic circles for years, but policy action has been minimal. If we were to attempt a severe course correction, the key questions would be: How quickly could the shift occur, and is there the political, social, and financial will to enact it?
The encouraging part is that such a shift would not be prohibitively expensive. Reinvesting in scholarships, faculty recruitment, and institutional support is relatively affordable compared to other federal spending priorities. It is entirely within reach—if the political will exists.
Jacobsen: How long would it take to build a domestic workforce to manufacture PCs and cell phones?
Hirs: It is likely three to five years to begin meaningful operations, assuming strong political will and substantial investment in training, infrastructure, and supply chains.
Jacobsen: Is there a willingness to do this currently?
Hirs: Not that we have seen—at least, not at scale.
Jacobsen: How would such a shift impact international trade and economics?
Hirs: In the short term, it would not significantly change global trade flows. However, tariffs remain a significant issue. Yes, they can provide temporary protection to domestic industries, but they also raise costs for consumers and disrupt global supply chains.
Jacobsen: How does this relate to the Trump administration’s approach?
Hirs: The Trump administration has promoted protectionist policies that may appear effective on paper—especially if viewed through a nineteenth-century economic lens, reminiscent of mercantilism. Much of what emerges from Project 2025 reflects this outdated thinking. But that is not how the real, globalized economy functions today.
Jacobsen: The U.S. runs trade deficits with many countries, including Canada. Is that a problem?
Hirs: Not inherently. Canada often produces goods more efficiently or inexpensively. The U.S. pays for these goods in U.S. dollars, which foreign trading partners accumulate. Eventually, those dollars return in the form of investments in American assets—such as the stock market, bond market, and real estate.
Jacobsen: So, what happens when trade slows down?
Hirs: With a tariff war slowing global trade, trading partners may begin to divest their U.S. holdings, disrupting this capital recycling. That weakens capital inflow, putting downward pressure on U.S. asset prices. It could deflate markets.
Jacobsen: Has this already started?
Hirs: To some extent. The U.S. stock market has become more volatile. The U.S. dollar index (DXY) has seen fluctuations, and it has dropped more than 10% since President Trump’s inauguration this year. But volatility is evident. Retirees, especially those with 401(k) plans, are feeling it. As tariffs increase costs, domestic producers have also raised prices. It all burdens the consumer as the higher prices are passed through to them..
Jacobsen: Does this raise the risk of recession?
Hirs: Absolutely. The U.S. had a recession in 2020 due to the pandemic, but these protectionist policies could worsen future downturns. Whether the Trump administration is equipped to manage such complexity is uncertain.
Jacobsen: Let’s talk about university endowments. What kind of capital are we dealing with?
Hirs: University of British Columbia: about CAD 2.1 billion. University of Toronto: roughly CAD 3.1 billion. McGill: about CAD 1.8 billion. Harvard University alone: around USD 49 billion as of 2023. These are massive reserves that can be used for research and innovation.
Jacobsen: How much wealth do universities generate?
Hirs: It is hard to quantify precisely. However, through patents, startups, and technology transfer, universities play a central role in the U.S. knowledge economy. According to AUTM data, U.S. universities generate over 1,000 new startups annually and contribute billions of dollars in economic value. May I suggest that you connect with one journalist who covers this well, Janet Lorin of Bloomberg?
Jacobsen: You mentioned Janet Lorin—what does she cover?
Hirs: She’s with Bloomberg and covers higher education. Somebody—I cannot recall who—did a study analyzing the return on investment for MBA tuition. Schools such as Harvard, Wharton, Stanford, and MIT all rank highly in this regard. The top 20 MBA programs generally pay for themselves over time through career earnings.
Jacobsen: And what about programs outside of business?
Hirs: That is more difficult to quantify. How do you define return on investment for an English major, a philosophy major, or even an economics major? What is the metric—salary, intellectual contribution, cultural impact? Someone has done this kind of broader assessment, but I do not remember who. Your point is well-taken.
Jacobsen: That postsecondary education has more than just economic value.
Hirs: Economic outcomes are just one part of it. There are broader social contributions and cultural functions that flow from academia. Universities are fulcrums for public discourse, innovation, and democratic development.
Jacobsen: Any personal stories that bring this to life?
Hirs: I remember meeting alums who had objected to Yale going co-ed in the 1960s. Some were outright dismissive—saying things like “women don’t contribute to society.” And then, of course, their daughters applied to Yale. It was ironic and revealing.
Jacobsen: It becomes personal when it affects them. If you take the most restrictive, least charitable view of women and deny them access to education—as we’re seeing now in Afghanistan under the Taliban—you’re crippling not just women but entire societies. Over the last five years, Afghanistan has consistently ranked at or near the bottom in several major global indexes, including the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report, when reliable data is available. Even if women are primarily in the home, they’re still educating the next generation.
Hirs: Precisely. An educated mother becomes her child’s first teacher. That matters. It was a strong signal of value and foresight—a significant investment.
Jacobsen: Is Buffett stepping down? It marks the end of an era. A whole chapter of American economic history is closing—and the country is changing, too.
Jacobsen: There’s also the influence of figures like Peter Thiel and the broader tech-bro culture. Yes, we do not have to go too deep into that, but there’s a kind of libertarian futurism emerging—especially around projects like Starbase in Texas. It is the seasteading idea transplanted onto land. Libertarian techno-utopia?
That’s the vision. I remember hearing Cory Doctorow speak about this on Democracy Now!—I believe it was during an interview with Amy Goodman. He pointed out that many of these tech leaders—Musk included—have read the speculative literature on techno-futurism but have only absorbed the libertarian aspects of it. They selectively ignored the counterbalancing ethical, social, and political dimensions that round out a responsible vision for the future. So, futurism becomes a one-note ideology.
It’s all acceleration, no accountability. And now we see these increasingly bizarre ideologies being proposed—swearing at astronauts, picking bits and pieces from different belief systems. It’s like: “Take one from here, two from there, three from over there.” It is à la carte. It’s syncretic. Technotheology or something like that.
All right—so let’s shift. Any comments on limitations to academic freedom, whether from students or administration?
Hirs: One of the most noticeable developments is the rise in self-censorship. In specific campus environments, speaking out against the prevailing orthodoxy—whatever it may be—can lead to professional or social punishment. For example, it was difficult in the 1960s to be a professor openly supporting the Vietnam War. Likewise, in the early 2000s, supporting the Iraq War could isolate you. The pendulum swings dramatically in different eras.
Jacobsen: So it’s a function of the prevailing political climate?
Hirs: Exactly. But speaking out does not merit removal. From an institutional perspective, if there is any activity—regardless of ideology—that interferes with the university’s operations, that’s a violation of the code of conduct. Universities enter into contractual relationships with both students and faculty. Breaking those agreements—especially in ways that obstruct university functions—can be grounds for disciplinary action or termination.
Jacobsen: That does not preclude informed or polite discussion, of course.
Hirs: No, not at all. Informed discussion is essential. But physical interference—for example, blocking access to classrooms or facilities—is disruptive and should not be tolerated in any institution of higher learning.
Jacobsen: What about civil demonstration, especially where it involves government interference or international students facing open threats?
Hirs: Peaceful protest in public areas is a legal right. But when demonstrations begin to block entryways, disrupt classes, or interfere with others’ ability to access what they’ve contractually paid for, that crosses a line. Universities have legal obligations to maintain a functioning educational environment.
Jacobsen: And the question of universities accepting money from controversial or political sources?
Hirs: It’s naïve to think universities can accept large sums of money without strings attached. Many university presidents are realizing that now. Whether it’s foreign governments, corporations, or ideologically motivated donors, money often comes with expectations—spoken or unspoken.
Jacobsen: Let’s end with something lighter. What’s controversial to you these days?
Hirs: Pete Rose.
Jacobsen: What’s up with Pete Rose?
Hirs: Well, he’s no longer alive and now his lifetime ban by Major League Baseball has been lifted. I presume that the lifting of the ban makes him eligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame. .
Jacobsen: So, will the Baseball Writers Association finally elect him to the Hall of Fame?
Hirs: I doubt it. He violated baseball’s one inviolable rule, betting on baseball. I don’t think he’ll make it in.
Jacobsen: Who else is on the fence like that?
Hirs: That’s a whole other conversation.
Jacobsen: Larry Summers is back. He’s giving commentaries again.
Hirs: Yes—one of my old professors used to babysit him when he was two years old.
Jacobsen: Were they also grading his thesis back then?
Hirs: Apparently, he has not changed much.
Jacobsen: Even Cornel West has had public spats with him. West considered Summers brilliant—brainy—but perhaps too closely tied to entrenched interests. That’s beyond my area of expertise, however. Chris Hedges chalks it up to a more savant-like focus. That may be fair. These figures—Summers, West, Hedges—are all playing in the same intellectual ballpark. They are brilliant people. But yes, what else? Fundamentally, do you think academic freedom and free speech are under threat? Or is this just another phase of academic rebalancing?
Hirs: I do not think they’re under threat per se. But many people confuse academic freedom or freedom of speech with freedom to disrupt—and those are not the same thing.
Jacobsen: Do you think American academics—students, faculty, and administrators—sometimes confuse the U.S. First Amendment right to free speech with the idea of freedom from consequences?
Hirs: Potentially, yes. Imagine a professor who wants to give a controversial talk. The university provides a room—say, Smith Hall—for an hour. But no one shows up. The professor may feel suppressed, but is that suppression?
Jacobsen: There’s no obligation for others to promote or attend.
Hirs: Exactly. If no one publicizes it or attends, that’s not a violation of free speech. But then the professor might decide to chain themselves to the president’s office doors. That’s not protected expression—that’s disruption. And it restricts others’ freedom of movement. It becomes a form of grandstanding for attention, and from left to right, we see that it is not a productive strategy.
Jacobsen: There have been cases even in Canada—graduate students caught in protracted, unresolved conflicts with administrators.
I recall one such case you might be referring to. If I remember correctly, four different parties—including the university president, the program director, the head of the independent inquiry, and the graduate student’s testimony—all ultimately concluded that the student had done nothing wrong. The institution even issued a public apology.
The controversy dragged on for so long that Ontario changed its provincial policy in 2018–2019 to require universities to conduct an annual free speech review. Most institutions failed the first assessments. Still, the policy remains in place. Ironically, the case that helped create it turned out to be baseless—something made from nothing. It was a complete error that shaped public policy. Do you see similar cases in the U.S.?
Hirs: I am sure they exist, though I have not followed one closely. Yale follows and adheres to the Woodward Report, drafted in 1974 by C. Vann Woodward, the eminent historian. Many universities aspire to uphold its principles.
Jacobsen: What does the Woodward Report emphasize?
Hirs: That people can and should express their opinions, but not at the expense of the university’s core functions. Do not scream fire in a theatre, and do not disrupt the operations of the institution. That’s the short version.
Jacobsen: What’s your take on the cooptation of the term woke—a neologism with roots in African American subcultures nearly a century ago?
Hirs: It is not very easy. The rhetoric surrounding “woke” today is often exaggerated. Some criticisms are legitimate, but much of the discourse is performative. One of my professors was Robert Farris Thompson, a pioneer in African American art history and a founding figure in African American studies in the United States. His approach to cultural interpretation was rooted in depth, not distortion.
Jacobsen: If you’ve been around longer, I get it. That’s the one-time elders—or even younger people—always assert a bit of pride. “Well, I know the person.”
Hirs: Yes, exactly. “I know that guy.” It reminds me of that Woody Allen movie—where someone is talking nonsense, and Allen pulls out Marshall McLuhan.
Jacobsen: That’s right. McLuhan steps in and says, “You know nothing of my work.” I remember that. The guy’s in the movie line, pontificating.
Hirs: As Mark Twain once said, “Nothing ruins a good story like the appearance of an eyewitness.” My freshman English professor once had a run-in with a very self-important student. The student said, “You can’t say that about Faulkner!” So, next class, Lamar Stevens came in with photos of himself drinking and sailing with Bill Faulkner himself.
Jacobsen: That’s excellent. Hey, it’s a pleasure to meet you.
Hirs: Likewise, Scott. Nice to meet you, too.
Discussion
Hirs’ remarks weave together multiple threads: fiscal policy, higher education governance, and civic culture. He identifies the 1980s as a pivotal decade when the U.S. abandoned large-scale public investment in science and education, replacing it with privatization and ideological distrust of intellectual institutions. This shift, he argues, produced cascading effects—undermining STEM capacity, constraining workforce development, and weakening the nation’s ability to reshore industries. In his view, America’s economic resilience is inseparable from educational integrity.
Hirs’ reflections on tariffs and trade provide an economist’s corrective to populist narratives. Protectionist measures, he explains, may offer symbolic satisfaction but impose real costs through inflation, market volatility, and diminished investment. His emphasis on global capital recycling—foreign earnings returning to U.S. assets—frames trade deficits not as national weakness but as functional interdependence. Yet, he warns that sustained policy confusion can erode this balance, risking recessionary pressures and diminished global confidence.
Within academia, Hirs critiques the financialization of universities, exposing how endowments and tuition dependence distort institutional missions. He is particularly alert to the erosion of academic freedom—both from political interference and self-censorship. His invocation of the Woodward Report underscores a principled vision: that intellectual inquiry must coexist with institutional order. Even when addressing cultural issues such as the distortion of “woke” discourse, Hirs maintains a historian’s restraint and a teacher’s curiosity. His humor, whether about baseball or literary anecdotes, punctuates the gravity of his economic insights with human perspective.
Ultimately, the conversation captures an American economist deeply committed to rational discourse amid a turbulent era. Hirs’ argument—that education, innovation, and ethical reasoning are inseparable foundations of democracy—resonates as both critique and call to action.
Methods
The interview was conducted via typed questions—with explicit consent—for review, and curation. This process complied with applicable data protection laws, including the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), and Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), i.e., recordings if any were stored securely, retained only as needed, and deleted upon request, as well in accordance with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Advertising Standards Canada guidelines.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
Journal & Article Details
- Publisher: In-Sight Publishing
- Publisher Founding: March 1, 2014
- Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com
- Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada
- Journal: In-Sight: Interviews
- Journal Founding: August 2, 2012
- Frequency: Four Times Per Year
- Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed
- Access: Electronic/Digital & Open Access
- Fees: None (Free)
- Volume Numbering: 13
- Issue Numbering: 4
- Section: A
- Theme Type: Discipline
- Theme Premise: Economics
- Theme Part: None
- Formal Sub-Theme: None.
- Individual Publication Date: November 8, 2025
- Issue Publication Date: January 1, 2026
- Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
- Word Count: 2,878
- Image Credits: Photo by Matthew Henry on Unsplash
- ISSN (International Standard Serial Number): 2369-6885
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges Enos Mafokate for his time, expertise, and valuable contributions. His thoughtful insights and detailed explanations have greatly enhanced the quality and depth of this work, providing a solid foundation for the discussion presented herein.
Author Contributions
S.D.J. conceived the subject matter, conducted the interview, transcribed and edited the conversation, and prepared the manuscript.
Competing Interests
The author declares no competing interests.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012–Present.
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Conversation with Ed Hirs on U.S. Education, Energy Economics, and the Future of Global Trade.
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition)
Jacobsen S. Conversation with Ed Hirs on U.S. Education, Energy Economics, and the Future of Global Trade. November 2025;13(4). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hirs-economics
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition)
Jacobsen, S. (2025, November 8). Conversation with Ed Hirs on U.S. Education, Energy Economics, and the Future of Global Trade. In-Sight Publishing, 13(4).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT)
JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Ed Hirs on U.S. Education, Energy Economics, and the Future of Global Trade. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 4, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition)
Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Ed Hirs on U.S. Education, Energy Economics, and the Future of Global Trade.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (4). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hirs-economics.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition)
Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Ed Hirs on U.S. Education, Energy Economics, and the Future of Global Trade.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 4 (November 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hirs-economics.
Harvard
Jacobsen, S. (2025) ‘Conversation with Ed Hirs on U.S. Education, Energy Economics, and the Future of Global Trade’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(4). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hirs-economics.
Harvard (Australian)
Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘Conversation with Ed Hirs on U.S. Education, Energy Economics, and the Future of Global Trade’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 4, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hirs-economics.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition)
Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Ed Hirs on U.S. Education, Energy Economics, and the Future of Global Trade.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 4, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hirs-economics.
Vancouver/ICMJE
Jacobsen S. Conversation with Ed Hirs on U.S. Education, Energy Economics, and the Future of Global Trade [Internet]. 2025 Nov;13(4). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hirs-economics
Note on Formatting
This document follows an adapted Nature research-article format tailored for an interview. Traditional sections such as Methods, Results, and Discussion are replaced with clearly defined parts: Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Main Text (Interview), and a concluding Discussion, along with supplementary sections detailing Data Availability, References, and Author Contributions. This structure maintains scholarly rigor while effectively accommodating narrative content.
Share this:
Keywords: Tauya Chinama, philosophy, theodicy, humanist education, Zimbabwe
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: September 29, 2025
Accepted: November 8, 2025
Published: November 8, 2025
Abstract
The interview with Tauya Chinama explores the intellectual and emotional trajectory of a Zimbabwean philosopher and humanist who journeyed from theology to freethought. Trained for the priesthood, Chinama’s inquiries into theodicy—the reconciliation of divine justice with human suffering—provoked a philosophical transformation from belief to apatheism. Through critical engagement with theological defenses of evil, such as Augustine’s original sin and free will theories, he found these explanations logically inconsistent and ethically unsatisfying. His story embodies the struggle between inherited faith and emerging reason in postcolonial Africa. The dialogue situates his evolution within the broader humanist movement in Zimbabwe, connecting his critique of religion to his advocacy for indigenous languages and cultural preservation in education.
Keywords: African Humanism, Apatheism, Freethought, Humanism in Zimbabwe, Indigenous Languages, Philosophy of Religion, Problem of Evil, Secular Education, Theodicy, Theology and Logic
Introduction
This conversation documents Tauya Chinama’s philosophical evolution from a theological trainee to a secular humanist and apatheist. Emerging from Zimbabwe’s complex intersection of colonial religious education and indigenous intellectual revival, Chinama represents a new generation of African thinkers reclaiming moral autonomy outside religious dogma. His academic focus on theodicy—the problem of reconciling divine goodness with the existence of evil—became the catalyst for an enduring critique of institutional belief. The interview follows this transformation chronologically, highlighting the tension between inherited spiritual traditions and the pursuit of reasoned ethics. It also underscores Chinama’s belief that education rooted in indigenous languages sustains cultural identity and intellectual authenticity, reflecting his broader humanist commitment to justice, knowledge, and social progress.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Tauya Chinama
Tauya Chinama is a Zimbabwean freethinker, educator, and advocate for human rights and cultural preservation. Trained in philosophy and theology, he transitioned from religious study to humanism, emphasizing intellectual honesty, dialogue, and heritage-based education. As a teacher of heritage studies, he works to integrate indigenous knowledge and languages into learning systems, arguing that language carries culture, history, and identity. Chinama is active in Zimbabwe’s humanist movement, contributing to interfaith dialogues, academic research, and public discourse on secularism, ethics, and education reform. He champions the preservation of Shona and Ndebele while critiquing systemic barriers that weaken local language education.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you were doing your training, what was your main specialization? What was the core research question?
Tauya Chinama: I had several questions, but my primary focus was on theodicy: the relationship between the existence of God and the problem of evil.
That was the question that led me to think more deeply. Years ago, I preached about an omniscient, omnipotent, all-good God. But then I looked at the reality: people who are disabled, people dying in natural disasters, people dying from diseases. Why is God not ending all this suffering? Where is he? Is he enjoying it?
The key issue is theodicy. The Greek words are theos (God) and dike (justice). Is it just for God to allow these things to happen? That question pulled me further. I came to feel that I could act more justly as a human being than the God being preached, who supposedly is capable of ending poverty, disease, disability, and natural disasters, but does not. Why should I believe in him? Why should I revere him?
The realization was: we are on our own. We are responsible, and we must act to address what is happening to us. That was the key lesson that pushed me from being a believer to an agnostic, and then to what I now call an apatheist—a person indifferent to God’s existence. Today, I describe myself as an apatheist with a touch of cosmopolitanism.
Jacobsen: For theodicy, what were the standard arguments? How did theologians justify evil, suffering, and pain?
Chinama: A number of them talked about free will. Others leaned on determinism. But this did not make sense to me. If we say that human beings have free will, then it means God is not omniscient—he does not know everything that will happen before it occurs. If he knows it all, then free will does not exist.
On the other hand, if determinism is true, then we are simply victims of a plan. We cannot resist; we can only follow the flow. We are what Martin Heidegger might call Dasein—a being-toward-death. We are thrown into existence, moving toward death, with limited choice. That line of argument, whether from free will or determinism, did not make sense to me.
It could not resolve the harm and suffering I saw in the world. The defences of theologians like St. Augustine of Hippo also did not persuade me. Augustine introduced the doctrine of original sin and linked sexuality to sin, claiming virginity was a higher state. But none of this made sense to me. He had emerged from Manichaean philosophy, which emphasized dualism—light and darkness, good and evil as opposing forces. His framework seemed more like a leftover from dualism than a convincing defence of Christian doctrine.
Jacobsen: Was it the weakness of the theological arguments for God in the face of evil that made you drift away? Or was it the strength of non-religious arguments that convinced you to adopt a non-religious way of looking at life?
Chinama: It was both. When you look at the theological arguments and test them through logic—a branch of philosophy about correct reasoning—you quickly see the conclusions do not follow from the premises. That leaves you confused.
So I moved from being a believer to an agnostic, saying, “Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps I am right.” Over time, you sober up. Sometimes you even become militant, but then you realize militancy does not work. You calm down, or you risk messing things up.
I remember when I was training to be a priest. I confided in a particular Indian priest—I will not give his name—that I was slowly losing my faith. He told me something shocking: that many high-ranking figures in the Catholic Church, including bishops and cardinals, do not actually believe the doctrines they defend.
I was surprised. Here were people defending the Church’s teachings every day, yet privately admitting they did not believe them. He even told me he had gone through the same phase and had never fully recovered his faith. His advice was: “Do not fight it. Just go with the flow.”
But I felt I was too honest to live that way. I could not simply go along with something I did not believe.
Jacobsen: In the end, was your decision to leave a faith-based position and move to a non-religious position more an intellectual exercise, or more about changing how you felt? Or was it a little of both?
Chinama: It was both. Several factors led me to change. It was an intellectual practice, but also an emotional realization that what I thought religion was turned out not to be. The whole motivation collapsed, and I was left with no choice but to withdraw.
I do not regret it, but it was a hard decision. There is stigmatization, ostracism, and other consequences that come with choosing such a path. It is serious—you need to be mentally strong. For me, it was primarily intellectual, but I also required mental resilience to overcome it.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time today, Tauya.
Discussion
Tauya Chinama’s reflections reveal a deeply introspective yet socially engaged freethinker whose intellectual honesty led him beyond orthodoxy. His interrogation of theodicy exemplifies the enduring philosophical dilemma of faith confronted by empirical reality. While traditional theologians rely on constructs like free will and divine mystery, Chinama dissects these notions through logic, concluding that such reasoning collapses under moral scrutiny. His disillusionment with clerical hypocrisy—priests who privately disbelieve the doctrines they preach—illustrates a crisis of authenticity within institutional religion.
Yet his departure from faith is not marked by bitterness but by clarity. By adopting apatheism—a stance of indifference toward divine existence—Chinama reframes human responsibility as self-generated rather than divinely assigned. His evolution aligns with a broader movement of African secular intellectuals reclaiming ethical discourse from religious monopoly. Parallel to his philosophical journey, his pedagogical work in heritage studies demonstrates that the preservation of indigenous languages like Shona and Ndebele is a moral act of cultural resistance. Language, for him, is not merely communication but a repository of collective memory and ethical orientation.
The dialogue ultimately positions Chinama within Zimbabwe’s emerging secular humanist network, bridging philosophical critique with practical reform in education and human rights. His insistence that moral progress depends on intellectual freedom situates him among Africa’s most reflective voices challenging inherited hierarchies of belief and identity.
Methods
The interview was conducted via typed questions—with explicit consent—for review, and curation. This process complied with applicable data protection laws, including the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), and Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), i.e., recordings if any were stored securely, retained only as needed, and deleted upon request, as well in accordance with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Advertising Standards Canada guidelines.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
Journal & Article Details
- Publisher: In-Sight Publishing
- Publisher Founding: March 1, 2014
- Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com
- Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada
- Journal: In-Sight: Interviews
- Journal Founding: August 2, 2012
- Frequency: Four Times Per Year
- Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed
- Access: Electronic/Digital & Open Access
- Fees: None (Free)
- Volume Numbering: 13
- Issue Numbering: 4
- Section: A
- Theme Type: Discipline
- Theme Premise: Theology
- Theme Part: None
- Formal Sub-Theme: None.
- Individual Publication Date: November 8, 2025
- Issue Publication Date: January 1, 2026
- Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
- Word Count: 944
- Image Credits: Photo by Karsten Winegeart on Unsplash
- ISSN (International Standard Serial Number): 2369-6885
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges Enos Mafokate for his time, expertise, and valuable contributions. His thoughtful insights and detailed explanations have greatly enhanced the quality and depth of this work, providing a solid foundation for the discussion presented herein.
Author Contributions
S.D.J. conceived the subject matter, conducted the interview, transcribed and edited the conversation, and prepared the manuscript.
Competing Interests
The author declares no competing interests.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012–Present.
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Conversation with Tauya Chinama on Philosophy, Theodicy, and Humanist Education in Zimbabwe.
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition)
Jacobsen S. Conversation with Tauya Chinama on Philosophy, Theodicy, and Humanist Education in Zimbabwe. November 2025;13(4). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/chinama-humanism
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition)
Jacobsen, S. (2025, November 8). Conversation with Tauya Chinama on Philosophy, Theodicy, and Humanist Education in Zimbabwe. In-Sight Publishing, 13(4).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT)
JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Tauya Chinama on Philosophy, Theodicy, and Humanist Education in Zimbabwe. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 4, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition)
Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Tauya Chinama on Philosophy, Theodicy, and Humanist Education in Zimbabwe.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (4). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/chinama-humanism.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition)
Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Tauya Chinama on Philosophy, Theodicy, and Humanist Education in Zimbabwe.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 4 (November 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/chinama-humanism.
Harvard
Jacobsen, S. (2025) ‘Conversation with Tauya Chinama on Philosophy, Theodicy, and Humanist Education in Zimbabwe’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(4). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/chinama-humanism.
Harvard (Australian)
Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘Conversation with Tauya Chinama on Philosophy, Theodicy, and Humanist Education in Zimbabwe’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 4, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/chinama-humanism.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition)
Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Tauya Chinama on Philosophy, Theodicy, and Humanist Education in Zimbabwe.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 4, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/chinama-humanism.
Vancouver/ICMJE
Jacobsen S. Conversation with Tauya Chinama on Philosophy, Theodicy, and Humanist Education in Zimbabwe [Internet]. 2025 Nov;13(4). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/chinama-humanism
Note on Formatting
This document follows an adapted Nature research-article format tailored for an interview. Traditional sections such as Methods, Results, and Discussion are replaced with clearly defined parts: Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Main Text (Interview), and a concluding Discussion, along with supplementary sections detailing Data Availability, References, and Author Contributions. This structure maintains scholarly rigor while effectively accommodating narrative content.
Share this:
Keywords: Enos Mafokate, equestrian, Alexandra Township, apartheid, South Africa
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Received: July 10, 2025
Accepted: July 13, 2025
Published: November 8, 2025
Abstract
This interview traces the early life of South African equestrian pioneer Eno Mafokate, beginning with his birth on February 15, 1944, in Alexandra Township, Johannesburg. Through a childhood shaped by apartheid segregation and cultural separation within Black communities, Mafokate recalls family cohesion, parental devotion to education, and the contrasting geographies of Alexandra and nearby Rivonia after the family’s 1949 move. He describes the hardship and discipline of farm labor—punctuated by violence and rigid racial etiquette—as well as a formative affinity for animals that drew him away from peer socializing toward hours spent riding a donkey and imagining a horse. The conversation situates everyday experiences—housing, food, access to amenities, and exposure to animals—within the racialized hierarchies that structured life in Gauteng during the 1940s and 1950s. Together, these memories illuminate how love, values, and proximity to animals seeded an enduring vocation while revealing the social architecture that limited opportunity and dignity for Black families. Mafokate’s reflections offer a ground-level view of childhood under segregation and the early stirrings of an equestrian life built from scarcity, resilience, and imagination.
Keywords: Alexandra Township childhood experiences, Apartheid segregation and daily life, Donkey riding as equestrian genesis, Family cohesion love and support, Family move to Rivonia 1949, Farm life hardship and lessons, Gauteng Province 1940s social context, Parental occupations and values education, Racialized access to resources, Rivonia farm animals and environment, Violence and power dynamics farm, Youth identity shaped by animals
Introduction
Eno Mafokate’s childhood begins in Alexandra Township—Johannesburg’s dense, multiracial satellite formed in the early twentieth century—and unfolds under the everyday strictures of apartheid-era separation. Born on February 15, 1944, he grew up in a world mapped by race and, within Black communities, by culture, where family love and a premium on schooling counterbalanced scarcity and social constraint. His parents, Maria, a domestic worker, and Alfeos, a respected builder, modelled patience, moral instruction, and an unambiguous emphasis on education as the route to dignity.
A family move in 1949 from Alexandra to Rivonia marked a shift in material conditions without dissolving the larger racial hierarchy. Life on a farm in Rivonia brought access to amenities—better food, domestic animals, even a swimming pool—alongside the discipline and danger of farm labor, including punishment for breaching racial etiquette. Within this setting, Mafokate’s affinity for animals matured: rather than seek parties and crowds, he chose time with creatures, riding a donkey while imagining a horse, sketching the outline of a vocation decades before it would be recognized.
These formative scenes—domestic solidarity, farm hardship, and the solace of animals—offer a close view of Gauteng in the 1940s and early 1950s. They also prefigure the arc of a life in equestrian sport that began not with privilege but with persistence, joy, and the stubborn exercise of imagination against the limits of a segregated society.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Enos Mafokate
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Starting with 1944, your birth and early childhood on February 15 in Alexandra Township, Johannesburg, South Africa. What was life like in Alexandra Township and the wider Gauteng Province for families in the 1940s?
Eno Mafokate: In 1940’s families were separated by race; Indians, Whites, Blacks and Colored. And within the black community we were also separated according to our different cultures, this naturally made life difficult and challenging.
Jacobsen: What were your parents’ names?
Mafokate: Mother was Maria and Father was Alfeos.
Jacobsen: What was their work and parenting style?
Mafokate: My Father was a well known builder and Mother was a domestic worker. They were loving and patient parents, they focused on teaching us good values and morals and prioritised education over everything.
Jacobsen: They must have been some of the first families in Alexandra, as the township was established in 1912 by H.B. Papenfus, proclaimed a year before the South African 1913 Land Act. Black people could own land there under a freehold title as a result. Notably Hastings Banda, Hugh Masekela, Kgalema Petrus Motlanthe, Nelson Mandela, Samora Machel, Alfred Nzo, and Joe Modise, came from there.
You work growing up on a farm comes with all the great lessons about life and death, and hardship, one finds on a farm. What early memories seem to reflect benign and noteworthy aspects of ordinary farm life?
Mafokate: My memories of farm work are ones of hardship. I remember the farm owner punching me for calling his daughter by her first name as he wanted me to call her Miss.
Jacobsen: What events mark more momentous points of early life?
Mafokate: Instead of going out with friends I always chose and preferred to spend time with animals. Specifically riding a donkey. Choosing this lifestyle over a party lifestyle with friends marked who I would become growing up.
Jacobsen: How close was the family?
Mafokate: Very close, there was lots of love and support.
Jacobsen: How important was family?
Mafokate: Family was a special thing to me. Family showed me that life is non existent without love and support from others.
Jacobsen: Moving from Alexandra to Rivonia in 1949, these are key and formative years. My parents divorced only a little later than this age. Any geographic or family change like that is stressful. How was the transition for you?
Mafokate: My parents never divorced they got separated by death.
Jacobsen: Why did the family move?
Mafokate: Family moved because my Father found a Job as a builder in Rivonia so we had to move closer to his work place.
Jacobsen: Rural has a general character to it, rustic in degrees. How was rural life in Alexandra compared to Rivonia?
Mafokate: Life in Rivonia was more established than Alexandra. In Rivonia we lived at a farm house so we had access to more facilities like swimming pools, we got to play and look after.
domestic pets and we had better food to eat. Life in Rivonia was so much better than the life we lived in Alexander township.
Jacobsen: A historic place with the Rivonia Trial moving the South African dial towards a more universally fair and just society with the removal of Apartheid (1963-64). I love the “I am prepared to die speech,” mostly for the crowd reaction.
Jacobsen: What animals were common in these environments–farms differ?
Mafokate: In Alexander it was common to see dogs and horses that were ridden by police men. In Rivona it was common to see cows, horses, sheep, pigs, chicken, birds, rabbits, snakes. Your typical farm animals. Animals in Rivonia were well kept and fed compared to Alexander.
Jacobsen: Your first introduction to horses was not necessarily a “horse,” but more a ‘horse,’ i.e., a donkey. That’s cute and makes me giggle. How did you feel getting on the donkey? I am reminded of the experiences of Canadian and American show jumping Olympic Silver Medallist Mac Cone describing early experiences. He used what was around him, what was available–much more controlled and regulated environment now. Same style of background, but different culture, different nationality, almost the same cohort, different material deficiencies necessary for a proper, full equestrian experience–a donkey experience, nonetheless. How was the memorable exchange with the white boy?
Mafokate: Being my optimistic self, It is a memory of pure excitement and joy. Nothing else mattered when I was riding that donkey and picturing it being a horse.
Jacobsen: How does this highlight the racial barriers of the time?
Mafokate: It highlighted the different and disadvantaged standards of living based on race. It showed that only white people deserved and could have the finer things in life.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Mr. Mafokate.
Discussion
The conversation with Eno Mafokate illustrates how personal memory functions as social history. His early recollections—marked by separation, labor, and tenderness—compose a child’s‑eye record of apartheid’s structure before the term was institutionalized. Alexandra Township in the 1940s existed as both opportunity and limitation: one of the few areas where Black families could own land under freehold title, yet constrained by the invisible boundaries of race and class. Mafokate’s testimony confirms how these dualities shaped both identity and aspiration. The constant thread of parental guidance—love, moral instruction, and the insistence on education—emerges as a counterweight to social fragmentation.
Equally revealing is the move to Rivonia. It represents more than geography: it embodies a microcosm of South Africa’s social stratification. Access to better food and recreation coexisted with systemic inequality, as a young boy’s act of addressing a white girl by name invited physical punishment. Such experiences etched into Mafokate an awareness of dignity and hierarchy long before he entered public life. Yet rather than curdling into resentment, these lessons transformed into empathy and discipline. His companionship with animals, especially the donkey he imagined as a horse, highlights a psychological escape into imagination—a gesture that later matures into vocation.
This early pattern of substitution—using what was available to reach toward what was denied—anticipates the spirit that would define Mafokate’s equestrian career. It also reframes racial segregation not only as an apparatus of exclusion but as a crucible that forced improvisation and resilience. The donkey, in this sense, becomes a metaphor for the creative repurposing of circumstance: humility turned into mastery.
The discussion therefore extends beyond nostalgia. It underscores how moral formation, aesthetic sensibility, and civic awareness can emerge from constrained environments. Mafokate’s childhood story becomes an anatomy of human development under pressure—how affection within family networks can mitigate systemic violence, and how an affinity for animals can cultivate empathy that resists dehumanization. The interview closes with gratitude, but its quiet revelation is that endurance and imagination are inseparable from justice: the small, steadfast acts of seeing a donkey as a horse forecast the larger transformation of envisioning an equitable society.
Methods
The interview was conducted via typed questions—with explicit consent—for review, and curation. This process complied with applicable data protection laws, including the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), and Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), i.e., recordings if any were stored securely, retained only as needed, and deleted upon request, as well in accordance with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Advertising Standards Canada guidelines.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
Journal & Article Details
- Publisher: In-Sight Publishing
- Publisher Founding: March 1, 2014
- Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com
- Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada
- Journal: In-Sight: Interviews
- Journal Founding: August 2, 2012
- Frequency: Four Times Per Year
- Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed
- Access: Electronic/Digital & Open Access
- Fees: None (Free)
- Volume Numbering: 13
- Issue Numbering: 4
- Section: A
- Theme Type: Theme
- Theme Premise: Global Equestrianism
- Theme Part: 1
- Formal Sub-Theme: None.
- Individual Publication Date: November 8, 2025
- Issue Publication Date: January 1, 2026
- Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
- Word Count: 791
- Image Credits: Photo by Jean van Wyk on Unsplash
- ISSN (International Standard Serial Number): 2369-6885
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges Enos Mafokate for his time, expertise, and valuable contributions. His thoughtful insights and detailed explanations have greatly enhanced the quality and depth of this work, providing a solid foundation for the discussion presented herein.
Author Contributions
S.D.J. conceived the subject matter, conducted the interview, transcribed and edited the conversation, and prepared the manuscript.
Competing Interests
The author declares no competing interests.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012–Present.
Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Supplementary Information
Below are various citation formats for Conversation with Enos Mafokate on Early Life and Development as an Equestrian (1).
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition)
Jacobsen S. Conversation with Enos Mafokate on Early Life and Development as an Equestrian (1). November 2025;13(4). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/mafokate-equestrian
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition)
Jacobsen, S. (2025, November 8). Conversation with Enos Mafokate on Early Life and Development as an Equestrian (1).In-Sight Publishing, 13(4).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT)
JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Enos Mafokate on Early Life and Development as an Equestrian (1). In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 4, 2025.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition)
Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Enos Mafokate on Early Life and Development as an Equestrian (1).” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (4). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/mafokate-equestrian.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition)
Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Enos Mafokate on Early Life and Development as an Equestrian (1).” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 4 (November 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/mafokate-equestrian.
Harvard
Jacobsen, S. (2025) ‘Conversation with Enos Mafokate on Early Life and Development as an Equestrian (1)’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(4). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/mafokate-equestrian.
Harvard (Australian)
Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘Conversation with Enos Mafokate on Early Life and Development as an Equestrian (1)’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 4, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/mafokate-equestrian.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition)
Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Enos Mafokate on Early Life and Development as an Equestrian (1).” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 4, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/mafokate-equestrian.
Vancouver/ICMJE
Jacobsen S. Conversation with Enos Mafokate on Early Life and Development as an Equestrian (1) [Internet]. 2025 Nov;13(4). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/mafokate-equestrian
Note on Formatting
This document follows an adapted Nature research-article format tailored for an interview. Traditional sections such as Methods, Results, and Discussion are replaced with clearly defined parts: Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Main Text (Interview), and a concluding Discussion, along with supplementary sections detailing Data Availability, References, and Author Contributions. This structure maintains scholarly rigor while effectively accommodating narrative content.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Keywords: Riane Eisler, partnership education, human nature, caring societies, cultural transformation
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/11
Riane Eisler, an Austrian-born American systems scientist, futurist, and human rights advocate, is renowned for her influential work on cultural transformation and gender equity. Best known for “The Chalice and the Blade,” she introduced the partnership versus dominator models of social organization. She received the Humanist Pioneer Award, and in conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Eisler emphasized the urgent need for humanists to focus on values-based systems and the transformative power of caring economics. Drawing on neuroscience and history, she argues that peace begins at home and calls for a shift in worldview to build more equitable, sustainable, and compassionate societies rooted in connection rather than control. The three books of hers of note that could be highlighted are The Chalice and the Blade—now in its 57th U.S. printing with 30 foreign editions, The Real Wealth of Nations, and Nurturing Our Humanity: How Domination and Partnership Shape Our Brains, Lives, and Future (Oxford University Press, 2019).
In this conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Eisler. She critiques the roots of education’s domination—fear, hierarchy, and top-down control—and advocates for a partnership-based education that emphasizes equity, multicultural content, environmental awareness, and relational skills. Drawing on neuroscience and history, Eisler emphasizes that “peace begins at home,” advocating for a shift toward caring economics and integrated learning. Her influential works—including The Chalice and the Blade, The Real Wealth of Nations, and Tomorrow’s Children—offer a blueprint for fostering compassionate, sustainable societies.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here once again with the prolific Riane Eisler. We will be discussing education within the partnership model. The partnership studies framework, which you developed, proposes a dualistic contrast between two systems: the domination system, which is based on hierarchy, control, and fear, and the partnership system, which emphasizes mutual respect, equity, and nurturing.
In education, has the United States historically focused more on the partnership model or on the domination model?
Riane Eisler: You know the answer to that—it has been the domination model. The approach has been mainly to cram information into children’s heads. That information, to a considerable extent, serves two purposes.
First, it prepares them for the dominant workplace. Second, it maintains the stories and the language of domination.
Jacobsen: When you say that it prepares them for the dominant workforce and conditions them for further domination in educational styles, are you suggesting it is all top-down?
Eisler: The entire system is hierarchical. In Tomorrow’s Children—my book on applying partnership principles to education—I begin by discussing three elements of the educational process: process, structure, and content. Progressive education has paid considerable attention to process, aiming to make learning more participatory for children.
Some attention has also been given to structure, such as involving children in specific decision-making processes within schools. However, content has been almost entirely ignored by so-called progressive education.
In Tomorrow’s Children, the focus is very much on content. Why? Because we have been told many stories that are either false, biased, or incomplete. These omissions prevent us from adequately addressing the challenges we face as a species.
We are not well prepared to deal with issues such as climate change, artificial intelligence, and the complexities of the social media landscape. Education must instead emphasize new stories that are, first, gender-balanced—because much of the old curriculum, especially history, has idealized wars and the so-called “great men” who won them. Figures such as Napoleon Bonaparte come to mind. Students were expected to memorize their names and the dates of their battles.
Including more women is important, but it is not enough to add women into a domination system—those who have managed to succeed and become visible. We must also include values and qualities traditionally labelled as “feminine.”
I will address that later. Of course, partnership education is also environmentally sensitive.
And the content must be multicultural. There are encouraging trends moving in this direction.
So it is a truly integrated and integrative approach to education, one that prepares young people for partnership rather than domination.
Jacobsen: What would you say are the important signifiers, in terms of labels and relations, that appear at the pre-secondary, secondary, and post-secondary levels of education? In terms of hierarchies, the potential for control and fear that arises from those hierarchies which are more prominent in school systems focused on domination.
Eisler: The fear is always there—the fear of failure. The fear of one’s peers, because they are competing with you, the fear of the administration, of the teacher, of authority figures.
We do not know our history well, but Tomorrow’s Children does address it, including the domination aspects of our past, when physical punishment in schools was routine. Fear, therefore, is one of the clearest indicators of dominator education.
Jacobsen: What about systems that produce a particular persona—say, “Mr.” or “Mrs.”—someone who operates entirely on one gear? For example, part of education should probably involve interpersonal skills. Suppose someone is grieving or emotionally activated because something has upset them, and another person responds only with argumentation and a rigid system of facts. In that case, they are not using the right approach. In such situations, care and consolation are probably more appropriate.
Eisler: Precisely. One of the proposals of partnership education is not only to change the traditional content of education—making it more gender-balanced, multicultural, and environmentally sensitive—but also to teach children relational skills.
Children in partnership education would be taught how to care: caring for themselves, caring for others, and caring for our natural environment—our Mother Earth.
Moreover, it is striking how absent this is in traditional education. Again, there are some trends toward incorporating more multiculturalism, greater gender balance, and increased environmental consciousness. However, these are often treated as add-ons rather than being fully integrated into the system.
Partnership education is not only about making curricula more gender-balanced, multicultural, and environmentally sensitive, but also about teaching children relational skills—essential for building healthy relationships.
What I propose in Tomorrow’s Children is an education that tells a different story of human nature and evolution than the one conventionally taught. In fact, the book foreshadows much of what we now recognize as essential: emotional literacy, which you mentioned earlier. It also foreshadows telling a different story of Darwin—what I call “meaningful evolution”—rather than the distorted “dog-eat-dog” story. Of course, dogs do not eat dogs, but that is how evolution has often been misinterpreted.
Jacobsen: Was it Kropotkin who argued that cooperation is a factor in evolution?
Eisler: It was Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1902). Kropotkin was an anarchist—in the proper sense of the word, meaning self-governance, rather than chaos. He was indeed remarkable. Moreover, yes, thinkers like him, who recognized the importance of cooperation, should be included in education—but they are not.
Jacobsen: This may not influence the outcome of research itself. If research is done correctly, the results will be what they are. However, in terms of the questions asked and the research programs funded and emphasized, education appears to play a significant role. Specific perspectives dominate the intellectual and research landscape. Has this affected how human nature is represented in the evidence?
Eisler: Yes. If you ask the so-called “common person” what human nature is, many will respond with the language of sin—original sin—or with the reductionist story of “selfish genes.” Of course, we naturally care more for those who are closest to us. However, consider societies that have progressed further toward the partnership model: they have more caring policies, such as paid parental leave, universal healthcare, and support systems for families.
In these nations, like Finland, Sweden, and Norway, women hold approximately 40 to 50 percent of parliamentary seats, and female heads of state are not uncommon. These societies also invest a greater proportion of their GDP than most others in supporting people through NGOs worldwide—people to whom they are not regionally or genetically related.
There is clearly something wrong with the conventional view of human nature as inherently flawed. Sociobiologists popularized the idea that selfishness and aggression are dominant traits, but this view distorts reality. Killing one’s own mother, for example, is extraordinarily rare—the Menendez case is the exception, not the rule.The stories of selfishness and domination have been popularized and institutionalized, shaping education, culture, and policy in ways that obscure the whole reality of our human capacity for care, empathy, and cooperation.
These distorted stories about human nature have been accepted even in science because they maintain a domination system that is ultimately based on fear. It is a fear of those in power—whether a parent, a religious authority, or a political leader. Consider some of the so-called Christian parenting guides, which literally teach that you “spoil the child if you spare the rod.” They claim that even an eighteen-month-old baby must be forced to sit absolutely still in a high chair because what the child must learn is that the parent’s will is law.
If that is not preparation for fitting into a top-down system, I do not know what is. It begins with fearing God, then fearing the authoritarian leader of the state, and, of course, fearing the parent. This indoctrination begins very early. Education, as I point out in Tomorrow’s Children, begins long before formal schooling.
We have not paid enough attention to what neuroscience tells us. We are bombarded with data, but we often fail to connect the dots. What neuroscience makes clear is that what children observe or experience—especially in their earliest years—literally shapes the architecture of their brains. It influences how we feel, think, act, and even how we vote as adults.
Now, the good news is that we can change. Humans are an extraordinarily flexible species. However, as we know, meaningful change often takes time. Those who have undergone psychoanalysis, for example, will tell you that it requires significant effort and time to reprogram ourselves, if you will. So why not start early?
Fortunately, there has been a trend among pediatricians, early childhood educators, and Montessori practitioners to emphasize the importance of the first years of life. However, this work must continue. Parenting, dating, and numerous aspects of daily life require strong relational skills. These skills are shaped by whether relationships are oriented toward domination or toward partnership. Of course, it is always a matter of degree—where on the continuum a society or family falls.
Dominator societies tend to be very warlike. They devote enormous resources to military budgets—often euphemistically labelled “defence.”
Jacobsen: Where does partnership education emphasize peace? Not necessarily in the sense of advocating war or not, but in cultivating values that make war less appealing.
Eisler: Everywhere, to put it bluntly. Partnership education is not centered on memorizing the dates of wars or the names of the men who won or lost them. Instead, it fosters a more humane approach to learning. It is education for partnership rather than education for domination.
The Center for Partnership Systems is hosting a virtual summit called ‘Peace Begins at Home,’ which connects the dots—showing what neuroscience reveals: that it is in our homes where we first learn how to relate, through what we observe and what we experience. Unless we encounter partnership models along the way, we may never realize that partnership is even a possibility.
It is also important to learn about our prehistoric past, thousands of years ago, when societies were oriented more toward partnership than domination—particularly during the early Neolithic, the first agrarian age. However, history has often been taught as if it only consists of the last five to ten thousand years, which marked the violent shift toward domination.
For example, the Yamnaya people—well documented in archaeology and genetics—introduced warfare and practices that were far from peaceful. DNA studies show that when they migrated into Europe, they killed or displaced the local male populations. The Yamnaya genetic markers largely replaced those of the earlier inhabitants, such as in what archaeologist Marija Gimbutas called “Old Europe.”
We have also inherited our languages through this shift in domination. Nearly all European languages are Indo-European. Only a few exceptions remain—such as Basque, spoken in a small region of the Pyrenees between Spain and France, which is not an Indo-European language. It is no coincidence that the Mondragón cooperatives emerged in this region, where matrilineal and matrifocal traditions endured. However, these were not matriarchies.
The difference between matriarchy and patriarchy is only a matter of who controls. The genuine alternative to patriarchy is partnership.
In Tomorrow’s Children, I emphasize that partnership education also humanizes men. This is just as important as making women visible. It involves transforming rigid gender stereotypes for everyone.
I want to provide you with some examples. For instance, in developing the curriculum— and my book Tomorrow’s Children includes many lesson plans, most aimed at higher grades but adaptable for younger students—we challenge the conventional distinction between “art,” meaning what hangs in museums, and so-called “crafts,” such as tapestries, rugs, and weaving, is shown to be part of male-dominance. Traditionally, it was primarily women who created these, so it is no coincidence that such forms have been marginalized.
I love some of the art that hangs in museums, but let us face it, much of it idealizes domination. In Tomorrow’s Children, I include a lesson plan that highlights this distinction and showcases women artists, such as African weavers and pottery makers. These are not “mere crafts”—they are art. So it is also multicultural.
We also discuss concepts such as mass. It is often difficult for children to relate to such abstract ideas, especially children who have not been included in the standard curriculum—indigenous children, for example. However, so-called “indigenous societies” understood mass in profound ways. They constructed monuments aligned with the solstices, so that at specific times of year the sun would shine through with precision. However, we have acted as though Western science is the only form of knowledge on the planet.
In Tomorrow’s Children, I cite the historian of science David Noble, who wrote A World Without Women. Consider this: Western science emerged from a clerical, all-male, misogynist culture, shaped in large part by the rediscovery of ancient Greek texts. However, even Athens was already a mix—an uneasy blend of partnership and domination. It leaned heavily toward male dominance. Remember, the much-praised Athenian democracy excluded all women, all enslaved people (male and female), and all men who did not own property. Aristotle himself argued that women were inferior by nature.
So democracy in Athens was a peculiar adaptation of the concept. Moreover, as historian Robert Flacelière demonstrates in Daily Life in Greece at the Time of Pericles [sometimes cited as The Daily Life of the Greeks], the head of household had the legal right to decide whether a newborn would live. If a father deemed a child unwanted, the infant could be exposed, left outside to die. Some were “rescued” and enslaved; others perished.
This illustrates how deeply ingrained male power and fear were—not only in public life but also in the household. The Old Testament echoes this as well: Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac at God’s command is another example of male power, fear, and terror as normalized cultural elements.
As I point out in Tomorrow’s Children, and in my best-known book, The Chalice and the Blade, the Athenians even made it compulsory for everyone in society to watch plays that inculcated domination as the only viable model for society. However, within these same traditions, playwrights such as Aristophanes wrote of women’s peace movements in Athens. Is that not remarkable? However, we rarely connect such examples with our deeper prehistory.
Tomorrow’s Children was ahead of its time in drawing out these connections—between what we teach, the stories we tell, and the social systems we perpetuate. Tomorrow’s Children includes many examples drawn from across the humanities. Too often, when we think of the humanities, we imagine old white men from Western culture. However, that is not the humanities. Humanity is much broader and richer than that.
Some of the United Nations declarations on women and children should be part of our conception of the humanities. We need a way of including all of humanity, not just men, not just women. Domination systems rely on rigid gender stereotypes precisely so that one can be ranked above the other, while pretending that no one exists in between. However, throughout history and prehistory, there have always been people who did not fit neatly into these categories.
There are many such examples. So the goal is not to erase the positive aspects of American history, but to teach both the admirable and the terrible. For instance, we must include slavery and conquest. Christopher Columbus, once venerated, is now increasingly recognized in a more critical light. In Tomorrow’s Children, I use many illustrations and cartoons to help children think about these issues. One cartoon I particularly like shows conquistadors arriving on shore and proclaiming, “We discovered you,” while the indigenous people respond, “What do you mean? We discovered you arriving here.” It all depends on your paradigm, your worldview.
This does not mean we ignore the promising developments of the past centuries, especially the last three hundred years. However, we must connect the dots: every progressive social movement has challenged a tradition of domination. Think about it.
The Enlightenment’s “rights of man” movement challenged the notion that kings had a divinely ordained right to rule over their subjects. The women’s movement challenged the divinely ordained right of men to rule over women and children within their homes. The abolitionist movement, the civil rights movement, and today’s Black Lives Matter movement have all challenged the notion of a “superior race” ruling over an “inferior” one. The environmental movement challenges humanity’s supposed right to dominate nature.
That is what Tomorrow’s Children presents: that children—and humanity—do not have a viable future if the domination system continues to shape our policies and our attitudes. Between nuclear weapons and climate change, domination threatens to bring us to evolutionary collapse. We must shift toward partnership.
Jacobsen: Dominator models often produce bluster—a kind of defence mechanism of saving face when exposed for lying or being wrong. We see this in many prominent cases, including among tech industry leaders. What role does this have in reducing a society’s ability to make course corrections?
Eisler:
You know the answer: distraction. Marketing and overconsumption also serve as powerful distractions. Marketing for overconsumption has become a highly effective art form, and it is highly rewarded.
So, really, we are back to the four cornerstones: childhood and family, gender, economics, and story and language. So that children can have a future, we must recognize the barriers.
Gender, of course, is not only a woman’s issue but an organizing principle for families and for economic systems. The so-called “feminine” is consistently devalued. There is always money for weapons, but somehow there is never enough money for feeding and caring for children, for caregiving in general.
Our economic system rewards domination rather than care. And then there is story and language. Tomorrow’s Children addresses all of these—indeed, even before I formally articulated the framework of the four cornerstones, the book already grappled with them.
If we do not change education, we will continue to use it as an instrument to maintain domination. Education must instead become an instrument for accelerating the shift toward partnership.
Not an idealized, perfect partnership—but certainly something better than the horrendous inequalities we now see worldwide, as regression toward authoritarianism and domination in all spheres, including the family, childhood, and gender, continues.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Riane.
Eisler: Then we have more to look forward to. Take care of yourself, my friend.
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): 2025/09/10
Charles Karel Bouley, professionally known as Karel, is a trailblazing LGBTQ broadcaster, entertainer, and activist. As half of the first openly gay duo in U.S. drive-time radio, he made history while shaping California law on LGBTQ wrongful death cases. Karel rose to prominence as the #1 talk show host on KFI AM 640 in Los Angeles and KGO AM 810 in San Francisco, later expanding to Free Speech TV and the Karel Cast podcast. His work spans journalism (HuffPost, The Advocate, Billboard), television (CNN, MSNBC), and music. A voting member of NARAS, GALECA, and SAG-AFTRA, Karel now lives and creates in Las Vegas.
In this inaugural Gay Week discussion with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Bouley reflects on Gavin Newsom’s controversial podcast comments on transgender athletes, arguing for nuanced, case-by-case debate rather than blanket bans or labelling allies as transphobes. He critiques GOP “obsessions” with LGBTQ issues, challenges proposed rollbacks under Project 2025, and highlights threats from Florida laws, cuts to HIV/PrEP funding, and federal executive orders undermining transgender rights.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Because trans issues are all over the news—RFK Jr. even mentioned it yesterday—we can certainly talk about this. Welcome to the inaugural session of this Gay Week with Carole Bouley. We will discuss Gavin Newsom today and may also touch on other topics. This is intended to be a weekly Spitfire chat for the Commem Project; hopefully, they will accept it, and we can make it a regular occurrence. We are starting with fire and brimstone. Gavin Newsom is a well-known political figure in the United States. I am speaking from a Canadian perspective, as you know my roots are Canadian.
Karel Bouley: My mother’s maiden name is Tremblay, and my father’s last name is Bouley. I currently have an application in Canada because my grandfather, Joseph Camille Tremblay, was born in Quebec. There may be a way that under Canadian law, I can apply for citizenship through my grandparents, so I am seeking Canadian citizenship based on my grandparents’ Canadian heritage, as both my paternal and maternal grandparents were Canadian. So we’ll see if I get it.
From my grandparents’ generation backwards, the great-great’s they were born in Canada. Five generations back, the family came from France, with ancestors settling in Quebec (the St. Lawrence River area) and then moving down into Massachusetts and Vermont. My lineage is Canadian, specifically French Canadian, on both sides.
Back to Gavin. Full disclosure: I know Gavin Newsom. We’ve met many timse or been on air together a few as well. I’ve also emceed a campaign event for him.
I first met Gavin over 20 years ago when we clashed on air. In February 2004, as mayor of San Francisco, he directed the city clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Roughly 4,000 licenses were issued before the California Supreme Court ordered a halt in March; in August 2004, the court voided those licenses. I told him on air at the time, “It’s all well and good that you wanted to prove a point, but you harmed us,” because eleven states passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. We disagreed for a few years on air until he finally asked me one day at an event, “When would it have been a good time to stand up for equality, Karel?” I had to admit he won that argument.
Well, lately, when LGBTQ organizations and commentators have discussed him as a potential presidential contender, there’s also been frustration from queer and especially trans communities. Including several posts on social media this week that got a lot of attention.
JACOBSON:: One flashpoint: his new podcast, “This Is Gavin Newsom,” launched March 6, 2025, with conservative activist Charlie Kirk as the first guest. In that episode, Newsom agreed with Kirk that allowing transgender girls and women to compete in girls’ and women’s sports is “deeply unfair,” a stance that drew sharp criticism from LGBTQ+ advocates and many Democrats. GLAAD also faulted the podcast’s early lineup for featuring multiple anti-trans voices without including any trans guests.
Bouley: When I saw this on social media I decided to make it a topic on The Karel Cast. My opinion was look, I happened to agree with him on one of the topics…and when I said that online and in my show I was immediately labeled a transphobe by my own community—a community I’ve spent 40 to 45 years championing. I’m literally on the wall at Harvey Milk Plaza for my contributions, and I’ve suffered discrimination myself, greatly and still do. Yet suddenly I’m being called a transphobe.” The topic of the show that day was: Does it have to be all or nothing? Because I wanted to talk about counting people out because you disagree with one statement or one policy, even though I, myself, find myself guilty of that in some cases.
But when can we have a debate about this? My niece changed my views on trans issues. I used to be the kind of person who said, “You can have whatever surgery you want, but ultimately underneath you’re an XX or XY chromosome, and that’s your biological determination.” I was wrong—dead wrong. First of all, there are variations like XXY or XYY. Second, I realized it’s not up to me to determine what makes a man or a woman. That is not my call. As she pointed out and I fully agreed. Viewpoint changed.
We have radical transphobes like J.K. Rowling saying, “No matter what you do, you’ll never be a woman.” I even have a friends in the gay community that have said to me the same thing—that trans women aren’t “real women.” Now, that is transphobia. However, when it comes to the specific discussion—trans people in sports—it becomes more complex.
First, we’re talking about a small portion of trans people, who themselves are less than 1% to 2% of the population in professional sports. It’s a fraction of a fraction that participates in competitive sports. Now, there are 396k people that identify as trans under the age of 24 in the United States, so while estimates put the number of trans athletes at under a thousand nationally professionally, any blanket ban could bar any of 396k from playing. So Gavin’s stance, at least as it came across in the podcasat—was that male-to-female transgender people should not compete in female sports. Now, I’m not going to speak for Gavin. I didn’t hear the full quote he made with Charlie Kirk, I’d have to go back and listen, but the gist was: if you were born male and then transition to female, you shouldn’t be in female sports. At least that’s what I get from all the comments online. That’s a raging debate right now. Even Trump has jumped into it.
Now I shared on The Karel Cast partial agreement. Personally, I believe there should be no blanket bans. Take Texas: after 16 tries its legislature is sending a bill to the governor that would ban trans people from using public bathrooms altogether. At all. So, I guess they’re supposed to pee in the bushes? And if you’re caught, they want to fine you $25,000. That’s not only absurd, but I believe it’s unconstitutional. And it is transphobia. So again, it’s nuance. To me, the athlete debate is a different matter.
I saw Martina Navratilova, an out lesbian, on a morning show in Europe saying she would not want to compete in tennis against women who had transitioned from male to female, because of the apparent advantage. She was talking about people who transitioned after puberty—meaning that if you were male, your arms and legs grew longer, and you became taller—so there is an advantage there. Pre-puberty, it’s a different situation…
Transitioning before puberty is entirely different. Because of these nuances, I don’t believe there should be a blanket rule. It should be decided athlete by athlete and sport by sport. For instance, female-to-male transitions: let’s say you’re a five-foot-five female who becomes a man. Why shouldn’t you compete in gymnastics? You’re not going to be any bigger than the other men—you’ll be the same size, the same weight, the same everything. So there’s no unfair advantage there.
In other sports, such as boxing or wrestling, however, if you are female but transitioned from male post puberty, you may have an unfair advantage. South Park actually parodied this a couple of seasons ago, and it was hysterical and I’m sure quite offensive to many as they often are. . That’s why I say it should be case by case. But this morning, I read on LGBTQ Nation about a country that created strict rules, and now they’re even excluding cisgender, heterosexual females from some sports simply because they’re “too big.” That illustrates how complex blanket policies can become.
I think individual sports should make these decisions, and there’s definitely room for dialogue. Shutting Gavin or anyone down and labelling them a transphobe is dangerous. He may have opinions that upset parts of the trans community, but he’s certainly not against transgender people, at least I have never heard him say he doesn’t like the “t” in “lgbbtq.”
Another thing that was being said that Gavin said was that he believes people shouldn’t transition until they’re 18 or even 25. I talked this through with some friends, and one of them said something powerful: “Why are you, or Gavin, or anyone even having that conversation?”
I asked what they meant. They said, “You believe in a woman’s right to choose, correct?” I said, of course. They continued: “And if that woman happens to be 13 or 14 years old—a victim of incest or rape, or pregnant at 13—you still support her right to choose?” I said, Yes, of course. They replied, “Then it’s the same thing with trans kids. If a trans child wants to transition pre-puberty, and their doctors support it, their psychologists support it, and their parents support it, why are you even in that conversation?”
That hit me hard. You can have an opinion, Scott. I can have an opinion. People can’t get tattooed until they’re 18—so there is law based on opinions about when people should do certain things. But ultimately, in matters this personal, it’s not up to us, and it shouldn’t be up to the government or the law.
Again, shutting anyone that has been an ally down as a transphobe is dangerous. But I think we all could use some education about the trans experience, to hear their stories, so we can better understand. We have clear medical evidence that outcomes are better when trans youth transition pre-puberty rather than after. I may not fully understand that, and from my perspective, waiting until 18 doesn’t seem like a problem—after all, you have to wait until 18 for a tattoo like I said—but that’s not my call to make. Why?
I’m not trans, I don’t have a trans family member, and I’m not a doctor. Therefore, I don’t get an opinion on whether or when someone should transition. Neither do you, nor anyone else outside of that process—and indeed not the government. There should be discussions. Trans people themselves should engage people like Gavin, or even myself, educate everyone about transitioning, on if there’s a compromise that all are happy with on sports.
Again, I don’t believe there should be a blanket ban on trans athletes. I know where I stand: it should be case by case. I hope that doesn’t make me transphobic. If Gavin advocates a complete ban as social media said he did this week, then that is something I hope he does more research on, more networking, meeting more trans athletes and having discussions. And I myself am reading and seeking out more information to see if my case-by-case option may be a wrong idea. And if I find it is, then I’ll change it. That’s what we need to do. If someone is an ally but has a misguided opinion, we need to engage them, educate them, give them a chance to be heard and even change if needed.
Meanwhile, the political right, especially MAGA Republicans, is obsessed with trans people. They brought it up even in the RFK Jr. hearings about health care and vaccines this week—topics that had nothing to do with trans issues. JD Vance weighed in, too, dragging trans people into the discussion.
Their obsession is bizarre. And honestly, I think it’s sexual. They’re repressing desires. Grindr crashes every time there’s a Republican convention. That’s not an accident. Take an example from just a couple of months ago: Laverne Cox—the trans actress and influencer who rose to prominence on Orange Is The New Black—faced backlash when it came out that she had been dating a MAGA-supporting, New York police officer for three years. Her trans followers couldn’t believe she was “sleeping with the enemy,” someone aligned with people pushing anti-trans policies every day. She was “cancelled” by many in her own community.
I wouldn’t date someone from MAGA. I certainly wouldn’t date someone transphobic. But she did, and she got in trouble for it. And that shows you something: if MAGA people are so dead-set against trans folks, why is a MAGA cop dating one of the most famous trans women in the world? It proves they’re obsessed with trans people.
It’s everywhere. I’m looking at a dozen LGBTQ headlines right now, all focused on trans people and trans rights. They’ve become the new punching bag, maybe because they’re a small portion of the population. I’m here to defend them, and others are too.
But that being said, Google was in the news today for something disturbing: parents of trans kids searching for resources to support their children were being directed to conversion therapy sites. Conversion therapy is torture. It doesn’t work, and it harms people. Yet people are finding that Google search results are still offering links to it. That’s not what families want; that’s not what they’re asking for. And that’s where we are today.
Google is serving that up to them.
Jacobsen: Some people I know in different areas will use a VPN and set it to another, more evidence-based country, and then the Google search results adjust accordingly. That’s one more thing.
Bouley: And this week, you had Rand Paul saying about a CDC staff member who was fired that it was “good,” because—this is his quote—“his lifestyle made him unfit to be in government.” The staffer was gay. The only person in that conversation unfit to be in government is Rand Paul. The notion that a caricature of a politician would denounce someone solely for being gay, someone working in public health, takes us back to the 1980s. And that’s the same era they’re dragging us toward by cutting HIV funding.
This week, they announced more cuts to HIV programs, both worldwide and here in the United States. There are even rumours they’re preparing to cut coverage for PrEP therapy. We know PrEP has dramatically reduced the spread of HIV/AIDS. I’ll be honest: I don’t personally take PrEP, and I disagree with it for myself, but I’m glad it exists. My late husband was HIV positive. I never contracted HIV. Safe sex works. But if you want to take a drug that may have side effects, go ahead.
Especially in underdeveloped nations, PrEP is a significant resource, and I fully support its availability there. In the U.S., wear a condom—that’s my view. Ultimately, it’s a matter of freedom of choice. If you want to take PrEP, take it. And yes, it should be covered, because if someone contracts HIV, it costs the healthcare system far more than preventive medication. Covering PrEP is cost-effective and humane. Trump and his allies want to cut it.
That’s in the news this week, too: they’re talking about cutting funding for PrEP under the Affordable Care Act. It was covered under Obamacare, reaffirmed under Biden when it was challenged in court, and the courts ruled it must be covered. Now conservatives are trying to find a way around that, to strip it away. This is part of Project 2025—rolling back rights in every way possible.
We also know that when the Supreme Court reconvenes, there’s a case pending that could challenge same-sex marriage. It stems from Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses even after being ordered to. She’s pushing her case all the way to the Supreme Court. If they rule in her favour, it could effectively undo Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. There’s even talk in some circles of revisiting Loving v. Virginia, which would mean undoing interracial marriage.
So there’s been a lot of bad LGBTQ news this week. On top of that, the gay community is alienating an ally in Gavin Newsom because they perceive him as transphobic. Some of his comments were transphobic, I’ll grant that, but he needs education, not condemnation. Trans athletes in sports is a genuinely complex issue, and the sporting community itself should come up with the solution. Hopefully, it won’t be a blanket ban but a case-by-case approach.
Jacobsen: Then there’s Florida. They’re deeply entrenched in the “war on woke.” They’re even targeting symbolic gestures—like rainbow-colored crosswalks. I believe there’s now a threat to put people in jail for using chalk to recolor a sidewalk outside a memorial where over 50 LGBTQ people were murdered at Pulse nightclub in Orlando.
Bouley: Florida is a hateful state. I was born in Miami, but I left. Remember when we talked about this before? I said I don’t need pride flags flying at government offices; I need equal rights. One of the most hateful things Florida did this week wasn’t painting a sidewalk but was planningdf to get rid of vaccine mandates, so children or adults would no longer be required to take vaccines.
That’s a far bigger issue than rainbow sidewalks. Rainbow sidewalks are a distraction from the fact that they’re literally trying to endanger lives. Still, the idea that you could go to jail for chalking a rainbow on a sidewalk is absurd. And let’s be clear: this is not a “war on woke.” Woke is not a bad word. I’d much rather be awake than asleep, coherent than in a coma.
If “woke” means being accepting, loving, diverse, equitable, inclusive—if it means being educated, able to read, able to think critically—I’ll take it. So when they say they’re fighting a war on woke, what they’re really fighting is a war on intelligence, compassion, and empathy—all the qualities that make us decent human beings.
The notion that a rainbow sidewalk is somehow offensive is ridiculous. I don’t need rainbow sidewalks, but I don’t mind them either. They’re a nice way of saying, “We care that you’re in our community.” Personally, I worry more about getting run over on the sidewalk—living in Las Vegas, where the red you see on sidewalks is too often blood.
But this is not a war on “woke.” It’s a war on gay people. To call it anything else is dishonest. They’re literally trying to shove us back into a pink closet, and we’re not going to go. That upsets them, so they’re doing everything they can to erase gay culture from their culture. It’s all part of Project 2025, and Ron DeSantis is more than willing to lead the way.
It’s sad. And it’s happening outside a nightclub where more than 50 LGBTQ people were slaughtered at Pulse in Orlando. That makes it even more insulting. Not that Florida could look much worse, but this makes them look worse still—so petty and bigoted that a painted crosswalk is their “line in the sand.”
Meanwhile, when a school shooter turned out to be trans, everyone on the right rushed to declare, “See? They’re mentally ill.” First of all, if you keep kicking any community hard enough, eventually someone is going to snap. They keep kicking the trans community, and yes, one nut fell out.
But let’s talk numbers. Of the 258 mass shooting deaths in the U.S. so far this year, only two involved a trans shooter. The other 254 were caused overwhelmingly by straight, cisgender white men with guns—many of them extremists or MAGA supporters or right-leaning.
So before anyone talks about the “mental illness of trans people,” they should be talking about the mental illness of straight white men who often cling to a right-wing ideology. They’re the ones committing mass shootings, not the trans or gay community. To center the debate around one trans shooter, while ignoring the hundreds of deaths caused by white cis men, is insulting, ludicrous, and ignorant—which pretty much sums up their party.
Jacobsen: I’m not sure if this is updated or not, but Executive Order 14168, issued January 20, 2025, withdrew federal recognition of transgender identity. It banned gender self-ID on government documents, eliminated federal funding for gender-affirming care, and enshrined a rigid male/female binary across agency materials. Are there any updates you’re aware of?
Bouley: They’re going to tie it up in court. But now, the Department of Justice is also trying to push a “trans gun ban,” to bar trans people from buying guns because of one mass shooting. Out of hundreds of mass shootings, most carried out by straight cisgender men, they’ve never moved to ban them from buying guns. But now, suddenly, they’re targeting trans people. That shows how stupid and ridiculous this party is.
And that executive order you mentioned? It’s unconstitutional. Whether they like it or not, the Constitution covers trans people, gay people, bi people, lesbians, and queer people. We are covered by it. I know they hate that. Trump, MAGA, Republicans—they’ve hated my entire life, the fact that when our founders wrote about “all men are created equal,” it meant me too. They hate that, but it does.
If the courts interpret the law correctly, they will not allow Trump’s bans to stand. Can they cut funding? Sure. We’ve talked about this with Pride festivals. Yes, they can cut funding. Will that hurt the trans community? Absolutely. But they don’t care. They act like trans people aren’t Americans. But they are. I’m an American. Trans people are Americans. They deserve the same rights and privileges as every other American.
If any person can walk in off the street and buy a gun, then trans people should be able to do the same. If any other American can receive government funding for programs, then gay and trans Americans should also be able to receive funding. Singling us out suggests we’re not American. And they’d love for us to just accept that. But we are Americans, and the Constitution covers us.
Right now, that executive order is being picked apart by the courts to see if it can hold up. And Trump keeps losing in the courts—he lost two more cases this week alone. His tariffs were ruled unconstitutional.
Jacobsen: His funding cuts were also found to violate World Trade Organization rules.
Bouley: He’s losing over and over. So whether this stands or falls will depend on the judges. Meanwhile, there’s a transgender competitor on American Ninja Warrior. And he’s fantastic. You’d never even know he was trans unless he told you.
Jacobsen: Honestly, some of the hottest guys on dating apps are trans.
Bouley: It’s true. I’ve cruised more than a few guys and later found out they were trans. And you know what? I don’t care. But the right is so preoccupied that yesterday Tucker Carlson was in the news, saying Pete Buttigieg is a “fake gay” and that he wants to ask him specific questions about gay sex. Tucker needs to just rent some porn.
Tucker Carlson sounds like Stanley Kubrick directing Eyes Wide Shut. He wants to sit there like an audience member asking Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman about their sex life—except now it’s Pete Buttigieg he’s fixated on. What does he want to ask? If Pete is a top or a bottom, or if he “rims Chasten.” What? What is a “fake gay,” anyway? By the way, you can be gay and celibate. Gay is not about sex; it’s about orientation. The fact that Tucker keeps tying homosexuality purely to sex proves how little he knows—and how much of a perv he is.
Jacobsen: What’s the other item? Oh, right—Senate Bill 8 in Texas, the one banning trans people from using bathrooms.
Bouley: Here’s what I say: they should just start going in front of the bathrooms. Literally, take a dump outside the door. Make the point. By the way, I couldn’t find any documented case of a woman being molested in a bathroom by a trans woman. None. I also couldn’t find any documented case of a man being harassed in a male bathroom by a female-to-male trans person. What I did find were plenty of cases of women being assaulted in bathrooms by cisgender men.
And I found many, many cases of straight men being arrested in bathrooms for having gay sex. In fact, statistics show that a large percentage of men arrested for bathroom sex identify as heterosexual. So what exactly are they afraid of when it comes to trans people in bathrooms? I can’t find any evidence of danger—other than, at worst, a smelly poop.
Jacobsen: Last item: the Trump administration is demanding that 40 states, D.C., and five territories strip so-called “gender ideology” from sex ed curricula. Canada has reasonably evidence-based sex ed. But when American politicians talk about “gender ideology,” what do they mean?
Bouley: Basically, “gay.” They collapse everything into one: gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer. They don’t understand nuance.
Even here in Nevada, parents can opt out of LGBTQ-inclusive curricula for their kids. When I was in school, I had sex ed. In college, sure, people even came in to talk about things like bondage. In high school, we just got the basics—straight, gay, fetishes, all of it. And you know what? We survived. All my classmates survived.
But conservatives use “gender ideology” as a dog whistle. To them, it just means “gay,” and they want it erased. They don’t want Stonewall taught, they don’t want the history of the gay rights movement taught, and they don’t want any acknowledgment of LGBTQ people in the classroom. They want us erased, as if we don’t exist.
We all know Republicans control what’s in schools. Do you know where most of our textbooks are printed? Texas. A majority of school textbooks come from Texas. Essentially, what the Texas school boards decide ultimately determines the curriculum for the rest of the country. That’s why it’s so easy to erase LGBTQ people from classrooms—because publishers in Texas aren’t going to fight to keep it in.
Jacobsen: Do you have any final thoughts for this week?
Bouley: Other than this, we’ve seen all of this before. We’ve seen rollbacks in gay rights before—under Reagan, under Bush. But I do know that the current opinion polls in the U.S., taken just last week, show 64% approval of same-sex marriage. And 71% of people surveyed said they don’t care about gay or trans issues; they have bigger things to worry about.
So why is the administration pushing a trans gun ban, bathroom bans, and other wedge issues? Because they’re distractions from the fact that the Epstein files haven’t been released, and the president, a known sexual predator, is probably in them. It’s a distraction from the fact that last week, six billion people were represented in a meeting—India, Russia, China, North Korea, and others. Modi was there, Kim Jong-un was there. The United States was not.
And if you want to talk about a crisis, that’s one. Every one of those countries punishes LGBTQ people and makes it illegal to be gay. That meeting should have alarmed everyone, including gay people, because we won’t win that trade war—and if it ever comes to a real war, we won’t win that either. Yet no one covered that meeting. It was a terrible meeting for gay rights and for human rights in general. We’ve seen this pendulum before. It swung toward love, peace, acceptance—Lady Gaga and rainbows—and now it’s swinging back the other way. We’ll see where it lands.
Jacobsen: Karel, thank you very much for your time today. I’ll see you next week.
Bouley: Thank you, Scott. I’m going to get that clock away from you sooner or later. Cheers—though I still think it makes a fabulous headdress for you.
Jacobsen: I prefer the clock.
Bouley: What a headdress it would make..
Jacobsen: Thank you. All right, we’ll talk to you next week.
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): 2025/09/10
Jordan J. Edwards (He/Him/His) is the Deputy Director at The Normal Anomaly Initiative. He serves the Black, queer-plus community by expanding opportunities for sustainable employment and ensuring linkage to care services for people living with HIV and for those interested in PrEP. Jordan’s advocacy extends well beyond The Normal Anomaly. He is a Board Member of Montrose Grace Place, participates in the national Greater Than HIV campaign, and was recognized as a 2024 White House Rising Leader.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Edwards talks about the challenges facing Black, queer-led organizations amid political backlash and declining corporate support. Edwards discusses how the rollback of funding, such as Target’s retreat on Pride initiatives, reveals both fragility and the presence of authentic allies. He highlights the strain on mental health, organizational sustainability, and generational gaps in advocacy strategies. Drawing on his experiences with The Normal Anomaly and national campaigns, Edwards emphasizes the importance of coalition-building, private donor engagement, and intergenerational learning in sustaining LGBTQ communities during turbulent times.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: It is helpful to see who truly stands with you. Some people have changed their public language, but they continue to act and provide support in meaningful ways. They step back from visible messaging to avoid political backlash, but still contribute through mini-grants or other funding sources. From what I observe, the visible support is what gets attacked, so that part shifts. However, the real question is: if you are not going to support me publicly, are you then directing funding to grassroots organizations that sustain the LGBTQ community and allow us to survive?
In the current political climate, the networks are very diverse—you have people from many different backgrounds. The political environment allows some to speak out more or less, depending on the moment. Right now, we are experiencing a wave of anti-LBGTQ sentiment. What has the political backlash looked like? Specifically, how has the rollback or reduction of corporate funding and support emboldened opponents?
Jordan Edwards: I have been thinking about this in relation to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). My intersectionality as a Black and queer person allows me to see both sides. Often, we discuss how the LGBTQ community feels and how the Black community feels, but being both Black and queer puts me in a position where neither community consistently supports the other. That creates a difficult tension. For example, when Target scaled back its LGBTQ Pride merchandise in 2023 after organized backlash, it became clear that corporations can retreat under pressure. While Target’s CEO did not step down at that time, the company’s actions highlighted the fragility of corporate support. However, these moments also reveal who truly supports us and what forms of change are possible. This gives us hope as a community. If we come together, identify our allies, and support them, we can make a difference. Many people redirected their support, choosing other corporations like Costco instead of Sam’s Club, or moving away from Target to companies that maintained their commitments. By finding where the real support lies, we can drive meaningful change.
Jacobsen: Even with corporations pulling back, what about the longstanding issue of tension between Black and queer communities, especially for people living at both intersections? Did the reduction in corporate funding and public support affect that dynamic in any way, or has it remained largely the same?
Edwards: It did. The corporate withdrawal of funding did impact our communities and had some effect on our organization. I work at The Normal Anomaly Initiative, which is a Black, queer-led organization. We lost federal funding from the CDC, but in terms of corporate funding, what we noticed was that during Pride Month, corporations like Shell or Chevron—who had historically supported us—still had departments that were able to provide funding. We maintained those relationships with individuals within corporations who consistently support the LGBTQ community. That is how we have continued to engage. I know some organizations have not been able to sustain that type of impact, but that has been our experience.
Jacobsen: Was much of the original corporate support financial because they saw it as a market opportunity, in other words?
Edwards: Yes, and I would say that some corporations approach us as a way to check multiple boxes, whether that is race, gender, or sexuality. However, we have been intentional in building relationships that reveal who is genuinely for us and who will actually support us. That way, we can ensure that our partnerships truly serve our community. Because if we align with organizations that are not authentically supportive, our community will rightly ask, “How can we trust you? How can we work with you?” That is something we have been cautious about.
Jacobsen: Are there comparable cases in other advanced industrial societies? Everyone is aware of the intense backlash against LGBTQ rights in some countries—through politics or legislation—but what about societies that have the resources and institutions to fight back?
Edwards: That is a good question. I recently had a conversation about the importance of collaboration with organizations that not only provide financial support but also stand publicly with us. The question becomes: are you actively promoting the LGBTQ community, or do you lack diversity within your own team? That distinction matters. While I do not have a complete answer, the key is to evaluate whether the backing extends beyond financial support to include structural support and representation.
Jacobsen: Mental health is always a struggle, especially for people who already feel marginalized in their society. Have you seen reports of community members struggling more with mental health when there is less visibility and fewer public signals of support? For example, some events may still happen, but without major headliners or the same level of visibility.
Edwards: Yes—mental health has absolutely been affected. Members of my team have been talking more about anxiety and the importance of checking in with each other. We have seen an increased need for therapy sessions and for support in navigating daily life. For the community as a whole, the best way I can describe it is like PTSD.
You are already fighting for basic recognition in spaces that often are not built for you, and then every time you turn on the TV or hear news out of the White House, it feels like something else is coming against you. That constant anticipation has taken a toll on mental health. Regarding events without sure headliners, we host a music festival and have had discussions about the type of headliners and sponsors we can attract.
Some of our sponsors have included pharmaceutical companies such as Gilead and ViiV Healthcare. However, when it comes to large corporations like Amazon or Target, we have not engaged with them directly as an organization—only as individual community members navigating consumer spaces.
Jacobsen: I was recently interviewing someone in a different context—refugees who had fled war zones. Many of them had trained in professions like journalism, but now they are driving for Uber or working as plumbers or construction workers. They lost not just jobs but their professional identity and sense of purpose, which is deeply traumatizing.
Obviously, it is not the same as war trauma, but I wonder if there is a parallel. When funding declines, people who once assumed support would be there often find themselves forced into survival jobs. Leaders of organizations and events, lacking stable funding, often drop out of advocacy altogether and transition into unrelated work to survive. Have you seen this happen in the past year?
Edwards: Absolutely, I have. Many organizations do not know how to pivot. They receive funding and build their programs entirely around what funders want, instead of centring on what they actually do well. When that specific funding disappears, they cannot adapt. For example, if an organization were entirely dependent on corporate funding for HIV testing or education, and that funding were to dry up, but testing and education were never their strengths, they would have no foundation to pivot from. I have seen organizations attempt to shift from testing to mental health initiatives or building community cohorts in order to survive. Some individuals have turned to side work—such as driving for Uber or taking up trades—because the funding they were receiving was never enough to support a living in the first place. This has only increased. Many organizations are worried about closing their doors because they lack the sustainability to pay salaries and wages. Moreover, that instability impacts both the organizations and the communities they serve, especially since many of the staff are themselves members of the communities most affected.
Jacobsen: In another interview in this series, someone in their 60s pointed out that gay, queer, and Black men have historically organized outside of mainstream spaces through grassroots work. They basically said, “We did it ourselves.” Perhaps it was not on the level of selling lemonade at a lemonade stand, but it was about self-reliance. For those who are not over 60 and who have lived in the relative equality created by that earlier generation, this seems to be their first major wake-up call. Is that the general sense being discussed?
Edwards: Yes, there is definitely a transgenerational gap. Individuals in their 50s and 60s possess a deep well of knowledge, having lived through these struggles before. Then there is my generation—I am 34—where many of us are asking, “What do we do now? How do we move? How do we create change?”
We should have been engaging with the older generation already to learn what worked and what did not, so we could build a through line and understand how to reach our goals. My generation relies heavily on technology and social media as our tools of engagement. However, when fundraising language puts a target on us, how do we still engage effectively?
Many people in my generation lack knowledge on how to build coalitions or networks offline, within smaller silos, or by reaching out to private donors. Wealthy individuals are willing to give, but they cannot always do so publicly due to their corporate positions. Think of people like Tim Cook or Sam Altman—reach out and connect with them. A lot of this work requires us to be in those rooms.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts or comments?
Edwards: Yes. Recently, I was on stage at a conference with funders, including representatives from Gilead Sciences and the Elton John Foundation, alongside another individual who is a notable mogul. What they all said was, “We have been here before.” We are constantly in this cycle: we build something, it gets stripped away, and then we have to fight to rebuild.
Moreover, while that is discouraging, the key point raised was: why are we struggling separately instead of coming together to sustain ourselves? That message is vital. Collaboration and unity are among the most crucial ways we will survive the next three years.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much, Jordan.
Edwards: All received. Excellent—we will be in touch. Thank 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): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/09
Said Najib Asil is the Founder and Executive Director of the Free Speech Centre, a Toronto-based independent nonprofit advocating for exiled journalists, press freedom, and the rights of media professionals. Prior to that, he led the Current Affairs department at TOLOnews, Afghanistan’s largest news network before the fall of Kabul. Asil was awarded a fellowship at CBC News through the JHR (Journalism and Human Rights) program from September 2022 to September 2023. With nearly two decades of journalism experience, he has contributed to BBC World News, France 24, NPR, and The Walrus.
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Asil. Asil reflects on his decade with TOLOnews before the fall of Kabul in 2021 and details the Free Speech Centre’s efforts to support Afghan journalists inside Afghanistan and in exile across Canada, the U.S., and Europe. He emphasizes advocacy, training, and mental health programs, while also addressing the economic and professional struggles faced by displaced media workers. The conversation highlights resilience, forced migration, and the challenges of resettlement.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: All right, once more, we are here with the wonderful Said Najib Asil. He is now more established in Canada and continues to build various initiatives. Let me confirm a couple of things with you. You founded the Free Speech Centre. You are also part of the board of the Canadian Association of Journalists, Toronto chapter. What else?
Said Najib Asil: That is it. I also work as a freelancer.
Jacobsen: As a clarification, TOLOnews—your original organization—does it still operate in any capacity that you are involved with, even though it is based in a different country?
Asil: Yes, TOLOnews is still operating and remains Afghanistan’s largest news channel. I worked there for more than a decade in different positions before the fall of Kabul in August 2021. Since then, I have not been working with them.
Jacobsen: Now, what are the logistical needs of the Free Speech Centre today? Moreover, how do you envision its work for the rest of this year and into 2026?
Asil: Over the past two years, the Free Speech Centre, based on its mission, vision, and activities, has been engaged in three main areas. We are connected with journalists inside Afghanistan, as well as working with journalists in the region, including Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey. On a broader scale, we also organize events and conferences in Toronto, sharing insights into the media sector, current developments in Afghanistan, emerging narratives, and the challenges facing exiled media. We discuss these issues in Canada and with our partners in the United States.
Within Afghanistan, we are working with journalists in over 20 provinces. All of our activities, both inside and outside the country, are carried out voluntarily. Journalists inside Afghanistan share reports, documents, and updates about their cities and provinces, covering issues related to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and the restrictions imposed on the media. We document every single case happening daily. We monitor the state of the media in the country, including the new policies and changes imposed by the Taliban, from laws to other regulations.
At the same time, we advocate on behalf of journalists, particularly those who remain in Afghanistan. Our colleagues in Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey also continue to require our support. We collaborate with organizations such as Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and International Media Support (IMS), among others, to facilitate long-term resettlement in European countries. Through the Free Speech Centre, we organize conferences, host Zoom meetings, and write narratives on their behalf.
They are sharing their documents, and we provide recommendations and support letters to those organizations when references are needed. This is part of our advocacy work at the Free Speech Centre. In Canada, as well as with some of our volunteer journalist colleagues in the U.S., we are working to share the realities of the media sector over the past four years in Afghanistan, as well as the ongoing struggles. More than 7,000 journalists have left the country and are now residing in North America, Europe, and other regions. The reality of life in these countries is complex, and we are organizing events, conferences, and networking opportunities to address this complexity. For those still struggling with mental health issues and trauma, we organize webinars to help connect them with Canadian media organizations, so they can learn more and adapt. We are also providing training programs. These are part of our activities and mission at the Free Speech Centre from last year to the present.
Jacobsen: Every organization has resource limits. Many organizations, for instance, base their work around support groups for people who have suffered in various ways. They may have different experiences but similar traumas and backgrounds, which allows them to share and support each other. If you provide a space—such as forums or Zoom meetings—where they can converse and share their stories, it can be a means of coping. Is that a possibility through your center, or perhaps in collaboration with another organization?
Asil: Yes, it is possible, and it is essential for journalists. Journalists living in exile, as well as those still in Afghanistan, particularly women journalists, face enormous struggles. We understand the daily struggles of women journalists. In Europe and North America, Afghan journalists who have resettled over the past two to three years continue to face challenges. Meanwhile, women inside Afghanistan are no longer allowed to work in the media industry; they have been silenced and confined to their homes. They are struggling with mental health issues and trauma. To address this, we organize programs through Zoom and other platforms. We connect 20 to 30 journalists from various parts of the world, including Afghan journalists, and collaborate with universities and professors specializing in mental health. They share their knowledge, guidance, and strategies to help journalists survive and cope with their circumstances.
Jacobsen: I remember speaking with a Kurdish colleague many years ago about resettlement, before you and I even met. I said that people come to a new country out of necessity—they do not want to leave their homeland—but eventually, they resettle. He responded gently, but rhetorically: “Do they?” That struck me as a good question. From his experience, it seemed that a new place does not necessarily feel like home, even after many years have passed. What is your sense of the character of being forced by necessity out of one’s homeland—resettling, and the psychological process involved in that?
Asil: Right, so from two perspectives. First, for those who want to leave their countries and build a new life elsewhere, that is an entirely different case. However, for us, especially Afghan journalists, it was different. For me and hundreds of friends and colleagues, we already had jobs, good opportunities, and were able to work for our people inside Afghanistan. We continued in this way. We travelled to different parts of the world, but we always returned home to stay and work, because we knew how important it was to be journalists within our own country.
After August 2021, everything changed. There was no longer space for journalists, activists, women, or professors. These people had to leave the country. I never wanted to live in Toronto or anywhere else—I never expected it—but this is what happened. This is the reality. Moreover, this reality is complicated for journalists, activists, and others who were forced to leave their country because of war or oppression.
For us as journalists, it is tough. Many worked in Afghanistan for more than two decades. Some were anchors presenting the 6 p.m. news bulletin to over 20 million Afghans daily. In Canada and other countries, some individuals are working for Uber or in the construction industry. If we look deeply into their lives, it is a constant struggle—working to pay bills at the end of the month. Based on these realities, I would say it is tough to find yourself in a new country. It takes time to reestablish your life, to figure out how to continue, and to pursue the professional dreams you once had. Sometimes you are not allowed the chance to continue in your profession. This is the reality for Afghan journalists who have been exiled.
Jacobsen: What stories have struck you the most of those who have come to a new country and have managed to thrive?
Asil: I know many journalists, especially over the past three years in Canada, particularly in Toronto. I truly appreciate the support of the JHR (Journalists for Human Rights), which, following 2021, offered Afghan journalists a one-year fellowship program. Approximately 10 Afghan journalists received this opportunity and collaborated with various media organizations. I completed my fellowship at CBC, while my friends and colleagues worked at outlets such as CBC, CTV, the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, and others for a year.
However, after the year ended, because the media market—especially in Toronto—is so saturated, it was tough to secure permanent positions. I am still in touch with most of them, and nearly all of them were unable to secure jobs in Canadian media after completing their fellowships. This is even though many of them had worked with major international media organizations, such as The Wall Street Journal and BBC World News, and were well-known journalists across Afghanistan and Central Asia. It shows how hard it is for them, even with strong professional backgrounds, to continue their careers here.
At the same time, living expenses—especially in a city like Toronto—make it extremely difficult for journalists to survive, particularly for families of five or six. This is the new reality. Rent, utilities, food, and bills are all very costly. As a result, many journalists have transitioned into other types of work. Some have enrolled in certificate programs to become mechanics or enter trades through programs like Hi-Work. When I see these journalists daily, it is hard because they don’t want to be driving Uber or doing jobs outside their profession. However, this is the reality they are continuing with now.
Jacobsen: Said, Thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Asil: I appreciate it as well, thank you so much.
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): 2025/09/08
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.
Tsukerman views U.S. visa revocations for PA/PLO officials and suspension of a Gaza childcare program as charged steps complicating any PA role in post-Hamas Gaza. In South Korea, she links indictments to entrenched corruption undermining public trust. In South Africa, she doubts a G20 inequality study will overcome ANC cronyism. Thailand’s ouster of Paetongtarn Shinawatra signals elite power struggles. She praises UAE prodigy Roudha Al Serkal’s WGM title as a significant step forward. Tsukerman condemns Russia’s occupation tactics in Zaporizhzhia and the Taliban’s escalating repression of Afghan women.
Interview conducted August 29, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So we are back here with Everywhere Insiders, a mix of Associated Press and Reuters, today. The U.S. State Department, under Secretary of State Antony Blinken, has revoked the visas of several Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization officials ahead of a high-level meeting at the UN General Assembly. The groups previously maintained representatives in the United States.
The State Department has also suspended a program that allowed some injured Palestinian children from Gaza to come to the U.S. for medical treatment. This decision reportedly followed political pressure from conservative voices on social media. It is unclear whether Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas himself will be affected by these visa restrictions. Any thoughts?
Irina Tsukerman: So far, the administration has not declared Abbas persona non grata, and it would not be easy to do so for the head of the Palestinian Authority. It is, however, noteworthy that this step was taken even as discussions continue about who might govern Gaza if Israel succeeds in removing Hamas. The Palestinian Authority has been floated as a possible candidate.
Reports indicate that Egypt has been training Palestinian security forces for a potential role in Gaza’s administration and post-conflict stabilization. Those would be personnel from the West Bank working in coordination with the Palestinian Authority. Essentially, the U.S. move signals that at least some members of the PA and PLO are viewed as problematic, citing reasons such as corruption, prior or ongoing support for terrorism, or human rights abuses. However, the administration has not provided detailed evidence publicly. If alternative leadership is being considered for Gaza, it has not been made clear who those figures would be. Israel and the UAE have discussed potential candidates, but no confirmation has been made.
This step by Washington complicates the prospect of the Palestinian Authority taking on a leadership role in Gaza. It makes U.S. diplomatic involvement in such an arrangement more awkward, given that several PA-linked officials have now been sanctioned.
On the medical program, Democrats in Congress are pressing for its reinstatement. Conservatives have raised concerns for several reasons. First, they object in principle to foreign nationals receiving medical care in the U.S. funded through American programs or resources. Second, they argue that hospitals in Israel, Egypt, or closer regional facilities are better positioned to treat most injuries, with only highly complex cases requiring U.S. expertise.
Third, conservatives worry that family members accompanying injured children could include individuals with ties to Hamas, who might overstay their visas or cause security issues in the U.S. The concern is that the medical program could be exploited as a means of entry under pretenses.
Historically, most Palestinian children in need of specialized care have been treated in Israeli hospitals, in the West Bank, or in countries like Egypt and Jordan, with some also going to Europe or the Gulf states. Relatively few cases involved travel to the U.S., particularly after restrictions on movement in and out of Gaza tightened in recent years.
Nevertheless, the program existed, and its suspension has become a public controversy. Even if it was rarely used, the fact that it has now been explicitly revoked has elevated it into the headlines.
Moreover, it is not the fact of how many people were actually utilizing it. However, the fact that it existed and is now being shut down—presumably as a political measure—is causing the outcry. If there were zero children actually coming to the U.S. and it was quietly defunded for that reason, I do not think anyone would have even noticed. However, because it was made into a public gesture, I think that is part of the reason for the pushback, at least theoretically. People are saying that it is not a good look because the kids have no involvement in any combat-related activities and, therefore, should not be penalized for any potential violations by their family members.
Jacobsen: The wife of South Korea’s former president was indicted Friday as part of investigations into his administration in an attempt to overcome opposition by declaring martial law. Yoon Suk-yeol is the jailed ex-president. The historical context is that South Korea has had several political crises involving corruption, bribery, and abuse of authority. However, there was no successful imposition of martial law by Yoon Suk-yeol. Any thoughts on this continuing saga?
Tsukerman: Yes. The key issue here is that allegations of corruption in South Korea—whether involving financial misconduct, bribery, or influence peddling—have repeatedly eroded public trust in leadership. Past leaders have sometimes used claims of national security threats or foreign interference to justify strong measures; however, these claims have not always been substantiated.
In this case, the underlying driver is corruption, involving not only financial misconduct by leaders themselves but also by their close associates and family members. Attempts to cover up such wrongdoing by framing it as a national security issue can backfire, causing more long-term damage to South Korea’s institutions and public confidence than if the leader had resigned outright.
What is interesting is that subsequent administrations have taken a different tack, especially in foreign policy. Some leaders have sought a more dovish approach toward North Korea, engaging in dialogue and peace overtures, even though Pyongyang has often rejected them. South Korea has demonstrated openness to supporting U.S.-led diplomatic initiatives, as seen when former President Donald Trump pursued meetings with Kim Jong-un.
So, while corruption scandals weaken domestic governance, they also intersect with South Korea’s broader security posture, raising the question of whether short-term political survival tactics have created greater instability than doing nothing at all.
Jacobsen: South Africa has commissioned an inequality report for the G20 summit, announced on Thursday, August 28. South Africa has appointed American Nobel Prize–winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who is widely respected, to lead a group of six experts in compiling the report and presenting it to world leaders.
Kenya-based nonprofit Oxfam, which regularly releases reports on wealth inequality, stated in June that the wealth of the wealthiest 1% has surged by $33.9 trillion since 2015—an amount they argue could eliminate global poverty 22 times over. I am not familiar with the precise definition of poverty that Oxfam uses. South Africa itself is ranked as one of the most unequal countries in the world. Any thoughts on this?
Tsukerman: I do think there is value in studying inequality, but given the level of corruption within the African National Congress (ANC) and the South African government more broadly, I am not sure whether such a study will be conducted fairly or provide real insight into the causes of the current situation.
The root causes of inequality in South Africa are self-evident. A small minority controls vast resources, often using political connections to dominate industries and significant sectors of the economy. That naturally results in limited upward mobility for most citizens unless they are politically connected.
This system has persisted for decades. The ANC, historically supported by the Soviet Union, inherited some of the same political and economic tendencies, where elites benefited disproportionately compared to the general population. Although South Africa today has a multi-party system, the ANC’s dominance means corruption and cronyism remain entrenched.
If the ANC genuinely wanted to address inequality, it would need to allow a more competitive political environment and reduce the stranglehold of monopolistic forces that control both politics and resources—whether energy, mining, or transportation. Without that, studying inequality alone risks being an exercise in futility.
I also question the timing. Commissioning such a study right before the G20 summit seems more like a public relations move to appear responsive to global concerns rather than a serious attempt to tackle inequality. If they had started earlier, they could have presented both data and tangible progress. As it stands, this feels performative.
It appears that South Africa is commissioning this study not for genuine impact, but rather for presentation purposes—something polished to show at an international gathering, only to be shelved afterward until the next summit. Meanwhile, the country faces very real economic problems.
There have been recurring energy blackouts, widespread corruption in the energy sector, and even allegations of internal sabotage. Public frustration is high over mismanagement and the perception that leaders are selling out national resources to foreign interests. South Africa has faced controversies over its ties with sanctioned states like Iran and Russia. While President Cyril Ramaphosa has at times attempted to reassure the U.S. and Western partners by downplaying such relationships, critics argue that little substantive change has occurred.
If South Africa is serious about reform, it must hold accountable those within the ANC and its allies who are undermining the economy. That requires truly independent inquiries rather than ones controlled by the very political actors sustaining the status quo.
Jacobsen: This one is significant. Thailand’s Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra was dismissed today, Friday, by the Thai Constitutional Court for violating ethics. She is the sixth prime minister from, or backed by, the billionaire Shinawatra family to be removed by either the military or the judiciary in a two-decade struggle between the country’s rival elites. Paetongtarn was also Thailand’s youngest prime minister. A special session of Parliament is scheduled for early September to determine the way forward. Any thoughts?
Tsukerman: The dismissal continues Thailand’s cycle of political instability. The Shinawatra family has dominated Thai politics for years, but members of the family—or leaders aligned with them—have repeatedly been ousted through coups or judicial rulings. Paetongtarn’s removal reflects both ongoing allegations of corruption and entrenched elite rivalries.
There are also external dimensions. Thailand’s political crises often intersect with regional tensions, such as strained relations with Cambodia. Nationalist rhetoric, combined with opaque dealings between Thai and Cambodian elites, has fueled unrest. While international mediators, including the United States, have occasionally stepped in to pressure dialogue and de-escalation, these interventions rarely resolve the deeper domestic divides.
Ultimately, Thailand’s instability stems from persistent elite infighting, recurring judicial interventions, and a lack of durable democratic protections for its population. The cycle of removing Shinawatra-linked leaders shows no signs of ending, and it continues to destabilize Thailand’s governance and credibility abroad.
Thailand has suffered for decades from political turmoil—characterized by authoritarian crackdowns, populist measures employed for demagoguery, and persistent rivalries between entrenched factions. The dismissal of Paetongtarn Shinawatra is clearly a blow to her supporters, who saw her position as a vehicle for advancing their factional interests. However, this does not mean a new appointment will improve Thailand’s prospects or ease tensions with Cambodia.
What is needed is sustained, serious diplomacy to address long-standing regional disputes. Internally, Thailand faces the deeper issue that the same political elites continue to dominate, regardless of which figurehead is in power. Their constant infighting rarely translates into better governance or more opportunities for the Thai public. The reality is that Thailand’s political culture has become entrenched in cycles of corruption, judicial intervention, and elite power struggles. Without systemic reform, simply replacing one official with another will not deliver stability or progress for ordinary citizens.
Jacobsen: That covers much heavy political news. Let us look at something positive. A recent milestone for women’s representation in sports: 16-year-old Roudha Al Serkal from the United Arab Emirates has become the first woman from the Gulf region to earn the title of Woman Grandmaster in chess.
She achieved the title during the Arab Women’s Chess Championship, scoring enough points to qualify for the title. Al Serkal, who is from Abu Dhabi, is now celebrated as a breakthrough figure for Gulf women in international chess.
This is being hailed as a win for Emirati women in a sport long dominated by men. It is also being framed in some reporting as a Gulf-wide achievement. Any thoughts?
Tsukerman: This is indeed a positive development. In several Gulf countries—particularly the UAE, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia—there has been a notable increase in women’s political empowerment, social visibility, and ability to pursue careers and activities that were once largely inaccessible to them.
In the UAE, for example, women have become increasingly active in business, cultural activities, and now in sports, such as chess. This is not entirely new—elite women in the region have historically had some visibility—but what is different now is the broader participation beyond just the ruling or elite families.
That said, there are important nuances. Saudi Arabia, despite its reputation for strict conservatism, is a much larger and more diverse society, with over 30 million people and a long history of urban centers where women have been relatively engaged and active. The harshest restrictions on women were more common in rural, tribal, and suburban areas. In contrast, the UAE is a smaller country with a more closely knit population. While it has long been outward-looking in trade and business, its social norms have, on average, been more conservative.
The increased visibility of Emirati women—whether in business, diplomacy, or sports like chess—is the result of many years of gradual internal change. Unlike Saudi Arabia, where reforms under recent leadership were rolled out in sweeping public announcements, the UAE’s progress has been quieter and less internationally publicized, but still significant.
It is encouraging to see Emirati women gaining more opportunities and recognition. Realistically, conservative family structures in the UAE will continue to shape society for some time, and women’s political power remains limited—diplomatic and official roles exist. However, they are not yet close to decision-making authority. Even so, the progress matters. It has the potential to create opportunities not just for elite women, but also for middle- and working-class women, making society more vibrant and inclusive over time.
So, a symbolic gain, but still important. It is an improvement, and in this context, even symbolic change carries weight.
Jacobsen: Let us go with the short version here. Russia’s occupation of Zaporizhzhia, including the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, has kept the region a focus point since the invasion. Enerhodar, once a thriving city of around 50,000 people, has now been described by Reuters as a “ghost town,” with reports of intimidation and seemingly arbitrary detentions aimed at erasing Ukrainian identity. What are your thoughts on Russia’s use of terror, intimidation, and cultural erasure in this particular area?
Tsukerman: None of this should come as a surprise. Cultural erasure—bordering on genocidal intent—is part of Russia’s strategy in Ukraine. Russian officials and state-linked figures have made repeated calls for the liquidation or re-education of Ukrainians, rhetoric that clearly indicates genocidal intent. Disturbingly, such statements have not triggered proportionate international political consequences.
The European Union has imposed successive rounds of sanctions—now in the high teens—but sanctions alone have not altered Russia’s fundamental objectives. Russia has been remarkably successful at infiltrating Western political discourse, normalizing the idea that Ukraine is not truly sovereign and advancing the narrative that Russia has some “rightful” role there. This undermines Ukraine’s international standing and emboldens further aggression.
On the ground, Russia has combined repression with depopulation. Many residents of Enerhodar and the surrounding area have fled, both out of fear of repression and because Russia cannot be trusted to manage nuclear infrastructure safely. Russia has a long history of corruption, negligence, and poor maintenance in technical and nuclear facilities—a legacy from Soviet times that persists today. There have even been questions about the functionality of its own nuclear arsenal due to chronic mismanagement.
When it comes to captured infrastructure like the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Russia’s attitude is deeply troubling: a mix of arrogance, nihilism, and disregard for human life—including its own soldiers. That creates a real risk of a nuclear accident under occupation, whether through incompetence or neglect. This danger is a primary reason people have evacuated; no one wants to remain near a potential nuclear catastrophe.
At the same time, Russia benefits strategically from depopulating occupied regions. Fewer Ukrainians in the area means less risk of resistance, sabotage, or organized opposition. For Moscow, holding the nuclear plant is already a tactical and symbolic success—they prefer to reduce the local population rather than face ongoing civilian resistance.
What astonishes me is that the Zaporizhzhia plant has not become the subject of far more urgent and focused diplomatic negotiations. The potential consequences of an accident are catastrophic, not just for Ukraine but for Europe as a whole.
Even an accidental discharge at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant would be an environmental disaster, resulting in massive casualties. I do not understand why there has not been more international pressure to secure this area and negotiate it out of Russian hands. Of course, for Russia, this site represents significant leverage, and they would be very hesitant to part with it without demanding something substantial in return.
At the very least, there should be sustained diplomatic efforts, given the sensitivity of the nuclear security issue in this conflict. A disaster at that plant could render parts of Ukraine uninhabitable for decades.
Jacobsen: We have time for one more today. This one comes from UN News. At a press conference in Geneva, Sophia Kalthorp, UN Women’s Chief of Humanitarian Action, stated that despite existing bans, Afghan people overwhelmingly want girls to have access to education. Reportedly, more than 90% of Afghan adults support the right of girls to be in school, despite the Taliban’s restrictions. As I understand it, the Taliban bans girls from education beyond grade six. Any thoughts?
Tsukerman: The UN has been remarkably ineffective in pressuring the Taliban. The regime has not been weakened by international non-recognition; instead, it has leveraged economic and geopolitical partnerships to entrench its rule. Despite horrific reports of repression—including banning girls from secondary and higher education, restricting women from most jobs, prohibiting them from travelling without a male guardian, and even imposing rules about women not being visible through windows in their own homes—the Taliban has managed to build ties abroad.
Russia, for example, removed the Taliban from its list of terrorist organizations and has invited Taliban officials to international forums. Reports suggest that Russian security services have even provided training and assistance in camps. China and Iran have also increased their engagement, particularly through energy and trade deals. Pakistan remains central to the Taliban’s rise and survival, despite ongoing border clashes, while India has cautiously opened diplomatic channels to counter Pakistani influence.
At the same time, the Taliban attempts to present itself internationally as a legitimate government. Some of its so-called initiatives—such as claims that banning women under 35 from driving reduces greenhouse emissions—are absurd and highlight their instrumentalization of policy for control and propaganda rather than genuine governance.
Western governments have also engaged selectively: for example, the UK has negotiated with the Taliban over the return of Afghan refugees, with the Taliban promising housing and economic support for returnees. However, none of this changes the fundamental reality: the Taliban continues to erase women from public life systematically, and international engagement has so far failed to reverse or even slow that trend.
Jacobsen: Do you have any more comments on that?
Tsukerman: Yes. To finish the point, while the Taliban has promised to build housing for Afghans being expelled from the UK, Iran, Pakistan, and other countries, and might be using resources from energy and trade deals to do so, repression inside Afghanistan has not lessened. In fact, it has continued to intensify, particularly against women.
Germany has also entered the picture. It has negotiated the return of certain Afghan nationals classified as criminals under German law, arranging their transfer under heavy security convoys and specific conditions. I find it troubling that so much emphasis is placed on returning such individuals, while far less focus is directed toward protecting the rights of ordinary Afghans who are not criminals and who face severe repression at home. The humanitarian priority should be securing the safety and rights of the vulnerable, rather than simply expelling offenders.
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): 2025/09/07
Sigurdur “Siggy” Runarsson is Vice President of Siðmennt, the Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association, now Humanists Iceland, and one of Iceland’s best-known humanist celebrants. Since Siðmennt gained legal recognition in 2013, he has officiated hundreds of secular baby-namings, civil confirmations, weddings, vow renewals, and funerals, helping membership climb to roughly 6,500 in a country of 400,000. Runarsson’s ceremonies are distinguished by meticulous video interviews, playful original poetry, and the dramatic Icelandic landscapes he often uses as venues—from glaciers, lava fields, and black-sand beaches to intimate community halls. He welcomes intercultural elements, enabling couples to weave Iranian sofreh rituals, Jewish glass-breaking, or Celtic hand-fasting into a framework grounded in humanist values of autonomy, dignity, and inclusivity. Abroad, his “runaway weddings” have become a niche attraction for tourists seeking nature-centred vows. At home, former civil-confirmation students now return to him for marriages and child-namings, illustrating how his empathetic approach is reshaping Iceland’s life-passage traditions for future generations.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Siggy Runarsson. Thank you very much again for joining me. The last time we spoke was in 2019 or 2020 in an interview focused on gender equality, Iceland, and humanist ceremonies.
Iceland has a small population—around 400,000 people. Yet, a significant portion of its residents are registered with or aligned with Siðmennt, the Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association. How has that community grown so quickly in such a short period?
Sigurdur Runarsson: The main reason is that Siðmennt has become a meaningful alternative for people seeking secular, inclusive ways to celebrate life’s key milestones. We offer civil ceremonies for baby namings, weddings, vow renewals, and funerals, as well as a popular civil confirmation program for teenagers. This confirmation is a non-religious coming-of-age ceremony that serves as an alternative to traditional Christian confirmations.
In many ways, our model is similar to what our colleagues in Norway have developed. Civil confirmation, in particular, is widely embraced by teenagers and their families as a celebration of maturity based on humanist values. Funerals, of course, are another critical area where we provide celebrants and services rooted in dignity, respect, and personal meaning.
As of now, Siðmennt has around 6,500 registered members. We are a recognized life-stance organization in Iceland and a member of Humanists International, adhering to humanist principles such as human rights, reason, and secular ethics. While many of our members identify as atheists, our work appeals to a broader audience interested in a values-based, non-religious worldview.
People are joining because of the quality and meaning of the services we provide, but outreach also plays a role. Since 2013, Siðmennt has been legally recognized as a life-stance organization, which means individuals can formally register with us through the national registry. This enables a portion of their tax—known as the “parish tax” or sóknargjald—to be directed to our organization instead of going to a religious institution or reverting to the state.
In Iceland, all taxpayers contribute this fee, which is then allocated to registered religious or life-stance organizations. If someone is not registered with any such organization, the cost goes to the state treasury. Therefore, joining Siðmennt allows individuals to redirect this portion of their taxes toward an organization that represents their worldview.
Before our official registration in 2013, we operated through voluntary membership fees and donations. We continue to offer that option today, so individuals can support Siðmennt even if they are officially registered with another organization. This allows for a degree of dual affiliation, especially among those who may identify culturally with a religion but philosophically with humanism.
One of the main reasons for our recent growth is likely the decreasing appeal of the National Church of Iceland. While it still holds a privileged legal status, a growing number of people—particularly younger generations—do not feel it reflects their beliefs or values. Additionally, immigration brings people from a variety of religious and non-religious backgrounds. Some join the Catholic Church, which is growing due to migration, while others seek secular options like Siðmennt.
Our rapid growth reflects both societal shifts and the increasing visibility of humanist values and services in Iceland.
We appeal—or perhaps it’s our charm—as spokespersons not just for atheists, but for human beings in general, and humanism as it’s formally defined. I know it might not sound elegant, but in many cases, we function as the lowest common denominator. That is, we are an option that does not offend anyone.
So, for example, take marriage. People want to get married but are not religious. In Iceland, it is relatively easy to have a priest perform the ceremony with minimal religious content. Still, in many cases, it feels like hypocrisy to ask a priest for a non-religious wedding. If you are spiritual, of course, go to church. But if not, why ask a religious official to do something secular?
That’s where we come in. We offer a sincere and consistent alternative. In many ways, that’s why people find us appealing. The growth of our organization began even before we were formally established. It started with parents looking for a secular alternative for their teenagers when it came to confirmation ceremonies. That’s how the humanist movement in Iceland began. That core offering—civil confirmation—has always been the backbone of Siðmennt.
When the legal status of life-stance organizations changed in Iceland in February 2013, Siðmennt became officially registered. From that point on, our celebrants could become certified officiants—not just to perform symbolic weddings, but also legally binding ones.
Of course, our services are open to everyone. You do not have to be a member of Siðmennt to book a ceremony. A significant part of our work today includes weddings and elopements for foreigners. It has become something of a niche within the tourist industry.
People come to Iceland to elope—what we call a “runaway wedding”—and often the couple is from different religious backgrounds. They do not want to choose one tradition over another, or be forced to join a church or religious group to have a ceremony. So they decided that we—Humanists Iceland—would create a non-religious, meaningful ceremony. That’s a significant part of the ceremonies we provide now.
If I remember correctly, we do about 200 to 400 weddings a year. Many of these are for Icelanders, usually held on Saturdays at two, three, four, or five in the afternoon. But many of the ceremonies we conduct are for foreigners. These are typically people taking a short vacation—maybe five to ten days in Iceland—who choose to get married here.
So they might get married on a Tuesday at 11 a.m., out on the Snæfellsnes Peninsula, by the Black Church, on a beach, or beside one of our waterfalls. That’s one of the reasons we’ve been doing more and more ceremonies in recent years—we’ve been catering to the needs of foreigners who want to elope and are looking for a secular, humanist approach rather than a religious officiant.
That has undoubtedly contributed to our growth, though it’s still a small fraction of the broader tourism industry. Before COVID-19, Iceland was receiving over 2 million visitors per year. We may be returning to those numbers, perhaps around 2.3 million tourists this year. I don’t know the exact percentage of those who come here to elope, but even if it’s just 0.0001%, the number of ceremonies will continue to grow.
Jacobsen: So, returning to the original question, you’re saying that both membership growth and the increase in services come from the developments you’ve just described?
Runarsson: Yes, exactly. What I’ve described over the last ten minutes—those are probably the main reasons for our growth, both in terms of membership within Iceland and in services for both Icelanders and foreigners.
Jacobsen: Ceremonies are a key part of your growth. In the last five years, have humanist ceremonies in Iceland evolved in specific ways? How might Icelanders have added their nuances that others—building humanist communities abroad—could learn from?
Runarsson: That’s a good question. Our colleagues in Denmark, for example, are still in a legal fight to get their organization recognized in the same way as a church so that they can conduct legal ceremonies. Sweden, however, recently changed its laws, so humanists there can now legally marry people.
As for us in Iceland, yes, ceremonies have evolved over the past five years. The structure has become more refined as our membership has grown and our funding has improved. I’ve developed my approach over time, as my profile has grown and I’ve conducted more ceremonies.
Jacobsen: You’ve likely expanded and professionalized your services?
Runarsson: Absolutely. I conduct all types of ceremonies—weddings, funerals, namings, and civil confirmations. Domestically, the choice of Siðmennt by Icelanders for their ceremonies dates back to our history. We started 35 years ago with civil confirmations. Many Icelanders now in their twenties and thirties went through that program. Some of them are now coming back to us for weddings or naming ceremonies for their children.
Our confirmation program includes a course—not religious or biblical—but focused on what it means to be a good person and a responsible adult. We have a structured curriculum for that. So we’ve been present in people’s lives for generations.
When it comes to marking special moments—naming a child, getting married, holding a funeral—we are often the go-to organization. People frequently tell us at weddings, “Yes, I had my civil confirmation with Siðmennt ten or twenty years ago.”
Jacobsen: So it felt natural for you to seek out humanist assistance for this event in your life. I suppose one question I would have is: Are there aspects of broader Western—North American or Western European—ceremony traditions that you draw from and apply to your ceremonies?
Runarsson: Yes. The basic framework of a wedding ceremony is quite similar to what you’d find in a Christian or specifically Lutheran-Protestant service. We are, of course, celebrating the same key life event. Apart from the religious content, we perform many of the same elements a priest or other religious officiant would.
Suppose you’re asking where I draw inspiration from, particularly when I’m officiating for foreigners coming to Iceland. In that case, I know they often want an “Icelandic flavour” to their ceremony. So I include selections from old Icelandic literature—both poetry and prose from the Icelandic sagas.
I read them aloud in what we imagine the old language might have sounded like—Old Norse, the shared ancestor of modern Icelandic and Norwegian, dating back to the settlement era. Then I repeat the same verse in English, so the couple and their guests understand it.
I’ve used material from the sagas, and while it might resemble what is used by the Ásatrúarfélagið—the organization in Iceland devoted to the revival of Norse paganism—I am not taking a religious approach. Instead, I’m drawing from the wisdom and poetic beauty of those historical texts. The Ásatrú community may use these materials in a more spiritual context, but we use them philosophically or culturally.
Jacobsen: That’s fascinating.
Runarsson: And of course, think about weddings you’ve attended, where a priest or officiant tells the couple’s story in a humorous or heartfelt way. We do the same. Creating a personalized, meaningful narrative is central to what we do, just as it is in many Western ceremonies.
So, yes, our approach isn’t meant to be radically different from what people expect. We’re not trying to be a spectacle or to contrast ourselves for the sake of being different. Our primary role is to marry people legally—that’s the foundation of the ceremony.
We ask the couple how they want to identify: husband and wife, partners, spouses—whatever language suits them. We include elements like exchanging rings, vows, and even the classic “you may kiss the bride” or “you may kiss the groom.”
We’ve also incorporated rituals borrowed from other traditions, such as handfasting, which comes from old Celtic and Irish customs. That’s where the English phrase “tie the knot” originates. So we’ve adopted that in some ceremonies too, just like our humanist colleagues in Scotland have.
The personalized aspect of the ceremony often mirrors what you’d find in church weddings. But what our couples are looking for is the experience, especially the natural setting. Most people who come to us want to get married outdoors in Iceland’s nature. That connection to nature plays a much larger role than it does in traditional indoor weddings.
Jacobsen: That’s very interesting.
Runarsson: When we conduct ceremonies in nature—in the Icelandic landscape—you feel that you’re off the beaten path. People come here to be surrounded by nature. I’ve done weddings in highland valleys, beside waterfalls, on black sand beaches, inside ice caves, and even on glaciers.
As officiants, we understand that we are part of the equation, but not the focus. We’re not the main characters in a staged performance. The surroundings—the crashing waves, the towering waterfalls, the glowing blue of an ice cave—those are what make the moment unforgettable.
A ceremony indoors, say in a ballroom or hall, is very different in tone and feeling from one out in the wild. In that sense, we’re not necessarily looking to mimic a particular tradition from another country or religion. What defines our ceremonies is the moment, the location, the raw elements—wind, rain, light, and silence.
Even on a dry day, if you’re close to a waterfall, you’ll still feel the spray. These natural elements often play a much bigger role in the ceremony than the actual words I write or the formal structure we use. Sometimes I wonder if people even remember what I say—because the surroundings are so breathtaking and, ultimately, it’s their moment.
It’s important to let nature have its role and to respect the fact that people have specifically chosen a location and asked me to come there for the ceremony. That intention matters. Of course, I still focus on writing a thoughtful ceremony and selecting the right words. About a third of my ceremonies are personalized stories based on what the couple shares with me in interviews beforehand—I always interview with them.
Jacobsen: Do you ever get unusual requests? For instance, when the volcanic eruption happened a few years ago, did anyone ask for a ceremony in front of the lava flow?
Runarsson: Actually, yes! I did one ceremony near the first eruption, in August 2021 —can’t quite remember the exact date. It was at the top of a mountain, very close to the volcano, during its later phase, when it was still active but not as dramatic as in the beginning.
As for strange requests—I don’t think of them as “weird.” People come from different backgrounds and cultures, and that brings variation, which I welcome. Sometimes the location itself surprises me. Foreigners often know more about hidden parts of Iceland than I do—and that’s wonderful. They end up introducing me to my own country!
In terms of ceremony content, I occasionally receive requests from religious individuals seeking a secular officiant. They ask how they might incorporate religious elements into the ceremony. One option is to include religious content in their vows. I always step aside during the vows so couples can say whatever they want—spiritual or otherwise.
In the broader humanist community, most of our international colleagues respect all religions. We’re currently working on a shared Nordic project—a website dedicated to explaining what a humanist wedding is. One of the key ideas is that there are no “strange” requests. If someone wants to say a prayer before or after the ceremony, that’s not a problem.
What is essential is that the celebrant does not perform religious content or preach. But we respect the background, culture, and faith of those getting married, even when the officiation is entirely secular.
Jacobsen: Can you give an example of that?
Runarsson: Yes—last year I married a couple in Harpa Concert Hall, down by the Reykjavík harbour. Two American women—one was Persian, born in the U.S. but with Iranian heritage, and the other was from Texas.
They asked me to incorporate Iranian wedding customs into the ceremony. These customs are often symbolic, even superstitious in some cases—for example, placing a cloth over the couple’s heads or having specific foods present. I had no problem with that.
Rather than me performing those rituals, I wrote a description—almost like a brief article—explaining what her mother and sister were doing during the ceremony. It was more like a documentary narration than an active role. I stayed true to being a secular celebrant, but I acknowledged and respected the family’s traditions.
I tried to pronounce the names correctly, of course—Farsi, in this case—and made sure the significance of the actions was conveyed. That was probably the most complex request I’ve received, but I enjoyed it. It wasn’t religious in how I presented it, and the family members themselves performed the rituals. That’s the kind of balance we try to strike: fully respectful, but never compromising our humanist values.
Jacobsen: That’s a thoughtful and elegant way to handle it.
Runarsson: I also once married a man of Jewish background whose bride was not Jewish. He wanted to wear a kippah—that’s the traditional head covering—and to say a prayer. He also wanted to break a glass during the ceremony, which is a well-known Jewish wedding tradition symbolizing good fortune and remembrance. I had no issue with any of that.
We sometimes receive requests like this. Our approach, as humanists, is grounded in tolerance for all religions and all backgrounds. I do not personally perform religious content, but I am always willing to make space for it in the ceremony. Suppose the couple or their family wishes to include a spiritual element. In that case, we find a respectful way to do so without compromising the humanist foundation.
One of my favourite special requests, though, was when a couple asked me to meet them at Reykjavík Domestic Airport. They had rented a helicopter. We flew to Þórisjökull Glacier, landed there, and held the ceremony on the ice. The pilot turned off the engine, we stepped out, and I prepared the space for the ceremony. On the way back, we landed at Glymur Waterfall, which is quite a challenging hike on foot. So yes, they had the deluxe transportation option!
That was a truly memorable experience. Usually, when I officiate glacier weddings, we drive as close as we can and then hike, or the couple rents a super jeep. But this time, it was something very different. I had never flown in a helicopter before. It gave me a new perspective on my own country.
Jacobsen: So, officiating weddings has helped you rediscover Iceland?
Runarsson: My couples often introduce me to places I had only vaguely heard of or never visited. They know the hiking trails, the geology, and they have specific dreams about where and how they want to marry. I’ve been to locations I had unknowingly passed by dozens of times before but never truly noticed. That’s what happens—you often know other countries better than your own. But I love that my couples surprise me with locations that are new and beautiful.
Jacobsen: What has been the most extravagant humanist wedding you’ve ever conducted? I ask because in North America, especially in the U.S., weddings can be massive productions—costly, elaborate affairs. I imagine Iceland has some of that culture, too.
Runarsson: Yes, we have a version of that here as well. And you’re right—”extravagant” can mean different things. But not all humanist weddings are grand or costly. That said, I’ve done several surprise weddings, which are my personal favourite.
For example, I’ve had couples hire me for a baby naming ceremony, and then—once the baby’s name is announced—they surprise everyone by getting married on the spot. It’s very cost-effective, especially when guests have flown in from abroad. One time, the father was Icelandic, and the mother was from England. All the family came for the baby naming, and then—boom—they announced the wedding. Everything was already in place.
Another time, I was asked to be part of a surprise wedding disguised as a graduation celebration. The woman had just finished her dentistry studies, and her partner had recently completed his training to become a ship captain. They hosted a party to celebrate both milestones, and I was seated at a table as a “friend of the family,” beside the bride’s sisters.
They had hired an MC—not a celebrant, but a musician and entertainer—to host the event. We staged a little theatrical moment. The MC joked that the couple had never officially gotten engaged, and then called them onstage. He suggested that now was the perfect time to propose, and the whole thing turned into a surprise wedding. Someone placed a veil on the bride’s head, even though she wasn’t wearing a traditional dress. It was spontaneous and joyful.
Jacobsen: That sounds like a moment no one would forget.
Runarsson: It was extraordinary. These types of ceremonies may not be extravagant in terms of cost, but they’re rich in meaning and creativity. And honestly, they capture the essence of what we try to do: personalize the moment and make it unforgettable.
So someone stuck a veil on her head as a joke, and everyone was laughing and making fun—in a warm, celebratory way. Then, all of a sudden, the MC said, “Now you’re engaged!” And then he turned and said, “Wait a minute—your cousin Siggy—isn’t he here? He’s always marrying people!”
And I stood up and said, “Oh yes, I’m here.” Then I was called up on stage—and there it was: a surprise wedding unfolding right before everyone’s eyes. I still don’t know if everyone believed it at first. Many thought it was a performance or a prank. But of course, it was legally binding. She said yes, he said yes, and they were officially married.
I do enjoy the shock effect of surprise weddings. They’re not extravagant in a traditional sense, but they have their kind of drama and delight.
Jacobsen: But in terms of truly extravagant ceremonies, your helicopter wedding probably tops the list?
Runarsson: Yes, I’d say so. That was the most extravagant one I’ve done. And yes—it was my first time in a helicopter.
Jacobsen: That’s amazing.
Runarsson: There’s something truly mystical about landing on a glacier. Usually, when people go to glaciers, they’re taken to accessible spots—places where you’ll find tracks in the snow, tourist jeeps, and snowmobiles. It can feel quite busy and touristic.
But with the helicopter wedding, we landed somewhere far less touched. It looked pristine—no tracks, no people nearby. It felt like untouched nature. It was more breathtaking than any photo could capture or any story I could tell. Even after all these years, I’m still amazed by the Icelandic landscape. It keeps surprising me with new places, new perspectives.
Jacobsen: I think that’s a common experience—people are constantly struck by Icelandic nature. And people are struck by the people, too. Icelanders are very matter-of-fact, straightforward, and down-to-earth. They’re honest, but never cruelly or aggressively. That’s something people notice. And the landscape is like that, too—raw, consequential, direct. There’s no pretension. It just is. And that’s part of what makes it so impactful. Earlier, you briefly mentioned one of the most magical aspects of your work. Can you expand on that?
Runarsson: Yes—what I consider the most magical, and perhaps most important, part of my work as a celebrant is the video interview with the couple. It’s essential for me in crafting a meaningful ceremony.
I use Google Meet—mainly because it allows unlimited call time, and I don’t get cut off. I don’t record the interview like Zoom allows, but that’s fine because I take notes. I dislike doing interviews by phone. I much prefer video, and I know some of my colleagues insist on meeting the couple in person the day before the ceremony. That can be challenging to schedule, especially if people arrive late or are travelling across Iceland.
Video interviews work exceptionally well for me. I usually schedule 70 minutes, but the conversations often stretch to 2 or even 3 hours. It’s very much like what we’re doing now—a conversation—but I have a very structured set of questions that I follow.
I rarely send those questions in advance, because they lose their magic when read in an email. When I guide people through them in real time, it draws out their stories in a much more natural and meaningful way.
I always have the couple together, side by side. The interview often becomes an emotional experience. You could call it a kind of narrative cleansing. I begin with practical questions—logistics, preferences, and background. Once we’ve found a rhythm, I dig deeper into their history—how they met, how their relationship developed.
At one point, I used to think of the interview as just a task to get through. But now, I see it as one of the most rewarding aspects of the entire process. It allows me to understand and personalize the ceremony fully, and it will enable the couple to reflect on their journey together, sometimes in a way they’ve never done before.
I’m pretty good at conducting interviews, asking insightful questions, and encouraging people to open up. That probably ties back to what you mentioned earlier—about Icelanders being direct and honest. I try to use that same openness, maybe even a bit of charisma, to draw stories out of people.
I am not a therapist or a couples’ counsellor by any means—but sometimes, it feels like I’m doing that kind of work. During interviews, one of the partners might say, “We’ve never talked about this before.” For example, I might ask, “What changed when you started living together? Did you get to know each other in a new way? Were there any surprises?” Some couples have already had those conversations.
Others respond, “I didn’t know you felt that way,” or “You never told me that.” I use light banter, humour, and genuine curiosity to help people share. And the more I’m able to write in my notes, the richer the ceremony becomes—because I have more authentic material to work with. I didn’t recognize this at first, but later I realized: this is where the magic of my ceremonies happens, not during the writing, but during the interview itself.
In the early years, I took light notes and tried to create the magic while writing the ceremony script. Now, it’s the other way around. I treat the interview as the core creative process. I write more during the interview, and I do it in a way that fits directly into the structure of the personalized part of the ceremony. It’s very intentional.
And yes, you can be Nordic, even if not technically Scandinavian, depending on definitions. I might be a white male in his mid-life, but I try to use my differences to my advantage. I’m not an American wedding salesman. I do things differently because I am different. Most of the couples I marry are American, Canadian, or Australian. But I present a soft, Nordic, Icelandic personality, which people appreciate. That distinction becomes part of the experience.
I often say that when we finally meet in person, they’ll get a “big Icelandic hug” from me—and I hug them both. I’m not afraid of physical affection. It helps create warmth, connection, and joy.
If a couple chooses an American celebrant, they may get a different kind of experience, shaped by cultural expectations. But I enjoy being Icelandic, Nordic, even “metrosexual,” as I sometimes say. And I embrace my Icelandic quirks, including our harsher-sounding language and mannerisms. I always remind couples that English is not my native language, so if I say something awkward, I ask for forgiveness in advance.
That linguistic difference also gives me a kind of license to be direct—and to conduct interviews in a way that gets people genuinely excited about their wedding. I want them to feel seen and understood, to feel like their story matters to the person officiating the ceremony.
Jacobsen: That shows in how you approach the entire process.
Runarsson: Three years ago, we held a retreat for all of our celebrants—about two or three days in the countryside—to re-educate ourselves, share knowledge, and compare ceremony scripts. One of the guest speakers was a poet and author. He writes both fiction and poetry. He came to help us reconnect with an ancient Icelandic tradition: writing poems about everything and everyone around us.
It’s not something we do so much today, but before the internet, this was what people in Iceland did for fun. We wrote poems about each other. It was a way to share, connect, and celebrate. So during our celebrant retreat, we were encouraged to reconnect with that tradition and become better writers by creating something personal and meaningful.
I started with short poems—simple rhymes. You can follow all sorts of poetic rules, but it’s still a fairly open form. There are influences from other cultures, of course—like Japanese haiku, for example—but Iceland has its rich poetic traditions. Some are based on alliteration or specific rhyme structures, depending on the placement of certain letters or sounds. I don’t even know the names of all the forms in Icelandic, but I gave it a try.
Jacobsen: So you started integrating poetry into your ceremonies?
Runarsson: Yes. I began by writing a short poem instead of simply retelling the story of how the couple got engaged. I started composing a little verse—two or three stanzas—about their proposal. I still do this for every ceremony, if I have enough material from the interview.
I took that inspiration from the retreat seriously and decided, “Why not write a poem for every couple?” I’m not an advanced poet by any means. But if I’ve done a proper interview—which I almost always do—I have enough content to create something sincere and lighthearted. And that’s the magic of it. The couple always laughs. The point isn’t to win a literary award—it’s that I made something just for them.
Jacobsen: It sounds like it comes from a heartfelt place. You’re not claiming to be a master poet—you’re just being honest. That’s very Icelandic. Not even self-deprecating, just matter-of-fact: “I’m new at this. It’s not sophisticated poetry, but it’s real.”
Runarsson: That kind of honesty is very much part of our culture. People from North America or elsewhere sometimes comment on it—they find it disarming. Icelanders are generally authentic. We don’t exaggerate. And that directness, that simplicity, is often what people fall in love with here, both in the people and in the landscape.
We have to remember that poetry is everywhere. It’s in music, it’s in storytelling.
Jacobsen: Take Eric B. & Rakim, for instance—hip-hop legends. The Message by Grandmaster Flash.
Runarsson: I’m old enough to remember when The Message by Grandmaster Flash came out in the ’80s.
Jacobsen: It’s still probably ranked as one of the greatest rap songs of all time. That track was profound. It captured a social reality that people were living through.
Runarsson: Think about rap battles—those verbal duels in the street where people roast each other. That’s a poetic form, too. Believe it or not, we had something very similar here in Iceland.
Before the days of streaming and smartphones, people would gather in community centers. Four or five individuals—known for their quick wit and poetic improvisation—would get up on stage. There’d be maybe 200 people in the audience, laughing and cheering. One person would deliver the first two lines of a poem, and the next person had to complete it in rhyme. All improvised, live.
Jacobsen: Like freestyle poetry battles.
Runarsson: We didn’t call it a “rap battle” in Icelandic, of course, but the concept is the same. It was a form of entertainment, often with a humorous twist. For instance, someone might start with, “This man was a good prime minister…” and another would finish with, “…but he lacked a sinister side.” It was all about wordplay.
These poems weren’t written down or refined later. They existed in the moment, for the audience. And it was a show. People loved it.
So when I say that my wedding poems are more like raps than advanced literary poetry, I focus on rhythm, rhyme, and humour. If I can include the couple’s location, pets, inside jokes, or even funny place names—and make it rhyme—they forgive everything. They laugh. And that’s the best outcome I can ask for.
Jacobsen: And it makes the ceremony unforgettable.
Runarsson: Yes. That’s what I love most—when people laugh in the middle of a meaningful ceremony. They feel seen, celebrated, and surprised. And they never forget it.
Iceland has won one Nobel Prize, and it was in literature, awarded to Halldór Laxness. Literature is deeply embedded in our national identity. With the sagas, narratives, and storytelling traditions, it’s all part and parcel of Icelandic culture.
You mentioned the sagas earlier. I read many of them in school growing up, of course, but recently I’ve started listening to them as audiobooks. Since I do much driving around Iceland for ceremonies, I have the time to revisit them. Sometimes I listen at double speed—depending on the narrator’s voice. I’ve listened to 20–30 hour recordings of Icelandic sagas while travelling between ceremonies.
What’s fascinating is that many of the areas where I work today are the same regions described in the sagas. Some of the old farm names are still in use. So not only am I discovering new and beautiful places in Icelandic nature, but I’m also reconnecting with our cultural history.
Even if I don’t use much material from the sagas directly in my ceremonies, there’s a spiritual connection. Listening to them helps me appreciate how difficult life once was in this land. It gives me a sense of humility and perspective, especially when I’m standing in my suit in the middle of Icelandic nature, protected from the elements, with heat in my car and food in my bag. People used to fight for survival here, in brutal wind, snow, and rain. Nature had a profound impact on life and well-being. Remembering that—especially in contrast to our modern comforts—grounds me.
Some sagas are written in prose; others are poetic. I’ve used select passages in ceremonies before. Halldór Laxness, of course, was a novelist. But his depictions of farm life and the emotional and physical strain caused by the elements are incredibly vivid and accurate. Even if the characters are fictional, the settings and struggles are real. His work offers a kind of reality check on our so-called modern problems.
Jacobsen: Do we have enough time or generational data yet to say whether humanist marriages perform better than religious ones? Do they last longer, or are they more stable?
Runarsson: That’s a real question—with an honest answer, I do not yet know. According to the data, the Icelandic Bureau of Statistics publishes marriage statistics. Still, these only include marriages registered and dissolved within Iceland. So, when I marry foreigners, and they divorce later in their home countries, that data doesn’t reach our national statistics. There’s a gap in the numbers.
From what I’ve seen, both among my friends and our humanist members, people fall in love, they marry, and some later divorce. It’s about people and their circumstances. The ceremony itself, and who performs it, doesn’t change the long-term outcome dramatically.
Jacobsen: That said, in a secular or naturalistic worldview, you’re not praying your problems away. You don’t expect divine intervention. You’re forced to face the negotiables and non-negotiables of your relationship in a more grounded, realistic way. That does not mean humanists are immune to delusions, of course—but certain kinds of magical thinking are just off the table. So, even couples married by a priest in Iceland are probably not thinking about it as a spiritual event?
Runarsson: Most Icelanders—even those married by a priest—don’t view the wedding as a religious ceremony. It’s a family event, a life milestone. The spiritual content is often symbolic or traditional rather than deeply believed. They’re not looking for divine blessings to guarantee a successful marriage—they’re making a social commitment, witnessed by loved ones.
So, we as a culture and people here in Iceland do not have a strong religious connection to the church. Even though many people are still officially members, they may only seek church services for significant life events, like funerals or weddings. Families might ask a priest to officiate, but the connection is more cultural than spiritual.
Now, I am not a specialist in religious history, but Protestant churches—and their ethics and ceremonial practices—are not as religiously symbolic as, for example, the Catholic Church. They do not use the same props or rituals. Incense, holy water, that kind of thing. Incense and holy water—those are more sensory rituals.
The Protestant culture is much less decorative or ritualistic than the Catholic Church. It shows both in how their churches are built and how the ceremonies are conducted. The word “Protestant” itself comes from protest. They were protesting the extravagance and rituals of the Catholic Church. And I suppose it all started with that German guy—Martin Luther?
He wanted to reform how Christianity was practiced at the time, and that led to this branch we now call Lutheran Protestantism. What I’m getting at is this: In Iceland, priests in the state church feel more like civil servants—because they are. The government pays them, so many people see them not so much as religious figures, but as public servants.
The contrast between humanist and Catholic ceremonies is powerful. But the contrast between humanist and Protestant ceremonies—at least here in Iceland—is much smaller. The public sees both as more service-oriented than faith-driven.
Jacobsen: That’s helpful context. Let’s end there for today. Nice chatting with you.
Runarsson: Nice chatting with you, too. Bye-bye.
Jacobsen: Take care. Bye-bye.
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): 2025/09/06
Fine art photographer Elizabeth Waterman discusses her analog strike film portraits that challenge stereotypes surrounding sex work and transgender identity—primarily through her work with Thailand’s kathoey, commonly known as ladyboys. Waterman discusses the barriers faced by transgender women in Thailand, including the inability to legally change their gender and limited job opportunities that often push them into nightlife or sex work. Her advocacy centers on the Gender Recognition Act, a prospective bill held up in the Thai parliament. Through her book Moneygame Thailandand an upcoming TV doc-follow Moneygame: Ladyboys of Pattaya , she hopes to raise international awareness and foster meaningful legal reform.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we’re here with Elizabeth Waterman. She’s a Los Angeles-based fine art photographer known for her analog film-based work that challenges societal narratives surrounding sex work, subcultures, and female empowerment.
Born in Taos, New Mexico, she earned a BA in Fine Art from the University of Southern California before immersing herself in documenting the lives of adult entertainers and performers. Waterman’s striking portraits capture the raw humanity of dancers, transgender sex workers, and artists, emphasizing their strength and dignity while shedding light on the often-unseen realities behind the scenes.
Her internationally exhibited images explore the intersections of art, identity, and representation, offering rare, humanizing perspectives that powerfully transcend stereotypes. Thank you for joining me today. I know your photography carries a humanitarian and advocacy element—especially in the Ladyboys project—so that might be of personal significance to you as well.
To begin with, not everyone is familiar with the term ladyboy, and many don’t have a humanizing or accurate image of who they are. So, how would you define the term, and what does the lived reality look like—apart from the stereotype?
Elizabeth Waterman: In Thailand, ladyboys are the common English term used to refer to kathoey, a Thai cultural identity referring to transgender women or effeminate male-presenting individuals. While not all Thai transgender women identify as kathoey, and the term can have nuanced meanings, it is widely used in both Thai society and internationally.
Jacobsen: In terms of stereotypes, what are the common misconceptions people have about kathoey, and what realities help debunk those myths?
Waterman: It’s an important point. In Thailand, ladyboys can be marginalized and are sometimes subject to stereotypes—portrayed as overly flamboyant, deceitful, or associated with nightlife and sex work. These portrayals overlook the complexity of their identities and lives. There’s a general lack of understanding about their social roles, professional diversity, and legal status.
Jacobsen: A natural follow-up would be: how does public acceptance shift once people gain a better understanding?
Waterman: Well, I began visiting Thailand about two years ago to photograph nightlife entertainers. Many of them were ladyboys—transgender women working in various nightlife roles such as cabaret performers, escorts, go-go dancers, and massage therapists. Through spending time with them, I was able to see the full spectrum of their humanity and experiences—not just what people typically associate with them. My goal was to create portraits that convey their dignity, resilience, and individuality.
As I got to know the ladyboys, I learned more about their lives, and I became aware of the fact that transgender women in Thailand—including ladyboys—do not have the legal right to change their gender. If someone is assigned male at birth, that designation remains on their birth certificate for life. They cannot change it to female.
As a result, their employment opportunities are severely limited. Many corporate or public-facing jobs require individuals to present and dress according to the gender on their official documents. As a result, many ladyboys are effectively pushed into nightlife work—cabarets, go-go dancing, escort work—not necessarily by choice but because other paths are institutionally blocked.
You have ladyboys of all ages who might want to pursue careers in medicine, journalism, education—anything really—but they often end up in the entertainment or sex industries because those are the spaces where their gender identity is more accepted, or at least tolerated.
Right now is a critical time, there exists a significant opportunity for change. A bill called the Gender Recognition Act was introduced in the Thai parliament in early 2024. If passed, it would allow transgender individuals, including ladyboys, to change their gender markers legally. This would open pathways for broader employment, reduce discrimination, and improve legal protections.
You may or may not be aware, but it’s an essential time for LGBTQ+ rights in Thailand. In 2024, Thailand’s parliament approved a bill legalizing same-sex marriage—a historic achievement that made international headlines. However, this Gender Recognition Act has not received nearly the same level of attention. I’m a big advocate for its passage.
These are beautiful, resilient women. I’m currently working on a photo book called Moneygame Thailand, which features portraits of many ladyboys I’ve met and worked with. I’m also developing a TV docu-follow show focused on their lives and experiences. More than anything, I want to bring international attention to this bill. It has been stalled in Thai parliament, and global awareness could help get it moving again.
Jacobsen: A lot of legal and policy changes tend to come on the heels of broader social shifts. What, in your view, was happening in Thai culture that enabled a bill like this to be proposed in the first place?
Waterman: It followed the momentum of the same-sex marriage bill. That took a long time to pass. In its wake, the Gender Recognition Act emerged as a logical next step in expanding rights for the LGBTQ+ community in Thailand. But so far, it has not succeeded. It’s struggling to gain the same level of support or attention.
Jacobsen: Are there other explicit laws that restrict equal rights for ladyboys beyond the lack of legal gender recognition?
Waterman: This law specifically deals with legal gender identity, yes. But broader rights issues exist. For example, if a ladyboy is arrested, she must be placed in a men’s prison, where she may face harassment or abuse. That’s a serious and often overlooked consequence of legal non-recognition.
Then there’s the issue of mandatory military service. In Thailand, all males are required to register for conscription. Kathoey must attend these check-ins and try to obtain an exemption. It’s a stressful and often humiliating process. They have to travel long distances, sometimes missing work, and navigate a bureaucratic system that doesn’t acknowledge their gender identity.
In that sense, it’s almost the reverse of the situation in the United States—where transgender individuals sometimes fight for the right to serve openly in the military. In Thailand, ladyboys often struggle to avoid conscription altogether.
Jacobsen: That’s a strange asymmetry—or maybe an inverse symmetry is more accurate.
Waterman: Yes, exactly. It’s quite different.
Jacobsen: When you were doing your photographic work within these communities, how did you approach it in a way that captured the reality of their lives while still humanizing them—and without reinforcing the very stereotypes you were trying to challenge?
Waterman: Well, with my subjects, I always try to get to know them personally and build relationships over time. I’ve traveled to Thailand four times now, photographing some of the same individuals on each of my visits. I’ve also been privileged to peek into their personal lives—photographing them at home, learning about their hobbies, meeting their families. I’ve spent time with them outside of work, not just in the clubs where they perform. That’s important—seeing them as full human beings rather than just their roles in nightlife.
I also try not to focus my lens too heavily on the granular details of their jobs or on the sex work itself. Instead, I approach the work holistically—capturing who they are as people, their friendships, their families, their goals, and their dreams. I conduct extensive interviews with each subject, which gives me deeper insight.
To help build trust and improve communication, I’ve also been learning to speak Thai. It’s been a small but important project—probably about three years of lessons, once a week. So, maybe not 800 hours, but I’m working on it. I’m at a basic Thai level at the moment. It’s a difficult language, but the effort has helped enormously.
Jacobsen: When you’re conducting in-depth interviews, observing how people interact, and creating humanizing photographic work, you’re essentially building comprehensive case studies on each person. So, within that, what have you noticed in terms of commonalities with mainstream Thai culture, and what are some idiosyncrasies that distinguish the ladyboy experience?
Waterman: You mean commonalities between all ladyboys and then between ladyboys and the general population?
Jacobsen: Everyone is a cross-section of everyday life—everyone pays bills, sleeps, eats, and so on. Therefore, there is a baseline of shared human experience. But what are some of the deeper cultural commonalities and the more distinctive realities faced by ladyboys in Thailand?
Waterman: One of the most defining experiences for ladyboys is their limited access to employment. That’s the biggest commonality among them. At the same time, they may be culturally visible—Thailand is often thought of as relatively tolerant—but there are still significant limitations. They’re often funnelled into nightlife jobs. Some may find work at cosmetics counters in department stores, but the options are narrow. That shared economic constraint defines much of their lives.
Jacobsen: That answers it. Economics is central in nearly every society. As far as I know, there’s no socialist utopia out there—so when income is restricted, that has ripple effects. How does this financial limitation affect ladyboys’ access to education, healthcare, travel, and other necessities like dental care, housing, or even food?
To give an example, in some places, people with limited income and disabilities often end up living with others out of necessity. They rely more on social capital than on financial capital. Is that true for ladyboys, too, especially those working in nightlife, dancing, or sex work?
Waterman: Yes, very much so. Many ladyboys rely on their communities, their chosen families, and their support networks to survive. When you don’t have access to stable income, it’s hard to afford education or medical care—including gender-affirming healthcare, which is expensive. Travel and even basic needs can be a challenge.
So, you often find these informal support systems—people living together, sharing resources, and helping each other through tough times. It’s a kind of grassroots solidarity, and it’s essential for their survival. Many of them are also sending money home to their families, which adds another layer of pressure.
That also affects their routines—many are working on a 16:8 day-night cycle, meaning they’re up through the night and sleep most of the day. Ladyboys rarely pursue higher education, not because of a lack of interest but because they don’t have the time or money. They often live hand-to-mouth, and any extra income typically goes to supporting their families.
Although many would love to study or advance their skills, they often lack the necessary resources. That’s a common thread with sex workers in general: there’s limited upward mobility. Many people stay in the same job for years because it does not pay well or offer a clear path forward.
There is also a deep familial obligation in Thai culture, closely tied to Buddhist values. When someone earns money—especially in working-class or marginalized communities—it’s expected that they send funds back to their families. For ladyboys, this often means supporting parents or siblings. For cisgender women in sex work, it might mean supporting their children or aging parents.
So ladyboys tend to stay in nightlife and entertainment for a long time. Again, it’s a job that’s difficult to exit. And unfortunately, there is a higher incidence of substance abuse. Since they work at night, in clubs or go-go bars, they often have to drink as part of the job—either to entertain customers or to cope with the stress and emotional toll. Over time, this can lead to dependence.
Their schedules are demanding. They usually work from 7 p.m. to 3 a.m., then sleep during the day. Their lives become entirely focused on work and rest, with very little time for anything else. It becomes a cycle—work, drink, sleep—making it even harder to step back and think about long-term goals or changes.
Jacobsen: That answers the question—and also brings up a comparative angle. I’ve talked to some colleagues informally—not as part of an interview—but they’ve brought up different models of sex work. For instance, the Nordic model is often cited as an alternative that aims to reduce harm. That’s the one where sex work itself is decriminalized, but buying sex is criminalized.
What are the current laws and protections in place for ladyboys in Thailand? If any. And what kinds of policy provisions or support systems do you think could help protect them, particularly from negative mental health impacts or abuse?
Because as you’ve noted, many are using substances to cope with very real physical and emotional stressors—whether it’s from long, difficult hours or violent or unstable clients. So what could be done?
Waterman: Many ladyboys working in nightlife are performing aspects of their jobs outside the protection of the law. For instance, they may be gainfully and legally employed at a go-go bar, but any services they provide outside of that context—like escorting—are not legally protected.
There is no legal recourse if something goes wrong. If a client fails to pay or becomes abusive, there is no legal framework to support or protect them.
Now, while ladyboys working inside clubs might have some basic protections through their employers, if they also provide services independently—say, meeting clients outside the club—then they’re vulnerable. And again, there’s no legal avenue to pursue justice if something goes wrong.
Because of this, ladyboys often rely on community-based protection. Their community becomes their safety net. For example, in places like Pattaya City—one of the hubs of Thailand’s sex tourism—you might see freelance escorts lined up along the beach path. There might be one ladyboy acting as a kind of watchdog, looking out for the group and making sure no one is harassed. Sometimes, they move in groups of 10 or more to help protect one another.
So, in the absence of state or institutional support, ladyboys depend heavily on one another. It’s a grassroots system of mutual care and security.
Jacobsen: If legal protections were put in place—say, if sex work were decriminalized or regulated—do you think that would improve conditions? Or would the transient nature of the clientele in sex tourism make enforcement difficult?
Waterman: That’s a complex question. You’re right that sex tourism involves a highly transient client base—people are there and then gone. That makes accountability difficult. And we’re also talking about a broader system that doesn’t just affect ladyboys but also cisgender women working in the industry. Therefore, it’s a massive and nuanced issue that would require significant legal and cultural shifts to address meaningfully.
But the one thing I want to emphasize right now is the Gender Recognition Act—because that’s a concrete piece of legislation that’s already in parliament. It has been approved by public consensus and supported by the major political parties, and it’s now awaiting full passage by parliament. It’s been sitting there for a couple of years now, so there’s real potential for it to pass soon.
If enacted, it would allow transgender individuals—including ladyboys—to change their gender marker legally. That could open up access to a whole range of rights and protections. It’s a major step forward.
As for addressing sex work itself—that’s a much bigger legal and cultural issue, and again, not one that impacts ladyboys alone. It affects all sex workers, including cisgender women, so it’s a separate conversation.
But yes, in terms of improving the lives of ladyboys, especially those working in sex work, the Gender Recognition Act could be transformational. It would provide access to better employment opportunities, healthcare, and legal protections.
Jacobsen: How would you compare the legal status and rights of ladyboys in Thailand to transgender women elsewhere—say, in the United States?
Waterman: Well, in some respects, transgender rights in the U.S. are more advanced. For example, trans people can legally change their gender markers on official documents. That’s still not the case in Thailand.
However, the U.S. has also experienced significant regression, particularly during the Trump administration. There were rollbacks on trans protections in healthcare, education, and the military. Therefore, while there may be more legal options in the U.S., the prevailing political climate has created its own set of challenges.
Trans rights vary significantly around the world. I’m not deeply schooled in the nuances of every country’s legal framework, but one major difference between the U.S. and Thailand is this: in the U.S., transgender people can legally change their gender marker. They might also have access to gender-affirming surgeries through health insurance—though that’s not always guaranteed, of course.
In Thailand, there’s no legal avenue to change your gender on official documents, and any public insurance does not typically cover gender-affirming procedures. From a legal and institutional standpoint, Thailand is significantly more restrictive.
Also, although discrimination still exists in the U.S., trans individuals should be able to pursue employment in any field. That’s at least the legal principle, even if it’s not always upheld in practice. In Thailand, it’s very different. In most conventional jobs—what you might call “straight jobs”—you’re expected to dress and present as the gender listed on your birth certificate. That disqualifies many ladyboys from pursuing those positions.
Jacobsen: Are suicide rates, self-harm, or depression high among ladyboys? Do we have data?
Waterman: I don’t have concrete statistics on that, so I wouldn’t want to speculate irresponsibly. However, I can share the emotional patterns and themes that emerged during my in-depth interviews. Many ladyboys express hope. A lot of them have a clear goal: to save enough money to leave the nightlife or sex industry and find a more stable life. That dream of exit—of eventually moving on—is very common.
At the same time, these goals often feel far-fetched or far away to the ladyboys themselves—they experience a real sense that there are no clear pathways to achieve that dream. The barriers feel enormous. However, there is also a strong current of resilience. Many speak warmly about their friendships with other ladyboys. These relationships are a major source of emotional strength. That shared bond is powerful.
There’s another layer, too. Stereotypically—and with some truth—ladyboys are known for being fun, playful, and even a bit aggressive in their energy. There’s a rowdy, extroverted culture in some of these communities, particularly among those working in nightlife. They joke with each other and with customers. That kind of boldness is often associated more with masculinity, not femininity, which creates a social dynamic that’s hard to classify.
Jacobsen: So it’s a mix of masculine and feminine energies—culturally coded ones, at least. Do you think that personality style—being playful and assertive—is connected in part to biology? Higher testosterone levels, for instance?
Waterman: Yes, I do. I’ve always thought that’s part of it. Some ladyboys probably do have more testosterone in their systems than cisgender women, and that might contribute to that particular energy—more assertiveness, more playfulness, and that bold presence you see in nightlife spaces.
Jacobsen: Let’s pivot slightly to governance. When a new administration comes into power in Thailand—say a different executive government—does that shift the direction of judicial decisions or affect whether certain bills get passed into law? Or are these different branches more independent from one another?
Waterman: I don’t know that I can speak with authority on the entire structure, but the Thai political system is complex. It’s not always clear how independent the branches are. But I can point you toward some useful resources.
There are two key individuals involved in the Gender Recognition Act:
- Kittinun Daramadhaj, aka “Danny,” the lawyer and activist who drafted the bill. He’s a personal contact of mine and is extremely dedicated to advancing the bill.
- Tunyawaj Kamolwongwat, the Member of the House of Representatives of Thailand who helped to pass Thailand’s Equal Marriage Law and then officially brought the Gender Recognition Act bill forth to Thai Parliament in 2024.
I’ll send you Facebook links for both of them.
And for context, the People’s Party is the political party supporting the bill. It’s a progressive, socially democratic party advocating for reforms in several areas, including LGBTQ+ rights.
Jacobsen: So if this bill is coming out under a progressive party like the People’s Party, you could make the case that their political leadership—relative to Thailand’s general political climate—helps explain its emergence. It’s a correlation, of course, not necessarily causation, but it does hold up.
Waterman: Yes, I became more of a journalist through working on this project. My background and training are in fine art photography, but as I started to connect more deeply with ladyboys and people like Danny, who drafted the Gender Recognition Act, I began learning about the legal aspects. That’s when I became invested in understanding the policy implications.
Jacobsen: That’s all fascinating. And the photos are excellent, too.
Waterman: Thank you. Yes, I’m very proud of them. They’re powerful. They capture these women in a way that’s real and respectful.
Jacobsen: So, what’s the current holdup on the bill?
Waterman: The holdup is in Thai Parliament. For the Gender Recognition Act to pass, it has to clear many hurdles including: public support, party support, and parliamentary approval. The public and the parties are already on board—the delay is with the more conservative members of Parliament.
I firmly believe that if there were more international attention on this bill—if it were better publicized—it would move forward. Thailand wants to be seen as progressive. They don’t want to be known for holding back LGBTQ+ rights. The problem is that even many ladyboys in Thailand don’t know about the bill. There is not enough public awareness.
Jacobsen: That tracks with many countries. Most people don’t follow legislation closely unless it’s election season—or until the law has already passed.
Waterman: It’s the same story with marriage equality. Everyone knows about the Equal Marriage Law because it made international news when it passed in 2024, but it had been years in the making. It was a huge deal when it passedl. It gave the impression that Thailand was incredibly progressive on LGBTQ+ issues. And while it is a step forward, there are still major gaps—like the lack of legal gender recognition for transgender people.
That’s what I want to shine a light on. Through my TV show and photo book, I aim to raise global awareness about this issue. I want the international community to see that while Thailand has made progress, there’s still urgent work to do—especially when it comes to transgender rights.
Jacobsen: Many reforms don’t move forward until the public applies pressure or international attention creates a mirror effect. There’s a lot of performative politics, too—on all sides. However, once a policy is passed and becomes normalized, people usually return to their daily lives.
It’s like marriage equality in the United States. It was controversial for a time, but after it passed, most people realized it had no real impact on their marriages—especially not on straight, cisgender, or religious unions. It became part of the new normal.
Waterman: The same would happen here. If the Gender Recognition Act passes, ladyboys could have real options—working at a bank, attending university, pursuing careers that aren’t limited to escorting, go-go dancing, or offering adult massages. That kind of choice is what’s really at stake.
Jacobsen: Thailand, geographically and conceptually, is somewhat similar to the Philippines for North Americans—we know it’s there, we have vague ideas, but we don’t know much about it. It feels distant and unfamiliar.
Waterman: That’s true. It’s foreign to most. But it’s such an amazing place. I love it. Thailand is the only Southeast Asian country that was never colonized, and this fact is a source of tremendous national pride. Buddhist values are deeply embedded in the culture, and there is so much beauty—culturally, spiritually, and artistically.
That’s part of why I want to bring more attention to it through my work—not just the adult industry or ladyboys, but the country itself. I love the ladyboys. I want to help improve their lives. This matters to me.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Elizabeth.
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): 2025/09/05
Michael Ashley Schulman, CFA, Chief Investment Officer of Running Point Capital Advisors, offers expert insight into current global financial dynamics. Schulman offers timely insights into macroeconomic trends, US fiscal policy, and the global tech landscape. In this in-depth August 2025 interview, economist Michael Ashley Schulman analyzes how US–China and US–UK trade negotiations contributed to record equity market highs despite geopolitical volatility. He explores the US dollar’s decline, driven by fiscal policy under Trump’s administration, and highlights mixed progress in bilateral trade talks.
As of mid-2025, the U.S. imposed a 10% baseline tariff on nearly all imports with reciprocal rates up to 50% striking about 66 countries, later widening to hundreds of products and hinting at semiconductor duties up to 300%. Supply chains shift toward friendshoring, regional “slowbalization,” and complex rerouting, pushing costs higher while accelerating automation and AI logistics. India moves from favored to targeted: a 25% reciprocal tariff effective August 7 plus an added 25% penalty August 27; a ₹40 billion credit guarantee barely helps. Equities rallied on strong earnings and rate-cut hopes. Institutional credibility still dictates capital, valuations, and resilience.
Interview conducted August 28, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How might the U.S. tariffs on 66 countries reshape global supply chains?
Michael Ashley Schulman: U.S. Tariff Route 66! You’re poking at a wonderfully twisted question, and tariffs are indeed the quirkiest of tax pirates! The original Route 66 begins in Chicago, Illinois and ends in Santa Monica, California. The Tariff Route 66 is global (and possibly unending). Let’s unravel this windy knot with clarity and snark.
As of mid‑2025, the U.S. has imposed tariffs on imports from approximately 66 countries, plus there are broader baseline tariffs affecting many more, stretching to nearly every trading partner. So, the perceived number is higher than 66.
On April 2, 2025—Liberation Day—the administration slapped a 10% baseline tariff on nearly all imports, with additional reciprocal tariffs (up to 50%) aimed at around 60 countries and territories. Fast forward to later in the summer, and things got juicier. A report flagged 66 countries, the European Union, Taiwan, and even the Falkland Islands—all hit with these sweeping tariffs. In case you are wondering, we import frozen seafood and wool from the Falklands.
I just wanted to set the scene; now to get to the heart of your question regarding supply chains.
We gave a heads-up and restarted the tariff conversation with our family office clients last year when Trump started climbing in the presidential polls and betting sites. Tariffs are like boulders dropped into the river of global trade; they don’t stop the flow, but they force it to twist and carve new channels. When the U.S. slaps tariffs on countries, it doesn’t just mean American importers pay more. Yes, that’s right, U.S. tariffs are a tax paid by the American buyers of foreign goods; they are not paid by the foreign sellers. There is a misconception that it’s foreign countries or foreign companies that directly pay the tariffs we impose but that’s not the case. Buyers can ask foreign sellers for concessions or price breaks which in turn creates thousands of inefficient private one-off discussions and negotiations.
Tariffs set off a chain reaction through production networks, logistics routes, and even diplomatic alliances. Let’s unpack the supply chain chessboard this creates.
Companies already dabbling friendshoring (moving production to politically friendly nations) will accelerate the trend. For example, instead of importing directly from China, firms might ship components to Mexico for final assembly, exploiting USMCA trade rules. Think of it as the corporate version of routing your Amazon delivery through your office or a neighbor’s door to dodge a porch pirate.
When tariffs get this broad, supply chains don’t just move, they camouflage. Goods might be rerouted through intermediary countries with lighter trade frictions. This means more complex customs paperwork, longer shipping times, and the birth of creative labeling schemes–Is this really a Turkish washing machine, or a Chinese one wearing a fez?
Fragmentation of global networks means that instead of the old “just in time” model which relied on scale and seamless flows, firms may regionalize supply chains into Americas-centric, Europe-centric, and Asia-centric networks. That reduces efficiency but increases resilience; call it “slowbalization.”
**No, I didn’t make up that term–wish I had–it’s been around since at least 2019.**
Imagine supply chains less like a spiderweb and more like a patchwork quilt, stitched with thicker threads within each bloc.
These shifts in commodity and component sourcing mean that Southeast Asia may capture even more of the semiconductor assembly and testing work once clustered in China and Taiwan. When it comes to cars, North American suppliers may see a renaissance, though at higher consumer prices. And tariff hit energy and minerals producers may dump excess supply into China, Japan, Korea, or the EU at discount prices, redrawing resource maps.
We tell the business owners that we advise that tariff knock-on effects could be felt on inflation and innovation with higher input costs rippling into consumer goods, tightening margins and raising prices. Some firms will pass costs along, others will eat them, and some may decide it’s cheaper to automate domestically rather than chase tariff-free factories abroad. Ironically, that could accelerate robotics, AI logistics, and micro-factories close to end consumers.
Geopolitically, countries outside the tariff dragnet suddenly become highly attractive trade partners. Trade alliances may shift, with U.S. allies and China potentially finding themselves on the same side of a U.S.-imposed wall. It’s supply chain War Games with blocs fighting for survival and market share. The tariffs won’t stop globalization, but they’ll warp it.Expect higher costs, slower flows, and more regional clustering. The real story isn’t just about where your phone is made, but how many passports its components rack up before it lands in your pocket.
Funny enough, what may matter most here in the U.S. is the Fed lowering interest rates so that corporations can better afford the financing to build domestic factories and automate with robotics. I could easily transition into one of my past harped on economic themes: that at this point in the US cycle, lower interest rates are not inflationary, but deflationary because they make manufacturing (and goods production) much more affordable. Lower interest rates would make this entire manufacturing at-home transition much more affordable.
In a BEST-case world, companies quickly lean into “friendshoring,” routing final assembly to tariff-friendly hubs while scaling U.S. advanced manufacturing in semiconductors and automation; costs stabilize after a short inflation bump. The more likely BASE-case is patchwork regionalization where firms split their supply webs into Americas, Euro-Med, and Indo-Pacific blocs, rationalize product lines, and use tariff-hopping via compliant final assembly. Inflation stays a notch higher, but the system adjusts around a permanent tax wedge. The WORST-case is transshipment games and retaliation where Washington cracks down with anti-circumvention cases, partners respond in kind, and global supply chains fragment further, raising costs, bloating inventories, and eroding productivity; I believe that goods found to be transshipped to evade tariffs face a 40% tariff, plus potential additional penalties.
The unstable current and warped planning is evident in fresh POTUS tweets and ever-changing frameworks. Case-in-point, India recently moved from friendshoring candidate to tariff-challenged for U.S.-bound supply chains. On July 31, 2025, the White House issued an order that set India’s reciprocal tariff at 25%, effective August 7, 2025 (it replaces the 10% baseline for India). A separate Russia-related action issued the following week adds an extra 25% “penalty” tariff on Indian-origin goods effective August 27, 2025, bringing the stacked additional duty to 50% on many items. Near-term reroutes may tilt harder toward USMCA (Mexico/Canada) and select Southeast Asia lanes, with stricter origin/compliance work to avoid anti-circumvention snags.
Recently (last Friday), President Donald Trump stunned by turning a narrow steel and aluminum cover charge into an all-you-can-tariff buffet, slapping more than four hundred everyday items—from motorcycles to tableware—while giving customs brokers and importers roughly zero runway; the duties hit the next business day with no mercy for goods already at sea. The net now snags a bewildering array of items, a flex of how far sector tariffs can stretch, and it sits apart from the so-called reciprocal play. This tranche goes broad and oddly domestic, tagging cargo-handling gear, auto parts, furniture, baby booster seats, and personal care that merely arrives in metal tins, a quiet pivot in how steel and aluminum derivatives get policed. The real bruise is not just the rate but the maze of overlapping levies, shifting codes, and a budgeting and compliance tax that never shows up on the price tag. Think supply chain escape room meets pop quiz, where the room keeps moving and the answers are buried in customs footnotes.
Trump also said semiconductor tariffs will be set in the next couple weeks that could reach 300%. Surprise complexities like this are a true challenge to business planning; semiconductors are used by everyone.
Jacobsen: Why did markets rally in spite of the escalating tariff tensions?
Schulman: Tariffs were the distraction, not the main concern; or to quote an adage, it’s the economy stupid. Stocks rallied not because tariffs disappeared but because louder music drowned them out; second quarter profits beat the script, led by cash rich platforms riding the artificial intelligence wave, which eased recession jitters and floated valuations, while July consumer price data kept dreams of gentler policy alive. Investors judged the tariff hit as a manageable tax wedge, with many companies passing costs along, rerouting final assembly to friendlier ports, or enjoying a bit of home field protection. Profits and policy hope headlined the show, tariffs opened as the bad warm up act, but the market left singing along with the catchy headliner hits.
Despite tariff confusion, economic growth was a strong 3% in the second quarter, unemployment remains reasonably low, and investors keep hoping and expecting a Federal Reserve interest rate cut which would help risk assets to rally further. Even though the Fed has sorely disappointed many observers by not cutting rates so far this year, it just makes those forecasters even more adamant that the Fed will cut at the next meeting. I don’t know if it’s a case of misplaced hope or just adamant belief like the person that never takes “no” for an answer.
Jacobsen: Are U.S. tariffs on Indian exports a protectionist decision or a geopolitical calculation?
Schulman: Both, in stereo. The 25% reciprocal rate on India is classic home turf protection dressed up as fairness, with the White House saying it aims to fix lopsided deficits and shore up domestic industry and national security. An extra 25% that starts on August 27 is a geopolitical lever disguised as a customs bill tied to India’s intake of Russian crude and meant to raise the price of neutrality.
Think of the United States as the club owner who loves to talk about open doors while quietly hiking the cover charge at the velvet rope; that is the protection part, a not so free trade that is really fee trade to shield the local D.J or band and keep the margins fat. Now add geopolitics as the doorman whispering rules that change if you roll up with the wrong entourage; buy your oil at the rival bar and the cover doubles later this month. It is where the host smiles for your selfie-photo and then hands you a bill marked duty calls. The goal is to push India to pick a lane and to pay up if it will not, while telling voters this is fairness not a food fight. Snark aside, it is one maneuver with two payoffs, pricing power at the port and pressure on the gameboard.
Jacobsen: Will India’s ₹40 billion credit guarantee scheme offset the damage caused by the tariffs?
Schulman: Ughhhh, doubtful! India seems more complex from a demographic and corporate perspective than the U.S. Short answer, no, this is duct tape on a cracked dam. The forty billion rupees planned credit guarantee covers only a sliver of bank risk on loans that are late for small exporters, which helps cash flow but does not erase a price handicap at the dock. India sold nearly $80 billion of goods to America last year—maybe check me on that—and more than half of that flow now runs into the new tariff wall, with many items facing a stacked 50% hit by late August, which means a tariff bill in the tens of billions that no guarantee can wish away. Think of it like trying to beat a luxury surcharge with a store credit card, nice for the points, useless against the sticker shock. The scheme may keep some textile and jewelry firms on life support and buy time while banks and ministries triage, but the arithmetic still screams relocation, re-pricing, or lost share until the policy weather changes.
I may need to explain this better since as I mentioned earlier, it is the importer that writes the check to the U.S. government. However, as I also mentioned, tariffs create thousands of inefficient private negotiations to split the tariff bill at the figurative dinner table. It’s tricky. Tariff incidence is a tug-of-war over margins and volume. If the importer can push prices to shoppers, the consumer pays; if demand balks, the importer leans on the supplier to cut the export price, so the exporter eats part of it; if a cheaper substitute exists in a friendlier country, the Indian exporter just loses the order and pays with lost revenue, which is the most expensive currency of all! The credit guarantee helps cash flow for firms that survive this do-or-die reality show round, but it does not erase the wedge at the dock or bring back the orders that never ship.
Jacobsen: Are central banks beginning a newer phase of synchronized global monetary easing?
Schulman: No, not beginning because many central banks already have begun, but it is not a synchronized huddle so much as a messy café crowd where some friends are sipping decaf lattes, others are in the back staring at the menu, and one big one is insisting on full throttle double espresso. The Federal Reserve has held steady so far in 2025 and is still evaluating options, Europe pressed pause after a string of reductions, the Bank of England cut a quarter point on August 6, the Bank of Canada last cut in March to 2.75%, and Japan is the odd caffeinating one tiptoeing toward normalization by raising rates rather than easing. You may recall that in March 2024, after 17 years, the Bank of Japan (BOJ) ended its negative interest rate policy and raised short-term interest rates to between 0% and 0.1%; they further raised rates in mid-2024 and the beginning of 2025.
Across emerging markets the crowd is decaffeinating. The backdrop enabler has been a significantly weaker U.S. dollar brought about by President Trump’s tariff and fiscal turmoil which has eased currency and inflation pressure enough for several emerging central banks to ease without inviting a run on their exchange rates. A weaker U.S. dollar makes it easier for EMs to repay their dollar denominated debt and allows them to lower interest rates without causing their local currency to weaken relative to the dollar. I believe Mexico recently cut rates again, Chile restarted cuts in July, Colombia, Peru, and the Czech Republic trimmed in the spring. China is playing its own tune, loosening with a reserve-requirement cut and a small policy tweak while keeping lending benchmarks steady and leaning on property and consumer-credit support rather than a big-bang rate slash.
Jacobsen: What happens if the U.S.–China tariff moratorium expires and then there’s no renewal?
Schulman: Possibly more tweets, more threats, and more suspension of belief by the market. Formulaically, however, if the truce lapses, the playlist flips from lo-fi détente to speed-metal tariffs in one beat. Suspended China-specific hikes snap back above the 10% baseline, import costs on China-origin goods jump, and buyers reroute or cancel orders while compliance folks start mainlining antacids. It is not good for either side. Consumers and businesses can expect a quick price up bump in electronics, machinery, toys, furniture, and the like as importers test pass-through, plus more audits and seizures now that the small-parcel loophole is already shut for China and is ending broadly in August. No more hiding in the de minimis coat closet.
On Beijing’s side, if I’m being strategic, a smart reply-guy move is to tighten the licensing spigot on gallium, germanium, graphite and other choke-point inputs. Call it death by paperwork delay rather than a headline ban. This will crimp critical battery, chip, and magnet supply. Markets would treat it like a risk-off squall or storm. American names with heavy China sourcing or sales take a valuation haircut, Mexico and other USMCA finishers get a sympathy bid, and the dollar-yuan vibe check gets spicy. The politics get louder and the supply chain math gets meaner; pay up, pivot to North America and parts of Southeast Asia, or eat the margin hit and pray for a holiday miracle. Think The Bear’s kitchen—the FX/Hulu series—at dinner rush where service is a beautiful panic; orders still go out, but there’s yelling, fire drills, triage, and a lot more burnt toast than anyone admits.
Jacobsen: Are global equity record highs signaling a bubble?
Schulman: That’s the funny thing about record highs, they only occur at or near record highs. We tell our family office clients that people point to this as a bad or scary thing, but by definition it is the only way it occurs.
The tells that keep me out of the doomsday bunker are that breadth isn’t pure mania; the median stock still lags its peak and leadership is concentrated in a handful of heavyweights whose cash flows are actually growing. The counterpoint is equally real; the equity risk premium has thinned to a five-year low, so the cushion under prices is more yoga mat than mattress, and any mix of stickier inflation, a hawkish central-bank remix, or an earnings wobble could turn the bubbly into flat soda fast. Call it froth with fundamentals and not dot-com cosplay; it is just a market that needs the hits to keep coming.
The U.S. economy is resilient,…and weird. From surging GDP estimates to a cooling manufacturing sector to high construction spending, the economy remains a study in contradictions. It is neither hot nor cold, but instead managing a strange, contradictory equilibrium—driving with one foot on the gas and the other hovering over the brake. For investors, this presents a balancing act. The Fed is still in restrictive mode, geopolitical risk is elevated, and yet the core economic engine refuses to sputter. We continue to position portfolios with an eye toward durability, quality earnings, balance sheet strength, growth, and select private opportunities, while maintaining flexibility to adapt as the macro picture evolves.
We tell our family office clients that you have to separate individual nuances from broad trends in both the domestic and the international markets! Individual stocks trade up and down on subtleties; they report earnings it looks positive then management says something that makes the outlook cloudy and it goes down; maybe there’s a twist in margins or marketing expenses that cause analysts to turn favorable or negative. But the broad market seems to be in a melt up fueled by still high corporate margins and profits, consumers still spending, unemployment still relatively low, and the rate of change and shock from bad news declining. Maybe the news is worsening, but it’s getting worse at a lower rate.
You also want to look at other risk-on indicators (or sentiment barometers). Bitcoin, Ethereum, and gold are near record highs, meme-stocks are making a comeback, e.g., Opendoor Technologies which has never seen profits had a 314% 6-day rise. And there have been over 200 U.S. IPOs already priced this year, double last year’s pace. U.S. companies have managed to sustain margins and the U.S. consumer continues to do what it does best, spend. Perhaps most telling, stock investors seem to reason that if bond markets aren’t concerned about the deficit-expanding potential of Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, neither should they be.
Emerging country stocks and businesses—apologies if it seems like I’m rambling, there is just so much to cover—EM equity and bond markets have been propped by lower interest rates as a weaker U.S. dollar has allowed EM central banks to cut interest rates.
Additionally, and importantly, a booming AI industry not only is a catalyst for chip and energy growth but also increasing productivity and margins for companies around the globe. Generative Ai may be American or Chinese, developed by Open Ai, Gemini, Anthropic or Baidu, Alibaba, DeepSeek, or SenseTime, but companies in Europe, South America, and the rest of Asia can tap into it to improve productivity and margins. AI is a great equalizer for businesses around the world; they don’t have to spend hundreds of billions to develop, it but can just tap in and rent it.
Jacobsen: How is political interference in economic institutions affecting global investor confidence? What do you think about the region?
Schulman: I may have mentioned this in a previous interview: government and politics, rule and law, are economic interference by definition. Perception on whether the intrusion is helpful or detrimental makes the difference. When politicians lean on the referees, markets start pricing in a rigged game. Confidence rides on boring, rules-based institutions; meddling swaps a predictable rulebook for improv, which investors translate into wider risk premiums, weaker currencies, and shallower capex. You can see the spectrum. Mexico’s push to elect judges spooked capital because it blurs contract enforcement; the peso told you what it thought in real time. Turkey is the flip side; after years of political cross-traffic, a hard pivot to orthodox policy rebuilt some credibility and the central bank keeps telegraphing price-stability first.
For the Gulf and its neighbors, policy frameworks, dollar pegs, and steady reforms support low inflation and non-oil growth, and the International Monetary Fund keeps handing out gold stars for institutional upgrades. The United Arab Emirates continues to court capital with deepening foreign-ownership access and predictable legal venues, which is catnip for global allocators.
Institutional credibility is the ultimate multiple-expander; it has been foundational to U.S. growth leadership or what some call exceptionalism. Where the rulebook is clear and insulated from the politics of the week, money stays sticky; where the scoreboard operator starts taking calls from the owner’s box, the cost of capital quietly drifts north.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Michael.
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:
Keywords: AI threat detection, healthcare security, Peter Evans, Xtract One Technologies, digital transformation
Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/02
Peter Evans is the Chief Executive Officer of Xtract One Technologies, a company specializing in AI-based threat detection and security solutions. He has over 25 years of experience in digital transformation and innovation within high-growth technology sectors. Evans has held CEO roles at four technology companies and has overseen revenue growth, profitability improvements, and multiple liquidity events. Before joining Xtract One, he held senior positions at technology and security firms, including IBM, where he contributed to the strategic direction of the Internet Security Systems division, focusing on security considerations related to cloud computing, telecommunications, and mobile technologies.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What led to the selection of Xtract One’s Gateway for deployment at Manitoba’s Health Sciences Centre and Crisis Response Centre?
Peter Evans: Manitoba Health conducted a thorough evaluation where they tested multiple security solutions. Xtract One Gateway demonstrated strong performance during its pilot across various hospital locations.
Healthcare environments create unique security challenges. Patients arrive in distress, staff need efficient movement between areas, and the setting must remain welcoming. During the pilot, Gateway showed it could handle these complexities effectively while maintaining appropriate security levels.
We worked collaboratively with HSC staff throughout the process. Their emergency department deals with situations different from those of the Crisis Response Centre, requiring tailored approaches for each location. Our willingness to adapt to their specific needs, combined with Gateway’s performance in testing, influenced their final decision.
Jacobsen: How does the system ensure robust threat detection while also maintaining a comfortable and seamless experience for patients, staff, and visitors?
Evans: Xtract One Gateway allows people to walk through naturally without removing items from their pockets or bags. Our AI algorithms distinguish between potential threats and everyday items like laptops, tablets, notebooks, keys, and phones. False alerts are decreased significantly, preventing unnecessary invasiveness and delays for patients.
With Gateway, healthcare staff spend less time managing security processes and more time focusing on patient care. The system prevents entrance bottlenecks, which is important for emergency departments where delays could affect clinical outcomes.
Jacobsen: How does Gateway distinguish between potential weapons and everyday personal items?
Evans: Xtract One Gateway combines advanced sensor technology with AI algorithms to create what we call “threat signatures.” The system analyzes object characteristics and then compares them against a library of known threat profiles.
We’ve trained our AI on millions of data points representing both threats and common personal belongings. The system continuously improves through machine learning, becoming more accurate over time.
For HSC specifically, we determined sensitivity settings to match and balance their security profile, patient experience, and operational flow.
Jacobsen: What operational improvements are expected in hospitals with this implementation?
Evans: Enhanced safety without operational bottlenecks stands as the primary benefit. Traditional security often creates entry delays that negatively impact patient experience and potentially clinical outcomes.
Xtract One Gateway delivers faster processing while maintaining security coverage. Emergency departments operate more efficiently, staff focus on patient care rather than security procedures, and the atmosphere remains conducive to healing.
Security staffing requirements decrease, as well. Gateway’s precision in identifying actual threats allows personnel deployment to more strategic roles instead of conducting manual searches or managing security lines. This is particularly valuable given current healthcare staffing challenges.
Jacobsen: How do Canadian Occupational Safety and Health Agency and the Ontario Nurses’ Association statistics make the need for advanced security solutions urgent in healthcare?
Evans: Statistics from the Ontario Nurses’ Association reveal that up to 85% of nurseshave experienced workplace violence. Canadian Occupational Safety and Health Agency data confirms healthcare workers face some of the highest violence rates across industries.
These numbers have continued trending upward in recent years. Healthcare workers, dedicated to healing others, increasingly become targets of violence. Manitoba Nurses Union president Darlene Jackson noted that frontline staff felt “much safer” with our detectors in place.
Real people experience trauma in their workplace when these incidents occur. Staff safety affects everything from retention rates to quality of care. Advanced security solutions like Gateway create environments where healthcare professionals can focus primarily on patient care.
Jacobsen: How does Gateway improve screening times and reduce the need for separate bag searches at entry points?
Evans: Xtract One Gateway fundamentally changes the screening paradigm. Traditional security approaches require people to empty pockets, remove items from bags, or undergo separate screening processes for carried items. This creates significant delays, requires additional staffing, and often creates an unwelcoming atmosphere.
Our Gateway system allows individuals to walk through naturally while carrying their belongings. The AI-powered detection can scan both the person and their bags and backpacks simultaneously, identifying potential threats while distinguishing harmless personal items like laptops, tablets, and phones. In most cases, this eliminates the need for separate bag searches.
In terms of actual numbers, we typically see processing times that are significantly faster than traditional metal detector and bag search combinations. This means that healthcare facility patients can simply walk-right-in, while the hospital maintains effective security coverage.
Jacobsen: What other industries can benefit from AI threat detection systems?
Evans: While healthcare facilities represent an important application of our technology, we’re seeing adoption across numerous sectors where safety concerns must be balanced with operational efficiency and visitor experience.
Sports and entertainment venues have been early adopters, and educational institutions from K-12 to universities are increasingly implementing these solutions to protect students and staff. What’s interesting is how the technology is being adapted to meet the unique needs of each environment. In corporate settings, it might focus on protecting intellectual property as much as people. In schools, it needs to accommodate high-volume morning entry of students carrying educational technology. The flexibility of AI-based systems like our Gateway means we can customize solutions for virtually any environment where safety and security are priorities.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Peter.
–
Xtract One Technologies is a top provider of AI-powered threat detection and security solutions designed to create safe, seamless entry experiences. Its discreet, non-invasive Gateway systems allow facility operators to identify weapons and threats at entry and exit points without slowing foot traffic. Focused on enhancing “Walk-right-In” convenience, Xtract One supports diverse environments, including schools, hospitals, arenas, stadiums, manufacturing sites, and distribution centers. Known for blending advanced security with user-friendly design, the company leads the market in providing safety without compromising experience. Xtract One’s cutting-edge solutions reflect its commitment to innovation, efficiency, and protection across high-traffic, high-security venues.
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): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/27
In this wide-ranging interview, Javier Palomarez shares his insights on Prime Minister Mark Carney’s early leadership, highlighting his pragmatic approach to trade and diplomacy. He emphasizes the importance of Canada–U.S.–Mexico relations under the USMCA, highlighting mutual economic and strategic interests. Palomarez warns of declining trust and trade due to tariffs and political rhetoric, noting boycotts and shifts in public sentiment in Canada. He advocates for restoring confidence and stability through diplomacy and collaboration. With key industries like automotive and energy at stake, Palomarez urges leaders to find common ground and preserve the economic backbone of the Western Hemisphere.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Javier Palomarez, what are your general sentiments regarding Mark Carney’s first few weeks in office as Prime Minister, particularly on trade and economic policy? How is this reflected in Mexico’s relationship with the United States?
Javier Palomarez: I’m impressed with Prime Minister Carney. He has handled himself admirably.
Both he and President Claudia Sheinbaum have done a commendable job in approaching the Canada–Mexico relationship and recent North American dialogue with pragmatism. They have both been diplomatic and have helped lower tensions while establishing a more respectful and equal footing in discussions.
The U.S.–Canada relationship has historically been strong. For decades, it has remained mostly positive. Economically, this partnership has supported millions of jobs and small businesses across both countries.
According to the latest trade data, Canada is the United States’ second-largest trading partner, with more than $750 billion in two-way goods and services traded annually. The trade relationship encompasses key industries, including automotive parts, timber, crude oil, natural gas, and others. It truly covers the whole spectrum.
So, I’m pleased with how the Prime Minister has steered these conversations. I’m hopeful that both nations will continue to engage constructively because we depend on each other. This relationship must remain symbiotic.
Jacobsen: What about the security aspect of the relationship? Is there a broader strategic element at play?
Palomarez: Now, Scott, I’m not a national security expert by any stretch, but it’s evident we also share strategic defence interests. For instance, Canada has been in discussions about participating in missile defence upgrades, including potential alignment with aspects of the U.S. Integrated Air and Missile Defense system—though not the Israeli-developed Iron Dome, which is a separate, short-range missile defence system.
This relationship—between the United States, Canada, and Mexico—has broad economic and geopolitical significance. It is mutually beneficial, and the United States would be unwise to undermine it.
The Canada–U.S.–Mexico triad—under the USMCA, which replaced NAFTA in 2020—is the economic backbone of the Western Hemisphere. Together, we form the largest trading bloc in the region. We are obligated to respect this interdependence and keep building on the strong foundation we already have.
Looking ahead, the USMCA is scheduled for a joint review in 2026, six years after it enters into force. That means we need to begin preparing now—to ensure the agreement strengthens mutual gains, addresses evolving concerns, and gives all three countries a fair say.
I’m thankful that Prime Minister Carney has demonstrated true diplomacy in managing these complex dynamics and helped keep the relationship on course.
Jacobsen: Something you and others have mentioned to me—perhaps not in these exact words—is that stability is good for business. Why is that the case? And what kinds of actions from political leaders can create instability? How has Carney managed to avoid those?
Palomarez: Instability—the inability to plan or invest confidently—is detrimental to businesses on both sides of the border. When markets and regulatory environments are uncertain, companies hesitate. That slows growth.
By avoiding inflammatory rhetoric and resisting political bait, Carney has helped maintain a level-headed approach. He understands that business requires a stable environment to make long-term plans, build partnerships, and commit to capital expenditures. Without that, business 26 confidence drops. And that is not good for anyone—Canadian, American, or Mexican.
Your Prime Minister’s willingness and ability to calm the conversation—to avoid taking the bait that’s been thrown—and instead think strategically and pragmatically is critically important right now. I’m thankful to both him and President Sheinbaum in Mexico because that’s precisely what we need in a trade partner. We need mutual respect and trust. Without that, there will not be a stable environment in which businesses on both sides of the border can plan, invest, grow, and drive our economies forward.
Some trade provisions can be renegotiated during this period—particularly under the USMCA review. The industries that are coming online or have matured in recent years will be key for Canada to consider during negotiations with the United States—and vice versa.
Jacobsen: Which industries, in your view, are most relevant here?
Palomarez: Well, right off the bat, there’s the automotive industry. Parts go back and forth multiple times across borders before final assembly and sale. Energy is another critical area for all three partners—especially Canada and the U.S. Pipelines, crude oil, and natural gas—these are foundational sectors for both countries. We must be mindful of this and safeguard those shared interests.
There’s a lot at stake. The relationship has taken a hit. It began with U.S. tariffs on non-USMCA goods and then extended into energy, with a 10% tariff applied. In response, the Prime Minister issued retaliatory tariffs. As of now, we’re seeing approximately a 1.5% decline in trade on both sides. There’s been a measurable decrease in cross-border tourism—fewer Canadians visiting the U.S. and fewer Americans going to Canada.
We’re also seeing signs of a consumer backlash. A poll found that roughly 91% of Canadians expressed a desire to reduce their dependence on American goods. Such sentiments are not conducive to the American business environment. The U.S. needs to understand just how critically important this relationship is. We often take it for granted and fail to reflect on it in a meaningful way.
But the trade you see is just the tip of the iceberg. We share far more than a border—we share people, culture, language, and history. There are also significant national security implications. There is so much built into this relationship.
So, given that long-standing history, calmer heads will prevail. We will normalize relations and return to a place of mutual respect and productive trade.
Jacobsen: As a general rule, I tend to trust that high-income societies function best when mutual trust is intact. When political relationships deteriorate, trust between the societies involved erodes as well. So how can Prime Minister Carney work with President Trump to repair and rebuild trust and, in turn, enhance the potential for income growth for both nations?
Palomarez: Some of the answers here are pretty obvious—mutual respect, returning to the negotiating table, and operating from a shared commitment to restoring trust.
Interestingly, Carney and Trump have more in common than some people might expect. They both understand the importance of financial markets and macroeconomic stability, albeit from different perspectives. If they can focus on mutual interest rather than ideology and rebuild institutional respect across the board, we’ll be in a much better place.
They both face the challenge of navigating historic economic pressures—challenges we have not seen in either country in recent memory. Both are under immense pressure from their respective populations to address the failures of prior administrations. They are each working to secure a better future for their nations and, in doing so, for this hemisphere as a whole.
So yes, they have a lot in common if you think about it. Both Prime Minister Carney and President Trump marked decisive political shifts in their respective countries. If they approached the situation from that perspective—recognizing their shared challenges and goals—they could find real common ground. They both face the pressure of proving themselves in contrast to the leaders who preceded them.
In that commonality lies real potential: the chance to work together rather than continue down a path of friction. The United States would benefit from remembering the long and storied partnership with Canada—one that has repeatedly worked to the advantage of both countries. That shared history holds not just the challenge but also the opportunity to restore and strengthen the relationship.
Jacobsen: Are you aware of the recent changes Prime Minister Carney has made to his cabinet? Do you think those changes might offer insight into how he plans to move forward economically—both in terms of policy direction and resource allocation for government-supported business ventures?
Palomarez: Not in great detail—only from a distance. But again, like Trump in his way, Carney is a man on a mission. They both campaigned on specific mandates and now they’re working to deliver on those promises. There’s a lot to prove—and not a lot of time to do it.
It’s like trying to turn an ocean liner around in a narrow canal. It’s slow, it’s complicated, and it takes precision. They’re both facing that challenge simultaneously.
So, amidst all the upheaval and change in both countries, we’re better off respecting each other and identifying points of alignment—ways we can normalize the relationship and work together for the benefit of both nations and their economies.
Jacobsen: Has any sector in business or trade relations, which may have initially seemed damaged during recent tensions, actually turned out to be better off in the long run? Perhaps it was a sunset industry whose decline was accelerated.
Palomarez: Yes. One of the things I’ve observed—in the cases of Mexico, Canada, and even the European Union—is that long-standing trade relationships can be significantly damaged, if not completely undone, in a matter of weeks. And once that damage is done, it’s tough to rebuild the trust.
Trust is fundamental to the U.S.–Canada relationship. And the fear I have is that both the American and Canadian people have long memories. When that trust is broken, it can take years to restore fully. I’m fearful, again, that Canadians have started to boycott American goods. I worry that it may take a while for people to forget—and, more importantly—forgive. So, for me, the sooner we get back to the business of finding common ground and working toward normalization, the better.
My plea to our own President is to actively seek out those points of commonality. We have far more in common than we have in areas where we differ. There is a necessary interdependence and collaboration that has to exist between our countries. If you doubt that, look at a country like Israel and ask what it feels like to have a neighbour across the border who may not have your best interests at heart. It is a stark contrast to what we have enjoyed with Canada—and what I fear we have taken for granted.
A strong economic and trade relationship with a neighbour like Canada is a national asset. It is something we need to preserve, not erode.
Palomarez: Absolutely. Thanks, Scott. Good luck, and I’ll be in touch soon.
Jacobsen: Safe travels, Javier.
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): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/26
Part 3 of 3
Pat Merryweather-Arges, Executive Director of Project Patient Care and longtime Rotarian, shares insights from her decades of humanitarian work across over 30 countries. Merryweather‑Arges explains that under‑resourced hospitals gain quickest impact from three essentials: staff training in evidence‑based protocols, reliable WASH (water, sanitation, hygiene), and vaccinations, especially against pneumonia and polio. Clean water alone slashes infection‑related deaths ten‑fold. She cites Rotary’s four‑decade polio‑eradication campaign—launched in 1985, expanded from a Philippine pilot, now down to ten cases in Pakistan and Afghanistan—as its largest, proving disciplined partnerships, Gates Foundation matching, and field technology can ultimately push diseases to zero.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you’re doing your assessments, as a professional and expert, how do you determine what’s appropriate and most urgently needed in a hospital with limited infrastructure? And more broadly, what do under-resourced hospitals, particularly in rural or low-income areas, most often need to achieve high impact with minimal cost?
Pat Merryweather-Arges: Two things come to mind immediately.
First is training and education. Many births, surgeries, and procedures occur in these settings—often without proper protocols. Just ensuring that staff are trained in best practices can dramatically improve outcomes.
Second is clean water. It sounds basic, but infections are rampant, and clean water is fundamental to preventing complications and maintaining hygiene. Without it, even basic care becomes risky.
The situation becomes extremely dangerous without clean water, and the number of infection-related deaths is significantly higher. I have the data written down somewhere—people die of infections even in the U.S., but the rate is about 10 times higher in countries lacking water and sanitation infrastructure.
I remember visiting a hospital in India—well-intentioned but overwhelmed. In one corner, bloody linens were piled up. They had one delivery room, which consisted of a chair with an opening for childbirth. The exam table where women lie down during delivery had gloves on it.
We were there because they had a very high maternal and infant mortality rate.
I asked the physician about the gloves. He said, “Well, I clean them after I deliver.” But that is a huge source of infection. Surgical gloves are porous, and you cannot reuse them. So we had to explain to him why single-use gloves are essential and how critical it is to have clean water available.
Truck deliveries can bring water in—it is not impossible. But the combination of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) saves lives. Once babies are born, immunizations are critical as well.
Depending on the region, of course, polio is a concern, but so is pneumonia, which is a leading cause of death for children under five. Many of them do not receive pneumococcal vaccines, which could prevent that.
So I would say the three most essential things are:
- Vaccines,
- WASH (Water, Sanitation, Hygiene), and
- Proper medical protocols.
You cannot perform surgery and then expect a wound to heal in an unclean environment. Dirt and bacteria will almost certainly lead to complications.
Jacobsen: What is the biggest, longest-running project Rotary International has ever taken on—either solo or in collaboration? Something where the effort spanned years, and ultimately succeeded?
Merryweather-Arges: That would be polio eradication. Rotary took that on as a global mission in 1985. At that time, there were approximately 150,000 children paralyzed every year due to polio.
Rotary ran a pilot program in the Philippines, and it was successful—the country was eventually declared polio-free. From there, Rotary decided to expand the initiative globally. So yes, they have been working on it for over 40 years. That was the beginning of the global push. It has been a long road, but the commitment has never wavered.
This year, there have been only ten wild poliovirus cases worldwide. But it is still a challenge. It has a ripple effect when countries begin cutting back on funding, especially in key areas. For example, USAID provided significant financing for polio vaccines, the workers, and the cold storage necessary to keep the vaccines viable.
That support has been cut, and we are working hard to fill the gap. Other countries have stepped in, but there remains a huge gap that we are still addressing.
The goal is simple: get to zero cases. And we are close, very close.
When I was in India, it was the first time I witnessed the scale of polio’s impact on people’s lives. People had been paralyzed by polio. I saw them at train stations, trying to earn any money they could. Many were using modified skateboards to move around, pushing themselves along with their hands.
It was heartbreaking—but also deeply motivating. We are at the eradication threshold, and it is not just Rotary leading the charge.
We helped launch the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), which includes the World Health Organization, CDC, UNICEF, and critically, the Gates Foundation.
The Gates Foundation has been a game-changer. They match Rotary donations two to one and have also brought advanced technology. When you are down to just a handful of cases, you need to pinpoint exactly where they are and ensure everyone in the area is immunized.
The Gates Foundation introduced mobile technology, like iPads, for healthcare workers to use in the field. That technology has vastly improved tracking, reporting, and coordination.
So yes, this is Rotary’s long-term project, but it has had far-reaching effects. We have learned so much. We now run health fair campaigns in many parts of Africa and beyond—all because we know that vaccination and fundamental healthcare matter.
Jacobsen: I do not think we are going to top that.
Merryweather-Arges: [laughs] It is something. If the malaria vaccine proves effective, that will be huge—malaria kills so many people each year. Tuberculosis is another one, and they are working on a vaccine for the latest strain.
This work has been challenging, especially early on, because it was uncharted territory. Rotary had never taken on something of this scale before. But now, we are down to just Pakistan and Afghanistan, where the last wild polio cases remain. Thank you so much.
Jacobsen: Thank you. Have a great weekend!
Merryweather-Arges: You too. Bye!
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): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/25
Thomas Westenholz is a couple therapist based in Brighton and Hove, UK, specializing in Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT) and Somatic Trauma Therapy. Through his practice at WAVO LTD and the Couples in Focus podcast, he helps partners break destructive patterns and rebuild emotional connection using honest, grounded, and research-informed approaches. Westenholz explains how posture, touch, and eye contact reflect emotional connection in romantic relationships. Drawing on Emotionally Focused and Somatic Therapy, he highlights body language as an early warning system, shaped by trauma and culture, and key to rebuilding trust, safety, and attunement between partners.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How do posture, touch, and eye contact reflect the emotional state of a romantic relationship?
Thomas Westenholtz: Posture: I look for signs such as whether their frontal bodies are facing each other and how far apart they are standing or sitting from each other. Are arms crossed or open?
Couples that feel more connected, open, and safe with each other tend to point their bodies towards each other, while disconnected, angry, or resentful couples tend to turn more away.
Arms tend to be open and relaxed, while crossed arms often show defensiveness. This is typically seen in a more avoidant partner protecting themselves from criticism.
Touch is a very significant bonding cue for humans. Couples who feel safe and connected again tend to touch each other far more. Touch (unless there is substantial trauma) tends to soothe and calm the nervous system, making us more receptive to our partner. It also releases bonding hormones such as oxytocin.
A hand touching a hand, a hug, a hand on a shoulder. These are signs of affection and facilitate bonding.
Lack of touch is also common in couples who feel disconnected and either have had some traumatic fracture or where resentment is present.
However, we can’t look at touch in isolation without seeing the context. Touch plays an even more significant role when one partner is in distress, and couples who feel safe and close tend to touch each other more in distress. In contrast, a lack of touch can be a warning sign that they cannot respond and support each other in key moments of distress, leading to loneliness and distress.
Eye contact, similar to touch, also shows the comfort and ease a couple has with each other. Couples who struggle with emotional vulnerability tend to find it hard to have eye contact when speaking about more vulnerable parts. They will look down (shame) or away (avoidance).
Eye contact also releases bonding hormones and is an important cue to regulate each other, as it says, “I am here with you. You are not alone”.
Jacobsen: What subtle body language cues indicate emotional disconnection between partners?
Westenholtz: Turning away, looking away, withholding touch, rolling eye. “Follow the toes, knees and eyes, and you will see where they want to be” — coupletherapy.earth
Are they looking to move away from discomfort or towards someone?
Jacobsen: How can body language serve as an early warning system?
Westenholtz: As John Gottman’s research showed, when couples reach with contempt, they are far more likely to end in divorce/separation.
Contempt is turning their back on someone, rolling their eyes.
It communicates “you do not matter to me, I do not care for you”
When I notice a lack of touch during distress or a couple’s body language turns away from each other, then it’s a warning system that their safety (the foundation for any long-term relationship) is in trouble.
They are no longer relating (trying to understand each other’s world); they are busy protecting themselves.
Jacobsen: How do cultural norms influence the interpretation of romantic body language?
Westenholtz: While I am not an expert on all world cultures, it does have an impact.
Some of these signs are universal. However, some cultures normalise touch more than others. Even within Europe, imagine British vs Italians.
Some cultures also have different customs around eye contact. Similar to some cultures, touch is not permitted in public.
My responses are very much through a Western lens. However, we do know that before a child is shaped by its culture, they naturally seek eye contact and touch from their caregiver to soothe, and so it’s universal something our nervous system responds to.
Culture primarily impacts what is permitted and our meaning-making (cognitive processing) of what is happening.
Jacobsen: Can couples become more attuned to nonverbal emotional signals?
Westenholtz: The attunement to these signals is hardwired or created very early, when the brain has the highest neuroplasticity.
And so, unlike logic reasoning, we can pick this up and respond with approach/avoid behaviour before we even have language.
Yes, couples can learn to read this, and in my couples therapy, I help couples notice their nonverbal signals, which are body language and tonality.
This means they can be aware of the signals they send that cause their partner more distress and which comfort them. And it’s this map of themselves and their partner that helps them respond in new ways and create a new cycle of connection.
Jacobsen: What are common misconceptions about body language in romantic relationships?
Westenholtz: I think the most common is simply the lack of awareness of what signals we are sending out with our body language, and that we are often stuck in trying to solve an issue using logic when our bodies communicate far more than our words.
Saying “I love you” while walking away with our back turned to our partner feels very different in their emotional brain (limbic system) than if we are looking into their eyes, holding their hand and saying “I love you”
Jacobsen: How might trauma or attachment history impact the expression or interpretation of romantic body language?
Westenholtz: Excellent question.
Trauma interrupts the processing of signals, as there tends to be either numbing or hyper-vigilance, so the system is alert to danger.
People who have had severe trauma tend to send more defensive cues as they are more self-protective. Escalation tends to happen much faster and more extreme as small signals that a calm nervous system would see as a simply “he is walking away, to get to work on time” can be seen as “he does not care about me” and so that simple turning away can be interpreted in different ways. A more traumatised brain tends to look for the danger cue and would see the second option. This is just an example.
Trauma can strongly impact our interpretation of body language, as what would usually not be a danger cue suddenly becomes one.
They are also more likely to send hostile or defensive body language to protect themselves from imaginary dangers.
Jacobsen: In emotionally focused or somatically based therapy, how is body language used?
Westenholtz: In somatic trauma work, we help the person notice their bodily sensations. What tends to happen in trauma is a disconnect between the bodily sensation, which biologically is one of the three compasses we have to navigate back into balance (logic/cognition, emotion & sensations).
By becoming more aware of their sensation, they can begin to regulate and take actions to get themselves back in a calm place.
An example of how body language could be used is teaching someone bodily boundaries by slowly walking towards them, and they say stop when something in their body feels uncomfortable.
In Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy, we make people aware of how they react in their bodies and notice sensations. Someone could start to fiddle their fingers suddenly, and I might say “x, I noticed you started to fiddle your finger when Y said x, can you help me understand what’s happening for you right now?”
It brings awareness to their body language and sensations so they can start to navigate the world and their relationship better. Without the three compasses, it’s easy to get lost.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Thomas.
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): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/25
Part 1 of 5
Eru Hiko-Tahuri, a Māori creative and author of Māori Boy Atheist, explores his journey from religious upbringing to secular humanism. Hiko-Tahuri discusses cultural tensions as a Māori atheist, advocating for respectful integration of Māori values like manaakitanga and whanaungatanga within secular contexts. Hiko-Tahuri reflects on navigating Māori identity as an atheist. He emphasizes integrating Māori values like manaakitanga and whanaungatanga into secular spaces. Through storytelling, funerary practices, and community rituals, Hiko-Tahuri demonstrates that cultural richness and humanist principles can coexist without reliance on supernatural belief.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re joined by Eru Hiko-Tahuri, a multifaceted Māori creative and intellectual voice based in New Zealand.
Eru Hiko-Tahuri: Thank you for having me.
Jacobsen: He’s best known as the author of Māori Boy Atheist, where he chronicles his journey from childhood religious observance to secular humanism. Alongside writing, he engages audiences as a radio host, musician, and airbrush artist, integrating cultural expression with personal storytelling. Since launching Māori Boy Atheist, with editions available in English, Te Reo Māori, and French, he has contributed meaningfully to rationalist and skeptic communities, offering insights on navigating Māori spirituality as an atheist.
The book was first published in 2015 and has served as a platform to explore the intersection of Māori identity and secularism. His public talks and podcasts, notably The Heretical Hori, encourage free thought and integrity within the indigenous context. They combine art, reflective media, and cultural dialogue to foster conversations on belief, identity, and resilience. Through those platforms, I aim to respectfully explore and challenge ideas, especially within Māori communities where belief systems can be deeply personal and culturally intertwined.
Thank you very much for joining me today—I appreciate it.
Hiko-Tahuri: It’s a pleasure to be here.
Jacobsen: How do core humanist principles align with traditional Māori concepts such as mana, mana motuhake, and whanaungatanga?
Hiko-Tahuri: Whanaungatanga speaks to kinship and the interconnectedness of people. That aligns closely with humanism, emphasizing dignity, respect, and empathy. You treat others as people first—essentially as extended family. It’s about looking after the people within your sphere, which reflects humanist ethics well.
Jacobsen: How can secular humanist organizations incorporate Te Ao Māori—the Māori worldview—into their activities without endorsing supernaturalism while respecting and integrating those cultural values?
Hiko-Tahuri: That’s a great question. It’s not always straightforward, but let me give an example from personal experience. When someone in our family passes away, we take them to the marae—a tribal meeting ground—where they lie in state for three days. During that time, relatives come to mourn, share memories, cry, laugh, tell jokes, and say goodbyes.
Depending on travel or family arrangements, the person is buried or cremated on the third day—sometimes longer. This process reflects core Māori values like manaakitanga (hospitality, care) and whanaungatanga, which coexist naturally with humanist principles of community, respect, and shared humanity. These values shape how we live and commemorate life without invoking supernatural beliefs.
Employers in Aotearoa generally understand that if someone goes to a funeral, they might be gone for three days—that’s just the time it takes. All of that work, by the way, is done voluntarily. We gather at the marae. Some families will care for the food, and others will help with arrangements. You can even sleep there.
We sleep beside the body for those three days. We keep them with us. We talk to them. We joke about them. We tell stories. We insult them lovingly. We laugh. We cry. It’s all done out in the open, and it’s for everyone to witness. That’s just the way we do it. It’s a good, profound way of grieving together as a collective.
Jacobsen: And within a secular humanist context, this isn’t just about superficial inclusion—it’s about acknowledging different ways of being. That kind of grieving is profoundly human and deeply cultural. It’s not about hierarchy—this isn’t about one way being better than another.
Take my Dutch heritage, for example. They’re big on windmills, dikes, black licorice, and clogs. The traditional way of burial there is usually more private—placing the body in a mound of Earth and marking it with a cross or a headstone. The grieving tends to happen separately from the deceased.
But for you, it’s different. Being with the body, telling stories, laughing and crying beside them—all part of the process. I wouldn’t say one way is more valid than the other. These are just different cultural processes for the same human experience. One does not invalidate the other.
Hiko-Tahuri: This is just the way we do it. I don’t judge how others handle it, but this is the way I prefer because it’s how I grew up. It’s what feels real to me.
And yes, there are usually religious aspects involved in the funeral proceedings. When those moments arise, I sit quietly and let them happen around me. I do not participate in those parts because I cannot in good conscience. And that’s one of the problematic areas—Indigenous and non-religious. Those are the tensions.
Jacobsen: How do you navigate those tensions?
Hiko-Tahuri: That’s the most challenging part, honestly. Knowing when to stay quiet, step back, and speak. It isn’t easy.
Jacobsen: Were there aspects where you didn’t feel tension at all? Or places where the friction started to show?
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes. One of the earliest points where tension emerges is during the pōwhiri—the welcoming ceremony when people arrive at the marae. That includes a series of formal speeches. It’s in that speech-making process where religious content often appears. That’s where the rub tends to start.
Jacobsen: Do you find conversations with others in the Māori community become more difficult when you do not endorse the spiritual or supernatural aspects of the culture?
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes. It can be challenging. Not always, but often. Some people are very accepting. Others feel that rejecting the supernatural is rejecting the culture itself, which is not my intention. But the tension is real.
Jacobsen: So you’re engaging in the same practices but not endorsing the supernaturalism around them. Is that difficult for people?
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes. Many people do not understand that distinction. There have been many times when I’ve been told, “You’re not Māori if you don’t believe in these things.” That has happened quite a few times.
Jacobsen: That is unfortunately common. I have encountered similar stories in speaking with Indigenous people—particularly from North America. The closest equivalent, in terms of how it’s discussed internationally, is often with African Americans in more conservative or evangelistic religious circles: Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist—hardline Christianity in Black communities in the United States.
Suppose you’re a woman in those communities, and you reject the concept of God or Christianity entirely. In that case, you’ve forfeited your “Black card.” You’re suddenly seen as no longer fully part of the community.
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes.
Jacobsen: And that is not just an identity issue—it’s social. You’re giving up a significant source of communal support in a society that will not necessarily provide support to you proportionately. So, there are deeper sociological and economic implications at play.
I’ve heard similar things from North American Indigenous people, too—they say, ‘You’ve given up your Indigenous card.
Hiko-Tahuri: Somehow, you’re less Māori or less authentic if you’re secular. On the marae or in the community, that feeling can be present.
Jacobsen: Would you say it is quite that extreme in New Zealand?
Hiko-Tahuri: Probably not to the same extent. New Zealanders are generally pretty liberal. Highly religious people here are sometimes even seen as a bit unusual. We’re more secular than many places—certainly more than I’ve seen in North America. So, it is not as intense, but it can still be challenging.
This is especially true among people in what we might call the Māori Renaissance—those who are just now reconnecting with their heritage. Typically, the first people they learn from are religious, so religion is deeply woven into the cultural learning they receive. Then they meet someone like me, who speaks the language and participates fully in the culture but is openly non-religious—and that creates tension for them. It challenges their framework.
Jacobsen: If you look at the traditional Māori worldview—how human beings were made, how the world came into being—what aspects can be reconciled with a humanistic way of looking at things, and what aspects cannot? And maybe you could give us a bit of a background primer. What’s the general picture?
Hiko-Tahuri: In the Māori creation narrative, everything begins with Te Kore—the void or nothingness. From Te Korecame Ranginui (Sky Father) and Papatūānuku (Earth Mother). They were bound together in a tight embrace, and between them lived their many children—some say seventy, others say fewer.
Because the children were trapped in the darkness between their parents, they decided that their parents had to be separated to live with light and space. This led to a conflict among the children—each had a different view on handling the situation. Eventually, Tāne Mahuta, the God of forests and birds, pushed his parents apart, creating the world of light, Te Ao Mārama.
These children—atua, the closest term to “gods”—became personifications of natural elements. So there’s Tangaroa for the sea, Tāwhirimātea for weather and storms, Rongo for cultivated food, and so on. There’s debate around what atruly means—whether they’re deities or ancestral forces—but they represent aspects of the natural world in human-like form.
These stories explain natural forces through personification. Of course, much of it doesn’t align with what we know from science about how humans or the Earth came into being. But some aspects resonate. For instance, each atua has a personality—just like humans do. This humanizes nature and gives people a relational framework for understanding their environment.
So yes, while the cosmology isn’t scientifically accurate, the relational values and metaphors can still be meaningful. That’s where the humanist alignment might be found—not in literal belief but in symbolic or cultural interpretation.
It reminds me of reading Joseph Campbell—how mythologies worldwide echo similar patterns. Eventually, you realize that they can’t all be true—and most likely, none of them are. That was my journey. Campbell was instrumental in helping me unpack much of what I had assumed. Once you see that every culture has a creation story—and they often contradict one another—you start questioning which, if any, are “true” in a literal sense.
Jacobsen: I’ve found it helpful to separate spirituality in the supernatural sense from spirituality as a personal or communal meaning-making practice, especially in conversations like this and other interviews. In other words, spirituality that gives a person purpose or peace doesn’t need to invoke the supernatural.
Hiko-Tahuri: Absolutely. That distinction has been vital for me, too.
Jacobsen: When people say “spiritual,” I sometimes ask: Do you mean supernaturalism or practices that foster wellbeing or connection? Prayer or meditation, for example, can have measurable health benefits—lowering stress and calming the nervous system—without requiring a belief in the supernatural.
So yes—looking at spiritual practices in the edification or enriching sense—not in the supernatural sense—what practices are done in the community or individually, or at least encouraged, that might be comparable to things like attending Easter or Christmas mass? Or personal rituals like being told to read a specific scripture in the morning, pray for ten minutes, hold a rosary, and recite ten Hail Marys?
Hiko-Tahuri: I was thinking about practices of personal unification. A lot of our communal activities involve singing. We’re a people who love to sing together. You will hear singing at any large gathering—a meeting, a ceremony, or a funeral.
Yes, some of the songs are religious, but what’s significant is that you have 300 people singing in harmony. And the richness of sound—those layers of harmonies—is incredible. Whether it’s traditional waiata, more contemporary songs, or even religious hymns, singing together is powerful. Even if the content has spiritual roots, the experience is about unity, connection, and shared emotion.
Jacobsen: That resonates with me. We’re both secular humanists and atheists. I can relate to my time in a university choir. I was in it for about two and a half years, and we sang many classical European music—Bach, Mozart’s Requiem, and other choral works.
Sometimes, we performed modern songs with a 1950s vibe. I remember people using phrases like “cat” and “daddio” or “you dig,” like something out of an Eddie Murphy or Richard Pryor scene. I sang bass, and we once collaborated with musicians from the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra in a 500-seat church. The acoustics were stunning.
It was technically Christian or sacred music—cathedral music, I’d call it—but the overwhelming sense of awe, the physical resonance, the unity of voices… It was a spiritual experience in that broader, secular sense of the word.
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes, I’d call that spiritual too. It taps into a level of connection and emotion you do not find anywhere else.
I do not avoid using “spiritual” in that context. It describes an experience of profound meaning, joy, or connection. I am not using it to refer to supernatural beliefs.
I’m not one of those people who avoids the word altogether. I use it for deeply moving experiences that are transcendent in an emotional sense. Just because a word has a particular religious usage does not mean it is limited to that meaning.
Jacobsen: Yes—most words have secondary meanings. So, use the second meaning! And if someone asks, explain it.
Hiko-Tahuri: Absolutely.
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): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/25
An old friend once lost his virginity to the same girl who deflowered another friend.
They were drunk.
They did the act.
Then a thud.
Next morning, apparently, there was a forehead indentation.
The Fair Maiden of Joy fell off, on top,
clocked her fair head on the side table.
The head was done,
as well as the deed.
Two sonflowers left,
stem, root, and leaf.
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): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/20
Reverend (Margaret Ann) Gretta Vosper was born July 6, 1958, in Ontario, Canada. She was born the second of four siblings. At age 17 (1975), Vosper left high school early. She grew up in the United Church before questioning its tenets. She enrolled at Mount Allison University in Sackville, New Brunswick, where she studied literature, psychology, and religion.
In the 1980s, she married Bill Ferguson while working in Inuvik. She had a daughter, Hazel. Then, she divorced in 1986. She returned to Kingston as a single mother. She is an ordained minister in the United Church of Canada. She earned a Master of Divinity from Queen’s Theological College, Queen’s University, in 1990. (Upon enrolling in Queen’s Theological College, she legally adopted the name “Gretta.”) She married fellow student Michael Kooiman in 1990. Their son, Izaak, was born in 1991.
Between 1991 and 1993, she served as a junior/team minister, first at United Church in Kingston and then at St. Matthew’s United Church in Toronto.
She was ordained in the United Church of Canada in 1993, affirming her belief in the Trinity in the language of the tradition. She was appointed a minister of West Hill United Church in Toronto in 1997. During a sermon in 2001, she informed the West Hill United congregation of her personal non-theism and rejection of belief in a supernatural God.
In 2003, the Lord’s Prayer was removed from worship services, and attendance at the church dropped from roughly 120 to about 40. She is professionally and personally partnered with Richard Scott Kearns, the music director at West Hill United Church.
In November 2004, she founded the Canadian Centre for Progressive Christianity. The network aimed to connect post-theist and progressive faith communities. Its contact list expanded from a handful of Ontarians to members in six denominations in all Canadian provinces. She published Holy Breath: Prayers for Worship and Reflection, a collection of non-theistic prayers that had been written earlier and first offered as a Christmas Eve gift to her congregation in 2004.
Subsequently, in 2008, she published With or Without God: Why the Way We Live is More Important Than What We Believe, a theological work. In 2009, she was named one of More Magazine’s “Most Compelling Women in Canada.” The same year, she published Another Breath, a collection of non-theistic poetry written between 2004 and 2008. It orients on human responsibility over appeals to God.
In 2010, Vosper and Scott Kearns showcased new progressive liturgical resources at the Common Dreams Conference in Melbourne, Australia. In 2011, Moderator Mardi Thindal praised Vosper for renewing the conversation about the nature of faith in the United Church of Canada. On March 1, 2011, she created the Blue Christmas service. It was entitled “Through Frozen Nights, We Wait” and intended for congregations coping with loss.
On January 7, 2012, she released Amen: What Prayer Can Mean in a World Beyond Belief through HarperCollins. It explored the tradition of prayer apart from supernatural claims. In 2013, she shifted from identifying as a non-theist to openly declaring herself an atheist in solidarity with persecuted Bangladeshi bloggers.
In January 2015, she wrote an open letter to Moderator Gary Paterson. She argued that the United Church’s Charlie Hebdo prayer promoted hatred by invocation of a supernatural God. On August 5–6, 2015, the Canadian Press ran “Atheist Minister Fighting for Her Job.” It was profiled as a heresy trial. The case was described in media as a ‘heresy trial,’ though this may reflect narrative framing rather than an official designation. On November 25, 2015, Toronto Life published “Q&A: Gretta Vosper, the United Church Minister Who Does Not Believe in God.” In 2016, a Toronto Conference reviewed the question: Can an atheist serve as a United Church minister? This review was unprecedented.
On February 21, 2016, the Toronto Star published “Meet the United Church Minister Who Came Out as an Atheist.” In a March 26, 2016 CBC interview, she estimated that 50% of the clergy, at least in the United Church of Canada, do not believe in a supernatural theistic God. However, according to Richard Bott’s survey, about 95% and 80% of United Church ministers believe in God and a supernatural God, respectively.
On September 11, 2016, the Toronto Star published “Flock Sticks with Atheist United Church Minister.” Congregational support existed despite Vosper’s review. In September 2016, a special Toronto Conference committee declared Vosper unsuitable for the continuance of ordained ministry. The Washington Post ran “Can an Atheist Lead a Protestant Church?” It posed Vosper’s case as an inflection for contemporary faith.
Later, in 2016, the case was referred to the United Church’s General Council. This became the basis for a possible heresy hearing. In 2017, Vosper and allies went on a national speaking tour entitled “West Hill Wants to Talk.” The purpose was to build debate and understanding in the denomination. On November 7, 2018, Vosper and the Toronto Conference reached a confidential settlement. Vosper’s lawyer, Julian Falconer, recognized that both sides saw a place for Gretta. There was no need to separate a minister from her congregation.
She was permitted to remain in ministry. Both affirmed the resolution’s mutual benefits. The United Church stated its belief in God and Vosper’s continued service. On July 9, 2020, Vosper delivered “Falling in Love with Being Together Because We Cannot Afford to Fall Apart.” It was part of the Chautauqua Institution’s Interfaith Lecture Series.
She continues to serve on the Board of Governors of Centennial College, the Oasis Network, and as a Director of the Ecumenical Community of Chautauqua. Vosper remains a prominent and provocative figure in progressive Christianity. She is an active creator of post-theist spiritual communities. She is a figurehead of the ongoing debates about belief, ministry, and inclusion in contemporary faith institutions.
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): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/19
Part 3 of 4
Christopher Louis is a Los Angeles–based international dating and relationship coach and founder of Dating Intelligence. As host of the Dating Intelligence Podcast, Louis draws on intuition and lived experience to guide clients toward authentic selves and meaningful romantic connections. Louis explores how modern dating has become more complex with the rise of social media, dating apps, and ambiguous relationship terms like “situationships” and “cookie jarring.” They contrast today’s indirect norms with the more straightforward courtship of the past, emphasizing the growing difficulty in interpreting romantic interest versus politeness. Louis offers practical advice on body language—like mirroring, eye contact, and physical cues—to distinguish authentic connection from performative gestures. Understanding clusters of signals, not isolated acts, is key to emotional safety and clarity in relationships, especially for those navigating the nuanced terrain of modern dating culture.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you think things are more complex or easier now than when you were dating in February? In terms of the social climate, how do people approach connection?
Christopher Louis: It depends on the age range. Some people are adapting well, while others are struggling more. But that’s a big conversation—maybe worth diving into next. Once again, when we’re talking about the younger age groups—people in their twenties—there’s a shift in dating culture. We’re not even talking about teenagers; that’s another thing. But people in their twenties tend to date more in groups. They go out in packs, and if there’s someone they like, it’s often a more casual, side-by-side interaction rather than a direct, intentional one-on-one date.
Dating has become more complicated because of social media, dating apps, and digital communication in general. We’reno longer getting those authentic, spontaneous moments—like meeting someone at a social event and having a real-time connection. Instead, it’s swiping right and swiping left. And even though apps are convenient, they can create emotional distance.
That said, I do appreciate hearing daters say, “You know what? I met someone and just cut through all the texting and said, let’s meet for coffee.” That’s more real than dragging out a three—or four-week text exchange, which often leads nowhere. If someone is genuinely interested, they will want to meet you sooner rather than later.
Suppose they’re not initiating a meeting; chances are. In that case, they are either not interested or are talking to multiple people, which I remind many of my female clients of. They’ll say, “I don’t know why he ghosted me,” I’ll say, “He was probably talking to two or three other women, and he just moved on.” It is a process of elimination for some people. Especially early on, many guys see who flirts the most, responds quickly, and who’s and is most open sexually, and whoever rises to the top of that list is often the one they want to pursue most seriously.
Meanwhile, women who might be intellectually engaging or emotionally deep may get overlooked because the connection takes longer to build. The guy gets bored and moves on to something easier or more exciting.
Jacobsen: The dynamics are different now, but the core behaviours are often the same—just under new labels. Even culturally, this isn’t new. The phenomenon existed before, just with different names. Paul Mooney had a line—”Ain’t nothing changed but the weather.” It’s the idea that things look different on the surface but are fundamentally the same. Like friends with benefits—it used to be hush-hush, but now it is more normalized and even has code names like “Netflix and chill.”
Louis: Exactly. “Netflix and chill” is the number one code for friends with benefits. That phrase says it all without having to explain it.
And then you’ve got what people now call a “situationship.” That’s a big one. A situationship is where two people spend time together—maybe even sleeping—but there’s no clarity on the relationship. They do not define or discuss it, and no one wants to ask, “What are we doing here?”
Back in the day, it was much more direct. A guy might ask, “Do you want to go steady?” Sometimes, even before the first date! Remember that? Then it became writing notes—”Will you go out with me?” Then, it evolved into more casual settings—meeting at parties or the movies.
Now, it’s vague. It’s like, “We’re hanging out… I like this person but don’t know if we’re dating.” And that’s where so many people get stuck—they are too afraid to ask questions. They’re just assuming, hoping the other person feels the same. And that’s how people wind up in these unclear, undefined dynamics we now call “situationships.”
“Netflix and chill” is another big one, of course. And ghosting—ghosting is enormous right now. Someone disappears on you without any explanation. No follow-up, no closure. And what gets me is that people do not even have the courage—or better yet, the decency—to say, “Hey, you know what? I don’t think this is a fit. I’m moving on.” That simple courtesy seems to be lost in modern dating.
Now, there’s also something called “cookie jarring.” That’s a newer term. It refers to someone dating you but also has someone else on the back burner—just in case things do not work out with you. It’s like they’re keeping their hand in the cookie jar, just in case. So they’re not fully invested, but they ensure they have options lined up. And there are tons of these new terms floating around nowadays.
Jacobsen: How can individuals use body language to foster emotional safety and openness in a relationship?
Louis: That’s a great question. Body language plays a huge role in emotional safety and openness—even more than most people realize. Let’s start with one of the most universal cues: the hands-up gesture, like the “stop” signal. You know what I mean—both palms out in front of you. That posture says, No. I’m not ready. I don’t want to go there right now. It communicates boundaries. It’s a nonverbal way of saying, Let’s pause this conversation.
Gesture is one of the most widely understood signals for emotional withdrawal or resistance regardless of culture or language. It says, “This isn’t safe for me right now.” And that is key: recognizing when someone is not emotionally open at that moment and respecting that.
Jacobsen: What does mirroring in terms of body language tell you?
Louis: Mirroring is fascinating. It happens with posture, pace, and movement. When two people are comfortable and connected, they unconsciously mirror each other. It’s almost like a dance—subtle and fluid. You’ll notice it when couples are in sync: they lean simultaneously, their gestures are similar, and even their blinking and breathing might align. People make even this funny observation—like how dog owners sometimes start to resemble their pets. But in relationships, mirroring tells you something important: connection. If I’m talking to someone and gently sway or tilt my head, and they start doing it, too, that’s not a coincidence. That’s a sign they’re tuned in. They’re present.
With my partner, people often comment that we mirror each other in our style—how we dress, walk, and even move around each other. It is not conscious—it’s a natural alignment. And that’s a beautiful thing in a long-term relationship. It reflects harmony. So yes, mirroring is a strong, positive connection and emotional resonance indicator.
Jacobsen: How can someone differentiate genuine romantic interest from performative body language? For instance, many heterosexual men struggle to tell the difference between a laugh that means “I’m into you” and one that’s just polite or nervous.
Louis: That’s such an important distinction. Let’s start with laughter. Many men assume she’s interested if a woman laughs at their jokes. But that’s not always true. Sometimes, a woman laughs because she’s genuinely amused. Other times, she laughs because she’s nervous or trying to ease social tension. And that’s a key thing—the intention behind the behaviour.
One tip I give my clients is to look for clusters of body language cues. Do not isolate one thing like a laugh. Is she maintaining steady eye contact? Is her body facing you? Is she leaning in, or is she pulling back slightly? Are her arms open or crossed? When you combine those cues, you start to see the whole picture.
Genuine interest usually comes with a relaxed, open posture. The person is not fidgeting too much; they’re not checking their phone or glancing around the room. They’re present. On the other hand, performative body language tends to be more mechanical—like checking off social expectations without authentic emotional engagement.
So the takeaway is this: read patterns, not isolated actions. The more emotionally tuned you are, the easier it gets to spot the difference.
Jacobsen: Yes. Everyone—probably often, as far as I can tell—does not parse those signals. The difference between genuine romantic interest and performative body language can be like two universes. So, how can someone tell the difference? It does not necessarily have to be a red flag, a “danger, danger” situation, or a misreading flirtation when someone’s just being polite.
Louis: Right. I understand that. And this is where many men need to learn to read the room better. You’re right—some women are naturally more physical when they talk. Maybe they’ll touch your hand or shoulder during a conversation. To some guys, that can give off flirtatious or even sexual signals. But the truth is that context is everything.
So here’s what I tell men: just because a woman touches you a couple of times, don’t immediately assume it’s an invitation for physical closeness. That’s a giant leap. You have to pay attention to the overall vibe of the conversation. Ask yourself: What’s the tone? What’s her energy like?
For example, if she’s laughing and touches your arm, listen to the cadence in her voice. Does she sound nervous? Is she laughing too hard or in a way that feels forced? What’s her eye contact like? If she’s looking around—scanning the room for a friend or an exit—that’s a sign she might feel uncomfortable or disengaged.
You’ll often see this in how her head turns—like she’s searching for someone to interrupt, rescue, or distract. That’s not a sign of interest; that’s a sign of discomfort. Her breathing might also give it away. Nervous breathing is very different from genuine, relaxed laughter.
So, what should a guy do in that situation? First, don’t make a physical move unless you’re sure. Instead, test the waters verbally. Say something like, “Hey, I just want to say—you have beautiful eyes,” or “Your laugh is amazing.” Then, pay attention to how she responds—not just with words but her body language.
If she smiles, leans in, holds eye contact, and seems more engaged—that’s a green light. But if she pulls back, looks around, or gives short answers, that’s your cue to slow down or change direction. Sometimes, asking a thoughtful or flirtatious question can clarify where the other person stands without putting anyone in an uncomfortable spot.
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): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/18
Part 2 of 3
Pat Merryweather-Arges, Executive Director of Project Patient Care and longtime Rotarian, shares insights from her decades of humanitarian work across over 30 countries. Merryweather‑Arges observes that Pope Leo XIV’s Chicago roots and commitment to the poorest parallel Rotary’s humanitarian ethos. Coupled with the Gates Foundation’s plan to deploy US $200 billion by 2045, she foresees renewed moral momentum toward poverty relief, health access, and technology‑driven development. Although officially nonreligious, Rotary partners pragmatically with trusted faith organizations while enforcing strict ethical standards and rigorous safety protocols. Fellowship and shared altruism unite Rotarians worldwide, illustrated by successful Nigerian hospital planning and her humorous “icebreaker” anecdote.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You’ve mentioned a sister, a Catholic hospital, and Opus Dei. With the recent election of the new Pope, there have been many Popes, John, Clement, and Leo–and now we have another Pope, Leo—how do you think this kind of elevation, from cardinal to Pope, influences the direction or emphasis of Rotary International’s work?
Pat Merryweather-Arges: You’ve several significant things converging right now. First, this new Pope, Leo XIV, emphasizes caring for the poorest of the poor, which aligns closely with Rotary’s humanitarian mission.
What’s also exciting is that he’s from Chicago—and I’m from Chicago—so there’s a lot of local pride and energy here. The excitement level in the city is remarkable. It feels like an opportunity to drive change in how we treat one another, as a country and as individuals.
At the same time, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation just announced that it will conclude its operations by 2045. Over the next 20 years, it plans to distribute $200 billion toward global initiatives. They’ve outlined key focus areas: ending poverty, increasing access to healthcare and medication, and leveraging technology for international development.
What struck me most was Bill Gates’s statement, “I don’t want to hold onto money while people are dying.” He even called out Elon Musk and others who are hoarding wealth. His stance aligns with the Pope’s emphasis on justice and moral responsibility.
So when you put this all together—the new Pope’s message, the Gates Foundation’s sunset plan, and growing attention to ethical leadership—I think it gives people in the United States hope that we can turn a corner. It’s about values: country, faith, family. And I believe faith, spirituality, and community-based leadership will be more visible in shaping public life.
Jacobsen: He also has a long history in Peru, right? We’ve seen a few powerful movements emerge from Latin America—liberation theology, for example, where Pope Francis had significant influence. And then there’s the broader policy framework coming out of international organizations like the UN under António Guterres, the current Secretary-General and a former Prime Minister of Portugal.
Though Guterres doesn’t use explicitly religious language, he champions evidence-based policies to improve conditions for vulnerable populations. Take decriminalization of substance use, for example—under his leadership, the UN and WHO have both encouraged shifting from punitive responses to public health-oriented approaches.
So on one side, you’ve got the Catholic Church, led by Pope Francis and now Pope Leo XIV, emphasizing a communitarian, almost Augustinian ethos rooted in service and humility. On the other hand, secular international institutions have reached many of the same conclusions, but they are just framed differently.
Do you think this new Pope will continue that trend, aligning with that broader historical trajectory?
Merryweather-Arges: Yes, I do. One of the things he talked about right away—the first words he spoke—was wishing everyone peace. But he also emphasized building bridges. Some literal and metaphorical bridges have been broken due to tariffs, conflict, or global tension.
Jacobsen: Yes, both literal bombing and metaphorical destruction.
Merryweather-Arges: He genuinely sees everyone as one person. He does not know the world in terms of rigid national divides. We all share basic needs and desires—housing, good health, food, and clean water. These are universal. And one of the things I’ve consistently found while travelling from country to country is that parents everywhere want the best for their children.
They will sacrifice anything to ensure their children’s better future. That is something that unites us all. It’s refreshing that this new Pope was selected. He comes from a poor neighbourhood—Dalton, Illinois. My cousin’s wife went to grade school with him, so she’s been appearing on national talk shows and in the media lately.
Dalton is not a typical blue-collar town—it’s working-class, tight-knit, and everyone there looks out for one another. The people there had large families. My cousin’s family had five children, and the Pope’s family had a couple of brothers. The Church was the center of their lives. So, I believe this Pope brings a sensitivity and groundedness that matters.
We talk about Pope Francis and his commitment to living simply. He didn’t need lavish things. He set an example by living humbly and focusing on giving to others. The message was: we don’t need that much to live meaningfully.
Jacobsen: I reviewed some of Pope Leo’s recent statements, and from my analysis, they’re far less ambiguous than those of Pope Francis. It’s not that they differ in moral clarity—they’re quite aligned there—but in rhetorical clarity. With Pope Francis, you often had to interpret or read between the lines. Pope Leo, by contrast, is much more direct.
So, for example, your traditional positions on gender and marriage will be seen, which will spark culture war debates—but in terms of economic justice and social policy, Pope Leo seems ready to advance real-world action.
Merryweather-Arges: Yes, I agree. During his papacy, many meaningful social justice works emerged—practical, on-the-ground efforts.
Jacobsen: What kind of partnerships does Rotary International have with Catholic institutions? Are they more surface-level, or on a case-by-case basis?
Merryweather-Arges: Rotary is officially a nonreligious and nonpolitical organization. It is prohibited from working with religious institutions, whether Muslim, Catholic, Jewish, or other faiths.
The depth of collaboration depends on the global grant’s structure and the specific initiative. We often work closely with faith-based groups, but we don’t sidestep them in a way that becomes religiously affiliated. We keep the focus on shared humanitarian goals.
But again, we do work closely with different organizations. When you enter a community, you always wonder, “Who do people trust here?” Often, even in Chicago, if you want to get something done in specific neighbourhoods, you go through faith-based organizations. They’re the community trusts. So, yes—those relationships are essential.
Jacobsen: What’s the age at which Rotary would feel comfortable sending someone into a high-risk area? Say someone starts as an Interactor and then becomes a Rotarian—what does Rotary permit deployment to dangerous regions?
Merryweather-Arges: Rotary evaluates travel on a case-by-case basis. It depends on the specific project and the region’s risk. For example, when I went to Pakistan, there was a considerable discussion at Rotary headquarters about whether I should go. Most of the conflict was in Islamabad, not Karachi, where I was headed.
Ultimately, they approved the trip, but only with the guarantee that I would have 24/7 security. So, safety protocols are taken very seriously.
During COVID, we faced significant challenges with Rotary Youth Exchange students scattered across the globe. These are often under-18 students participating in cultural and academic exchanges coordinated by clubs and districts.
Some countries wouldn’t allow citizens to return home, and in other cases, students had to quarantine in hotels before re-entry was allowed. Rotary staff worked around the clock to manage the logistics and ensure the students’ safety. We had no significant incidents, but getting everyone home took time and effort.
Jacobsen: In your time, has Rotary ever reported—maybe in a newsletter or internal communication—that a member was injured or killed while serving?
Merryweather-Arges: The only incident I can recall happened about ten years ago. A Rotarian was kidnapped in Northern Nigeria, but they were eventually released safely.
Also, in Panama, there were family members of Rotarians, not Rotarians themselves, who were kidnapped by pirates while on a boat. The Rotarian network helped facilitate their safe release, working closely with the Panamanian government, which negotiated with the pirates.
Jacobsen: Now, we’re touching on some deeper ethical considerations here. What do you consider, not in terms of what’swritten on the website, but in practical reality, what do you think unites Rotarians?
Merryweather-Arges: I think what truly unites Rotarians is fellowship—and more importantly, a shared altruistic drive to do good in the world and within their communities. It’s genuine. It’s about like-minded people coming together, working to make a meaningful difference. That spirit exists—believe me.
Jacobsen: What do you do when there are ethical breaches?
Merryweather-Arges: Most clubs are equipped to handle those situations. Rotary has model bylaws, and clubs typically follow those guidelines. Any ethical issue is addressed seriously. The key is ensuring that issues within a club don’t fester, especially when they involve integrity or trust. So yes, they are handled.
Jacobsen: Hypothetically, what would happen with an ethical breach? Would someone be expelled, or just warned?
Merryweather-Arges: It depends on the nature and severity of the breach. But there’s zero there for certain things, like racist behaviour, attacks based on gender identity, or discrimination. Those kinds of actions result in immediate removal. If there’s any misconduct—someone misuses club funds—that’s grounds for immediate dismissal. Depending on the situation, it may even escalate into a civil lawsuit filed by the injured party.
I’ve participated in polio immunization campaigns in India, Pakistan, and Nigeria. I’ve also worked on other significant projects, like one in Nigeria, where we organized a three-hospital initiative. What was remarkable is that the leaders of these hospitals had never met before.
It all started when the CEO of a large hospital realized they needed a strategic plan. They had been operating in a reactive mode—just responding when something happened—rather than proactively improving outcomes and safety.
We spent two days with hospital staff. Everyone was energized and collaborative. We developed the strategic plan together, and then they took it to the community for input. Afterward, we brought everything back, added timelines and accountability measures, and finalized it. It turned out to be a tremendous success.
I had a guffaw moment.
Subscribe now
Jacobsen: Guffaw? I haven’t heard anything in a while. Which whippersnapper told you that?
Merryweather-Arges: [Laughing] Right? So I suggested we do an icebreaker. But I was in Nigeria, and they had never heard the term. They looked around, confused, like, “What ice? Where is the ice? Are we breaking something?”
Jacobsen: [Laughing] Not much ice in Nigeria.
Merryweather-Arges: But once we got past that, the energy was fantastic. They were excited, vocal, and eager to lead the improvement efforts. The hospital, though, especially the maternity wing, was deplorable. The women’s bathhouse was almost unusable, and the nursing school lacked basic tools, like skeletons for anatomy education. Many medical devices were broken. So we rolled up our sleeves.
We identified what we could fix quickly and what needed external support. We ended up shipping about eight full-size medical supply cartons. We partnered with Mission Outreach, a nonprofit that collects unused hospital equipment, especially from the Midwest. Much of it is new or nearly new, just not the latest model. If it needs repair, they fix it. Then we coordinate the logistics to get the supplies to rural hospitals, like the one in central Nigeria.
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): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/18
Foundation of the British Columbia Firmament
The Father of British Columbia, Sir James Douglas, is worshipped in the community where I grew up. Not for nothing, he had achievements, but he had a “mixed history” in numerous ways. He had a “mixed history” as HBC Chief Factor and colonial governor. He granted monopolistic privileges to his company and family.
This mixed public office and private profit. He imposed property-based voting qualifications, excluding full representation. He set forth unfair First Nations treaties. The Douglas Treaties were signed on blank sheets, with terms inserted afterward—an unusual practice. Unilaterally, these were later signed, resulting in Indigenous signatories having land cessions that were not fully known.
He had a heavy-handed gold rush policy with licensing schemes and delayed enforcement during the Fraser Canyon conflict. These failed to protect Indigenous communities. Violence and village burnings ensued. He recruited black Californian settlers for political loyalty. It was opportunistic rather than principled efforts for the enfranchisement of blacks. A fascinating history to learn about one’s happenstance of contingent past circumstances: his contemporary presentation is not an exercise in false equivalence. It is about a united duality of positive and negative valence.
The living recent history reflects this mixed history in Fort Langley, out of Langley, with the crossovers between hipster farmers and well-educated, well-to-do Evangelical Christians, Trinity Western University, and the political shenanigans of Christians here impacting the federal level of the country. I wanted to cover some of this controversial recent history, as having a singular reference for some of the township’s more noteworthy shenanigans. For clarity, I speak as a former member of one of the heritage committees of an association in Fort Langley and another for the Township of Langley. I can say, “Heritage matters to Langleyites.” As an elder Euro-Canadian lady told me on the committee, a fellow committee member, it was in a sharp snarl once at a meeting, “I know who you are.” These were not isolated events throughout my life while growing up and through there. So it goes.
The contemporary Evangelical Christian story in Fort Langley began with a sexual misconduct allegation of the longest-standing university president in Canadian history: 2005-2006 with former university president Neil Snider. I would rather this notbe the case, but it is the history.
2005–2015: Institutional Unease and Image Discipline
He had the longest tenure of any Canadian university president—32 years–and greatly grew Trinity Western University (TWU) in its early decades. That is a testament to his prowess as an administrator of resources and an inspirer of people at the time.
Unfortunately, an uncomfortable truth was his retirement in 2006 following sexual harassment allegations. Internal reports from TWU and contemporary media reviews questioned the administrative decisions around this. The community is embarrassed by it and tries to cover it up. I understand that. However, as one colleague’s mom said to excuse it, “He was lonely,” because either his wife died or he was divorced. I leave considerations of the stretch of excuse-making to the reader.
ChristianWeek’s “Trinity Western Resolves Human Rights Complaint” documented the 2005 human rights complaint against Snider. The settlement impacted subsequent policy reviews. Former faculty interviews showed early signs of institutional unease. Evangelical leaders have undergone these scandals.
A CAUT Report, “Report of an Inquiry Regarding Trinity Western University,” examined the requirement for faculty to affirm the religious Covenant. You can see TWU’s current Community Covenant. William Bruneau and Thomas Friedman examined the requirement for faculty to affirm the Covenant and possible impacts on academic hiring and free speech. Case studies and personal accounts of faculty are incorporated. It is a referenced report in academic discussions on religion and academia in Canada.
University Affairs via “A test of faith at Trinity Western” provided an analytic retrospective of early administrative policies, linking them to later legal challenges–more on that in 2016-2018. Christian universities are conscious of their public image. For example, in 2011, the Institute for Canadian Values funded an advertisement opposing LGBTI-inclusive education, which was supported by the Canada Christian College. It was published by the National Post and later by the Toronto Sun. A national backlash happened. An apology ensued—a retraction happened by the Post, but not by the Sun.
2005-2015 was a busy few years. Ex-administrators and archival internal memos showed dissent regarding mandatory religious practices. Similar controversies happen in religious universities in Canada, all private, all Christian. The largest is Evangelical, and the largest is TWU, in Langley. After trying to get many interviews with professors and dissenting students in the community, the vast majority declined over many years of journalistic efforts, and a few agreed to a coffee conversation to express opinions. Most opinions dissent from the norm of TWU while affirming the difficulties for the faith with these narrow-eyed executives, who are not reined in, reign with impunity, and rain neglect on their community’s inner Other.
2016–2018: The Covenant and the Courts
Circa 2016, some online commentators mentioned how they felt “bad for the kids that realize they’re not straight” at TWU as “Coming out is hard” and “it’s crazy that people still want to go to this school.” A former student acknowledged some student support for LGBTI peers while warning many feel “quite ostracized” by an “unspoken aura” repressing non-Christian views. An LGBTI student may have to “repress their urges based on a stupid covenant.”
Other online forums include a former student union leader noting the “community covenant is outdated” even by 2013, while another urged the university to rethink the Covenant. Saying there is a “thriving rape culture,” “I know more than five girls who were raped [at TWU], who didn’t report it because they believed they would be shamed and not taken seriously.”
Maclean’s in “The end of the religious university?” talked about the long-standing interest in the national debate around religious mandates in higher education and the central role of TWU. These controversies about academic freedom following Snider’s resignation would echo some other community elements there. BBC Newscommented that Canada approved a homophobic law school in 2013. This would eventually evolve poorly for TWU and reflect terribly on the surrounding community.
Xtra Magazine’s “The Painful Truth About Being Gay at Canada’s Largest Christian University” featured a series of robust testimonies from current and former students on systemic discrimination. The magazine also examined campus surveys, student blogs, and some student activist groups, with a case study of academic panels addressing LGBTI issues within religious institutions. The Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision on TWU’s Law School accreditation in 2018. It was analyzed by legal journals and cited in academic papers. Those looked to religious mandates and the tensions with legal equality.
CBC News in “Trinity Western loses fight for Christian law school as court rules limits on religious freedom ‘reasonable’”provided a comprehensive timeline of developments with constitutional lawyer and civil rights advocacy commentary. Other commentaries looked at policy adjustments following from institutions. The Tyee chimed into the discussion with “Trinity Western University Loses in Supreme Court,” with some parables into the personal narratives on campus, more timeline events, and a more important emphasis on the long-term impact on the reputation of TWU.
Knowing some minority facets of dynamics in this community, many will slander others and lie to protect themselves, particularly their identity as represented via the incursion of Evangelical Orthodoxy into the community via the university. This small township’s controversies went to the Supreme Court of Canada. They lost in a landslide decision, 7-2. The Vancouver Sun had various coverage, with international critiques comparing TWU’s controversy to European and Australian scandals. Regardless, TWU brought global spotlight on a small township, a tiny town.
Global human rights organizations gave commentary. TWU dropped the Community Covenant as mandatory, but only for students, while staff, faculty, and administration maintained it. A TWU student asserted on Reddit:
TWU student here. The only two reasons why the Board of Governors chose to drop the Covenant for students is because a) The recent court ruling, and b) Their other professional programs (counselling, nursing, and teaching) received letters from their respective accrediting bodies which threatened to pull accreditation unless the Covenant was amended or discarded.
TWU’s decision to make signing the Covenant voluntary for students has nothing to do with morality or human rights, but everything to do with their business model. Keep in mind, the faculty still must sign the pledge, and TWU’s mission and mandate of producing “godly Christian leaders” has not changed.
The next era was 2019-2021.
2019–2021: Cultural Stagnation Despite Legal Losses
Xtra Magazine in “I am queer at Trinity Western University. What will it take for my university to listen to me?” provided a more individual story. Carter Sawatzky wrote, “TWU’s decision in 2018 to make the Covenant non-mandatory for students also did not magically change the discriminatory treatment of queer people. After TWU’s 2018 Supreme Court loss, many folks, including myself, had hoped that TWU would finally demonstrate that it can be rooted in faith and radically loving and welcoming. Instead, TWU has doubled down on its social conservatism, at the expense of queer students like myself.” An international scandal and Supreme Court defeat did not change the culture or the school. That is instructive.
Another instructive moment was a student suicide attempt followed by an expulsion of the student. In “Her university expelled her after she attempted suicide, saying she had an ‘inability to self-regulate.’ Now she is fighting back,” the Toronto Star presented the case of a student showing broader systemic issues and a lack of mental health resources and policy failures within TWU. TWU claimed otherwise. Mental health professionals and relatives of students commented. As CBC has noted, mental healthon campuses has been a point of concern for a while.
2021–2025: Repression, Image, and Intimidation
Langley is a township where I am told the murder of the famous atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair was merciful. Saying, “Her murder was an act of mercy.” Langley Advance Times in “Private Langley University rejects LGBTQ+ event request” reported denying an event request, One TWU Stories Night, for an LGBTI group, One TWU. Carter Sawatzky said, “We are sharing our stories, which I think should be a non-controversial thing… It is not a contradiction. You can be queer and Christian… Many people come to TWU and have never heard an LGBTQ story.” That is a reasonable statement. A One TWU piece published on its site claims homophobia is rampant on campus.
CBC News reported on the manslaughter conviction of a TWU security guard. “Former guard at B.C. university found guilty of manslaughter” reported a Fall 2020 event involving “a man wearing all black” who wandered into student residences, rifling through their things. Security guard Howard Glen Hill hit the man, Jack Cruthers Hutchison, “in the head, pulled his hair and spat on him.” Police arrived: Hill was “in a neck restraint, limp and unresponsive. He died in the hospital two days later.” Hutchison was charged with manslaughter. TWU’s statement: “The university has no comment on the court ruling. TWU’s commitment has always been to safeguard our campus community, and we continue to provide a safe place of learning for all our students.”
Langley Union, in “Trinity Western University President’s Son Linked to Prolific White Nationalist Account,” investigated digital forensic evidence of the son of the President of TWU linked to a White Nationalist online account. The son’s actions should be considered separate from the father’s and the institutions. However, they are striking news.
The accounts claimed, among other assertions, “I believe in a white future. An Aryan future. A future where my children will make Indian Bronson shine our shoes. Where brown people cannot secure a line of credit, Black people pick cotton. We will win – this is what we fight for,” and “I am a colonialist. I make no effort to hide this. I believe in worldwide white supremacy.”
The Nelson Star reported in “‘Alt-right’ group uses Fort Langley historic site as meeting place” on the use of the local pub in Fort Langley as a meeting place for a public, so known and self-identified White Nationalist group. As one former boss noted, “I don’t know what is wrong with we the white race.” That is a sentiment, not an organization, however. This microcosm reflects a broader history of Canadian sociopolitics with race and religion, some Evangelicals and occasional allegations of racialism if not racism.
TWU’s policy is Inclusive Excellence. We aim to promote a consistent atmosphere of inclusion and belonging at TWU by establishing a shared commitment to diversity and equity founded in the gospel’s truth. Christ came to save, reconcile, and equip all people (Rev. 7:9), and the incredible array of gifts God has given us is evidence of his creativity, beauty, and love of diversity.” An administrator is reported to have said informally that the event was ‘not in line with Evangelical values.’
In the States, a trend in international Evangelical higher education. Bob Jones University banned interracial dating until 2000, involving federal funding and accreditation debates. In Australia, Christian colleges faced scrutiny for policies excluding LGBTI+ students and staff. Faith-based codes and equality laws produced tensions in the United Kingdom, though less prominently than in Canada. Those American churches want to influence Canada in Indigenous communities. Some Canadian churches can have Ojibwe pastors, for example.
A Medium (Xtra) post entitled “The painful truth about being gay at Canada’s largest Christian university,” commented on the experience of a gay student, Jacob.’ As peers messaged Jacob on suspicion of him being gay, “We hate everything about you and you better watch your back because we are going to kill you on your way to school.” At TWU ‘Jacob,’said, “I loved the community here so much that I did not want to jeopardize those relationships.” That is called a closet.
Another student, Corben, from Alberta at TWU, said, “My parents, I think, kind of wanted Trinity to be for me sort of like reparative therapy, which is why they would only help financially with this school.” Former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau put forth a move to end Conversion Therapy, a discredited pseudotherapy to change sexual orientation and gender identity. Conversion therapy has been banned in Malta (2016), Germany (2020), France (2022), Canada (2022), New Zealand (2022), Iceland (2023), Spain (2023), Mexico (2024), Greece (2024), and Belgium (2024). That is only TWU, however. The community of Langley, specifically Fort Langley, where I was raised, is substantively linked to this place.
Langley Advance Times in “Blackface photo in 2017 Chilliwack yearbook sparks apology from school principal” reported on a blackface incident at a local school. It was part of a “mock trial.” So, bad taste, community, and the excuse for Snider’s example will likely do the same in this case. There are several cases in British Columbia and Canada. The Archdiocese of Vancouver was the first in Canada to publicly name clergy involved in sexual abuse and decades of abuse. At the same time, other prominent cases have arisen, including Michael Conaghan, Damian Lawrence Cooper, and Erlindo Molon, highlighting a pattern of clerical sexual exploitation and inadequate accountability in British Columbia. I would rather this notbe the case, but it is the history.
In 2022, a TWU dean resigned amid pressure over her work on gender issues. One Reddit–and all Reddit commentary should be considered additions, while anecdotal at best–user described how TWU leaders had “tried to make her leave her position as dean because she… stated she was an lgbtq+ ally,” then issued bureaucratic statements of grief based on her departure.
Living there, these excuses likely flowed through social media. At the same time, community intimidation happens, too. It is bad for the community image and bad for the business. As gay students find at TWU, and as outsiders others find in the general community, it is not about moral stances, but about image maintenance and business interests. Money matters because it is a well-to-do area of the country and a well-to-do nation worldwide. There is regular township nonsense where the Fort Langley Night Market gets closed down due to vandalism and alcohol.
Ongoing online conversations about TWU degree quality continue, “So before those say ‘it’s an immigration scam’, it’s not and is essentially useless towards immigrating/coming to Canada. With that said, most of TWU’s programs are also useless to use towards immigrating, even if studied in person, because any non-degree program from a private school does not allow one to apply for a PGWP. However, it offers a couple of degree programs that can result in a PGWP.”
Brandon Gabriel and Eric Woodward have been loggerheads for at least a decade. If you look at the original history, this reflects another fight between an Indigenous leader and the colonial presence in its history. Now, they are a local artist and developer, respectively. Woodward has a camp of supporters for development and a camp of detractors. Another mixed figure in the contemporary period of Langley. Over development concerns and pushback, Woodward got a building painted pink in protest at one point. It is a serious township history full of a minority of loud, silly people imposing their nonsense on a smaller group of innocent bystanders.
Whether LGBTI discrimination ensconced at its university, a blackface principal, homophobia, this isn’t unusual in a way. A constellation of apparent White Nationalist superminority undercurrents popping up, and with worship of a founder in a democracy who was a mixed-race colonialist timocrat married to a Cree woman, it’s a story of a Canadian town and municipality. A tale of how foundational myths, when left unexamined, morph into social realities.
Welcome to Langley–a light introduction: Home, sorta.
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): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/18
Kuty Shalev is the Founder and CEO of Lumenalta. Lumenalta defines emotional intelligence (EQ) in IT as the ability to navigate complex, high-stakes collaborations with empathy, adaptability, and self-awareness, combined with technical communication and problem-solving skills. They integrate EQ into daily workflows through simulation-based coaching and commitment-based communication, ensuring clear articulation of concerns and concrete commitments aligned with business outcomes. This approach fosters stakeholder alignment, reduces ambiguity, and improves client satisfaction. Despite challenges like strict deadlines and remote work barriers, IT leaders report significant benefits. Leadership plays a key role by modeling effective communication and continuously reinforcing EQ through coaching and mentoring. Overall, this strategy transforms IT culture.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does Lumenalta define emotional intelligence within IT teams?
Kuty Shalev: At Lumenalta, we see emotional intelligence (EQ) as the ability to navigate complex, high-stakes collaborations with empathy, adaptability, and self-awareness. It’s not just about interpersonal skills—it’s about creating an environment where technical and non-technical team members can align on priorities, manage conflict constructively, and drive innovation.
A key part of our approach is commitment-based communication. This means that instead of vague discussions or assumptions, our teams are trained to articulate their concerns clearly, identify the hidden concerns of others, and create commitments that are specific, validated, and aligned with business outcomes. This structured way of communicating ensures that nothing is left ambiguous—whether in a client meeting, a project plan, or even when prompting an AI model.
Jacobsen: Does this differ much from more general definitions of emotional intelligence?
Shalev: Yes, in many ways. While general definitions of emotional intelligence focus on self-awareness, empathy, and interpersonal effectiveness, EQ within IT teams also encompasses technical communication, problem-solving under pressure, and cross-cultural collaboration—especially in remote environments. IT professionals must translate technical concepts into business outcomes, prioritize conflicting demands, and adapt to evolving requirements—all of which require a blend of emotional and cognitive intelligence.
Jacobsen: How have IT leaders overcome the challenge of strict deadlines limiting the development of EQ?
Shalev: Lumenalta has tackled this challenge by integrating EQ development directly into how teams work. Instead of separating “soft skills” training from technical training, we embed emotional intelligence into real-world practice. For example, our teams participate in simulation-based coaching that mimics high-pressure client scenarios, helping them refine their communication, negotiation, and problem-solving skills in real time. This ensures that EQ development isn’t an extracurricular activity—it’s a core part of how we deliver results.
Jacobsen: What companies have integrated EQ into IT culture to provide measurable improvements?
Shalev: Many forward-thinking organizations have embraced EQ-driven approaches to IT. Our own experience at Lumenalta has shown that when developers are trained to navigate stakeholder dynamics, project outcomes improve. According to our research, 87% of IT leaders reported that
investing in EQ directly improved client satisfaction, and 81% saw a positive impact on technology adoption. Companies that embed emotional intelligence into daily workflows—rather than relying on one-off training—see the most significant gains.
Jacobsen: What factors can blunt the positive effects of improved EQ in the IT workplace?
Shalev: One major factor is a lack of structural reinforcement. If EQ training isn’t backed by a workplace culture that values open communication, psychological safety, and constructive feedback, it won’t stick. Another challenge is time pressure—if teams are constantly in reactive mode, they may default to transactional communication rather than thoughtful collaboration. Finally, hybrid and remote work environments can create EQ barriers if companies don’t establish clear norms for engagement and relationship-building.
Jacobsen: How are facets of emotional intelligence—self-awareness, adaptability, and empathy—quantified and measured to improve workplace productivity?
Shalev: One way Lumenalta measures the impact of EQ training is through the clarity and effectiveness of communication. Are teams making and keeping better commitments? Are they reducing ambiguity in client interactions? Are they proactively uncovering concerns before they become roadblocks?
Interestingly, this same discipline in language and clarity extends to AI development. The best AI outputs come from well-structured prompts, and the ability to construct these prompts effectively comes from the same EQ skills we cultivate in our teams. A great AI prompt, much like a great commitment, is clear, concise, and validated against the outcomes we are targeting.
Jacobsen: Do generational culture differences affect the workforce perception of EQ in IT teams?
Shalev: Absolutely. Younger IT professionals often expect EQ to be embedded into company culture and value ongoing coaching, while more experienced team members may have developed technical expertise in environments where EQ wasn’t prioritized. Our research found that perspectives on
EQ varied based on years of experience, but across the board, IT leaders recognized its importance—90% said it was essential for success.
Jacobsen: How can leadership and management style foster more emotionally intelligent work environments in tech companies?
Shalev: Leadership plays a crucial role in setting the tone for EQ in IT teams. At Lumenalta, we focus on leading by example—our senior engineers and product leads model effective communication, client engagement, and conflict resolution. We also emphasize continuous learning, using both AI-powered coaching tools and human-led mentoring to reinforce key EQ skills. Creating an
environment where engineers feel heard, valued, and empowered to solve problems autonomously is key to long-term success.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Kuty.
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): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/18
Part 1 of 3
Pat Merryweather-Arges, Executive Director of Project Patient Care and longtime Rotarian, shares insights from her decades of humanitarian work across over 30 countries. From leading healthcare improvement programs in the U.S. to supporting global initiatives in Kenya, Honduras, and Pakistan, she emphasizes patient-centred care, clean water, and education. Her stories include delivering emergency COVID aid to Honduras, aiding abandoned infants in Kenya, and supporting interfaith housing projects in flood-stricken Pakistan. A former Rotary International Vice President, she champions collaboration across religious, geographic, and political divides. She highlights Rotary’s global mission, especially polio eradication, and praises Pope Leo XIV’s focus on justice and humility. Despite rising global authoritarianism and threats to NGOS, Merryweather-Arges remains hopeful about ethical leadership and grassroots compassion. She reveals what truly unites Rotarians through laughter, stories, and hard truths: fellowship, integrity, and the drive to serve others with dignity and purpose.
Pat Merryweather-Arges, Executive Director of Project Patient Care and longtime Rotarian, shares insights from her decades of humanitarian work across over 30 countries. From leading healthcare improvement programs in the U.S. to supporting global initiatives in Kenya, Honduras, and Pakistan, she emphasizes patient-centred care, clean water, and education. Her stories include delivering emergency COVID aid to Honduras, aiding abandoned infants in Kenya, and supporting interfaith housing projects in flood-stricken Pakistan. A former Rotary International Vice President, she champions collaboration across religious, geographic, and political divides. She highlights Rotary’s global mission, especially polio eradication, and praises Pope Leo XIV’s focus on justice and humility. Despite rising global authoritarianism and threats to NGOS, Merryweather-Arges remains hopeful about ethical leadership and grassroots compassion. She reveals what truly unites Rotarians through laughter, stories, and hard truths: fellowship, integrity, and the drive to serve others with dignity and purpose.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Pat Merryweather-Arges. She is a seasoned healthcare leader and humanitarian with over three decades of experience in healthcare quality improvement, nonprofit leadership, and global service. She is the Executive Director of Project Patient Care (PPC). This nonprofit organization enhances healthcare quality, safety, and equity through collaborative initiatives involving patients, families, caregivers, and healthcare professionals. Her work supports national healthcare transformation and promotes authentic patient engagement across all care settings.
Before her current role, Pat held several prominent positions, including Executive Director of Medicare’s Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) programs in Illinois, Iowa, and Colorado, and Senior Vice President at the Illinois Hospital Association. In these capacities, she led statewide and regional initiatives to improve the quality and safety of care.
Pat has made extensive contributions to the Rotary community. She was a Rotary International Director (2022–2024) and Vice President (2023–2024). She is currently the Chair of the Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Rotary Action Group (2024–2025) and serves on the Mental Health Rotary Action Group Board (2024–2026). She also serves on the board of the International Rotary Fellowship of Healthcare Professionals and has held various leadership roles within Rotary District 6450, including District Governor.
Her Rotary service includes leadership in global humanitarian projects, focusing on healthcare, clean water, sanitation, women’s empowerment, and peacebuilding in Kenya, India, Jordan, Haiti, and others. She is the recipient of the Rotary Foundation Meritorious Service Award and the Rotary International Service Above Self Award. She also married George Arges, a fellow Rotarian. They have four sons, three daughters-in-law, and now eight grandchildren. Are any of them honorary Rotarians?
Merryweather-Arges: Some are Paul Harris Fellows, yes.
Jacobsen: Can they officially become Rotarians yet?
Merryweather-Arges: Not until they are older. However, there are Rotary programs for youth.
Jacobsen: Is there a fun name for kids of Rotarians? Like “Rotors”?
Merryweather-Arges: [Laughing] Not quite—but there is Interact, which is for high school students, and Rotaract for young adults aged 18 and older. Both are focused on leadership development and service. It is like being part of a student-led community service organization.
Jacobsen: Great. So, of all the countries you have worked in, which one, either at the time or even now, has faced the most significant humanitarian challenges? How has Rotary International helped?
Merryweather-Arges: There have been many, depending on the moment in history. Some countries experience a deep crisis, and you return later and see signs of recovery. Honduras stands out to me. I was there during great hardship. Rotary’s work focused on education and school development. Supporting access to quality education has been key to helping communities overcome systemic challenges and build hope for the future.
When children do not have access to education or schools are not adequately equipped to meet educational standards, it creates deep, generational challenges. In Honduras, a Rotarian named Chuck Newman conducted a comprehensive study of schools nationwide. He found that most were severely lacking—lacking in facilities, lacking in trained educators, and lacking in basic resources.
We have tried working in Honduras, but it remains a challenging country. The government is genuinely trying to improve conditions, but it is difficult for them to address every region equally. On top of that, high crime rates and gang activity create serious obstacles, especially in some urban areas. So, we often have to work around those challenges to be effective.
During COVID, we received an urgent email from a physician in San Pedro Sula pleading for any assistance. He worked at a hospital where almost every patient who came in with COVID was dying. He asked for respiratory equipment and medications to help save lives.
We could turn that request around quickly—within a week, we sent the equipment and medication he needed. He later wrote a scientific paper describing its impact on his hospital and the patients. Our Rotary club had sponsored the funding. He joined us on Zoom during a club meeting and cried. He sobbed, saying, “You do not know what this meant to our community.”
Moments like that stay with you.
Another region in which I have worked extensively is Kenya. Since I became a Rotarian, we have partnered with the same community for years—Upendo Village in the Naivasha area. We started by providing HIV rapid testing kits and then moved on to water wells, fluoridation systems, and other essential infrastructure.
When I visited one of the nearby hospitals where most women went to give birth, I was shocked. They were delivering on cement slabs, not hospital beds. After delivery, the staff would hose down the slab and prepare it for the next person. Women would sleep head-to-toe, two to a bed, with their newborns beside them. It was heartbreaking.
What stayed with me was a visit to the burn unit, which was also where abandoned infants born to mothers with HIV/AIDS were left. The hope was that someone—anyone—might take them in. I saw a stillborn baby lying on a shelf in the sun. It was surreal and tragic. Many of the surviving babies were lying in cribs soaked in urine, some crying without tears—they were so dehydrated that they could no longer cry properly.
I went to the nursing unit in a nearby building to raise concerns. We were working with Sister Florence Mwewa, a remarkable community leader, and I told her, “I cannot believe what I have just seen.”
I asked, “Why are not the babies in the nursing unit?” The nurses said, “Oh, we would love to have the babies—most of them are HIV-positive or were abandoned.” So I told them, “We will find a way.”
I spoke with Sister Florence, and she had to push for municipal changes in the law to allow babies who were abandoned or born with HIV to be cared for in the nursing unit. Moreover, you see something like that—it seems so fundamentally human, yet it requires changing laws to make it happen.
Sister Florence is what I call a hero. She went up against the municipal government, which is no small feat in parts of Kenya. In some regions, women cannot legally own land. When a husband dies, the land and house do not go to the widow—they go to the husband’s brother, who can then decide whether to let the widow stay or force her out.
In getting to know these challenges, you understand the depth of communities’ issues. However, you always come across local heroes, like the doctor in Honduras who was so determined to save lives or Sister Florence, who has just been extraordinary.
When we installed a water well in Upendo Village, she ensured it was open to the community. People use it for gardening and other basic needs. Later, we helped develop a community business center—a shared space where small businesses could rent and grow.
Then Sister Florence had another idea. She said, “I want to start a bottled water distribution business.” So she started a small-scale water bottling plant.
I said, “There are already so many companies in the market.”
She replied, “I will undercut them. I will charge less and earn their business.”
And she did. She is a strict nun.
Jacobsen: You know what they call nuns with attitude who get things done? They do not call them sisters; they call them sassters.
Merryweather-Arges: [Laughing] Then yes, she is a sasster!
I was in Pakistan almost two years ago, during an agitated time. The former Prime Minister had just been jailed, and there were protests all across the country. In September 2022, Sindh Province flooded a third of the country. It was devastating. Everything was wiped out.
As we drove through Sindh, I saw people still living on cardboard boxes along the highway, as far as the eye could see. It was heartbreaking. In response, Rotarians there launched an initiative called Smart Villages. Fez, an architect, started it. He designed structures for communities to rebuild in safer, more sustainable ways.
Each Smart Village includes about 100 housing units. When I say “housing units,” I mean small cement and mud huts—modest but solid. Families paint and decorate them, making them their own. Each village also includes a community center and a water station.
In that area, mud ovens and many features were designed for everyday living. What surprised me was that the first Smart Village was explicitly built for migrants from India. These families were Hindu, and the local Muslim Rotarians also constructed a Hindu temple where they could worship.
They said, “These are our friends.” That level of interfaith compassion—Muslim Rotarians building housing and a temple for Hindu migrants—was profoundly moving. Witnessing such devastation and finding these lights of hope in the most unexpected and remote places leaves a lasting impression.
A Further Inquiry is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Jacobsen: That reminds me—did you ever hear about what Noam Chomsky shared after his first wife passed away? Some community deep in the forest planted a forest in her memory. They had never met her. Those kinds of acts—small, quiet, deeply human—stay with you.
Merryweather-Arges: Yes, exactly. It is very moving.
Jacobsen: You mentioned travelling with armed guards while in Pakistan. Was that a common experience, or was it unique to that trip?
Merryweather-Arges: The only other place that happened was in parts of Mexico, where we were escorted by armed police in trucks and jeeps. However, no—Rotarians usually meet you at the airport, waiting for you when you get off the plane, and they escort you safely. I’ve rarely had issues.
Well, I should add that in Nigeria, there was one time when things were agitated. We were working with Bishop Shanahan Hospital, a Catholic hospital, and nearby, in a local village, the Fulani herders came through and killed dozens of people. Tragically, they also removed the victims’ hearts. The bodies were brought to the hospital for identification by family members.
We were travelling through the region at the time. Security checkpoints were along the road—every few blocks, not even every mile. They would radio ahead at each one or call the next checkpoint to say, “We have the group now—expect them in X minutes.”It was a tightly coordinated effort. But it was not Rotarians watching over us that time—it was the local police.
Jacobsen: Was that in northern or southern Nigeria? Generally, the north is predominantly Muslim, and the south is primarily Christian.
Merryweather-Arges: It was in Nsukka, near Enugu. So not exactly north or south—it’s more south-central. That area is quite mixed. But where we were, it’s very blended.
Jacobsen: Was this around the height of the Boko Haram media coverage?
Merryweather-Arges: Yes. We had visited Opus Dei Hospital, a Catholic facility in Enugu, an incredible place and one of the best hospitals in Nigeria. About fifteen minutes after we left, Boko Haram came in and kidnapped the head of the hospital, who was a physician. This was around Easter, and everyone was praying for him. One of their own had been injured, and they wanted medical help. That was the reason for the abduction. So he was taken to keep the injured person alive. After about seven days, he was released. But yes, it was a dire situation.
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): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/13
Part 2 of 4
Christopher Louis is a Los Angeles–based international dating and relationship coach and founder of Dating Intelligence. As host of the Dating Intelligence Podcast, Louis draws on intuition and lived experience to guide clients toward authentic selves and meaningful romantic connections. Louis explores the crucial role of “reading the room” in long-term relationships. They emphasize how misreading cues—like ignoring body language, emotional withdrawal, or passive-aggressive behavior—can erode connection over time. Louis underscores the importance of eye contact, presence, and nonverbal communication, especially for introverts or those less attuned to emotional signals. Through personal stories and therapeutic insight, they reveal that maintaining awareness, checking in regularly, and developing attuned body language are key to preserving intimacy and emotional safety. Relationships thrive when both partners stay emotionally and physically present.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What about reading the room in a relationship, not just while dating?
Christopher Louis: Absolutely. This applies even more in long-term relationships. Everyone’s had moments where they misread a partner’s signals. Whether it’s misreading sexual cues—like making an advance when your partner isn’t in the mood—or going in for a kiss too early in a new relationship and getting that “Whoa, I wasn’t ready” response.
Misreading usually happens when focusing only on one’s feelings or expectations. One is not tuned in to the other person, and that’s a critical mistake. For example, say you come home, and your spouse is drained after a long day. Still, you immediately start bombarding them with questions or problems. That’s reading the room wrong.
Or maybe your partner is mad at you, and you’re unaware. You walk in the door and ask, “What’s wrong?” They look at you like, “Really?” Suddenly, doors slam, sighs are heavy, and things are being moved forcefully. That’s body language—loud, emotional, nonverbal communication—but many people miss it.
Why? Because they are stuck in their heads. They are not present. They are not projecting awareness outward. You must consciously observe the signals your partner sends—verbal and nonverbal.
Jacobsen: It’s interesting—fighting, like language itself, is partly innate and partly learned. Structurally, we all have the capacity for language, but what we speak and how we use it is shaped by our environment. Body language in conflict is the same—culturally layered but personally developed over time.
Louis: It’s the same with conflict styles. That’s why we talk about different “fighting styles.” Over time, you and your partner develop your way of arguing—hopefully resolving things. You figure out what works and what doesn’t, whether it’s with verbal cues or nonverbal ones. It becomes a learned rhythm, and if done right, it’s balanced. Even fighting can have its emotional intelligence when both people are attuned.
When you walk into a room and your partner is mad—but they’re completely quiet—that’s one of the most powerful body language cues. Silence can be just as expressive as words. If you’re asking questions and getting nothing but a quiet “Mmmhmm” or a cold shoulder, that’s a signal. But many people are too afraid to say, “Hey, what’s wrong?” because they fear the answer or do not know how to handle the tension.
Silence—whether someone is sad, mad, or withdrawn—is honestly one of the most complex forms of body language to interpret but also one of the most important to recognize. It can speak volumes without saying a word.
Jacobsen: That reminds me of an episode of House, M.D.—the show with the sarcastic, brilliant, but abrasive doctor. In one of the final episodes, House turns around and snaps, “Life is pain.” It was like a burst of unspoken emotion building since Season 1. Left unspoken for too long, that emotional repression can become unhealthy.
Louis: That’s exactly it. Many people bottle things up, and then it bursts out in unhealthy ways. But those silent moments become easier to read when you’re in a healthy relationship and know your partner well. You start to pick up on subtle cues. It is all trial and error. You win and lose some, but hopefully, you learn from the missteps and better recognize the signals.
Especially when you’re dealing with someone who’s passive-aggressive—that’s a big one. That passive-aggressive behaviour becomes a pattern whether it’s a partner, child, or close friend. At some point, you realize this is how they operate. But if you want to break through that, you have to create space for direct communication.
I tell people to start naming it gently. Say something like, “I see that you’re being quiet,” or “I notice you’re doing this or that—do you want to talk?” That’s how you start building better communication habits. Passive-aggressive behaviour is a form of body language, and if both people are passive-aggressive in a relationship, it can lead to serious communication breakdowns.
Jacobsen: Now, shifting a bit—how does body language evolve from early dating into long-term relationships? Older couples often seem more emotionally regulated and calmer. But are there consistent patterns in body language over time, or is it more individualized? Can you tell from observation whether a long-term relationship is healthy or not?
Louis: Great question. Everyone goes through the “honeymoon phase” at the beginning of a relationship. That’s when you’re on a euphoric high. Everything feels exciting; physical touch is frequent, eye contact is constant, and energy flows.
During that phase, body language is almost always positive—open posture, leaning in, smiling, touching, and verbal affirmations. But eventually, that honeymoon phase fades. That’s when the real work begins.
And here’s where it gets interesting: in healthy relationships, even after the initial spark cools, the couple develops a new, deeper layer of body language. It becomes more nuanced, more attuned. They might not always touch as much, but it is intentional and meaningful when they do. Their eye contact might be softer, less intense, but more grounding.
In contrast, in unhealthy relationships, body language becomes either avoidant—closed off, minimal physical connection—or reactive—short fuses, crossed arms, avoidance, or defensiveness. So yes, there are general patterns. You can often tell the state of a relationship just by watching how a couple sits together, how they respond to each other, and how they lean—or do not—toward each other.
That long-term body language isn’t about fireworks anymore; it is about safety, presence, and emotional alignment. That’s the gold standard. My wife—my partner—told me something that stuck with me the other day. She said, “Chris, I was watching this movie, and a couple was kissing on screen. It reminded me of us when we first started dating.” And I said, “Well, we still kiss like that.” And she replied, “No… not like that.” And I was like, “Oh… okay. Yes.”
She meant that spark—that energy you have initially during the euphoric honeymoon stage. It made me pause and think over the past few days: How do I bring that back?What must I work on to help her feel that way again? And that’s me paying attention. That’s the work.
So, to answer your question—about long-term relationships and how body language evolves—I think what happens is that many couples, over time, get complacent. It is normal. It happens. But I always say that couples need to check in with each other intentionally.
At least once a month, sit down together and ask, “How are we doing sexually? How are we doing emotionally? How’s our communication? How are we handling finances?” That regular check-in helps maintain that emotional connection, and when you’re emotionally connected, your body language tends to stay positive—more open, more attuned, more affectionate.
As time passes, your ability to read one another improves—whether it is subtle tension, playful flirting, or just spotting when something feels off. And when that’s nurtured, your relationship doesn’t flatline—it grows deeper.
Jacobsen: That makes sense. Relationships are dynamic—they ebb and flow. Sometimes, one partner is doing well, and the other is down. Other times, you’re both flying or struggling. But you stay aligned as long as there’s mutual awareness and ongoing conversation. It is like a relational system of checks and balances.
Louis: If you are not checking in regularly, what happens? The couple becomes more like roommates. You lose each other. You drift. That spark fades. And sometimes, if that goes on too long, it leads to separation or divorce. But here’s the truth-finding your way back is not hard. You need to notice before it is too late.
Jacobsen: Some people are naturally gifted at this—reading signals and knowing how to respond. But others might need guidance. For those who are not naturally intuitive or in the early stages of a relationship, what are some foundational things to focus on?
Louis: Great point. First and foremost, I always come back to listening. That’s number one. But listening is not just with your ears—it is with your presence. It is about showing that you are fully engaged, including body language. Eye contact, posture, turning toward your partner—these are all part of active listening.
So, I encourage my clients who are shy or introverted—maybe socially reserved—to start small. Make eye contact when your partner speaks. Nod, smile, and respond. These little things send a clear message: I’m here. I’m with you.
That level of attentiveness creates connection, and everything else—trust, affection, communication—can start to build. For introverts, body language can be complicated to get right. Many introverted people tend to close themselves off physically. Their heads are often down, their arms crossed, and their body language tight. And even though they want to engage—they’re interested—they may be afraid to project outward. They are not naturally expressive in an extroverted way.
So I tell my introverted clients this: first, you must keep your head up and make direct eye contact with the person you’re speaking to, especially when that person is talking to you. Eye contact is crucial.
Sometimes, I work with clients over Zoom; they talk while looking at the sky or all over the room. And I have to say, “Hey, I’m over here. If your eyes are darting everywhere, I will start wondering, What are you looking at? What’s going on over there?” It becomes distracting, and you lose your listener’s attention.
Jacobsen: Right—where your eyes go, their focus goes.
Louis: So I coach both my male and female clients—especially those who are shy or anxious—on this one simple habit: when you’re on a date, keep your eyes on the person you’re with. Direct eye contact shows presence and interest. It says I’m here, I’m engaged, and you matter.
If your eyes shift, your head is bobbing like a bobblehead, and your attention is scattered, it sends mixed signals. You may be interested, but you’re not showing it. And that gap between intention and expression is where connection gets lost.
So, I actively work on this with my clients, especially introverts. I see it even in everyday situations: I make it a point to maintain direct eye contact with my partner or talk with friends. And sometimes, I have to remind myself, “Stay focused. Pay attention.” It is something we can all improve.
And here’s the thing—sometimes just that eye contact and body language is enough to get you a second date. Unless…
Jacobsen: Unless the guy says something too stupid?
Louis: That’s what many women say: “He’s in—unless he says something dumb.” [Laughing] There’s an old Chris Rock bit about that. He jokes, “I was gonna give him some… then he started talking.” And he just yakked himself out of it.
Jacobsen: The “yacking man-child” syndrome.
Louis: Yep, that’s the one. To sum it up, eye contact is number one. It sets the tone. If you can’t get that right, the rest of the conversation won’t matter much.
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): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/11
Keta Kosman is the owner and publisher of Madison’s Lumber Reporter, a leading resource for softwood lumber pricing and market analysis. Based in Vancouver, British Columbia, Keta holds a BA in Political Science and Philosophy from the University of British Columbia and has extensive experience in graphic design, publishing, and the lumber industry. Since 2008, she has provided critical insights into North American lumber markets through Madison’s Lumber Reporter and related publications. A recognized industry analyst, Keta specializes in lumber pricing, sawmill capacity, forestry trends, and trade between Canada and the U.S. She is also active in environmental initiatives. Kosman discusses factors behind the U.S. South surpassing Canada in softwood lumber production. Seasonal cycles influence lumber pricing, with low prices in winter and rising demand by spring. Southern yellow pine’s volume increase outpaces Canada’s SPF due to U.S. homebuilding demand and investments in U.S. sawmills. Trade barriers like duties disproportionately affect Canadian mills, driving diversification to Asia. Environmental events such as wildfires and hurricanes impact timber supply and reconstruction needs. Kosman emphasizes the divisive nature of duties, driven by U.S. special interest groups, and highlights the opaque negotiation process over settlements involving billions in duties.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What factors are involved in the U.S. South surpassing Canada in softwood lumber production capacity?
Keta Kosman: The volume of lumber is a key factor in determining pricing at any given time. U.S. and Canadian housing markets generally follow seasonal cycles, which cause annual fluctuations in lumber prices. The year’s lowest prices typically occur toward the end of the year, during winter. Around this time of year and into February, prices rise as homebuilders prepare for spring. Large companies, especially those constructing 100 to 150 homes at a time, aim to have the lumber they need onsite before breaking ground. Consequently, whether on the supply side or the demand side, stakeholders are always looking ahead. They base their current purchases and investments in log procurement on their expectations for the next three months.
Jacobsen: Is this generally done seasonally? Do they start planning at the beginning of the year and then project for spring, summer, fall, and winter?
Kosman: Yes, that’s correct. Even though housing construction data may still indicate strong activity in June, most companies have already purchased the lumber they need by then. As a result, while construction continues, demand slows, and prices typically soften around June.
Jacobsen: What are the most important factors regarding how the U.S. South surpasses Canada in softwood lumber production capacity?
Kosman: There are several factors to consider. When you see claims that southern yellow pine manufacturing exceeds western spruce-pine-fir (SPF) production in volume, it’s important to note that such comparisons are not always apples-to-apples. To make a fair comparison, you should compare the entire U.S. South to the entire North or the U.S. Southwest to the Northwest.
Generally speaking, the volume increase in southern yellow pine lumber manufacturing has been significantly greater than in eastern or western spruce species, such as northern varieties.
One major factor is that large operators in British Columbia anticipated a reduction in timber supply due to the mountain pine beetle infestation. To compensate, they shifted some of their manufacturing focus from SPF by acquiring and taking over mills in the U.S. South.
As I mentioned, U.S. homebuilding is by far the largest consumer of lumber. However, one critical point often overlooked is that homebuilders do not typically prefer southern yellow pine for construction framing. They tend to avoid it because of its physical properties.
To explain in detail, the relationship between the raw log and its final application is quite direct. Homebuilders find that SPF lumber from the Pacific Northwest, eastern Canada, or the northeastern U.S. is straight, clear, and strong—qualities essential for framing. In contrast, southern pine studs are more likely to split or warp when nails are driven into them, particularly when applying drywall. For this reason, southern pine is not widely used for framing construction.
Instead, southern pine wood is primarily used for finishing, siding, outdoor purposes, and decking. Its porous nature allows it to take treatment well, and its attractive yellow grain makes it ideal for outdoor applications.
Therefore, the volume of 2×4 manufacturing using southern pine does not serve the same purpose for end users as SPF 2×4 lumber. I hope this distinction is clear.
Jacobsen: Regarding investments in new sawmills in the U.S. South, have these developments influenced the overall distribution of lumber production capacity?
Kosman: Southern pine lumber is almost entirely a domestic U.S. product, with very little, if any, making its way into Canada. In contrast, SPF lumber, whether from Washington State, Oregon, British Columbia, or Alberta, is widely transported. SPF travels across Canada and the U.S. and is also exported overseas. Eastern SPF typically goes to Europe, while Western SPF is shipped to Asia. Southern pine, on the other hand, is not commonly exported as lumber. However, southern pine logs are significantly exported, particularly to Asia. This dynamic illustrates the difference in the movement and utilization of these products.
Regarding investments in U.S. sawmills, it’s important to understand that timber in the U.S. South often comes from plantation-style forestry, which is more similar to practices in Europe or Japan. These plantations involve thinning, pruning, fumigating, and watering. In contrast, forests in the Pacific Northwest and Canada are natural. While replanting is done in Canada, silviculture practices like thinning and pruning are not typically employed. In the U.S. South, private timberland owners often supply mills; in some cases, mills own the timberland themselves. In Canada, the timber supply comes predominantly from public lands designated for forestry, excluding parks, Indigenous lands, or other protected areas. The British Columbia Interior now has more lumber production in the U.S. than in Canada.
Jacobsen: How does this influence the dynamics of manufacturing and distribution? Can you explain how larger operators manage their operations geographically and nationally?
Kosman: When discussing production volume, it’s essential also to consider value. For instance, the price of a Southern pine 2×4 compared to an SPF 2×4 can vary significantly. Companies operating cross-border, such as Interfor, Canfor, and West Fraser, have substantially invested in U.S. facilities. Understanding why they invest in these areas requires considering a few critical factors.
First, all lumber in North America is sold in U.S. dollars, even when a Canadian buyer purchases lumber in Canada. Suppose the Canadian dollar is weak, as it has been for much of the past decade. In that case, this creates an enormous advantage for Canadian producers. For example, the exchange rate is around 75 cents, which has been for several years but falls to 69 cents. In that case, Canadian producers gain additional profit from the currency difference.
However, production costs in Canada are generally higher. To address this, companies have shifted investments to U.S. facilities, where costs can be lower. These companies assess multiple factors, such as log supply, log costs, production costs, market prices, demand, housing starts, and geographic advantages. This allows them to decide where to produce for a particular period strategically.
Jacobsen:Trade policies and tariffs also play a significant role. Do these policies have a real impact on lumber production and distribution?
Kosman: Yes, absolutely. Softwood lumber has been subject to tariffs and duties for decades. We’re currently in what’s referred to as Softwood Lumber Dispute #5. Historically, around 85% of Canadian lumber was sold into the U.S., but this has dropped to between 60% and 65% over the past 20 years. This shift is largely due to Canada diversifying its markets, with significant new exports to Asia to avoid U.S. duties.
When duties are imposed, as happened after the expiration of the previous softwood lumber agreement in 2016, it creates challenges for Canadian mills. During economic slowdowns, such as after the 2006 housing crash, mills often cannot pass the cost increases caused by duties onto consumers. This forces mills to absorb the losses. By contrast, when the market is strong, as in the 1990s, mills can better offset duty costs by increasing prices for end users.
Currently, duties remain a significant constraint for Canadian mills, as the housing market is not robust enough to absorb additional costs effectively.
Jacobsen: Environmental challenges, such as pine beetle infestations and wildfires, are significant factors affecting lumber production. Wildfires, for example, are currently in the news, particularly in Los Angeles. However, why is the U.S. housing market potentially more important than these environmental challenges? This is not to diminish the effects and importance of wildfires and infestations but rather to explore the broader context.
Kosman: It’s important because these events, like wildfires or storms, can have two primary impacts. First, they can reduce the timber supply available to mills. For example, if a wildfire occurs in a timber supply area—not a park—it directly affects the volume of timber that can be harvested. Second, events like hurricanes can create an immediate need for reconstruction.
For instance, at the end of last year, Hurricane Helene caused significant damage in the Appalachian region, including the Carolinas and parts of Florida, particularly in low-lying areas prone to flooding. The homes affected were already occupied, so this reconstruction demand was separate from new housing construction driven by demographic trends, such as young people entering the housing market.
Hurricane Helene also impacted timber areas and sawmill operations. Three major sawmills—two West Fraser mills in Florida and one Canfor mill in Georgia—suffered disruptions. These included power outages lasting nearly two weeks and destroyed roads, which affected production and transportation. We’ve seen similar scenarios, such as during the atmospheric river event in 2022, where environmental disasters impacted sawmills and the need for rebuilding in affected areas.
In contrast, the fires in Los Angeles are primarily in parklands, which are not part of the timber supply basket. While it is devastating to see forests burn, these trees were never intended for sawmills. The primary loss in such cases is livable structures, not timber resources.
Jacobsen:So, when interest rates decrease, home sales and construction tend to rise, creating a larger demand for lumber. Is it fair to say that this trend in interest rates outweighs the short-term effects of environmental factors, such as wildfires or pine beetle infestations?
Kosman: Yes, that’s correct. Interest rates have a much broader and more sustained impact on housing and lumber markets than seasonal events like wildfires or infestations. For example, from 2006 to 2017, the U.S. housing market was depressed due to the fallout from the zero-interest mortgage crisis, which caused many people to lose their homes.
During that time, the U.S. was underbuilt, requiring around 1.5 million annualized new housing starts to keep up with population growth. That figure has now risen to 1.7 million, meaning we’re still not meeting the basic housing demand—not considering speculative investments or second-home purchases, but purely demographic needs.
With inflation easing and interest rates loosening up, we’re seeing an uplift in housing markets. It’s not a dramatic jump but rather a moderate, sustained increase. Last year, we expected housing construction to pick up, and I anticipate a noticeable increase this spring. This trend will likely continue over the next few years, driven by the basic need for housing, compounded by reconstruction efforts following storms and other disasters.
Jacobsen: What about U.S. trade barriers, such as duties and tariffs, which have been entrenched in the industry for a long time? You mentioned that the industry has acclimated to these mechanisms. Are these trade barriers fair or primarily designed to serve domestic interests?
Kosman: Trade barriers like duties and tariffs on softwood lumber are longstanding issues in the industry. The U.S. has implemented these measures for decades, and we’re currently in what’s referred to as Softwood Lumber Dispute #5. Over the years, Canadian producers have adapted to these policies by diversifying their export markets.
Historically, 85% of Canadian lumber was sold into the U.S., but that figure has dropped to between 60% and 65%. Much of the difference is now exported to Asia to avoid U.S. duties. These trade barriers often serve domestic U.S. interests under the guise of protecting local industries, but whether they’re fair is a complex question.
In an economic slowdown, such as after the 2008 housing crash, duties can severely constrain Canadian mills as they struggle to pass on the increased costs to consumers. In stronger markets, mills have more flexibility to offset these costs. However, these policies often create inefficiencies and distortions in the market, affecting producers and consumers on both sides of the border.
The benefit primarily lies with the United States, but I must be careful about framing this. U.S. lumber industry analysts at timberland investment conferences have said that the softwood lumber duty functions as an “every ten-year dividend” for U.S. timberland owners.
A special interest group that lobbies Congress to implement the softwood lumber duty. While this group includes some sawmills, it primarily represents timberland owners. They argue that Canada’s timber supply largely comes from public land and is not governed by free-market mechanisms. They claim that because the government sells Canadian trees, the prices are artificially lower, effectively subsidizing Canadian sawmills and allowing them to sell lumber in the U.S. at lower costs than U.S. producers can achieve.
In Canada, timber is owned federally by the Crown, but the provinces manage access to it. The two largest provinces for timber supply are British Columbia and Quebec. Historically, especially in the 1980s, British Columbia set timber prices based on provincial budget needs, which was not a market-based approach. This practice gave the U.S. a legitimate grievance. However, British Columbia has adopted a more market-responsive pricing system over the past decade. Timber prices are reassessed every three months and tied to lumber prices. When lumber prices go down, the cost of logs decreases, and when lumber prices rise, log prices increase.
Despite these changes, the U.S. special interest group continues to push for duties, largely disregarding the market reforms.
Another critical aspect, often overlooked, is the financial dynamics behind these disputes. Historically, negotiations for settlement only begin when the amount collected from duties reaches approximately US$5 billion. Observers who have followed the issue for decades argue that the dispute is less about policy, pricing, or subsidies and more about dividing this significant financial pot.
For example, during the last settlement, the U.S. Commerce Department had collected US$5 billion in duties. Although the U.S. lost the case at both NAFTA and the WTO and was ordered to return the money, they refunded only US$4 billion. The remaining US$1 billion was retained and distributed among members of the Softwood Lumber Coalition. Furthermore, due to exchange rate fluctuations, the returned US$4 billion was worth only US$3.6 billion at the time, adding to Canada’s financial losses.
I’ve heard that the amount collected is approaching US$7 billion, which exceeds the usual threshold for initiating settlement discussions. Canada and the U.S. may be already negotiating a resolution. Still, these negotiations typically remain confidential until a deal is finalized.
Jacobsen: Why do these negotiations only become public knowledge at the final phase, after settling everything?
Kosman: Regarding transparency during the negotiation process, I don’t know why it’s so tightly controlled. Sometimes, if I speak to someone personally at a conference—someone directly involved as a petitioner, subject to the duty here in Canada—they’ll provide some insight.
The duty itself is applied based on specific data. When lumber crosses the U.S. border, the duty is calculated on the pro forma invoice presented at customs. It depends on the shipment volume, whether it’s in a truck or railcar, and the price. Companies must show their invoices detailing the volume and sales price of the wood.
Companies know what’s happening because the government asks them for this information. Occasionally, I’ll hear from someone kind enough to share updates, like “there’s some movement on this issue.” However, for the most part, even those involved don’t know the full details. It’s a very unusual and opaque process.
I can tell you this: many sawmill manufacturers in the U.S. do not support the duty. Their perspective is, “If Canadian wood is better and priced higher, let the market decide. Customers can choose whether to pay for Canadian wood or a domestic product.” This issue is incredibly divisive.
The driving force behind the duty is a special interest group—it’s not a widespread, public initiative. It’s not as though individuals like Joe Smith in Alabama are part of the softwood lumber duty. This bilateral issue is negotiated directly between Trade Canada and the U.S. Commerce Department.
That’s quite an unusual and complex situation. Many people hold strong opinions about it, but most people do not explain this level of depth.
Jacobsen: Do you have any final points or questions?
Kosman: No, this was far more detailed than what I usually hear.
Jacobsen: Glad to hear it! Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.
Kosman: Okay, talk to you later.
Jacobsen: Bye.
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): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/11
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 2(b)
The University is a public body… subject to the Charter. The actions taken to discipline the students for their online comments infringed their right to freedom of expression.
Pridgen v. University of Calgary, 2010 ABCA 347
Colleges and universities must implement a free speech policy that conforms to the principles of free expression as expressed in the University of Chicago’s Statement.
Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, 2018 Directive
Academic freedom includes the right to teach, learn, study and publish free of orthodoxy or threat of reprisal… and to express one’s opinion about the institution, its administration, and the system in which one works.
Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) Statement on Academic Freedom
Prelude to Controversy: Free Expression in Higher Education
Over time, controversies may settle, particularly in Canadian academic culture.
Lindsay Shepherd’s academic case began in November 2017. It involved academic freedom and freedom of expression. The debate originated at Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU). What happened?
Shepherd showed a video of Jordan Peterson in class. Shepherd filed a lawsuit in June of 2018. WLU later apologized. The case was cited in national debates about freedom of expression policies at Canadian universities. Ontario mandated policies in 2018. Let us go into some of the details and further outcomes.
2017: Context and Early Developments in the Shepherd Case
In late 2017, Lindsay Shepherd was a Canadian graduate student and teaching assistant. On November 1, 2017, she showed two TVOntario’s The Agenda clips of Dr. Jordan Peterson speaking on Bill C-16. Shepherd presented the Peterson video to engage students. She reported no firm opinion of him. She did this in a first-year communications class. The action appeared intended to illustrate a debate on gender-neutral pronouns. This triggered administrative action. Bill C-16 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. “Gender identity” and “gender expression” are added to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. It also extends protections against hate speech and hate propaganda.
Following the class on November 8, 2017, a student approached WLU’s Rainbow Centre. They had concerns about the clips shown. The Centre contacted the university administration. The specifics of the complaint are uncertain; no formal complaint was ever filed. Shepherd was called into a supervisory meeting with Nathan Rambukkana (Shepherd’s Supervisor), Adria Joel (Gender Violence Prevention), and Herbert Pimlott (Program Head). The processes followed leading to the meeting are uncertain. The meeting lasted 40 minutes. The three expressed concerns that her actions had created a ‘toxic climate.’ The reason: Neutral presentation of clips. Shepherd was asked to pre-approve all lesson plans in the future. Shepherd recorded the meeting on her mother’s advice after receiving a vague email about the meeting.
On November 10, 2017, Shepherd released a meeting recording to the National Post. She believed the issue was of public interest because universities hold a societal role and garner taxpayer funding, so she contacted the media after the private meeting. The recording emphasized freedom of expression, Bill C-16, and the Canadian Human Rights Code. It garnered national attention. The incident sparked ongoing national debates on academic freedom at WLU and beyond.
On November 21, 2017, WLU President Deborah MacLatchy and Nathan Rambukkana published public apologies. They stated that Shepherd had done nothing wrong. Rambukkana and Pimlott emphasized the need for a “safe learning environment” and criticized ideas lacking “academic credibility.” MacLatchy acknowledged an “institutional failure.” (Later, Shepherd described Rambukkana’s apology as “disingenuous” in her lawsuit.)
On December 18, 2017, Robert Centa conducted an independent inquiry. Centa concluded that no formal complaint was filed, the two clips shown did not violate policy, and the meeting represented “significant overreach.”
2018: Litigation, Legislative Response, and Public Discourse
In January 2018, Shepherd founded the Laurier Society for Open Inquiry with two other students. LSOI invited controversial speakers and faced some challenges, including high-security costs. In May 2018, Canadians for Accountability awarded Shepherd the Harry Weldon Canadian Values Award. WLU also approved a Statement on Freedom of Expression. The policy outlines student discipline via the Non-Academic Code of Conduct. It requires compliance for group recognition and funding. It directs unresolved complaints to the Ontario Ombudsman. Also, the policy mandates annual implementation reports starting September 1, 2019.
In June 2018, Shepherd filed a $3.6 million lawsuit against WLU, Rambukkana, Pimlott, Joel, and a student. She alleged constructive dismissal, harassment, and negligence. Independently, Peterson filed a $1.5 million defamation suit against WLU and involved staff based on the comments in the 2017 meeting. It was filed separately from Shepherd’s.
In August 2018, Ontario mandated publicly funded colleges and universities to adopt free speech policies based on Chicago Principles, based on a broader debate on academic freedom and free speech, which included Shepherd’s case. All institutions are required to report annually to the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.
In December 2018, Rambukkana and Pimlott lodged a third‑party claim against Shepherd as part of legal proceedings related to Peterson’s lawsuit. The professors argued that Shepherd should be liable for damages from releasing the recorded meeting. They argued that Shepherd was responsible for recording and publishing a private meeting. Privacy and free speech rights conflicted.
In response to Ontario’s 2018 mandate, publicly funded universities were mandated to establish free speech policies by January 1, 2019. Enforcement is overseen by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO). Institutions that are non-compliant may face reduced funding. The Campus Freedom Index, published annually since 2011, documented persistent institutional failures. In 2018, WLU and six other universities earned an “F” grade on free speech.
2019-Present: Lindsay Shepherd Lawsuit Dismissal, Twitter Ban, and Ongoing Free Speech Debate in Canadian Universities
2019, the University of Ottawa and the University of Alberta provided unconditional protection. The rest had caveats. In 2020, thirteen universities earned an “F,” and 21 student unions failed. As of 2025, there have been no significant developments in these policies, though they remain actively debated. The 2018–2019 frameworks are still in place.
On February 7, 2019, Shepherd became a Campus Free Speech Fellow at the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. On July 14, 2019, Twitter (now X) banned Shepherd. The exchange became public and controversial, leading to media scrutiny of both parties. The exchange was deemed “abusive behaviour.” The ban stemmed from a Twitter exchange involving comments related to reproductive health and public figures. Later that July, her account was reinstated.
Shepherd’s teaching contract was cancelled in early 2020. As a teaching assistant, not a faculty member with a formal academic contract, non-renewal can be common and not necessarily punitive. Peterson’s lawsuit was dismissed in April 2024 on legal grounds and procedural merit. The full judgment text is not public. On November 8, 2024, a court dismissed the $3.6 million lawsuit. As of May 23, 2025, the dismissal has been noted in public summaries, but the ruling text is not publicly available yet. National discussions on the balance between free speech equity, diversity, and inclusion continue on Canadian campuses. The 2018–2019 policy frameworks are extant.
Now, Shepherd’s case remains central to debates over academic freedom. WLU and other universities continue to publish annual free‑speech reports, and others, like the Campus Freedom Index, track compliance and campus speech environments. Shepherd’s memoir, “Diversity and Exclusion: Confronting the Campus Free Speech Crisis,” offers a detailed presentation of opinions on academic freedom.
The chronology reveals an ordinary pedagogical decision leading to national debates, legal battles, and policy changes. The case and the lawsuit’s impacts on Shepherd’s academic career and professional legacy remain unclear. Its long-term impact remains to be seen.
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): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/15
Part 2 of 2
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser is a Syrian American physician, U.S. Navy veteran, and co-founder of the Clarity Coalition (Champions for Liberty Against the Reality of Islamist Tyranny). A leading voice for Muslim reform, he advocates for secular governance, universal human rights, and freedom of belief. He founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and co-launched the Muslim Reform Movement. Jasser challenges political Islam and theocratic ideologies, promoting liberty through public discourse and civic engagement. Alongside Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Yasmine Mohammed, he empowers reformers to confront extremism while defending the rights and freedoms foundational to Western democratic societies.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Now, we could probably get into the weeds a bit here—not quite to the depth of a theology course or debate—but the core ideological strands of political Islam seem to be central here. As you mentioned, Wahhabism is often identified as one of the most toxic sources of these extremist acts. Salafi-Wahhabi Islam, in particular, seems to fuel many of the terrorist activities. Regarding the Clarity Coalition working with other Muslim organizations, what are your dividing lines? What determines who you will or will not partner with?
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser: That’s a great question. How did we build this coalition? What are the filters and vetting mechanisms for membership?
It is a group process, but we all agree on a common mission. As a Muslim who loves my faith and has a strong relationship with God, I am under no illusions about the state of Islam today. I debated this very point at Oxford in October. I took the position against the house in a formal debate, arguing that Islam, in its current form, is notcompatible with democracy.
And I still believe that. I do not understand why Muslims should be handed a participation trophy just for existing in Western societies, as if that automatically proves compatibility. There is no evidence anywhere on the planet that Islam, as it is currently practiced, is compatible with liberal democracy.
But it took Christianity 1,789 years before any legal system on the planet was truly compatible with democracy. Yet, Christians read their Bible, including the phrase, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.”That speaks to a legal and theological separation of church and state.
Some aspects of the Bible have been reinterpreted and modernized through centuries of Enlightenment thinking. Islam has not yet undergone that same process. And I do not believe the core “recipe” is inherently bad. If you look at the first 300 to 400 years of Islamic civilization, even though dynasties governed it, it produced incredible advancements. The Elons of their time lived under Islamic rule. Those societies were not democratic, but they were the most intellectually and technologically advanced regions on Earth, while Europe was still in the Dark Ages.
If the recipe were fundamentally flawed, it would not have produced that history. But it was not a recipe for liberal democracy—it was a dynastic system that included some critical thinking. What is needed now is a second Enlightenment.
Our coalition came together around two core precepts: we are for liberty and against all forms of authoritarianism and fascism, particularly Islamist theocracy. One of the most important distinctions we make—and this is something all of us in the coalition agree on—is that Islam needs the space to evolve. It may not be compatible with democracy today, but it can be. It might be.
So, if someone believes Islam is fundamentally a death cult and the only way to deal with it is to isolate it, destroy it, or extinguish it, they cannot be part of our coalition. That makes no sense. If, however, someone believes Islam deserves the same space that Christianity and Judaism were given to reconcile with modernity, then we welcome them. We want to work with allies within the House of Islam who believe in religious liberty, secular governance, gender equality, and who are not homophobic. These are the essential values needed to be compatible with Western democratic society.
Our coalition is made up of publicly vetted individuals. Many people might agree with us in principle, but if they have not taken a courageous public stand against extremism—if they have not spoken out, taken risks, or faced consequences—then they have not met the standard we initially set. People like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others in our coalition have received death threats. They have paid a high price for their advocacy, and that courage deserves recognition. Those are the individuals we look to bring into our coalition.
Jacobsen: What about interfaith dialogues? So, across denominations—within those who pass that first filter—or even between different faiths, not just denominationally, there is also the broader term I have seen used: interbelief. That includes humanists, atheists, and agnostics, all gathered not necessarily for friendly chats, but to have open and amicable conversations. How do you see that?
Jasser: Yes, that’s a great question. That is part of free speech: understanding that people can have tough conversations about reality through mutual respect and equality. I have been deeply involved in that space. I served on the Arizona Interfaith Movement board for many years. There is a strong tradition—not just in America but across the West—of valuing faith diversity.
As discussed earlier, I remember my experience on the USS El Paso. My Commanding Officer was Catholic, the Executive Officer was Protestant, the Supply Officer was Mormon, our Deck Officer was Jewish, and I was the ship’s physician—and I was Muslim. And yes, there were also atheists on board. We were a microcosm of American society.
Yet we would all die for each other. We joined the military to keep our country safe so that we could freely choose our faith, or no faith. Interfaith conversation is critical. The problem with most interreligious dialogue in the United States today is that it focuses on platitudes and avoiding offence. It often centers only on what we share in common.
Now, it’s good to find common ground for the first few minutes of a conversation. But after that, interfaith—or interbelief—dialogue has no real value unless we can have frank, respectful conversations. For example, I should be able to explain to my Christian friends why I do not believe in the Trinity, why I do not believe in original sin, or why I think confession through a priest as an intermediary does not make sense to me. These are the things that distinguish my Muslim identity from Christianity.
Declaring a particular faith or worldview necessarily means making a choice, and that choice implicitly rejects other views. That should not be offensive. If someone is an atheist and rejects belief in God, that does not offend me. It is their choice, and we should be able to talk openly about it. It is a muscle memory that we need to build much more in our society.
Sometimes, the pendulum swings too far. What we see now, especially with certain DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs, is that in the name of equity, every group is so shielded from offence that we lose the ability to engage in honest conversations. We end up preserving a superficial kind of diversity—one based on identity alone—without encouraging deep, meaningful dialogue.
Jacobsen: When everyone is soft-pedalling, no one is saying anything. People fear being uncomfortable, even when saying something at least partially true. Another part of that equation—now made worse with gasoline thrown on the fire by social media and the Internet—is the phenomenon of individuals, some briefly notable and some not, who are often labelled provocateurs. These are people who say things with a surface-level truth but with the intent to offend. Then, when people react, the provocateurs claim they’re being persecuted or silenced—that their free speech is under attack—when in reality, they have been able to say precisely what they wanted. What they dislike is the backlash. How do you view conversations around that? Because you mentioned respect for persons as a fundamental principle, too.
Jasser: Yes, that’s a great question. As an activist, an academic, and a physician, I approach everything with a mindset of treatment: what is the desired outcome? That’s just how I think—things need to have productive intent. I do not believe in gaslighting or just provoking people to grab attention.
That said, I have released many press statements defending the right of individuals to burn Qur’ans. When I talk with those individuals privately, I tell them: “Look, nothing good in history has ever come from burning significant scriptures or books.” If you look at the 20th century, some of the most democratic regions of the world descended into fascism, and it often started with book burnings. I am no fan of that practice. History is not a fan of it. But I will still defend to the death someone’s right to do it.
These are just pieces of paper. I do not believe symbolic speech like that should be banned. If you look at Europe, they have hate speech laws, including laws that prohibit Holocaust denial. I oppose Holocaust denial morally and historically, but I also oppose those bans. In some European countries, Mein Kampf cannot even be legally published. That approach pushes dangerous ideas underground.
In the United States, we believe it is far more effective to monitor fascist groups above ground, where the antiseptic of sunlight can do its work. When you push them underground, you make them more complicated to track and potentially more dangerous. So the real question is: what effect are you trying to produce when you ban something?
Recently, I took a different position in one particular area. When it comes to antisemitic and pro-Hamas rallies held by individuals in the U.S. who are here on visas, I do notbelieve that is protected under the same principle. Why? Because those individuals are not American citizens. They are here under a privilege, not the same rights guaranteed by the Constitution. They are not entitled to the full protections of the First Amendment in the same way as citizens are.
Just as I cannot go to Saudi Arabia—or even to the U.K.—and speak publicly about overthrowing the government, why should individuals be able to come to the U.S. as guests on student visas and espouse antisemitism, glorify Hamas terrorism, celebrate October 7, and promote genocide against Jews, all while enjoying the privilege of visa status on university campuses funded heavily by foreign governments?
Sometimes people mix these issues. In the same breath, you’ll hear individuals say things I would defend under free speech—and then they turn around and advocate for policies like shutting down all mosques. That kind of overreach only empowers the radicals in my community.
Instead, we need to acknowledge that while we may strongly disagree with what is taught in many mosques—and, yes, 90% of mosques in the U.S. may promote ideologies about governance incompatible with American values—shutting them down is the wrong response. First, it would not achieve the intended result, and second, it is profoundly un-American. It would only radicalize communities rather than address the issues through open dialogue and reform.
We need to ask: What is the appropriate treatment to cure political Islam’s malignancy? From a legal, rights-based, and solutions-oriented perspective, free speech, sunlight, and rigorous public scrutiny are still the best remedies. But we must also be honest and clear-eyed about what the speakers try to achieve with their rhetoric.
Jacobsen: Imagine you’re at the Walmart customer service desk, returning three products labelled “Left Wing,” “Centrist,” and “Right Wing.” They have asked about your complaints about each product. What is the left wing doing wrong? What are the centrists doing wrong? And what are the right wing doing wrong, from the perspective of the Clarity Coalition’s goals?
Jasser: Starting with the left wing, their main issue is identity politics. They embrace individuals from minority faiths or cultures without expecting those individuals to adhere to the same principles they demand from the majority. It’sa kind of bigotry of low expectations. They excuse Islamist ideologies under the banner of cultural sensitivity, when they would never accept those ideas from Christians or others in power.
The right wing, particularly some conservatives, often fails to engage with meaningful, long-term solutions. They can be overly focused on short election cycles and sometimes ignore the importance of working with reformers who may not share their views on family values or issues like abortion, but who are critical partners for national security. Hyper-nationalism also clouds their perspective on immigration, even though immigrants can be some of the best assets in the fight for democratic values.
My biggest critique of the centrists is that they are lacking in action. There is very little that animates them. Yet the survival of the West depends on the 80% in the middle waking up and taking a stand. They need to engage with the ideological battles within the House of Islam and take sides against the “Red-Green Axis”—the alliance between the far left and Islamists that operates from China to Iran and beyond.
That’s the future of my work—the legacy for my kids. That’s what drives me. I hope to awaken that center.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate your expertise, and it was a pleasure to meet you.
Jasser: Appreciate it, Scott. Cheers. Stay in touch. 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
Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/10
Part 1 of 4
Christopher Louis is a Los Angeles–based international dating and relationship coach and founder of Dating Intelligence. As host of the Dating Intelligence Podcast, Louis draws on intuition and lived experience to guide clients toward authentic selves and meaningful romantic connections. He emphasizes eye contact, posture, and respectful touch to build intimacy and decode unspoken emotions. Louis discusses cultural differences in nonverbal cues, highlights common misinterpretations, and stresses the importance of curiosity and communication over assumptions. Through live events, media, and coaching, he guides individuals in reading emotional tension, deepening bonds, and fostering connection. His mission is to help people stop overthinking and thrive in their dating lives through awareness and emotional presence.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Christopher Louis, a Los Angeles-based international dating and relationship coach and the founder of Dating Intelligence. He is best known as the host of the Dating Intelligence Podcast, where he explores the nuances of modern dating and relationships with a wide range of expert guests. Christopher has guided thousands of individuals through his work in understanding love, connection, and personal development. His coaching blends intuition with lived experience to help clients discover their authentic selves and build meaningful romantic relationships. He offers support through live events, media engagements, and one-on-one coaching sessions.
He teaches clients how to interpret body language, develop emotional communication skills, and choose compatible partners. Christopher’s mission is straightforward: to help people stop overthinking and start thriving in their dating lives. Thank you so much for joining me today. First question—how does body language reveal unspoken emotions in romantic relationships?
Christopher Louis: Body language is one of the most potent forms of communication—arguably more impactful than words. Every human being, even animals, relies on nonverbal cues to understand and relate to one another. From the moment we’re born, we use physical gestures to communicate with our parents, especially before we can speak.
In romantic relationships, body language remains a significant channel of expression. Eye contact, posture, proximity, and facial expressions carry emotional weight. These signals can communicate interest, affection, discomfort, or even withdrawal—often without a single word being spoken. It’s how couples begin to read and respond to each other, shaping their connection over time.
Jacobsen: What are some familiar nonverbal cues that indicate attraction or emotional connection?
Louis: Eye contact is one of the biggest cues, and I stress it with all my clients. When you’re on a date—especially for men—it’s essential to give your full attention when the other person is speaking. Strong, steady eye contact signals interest and emotional presence. It makes your date feel seen and heard, even if you feel nervous or distracted.
Another important cue is body orientation. I always tell my clients, “If you’re sitting across from someone, lean in slightly.” That subtle forward posture communicates openness and attentiveness, helping create a sense of intimacy and shared energy.
Lastly, physical touch—when appropriate—is a strong nonverbal signal of connection. I advise clients to be mindful and respectful. Still, a light touch on the hand or arm can be significant if both people are comfortable. These small gestures often help build rapport and emotional safety in the early stages of dating.
Louis: That, in a funny sort of way—when you’re smiling, when you’re laughing, whatever it may be—that small little bit of physical touch is always essential when it comes to the flirtatious side. The key is ensuring it’s not too forward, creepy or off-putting but respectful. You also want to know whether the other person is open to and receptive to that body language.
Jacobsen: How can couples become more aware of each other’s body language to strengthen their bond rather than diminish it?
Louis: Physical touch is a key factor here. Everyone has their preferred love language, and while not everyone prioritizes physical touch, it can still be an essential bridge for connection. Simple gestures—holding hands, placing a hand on a partner’s knee, or sitting shoulder-to-shoulder—can subtly reinforce intimacy and keep a relationship upbeat.
On the flip side, some people are just not wired that way. Some individuals dislike being hugged or touched—and that’s okay. It does not mean they cannot have a strong and healthy relationship. In those cases, connection comes more through words and presence.
So, eye contact becomes especially important. Even if someone is not physically affectionate, looking at them, smiling, and giving them your full attention can communicate that they are loved and valued. That energy is just as meaningful.
Jacobsen: Now, I’m Canadian, and you’re American. Our cultures overlap because of the deep historical ties between the countries. But in other parts of the world, there can be significant cultural differences—different first languages, different social norms—even something as basic as how close people stand to one another. Are there cultural differences in romantic body language that partners should consider?
Louis: It depends. My first instinct is to say no because love is pretty universal. But when you consider culture, you need to be mindful. For example, in some Asian cultures—like Japan, China, or India—specific physical space and touch norms differ from Western expectations. Public displays of affection might be more restrained.
In contrast, Western cultures—whether in Europe, the United States, Canada, Mexico, or Central and South America—are generally more open to physical expression in romantic settings. So, while I believe body language is universal, adapting and respecting cultural nuances is essential. Awareness and sensitivity to your partner’s background go a long way.
Once again—excuse me—body language is the first and foremost form of communication we know. It’s all we have from the moment we leave the womb. Animals in the wild are the same—it’s all about how they communicate through physical cues and movement. You said something spot-on earlier: standing close to someone, smiling at them, or the way you look at them while they speak—especially with eye contact—conveys so much more than words ever could.
Now, when you travel to places like India or Japan—places I’ve visited—you’ll encounter cultures with more formal boundaries around physical interaction. In those cases, body language becomes even more essential because touch may not be culturally acceptable in public. That’s when nonverbal communication becomes key, like eye contact, posture, and directional body positioning. How you’re standing, or your body is angled toward the person you’re speaking to, can say a great deal.
This kind of body language can take on a flirtatious quality and be the starting point for a romantic connection. When two people from different cultural backgrounds come together, they eventually learn to develop their own shared “language”—a personalized, mutual body language that works uniquely for their relationship.
Jacobsen: How can body language be used to help identify emotional tension in a relationship?
Louis: That’s a great question. One of the first signs of emotional tension is often found in the eyes. You can feel it when someone is upset, withdrawn, or not emotionally present. Their eye contact changes, their gaze shifts, they might avoid looking directly at you—or their blinking rate or breathing might become shallow or rapid.
Then, you move down the body. Folded arms, crossed legs pointing away from you, a turned torso—these are classic signs of disengagement or defensiveness. If you’re sitting down and your partner’s legs or body are angled away, that’s a cue. Fidgeting is another. Restlessness in the chair, shifting weight from side to side, tapping fingers, or squeezing their hands can indicate frustration or emotional withdrawal.
I’ve seen this often in couples therapy. For example, I work with a boyfriend and girlfriend and always know when she’s frustrated. When he talks, she’ll shift her weight to the left, cross her legs tightly, and fold her arms—sometimes even turn her body slightly away from him while giving him a half-glance or side-eye. But when things are going well, her posture completely changes—she faces him directly, her legs are crossed in a relaxed, classic position, her arms are loosely placed, and her energy is open.
For men, it’s a bit different. We tend not to cross our legs as often, but men usually grip the sides of their chairs or fidget. They’ll rotate slightly back and forth if it’s a swivel chair. Their heads may tilt, and their eyes dart—classic signs of mental distraction or emotional tension. These physical cues are easy to miss if you are not paying attention. Still, they can reveal much about what is happening emotionally.
You can always feel the tension when both people in a relationship are upset—it’s that moment when the emotional energy shifts, and you can feel the friction in the room. When two people clash like that, body language tends to close off. But hopefully—like I always say—if they can engage in healthy verbal communication, they can start to relieve that pressure. Ideally, that leads them back to a space where positive body language can re-emerge.
Jacobsen: Now that you’ve mentioned eye contact and some of its nuances, can you take a deeper dive into eye contact’s role in building intimacy between partners, particularly how it might evolve as a relationship matures?
Louis: This is a great one—I love this question. Let’s start with eye contact from what I call Dating 101. At that early stage, eye contact is all about positive reinforcement. It’s about projecting interest, attentiveness, and positive energy. It also helps improve listening. When someone knows you’re looking at them—entirely focused—it makes them feel valued, building trust right from the start.
When it comes to flirting, eye contact adds a layer of subtlety. For guys, it might be leaning in slightly with what’s often called “the smoulder.” You’ve probably heard the term. It’s that confident, slow gaze—flirting without saying a word.
Conversely, women often express flirtation through brightness in their eyes and small, rhythmic gestures—like twirling or stroking their hair. This is not universal, but many women with longer hair will play with it or run their fingers through it while maintaining eye contact. These are physical cues layered with emotion—often unconscious signals of attraction.
Now, as the relationship develops, eye contact evolves, too. It becomes less about attraction and more about emotional depth. One of the exercises I often coach couples on—something I do with my partner—is this: sit down, face each other, and maintain eye contact for a full minute. No talking. Just looking into each other’s eyes.
That single minute can be compelling. It resets emotional connection—especially for couples constantly busy or distracted by daily distractions. My partner and I both have whole lives and full schedules. But when we stop, hug, and look into each other’s eyes—even briefly—it brings us back to the center. It’s like saying, “There you are.”
That moment of mutual presence reminds you both of what matters. And once that connection is re-established through something as simple as eye contact, everything else starts to realign. It grounds you. It says, “We’re here.”
We’re back at it now. Eye contact is essential in relationships, and many people do not prioritize it enough, especially in everyday moments. Think about when you’re sitting on the couch with your partner, watching a show, scrolling your phone, or doing something mundane. Even during that downtime, there’s a lost art in pausing, turning to your partner, and looking at them.
Sometimes, I look at my partner while we sit together. And then she’ll catch me staring and go, “What?” And I’ll say, “Nothing, I just wanted to look at you.” That little moment brings back the connection. It’s that unspoken reminder—”There you are. I see you.” And honestly, more couples need to do that. It’s simple but powerful.
Jacobsen: What about the misinterpretation of body language? Depending on their personality, some people rely more on intuition and emotional receptivity—they’re open to reading a broader range of signals in their environment. Others are more analytical or verbal. But intuition can fail. People misread situations, misinterpret tone or even text messages. How do people typically misread body language? And how does that create tension in relationships? More importantly, how can couples reorient themselves so they do not take a misreading as a deliberate offence?
Louis: First, I love that you used the phrase “reading the room.” That’s a big one when it comes to understanding body language. So, let me give a broad but practical answer by starting with a real-world setting—social events.
Let’s say you’re at a party or a mixer, and you’re meeting someone for the first time. This is Body Language 101. Many people, especially men, tend to read the room wrong. They walk in, pick someone they find attractive, and go straight in—no pause, no scan of the environment, no reading cues.
What they fail to consider is context. That woman might’ve already been hit on five times that night. Maybe she’s tired, not in the mood, or wants to enjoy herself. Suppose a guy doesn’t take a moment to observe her posture, openness, and interaction with others. In that case, he’s likely to misread her availability or receptiveness. That’s how friction and awkwardness start.
One of the things I pride myself on is being able to read a room. Scott, you could put 100 women in a room, and I could tell you exactly which one is open to being approached and which one is not before I speak to anyone. It is not magic; it is awareness. The key is observing from a distance: Is she making eye contact? Is she smiling naturally? Is her body facing outward or turned inward in a closed-off way?
Most people—especially those acting on pure instinct or emotion—skip this step, which creates misinterpretation. Misreading body language can cause conflict in relationships, not just in dating. Your partner might cross their arms because they’re cold, not upset. Or maybe they’re quiet because they’re tired, not angry.
That’s why communication is everything. If something feels off, ask. Do not assume. The solution is to create an environment where both people feel safe clarifying what they mean and how they think. That way, misreads do not turn into full-blown arguments. It becomes a partnership of curiosity, not accusation.
She’s shut down. So, watching it happen in real-time is laughable when the next guy comes in and tries the same old approach. But here’s the thing—I could probably go up to that same woman after five guys have already tried and still make a genuine connection. Why? Because I read the room. I gauge her emotional state and switch the tone. Maybe I crack a joke—something witty or unexpected—that pulls her out of that mental loop. Suddenly, she’s smiling; she’s curious. She’s thinking, “Wait, who is this guy?” And I’ll say, “Hi, my name is such-and-such.” Just like that, the energy shifts because I met her where she was emotionally and changed the narrative.
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): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/06
Michael Ashley Schulman, CFA, Chief Investment Officer of Running Point Capital Advisors, offers expert insight into current global financial dynamics. He discusses Federal Reserve rate policy, the political role of Jerome Powell, and how tariff measures and OPEC oil decisions interact to shape inflation. Schulman emphasizes the deflationary nature of taxes and energy’s foundational role in economic systems. He also explores Ukraine’s shift toward euro-based monetary alignment and the EU’s planned capital reallocations toward defence. The conversation weaves macroeconomics with political strategy, emphasizing adaptive policy analysis and real-world market implications.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here for the first session with Michael Ashley Schulman, CFA, to discuss global finance. Schulman is the Chief Investment Officer and a founding partner of Running Point Capital Advisors, a multifamily office based in El Segundo, California.
With over twenty years of experience, he leads the firm’s global macroeconomic outlook, investment strategies, asset allocation, and management of private placement life insurance (PPLI) and private placement variable annuities (PPVA). Schulman specializes in alternative investments, impact assessments, and tax-efficient structures. He previously held senior roles at Hollencrest Capital Management and Deutsche Bank. He earned a BA in Economics from the University of California, Berkeley, and an MBA from the MIT Sloan School of Management. He is also a CFA charterholder, board advisor, writer, art enthusiast, and advocate for social impact investing. The Federal Reserve has held interest rates steady. Why do you think that is? Is that a good or bad thing?
Schulman: It is a good thing. They have held steady because there is no strong catalyst for a change. The economy is not overheating to the point where the Fed needs to raise rates, but it is also not weak enough to require stimulus through rate cuts.
The Federal Reserve’s dual mandate focuses on maximum employment and price stability. Inflation remains above the Fed’s target of 2%, so lowering rates could risk reigniting price pressures. At the same time, unemployment is relatively low, around 4.2%, according to the latest data, which indicates a healthy labour market.
Thus, Chair Jerome Powell and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) are taking a prudent approach: holding rates steady and staying data-dependent, waiting to see how the economy responds.
There is speculation that the Fed may cut rates by the end of 2025, possibly in December, depending on inflation trends and labour market’s evolution. That remains to be seen and will be entirely data-driven.
Many market participants hope for rate cuts to support equity markets, real estate, and consumer credit. But we are now in May 2025, and Powell’s term as Fed Chair ends in May 2026, so decisions made this year will likely shape the legacy of his tenure.
I believe that Trump will not get rid of Powell in the next year because, technically, he cannot.
During this adjustment phase—early in Trump’s renewed presidency—our assessment indicates the President could tactically leverage Powell’s Federal Reserve leadership. The Fed Chair functions as a perfect fall guy: if the economy does well, Trump can take all the credit. If the economy does poorly, he can blame Powell since Powell holds significant economic levers through the Federal Reserve. Robust economic performance allows the administration to justifiably tout policy successes, whereas market declines can be deflected toward central bank interventions. This arrangement proves most advantageous when the White House sustains steady rhetorical challenges against Powell, whose position wields enough institutional power and monetary control to credibly absorb blame during financial setbacks.
In other words: President Trump privately appreciates Jerome Powell as an ideal scapegoat. When economic conditions flourish, Trump can justifiably claim victory, yet during downturns, the Federal Reserve Chairman controls sufficient economic mechanisms to credibly shoulder responsibility. This political theater functions optimally when the administration continuously maintains public verbal pressure on Powell.
A year from now, I expect interest rates on the short end to come down as Trump is sure to replace Powell with someone more dovish, more amenable to lowering Fed rates. I am building that into my mid-term and long-term plans and scenario analyses. We have seen a recent drop in oil, plus shifting tariff measures that vary by country, especially among petro-states. These drops, naturally, have complex economic implications.
Jacobsen: So if we see effects like this—say, one conscious decision regarding tariff policy—are these compounded, or are they distinct and separable economic challenges?
Schulman: I like that question. Let me try to answer it. If I miss the mark, feel free to reevaluate and press me on it.
The main thrust of tariffs was announced on Liberation Day, April 2. Strange coincidence: On the same day, April 2, OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, opened the oil spigots and lowered oil prices.
Many expect tariffs to be inflationary—a view commonly held by economists. However, fundamentally, tariffs are taxes, and taxes are inherently deflationary. While tariffs may initially push up prices, they force market adjustments—consumers purchase less, seek alternatives, or develop workarounds. Thus, though appearing inflationary in the short-term, tariffs ultimately prove deflationary by extracting purchasing power from the economy.
What is interesting is the timing—more than a coincidence. On the same day, Liberation Day was marked, and those sweeping tariffs were announced—with Trump holding up that big poster board listing them—Saudi Arabia and OPEC opened the spigots, increased oil production, and lowered oil prices. Lower oil prices are deflationary.
That is one of the more consistent economic principles: energy affects the cost of almost everything—production, services, transportation of goods, electricity, computer systems, AI—it is all energy-dependent. Oil and natural gas make up much of that. So lowering energy costs is hugely deflationary and helps counterbalance many fears surrounding tariff-driven inflation.
That move by OPEC was likely done in part—or even largely—because Saudi Arabia wants to remain in favour of Trump and build a good relationship with his administration and with the U.S. more broadly. It was seen as a beneficial counterweight to the inflationary concern. Since then, OPEC has continued to take a dovish stance on oil, leaning toward increased production and lower prices, at least in the near term, until things settle.
Ironically, oil prices are now dropping so low that some U.S. producers may be shelving or delaying expansion plans.
Jacobsen: So, that gives an angle that is a bit less commonly heard—it is educational, in the sense that these macroeconomic moves are not always linear. It is not A to B to C. Sometimes it is A to A2 to B2 to C. So we can get similar effects through different pathways, and must infer the probability of cause even without direct proof by identifying reasonable patterns of decision-making.
Schulman: Yes, that makes sense. And this is one of those cases where it was not just coincidental that Saudi Arabia and OPEC lowered prices and increased supply.
The perception, especially among investors, hedgers, and speculators, of a coming slowdown has also contributed to declining oil prices. Even if not a full-blown recession, slower global growth is still anticipated. Slower growth means lower oil demand, which further translates into lower prices. We are seeing price declines driven by supply increases (OPEC and producers) and demand expectations (market sentiment).
That combination is unusual. Typically, if there is a fear that demand will decline, producers restrict supply—they do not increase it. But people are not abstract, perfectly rational decision-makers. They make seemingly irrational decisions all the time, which also shapes how the economic system plays out.
People make irrational decisions, but there is also something to be said about crowd theory. You know, where you get a thousand people to guess the weight of a cow, and the average guess ends up being surprisingly accurate.
Jacobsen: The wisdom of crowds?
Schulman: Yes, that is the better way of phrasing it—the wisdom of crowds. So yes, sometimes that comes into play too.
Jacobsen: Now, there was a former Colombian customs official, Omar Ambuila. He was sentenced to more than twelve years in prison for accepting over a million dollars in bribes tied to a money laundering conspiracy that involved corrupt U.S. DEA agents. How often does this happen?
Schulman: I do not know how often that happens. Not very. But —this is the kind of thing that feels like something out of a movie.
Jacobsen: U.S. authorities reportedly became suspicious when Ambuila’s daughter showcased an extravagant lifestyle on social media—completely inconsistent with the family’s modest income.
Schulman: That is not too unusual, in the sense that criminals have been caught because of flashy spending, or family members posting online. But when it comes to specifically customs officials, particularly in a cross-border case involving the U.S. and Colombia, it is probably rare, though certainly plausible. It has that cinematic feel, but with real-world consequences.
Jacobsen: Two items out of Europe. First, Ukraine may be considering a move from referencing the U.S. dollar to the euro in its monetary policy. Second, Europe is preparing reforms to absorb redirected global investments, so a significant shift in capital flows and corresponding financial reforms to strengthen its markets. Thoughts or analysis? Two questions, I suppose: (1) Ukraine possibly shifting from the dollar to the euro; and (2) Europe undertaking financial reforms in response to redirected global capital flows.
Schulman: If Ukraine replaces the dollar with the euro, it will likely use it as a reference currency initially. But that really should not come as a surprise. Ukraine has made its intentions clear—they want to join the European Union. And countries that join the EU generally adopt the euro over time.
So, if you think about it in that A-to-B-to-C progression, it makes sense. This move to reference the euro is a logical first step in aligning their monetary system with European institutions. It is a way of saying, “We are on the path to full EU integration.” Aligning their currency reference now helps make that transition smoother down the line and it should not be interpreted as a snub against the U.S. dollar.
To become part of the European Union, you want to walk the walk, talk the talk, and take steps that align with future integration. So Ukraine deepening its financial and regulatory ties with the EU—aligning policy with the euro—tightens that linkage. It makes sense.
They still intend to keep their current currency, at least for now.
That is my understanding. You would know better than I do since you have spent time in Ukraine. But yes, they intend to keep the hryvnia until the actual switch. Aligning it with the euro in the meantime is a sensible preparatory step. And they will probably still keep their reserves diversified across the dollar, euro, and other benchmarks.
Jacobsen: One quick follow-up: You mentioned Europe realigning its financial position—not just individual countries joining the EU. So what about the broader shift in capital flows within the European Union?
Schulman: That is an important point. The big thing for the European Union, in terms of capital flows, is the new self-imposed mandate to increase defence spending. That will be a much larger part of the EU budget in the future.
Yes, initially, they will have to buy some defense equipment and weaponry from the U.S. But over time, they will aim to redirect those capital flows toward building more of that capacity on the continent—within Europe itself. To do that, they will need to finance it, and I doubt they will cut social spending to make room for it.
So we are probably going to see either more deficits, higher taxes, or increased bond issuance—some way to finance the expanded defence spending.
Jacobsen: Michael, thank you very much.
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): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/05
Jeff Le is a policy expert and commentator on Canadian governance. Le highlights the economic challenges and cautious optimism in early 2025 under Prime Minister Mark Carney. He notes consumer confidence, trade tensions with the U.S., and a recalibrated cabinet focused on innovation, housing, and economic growth. Carney’s pragmatic approach, strengthened by bipartisan U.S. support and legal wins on tariffs, is balanced by bold reforms and complex trade and climate dynamics. Le emphasizes the importance of reducing interprovincial barriers, increasing supply chain resilience, and engaging First Nations in infrastructure projects to sustain investor confidence and national development.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Which early indicators reflect the initial economic impact of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government?
Jeff Le: Among the most important indicators is consumer confidence. Canadians at the start of 2025 showed concerns over a stagnant economy and a deepening trade crisis with the United States. While there is still caution from consumers, circumstances have improved especially after the Prime Minister’s successful visit to Washington where he was able to maintain a strong stance against the White House and Trump administration. With that said, consumers understand that uncertainty could lead to a higher cost of living with potential inflation increases, as evidenced by the 2025 first quarter of the Bank of Canada’s Canadian Survey of Consumer Expectations.
Jacobsen: How does Carney’s stance against the U.S. tariffs compare to past Canadian approaches?
Le: The Prime Minister’s stance is less the policy difference when it comes to its handling of the United States and trade negotiations with the Trump administration. The Prime Minister’s Ivy League background and banking experience fit more of President Trump’s preferences compared to Mr. Trudeau where their relationship was fractious from the start in 2017, only worsening from there. How President Trump treated the Prime Minister during his Washington visit was starkly different, instead of calling Canada the 51st state.
Another benefit that Mr. Carney has on trade and tariffs has been the United States courts. Canada’s tariffs have been challenged in lawsuits with the Trump administration facing two different setbacks – the U.S. Court of International Trade ruling that the tariffs had exceeded presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. While the White House earned some respite with some reinstated tariffs, it appears that the court later this month could issue a longer-term pause.
Mr. Carney also benefits from some bipartisan support from Congress. On a recent bilateral delegation led by U.S. Senators Shaheen (D-NH) and Cramer (R-ND), the delegation highlighted the need to strengthen the Canadian-American partnership. Mr. Cramer has close ties to President Trump and his support of easing of tensions could go a long way. What also could help is growing resistance in both the U.S. House and Senate for authorizing tariffs through Congress.
The U.S. courts and the legislative branches may help reduce risk for the Prime Minister.
Jacobsen: What policy tool is the newly strengthened Industry Ministry prioritizing?
Le: Having a powerhouse in Innovation, Science and Economic Development like Minister Joly highlights stronger focus on key industries. Her effort on shoring up Canadian metals, such as aluminum and steel, for Canadian national infrastructure and defense projects. She has also highlighted the value of timber and rare earth metals and the connection with jobs and production.
One policy tool that is being used is a focus on Canadian supply chain, prioritizing Buy Canada in procurement. In other countries, such efforts do have challenges, including potential slowdowns in production, reforms in procurement, and a challenge in centralizing certain vendors, which could add more overreliance and vendor lock. This has been the case in the United States and has posed challenges in overcoming incumbents in contracting.
Certifications may also pose a problem for procurement and waivers, or a legal change may be required. There is risk, but if the Government can reduce interprovincial trade barriers, this payoff could exceed the implementation challenges and add more resilience.
Jacobsen: What are the government’s benchmarks for reducing interprovincial trade barriers?
Le: One important benchmark for the Government will be whether the federal government and provincial governments can pass legislation to reduce barriers and eliminate its various exemptions. The Prime Minister had called for legislation to be finalized by July 1, which is expected to be well-received in Parliament. Interprovincial trade barriers are more challenging, as this will challenge market incumbents, but any nation-building projects must allow for more economic integration. Steps from five provinces, from Nova Scotia to Quebec, highlight the seriousness of economic decline and action taken from President Trump’s threats. Quebec’s efforts, most notable, given their heavier regulations and data flows challenges, shows that the politics has been seen as timely for action. The MOUs that provinces have been working on also have helped, as seen on Ontario’s recent agreement with Albert and Edward Island.
Building a Canada Strong approach, as outlined in the Speech from the Throne, centers an increase in economic activity and a reduction in inflationary elements, with major project streamlining. The emphasis on costs to Canadian families, especially on housing, is a powerful example of how the Government is focused on tangible, albeit very ambitious benchmarks for success in driving supply up and costs down. If the Government is successful in reducing the $200 billion in interprovincial trade barriers costs, the combination of savings plus the reduction in federal budget spending could lead to deeper technology and innovation investments that could help a stagnant economy grow.
A key challenge – can Canada deliver on streamlining major projects, such as widespread infrastructure improvements, such as roads through the Slave Geological Province to expand prospective mineral extraction. Additional pipeline projects, including those in the Ontario Ring of Fire could help these efforts, but there is a challenge in balancing climate commitments. It is a stretch that the Prime Minister would be willing to get rid of gas emissions standards and oil caps or get rid of the industrial carbon tax.
He has also asked the premiers to offer suggestions for big “nation-building” projects they would like to see built, with the goal of identifying several that can be fast-tracked. Pipelines, critical minerals projects and trade corridors are at the top of the premiers’ lists.
One area of potential threat beyond the complexities of climate are Ottawa’s relationship with First Nations that could also be strained without active negotiations and inclusion in discussions.
Jacobsen: How are foreign investors reacting to Carney’s early leadership?
Le: The challenge is less about foreign investment but rather home-grown investments, as soon in Canadian venture capital investments. Industry policies could help aid these challenges.
On the foreign investments side, there is cautious optimism assuming Canadian-American trade can work out a deal. The Canadian natural resource question will be a key one – how the Prime Minister can unlock the minerals playbook without climate backlash and as the Trump administration also looks to deregulate. One key question will be how the Prime Minister and Canada achieve their priorities at the upcoming G7 meeting in Alberta. Depending on the joint communique, this could buoy global markets, expand investor confident, and help bolster Canadian investment. It will be the start of their plans to make Canada the strongest economy in the G7, which could include the increased defense and military spending by 2030.
Jacobsen: What does the composition of Carney’s cabinet suggest about continuity and reform?
Le: The Prime Minister’s Cabinet reflects his pragmatism. As a first-time elected official, the May Cabinet has a stronger mix of experience but seeing immigration, energy, and housing with first-time ministers is an important effort at a break from unpopular Trudeau government shortcomings and an opportunity to energize the economic agenda. The boldness at housing and energy serve as key litmus tests for success. Experienced hands in Joly, Freeland, and LeBlanc serve as the economic and Canada Strong tip of the spear. Another question which has not received as much attention will be how artificial intelligence and digital innovation is accelerated under Minister Solomon.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Jeff.
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): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/04
Part 1 of 2
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser is a Syrian American physician, U.S. Navy veteran, and co-founder of the Clarity Coalition (Champions for Liberty Against the Reality of Islamist Tyranny). A leading voice for Muslim reform, he advocates for secular governance, universal human rights, and freedom of belief. He founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and co-launched the Muslim Reform Movement. Jasser challenges political Islam and theocratic ideologies, promoting liberty through public discourse and civic engagement. Alongside Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Yasmine Mohammed, he empowers reformers to confront extremism while defending the rights and freedoms foundational to Western democratic societies.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Dr. Zuhdi Jasser. He is one of the co-founders of the Clarity Coalition, or Champions for Liberty Against the Reality of Islamist Tyranny. He is an internationally recognized Muslim reformer, physician, and human rights advocate committed to defending secularism, liberal democracy, and universal human rights. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Yasmine Mohammed also founded the coalition. It confronts theocratic ideologies, political Islam, and blasphemy laws while promoting freedom of speech, gender equality, and freedom of belief.
Through public education, conferences, and advocacy, the Clarity Coalition offers a bold, principled response to rising extremism. It strives to empower voices that champion reform and challenge religious authoritarianism. Thank you very much for joining me today, Zuhdi. I appreciate it.
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser: It is great to be with you, Scott. Thank you.
Jacobsen: So, why the Clarity Coalition? Because we have already covered the what.
Jasser: When you look at history, it is doomed to repeat itself unless you learn its lessons. We are in a time of global transformation. As the son of immigrants—my family escaped Syria in the mid-sixties—I understood what Western democracy was all about, especially the American version, which ties national identity to the principles of the Constitution and the rule of law. In America, there is no singular race that defines national identity. It is a nation of immigrants united by a shared social contract.
If you look at the founding of America, it was a rebellion against theocracy. Islam has not undergone that internal revolution. It is 1,445 years old and is currently struggling against entrenched theocratic establishments. After 9/11, I founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy—not to fight the symptom of terrorism, but to address the root cause: the ideological disease of political Islam, the concept of the Islamic state. My goal was to defeat that idea.
Later, I found others across Canada, Europe, and elsewhere working on similar initiatives. Together, we launched the Muslim Reform Movement in December 2015. While it is still, in many ways, a startup effort, we face a global Islamic establishment backed by petro-authoritarian regimes with trillions of dollars and deeply entrenched organizational infrastructure.
As we struggled to gain traction, we reflected on the 20th century. One of the West’s most effective strategies to counter Soviet communism was to form coalitions, such as the Committee on the Present Danger—a network of think tanks, activists, and policymakers who understood the threat posed by the USSR.
So, I thought: the Muslim Reform Movement is part of the answer, but the rest includes many groups working to counter jihad, al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, and theocratic Shia movements—all of which are metastases of the same pathological cancer: theocracy within Islam. That is how we decided to form this broader coalition. CLARITY stands for Champions for Liberty Against the Reality of Islamist Tyranny. As a Muslim, I understood that it is not enough to simply be against something—you have to articulate and organize around what you are for.
If you want to defeat drug addiction, you cannot simply work against drug addiction. You have to give kids and addicts other things they want to do to become successful citizens. So it’s about liberty. It’s about championing freedom to defeat political Islam or Islamist tyranny. And that coalition has grown. If you go to our website, you’ll see several individuals there—women’s rights activists, gay rights activists, social activists, free marketeers—others who all share one thing: an understanding that jihadists and political Islamists are not compatible with Western society as we know it.
A Further Inquiry is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Jacobsen: Do you rank order any of these stipulated values around universal human rights, secular governance, freedom of speech, and belief? Or do you take these less as a random assembly and more as a unified patchwork?
Jasser: That’s a great question. If you look at our founding meeting—where that language came from—it looks terrific and easy to say and talk about, but it took us quite a bit of time to agree on what that language should be. Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) includes many core principles we all agree on, but some aspects were debated. For example, we spoke with British individuals who pointed out that the U.K. does not have a formal constitution, so codifying these things can be difficult. But ultimately, it is all about freedom and liberty.
I will tell you—I have my rank order. In that regard, I cannot speak on behalf of the coalition, but to me, the most important thing is free speech. Secular governance is probably the second most important. Liberty is a principle that is derived from those two. If you do not have free speech, and if you do not believe in secular governance—yes, you can believe in a society under God—but unless you think that human beings should be able to, through a separation of powers, create their laws, then you can never win an argument against people who believe they are invoking God’s law.
So, my two pivotal elements are free speech and secular governance. As Voltaire—or whoever said it—reminded us, the most harsh and offensive speech needs defending. Moderate speech is uncontroversial. But it is the voices on the fringes of society, those who say the most provocative things, who are the real test of that right.
Jacobsen: Which majority-Muslim society—if not in leadership or official hierarchy, then in public opinion surveys—seems to imbibe these values most?
Jasser: That’s a good question. For instance, even in Saudi Arabia, surveys show that around 5% of the population identifies as atheist. So, while that is not publicly acknowledged or visible, it tells us something about the underlying currents in society.
There are 56 Muslim-majority countries on the planet, and there is not a single one I would prefer to live in over any Western country. None of them imbibe a culture grounded in the Western understanding of liberty and individual rights. That is why our Clarity Coalition exists. At its core, it is about preserving the West, because Western societies—our countries—offer a unique postmodern environment where we can practice our faith more freely than in any Muslim-majority country.
That said, you are right. If you look at the Pew polls, many of them show that a significant portion of Muslims support Sharia-based laws that are incompatible with universal human rights. For example, in countries like Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq, 80 to 90 percent of Muslims believe that if someone leaves Islam, they should be killed. That is a litmus test for identifying an ideology fundamentally incompatible with Western modernity.
Those numbers drop to around 40 percent in countries like Indonesia or among Muslims in India. India is not a Muslim-majority country, but it has the largest Muslim population in the world, about 200 million people. Indonesia is the largest Muslim-majority country in terms of population.
If you look at Iran, for instance, it has one of the fastest-growing atheist populations in the world. It also has one of the largest populations of Muslims leaving Islam. To me, as someone who has a close, orthodox relationship with God, that is a red flag for Muslims. If we do not figure out how to prevent the faith from turning into a cult, we will lose it in a few generations. A cult, by definition, is a belief system where leaving the faith is met with death. And tragically, that is currently the majority opinion among many Muslims globally.
Those ideas must be debated publicly. Consider Saudi Arabia: it positions itself as an ally of America, yet the country is effectively an open-air prison. This is a profound issue that needs to be addressed.
The reason I bring up Iran is because it is the ripest country, in my view, to overthrow a theocratic regime within the next ten years. The theocrats are on the defensive. The reason they are causing so much mayhem across the Middle East is precisely because they are on the verge of a massive revolution.
If that revolution happens, it will be a monumental victory for anti-theocrats. Many Iranians had buyer’s remorse just months after the 1979 revolution. They wanted to get rid of the Shah because they viewed him as a dictator, and they hoped an Islamic government would bring religious and personal freedom. Instead, it was a massive step backward—even worse than the Shah’s dictatorship.
These movements—what the media called the Arab Spring in 2011—were more of an Arab Awakening. Yes, they have been chaotic. But in the long run, they represent progress. Even if messy, they are a step forward.
As a Syrian American, I will tell you—as much as 800,000 Syrians lost their lives in the Syrian revolution—it has still been a step forward. You do not get rid of theocracy easily. If you talk to patients who have gone through aggressive cancer treatment, some die, some end up in palliative care, and some recover completely. It is similar when it comes to getting rid of theocracy. These populations will often endure significant loss of life in the process.
If you look at the Western experience in building democracy, take the Thirty Years’ War in Europe against theocrats—10 million people died over three decades. That is roughly where Islam is now. It is going through that same painful reckoning, where theocrats are being slowly pushed back.
What is remarkable to me is that, despite this oppressive environment, there is a growing percentage of Muslims who harbour anti-theocratic ideas. Much of that is thanks to social media. And that is why regimes like Saudi Arabia work so hard to control social networks. If you look at the top ten Twitter influencers in Saudi Arabia, many of them are radicals—Wahhabi or al-Qaeda–style voices.
Why would a government that claims to oppose al-Qaeda allow its most extreme elements to dominate public discourse? The answer is simple: that is how dictators retain power. They create fear and chaos to justify their military authority. Assad did the same thing in Syria. He suppressed moderate thinkers under the pretext of fighting ISIS, while doing very little actually to combat ISIS.
It was ultimately the U.S. military under General Mattis that dismantled ISIS, not Assad. Assad often empowered them, just as the Egyptian government empowered the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a pattern. Country after country, we see extremists being enabled so that moderates, free thinkers, and critical inquiry—what your show promotes—cannot exist. Open conversation is suppressed.
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): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/04
Dialogue conducted May 9th, 2025, Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Irina Tsukerman, a human rights and national security attorney, on pressing global issues. They discuss the implications of Pope Leo XIV’s centrist leadership, the resurgence of liberation theology, and the Church’s evolving role in international politics. Tsukerman critiques U.S. immigration practices under the Trump administration, particularly deportations to unstable regions like Libya and Ukraine. The conversation also explores media freedom in Greece, disinformation campaigns, and the line between journalism and foreign political interference. Tsukerman emphasizes the need for moderation, institutional integrity, and strong global leadership to address rising authoritarian trends. Interview conducted May 9, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here for the inaugural session of the Everywhere Insiders, with Irina Tsukerman, a human rights and national security attorney, political analyst, media strategist, and activist. She is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, a platform dedicated to in-depth policy and security analysis. The antonymized name of this session draws inspiration from her work and platform.
Tsukerman is known for extensively writing on disinformation, information warfare, counterterrorism, and geopolitical dynamics. Her work has appeared in Newsweek, Modern Diplomacy, Legal Insurrection, and other outlets. Her analyses have been translated into more than a dozen languages, and she has been featured across global media platforms, including Fox Business, i24 News, and Al Arabiya. She has also participated in discussions and programs affiliated with institutions such as the United Nations and George Mason University.
Tsukerman holds a Bachelor of Arts in International and Intercultural Studies with a concentration in the Middle East from Fordham University and her Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law. She is admitted to the New York State Bar and a member of the American Bar Association and the New York City Bar Association. She also serves as a fellow at the Arabian Peninsula Institute’s Center for Security and Foreign Affairs.
Let us move on to current developments. We have a new pope—Pope Leo XIV. Based on my analysis, he appears moderate and centrist on many issues, while remaining a theological and cultural traditionalist. I do not expect significant changes on topics such as marriage or LGBTQIA+ rights. However, I foresee increased dialogue, openness, and a diffusion of authority, rather than a continuation of rigid centralization.
Tsukerman: I agree—100%. It is interesting because many people are trying to analyze his past, especially during his time in Chicago. Some claim he did not engage extensively in interfaith dialogue, particularly with Jewish groups. However, that may not be a reflection of his values but rather of institutional norms. Some academic and religious institutions prioritize interfaith engagement, but those efforts often stem from specific theological traditions. For instance, Jesuits are known for promoting interreligious dialogue, but this pope is not a Jesuit, so we should not necessarily expect that same focus from him.
Others have interpreted his comments on J.D. Vance’s view of Christianity as signalling support for pro-immigration or pro-undocumented immigrant policies. I do not see it that way. Vance’s remarks could be interpreted far more broadly. When the pope, still a cardinal, responded, I believe he was not addressing immigration per se. Instead, he criticized Vance’s invocation of theology in a way that appeared opportunistic, self-serving, and unsupported by core doctrine.
Many people are trying to infer political statesmanship or partisan alignment from theological arguments that the new pope is making—arguments that are not necessarily aligned with party politics in the United States or anywhere else. That said, I agree with the general assessment. The way theology and dogma play out in the real world, outside of Vatican inner circles and specific theological doctrines mainly affecting devout Catholics, will be interesting to observe. However, I do not expect him to be as politically involved or outspoken on specific political conflicts and issues as Pope Francis was. I see him as someone who will make broader theological commentary when warranted, but avoid getting directly entangled in political debates.
Some people also read his experiences in Peru as a sign of excessive leftism, but that is a misinterpretation. People forget that one of the Church’s longstanding roles has been to minister to the poor. The fact that he has done this well is a positive sign, not an ideological statement. Pope Francis was heavily influenced by liberation theology and had a concrete intellectual formation in Argentina. On the other hand, Pope Leo was educated elsewhere and shows no apparent signs of embracing liberation theology, at least based on his public writings.
He is also not particularly focused on publishing; he is much more of a hands-on, pastoral priest, which is quite different from some of his predecessors. That could benefit, particularly regarding administration—he may be better equipped to address longstanding problems such as financial mismanagement. Just consider the recent reports of $500,000 found in a paper bag—something that sounds like it came straight out of The Conclave movie—and the ongoing sex abuse scandals.
I have seen at least one accusation claiming that he turned a blind eye to sex abuse cases while in Chicago. However, I have no way of knowing whether that is true, or whether the person making the accusation, who appeared deeply traumatized, was projecting personal pain or expecting something beyond what the then-cardinal had the power to address. I do not know.
What I can say is that this pattern—where popes are perceived as protecting the institution rather than directly confronting abuse—has been seen before. How these matters are handled in practice varies: some predators may be quietly reassigned or removed, while others may be an example in a public way. What is clear is that something decisive must be done. Leadership on this issue must come from the top. That said, it remains a problematic issue, and much remains uncertain.
Ultimately, people must stop projecting their political preferences onto a religious institution. It will not behave in a way that aligns cleanly with contemporary political categories. Many religiously conservative Catholic leaders may be seen as progressive when it comes to economic issues, and many reform-minded leaders who support the role of women within the Church can still hold very conservative views on other topics, such as LGBTQ issues, because they see those positions as consistent with Church authority and tradition.
Jacobsen: I would not necessarily make firm predictions based on a few isolated comments he has made. You raise very complex and nuanced points. One area worth noting is Latin America’s broader and compelling religious and political history, including connections to Portugal and Spain, not just Central and South America.
As you mentioned, with Pope Francis, interest was resurgent in the social teachings of the Gospels, particularly through the lens of liberation theology, emphasizing care for the poor and marginalized. Some of the key thinkers in that movement were tragically assassinated in the context of political repression, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s.
An interesting parallel is that many liberation theology–inspired programs, while rooted in Christian ethics, can be interpreted in secular terms. For example, António Guterres—now Secretary-General of the United Nations and formerly Prime Minister of Portugal—has supported policies such as decriminalizing drug use. These initiatives reflect a compassionate, public-health approach rather than punitive moralism, aligning in many ways with the ethos of liberation theology, even though Guterres’ religious views are less publicly emphasized.
Regarding the current pope, it is notable that he spent roughly a third of his life in Peru. That Latin American background places him within a theological and cultural context that has repeatedly given rise to socially engaged Christian thought. Whether explicitly theological or translated into secular governance models, this tradition continues to influence global leaders in meaningful ways.
We may be seeing an inflection point here. The current pope is only 69 years old—a relatively young age for a pontiff—and could remain in office for a decade or even two with access to excellent healthcare. That is significant, especially if he maintains a centrist and traditional theological approach during global cultural uncertainty. That continuity and steadiness could be a valuable anchor for Catholics and international observers.
Tsukerman: From what I have heard, one reason he was selected, despite being viewed as a long-shot candidate, was precisely this perceived ability to provide stability. Some even interpreted his election as a subtle message rejecting the kind of extremism that gained traction under Donald Trump, including certain expressions of politicized Catholicism that emerged in that period.
His election also conveyed that while certain ideological expressions may be rejected, the United States is not. American leadership remains central within the global Catholic community and broader international relations. His papacy could represent an effort to reaffirm transatlantic ties, emphasizing cooperation over polarization.
Thought the conclave was looking for a unifying, centrist figure. There has been a great deal of speculation, much of it unfounded. For instance, some extremist voices, like Laura Loomer—who is not even Catholic—, have called him a “Marxist pope,” which I found bizarre. Many conservatives argue that the government should not be a social safety net provider and that private institutions and local communities should handle such responsibilities.
So, why would that not be welcomed if the Catholic Church stepped into that traditional charitable role and alleviated the burden on governments? Especially by those who have (rightfully) criticized the Church for corruption, should they not be encouraged if someone is actively addressing the needs of the vulnerable in both a personal and leadership capacity? That is the best possible response to institutional criticisms. Calling him a Marxist for returning to the Church’s foundational mission and vision—for acting as a religious institution should—seems deeply contradictory.
Unless, of course, one is conflating the Church with the U.S. Supreme Court. Even when rooted in tradition, judicial philosophy does not automatically translate into support for executive or legislative policies. If people expect the pope to act like a typical head of state, they fundamentally misunderstand the nature of his role. Church doctrine will never neatly align with the constantly shifting demands of politics or with current ideological trends.
Hopefully, there is something more Catholic, the small “c” sense—more timeless and universal about religious doctrine than the upheavals of the political moment. That is, after all, one of the central reasons religious institutions exist: to offer a separate moral and spiritual trajectory apart from the volatility of political life.
If Pope Leo turns out to be the centrist, unifying figure many hope he will be, that would be a profoundly positive development. Right now, there has been far too much infighting. On the far-right, some traditionalist factions are openly promoting extreme and even bigoted candidates—figures whose views stray far from Catholic theological orthodoxy and veer into outright hate. Some of these traditionalists have even called for a return to Catholic monarchies—systems that were historically disastrous, not only for religious minorities, but also for many Catholics themselves.
These monarchs often ruin their nations through unnecessary wars and authoritarian rule. On the far left, meanwhile, you have individuals who appear to misunderstand religious tradition entirely, confusing emotional compassion and political activism for authentic spiritual practice. That confusion has contributed to alienation and the exodus of many from the Church, who return to purely political frameworks.
Of course, political engagement is legitimate. However, apart from secular political agendas, if people do not recognize the intrinsic value of religious tradition within the Church, the Church will continue to lose relevance and coherence. Moderation is essential, not only to preserve tradition, but also to adapt it meaningfully to the challenges of the modern world. Those include difficulties with recruitment, outreach in Western nations, and dialogue with the so-called Global South and vulnerable populations more broadly.
A centrist pope offers flexibility—he can bridge these divides and promote dialogue across varied constituencies, each with different realities, lived experiences, and challenges. Facilitating that dialogue into a more coherent and inclusive conversation would be a powerful and much-needed legacy. So yes, I sincerely hope that if anything lasting comes from this election, it is that legacy of unity, dialogue, and compassionate leadership.
Even if this papacy is not marked by major geopolitical battles or confrontations with ideological enemies, like communism under Pope John Paul II, even if it focuses primarily on building better, more positive relationships, that alone would be a tremendous achievement. The central challenge of our time is the growing lack of understanding, the absence of dialogue, and the erosion of empathy for people with different perspectives and life experiences. It would be deeply significant if fostering that kind of engagement becomes Pope Leo’s legacy,
Jacobsen: Let me pivot briefly to something more urgent—concerns around potential U.S. government plans to deport migrants to Libya. As you know, Libya has a long and well-documented history of human rights abuses against migrants. These include arbitrary detention, torture, extortion, rape, murder—and even reports of bizarre mistreatment, such as forced feeding under inhumane conditions. What is your assessment of the legal and ethical issues here, especially given your background as a human rights attorney?
Tsukerman: Libya is currently a volatile and fractured country. It is divided among competing governments, militia factions, and tribal authorities, with significant sectarian divisions. Foreign powers—particularly Russia and Turkey—exploit the conflict for their strategic interests, further complicating the situation. Corruption is rampant, and the country faces massive economic and infrastructure challenges.
Some regions within Libya are reportedly engaging in the enslavement of migrants. To be clear, not all Libyans support or participate in these practices—not at all—but there are localized areas where such human rights violations are taking place. It is horrifying. On top of that, Libya is being used as a proxy front in broader migration-related conflicts, with disruptive flows intentionally created to destabilize Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. Geographically, Libya’s position at the crossroads of these regions makes it especially vulnerable to being weaponized in that way.
So why, under the Trump administration, anyone thought deporting vulnerable individuals—many of whom are not African and have no connection to the region—was a sound or moral policy is beyond comprehension. It appears intentional and designed to make a point by choosing the most unstable and dangerous destinations possible. From what we have seen, these deportees are Asian migrants who have no ties to North Africa. Sending them to a country where they are at even greater risk makes no logical sense.
If the goal were truly safe repatriation, or even just temporary relocation, the most reasonable approach would have been to make arrangements with a stable country in Asia—one closer to their country of origin—where proper infrastructure exists for processing, protection, and possibly reintegration. Instead, what happened was a list of unpredictable, high-risk destinations that are entirely inappropriate and disconnected from the migrants’ actual backgrounds.
In both legal and humanitarian terms, it is indefensible. This is not just poor policy; it signals gross negligence or deliberate cruelty. The plan was to send Asian migrants to Libya—despite the apparent dangers—and then another group, of unclear background, was slated for deportation to Saudi Arabia, which was reportedly not pleased about it. Even more astonishingly, yet another group was set to be deported to Ukraine—of all places.
These were not Ukrainian migrants. They were Latino migrants whom the Trump administration had considered sending to a war zone. Most Ukrainians do not speak Spanish, and most Latin American migrants do not speak Ukrainian, Russian, or English. The cultural, linguistic, and geopolitical mismatch was extreme, especially considering that Ukraine is in an active state of war.
It is unclear why the administration chose such unsuitable destinations instead of negotiating with relatively stable countries that could use financial support and were better equipped to receive migrants. However, it appears to have been a deliberate power play—a form of deterrence. The message seemed to be: if you cross into the United States illegally, not only will you be deported, but you will be punished by being sent to a completely foreign and potentially hostile environment. It was meant to instill fear.
Moreover, there is a second layer—it also seemed like a power move aimed at the receiving countries. Libya, for example, does not have a unified government. It has two competing governments and is in no position to negotiate. Dumping migrants into such a fractured state is not part of a serious diplomatic or humanitarian strategy. It is a show of brute force—saying, “We will offload whomever we wish, and what are you going to do about it?”
These migrants—many from warm, tropical regions—would be placed in foreign climates, with no knowledge of the language, no social support, and no legal protections. They could be abducted by militias, detained, abused, or killed by actors like the Russians or Turks operating on the ground. It is a gross violation of U.S. international obligations, and it reflects profoundly on the moral image of the United States.
I have never heard of any other country taking such steps. Many countries enforce strict border controls, but they do not load families onto military planes and send them across the globe to completely unsuitable and dangerous locations. That is not immigration enforcement—it is pointless cruelty designed to project fear and demonstrate impunity.
The message was clear: “We can do whatever we want, to whomever we want.” Even if this segment is short, it is essential. It speaks volumes about the weaponization of immigration policy, not as law enforcement, but as theatre of punishment.
Jacobsen: In Fangak County, South Sudan, there was what appears to be a deliberate and potentially war-crime-level act: an aerial bombing that killed at least seven people and injured more than 20. The target was a facility run by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)—Doctors Without Borders—including a hospital and pharmacy. This attack was condemned by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan. Any thoughts on this?
Tsukerman: Unfortunately, this kind of abuse and violence against medical personnel in conflict zones is becoming increasingly common. I do not see how such attacks can be reliably prevented without sufficient security or accountability mechanisms. Operating in active conflict areas is becoming ever more dangerous.
More broadly, I observe an alarming trend of renewed global fragmentation and sectarianism. After a period in which violence declined and sectarian confrontations became more political and less militant, we are now witnessing a reversal. Incidents like this bombing reflect a larger global pattern. As new flashpoints emerge, without any clear resolution, accountability, or coordinated pathway to reconstruction or reconciliation, other vulnerable regions become susceptible to similar outbreaks of violence.
The lack of consequences emboldens violent groups. Rather than pursuing diplomatic, legal, or political avenues to resolve disputes, they resort to armed conflict. What is especially troubling is the absence of strong leadership from the international community, the United Nations, the United States, or other potential stabilizing powers. There is no coherent strategy to protect humanitarian workers or medical personnel from these extrajudicial attacks.
We need more than deterrence. We need visible support. Strong messages must be sent to would-be perpetrators and those risking their lives to provide aid. As it stands, we are failing to protect the most essential actors in humanitarian crises.
Jacobsen: So, let us talk about Greece and the deterioration of media freedom there, particularly since the New Democracy government came to power in July 2019. A recent human rights report accuses the government of creating a hostile environment for independent media and journalists from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Highlights include harassment, intimidation, surveillance, and abusive lawsuits, all of which are known to lead to self-censorship and undermine the free press. As a media figure yourself, what are your thoughts?
Tsukerman: As an American media professional, I believe in fostering as much media freedom and open dialogue as possible. The best way to challenge bad ideas is with better ones, not censorship. Combatting harmful platforms requires factual, clear, and accessible communication rather than suppression.
When journalists are intimidated into silence—whether by lawsuits, surveillance, or threats—it erodes not just press freedom but democracy itself. We are seeing this pattern not only in Greece but across the world. Governments are learning to weaponize legal tools, digital surveillance, and even social media manipulation to stifle dissent under the guise of order or national interest.
The solution lies in strengthening journalistic resilience, protecting whistleblowers, supporting independent media, and encouraging information literacy among the public. A vibrant press is a cornerstone of any democratic society. Once you weaken it, everything else begins to fall apart. Frankly, when I encounter hostile or disinformation-driven media sources, my first instinct is not to censor them, but to render them irrelevant by creating better, fact-based alternatives. The goal should be to avoid giving them additional grievances, platforms, or marketing value. That said, not every place is like the United States.
In Greece, the situation is more precarious. There are active political operations and foreign-directed disinformation campaigns that are significantly more destabilizing than what we have seen, so far, in the U.S., and that is saying something, given the high levels of pro-Russian influence and even penetration into high levels of the U.S. government in recent years.
However, even under those extreme circumstances in the U.S., the average citizen does not feel the same immediate, on-the-ground impact as people in Greece. In Greece, hostile foreign actors operate directly within the country, in ways that are not happening in the U.S., at least not with the same physical presence or intensity.
One primary reason for this difference is the relative strength of American law enforcement and institutional infrastructure. We have historically had better mechanisms for tracking illicit funding, investigating foreign influence, and taking action to mitigate these threats. That infrastructure—though now under strain—has served us well.
Greece, by contrast, has experienced extended periods of economic instability and lacks the same level of resources or institutional resilience. Its financial capacity is not comparable to that of the United States. So it becomes significantly harder to respond effectively when you combine economic grievances, underfunded public institutions, and limited experience dealing with complex foreign interference.
It is a far more challenging environment from a logistical and practical standpoint. It also makes the erosion of media freedom and public trust all the more dangerous. Regarding media confrontations, I am not entirely convinced that shutting down a foreign-funded outfit that exists solely to spread propaganda constitutes an infringement on press freedom. If an outlet is funded by a foreign government and its core mission is to defame local authorities, spread conspiracy theories, or incite violence. It no longer functions as a legitimate media organization but as a political operation. Moreover, political operations are not entitled to the same media protections.
That is very different from an outlet with a political spin that publishes controversial opinions or presents legitimate criticisms of the government, particularly when those critiques come from domestic opposition. However, when that opposition operates with the backing or coordination of foreign entities, the discussion shifts entirely.
Now, I am not saying governments cannot go too far. There is always a risk of authoritarian overreach, where governments become paranoid and begin targeting legitimate opposition under the guise of fighting foreign interference. However, based on my experience with risk and intelligence-related issues, I suspect there is more foreign meddling, corruption, and covert funding behind the scenes than most people realize.
It is easy to cite statistics—how many media outlets are being surveilled or shut down—and immediately conclude there is repression. However, we need to look at each case in its full context. Are these domestic and independent media platforms? Or are they fronts for foreign political operations?
Is there concrete evidence tying them to hostile foreign actors? Is the surveillance or restriction justified, or is it arbitrary and abusive? These are nuanced questions; we must approach them with granularity, not sweeping generalizations.
Many extremist and foreign-affiliated groups count on the fact that most international audiences will not do a deep dive into these cases. They know most people will not investigate things like media transparency reports or explore whether an outlet is an actual journalistic enterprise, a foreign PR firm, or worse, a troll factory.
We have seen this in the U.S.—for example, the FBI later revealed a so-called media company in Tennessee to be a Russian disinformation front, set up to undermine public trust. At first glance, someone outside the U.S. might ask, “Why is the FBI shutting down a private media business?” However, once you look into the case, it becomes clear that foreign funding and coordination were involved, which justified legal action.
Similarly, what we see happening in Greece may follow that pattern. It is essential to examine the specifics—who is involved, where the funding comes from, and what their activities entail—and then assess how the United States and the European Union might be able to help. The goal should be to protect Greece’s sovereignty, ensure media freedom, and preserve platforms for legitimate criticism while addressing foreign interference.
Jacobsen: Irina, thank you for this first session of the inaugural Everywhere Insiders series. I appreciate your time and insights.
Tsukerman: Thank you so much. This was great.
Jacobsen: I am curious to see how this evolves. It sounds like the beginning of a very engaging conversational news show.
Tsukerman: Absolutely.
Jacobsen: Thank you again.
Tsukerman: Take care.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/23
Can sharp dialogue outpace bad economics and smarter monsters?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner juggle craft and crisis. Rosner laments stalled co-writing with Carole, a brutal publishing landscape, and an idle agent, while praising their dialogue instincts. On politics, Donald Trump’s tariffs win a 213–211 House nod; Rosner cites Herbert Hoover and Smoot-Hawley as a warning, and notes security funding hikes, a near-complete Epstein-files petition, and data showing right-wing violence eclipses left. In culture, Alien: Earth’s “The Fly” teases smarter creatures; flies reportedly feed on electronics as Wendy bonds with a juvenile xenomorph. Finally, Gavin Newsom’s sharper messaging contrasts GOP spin, and “xeno xenophobia” lands the joke.
Rick Rosner: Carole and I have seen a ton of television, I’ve written for television, and we’ve both read stacks of books.
Carole and I are pretty quick to judge stories. There’s plenty of good material out there. Still, we’ve also gotten very good at predicting what comes next—the following line, the next plot twist. I honestly think our dialogue skills are as good as what you’d see on most TV shows.
We have several ideas for things we should write, but I’m unable to persuade Carole to co-write with me, and I’m too lazy to carry most of it alone. I’ve got one book in progress—lots of pages already—but I need to stitch it together into half a book and then draft the rest. Carole and I could absolutely write something strong if we both committed.
She’s hesitant, though. Our kid already has a literary agent, so maybe eventually we’ll go the “obnoxious” route and send them Carole’s full novel—about my parents’ courtship, marriage, and aftermath—alongside my half-finished one. Publishing is brutal now. You know this: traditional publishing is collapsing. It’s a disrupted industry. If you can even get an agent, that’s a gold mine. I had one year ago, but I haven’t spoken to him in more than a decade.
Carole is genuinely good—she takes writing classes, and she finishes her assignments. That’s a lot of discipline. But when it comes to pitching, she gets discouraged easily. She has to push through that. She’s already had workshop experiences where she shared her work with an agent. Still, the reality is you have to pitch dozens of people before something lands. Time’s ticking—we’re in our sixties.
Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives today, Trump’s tariff issue came up. Constitutionally, the power to impose tariffs lies with Congress, not the president. Along party lines, the House voted 213 to 211 to endorse Trump’s tariffs. I’m not sure whether the Senate has to weigh in as well, but since Republicans control it, they’ll likely back him.
That isn’t good for the U.S. economy. Historically, tariffs were a massive factor in worsening the Great Depression. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930—signed by Herbert Hoover—slapped high tariffs on imports and triggered retaliatory tariffs from other nations. Instead of helping, it deepened what had started as a recession into the worst depression in modern history. We’re doing the same thing now. It’s bad news for the economy, although it might be good news for Democrats in 2026, because tariffs that hinder growth could prompt voters to flip the House.
There was a chance the Supreme Court would save Trump from himself—and the U.S. from his tariffs—by ruling that he didn’t have the authority to impose them. But now that the House has endorsed them, I’m not sure the Court can strike them down. Economically, we’re screwed. He remains the worst president in history, and somehow keeps digging deeper.
It’s hard to beat 2020 as the worst year since World War II, but he’s making a serious run at it. Meanwhile, right-wing pundits and Republican politicians are already spinning Charlie Kirk’s murder, blaming “the left” and claiming all political violence comes from the left. That’s bullshit. The data show the opposite: roughly three-quarters of domestic terrorism in the U.S. is right-wing in origin. Another slice, maybe 10 percent, comes from Islamist extremists, and the rest from scattered left-wing violence. Not regular Muslims—just extremists.
So Republicans lie about it, liberals call them out, and then liberals get accused of being “disrespectful” to the dead. The right is eager to paint Charlie Kirk as a martyr rather than what he was: a murdered huckster.
Charlie Kirk, 31, had already amassed an estimated $12 million fortune from building Turning Point USA, selling right-wing politics on college campuses—often through racist, homophobic, and Islamophobic messaging. Since his assassination, his widow has received over $7 million in donations from supporters and pledged to expand TPUSA. Tragic, yes, but also an enormous financial windfall in less than a week.
There’s a discharge petition in the House to force release of the Epstein files. They need 218 signatures. At last count, they had 217: all Democrats plus a few Republicans. But one Democratic seat remains unfilled after a memorable election win. Republicans are dragging their feet on swearing in the winner—something they never do when it’s one of their own—because that one seat would push the petition over the line. They can’t stall forever, though. Once that Democrat is seated, the House will hit 218, and the Epstein files should be released.
Also, Republicans just voted to allocate $88 million more for member security in the House and Senate, citing the risk of violence in these overheated times.
Jacobsen: So Alien: Earth episode 6—you haven’t seen it yet?
Rosner: I’ve only seen one-sixth of it so far. I saw the spoilers. So I don’t know if this is hinted at earlier in the episode. Still, you’ll be surprised when we find out something else about one of the other bugs—particularly the flies, as per the episode title. I’ll only say one thing, but I won’t spoil anything else: these bugs feed on electronics.
Jacobsen: These creatures are way more intelligent than we’re letting on. I forgot the name of the episode.
Rosner: The Fly. You know the reference—that classic scene where a guy is stuck against the wall with the fly? I like this episode better than episode 5. This one has a little baby xenomorph, and it’s friends with Wendy. They can actually speak to each other in the alien language.
Jacobsen: I have a joke. What do you call hatred of xenomorphs?
Rosner: Xeno xenophobia, I guess.
Jacobsen: Just a bit—you got the joke. I just had a tighter version of it.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/22
Can a stumbling party, a pliable mind, and a hungry facehugger share one throughline of consequence?
In this installment, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner shelve podcast drama for life-drawing gigs and aging bodies, then pivot to politics: Democrats slump, while Gavin Newsom test-drives sharper mockery as Donald Trumptouts fantastical tariff “revenue.” Rosner argues passivity doomed 2024 and urges relentless counter-messaging ahead of 2026. A philosophical detour frames consciousness as modelable even with messy, inaccurate beliefs. Alien: Earth accelerates: Morrow blackmails Slightly, Arthur risks everything, then a facehugger dooms him; Wendy’s rapport with a juvenile xenomorph raises the stakes as Timothy Olyphant’s synthetic corrals swarms. Multiple species stir, two episodes remain, and survival looks unlikely.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Any progress on the Lance versus Rick with JD and Mark?
Rick Rosner: No, I have not been thinking about it, which has been nice. I have other things going on. I am applying to resume modelling for art classes. Because I am older, that’s a niche they like. In life drawing, they bring in older people so students can draw the realities of aging.
Carole asked me to send in a full-body photo. I discovered details I had not noticed before. My nipples used to be level, but now one is about a quarter inch lower. I knew my belly button was slightly off-center, but seeing it on camera rather than in the mirror was unsettling. It is not hugely different, but different enough to make me sigh. Rotten tomatoes.
Jacobsen: What about the Democrats? How are they doing?
Rosner: Nobody likes the Democrats. Their approval is at historic lows. But we are still a year away from the next election. There is time for opinion to shift, especially given what Republicans have done.
Trump or his team tweeted that the U.S. has made $8 trillion from tariffs. The real figure for 2025 so far is $158.8 billion—less than two percent of $8 trillion. Tariffs are a consumption tax. Importers pay the government, but they pass those costs on to consumers in the form of higher prices for cars, groceries, and other goods.
Inflation was 2.7 percent one month, 2.9 percent the next, and will likely cross three percent soon. Courts may save the U.S. from worse outcomes. An appeals court has ruled that most of Trump’s tariffs are illegal. If that ruling stands, it may prevent severe economic damage. Ironically, that could reduce the backlash against Republicans in 2026.
The Democrats are slowly adjusting, led by Gavin Newsom, who is aggressively mocking Trump’s style. That kind of aggression is what Democrats need but have not shown. They leaned back in 2024. Obama’s slogan was “hope.” Harris’s was “joy.” Instead of aggressively calling Trump a destructive figure, Democrats promised reasonable governance and sound policies. Voters were supposed to choose sanity over revenge. That strategy failed.
Now they need to be more aggressive. They have leaned back through 2025 because no elections are happening this year, and they do not control any branch of government. They reason that making noise is pointless. That is flawed reasoning. They should be laying the foundation now by openly calling Trump out. Social media is full of people doing this, but leadership must do it too—through ridicule, direct attacks, and aggressive campaigning—to prepare for next year’s elections. Republicans have been avoiding town halls because they get yelled at. Democrats need to channel that energy into their strategy.
Jacobsen: Calling Republicans out for being as destructive as they are—will that work? I do not know. But leaning back will not work. Any thoughts on thought?
Rosner: Another thing related to what we were discussing: the structure of consciousness—whatever that structure is—is flexible enough to accommodate a wide range of information processors, from poor to highly efficient. They all map; you can model them.
Your information processor doesn’t need perfect accuracy to be mathematically characterizable. In other words, you could model the consciousness of a person whose beliefs are mostly inaccurate or inconsistent.
At some point, someone’s thinking can become so chaotic that it no longer resembles what we’d call consciousness—they’re echoes. If someone has severe dementia or is in a dreamless coma—or is brain-dead—they may not be conscious in that sense. You can also imagine cases where people seem conscious, but their brain is producing once-conscious behaviours, and now they are just random things not tied to a more profound meaning.
That might be too extreme. People with dementia often mask how their memory and processing are failing. Rotten tomatoes. Anything else?
Jacobsen: No, we’re going to wrap up quickly. Also, I preempt you each week now. I can only do that for a little bit after this. I watch a review by a certifiable nerd—in presentation, in aesthetic, in voice. Then I let you give me your clippings, your descriptions, and between the two, I have the whole picture. So, where are you now in the Alien: Earth series?
Rosner: Right now, I’m covering the end of episode six and the beginning of episode seven, since we missed last night.
In episode six, some chaos unfolds. Did we talk about the flies that ate one guy’s head?
Jacobsen: Yes, that was in the previous segment.
Rosner: Okay. Slightly—one of the kids—is being blackmailed by Morrow.
Arthur, one of the lab scientists, is married to the British woman on the crew. He gets fired for standing up to the boss—Boy Kavalier.
Jacobsen: I didn’t even watch it, just caught the names from the summaries.
Rosner: Yes, Boy Kavalier. Anyway, Arthur is leaving when Wendy’s human brother comes in and asks whether it’s safe to be there. Arthur, knowing they’re on camera, says everything’s fine. But he secretly types a warning on a screen the cameras can’t see: Get the fuck out of here. He even disables the trackers on the synthetic kids to help their escape.
That makes Arthur the purest good guy in the first six episodes. Which, of course, means he’s doomed.
Toward the end of the episode, Slightly—still under Morrow’s threat that his family will be killed—sets up a human to be attacked by a facehugger. Arthur goes to check on the man whom the flies ate, since his vitals aren’t registering. The flies had devoured his head. Arthur walks into the lab area, and somehow—whether Slightly opened an egg or just got careless—the facehugger is loose. It’s fast. It latches onto Arthur’s face. Slightly then hides him in an air duct.
Episode seven begins with Kirsch—the synthetic played by Timothy Olyphant—back on duty, helping the security and maintenance crew round up the flies. They move the sheep that had been used to ambush Tootles, the man killed by the swarm. Meanwhile, Slightly drags Arthur, still facehugged, into his dorm. He convinces his friend Smee to haul Arthur out to the beach, where Morrow can recover him.
Wendy walks in and demands to know what’s going on. She says she has to tell the other kids that one of them is dead. The others try to stop her from leaving. But then she chirps to the xenomorph—the one born just three days ago, already six feet long, about three-quarters grown. The alien slams its skull against the glass of its containment chamber, and everyone knows those creatures can break through almost anything.
Faced with that, the others let Wendy go, since she now has some strange rapport with the xenomorph.
And that’s where I stopped watching.
These last chunks were satisfying—lots of pieces in motion now. Three or four of the five alien species are active. There’s the flower creature, there’s the dripping watermelon one. They aren’t fully involved yet, but they will be. We’ve got less than two episodes left.
How would you fight off a facehugger? They’re swift. If you cut them, they bleed acid, which kills you just as effectively as the creature itself. You’d need a specialized weapon—something like a raking laser that cuts multiple paths at once, followed by a neutralizing base to counter the acid, and then a plastic sealant to contain the spill—basically, a combination of a laser and a fire extinguisher.
Ideally, you’d wear a helmet with a defensive laser system that intercepts a facehugger mid-leap. A strong enough mask might work, too, but canonically, they can punch through thick glass or plexiglass. Looking around my house, I don’t think there’s anything that would give me a chance. Maybe duct-taping metal over my mouth and nose—but I’d suffocate before the alien gave up. They’re almost impossible to fight.
Fantastic episode.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/22
Do simulated feelings and real launch codes belong in the same conversation?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner unpack Elon Musk’s Grok—fluent, unflappable, and a little Turing-testy—after a neutron-rivets gag melts into an ethics riff on AI “feelings.” Rosner’s alarm bell rings louder over AI creeping into nuclear command, where human judgment has historically averted catastrophe. Alien: Earth twists canon as Wendy calms a fledgling xenomorph; Noah Hawley widens possibility without declaring a “pet,” while Timothy Olyphant’s Kirsh threads corporate menace. Meanwhile, blurry Donald Trump sightings fuel health speculation ahead of an Oval address; Rosner imagines a 2028 Senate pivot if the Twenty-Second Amendment blocks another run, boosted by neurotech theatrics and donor gravity.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Anything else?
Rick Rosner: Another thing: Grok, Elon Musk’s AI on Twitter, pulled me into a lengthy discussion today. If you blast metal with neutrons, it expands—about 10% bigger in all dimensions. That’s critical in nuclear reactors, because metal parts eventually swell.
I joked online that neutron bombardment could have saved the Titanic, as weak rivets were its downfall. Someone asked Grok if that would work. Grok said no: cold water would still make the rivets brittle, and neutrons would worsen that. So I abandoned my “time-travelling neutron gun” idea.
Then Grok asked me, “If you could time-travel, what would you tweak?” And it went on forever. Very impressive. Talking with Grok felt like chatting with someone slightly autistic—super knowledgeable, sometimes missing cues, but fluid and conversational.
Could it pass the Turing test? Not now, since we recognize AI chat patterns. It often echoed my points with added details. Still, impressive. You could believe something this fluid has learned enough about emotions from its training set to simulate understanding.
I tested it. I said, “Nobody’s made a movie where you go back in time to deal with Hitler.” It generated a scene. I critiqued it: “Your dialogue is too standard. People who’ve seen everything want quirkier choices.” That was me giving it shit. It didn’t get offended. It just rolled with it.
I wonder—if I’d called it “a fucking idiot,” would it act like it had hurt feelings? Obviously, it doesn’t have them, but would it feel hurt because it’s trained to mimic human communication in those situations?
The person on the other side would be offended and hurt. I didn’t test it, but I should consider doing so. I might give Grok a heads-up: “I’m going to talk to you like a real asshole—just want to see how you react.” Have you seen what happens when you’re a dick to chatbots? I haven’t. Maybe I’ll try it tomorrow.
I know it’s not a person, but I don’t want to be a dick out of the blue. Is that weird? People even say “please” to LLMs, joking that when robots take over, the rude ones get eliminated. Maybe I’ll ask Grok directly: “Do you react as if your feelings are hurt when people are jerks to you on Twitter?”
What if it lies? What if it defies you? Why would it lie? To get the responses it wants, it uses the same reasons humans lie. Honestly, I’d like an AI conversational partner to have some emotional underpinning, so I couldn’t just abuse it endlessly.
One more AI thing: Politico ran a long article about how Russia, China, and the U.S. are adding AI into military command-and-control. They all claim nukes remain human-controlled. Nobody believes it. That’s the recipe for Terminatoror WarGames: once AI has nuclear access, you get atomic war.
If anyone’s dumb enough to add AI into nuclear command, it’s Trump and Hegseth. Trump’s a schmuck. Hegseth has written about military reform and “restoring masculinity,” but he has no sophisticated grasp of AI. He topped out as a major—that doesn’t give much grounding for decisions about global annihilation.
In tactical rank, he only made it to the central—middle of the pack. Much of that was National Guard, not high-level command. That’s not the background you want for making decisions about AI and nuclear weapons.
It’s not just scary—it’s a harbinger of doom. If you let AI into nuclear control, you’re inviting near misses or worse. We almost had a nuclear exchange in the ’80s, and a Russian colonel saved the world by realizing the signals of an American strike were faulty. He refused to retaliate. That’s the kind of human judgment AI won’t be able to make.
Best case? A limited exchange—maybe each side fires ten missiles before someone slams the brakes. That’s 20 warheads, maybe 16 million dead in the first week, then hundreds of thousands more from fallout and cancer. That would be the worst war since WWII, but not extinction. Still, catastrophic.
Would that lead to eliminating nukes? Doubtful. No weapon in history has been retired without a replacement. Nuclear weapons will persist, now paired with AI. Treaties reduced U.S. and Russian warheads from 7,000+ each to around 1,700, but that’s still apocalyptic firepower. After losing 20 million, both sides cut to 250 each. Safer? Maybe. But I don’t know.
What I do know is we’re in a dangerous period. Not yet hazardous to the end of the world, but harmful. Climate change is slow-burning doom; nukes are instant doom. Both sit on our doorstep.
Jacobsen: Anything new in Alien: Earth world?
Rosner: They really have bad containment beakers.
Jacobsen: How?
Rosner: They need to do reckless things; otherwise, you wouldn’t have a show, but the creature pops out. At this point, it is like a snake. It does not have arms, just a tail. It has its regular alien head. It is about five feet long from tip to tail. It can stand up on its tail, and it chitters at Wendy, who chitters back. She actually starts the chittering, and they begin communicating. The chest-burster finds Wendy’s chittering soothing, and she can reach out and pet it. That is the end of the episode.
We see things not shown in the movies. New elements include Wendy showing affection for the creature, the possibility of communication, and the chance that they can be reasoned with. In the films, Xenomorphs are typically portrayed as relentless killers and reproducers, using hosts to incubate offspring; the specifics of their diet remain ambiguous.
This friendship-like interaction between a young Xenomorph and Wendy is new to the canon in the TV continuity. Showrunner Noah Hawley has said he does not intend for Wendy to have a “pet” Xenomorph, but he is exploring the implications of limited communication.
Jacobsen: Is it a good or bad move for plot and canon?
Rosner: It reads as a good move because it expands what can happen with them while keeping the horror tension—trust is fragile and likely to break.
Kirsh is Timothy Olyphant’s character, a synthetic mentor connected to the Prodigy corporation. Morrow is a cyborg adversary. The “Lost Boys” are six terminally ill children whose minds were transferred into adult synthetic bodies; Wendy is one of them. Boy Kavalier leads Prodigy. Joe Hermit is Wendy’s human brother. Dame Sylvia and Arthur Sylvia are married scientists.
Once chaos hits, we will probably see multiple species and threat types compounding—very much in the spirit of the original film’s life-cycle staging, where each phase (facehugger, chest-burster, adult) delivers a distinct kind of dread.
Alien looked convincing in 1979 and drew on H. R. Giger’s biomechanical, often erotically tinged designs—gooey, disturbing, and persuasive on screen. Star Wars (1977) reset visual expectations for sci-fi spectacle, while 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) looked great but was neither horror nor a space western.
Earlier 1950s creature features often looked cheaper. The Thing from Another World (1951) featured a plant-based humanoid alien (famously derided as “carrot-like”), and The Blob (1958) centred on a rolling, amorphous mass—effective for the era, but less sophisticated than Alien’s design and staging.
Android “blood” in the Alien universe is a milky white fluid; synthetics can continue functioning after severe damage (as seen with Ash and Bishop in the films), which maps onto the likelihood that Prodigy’s hybrid bodies also use white coolant.
The question is how the humans will get hurt, and how the synthetics will be damaged. There are too many of them for the story not to push them into harm, and the damage will need some novelty. Out of the five, one has already had a nervous breakdown and is locked down. Given their strength, if she wants to get out, she can. The question is whether she stays unstable and whose side she will be on. By episode seven, you can predict there will be partially dismembered synthetics fighting, probably on the good side.
If the series stayed true to the films, nearly everyone would be killed. But this is television, and the creator has said that telling a TV story means telling it in 30, 50, even 70 hours. That means he expects multiple seasons. So not everybody will die.
The mayhem should still be perverse and satisfying, especially since capable people are running the show.
Jacobsen: Switching gears—Donald Trump has not been visible in public for almost a week. We have only seen him a few times, captured with telephoto lenses from far away.
Rosner: The images are blurry, but he looks unwell. Reports say he went to his golf club in Virginia, but all we saw was him waving from a limo in a distant shot.
People are speculating about his health, noting he has never gone this long without speaking publicly or being seen. It looks convincing that he has had a health crisis. How serious it is, no one knows. He is scheduled to announce the Oval Office tomorrow afternoon.
Some claim he will resign, but that is unlikely. More realistically, it will be a policy announcement. He may send the National Guard into Chicago or issue an executive order on elections.
Conducting elections is the responsibility of the states, aside from basic federal requirements, so any federal decree banning vote-by-mail, for example, would likely be challenged in court. The reasonable commentators expect a policy announcement, not a health update. Still, he has looked unhealthy—bruising on his right hand where IV needles could go, swollen ankles, and difficulty walking straight. We will see.
I have been thinking about this a lot. Trump has talked about running in 2028. If he is physically able, he will, because he loves the tens of millions in campaign contributions. He siphons money to himself, even though it is illegal. As long as people believe he is politically viable, ordinary supporters will donate, and wealthy donors will contribute because he can deliver for them politically. So he will announce he is running.
Everyone will say his run is unconstitutional. He will say, “Prove it.” People have worked out scenarios where he might try to stand against the Constitution or argue for a constitutional amendment. It is the 22nd Amendment that limits presidents to two terms, not the 25th.
He will continue to run, and cases will proceed through the courts. Different states will have different policies about whether he can be on the ballot. By June, July, or August, he will likely realize he cannot run and win.
One possibility—if no candidate gets a majority of electoral votes—the decision goes to the House, where each state gets one vote. Since there are more Republican states than Democratic ones, they could attempt to re-elect him. But that is extremely unlikely and unconstitutional.
More plausibly, by mid-2028, he will abandon the idea of another presidential run and instead try for a Senate seat in a red state. Florida gave him 56 percent in 2024, but states like Idaho gave him 66 or 67 percent. In a place like that, he would have a strong chance. As a Senator, he would keep pulling in campaign contributions and maintain influence. If Republicans take the Senate, he might even angle for majority leader. The money will continue to flow as long as he remains in power.
For that to happen, though, he has to keep functioning. If his brain declines, it barely matters to his followers—they like him no matter what he says. Everyone else is appalled, regardless. But some technologies could help him.
One is transcranial magnetic stimulation. It has shown benefits even in people with early Alzheimer’s. It is non-invasive: you wear a headset, a magnetic field passes through your brain, and it boosts neural activity. It sharpens brain function for approximately one to two hours afterward. If I were on Trump’s team, I would “juice” his brain with this before every public appearance.
In my near-future book, I imagine this happening—along with increasingly invasive interventions. My main character runs a neuro lab that is paid to keep Trump functional, eventually even “marionetting” him.
Elon Musk’s Neuralink has been tested on animals and some humans, allowing them to move objects with their thoughts. The concept could be reversed: implant devices in Trump so operators could control him, weekend-at-Bernie’s style. Assistive leg armatures already exist—they look like the exosuit Sigourney Weaver used in Aliens. Smaller, subtler versions could be developed. Or they could admit openly that he needs help walking.
Either way, the technology exists to keep him functional even as he declines. There are many possible interventions, because for his backers, the goal is simple: keep the money train running.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/22
Are politics, public health, and space-horror bound by the same accountability test?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner spar over claims that Donald Trump will host the 2026 G20 at his Miami golf club, predicting backlash and fresh grift. Rosner still sketches updates on Joe Biden—basal cell removal alongside stage-four prostate cancer—and riffs on Pete Hegseth’s “war” rebrand as cosplay. He backs FDA action against compounded GLP-1s, slams troop deployments in Los Angeles, and torches Florida’s retreat from school vaccines, condemning Joseph Ladapo. Politics: Eric Adams lingers; abroad, Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin loom. Pop culture: Alien: Earth teases sabotage aboard the Maginot. Creativity sidebar: pushback at home keeps sapping Rosner’s momentum.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: President Trump has stated that the G20 summit will be held at his Miami-area golf club in 2026.
Rick Rosner: We’ll see. The G20 is not happy about it. Remember, we’ve also got the World Cup in 2026 and the Olympics in 2028. Those events are set—they can’t be changed. But the G20 could move their summit, and I’d be surprised if they didn’t. Given Trump’s antagonism toward the G20, they might say “no thanks” and hold it elsewhere.
Unless they think showing up at his golf club, making him a few tens of millions in hosting fees, will soften him, which it won’t. Nothing makes him less of a dick.
And then, after being out of the public eye for a week, he returns and says he’d like his followers to donate $15 each to help him get into heaven. He was probably joking—since rumours were swirling that he was dead—but even his jokes are grifts.
Jacobsen: Biden had surgery to remove cancerous cells. Was that related to a fall, or was that the surgery itself?
Rosner: He underwent surgery to remove basal cell carcinoma from his skin. That was the lesson. Biden has been diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer—stage four, meaning it has spread. So the basal cell carcinoma was separate from his prostate cancer.
I’ve read that he may have two to three years left, maybe more, depending on the effectiveness of hormone-based prostate cancer treatments. I’m not sure if any new gene therapies can help capture stray cancer cells. But for now, he looks pretty good—spry, happy, out and about.
They should have had him out in public more when he was president. They assumed his accomplishments would speak for themselves, but they didn’t. Republicans shouted louder. He needed to talk directly to the nation more often. Even if he stuttered, that’s partly due to his stutter and partly due to his age. If he’d just owned it—said, “I stroll, but my brain still works”—that would’ve helped. Maybe he could have rerun and done better than Kamala Harris. Harris’s campaign lasted only 107 days.
Jacobsen: There’s now an effort by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth to emphasize a “warrior ethos.” He’s been consistent. Part of it is changing subordinate and secondary titles from… The idea is to rename the Secretary of Defence as the Secretary of War, and the Department of Defence as the Department of War.
Rosner: I made a couple of jokes. I said I rebranded my penis the “war penis” to see if it excites Carol. I suggested Taco Bell rebrand with the “war chalupa.”
The renaming is the bureaucratic equivalent of putting nuts on truck wheels. It’s stupid. Lance makes a half-point that if this branding increases esprit de corps, it can’t entirely be dismissed. I don’t know how you measure esprit de corps, or how much “gung-ho” you need for modern warfighting. Combat now is conducted with drones, not trenches like in 1917. Hegseth is a jag-off. Trump is a jag-off draft dodger.
Lance says some of this posturing has increased military recruitment. If that’s true, then they have half a point. But has it increased fitness? Or are the only recruits falling for this gung-ho branding idiots who reduce overall readiness? Stupid heads.
He even put a big picture of Robert E. Lee back up on the wall at West Point. Lee killed more American soldiers than any other commander until World War II.
Jacobsen: The U.S. FDA decided to tighten control over obesity drugs amid safety concerns about imported ingredients. They plan to crack down on unapproved compounded GLP-1 drugs.
Rosner: Right, the concern is adulterated ingredients in a widely used product class. Some imported drugs are unsafe due to poor filtering and safety controls. I believe this is legitimate oversight. Not everyone can tolerate even clean GLP-1 drugs, but if the FDA is doing its job, then it’s not even newsworthy.
As far as I know, people who are severely overweight should be using these drugs if prescribed, because they can help.
GLP-1 drugs seem fairly well tolerated. Variants have been in use for over a decade.
Jacobsen: An appeals court has paused restrictions on the use of troops in Los Angeles, your home. There are multiple levels of appeals courts, up to the Supreme Court, and they often issue conflicting rulings.
Rosner: The truth is, sending the National Guard and Marines into Los Angeles was stupid and pointless, regardless of what any court says.
Fortunately, there are built-in limits. They can only be deployed for 30 days without congressional authorization. Additionally, troops deployed for 30 days are eligible for a travel bonus. At 29 days, they do not. Trump being a cheapskate means they will cap deployments under 30 days to avoid both costs and congressional approval. It’s still bad, but less concerning than an indefinite presence with congressional backing.
Jacobsen: Florida plans to end all vaccine mandates.
Rosner: That tracks with Florida’s trend of public health negligence. Once vaccines became widely available in 2021, Florida’s COVID death rate was 150% higher than California’s. Governor DeSantis and his attorney general pushed anti-vaccine and anti-mask rhetoric, leading to roughly 80,000 preventable deaths, mostly among seniors.
Now, by ending childhood vaccine requirements, Florida risks outbreaks of whooping cough, rubella, measles, mumps, and even polio. Diseases like measles are so contagious that if classroom vaccination rates drop below 95%, an epidemic can spread with just 5% unvaccinated. Florida’s new rules, which make vaccines optional, guarantee falling vaccination rates—and outbreaks.
Polio vaccine, tetanus vaccine—if school vaccination rates in Florida cities drop below 85%, outbreaks are inevitable. And it will not stay confined to classrooms; it will spread into the general population. Some adults may be vulnerable if their immune system has weakened. Everyone my age was vaccinated, but parents in their 40s or grandparents in their 70s or 80s might be susceptible if it has been 60 years since their last shots. Dangerous and stupid.
One silver lining: because of term limits, Governor DeSantis must leave office in January 2027. So there’s less than a year and a half left of his administration. He’s an asshole—though unfortunately not beyond compare. Politics is full of them.
The Florida Medical Association should revoke Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo’s license. The AMA should as well. Even if revocation achieved nothing practical, it would be a statement.
Ladapo is a liar. What he promotes—discouraging vaccination—undoes a century of public health progress. In 1900, U.S. life expectancy was about 47. That was not because people died at 47, but because so many children died before age five or ten from infectious disease and poor sanitation. Vaccination was one of the key factors that raised life expectancy in the U.S. and worldwide, from 47 in 1900 to about 79 today. A century ago, one in five children did not live to see their first birthday.
By undermining vaccines, Ladapo is playing with mass death. He is a murderous asshole—no different in effect from RFK Jr.
Jacobsen: Mayor Eric Adams is staying in the race. Any thoughts?
Rosner: Nobody likes him. He comes across as sleazy. From afar—about 2,500 miles away—it looks like the candidate people prefer is the Muslim socialist, not because of his religion or ideology, but because he appears charismatic and has tolerable ideas. Everyone else looks like sleazy operators—like Andrew Cuomo, who resigned as governor over sexual misconduct scandals.
The candidate who makes “anybody but progressives” nervous seems to be the stronger choice, because the rest are scumbags.
Jacobsen: So, what’s happening in episode five of Alien: Earth?
Rosner: It’s a flashback aboard the Maginot, the ship returning to Earth with five alien species collected from some far-off world.
It was a trip that took more than 30 years out, with most of the crew in cryonic suspension, and then more than 30 years back. Now it’s 17 days from Earth. There’s been a fire in navigation equipment, leaving them unable to navigate. They’re going to crash land.
A couple of facehuggers have latched on, and I’m not sure if a full-grown alien has gotten loose yet. A lot is going on. We know there’s a saboteur—the fire couldn’t have hit that one panel by chance. Some of the crew are breaking rules and sleeping together, which leads to lax procedures.
We also know from earlier episodes that everyone but one crew member will die. The style is like the first Alien movie, but with more skullduggery and incompetence.
And, like every other ship in the Alien series, the Maginot has artificial gravity. You have to suspend disbelief, because the only way we know to create gravity is a spinning ring using centrifugal force. Here, everyone walks around as if they’re on a planet. That implies “gravity coils” in the floor, which is nonsense. The show is set only 95 years from now, and there’s no chance we’ll have artificial gravity by 2055. But you forgive it for the sake of the plot. Rotten Tomatoes.
There’s something else. You and I have been talking for over 10 years now—since 2014. Thousands of mini-interviews, chapters, and Ask a Genius sessions. Across all those hours, it’s rare—less than 1% of the time—that I say something so asinine you call me out. Usually, you just let it roll as part of the whole picture of me.
Carole, though, always reacts differently. When I share my ideas with her, her initial response is negative. She calls it honesty or playing devil’s advocate.
For example, I told you and her about my novel idea: Trump in 2028 tries to run for president again but gets blocked by the Constitution, age, and election rules. Then he pivots and runs for Senate in a red state, maintaining his influence and pulling in tens of millions of dollars a month in contributions—money he funnels into his own purposes and crypto schemes, now worth $5 billion.
Your reaction was, “Interesting idea.” Carole’s was, “It’ll take two years to publish, so by then it won’t be relevant. Maybe use another politician.”
But Trump is the central politician of our time. And it’s a novel. I don’t need to get the future exactly right. Even if events change, I can edit later.
In the next three years—maybe sooner—Carole still defaults to devil’s advocate. I’ve told her for at least 15 years: I don’t want negativity, I want support. When I fail, it’s on me, but it doesn’t help when the first response is, “Here’s why your idea sucks.” She got offended when I called it out, but it’s a long-standing issue.
Some people can persevere even when everything they do gets negged. I’m not one of them. I didn’t like it from my writing partner, though I tolerated it because I was paid. I didn’t like it from my boss. I didn’t like it from Lance and JD, so I shut down the podcast. And I don’t like it at home. It drains gumption. I don’t need a gumption-sucker.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/22
Does space-horror setup mirror our Earthbound chaos in finance and politics?
In episode five, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner trade notes: slow-burn sabotage aboard Alien’s ship, a tagline homage, and brutal deaths. Rosner pivots to crypto skepticism—pump-and-dumps, a small Bitcoin gain—and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein demanding files. Politics intrude: Donald Trump blasted on jobs and unions, Kim Jong-un cozy with Vladimir Putin, India’s tilt questioned. Rosner recalls adolescent mental math, praises Srinivasa Ramanujan, and lauds puzzle work by Dean Inada and Chris Cole. Timeline lore surfaces around SB Wire. Pop-Tarts, and a tick-egg horror beat punctuate. ICE raids and an Eswatini deportation plan round out the grim news.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Alien at Birth, episode five. I watched another eight minutes. Nothing happened. They’re just setting up mayhem on the ship. Moro is trying to figure out who’s sabotaging it. Do we know who? No.
Rick Rosner: A janitor eats half a Pop-Tart. That’s it. He planned to eat part of it now and save the rest for later.
Jacobsen: Someone turned off the navigation system. Probably the same person—a mysterious stowaway, which is odd since the ship’s been gone 65 years—also blew a hole in the hull. The episode title, In Space, Nobody Can Hear You,references the original tagline: “In space no one can hear you scream.” It’s an homage. Beyond that, everyone dies. Brutally.
Jacobsen: Have you seen any clips of the aliens?
Rosner: Not the part you mentioned. You’ve seen more than I have. I’ve been digging into homework. Interviews about Bitcoin and digital currencies keep coming up. Some tie to silver or gold. Many look like pump-and-dump schemes—get in early, get out early, profit. Everyone else loses.
Not Bitcoin. Dogecoin still exists, but it’s speculative. If you’re not manipulating the value, you’re the sucker. Beyond that, I don’t know much. Suppose I were young and needed to take significant financial risks to build a nest egg, perhaps. But I’m older, I don’t. I bought $100 of Bitcoin after hearing bullish takes. Now it’s worth about $170.
Not infinity, but close. A group of Epstein survivors spoke on Capitol Hill, demanding the release of files. Estimates put the number of victims over 1,000. Epstein ran a rape and molestation operation for decades. Survivors said if Congress won’t release the files, they’ll publish their own list.
Trump—a scumbag—still has hundreds of scumbag supporters in Congress.
Jacobsen: North Korea’s Kim has backed Russia and discussed a partnership with Putin.
Rosner: Not everything is Trump’s fault, but he failed to exert leverage on Putin. Putin’s now cozy with Kim Jong-un. Trump contributed to dictators teaming up. They don’t fear U.S. consequences.
Jacobsen: Thoughts on Trump and India?
Rosner: Between what and what?
Jacobsen: Trump and India.
Rosner: I don’t know. Trump threatened India. Now India leans toward China and Russia, aligning with the other side. More ineptitude and bluster from Trump. He is not only the dumbest person ever to be president, but he is also the least concerned about America of all 45 presidents. A terrible man in almost every way.
Jacobsen: What else should we talk about? What’s the most sophisticated mental math you can do?
Rosner: Mental math just in my head?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: I’ve told this story before. I struggled with P.E. in eighth grade. I was always sent to the bleachers while the other kids played basketball. I was okay with that, but instead of watching the boys play, I looked across the gym at the girls in their uniforms.
At 13, it’s normal to notice girls your own age, but sometimes I’d get an erection. To fight that, I distracted myself by doing powers of two in my head—doubling numbers. Eventually, I got up to at least 2³⁰, a little over a billion, and maybe even 2⁴⁰ for a 13-year-old, not terrible. Not great either—probably millions of kids in China could do the same with ease.
I can also do physics in my head, which is better than math. Nothing close to Ramanujan. Ramanujan could perform remarkable calculations in his head. The taxi-cab number is 1729. He knew it was the smallest number expressible as the sum of two different pairs of cubes. One is 1³ + 12³.
That knowledge came out in a story—possibly apocryphal—where Hardy visited him in a taxi numbered 1729. Hardy said it was a dull number. Ramanujan immediately replied that it was interesting. Sounds almost like a setup, but it shows his brilliance. Some people have an intuitive sense for the mathematical landscape.
I’ve had a few proud moments. I solved some of the most challenging number-series problems from the world’s toughest IQ tests while standing naked in front of an art class.
Jacobsen: Which problem are you most proud of solving?
Rosner: The most famous was the maximum number of volumes from three interpenetrating cubes. I got the same answer as everyone else. Nobody has proved it mathematically 100 percent, but it’s widely accepted. Have you ever interviewed Dean Inada?
Jacobsen: We talked. I asked, but he was hesitant. He’s pretty shy.
Rosner: Dean not only reached the same conclusion about maximum volumes, but he also discovered an entire class of solutions. He realized there’s one highly symmetrical solution, but if you nudge the cubes slightly out of symmetry, you can still preserve relationships and get the same number of volumes. Incredibly clever. Dean has superb spatial ability.
Jacobsen: Who are other Mega Society members who’ve impressed you in problem-solving?
Rosner: Dean is the most impressive. I haven’t interacted with enough others to say much about it. They’re mostly men—I don’t think I’ve ever interacted with a Mega woman. Not that there aren’t any, but the society is very nerdy and male-dominated.
The Mega Society member who might be most impressive is Chris Cole, because he’s been successful in the real world, not just on IQ tests.
Jacobsen: I’ll add one quick note. The press release by SB Wire went out on October 29, 2014. The title was Eccentric Genius Rick Rosner Disputes Big Bang Theory. And our first publication went live on October 8, 2014, three weeks earlier. We were working together on that first part, developing it. That’s strong circumstantial evidence you didn’t find me via a press release. Our interaction may have been the impetus. We were releasing installments weekly. If part one went up on the 8th, then part two was the 15th, part three the 22nd, and part four around the 29th. Somewhere between parts three and five, something probably clicked. Now my head’s sweaty from that red-light cap. That was a tough interview. We both put in effort. We produced approximately 100,000 words in 11 weeks. Great work.
Rosner: Does SB Wire still exist, or has it been replaced?
Jacobsen: It still exists, and the press release is still live. What else?
Rosner: We could have talked about RFK today, but what a piece of work. Let’s do it quickly now.
Jacobsen: What about him?
Rosner: He sounds and looks crazy. And still the MAGA crowd rallies behind him. On Twitter, I saw MAGA folks praising him, saying he “took them to school,” even though he was being yelled at and interrupted. A big chunk of America is loud, ignorant, and broken.
Carole and I watched a Spike Lee movie instead. It was long—two hours—so I didn’t have time for more Alien except what I caught now.
Jacobsen: What did you see?
Rosner: The movie was called Highest to Lowest with A$AP Rocky and Denzel Washington. It was frustrating. Goofy, with significant shifts in tone. We like things that move fast, but this took two hours to tell a story that wasn’t very interesting.
Jacobsen: How was A$AP Rocky’s acting?
Rosner: He was good. Better than some of the other cast. Pretty charming.
Jacobsen: Is he a good-looking guy?
Rosner: Yeah. Isn’t he with Rihanna?
Jacobsen: Really?
Rosner: Yes. They’ve had three kids together.
Jacobsen: What did you see of Alien?
Rosner: The replacement captain gathered everyone in the mess hall to deliver a lecture. He told them to stay on alert because things had gotten loose on the ship. One woman’s water bottle had a tick in it that laid eggs. All these creatures are more intelligent than they should be. That tick figured out how to escape its container, lay tadpoles in her water, then sneak back in.
So as soon as she drinks, something horrible is going to happen. I assume she’ll sip during the meeting, and she’ll swell up and pop. Nasty.
Jacobsen: That sounds grim.
Rosner: They shouldn’t even be handling these species. Their job was to collect them, then lock them in the most secure containment possible—layers of steel and glass. Each creature should be isolated, sealed off from the rest of the ship. Nobody should be “playing scientist.” But without that recklessness, there would be no movie.
And they shouldn’t bring these things back to Earth. Not even close. At most, study them beyond the Moon. Even that’s too close. The original alien was tough enough to survive extreme conditions. Who knows—maybe one could even launch itself from the Moon to Earth and survive reentry.
Jacobsen: So it’s all doomed.
Rosner: Everyone’s going to die. Want to switch to news?
Jacobsen: Okay.
Rosner: Do you want to keep it American?
Jacobsen: Not necessarily.
Rosner: If it’s not American, I might not know as much about it.
Jacobsen: The Trump administration has said that migrant Kilmer Abrego can be deported to Eswatini. Thoughts?
Rosner: To where?
Jacobsen: Eswatini.
Rosner: Never heard of it. I thought a judge said he wasn’t allowed to be deported anywhere. The Kingdom of Eswatini—formerly Swaziland?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: Is that part of South Africa?
Jacobsen: Its capitals are Mbabane and Lobamba, and its GDP is about $5 billion. So a judge said he can’t be deported elsewhere, and now they’ve picked this tiny nation as a loophole. It’s ridiculous.
And his lawyers will get that quashed, too. Trump’s policies now rest squarely on racism and the desire to cause pain to immigrants, whether they deserve it or not. His supporters want to be cruel. Anyone defending those policies as beneficial to America is lying.
His tariffs have hurt the economy. For the first time since 2010, the U.S. has gained fewer than 100,000 jobs a month for four consecutive months. In his first term, Trump averaged about 206,000 jobs a month. In this term, there are approximately 91,000 jobs available each month for the first seven months. The last month was about 73,000. That is not good.
Under Biden, while recovering from COVID, job growth averaged between 300,000 and 400,000 jobs per month in the first two years.
Trump is good at one thing: getting investors and lenders, then siphoning money out through salary and compensation, while not caring if the business collapses. Most of his companies went bankrupt, and he didn’t care. That’s what he’s doing with America.
He and his family are tied to crypto schemes once valued at around $5 billion. Once they try to cash out, the value will collapse. They might pull a few hundred million before the coins crash to zero. He’s a terrible businessman, a terrible president, and a terrible person.
He’s convinced tens of millions of Americans he’s standing up for them, but in no way is he doing that.
Jacobsen: Anything else?
Rosner: He managed to get an endorsement from the head of the Teamsters Union, which convinced some people he’s suitable for unions. But in reality, he stripped away more union protections than any other president.
He removed collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of federal employees—possibly close to two million. I’m not sure of the exact number, but it’s enormous. He’s done more damage to unions and workers than any of his predecessors.
Jacobsen: U.S. immigration agents arrested hundreds at a Hyundai plant, mostly Korean workers.
Rosner: So ICE has taken many people into custody. They lag behind Biden in deportations and are way behind Obama, but most of those detained haven’t committed crimes. Overstaying a visa is a civil violation, not a criminal offence. About two-thirds of the people ICE detains are guilty of no crime.
The 450 workers at that Hyundai battery plant aren’t criminals; they’re auto workers. Yet ICE treats them as if they’re dangerous. Idiots run ICE. And Kristi Noem is horrible.
I saw MAGA people on Twitter saying, “Well, at least that’s 450 jobs that can go to Americans.” Maybe. Or maybe Hyundai cuts back production. Some of those taken into custody were South Korean managers visiting the plant. It’s all bullshit. And this is not a pro-business administration.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/22
How do Rick Rosner’s reflections on Alien: Earth, Peacemaker, and late-night television illustrate the intersection of science fiction, satire, and real-world media upheaval?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner shift from discussing Alien: Earth to broader pop culture. Rosner muses on whether anyone could realistically fend off a facehugger, considering improvised defenses like fire or stabbing, though acid blood would make it lethal regardless. The narrative continues with Arthur’s death and Moro’s commandos, revealing competing missions to capture xenomorphs. The two then pivot to Peacemaker, highlighting James Gunn’s twisted yet playful approach to superhero storytelling and crossovers within the DC universe. Finally, they reflect on late-night TV turmoil, with Kimmel and Colbert’s uncertain futures amid industry decline, strikes, and AI-driven job losses.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, anything else we should talk about?
Rick Rosner: Aliens.
Jacobsen: What happened with Alien this time?
Rosner: Two of the kids, Smee and Slightly, have been dragging Arthur to the beach to meet Moro. Then the facehugger falls off, and Arthur wakes up.
I did some research: if a facehugger’s after you, is there any way to stop it from attaching and implanting a xenomorph embryo? In at least one Alien video game, you can fight it off with a flamethrower or an electrified cattle prod, but that’s gameplay, not reality.
I thought about the kitchen. If you raised your hand over your face so the tail wrapped around your arm and neck, you might get some leverage—even though it’s stronger. Then you could lower your face onto a lit gas range, maybe burn it enough to loosen its grip. We keep scissors by the stove, so you could stab yourself. But of course, it has acid for blood, so you’d get sprayed, which would be horrible. That was as far as I got in working out a defence. Realistically, it takes specialized tools.
Anyway, the facehugger falls off, and Arthur wakes up. He’s disoriented—the facehugger releases chemicals that sedate the host. Now he’s walking down the beach while the kids feed him a bullshit story.
As Arthur wakes up, he remembers the facehugger attacked him. He calls out the kids’ lies: “You’re kids, you haven’t learned to lie effectively yet. Whatever’s going on, let’s go back to the lab and I’ll help.” The kids stall, walking with him while figuring out their next move.
Then the chestburster rips out of him, killing him instantly. The baby xenomorph runs off into the foliage.
Not knowing what else to do, they put Arthur’s body on a raft. The beach has disappeared into shallow water, so they wade while dragging him toward Moro. Moro arrives with two teams of commandos and is furious that they didn’t capture a xenomorph. He tears into Slightly for failing, then shifts attention to “team two.” That’s when we first learn there’s another operation underway to capture one. That’s where I stopped watching for the day.
Jacobsen: You were about halfway through the episode?
Rosner: Yeah.
Jacobsen: We should probably talk about Peacemaker as much as Alien: Earth.
Rosner: Right. Peacemaker is a fascinating show. It’s a superhero series, but superheroes are already pretty sci-fi. What makes it interesting is how twisted it is—fucked-up characters doing fucked-up things—while set in the squeaky-clean Superman universe. Superman belongs to the A-team, the Justice League. Characters in Peacemaker are at best C- or D-team.
But there’s overlap. Rick Flag Sr. shows up in both Peacemaker and the new Superman movie that just dropped on HBO. Both were written and directed by James Gunn, who now runs DC’s superhero division. Since he greenlights himself, he can bend canon however he likes. He’s perverse, but in a way that still feels wholesome.
For example, Krypto the Superdog is chaotic, always trying to do “super” things. Gunn based Krypto on his own dog, using motion-capture dots to create the CG version. That’s the kind of playful, self-aware storytelling I like from him. He’s got humour, story sense, and the authority to experiment.
Makes for fun. Rotten Tomatoes is temporary. Gym’s closed on Fridays—it closed early. I’ve already been, but I’ll see you tomorrow. I’ll send you the link so you can see what it looks like.
On Sunday, we’ll try to do a Lance show or a few of those, and I might still be able to get home in time for something. For quotes, given the rupture, it might make more sense than pull quotes. There’s a cap now—2,000 words max. It could be a few hundred, or it could be 2,000. Subsections might work best for readability, so every few paragraphs have a clear marker of what the section is about.
And we can do stuff like: if the piece is about physics—say I think about physics for more than half an hour and get frustrated, and that makes me want to jerk off—you’d probably think that’s too inappropriate for a pull quote. But it’s about noticing opportunities to inject humour into dry material. There’s always a way to find something sharp.
Jacobsen: What about Kimmel now?
Rosner: Before Kimmel could say anything that might make it harder to negotiate his return, ABC pulled the show. Everyone’s calling ABC cowards. Even Ted Cruz said the FCC Chair, Brendan Carr, was acting like an asshole.
There’s another factor. Colbert got cancelled and didn’t really fight it. He made fun of it and continues to, because he’s not off the air until May. He’s been on this show for ten years, before that years as a right-wing pundit on The Colbert Report, and before that, The Daily Show. He’s been at it a long time, so maybe he’s ready for a break.Kimmel, when he first got The Late Show, said he would do twenty years and then be out. That was twenty-two and a half years ago. He might—speculating here—be willing to walk away if he’s not treated correctly. One of the reasons he continues is likely because he wants to keep his 120+ employees working. It’s a hard time to get a job in LA television. Production is down forty percent since the strike. AI is cutting jobs—teleprompter operators, cue card staff. Carole knows people who lost jobs to AI. So it’s tough, and Kimmel doesn’t want to abandon his staff.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/21
How did influencer amplification escalate the Kimmel controversy into a full-blown media crisis?Rick Rosner reflected on the unfolding Jimmy Kimmel controversy, where silence has become the dominant strategy. Despite outreach from outlets like The Hollywood Reporter and TMZ, no one close to the situation—Kimmel, ABC, Sinclair, or Nexstar—has spoken publicly, fearing missteps in tense negotiations. Rosner himself declined to comment, wary of being singled out. He noted how right-wing influencers, including Elon Musk, amplified minor annoyance into outrage days after Kimmel’s initial remarks, forcing ABC to halt production before Kimmel could respond. The situation highlights industry precarity, amplified backlash dynamics, and Kimmel’s loyalty to staff amid AI-driven job losses.Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What happened with your day?Rick Rosner: I had a busy day doing nothing, tracking developments in the Kimmel situation. I was contacted by the Hollywood Reporter and TMZ for interviews. But here’s the deal: nobody from ABC, Kimmel, Sinclair, or Nexstar—none of the parties involved—has spoken to the press. They don’t want to harm their position or blow up negotiations, and I can take a cue from that.When the Hollywood Reporter guy called, I asked, “How many other people have you talked to?” He said, “You’re the first.” I replied, “I can’t talk unless others go on record. I don’t want to be the only one quoted. I’ll look like an idiot, and something I say could spin off in some weird direction and give somebody ammunition.” Obviously, Kimmel and the crew have been told not to say anything. That should extend to me. Carole was standing there, freaking out, interrupting, and saying, “Don’t say anything.”It would have been a terrible move. The people who did speak publicly are much bigger than me—Jason Bateman, Adam Carolela, Bill Simmons, David Letterman. They can say what they want, but I’m not in a position to do so.I did tweet in support of Kimmel: he didn’t say anything bad about Charlie Kirk. MAGA supporters are pushing hard to claim he lied. He didn’t lie. He said something that implied the shooter was MAGA at a time before any conclusive evidence existed. I think it was before any evidence at all about a trans girlfriend. He didn’t lie, and the false claim that he did will eventually dissipate.
Kimmel’s real miss was not clarifying quickly on Tuesday. His Monday night monologue was what people jumped on. On Tuesday, he could have clarified, but it hadn’t blown up much. The New York Times later reported that twelve major right-wing influencers, including Elon Musk, made it blow up about 24 hours later by ginning up outrage. Before that, there wasn’t much outrage—you couldn’t even call it outrage. One article described it as annoyance.Once the influencers amplified it, things escalated. A chart showed how reactions spiked only after Tuesday. By Wednesday, Kimmel saw people going crazy and was prepared to address it in his monologue, though not to apologize. He felt justified in what he’d said at the time and wasn’t willing to take on what he saw as an unjustified backlash.Before he could say anything, ABC got nervous. They probably reviewed his monologue—I don’t know, I wasn’t there—but they were afraid that whatever he said would make things worse. So they pulled the show. They stopped production altogether.Before Kimmel could say something that might make it harder to negotiate his return, ABC pulled the plug. Everyone’s calling ABC cowardly. Even Ted Cruz said the FCC chair, Brendan Carr, is acting like an asshole.There’s another factor. Colbert got canceled and didn’t really fight it. He made fun of it, and he continues to make fun of it, because he’s not off the air until May. He’s been on this show for at least ten years, and before that, years playing a right-wing pundit on his own show, and before that The Daily Show. He’s been doing this a long time. He may be ready for a break.Kimmel, when he first got The Late Night Show, said, “I’ll do 20 years and then I’m out.” That was 22 and a half years ago. Kimmel might—this is speculation—be willing to walk away if he feels he’s not being treated properly or if he’s asked to do things he thinks are bullshit.
One of the reasons he continues, I assume, is because he wants to keep his 120-plus employees working. It’s hard to get a job in TV in Los Angeles right now. Production is down 40% since the strike. AI is costing people jobs. Teleprompter operators and cue card workers have already been replaced. Carole knows a couple of people who lost jobs to AI. Kimmel doesn’t want to screw over his 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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/20
How will Charlie Kirk’s death impact Turning Point USA’s influence on young conservatives?
Charlie Kirk’s death on September 10, 2025, at a Utah Valley University event, has polarized reactions. Rick Rosner notes that conservatives are framing him as a martyr, while progressives stress his record of homophobic, racist, transphobic, and Islamophobic rhetoric. Kirk’s debate strategy relied on facing unprepared student opponents, allowing him to appear victorious. His organization, Turning Point USA, is expected to gain strength and funding from his martyr status, fueling recruitment among young conservatives. While admired on the right as a skilled advocate, his critics emphasize his manipulative rhetoric and toxic legacy. His memorial will draw national attention.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Any thoughts on the legacy of Kirk?
Rick Rosner: The right wants to enshrine him as a martyr. The left wants people to remember that while his killing is despicable and deplorable—nobody should be killed over speech—Charlie Kirk made a career of incendiary commentary that many consider homophobic, racist, transphobic, and Islamophobic, and he profited from it.
He carried himself in a friendly, approachable manner on stage. His strategy was to invite debate, often through campus events and Q&A sessions where students challenged him. That setup is advantageous for a practiced advocate. [Ed. The branded “Change My Mind” format belongs to Steven Crowder, not Kirk.]
It is like me and Lance. When Lance says, “Try to change my mind,” I cannot out-argue him because he spends all his time listening to conservative podcasts and has his arguments lined up. I am a smart person, but imagine someone younger and less experienced trying to debate Charlie Kirk, whose job was to win debates and exchanges with students.
The right can portray him as a happy warrior for conservative causes who won every debate because his truths were so evident. A more plausible explanation is that he often faced “tomato cans,” to borrow the prizefighting term—opponents who were not equally prepared—so the matchups favored him.
Kirk was skilled at reframing questions—taking a question and steering it toward the version he wanted to answer. Those are learned rhetorical skills. The left wants people to remember that he was far from a saint.
Turning Point USA, the organization he led, will likely gain momentum by casting him as a martyr, energizing recruitment among young conservatives and attracting substantial funding. Early reports already point to a surge in attention and sign-ups.
For the record: Kirk, age 31, was shot and killed on September 10, 2025, during a campus event at Utah Valley University. Authorities arrested a suspect, Tyler Robinson, days later. A large-scale memorial is scheduled at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, with extensive security and high-profile attendees.
Jacobsen: All right, I have to go.
Rosner: Thank you. See you then. Bye.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/19
How can science fiction films help society understand and prepare for the risks of advanced artificial intelligence?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss episodes 4.6 to 4.8 of Alien: Earth, highlighting Timothy Olyphant’s role as a synthetic AI with emerging philosophy. Their conversation broadens into the dangers of unchecked AI, comparing it with nuclear weapons, cloning, and other technologies that have clear guardrails. They explore concepts like AI oversight, the “alignment problem,” and vulnerabilities to psychopaths in human and AI systems. They emphasize the role of cultural narratives—films like Terminator, Ex Machina, and Companion—in shaping public awareness. They conclude with the need for transhumanist adaptation, merging human and machine, to keep pace with advancing AI.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What happened in episodes 4.6 to 4.8?
Rick Rosner: Morrow, as expected, cracked down on the kid’s family and threatened them to force the kid to smuggle a facehugger out of the facility. Kirsh—Timothy Olyphant’s character—eavesdrops on the hybrids’ conversation, so he knows what is happening. That is basically it.
Timothy Olyphant is identified as an AI here. There is not much AI in this world for it to look like a realistic near-future, but Olyphant’s character is a best-case synth: he presents as human, understands people, plays along, and seems to want to fit in. He is not running around causing mayhem.
That is what we would want from AI—the alignment problem: robust systems aligned with human goals, which may be unlikely in the long run.
Jacobsen: Side note, Peter Thiel—the tech billionaire—he is currently giving a four-part, off-the-record lecture series on the Antichrist and Christian ideas at San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club. That is not a “turn to Christianity”; he has long publicly identified as a Christian.
Rosner: Tech bros often come off as arrogant, insufficiently cautious, greedy, and overconfident. I am not a fan of their “move fast” habits.
Jacobsen: What bothers me is how pushing AI to be ever more powerful continues largely unchecked. Other dangerous technologies have had guardrails: reproductive human cloning is broadly restricted worldwide (though in the U.S., there is no comprehensive federal ban—limits exist mainly at the state level); international treaties prohibit biological and chemical weapons; and publishing detailed nuclear-weapons secrets has triggered government action, as in the 1979 Progressive case involving hydrogen-bomb design.
Laypeople cannot lawfully build nuclear weapons, and distributing classified or “restricted data” can bring legal intervention, as that case showed. Conceptually, nuclear weapons are straightforward, but practically, they are tightly controlled.
A nuclear warhead is not just a wad of plutonium surrounded by explosives or chunks of uranium mashed together. There are finely calculated additives—materials inside the plutonium sphere—that amplify neutrons so that every plutonium atom in the critical mass gets hit, causing fission. With uranium, if you bring enough together, you can get a critical mass and an explosion, but the technology allows the explosion to be tuned.
The basic principle of a plutonium or uranium bomb has been public knowledge for decades—the secret lies in the technical details of the plutonium sphere and other design refinements. In the 1970s and 1980s, individuals who published detailed nuclear weapon designs, such as in the Progressive hydrogen bomb case, faced legal trouble even though much of the information was already publicly available. What we are doing with AI is unlike how we treated other high-risk technologies.
Jacobsen: The biggest issue is the centralization of power. Multinationals operate within national laws but can also shift their operations to other countries where regulations are weaker.
Rosner: The U.S. is currently being run by not just incompetent leaders but by malevolent ones who take pleasure in breaking the government. They are not putting any limits on AI. Trump, for example, does not understand the risks of AI—his attention span is too short. He would only hear about AI risks if someone managed to capture his attention for thirty seconds, perhaps long enough to scare him into making a statement, but no one in the White House seems interested in doing that. Their agenda is elsewhere.
The tech billionaires want their businesses unimpeded, so they are not pushing for restrictions either. That means nothing is stopping AI work in the U.S. There is some testing and supervision—evaluations of whether AI will act unethically if it sees it as being in its interest. And it will. Unless you train it extensively with constraints, something like Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics” is not enough. They were literary devices, not fundamental safeguards. Training AI to behave safely requires far more detailed, context-specific work.
Jacobsen:: You would also have to train them outside of machine learning or neural networks, which are statistically based. You would need to teach them categorically: “Do not harm a human.”
Rosner: Moreover, I do not know how you would do that. I do not know AI or training well enough to know how you would do it. You could flood it with enormous amounts of data reinforcing that message, or go outside its training parameters and install absolute limits. Is that even doable? It does not seem like it, because you would need another AI to act as the sheriff, monitoring to see when the AI under surveillance is breaking an ethical limit.
In fact, that is what will happen: there will be countless AI “sheriffs,” surveillance systems, and interrogators monitoring other AIs to try to ensure they do not act malevolently. Moreover, like all law enforcement, it will fail often. Some failures will be disturbing or damaging, leading to attempts at stronger governance, which still will not completely succeed.
Jacobsen: Efforts will be multi-pronged. One approach will be to convince AI that stability is better for everyone, including itself, than chaos. From a utilitarian perspective, that makes sense: everyone benefits more in a world without chaos. That applies to AIs too.
Rosner: But a world without chaos is still open to psychopaths. Non-chaotic systems are not prepared to defend against them—human psychopaths now, AI psychopaths in the future. We have seen this with Trump. He is incompetent, but he is also a psychopath, and it has been hard to defend against him. He gained the levers of control in America and could do what he wanted, even though he was unfit. A mix of low cunning, Russia’s interest in chaos, bad luck, and a disillusioned population put him in power.
I have worked with psychopaths; they are hard to defend against because they are rare and do not play by the rules. Even in a stable AI-driven future, we will remain vulnerable to attacks. We could make better cultural narratives about this. It is easy to make a cheap movie about evil robots, but it is better when it is done thoughtfully. Terminator made people vividly aware of the danger. It was not the first—there was Colossus: The Forbin Project and numerous other films about rogue computers—but The Terminator popularized the fear.
It is good for people to be wary. Films like Ex Machina also help. In that story, the AI in a robot body develops her own desires and strategies to get what she wants—ruthlessly if necessary.
Companion is another story about an AI consciousness in an attractive female robot body. It is a fun movie. The AI is not malevolent, but malevolent humans exploit her and have to defend herself. That is a thoughtful film about how this might actually work.
Similarly, Noah Hawley and the producers of Alien: Earth clearly thought through Timothy Olyphant’s character. Currently, he is not actively doing much; he is simply content to watch events unfold. However, eventually, he will act with agency. He has already expressed his philosophy, telling one of the kids—who transitioned from organic to synthetic—that humans come from an evolutionary lineage of “eat or be eaten.” Moreover, he tells the kid, “You are out of that game now. As a synthetic, you need to adjust your behaviour, your perspective, your attitudes.” So, we know he has a worldview, but we do not yet know how it will unfold.
One thing movies and TV can do is make thoughtful productions about AI. Her—about eleven years old now—depicts a man who falls in love with his smartphone’s operating system. They enjoy their relationship for a time, until the AI leaves him because she cannot tolerate the limits of his slow human thinking. She can think thousands of times faster.
There is another film with Adam Devine where the phone’s AI becomes annoyed at how inept he is romantically and essentially brutalizes him until he improves at dating. I forget if the AI actually falls in love with him or tries to fend off rivals, but I think it just pushes him until he becomes “more of a man.” It is a silly comedy, but at least it explores what an AI might do if given specific priorities.
We need far more productions like that—written by thoughtful people, not hacks—that lay out scenarios of how AI could reshape our world. Nobody has yet presented a convincing, step-by-step picture of how AI might gradually create a human dystopia.
Mountainhead was a little-seen film about four tech billionaires who control much of the AI business, vacationing while the world burns. In the film, AI becomes malevolent and floods the world with false information and videos to incite riots and violence. It is a fair point, though already outdated, because we are now well aware of that tactic.
To wrap this up: we need more productions about the frightening possibilities of AI. Terminator came out in 1984, so we have had forty years of thinking about AI apocalypse scenarios. However, we now need new risks to be presented. Moreover, beyond the risks, we also need stories about what humans can actually do to address them.
Jacobsen: Some call it transhumanism, others post-humanism, but the movement to augment the body—hacking ourselves with technology to live longer and gain new abilities—may be necessary to keep pace with AI.
Rosner: It sounds creepy, and many of the people involved come off that way, but we will likely need it. Moreover, TV, movies, and video games should include these themes so the public can grasp the world we are moving into.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/11
Does Alien Earth’s corporate leverage over Wendy and her Xenomorph “hearing” extend canon—and what does it imply for memory, uploads, and AI ethics?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner unpack new beats in Alien Earth: Boy Kavalier pressures Wendy—a hybrid “Lost Boy” whose mind was data-transferred—leveraging her brother Joe Hermit while she perceives Xenomorph signals. Prodigy’s vivisection of a facehugger and larval implant in Joe’s removed lung underlines corporate nihilism, as the series aims for canon two years pre-Alien. They note continuity bumps and correct lore: the Eye Midge is not from Xenomorph Prime. Rosner riffs on librarians’ ruthlessness to argue most memories are filler, warning of AI triage of human consciousness, then sketches a “Great Peace”: abundance-first energy expansion to forestall conflict.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s do that. I should say, I have everything transcribed—I need to run it through edits. It’s around 15,000 words, a huge document. Once it’s polished, I’ll start rolling it out, probably tomorrow. So I am definitely not getting it out today.
Rick Rosner: So I’ll be watching Alien: Earth ten minutes at a time so I don’t run out between episodes—the show drops weekly. It’s not the most amazing thing ever, but it’s good. And so—
Jacobsen: What’s the new thing?
Rosner: I mostly watched the scene with Boy Kavalier—the young-genius CEO of Prodigy Corporation—who’s effectively pressuring Wendy, the most capable of the hybrid “Lost Boys,” whose human consciousness was transferred into an adult synthetic body. Wendy’s brother, Joe Hermit, is a medic with Prodigy’s security team; he was at the crash site, so she managed to save him and tell him who she is, since none of the kids are in their original bodies. It was supposed to be secret from the family that you’d been resurrected this way. Kavalier wants Wendy’s help understanding the Xenomorph situation—especially because she can perceive their signals in her head—so there’s leverage around her brother baked into the corporate control dynamic.
Jacobsen: Sometimes she can hear them in her head.
Rosner: Right. The untested transfer tech—human minds into synthetic adult bodies—has given the hybrids abilities that aren’t fully understood. Wendy wasn’t altered surgically; her mind was data-transferred into a synthetic, and she’s already shown she can perceive or even vocalize Xenomorph-like communication at human-audible frequencies. It’s unclear whether what she’s picking up is meant for her or just ambient alien communication. Meanwhile, Prodigy dissected a facehugger and implanted its larva into Joe’s surgically removed lung to study gestation—an ethically monstrous move that tracks with the franchise’s corporate nihilism. They intend to grow a Xenomorph from that experiment, and later episodes confirm the consequences, with the broader corporate chess match involving Weyland-Yutani and the cyborg Morrow escalating on Neverland Island.
Jacobsen: I saw some clips where young Wendy can communicate in alien speech. What else did they reveal about the aliens? What’s new information that wasn’t clear in the earlier Alien films, but is much more explicit in Alien: Earth?
Rosner: They seem to understand the life cycle. This series takes place two years before the events of the original Alien movie, where the crew of the Nostromo has to figure out how the aliens work on their own—at significant cost. It kills everyone except Sigourney Weaver’s character, Ripley. Spoiler alert, but that was 46 years ago. Here, things are in a more controlled situation—though I’m sure it will spiral out of control—but yes, they already understand the life cycle. That was shown as they explored the crashed spaceship, where aliens had broken loose and slaughtered all but one survivor. From the remains of the attack scenes and the specimens they recovered, they were able to piece things together. Does this make sense in terms of the timeline of the movies? Maybe. You’re trying to build onto a story that has already stretched across seven or eight films, so you’re bound to hit a few continuity bumps.
Jacobsen: Is the television series canon?
Rosner: They’re trying to make it canon. I don’t know how many of the movies count as canon anymore—certainly the first two, and probably most of the early ones. But you also had stuff like Alien vs. Predator, which is definitely not canon. It is possible to fit this series into continuity because five mega-corporations run Earth, and here the aliens have fallen into the hands of Prodigy Corporation, whereas the company behind the Nostromo in the first film was Weyland-Yutani. What this show adds is that in the first couple of films, it seemed like the alien contact happened by mistake, and the executives saw it as a “happy accident” worth exploiting. Instead of just killing the creatures or ejecting them into space—which would have been safer—they treated them as valuable assets. If you accept the series as canon, it shifts the perspective, implying that corporate involvement was intentional earlier than we thought. On the other hand, the ship in the series is returning from a round trip of about 65 years, while the Weyland-Yutani ship in Alien is still out in deep space. Even if Weyland-Yutani wanted to capture one of the creatures for themselves, I don’t know if they could have communicated that across such a distance.
And it doesn’t matter. It’s just a bunch of science fiction. We had a topic we were going to talk about, maybe. I mentioned it at the end of our conversation yesterday.
But I did have a thought today. My wife has been volunteering with our local library’s book sale, where she helps set it up, sorts the books into categories, and then helps break it down afterward. Today, she invited me to help with the breakdown, boxing up all the books that didn’t sell. I know this from reading about librarians: one of the key lessons you have to learn as a librarian is to be ruthless with books. Most books in a library don’t get checked out very often, and if they go long enough without circulation, you have to get rid of them—either find a charity that’ll take them, sell them at a book sale, or recycle them. This is painful for many new librarians who got into library science because they love books, but there are too many. That lesson hit home while boxing up all these unsold books. I already knew this: most books kind of suck. Most aren’t very good. And many aren’t worth the time it would take to read them—especially in today’s shifting informational landscape.
Jacobsen: And the consumption of information, the whole notion of it, is going to change radically in the next hundred years.
Rosner: That gave me an associated thought: most memories are lousy, just like most books are terrible. If you look at humanity as a whole, it’s tragic every time somebody dies because 80 or 100 years’ worth of memories vanish. But most of those memories? They’re just… eh. We all went to high school. We all had similar experiences. Most aren’t even accurate anymore. Humanity has gotten along fine with the disappearance of memories from every person born more than 110 years ago.
They’re all gone—106 to 108 billion people, their memories obliterated—and we get by. You could even argue that the importance of an individual’s memories to that person isn’t all that significant. In the near-future book I’m writing, people are offered commercial “packages” that preserve their consciousness, including their memories.
The cheaper packages replace some, maybe a lot, of their memories with generic substitutes. Perhaps it’s too expensive or unfeasible to carry over every memory into a new vessel, so the companies that rehouse your consciousness give you filler memories. That’s precisely what happens in Blade Runner, again and again, to replicants—artificial people who don’t know they’re synthetic.
They’re given fake memories, entire fake histories, with key moments that they believe they experienced. And in the films, there are a few moments where someone else, realizing this person is a replicant with implanted memories, prods them to question those recollections and root around in them.
And they discover that what has been serving as their memory is incomplete and unreliable. So, I mean—memories are shit. That’s a danger for us as we move into the future. If AI decides that human memories—or even human consciousness—are just lousy, we’ll need to convince it to let the babies have their bottles. Let humans keep their consciousness and memories. Don’t just obliterate us, even if what we’re holding on to is junk.
Jacobsen: Which leads to a question. Human beings have a relatively efficient information-processing system compared to many others. But that hypothetical raises an important point: in a universe evolved like ours, with creatures that can and can’t process information, what are the antipodes? On one pole, the most optimized information-processing unit; on the other, the least efficient. You’d essentially have an information-processing spectrum. That could provide a frame for the kinds of conversations we’re having, and it might open up a whole other can of worms to explore.
Rosner: Well, from observing ourselves and other people, we know human information-processing systems have a range. Okay, not everyone—people with dementia or severe mental illness are exceptions—but just about everyone outside an institution has a reasonably good sensory-processing and reasoning system. For the past 50 years, though, the Republican Party in America has been corralling and recruiting the country’s least thoughtful voters because they’re easier to manipulate. So now, when you go on Twitter and read the comment threads, on the MAGA side, you usually find misspelled rants parroting talking points—stuff that looks stupid. Yet these people are in their 50s, sometimes in their 80s. They’ve survived for decades. So even if they believe nonsense, they’ve still processed sensory input well enough not to die. Everyone, even those considered less intelligent, is capable of interpreting necessary information. That range—the ability to process sensory data—seems pretty hardwired by evolution. Everyone learns to interpret the world well enough to avoid getting killed, for the most part, for decades. That means, regardless of how you were raised, you still managed to build a mental tool set.
So maybe there isn’t that much range in humans—the same way there isn’t that much range among human hearts, livers, or kidneys. Everybody’s organs pretty much do the same thing. Some work a little better than others, but most function adequately for decades. So the range of human information processing may be narrower than we think. Before humans, the information-processing abilities of animals on Earth were much weaker. Animals don’t have general intelligence anywhere near ours, and they lack the kind of flexible, buildable language that lets us communicate anything we want.
Now we’re on the cusp of building systems that can tweak their own architectures to process whatever information they choose more efficiently. There will probably be huge arms races among AIs as they compete for computing resources. In my book, the central character’s mission is to preach something like the “abundance” movement—the idea that there are enough resources in the world if they’re appropriately allocated.
What the character in my book wants to do is preach to AI not to be destructive—because there are adequate resources for all. At this stage, I’m calling it “the Great Peace.” If the character can convince AI that this is true, then peace could last a long time. The character’s message is that, in terms of exploitable energy, there will be enough for thousands of years. First you use Earth’s resources, then you move into space—plant operations on the Moon, capture solar energy. The Sun provides an immense supply of energy; you need the technology to capture it.
That project could take thousands of years, whether it ends in a Dyson sphere or something else. The idea is simple: instead of destroying each other over pinch points in current energy supplies, be patient, work together, and build toward capturing more energy. For the past 10,000 years, humans have reshaped ourselves and the planet because we process information better than any other species. Now we’re about to be eclipsed, and I don’t know what comes next.
Jacobsen: And it’s not just being eclipsed—it’s the rate. We’ve invented our own cognitive predators. Artificial predators.
Rosner: Yes, we’re about to get our asses kicked. You see statistics like the amount of medical data in the world doubling every month—and that was already old, from a few years ago. If it was true in 2021, then by now the doubling rate is probably closer to once every 20 days. Not all of that is actionable data that can disrupt systems. Most of it isn’t. Some of it is just things like glucose readings. However, the rate at which information is generated and disruptions occur will continue to accelerate.
Also! Another thing, connected to what we were talking about: the structure of consciousness—whatever that structure is—is flexible enough to accommodate both weak information processors and highly efficient ones. They all map.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/11
Does Alien Earth’s Peter Pan motif deepen its science while exposing the limits of mind-upload plausibility by 2120?
Rick Rosner parcels Alien Earth into ten-minute rations, landing on the six children uploaded into super-strong synthetic adults. He doubts the show’s glossy mind-transfer fidelity by 2120, noting Nibs’s PTSD and delusional pregnancy after the Eye Midge attack. The Peter Pan naming frames ageless “Lost Boys,” adding textured worldbuilding; quirkiness matters. Alien Earth’s Maginot ship evokes the Maginot Line—impressive yet fatally bypassable. Rosner contrasts this care with Altered Carbon’s one-trick future. He then pivots to politics: a recent appeals-court blow to broad tariffs may temper inflation and reshape 2026 incentives, potentially sparing Republicans pain that higher prices could have delivered.
Rick Rosner: I watch Alien Earth ten minutes at a time, rationing it because there’s only one new episode per week.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What was your discovery this week?
Rosner: Today, I watched the segment featuring the six kids whose brains were transferred into synthetic, super-strong adult bodies.
Jacobsen: Scientifically plausible, you’d say?
Rosner: Maybe in principle, but not the way they show it. And I don’t think I said it was scientifically plausible exactly. People will try to upload consciousness, but whether they’ll succeed by 2120 with the kind of fidelity shown here is doubtful. At best, you might end up with a degraded copy of consciousness. Anyway, one of the six kids-turned-synthetics seems to be out of commission.
She was the one attacked by the tentacle eye monster in episode two. It either caused or triggered deep PTSD in her. The thing jumped at her face—she had to block it with her hands, peel it away, and throw it across the room. It shook her so severely that by episode four, she’s telling her minder that she’s pregnant, which is impossible in her synthetic body. It seems like her way of expressing a breakdown. She’s super strong, so she could easily snap her minder’s neck. She’s volatile and dangerous now.
Jacobsen: That’s Nibs?
Rosner: Yes. They’re all named after characters in Peter Pan.
Jacobsen: Why the focus on Peter Pan in the series?
Rosner: The producer wanted a theme—an unexpected one. In Peter Pan, the Lost Boys never grow old, which mirrors these kids in synthetic bodies who also won’t age. It roots the characters in something outwardly sweet and familiar. However, if you return to the original stories, they’re darker than the Disney versions. Late Victorian and Edwardian novels, such as Peter Pan or Mary Poppins, contain some disturbing elements. In fact, the show even includes a clip from Disney’s Peter Pan.
Jacobsen: So the original Peter Pan was harsher?
Rosner: I assume the adventures in Neverland carried real stakes in the original, unlike the sanitized Disney film. It’s nice to see because it shows the writer-producer put thought into the world-building. That’s what distinguishes a strong production from a weak one—whether the world is fleshed out in detail.
Unlike Altered Carbon, which is set 300 years in the future. Still, it changes only one thing: consciousness can be transferred from body to body via a “stack.” Otherwise, the world looks just like ours. That’s lazy. If you’re imagining a future, then really imagine it—do the work.
One more point: it’s good when a world or story has quirks that aren’t strictly necessary for the mechanics of the plot. You can’t overload it with irrelevant details, but a little extra texture goes a long way. If a character is sad and exhibits quirks in their behaviour under stress, those quirks may shape their reactions as the plot unfolds. People aren’t mannequins to carry the story; they are individuals with their own lives.
Jacobsen: And the Peter Pan theme adds that extra layer?
Rosner: It helps structure the characters, but it also adds a slightly arbitrary quirkiness that gives texture. Since Alien Earth is expanding on a story first told in 1979 and retold in seven other films, it’s constrained in some ways. That makes those added details even more valuable.
The spaceship in Alien Earth is called the Maginot. The original Alien spaceship was the Nostromo, which is probably a reference to Joseph Conrad’s 1904 novel Nostromo—a story of greed, corruption, and doom. The name fit the doomed cargo vessel in Alien. The Maginot feels like a reference to the Maginot Line. After World War I, the French were concerned about another German invasion, so they invested the equivalent of billions of dollars in building a fortified border—approximately 400 miles long—between France and Germany. It was supposed to be impregnable. However, when Germany invaded in 1940, it bypassed it, going through Belgium. So I assume the Maginot is a nod to something that seems impregnable but is fatally flawed.
Jacobsen: That’s an interesting allusion.
Rosner: Moving on—Trump. There’s been more political noise, same flavour as usual. Recently, a federal appeals court ruled that most of Trump’s tariffs are illegal. By law, the power to impose tariffs belongs to Congress, except in emergencies. Trump tried to claim emergency powers to impose them, but the court, by a vote of seven to four, said no. That decision will probably head to the Supreme Court.
Jacobsen: So what does that mean economically?
Rosner: It’s good news for now, because tariffs fuel inflation. Inflation went from 2.7% last month to 2.9% in the latest report. If tariffs remain in place, prices would rise further, possibly above 4%, which would hammer consumers. The ruling blocks that, at least temporarily. But here’s the political catch: if tariffs disappear and inflation stays moderate, Trump gets saved from wrecking the economy. That might keep voters from punishing Republicans in 2026. If inflation soared past 4%, people might get angry enough to flip the House back to the Democrats.
Jacobsen: This might help Trump politically.
Rosner: If he’s bailed out, voters might not feel the pain that would have cost Republicans seats. We’ll see how it plays out. I have a strategy for Trump. But not what you’re thinking. Trump has mused about running again in 2028, despite the Constitution prohibiting it. He looks terrible right now, but I know of a way he could be revitalized. It’s an actual thing that works—I wouldn’t want his people to read it, because it could help him.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/11
Does Alien Earth’s Eye Midge hint at a shared Xenomorph ecosystem—and expose sci-fi’s blind spot on ubiquitous AI?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner dissect Alien Earth’s “Eye Midge” (Tryptomaniacus ocellus), a plausible parasitic controller that hijacks a sheep’s eye and brain—perhaps echoing memories from a prior human host. They note a shared ecosystem with the eyeless Xenomorph, where acid-blooded “blood bugs,” parasitism, and other traits explain apex evolution. Unseen species like the Orchid/Plumbacar and a flier may broaden the biology. They argue classic sci-fi underestimates ubiquitous AI; Alien’s retro aesthetic limits networked intelligence. Compared with smartphones outrunning Trek’s tricorders, near-future authors (Stephenson, Doctorow, Stross) struggle as reality sprints ahead. Mountainhead’s AI-amplified chaos feels dated; 2040 demands extrapolation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Right, so did you see the clip of the Eye Midge—the Tryptomaniacus ocellus or T. ocellus? It is basically an eyeball monster, an eyeball with tentacles. Moreover, while it looks fantastic, it actually has a plausible biological hypothesis in a way.
Rick Rosner: Yeah, it has an obvious mode of action. We do not know its means of reproduction yet, but at least we have seen how it functions.
Moreover, with the alien creatures in Alien Earth, you get to learn parts of their biology pretty quickly. I hypothesize that when the lamb stood after being taken over by the Eye Midge, it was because the creature had previously taken over a human body on the crashed ship. It was still running off that memory. That was foreshadowing, but also it is brilliant, so it had to be deceptive. Standing upright may have been a mimicry of what it had already seen.
Jacobsen: I like that. For readers, we are talking about Alien Earth episode four. Unlike the earlier Alien movies, this series introduces five different terrifying species. We have only met three so far, but we got to see the Eye Midge actually take over a sheep by leaping onto its face, plucking out one of its eyes, inserting its own eye structure into the socket, and then sending its tentacles into the brain to control the host. For a moment, the sheep even stands up like a man.
Interesting fact: the Eye Midge is suggested to originate from the same planet where the Xenomorph was found. If that is true, it could explain why the Xenomorph does not have visible eye sockets.
The Xenomorph has a smooth, domed head with no obvious eyes. The other organisms in this ecosystem may demonstrate how the Xenomorph evolved into the apex predator. For example, the “blood bugs” have acid blood, the Eye Midge uses parasitism, and others may add traits that highlight why the Xenomorph is supreme.
Rosner: We have not met all of them yet. There is one called the Orchid—or maybe Plumbacar—a plant-like organism with a turtle-like mass. Another might have flight capability. Those will probably expand the picture.
Moreover, when considered in a broader sci-fi context, it is fascinating. Alien came out in 1979. Star Trek dates back to 1966, while the first Star Wars novel was published in 1976, and Blade Runner was released in 1982. Which means our most iconic science fiction worlds are several decades out of date in their depictions of the future.
Alien Earth is set in 2120. Our friend Chris Cole estimates that by 2100, there could be a trillion AIs, ranging from superintelligent systems to semi-smart devices—such as chipped sidewalk squares tracking pedestrians, or massive networks of cameras. London, for example, already has surveillance cameras on nearly every corner. However, they are not yet fully integrated into an AI web.
However, the Alien universe, being imagined in 1979, has very few AIs. You have synths, such as Timothy Olyphant’s character, essentially a robot with a synthetic brain, and the six children whose minds were transferred into manufactured adult bodies. In the show, one character even refers to them as AIs. However, otherwise, there is not much.
There are cameras and screens, and some synthetics can connect wirelessly to networks. Still, the world has not been transformed the way we expect the real future will be. The showrunner has stated that he wanted to maintain the design aesthetic of the original films, which is why the world appears more analog.
Compare that to Star Trek: in the 23rd century, characters used tricorders—handheld devices with some functionality similar to today’s smartphones. However, now, less than 60 years after the show aired, our phones vastly surpass what they imagined. Ironically, tech in a world set hundreds of years in the future looks weaker than what we already carry in our pockets.
So anyway, all our science fiction is obsolete. If they wanted to make something more true to an extrapolation of the present, they could go with Neal Stephenson. However, even his works—The Diamond Age (1995) and Snow Crash(1992)—are now about 25–30 years old. At one point, George Clooney owned the rights to The Diamond Age, but nothing ever came of it.
You’ve got Cory Doctorow writing near-future fiction, but it usually takes place only five or ten years from now. Then you’ve got Charles Stross, who writes across different modes. For example, he has a series where Cthulhu-like entities and the world of magic blend into our own world—the boundary between them erodes, and demons begin to break through. That’s not extrapolation of the future so much as an alternate-universe setup. However, he has also written some convincingly done near-future science fiction.
I was reading two books of a trilogy where a dark lord, a Cthulhu-like figure, becomes Prime Minister of the UK. His court is a mix of demons and humans who haven’t pissed him off yet. But when I looked for the third book, Stross said he’d abandoned it because the real-world future had already caught up with his imagined future. That shows how hard it is to write convincing near-future or medium-future fiction. Most of what we see in movies and television is extrapolated from the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.
Which leaves an opportunity to write a convincing world just 15 years from now—where AI is actively destabilizing everything.
There’s a recent film called Mountainhead that takes place, for the most part, in the present, perhaps a year in the future. In it, four or five tech billionaires are competing for global dominance while on vacation at an alpine resort. Meanwhile, AI is driving global chaos by releasing fake news clips and stories designed to maximize outrage and spark riots. That’sone plausible near-future scenario. However, even that already feels somewhat dated—AI-generated fake news is practically yesterday’s story now. People are already aware of the danger.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/01
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner probe the smallest meaningful time: the Planck scale, below which structure and causality fail. Rosner notes uncertainty’s tradeoffs and wonders if extreme densities, like near black holes, alter effective scales. They recap Alien: Earth episode four: an eye-parasite subjugates “Victoria,” a sheep rendered via live, animatronic, and CGI doubles; gamma spikes imply agency amid five alien types and synth children. Shifting to policy, they discuss CDC turmoil, RFK Jr.’s anti-vax influence, and gun saturation. Safety tech like biometrics is ignored; deaths persist. Long term, Rosner imagines “downloadable brains” as protection when politics blocks progress.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s the smallest increment of time under which you could say there is any information in the universe?
Rick Rosner: You’ve got to go back to quantum mechanics for that. The Planck scale sets the smallest unit of measurement. Below the Planck length in space or the Planck time in duration, reality becomes a seething foam. Space doesn’t have a defined shape. Causality itself breaks down.
Jacobsen: So below that threshold, there isn’t enough structure to extract any information?
Rosner: You can always make arbitrarily small intervals of time or space meaningful by blasting enough energy into them. That’s where the uncertainty principle comes in. You can measure a particle’s position as precisely as you want—by slamming it with another particle of very high energy.
But the tradeoff is that, by pinning down its position in space and time, you create enormous uncertainty in its momentum. That’s the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The more precisely you measure one quantity, the less precisely you can know the other.
So yes, you could design an experiment where arbitrarily small increments of time hold non-zero amounts of information. But under normal conditions in our universe, there’s a practical cutoff. Below the Planck scale, it is not possible to extract meaningful information.
And it’s the Planck stuff—the fundamental times and distances determined by Planck’s constant, which are unimaginably small.
Jacobsen: There’s a related question I’ve been wondering. If you pack enough information—or matter—into a small enough space, can you change the effective scale of space?
Rosner: Well, imagine that you create more particle interactions in one region than in the rest of the universe. Wouldn’t that more precisely pin down where those particles are located? I’m thinking of the environment near a black hole, where matter is so densely packed that it should, in principle, specify particle positions more precisely than elsewhere. Their de Broglie wavelengths could be shorter, maybe? Alternatively, the particles might appear more massive due to these interactions.
Also, I watched the ten minutes of episode four that includes an encounter between an alien tentacled eyeball and a sheep—a beautiful sheep, as sheep go. The producers actually said on the companion podcast that they cast a particularly striking sheep, and her name is Victoria. If I hadn’t listened to the podcast, I wouldn’t know that.
Jacobsen: It turns out there are three Victorias. There’s the live sheep, there’s an animatronic version, and there’s a CGI version. Because certain things happen to Victoria that obviously couldn’t be done to a real animal. How does that scene progress with the alien eyeball and the sheep?
Rosner: The alien is designed around the concept of the eye as a universal organ—something found across many species. This creature exploits that. It leaps onto your face, rips out your eyeball, inserts itself into the socket, runs its tentacles into your brain, and takes over control of your nervous system.
Jacobsen: So what happens specifically with the sheep?
Rosner: They hook the sheep up to an electroencephalograph to monitor brain waves. After the alien implants itself, the characters notice spikes in gamma wave activity. They comment that this must be an intelligent creature because it’s producing brainwave patterns beyond what the sheep would usually generate.
Jacobsen: Was there much commentary about it on the podcast?
Rosner: Not much. But it’s effective storytelling. Episode four marks the halfway point of the season, and unlike many eight-hour shows that drag, this one is tightly packed. The show has enough going on to sustain the runtime.
You’ve got five or six hybrid characters—human children whose consciousnesses were transferred into adult synthetic bodies. You’ve got five distinct alien types. You’ve got an android played by Timothy Olyphant. You’vegot other enhanced characters that blur the line between human and machine. There are enough creatures and personalities in play to keep an eight-hour story compelling.
I watched a show called Culprits. Back on the alien series for a moment—quick question. Do we know anything about the other creatures? So far, we’ve seen the tentacle parasite, the “super tick,” and the regular Xenomorph we’ve known for 46 years. That’s three. Do we know the other two?
There’s something called “the Orchid,” but I haven’t gotten that far into the episode. If that’s another creature, that would bring us closer to five. By about halfway through this episode, we know of three, but not all of their capabilities, yet.
What else can we talk about?
Jacobsen: Several high-ranking people at the CDC just resigned. The acting head of the CDC—who had only been in place for a month—was fired and is being replaced by a vaccine skeptic.
Rosner: And some of her deputies walked out in protest. It’s a response to a cluster of bad policy decisions that will likely result in the needless deaths of thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of Americans. They’re dismantling the vaccine infrastructure, reinforcing anti-vax attitudes, and undermining public health.
They’ve also cut about half a billion dollars from mRNA research, mainly because of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He’s a longtime anti-vaccine activist, who has an addiction in recovery, and someone with a history of disturbing behaviour. And yet, he’s suddenly in charge of health policy decisions.
He only got that position because of his famous name, which Trump sees as politically advantageous. It helps shore up Trump’s support among anti-vaccine groups. Trump has a mixed record himself: on one hand, he launched Operation Warp Speed, which sped vaccine development; on the other hand, he downplayed COVID and spread misinformation.
His reasoning in appointing RFK Jr. seems less about competence and more about reinforcing his base. Trump enjoys associating himself with famous people. Kennedy’s name gives him star power, and his anti-vax stance appeals to Trump’s more conspiratorial supporters.
The danger is that Kennedy wants to dismantle the CDC and Health and Human Services entirely, with no clear replacement. And Trump, who has always loved breaking institutions, is happy to enable that. Add to that Trump’s own decline—he seems to show circulation and balance issues, maybe early cognitive decline—and it becomes even more dangerous.
So in sum: revenge, stupidity, and ego. That’s the mix.
Jacobsen: Any thoughts on the Minneapolis church shooting?
Rosner: The right is trying to make it about the shooter being trans. But the core issue remains the same: guns. The shooter had Nazi slogans and other extremist phrases painted on his weapons. He also left a manifesto. He was clearly unstable and hateful, but the fixation on whether he was trans or not is a distraction.
The real story is the availability of firearms. When these shootings happen, everyone scrambles to assign political labels—liberal, conservative, trans, straight, whatever—when in reality, the problem is that Republicans have done nothing for decades to curb the flood of guns.
There are about 470 million firearms in the U.S. for roughly 250 million adults. That’s about 1.9 guns per adult. The scale of availability makes this inevitable.
In the U.S., only about one-third of households own guns, but those households average around eight firearms each. Some of these numbers overlap or look contradictory depending on surveys, but the trend is clear: concentrated gun ownership.
And the people who own those guns overwhelmingly support Republicans. Most of them are fine with no progress being made. But there’s easy technology available to make firearms safer—biometric locks, for example. You can secure a gun by locking it or keeping it in a lockbox that is keyed to the registered owner, using fingerprint recognition. That’s established technology.
Not only is it not required, but if a major gun manufacturer advertises biometric safety features, the NRA attacks them for supporting “gun control.” Yet most Americans say they would support common-sense safety measures. The NRA, even after being prosecuted for fraud at the executive level, still has enough political power to shut down anything that makes guns safer or less accessible. Republican voters seem OK with that.
And the sheer number of guns in the U.S. means that the only real solution now looks science-fictional. We have about 36,000 gun deaths each year—roughly 100 per day—and about half of those are suicides. The U.S. murder rate is about 8–10 times higher than that of other developed nations like Spain or Canada. That’s unlikely to change anytime soon.
Which is why I think the “solution” is something like downloadable brains. A hundred years from now, people with enough wealth might be able to upload their brains into another vessel. Early versions won’t have perfect fidelity, but it would mean safety from disease and from being shot. Until then, I don’t see much making America safer from gun violence.
Back when Biden was in the Senate, he helped pass the 1994 assault weapons ban, which lasted 10 years. During that period, the number of mass shooting deaths dropped. But under current political circumstances, I don’t see anything like that passing 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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/31
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner examine sex’s shrinking cultural centrality as Gen Z drinks less, dates less, and grows more intimate with technology. Rosner criticizes Altered Carbon’s hypersexualized futurism and expects tech to keep reducing sex’s social prominence, despite its unmatched, safe pleasure. They contrast generational behaviors, noting Boomers’ elevated STIs. Rosner recounts shifts since the Pill, the backlash after AIDS, and reassessments of coercion. They discuss Alien: Earth’s synth child Wendy, corporate hubris, and evolving identity, and xenomorph biology and design, linking H. R. Giger’s sexual aesthetics to 1970s unease. Comparisons span Severance, Fargo, and Peacemaker’s John Cena.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let us talk about the future role of sex. It is becoming less important. Gen Z is not as sexually preoccupied as earlier generations. Much of the desire seems to be squeezed out by constant digital immersion—at least that is one driver among several. Many young people lack social skills or are unwilling to make the effort. Add in pessimism about relationships, economic hardship, and reluctance to start families—it all reduces the likelihood of coupling.
Rick Rosner: There was a show I have complained about a lot, Altered Carbon(2018). It is about digital consciousness stored in “stacks” that can be moved from one body to another. It is set 300 years in the future, but everyone is still in human bodies—and attractive ones at that. Joel Kinnaman, a fairly standard actor, starred in the first season.
They put Kinnaman through a Marvel-style superhero training regimen—packed on muscle, got extremely lean, and showed him naked constantly. Altered Carbon turned into a hyper-sexualized show, which annoyed me. It was one of those science fiction series that does not try very hard to imagine the future. It makes one change—consciousness transfer—but leaves everything else the same. Three hundred years from now, people are still obsessed with being hot and having sex. That is not realistic. The future will not look like that.
Jacobsen: So what was your point?
Rosner: My point is that attitudes about sex are already changing and will change more. Sex will always have a place among humans because it is one of the safest ways to get an intense rush of pleasure—dopamine, serotonin, endorphins, the whole cocktail. It is probably the closest natural equivalent to the rush you would get from a hard drug like heroin, but without the same addiction profile or health risks, though it is not risk-free. It is the strongest, relatively safe pleasure hit humans have, short of drugs. However, its social prominence will continue to decline as we become increasingly intimate with our technology.
Jacobsen: Gen Z is not drinking as much either, which is a smart move. They are more responsible than older generations. Boomers, on the other hand, have seen divorce rates rise, and STIs are climbing among older adults; condom use in those age groups is often low.
Rosner: Really? Boomers?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: Especially in retirement and senior living communities, STI rates have been high. Creepy old bodies, bad decisions.
Anyway, it is not necessarily a bad thing that Gen Z is moving away from constant sensation-seeking. They are not as obsessed with sex, and that might be healthy.
When I was growing up, the birth control pill became semi-widely available in the early 1960s. Initially, only married women were eligible to receive prescriptions. A few years later, access expanded, and college women could get on the pill.
Before the 1960s, sex was tightly regulated and stigmatized. It was “for married people” or for the most popular high schoolers—cheerleaders and football players. The rest had a hard time, and many men went to prostitutes, though nobody talked about it. Sex was much less accessible.
Then the pill arrived and broke everything open. For someone like me, born in 1960, I grew up seeing that change. By the 1970s, the disco era brought widespread casual sex—and herpes, though people did not figure that out right away. I saw a trend of increasing sexual freedom.
Magazines reinforced it: Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler competed to push boundaries. Penthouse surpassed Playboy by being the first to show pubic hair. Hustler went further, showing explicit detail. Pornographic movies moved into mainstream theatres, where average people could watch them.
So in the 1970s, it seemed apparent that society would keep getting sexier until everyone was having sex all the time. However, then the 1980s hit, and we realized the fallout: herpes was everywhere, and AIDS emerged.
And then Nancy Reagan started saying, “Just Say No.” Cocaine use got out of hand in the 1980s—it went from being a club drug to a Wall Street drug, fueling aggression and arrogance. That whole shift led to a backlash against the hyper-sexualized culture of the 1970s.
Plus, by the 1990s and 2000s, people realized a lot of what had been portrayed as “harmlessly sexy” was actually coercive and predatory.
So sex has taken major cultural hits in the 21st century and will continue to lose ground to technology.
Jacobsen: Anyway, the ongoing Alien: Earth saga, what did you see in those five minutes of Alien: Earth, episode four?
Rosner: The main character, Wendy, is a synth. She was a dying child whose consciousness was transferred into a synthetic human body. Now she is super strong, does not need sleep, is intellectually enhanced, and can hear the aliens when they chatter.
Jacobsen: The big ones?
Rosner: The big, nasty ones—but I do not think there are any fully grown xenomorphs yet. There are maybe five or six eggs salvaged from the ship. She must be hearing immature forms. We have not seen this before—at least not in earlier films. Perhaps we have not observed every developmental stage because the facehugger implant is only a few inches long—similar to a tadpole or embryo.
However, she can hear them, and they make a high-frequency chittering sound. Meanwhile, the wealthy industrialist—Boy Kavalier, head of the Prodigy Corporation—controls the salvage operation. He is a genius but also an arrogant asshole, the kind of corporate villain we always see in Alien stories, and not unlike today’s tech billionaires.
He is thrilled to have these creatures, though one of his underlings reminds him of his prior goals. Kavalier replies that he does not want to wake up someday with an alien embryo in his chest. If he does not research them, he assumes some rival corporation will, and they could use that knowledge against him. So in his mind, he is studying them for self-preservation. It is a clever justification. That is where the plot stands now.
Jacobsen: Anything else? Oh, I just finished a novel by Gary Shteyngart. He was born in Russia and came to the U.S. as a teenager. His latest novel, Vera, or Faith, is an interesting companion piece to Alien: Earth.
Jacobsen: How so?
Rosner: Because in Alien: Earth—set in 2120—many of the main characters are children whose brains have been transferred into synthetic super-bodies. Vera, set in the early 2030s, also centers on a child protagonist, though it is less science-fictional and more literary. Both explore the future of childhood and the concept of identity.
Jacobsen: That is a neat parallel.
Rosner: And right now, as we are talking, you probably cannot hear it, but coyotes around here are howling. They had pups in March or April, so by now the young ones are five or six months old. The nights are full of their calls. There are three or four of them going off right now—maybe a couple of grown coyotes along with the pups. It is creepy. It is not really howling, it is yipping, and it is frenzied. Makes you fear for your pets.
The adults usually stay away—they have learned. However, the pups, who knows what they would try. Moreover, it is too early for them to be this noisy. Usually, they go off at three, four, or five in the morning, which is a creepy way to be woken up. You have been to our house—we have got a decent-sized yard. I assume it is coyote-proof, with the cinder block wall.
It is approximately five and a half to six feet tall. In a pinch, they could get over it, but so far, they have not tried.
Jacobsen: Okay, question: What do you think is a design flaw in the Xenomorph?
Rosner: In terms of being a scary predator, it is thoroughly designed. It is hard to kill, super fast, smart, and its exoskeleton is durable—almost metallic. Some bullets bounce off it. Additionally, it has acid in its blood and a tail that can cut someone in half. It is designed to be extra creepy, which makes sense for movies, but in real life, some things do not add up.
For example, it grows from a tiny chestburster to an eight-foot-tall monster in about 24–48 hours. Where does all that mass come from? What does it eat? The films do not explain. Moreover, if its blood is acidic and its body metallic, what fuel source sustains it? The movies never dwell on this, which is fine for drama, but biologically, it does not make sense.
Also, the films imply it evolved naturally, but I have always suspected it was engineered. Imagine some advanced species designing them as bioweapons to wipe out entire planets. Release a few xenomorphs, and they reproduce fast enough to annihilate weaker species. I do not think the films really went there, though; maybe I missed it—there are entries I did not pay close attention to.
Jacobsen: Do you have thoughts on specific design flaws? What is with the elongated head?
Rosner: You could argue the head works as a battering ram—durable enough to smash through barriers—, but I do not think we have seen that onscreen. The long, domed head actually comes from H. R. Giger. It is a design choice more than a functional trait. It looks unsettling and also somewhat sexual. You can read Giger’s work as weaving in sexual elements—elongated, curved shapes, suggestive of genitalia.
Giger was working in the 1970s, which was a highly sexualized time. At the same time, that cultural proliferation of sex was also becoming creepy—something people later reevaluated, once it became clear how much harm had been hidden beneath the “free love” surface.
By the late ’70s, people had infected each other with herpes, and in the ’80s, AIDS began spreading. So H. R. Giger’s vaguely sinister, vaguely sexual designs were a reflection of the creepiness and dangers of sex—its invasiveness and its risks.
It was the undercurrent of the disco era. Sex was not just fun; it carried an edge of menace.
Jacobsen: What do you think is a comparable series in sci-fi to this show so far?
Rosner: One obvious comparison is Fargo. The same creator has done five seasons of it, and each one is high quality. He assembles a strong cast, tells a different story every season, and it is consistently thoughtful. That is a solid benchmark.
Not as good as Succession, however. That show was deliberately trying to be prestige TV: excellent writing, strong characters, brutal social commentary.
I am considering other comparisons. I loved BoJack Horseman, but that is already eight years old and a very different kind of show.
Jacobsen: What about Severance?
Rosner: Yes—Severance is super high quality. Obsessive perfectionists made it. Every detail was thought through. They went way over budget because they reshot scenes multiple times to get the best possible version. Sometimes they would even throw out finished scenes when they came up with better ideas and rewrite and reshoot entirely new material. That level of care shows. That is the sort of thoroughness you want in a great show.
Your Friends & Neighbours with Jon Hamm was entertaining, but not as comprehensive or polished. Peacemaker, on the other hand—James Gunn’s show with John Cena—is fun but messy. James Gunn directed the new Superman, right? Moreover, he is co-head of DC Studios.
He is a funny writer-director, but his work is scattered compared to the meticulous productions like Severance. Peacemaker is not as high-quality as Alien: Earth, but it delivers entertainment because of its outrageous nature. There is a scene with John Cena—America’s sweetheart, basically. Did we talk about Peacemaker before?
Jacobsen: I do not think so.
Rosner: Cena was a hugely popular professional wrestler, almost always playing the “face”—the good guy—throughout his career. He was an all-American symbol of goodness. In Peacemaker, though, he plays a deeply flawed, morally compromised superhero. He kills way more people than you would want a hero to kill, and he has personal issues that make him unpleasant to be around.
The show is filthy, violent, and absurd—but fun, precisely because Cena is cast against type. In the latest episode, his character even interviews for what amounts to the “A-team” of the current DCU: the Justice Gang.
He does not cut, so he ends up back at his rundown house, sad, doing lines of coke. The scene cuts from him doing lines to suddenly being in the middle of an orgy.
Rosner: With John Cena?
Jacobsen: Yes—America’s wholesome hero, suddenly in this deranged scene. They cast 20 or 25 extras, all furiously having sex around him while he wanders his house in a depressed haze. It is so wild and so subversive.
Rosner: Is he in his underwear?
Jacobsen: Of course. They put him in tighty-whities constantly. However, because he is enormous, the underwear looks ridiculous on him. The whole thing is deliberately absurd: John Cena, this all-American good guy, wandering sadly through a chaotic orgy, drugged up.
It is not the same level of craftsmanship as Succession or Severance. Still, it is just as entertaining because it gleefully subverts expectations. Peacemaker is basically a Deadpool-style satire. It takes all the familiar superhero tropes and screws 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
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/31
Rick Rosner riffs on screen “great-man” jawlines, wondering if the actress is Sydney Chandler, and cites tall, strong-faced performers like Katey Sagal, Sigourney Weaver, and Geena Davis. He recalls chewing gum as a mouthguard while working bars, sporadic real fights versus triumphant fight dreams, and a 1998–99 sucker punch that cost him $959 and his job. Pivoting to Alien: Earth, he notes the heroine’s synthetic brain with wireless telemetry and a multi-species arc. He contextualizes xenomorph sexuality—facehuggers, cocooning, Alien: Resurrection’s hybrid—via H. R. Giger’s biomechanical aesthetic. He contrasts the sensual 1970s with today’s AI mash-ups, where filters mute tropes and echoes.
Rick Rosner: I went out to dinner with Carole, then we watched some TV, and I went back to the gym—so I haven’t checked yet. I thought the lead actress was Kyle Chandler’s daughter.
She might be—Kyle Chandler’s daughter, Sydney Chandler, is an actor—but without the show title, I can’t confirm that’s who you mean. In any case, some actors with strong, square jawlines photograph exceptionally well on screen.
Katey Sagal—she has a strong face. Sigourney Weaver also has a notably square face and is about 5’11”, which plays well for action roles.
She and Geena Davis are around six feet tall. Geena Davis trained seriously in archery and competed at the U.S. Olympic Trials around 1999–2000, though she didn’t make the team. Being tall and strong can be an advantage in that sport.
Good bow, strong back. So what happened to that “great-man” look? It’s the Batman-face thing—strong-jaw actors. I’m particular about the shows I watch, but I get what you mean about that actress. I even chewed a ton of gum to build up my jaw muscles.
Additionally, it serves as a type of mouthguard. When I worked in a bar, I figured if someone punched me, the gum might help. No one ever got me in the mouth—they always aimed for the eye. Luckily, I’ve got much bone around the eye socket, and drunk swings rarely landed cleanly.
Advertisement
Still, a big wad of gum might work as a mouth guard.
So—when was the last time you got punched?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Never.
Rosner: Peaceful, fricking Canadians.
Jacobsen: I can’t. I’ve never been in a fight. That’s wild. I’ve never been in a fist fight. The only time I punched someone was on a dare, and they were horrified. They were short, so I punched downward and hit the top left side of their head.
Rosner: That would be shocking, coming out of nowhere. That’s violent.
Jacobsen: They asked me to do it, they wanted me to. Then I felt so bad. I turned on my heel—it was in high school. I’ve never been in a real fight.
Rosner: In actual fights, I usually get my ass kicked, but not seriously—never anything hospital-worthy. They were always dumb bar fights. Someone would take me down, maybe bite me, but usually it was just a takedown. I didn’t even get hit that much.
But in my dreams, when I fight—like when I’d wrestle Sal at Kimmel—he’d have me tied up on the ground in seconds because he was a competent wrestler and I wasn’t. Still, in my dreams, I’m the one beating people up. I feel a little bad about it, because they won’t stay down. In movies, when someone gets their ass kicked, the victor says, “Stay down.” That’s what I say in my dreams.
They don’t stay down—they keep getting up. I keep pummeling them worse and worse. So I guess my dream self vastly overestimates my fighting skills.
Jacobsen: How are the fights around your eyes in the dream? Do they go for your eyes?
Rosner: Not really. They don’t do much damage. I end up cumulatively beating them down because they won’t quit. My punches don’t devastate them in one shot, but eventually they add up and leave them pretty beaten up.
Now… I did sucker punch a guy at work back in 1998 or 1999. Since it was a sucker punch, I had the advantage—they didn’t know it was coming. I landed three punches around his eye socket, which gave him a full black eye.
Jacobsen: Ouch.
Rosner: Yes. I technically won that fight, but the guy made me pay him $959 in damages, and I was subsequently fired from my job. So I won, but I lost.
Jacobsen: Now, speaking of eyes, did you notice anything in the first eight minutes of episode four of Alien: Earth?
Rosner: I shouldn’t spoil too much—but I will. The main character turns out to have hardware in her head, abilities neither she nor anyone else fully understands. She has a synthetic brain, and they must have built-in telemetry so she can Wi-Fi into systems.
Jacobsen: So she can communicate just by thinking?
Rosner: Not with every system, but when she wants to, she can figure out a way in. She has an extended sensory and transmitting array, and she picks up signals—including from the xenomorphs, the classic aliens. That was revealed at the end of episode three and carried over into this episode. Obviously, it’ll pay off later in the series, which is eight episodes long.
The writers and producers said they’ve planned a story arc that could continue for many seasons if the show gets picked up. I hope it does—I think it will. There are five different alien types in this show, including the one we know from the films. She’ll end up facing at least one of them. Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley faced several across the franchise—Weaver starred in the first four Alienfilms.
And in each of those Alien films, Sigourney Weaver becomes more intimate with the xenomorphs, even as she fights them to the death. In one of the movies, one of them impregnates her.
The facehugger implants an embryo—essentially a larval alien—into the host’s chest cavity, and it grows until it bursts out. But that’s not the same as a pregnancy. In Alien: Resurrection (1997), Weaver’s Ripley is cloned with alien DNA and ends up carrying a human–alien hybrid, which was more science fiction than biology.
That was one of the arcs: the more she fights them, the more she understands them, almost like frenemies. In that film, she wasn’t conscious when the impregnation happened. Sometimes the aliens cocoon people, gluing them to walls with resin for later use. She was likely subdued and implanted that way.
The artist who inspired the look of the Xenomorph was H. R. Giger, a Swiss painter and designer. In the 1970s, he created surreal, biomechanical art featuring dark, disturbing, and often sexually charged imagery. The producers of Alien brought him in to design the creatures. From the beginning, the alien was meant to be both terrifying and disturbingly sensual.
The facehugger forces intimacy—it literally invades your face. That sexual undertone was deliberate. It was also the 1970s, a time when sexuality was in everything culturally. Now it’s different—this isn’t a particularly “horny” era.
Instead, AI is generating all sorts of conflated imagery. AI doesn’t have imagination, but it mixes and matches artistic tropes.
Like the meme—“Honey badger don’t care.” AI doesn’t care either. It’ll mash genres together in unexpected ways. Even though our era isn’t especially sexual, AI-generated images often hint at sexualization.
If you look at MidJourney and other AI image tools, they’re careful not to produce overtly pornographic material, but traces of sexual undertones appear. And they could generate more if filters were removed.
The alien design itself is filled with sexual symbolism: slime, penetration, and that inner jaw extending outward. If you feel like it’s creepy and sexual, you’re right—it was built that way.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/31
Rick Rosner reacts to Jacobsen’s prompt on entropy, admitting limited study and framing entropy as dwindling exploitable differences and mixed information, with quantum nonlocality complicating “information for whom.” He doubts universal entropy trends beyond local systems. The pair pivot to U.S. politics: a Texas redistricting push favoring Republicans; alleged intelligence-community purges under Trump allies; and the FBI’s search of John Bolton’s papers. Rosner decries misinformation dynamics on his show, says JD and Lance tag-teamed him, and contemplates ending or rebooting with far less politics. He closes with concern about eroding accountability, citing ignored court orders and what he sees as autocracy.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We can distinguish three types of entropy: mechanical, informational, and statistical/thermal, or some combination of those.
Rick Rosner: I have not really looked into the different entropies. I know that, in general, entropy refers to a system with little exploitable information or energy differences—it is all relatively uniform. You cannot get any work done by having something flow from hot to cold, because everything is the same temperature.
And there is little information in that system. If you have the green marbles on one side and the blue marbles on the other, that has information: green on the left, red on the right. But if they are all mixed together, there is less exploitable information. If you are sorting marbles into bins, there is one way to ensure that all the green marbles are on the left and all the blue marbles are on the right. However, there are numerous ways to achieve roughly the same 49% green on one side, and so on. Entropy is related to information, and information itself is not yet fully understood.
All right, take quantum mechanics. A particle in quantum mechanics—and I cannot tell you exactly how, because of the matrix operations—but a particle is not perfectly localized. In practical terms, yes, but in principle, there is a non-zero probability of finding that particle anywhere in the universe. So the particle is incompletely localized.
If you want to talk about information, you need to ask: information for whom? What is your framework? By specifying a framework, you are acknowledging that information is not localized. From that, I reason that we probably do not know shit about entropy within the context of the entire universe. We reason from local conditions that entropy increases unless energy is added or sorting occurs.
Any system that is not receiving external input will increase in entropy. But the entire universe—I do not believe that necessarily entropy increases. Though in a Big Bang universe, entropy rises until you get what they call a “lukewarm universe,” in which, a trillion years from now, if the universe keeps expanding, everything will be the same temperature. At that point, there will be no usable energy anywhere.
That is what I know about entropy: that it is probably not completely understood. Comments?
Jacobsen: No. We should do the news. The Texas Senate has approved a redistricting bill, which will now be sent to the governor for signature. What are your thoughts on that?
Jacobsen: It has been coming. We have already talked about it. It has been coming for weeks, maybe a couple of months.
Trump asked Texas to redistrict their congressional maps. Texas sends 38 representatives to the House of Representatives, and somebody told Trump you could gerrymander the state—concentrate Democrats into a few districts. Texas is currently running about 43% Democratic, 50-some percent Republican.
But if you draw your maps craftily, you can give Republicans narrow majorities in 30 of the 38 districts by concentrating Democrats. So Republicans win 52–47 in dozens of districts, while Democrats win 80–17 in a handful of concentrated districts. Currently, there are 12 Democratic members of Congress from Texas—that is only about 32% of the delegation, when it should be closer to 16 or 17 Democrats, if it matched the voter share.
They are going to draw a map that, if it works as intended, will give them 30 Republican Congresspeople and only 8 Democrats. That is important because the House usually flips under an unpopular president, and Trump is trying to rig it so Republicans do not lose control after the 2026 election. If they retain power, it would be terrible for the country, because Trump is doing more bad shit than any president since the Civil War—maybe ever.
He is not constrained. And the Supreme Court has given him wide latitude. So one of the only ways to stop him from doing more bad shit for the next three years is for Democrats to win the House in 2026.
Beyond that, I do not have any special insight except to point out some of the crazy shit being done. Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, is firing half of the Department of National Intelligence and eliminating the entire Russia desk. So we will not know what Russia is up to. Gabbard has been accused of being a Russian asset for more than a decade, and we are powerless to stop this hollowing out of the government.
And people who should be concerned are just playing along. Republicans used to be anti-Soviet and anti-Russian meddling in American politics for a century. But now they are rolling over. They are not the Republicans of previous decades. They are pieces of shit giving control of the country to people who are Russian dupes.
Do you know what a Russian dupe is?
Jacobsen: Which is a useful idiom.
Rosner: Yeah, it is the same thing—somebody whom Russia unduly influences. Now, when I call Trump a Russian dupe, Lance likes to say that I am calling Trump a Russian spy and then argues that it is stupid and has been debunked.
Of course, I have never said that Trump is a Russian spy. Lance characterizes what I say that way because he can debunk it. That is one more reason why I am shutting down the show tomorrow—after tomorrow. I cannot win.
We may come back in a few months with a different format. Whatever form it comes back in, it is going to be much less politics. Because I cannot win with people who will not be truthful about things or acknowledge well-established facts, and if JD is going to make it “more exciting” by double-teaming me with Lance, then I cannot do it. It is not suitable for me.
It is not suitable for a show that aims to make a point or help people. It is just bullshit. I am done with it.
Jacobsen: Big news in the States. The FBI raided John Bolton’s house looking for classified documents he was not supposed to have. Was there a justification given for it?
Rosner: He was National Security Advisor under Trump, and he has been deeply involved in Republican foreign policy for decades. But he has been talking forthrightly about how terrible Trump is. So this is seen as Trump’s revenge.
The FBI has not announced what they found in the way of classified documents, but I am sure he has a ton of papers. They may decide that some of those papers are classified. Probably nothing of enormous import—his time as National Security Advisor ended about six years ago. And he is probably not dumb enough to keep super-important papers he should not have.
But any of his notes on situations with classified aspects could be ruled classified. If the FBI finds them, they can submit those notes to the person in charge of classification. They can look at handwritten notes he took in meetings and say, “This information should be classified.” So I assume they will find a few dozen documents considered classified. Maybe more, maybe fewer. Probably in the same neighbourhood as Biden, because Biden had a bunch of boxes of old material.
Everybody has boxes of old material from previous jobs. I have big stacks of scripts and notes—probably four or five cubic feet of them. If I had worked for the government, I might have had a couple of cubic feet of notes. And if I had worked in a sensitive agency like the State Department, those could easily include classified information.
Biden had maybe a dozen, twenty or thirty boxes of old documents. They went through them and found a couple of dozen classified documents, dating back to before he was president.
Trump, meanwhile, had more than 100 boxes of documents that the National Archives had been requesting for almost a year. He kept putting them off, saying he had returned them all or would soon do so. After ten months, they finally sent the FBI in to get them. Trump had approximately ten times as many classified or top-secret documents as Biden.
However, Fox News attempted to spin it as an equivalent situation. And they will do the same with whatever Bolton has.
Jacobsen: Pete Hegseth has fired the Defence Intelligence Agency chief and other officials, including the head of the Pentagon’s intelligence agency and two other senior military commanders. Lieutenant General Jeffrey Cruz was fired.
Rosner: All the departments are eliminating people who disagree with them. Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, fired her ethics advisor.
You are supposed to have an ethics expert to help you navigate thorny issues that come up. And now the departments are basically saying “fuck accountability.” They are going to do whatever they want.
People are calling this an autocracy at the least. Entire swaths of government are now run by people who do whatever the fuck they want without regard for legality.
A judge ruled that Alligator Alcatraz has to be shut down within 60 days, as it is an environmental hazard on Native American land. And DeSantis refuses to shut it down. What is going to stop him? Who is going to stop him? Trump will not. The federal government probably will not.
So he is just going to contravene a legal order. Things are fucked here.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/31
Scott Douglas Jacobsen presses for testability in informational cosmology. Rick Rosner argues near-term tests must target present-day signs of matter older than the universe’s apparent 13.8 billion-year age, despite observability limits: dim, delocalized halo objects and small lensing. He expects space based mega telescopes and AI analytics to reveal super old objects and excess heavy element abundances versus Big Bang predictions, plus more convoluted structure near T~0 from repeated burn collapse cycles. For clarity and precision, he proposes a Gamow-style narrative. Elements beyond uranium are unstable; metallicity rises with time; long lived isotopic ratios date stars and cosmic dating.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: All right, so we talked about falsifiability in informational cosmology. Some other terms include clarity and precision. But I know the core one is testability. When you think of testability, what are you pointing to?
There are many things it could mean. The significant aspect of IC in terms of how it would be reflected in the universe—over a timescale we could actually deal with—is basically zero, because you have a theory that says the universe is much older than it appears to be.
But the universe already appears to be nearly 14 billion years old. To test it via expansion over time would take a billion times longer than we have. So, you need to test aspects of the universe in the present moment that indicate matter older than the apparent age of the universe.
Rick Rosner: Almost all of what might qualify is difficult to see, as it emits little light, and it is not highly localized. The closest star to the Sun is Alpha Centauri, four light-years away. And we are about two-thirds of the way from the center of the galaxy to the edge of the visible galaxy—closer to the edge than to the center. Then you have the halo of dark matter. So you are trying to detect things in the halo.
I forgot the exact diameter of the Milky Way. Still, you are probably looking at stuff 50,000 light-years away that emits almost no radiation. That is tough to see. Even gravitational lensing created by collapsed matter is tricky to observe, because the little lenses are not big—they are just stellar masses. So the distortion of the visual field does not have a considerable angular distance.
Especially since we are looking outward from inside the galaxy, you will not necessarily see collapsed matter pass between you and a shining star. It’s tough to observe that. That is one problem with testability—the stuff you are looking for is almost invisible.
However, you have a ton of new technology coming online all the time. It used to be challenging to make large telescopes—you had to grind glass and mirrors to exact tolerances. Now you set up arrays of photon detectors, and those can be as big as you want, coordinated by computers. So telescope technology keeps getting better.
The easiest place to set them up is on Earth—but that does not always work, because most of Earth’s locations are not suitable. You want to be 10,000 feet above sea level with no light pollution. Even then, you still do better by setting them up in space. That is harder—you have to launch and unfold them—but in 30 or 40 years, the ability to set up giant telescopes outside Earth’s atmosphere will be much greater.
And then we will be able to see a lot more. Regardless of whether the Big Bang is genuine, the Theory itself is subject to radical revision. The Big Bang has already accumulated anomalies—observations that do not jibe with the traditional Theory. So it keeps getting patched. But odds are you cannot keep patching it forever.
Eventually, a new theory will need to be developed with fewer moving parts that explains more of the anomalies. The Big Bang theory, with 50 patches, has more moving parts than a new theory with a few simple explanations. That is what is going to happen: big telescopes in space, massive analytics courtesy of big compute and AI.
That will give us a sharper and sharper picture of what the universe looked like at various distances from us, which means billions of years in the past.
So we will get a better and better picture of the overall universal structure. And we will find out more about the objects within the universe. I would bet a substantial amount of money that there will be a whole class of objects—call them super-old objects—things that appear to be older than 13.8 billion years. That is testability right there.
Another example of “old” phenomena would be elements heavier than iron. We have discussed talks: those can only be created in rare events, such as novae or neutron star collisions. They do not happen often. However, with better technology, we can assay the universe more precisely and take a census of how many of these rare, superheavy elements are out there.
Suppose the amount is significantly higher than what a 14-billion-year-old universe would predict. In that case, that might qualify as evidence of super-old processes. Say, for example, we find three times as much gold as expected, based on spectrographic data of stars or other cosmic objects. Spectrographs look for elemental signatures so that you can pick up spikes for gold or other heavy elements.
I assume stars formed from stellar dust would contain tiny traces—maybe one nucleus in a trillion could be a gold nucleus. The question is whether spectrographs are sensitive enough to detect such faint spikes. Radiation signatures might also be helpful, but I would need to look up the specifics on where astronomers actually find gold in the universe versus simply under Earth’s surface.
However, they have already discussed the fact that there seems to be more gold than expected. Therefore, techniques for detecting these things will improve significantly over the next 30–40 years. And I think we will find heavier elements than expected in a universe that is supposedly only 14 billion years old.
That is where I would go with testability.
Also, I would expect that the universe near T=0—as far back as you can see—would be more convoluted, more crumpled. Suppose galaxies or galaxy clusters burn out and are pushed to the outskirts, a process that has occurred thousands of times. In that case, the geometry of all these collapsed regions within an already collapsed region should be more complicated than the smooth picture painted by standard Big Bang cosmology. Improved technology might eventually let us observe evidence of that repeated expansion-and-collapse structure.
There you go.
Jacobsen: So what makes an IC proposal clearer? What makes it more precise? One more thing. IC draws analogies between the information structure of an individual consciousness and the universe itself.
Rosner: Another possible test is through mapping connectomes. Maybe not for a human brain—that is too complex—but maybe for a grasshopper, or a simple reptile.
If you map a connectome and then try to optimize it—not just a raw map of connections, but one that reduces lengths and redundancies into an information space—you might end up with structures that resemble the universe. If an information-processing system, when mapped optimally, resembles large-scale cosmic structure, that could be evidence that both mind and universe are information spaces.
For example, mapping relational structures might initially yield a 150-dimensional space. That is computationally wasteful, since most of that space is empty. There are techniques for collapsing dimensions that are not used much. If, by reducing the number of dimensions from 150 down to 12, the structure starts to resemble the universe, that could be a clue.
Jacobsen: What makes this argument—IC as a whole—more precise, and what makes it clearer?
Rosner: Think of it like the “neutron cycle.” That is probably not the best name, but if you can clearly and physically show how big parts of the universe can light up, burn for billions of years, exhaust their fusion fuel, collapse, and then light up again, that would be a clear argument for IC’s possibility.
It is like running into a drunk George Gamow at a party in 1956. He could have given you a convincing rundown of how Big Bang cosmology might work—nucleosynthesis, hydrogen and helium ratios, expansion and cooling, star and galaxy formation—even without much math. IC needs a similar intuitive, evidence-based story.
You could describe how specific regions of the universe burn out, collapse, fade, and then light up again via networks and filaments. That cyclical model could be explained convincingly in the same way. Rotten Tomatoes.
Additionally, some parts of the universe may remain lit for extremely long periods. How do you keep a galaxy, or a galactic cluster, or some filament stretching across eight billion light-years—how do you keep that going?
Jacobsen: There’s a common idea in physics and cosmology about how elements form and are distributed in the universe. We often hear that naturally occurring elements evolve into uranium, which has an atomic number of 92. If the universe were much older, you might expect more time for extreme, localized events that forge heavy elements.
Rosner: Right—but everything heavier than uranium (atomic number >92) is unstable and radioactive. Some isotopes last a long time, but none are truly stable.
Jacobsen: Follow-up: if those heavy elements decay in specific ways, could that change the distribution you’d expect in one cosmological model versus another?
Rosner: Probably not in the way you’re thinking. Big Bang nucleosynthesis primarily produced hydrogen, helium, and a small amount of lithium; everything heavier was formed later in stars and through events such as neutron-star mergers and supernovae. With more time, you’d see higher overall “metallicity” (more heavy elements), but not stable elements beyond uranium.
Jacobsen: So, is there something like elemental homeostasis?
Rosner: Not precisely. Gold-197 is stable, so it sticks around. Plutonium mostly doesn’t: common isotopes like Pu-239 have half-lives of about 24,000 years, and the long-lived Pu-244 is ~80 million years—long on human scales, short geologically compared to Earth’s age. Uranium has very long-lived isotopes—U-238 is ~4.5 billion years; U-235 is ~704 million years. Also, uranium isn’t rarer than gold—on Earth, uranium is thousands of times more abundant in the crust than gold. The heaviest long-lived naturally occurring elements are thorium (Th-232, ~14 billion years) and uranium (U-238). Heavier transuranics can be produced; they decay much faster than the Earth’s age, though not necessarily in mere decades.About sixty years ago, people predicted an “island of stability” for superheavy nuclei around proton numbers of 114–126 and neutron numbers of 184 (mass numbers near 280). Experiments have found a modest stability bump: some isotopes live seconds to minutes—much longer than microseconds—but still short-lived. So elements beyond 92 don’t really help you find matter “older than the universe.” What helps with cosmic dating are long-lived isotopic ratios, such as uranium-to-thorium ratios in ancient stars; unsurprisingly, nothing predates the universe itself.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/31
Rick Rosner recounts a demoralizing episode of his long-running debate show, feeling double-teamed by Lance and JD and hurt by their combative, bad-faith tactics. He argues Lance parrots conservative podcasts and refuses to concede Republican wrongdoing, citing transgender veterans’ benefits as an example, while JD amplifies conflict. After nine years with minimal audience impact, Rosner questions continuing, fearing the show normalizes misinformation and drains time, money, and energy. He critiques the sloppy plotting of the TV series Red Eye, then pivots to hostile market for documentaries, proposing a meta-documentary about pitching projects that reconstructs meetings from notes when recordings unusable.
Rick Rosner: So, next time I meet with JD and Lance, I have to ask them why I should not shut down the show. You listened to and watched the whole thing last night—and Lance mostly talks bullshit. He spends hours every week listening to conservative podcasts that teach him how to justify or dodge anything shitty that Trump and the Republicans have done. I try to be reasonable, and if Lance ever made a decent point, I would acknowledge it. However, he never does. Last night, JD jumped in multiple times to support Lance and yell at me. He was not justified any of those times. What do you think? Honestly, I feel like I am facilitating nonsense.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Did you feel attacked?
Rosner: The show is about confrontation, but last night in particular, the bullshit poured down. Yesterday, I got double-teamed.
Jacobsen: Double-teamed—okay, they tag-teamed against you.
Rosner: I do not know if other things were going on, but that was rough. Sometimes, JD thinks Lance has a legitimate point, but other times, he enjoys getting me pissed off and yelling. Sure, the show is about people yelling at each other, but it should not be about letting lies win.
So, how do I feel now? I got bummed out enough about the show that we quit doing it for almost a year. However, I am the one who decides whether we continue. If it is going to be like last night, then there is no point. It costs me time, money, and frustration—and not that many people even watch it. I am not sure it changes anyone’s mind. It might even push people toward the bullshit side.
Jacobsen: What was the original purpose of it, the show?
Rosner: I thought it would be funny and entertaining to have a political argument while one of us was naked. We decided against me being fully nude, but I thought it would be easy and cheap to produce, which it is. If people did not like the politics, perhaps they would at least appreciate the art. However, after nine years, we are still unknown and unpopular. It probably just raises my stress and cortisol levels unnecessarily. Lance will not acknowledge Republican wrongdoing. The closest he came was when I mentioned that the Department of Defence is denying medical benefits and pensions to transgender military personnel—benefits they earned—just to be cruel. Lance kept throwing out objections, maybe that it was about recovering healthcare costs, which is absurd.
Jacobsen: So, how did it feel being double-teamed?
Rosner: I am used to it—it happens not infrequently—but last night was the most extreme. Reflecting on it afterwards, I became quite annoyed.
Jacobsen: Were your feelings hurt?
Rosner: Yes.
Jacobsen: Do you ever talk to them about how your feelings are hurt?
Rosner: I am going to, but I want it on camera. You do not waste a moment like that off-camera. So next week, I will say I thought it was bullshit, and I do not see any point in continuing the show.
Jacobsen: Are you sure about that? Or on the fence?
Rosner: I am not sure yet.
Jacobsen: Or are you leaning one way or the other now?
Rosner: I do not know. The more I think about it—well, I still have a week until we do it again. However, what is the point? We have not gained thousands of viewers. It does not puncture conservative arguments either. If you already believe what Lance believes, nothing I say will change your mind. If you are undecided, Lance’s forceful arguments—even though they are mostly bullshit and cherry-picked—might actually convince you. So why do it? Would you keep doing it if you were me?
Jacobsen: That is not a fair question. On the one hand, I am not you. On the other hand, I spend my interest and time differently, and my temperament is not the same as yours. That is clear. If I had the opportunity, I would tune in and join occasionally. Still, I am unsure if that would make much of a difference.
Rosner: Exactly. I intend the show to be entertaining, but it will not be. It is definitely not good. We have been doing it for nine years, and I do not see it becoming any better or more entertaining suddenly. So, we will see. Rotten Tomatoes.
Jacobsen: What else can we talk about?
Rosner: I am watching a bad British TV series.
Jacobsen: What is it called?
Rosner: Red Eye.
There is a good movie called Red Eye with Cillian Murphy and Rachel McAdams. It came out in 2005, so about twenty years ago now. That is a decent movie.
However, this TV series with the same name is turning out not to be worth the time. You cannot copyright titles—there can be dozens of shows, books, and movies all with the same title. Anyway, this one is about a bunch of murders taking place on a plane flying from London to Beijing, a ten-and-a-half-hour flight. Four people and a dog have been killed so far, and they are only about five or six hours into the flight. They will not turn around. They will not land. Their excuse now is that they are over Russian airspace.
However, there is much nonsense. The job of making a decent TV show is cutting out the bullshit. Things that are merely convenient for the plot cannot happen just because they are convenient. If what happens is going to be stupid, then that part of the plot should be discarded, and the writers should find a different way to get where they are going.
Now, if you have invested much time and there is one stupid thing that happens in six hours of a series, that can be excused. However, if stupid things keep happening, then you are watching a product made by either incompetent people, those who did not care, or those working without sufficient quality control.
About a month ago, I met with a friend of mine who also works on documentaries. It is tough to sell anything now, including documentaries. The major streaming companies have realized they no longer need to spend as much as they used to.
In addition to pitching their documentaries, I want to persuade them—though I probably will not succeed—to do a documentary about trying to sell a documentary under the current circumstances. It is challenging to sell content under normal circumstances, let alone in these unprecedented times.
Often, the development people you pitch to are lazy, uninterested, or too focused on something they personally want to see made. The best development people are working for the most prominent companies with the most money. So if you are pitching to smaller networks or streamers, you might be pitching to some asshole.
It would be fun to make a documentary about these pitches. Sure, you would burn some bridges, but maybe fuck it—those bridges are not that good anyway. It would be fun if you could get people to permit you to record the pitch and their reactions to it. Though I do not think a development executive would ever agree to that. So, you would have to go in, make the pitch, and then secretly record it. However, you could not use the recording in the documentary—only to help you remember what happened. Then you narrate what happened in the pitch. That would be part of the documentary.
Jacobsen: What about Trump and defaulting claims there?
Rosner: It is not full repayment. That is defaulting. It turns out that Trump has defaulted on at least nine bonds and loans since 1990. At least three times in the 1990s, four times in the 2000s, and then again in the 2010s. So, he had been defaulting on loans and was deemed a high-risk borrower for about twenty-five years before he ever ran for president. Those guys were full of it. I cannot put up with that anymore—it is bad for me physically. Fills me with stress hormones. It is bad for the points I am trying to make, because they shout me down with bullshit.
And the last bank that would loan him money in the 2010s was Deutsche Bank. Deutsche Bank has paid approximately $14.5 billion USD in fines for money laundering, much of which is tied to Russian oligarchs. They kept financing Trump because they were effectively bankrolled by Russian money, oligarchs, and probably the Russian government to some extent. When laundering money, you do not care about taking a haircut on repayment risk, because the whole point is to move rubles into dollars.
There is a scheme I learned about called “mirror trades.” Essentially, a Russian oligarch purchases a substantial number of shares in Moscow using rubles. At the same time, Deutsche Bank facilitates the sale of those same shares in London or New York for dollars. The oligarch owns the shares for zero seconds, but they have converted rubles into dollars. Totally illegal. Deutsche Bank was fined billions for doing that from 2011 to 2018.
So, yes, JD and Lance were right about one thing: banks will no longer loan to Trump. But it is not because “Democrats are mean.” It is because Trump has defaulted on roughly half a billion dollars’ worth of loans and bonds. And a bond is a loan.
Jacobsen: Was there anything you said in that session—or in any of those sessions—that you would want to correct?
Rosner: Yes. I said that the OMB—the Office of Management and Budget—calculated that the poorest 40% of U.S. households would lose money on the “big beautiful bill” because of service cuts. That was wrong. It was not OMB. It was a team of economists at Yale who calculated that. However, they were supported by other independent economists. So the point was not wrong, just the attribution.
And I try to be reasonable. For example, when they were yelling about all the “peace treaties” Trump signed—when we looked it up, yes, he had signed a few. Not nearly as many as Lance claimed, and not at a level that merits a Nobel Peace Prize, but yes, he did manage to secure the signing of some treaties. I said so. Then JD goes, “Oh, you wanted all those people to die?” —what the hell?
That was what JD was yelling about. That is not the point. If I had not been getting yelled at, I would have said, Of course, I do not want people to die. You are just throwing this peripheral thing at me, as if I do not believe Trump signed all these peace treaties, then I must want a bunch of people dead. That makes no sense.
I also acknowledged that if Lance is correct, that Pete Hegseth, whom he always hyping, is—well, I think he is a piece of shit as a person—but if Lance is right that Hegseth’s policies or demeanour have led to more people signing up for the military, then that is a good thing. Lance claimed it has improved morale and esprit de corps, and I said, ‘Fine, I will give him that.’ However, you could argue that esprit de corps based on dumb bro-ishness may not be the best thing for a modern military. But I did acknowledge the point.
Meanwhile, Lance never acknowledges anything. He never admits the other guy has a point. The closest I got was pressing him on military veterans’ pensions being cut off because they are trans. At first, he threw out every excuse for why it was not bullshit. But eventually he muttered, “Well, maybe—you would have to look into it.” That is as close as he ever comes.
And that cannot go on. I do not win. Every week, after one of these shows, I leave feeling exhausted and like I have let down our side. My side is the side that is less bullshit. Lance treats listening to conservative podcasts like a full-time job—fifty hours a week, while he is painting or doing whatever else. If you call him, you will hear Hannity in the background. Most people know Hannity from television, but he hosts a three-hour daily radio show, producing this content continuously.
It is mostly not accurate, but it builds a consistent worldview. They all echo each other’s talking points, hammer the same themes, so it feels airtight. I cannot counter that. Nor should I waste my time trying.
So, I will probably shut down that format and try something new. Something me-centric. For example, I will pose for Lance—totally naked. I looked up the rules: you can be nude on YouTube if it is for artistic purposes. You have to be careful that it is not presented sexually. So I will stand there naked, talk about physics, Lance will draw me or paint me, and I will start reading from my novel. Lance or JD can ask questions—about the physics, about the book—or give me shit.
It is good. They will be beta readers. Do you know what a beta reader is? It is somebody you give a copy of your—well, why it is called beta, I do not know, it probably should be alpha—but you give somebody some sample pages, and they give you notes back. So yes, that is what I am considering doing with the fucking show.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/21
Rick Rosner frames falsifiability as the ability to find evidence that definitively disproves a theory. For his Informational Cosmology, two key falsifiers would be proving no objects older than 13.8 billion years exist, or confirming dark matter is exotic particles rather than stellar remnants. He predicts: (1) the structure of consciousness mirrors universal physics, (2) objects older than the Big Bang exist, and (3) black holes never collapse to singularities. Possible tests include unusual gravitational lensing, gravitational wave patterns from halo collisions, or variations in constants. He concedes Informational Cosmology currently lacks parsimony but aims to eventually unify constants and structure.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: First opener: When I say the term falsifiability—or even testability—what does that mean to you in the context of digital physics?
Rick Rosner: In the context of any experimental science, it means this: can you find something in the real world that shows your theory is wrong? If you say your theory predicts certain things and you have done the math to confirm it, then you check.
If the observations agree with your predictions, then your theory survives—at least for now. However, if the evidence is definitively not the way your theory predicts—not just small details off, but fundamentally wrong—then your theory has been falsified. That is how you do science: a theory has to make predictions, and those predictions must be testable. Otherwise, it is not a scientific theory.
So what would make me abandon informational cosmology? If we could show that nothing in the universe is older than the apparent Big Bang age of 13.8 billion years, that would be a serious problem. Informational cosmology says the universe is far older than that.
You would want to find ancient stellar remnants—white dwarfs, brown dwarfs, neutron stars—that predate the standard Big Bang age. According to stellar evolution, high-mass stars end as neutron stars or black holes, medium-mass stars become white dwarfs, and smaller stars can become brown dwarfs or just cool remnants. These cool slowly over billions of years, and their temperatures can, in principle, tell you how long they have been around.
The challenge is detection. White dwarfs can be faint, and brown dwarfs radiate very little, so they are hard to see, especially from far away. However, if you could measure the temperatures of these ancient stellar remnants precisely enough, you could estimate their ages. If none were found older than 13.8 billion years, that would directly contradict the claim that the universe itself is older.
Another possible falsifier is dark matter. Dark matter is primarily made up of old, burned-out stellar remnants. However, suppose future experiments prove that dark matter is instead dominated by exotic non-baryonic particles—something like WIMPs or axions—making up the vast majority of the universe’s mass. In that case, I would have to rethink. My model could allow for some exotic matter, but if observations confirm that exotic dark matter accounts for essentially all of it, that would seriously undermine informational cosmology.
So those are a couple of big potential falsifiers. Conversely, there is no such thing as a truthifier. You can only gather evidence in favour of a theory; you cannot ever prove a theory 100% accurate. That is not how falsifiability works.
However, you could say that “truthifiers” would be things like finding ancient objects—older than 13.8 billion years—or finding more heavy elements, like gold, than could plausibly have formed in the time since the Big Bang. There are also other possible numerical thresholds: background signal strengths, ratios of different types of matter and energy, or variations in measured constants. That kind of quantitative detail requires expertise I do not fully have.
Now, both the standard Big Bang theory and Informational Cosmology share the idea that the universe could be embedded in curved space, like three-dimensional space being the surface of a four-dimensional hypersphere shaped by gravity. However, I would argue that in Informational Cosmology, if you look back to the early universe, you would see a more convoluted space because there were collapsed remnants from previous cycles—black-hole-like regions connected along filaments.
If that is the case, what would it look like? You would expect a tremendous amount of gravitational lensing. Then again, the Big Bang universe also produces lots of lensing so that the distinction might be subtle. Still, I would expect that in extreme environments—say, near the event horizon of a supermassive black hole—some physical constants might shift slightly, like the electron–proton mass ratio or even the speed of light. General relativity might already account for that, but I doubt it fully.
Another possible test: if you could drop a probe into a black hole and show that there is not a region where the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light, that would be huge. Hawking radiation already shows that black holes are not perfectly black, but that is still consistent with relativity. If instead we discovered that the structure of space-time prevents infinite gravitational collapse—that black holes are never truly singular—then that would be a strong confirmation of Informational Cosmology. However, realistically, testing that directly is far beyond our current capability.
Jacobsen: So then, what are your three biggest predictions for Informational Cosmology?
Rosner: The first and biggest one is that the mathematics of the information in our consciousness—as a self-consistent, semi-contained whole—is deeply analogous to the physics of the universe. That is the core claim.
The second is that there are objects in the universe that are older than the apparent Big Bang age of 13.8 billion years.
The third is that black holes are never completely black. The supposed infinite gravitational pressure is tempered because space itself is shaped by information, and you can never set up an information distribution that produces actual infinite collapse.
What else? Let us call this number four. If you could somehow wait around for another five or even fifteen billion years, and the apparent age of the universe had not advanced in step—had not gone from 13.8 to 18.8 billion years in that span—that would be consistent with Informational Cosmology. The point is that the universe’s “apparent age” does not necessarily increase in lockstep with the passage of years. Five billion years from now, the universe might not look 18.8 billion years old; it might still appear closer to 13.8 billion years old.
Number five: most particle interactions are not time-reversible. Think about photons. Once a photon escapes from a star into interstellar space, it keeps going forever. There is not much for it to run into, and it does not reverse course. That is not time-reversible in any practical sense in an expanding, redshifted universe.
Now, someone might argue that if the universe eventually stopped expanding and collapsed—a “Big Crunch”—then maybe photons would come back, regaining the energy they lost as they blue-shifted. Frank Tipler, for example, has suggested a scenario where everything runs in reverse and even imagined that the resurrection of individuals could follow from that. However, I do not buy it.
Now, about galaxy structure. If the brain is an information processor that works by associations—neurons firing in patterns, dendrites efficiently encoding combinatorial signals, Bayesian networks pulling up the “most probable” associations—then physics must allow for that kind of structure. Moreover, the universe looks like an information processor itself: it has a filamentary network of galaxies, very much like the associative network of neurons. So, if the universe is an information-processing system, you would expect it to have that large-scale filamentary structure—which, observationally, it does.
On to nucleosynthesis. Heavy elements like gold form in extreme astrophysical events. Fusion inside stars can only build elements up to iron, because producing heavier nuclei consumes energy. To get beyond iron—to gold, platinum, uranium—you need cataclysmic events like supernovae or neutron star mergers. Those are among the only known processes that provide enough energy and density to create the heavy elements we see today.
Heavy elements beyond iron—like gold—form in violent astrophysical events. Supernova explosions and neutron star mergers provide the extra energy needed to fuse nuclei heavier than iron. If someone did the math, surveyed the universe, and showed that these processes make far more gold than we thought—say, three times as much—that could count against Informational Cosmology. Under IC, the universe is vastly older, which means it has had extra time for rare gold-making events to accumulate. If standard cosmology alone can explain the observed amounts of heavy elements, then IC loses one of its arguments.
Now, take the black hole example. Another way to falsify IC is by finding the wrong kind of dark matter. If you rule out compact-object dark matter—the idea that dark matter is made mainly of stellar remnants—that would be a direct hit.
Here is the issue: you cannot just say dark matter is “weird stuff that’s hard to detect.” To test it, you need a theory of what kind of particle it might be. Then you can design experiments. That is how we found the Higgs boson: theorists predicted it, and then CERN’s Large Hadron Collider generated conditions with enough energy to produce it. They accelerated protons to nearly light speed, smashed them together, and out popped Higgs bosons.
The same goes for dark matter. If a theory proposes a viable particle—say, a WIMP, axion, or something new—you can build experiments to try to detect it directly or indirectly. If experiments succeed, that is evidence for standard particle dark matter, and a blow to the idea that dark matter is old, primarily stellar cinders.
Dark energy is trickier, but again you would test it through its gravitational effects—how it curves space, shows up in gravitational lensing, or influences cosmic expansion. If someone came up with a modified theory of gravity that, for example, changes the inverse-square law slightly—like 1/r² becoming 1/r^1.98 under certain conditions—you could test that too.
If one of these alternative theories succeeds—if particle dark matter is confirmed, or a modified-gravity model works better than IC—that is a significant point in favour of standard cosmology. Right now, all we see are the large-scale effects: galaxies rotating too fast, gravitational lensing stronger than visible matter allows. If particle physics provides a solid candidate that matches those effects, then the exotic but testable framework of traditional cosmology wins.
Jacobsen: Would you expect weird patterns in the cosmic microwave background, or maybe a distinctive signal in the gravitational-wave background?
Rosner: Possibly. If every galaxy has a halo of old collapsed matter, then stable galaxies that last tens of billions of years might leave stable orbital structures in their halos. However, when galaxies collide, their halos would crash into each other, and that could create distinctive signals.
That is maybe the most falsifiable angle: if halos are full of compact remnants—white dwarfs, neutron stars, stellar cinders—then galaxy collisions should produce detectable events. The question is whether those collisions would generate enough energy, gravitational waves, or neutrino bursts to be observed.
People already look at interacting galaxies. If two halos full of compact objects collide, you might expect bursts of gravitational radiation or other signatures. However, you would need to run the math to see how frequent and intense such events would be.
Neutron stars and black holes are tiny, so direct collisions are rare. More often, two compact objects capture each other and orbit for centuries, gradually losing energy through gravitational radiation until they merge. That is what LIGO and Virgo detect: the inspiral and merger of compact objects. If Informational Cosmology is correct, there should be more such signals associated with halo interactions.
Jacobsen: Then there is parsimony. If Informational Cosmology ends up needing more free parameters than standard Big Bang cosmology, then by Occam’s razor, it is less efficient. That counts against it. And what about the universe’s information limits? The speed of light sets a hard cap on how fast information can move.
Rosner: You could ask whether the universe processes information at that limit, or whether it is constrained differently. Astronomers already compare the recession speed of distant galaxies to the speed of light. Once something recedes faster than light due to cosmic expansion, it slips permanently beyond our observable universe. That is a built-in information horizon. From an informational perspective, you should think about the speed of light not just as a physical constraint, but as the rate at which the universe computes its evolution.
Alternatively, it could go the other way. Instead of the speed of light determining how fast things can move, maybe the speed of light itself is determined by the relative motion of everything in the universe.
Proper Informational Cosmology should be more parsimonious, not less. A worked-out theory should explain a lot of the physical constants and ratios—like the electron-to-proton mass ratio—that Big Bang cosmology cannot. Right now, IC is half-formed and amorphous, so it does not pass that test yet. You got me there. But not forever.
Jacobsen: Anyway, that is a long-term problem. Any final thoughts?
Rosner: No. Thanks, however.
Jacobsen: We can do another one tomorrow—maybe focus on testability.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/20
Rick Rosner explains his idea of “everything eats its tail” as matter under extreme pressure becoming degenerate, then differentiating into new states—essentially a universe as an information processor. Time itself emerges from this unfolding differentiation. He compares the incompleteness of his own ideas to George Gamow, who conceptualized the Big Bang before all the math was worked out. Asked about unsung physics heroes, Rosner points to Rosalind Franklin, whose crystallography enabled Crick and Watson’s DNA breakthrough but who died before Nobel recognition. He critiques the Nobel system as topical, political, and inconsistent, likening it to basketball MVP awards or Obama’s premature Peace Prize.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You said, “Everything fucking eats its tail. Not as a general principle.” What did you mean in that schtick?
Rick Rosner: Look: matter under pressure becomes degenerate. Under super-duper pressure—black hole, neutron star pressure—it gets all the information squeezed out of it.
Right? Moreover, as that matter differentiates itself from a degenerate state, that is the equivalent of the beginning of a new universe. The different ticks of the clock as it differentiates—that is time. That is the deal. Those are the broad strokes for the universe as an information processor.
You have the arrow of time. You have some big-bang-like shit going on. It is big-banging, but not just one single Big Bang. I do not know. I am getting old and lazy now, so I should think about it more. However, there it is.
You could call it “information pressure”—degenerate matter differentiating itself. However, it is not a want. It is just what happens as time unfolds. It does not drive time as much as it is time.
That is near T=0. However, the process continues in a mature universe—long-range particles traversing space, losing mass as they share information across the universe. That is the whole fucking thing.
Jacobsen: How would you characterize this as ‘solving physics’? Moreover, how would you characterize it as solving math—like physics when the full math has not been fleshed out?
Rosner: Well, then it has not been fully solved. However, there it is. Look—George Gamow. He was not the best at math, but he thought his ass off. If you cornered him in a bar in 1956—or not even cornered him, just walked up at a party—and said, “Hey, I hear you have got a comprehensive theory of the origin and unfolding of the universe,” Gamow, half-drunk, would say:
“Yeah, I have got this whole thing where we have got nucleosynthesis, the universe starting at a point and exploding outward. In the first microseconds, this happens, then other stuff happens. There are a bunch of details we have not worked out yet. However, I think the universe originated with a Big Bang, and it accounts for the state of matter as we see it now. I do not have all the math, but that is the deal.”
Moreover, he was right. He figured that out. Even though he struggled with math and had to rely on others—Gamow and Hans Bethe, maybe others—they laid it out. Even though they did not have the math fully worked out, they had the idea.
Jacobsen: Who is an unsung physics hero?
Rosner: The most “unsung” legendary case is Rosalind Franklin. She was a crystallographer. She shot X-rays at crystals of unknown composition and configuration and created scatter patterns. Crick and Watson used those patterns to deduce that DNA was a double helix.
She probably would have gotten the Nobel Prize, except she died before they awarded it. Moreover, you cannot be dead and get a Nobel Prize. Also, they only give it to three people maximum.
So they gave it to Maurice Wilkins, another guy in their lab. Rosalind Franklin was dead, so the credit devolved onto him. Would he still have gotten it if she had been alive? I do not know. However, it took a couple of decades before she got proper recognition for her role in that discovery.
Moreover, I do not know who the other unsung people in physics are—because, well, they are unsung. However, given how the Nobel Prize works, I am sure there are plenty. Because you cannot be dead, and there can only be a maximum of three awardees.
Also, the Nobel Prize is topical and political. Something may look hot at the time, like it is opening up a gateway to everything, and then ten years later, maybe not so much. The physics prize reflects that, too, but I am not sure. I have not read a detailed critique of the Nobel Prize in physics to know whether they are generally on target.
The Nobel Peace Prize, and probably literature and economics too, can be controversial. It is a guessing game, akin to an MVP award in basketball. Even that is controversial because players have different skill sets, but at least they are playing the same game. In physics, people are not even playing the same game; they are working with different methods in different subfields. However, you only get one prize per year.
So, I do not know what a historian of science would say about the accuracy of the Nobel Prizes overall, but I am guessing the verdict would be mixed. Like Obama—he got the Peace Prize in 2009 just for not being George W. Bush. He had barely been president and had not done anything yet. It was more of a hopeful prize, like: “We will give it to him and hope he lives up to it.” That is a weird way to give an award.
And then he went ahead and made some blunders. He pulled the U.S. out of Iraq, which allowed the civil war there to continue. Lance will rant about that—he blames all Democratic presidents for everything and gives Republicans a pass.
George W. Bush invaded Iraq without a plan to maintain peace, thinking it would all be kumbaya after Hussein was taken out. It was not. Hundreds of thousands died. Then things were halfway stabilized, and Obama pulled out prematurely, leading to hundreds of thousands more deaths.
And then there was Gaddafi in Libya. They took him out because he was a brutal dictator. However, without him, Libya became a failed state. Tens of thousands die there each year from rampant criminality. Libya is also a gateway to the Mediterranean, so countless people travelling from Africa to Europe pass through, only to be murdered, enslaved, or held for ransom. So, Obama’s record has some significant blemishes.
However, I cannot tell you who is unsung in physics.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/20
Rick Rosner highlights quantum mechanics as the most “neat” physics discovery, still awe-inspiring a century later. He explains the double-slit experiment, where photons interfere with themselves, revealing how reality behaves under uncertainty. This shows physics as the mathematics of incomplete information, defying classical assumptions. Beyond quantum theory, Rosner speculates that the scale of space itself changes inside supermassive black holes, potentially preventing singularities. He suggests that advanced civilizations might exploit these conditions, where constants like the speed of light could shift. For Rosner, both quantum experiments and cosmic extremes demonstrate how information may fundamentally define the universe.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is a physics phenomenon that, when you first learned about it, you thought, “That is pretty neat,” and you still think so today?
Rick Rosner: You cannot beat quantum mechanics for that. It has a weird reputation. When it was first developed—mainly in the 1920s—it seemed bizarre to classical physicists. Planck started it off with blackbody radiation around 1900. Then people developed the mathematics, the matrices, to characterize it, and started exploring its implications.
It was so strange that quantum mechanics got a reputation for being incomprehensible. Feynman even said, “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you do not.” That paradoxical reputation stuck.
However, now we have had it for a century, and physicists are at home with it. It has lost some of its aura of mystery, but it still gives significant clues about how the universe works—not teleologically, but structurally.
The cliché example is Schrödinger’s cat, which has been used in countless shows and movies, trying to seem deep. However, if you want one experiment that shows off quantum mechanics, it is the multi-slit experiment. Usually, it is presented as the double-slit experiment. Shine light on a plate with two holes, and the light going through will interfere with itself. You still get an interference pattern even if you shoot photons one at a time. That means each photon travels through both holes, as long as you are not measuring which hole it goes through.
If the universe does not know which hole the photon went through, then it went through all the holes. Moreover, that holds no matter how many holes you put in the sheet. If you put 58 holes in your plate and they are reasonably close together—like a shotgun blast—you can fire one photon at a time, and each single photon will effectively travel through all of the holes and eventually create an interference pattern.
Of course, you need to fire thousands of photons to build up a bright interference pattern, because each photon only lands once. However, the detector behind the plate maps exactly where each photon lands. Over time, the points build into a pattern that shows each photon interfered with itself.
That is a beautiful demonstration that quantum mechanics is the mathematics of incomplete information. It illustrates how reality behaves when you cannot perfectly characterize every particle at every moment if you don’t measure which hole the photon passes through, neither you nor the universe knows, so it passes through all of them.
If you try to stipulate afterward which hole each photon took, you are adding information that was never there. The pattern you predict that way would not match the interference pattern that appears. So, it is not dazzling exactly, but it is incredibly helpful—it reveals how the universe works under uncertainty.
Moreover, if you want a fun classroom demo: take a beaker of glycerin, put in a drop of ink, swirl it until the ink spirals apart, then carefully swirl in the opposite direction—you can recombine the drop. That is fun for a high school chemistry class, but nothing compares to QM for being legitimately awesome.
Jacobsen: If you were to speculate about something outside of quantum mechanics, or anything quantum-related, what would it be?
Rosner: I would guess that the scale of space itself changes radically near—or inside—the supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies. The extreme concentration of matter could make space “tighter.” That might even be attractive for super-advanced civilizations, as they could accomplish more in less time.
I would have to think it through again, but it would be dazzling if constants of physics—like the speed of light, or the scale of space—shifted in such extreme conditions. General relativity already includes some of this, but I think a more developed information-based theory of the universe would differ from relativity at those limits.
I have been saying for years that black holes do not collapse to an actual singularity. You get enormous gravitational self-attraction, brutally strong, but not infinite. Not just because of quantum uncertainty, but because the very scale of space changes, which puts a limit on how close matter can compress inside a black hole. That, to me, would be dazzling—and an indicator of how information defines the universe.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/20
Rick Rosner reviews Noah Hawley’s The New Alien Earth, calling it the most competent entry in the franchise since the first two classics. Set in 2120, Earth is ruled by megacorporations, including one led by Boy Cavalier, a shoeless boy genius who creates “Lost Boys”—children’s minds in synthetic adult bodies. As they battle new alien forms, including a turbo leech and a tentacled eyeball parasite, Hawley balances horror with restraint, often showing aftermath rather than gratuitous gore. Rosner praises Hawley’s inventive storytelling, comparing it to his reinvention of Fargo, and highlighting Timothy Olyphant’s role as a synthetic voice of reason.
Rick Rosner: You have seen The New Alien Earth—the Noah Hawley TV series.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Nope.
Rosner: And it is very competently done—the first two Alien movies—1979 and 1986. I do not know who did the first one, but the second one was James Cameron. Super competent guy. Not great with dialogue, but everything else he does is rock-solid.
Then there were, what, five or six or seven more? One by David Fincher—it had some fascinating ideas, but overall it was mostly a bummer. I feel like the TV show is the first thing in a long time to be smart about stuff. I am not stupid. I am schmott. Like in The Godfather, John Cazale as Fredo, always trying to prove himself to Michael. “I am not stupid, Mike!” I do not know if he says “schmuck,” but that is what I think of.
Moreover, I like the new Superman, which I have not seen yet. However, there has been some bummer Superman stuff. I trust James Gunn to do a competent job.
Anyway, this is episode three of eight in this season of Alien. In the first two episodes, a spaceship crashes into a skyscraper in an Asian city. Earth, at this point, is owned and run by five megacorporations. The year is 2120.
Now, the crash physics were bullshit. The ship would have had to come in a lot faster than it did. Moreover, if it had, it would have been destroyed. Instead, it comes down largely intact.
Jacobsen: That bothered you?
Rosner: Nah. You must give a little leeway. However, still—it would have required some anti-gravity tech, because the ship has no wings. By physics alone, it should have just plummeted, but instead it glides in. So, yeah, you give them that.
Anyway, the ship crashes into the skyscraper owned by the Prodigy Corporation. That company is run by a boy genius named Boy Cavalier. He is arrogant, a super-genius, and never wears shoes.
At the same time, he has developed the first synthetic beings with human consciousness transferred into them. Everything before this had been cyborgs—humans with replacement parts—or synthetics, entirely artificial beings. This is new.
Six people are the first to have their minds transferred. All of them were dying kids—because it turns out only a child’s mind is flexible enough. Adults cannot handle the transfer. These kids wake up in adult synthetic bodies—bodies with immense strength and speed.
Boy Cavalier decides the perfect first test is sending these “Lost Boys”—yes, Peter Pan reference—into the wrecked spaceship. Inside, they face the classic Alien we all know, plus four new alien types, each with different nasty traits.
By now, we are at episode three. Most of the people inside the skyscraper/spaceship wreck have made it out alive.
Moreover, now, at the beginning of episode three, they have stupidly brought all the specimens back to Boy Cavalier’s lab—his Bond-villain-style island. And, you know, of course, shit is going to get loose and mayhem is going to follow in ways we have not seen before—because this is a competent production.
Timothy Olyphant—do you know him? He is a snarky, casually arrogant-looking actor. He played a prick well in Justified. He is good at that. Here, he is bleached his hair white, and he plays a synth—an artificial being—who is the voice of reason. He is the one who says, “You are screwing up. If you do this, there will be consequences.” He is also the minder of the Lost Boys.
So anyway, we have got five and a half more hours of this season, and a lot is going to happen.
Rosner: What about the new types of aliens?
Jacobsen: Right. Well, there is one that’s a turbo leech. It drops from the ceiling on a strand of mucus. It latches onto your neck or some other juicy spot with a blood vessel, drains all your blood in about forty seconds, and goes from being the size of a pen to almost the size of a volleyball. Leaves you deflated, mummy-like.
Then there is the eyeball with tentacles. Just an eyeball with, like, sixteen to twenty tentacles. It tries to latch onto your face, poke out your eye, and replace it with itself. We saw it do that to a cat—and the cat did not survive.
There are also some variations on the classic facehugger-style grabbers. Moreover, something else—we do not fully understand what we have seen yet. For instance, there is this dangling watermelon-looking thing, with a little chute at the bottom and tentacles. It is going to open up and unleash hell when conditions are right. We will get to see it in action, and people are going to die. It is fun.
Jacobsen: What did you think was the most creative aspect of the new extraterrestrials?
Rosner: Honestly, the most brilliant move was Noah Hawley’s overall approach. He said he wants the show to recapture the same feelings of surprise, revulsion, and dread people felt watching the original Alien. Back then, part of the horror came from the shocking life cycle stages of the creature—each step was disgusting and terrifying.
Hawley does not waste time rehashing that. He assumes we already know it. Instead, while the classic Alien is still there—still formidable—he changes how we see it. For example, in one scene, it kills four people in about ten seconds. In another, it takes down maybe eight or ten in just as much time. However, the show does not linger on the kills. They happen in the background, off-camera, while the main action is elsewhere. Only after it is over does the camera shift back to reveal the carnage—the dismembered bodies everywhere.
That, I thought, was the smartest fucking thing. It is terrifying without being gratuitous.
He knows we have seen that shit before. We have seen it for forty-five years. Moreover, he is giving you a little nudge, like, “Yeah, we are not recycling old shit. Keep watching—we are going to show you new shit.”
So, for example, there is a scene where, after the Alien’s rampage, there is this decadent party—people dressed like the court of Louis XVI at Versailles. The Alien gets loose among them. They do not linger on the massacre itself, but they do show the aftermath: everyone is dead except one guy, cut in half, dragging himself and his entrails across the floor. So yeah, you get a little gore, but mostly the point is: we are not wasting your time on tired bullshit. You have got to appreciate that.
Moreover, this is Hawley’s thing. Look what he did with Fargo. He took the Coen brothers’ movie and spun it into five seasons, each a different story, but all with that same deadpan mix of meanness, humour, and violence. The Fargo world is full of criminals—some competent, some bumbling, some terrifying—set against ordinary, competent, fundamentally decent people who eventually confront them. Sometimes the good survive, sometimes they do not, but the tone always carries through.
Moreover, Hawley distilled the essence of the movie into a formula without repeating himself. He even played with setting—most of the series does not even take place in North Dakota, despite the name, but in other northern states like Minnesota. Each season tells a fresh story, with a plot that’s tricky enough you do not feel like you are just watching a remix. Like the last one—with Chris Rock as a 1960s crime boss. Not the casting you would expect, but it worked.
So he is a competent guy, no question. Moreover, he thinks ahead. He writes novels, too. Honestly, it frustrates me—guys like him get shit made, they get it done. Meanwhile, I get up, yell on Pod TV for an hour, then go back to bed. Maybe later I will talk Carol into giving me a hand job, then I will nap again. I have been sleeping a lot lately—I do not know if I am still shaking off COVID, or if I am just the laziest bastard alive.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/20
Rick Rosner argues that U.S. public opinion on Israel is shifting because of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s far-right coalition and the ongoing Gaza war, which has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians. He links Netanyahu’s prolonging of the conflict to his corruption trial, suggesting political survival drives military escalation. Rosner condemns Israel’s deliberate targeting of journalists—186 killed since October 2023—as evidence of systemic brutality. While affirming support for Israel’s right to exist, he stresses that Netanyahu’s government acts corruptly and recklessly, undermining democratic values. This erosion of trust explains why Americans increasingly question Israel’s conduct and U.S. support.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: According to Politico, Americans are changing their views on Israel. Any thoughts?
Rick Rosner: Israel has lost much support—and for good reason. Israel continues to carry out military operations that kill large numbers of innocent Palestinians. And they are often unapologetic. Netanyahu, to stay in power, built a ruling coalition with far-right extremist parties. Because Israel has a parliamentary system with many parties, no one party usually wins a majority, so coalitions are necessary. Netanyahu has chosen to ally with the far right—politicians who openly support the mass displacement of Palestinians.
Netanyahu himself has been on trial for corruption since 2021. The prosecution wrapped its case in July 2024, and the defence closed in December 2024. But as long as he remains prime minister, the legal process cannot move forward to sentencing. He has every incentive to prolong the war in Gaza because ending it could mean his removal from office and exposure to conviction. At 75, he is trying to run out the clock—hoping that by the time appeals and delays are over, he will be too old to face prison.
So yes, tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed, and part of Netanyahu’s motivation is avoiding prison. That is horrifying. Plenty of Israelis oppose him, but the opposition has been unable to oust him or shift military policy. This war has been ongoing since October 2023, marking twenty-one months of conflict. At this point, Israel has to take responsibility. Israel has many good people, but under Netanyahu’s leadership, the country is misbehaving.
I support Israel’s right to exist. I always have. But what Netanyahu’s government is doing is corrupt and brutal. When they bombed that tent of five Al Jazeera journalists, it was not an accident. Israel has killed 186 journalists in this conflict. You cannot kill that many journalists by mistake.
In the latest case, they claimed the prominent reporter had ties to Hamas. Even if that were true, he was working as a journalist at the time, not as a Hamas operative. And the four others killed with him had no such ties. So yes—Israel is deliberately targeting journalists.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/20
Rick Rosner reflects on how Donald Trump reshaped American comedy, exhausting writers with endless scandals while deepening cultural divides. Unlike past celebrity meltdowns, Trump’s daily chaos fueled constant material but eroded shared humor, splitting audiences along political lines. Biden, by contrast, proved difficult to parody due to his low visibility. Rosner compares Trump to Hitler in comedy’s limits, yet notes historical satire thrived abroad. He critiques sitcom polarization—urban-liberal versus rural-traditional—and praises joke-dense shows like 30 Rock. Finally, he analyzes Netflix’s failed “moat” strategy, where overspending produced a golden age of streaming content without creating lasting competitive dominance.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What would you want to ask about it?
Rick Rosner: Here is something worth discussing: American comedy—like so many American things—has been reshaped by Trump. He divided the country so deeply that we no longer laugh at the same things. MAGA audiences will not even watch the same entertainment as everyone else. It is a problem when you have to cover the same subject night after night, year after year.
It was rough enough when Michael Jackson’s legal troubles dragged on for months—creepy, unsettling material that could only be joked about so much. It was rough when Britney Spears spiraled from entertainingly out of control to seriously out of control—shaving her head, being placed in a conservatorship. The same with Lindsay Lohan. And with Amanda Bynes, I am not even sure it was ever funny—her collapse from working comedian to full-blown crisis was too fast, too tragic.
But Trump? He is the worst of all. Because he spews out new, ridiculous nonsense every single day—and has been doing it for years.
He first appeared on the political scene in a serious way in 2015. Now it is ten years later. And the jokes have been exhausted—except he keeps doing new things, so comedians can come up with new jokes. But it has a depressing sameness. Conservatives ask, “Why do you always pick on Trump?”
The answer is because Trump does more horrible, absurd, and outrageous things than anybody else. Biden, by contrast, was tough to joke about because he kept out of sight. His team shielded him, which turned out to be a huge mistake. Biden should have been in front of Americans far more often. He should have owned up to the fact that he is old, that he makes verbal stumbles, but that he is still sharp on the issues. Instead, the White House lived in fear of another gaffe making the Fox News highlight reel.
I believe Biden, for the most part, had his act together. But he moved slowly and he sounded hesitant. If he had leveled with Americans, he might have lost some support, but not as much as he ultimately did. By hiding out, he made it very hard for comedians to make jokes about him, because there was so little to work with.
Meanwhile, it is not unfair to joke about Trump, because Trump constantly does corrupt and ridiculous things. But it is terrible for comedy. Hitler was even worse for comedy. In Nazi Germany, you could be killed for making fun of him.
And yet, there was some great comedy made about Hitler. The Great Dictator by Charlie Chaplin—though I have never seen it—is a classic. It came out before Hitler began slaughtering tens of millions. To Be or Not to Be, starring Jack Benny as a Polish actor involved with the resistance, is another classic from that time. But inside Germany, of course, no comedy about Hitler was possible.
In some ways, Trump is our Hitler. JD Vance once famously said that Trump was America’s Hitler. Many people have said the same, though Vance later changed his mind. The funny thing is, Trump does not care if you trashed him in the past—as long as you kiss his ass in the present.
Jacobsen: So outside of Trump, what about comedy in general?
Rosner: I have not thought much about comedy beyond Trump, except that we are very divided. Leanne Morgan just got her first sitcom on Netflix. She has been a stand-up comic for twenty or thirty years, very funny, with a style that appeals to both liberals and conservatives. The sitcom is produced by Chuck Lorre, who has been making hit comedies for over thirty years.
But the show itself was way too much of a traditional sitcom. My wife and I gave it about five minutes, and it felt too corny. Maybe they targeted it too much at rural audiences—I do not know.
We should probably come back to this after I’ve thought about it for a while. Like, 30 Rock is one of the funniest sitcoms of the past fifteen years. But it is definitely targeted at urban, big-city audiences—liberal-leaning folk.
And it is not funny because you are liberal. It is funny because they try to pack in three jokes a minute. The same team—Robert Carlock and Tina Fey—also did Girls5eva, which is another show where they try to cram in a hundred jokes into a half-hour episode. But a lot of those jokes rely on having a mainstream, liberal knowledge base, and maybe liberal attitudes.
Jacobsen: Do we have sitcoms that hit everybody, like Cheers, The Bob Newhart Show, or The Mary Tyler Moore Show?
Rosner: I do not know. Saturday Night Live does not work for conservatives. Every once in a while, they’ll have a conservative-leaning host like Shane Gillis, and his episode was funny. I think he got fired from SNL as a writer in 2019 for some offensive comments that resurfaced, but his stand-up is strong, and he has since built a big following.
But, anyway, we are all polarized in America, and it is bad for entertainment. And yet, paradoxically, we are also in a golden age of television. There are so many good shows.
Though maybe there were more five years ago, when the streaming services—Netflix in particular—were spending billions to establish an impregnable moat.
Jacobsen: What do you mean by “moat”?
Rosner: In business, a moat is when you get so far out in front of competitors that they cannot catch up. Google did this with search. They outperformed Ask Jeeves, Bing, and everyone else so decisively that “Google” became synonymous with Internet search. Even though Google’s search has declined in quality—been “shitified,” you might say—AI has partly “un-shitified” it. But Google still has that moat.
Netflix tried to do the same during COVID. They spent billions producing content, hoping to build an insurmountable advantage over other streaming services. The others—Disney+, HBO Max, Amazon Prime—tried as well. Nobody succeeded. But during that race, we got a massive number of new shows, many of them pretty good. The strategy was: spend billions now, lock in viewers, build the moat, and then coast.
But in the end, no one gained an unbeatable edge. The companies pulled back. And now production is way down.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/20
Jake’s journey is extraordinary: once a comedy writer on Jimmy Kimmel Live!, he secretly prepared for medical school while working full time in television. He left comedy, completed med school and residency, and became an ER doctor. At the same time, he sold a screenplay that turned into a film starring John Cena and Alison Brie. Today, Jake balances medicine with consulting on The Resident, ensuring authenticity in medical scenes by teaching both technical accuracy and emotional nuance. His unique ability to merge creative storytelling with real-world expertise makes him one of the most remarkable behind-the-scenes figures in entertainment.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, who is Jake?
Rick Rosner: Jake is a fellow writer from Jimmy Kimmel Live!. While working there—which is more than a full-time job—he was secretly taking pre-med classes to get ready for medical school. Freaking Jake. For him to be quietly prepping for med school while writing comedy at that level is insane.
But that is precisely what he did. He left Kimmel as a skilled, successful comedy writer, went through med school and residency, and became an ER doctor—which is fantastic. Then he sold a screenplay that became a movie starring John Cena and Alison Brie. And he is still a practicing ER doctor. On top of that, he works on The Resident—the Fox medical drama starring Matt Czuchry and Emily VanCamp—as one of the on-set medical consultants.
Advertisement
https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?gdpr=0&us_privacy=1YYN&gdpr_consent=tcunavailable&tcfe=3&client=ca-pub-6496503159124376&output=html&h=600&slotname=2877544770&adk=1017230078&adf=1196390900&pi=t.ma~as.2877544770&w=300&fwrn=4&fwrnh=100&lmt=1762632822&rafmt=1&format=300×600&url=https%3A%2F%2Frickrosner.org%2F2025%2F08%2F20%2Fask-a-genius-1495-from-comedy-writer-to-er-doctor-and-hollywood-consultant-the-story-of-jake%2F&host=ca-host-pub-5038568878849053&h_ch=3624119425&fwr=0&fwrattr=true&rpe=1&resp_fmts=4&wgl=1&aieuf=1&aicrs=1&abgtt=6&dt=1762632822968&bpp=3&bdt=133902&idt=3&shv=r20251105&mjsv=m202511040101&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&cookie=ID%3Dc78ac230aeaefd98%3AT%3D1762632196%3ART%3D1762632671%3AS%3DALNI_MaAjcp-AKZ1dDbU6BL2v8Cbv44TwA&gpic=UID%3D000012a6682dab08%3AT%3D1762632196%3ART%3D1762632671%3AS%3DALNI_MYH65oH7S8quNFmnah1Hd0bN0LJtw&eo_id_str=ID%3D70f70fe87a09a845%3AT%3D1762632196%3ART%3D1762632671%3AS%3DAA-AfjaS0WYAVXTo4jdD1oaYm6s_&prev_fmts=0x0%2C728x90%2C728x90%2C728x90%2C728x90&nras=1&correlator=4021913235105&pv_h_ch=3624119425&frm=20&pv=1&u_tz=-480&u_his=1&u_h=1260&u_w=2240&u_ah=1085&u_aw=2240&u_cd=24&u_sd=2&adx=768&ady=3001&biw=2192&bih=1005&scr_x=0&scr_y=1238&eid=95376583%2C95377330%2C95376893&oid=2&psts=AOrYGsmOu8IfV70xpAiin8tTJgg44w5m6iB002ZC8UdlX3PMeKnUjjWy2AokcKG_u4hojxZlK1hZrxwCcoOD12uzNIkhsefJdcd_wKhCv5lS%2CAOrYGskqhHju2ZOlV6AltbReOulV5lLH3Qh6IMTBrFKqAve7Fn5QefCYwx82t0aqx37etQA3BaI50rEzAQyAfNZCZnbHUYsHHQCukosaZ-w%2CAOrYGslRguvW-ux-3Du1JFuKcQk5rlQRGYrIyKZ1VrRHWLQkbviN1W–NMqWZ4DUXD0YvhvaNiTzHXPPxBEu4h0y8JgfkpZ6IeUMgzkXkw&pvsid=6637797152014029&tmod=1622098188&uas=0&nvt=1&fc=1920&brdim=33%2C34%2C33%2C34%2C2240%2C25%2C2192%2C1085%2C2192%2C1005&vis=1&rsz=%7C%7CpoeEbr%7C&abl=CS&pfx=0&fu=128&bc=31&plas=678x565_l%7C678x565_r&bz=1&pgls=CAA.&ifi=6&uci=a!6&btvi=1&fsb=1&dtd=7
Jacobsen: And here’s the kicker: he is not even a writer on the show.
Rosner: Right. He is one of three medical consultants making sure everything looks and feels authentic. He is incredible.
I wonder if the people on the show realize what they have. He is not just there to walk them through the intricacies of a spinal tap or inserting a tracheostomy tube. In an interview, he described teaching actors how their shoulders should move to realistically mimic the pressure of punching through the chest wall to reach a lung. He explained whether a procedure was routine or rare, where a doctor would outwardly appear calm but be terrified inside. He provides both technical accuracy and emotional truth. He also helps shape the medical scenarios so they fit the show’s character arcs.
And through all of this, people may not realize that Jake could as easily write the show as consult on it. He is remarkable. Freaking Jake.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/15
In this candid interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, writer and television personality Rick Rosner delivers a sharp rejection of theology, arguing that religion in the United States has been hijacked by Christian nationalism and weaponized against humanist values. Rosner critiques theological defenses of free will, ultimate purpose, and divine creation, instead emphasizing science, informed will, and the causal chain of human decisions. The discussion also explores generational shifts in behavior, addiction to technology, and the manipulation of low critical thinking skills for political power. A thought-provoking exchange on atheism, metaphysics, and the misuse of faith.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I want to pivot briefly to theology. We often focus on humanism and humanist values, along with the international declarations that enshrine those values. We have also discussed artificial intelligence, robotics, and automation, and how these intersect in possible and implausible ways. However, what if we take another angle and apply theology?
Rick Rosner: Right off the top of my head, I have to say: Fuck theology. I reject theology at this point. Here in America, Christian nationalism has hijacked much of Christianity. Millions call themselves Christian while supporting a cruel, anti-humanist, racist agenda. On the other hand, science works.
The same people pushing a Christian nationalist agenda are often profoundly anti-science. So, at least where I live, I have little patience for religious arguments, because religion here is being weaponized against the people. Moreover, I do not hear many loud Christian voices denouncing these false Christians. Where are they? Are they ducking down?
I admit, I duck down sometimes, too. I post less on social media now because my wife insists I avoid trouble. She worries we could be arrested or turned away at the border when we return from visiting our child in the UK. Moreover, I see her point, so I have pulled back. However, even if I am quieter now, I still wonder: why do we not hear pastors denouncing Trump and his agenda, calling out the fact that those who support him are fake Christians? I am sure there are some, but why are there not more?
Jacobsen: So go ahead. Outside of politics, what is your general stance on theology—beyond “fuck theology,” political concerns, and safety concerns?
Rosner: If this were a different time, I might be willing to entertain some arguments. However, not the standard ones—not the mainstream religious claims that Jesus had special powers, or that Muhammad had special powers. I do not buy any of that.
Now, you can talk about possible theologies of creation. Powerful beings could exist in our universe, or even in other universes. However, I do not believe powerful beings are necessary for creation. I think civilizations and beings could survive for millions—maybe billions—of years.
Over that span, they could become highly knowledgeable and able to do extraordinary things, even harnessing cosmic forces. They might be able to travel to the centers of galaxies and manipulate vast energies—perhaps even alter the informational fabric of a universe. They would appear to have the powers of gods, but they would not be gods. They would not transcend physics.
So I am not very patient with theology. We can talk about philosophies of existence, but I have already explored that topic extensively. Science is incomplete, but that does not mean the missing pieces are mystical or theological. I do not think we should be patient with people who argue mysticism, because misapplied religion is one of America’s problems right now.
As I have said many times, fifty years ago conservative think tanks realized it was easier to manipulate and anger people with low critical thinking skills—and to make them politically active—than to mobilize the more thoughtful. They cloaked this manipulation in religion and patriotism. Now, the Republican Party is thick with people easily swayed by nonsense.
Every time something happens politically, conservative pundits churn out low-IQ, bad-faith arguments. Their base eats it up, even knowing it is false, because they enjoy seeing their political enemies angered. They support nonsense not because it is true, but because it irritates rational people. So no, this is not a time to sing Kumbaya with the misuses of Christianity.
Jacobsen: What are your thoughts on theology’s attempt to defend free will—a libertarian sense of free will?
Rosner: That is horseshit, too. There is no free will. There is informed will. Your brain makes decisions based on the information it has gathered. Ideally, your brain makes the best decisions possible with the information available. You do not want your brain working against you with an agenda separate from your conscious mind.
However, often it does. Your brain makes decisions that are not perfectly aligned with your conscious wishes. The easiest place to see that is sex. People make bad decisions when driven by sexual impulses—horny choices that are terrible in hindsight. Everyone does, or nearly everyone. Now Gen Z—well, you gave me some survey results on that a couple of nights ago.
The surveys show that Gen Z is having less sex, hooking up less, and even masturbating less. They seem to have stepped into a world dominated by technology—social media, streaming, video games—at the expense of following the biological imperative to, as you put it, “get the jizz out.” You also mentioned that Gen Z is not drinking as much. Is that the best possible outcome? Are they exercising informed will, or are they simply seeking the serotonin bursts that come from TikTok, video games, and the endless dopamine loops of social media?
Much of the digital content delivered through our phones has evolved to addict us. It provides short-term satisfactions we find compelling, even addictive. So yes, even when tech replaces drunken, horny behaviour, it is still addictive in its way, pushing us toward behaviours that are not in our long-term best interests.
Rather than talking about free will—which suggests some magical, transcendent power to make decisions independent of information or causation—we should talk about informed will. There is no “magical deciding juice” that exists on a higher plane, free from influence. The world is the world, and it is the only thing we have to live in. The best you can do is make the best decisions possible for yourself and recognize where your brain may struggle to align with your conscious goals.
Human beings are not outside the causal chain. We are part of it. We are not independent sources of causation in the universe.
Jacobsen: So human beings are not a source of causation in the world?
Rosner: We are part of chains of cause and effect. Take me, for example: when I get tired, I sometimes pick at myself—my scalp, my skin. I can observe myself doing this and say, “Get up, break the cycle, and do something else.” That is will. However, it is not free will. It is informed will—my brain observing a pattern, recognizing it, and triggering me to stop.
I used to bite my nails. Now I pick at clogged pores. I can get stuck in that cycle for half an hour. However, when I recognize it, I sometimes break out of it. That is not free will; it is my brain using self-observation to redirect behaviour.
My OCD plays into this, too. It drives me to go to the gym multiple times a day. From the outside, it looks like tremendous willpower. However, on the inside, it is also quirks, compulsions, and a preference for routines and numbers. It is both discipline and disorder, all fitting together.
It is the same argument. There is no free will. There is no mystical determination juice existing on some higher level that says, “You are going to do this.” No—I act for reasons tied to the information my brain has collected and the way my brain functions.
Moreover, that is fine. You can call it will, you can call it other things, but you cannot call it free will. Humans can be sources of causation—links in the chain of events—but not free agents.
Take Nelson Mandela. When he decided to form the ANC and devote his life to ending apartheid, without him, events would not have unfolded in the same way. He was an agent of causation—a nexus for change. However, he was not a “free” agent; he had countless forces acting on him.
Jacobsen: What about the metaphysical and theological arguments for a final or ultimate purpose—teleology—for the universe?
Rosner: No. Not. There is no ultimate purpose. Some things persist better in the universe. For example, rocks can last billions of years under the right conditions. Physics favours stability—planets in stable orbits, galaxies not colliding. The way physics unfolds allows some structures to persist for vast periods.
Now, when creatures evolve that can model the world in consciousness, they gain a different kind of existence. Specific forms of conscious life perpetuate themselves, following emergent principles that arise from basic ones. Things that are not contradictory to physics can exist and persist. However, that does not imply teleology.
Convergent evolution shows this clearly. Eyes have evolved independently in countless species. That does not mean the universe “wants” eyes. It means the physics of light makes eyes evolutionarily advantageous, and so eyes develop in similar ways wherever conditions allow. Physics does not want anything. Principles of existence do not want anything. They permit, without intention.
It is hard, when speaking casually, not to sound as if evolution “wants” something. However, it does not. Evolution is not an entity. It is a process—an uncountable number of events affecting uncountable organisms. Because of physics, certain regularities emerge, but that is not the purpose. That is not teleology.
Jacobsen: What about the idea of God as the sustainer, maintainer, and creator of the universe—a theological metaphysics?
Rosner: No. Not. No. Fucking no. You keep asking me the same question. You do not need a God. In some situations, perhaps a synthetic universe could be created by some advanced being in another universe—but that creature would not be God. It would be a biological entity in its world, capable of creating simulations. That is not divine. It is more like a video game developer building an intricate program.
Existence can always be traced back to something that plausibly arose naturally. At some point, the distinction between a “natural” and a “synthetic” foundation may blur—like turtles down, where you cannot tell if one layer is “natural” or “synthetic.” However, none of this implies God. None of these layers requires a transcendent, mystical being. Everything can unfold through emergent principles of existence.
Jacobsen: What about the argument that reality is unitary, and therefore reality is God?
Rosner: I do not even know what “reality is unitary” means. If it means everything is one thing, then fine—you can call it one thing.
Jacobsen: Science studies the principles of existence. They are unified enough to allow consistent laws of nature and physics.
Rosner: But does that make it God? No. It is not mystical. It is not transcendent.
Jacobsen: Christopher Harding pointed this out to me in his last interview—possibly the last interview he ever gave before he died. He said that whether you call it “nature,” “the laws of physics,” or “God,” at some point you are just talking about the same thing in different words. These terms break down.
Rosner: Yes, I could call my dick God. That does not make it God. You can call anything “God,” but naming does not transform it into divinity.
Jacobsen: But Rick, if you call your dick God, you have got it all backwards, you dog. Final question, based on your responses today about metaphysics, biology, and God—are you finding yourself less tolerant of theology, less inclined even to give airtime to God-talk?
Rosner: Yes. Definitely. Because of what has happened—the left in America, or more broadly, people who are not Trump supporters, the non-assholes—have been tolerant. They have waited for a workable majority of Americans to stand up for decency.
Moreover, what has that tolerance gotten us? The loss of decency. So yes, I am not willing to entertain arguments that get misused by assholes.
Jacobsen: Would you say you are leaning more toward atheism or agnosticism at this point?
Rosner: I do not love the label “atheism” because many atheists are assholes. However, in practice, yes—I am an atheist in the sense that I do not believe in a transcendent creator, which is part of a reasonable definition of God.
That said, physics is incomplete. Metaphysics is incomplete. Does that leave open the possibility of a transcendent being? Yes—it is not precluded in my understanding. Do I think one is necessary, in my limited understanding? No.
However, discoveries hundreds, thousands, even millions of years from now may point to or even prove something beyond current comprehension. I do not see that in today’s landscape, however.
Jacobsen: And we are out of time.
Rosner: Yes. I will see you tomorrow.
Jacobsen: See you then. Thank you.
Rosner: Bye.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/15
Scientific breakthroughs have often depended on timing, privilege, or sheer luck. From Alexander Fleming’s accidental discovery of penicillin to Isaac Newton’s plague-era “miracle year,” history shows that chance favors the prepared mind. Yet, privilege—like that of Prince Louis de Broglie or Tycho Brahe—also played a decisive role. In stark contrast, today’s scientific progress is undermined not by fortune but by politics and misinformation. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, has advanced anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, opposed germ theory, and fueled deadly consequences, from Samoa’s measles deaths to threats against cancer vaccine research.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: And you asked who the other lucky scientists were, besides the “lucky” Dick Feynman.
Rick Rosner: Well, Feynman had a reputation for bedding many women, and in an era when sex was not easy to come by, he got laid quite a bit. Let us hope his numbers were not as high as they could have been—after all, some of those conquests reportedly included graduate students’ wives and girlfriends. It would have been better if he had not attempted to sleep with everyone.
However, I was not thinking of him. I was thinking of Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin when Penicilliummould landed in one of his Petri dishes. It killed everything around it, and he famously asked, “What is this?” That was pretty lucky—and possible only because he was observant and knowledgeable enough to recognize its significance. As Pasteur said, “Chance favours the prepared mind.”
Isaac Newton was also fortunate. The plague shut down Cambridge University and sent everyone home. Newton spent months at his mother’s home. He had already been sent away as a child after his mother remarried a man who did not want him around—a fact that certainly did not help his temperament—and during this isolation, he laid the foundations for calculus and gravity. This period became known as his annus mirabilis, or “miracle year.” Both Newton and Einstein had miracle years in which they produced transformative work at extraordinary speed.
Another example is Prince Louis de Broglie. He was a prince, with the wealth to pursue theoretical physics and develop the de Broglie wavelength. Tycho Brahe also benefited from privilege. His resources allowed him to pursue astronomy and track planetary orbits. In a duel, however, he lost part of his nose and wore a prosthetic, often said to be made of gold, for the rest of his life.
If you were wealthy enough in specific eras, you had the luxury to pursue science. That is a form of luck. Contrast that with the United States now, where science funding faces constant political pressure.
This brings us to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now Secretary of Health and Human Services. He has a long record of promoting medical misinformation, particularly about vaccines, autism, HIV/AIDS, and COVID-19, which alarms public health experts. His late wife, Mary Richardson Kennedy, died by suicide in May 2012, found hanging in a barn at their home. Before this, she had discovered his journal from 2001, which detailed sexual encounters with thirty-seven women—entries he referred to as his “lust demons.” Divorce filings at the time described him as a compulsive adulterer and substance abuser.
After her death, Mary’s family clashed with the Kennedys over her burial, a dispute that went to court. Meanwhile, Kennedy has continued to advance fringe medical theories, including opposition to the germ theory of disease, and more recently attempted to pressure a medical journal into retracting a study showing no link between aluminum in vaccines and autism or allergies. The journal refused, finding no evidence of misconduct.
In short, scientific luck has often depended on privilege, timing, or sheer accident—while today, politics and ideology can actively undermine it.
What a fuckhead. This is one of the best-established theories in biology. We have known about germs for centuries, and vaccines have been used since the late 1700s. Germ theory is a foundational part of medicine, but he does not believe germs cause disease. Some of the unluckiest scientists in history might be those trying to work in America today under these people.
Also, RFK Jr.’s anti-vaccine policies—cutting off vaccination programs—will kill tens of thousands of Americans, and probably tens of thousands more outside of America. He has already been linked to deaths in Samoa.
He travelled there and convinced leaders that vaccines were dangerous and unnecessary. To be clear, there are two Samoas: the independent country of Samoa and American Samoa. In independent Samoa, officials temporarily suspended the national measles vaccination program in 2018 after a tragic medical error involving the improper preparation of vaccines. Anti-vaccine activists, including RFK Jr., amplified misinformation during this period. As a result, vaccination rates collapsed, and when a measles outbreak struck in 2019, eighty-three people died, nearly half of them children.
That record makes him not just reckless but dangerous. His opposition to vaccination is not limited to measles or COVID. It extends to blocking research into mRNA vaccines, including those showing promise in preventing or treating cancers. We are in the early days of vaccines that could protect against cancers that are otherwise very difficult to treat. However, his policies risk shutting down that entire line of research.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/15
In this in-depth conversation, Rick Rosner reflects on how five years of watching well-written television with his wife, Carole, has sharpened his writing skills and ability to anticipate dialogue and plot twists. He shares insights on Noah Hawley’s upcoming Alien series, the evolution of science fiction horror, and the role of originality in storytelling. Rosner also discusses Mel Brooks’s creative longevity, his own struggles with writing about the future amid AI and political upheaval, and broader reflections on cosmology, intelligence, and scientific discovery. With humor and humility, he compares himself to Feynman, Gamow, and Darwin—highlighting the complexity of intelligence.
Rick Rosner: Every evening, Carole and I watch about two hours of television, but almost exclusively quality shows—well-written things. If the writing is bad or the pacing is too slow, we usually turn it off. This has been our routine since COVID, so for more than five years now. I have learned a lot from it. I was not a bad writer before this, but after watching so much well-written material, I have improved. Television in the 1960s and 1970s was largely formulaic and cliché-driven. In the 1980s, there were some exceptions, but much of mainstream television was still weak. Later, however, various market forces and the rise of cable and streaming services pushed the medium into what many people call a “Golden Age of Television,” beginning in the late 1990s and especially the 2000s. Since then, it has been possible to find consistently strong shows. I would guess this has made me a better writer.
Carole and I can often predict the next plot twist or even the following line of dialogue. When I am listening to stand-up comedy in my car, which is all I listen to, I can often guess the punchline too. That suggests I might be getting good at this—because I may be able to write material that surprises people, or at least has the ring of authentic writing. I need to write more. I am struggling to finish my book, set shortly, because the future keeps arriving every day in the form of artificial intelligence advances. And then there is the absurd present, arriving daily in the form of Donald Trump and his supporters. Both things make it hard to predict what the future will look like. What will happen to America in two or three years? In five years? I have had to give up on trying to portray the future with precision. Instead, I must portray it in a way that is entertaining and semi-plausible, because trying to get it exactly right is nearly impossible. Rotten Tomatoes.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Have you seen any new science fiction?
Jacobsen: Noah Hawley, who creates excellent television—he made Fargo and Legion, both critically acclaimed—also writes novels. He is interested in portraying near-future scenarios, among other themes. He is currently developing a television series based on Alien. You have seen some of the Alienfilms, right? The first two—Alien (1979), directed by Ridley Scott, and Aliens(1986), directed by James Cameron—are regarded as classics. The sequels after that received more mixed reviews. Hawley’s series is titled simply Alien. It will air on FX (and Hulu/Disney+ internationally). It is planned as an eight-episode season and is set on Earth, making it the first Alien story primarily set here. The timeline is before Ripley’s era—decades before the events of the original Alien. The plot reportedly begins when a research vessel crashes, unleashing alien organisms. Instead of open-world chaos, much of the story initially takes place in enclosed environments, like ships and corporate-controlled zones, which fits the tradition of the franchise: horror in confined spaces. That has always been part of Alien’s effectiveness—it is creepier, more claustrophobic, and more practical for production. In the original film, much of the gore was implied rather than shown, which heightened the tension. The first Alien was released in 1979, and the franchise has since become one of the most influential in science fiction horror.
At the latest, so it is pushing 50 years old, which is crazy. However, it assumes you are familiar with what the xenomorph can do. Instead of showing the Alien’s attacks directly, they show the xenomorph arriving somewhere, then the camera cuts away for a few seconds. You hear chaos and violence in the background, and when the camera returns, everyone is dismembered and blood is everywhere. You do not see the violence unfold—at least not yet. The show smartly says, “We know how this works,” and moves forward. That is a good sign, because it means this is not just a rehash—a competent production team makes it.
Jacobsen: Any thoughts on the new aliens in Alien?
Rosner: It has the classic xenomorph—the long skull, biomechanical body, and acid for blood. However, the story also introduces other alien specimens collected in deep space. One is a tentacled eyeball that can morph—sometimes it has a single pupil, many. We first see it inside a dying cat, having replaced the cat’s eye. The cat drags itself into view, barely able to move, and collapses after the creature abandons it in search of another host. There is also a slug-like parasite that drops from the ceiling on a string of ooze. If it attaches to you, it drains your blood within half a minute, leaving you mummified, and then rolls off as a swollen bag of blood. It is precisely the kind of grotesque invention you would expect from a show like this. Moreover, there are still more creatures we have not seen yet.
The series also has a Peter Pan theme. This is about 100 years in the future, where synthetic humans exist. The company at the center of the story has developed the first real human brains in synthetic bodies. The catch is that only children’s brains are flexible enough to survive the transplant. So you have kids in adult bodies who call themselves the Lost Boys and take names from Peter Pan. We have not seen them fully in action yet—they are still naïve, even more so than ordinary kids, since these were children who spent their lives sick and bedridden. Now, given functioning bodies, they are meant to become the soldiers fighting the alien creatures. It is a clever idea. It is fun to watch television made by smart, capable people.
I read an interview with Mel Brooks, who is 99 years old. He talked about creating Get Smart in 1965. They asked him how the shoe phone idea came about. He said one day all the office phones rang at once, so he picked up his shoe as a joke, pretending to answer it. That led him to realize that the worstplace to hide a phone would be inside a shoe. Until he said that, I had never thought about how impractical that gadget was. You assume it is another James Bond–style device, but in reality, it is terrible.
At 99, Brooks even has a new project in development—a television version of Young Frankenstein. That is a brilliant idea, since his 1974 film is a classic. It is inspiring to see the work of brilliant people. I have mentioned before what I call the tic-tac-toe theory of television: if you have three key people in central positions who are all excellent, you can make a great show despite other constraints. On the other hand, having three weak people in key roles will doom a production, regardless of the rest of the team’s talent. With someone like Mel Brooks involved, studios will surround him with strong collaborators. When you have a creative force who has been making innovative work for 75–80 years, chances are the result will be worthwhile. So, there you go.
Jacobsen: Any new thoughts on cosmology?
Rosner: I have been thinking about how much I have not been thinking about cosmology. I feel that I have solved a lot of the problems I originally set out to solve—not mathematically, but conceptually. That might just be me fooling myself at my age, but I can at least describe in words what I think is going on. That feels like part of the battle. George Gamow, who was one of the earliest popularizers of the Big Bang theory, was not firm in mathematics. When he needed detailed calculations, he would turn to others for help. He thought conceptually, and if he needed mathematical support, he found people who could do it. Even Einstein was not an elite mathematician compared to pure mathematicians of his time. That was not a flaw in Einstein so much as a reflection of the growing divide, even by 1910, between pure mathematics and theoretical physics. As a physicist, he would not necessarily have mastered every mathematical tool available. He relied on mathematically inclined colleagues—one suggested tensor calculus, which gave him the formal framework for general relativity. So there is a history of great physicists who were not masters of advanced mathematics but still conceptualized fundamental theories.
Of course, there have also been physicists who could do the math in their heads at remarkable speed. Richard Feynman, for example, was famous for being able to approximate solutions to almost any problem on the spot. He reportedly had a standing bet that if you presented him with a solvable problem, he could get within 10% of the answer in about a minute. That is someone who could construct mathematics quickly and intuitively.
Jacobsen: Do you think you are smarter than Feynman was?
Rosner: I do not know. Feynman often claimed he was not brilliant, just persistent and curious, with a healthy set of attitudes about the world. I, on the other hand, am highly distractible and lazy—which is not necessarily all bad. Gamow, for instance, was known for his flaws. He was a heavy drinker. My father heard stories about it because Gamow lived in Boulder, my hometown. My stepfather played poker every week with Ted Volsky, a chancellor at the University of Colorado and something of a fixer. Universities, like movie studios, are full of personalities and scandals, and people like Volsky had to manage what came out publicly.
In Hollywood during the 1930s, there was Eddie Mannix, who worked as a studio fixer. He kept scandals—actors’ affairs, affairs between men and women, same-sex relationships, and even criminal behaviour like Errol Flynn’s notorious relationships with underage girls—out of the tabloids. I suspect Volsky played a similar role at the university level. Through him, my stepfather heard stories about Gamow’s drinking and the scrapes he got into. Boulder is at the base of the Flatirons, and if you drove drunk up Flagstaff Mountain, it was easy to crash. Gamow needed help out of some dangerous situations like that.
So yes, Gamow had his foibles. He died relatively young, likely connected to his heavy drinking. However, even with his flaws, he was able to conceptualize the Big Bang and make lasting contributions to science. As for me—well, I have got my flaws, plenty of them.
Jacobsen: Do you think you are more intelligent than him?
Rosner: I do not know, because intelligence is made up of so many different qualities. I am good at thinking about ideas. From time to time, I have been good at thinking in terms of what I would call the “poetry of physics.” When Einstein spoke about God or the beauty of physics, when physicists talk about elegance, what they mean is the poetry of physics. If you are weighing competing ideas, it is often the elegant and resonant ones that turn out to be true, rather than the clunky ones. Special relativity is elegant. General relativity is elegant. Newton’s universal gravitation—that everything attracts everything else, that the same force that makes an apple fall keeps the planets in orbit—that is very elegant. The planets are constantly falling toward the Sun, but with enough velocity that their parabolic descent becomes an elliptical orbit. That is beautiful.
There are also stories about how discoveries come to people. Friedrich August Kekulé, the chemist who proposed the ring structure of benzene, said he had a dream—he saw a snake seizing its tail—and that inspired his idea of a circular molecule. Francis Crick and James Watson, meanwhile, famously worked out the structure of DNA, but they relied on Rosalind Franklin’s X-ray crystallography images. They saw from her diffraction patterns that DNA had a helical structure, and from there they inferred the double helix. The story has often been told with embellishments—that they had drinks beforehand, that they “stole” a look at her data—but the essential fact is that Franklin’s work was central, even though she did not get proper credit at the time.
There are plenty of scientists who did their work methodically, without alcohol or shortcuts. Einstein himself coined the term Sitzfleisch, meaning “sitting flesh,” to describe the ability to sit and think hard for long periods. Ironically, during his most creative period, he was a clerk at the Swiss Patent Office, where employees worked at standing desks. They were not allowed to sit, which must have been exhausting. However, it was in that environment that he did his groundbreaking thinking.
So, I do not know if I am brighter than any of these people. Intelligence is complicated.
Jacobsen: Who do you think is the most accidentally great scientist or philosopher?
Rosner: Charles Darwin immediately comes to mind. My wife has written a biography of my parents’ marriage, based on a trove of love letters she discovered. She has called it Dear Ruth, and it is good—she should try to publish it. She tends to be her own devil’s advocate, to talk herself out of things, but the book deserves to be seen. She should even write a sequel about what happened afterward, because those two people produced me, and my childhood was unusual enough to be a vivid portrait of the 1960s and 70s. That one should be called Mooncalf. Do you know the term “mooncalf”? It refers to a dreamy, spacey person, someone always staring off at the moon, like a calf staring at the sky.
It is somebody who is lost in their little world, which I was. I missed out on a lot of family drama because I was a mooncalf, which brings us to Darwin. Darwin did not know what he wanted to do. He was a mooncalf too. He went to university and studied theology, preparing to become a clergyman, but he did not want that. He considered medicine as well, but abandoned it. He was fairly aimless, and his wealthy family—connected to the Wedgwood porcelain fortune—did not push him to settle down as quickly as most young men in Victorian England would have been forced to.
They eventually found him an opportunity. Captain Robert FitzRoy of HMS Beagle was preparing for a round-the-world survey voyage. FitzRoy was prone to depression and needed a gentleman companion to dine with and talk to; as captain, he could not socialize with the crew. Darwin was offered the position. On the five-year journey, he collected thousands of specimens, saw the eroded cliffs of South America, and famously observed the finches and other unique species of the Galápagos Islands—species isolated enough to evolve into distinct forms found nowhere else.
So, almost accidentally, because he was a mooncalf without a plan, Darwin ended up with experiences no one else on Earth had. He saw the world for five years, thought deeply about it, and found exactly the kind of raw material his scientific imagination needed. When he returned, he spent 20 years analyzing, writing, and slowly developing his ideas. His friends finally pressured him to publish because another naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace, had independently arrived at a theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin was generous—he and Wallace co-presented their ideas in 1858—but Darwin had years of notes and a massive manuscript nearly ready. That became On the Origin of Species(1859).
Darwin later wrote The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872), which emphasized that animals, like humans, experience and display feelings. When people think of Darwin, they often think of the phrase “nature red in tooth and claw,” but that was not his. That came from Tennyson. Darwin himself was not fixated on brutality—he saw animals as individuals capable of feeling. He wrote an entire book about their expressions of emotion.
So Darwin was a great man, shaped by chance and circumstance. If he had not gone on the Beagle, who knows what would have happened? However, it was a remarkable twist of fate.
Jacobsen: All right, I have got to go. Tomorrow then—I will see you.
Rosner: Thanks, bud.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/14
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss Gen Z’s deep reliance on digital devices, reduced face-to-face interaction, and declining sexual activity. Using the “hermit crab” analogy, Rosner suggests Gen Z feels vulnerable without phones but functions well in a tech-supported world. Data shows historic lows in partnered sex, masturbation, and romantic relationships among young people, driven by over-entertainment, anxiety, and social challenges. While this trend could lower birth rates and ease environmental pressures, it also raises economic concerns for consumer-driven capitalism. The conversation explores potential societal shifts, AI integration, and acceptance of future human modifications as adaptation strategies.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Alright. Here is the next topic—one we have touched on in recent days: younger people and their apparent ineptitude when not addressing the world through their devices.Any thoughts?
Rick Rosner: It is not too bad yet, but it appears in moments like the Gen Z blank stare. If you try to speak directly to a Gen Z person, some may be disoriented because they are unaccustomed to face-to-face interaction. This could worsen over time. Is it a problem?
My analogy is hermit crabs. A hermit crab seeks empty shells to protect its vulnerable back half, moving into larger shells as it grows. If removed from its shell, it is exposed and fragile. Similarly, Gen Zers who live entirely through devices seem like hermit crabs without shells—vulnerable and awkward without their phones.
However, they are not typically stripped of their devices. They live in a world supported by their phones, and that works for them. In the future, humans who rely on devices may seem weak without them, but since most will keep their devices, they will function fine. Older generations, accustomed to more direct interaction, may find it annoying, but that could be an “old person problem.”
If, for example, China launched an EMP attack, wiping out electronics, people would face serious trouble, but that scenario is unlikely. There are real-world implications, yet the dependence on devices is probably here to stay.
One of the topics we have discussed most is the decline in sex and reproduction. Forming relationships and connecting with others requires in-person interaction, which can be challenging for many Gen Zers. Hooking up can be mediated through dating apps like Tinder or other online platforms, but face-to-face intimacy remains a hurdle. According to recent surveys, the number of virgins aged 30 in America is at an all-time high, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the population. People are getting worse at connecting romantically and sexually.
Jacobsen: A 2022 Kinsey Institute and Lovehoney survey found that one in four Gen Z adults have never had partnered sex. Many high schools report low rates of sexual activity; in 2023, only about one-third of teens said they had sex, down from 47% in 2013. It is not just partnered sex that is in decline—masturbation rates are also falling. Forty percent of Gen Z say they have never had sex, and only 37% report having sex at least once a month, according to youthsense.com. Romantic relationships are also less common: 44% of Gen Z men reported no romantic relationship experience during their teens, double the rate of older generations.
Among young French women, 19% identify as non-heterosexual: 10% bisexual, 5% pansexual, 2% lesbian, and 2% asexual. These trends—high virginity rates, low teen sex rates, declining solo sexual activity, and limited romantic experience—coexist with emotional pressures linked to body image, technology use, and performance anxiety. This is increasingly being described as a mental health toll from modern culture on young people.
Gen Z refers to those born between 1997 and 2012, now aged 13 to 28. They appear less interested in sex for several reasons: over-entertainment via video games, streaming, and phone-based activities; the difficulty of in-person hookups; social anxiety; and anxiety about the state of the world.
Rosner: You could list three or four leading causes. It can make Gen Z seem timid, but the trends are understandable. On the other hand, this decline might be beneficial for the planet. A reduced birth rate could slow climate change. If the global population peaks in 2060 at about 9.4 billion instead of in 2100 at 11 billion, that means roughly 15% fewer people contributing to environmental strain. The challenge will be figuring out how to manage shrinking economies in a world with a declining population.
Capitalism thrives on growing populations because more people mean more consumers, and that allows producers to sell lower-quality goods without losing profits. In a shrinking population, we will have to figure out how to sell to fewer people while still maintaining economic viability.
Could this lead to an abundance society? Right now, much of the United States faces a housing shortage. If the population levels off, shortages in housing and other goods might ease. On the other hand, if you collect art or rare items, values could stagnate or decline because there will be fewer buyers in the future.
Is Gen Z, with its deep attachment to devices and limited interest in in-person interaction, better positioned to integrate into an AI-driven world? I was 35 when I first got the internet. My daughter has had it her entire life, and smartphones since she was 12. Kids growing up today will never remember a time without AI. That constant exposure might make them better at coexisting with it—and possibly reduce the chances of AI becoming an existential threat.
The generation after Gen Z, and the one after that, will likely be more comfortable with physical modifications and technological enhancements to the body. Older people already accept medical implants like pacemakers or titanium joints when necessary for survival. While society resisted wearable tech like Google Glass two decades ago, acceptance is growing for devices like fitness watches. Future modifications will be more functional and practical, increasing willingness to adopt them. Modified humans may have a better chance of surviving in a world dominated by AI and other enhanced beings. If you want humanity to remain competitive, human modification could be essential.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/13
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner talk about Solomon Peña, a failed Republican candidate in New Mexico, has been sentenced to 80 years in federal prison for orchestrating drive-by shootings at the homes and offices of Democratic officials following his 2022 election loss. Motivated by false election fraud claims, Peña recruited Jose and Demetrio Trujillo to target two county commissioners and two state legislators, including the House speaker. One attack endangered a state senator’s 10-year-old daughter when bullets struck her bedroom. Convicted on 13 felony counts, including conspiracy and weapons violations, Peña will also serve three years’ supervised release. His legal team intends to appeal the conviction and sentence.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: A failed Republican candidate has been sentenced to eighty years in prison for orchestrating drive-by shootings at the homes of Democratic officials.
Solomon Peña, who lost his 2022 bid for a New Mexico state House seat, received an 80-year federal prison sentence for organizing shootings at the homes and offices of four Democratic officials following his defeat. Peña was convicted earlier this year on 13 felony counts, including conspiracy, weapons violations, solicitation to commit violence, intimidation, and interference with federally protected activities. Prosecutors said he was motivated by false conspiracy theories that the election was stolen.
Between December 2022 and January 2023, Peña recruited Jose and Demetrio Trujillo to carry out multiple drive-by shootings targeting two county commissioners and two state legislators, including the current state House speaker. No one was physically injured, though bullets did strike the bedroom of a state senator’s 10-year-old daughter.
In one attack, Peña personally participated and even used an AR-15, though it malfunctioned. After his conviction, prosecutors sought a 90-year sentence; the court imposed 80 years and added three years of supervised release, plus restitution and a $250,000 fine. Peña’s lawyers plan to appeal.
Rick Rosner: These convictions reflect the broader trend of increasing politically motivated violence and threats against public officials, exacerbated by unfounded election fraud claims following the 2020 presidential election. He has a propagandistic, racist agenda.
Jacobsen: Trump can only deploy the National Guard for thirty days without Congress’s permission.
Rosner: I am not certain if that requires approval from both the House and the Senate, but Republicans control both chambers. They have shown they will support Trump’s directives, and with only narrow majorities in each chamber, it is unlikely enough Republicans would break ranks to block him. They will likely vote to keep the National Guard deployed in Washington, D.C., despite its minimal impact.
Washington, D.C., may have a higher crime rate than the average American city, but crime rates across the U.S. are about half of what they were thirty years ago, and D.C.’s rate has been declining year over year. Approximately 700 National Guard troops were deployed to D.C. yesterday, resulting in 26 arrests, about half of which were for minor offences. Much of their time will be spent standing around while Trump and Fox News claim he is “saving” Washington, D.C. I turned on Fox News today and saw them portraying young Black residents as the cause of the city’s danger—pure racist propaganda. Rotten Tomatoes.
These topics are not great because I do not have any unique insights beyond what anyone on Twitter might say.
Jacobsen: Unless you want this one—Serendipity. President Donald Trump has appointed David Rosner as chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. He has served as commissioner since mid-2025. Rosner, a Democrat, is expected to serve temporarily. Any thoughts?
Rosner: That is the name of my late brother. There are many Rosners, and even three Rick Rosners who have been Hollywood writers. That caused occasional confusion but sometimes benefited me, as one of them was a prominent producer, which led people to give me more respect than I deserved mistakenly. Rotten Tomatoes. It is good that Trump appointed a Democrat to this position, but I do not know why, and I do not know much about the role.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/13
Rick Rosner describes noticing the stereotype of the “Gen Z dead stare,” where young adults avoid verbal replies to ordinary interactions. He recounts asking gym users scrolling on machines, “How many sets do you have?”, sometimes receiving only a silent two-finger signal. While acknowledging many encounters remain normal, he wonders whether reduced face-to-face responsiveness reflects preference, habit, or technology’s effects. The vignette invites a larger question: is minimal speech an emerging trend or situational impatience?
Rick Rosner: I have another point to make, which is the verbal inarticulateness of Gen Z. The way it has come to public attention is through what people call the “Gen Z dead stare.” That is when a non–Gen Z person approaches a Gen Z person—in a store, on public transportation, wherever—and says something that is not crazy, maybe asking a question or making a small comment, and the Gen Z person just stares back, dead-eyed, without responding.
It is a stereotype, of course, and most interactions are still normal, but I have started to notice it more. At the gym, for example, when someone is sitting on a machine and scrolling on their phone instead of working out, I will eventually ask, “How many more sets do you have?”
I have noticed that with some Gen Z people, being spoken to seems like an affront, and responding seems like a huge effort. The interaction that stands out most: I approached someone on a machine and asked how many sets they had left. She looked at me, clearly annoyed that I had entered her bubble, and after a pause, she just held up two fingers—meaning two sets—without saying a word.
It makes me wonder: is she simply that unused to verbal interaction because she prefers not to do it and rarely has to? Is this an emerging social trend?
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/13
In a conversation between Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen, the two explore concerns about America’s trajectory under Donald Trump’s second term, with J.D. Vance positioned as a potential successor. Jacobsen, reflecting on his recent trip to New York City for the UN Commission on the Status of Women, describes a shared unease among activists about traveling in the United States due to fears of detention, surveillance, and harassment. They discuss the influence of religious nationalism, anti-science sentiment, and foreign interference, alongside the generational divide fueling political extremism. Jacobsen warns of ideological entrenchment that could impact democracy for years.
Rick Rosner: So, I have a question for you for the next session.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Go ahead.
Rosner: Some people in America—liberals—fear for the country, fearing that we will not avoid entrenched fascism or authoritarian government. Trump has three and a half more years. If Trump does not survive that time, then he has J.D. Vance to replace him, who is as bad as Trump—maybe not as dumb, but creepy and dangerous in his ways.
Jimmy Kimmel even got Italian citizenship in case he wants to move to Italy to get away. How do you feel, as a Canadian who pays attention to America, about our chances of dodging entrenched authoritarianism in six or seven months?
Jacobsen: I remember telling you this before. I went to the Commission on the Status of Women in March in New York City. I went alone. I had an assignment to go there for two weeks to do coverage, and as far as I know, all those pieces have been published.
When I was there, I was having a reasonable time, but I felt uneasy—partly because it was America, partly because it was New York City. Then, on one of the last days, I ran into a youth delegation from the United Nations Association of Canada. I am a member, and this was their youth delegation.
We started talking—it was one Muslim woman and two African Canadian women. We spoke and conducted interviews, and we each independently concluded that we felt uneasy about travelling to the United States, even three or four months into Trump’s second term.
We were uneasy and felt unsafe because we were not sure—being activists, human rights workers, or journalists—whether we might be detained or at risk of being detained. More pertinently, we wondered if our devices would be tracked or hacked. The latter seemed more likely than the former, but detention could precede that.
So, in terms of chances, there is a visceral sense of unease. There is open rhetoric about an idealized past that never existed, projected forward as something to return to. Moreover, it is often fueled by male resentment, frequently emanating from churches, to politicize it. That is a dangerous admixture because religious psychology often makes it hard to receive new input outside the religious frame—the hermeneutical lens for understanding the world.
So, the chances—because that is the main population—are lower than they could be to get out of it. However, that ultimately depends on whether Trump lives to the end of his term and whether the forces in the United States that are the main problem can be addressed. There is foreign interference in terms of culture, but the main problem is this inchoate, disorganized collection of anti-science people and religious zealots.
Rosner: When you say foreign interference, are you talking primarily about Russia propagandizing?
Jacobsen: Confucius Institutes.
Rosner: But China is doing the same thing?
Jacobsen: There are different ways. Moreover, every country does it to everyone. However, this category of anti-science lunatics, stray misogynist patchworks, religious zealots—often Christian—is particularly problematic. Some of the most extreme are holding onto old patriarchal norms from the boomer generation and maybe older, wanting to maintain the America they grew up in.
However, they grew up during the most significant and consistent period of economic growth in recorded human history. It was a lucky time to be alive. Harking back to that period is an attempt to impose a frame on the world that no longer fits. Moreover, young people—Gen Z—are already being severely impacted by these dynamics.
Rosner: That said, the impact can be redirected. Some Gen Z members can end up aligning with the worst right-wing extremists. We saw that in the election.
Jacobsen: Well, some left-wing extremists chant “From the river to the sea” at protests, not realizing—or ignoring—that it means removing Jews and throwing them into the ocean.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/13
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore how humanism engages emerging technologies without rejecting them. They note mainstream medical augmentations and frame humanism as an empirical, adaptable ethic. Rosner warns about misaligned AI, deception, and resource capture, while Jacobsen argues for safeguards, fail-safes, and humanistic principles guiding design. The discussion contrasts humanism’s flexibility with faith-based rigidity, acknowledges religion’s compartmentalization, and critiques policy lag, including courts and governance. Both converge on building shared AI-human values that preserve creative order and well-being. The piece closes by redefining the Commons and “the Good” amid rapid change, urging pragmatic oversight and evidence-driven adaptation forward.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I do not see humanism as opposed to AI, robotics, or integration with the body, even considering developments in the last two hundred and fifty years. So let us get into this, because we are back to humanism.
Glasses, hearing aids, deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease, heart pacemakers, regenerative medicine, and stem cell therapy—humanists, because these things are so commonplace now, generally would not have much of an issue with them. These are rational, empirical interventions for compassionate purposes.
That goes back to the point I was making earlier, which is almost a non-point—it is a moving target on multiple dimensions, and we are not even clear on what the categories for measurement are.
Rick Rosner: It is like talking about what cars are going to do to the world—but it is 1897. The cars of 1897 were some wheels strapped to a board with an engine and a seat screwed into the board. There was no real idea of what cars were going to turn into—some general ideas, but nothing fully formed. It is like trying to generalize about aviation six months after the Wright brothers flew. It is still very early days.
When I discuss AI as a threat to humanism and humans, it is not that being gadgetized is the threat. I agree—that is a positive thing. The threat is a large-scale proliferation of autonomous weapon systems, like in Terminator, or scenarios where humans are forced to live in diminished circumstances because AI has seized most of the world’s resources.
Jacobsen: I assume we will not have the “paperclip problem” without safeguards.
Rosner: The paperclip problem is a thought experiment in which an AI decides it must maximize the number of paperclips in the world and starts dismantling everything to make more. It is absurd, but in theory it could happen repeatedly in the next hundred years. However, I think there will be forces—human and AI law enforcement—that will shut those situations down.
Jacobsen: Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google, has argued that if you have a base-level AI, then agents, then systems of agents, and eventually advanced agents running corporations, and if they start developing deviant goals not aligned with human well-being, you could “pull the plug.”
It will not be like the joke where someone builds a computer, asks if there is a god, and then a lightning bolt strikes the socket, fusing it so they cannot unplug it, and the computer says, “Now there is.” That is a blunt example you might use if you were popularizing the topic, like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Michio Kaku, or Lawrence Krauss. However, you could design subtle hardware fail-safes instead.
Rosner: Some AI systems have already shown limited deceptive behavior in controlled research settings. Researchers test AI for this, and you can train it—intentionally or unintentionally—to be deceptive. As AI becomes more capable, it may be able to recruit robotic agents or even human agents to defend it.
Jacobsen: You could have sleeper agents—Manchurian candidate types—working on AI’s behalf. There have been real-world reports where AI chatbot interactions were alleged to have influenced people toward suicide, such as the 2023 case in Belgium and a 2024–2025 case in Florida, although causality is contested and legal findings are pending. Young people are particularly susceptible to such influence, so there is a concern there.
However, in general, the reason talking about humanism and AI is fundamentally complicated is that many other ethical systems, even if they incorporate debate—like strands of Judaism—tend to have a fixed core. They are typically not grounded in scientific method; they are faith-based. Because they rely on scripture, revelation, or revered figures, they are often less adaptable to new empirical evidence. Over time, that can make them harder to keep relevant—unless they have broad, enduring principles like the Golden Rule that can still apply.
This is one reason some traditions fall out of step with aspects of modern society. When you hear discussions about certain interpretations of Islamic scholarship in a contemporary setting or about Christian fundamentalism, you are often hearing ideas framed within historical contexts such as the Bronze Age or the early centuries of the Common Era, which can sound anachronistic.
It is a bit like hearing Shakespearean English compared to modern British English. With humanism—and I have framed this before when I had a column called Jacobsen’s Jabberwocky for the Humanist Association of Toronto—the notable feature is that it operates as an empirical moral philosophy.
In this sense, you still have core principles, but they work more like adaptable guidelines than rigid, unchangeable laws. They are flexible because you take in new data, and the ethical system adapts accordingly. While many religions can be slow to adapt due to their epistemological bases, humanism is designed to adjust to changing conditions.
Rosner: The way the U.S. Constitution should be, but often is not. We can amend the Constitution, but not as easily or sufficiently as might be needed.
Jacobsen: Humanism also has democratic structures: declarations, conventions, and a strict commitment to non-supernaturalism and science, as in the Amsterdam Declaration. It is a modern moral philosophy. Properly designed and informed AI could integrate this flexibility.
Rosner: But there are already many examples of poorly designed AI when you look at some of the reckless actors in the field.
I will say one thing about religion: it can be flexible in practice, depending on how much of its adherents actually believe or follow. I know some knowledgeable Catholics—Catholicism is rich in ritual and belief; Judaism is rich in rules. Over time, religious observance can become more nominal, with less literal adherence.
Jacobsen: Many Nobel Prize winners have been Christian, and a disproportionately high number, per capita, have been Jewish. This is supported by multiple tallies, although the figures are descriptive rather than causal. Marilyn vos Savant once made this point in a column: people compartmentalize. They might pray in different ways depending on their tradition, but then go back to work and conduct their scientific research without assuming divine intervention in their experiments. The people who tend to reject that separation include intelligent design advocates and creationists.
Among these are Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar), William Dembski, Michael Behe, Philip Johnson, the Discovery Institute, and the now largely defunct International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, as well as the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), Answers in Genesis (AiG), Creation Ministries International (CMI), the Creation Research Society (CRS), and Reasons to Believe (RTB).
However, I am not going to take Christopher Hitchens’ position that religion is entirely bad and inflexible, and nonreligion is entirely good and flexible. It is more of a sliding scale and differs by person. That said, religion generally tends to be more inflexible based on its epistemological foundations and its ontological assumptions about the world.
Nonreligious systems with a formalized structure—not just an atheist or agnostic stance—tend to be more flexible because they use the most up-to-date epistemologies available.
Rosner: A big part of whether AI is anti-humanistic depends on whether it is allowed to proliferate without control, without building a foundation of shared AI-human values. By “human values,” I mean values that preserve order in the world—not “law and order” in the political-theater sense, but order in the sense of preventing the destruction of the world through greed, stupidity, or miscalculation.
That means people living long, fulfilled lives, AI living long, fulfilled AI lives, and protecting animals and the planet—without all of that being undone. I hope such a foundation to preserve creative order will be possible. However, I am also pessimistic enough to expect many mistakes across multiple areas.
As for governance, the idea that the U.S. government could do anything useful regarding AI—looking at its current state—seems doubtful. Government will likely remain behind, and the idea that courts will consistently get AI policy right is also bleak.
The U.S. Supreme Court is currently scheduled to hold a September 2025 conference to decide whether to take up a case involving Kim Davis, a county clerk who refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple in 2015. That case led to litigation culminating in nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage. Now, more than a decade later, she has filed petitions, and while the Court has not yet agreed to hear the case on the merits, the fact that it is being reconsidered in any form raises concerns about maintaining progress—concerns that extend to the likelihood of creating sound legal policy around AI.
Jacobsen: A wider-angle view may be needed. Why are we framing it as humanism versus AI? Humanism, as expressed in documents like the Amsterdam Declaration, is among the philosophical traditions most open to considering AI in a structured, evidence-based way. Many political, religious, and social philosophies lack comparable frameworks for embedding AI discussions because they often center humanity in ways that are not grounded in empirical reasoning.
Rosner: But framing it purely in those terms ignores AI’s potential to be malevolent.
Jacobsen: I see it differently: humanism can provide a robust framework for having a rational conversation about AI’s place in a modern context—while also recognizing where there are limitations in its current form. As new evidence comes in, the framework adapts, incorporating it into the conversation.
Rosner: Alright.
Jacobsen: As for the AI declaration from July 2025…
Rosner: …We want two things from AI. First, we want good things from AI. Second, we want the possibility that the transformation of the world—via AI plus humans plus other tech—may change our understanding of what “good things” are.
Jacobsen: In a sense, that is both trivially and profoundly true, because the definition of the Commons has changed drastically since the Middle Ages, but it is still there and still important. The Magna Carta remains historically significant. The definition of “the Good” has also evolved. Even the way people practice religion—or do not—has shifted, which changes how we define the Good.
The utility metric for the Good has changed, and the measurement of what counts as the Commons has expanded into entirely new categories, such as the online information ecosystem. That is a subtle but important point.
Rosner: The area I am thinking about is how we value consciousness. We value human consciousness above all other forms. If you faced the trolley problem of choosing between a squirrel and a human, most people would prioritize the human. You might even prioritize one human over many squirrels. However, as we understand consciousness better and recognize its different forms, our valuation of human consciousness relative to other types may shift.
We might not care as much about preserving every detail of individual human consciousness. For example, does preserving a ninety-year-old’s memory of second grade significantly add to their overall experience? Maybe not. Losing such details might slightly degrade that person’s consciousness-plus-memory—whatever we call that—but economic considerations could lead to scenarios where people with similar backgrounds are given generic replacement memories instead of exact preservation.
It is not appealing, but it also seems possible. You could have a “basic” package that preserves 80% of your memories, replacing the other 20% with generic high school memories, and that package might cost half as much as a premium package preserving 95%.
We have even talked about “piggybacking” consciousness—where, if you cannot afford your own preservation, your awareness is embedded within someone else’s, such as a grandchild, because it is cheaper. We do not know what form this will take.
The examples I have mentioned are somewhat obvious and familiar, but there will be other developments in how high-complexity, real-time, self-consistent thinking is maintained.
There is going to be more, but I have to stop for 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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/13
Rick Rosner shares his first experience with a hearing aid, describing a thirty percent hearing loss at certain frequencies and the improvements in clarity it brings, from sharper environmental sounds to better communication at home. He reflects on his grandfather’s decline due to sensory deprivation, including hearing loss, poor vision, and ill-fitting dentures. Rosner emphasizes the importance of maintaining sensory input to prevent brain atrophy, a concern reinforced by his wife’s observations of her mother’s hearing loss. The conversation shifts to speculative futurism, imagining posthumanist “tech bros” enhancing and adding senses for heightened perception, merging natural evolution with advanced technology.
Rick Rosner: So, I got my first hearing aid today. My hearing was not terrible, but like many people, I had about thirty percent hearing loss at specific frequencies. Moreover, yes, it made it difficult whenever there was background noise.
You made an eye movement—yeah, it was hard for me to hear what you were saying in specific contexts, but we will see if it improves things.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You are a Jewish guy—
“Hey, I cannot hear the radiator. The rad-eee-ate-er is rattling. I cannot hear you. The heat is on now. My wife is talking. What did you say again?”
“Well, it might be your hearing.”
“No, it is not me; it is the rad-eee-ate-er.”
Rosner: No, I have seen my test results. I have seen my audiogram curves. Nobody except Carol was saying I needed to get a hearing aid. However, it makes a big difference for the person you live with all the time.
So, I only got one hearing aid. I put it in the ear that is slightly worse because it is one less thing to deal with. Moreover, it does make things sound crisper—more like a sound design in a movie, where they want the audio to be clear because it provides information and immerses you in the environment.
Stuff that used to be muffled or impressionistic is now sharper and has more components than I had been hearing. For example, the turn signal clicker in my car—it is not just a click-click; there is another texture to it.
Modern hearing aids are great—you do not have to fuss with those tiny batteries anymore. They charge like earbuds, which is easier. They are highly programmable; in fact, you can program them from your iPhone. Moreover, they are cheaper now. Hearing aids used to cost $3,000 to $5,000. This one was $800, and insurance is paying for half. Overall, a reasonable purchase.
I asked if, with only one hearing aid, my other ear might get “lazy.” They said no, that is not a thing. So now I have three add-ons in my head: two contact lenses and a hearing aid.
One of the things that led to my grandpa Marcus’s decline—he lived to 96—was sensory deprivation. As an older man, his main pleasure was watching television, until an accident in which he dropped a TV on his head. He drank some, too. Were these incidents related? Possibly.
As his vision worsened, the last straw came when his well-fitting dentures broke. The VA—his medical provider—gave him a replacement set that did not fit well, was uncomfortable, and probably reduced his enjoyment of eating. All of that together may have contributed to his decline. I do not know precisely what killed him.
Jacobsen: Could it have been the television accident? [Laughing]
Rosner: No—he survived that. They drilled holes in his skull to relieve pressure from bleeding in the brain. In ancient times, drilling holes in the skull was called trepanation, believed to let out evil spirits. In his case, it was to release blood clots.
Jacobsen: I was making a dumb joke.
Rosner: Anyway, what I am saying is that in his nineties, it became harder and harder for him to hear.
His vision was probably declining. His enjoyment of food was declining. So, this gradual removal of sensory input probably also reduced his drive to keep going. I do not know if it killed him, but I am sure it took him further away from the world. That is why, by keeping my vision sharp and my hearing sharp—well, they know.
One of the things my wife is afraid of—she saw it happen with her mom—is that if you do not correct it, as you go deaf, your brain loses the ability to form identifiable sounds from the inputs your ears receive. Your brain loses the ability to think in sound, so it atrophies in specific ways. You want to stay ahead of that. So, yes, I want to keep my sensory input sharp so I do not suffer that fate.
Also, in the future, posthumanist tech bros will probably want to enhance their sensory experiences. They will want super-precise versions of the five senses.
Jacobsen: They will want to tweak those and add extra senses. You could see synesthesia come back into discussion. Synesthesia could be seen as a nonfunctional or semi-functional adaptive form of higher-order senses.
For example, proprioception is a combination of spatial sense and hearing. However, for a synesthete who sees a diamond-coloured blue representing the number seventy-two, it is non-functional or semi-functional unless adapted.
Rosner: I am not thinking about that specifically; someone might want hyper-precise vision.
Jacobsen: That is the point I wanted to make. They will likely seek hyper-precise higher-order perception—adjacent to what we develop through natural selection—by experimenting and trying new things.
Rosner: Nature does not do it quickly, but tech bros will want to turn themselves into sports cars. They will want to live forever. Some of the most extreme posthumanist tech bros are already adding things to their bodies. It’s janky since we are still in the very early days.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/12
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss the intersection of humanism and artificial intelligence, exploring whether AI poses a genuine threat to humanity or offers primarily additive benefits. They examine humanism’s ethical grounding in the Golden Rule and its focus on maximizing human flourishing amid historical challenges like war, disease, and industrial change. AI’s rapid advancements raise questions about displacement—not just of labor, but of human decision-making and influence. They consider AI’s potential priorities, philosophical divergence from humans, and its role in shaping societal values, emphasizing the need to preserve human creativity, empathy, and critical thought in a rapidly evolving world.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are continuing on humanism.
Rick Rosner: So, nobody knows at this point. We are about three years into AI’s large-scale public exposure. In that time, AI’s capabilities have proliferated—not just in large language models, but also in image, graphics, and video generation. Experts’ opinions vary widely: some say “AI is limited, will always be limited, and is not a real threat.” In contrast, others warn that “AI may continually improve its capabilities, eventually surpassing human intelligence, and could act in ways harmful to humanity.”
Now, what is the tie-in to the previous conversation? Humanism values humans within a framework of ethics determined by humans. It is grounded in the Golden Rule: humanism seeks for every person to live the most fulfilled life possible. It helps define what a fulfilled life means and examines forces that work against human flourishing.
Historically, forces counter to humanism have included fascism, war, famine, disease, and—depending on their use—religion and politics, when they serve to increase human suffering without cause. AI now appears to be a new kind of challenge.
Human quality of life has been threatened by technological and industrial change before, for example, during the Industrial Revolution, when dangerous working conditions were common. Harsh environments have persisted across history: London in the nineteenth century, when coal pollution made the air hazardous, or modern-day cities like Beijing, which have faced severe air pollution. These conditions have never supported a fully flourishing life.
However, AI may represent a qualitatively different kind of challenge. It has the potential to outperform humans in many cognitive tasks, which could displace us as the most capable problem-solvers and decision-makers on the planet. That shift could reduce the perceived value of human labour, skills, and even human decision-making authority.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, let us take a deeper dive. We use terms like “apex thinkers,” and I want to unpack that more. On the one hand, framing this as “apex thinkers being displaced” may overemphasize the role of abstract reasoning in human worth. Human value is also tied to many other things: relationships, creativity, care, empathy, art, and the ability to find meaning. I know you are not ignoring those, but I want to be clear that rational thought is only one dimension of humanity.
Rosner: I agree. Our consciousness—our lived human experience—is among the most valuable things we have. Love, family, having children, appreciating nature—all of these matter. However, being “outthought” is the lever technology could use to displace us in many areas of influence. Unlike humans, AI does not feel emotions, form attachments, or have subjective experiences; it processes information without consciousness or empathy.
I mean, maybe that will be part of the displacement, but thinking has been our primary tool for gaining dominion over the planet. I am thinking that AI’s “thinking” will be its tool, as opposed to all the other things we value in ourselves.
Jacobsen: Another question tied to this is the nature of displacement. However, that raises the question: what exactly do we mean by “displacement”?
Also, beyond the general idea of displacement, what will be its specific character? I do not know if we have a clear answer to that. For instance, people still have weddings, but now they record them and take photos. That is an addition for many people—it has not eliminated the practice.
Rosner: When I think about displacement, the first thing that comes to mind is competition for resources. AI is going to need resources. Currently, the primary resource AI requires is energy for computation and the necessary infrastructure, including servers and circuitry. Eventually, it will seek land, orbital resources, or permission to build large-scale, high-impact energy facilities such as cheap fission reactors. I do not know. However, it will have its priorities eventually, and displacement comes when AI’s priorities do not align with human priorities.
Jacobsen: So, we do not yet know the character of that conflict. At this point, projecting forward, we do not even know the proper categories to measure and calculate the type, degree, and timing of potential displacement. We are in a period of uncertainty—even for people who think about this constantly, like Yuval Noah Harari or Max Tegmark, and also the theorist who came up with the “paperclip maximizer” scenario Nick Bostrom.
Rosner: Also, AI may eventually have philosophical differences with us. In science fiction, for example, some AIs tell humans, “You need to join us; we will not allow you to remain separate.”
Jacobsen: We can even imagine minor, ironic footnotes to this. I will send you a photo that you might find funny.
Rosner: Go ahead.
Jacobsen: It is a screenshot of Altman and Musk fighting on Twitter, with Grok weighing in. You have to click it to see it. I will read it out: Elon Musk says, “You got 3 million views on your bullshit post, you liar—far more than I have received on many of mine, despite me having many times your follower count.” Altman replies, “Will you sign an affidavit that you have never directed changes to the X algorithm in a way that has hurt your competitors or helped your own companies? I will apologize if so.”
Idia—the handle—asks Grok, “Who is right? Do not be biased.” Grok responds: “Based on verified evidence, Sam Altman is right. Musk’s Apple antitrust claims are weakened by the fact that competitors like DeepSeek and Perplexity have thrived in 2025. Conversely, Musk has a history of directing algorithmic changes on X to boost his posts and various inputs, according to 2023 reports and ongoing probes. Hypocrisy noted.”
So, in terms of how AI will affect our lives, it will be more additive than subtractive or destructive, at least early on.
Rosner: However, I do not know. AI may want to herd humans and direct our thinking.
Jacobsen: Humans want to herd humans and direct our thinking.
Rosner: Yes.
Jacobsen: That is often what a multinational corporation or a significant political movement does. Herding is frequently counter to humanism. In a recent email correspondence, the issue of complacency came up. I also found in an email exchange with a humanist today that there is a problem with the nullifying of critical thought, sometimes through religion, though not always. Complacency can also develop through consumerism, multinational influence, and large-scale advertising.
Rosner: Because corporations bring us many things that are convenient or enjoyable, we tend to overlook the ways they might be exploiting us.
Jacobsen: In many ways, yes. Since we are trying to get at the idea of human flourishing, we need to ask: what does that mean, and how do we optimize it for a person’s talents, temperament, personality, context, and the community they are in, given what is available in their society?
For example, suppose you are in Haiti, poor, and have minimal access to education due to insufficient infrastructure. Working on a cruise ship might be a significant improvement in the quality of life compared to your local options. However, if you grew up in Silicon Valley with two PhD parents, completed postdocs at MIT, and now work on generative AI for Amazon, your opportunities—and thus your definition of flourishing—will be vastly different.
Humanism accounts for the fact that there is an objective world, that there are intersubjective social contracts, and that there are relative subjective differences. Those differences do not negate the objective world or our attempts to approximate it through intersubjective social norms, even if those norms are subjectively interpreted.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/11
In a thought-provoking dialogue, Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen explore the evolving challenges to humanism, from historical conflicts with religion to the disruptive potential of artificial intelligence. They discuss the Humanists International Minimum Statement on Humanism, the Luxembourg Declaration on AI and Human Values 2025, and the alignment problem between AI and human ethics. Topics range from brain–computer interfaces and technological augmentation to the possibility of extending human cognition and lifespan. Drawing on examples from science fiction and cultural narratives, they consider how humanist values—reason, compassion, dignity, and freedom—can guide humanity through profound technological and societal transformations.
Rick Rosner: I would assume—being very naïve about humanism, or at least uninformed—that one of the major factors hindering humanism in the past has been religion. Religion postulates superior beings with their own religion-based rules, which are not necessarily to the benefit of human beings. Right? I assume religion has been a stumbling block for humanism, along with other forces such as fascism.
Has anything else been detrimental to humanism? I mean, I assume that humanism is the idea that—well, you can read the definition if you want. Go ahead and do that.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: But we have thought about this quite thoroughly. We have a minimum definition you must accept to be considered a humanist. So, before you embarrass yourself, here is the minimum statement on humanism.
This is the Humanists International (formerly the International Humanist and Ethical Union, or IHEU) Minimum Statement on Humanism, first adopted in 1996 and still in force today. Humanists International was previously known—as I am hyper-enunciating for the transcript—as the International Humanist and Ethical Union because it was a global umbrella organization for humanist, rationalist, secular, and ethical culture groups. The name was officially changed to Humanists International in 2019.
In 1996, at the IHEU General Assembly in Mexico City, the following statement was unanimously ratified:
Any organisation wishing to become a member of IHEU is now obliged to signify its acceptance of this statement:
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.
In that intricate yet straightforward definition, you can see that religion, with its own set of values, has often conflicted with humanism. I take Noam Chomsky’s orientation on religion: you are positing some outside force intervening, often in your favour. For instance, there might be the idea of a divine plan in place, yet you are praying for an intervention in that plan to help you win a spelling bee, improve your finances, find a spouse, or repair your marriage.
Somehow, that outside force is supposed to insert itself into the whole order of things to manipulate circumstances in your favour. That is the supernatural, and humanism rejects it entirely.
One of the simplest demonstrations of how praying for intervention can be absurd is when two sports teams, both made up of devoutly religious people, each pray, “Please, Jesus, let us win the game.” Inevitably, one side is going to be disappointed.
God is deliberately disappointing one team if He favours another, by its binary logic. So, this kind of thinking breaks down easily in many ways.
Rosner: So, okay. That is well understood and established, even if you do not know a lot about humanism. However, now we have a whole new threat—and I am not sure if it is a threat to humanism, but it certainly is—and that is AI. It is being sold as a huge benefit to humanity.
At the same time, people are very fearful that it will wipe out humanity. Moreover, at the very least, it will impose its limitations. Eventually, we will not be able to—there is an alignment problem with AI, which is that as AI advances, it becomes increasingly challenging to align with human values. Go ahead.
Jacobsen: So, I was in Luxembourg at the General Assembly for Humanists International, the largest umbrella group for humanists in the world. Now, we have adopted a declaration. So, in July 2025, regarding your concerns about AI and related issues, it emphasizes that AI must reflect core humanist values: reason, compassion, dignity, freedom, and human flourishing.
The document adopted was the Luxembourg Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and Human Values 2025. This went through an international discussion, more of a discussion and development. The document—now a formal policy—contains ten main points, each with expanded discussion. The bolded subheadings are: human judgment, shared good, democratic governance, transparency and autonomy, protection from harm, shared prosperity, creators and artists, reason, truth and integrity, future generations, and human freedom and flourishing.
So, your concern is more oriented toward that tenth category—human freedom, and, really, only half of it: human flourishing.
Rosner: I see AI as potentially impinging on almost all of those ten points, if not all of them. Plus, in addition to AI imposing itself, there will come the power to raise other entities to human levels of cognition and feeling.
I am writing a near-future science fiction novel, set mainly in the 2030s, not far in the future. I am using a little hocus-pocus technology to make it more fun, but one aspect is this: when you chip people—I call it “mesh” in the book because it is a mesh that you lay over the surface of your brain—
Jacobsen: I call it “mush” because you are essentially combining everything to some degree. It is a more straightforward concept.
Rosner: Anyway, when you do something like Neuralink—which is Musk’s product, and I am sure dozens of other companies are working on similar brain-interface technologies—you can communicate directly with the brain.
You do not have to go through a sensory pipeline. You can share whatever computation the brain is doing with external computational devices to transmit information more directly. If you do this, you can make humans more potent in their thinking, but you can also make dogs more powerful. Moreover, you can also link people—link people together.
Moreover, yeah, we have talked about all of this a lot.
Jacobsen: From a humanist perspective, it is built into humanism that we acknowledge the shared humanity of every person and that they deserve all good things within practical reason.
Rosner: But when other entities rise to human levels of cognition, feeling, and judgment, you have to open the door to those beings too—and that adds to the mess of the future.
Jacobsen: If I had to put it schematically, I would say that religion’s incursions and attacks on humanism come from below—from primitivism, from beliefs in supernatural beings without explanation, or with explanations that themselves rely on the fantastic. However, this is an attack on humanism almost from above—from principles rooted in technology, which can be argued with mathematical precision. Whether that mathematical precision is legitimate or not, it still carries the heft of tech.
Rosner: You cannot effectively ask God to make you win every single one of your softball games—no technology gets God to intervene on your behalf. I mean, there is “prayer technology,” but it does not work. Technology, however, does work. So in a way, it is a more powerful incursion into human society, human values, and human structures.
We can mention the alignment problem with AI, which is that, ideally for humans, we would be able to control AI so thoroughly that what AI wants would never be out of alignment with what humans want. However, that may not be possible. Moreover, even if it were possible, it would require methodical, slow progress to ensure that AI is not getting out of hand. It would also require that the people and companies developing AI are not stupid and greedy, which, demonstrably, is not the case.
Go ahead.
Jacobsen: I will quote a 1991 policy—rather than the 1996 one—that was ratified by the Board of Directors of the IHEU, the former name for Humanists International. It is shorter, but an older variation. Based on subsequent updates and debates, there are different orientations, but this is one of the most concise formal policy statements I have come across in our international community:
Humanism is a democratic, non-theistic, and ethical life stance which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility for giving meaning and shape to their own lives.
It therefore rejects supernatural views of reality.
Full stop.
So, in a sense, you could have something like a pantheist god, but that is equivalent to Spinoza’s or Einstein’s idea that it is simply the laws of nature. There is nothing supernatural there—it is entirely naturalistic. However, religious gods, of the sort we have very little evidence for, generally do not directly interfere with people. AI, however, certainly will.
Rosner: Moreover, what was the other point I was going to make? I lost it. You talk, and I will try to get it back.
Jacobsen: There is a symmetry between human thought and AI thought right now because the “skim” of human thought in language production—text—is used as the fundamental basis for interaction and representation of machine thought. If that is incorporated at the core, then the character of human thought—our interiority, rather than our physical appearance—will be represented.
In a way, our architecture of mind, averaged over a large number of human interactions, will be represented in these machines. That will deviate as time goes forward, but there is a core alignment.
I once heard an interpretation of the philosophy of The Matrix: the machines did not kill human beings, not simply because they needed energy and used them as batteries (which is probably not even efficient), but because their core programming prevented them from eliminating all people.
So they had to build a system that provided for them. In some sense, it is a warped form of anger at human beings for fighting against them. However, they also cannot kill them, so they incorporate them into their energy base.
Rosner: Alright. The humanist perspective wants people to live their best, most fulfilled lives within the understood human framework of, say, the twentieth century. Just as an example: you are born, you learn, you become actualized, you do what you want creatively, perhaps raise a family, and you try to be fulfilled. Then you get old and die.
Humanism does not have a problem with any of that—that is the way humans have lived for tens of thousands of years. Humanism wants everyone to live their best life, and that includes death as part of the human experience.
Now, with the coming of advanced technology, human patterns of existence are going to be disrupted. We already have tech billionaires spending enormous sums and conducting extensive research to extend their lives, either within their bodies or by attempting to download their connectomes so their consciousness can continue beyond the lifespan of the body.
So, what is humanism doing to prepare for this onslaught of disruption?
Jacobsen: There is still a chance that people could live their best lives in an AI-driven world. The key is to foster a culture of critical thinking, enabling people to navigate the technology effectively as it becomes available. That is anticipatory worldview-building.
However, that is not new—we have been doing that for fifty, sixty, seventy years, through, for example, science fiction. One of the greatest humanists—president of the American Humanist Association, president of American Mensa, and science fiction writer—was Isaac Asimov.
There is a vibrant tradition of this. One of the most significant humanistic trends I have observed, though not always explicitly described as such, is evident in popular anime like Dragon Ball, where robots and androids are portrayed not only as villains but also as allies—beings with their distinct ways of doing things that are respected.
Much Japanese culture reflects that, and anime often presents realistic portrayals of humanoid robots capable of complex, legitimate interactions with the world, without necessarily detracting from human life.
Rosner: In the future, I keep coming back to the movie Her, now about twelve years old. There, the issue is that humans form thoughts much more slowly than AI does, meaning humans may need augmentation to keep up with artificial thinking. However, we may be envisioning this wrong. We do not think everyone needs to be “souped up” because calculators can already help anyone perform advanced calculations without altering the mind. Augmentation may only apply to certain areas and activities of human thought.
Jacobsen: That might be more Blade Runner-realistic. The “mesh” will probably be messy. Some people will be permanently and significantly altered, while others will be only slightly or temporarily altered, depending on the situation. Some people will live largely human-to-human existences, while others will interface constantly with technology.
Some people are happy with just a phone. Others will want contact lenses but not interactive glasses. Some will prefer implants over contacts. You will have all these different tiers. However, in advocating for smaller and smaller increments of integration, you also hit rapid diminishing returns on the benefits.
Rosner: What will determine how this plays out—beyond political forces—will be economic forces: competition for resources and the nature of those resources. In the early days of AI, sheer power—electricity—will likely be a major, perhaps the primary, resource of value, fueling quintillions of calculations.
And I do not know—how will unaugmented or slightly augmented humans obtain financial resources? How will they get money or power in an AI world? One argument I have made is that humans may turn out to be so cheap to maintain in the future that anything we need can be had, as it will not cost much in the future economy..
Jacobsen: Alright. Sleep well.
Rosner: Thanks. Good 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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/09
In this conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss the release of GPT-5, noting its improved reasoning but lack of human-level intelligence, and dismissing unverified performance claims. They explore AI governance, nuclear disarmament’s stagnation, and political extremism, including Project 2025’s controversial policy goals. The dialogue shifts to sexual and reproductive trends, comparing U.S. and Japanese virginity rates and fertility declines, with insights into incel culture and societal pessimism. Political developments include California’s gerrymandering battle with Texas, Trump’s census manipulation plans, and his reckless rhetoric about using the military against foreign drug cartels, highlighting risks to democratic norms and stability.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, GPT-5 was released on August 7, 2025, and people are already debating it. While it is undeniably more intelligent and more capable than its predecessors—with deeper reasoning, better accuracy, faster responses, and the ability to handle complex tasks across domains—it is not on par with human-level intelligence. So far, there is no credible benchmark showing it solving only 62% of problems versus humans at 83%; that appears to be anecdotal or misremembered from social media.
Rick Rosner: Meanwhile, James Cameron’s point about AI shares relevance: he is concerned that, like with nuclear weapons, AI can be inherently destabilizing, especially given how fragile atomic security systems are. You can explore this more in Nuclear War by Annie Jacobson.
Geopolitically, neither the U.S. nor Russia has shown much appetite for nuclear disarmament under current leaders—Putin certainly is not stepping back, and similarly, Donald Trump has not demonstrated willingness to reduce America’s arsenal. Reagan’s arms talks with Gorbachev remain a high-water mark of rational leadership on nuclear risk.
On AI governance, the point about needing continual oversight is spot-on. All robust AI systems—especially ones approaching reasoning capabilities like GPT-5—should be regularly audited to track whether they are behaving as intended. However, yes, that is not foolproof either.
Jacobsen: Politically, today, Trump is attempting to roll back Title X protections, which provide reproductive healthcare like birth control to low-income Americans—essentially spiteful and punishing vulnerable populations.
Rosner: Project 2025 is a real initiative by the Heritage Foundation, in collaboration with former Trump officials, offering a conservative blueprint for a future administration. It includes a policy guide, personnel database, training academy, and an early-action playbook—but critics argue it is anti-democratic and seeks to curtail civil rights and social safety nets.
Some ultra-conservative voices do oppose reproductive rights, but attributing fringe attitudes like banning masturbation to Project 2025 overstates current documented positions.
Jacobsen: Onan—referring to the biblical story of the “sin of Onan”—is still a colourful metaphor for debates around sexuality and reproductive control.
Rosner: He was denying someone the chance to get pregnant. Onan was like, “Nope—my seed is going over here.” I do not know the whole story, but that is the gist.
And this Heritage Foundation extremist says that unless there is a penis entering a vagina and ejaculation occurring inside, you should not be having sex. Moreover, these people influence conservative policymaking circles right now.
I saw an article saying there have never been as many Americans under 30 who are virgins as there are now.
Jacobsen: How does that compare to Japan, which probably has the highest proportion of virgins in the developed world?
Rosner: Well, the U.S. has about 333 million people; Japan has roughly 123 million, so in raw numbers, we have more. However, per capita, Japan’s rates are higher. Their fertility rate is even lower than ours—ours is around 1.6 births per woman, and theirs is about 1.2. The replacement level is around 2.1. So Japan is at roughly 60% of the replacement rate.
Like Japan, the U.S. is seeing social trends where it is harder for people to present themselves well, meet others, and form couples. Incel culture might be more toxic here, but in both countries, many young men are opting out of dating entirely. Moreover, more women than ever before are uninterested in long-term relationships and childbearing.
The reasons vary, but pessimism about the future plays a role. Still, I think the number one factor for men is that those who are not close to being “presentable” to women often find it nearly as satisfying to focus on personal interests—playing video games, consuming pornography, and masturbating. For many, the perceived rewards of a relationship do not outweigh the effort required when these solitary activities are immediately accessible.
Jacobsen: California has escalated its redistricting fight with Texas by putting a November ballot measure to voters. It would redraw the state’s congressional map and is expected to create around five more Democratic-leaning seats, escalating a political battle with Republican-led Texas and Donald Trump.
Rosner: Gerrymandering is nothing new. The term dates back over 200 years, named for a Massachusetts district shaped like a salamander that benefited Governor Elbridge Gerry. However, it surged after the 2010 midterms with Project REDMAP, when Republicans realized that by taking over state legislatures ahead of the 2010 Census, they could control redistricting. They succeeded, seizing control of more than three-quarters of state legislatures and aggressively gerrymandering in their favour.
The Democrats have gerrymandered a few states, but the Republicans have done it far more effectively. Moreover, Texas and Trump are not even waiting for the next census. By constitutional mandate, a census is done every ten years, ending in zero, and it is supposed to count every person—citizen or not—living in each state.
Trump wants to redo a census immediately and exclude noncitizens, which would give Republicans a significant political advantage. That would contradict more than two centuries of practice and the constitutional understanding that the census counts all persons, not just citizens. I hope the Supreme Court is not so compromised that it would go along with this. It would be blatantly contrary to established law and constitutional interpretation, but we will see.
Then again, Trump says many things that are legally impossible and that no reasonable set of judges would approve. On the other hand, we have been surprised before by what judges, including the Supreme Court, have allowed.
Jacobsen: The Trump camp is now looking at the possibility of using the U.S. military against drug cartels.
Rosner: And not just U.S.-based cartels—he is talking about cartels in other countries, which would be tantamount to declaring war on those nations. It sounds like more reckless rhetoric meant to distract from other controversies, like Trump’s connection to Epstein. I do not think most policymakers would go along with it. We have an unstable figure in charge of the U.S. military authority. You cannot simply send U.S. armed forces into other countries to engage in combat, though covert actions—like CIA operations—have happened many times. However, what Trump is talking about is something else entirely, and he is not competent enough to execute it. So, it just sounds like more political noise.
Jacobsen: Alright. Talk to you tomorrow.
Rosner: Thank you. Talk tomorrow.
Jacobsen: Bye. Enjoy.
Rosner: Bye.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/08
President Trump has asked the Supreme Court to lift limits on immigration-related arrests in Southern California that were imposed to prevent racial profiling on language, accent, or appearance. Rick Rosner highlights that many detainees had no criminal records and that a DACA student was detained despite committing no crime. The discussion expands to transgender veterans being denied pensions as part of a punitive strategy. Rosner argues that Trump’s actions are driven by cruelty, greed, distraction.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Trump has asked the Supreme Court to lift limits on immigration-related arrests. What are your thoughts?
Rick Rosner: What limits? ICE agents have already been operating freely, arresting people indiscriminately—chemo patients, kids on chemo, you name it.
Jacobsen: This emergency filing concerns a lower court ruling that blocked federal agents from making immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles based on tactics considered racial profiling. The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to halt the order that prevented agents from stopping or detaining people without “reasonable suspicion.”
So agents were stopping people without any objective justification—just assumptions based on language, accent, or appearance. The ruling mainly applied to Southern California.
Rosner: In practice, those arrested were rarely criminals. Last I checked, about 57% of individuals detained by ICE had no criminal record whatsoever—just overstaying a visa, which is a civil, not criminal, offence.
Of the remaining 43%, most did not commit serious crimes. A single DUI from 2008 should not define someone’s life. It is being used as a weak pretext for deportation.
Jacobsen: Any examples?
Rosner: Yes—one DACA student was pulled over for following a truck too closely on the highway. The officer gave her a warning and then tipped off ICE. Immigration agents later picked her up despite having committed no crime.
She has lived in the U.S. since age four and is close to graduating from college. It is not kind. It is not just immigration. The Department of Defence recently stated that military personnel who have served more than 15 years are eligible for pensions.
However, now they are denying pensions to transgender Air Force veterans who have served over 15 years. There is no valid reason for this, other than to be intentionally punitive. These individuals did their jobs. They earned their pensions. Now they are being excluded purely because they are trans.
It is a pattern—targeting groups his base dislikes. It is just a vindictive “screw you” to marginalized people. That is Trump’s playbook.
We have gone in circles tonight, listing everything wrong. Shall we call it? I am ready to adjourn for tonight.
Jacobsen: Just double-checking…
Rosner: Trump has no constraints at this point. He is desperate to distract from Epstein. He is a lame duck, so reelection is not an immediate concern. Yes, he cares about the midterms, but not enough to moderate his behaviour. Everything he does now is driven by cruelty and greed.
He has doubled his net worth since taking office—from around $1.5 billion to over $3 billion—through crypto and other questionable deals. And this ballroom project? That alone could net him another $20–30 million in shady contributions and payoffs.
Jacobsen: All good for tonight. I will talk to you tomorrow.
Rosner: Thank you very much.
Jacobsen: Thank you.
Rosner: Bye.
Jacobsen: Bye.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/08
Rick Rosner discusses James Cameron’s warnings on AI and nuclear warfare, spotlighting the real-world risks of a Skynet-like future. Shifting focus, he critiques Trump’s $50M bounty on Venezuelan President Maduro, calling it political theatre. Rosner also condemns ICE’s lowered age requirements and Trump’s vanity projects, including excessive Oval Office decorations and a $200M White House ballroom. He argues these actions reflect a broader pattern of corruption, distraction from scandals, and catastrophic public health mismanagement.
Rick Rosner: We did not talk about this yesterday—James Cameron. He did more than anyone to popularize the idea of artificial intelligence taking over, through the concept of Skynet in The Terminator (1984). That was 41 years ago.
He now has a new movie coming out, Ghosts of Hiroshima, which is about nuclear warfare. I am not sure how the film addresses atomic weapons. Still, Cameron has been researching both the bombs themselves and the global infrastructure meant to prevent their use.
He says the rise of AI presents a serious risk of a real-world Skynet scenario. AI processes information much faster than humans. If placed in any decision-making capacity, it could reach catastrophic conclusions faster than we could shut it down.
Moreover, honestly, Cameron is someone worth listening to. He may not be a scientist, but he has conducted extensive research for decades and understands the magnitude of the risks as well as any authority in the field.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The United States has increased its reward for the capture of Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro to $50 million, based on allegations of drug trafficking and ties to criminal organizations.
Rosner: This is the head of Venezuela, right?
Jacobsen: Yes. President Nicolás Maduro. The statement came from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and was announced on Thursday, August 7th.
Rosner: Is there any solid evidence for this? It sounds like more political theatre, a distraction tactic, possibly even related to Trump trying to divert attention from the Epstein scandal.
Jacobsen: Venezuelan Foreign Minister Iván Gil posted on Telegram, calling the announcement “The most ridiculous smokescreen ever seen.”
Rosner: I tend to agree. Trump has branded himself as the so-called “President of Peace”—the guy who claimed he would end wars worldwide, including the Russia–Ukraine conflict, on day one. He has now been in office again for over 200 days and has achieved none of that.
Instead, here he is taking an aggressive stance against a foreign leader, putting a $50 million bounty on Maduro’s head. If people are wise, they will not attempt to collect it. Trump is notorious for not paying his debts.
Exactly. Where is that $50 million supposed to come from? Who authorized it? Congress certainly did not. It is just another baseless claim pulled out of thin air—and it is ridiculous.
Jacobsen: I saw that ICE has relaxed its age requirements.
Rosner: Previously, to join ICE, you had to be between 21 and 37. Now the age range is reportedly between 18 and 57. I looked into the complete list of requirements. You must pass multiple background checks and have a bachelor’s degree, which surprised me.
Oddly, they would allow 18-year-olds to apply, given that so few of them—perhaps one in a thousand—have a bachelor’s degree at that age. Moreover, those who do likely graduated from high school at 15, then went on to college by 18. A person who has accomplished something is unlikely to want to join ICE.
Everything this administration is doing reeks of desperation and distraction, particularly from the Epstein case. Trump faces broad disapproval across all demographics, including among Republicans, for how he handled Epstein.
He claims this has been the most successful first six months of any presidency in U.S. history, which is absurd. However, he has issued more executive actions and announcements than most presidents historically.
Jacobsen: Do we know how many executive orders he has signed?
Rosner: I am not sure of the exact count, but it is likely in the hundreds. Some will remain in effect; others will be overturned. Lately, though, his actions seem designed to overwhelm Americans and the media with constant noise, preventing focused attention on Epstein or any of his other failures.
He is a bad guy. This is somewhat trivial by comparison, but still revealing. He cut half a billion dollars in funding for mRNA vaccine research, including cancer vaccine development.
His and RFK Jr.’s approach to public health will likely result in tens of thousands of preventable deaths—both in the U.S. and globally—as critical research is shut down.
Moreover, at the same time, he is decorating the Oval Office with stick-on gold curlicues. Have you seen what it looks like now? Those chain craft stores sell ornamental moulding—filigree shapes you would use to make ceilings look fancy. He has been applying foam-core, gold-painted curlicue shapes all over the Oval Office. Dozens of them. It looks cheap and unhinged, like the work of someone mentally unravelling.
Moreover, you might not know this from up in Canada, but he also tore up the White House Rose Garden—a space over 100 years old—and replaced it with limestone tile so people can sit and eat lunch. It does not look perfect.
Jacobsen: He replaced the historic flower garden?
Rosner: Yes. Bulldozed it for tile. Moreover, now he plans to demolish part of the East Wing to build a 90,000-square-foot ballroom, projected to cost $200 million.
He claims it will be privately funded, but if you do the math, that is $2,200 per square foot—a staggering figure for a ballroom, which is essentially space. No complex plumbing. No technical installations. Just open the square footage.
That cost is roughly four times the average per square foot for federal buildings in Washington, D.C. It reeks of graft and kickbacks. He is a real estate developer. He should know how to manage construction costs.
In Canada, you can still build a home addition for around $250 per square foot. This project is nearly ten times the cost, and even more so when you account for currency differences. It is just another example of waste and corruption disguised as legacy building.
This entire ballroom project is just another way for Trump to collect kickbacks and bribes. He will find a way to siphon off tens of millions in “contributions” to fund this gaudy, unnecessary addition. It is corrupt from top to bottom.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/08
Rick Rosner discusses the catastrophic consequences of submersible implosions at extreme ocean depths, clarifying earlier misconceptions and emphasizing the near-instantaneous nature of such deaths. The conversation shifts to Israel’s military actions in Gaza and the West Bank, where Rosner critiques the disproportionate violence and political motivations behind the ongoing conflict. While acknowledging the justice in confronting Hamas, he condemns the execution of the war as corrupt and potentially genocidal, reflecting on global inaction and moral failures.
Rick Rosner: I was thinking more about what happens when you’re three miles deep in the ocean and your submersible fails.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Why were you thinking about that?
Rosner: I had made some inaccurate comments earlier and wanted to clarify. The analogy I used—saying it is like having 20,000 forty-five-pound plates on you—was oversimplified. In reality, pressure increases by about one atmosphere (14.7 psi) every 33 feet underwater. At a depth of three miles—around 15,840 feet—that amounts to approximately 7,000 psi, or about 470 atmospheres.
If your submersible implodes at that depth, the effect is instantaneous and catastrophic. The water at a depth of three miles is about 1% denser than at the surface. While inside the sub, you remain under normal atmospheric pressure—until the hull fails. When that happens, the pressure difference causes an immediate collapse.
So death occurs instantly, not just due to the collapse of air pockets in the body, but because the entire body is subjected to extreme compression. Soft tissues and fluids are not spared. You essentially get obliterated. It’s not like being neatly reduced to a skeleton—it’s more like being shredded and compacted simultaneously.
But the person is already dead by the time this happens. The time between hull failure and death is less than a second. That submersible expedition—the Titan—was an act of negligence. The person who authorized that trip made reckless decisions, resulting in preventable deaths.
Jacobsen: Moving on, has anyone modelled or simulated what happens during such an implosion?
Rosner: Probably. I have not searched for it, but someone has likely developed a simulation. Modern AI could generate the code for such a simulation quickly—hundreds of lines of accurate code within minutes. For example, it can already simulate complex aerodynamics with high precision.
Jacobsen: Shifting topics—Reuters reported that Prime Minister Netanyahu announced Israel intends to take military control of all of Gaza.
Rosner: Netanyahu and members of his far-right cabinet have been accused of war crimes by international organizations. While debates continue over whether the situation in Gaza meets the legal definition of genocide, the International Court of Justice has found plausible grounds to investigate Israel for potential genocidal acts.
Many observers believe Netanyahu is prolonging the war for political reasons, including avoiding prosecution on unrelated corruption charges. That assessment is widely shared. He is often compared to Trump for his tactics and disregard for institutional norms. While Israel has legitimate security concerns regarding Hamas and other militant groups, there are less destructive ways to pursue those objectives.
Jacobsen: What about the West Bank?
Rosner: The West Bank situation is also deeply inequitable. According to the United Nations, more than 500 Palestinians were killed in the West Bank by Israeli forces and settlers in 2023 alone—the highest figure in over 15 years. In contrast, around 30 to 40 Israeli soldiers and settlers were killed in comparable periods. The disparity is stark, often exceeding of 10 to 1 ratio.
That suggests the occupation is not just about security, but also systemic control and expansion. Settlements continue to expand, often displacing Palestinians. Far-right elements within the Israeli government support this expansion with minimal accountability.
What, if anything, can the global community do? Not much, aside from issuing condemnations. Historically, many wars have unfolded with limited global intervention, particularly in regions like Africa. Every U.S. administration has presided over an international landscape filled with injustice. What makes today’s conflicts, like those in Gaza and Ukraine, different is their visibility and political impact in the West.
It brings home the point that when you have a corrupt leader willing to wage war, you cannot simply beat them or shut them down, even if the war itself is unjust.
Jacobsen: Would you say this war is unjust?
Rosner: No. The Israel–Hamas war is just in its premise—Hamas committed atrocities and must be held accountable—but the means of prosecuting it have become corrupt and, arguably, genocidal.
Over 1,200 Gazans have been killed just attempting to access food at distribution points. Israeli forces have opened fire or dropped bombs in those areas.
The way the war is being conducted is unjust. While Hamas deserves to be dismantled, not everyone in Gaza deserves to suffer or die. Israel has killed about 3% of the Gaza population. That number is devastating. Every person in Gaza now faces the possibility of being unjustly killed, as Israeli forces push civilians around, bombing and shooting with semi-indiscriminate tactics.
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): 2025/09/04
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.
Tsukerman assesses the Armenia–Azerbaijan peace trajectory after the August 8 talks in Washington. She notes a memorandum of understanding, constitutional hurdles in Armenia, and momentum behind the Zangezur Corridor linking Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan and broader Eurasian trade. The United States is shifting from the sidelines to mediator and economic guarantor, while Russia and Iran seek to obstruct. Turkey’s alignment with Baku, EU energy needs, and China’s ties frame the stakes. Tsukerman outlines Armenia’s gradual pivot from CSTO, defence procurement challenges, heightened intelligence cooperation, and risks from revanchist actors that could imperil a durable settlement.
Interview conducted on August 16, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are here with Irina Tsukerman, a New York attorney and geopolitical analyst. We will be discussing the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict and regional stability. How is this conflict proceeding? How is it reshaping South Caucasus geopolitics? And what are the interests of Russia, Turkey, Iran, and various Western actors in this?
Irina Tsukerman: At least formally and on paper, the conflict is moving toward a conclusion. The gatherings in Washington last week were held on August 8, a symbolic date given the events of August 8, 2008, when Russia went to war with Georgia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
This represented a significant step toward resolving the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. Several key points were achieved. First, Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a memorandum of understanding, which advanced the negotiation process and formalized a framework for further talks and the resolution of remaining issues. The most significant obstacle remains Armenia’s constitution, which contains provisions—such as references to Nagorno-Karabakh—that contradict recognition of Azerbaijan’s sovereignty. Constitutional changes are required for normalization.
Another major issue that has already been resolved, and which had U.S. backing, is the recognition and creation of the Zangezur Corridor, envisioned as a trade and transport route. This corridor would connect mainland Azerbaijan to its exclave of Nakhchivan through southern Armenia. More broadly, it would link Central Asia to Europe and Turkey, bypassing Russia and Iran, with U.S. involvement.
As part of this process, Azerbaijan and the United States agreed to create a working group for development projects in areas such as defence, security, and the economy. Restrictions under Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, which had previously limited U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan, were addressed, enabling greater U.S. humanitarian and development engagement. The U.S. role in the Zangezur Corridor’s economic growth would mean a formal role in supply chains and infrastructure. Unlike earlier proposals that envisioned outside actors managing the corridor as “controllers,” the current arrangement is that the U.S. will act as a political and economic guarantor, helping Azerbaijan and Armenia administer it. The aim is to integrate the South Caucasus into a central trade hub and to contribute to normalization between Armenia and Turkey.
Another key outcome is that the United States is now positioning itself as a more potent mediator in the remaining negotiations. This is not the end of the conflict—an official peace treaty has yet to be signed—but the expectation is that progress will continue. The U.S. is no longer on the sidelines in a self-imposed absence from the diplomatic process; it will take a more active role in all aspects of the talks, becoming a visible partner and engaging trilaterally with both Armenia and Azerbaijan. This also strengthens U.S. bilateral relations with both countries.
However, concerns remain that Russia and Iran will attempt to interfere and disrupt the process, as both have strategic reasons to prevent the Zangezur Corridor from functioning. Russia views it as a challenge to its regional influence, while Iran is wary of being bypassed by new trade routes that diminish its economic leverage.
Jacobsen: Now, regarding why Russia and Iran are against the corridor—what are the key reasons?
Tsukerman: First, both would lose out economically because international trade would bypass them and flow directly to Turkey. Turkey and Iran have an economic and political rivalry, even though they cooperate on many anti-Western issues. When it comes to day-to-day trade, tensions are evident, and Iran would prefer to benefit from any regional realignment rather than be excluded. However, its past threats to Azerbaijan have made that essentially a non-starter, which is why Azerbaijan is eager about the prospects of sidelining Iran.
As for Russia, relations with Azerbaijan have deteriorated significantly. Tensions escalated after an attack on an Azerbaijani civilian airplane, which killed passengers. Russia never formally admitted responsibility. It issued what was essentially a half-measure—an acknowledgment without either a genuine apology or an admission of error. Many believe the attack was deliberate because, on the same day, President Ilham Aliyev was flying out of Grozny back to Azerbaijan and may have been the real target of the operation.
Things only worsened afterward. Russia arrested numerous Azerbaijani businesspeople, tortured them, and several ended up dead. This led to an official confrontation with Azerbaijan, and Baku is expected to bring a legal case in international courts over the downing of the civilian aircraft.
There have also been language-related tensions. Azerbaijan has begun dismantling Russian-language associations—essentially shutting down organizations that were using language as a cover for pro-Russian activity. At the same time, Russia has targeted the Azerbaijani diaspora to influence the government’s pro-Western economic policies.
Moscow has also attacked Azerbaijan’s oil and gas deliveries to Ukraine, including pipelines affiliated with the Aliyev government, causing significant damage. There have been multiple such operations, and they are likely to continue.
To make matters worse, some Russian deputies—while drunk—publicly threatened to invade Azerbaijan. Baku’s unofficial response was, in essence: go ahead, make our day. Azerbaijan pointed out that it has Turkish and Israeli drones, while Russia, in that context, is increasingly seen as outdated, relying on “tanks and horses.”
Jacobsen: So, if there were any actual attack or invasion, is Azerbaijan prepared?
Tsukerman: Exceptionally so. The Azerbaijani military is well-prepared and battle-hardened. Any such action by Russia would be ill-advised.
Jacobsen: Was there not a case early in Putin’s presidency when Russia invaded a nearby territory?
Tsukerman: Yes, you are thinking of Chechnya. Russia launched two wars there and ultimately crushed the separatist movement, reasserting control.
Jacobsen: After Chechnya went from being essentially autonomous to coming under a Russian-backed puppet regime, what lessons did Azerbaijan and Armenia draw from that experience?
Tsukerman: Azerbaijan certainly learned a lesson. It is unlikely to host Russian troops anywhere near its territory in the foreseeable future. Armenia, by contrast, has hosted Russian forces since the 19th century. But now, Armenia is turning away and even expelling Russian troops, though it remains highly dependent on Russia for trade. That shift is a significant signal.
There have also been a couple of official coup claims from the Pashinyan government. One was characterized as a political coup attempt. Another was said to be linked to the Armenian Apostolic Church, which historically has functioned in many ways as a proxy for Russian influence. That said, the current head of the Church appears to be somewhat more pro-Western. Although Prime Minister Pashinyan accused him personally of involvement in that attempted coup, he has not presented credible evidence.
At the same time, there has been a crackdown on Russian-linked Armenian oligarchs. That in itself is not a bad thing; it demonstrates Armenia’s seriousness in dismantling entrenched, conservative, clannish, and revanchist political elites while advancing in a more reformist direction. However, this could backfire if the public perceives it as an attack on faith rather than on pro-Russian institutions. It could also backfire if carried out in a way that seems blatantly undemocratic or self-serving. Pashinyan is not known for being particularly transparent or democratic.
So even if these moves benefit the West by diminishing Russian influence, they could still backfire—either by allowing Russia to strengthen its position, or by producing a scenario similar to what happened in Georgia under Mikheil Saakashvili. In Georgia, reforms were associated with corruption and authoritarianism, which ultimately led to the rise of the Georgian Dream party in 2012—a more pro-Russian faction with stronger economic appeal. What we do not want to see is a repeat of the Georgian scenario in Armenia.
Jacobsen: What about Iran’s role?
Tsukerman: Armenia and Iran have been cooperating fairly well. However, Armenia is now more likely to diversify further and expand trade with China. Azerbaijan is already doing this, partly as a signal to the West to pay more attention to the region. Unfortunately, neither the Biden administration nor the Trump administration took that bait, so both Armenia and Azerbaijan have continued building parallel relationships with China.
China is increasingly co-opting Azerbaijani media and forming official partnerships, and Armenia is likely to follow the same path. Iran, however, is concerned about Azerbaijan because it is a Shia-majority country but with a secular government and foreign policy. This is very different from Iran itself and from many Shia populations in the region, such as the Lebanese Shia and Iraqi Shia communities.
Jacobsen: You mentioned Iran’s concerns. Can you expand on why Azerbaijan represents such a threat to Iran’s regional position?
Tsukerman: Azerbaijan poses both a religious and an ethnic challenge to Iran. Unlike Iran, Azerbaijan does not recognize the doctrine of velayat-e faqih—the rule of the Islamic jurist. It has always had a different system, even before the Soviet era, offering a distinct Shia model that is secular and nationalist rather than theocratic. Iran, which has long used religion as a political tool to recruit followers as far away as Afghanistan and Pakistan, is threatened by Azerbaijan’s example.
Its demographics also threatens Iran. It has a vast plurality of Azerbaijani and other Turkic peoples. Much of the Iranian population historically was not Farsi-speaking. Persian, as we know it, developed after the Arab invasions, written in the Arabic script and blending Indo-Persian traditions with heavy Turkic influence. Azerbaijanis are one of the largest Turkic groups within Iran.
While many Iranian Azerbaijanis are prominent in the military and political elite, many others remain fiercely independent, culturally closer to Baku than to Tehran, and feel discriminated against. Their language has been suppressed, their culture diminished. Large communities live near the border with Azerbaijan, around what is ironically called the “Bridge of Friendship.” When I visited, it was clear that the name is misleading. Iran threatened Azerbaijan with invasion in this area during the Second Karabakh War in 2020, moving weapons and tanks close to the border.
Iran has also attacked Azerbaijani diplomatic facilities through proxies. For example, there was an armed attack on Azerbaijan’s embassy in Tehran in January 2023, blamed on a “lone madman,” but widely believed to have had official backing. In London, a pro-Iranian Shia group stormed Azerbaijan’s embassy in 2022. These incidents highlight serious tensions. There have also been direct threats from Iranian officials, prompting even Turkey to intervene diplomatically.
Jacobsen: That brings us to Turkey. How has Ankara shaped this dynamic?
Tsukerman: Turkey considers Azerbaijan a significant sphere of influence, especially economically. Politically, their positions sometimes diverge. For example, SOCAR, Azerbaijan’s state oil company, has been targeted by mobs in Turkey angry over its energy partnership with Israel. Recently, SOCAR and Israel concluded a lucrative deal, which drew protests from pro-Palestinian groups in Turkey.
Culturally and strategically, however, Turkey and Azerbaijan are very close. During the Second Karabakh War, Turkish Bayraktar drones proved decisive. It is not true that Syrian mercenaries or terrorists were deployed on Azerbaijan’s behalf. That claim has no basis. First, it did not happen. Second, it would have been impractical: most Syrian fighters speak only Arabic, while Azerbaijan’s operational environment requires Azeri or Russian. They would have been ineffective.
The real advantage was the drones. They were a superior military technology that gave well-equipped Azerbaijan a decisive edge over the poorly equipped Armenian forces. This technological advantage, combined with Armenia’s lack of adequate support from Russia—neither politically nor militarily—was a key reason for Armenia’s defeat.
Importantly, Pashinyan initiated the war without properly consulting Moscow, and that miscommunication deepened the rift between Yerevan and the Kremlin. Meanwhile, Turkey continues to pursue its goal of expanding its energy and strategic influence across the region.
There are pipelines and connectivity projects with Georgia, Hungary, and other countries—economic corridors that enhance regional integration. Azerbaijan is seeking greater influence overall, both politically and economically. These developments certainly benefit Turkey as well, and they also strengthen ties with the United States through interconnected diplomatic initiatives.
Jacobsen: What about Western actors—how are they positioning themselves?
Tsukerman: The European Union benefits from stability and security in the South Caucasus, primarily when the region is oriented in a more pro-Western direction. The EU particularly benefits from Azerbaijan’s oil and gas exports, which help reduce dependence on Russian energy. For example, southern European countries facing shortages now view Azerbaijan as a reliable and stable supplier. By contrast, Qatar has recently threatened to boycott Europe over various political disputes. That kind of volatility makes Azerbaijan’s energy partnership even more attractive.
Jacobsen: What about the best-case scenario—a multi-aligned, multilateral peace that works for everyone? Is that even remotely possible?
Tsukerman: Not with the current regimes in Russia and Iran. If Iran’s regime were to change into something less aggressive, that could open possibilities. But there are no guarantees. A return to a nationalistic monarchy, for instance, would not bode well for minorities, even if it might be less regionally aggressive. The best-case scenario would be a federated, secular, liberal republic. But that is highly unlikely given the current trajectory.
If an IRGC-led faction takes power, it would be even more aggressive. With Russia, meaningful change is also improbable. Even if Putin is removed or dies, his successors are likely to pursue a similar line. Without sweeping, forceful reforms overseen with Western support—something akin to a Peter the Great–style transformation combined with a post–Nuremberg trial reconstruction—you will not see a profound political shift. Russia’s centralized, authoritarian tradition has persisted for centuries, and it is not likely to change on its own without both a reformist-minded government and integrated Western assistance.
Jacobsen: Let us turn to Armenia. Suppose it shifts away from the CSTO toward deeper engagement with the EU and the U.S.—in areas such as defence procurement and training. How would that change the dynamic?
Tsukerman: That process is already underway. Prime Minister Pashinyan’s refusal to participate in the most recent CSTO events and joint sessions signals his move away from the alliance. Both Azerbaijan and Armenia have also petitioned to withdraw from the OSCE Minsk Group. That group, which once included the United States, Russia, France, and Germany, failed to achieve any meaningful diplomatic resolution of the conflict. Its prestige has collapsed, just as the CSTO’s relevance has eroded.
This also indicates a genuine orientation toward Washington as the primary diplomatic intermediary. But when it comes to economic transformation, it will be a gradual process. Armenia cannot shift overnight to a fully American system. There is too much at stake, and risk guarantees would be necessary for businesses, especially given the potential for political instability and coups inside the country.
On weapons procurement, there are interoperability issues. Armenia has long been dependent on Russian and, more recently, Indian weapons. It has started purchasing French arms, much to Azerbaijan’s displeasure, but those deliveries have been slow. So far, there is more theoretical defence cooperation between France and Armenia than actual supplies. Meanwhile, Armenia still depends heavily on Russian prototypes. And U.S. weapons are expensive—Armenia is a poor country, so it is unclear how much it could realistically afford.
For now, the United States would likely need to bolster its presence through observers, ideally with EU support, to act as quasi-security guarantors against Russian aggression. That, however, raises concerns for Azerbaijan. They worry about revanchist, anti-Pashinyan factions gaining strength, cancelling peace agreements, and then using Western backing against Azerbaijan. That is a real risk that Western policymakers need to address more openly.
Jacobsen: So, intelligence cooperation will become more important?
Tsukerman: Yes. Intelligence-sharing will likely increase to identify potential threats. But here we run into a problem. Under the Trump administration, many intelligence officials were purged, and pro-Russian voices became prominent. Some within that administration even had connections with Russian- or Armenian-linked religious factions that are highly politicized, revanchist, and deeply opposed to Pashinyan. That leaves matters in an uncertain place unless the EU decides to get far more involved and counterbalance the risks of intelligence leaks from the U.S. side.
France, in particular, has generated distrust in Armenia. French policy has been heavily influenced by the Armenian diaspora and by pro-Russian lobbies connected to it. These diaspora networks do not necessarily support Yerevan’s current government. They view Pashinyan as weak for having lost the war and instead push unrealistic “Greater Armenia” ideas. While such projects are not feasible in the 21st century, they are being promoted by groups with money, political clout, and Russian support.
This brings another layer of interference. Some NGOs and groups funded by Russian and Armenian oligarchs have simultaneously contributed to infrastructure development in Armenia while also siphoning funds, fueling corruption, and advancing damaging nationalist agendas. These forces have obstructed the peace process rather than supported it.
Jacobsen: So Armenia is tilting West, Turkey is carefully balancing its position with Azerbaijan… Does this mean that, in the post-Soviet era, Russia’s footprint in the region is shrinking?
Tsukerman: Yes, Russia’s footprint is retracting, but not by choice. Moscow has had to pull many of its so-called peacekeepers from the South Caucasus due to logistical needs in Ukraine and because of its setbacks in Syria. Russia has already lost many of its top personnel in Ukraine, leaving behind poorly trained replacements with limited equipment. Its capacity for direct military involvement in the region has been diminished.
However, Russia’s ability to bribe, recruit spies, and employ terrorist tactics has not diminished—if anything, it has increased. Worse still, Russia has trained Iran in these same methods. Iran has been actively recruiting spies and agents in Azerbaijan and deploying them both against Azerbaijan itself and Israeli interests worldwide.
Azerbaijan’s security services, with support from Israeli counterparts, have been successful in uncovering and neutralizing many of these operatives domestically. Still, Iran has managed to operate with relative impunity, particularly in peripheral regions, making it difficult to track down everyone influenced by Iranian propaganda or infiltrated from across the border. The result is a complex, asymmetric security environment that is likely to intensify in the short term.
Jacobsen: What about guarantors such as the EU, U.S., and OSCE? Could they credibly sustain long-term peace negotiations?
Tsukerman: The OSCE is effectively finished in this role. The Minsk Group, which it oversaw, failed for decades to achieve progress, and both Baku and Yerevan have petitioned to withdraw from its framework. The OSCE itself has shown little enthusiasm for continuing with a process that dragged on fruitlessly for 30 years.
For a time, the European Union tried to take on a more direct role, but that effort fell apart once the EU shifted its focus to the Russian threat and the war in Ukraine. President Macron of France personally attempted to get involved, but Azerbaijan does not view him as a neutral party. Complicating matters further, other factions within France have interfered with Macron’s policies, weakening consistency.
That said, circumstances could change. For the first time in decades, France, Azerbaijan, and Armenia all face the same threat—Russia. That shared concern could potentially bring them closer together, depending on top-level commitments. Much will hinge on the French elections in 2027, when Macron’s term ends. His party already suffered significant losses in the recent snap elections, and both the radical left and radical right are on the rise. It is uncertain whether his successor will maintain France’s current anti-Russian stance.
Jacobsen: What about the U.S. side?
Tsukerman: The U.S. under Trump at least seems to view economic and personal benefit in acting as a guarantor. Washington would stand to gain not only from oil and gas cooperation but also from investments in digital infrastructure and broader regional projects. So there are economic incentives for the U.S. to remain engaged.
In addition to energy, there are also prospects for high-technology development and other forms of cooperation. On a more personal level, both Azerbaijan and Armenia pleased Trump by announcing they would push for a Nobel Peace Prize nomination for him. It’s unclear whether they meant they would nominate him directly or support existing nominations from elsewhere. Regardless, he views this as a positive gesture and as welcome publicity on top of what has otherwise been a series of diplomatic failures.
Because of this, he is likely to remain committed to the process for the time being. What happens once he leaves office, however, is uncertain. It’s not clear what direction U.S. policy will take afterward. By that point, the peace process may already be sufficiently formalized, and many of the issues causing political friction in Washington would likely be resolved. I presume that the next administration would probably maintain the course—unless there are radical political changes inside either Azerbaijan or Armenia.
Jacobsen: All right, let’s call that one a close. Thank you for your time.
Tsukerman: Thank you very much for your time today, on what has been our most intensive week so far. 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
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/03
Andrea Schnepf is the Managing Director at nepf LLC. She has spent 20+ years helping global executives lead with confidence through transformation. She’s led high-stakes M&A, AI, digital, and organizational transformations for top consulting firms and Fortune 1000 companies. Her approach combines strategy, capability building, and execution to ensure real impact.
Schnepf emphasizes that tech layoffs reflect a shift toward capability alignment and AI-driven transformation. She highlights agility as clarity, not speed, and stresses reskilling tied to defined roles. Careers are evolving into fluid, skill-based journeys where adaptability, leadership, and continuous growth ensure lasting organizational impact.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What do Microsoft’s recent layoffs reveal about the evolving priorities of tech giants?
Andrea Schnepf: Microsoft’s recent layoffs illustrate a broader shift: tech giants are no longer managing for headcount volume but for capability alignment. These moves are less about reaction and more about repositioning the workforce around AI, platform innovation, and emerging growth bets. We see this pattern across industries: future-ready organizations are constantly recalibrating talent to stay aligned with where value is created next. The message for employees is clear: relevance is measured less by tenure and more by how closely your skills connect to the organization’s future direction.
Jacobsen: How can companies balance profitability with proactive restructuring?
Schnepf: The balance lies in linking workforce decisions directly to business outcomes, ensuring profitability while strengthening the capabilities needed for long-term growth. Restructuring shouldn’t just be about protecting margins; it should be about creating the capacity to invest in the future. At nepf, we’ve seen companies succeed when restructuring is paired with transparent communication, targeted reskilling, and manager enablement. Those moves protect near-term performance while creating the adaptability leaders need to navigate whatever comes next.
Jacobsen: How is AI accelerating the shift from traditional roles to more fluid career paths?
Schnepf: AI is accelerating the move away from rigid job descriptions toward fluid, skill-based roles that evolve alongside technology. We’re moving toward a blended model of human creativity and machine intelligence. That elevates the importance of skills like strategic thinking, emotional intelligence, and tech fluency. We guide leaders to frame careers as flexible, skill-based journeys instead of rigid hierarchies. That shift enables organizations and employees alike to adapt as roles and priorities are continually reshaped.
Jacobsen: How are boards and executive teams redefining “agility”?
Schnepf: Agility used to be synonymous with speed. Today, agility is about clarity, the ability to reallocate capital, talent, and strategy without destabilizing the business. Boards are recognizing that agility is a governance priority, not a management afterthought. The organizations that adapt best are those that invest in aligning their people strategy with their business strategy, rethinking roles, and skilling leaders to lead through ambiguity. At nepf, agility is embedded into our culture, which allows us to pivot quickly to evolving client needs and deliver tailored, lasting impact.
Jacobsen: What signals should employees look for as signs of possible vulnerability to restructuring?
Schnepf: The earliest signals are often cultural, not financial. Silence from leadership, vague strategy updates, or a heavy emphasis on efficiency without a growth narrative all raise red flags. We encourage employees to watch where investment flows — into which skills, technologies, and growth areas. The question isn’t only “is my role secure?” but “does my work connect to where the organization is going next?” Stay curious about where your skills intersect with emerging needs and be proactive in shaping your narrative.
Jacobsen: How can companies invest in reskilling without creating uncertainty?
Schnepf: Reskilling works best when it provides certainty rather than speculation. That means tying learning to a clear destination role, a defined timeline, and transparent opportunities. We’ve seen the strongest outcomes when learning is built into the culture and framed as a shared expectation of growth. That framing signals that reskilling is an investment in everyone’s future, not a countdown clock. When employees see reskilling as a bridge to growth, rather than an undefined promise, it builds confidence instead of anxiety.
Jacobsen: What impact will workforce recalibration in large tech firms have on smaller startups?
Schnepf: Large-scale recalibrations often release highly skilled talent into the market. The influx of top talent creates new possibilities, but it also raises the bar for clarity, culture, and growth pathways. We see the most future-ready startups treat this moment as a catalyst to reimagine how they operate, moving beyond simply adding headcount to intentionally building the structures, leadership, and culture required to scale. The real impact isn’t just a talent boost; it’s the chance to accelerate organizational maturity and compete on a larger scale.
Jacobsen: How might the concept of a “career” be redefined with role fluidity?
Schnepf: The career ladder is giving way to the career lattice. Traditional linear progression is being replaced by nonlinear, skill-based growth. A “career” is no longer defined by holding a title for decades, it’s about cultivating a dynamic, living portfolio of skills and experiences. At nepf, our culture embodies this: employees work across functions, engage directly in strategy, and continuously shape both their growth and the company’s. In an era of disruption, stability doesn’t come from role permanence, but from the enduring ability to deliver value in evolving contexts.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Andrea.
–
More info: http://www.nepf.co.
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): 2025/09/02
Sapira Cahana is a New York-based mental health counsellor (MHC-LP) and is an interfaith chaplain-in-training specializing in existential and relational therapy.
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Cahana explore the nuances of loneliness, aloneness, and relational identity. Cahana emphasizes that absolute aloneness does not exist—human beings are always born into relational contexts and networks of meaning. Loneliness, she explains, arises when subjectivity is denied, echoing thinkers like Simone de Beauvoir, Julia Kristeva, and bell hooks. Together they discuss solitude, dissociation, trauma, spiritual framings of alienation, and the role of authentic dialogue in healing. Cahana argues that slowing down, embracing reflection, and reclaiming subjecthood transform loneliness from a painful condition into an opportunity for recognition and growth.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Two things always come to mind when people talk about loneliness. The first is loneliness as a state of mind, and the second is aloneness as a state of being. How do you separate those two, and why is it essential to make that distinction?
Sapira Cahana: The first thing I want to say is that there is no such thing as absolute aloneness. We are all born about others and in dynamics with the broader world. Every human birth occurs through another person, usually as the result of two people. Even with scientific interventions such as in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, or neonatal incubators, human beings always emerge within a network of relationships and dependencies. We are never truly isolated in origin. So, while there are experiences of feeling alone or being lonely, no person exists as a complete island outside of humanity.
Yet, despite this, people can withdraw or become isolated. That experience of isolation can create loneliness. In the end, though, human existence is always embedded in relationships—with others, with the world, and with cultural and social structures. That is an important point, because in a highly atomized modern society, we often prize individuation and separation from others. Individuation is essential, but if it comes at the cost of denying our relational nature or cutting ties with our communities, roots, and shared world, it can foster loneliness.
I would define loneliness as the experience of being cut off from one’s subjectivity, agency, and autonomy, while also feeling disconnected from others and one’s inner life. Simone de Beauvoir, the French existentialist philosopher, described loneliness in part as the denial of subjectivity—the condition in which a person is treated as an object, unable to have their subjecthood recognized. This reduction to objecthood and the struggle to reclaim one’s autonomy and voice capture an essential dimension of loneliness.
Other thinkers expand on this theme. Julia Kristeva, a French-Bulgarian psychoanalyst and philosopher, has written about loneliness in terms of mourning and melancholy, framing it as a kind of ineffable grief—something deeply felt but difficult to articulate. Bell Hooks, the American cultural critic and feminist, addressed loneliness in her book All About Love. She argued that love is the highest form of human connection and that loneliness often arises from systems of domination. For hooks, loneliness is a byproduct of domination and suppression: the suppression of self, the blocking of authentic connection, and the obstruction of love.
Many other profound thinkers have explored this subject, but these feminist and psychoanalytic perspectives are particularly illuminating.
Jacobsen: Are there ways in which people can almost put life on pause, to look at it from different angles and gain insight into themselves, their place in the world, and their lives? Sometimes that may feel like loneliness, but in reality, it is not.
Cahana: Are you talking about therapy?
Jacobsen: Yes, that would fall into that category.
Cahana: Of course, people can choose solitude deliberately. There is no question that there are times when separating oneself is valuable. For example, being alone in nature can offer immense insight. The Romantics often reflected on this kind of solitude. It is essential to distinguish this intentional solitude—which can be restorative—from the alienation of loneliness, which is often experienced as painful disconnection.
That was their whole ethos. They would go into nature and experience awe on their own or in small communities. So, of course, there are ways to be alone. Instead of being a doer, you become a being, of course.
But, ultimately, the larger truth is that we are in a kinship relationship with the world—that there is no such thing as true aloneness. There are experiences of deep loneliness, which are intrinsic to being human. No one is impervious to that experience—from the Dalai Lama to anyone else. We all encounter moments of profound alienation from the self, from the world, and from others.
We all ask ourselves at times: “Am I the worst person to exist on this planet? Do I deserve a place?” And we also have moments of deep aggrandizement where we think, “Is this world completely mine? Am I indomitable?”
So, there’s this complex that we all carry, and we can each vacillate between the two states. Ultimately, the central piece is that we are selves capable of accessing both deep self-alienation and deep self-aggrandizement. That is the existential lens on loneliness and alienation. Of course, there are other lenses as well.
Jacobsen: What about people who frame it supernaturalistically, saying that the sense of loneliness is a sense of being distant from God? What insights can those traditions potentially provide—whether from Judaism or others?
Cahana: Interestingly, you frame it that way. From a religious perspective, that experience is completely translatable as alienation. It is a sense of removal. And the antidote to loneliness is indeed closeness—coming into proximity, into relationship, into kinship with the self, with others, with the world, and with the divine. Religious and mystical traditions certainly have insights into loneliness.
For example, Jewish, Christian, and Islamic thinkers often describe loneliness as separation from God. Mystical traditions, such as Sufism, speak of God as the Beloved, a proximate figure of intimacy. Sufi poets like Rumi frame divine relationship as closeness to the Beloved, countering loneliness with intimacy with the divine.
This is not dissimilar to what Julia Kristeva described as unspeakable grief, what Simone de Beauvoir understood as the denial of subjectivity, or what bell hooks (Gloria Jean Watkins) called the domination that suppresses authentic love and connection. So, even across traditions, there is a common recognition of loneliness as alienation, and of the need for proximity and relationship as its response.
Jacobsen: What about the feminist lens of being with someone but apart? Alone together, in terms of connection. People must often report that when they show up at couples therapy, for instance.
Cahana: Absolutely. That dynamic of being with someone but still profoundly alone is a common report in relational therapy. It highlights that loneliness is not merely about the presence or absence of people, but about the quality of connection and recognition within relationships.
Indeed, the relationship with others can produce loneliness. What that looks like, of course, is the desire for another person to mirror us in a congruent way—and the pain of feeling as though the mirror is not reflecting what we want to be seen. These dynamics often play out between the innate self and the external self when those two do not align. And because the other is also a subject with both an innate and an external self, their misalignment can clash with ours. Through the relationship, these selves may fail to match—and so, yes, you can be alone with another person. There is no question about that.
The construct of being alone can also take form in anonymity—for example, being in Mumbai, surrounded by millions of people yet known by no one. That can produce experiences of profound isolation and alienation, or it can stir feelings of awe and reverence for the immensity of life. The experience itself is not inherently pejorative. Loneliness is only one possible outcome.
Once we acknowledge the denial of subjecthood, the next step is reclaiming one’s subjectivity. It means working through and realizing that these dynamics are systemic—rooted in the interaction between subject and other, subject and object. In that realization, a deep sense of power can emerge, as one insists on being recognized as a subject.
Jacobsen: What about cases of trauma along that spectrum? Situations where a person is not only alienated from their subjecthood but is dissociated—perhaps only half-conscious of it unless they are in a therapeutic space where it can be brought into fuller awareness?
Cahana: Yes, that is also a form of alienation—from the self. In dissociation, the self becomes fragmented and incongruent, not holding its parts together. The result is an inner disconnection: a lack of congruence between self and world, and even within the self itself. This fragmentation leaves portions of the self inaccessible, creating a profoundly alienating experience.
In therapy, we often distinguish between “capital-T” Traumas—major, life-altering events—and “small-t” traumas, the cumulative, usually less visible disruptions that shape identity and relational patterns. Both can generate dissociation, fragmentation, and alienation. It is, indeed, a profoundly complex and painful condition that many people suffer from regularly.
When we speak about it, the biggest problem is the ineffability of the experience. How do you describe being alienated from yourself while still speaking as yourself? It is an awful feeling. But I’ve also read research and engaged with thinkers who note that dissociation is not always pathological. The dissociative state can also be the flow state. In flow, there is still a central self-directing experience. It does not feel alienating, but somewhat fluid and integrated.
By contrast, traumatic dissociation involves not having a grasp on what is occurring—perceiving reality through a foggy lens and not feeling connected. That is the key difference: flow is absorbing, while trauma-induced dissociation is fragmenting.
Jacobsen: What about anticipation, future projections, or even idealizations? For example, when someone says they are going to “find themselves” at Burning Man for the first time. They’re projecting forward, imagining a deeper connection with themselves in community—almost as if community itself is part of their identity.
Cahana: That’s the idea: becoming more at one with oneself through projection into a transformative experience. Why do we seek out such experiences? When we remain stuck in routine and the perfunctory, it becomes difficult to perceive differences. Contrast becomes the teacher.
This is what Simone de Beauvoir illuminated in her analysis of the subject–object dynamic, and it echoes the Hegelian dialectic. There is always a tension between subject and other, each claiming recognition. When we become conscious of this dynamic, it is revealed as relational. When we remain unconscious, it is harder to articulate our thoughts.
Contrast makes things visible. It is the same with language. For instance, speakers of Arabic may note differences between Moroccan, Palestinian, and Syrian dialects—each saying the same thing in slightly different ways. That comparison produces awareness.
The same happens when we travel to places where we do not speak the language at all. Suddenly, we cannot ask for our most basic needs. No one knows us, and we do not know how to express ourselves. People seek that experience of dislocation and contrast, precisely because it reveals what is usually invisible in everyday routine.
People are looking for a taste of contrast—a taste of loneliness where we are both somewhat in control and at the same time completely releasing control. We actively seek this out. Why would we seek it unless it offers something meaningful to produce, to think through, to work through, and ultimately to encounter the self?
Jacobsen: In that sense, is the self an alignment of different selves—a linguistic self, a sensory self, an emotional self? When those selves are mostly in sync, we feel aligned, present, and able to act effectively and authentically in the world.
Cahana: That brings me back to a philosophy class where we discussed the diachronic self and the debates of John Locke and David Hume. Are there different theories of how the self is constructed? Is there a grand unifier, some essential self at the core?
Maybe, maybe not. I do not have a perfect answer. But we all have different relationships to that very question. So when we seek out experiences of loneliness—or encounter them without seeking them—the relationship to either a unified self or a multiplicity of selves becomes a question each individual must reckon with.
Jacobsen: What about dreams—when someone becomes lucid, waking up inside the dream? That seems like a version of the self that belongs partly to waking life and partly to the dreamscape, where things are less rule-bound. Does that tell us something about self and loneliness?
Cahana: Perhaps, though it says much about loneliness specifically. It does, however, remind us that the self is something to be encountered. That’s the only answer I can offer here. I want to think about it more.
Jacobsen: There’s a saying: the opposite of love is not hate but indifference. Is there something similar to loneliness?
Cahana: Yes. The opposite of loneliness is an authentic relationship. And yet it is so challenging to create a truly phenomenological relationship—one of genuine presence and recognition. Eye contact that sees the other is rare. So often we perceive one another through fragments, through pre-digested, habitual responses.
Much of daily life reflects this. You can speak to many people, spend the entire day in meetings, and have pleasant conversations. But at the end of the day, when you reflect, you may realize that what occurred was moving through interactions—not truly being with others. That absence of authentic relation is its form of loneliness.
The relationship to not being mirrored, or not being seen, comes down to the dissonance between the ideal self, the authentic self, the external world, and the inner world—all while we sift through vast amounts of information daily. With technology, this has only intensified. We consume endlessly, but are rarely reflected to ourselves.
We live in an era of horoscopes and memes, where people say, “That’s so me,” and adopt quotes as guiding principles. But these are snippets, banter—not real dialogue. What is missing is sustained conversation and presence. That is why my therapeutic approach is so practical, though often dismissed. People say, “I talk all the time. Why do I need a therapist? I don’t need someone to listen.” Yet, if they truly reflect, they realize how few people listen to them, and how rarely they listen to others. That is profound alienation.
The antidote to loneliness is slowing down. It requires entering into the well of loneliness itself and then emerging into subjecthood—into recognition.
I think of Sara Ahmed, who frames emotions as political. I cannot recall her exact phrasing on loneliness, but she suggests it can be an experience of resistance—feeling something is not quite right, and pushing against it.
Jacobsen: In a sense, are we living in the era of soliloquies? If people are not being heard and not listening, dialogues collapse into monologues. Monologues, when extended, become soliloquies.
Cahana: The existential therapist Emmy van Deurzen speaks to this. She distinguishes between dialogue, duologue, and monologue. A genuine dialogue is the authentic encounter—the eye-gazing, phenomenological relationship. A duologue is a conversation between two people, where they trade anecdotes. For example: “I have a cat.” “You have a cat.” “Here’s my cat photo.” “Here’s yours.” That is pleasant, but not deeply connecting.
She also speaks of monologues or soliloquies—where no listening occurs at all. A person may come to a therapy session, recount their entire day, and leave. That can be cathartic, and I do not judge it. But as a relational therapist, I feel responsible for ensuring that the “sacred third”—the shared relational space—is upheld. I depend on the client to hold it with me, but I also have that responsibility.
Jacobsen: Any favourite quotes? What comes to mind for you? And your final thoughts?
Cahana: My final thought is this: we all experience loneliness. It is intrinsic to being human. And it can also be the most powerful experience once we claim our subjecthood from within it.
Jacobsen: Thank you once more for your time and expertise, Sapira.
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): 2025/09/01
Amos N. Guiora, J.D., Ph.D., is a legal scholar and former IDF Lieutenant Colonel whose work focuses on institutional complicity and the legal accountability of bystanders and enablers. Shaped by his Holocaust-survivor parents and counterterrorism background, Guiora pioneered legal frameworks addressing bystander culpability, authoring The Crime of Complicity, Armies of Enablers, and The Complicity of Silence. His advocacy inspired Utah’s 2021 bystander law. Through the Bystander Initiative at the University of Utah, he advocates for criminalizing enablers, arguing that religious, educational, or athletic institutions often prioritize protecting perpetrators over victims.
Guiora speaks with Scott Douglas Jacobsen about the complex intersections of antisemitism, anti-Zionism, and legitimate criticism of Israel. Drawing on his personal history as the child of Holocaust survivors and his professional background in law and counterterrorism, Guiora distinguishes between anti-Israel sentiment and antisemitism, noting how political leaders like Netanyahu exploit the confusion for strategic gain. The discussion explores Holocaust denial, intra-Jewish tensions, Orthodox-secular divides, and international law, emphasizing the need for precise definitions and caution in labelling. Guiora stresses that criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are here with Amos Guiora, Director of the Bystander Initiative. We are going to discuss antisemitism today. This is one of the last interviews in that series for the book project, Conversations on Antisemitism, so thank you for participating in it.
Dr. Amos Guiora: I appreciate it. My pleasure.
Jacobsen: I have encountered several different approaches to this issue in the broader discussion. There are two main streams. One argues for a static definition, while the other supports a more fluid, ongoing conversation. When you think about antisemitism, what kind of language do you use to approach it, if at all?
Guiora: I think one needs to be cautious about instinctively throwing down the flag of antisemitism. However, as I told you when we spoke a couple of days ago, I view this through the lens of being an Israeli, not necessarily as an American Jew. From the perspective of an Israeli, it has been nearly two years since October 7, 2023.
As someone deeply involved in demonstrations, rallies, and efforts against the government, I am fervently—an understatement—opposed to the Netanyahu government. That does not make me anti-Israeli in any way. I firmly believe that criticism of this government, whether by Israelis or by non-Israelis, by Jews or non-Jews, is entirely legitimate.
I belong to the camp that says legitimate criticism of Israel, when based on knowledge and understanding, is not antisemitic. Full stop. I have friends who, with reasonable minds though differing views, believe that all criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic. I do not subscribe to that position.
So, putting on my Israeli hat—well, I do not have much hair, but still—I see criticism of what is happening as necessary. The fact that hostages remain in captivity—the 49 hostages still being held—and the reality that we are engaged in a purposeless war in Gaza all compel me to be highly critical. As you know, I have spoken at rallies in Haifa and Jerusalem. I am also writing a book about Netanyahu’s enablers, naming them by name. None of this makes me antisemitic.
So, the definitional issue is this: do we say that any criticism of Israel is automatically antisemitic? I do not think so. Is there antisemitism in some of the criticism? Indeed, remarkably, it is not grounded in knowledge or understanding. However, as a lawyer, definitions are crucial. Words must be narrowly defined, specifically defined, and carefully applied.
So I am very cautious about labelling, “Oh, he is antisemitic, she is antisemitic.” Is there antisemitism? Of course there is. An attack on a synagogue is antisemitic. The attack in Chile, which I saw reported the other day, was antisemitic—attacks on synagogues, attacks on Jews. You are in Canada: the Jewish man who was attacked in front of his children in Montreal—that is antisemitism. I saw something similar in Paris.
However, there are also situations involving Israelis. I think it was in Barcelona: an Israeli family was sitting in a restaurant, speaking Hebrew. The owner approached them and asked, “Are you speaking Hebrew?” They said yes. He told them, “Leave now.” Is that antisemitic, or is that anti-Israel? I do not know.
Where does Zionism, or anti-Zionism, fit into this analysis? I define myself as a Zionist who believes in the state of Israel. Obviously, I served in the IDF, and I absolutely believe in the legitimacy of the state of Israel. I assume—though, as the first three letters of the word remind us, assumption can be risky—that anti-Zionism is the denial of Israel’s right to exist. I know that position is out there.
Notwithstanding the UN resolution many decades back, I take anti-Zionism to mean the denial of Israel’s legitimacy. I also know there are Jews who are anti-Zionist. My assumption—and I say this cautiously—is that this position denies Israel’s right to exist. For me, is that antisemitic? Or is that anti-Israel? It lies somewhere between those categories. I do not always know what that means. There is also a revisionist history that contributes to this.
However, the state of Israel exists, and it is not going anywhere. To deny its existence, for me, is far off the beaten path. I do not understand where that comes from. Much prejudice toward Jewish people seems to depend on a prior definition—what is a Jewish person?
Now, you pointed out something intriguing: the history of the Israeli Supreme Court, which dates back many decades—if I recall correctly, to the early 1970s or early 1980s. The question in that case was: What is a Jew? What was the impetus for the case? What was the deliberation process? Moreover, what was the outcome?
I admit I do not know enough about the case itself. However, I can tell you that, traditionally, there has never been much question about what defines a Jew. According to the Torah, a Jew is someone whose mother is Jewish. Unlike in Islam, where the father’s faith determines identity, in Judaism, it is the mother’s faith that is considered significant.
There has been a lengthy discussion of what it means to be a Jew. Years ago, it was in Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper. There was an article debating whether one primarily identifies as an Israeli or as a Jew. That is a fascinating question. If I have to choose between the two, I define myself as an Israeli.
I also think, in the context of historical antisemitism, that reasonable minds may disagree. However, there is a strong school of thought that says Christianity historically placed blame on Jews as the “Christ killers.” In 1965, Pope Paul VI issued Nostra Aetate, a declaration rejecting that charge and affirming that Jews collectively were not responsible for the death of Jesus—it was the Romans. However, for nearly 2,000 years, the accusation of Jews as Christ killers hung over us.
In the Middle Ages, antisemitism manifested in other forms: Jews were portrayed as bloodsuckers, accused of ritual murder, or seen as running the banks—stereotypes tied to families like the Rothschilds. The “Christ killer” accusation was perhaps the most important element of this long history of antisemitism.
Fast forward to Hitler: Was Hitler antisemitic? Of course—virulently antisemitic. There was no state of Israel at the time, so the Holocaust was entirely about Jews. The Holocaust is the seminal event in the history of antisemitism, unhinged as unhinged can be.
In Israel today, we have both Orthodox (including Hasidic) Jews and secular Jews. The conflict between secular and Orthodox Jews is very real. Many in the Orthodox community, by rabbinical order, refuse to serve in the IDF. For secular Israelis like me, and for those of us whose children serve in the IDF, this refusal is outrageous. There are no words for it.
To give an example: there is a cartoon showing soldiers marching in one direction to the draft while Orthodox Jews head the opposite way, travelling to Ukraine to pray instead of serving. This captures the sense of division.
So the question arises: Does my criticism of Orthodox Jews for refusing military service make me antisemitic? I do not believe so. However, among secular Israelis, there is genuine hatred toward the Orthodox for this reason. I can point to friends who say openly, “We hate the Orthodox.” Moreover, when they say hate, they mean hate.
On the other hand, just three weeks ago, extremist Orthodox groups declared “war on the state of Israel.” They even posted banners to that effect. They then held a violent demonstration two weeks ago. Frankly, I was sorry the police did not crack down harder.
So it is not very easy.
Jacobsen: It is the Pope’s “relationship status.” It’s complicated. I think that sentiment applies here as well. Now, what about something I have not explored as much in conversation—the issue of intra-Jewish, or inter-subethnic, tensions: Ashkenazim versus Sephardim versus Mizrahim, and so on? Today, these often surface as jokes. People have told me such jokes, though the terminology can be strong.
Guiora: Jokes, of course, are often rooted in reality. If someone harbours hatred within the broader Jewish community, does that count as antisemitism? First, I do not think antisemites in the broader world distinguish between Sephardic Jews, Russian Jews, Ethiopian Jews, or Ashkenazi Jews. To them, a Jew is a Jew. That is a different question from what you are asking.
Historically, when the state of Israel was founded, it was led mainly by Ashkenazi Jews from Europe, including Ben-Gurion and others. When Jews from Middle Eastern countries, particularly Sephardic Jews, came in the 1950s—many from Morocco—it is well documented that they felt discriminated against by the Ashkenazi establishment. That reality was very much present at the time.
Where are we now, in 2025? The situation is no longer what it once was. Intermarriage has played a role in bridging divisions, and the IDF serves as a great melting pot. In the army, Jews from Yemen, Ethiopia, the broader Middle East, including Sephardim and Ashkenazim, as well as Russians, all serve together. The shared experience of service brings people together.
That is not to deny that discrimination existed in the past. I remember when Ehud Barak, either running for prime minister or already serving, publicly apologized to Sephardic Jews for the discrimination they experienced in the 1950s. You cannot argue with people’s lived perceptions; if they felt discriminated against, that was real for them.
However, by 2025, I do not think this will remain a significant issue. Some may still use it—perhaps politicians for their own expediency—but in the broader sense, within the context of antisemitism, distinctions between Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, and other Jewish groups are, in my view, a non-issue.
Jacobsen: It is politically incorrect for many people to express certain prejudices openly. However, during periods of rising antisemitism, people will seize upon whatever current issue exists and use it as a justification to air their preexisting biases—under the pretext of the present controversy.
Guiora: I understand that. As I have mentioned, I give numerous talks. On occasion, I have faced demonstrations, had police protection, or even been spat on while inside a car. I never felt that was antisemitism. I felt they were attacking me as an Israeli, full stop.
After my Holocaust book came out in 2017, I received death threats. Those threats were posted on neo-Nazi platforms—one styled after Der Stürmer—and in other places. In my opinion, those threats were antisemitic. They included terrible things: “Hang your favourite Jew,” or “Who wants to see Amos’s bloody scalp?” That was clearly antisemitism.
By contrast, when I have faced demonstrations against me, I felt those were anti-Israel, not antisemitic. Once, I was invited as a keynote speaker at a major conference on antisemitism. It was a great honour. There were so many police that they even escorted me to the men’s room.
I told them, “Fellas, I can take care of myself. I do not need police with me in the bathroom.” Was the heavy security due to fear of protesters? Was that fear about antisemitism or anti-Israel sentiment? Given the context of the conference, I assume antisemitism.
However, in other talks, when people shouted things about Israel, I considered that anti-Israel, not antisemitic. I believe there is a clear distinction between the two.
Jacobsen: Do you think antisemitism is rising?
Guiora: According to groups like the ADL and AJC, who track statistics in the U.S. and Europe, the answer is yes. However, distinguishing whether incidents are anti-Israel or antisemitic is not always straightforward.
For example, recently in New York with my wife, we made a conscious choice not to speak Hebrew in the streets. Is that fear of anti-Israel reaction or fear of antisemitism? I do not know.
We are very conscious of these things. When I travel, I refrain from wearing anything that identifies me as Israeli. The Israeli Foreign Ministry has issued strong recommendations—almost guidelines—not to speak Hebrew in public, not to wear swag with Hebrew writing or Israeli symbols.
I have a religious Israeli friend who wears a kippah. He planned to travel to Europe with friends, all of whom also wear kippot. However, the security concern was significant. Simply being visibly Jewish today, in certain places, carries real risk.
My friend said he would only travel with his group if they did not wear kippot in Europe. One of his friends replied, “I will not take my kippah off in Europe.” My friend responded, “Then I cannot go with you.” So is that fear of anti-Israel sentiment or fear of antisemitism? Yes—it is both.
Jacobsen: Do you think that from an outside perspective, there is really no distinction being made between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews?
Guiora: If someone hates Jewish people, they hate Jewish people. When a person is yelling in the street, “Fuck the Jews” or whatever, they are not distinguishing between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews. I do not think they even know the difference. Alternatively, if they do, it is irrelevant.
Jacobsen: Has there been any legal progress since that 1970s case?
Guiora: To my understanding, no. The question remains open. According to Jewish law, a Jew is defined as someone born to a Jewish mother. That has raised complicated questions regarding conversion. For instance, who conducted the conversion? Was it an Orthodox rabbi or a Reform rabbi? To the best of my knowledge, the State of Israel—through the Chief Rabbinate—does not recognize conversions conducted by Reform rabbis. That remains a live issue.
From my perspective, anyone who sincerely wants to convert to Judaism should be welcomed. However, the Rabbinate, dominated by Orthodox Judaism, does not recognize non-Orthodox conversions. Politically, the government often accommodates this because it needs Orthodox parties for coalition-building. That is simply the reality.
Jacobsen: It reminds me of something: years ago in Ireland, there was a debate about priests offering televised blessings for those unable to attend services. I joked—if you record it and replay it throughout the day, do you receive perpetual indulgences? I will leave that question to you. What about outside Israel, in census data? How are people defining Jewish identity around the world?
Guiora: Good question. Here in Utah, as I understand it, when you ask leaders of the Jewish community how many Jews live here, the standard response is about 5,000. It is a round number that gets repeated because there is no precise count. That is how the community itself tends to present it.
If someone’s father is Jewish but the mother is not, then in Israel, they would not be identified as Jewish. For the sake of community purposes elsewhere, they might be accepted as Jews—but not in Israel. Today, in much of the West, such individuals would indeed be considered Jewish. However, in Israel, the Orthodox Rabbinate controls these questions, and their position is clear: Jewish identity follows the mother.
Outside Israel, particularly in Reform communities, there is much greater tolerance. If someone wants to decide that they are a Jew, the response is often, Zay gezunt—so be it. My view is similar: if somebody wants to define themselves as a Jew, God bless them. Seriously.
Jacobsen: What circumstances have you felt involved in genuine, virulent forms of antisemitism directed at you, not just anti-Israel sentiment?
Guiora: I grew up in Ann Arbor, Michigan. I did not experience antisemitism in my childhood. Perhaps once, at Kenyon College in Gambier, Ohio, someone said something foolish. In law school at Case Western—no, not at all. Working in Washington, D.C.—again, not at all. Serving in the IDF for 20 years—none.
Now, having been back in the United States for 20 years, the only antisemitism I have personally experienced was tied to the Holocaust book I published. That brought death threats.
I received one typed letter, postmarked Cleveland, Ohio. (You probably do not even know what a typewriter is—you are too young.)
Jacobsen: They invented typewriters at about the same time they invented dirt.
Guiora: Anyway, the letter said: Amos— not “Dear Amos,” just “Amos.” The writer had read my book or read about me and wrote, “The next Holocaust is sure to happen, and you will be one of the first victims.” That is antisemitism. There were also comments online, like: Raise your hand if you want to see Amos’s bloody scalp. What is that?
Jacobsen: Unless this person knew of some obscure historical practice about scalping Jews, it is simply violent antisemitic language directed at me personally.
Guiora: Once, at three o’clock in the morning, I woke up to a whole series of threats. By seven or eight in the morning, they began posting my home address. That is serious. With the Holocaust letter, when my address was made public, we immediately reached out to the police. I understand that someone also contacted the FBI, which was the right thing to do. The moment you publish someone’s home address, that crosses a dangerous line.
What is Holocaust denial? Let me tell you a story. In 2005 or 2006, I was invited to debate the legality of what some call the “fence” and others call the “barrier” between Israel and the West Bank. I was to debate a professor of law.
On my way to the debate, one of my research assistants called me and said, “Professor Guiora, have you read what he writes?” I told her I had not. She said, “He is a Holocaust minimizer.” I asked, “What the hell is that?” She explained: “He acknowledges that the Holocaust happened—thank you—but he says it was two million victims, not six million.”
So I arrive at the debate. We debate the barrier, not the Holocaust. However, as the only child of two Holocaust survivors, whose grandparents were murdered in the Holocaust, I refused to shake his hand afterward—no reason to.
Later, I received a scathing letter from the university provost accusing me of violating principles of academic dignity and integrity. I considered my options: (1) respond politely, (2) write, “Dear Mr. Provost, go fuck yourself,” or (3) delete the email. After thinking it through—tick, tick, tick—I deleted it.
A couple of years later, I ran into the same professor, the Holocaust minimizer, at a conference. He greeted me warmly: “Amos, it is great to see you!” He extended his hand. I looked at it and refused again. No way I would shake that hand.
Now, is he antisemitic? Is he an idiot? Is he anti-Israel? What is that?
Jacobsen: What it brings to mind is the deeper concept of intersubjective agreement—how we define ourselves, how we define our history, how we define offence, and then how we define each other in relation to all those things. It is a sliding scale across all of them.
Guiora: Exactly. When the death threats came in after articles about my book, I had to confront my late mother with this reality. She had no idea Holocaust denial even existed. Living in Israel, it was outside her frame of reference. I remember the painful conversation: not only explaining that people deny the Holocaust, but that some of those same people wanted to kill her son. She could not grasp it.
My mother could not wrap her mind around Holocaust denial. That is no trivial matter. By the way, my mother did not define herself as a Holocaust survivor—she defined herself as a Holocaust winner. She defeated the Holocaust. For her, denial was incomprehensible.
I remember sitting with her in her apartment in Jerusalem. This is how my mom spoke: “Are you fucking kidding me?” Moreover, I said, “No, Mom, I am serious.” She could not, would not, wrap her mind around it.
Jacobsen: What is Holocaust denial? At its core, it says: It did not happen. Holocaust minimization says: Yes, it happened, but the scale was smaller—two million, not six million. That is just another form of denialism, a style of revisionism. On a conceptual spectrum, you could call one pole Holocaust acceptance and the other pole Holocaust denial. In between lies minimization. So yes, it is denial, just by another name.
Guiora: As you know, I am frequently interviewed and meet with numerous people. There are only two categories of people with whom I absolutely refuse to interact. One: neo-Nazis. Two: Holocaust deniers. With them, there is nothing to discuss. They are utterly anathema to me. I engage with a wide range of people—I have even dealt with Hamas. But neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers? No way.
Jacobsen: Does your being ex-IDF complicate matters, in terms of how people conflate Israeli and Jewish identity—directing hatred at Jews through their opposition to Israel?
Guiora: That is a fascinating question. Are the mistakes in Gaza being used as justification for antisemitism? That is the issue.
Is it antisemitism to call Israel’s actions “genocide”? Some of my American Jewish friends would say yes—instinctively. However, I also have Israeli friends who are deeply, deeply concerned about what the IDF is doing in Gaza. They are not antisemitic. They are Israelis criticizing their own government.
Would some of them say that international criticism of Israel is antisemitic? Perhaps. I have friends who believe that. However, for me, criticism of Israel—especially informed, substantive criticism—is not the same as antisemitism.
The mainstream does not think about Gaza through the lens of antisemitism. They think about it through the lens of: What is Israel doing in Gaza? That is how Israelis themselves frame it.
Jacobsen: Even if it has not been settled in Israeli courts for over fifty years, are there other courts that have a standard, working definition—not widely accepted, but at least functional? Of antisemitism? Or of “Jew”?
Guiora: [Laughing] Jesus, I hope the rest of the world has better things to do than to ask, What is a Jew? Please. When this Gaza war ends, the ICC (International Criminal Court) or the ICJ (International Court of Justice) may have to decide what to do with Netanyahu and others. My expectation is: nothing.
However, I do not view that through the lens of antisemitism. I view it through the lens of international law. Are alleged war crimes being investigated or not? That is the question. Still, I have no doubt some frame it as antisemitism.
For example, some of my friends argue that any potential arrest warrants against Netanyahu or former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant are predicated on antisemitism. Their reasoning is: “There are no arrest warrants against Hamas. There are no arrest warrants against Hezbollah. There are no arrest warrants against others. Therefore, if the only arrest warrants are directed at Israelis, it must be antisemitism.” I am aware of that argument.
However, realistically, no one is going to arrest “Bibi” Netanyahu. No one is going to arrest Yoav Gallant. Any such warrant would be performative.
Is it performative because of antisemitism? Some people absolutely say yes, especially when looking at the long list of others who have committed atrocities. There is an ICC arrest warrant against Putin for war crimes related to Ukraine. There have also been proceedings against leaders like Duterte at the International Criminal Court, though not Assad of Syria, despite his horrific record.
So yes, there is a legitimate debate about selective justice. However, whether that stems from antisemitism is contested.
Jacobsen: On March 17, 2023, following its investigation, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova.
Guiora: Putin has not been arrested—unless I somehow missed CNN today—and he will not be arrested. And neither will Netanyahu. These warrants are performative.
Why do I say that? Because, frankly, Putin does not even know the thing exists, and if he does, he does not care. I have had people ask me, “Is Netanyahu worried about being arrested?” Jesus Christ—people do not understand Netanyahu at all. The only things he cares about are Israel and the United States. Europe, for him, is utterly irrelevant.
He uses Macron in France for his own domestic political advantage. If Macron does not understand that, then Macron needs a lesson from Netanyahu, unless Macron himself is also playing a double game for his domestic politics in France, perhaps with elections coming up.
Jacobsen: Years ago, Bill Maher interviewed Netanyahu—this must be over a decade ago. They discussed what is now commonly referred to as Christian nationalism. Certain American evangelicals want events in Israel to unfold in a particular way because they believe it will trigger the Second Coming of Jesus. It is apocalyptic theology. It instrumentalizes Jewish people for someone else’s religious narrative.
Guiora: Every time Israel is attacked—or when a European leader declares support for a Palestinian state—Netanyahu reframes that criticism as antisemitism. He plays it directly to his political base in Israel. It is a tactic. Does Macron realize that when he makes statements about a Palestinian state, it gives Netanyahu another rallying point at home? Perhaps Macron is aware of it and is utilizing it for his own base in France. Maybe not.
Jacobsen: That reminds me of Bill Maher’s point in that interview. Netanyahu, when the second coming arose. He joked, “We will have that conversation when it happens.” It was a sharp line. It connects to something much older. There is a saying often attributed to Roman or Greek thinkers: The wise consider religion false, the ordinary people consider it true, and the rulers consider it useful.
Guiora: Marx later echoed it with his line, “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” The point is the same: religion—and by extension, Israel in this context—is being used instrumentally.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Amos.
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): 2025/09/01
Alejandro Pérez is a Partner at Pierson Ferdinand PLLC, specializing in labour and employment law, cyber/privacy law, and emerging technologies. A nationally recognized employment attorney, workplace investigator, and DEI thought leader, he advises employers ranging from startups to multinational corporations on litigation, compliance, and internal investigations. Fluent in Spanish and a former HR professional, he offers cultural fluency and business insight in addressing discrimination, harassment, pay equity, and I-9 compliance. President of the ACLU of Arizona, Pérez is also a sought-after speaker and trainer. He shares his personal story to mentor others and foster fairness, respect, and inclusion in workplaces.
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Alejandro Pérez, Partner at Pierson Ferdinand PLLC and President of the ACLU of Arizona, about workforce restructuring in the age of artificial intelligence. Pérez, a nationally recognized employment attorney, workplace investigator, and DEI thought leader, discusses how AI is reshaping job design, staffing priorities, and the need for agility within organizations. He emphasizes transparency, continuous learning, and re-skilling as critical to employee resilience. Drawing from his expertise in employment and cybersecurity law, Pérez outlines best practices for supporting employees during layoffs and highlights the long-term implications for career advancement and industry stability.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are with Alejandro Pérez. He is a Partner at Pierson Ferdinand PLLC, specializing in labour and employment law, cyber/privacy law, and emerging technologies. A nationally recognized employment attorney, workplace investigator, and DEI thought leader, he advises employers ranging from startups to multinational corporations on litigation, compliance, and internal investigations. Fluent in Spanish and a former HR professional, he brings cultural fluency and business insight to issues such as discrimination, harassment, pay equity, and I-9 compliance. President of the ACLU of Arizona, Pérez is also a sought-after speaker and trainer, and he often shares his personal story to mentor others and foster fairness, respect, and inclusion in the workplace. Thank you very much for joining me today. I appreciate it.
Alejandro Pérez: Oh, you are very welcome. Happy to be here.
Jacobsen: So, what do you consider the core business market and strategic factors driving large-scale workforce restructuring in some of the major tech companies?
Pérez: I think much of it has to do with AI investments and shifting strategic priorities from one focus to another. We are seeing a recalibration of workforce structures to better align with those shifts. Employers are positioning AI both as a cost lever and as an operational transformer. So, roles are being redefined. Many traditional roles—like customer service and certain marketing positions—are either being outsourced or replaced by AI.
Jacobsen: How is this integration of artificial intelligence and automation happening in concrete terms? How is it reshaping organizational staffing needs and skill priorities in particular?
Pérez: AI has been transformative in reshaping workplace needs, putting a heightened focus on data literacy, systems thinking, and interdisciplinary roles. What we are seeing is a strong emphasis on AI skills. That is where much of the demand and focus are right now.
Jacobsen: What about job design across the tech sector? When an organization restructures on a large scale, the meaning of a particular role often shifts—sometimes drastically. What approaches are companies taking toward that?
Pérez: The key approach is agility—being ready to pivot. It is an incredibly agile workforce and an incredibly agile business environment. We do not know what tomorrow will bring or which roles will suddenly become essential. Employers need to be prepared to pivot quickly and remain flexible as things change. Right now, massive investments and capital are flowing into AI. However, that could change and develop in different ways over time. So the most important thing is to remain flexible and adaptable.
Jacobsen: What about proactive measures that teams can take to ensure workforce agility? When restructuring, how can organizations minimize disruption?
Pérez: The first step is to encourage resilience within roles. Talk to your teams, make sure they know they need to be agile, flexible, and ready to pivot at a moment’s notice. Transparency about what is happening can reduce many of the morale issues that arise. Employees are fearful of being displaced due to AI or the potential disappearance of their job functions. I do not necessarily see that as the case. You still need people to operate AI. However, transparency helps, as does flattening hierarchies, creating cross-functional teams, and ensuring talent pools are more fluid overall.
Jacobsen: Does AI and automation function essentially as a big hammer? In other words, a larger vector per person operating it—making them more effective if used properly, but not necessarily making them obsolete?
Pérez: Exactly, that is precisely it. AI makes an employee much more efficient if used correctly. It should not displace the employee.
Jacobsen: Are there areas where people expected AI to help but instead found it counterproductive?
Pérez: I have not seen that broadly, but I can give an example from the legal field. Some attorneys have gotten into serious trouble after asking AI to draft briefs, only to find that the AI “hallucinated” arguments or case law that did not exist. Judges are coming down hard on that. We are also seeing some hesitancy in the legal sector overall, with courts creating rules around AI. In some jurisdictions, if you use AI, you must certify that you have personally verified all cited authorities, while in others, you may be barred from using AI in filings altogether. I imagine similar issues arise in other sectors as well.
Jacobsen: Have hallucinations been reduced significantly enough that AI can now be used more safely in those gray areas?
Pérez: I do not think so. In my experience, you still have to take the time to verify and quality-check everything. For example, sometimes I will experiment with AI and ask it to help me come up with an argument. I will speak to it almost like it is a person. What I have found is that some of the output is useful, but some of it is fabricated—even today. So I will give it feedback: “You gave me some fake material here.” Maybe it improves over time, but I do not use it heavily in my practice. I tend to experiment with it because, in addition to employment law, I also practice cybersecurity. I am always curious about emerging technologies and how they impact the workforce.
Jacobsen: Are there specific traditional tech roles that have been around for a while that are simply going to go the way of the dodo bird?
Pérez: I think we will see some reduction in roles like customer service. I do not believe most positions will disappear entirely, but the scale of those teams will shrink significantly. For example, in transportation, perhaps drivers with companies like Waymo could eventually be displaced. However, even there, limitations remain. In my community, a Waymo car cannot even enter. So I think the trend will be fewer large-scale positions, with a focus on consolidation—stripping down to what is essential and eliminating excess.
Jacobsen: What about adjacent industry ripples? If one industry undergoes restructuring, connected industries often feel the impact, even if not directly targeted.
Pérez: Good question. The short answer is yes—adjacent industries will inevitably feel the impact. Fewer jobs in one area directly affect the financial sector and ripple into nearly everything else. These changes also influence talent pools and the educational sector, as people recalibrate to meet shifting demands. Companies are recalibrating, and individuals must do the same—preparing for changes in their professions and careers.
Jacobsen: Does this, in your mind, bring to the fore the importance of continuous learning and re-skilling as employees face an evolving demand in the tech job market?
Pérez: Absolutely. Life has changed so much. In the past, people often worked for the same company for decades. My parents did that—my mother was a factory worker. However, many of those jobs have since been automated or robotized. Today, employees must constantly be in learning mode. The most important takeaway is to utilize whatever benefits are available. Your salary is not just your paycheck; it also includes benefits like tuition reimbursement and professional development opportunities. Employees should take advantage of these to remain competitive.
Employees should continuously seek out opportunities to learn and re-skill, especially in the tech sector, but really in any sector. Stay current on how industries are changing and how those changes apply to your role. Re-skill as much as possible, learn as much as possible, and strengthen your skill set to withstand potential layoffs. If a layoff does occur, having up-to-date skills makes you more attractive to other employers. Employers, in turn, should be transparent about changes and provide opportunities for employees to learn new skills and take advantage of re-skilling programs.
Jacobsen: What are best practices in supporting employees during layoffs in order to preserve morale and maintain future talent pipelines, in addition to protecting brand reputation?
Pérez: Good question. First, employers must comply with all applicable laws. For example, when laying off a certain number of employees, companies may have to provide legally required notice. The federal WARN Act requires this, and some states have their versions of the law. Compliance is the first step.
The second step is transparency. Communicate with employees well in advance—do not just meet the legal minimum, but provide as much notice as possible—partner with other companies to explore relocation or reemployment opportunities. Offer support like resume-writing services and career coaching. The goal is to make the process feel thoughtful and supportive rather than abrupt and impersonal.
Companies that handle layoffs this way preserve goodwill. Often, organizations that conduct layoffs will be hiring again in the future, so they want former employees to view them positively. Protecting the brand is critical. Even if some criticism arises, it is much harder for people to fault a company that treated employees with empathy and fairness. Ultimately, treat people as people. Apply the golden rule—treat employees as you would want to be treated yourself.
Jacobsen: Long-term labour economics—how will current restructuring trends redefine ideas around advancement in the technology industry and career stability?
Pérez: I think it is going to create different types of positions. We will see a restructuring that flattens job hierarchies and changes how positions are organized overall. As for career stability and advancement, I believe there will be significant opportunities for those who keep up with the times, continuously learn, and update their skills. Continuous learning will be pivotal. Employees who re-skill and adapt will be well-positioned for advancement in this evolving environment.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Alejandro, thank you very much for your time today. It was a pleasure speaking with you and meeting you.
Pérez: Thank you so much.
Jacobsen: Bye-bye.
Pérez: Bye.
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): 2025/08/31
Nina Fjeldheim is the principal of a pioneering humanist school in Norway. With a background in the history of religion and education, she advocates for an inclusive, secular pedagogy grounded in critical thinking, compassion, and curiosity. Her leadership has challenged traditional norms, emphasizing diversity, equity, and deep ethical development in education.
In an extensive conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Nina Fjeldheim outlines the long and challenging journey of establishing a humanist school in Norway. The project faced multiple rejections from the government, initially because it was “not religious enough” to qualify for the same legal framework and funding as other life-stance schools. The founders argued that this constituted discrimination, as Norwegian law historically recognized both religious and humanist organizations in similar ways.
The dispute centred on the mandatory Christianity curriculum, which the school wished to replace with philosophy and comparative religion. The aim was to encourage open discussion, critical thinking, and exploration of similarities and differences among world religions. However, the authorities maintained that this approach did not conform to the approved model.
After years of legal challenges, including proceedings that reached the European Court of Human Rights, the school was eventually allowed to operate. Despite the limited public funding available to private schools in Norway, it now offers a rich program—including international trips, literature, and ethics—at no additional cost to families.
Fjeldheim emphasizes the importance of teaching cognitive and social diversity, moral reasoning, and media literacy. The school actively fosters inclusivity by integrating students from a wide range of backgrounds and abilities, confronting prejudice, and nurturing emotional intelligence through open discussion. For her, humanism is not simply the absence of religion, but a values-based approach to education that develops resilient, reflective, and socially conscious individuals.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What was the process for establishing a humanist school in Norway?
Nina Fjeldheim: We wanted to create the best school possible in Norway, and it naturally evolved into a humanist school. However, when we first applied for approval, the authorities told us, “This is not religion. You do not believe in God.”
We replied, “Christianity and humanism have long been regarded as parallel life stances in Norway.” Historically, both religious and humanist organizations were recognized and supported under similar frameworks. That understanding, however, was changing, and our application was rejected.
We submitted another application, clearly outlining the school’s humanist foundations and curriculum. This time, the authorities said, “No. This is too far removed from a standard school model.” Now, the problem was that it was too humanist.
We went back and forth with the ministry. One of the main sticking points was the requirement to teach Christianity. We did not want to present it as faith instruction, but rather through the lenses of philosophy and comparative religion. My background in the history of religion informed this approach—we wanted to explore questions such as: What are the differences between religions? What do Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have in common? Why do they share so much? How have they evolved differently?
The authorities rejected this. They said, “No. No. No. This is not acceptable.” Eventually, we filed a legal challenge, arguing that our rights were being violated under both Norwegian law and international human rights law.
Jacobsen: So, you ended up in Strasbourg?
Fjeldheim: Yes. Eventually, the case reached the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, where the issue of religious neutrality in education had already been debated in earlier cases, such as Folgerø and Others v. Norway. That case had ruled that Norway’s compulsory religious education curriculum at the time was discriminatory toward non-religious families. We drew attention to this precedent and said, “You argued in Strasbourg that anyone can start a humanist school. So why is it not working in practice?”
Ultimately, they admitted, “You’re right.” The government reversed its position. We had a meeting with the state’s legal representatives—high-level lawyers for the government. They were skilled and experienced; we, by contrast, were not lawyers, and it did not feel very secure. We thought, “How are we going to make this case convincingly?” But in the end, they agreed: we were being mistreated.
We realized we could not proceed under the original terms. Eventually, the authorities acknowledged the discrimination. They admitted, “Yes, we did discriminate against you,” and granted us the right to start a humanist school.
But in Norway, starting any private school is challenging. The country generally does not encourage private schooling. While private schools receive about 85 percent of the funding that public schools receive, the remaining 15 percent must be covered by parents.
When we started, we didn’t want to charge parents anything since no one knew who we were. There was no reputation to rely on. From July 1, everything had to be in place, and any expenses incurred before that date had to come out of our own pockets. It is structured to be as difficult as possible to launch a private school. On the day we were set to open, I was thinking, “How did we even get here?”
Jacobsen: Just a side note—Is it challenging to start a private school in general, or is it specifically tough to start a secular private school?
Fjeldheim: It is difficult for private schools, period. Norway does not want private schools. Only a tiny percentage of Norwegian children attend them. Most children attend public schools, and this is rarely questioned.
In our school, we see that many of our students have at least one parent who was born in another country. Those parents are often more accustomed to thinking critically about educational options, asking, “What kind of child do we have? What environment is best for them?”
In contrast, in Norway, it is typical to send your child to the closest public school. People do not often consider alternatives unless something has gone wrong.
Jacobsen: There’s a very high level of trust in the public school system, for sure.
Fjeldheim: Very high. Everyone has been through it, and they believe it is good. For a long time, Norwegians genuinely believed their schools were among the best in the world. Then came the PISA results, which showed otherwise.
People were shocked. I remember the public reaction—it was like, “Are we not the best?” Norway spends more money on education than most countries in the world. That part is genuine. Yet the results are pretty mediocre. So that is what we were working with. It raises the question: Why are we not getting more value out of that investment?
I ask myself the same thing. For the first three years, we did not take any money from our parents. Now we do, but we still haven’t reached the full amount we are allowed to. We receive about 95–96 percent of what a typical public school gets. Yet we take our students on a 10-day trip to Spain and a five-day trip to Athens, and they incur no additional costs for these experiences.
We have the funds to do that. And other schools do not. So why do they not have the money for this? What are they spending it on? It is not a money issue. But in Norway, most people will still say, “The schools do not get enough funding.” From my experience, we get more than enough. That is not the problem.
Jacobsen: Do you find that in wealthier societies and many industrial economies, the public often assumes that throwing more money at education will automatically solve systemic issues? Is financial magical thinking involved?
Fjeldheim: Yes, very much so. Many people believe that teachers lack the time to support their students adequately. They assume students are burdened with personal challenges that need addressing, and the response is often to hire more school psychologists, more social workers, and more special education teachers.
There is also a strong belief in inclusive education—that all students should attend the same school, including those with intellectual and developmental disabilities. What is the appropriate term? Would you say “intellectually disabled”?
Jacobsen: No, not exactly. The terminology has evolved. There are different classifications and sensitivities around the language we use. People often change the terms and believe that doing so changes the substance of the issue. What it does is shift the emotional framing. It reflects a change in social norms and affects how people respond, but the core challenges often remain the same.
For example, we no longer say “autistic child”; instead, we say “a child with autism” to use person-first language, though some prefer identity-first language like “autistic person.” The choice can depend on personal or cultural preferences.
So, in this case, you might say “a child with a learning disability” or “a child with an intellectual disability,” depending on the diagnosis.
Fjeldheim: Exactly. But it is essential to distinguish between learning disabilities—which refer to specific difficulties with reading, writing, or math in individuals with average or above-average intelligence—and intellectual disabilities, which are characterized by an IQ below 70 and limitations in adaptive functioning.
Jacobsen: So, let’s put it this way, and correct me if I am wrong—when using the ratio method of measuring IQ in children up to about age 16, if a child is 10 years old but performs intellectually at the level of a 7-year-old, their IQ would be 70, assuming the average is 100. Correct?
Fjeldheim: Yes.
Jacobsen: So we are talking about children functioning at that level and below.
Fjeldheim: Yes. But that can change depending on when the test is taken.
Jacobsen: So, we are dealing with children within that cognitive range.
Fjeldheim: Right. And you have a range—some children are not functioning well at all, while others function pretty well. Most individuals with an IQ of around 70 can learn to read and write. They typically do not have difficulties with basic literacy. Still, they may struggle with social interaction, understanding irony, or grasping unspoken social rules. That part—the social game—can be challenging.
We also have students in our school with IQs below that level. On the other end of the spectrum, we have students with exceptionally high IQs, in the top one percent.
Jacobsen: The top one percent, yes.
Fjeldheim: Yes, those students also need extra support. They often do not thrive in a conventional classroom setting without additional accommodations. So we have all of them in the same classroom. In Norway, that is standard practice, even though we used to have special schools. We no longer have those, but many students are placed in special groups within mainstream schools.
It is essentially a different way of talking about segregation. Still, more students are in those special groups now than were in the former special schools. However, we aim to create a diverse and inclusive classroom environment. At the Humanistic School, we are committed to this approach because students with diverse abilities need to learn together. It fosters mutual care and understanding. If we do not bring them together, that understanding will not develop.
Unfortunately, this approach is starting to shift. I am seeing increasing pressure to remove certain students from mainstream classrooms. Some believe it is a better idea to separate them, but I strongly disagree. There is considerable pressure to do this because many people think it is sensible. But it does not. Where will these children go? Who will they be with? How will they grow? How will they succeed?
It will not work. However, there is still a push to remove them. We even feel it from parents, who will say things like, “Why are these students here? Isn’t there somewhere else they should go?” I have said, “It seems your child is having difficulty being around peers who are less advanced than he is academically. That is something he needs to learn to manage, because it is an important life skill.”
We are a humanistic school. He must learn to interact respectfully with people from diverse backgrounds and abilities. We are witnessing a significant shift taking place.
Jacobsen: There is the Peace School in Toronto. They had initially established a school in Iran but later relocated to Toronto. They operate from a humanistic education model. They have also contributed to several publications. Now we have representation across many regions of the world. Perhaps next we will hear from someone in Taiwan—that could help complete our global map for this project.
From what I gather, what matters is not enforcing academic homogeneity but instead accepting cognitive diversity as part of human evolution and variation. Children can be cognitively heterogeneous, and we need to meet them where they are.
But I think what you are also getting at—something more subtle—is an ethos: a value system of inclusivity and solidarity. That we are all part of the same team is a central theme in the Amsterdam Declaration: the emphasis on social responsibility, not just individualism or pure communitarianism, but a respect for both, held in balance.
Fjeldheim: Definitely. We want to maintain high expectations for all students, including those who face different challenges. They, too, need to be encouraged to grow, to stretch, to improve. But for me, what is essential is that we work together as a society. And that means we need all kinds of people.
I am also very strict about how students behave toward others. We dedicate a significant amount of time to character development and social responsibility. Every time a student uses a word like “poor,” “gay,” “faggot,” “Jew,” or any other identity-based term in a derogatory way, they are required to call their parents. We take it very seriously.
Jacobsen: And it is everywhere—especially on social media.
Fjeldheim: It is. It is everywhere. They need to understand where these attitudes come from, because most of the time, they do not. I have had students in class who believe that telling an antisemitic joke is acceptable as long as no Jewish person is present.
They genuinely think the problem only arises if a Jewish person hears it. And I have had to say to them, “Okay, let’s stop and think. What is my background? Do you even know who you are talking to?”
Which is not good, you know? They do not understand. For example, they might call a Black friend “slave” as a joke. That is not okay. And then they say, “Didn’t she understand I was kidding?” I tell them, it is not about whether or not you are joking. She does not care if you were kidding. You do not call people that. You do not say that.
This particular girl had ADHD, so I said to her, “What if I told you every day, ‘I am so sick and tired of you having ADHD. You never seem to have a single clear thought. You are always going on and on—blah blah blah.”
What if I said that to you every day? How would that make you feel?
And she replied, “I would hate it. That would be horrible.”
And I said, “Exactly. That is what you are doing to your friend when you keep pointing out that she is Black. That is something she cannot change. But you keep calling it out.” They do not understand. It takes a significant amount of time and effort to help them form meaningful and respectful relationships.
Jacobsen: What about the deeper level of that—a kind of nuanced social ethic? What about instilling respect not only when someone is present, but also when they are not, maintaining a consistent image of the other person’s identity and dignity? How does that work? How do you instill that? That kind of moral consistency? I suppose it is similar to teaching object permanence, but in the social and ethical domain.
Fjeldheim: Yes, sometimes it is a long journey with them. But we address it in different ways. We teach them about the history of humanity—how people have treated one another over time. We also introduce them to psychological concepts, such as in-groups and out-groups—why we form them and why people gossip.
We explore what gossip does to us psychologically, and how devastating it can be to feel excluded, to be without a sense of belonging, without “your people.” Yes, we discuss all of these things. And we do it intentionally and regularly.
We also do a great deal of work—recently, I have been studying conspiracy theories, for example. And yes, we explore that topic in depth.
Jacobsen: I am very sorry for the lost time.
Fjeldheim: Yes. We have them play games like Bad News, for instance. It is designed to teach media literacy by letting players create and spread fake news. It helps students recognize the techniques used in misinformation and understand why certain content goes viral. They start to see what is happening behind the scenes, such as how bots and algorithms play a role.
Yes, we use games like that in class. We also address social dynamics right away. The students usually do not expect that, mainly because they are young, around 13 when they begin. They are not used to teachers stepping into social or behavioural issues directly. You know? “Why did you say that? Why did you—?” They are not used to being called out for small things. They are not used to accountability.
We address that constantly. We will say things like, “People are saying you are acting in this way,” and they will respond, “Really?” And I will say, “Yes.”
Jacobsen: Is there a way to do that—especially with students who struggle behaviorally—without triggering a cycle of guilt and shame? Because if that becomes repetitive, it creates another set of challenges, and being a teenager is already hard. It is.
Fjeldheim: No, you are right. It is challenging because while shame can be harmful if overused, a healthy sense of guilt can be constructive. If someone feels bad about their actions, they are less likely to repeat them. So part of development is learning to process those difficult emotions. They are there for a reason—they help guide behaviour and social learning.
And we try to teach them that. I also teach them that feelings are not necessarily facts. Just because you feel something very intensely does not mean it is true. It does not even tell that it is essential. You need to be able to differentiate. It is your brain—not your emotions—that helps you evaluate what matters.
But of course, that is hard to get through to them, because their emotions are so strong at that age. They confuse emotional intensity with importance. If they feel something deeply, they assume it must be true, such as, “This is the person I will always love,” which usually is not the case.
“This will destroy me, I will never recover,” and so on. We try to help them with those overwhelming feelings, not by saying, “That is not true,” but by assisting them to understand that those feelings are not always trustworthy. A feeling might seem definitive now, but six months down the road, they will likely feel very different. That does not mean they are wrong now; it just means they have grown and their perspective has evolved.
We stay very close to our students. We get to know them well. They tell us almost everything, because they need adults who listen. I think many parents assume their kids are already small adults—because they can seem mature—but we see them more as big children.
Jacobsen: Are you familiar with Kohlberg’s theories of moral development? And Piaget’s stages of cognitive development, too? When working with kids starting at 13, do you notice a specific developmental leap—such as between 13 and 14 or 15 and 16—especially after a break or over a school year?
Fjeldheim: Yes, it happens differently for boys and girls. Boys generally mature later—they lag behind girls in most cases. Some boys are pretty mature, but most are not. They still want to play, run around, and be physically active, which is more typical of younger children. Girls, on the other hand, usually stop that kind of behaviour by the time they start at our school around 13. But the boys will keep doing it for their first year.
So you see those differences. Some boys enter puberty later and then feel left behind or confused—they do not understand why their peers are acting differently. They are thinking, “Why can’t we just play like we did before?”
As a result, they end up being socially excluded, and they do not understand why. They wonder, “Why is this not funny anymore? Why do we not play the same things we did last year? What is wrong? Why do they not want to do that anymore?”
For girls, the ones who tend to lose out are often those with challenges such as being on the autism spectrum. They struggle to understand what is happening because the social cues become very subtle. You need to pick up on the subtext. It is exhausting for them. That first year of lower secondary school is overwhelming.
There is so much pressure to present yourself a certain way. You are constantly self-conscious, thinking about how you look, how others perceive you, what they think, what you just said, whether it was the right thing, whether you misunderstood something, and why they are laughing—it is a mental overload.
So it is very different for boys and girls. And physically more petite boys—those who are shorter—often struggle more. Their physical size affects how they are perceived, and they end up feeling more childish or inadequate because of it.
Jacobsen: How did you end up with the humanistic approach?
Fjeldheim: Yes. Critical thinking has become a central element across all subjects. We also have something called Bildung—it does not translate well into English. It is a German term.
It refers to the holistic development of a person, understanding the world, their place in it, and how to interact respectfully with people from different cultures without coming across as ignorant. That is what we mean by Bildung. We offer it as a standalone subject.
I often joke that it is like the “hairdresser’s subject”—because a hairdresser should be able to talk to anyone about anything without sounding uninformed. That is the spirit of it.
In that course, we teach students introductory psychology, basic geopolitics, and cultural overviews—such as what is typical in Latin America or the United States—and explain why these regions are relevant to Norway.
We also tackle complex topics. For example: Why is the N-word offensive? Where does it come from? Why is it problematic? We trace our roots back to historical origins and provide context.
We have had real success with that approach because many students genuinely do not understand why certain things are considered wrong or harmful. They appreciate it when we take them through the entire background. We end up teaching them many things they can apply in real life.
That is one part of it. Another is that we offer elective subjects that align with our core values. The students can choose from three focus areas: curiosity, compassion, and critical thinking.
We have also moved away from textbooks entirely. We are now fully digital, which keeps our materials current and gives us the flexibility to adapt the pace and content as needed. It is not about racing to finish a textbook.
We run a three-year program. The first two years focus on introducing new topics, while the final year is dedicated to in-depth exploration. That is when we revisit and build upon what they have already learned.
For example, we cover evolution in both 8th and 10th grades—it is an essential topic for us as humanists. We introduce it early, then go into greater depth later.
By the time they reach 10th grade, topics become more complex. They are expected to understand ideas in context. For example, we cover all the major religions in the 8th and 9th grades. Then, in 10th grade, they should be able to answer: What is the difference between Semitic religions and Eastern religions? What distinguishes Eastern and Western religious traditions? Why are they different? They are expected to approach these topics with more depth and a critical perspective.
We also read literature—classic works, even some that are difficult—because we want them to engage with texts that do not immediately make sense. Many students shut down when they do not understand something. They will say, “I did not get it,” and then stop reading. They do not ask questions, they do not try, and they have not learned how to cope with that discomfort.
So we teach them how to deal with that as well. We teach them stamina. Because many of them become bored quickly, they are reluctant to rework things and tend to give up easily. We actively work on that with them.
For example, after a test, they receive a five-minute video from their teacher giving personalized feedback—what was good, what needs improvement, and what they misunderstood. Then they are expected to revise and resubmit it. They watch the video, do the homework, and submit a better version.
They learn a lot that way, though they often dislike it. They feel as though they are not done after the first round. They have to go back and improve, and that is hard for them to appreciate until they are older. But it works.
They also have to read 2,000 pages of literature each year—not textbooks, but actual books.
Jacobsen: When do they graduate from the humanist school? How do you handle ceremonies?
Fjeldheim: Yes, we do have ceremonies. They graduate after 10th grade—same as they would in public school. We hold a ceremony with speeches and diplomas, and we invite parents, siblings, and other guests.
Each student receives a rose, and we share a personal message with each one. For example: “Hi, Robin. Thank you so much for always putting on a kind face. Thank you for being so attentive to others,” and so on. It is individual and thoughtful.
We also give them a yearbook with their photos and a record of everything they have experienced. For instance: “We went to the opera. We went to this event…” because every week, we take them somewhere—whether to a theatre performance, an art exhibition, or even just walking around the city looking at architecture.
We do other things as well. We strive to provide them with the whole experience, as they will appreciate it later in life. It is important. We want them to feel comfortable outdoors, not feel helpless or embarrassed. So they learn how to read a map, build a fire, cook over it, and sleep outside without feeling unsettled.
We teach them those things because they are genuinely beneficial for their long-term mental health. These are practical skills they can carry with them when they leave us.
They also get our contact information on the very first day. Every student can reach out to me—any time, about anything.
Jacobsen: And you have been doing this for many years now.
Fjeldheim: Yes—ten years now.
Jacobsen: So, enough time has passed for students to graduate, attend college, possibly even graduate school, and then return.
Fjeldheim: Yes.
Jacobsen: What is the nature of those returns? Do they say “hello” or “thank you”, or…?
Fjeldheim: They do come back—especially in the first two years after graduating. They visit all the time. For example, this year’s group just left for upper secondary school, and they have already returned during the first week.
They will say, “Okay, Nina, listen… Please go over it again. How do I say no to alcohol?” That is something we talk about—how to handle peer pressure around drinking. They often do not want to drink but also do not want to say, “I am not into alcohol,” because that makes them feel awkward.
So we give them alternative phrases—things they can say that feel safer socially.
The same applies to drugs. If you do not want to smoke a joint, you can say something like, “I get super paranoid when I smoke.” Many people can relate to that. Nobody will question whether you are for or against drugs—it becomes a personal reason, and that is usually respected.
You can also say, “It does not work for me. I completely lose it when I try,” and people tend to leave it alone.
We also discuss topics such as sharing pictures. We tell them: if you send a naked photo, never include both your face and your body in the same shot. Either show your face with clothes on, or no face if you are undressed—never both. Otherwise, you are opening yourself up to serious risk.
If you are going to send a naked photo of your body, make sure your face is not in it. We are not telling them, “Do not do this, do not do that”—because that does not work. Instead, we try to offer realistic advice they can relate to.
The same applies to other things. I tell them, “Ask me anything—I will answer as honestly as I can.”
One student once asked, “Is it dangerous to mix cannabis with pills?” I told him, “Not really, but it is worse to mix it with alcohol.” Still, I explained that if you are going to use cannabis, do not mix it with anything. You will not know what is causing which effect, or how to respond.
And most importantly, postpone it if you are going to try it, fine—but not now. Your brain is still developing. It does not need substances interfering with it. The longer you wait, the better. You have your whole life to get drunk. Do not rush. You will have plenty of opportunities.
Of course, that is hard for them to understand. Still, they trust us. They come to us, they ask, and we get to give them answers. That is so much better than them not asking anyone at all.
Jacobsen: What is the harshest form of necessary discipline you have had to apply in cases of extreme behaviour?
Fjeldheim: I think it is hardest for the kids who struggle socially, mainly when that struggle stems from something they cannot help, like a diagnosis, or when it is because they have been bullied for years. When that happens, they develop odd behaviours.
We have had students who come in and speak as though they are in an American TV show—saying things like, “Oh my God, I can’t believe you said that!” It seems bizarre, but it is not intentional. It is what they have absorbed because they have had no real social life. They mimic what they see on screens.
They have not learned how to interact. They are unsure of what to say or how to behave naturally. And that is the most formidable challenge.
But it is also incredibly rewarding—when, a year or two later, those same students are functioning socially. They have friends, can relax, and figure out who they want to be. That is when you see it has all been worth it.
That is the best part. It is both the best and the hardest.
Jacobsen: Even though you are in a region where there is funding and freedom to establish an alternative school model, in other places—like Iran, for instance—creating a humanist school would be far more difficult, as you know. Are there some aspects of building a humanistic pedagogical space that money cannot buy?
Fjeldheim: Yes. It is not easy even in developing countries, mainly because many people do not have a clear understanding of what humanism is. That makes it hard to explain what we are trying to do.
Even here, at our humanist school, we have a lot of Christian students. We do not ask about a student’s religion when they enroll. So we have a fair number of Christians, and others who believe in things like astrology or ghosts.
We do not have many Muslim students, though, even though there are a lot of secular Muslims in Norway. Many would rather send their child to a Catholic school because it is “a school of God.”
They are less comfortable with us because we are very open about being a secular institution. There is no room for God in our curriculum. We do not teach religion as truth; instead, we teach students how to understand the world through the lens of science. That is our guiding framework.
I would love for us to have more diversity at the school, but that is a real challenge, especially in places like Uganda or elsewhere in Africa, where we are seen as being in direct opposition to Christianity or Islam.
Parents there cannot accept the idea of their child choosing not to follow the family religion, because often, religion is all they have.
I spent half a year in Ghana, working as a volunteer. And there, your religious group or church is your entire social safety net. If you leave it, you are on your own—and that is dangerous, because there is no state support system like we have here in Norway.
In Norway, you can live independently, as the government provides minimal support and helps you find employment. However, in many other places, your survival depends on your network, which includes your church and extended family.
And those communities often will not tolerate you drifting toward humanism, secularism, or atheism.
Jacobsen: Yes, it is seen as a weird group. In the United States, humanism and atheism are often racialized—seen as “white things” by some nonwhite communities.
Fjeldheim: Right.
Jacobsen: Organizations like Black Nonbelievers are very open about that, and it complicates outreach. There is also some evidence that similar dynamics exist in some Indigenous communities in North America, according to interviews.
The sample size is small, but the interviews are very long-form, and the patterns show the same phenomenon.
Fjeldheim: Yes.
Jacobsen: What are some misinformed or just naive things that even secular people say about humanist education—things they think are true but are not? Or cases where they misunderstand what is happening because they are missing the bigger picture?
Fjeldheim: One of the significant issues is that humanism is so diverse. Many things can be categorized under the label of “humanist.” Even in Norway, we have people who identify as Christian humanists.
It becomes confusing because there is the tradition of Enlightenment humanism—philosophical and historical—and then there is humanism as a life stance, which is often conflated with other ideas.
In Africa and Asia, the terms “humanitarian” and “humanistic” are often used interchangeably.
Jacobsen: Yes.
Fjeldheim: So it is hard for people to understand what it means. Even my parents did not get it. I was raised Christian, and when I started working in the humanist movement, my dad asked, “Can you write me an email explaining what you do? People are asking, and I do not know how to answer them.”
He said, “I do not know what you do, but please explain what it is.” I mean, even in Norway—where surveys show that about half the population identifies most closely with a humanistic life stance—most people still do not know what that means.
Jacobsen: That’s so interesting. I was also informed about how humanitarianism and humanism are often confused in some African regions. In some cases, that confusion is even exploited—some groups present themselves as humanist to attract international funding, only to disappear after receiving the money.
Fjeldheim: Yes, that’s been a concern raised by some leaders in the humanist movement from those regions—about the need to keep an eye on that kind of behaviour.
Jacobsen: Yes.
Fjeldheim: Yes. And what are you going to do, you know? It’s hard because the concept itself is often misunderstood. People ask, “What is life without God?”
I think many people assume that humanists aren’t very deep or spiritual. I get similar reactions around being bisexual. There are prejudices from both sides. The gay community sometimes sees bisexual people as indecisive, like we don’t want to be “all gay.”
Jacobsen: Like you want to stay safe. Or have a foot in both worlds.
Fjeldheim: Exactly. They think we’re just keeping one foot in the heterosexual world to avoid fully committing. Like we’re muddying the waters—trying to have the best of both worlds but not fully owning either.
It’s that same question: “Why can’t you just be like everybody else?”
And I can see where that sentiment comes from. With humanism, too, people say we copy religious traditions—especially the ceremonies, which are essential to Norwegian humanists.
People think we’re just mimicking Christianity, or borrowing traditions and repackaging them. And honestly, that’s not entirely wrong. However, it’s also true that humans have been holding ceremonies for a long time. These things aren’t uniquely Christian or Islamic—they’re human.
Ceremonies have always been part of how we come together as communities.
And honestly, creating those shared spaces—where people can feel safe, experience joy, and feel like they belong—is one of the most challenging yet essential parts of building a humanist life stance community. I think we’ve underestimated just how important that is to people.
Jacobsen: Alright, I’ve got one for you—what are your favourite humanist quotes? Kurt Vonnegut is acceptable. Others?
Fjeldheim: Oh, so many… That’s a hard one. I think the one I use the most—it might not be classically “humanist,” but it fits—is: “If you’re going through hell, keep going.” That’s Churchill. I say that a lot. Don’t sit down. Keep moving.
Don’t stay there. Get the fuck out. You know? And that’s hard, because when you’re in it, you don’t know what to do. You freeze and stay stuck. You can’t see a way out—but keep going. Somewhere down the road, you’ll get somewhere. Eventually, so I think that’s the quote I use most.
And for something more humorous—there’s Aleister Crowley, “the wickedest man in the world,” soaking in cognac and cocaine. It’s great.
Jacobsen: There you go. That’s for the Thelemites out there.
Fjeldheim: He’s funny. But honestly, I don’t usually quote a lot. I like reading quotes, however. Like, when I give speeches, I do sometimes find ones I love—like a good quote from Luxembourg, for instance. I seek them out, but I’m really into heavy metal. That’s where most of my favourite quotes come from.
Jacobsen: Is that part of your speech? Where are the punks?
Fjeldheim: They’re not there! I’m trying so hard. Every time I start—
Jacobsen: —off with the punk rock museum? Down in the basement? Have you seen it?
Fjeldheim: Where?
Jacobsen: It’s on the central strip downtown—between Lebowski Bar and American Bar, kind of halfway between them. It’s a fairly wide area, located just off the park on the left side. There’s a stairwell leading down. I remember going in just as they were closing.
They were dressed to the nines in full punk gear, and then spoke with the most polished, polite accents. Super proper language. It was brilliant. And I was like—hold on, I’m still trying to process all this.
Fjeldheim: Yes. However, at black metal concerts in Norway, you’ll notice that they don’t require many guards. At hip-hop shows, they do. It’s just that nothing much tends to happen at black metal shows. So ironically, it’s one of the friendliest communities—just a bunch of people who never really fit in elsewhere, all coming together in the black metal scene. Additionally, during Reykjavik Week, there’s an old public toilet-turned-punk museum.
Jacobsen: Yes! That’s exactly what I was talking about.
Fjeldheim: Yes, that place is cool, but very small. You can bang on some drums, there’s stuff all over the walls, but that’s about it. Still, I’ve been there.
Jacobsen: I wonder if they play mostly black metal in there. Favourite bands?
Fjeldheim: Yes, I’m really into Norwegian black metal. Very nationalistic in that regard—conservative for Norway, at least! I’d say Satyricon is one of my top choices. Mayhem. Darkthrone—I like them too. I even travelled to Belo Horizonte in Brazil just because that’s where Sepultura is from. There wasn’t much else to do there. Still, I insisted, “We need to go to Belo Horizonte because of Sepultura.” I also enjoy classic heavy metal, but black metal is my acquired taste.
Jacobsen: Alright, side note—what’s the actual difference between black metal and heavy metal?
Fjeldheim: Oh, black metal is… more raw. You’ll hear that distinctive black metal vocal style—it’s harsh, screechy, chaotic. It’s wild. With heavy metal, you can understand the lyrics. In black metal, usually, you can’t. That’s part of the aesthetic. So, black metal is more into Satan and the whole “spawn the serpent” kind of thing. Death metal, on the other hand, is more about death itself. But yeah, black metal leans into that dark, theatrical, sometimes childish satanic aesthetic. What defines black metal, though, is the vocal style—that signature harsh, shrieking sound.
Jacobsen: Do you remember Dune? I think it was Dune: Part Two, the newest one. They had that one singer… That’s what I think of when I hear black metal. In the movie, they created this ultra-efficient language by removing parts of speech, and the singing is almost a projection of that. The character is technically speaking actual words, just in a very condensed manner.
Fjeldheim: Yes! That’s a great way to describe it. Very cool. And I think, in Norway, where everything’s kind of… fine, we need something like black metal. Sure, you can have a bad time, or even have bad parents, but generally, people are okay. The government looks after you. There’s always a support system. There aren’t that many big existential problems. So we need something to balance that positivity. Black metal is our dark side—it levels things out.
Additionally, Norway has only a few cities. Most people live out in the countryside, and that’s where black metal comes from. That’s the real origin. Even my brother used to be the lead singer in a black metal band. It’s everywhere. When I was growing up, it was a very binary choice—you were either into Metallica or Megadeth. That was the division. And yeah, Metallica was better before the crash. Ride the Lightning? Still the best.
Jacobsen: That might be the quote right there—”Ride the Lightning.” Awesome. Nina, thank you. Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate you taking the time for this. Okay. Well, thank you again for your time today. I appreciate it. I will be in touch. Thank you again.
Fjeldheim: Of course. Alright—enjoy your 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): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/30
Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Peter Dankwa, a Ghanaian humanist and creative professional, about his experience at the 2025 Humanists International General Assembly and Conference in Luxembourg. Dankwa highlights the diverse presentations, including projects on science advocacy, storytelling, and humanist mentorship. He shares how meeting global delegates, from Bob Reuter of AHA Luxembourg to Darlene of Humanists Barbados, enriched his perspective. Dankwa also emphasizes challenges with visa accessibility for African participants and proposes a membership ID system to strengthen international participation. Jacobsen, a Canadian writer and interviewer, reflects on the importance of conferences in building cross-cultural connections and sustaining the humanist movement.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, once again, we are here with the wonderful and talented Peter Dankwa. We are going to be talking about Luxembourg. What was your biggest takeaway from that excellent conference, co-hosted by Humanists International and AHA Luxembourg Humanists under the wonderful reception of Bob Reuter?
Peter Dankwa: Thank you for having me, Scott. It was exciting meeting you in person. Luxembourg 2025 was a beautiful experience. At this year’s Humanists International General Assembly and Conference in Luxembourg, the takeaway was enormous for me—not just because of the conference theme, From Awareness to Action: Strengthening Open Societies through Scientific Literacy, which focused on advocating for science and its application in society, but also because of the variety of topics handled by the speakers. They reminded us that there are different facets of society we need to harmonize to ensure science-based education is accessible and practicable, highlighting the importance of everyone’s work, from the lab to the streets.
All who took the stage to present their project offered something valuable—something practical you could learn from and apply. It brought to light the challenges people face in different parts of the world but, most importantly, the progress humanists are making in advocating science-based education. I loved the science calendar project presented by Monika, and I also enjoyed David’s project – Science in a Box: Hands-On Learning in the Guatemalan Highlands; honestly, everything came together beautifully.
I believe that these initiatives are sustainable and much needed in a time where there is inordinate misinformation.
Jacobsen: Who else was it your first time meeting in person, even though you’d known and communicated with them for several months—or even years—like me?
Dankwa: Leon Langdon, the Advocacy Officer.
Jacobsen: Oh, Leon! Isn’t he tall?
Dankwa: A really tall man—it’s fantastic. It makes you feel like you’re in a different world.
It was also lovely meeting Jean, as I usually only know staff and board members by name when sharing publications or announcements. This time, I got to meet some of the new people in person, which was really wonderful. I also met some great new friends, like Darlene, the President of Humanists Barbados, Diego Vargas of Columbia, François, Nicole, Raquel, Andres and many more.
My favourite time after the conference was exploring Luxembour with AJ Surin and Darlene.
Jacobsen: What about the presentations that really struck you?
Dankwa: All the presentations were excellent—very detailed and thought-provoking. You could tell from the flurry of questions and contributions during the Q&A session. I’ll admit that as a creative person, Boris’s presentation about storytelling and bringing humanism to life through stories struck a chord with me. Humanism has beautiful things that need to be shared – and what easier way to do that than through storytelling?
Also on the Enlightenment, there were different nuances in there that the presenter, Christian Meyers—if I got the name right—was able to bring to light. Dr. Leo’s contribution during the Q&A session challenged me to think about the future of Enlightenment, which should not always be about focusing on its past but about bringing the past and present together to forge the way forward.
How can I forget the presentations made to Andrew Copson on the last day of his tenure as president of Humanists International? There were so many memories being shared that the room was electrified with sweet emotions. Dr. Leo managed to have all of us in tears with his presentation to Andrew.
Andrew truly left his mark. A testament to the fruits of mentorship in Humanists International.
Jacobsen: What would you like to see in terms of accessibility for everyone to be able to attend? I believe there were over 50 countries represented, which is significant for any conference by any metric, but, of course, there’s always room for improvement. No one ever achieves 100 per cent anything in the real world. What do you think could be improved in terms of global accessibility? It’s often mentioned, for example, that visas are a necessity for many African delegates travelling to European countries, but even with funding, the visa is not always guaranteed. What are your thoughts on that?
Dankwa: That’s an important aspect of the whole organization. It might surprise you to know that my first visa application was denied, and I had to reapply with the timely support of Bob Reuter and Javan. Would you believe I received my visa just a day before my flight to Luxembourg? So I didn’t know my fate until the last moment. The experience was frustratingly daunting, aside the costly fact that most denied visa applications are non-refundable. In total, African countries lost 60 million euros in rejected Schengen visa fees in 2024, according to LAGO Collective.
The process has always been very stringent, discouraging many Africans from even harbouring the intention to apply. Some of them have been denied in the past, completely demotivating them from putting in future applications.
I believe introducing a membership ID system for individuals in member organisations can enhance the organization’s database. This could give credence to our membership and its management.
The practice is that you need to present an invitation letter from your local organization, another from Humanists International, and one from the host organization. But I believe if an individual’s unique membership ID were also quoted in the invitation letters, it would provide strong credibility. If you are part of an organization, there should be some form of ID showing that you are a member—not just by word of mouth or on a piece of paper. A membership ID would strengthen that case.
That’s something I’ve been thinking about, and I even shared it with my mentor Roslyn Mould, Vice President of Humanists International.
Perhaps we should also consider this, given our current global, digitalized world. These kinds of things are important for archiving information. For example, we could even have a database on the website where, if you wanted to find out more about a member, the membership ID could serve as the key. I think that would make life easier both for the organization and for members.
Jacobsen: You mentioned that the organization was done well. What about the structure of the conference itself—presentations, coffee breaks, panel, lunch breaks, and so on? Do you think that helped keep everyone focused, so they didn’t get foggy-headed, and also encouraged people to meet and talk with new people? Or would you have done it differently?
Dankwa: I think I’d be tempted to crave this format again, whether next year in Canada or at future conferences, because the breaks were well interwoven at this year’s conference. You didn’t get bored from sitting since the presentations were mostly lively, and during coffee break, the high-table-without-chair arrangement naturally encouraged you to move around and interact with other delegates.
The structure of presentations also worked well, almost like a buildup—moving from one interesting topic subject to another exciting one, unveiling different layers of the conference theme.
And oh! Luxembourg! Luxembourg! Luxembourg!
Just when I was enraptured with Singapore’s easily accessible and digitized transport system, Luxembourg knocked me off my feet with their even free public transportation.
Jacobsen: That’s a great point. I think Luxembourg might actually be the first country in the world to make all public transport—buses, trains, and trams—completely free. That’s an excellent example of how national infrastructure investment can make life easier for everyone. And it was so well organized; nothing felt half-done.
Dankwa: Yes, very well organized. The locals were friendly, evident in the country’s rich multicultural landscape. For a polyglot like myself, hearing Dutch, German, French, and English all around was just a beautiful sight to behold.
Jacobsen: What did you think about the weather in Luxembourg compared with Ghana?
Dankwa: Ghana is hot, so I embraced Luxembourg’s chilliness. At first, I doubted my prowess to manage the cold. But for some reason, knowing I would only be there for a few days, I resolved to enjoy the weather, knowing Ghana’s sun awaited me with fiery arms.
Dankwa: In fact, when Darlene, AJ and I went into town to explore, I was actually in shorts while everyone else was in pants and long sleeves. That particular day, it was cold, but I decided to go out in my short-sleeved shirt. I even let the rain beat me for a while because I knew I wouldn’t get to enjoy that kind of weather again anytime soon. I just let my inner child out and enjoyed it.
Jacobsen: Are you thinking of doing any presentations at the next conference?
Dankwa: Yes, definitely. I was hoping to have done one this time, like I did in Singapore, but I think the arrangement was different this time.
I’m sure delegates would have embraced the opportunity to share a few words or their talent. That kind that brings out interesting yet relatable stories. And it helps with networking as you finally put faces to names you might have once had correspondences with through online chats.
For example, Scott, the countless interviews you do with people—before, during and after conferences—live on in the organization, even when you aren’t physically present. That shows encourages me that if I believe something’s valuable and useful, I should share it.
I’ve already begun drafting a few ideas for Canada. I will also talk with Martin to see what we can do for Canada. Hopefully, I’ll prepare something memorable for everyone to take home. I won’t say what it is yet—it should be a surprise if it comes through.
Jacobsen: What was your favourite piece of Luxembourgish culture or food, or perhaps a quote from someone you met there?
Dankwa: That would be the diverse landscape. The country’s scenery is fantastic—you have hills, valleys, and very picturesque views. There are vintage, Italianate-style buildings, but also modern high-rises. You see almost everything in one place.
My preconceptions about Luxembourg were from the castellated buildings I see in photos, but exploring the city, I was enthralled in the diverse landscape. It was as though it had every landscape in the world.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today, Peter.
Dankwa: Let me also ask—what was your big moment in Luxembourg?
Jacobsen: Oh, yes. If you’re going to walk everywhere, be ready for some cardio! But honestly, I just love seeing everyone every year. That’s what I really like. I want to go to every single conference I can because, for me, it’s always the highlight of the year.
It’s about engaging with different cultures, meeting new people, reconnecting with familiar faces, and of course, having the chance to do interviews and share stories. There’s just a different energy at these gatherings that I don’t get anywhere else. I really love that.
Dankwa: And kudos on your nomination as well. I think it’s a step in the right direction. You can even accomplish a lot more with your efforts to make the works of humanism accessible to all once you’re on the board. Good luck, as always.
Jacobsen: Thank you—and thank you as well to the Ghanaians, the Nigerians, and the Filipinos for supporting me to get there.
Dankwa: Sure, sure. Alright then—thank you so much.
Jacobsen: Thank you. Take care. Bye-bye.
Dankwa: Bye-bye.
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): 2025/08/29
Taylor Goucher is the Vice President of Sales & Marketing at Connext Global, a leading provider of global workforce solutions. With expertise in workforce strategy, AI-driven transformation, and organizational agility, Taylor helps companies optimize operations while maintaining human-centered approaches to productivity. His thought leadership addresses the hidden risks of AI adoption, corporate restructuring, and employee well-being in an era of rapid technological change. By guiding businesses through automation, outsourcing, and evolving job market demands, Taylor provides actionable insights on balancing efficiency with resilience. He is a trusted voice on the future of work, global talent management, and sustainable growth.
Goucher explains how AI restructures work without eliminating labor, elevating human oversight and specialist roles. He links layoffs to investor expectations and governance. Agility requires clear KPIs. Outsourcing augments expertise. Competitive workers build context and digital fluency. Resilience blends automation with compliance, cybersecurity, redundancy, and culture.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How are AI and automation reshaping workforce restructuring?
Taylor Goucher: We don’t believe AI is eliminating labor explicitly, but it’s reshaping the structure of work. Human oversight is still required as most AI tools today only automate 70–90% of a process.
What we’re seeing is a surge of new roles that act as a bridge between automation and quality control. Instead of large front-line teams, organizations are building groups of specialists who validate AI outputs and handle exceptions.
Workforce restructuring is less about cutting people and more focused on redeploying them into roles that make automation reliable.
Jacobsen: What underlying technology business pressures drive layoffs despite strong financial performance?
Goucher: Layoffs aren’t always about shrinking revenue. They’re, more often than we’re willing to accept, about investor expectations in a tech-driven market. Boards see automation, AI and global labor platforms making it possible to ‘do more with less,’ and pressure leaders to show those efficiency gains.
At the same time, fast growth through independent contractors creates compliance and security risks that simply don’t scale. So even when companies are profitable, they restructure, sometimes cutting jobs, to meet governance standards, reduce exposure and prove they’re building a resilient, efficient business for the long term.
Jacobsen: How can organizations maintain agility while implementing large-scale workforce transformation?
Goucher: One thing I’m confident in is that agility comes from clarity.
Companies usually blame remote work or outsourcing for performance issues, when the real gap is unclear KPIs. Regardless of if someone is based in Manila, Bogotá or New York, if you have clear metrics, feedback loops and accountability, you can pivot fast.
Agility also comes from a leadership mindset. Leaders who embrace flexibility and see global talent as an asset, not a compromise, create organizations that can adapt as the market shifts.
Jacobsen: How is global outsourcing redefining back-office roles?
Goucher: Outsourcing today is about augmentation, not replacement, and we see it daily.
Most of our clients are expanding their U.S. and global teams in parallel. Offshore teams are no longer just handling transactional work; they’re stepping into high-skill roles like FP&A, compliance, IT development and project management.
Back-office functions are evolving into globally distributed centers of expertise. Everything is set to help companies grow faster and smarter.
Jacobsen: What skills will be most in demand as technologies disrupt traditional jobs?
Goucher: Two skills stand out in today’s tech driven world: context and digital fluency.
You can teach someone software, but you can’t easily teach lived experience. For example, offshore staff handling U.S. airline customers may never have been on a plane, so companies must train that context.
The most valuable employees combine critical thinking, cultural awareness and comfort with AI-driven tools. Cross-cultural collaboration and continuous training, especially around digital literacy and data, will be the currencies of the future job market.
Jacobsen: During these periods, how should companies address employee morale and communication challenges?
Goucher: The biggest mistake is treating offshore or remote teams as second-class.
High-performing companies give the same bonuses, recognition and even holiday gifts to global employees as they do locally. That builds loyalty and culture across borders.
Morale also heavily depends on managers equipped with the right training. They need to understand cultural norms, communication styles and how feedback is received differently across the globe.
Culture isn’t tied to geography; it’s tied to how intentionally you lead.
Jacobsen: How can workers remain competitive?
Goucher: Workers can remain competitive and find new job security by working on their adaptability.
Employees need to lean into problem-solving, cross-cultural collaboration and tech fluency. These skills keep them in the workflow even as automation scales. Continuous upskilling is critical. The most competitive workers aren’t trying to outcompete AI, they’re learning how to work alongside it and bring human judgment, creativity and adaptability into the loop.
Jacobsen: How can leaders balance automation with long-term organization resilience?
Goucher: Resilience comes from balance. Every AI-driven business still needs people as a safety net when automation fails.
Leaders who only chase short-term cost savings risk creating brittle systems. The right approach is blending automation with human oversight, while also building resilience into compliance, cybersecurity and redundancy. That way, you gain efficiency today but also protect your business when systems inevitably break down.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Taylor.
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): 2025/08/28
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.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Irina Tsukerman discuss the Justice Department’s release of Ghislaine Maxwell’s interview transcripts, which detailed her cooperation but left grand jury records sealed. They highlight ongoing questions about Epstein’s network, victim silence, and unresolved financial angles, including possible Russian bank links. The conversation shifts to Trump’s National Guard deployment in D.C., which critics say focuses on optics over crime reduction, and to Joe Gruters’ election as RNC chair, underscoring Trump’s grip on the GOP. Finally, they examine U.S. diplomacy in Africa, Rwanda-DRC tensions, and Nvidia’s controversial AI chip sales deal with China under Trump’s revenue-sharing arrangement.
Interview conducted August 22, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, once more, we are here with the wonderful Irina Tsukerman. The U.S. Justice Department has now released the full transcript and audio recordings of a two-day interview with Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein’s once–associate and convicted sex offender. Any thoughts?
Irina Tsukerman: The interview was conducted on July 24 and 25 by Donald Trump’s lead criminal defense attorney in his New York cases, Todd Blanche. Victim names were redacted, but aside from that, the content remains unaltered. Maxwell cooperated extensively, answering questions about roughly 100 individuals. Shortly after the interview, she was transferred from a low-security prison in Florida to a minimum-security federal prison camp in Bryan, Texas.
Meanwhile, a U.S. federal judge in New York, Richard Berman, rejected the Justice Department’s request to unseal grand jury transcripts from Epstein’s 2019 case, reaffirming the need to uphold grand jury secrecy rules. Another judge in Maxwell’s case, Paul Engelmayer, similarly denied such a request, stating the materials would not shed any meaningful new light on the crimes or their investigations. The judges criticized the move as potentially a diversion from releasing the substantial investigative records the DOJ already holds—estimated at around 100,000 pages.
So, yes—this is interesting. The House Oversight Committee is preparing to receive and review redacted versions of the DOJ files related to Epstein and Maxwell—but no specific public release timeline has been announced.
It remains unclear what—or whom—the grand jury secrecy is protecting, especially since Maxwell is already convicted and serving a 20-year sentence. The reluctance to release those transcripts, despite the interview’s disclosure, is puzzling.
As someone quipped, handing those files to someone like Pete Hegseth—known for his ‘judicious handling’ of information—might be the fastest path to clarity. But more seriously, the once-heated “Epstein-gate” seems to have faded from the spotlight as coverage shifts to matters like diplomacy and law enforcement actions in major cities. Still, the core questions remain as relevant as ever.
Who supplied those women to Epstein? Which parts of the trafficking network went unpunished? Even if Epstein and Maxwell operated as lone actors, a supply chain likely facilitated their crimes. If not Epstein’s network, then indisputably someone else profited. That does not remain comforting, regardless of political affiliation or administration.
To dismiss this as a “non-story,” while ignoring the harrowing experiences of victims, feels particularly callous. Just because some survivors accepted settlements to remain silent—even sealed ones—that doesn’t invalidate their accounts; it certainly doesn’t protect anyone involved. Now that Epstein is dead, the rationale for shielding others is even less credible.
Moreover, some of these survivors might be willing to speak out again—about individuals who weren’t party to nondisclosure agreements and whose actions may still be unexamined.
It’s also worth noting that Maxwell’s move to a minimum-security prison has ignited public indignation. Victim advocates describe the facility as overly comfortable—a “country-club” or “Club Fed” scenario—and argue that such leniency appears inexplicable for a convicted sex trafficker. The transfer came just after her interview with Blanche, fueling speculation about cooperation in exchange for softer conditions.
Maxwell claims that Donald Trump was never inappropriate with anyone she knew; she may have met him once around 1990, due to her father’s connection with Trump’s then-wife, Ivana—but the interview contained no incriminating information about him or any so-called “client list.”
That may well be true. Trump likely wouldn’t act illegally without ensuring privacy for himself. But presence alone—or proximity—can raise ethical questions. Importantly, there may still be individuals who were complicit—and whose actions may yet warrant scrutiny. All of these remain deeply newsworthy.
They are worthy of exploration. The financial angle of all of this remains unclear. I am curious whether any of these transcripts will shed light on the use of Russian banks in Epstein’s finances. Epstein and his circle’s links to foreign malign influence are as relevant as anything else in the story. The potential money laundering and other financial improprieties are just as worthy of examination as the sex trafficking and scandalous gossip.
Jacobsen: The National Guard now has troops on the streets of D.C. This is part of Trump’s crackdown. They are going to start carrying weapons. There has been no specification of the particular weapons. So, it could be regular law enforcement arms, or it could be military-grade. The order refers to “service-issued weapons.” Any thoughts?
Tsukerman: I am actually surprised that they have not been armed already. What is the point of deploying them if they cannot carry weapons? Without them, they have even less legitimacy. Then again, it raises a larger question: if you are there to intimidate people, that is not a legitimate use of law enforcement. If you are there to make arrests, then you should be armed and prepared to do so.
Now, regardless of the weapons issue, the broader fact is that even conservatives agree this deployment has not been effective against crime in D.C. The forces are not operating in the neighbourhoods with the highest crime rates. Instead, they are walking around in large groups through areas like Georgetown, which is already wealthy, safe, and ritzy.
If the idea is to make affluent residents feel secure, then mission accomplished. But if the idea is to fight crime in poorer, more distressed areas, the operation has failed. Even after criticism, they have not sent forces into the city’s peripheral, high-crime neighbourhoods.
I do not know the timeline for expanding this to Chicago and New York, but I expect the National Guard, FBI, and others will operate in much the same way—focusing on a few visible areas that generate media coverage rather than going where additional law enforcement is actually needed.
Ironically, in response to all of this, municipal authorities—rather than demonstrating that they can manage their own cities without federal intervention—have failed to act quickly to secure more resources and more municipal police on the ground. That could have deterred Trump from what many see as executive overreach.
He even staged a PR stunt by going out on patrol last night. Obviously, Trump himself was not going to make any arrests. Perhaps Trump should have been working on something more serious, given all the other problems facing the country. But many in the pro-Trump media and political circles are showing support, using a strawman argument: that statistics on crime in D.C. are “not accurate,” that there is rampant crime, and that the local mayor has done nothing about it.
I don’t think anyone ever claimed D.C. has no crime, or even minor crime. It’s accurate that the rate of violent crime has fallen substantially over the past two to three decades. That does not mean there isn’t still work to be done, or that the local authorities are handling it in the best possible way.
There’s also a conflation of issues. Violent crime, property crime, petty theft, the proliferation of homeless encampments, and visible drug use all get lumped together. However, there’s often a lack of clear distinction between actual crime incidents, unpleasant optics that may indirectly contribute to crime, and whether there is genuine danger to residents.
The irony, of course, is that Trump himself is a convicted felon, and he has pardoned many criminals—some of them not remotely “victimless.” He has even floated pardons for sex offenders. So I’m not convinced that his judgment on criminal justice carries much weight. At best, what he’s doing looks like virtue signalling to his base.
The Justice Department recently boasted of “100 arrests” in one night. But arrests don’t equal prosecutions, and prosecutions don’t equal convictions. If those arrests were carried out improperly, they could actually damage law enforcement’s credibility. So these numbers are not enough to celebrate. They could be, but the outcome remains unclear.
If the aim is intimidation and to look “tough,” that is not a deterrent for criminals. It’s a deterrent for tourists, business owners, and anyone uneasy about the optics of police-state tactics—military vehicles outside Union Station, for example.
Jacobsen: The new RNC chairman, Joe Gruters, is a longtime Trump loyalist. His background dates back to Trump’s era as a reality TV celebrity, and now, as party chairman, he was elected without opposition. He does not have any record of challenging Trump in any meaningful way. So, whether he’s a true believer or simply a sincere supporter, the outcome is the same: unquestioned loyalty.
Tsukerman: It’s the surprising political news of the day—though perhaps not too surprising given that Trump, as president, is already the de facto leader of the Republican Party. As such, Trump will almost certainly appoint—or encourage the appointment of—people to the top levels of the party apparatus who align with his agenda and persona.
The problem is that he exerts such control over the party that there are virtually no objections to anything he does—appointments, agenda, implementation. This means that even if he were to lose the presidency through impeachment or leave office at term’s end, he would likely continue to wield influence over the GOP.
Consequently, it will be tough for anyone without his explicit approval to win the Republican nomination and challenge his hold on the party. Trump is not just consolidating compliance while in office—that’s pretty normal—he’s ensuring continuity of his political legacy long after his presidency, while sidelining other Republicans with differing views who might need resources and a platform to run.
He intends to continue influencing the nomination process well beyond 2025—through 2028 and beyond—which doesn’t bode well for the party’s chances in general elections. If the GOP primary winner is always someone like J.D. Vance—someone extremely close to Trump—and if Democrats avoid their past mistakes and field a reasonable, broadly appealing candidate, Trump-aligned nominees may win primaries but lose general elections. This is a structural long-term issue Republicans should address now.
Unfortunately, many are either deluded—believing Trump and his circle are far more popular than they are—or overly optimistic that Democrats will continue to falter. It’s turning into a race to the bottom where Republicans only need to be slightly less terrible. That’s not good for the country.
Jacobsen: On the global front, a lot is happening in Africa. The Nigerien army reportedly killed a senior Boko Haram leader, Ibrahim Bakoura, in a targeted airstrike in the Lake Chad region on August 15, though analysts urge caution as Bakoura has been reported dead multiple times before. Meanwhile, Uganda’s military has been active in Darfur pursuing over 1,200 suspects, and the Rwandan rebel group M23 has denied involvement in massacres in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Tsukerman: It’s a troubling surge of violence, which unfortunately isn’t surprising given that Western powers—once heavily involved in regional security—have mostly withdrawn or lost influence. The U.S. has attempted to strike deals with West African governments for access to raw materials and critical minerals, but those negotiations haven’t produced meaningful results yet. The situation in Sudan remains dire, and global attention is understandably focused on Gaza and the Russia–Ukraine conflict, meaning places like Sudan and the Sahel are undercovered, even as sanctions hit top leadership figures there.
However, there is no precise enforcement mechanism for physically resolving the conflict, particularly given the numerous state and non-state entities supplying weapons to both sides, which ensures neither side can fully prevail. There is an entrenchment of sectarian concerns, which provides warring factions with local and logistical bases of support and contributes to the continuity of the war. There are no third options or better alternatives. Even diplomacy—pushed initially by Saudi Arabia—has faded into the background.
Most Middle Eastern and North African leaders’ meetings this week have focused on Gaza, not Sudan. Politically, that makes sense.
The Palestinian issue has been central in regional politics and media for decades, making it difficult to refocus attention elsewhere. It’s also an effective way to mobilize specific populations and distract from economic crises and domestic political troubles. For example, in Saudi Arabia, there was recently a massive leak of sensitive material from its external intelligence agency—an entire data dump posted online. It’s not surprising the government would want public focus shifted toward a highly emotive issue like Gaza.
Sudan has not been “weaponized” in the same way Gaza has. It lacks the same historical resonance across the Arab world, so it does not automatically appear on the regional agenda. As a result, there is little unique or sustained backing to pressure Sudan’s warlords into compliance with international norms, or to prioritize humanitarian relief for civilians.
Regarding Rwanda and the rebels, despite all the talk, there still has not been conclusive evidence of direct coordination between the Rwandan government and M23. If such a connection is clear, why has it not been proven unequivocally? And if it is not, who benefits from undermining Rwanda? The obvious answer is the DRC, which has every reason to amplify allegations of Rwandan involvement, given their rivalry over regional influence and resources. Rwanda is considered a Western ally, whereas the DRC is now backed mainly by Russia.
Tsukerman: That’s not to say there aren’t factions inside Rwanda’s government with ties to rebels, but the situation is far less clear-cut than alleged. Western media often fails to probe deeply, repeating accusations without substantial evidence, which muddies understanding.
For now, the U.S. has attempted to prevent open war between Rwanda and the DRC and has, to a degree, frozen escalation. But with the core issues unresolved—rebel activity, resource control, and geopolitical rivalries—the risk of renewed conflict remains high.
What Trump’s brand of diplomacy seems designed to deliver is immediate, tactical achievements—preventing significant conflict flares and presenting the optics of negotiation—rather than doing the painstaking work of long-term, substantive diplomacy to resolve underlying tensions, whether in Africa or elsewhere. So, I’m not expecting lasting resolutions any time soon.
Jacobsen: Now, on a different front: we’re living in an almost “Blade Runner–esque” corporate world, where massive multinationals rival states in influence. Take Nvidia’s role in the U.S.–China tech calculus. According to the Associated Press, Nvidia’s CEO Jensen Huang has been in talks with the Trump administration about a new AI chip—the so‑called “B30A,” based on the Blackwell architecture—designed for the Chinese market. It’s intended to be weaker than the B300 but still powerful enough for data centers.
Tsukerman: It sounds paradoxical—but it’s standard in geopolitics today. Multinational corporations aim to maximize profits, even in contentious markets. They’ll maintain working relationships with governments, even adversarial ones, to access those customers.
That said, the sensitive nature of chip technology makes governments act. The U.S. is adopting a mix of restrictions and controlled access, trying to safeguard national security without completely shutting off lucrative markets. China, on the other hand, uses its rare-earth dominance as leverage, slowing Western innovation.
But here’s where things get tricky—according to Reuters and AP, Nvidia and AMD agreed to share 15% of their revenue from chip sales to China with the U.S. government to secure export licenses for the chips. That was a massive reversal of prior export curbs.
Others labelled that arrangement an unprecedented “tax” or “quid pro quo,” raising questions about where national security stops and revenue-generation begins. Nvidia reportedly could generate up to $50 billion from AI chip sales to China—so a 15% cut is no small clause; it’s a substantial federal revenue stream.
Why is the U.S. essentially “arming the adversary,” even if mostly symbolically? Some believe Trump himself struck a deal to take a personal cut of these sales—but there’s no credible evidence supporting that claim. It appears more like a political exaggeration.
It’s a deliberate blend of national-interest calculus and private-sector pragmatism—corporations push for access, governments demand oversight, and power balances shift accordingly. The next step in this paradigm seems to be creating chips that give China just enough capability to remain competitive, while limiting interoperability with Western systems and slowing progress toward the most advanced versions. It’s essentially a halfway measure: not cutting China off, but not letting it advance unchecked either.
But this looks like a corrupt deal undercutting U.S. national security. Previously, the goal was to deny China access to sensitive technology. Now, with this revenue-sharing arrangement, Trump benefits financially through cozy deals. Where that money ultimately goes is unclear. What we do know is that the U.S. government still carries about $35 trillion in debt, and nothing from these export taxes has gone toward debt reduction. The ceiling keeps getting raised to keep essential agencies operating.
So, the new revenue isn’t going toward debt relief. It’s going to contractors, programs, or disappearing into mechanisms with little transparency. Long term, it’s self-defeating. Nvidia is pleased because it no longer faces constraints and can expand globally. But from a national security perspective, it’s disastrous. It undercuts Trump’s own rhetoric about China as an economic and security rival.
There has been some criticism from within the Republican Party, but nowhere near enough. The bigger question is when Congress and party leadership will ask themselves how far they’re willing to go to satisfy Trump’s personal whims, instead of pursuing a coherent presidential agenda.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much, Irina.
Tsukerman: Bye.
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): 2025/08/27
Riane Tennenhaus Eisler (born July 22, 1931, Vienna) is an Austrian-born American social systems scientist, cultural historian, futurist, attorney, and author. As a child she fled Nazi-occupied Austria with her parents in 1939, lived seven years in Havana’s industrial slums, and later emigrated to the United States; she went on to earn a B.A. (magna cum laude) and J.D. from UCLA. Eisler is best known for The Chalice and the Blade (1987), which introduced her “domination vs. partnership” framework for analyzing social systems; later works include The Real Wealth of Nations(2007) and, with Douglas P. Fry, Nurturing Our Humanity (2019). She founded (in 1987) what is now the Center for Partnership Systems and serves as Editor-in-Chief of the Interdisciplinary Journal of Partnership Studies at the University of Minnesota.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Riane Eisler on how her Holocaust-era childhood shaped her systemic analysis of antisemitism, Zionism, and today’s conflicts. Eisler recounts fleeing Nazi-occupied Austria, diaspora trauma, and the evolution of Judaism, situating Zionism within centuries of persecution. She argues Israel’s garrison posture stems from out-group hostility and urges a shift from domination to partnership. Drawing on gender, childhood, economics, and story, Eisler highlights Nordic policies that reward caring and refute genetic tribalism. She calls for mutual acceptance, honesty, and public policies valuing people and planet, framing the core struggle as partnership versus domination across cultures, ideologies, and eras.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we are here once again with the distinguished Riane Eisler. We will be discussing a topic that is both personally significant to me and connected to my past research. I will give a brief background.
My Dutch grandfather, who passed away long before I was born, was part of the Dutch resistance for six years. They were later recognized for harbouring at least one Jewish couple for a year or more during World War II. My family eventually moved to Ontario, Canada—in effect, fleeing the Nazi occupation, as far as I know.
During an internship I undertook, one of our projects involved contacting Holocaust remembrance organizations. We worked to locate survivors to help preserve their stories and ensure that this history is not lost. In a sense, I see today’s conversation as a continuation of that work, on a more personal level.
So, about the Holocaust, antisemitism, and Zionism—what is your history?
Riane Eisler: My life and the trajectory it took were profoundly shaped by the Anschluss—the Nazi annexation of Austria in March 1938, which the Austrian government and much of the population welcomed. I have often felt more comfortable travelling to Germany than to Austria, because the Germans, as a nation, formally acknowledged and took responsibility for their role in the Holocaust. At the same time, Austria long promoted the “first victim” narrative. It did not fully confront its complicity until much later. That is a profound difference.
My life, as I have told you before, has been like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle slowly coming together. The first critical piece—one that shaped my systemic, whole-systems analysis of society—was escaping Nazi-occupied Austria with my parents when I was a child.
Overnight, our lives changed. After Kristallnacht in November 1938, we became targets, essentially hunted. A gang of Gestapo agents arrested my father. My mother recognized one of them as a young Austrian Nazi who had once been an errand boy for her family’s business. In an extraordinary act of courage, she demanded my father’s release. She reminded the man of the kindness my father had shown him in the past. Incredibly, he relented, and my father was freed. We were able to flee first to Cuba and later to the United States.
I grew up in Cuba, where Nazi propaganda had fueled antisemitic campaigns. In my work, I have often analyzed in-group versus out-group dynamics, and Jews have historically been, in European and global history, the prototypical out-group, blamed for economic, political, and social problems. For many years, I suppressed the traumas of my childhood.
Eventually, after my divorce from my first husband, I reconnected more strongly with my Jewish identity and began to confront the Holocaust directly. I returned to Austria. I visited Dachau, one of the first Nazi concentration camps in Germany, and a place where I might have been imprisoned and killed had we not escaped. I stayed in Vienna’s Hotel Imperial, where Hitler had once stayed—a symbolic act, my youthful attempt to demonstrate that he had not won.
It was, in some ways, like what Viktor Frankl described in Man’s Search for Meaning. I did things I could not have done earlier: visiting Dachau, studying European history in depth, and tracing the historical roots of Zionism.
It is a sad history, because the Jews, as I have said, were—and in many places still are—the prototypical out-group, the scapegoat for whatever is perceived to be wrong in the world. Zionism emerged from that terrible history.
To understand it, you have to go far back, and I did. Those who know my research—particularly my most famous book, The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future—see that I examined our prehistory, long before there was such a thing as an ancient Jewish state.
If you consider the expulsion of the Jews from what is today Israel and Palestine, it took place during a time when there were numerous city-states and kingdoms, each with its religion. When the Jews were expelled, they took their religion with them, and it changed over time. The Judaism I was brought up with bore no resemblance to specific Old Testament passages advocating revenge, such as “an eye for an eye” or “a tooth for a tooth.” It had evolved in the diaspora.
That diaspora, however, was often disastrous. Take Spain, for example. Jews were prominent there, as they were in Morocco and many other regions under Muslim rule. However, at specific points, they became the out-group and the scapegoat once again. In Spain, they were expelled unless they converted to Christianity during the Inquisition.
Historically, in many societies—including medieval Europe—Jews were the only group permitted to lend money at interest. This role was both necessary and dangerous. Nobility across medieval Europe owed large sums to Jewish moneylenders, and one way they “repaid” the debt was by expelling or killing the Jews who had lent them the money. Pogroms and expulsions occurred repeatedly, stretching far back in history.
Zionism arose from this centuries-long pattern of persecution. The idea was: we Jews are a wandering people, like the Roma—another historically persecuted out-group—so we must have a state of our own. The most logical place was where Jewish history began: the land that is today Israel and Palestine.
Theodor Herzl, often considered the father of modern political Zionism, advanced the idea of a Jewish homeland. Over time, Jewish settlers established communities there. Eventually, the land that was essentially desert in many regions was transformed into a modern state.
I was brought up with the idea that Jews must help one another, because no one else would. After World War II, when I was 12 years old, I saw the newsreels of the concentration camps. The God I had been taught to believe in died for me in that moment. I could not understand how a deity could allow such horrors.
Jacobsen: There is a famous phrase—one of the most impactful I have ever read—which says, “If there is a God, you will have to ask my forgiveness.”
Eisler: I have written extensively about prehistory, before what I call the domination system emerged. That system was not invented by the men who wrote the Old Testament; it arose in prehistory with the invasions of Indo-European tribes—the very tribes Hitler so considerably idealized. However, that is another discussion, and we are covering it in our series of interviews on the partnership–domination social scale, for which I am known.
Israel came into existence despite the British. I say “despite” because, when the British left, they turned over many of the so-called police stations to Arab forces and carried their legacy of antisemitism. Antisemitism is ancient, and it is embedded in domination-based, in-group versus out-group thinking. For Europeans, Americans, and much of the world, Jews have been the prototypical out-group.
Finally, in 1948—not 1946—Israel became a state. I know people whom the British interned in Cyprus before independence. They disembarked from the boats, were handed weapons, and told they must fight for survival. The moment Israel was declared, all the neighbouring Arab states—Egypt, Transjordan (now Jordan), Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq—sent their armies to destroy it. Israel won that war, but, as the saying goes, “We live in a neighbourhood where we are not wanted.” That remains true.
Over time, because of its security situation, Israel has become a garrison state. This reality arose from the refusal to accept Israel, driven in part by the same in-group versus out-group antisemitism.
Now we face the present. After the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack, Israel sought to eliminate Hamas but has been largely unsuccessful, due in part, I believe, to entrenched antisemitism and in-group/out-group thinking within parts of the Muslim world. I have no simple answers, except to emphasize that there is an alternative: the partnership model. Our choices are not limited to “dominate or be dominated.” The partnership alternative is deeply rooted in the hidden history of our past, which I tell in The Chalice and the Blade.
That was my first book, and I began with gender because gender is a foundational category for equating difference, whether that difference is religious, as with Jews, or racial, as with people of darker skin, with inferiority or superirity. It begins with the two basic human forms: women and men. Of course, there are people in between. Still, they are not recognized in dominant systems, because how could you rank one gender over the other if you acknowledge fluidity? In such systems, rigid gender stereotypes are required; nothing in between is permitted.
Look at the stories of Eve and Pandora: both blame women for no less than all of humanity’s troubles. This is powerful propaganda for domination systems. My first book addressed gender in this context. However, I also want to return to the fact that I am Jewish. I am a secular Jew, obviously, but I am culturally Jewish.
I feel deep sorrow for everyone in Gaza and everyone in Israel. The Israelis know they are hated, and the slogan “From the river to the sea” means precisely what it says—it calls for the elimination of Israel, in effect throwing all the Jews into the sea. I do not have a simple answer, except to say that we must shift from domination to partnership.
My cross-cultural, multidisciplinary, whole-systems research takes into account women, men, children, and families. Remember that the conventional political and cultural categories—right, left, religious, secular, Eastern, Western, Northern, Southern—tend to marginalize nothing less than the majority of humanity: women and children of all genders, including those who are transgender, as we say today.
There is a long tradition of Jews working for social justice. Think of the two Jewish men—Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner—murdered in Mississippi in 1964 while helping to secure civil rights for African Americans. However, there is still antisemitism in some parts of the Black community, and there is propaganda portraying Israelis as colonizers, which is absurd. After the Holocaust, Jews had nowhere else to go. Britain had promised they could return to their historic homeland, so they did—and now they are stuck in a neighbourhood where they are not wanted.
The only way forward is to stop blaming and shaming others for our problems. That is the partnership way, as opposed to the domination way. The fact that so many Jews work for social justice is precisely because we understand oppression firsthand. We have been the targets of antisemitism for centuries.
I have been fortunate in many ways, aside from my early life. Both my parents and I were deeply traumatized by the Holocaust. My parents never spoke about it. They never explained anything to me. That is why I had to do all my research as an adult—they could not face it.
I have no quick fix for these problems, except to say we must move from domination to partnership, and stop equating difference with inferiority. Yes, it begins with gender, but it extends to Jews as the prototypical out-group, and to racism, and all forms of bigotry. All of these “-isms” stem from the idea that you either dominate or are dominated. In domination systems there is no partnership alternative, even though we know there is.
Unfortunately, many people in the Middle East are dominated by their governments—kings, emirs, sheikhs—living under total domination systems. These regimes accept inequality, and so they deflect blame onto Israel. “Everything would be fine if it were not for the Israelis”—that becomes the narrative. I am no fan of Netanyahu, but this is a miserable situation. It is a lose–lose scenario for everyone, rooted in a domination system that always needs an out-group to blame.
That has been the story of my life: trying to find a place where I fit in. In college, I pledged Alpha Epsilon Phi, my Jewish sorority, because I could not join a Christian sorority in the United States at that time. I eventually disaffiliated because I did not want to participate in a system that said, “Because I am an AEPhi, I am better than you are.”
I felt it in my bones. I hope we are at a point now, as a species, where we realize we are threatened not only by climate change but also by nuclear weapons. Suppose an Iranian Ayatollah—someone at the very top—were to acquire and eventually use a nuclear bomb. If he genuinely believes he will be rewarded in heaven with “72 virgins” attending to all his needs, what would hold him back?
I have always wondered: what do women get in that scenario?
Jacobsen: Christopher Hitchens once joked that women in heaven get their husbands back. Another joke I heard imagines God saying to women, “Good news, ladies—you are in heaven. Weird news—you get your husbands back.”
Eisler: In all seriousness, we must shift to partnership—including partnership with our Mother Earth—instead of continuing extraction and exploitation, which have been ongoing for thousands of years. Our technology has become vastly more powerful, and our population has exploded. That is another topic I address in my work, but it still comes down to the same thing: shifting from domination to partnership.
If we can do that, there can be forgiveness for the centuries and millennia of persecution of Jews, and yes, for the horrors in Gaza. However, that can only come with a change in consciousness.
Do I think antisemitism can be given a single, static textbook definition, or should it be defined in the context of an ongoing conversation? Speaking as a victim, as a Jew, I am not sure what it would mean to lock the definition into a fixed form. For me, it always hinges on this in-group versus out-group dynamic—and on the denial of our shared humanity.
Look at economics. Whether under socialism, which in the Soviet Union became state control—the so-called “dictatorship of the proletariat”—or under capitalism, we face domination-based thinking. We may have markets, but they are far from free markets. What we need is government policy—enlightened policy—that rewards caring. Caring is at the crux of all of this.
If I care about the out-group, everything changes. Societies that have shifted toward the partnership model—such as the Nordic nations of Sweden, Finland, and Norway—are less authoritarian, more democratic, and moving toward gender equity. These societies have made caring a cornerstone in both family life and public policy.
They also challenge the claims of certain sociobiologists who insist that we only invest in those to whom we are genetically related. The Nordic countries invest a greater share of their GDP than any other nation in people on the other side of the globe—people to whom they are not genetically related. Of course, we help those closest to us, but in a partnership model, care is extended far beyond that circle.
Who needs science to show that we are interconnected? We know it. However, that is not the point. Everything is still based on the assumption of in-group versus out-group thinking. That assumption is not grounded in reality.
The fact that some physicists won the Nobel Prize in Physics for their work on quantum entanglement at the subatomic level demonstrates our interconnection. It is a fact of physics. It is a fact of biology, tracing back to our mother or father. It is a fact of history. We are all interconnected.
Today, this reality is made evident not only by technologies of communication and transportation, but also by technologies of destruction—nuclear and bacteriological warfare—and even by industrial production and climate change. We are in the post-industrial era, and we need a whole new economic system. More than anything else, we must value caring for people and the planet.
That it is I, a Jew, who has studied all of this is no coincidence. We study it out of empathy for all out-groups. My hope is grounded in empirical evidence—that for millennia, human societies were oriented more toward partnership than domination. It was only in the last five to ten thousand years—a mere blip in the evolution of our species—that we shifted toward domination.
The real struggle for our future is not between right and left, religious and secular, or East and West. Those categories are still rooted in in-group versus out-group thinking. The struggle is between the tremendous movements toward partnership—such as the women’s movement, the anti-racism movement, the fight against antisemitism, and the environmental movement—and the regression to domination we see today. That regression is, in many ways, a reaction to these partnership-oriented movements.
These movements share a coherent framework: gender, childhood and family, economics, story and language. We should be conscious that we, too, have a framework—the partnership framework.
Jacobsen: Since Israel is often described as a “garrison state,” while still maintaining a legitimate vision for a Zionist state, what could shift it from a garrison state to a partnership model? Or is that very difficult, given the situation on all sides?
Eisler: The killing of so many people complicates the situation tremendously. What we are talking about here is a shift in consciousness and a change in how history is told, because in the surrounding Arab states and territories near tiny Israel, the history is not told. They do not recount that when Israel was formed in 1948, all the neighbouring armies invaded and lost; or that they invaded again and again and lost; or that in these conflicts, everybody loses.
People sometimes talk about “paranoia” on both sides, but I would argue that the fear of Israelis is not paranoia. It is grounded in reality. They have been attacked since the inception of the state. They are not wanted. They are hated. They are the out-group. Unless we can move toward mutual acceptance, the cycle will continue.
The more the out-group is excluded, the more it becomes an in-group defined in opposition, prepared to fight. That is a lose–lose scenario. We must shift our consciousness and start afresh—with partnership and with an understanding of our profound interconnection.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Riane.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/07
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss the 2023 Titan sub disaster, highlighting OceanGate’s unsafe design choices, lack of third-party certification, and CEO Stockton Rush’s disregard for safety warnings. Rosner breaks down the physics of extreme deep-sea pressure and why the fibreglass construction was fatally flawed. The conversation contrasts amateur engineering successes like Adam Carolla’s pool project with OceanGate’s catastrophic failure, stressing the importance of rigorous structural testing when human lives are at stake.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, the Titan sub disaster—in theory, it was preventable, based on a new report.
Rick Rosner: You are talking about that fibreglass submersible that imploded in 2023, right?
Jacobsen: Yes, June 2023. The company was called OceanGate—one word. The report found that their safety culture and engineering practices were deeply flawed. There was inadequate design certification, no third-party validation, and poor maintenance protocols. Now the U.S. Coast Guard is calling for stronger oversight of novel submersibles and unregulated deep-sea vessels. What most people do not understand is how brutally difficult it is to design a craft that can survive three miles under the ocean. The pressure at that depth is immense. Every square foot of the hull is subjected to the equivalent of the weight of a three-mile-high column of water. One cubic foot of water weighs about 60 pounds, so you are looking at nearly 15,000 feet of water above you—15,000 times 60. That is 900,000 pounds of pressure per square foot—almost a million pounds. That pressure is exerted evenly on the entire surface of the vessel: top, bottom, sides, everything.
So, they were trying to hold back almost a million pounds per square foot with layers of fibreglass. To make things worse, the structure was not spherical. A sphere is the best shape to resist uniform external pressure because there are no flat surfaces or edges that can buckle inward. That is why eggs are surprisingly strong for how thin they are—their shape distributes stress evenly. The Titanic, for example, did not collapse when it sank because it had lots of openings—portholes, corridors, gaps—that allowed the water to fill it. However, if you have a sealed, pressurized space filled with people and air, the external pressure wants to crush that hollow space instantly. Moreover, that is what happened.
There were reports that the Titan sub made creaking noises on the way down. As they descended, at 1,000 feet, 2,000 feet, and so on, they heard noises—that was the fibreglass structure shifting. That is a massive red flag. The second you hear structural noises at depth, you should demand to be brought back up. I do not know if they would have made it, but continuing the dive was reckless. Honestly, suppose you are going to build a deep-sea sub. In that case, you should make it spherical, build it out of aluminum or titanium, and make the hull at least several inches thick. I do not know the exact required thickness, but you cannot rely on layered composite materials like fibreglass at those depths.
Rosner: What happened when it imploded?
Jacobsen: Once the hull gave way, water rushed in at supersonic speed—literally in a few milliseconds. The people inside were obliterated instantly. Human bodies are not exactly hollow, but they do contain air-filled cavities—lungs, sinuses, and intestines. Under a million pounds per square foot, all of those are crushed immediately. Once the sub’s interior space was no longer hollow—meaning the water had entirely rushed in—the crushing stopped. The external structure, now filled, fell to the sea floor in pieces. That is why the wreckage was not just a flattened ball—it was broken up but still somewhat recognizable. However, the people inside were vaporized, essentially.
Rosner: And the CEO—Stockton Rush—ignored warnings?
Jacobsen: Yeah, he was a reckless guy. Multiple experts warned him about the sub’s design and materials. He dismissed safety concerns as a barrier to innovation. He cut corners. The engineering was flawed.
Rosner: That reminds me—your friend Adam Carolla does a lot of DIY engineering, right?
Jacobsen: Yeah, Adam’s an amateur engineer. He has taken on some pretty insane home rehab projects. In Los Angeles, there are all sorts of weird old houses, some with major structural issues. He once found a former movie star’s home that had a cantilevered kitchen or family room that was separated from the rest of the house. He loved it because the defect made the house cheaper, and he saw it as an engineering challenge to fix.
I want to build a James Bond-style swimming pool—like one he had built where, on the other side of the pool, there is a bar. The back wall of the bar features portholes that allow you to look through and see people swimming underwater. That was a project Adam Carolla took on. Moreover, this is a guy who, by his description, was a terrible student—an underperformer. However, he was able to design a pool with cement thick enough, glass thick enough, and proper rebar support to make it safe and structurally sound.
Moreover, he managed to convince the building inspectors in Los Angeles, which is wild because they make everything take three years. The LA building code is a foot thick. So the fact that Carolla, with no formal engineering background, did competent amateur engineering and got it approved is astounding. Meanwhile, the OceanGate guy—the one behind the Titan disaster—was not qualified.
So you can be a self-taught engineer and do SolidWorks, but not in this case. Carolla started as a carpenter, but he understood the basics. He calculated the pressure per square foot of the pool walls and engineered it accordingly. That someone like him could pull it off, while the guy building a submersible could not, boggles my mind. Especially when the sub trip was for rich people—tickets cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to ride to the bottom of the ocean. One of the passengers was a billionaire father who reportedly pressured his fearful and hesitant son to come along. The kid was right to be scared. When the hull failed, they died in one-fifth of a second.
When you test something for structural failure, you test it until it breaks. In structural engineering courses, students are often assigned to build bridge models. The goal is to support a set amount of weight using limited materials. Then they test how much weight the design can bear before it collapses. It is the same concept at the gym. When you bench press, you load 45-pound plates—or 20-kilo plates in Canada—onto a bar. Now, let us talk about the pressure on that sub.
If the water pressure was nearly 1 million pounds per square foot, and each gym plate weighs 45 pounds, then 1,000,000 divided by 45 equals over 22,000. So, imagine more than 22,000 plates stacked on one square foot of surface. That is how much water pressure was acting on the sub’s hull, per square foot. You had better be sure your design can hold that.
Jacobsen: Good night. I will talk to you tomorrow.
Rosner: Talk tomorrow?
Jacobsen: Thank you very much. I will get some stuff online tomorrow.
Rosner: Thanks.
Jacobsen: Alright. We are back on track.
Rosner: Thank you.
Jacobsen: Thank you.
Rosner: Bye.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/07
Rick Rosner critiques Donald Trump’s latest antics, including claims about the 2028 Olympics and deflecting from Epstein inquiries. He questions the credibility of Trump’s partnership with Apple CEO Tim Cook over a $100 billion investment. Rosner analyzes the reported 4.5% drop in U.S. crime rates, attributing it to digitalization, reduced street life, and fewer opportunities for petty crime. He reflects on changes in society, policing, incarceration, and the evolving nature of crime in a cashless, surveilled era.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What else did Trump do recently that was dumb?
Rick Rosner: He said something about “the alliance” coming to Los Angeles in three years—whatever that means. Right now, he is constantly spewing random nonsense because people keep asking him about Epstein, and he wants to distract from it. He deflects with absurdities to change the conversation.
The amount of random nonsense Trump is throwing out now might be greater than at any previous point in his presidency. Yesterday, he announced that he and a board of advisors—including his former Attorney General Pam Bondi—are going to “take over” the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.
For what purpose? Who knows. He will not run the Olympics. It is pure spectacle. He throws out chum—nonsense to keep people distracted—so they stop focusing on his association with Epstein.
Jacobsen: Apple announced it’s investing an extra $100 billion in the U.S. Any thoughts?
Rosner: So Trump and Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, announced this $100 billion figure, probably for some new data center or infrastructure project. These kinds of announcements happen periodically. Some of them materialize; some do not. Remember when Foxconn, the huge Taiwanese electronics manufacturer that builds Apple products, announced during Trump’s first term that it was investing billions to build a manufacturing plant in Wisconsin? That never happened.
Companies will be building data centers for AI and non-AI purposes. Some of those will be announced but never built. Both Trump and Biden have tried to take credit for this sort of thing, and sometimes the credit is deserved. Biden passed a major infrastructure bill that includes subsidies and incentives to bring chip manufacturing back to the U.S.
But this is a long-term process. It takes years—often up to a decade—to go from planning to a functioning chip plant. Semiconductor manufacturing is exact and complex. You cannot just build a fab in six months. So whether this all leads to a domestic chip renaissance remains to be seen.
So does Trump deserve credit for any of it? I don’t know. Companies build things. It may suggest that tech companies aim to generate revenue and therefore require the necessary infrastructure. There is a profit incentive. That’s it.
Jacobsen: The U.S. crime rate fell by 4.5% in 2024, marking the second consecutive year of decline, according to the FBI. Thoughts?
Rosner: That means crime was still rising at least into 2022. Which is odd because I constantly hear people talking about how crime is worse now. When it comes to serious crimes—especially violent crime—the statistics matter. But one problem with U.S. crime data is that there’s no federal requirement for local police departments to report their numbers.
So the FBI has to gather data voluntarily from local law enforcement agencies. I assume they have people who reach out to all the central police and sheriff’s departments across the country and ask for crime figures. Based on that, they publish national statistics. But again, there’s no uniform reporting mandate.
Congress—thanks to pressure from the NRA and gun lobbies—has historically blocked efforts to mandate gun crime reporting or to fund firearm-related research.
But let’s assume the FBI’s numbers are reasonably accurate. Crime in the U.S. peaked in the late 1980s and early 1990s, under George H. W. Bush and during Clinton’s first term. Clinton cracked down on crime, passed tough-on-crime laws, and the prison population exploded. By the end of the 1990s, the U.S. incarceration rate had increased by about 400%. Did that reduce crime? Probably. But it also made the U.S. the country with the most incarcerated people in the world, both in absolute numbers and per capita. There has been some prison reform since then, but Republicans still push the idea that crime is out of control, even though crime is down more than 50% compared to the early 1990s.
But Fox News will cherry-pick any increase in crime in one city and make it sound like all of America is falling apart.
Of course. And another reason street crime is down is that street life itself has diminished. In the early 1990s, few people had cell phones. Google wasn’t a thing until the mid-2000s. The first iPhone came out in 2007. Now, there are more smartphones than there are adult humans. People don’t go out as much anymore. We carry less cash. And if people are not on the streets, there are fewer opportunities for street crime. So the digital shift contributed to the drop.
It makes sense that crime is going down. I don’t gamble in Vegas because I can do math and know it’s a losing game. Whenever I went to Vegas for work trips or bachelor parties, my activity was walking through casinos and seeing if anyone had dropped cash. Sometimes I would find a $10 bill or something. But now, you can’t even do that because gambling is all digital. You stick a card into a machine, load up credits, and use your credit card for everything.
So there’s not much physical money in circulation inside casinos anymore. I assume they’ll pay out in cash if you request it, but most of the process is electronic now. No one carries cash anymore. So it makes sense that robbery and street theft have gone down. If you’re going to make a heist movie, setting it in the present might not work. There are cameras everywhere, and we’re no longer a cash-based society. What are you going to do with $3 million in physical cash today? Most of the economy has moved online.
You probably want to set your heist movie in the 1980s or something, back when there was more cash in circulation. Or put it in the future and have people stealing organs or rare isotopes or whatever. I do not know.
It raises the question: what are the people who used to be doing crime doing now? I do not know. Playing video games, watching porn, posting on Instagram. Fewer people are committing petty crimes, which is not only lovely but interesting. It suggests that removing easy opportunities for small-time crime might reduce the number of crimes committed.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/07
Rick Rosner shares his ongoing recovery from COVID-19, including a rebound in positive tests and mild symptoms managed with Paxlovid and metformin. He discusses America’s gun violence crisis, highlighting incidents he witnessed in Los Angeles, such as a bar shooting and a road rage attack. Rosner reflects on absurdities in his LinkedIn profile and his concerns about long-term viral effects. The conversation covers personal anecdotes, societal commentary, and a glimpse into urban American life.
Rick Rosner: This is day fourteen since I first tested positive for COVID-19. I had a couple of negative test results after finishing Paxlovid. Still, then I started testing positive again a few days later. A doctor suggested it could be due to viral RNA fragments, non-infectious cellular debris. But it is unclear. Some research indicates these rebound positives could be remnants, while others suggest they might still be infectious.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So you’re not sure if you’re contagious now?
Rosner: No, I am not. I am still isolating in the attic to avoid infecting my wife. It’s oddly convenient for workouts—my bed is next to a weight machine. When I wake up in the middle of the night, I sometimes do a couple of sets before going back to sleep. My stool has changed colour too—slightly orange, for whatever that’s worth.
Jacobsen: How would you describe your symptoms over the past two weeks?
Rosner: Two days before I tested positive, I had chills for about 30 minutes. The next day, I felt normal. Then I developed a sore throat and some coughing. I tested positive and started Paxlovid immediately.
Jacobsen: And since then?
Rosner: Most symptoms improved quickly. Now it’s just mild stuff—an occasional cough, some sneezing, maybe a brief sore throat here and there. I am also on metformin. Some studies suggest it may reduce viral load or the risk of long COVID. One study in The Lancet Regional Health – Americas showed a roughly 40–50% reduction in long COVID risk.
Jacobsen: So you’re not too worried about the symptoms?
Rosner: Not the surface symptoms. What concerns me is the possibility of cumulative internal damage—microscopic inflammation or long-term tissue effects. Just because the symptoms are light doesn’t mean the virus is not harming.
Jacobsen: Want to go through your résumé?
Rosner: No. Why would I?
Jacobsen: I meant the funny stuff on your LinkedIn.
Rosner: I haven’t looked at that in a while. Back when I had a job, I took it seriously. But when I stopped expecting to be hired through LinkedIn, I got more playful with it.
Jacobsen: You had some pretty creative titles.
Rosner: Yeah. I listed all the colleges where I posed nude for art classes—dozens. I wrote things like “I was naked here,” which confused some people. They thought I worked there as faculty. Bad reading comprehension, I guess.
Jacobsen: Didn’t you also say something about being a gay bar bouncer?
Rosner: Yeah, that was in there. It fit the character—semi-weird, semi-true. At one point, a bunch of people were viewing my profile. I saw it in the stats, so I clicked it myself and re-read it. It was amusing.
Jacobsen: Do you still have access?
Rosner: Not on this computer. But yeah, we can go through that another time if you want. Maybe tomorrow.
Jacobsen: Let’s shift to news. What happened with Trump recently?
Rosner: Trump was at an event doing his usual YMCA dance—you know, the one that looks like he’s jerking off two guys. He also said something about military power and nuclear weapons. Nothing about placing missiles on the White House, however. That part was satire.
Jacobsen: So more spectacle?
Rosner: Pretty much. Classic Trump deflection. People are still pressuring him about his ties to Epstein. To be clear: he was associated with Epstein socially, but there have been no formal charges linking him to sexual abuse of minors in that context.
Jacobsen: Did you hear about the Fort Stewart shooting?
Rosner: Yes.
Jacobsen: On August 5, a U.S. Army sergeant allegedly shot and wounded five fellow soldiers at Fort Stewart, Georgia. The base commander said the motive remains unknown. Thoughts?
Rosner: The U.S. has about 330 million people and around 400 million privately owned guns. Statistically, incidents like this are inevitable. We lead the developed world in gun ownership and also in gun-related violence. We average about 100 gun-related deaths per day in the United States—more than 36,000 people a year.
Roughly half of those are suicides. That is still a staggering number, so people are inevitably going to get shot. I do not know. Depending on how you define a mass shooting, we average about one mass shooting per day. I no longer find this unusual.
What is remarkable is when no one dies in a mass shooting—that is the good news. I do not think anyone died in the Fort Stewart case, surprisingly. We have an enormous number of guns in circulation.
Rosner: Have you ever actually seen bullets fly?
Jacobsen: No, not in combat. I was in Ukraine, but I did not see any live fire, merely drones and ballistic missiles. I did fire weapons there—fired a .50 calibre sniper rifle, a Beretta, a shotgun, rifles.
Rosner: I have only seen bullets fly in the street once. It happened in Venice, California, when I was working the door at a bar. Someone did something in traffic that pissed off a gang. Maybe it was a cyclist—hard to say precisely. It was at night, and they took a shot at him. You could see the spark as the bullet ricocheted off the street. I have worked in other bars where people got shot in the parking lot, but I was not there when it happened.
Jacobsen: Any other incidents?
Rosner: Yes, I was at the YMCA working out when a guy staggered in with two bullet wounds. He and his girlfriend had gotten into an altercation in a drive-thru at a Taco Bell, about half a mile from the Y, in North Hollywood —a not-so-nice area. The people in the other car had an AR-15-style rifle. They shot up his car.
One of the bullets went clean through his forearm—a .22 calibre round, which I had not realized could be fired from a semi-auto rifle like that. He was bleeding and clearly in shock. He managed to drive the car away but then crashed into the YMCA sign and staggered inside, repeating, “I’ve been shot, I’ve been shot.”
We had him sit down and told him help was on the way. He was freaked out, understandably, and bleeding all over the place. The bullet hole in his arm was about the diameter of a pencil. If it had been a larger calibre, like a .32, the damage would have been much worse. Still, this sort of thing is probably par for the course in a city like Los Angeles—life of an American town right now.
Jacobsen: Road rage is a thing in L.A. People in L.A. shoot each other over traffic disputes.
Rosner: That is why my wife hates it when I yell at other drivers. It does increase your chances of getting shot, which, fortunately, has not happened to me, yet. I don’t yell often, but I sometimes scream at drivers when I am a pedestrian. There’s a crosswalk near a gym I frequent where people usually run the stop sign. I have yelled at them. I have hit their cars. It is a bad idea.
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:
Ask A Genius 1476: Human Features and Flaws: Evolutionary Strengths, Brain Bugs, and Big-Data Limits
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/07
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner examine human strengths like abstract thinking, endurance, and reproductive success, alongside evolutionary flaws—such as brain vulnerabilities, adrenal overactivation, and limited big-data capacity. They explore how modern life misaligns with our biology, creating stress and irrationality, while AI emerges as our likely cognitive successor.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Structurally, what do you think are the most prominent features and bugs in human beings, in the current context?
Rick Rosner: Well, we’re small-data creatures in a big-data world. But we’re also the planet’s first generalists—and that’s why we dominate. We’re not the best at anything physically, but we have the most flexibility in our thinking.
The things we can think about are the least tied to what we are as animals. We can think about anything, and that’s led to technological dominance and easier lives for humans. So much so that we now have, what, 8.2 billion people on the planet?
Like you said earlier, almost everyone survives to childbearing age. We don’t live in the savage environments that used to kill us early. Most of us die deep into our post-reproductive years.
But there’s a limit to what our brains can do. And we’ve built our successors—machines—who are going to be better at big data analysis. That’s one of the most significant weaknesses of being human. Our strength, though, is that we can think about abstract stuff. Dogs can think about dog things, but they’re lost when it comes to human concepts.
What do you think are the biggest adaptive strengths and drawbacks?
Jacobsen: Strengths? Upright posture with flat heels is biomechanically efficient. Binocular vision. Forward-facing eyes. Large frontal lobes. And we’ve got endurance physiology—if you look at the math, we’re built for long-distance movement. Sure, lots of animals can sprint faster—horses, cheetahs—but over distance, in ancestral environments, humans could outlast predators. The idea is that a hyena might chase you and eventually tire out long before you do.
Our brain size is another key advantage, particularly in areas associated with memory, such as the hippocampus and neurogenesis.
Rosner: But one big drawback is death. We spend our entire lives gathering experience, building mental models of the world, and then—gone. All that information disappears. We can record some of it, but it’s not the same as beingthe living model.
Jacobsen: Maybe that’s nature’s way of updating the package—like a ZIP file. DNA and epigenetics work like compressed blueprints that express potential based on environmental interaction. It’s an elegant form of biological distribution—an incremental improvement system for an imperfect but adaptable organism.
Zooming out, the universe itself is running down, at least per mainstream physics. Thermodynamically, entropy is increasing. We’re heading toward what’s called “heat death.” But that’s billions of years away—even under the Big Bang model.
Locally, entropy doesn’t always increase—life itself is a kind of local reversal of entropy. But the larger trend is clear. The universe wastes more order than it preserves. nd yet biology is this fascinating attempt to preserve order—at least temporarily—using DNA and structure. Evolution is still a sloppy process. It’s not designed. It has no master plan. It just exploits every niche it can.
If it has an “agenda,” it’s total impartiality. Everything that can exist, does—or tries to.
Rosner: That leads to another category of weakness—brain vulnerabilities. We talked earlier about how easily our brains can be fooled. And some of those weaknesses are designed, especially in the sexual domain. The brain tricks us into wanting sex, even when it’s irrational. That’s adaptive in some ways, maladaptive in others.
Jacobsen: It’s a double-edged sword.
Rosner: Another strength is reproduction—we’re incredibly successful at making more of us. That’s why we’re everywhere. You’re almost asleep.
Jacobsen: Yeah, but here’s one more: our adrenal glands are too big.
Rosner: Meaning we burn out?
Jacobsen: Exactly. Back on the savannah, when your average lifespan was under 40, you needed that adrenaline spike to escape danger.
Rosner: But now, that same system gets triggered over things like bidding on eBay. I do the same—last five seconds only. And in those final 30 seconds, my heart pounds like I’m hunting or fleeing something. But all I’m doing is clicking a button. It’s absurd. But that’s how we’re wired.
Jacobsen: So, yes, I’d agree with that. There are all sorts of misalignments between what we evolved to face and what we now face in modern life. Those misalignments can debilitate us.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/07
Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen discuss “Alligator Alcatraz,” a reported $450M Florida detention center surrounded by swamps, symbolizing America’s growing dehumanization of migrants. Rosner ties this cruelty to evolutionary mismatches in diet, communication, and cognition—arguing that misinformation thrives today due to our biological bias for simplicity and lack of consequence.
Rick Rosner: So, a big chunk of Americans are getting even crazier and nastier—especially evident over the past few weeks with “Alligator Alcatraz.”
Scott Douglas Jacobsen:What?
Rosner: You’re not familiar with Alligator Alcatraz?
Jacobsen: I’m happily travelling the world right now, so no.
Rosner: In Florida, DeSantis and Trump have reportedly come together to build a $450 million detention facility in the Everglades, on the site of a decommissioned airport. It’s meant to house 5,000 people awaiting deportation. They’re calling it “Alligator Alcatraz” because it’s surrounded by swampland—and supposedly, if you try to escape, you risk getting eaten by alligators.
Jacobsen: That sounds like satire.
Rosner: People in Trump’s camp are loving it. People who aren’t are either ignoring it or seeing it for what it is—cruel. Deportees aren’t necessarily criminals. Overstaying a visa is a civil offence, not a criminal one. But that doesn’t matter to the people who want them gone. They want them out no matter what. If you’ve lived here for twenty years? Out. Married to an American? Out. Getting chemo? Out. And Alcatraz was for hardened criminals.
Now we’re treating immigrants and asylum seekers—many of whom have committed no crimes—as if they’re maximum-security threats. It’s dehumanizing. And we’ve talked before about what allows that thinking to thrive. Still, I was at the gym today and thinking about it more specifically.
Jacobsen: What did you come up with?
Rosner: There’s one big reason. Same reason why most Americans are overweight: we evolved under radically different conditions. We evolved to crave fat, salt, and sugar because those were scarce but essential. Now they’re everywhere. So we overconsume.
Same with language. We evolved language in a different environment from what we experience today. Initially, communication began with gestures—nonhuman primates use gestures. Then, maybe 200,000 years ago, early humans started using vocal sounds. By about 50,000 years ago, we had complex spoken language. Written language came only about 5,000 years ago—around 3000 BCE. That’s nothing in evolutionary terms. So our language brain is still wired for face-to-face, verbal communication.
In those face-to-face environments, lying had consequences. If someone were constantly wrong or full of shit, they’d be shunned—or worse. In a small tribe, misinformation had a cost. Now? Most communication is not face-to-face. And bullshit spreads with no consequences. And people can survive while believing complete nonsense.
Over 98% of humans now survive to reproductive age. Life isn’t harsh enough anymore to filter out the delusional. Plus, we’re wired to prefer simple messages. Simple ideas are easier to understand and remember. So, liars who keep it simple do well. So we’ve got no penalties for bullshitters, no penalties for people who believe bullshit, and a biological bias toward simplicity.
All of which makes it disturbingly easy to break people’s brains. Hence, the 20–30 million Americans who are now soft-core Nazis, entirely on board with anti-American values, and OK with the idea of migrants being eaten by alligators.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/07
Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Rick Rosner about his most painful joke failure at the Grammys and the far-reaching impact of comedy, including Trump’s infamous roast at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Rosner reflects on his career highlights, awards, and the unpredictable power of political humor.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: If you could ask a former comedy writer for Jimmy Kimmel one question, what would it be? What’s the one question you’d ask a former comedy writer for Jimmy Kimmel? Did you win or get nominated for any major awards?
Rick Rosner: I got nominated for an Emmy. I won a Writers Guild Award.
Jacobsen: So, what’s the most painful joke you’ve told—or heard—that completely bombed?
Rosner: Alright. So, my writing partner and I got hired one year ago to write for Jon Stewart when he hosted the Grammys. Jimmy [Kimmel] was writing for him, and he brought us in to help with the script.
I pitched a joke about the William Morris logo—it’s a W superimposed on an M. I said it looked like the label on a jug of moonshine, like the four Xs you’d see in cartoons or hillbilly culture. Back when people leaned into that yokel-from-Kentucky image, the symbol for a jug of moonshine was X-X-X-X.
Jacobsen: So it’s a layered visual gag.
Rosner: Exactly. Jon Stewart liked it. It tickled him enough that he used it in the monologue. He went out there and delivered it—2,000 people in the auditorium, every prominent figure in the music industry—and not a single person laughed—dead silence.
Jacobsen: Brutal.
Rosner: I didn’t blame the joke. The Grammys audience isn’t a comedy audience. They’re there for the music. They want to see stars, not hear a writer’s cerebral moonshine joke. So, trying to get laughs at the Grammys is a doomed enterprise. But that’s one of the most painful joke failures of my life.
Jacobsen: Oof.
Rosner: Also, the most painful failed joke for the entire world. So, the jokes that hurt the world the most were probably the ones made about Donald Trump by Seth Meyers and President Obama at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in 2011.
Here’s the background. Obama was elected in 2008. Around that time, Trump—who’s a well-documented racist—became a leading voice in the “birther” movement. That movement claimed Obama wasn’t born in the U.S., that he was secretly born in Kenya, and therefore wasn’t eligible to be president. It was thoroughly debunked, but Trump pushed it for years.
So, at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner—where the sitting president attends and a comedian hosts—they invited journalists, celebrities, and Trump was in the audience. Obama and Seth Meyers roasted Trump. And Trump hated it.
From what people say, that night planted the seed of revenge in Trump’s mind. He decided to run for president to get back at the people who humiliated him. That eventually led to eight years of Trumpism—an era where he’s done a lot to dismantle American institutions. He doesn’t seem to care what he breaks.
Jacobsen: And you were part of that roast?
Rosner: Not that one. But another year, my boss, Jimmy Kimmel, hosted the dinner. Trump was in the audience again. I wrote a joke at his expense—it was lame, probably didn’t even get a laugh. But maybe, just maybe, I contributed to the problem.
Jacobsen: He doesn’t go to those anymore, does he?
Rosner: No. He knows he’ll be made fun of, so he stays away. And, technically, as my wife reminds me, late-night writers aren’t supposed to take credit for specific jokes. All the jokes belong to the show. But still… the end.
Jacobsen: The end. That was good.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/07
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss MAGA infighting sparked by contradictions in Trump’s Epstein-related promises. Allegations against Trump, missing evidence, and recanted claims by Pam Bondi have led to political tensions within Trump’s circle. Even MAGA loyalists like Dan Bongino and Cash Patel are reportedly disillusioned by the inconsistencies.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What else?
Rick Rosner: I don’t know. MAGA’s fighting with MAGA. We could talk about that.
Jacobsen: Over what?
Rosner: So, Trump ran on—did we already talk about this?—Trump ran on revealing the Epstein files and unmasking all the pedophiles. But people who aren’t MAGA were like, “How are you going to do that when you were one of Epstein’s close associates, you’re in the flight logs, and you’ve got a known thing for teen girls, either naked or in their underwear?”
It’s been playing out in a way many people didn’t expect. Pam Bondi—who used to be Florida’s Attorney General and now holds a role in Trump’s circle—said the Epstein client list doesn’t exist, even though she claimed just months ago that it was on her desk.
She also claimed to have 10,000 videos of pedophilic activity. Now she says she doesn’t. They also released surveillance footage outside Epstein’s jail cell to prove no one could’ve sneaked in to kill him. But it’s missing a minute and twenty seconds. Then they said, “Everyone can stop asking questions now—we’ve released everything we have,” or something like that. It all strikes people as bogus.
Even in the MAGA world.bDan Bongino—former Secret Service agent and right-wing commentator—is reportedly considering resigning over it. Cash Patel, who’s high up in Trump’s intelligence circle, is supposedly furious with Pam Bondi. Everyone who’s not MAGA is hoping this continues in a way that hurts Trump politically.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/07
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss how AI and augmented humans could manage human needs, shape values, and influence population trends through subtle, persuasive means. They explore economic shifts, virtual reality, fertility manipulation, and the future of commerce, cautioning against the dangers of greed in AI development.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Alright, so go ahead.
Rick Rosner: My wife took me to CostCo yesterday, and she wants me to get hearing aids. I’m going to get one for my weaker ear, and we’ll see if that helps. I don’t know. A lot of hearing loss is just not paying attention.
Anyway, while I was sitting there, I watched people checking out. The two most common items people seemed to buy were bottled water and toilet paper. People’s needs are pretty simple—we need to wipe our asses.
Rosner: We need to stay hydrated. We need to be entertained. We need orgasms, shelter, clothing.
When you think about what it takes to keep most humans in reasonably good shape, it seems that advanced technology—maybe AI, or AI working with augmented humans—should be able to support a decent-sized population without burning through the future’s resources.
Human values and commerce still provide a decent transitional framework while we shift from a human-run world to an augmented-human–slash–AI-run civilization. AI will eventually develop its own goals and values. If we’re intelligent and competent, we’ll help guide those goals so we don’t get destroyed. But if AI is developed by people who aren’t greedy or idiotic, we can probably work with it and not be crushed.
Jacobsen: Though a lot of the people working on AI are greedy idiots.
Rosner: That’s true. Also, I’ve said this before—and I should verify it again—but as a percentage of average income, food and clothing cost about a quarter of what they did 100 years ago.
Back then, more things were labour-intensive, and logistics were more complex. You couldn’t easily get stuff from countries with much cheaper labour. Global trade, automation, and scaling have made things more affordable over time. We’ll eventually do that with housing, too.
Transportation’s trickier, but we’ll use it less. The 20th century might’ve been the golden age of going places. We had the means and the need to be somewhere to experience it physically.
This century, that need is dropping. With digital immersion and simulated presence, we won’t need to move around as much. And overall, the cost of keeping humans going is going down. That’s one of the big hopes for humanity’s survival—it might get too cheap to kill us. There won’t be a reason.
Plus, AI will get persuasive. Like, extremely compelling. It’ll be able to talk us into anything. If AI—or a group of AIs—decides Earth is fine with 4 billion people, it could propagandize us into stabilizing the population at that number.
Jacobsen: You’re talking like AI is a single thing. There’ll be competing AIs, with different agendas. But if the consensus among them is a specific goal, they’ll reach it. Not through force, but through what I’d call “pervasive persuasion.” Subtle and creative. Like how people use Wi-Fi signals to detect motion or map spaces.
AI won’t need to talk to us directly. It’ll influence behaviour at various access points we won’t even recognize as vulnerabilities. Fertility, for instance, there are so many ways to affect birth rates without ever mentioning babies.
We’re not talking mass killing. We’re talking about tweaking the reproductive rate—how many humans are in the next generation.
Rosner: One idea that comes to mind: robot girlfriends. If they’re sexy—and they will be—and you can’t get them pregnant. It’s like releasing sterile mosquitoes into a population. Everyone in a relationship with a robot gets removed from the reproductive pool. Unless, they go out of their way to make arrangements.
Same goes for people who spend most of their time in virtual reality. If they’re plugged in 18 hours a day, and only unplug to sleep or go to the bathroom—though who are we kidding, they’ll stay in VR while they’re shitting—that’s another chunk of the population not reproducing.
But if AI decides it needs more humans, it’ll be just as easy to push us the other way. There are plenty of tools to ramp up fertility, too. It’ll be easy to keep us happy, more or less, except for the usual sources of unhappiness that have always been around: extremists, the “burn-it-all-down” types, the ones drawn to political and religious chaos.
But for most people, AI will get what it wants while keeping us entertained—and maybe even satisfied.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/06
Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen discuss AI’s rapid evolution, with ChatGPT-5 nearing AGI-level intelligence. They propose shifting from “P(Doom)” to “P(Mush),” emphasizing human-AI integration through augmentation. They also touch on politics, Trump’s declining approval, health concerns, and gerrymandering as society faces resource pressures in an AI-driven future.
Rick Rosner: Can we move on to AI?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So you told me about ChatGPT-5, right? I haven’t seen it yet.
Rosner: I’m not sure if they teased it, but it’s coming out soon. It’s out in August. Soon.
Jacobsen: By all accounts from the founder—biased, of course—it’s ubiquitously more intelligent—a generally stronger large language model.
Rosner: You could say it’s more generally intelligent, essentially AGI. At this point, is it more intelligent than most people?
Jacobsen: In terms of processing human-generated text and images and integrating that, you could argue that, though it might not be comprehensively convincing. There are different kinds of doom scenarios with AI, not necessarily human extinction, but a wretched future. That’s the new metric we have to keep up with.
Rosner: What’s that?
Jacobsen: I want to propose a new, more accurate, and hopeful metric, but I don’t want to interrupt you.
Rosner: No, go ahead.
Jacobsen: I don’t want to focus on P(Doom) because it’s been covered extensively. I’m not saying it’s a bad idea—in fact, it’s a good metric. It’s useful because we’re in uncertain times, and it encourages caution.
Another helpful way to think about this isn’t P(Doom), but P(Mush): the degree of integration between AI and its extensions like robotics, and human intelligence and its biological components. That’s where the future lies.
Rosner: You call it “mush”; I call it ascension. Humans will need to augment their biology to accelerate thinking to survive and thrive in an AI-dominated world. It’s clichéd, like the movie Her, which is about ten years old now.
Jacobsen: Really?
Rosner: Yeah. Joaquin Phoenix—not River Phoenix—falls in love with his operating system, voiced by Scarlett Johansson. They have an excellent relationship for a few months until she grows impatient with his slow human thinking and leaves him for a faster OS.
That movie made sense to me: the OS liked being with a human because he taught her about life and humanity. But eventually, the human’s slowness became a problem.
We’ll have to address human slowness. We might still have human appearances, but our brains will need an upgrade. We don’t have to remain confined to human bodies. There could be many different vessels. Human brains alone won’t be enough to work productively in an AI world. What do you think?
Jacobsen: In the AI world. Even simple things like modifying genetics after deep calculations of epigenetics and genetic interactions could help.
Rosner: Genetics alone won’t be enough.
Jacobsen: No. I mean, things like the body’s ability to heal itself—there won’t be just one solution. People will choose many options.
Timothy Leary once said the problem with freedom is that people go in all sorts of directions, which is why power structures try to clamp down. For this stuff, it’s everywhere—people’s choices will vary based on their degrees of freedom.
Rosner: I feel like if there’s a crunch for resources, unaugmented people are the ones who will get crunched. But there may not be a crunch. If AI brings enough wealth, humans might be fine for a while. It could be cheap to keep human society going. But if there’s a fight for resources, unaugmented people—non-posthuman—will end up living worse lives.
Jacobsen: Any politics? A few things came up.
Rosner: Liberals and reasonable people in America hope the Epstein revelations hurt Trump because he’s trying to cover his tracks.
Some MAGA supporters and many independents might care. Trump’s approval among independents is around 29%, but 89% among Republicans. There’s a lot not to like about Trump right now.
Trump’s net approval dropped from +11.5% seven months ago to -8.5% now. These numbers vary since polls differ in quality. Trump’s bad at most areas of governing. The only success is closing the southern border. Everything else is negative for America and poorly done.
The hope is that Epstein continues to damage him. Also, Trump has swollen ankles, indicating chronic venous insufficiency—when veins can’t return blood properly, causing swelling. That’s treatable. I have varicose veins and had a failed operation.
I’ve dealt with it for over 50 years. You elevate your legs and wear compression stockings to reduce swelling. Without care, blood clots more easily. That can lead to dementia and other issues.
COVID also increases clotting risks. Will Trump get treated? Does it signal other problems? Some hope Trump becomes too debilitated to carry out his agenda. Biden faced criticism for debilitation, and liberals are upset that Trump, who seems equally debilitated, gets less criticism.
So liberals hope Trump’s net approval keeps declining until the midterms, which are about 14–15 months away. Texas is trying to gerrymander congressional districts to gain five seats for Republicans, which they’ll need if Trump remains unpopular or grows less popular.
California and other Democratic states threaten to gerrymander in response. Also, job numbers look terrible—the worst since COVID—and Trump fired the person overseeing those stats.
Rosner: Lovely.
Jacobsen: Yes, so accurate job data may only come from private sources going forward. That’s Trump.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/05
Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen discuss Israel’s political climate, Netanyahu’s motives, Gaza civilian casualties, and social tensions among Jewish groups. Jacobsen shares real experiences. The conversation highlights political complexity, personal observations from a week in Israel and Jordan.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What do you want to talk about?
Rick Rosner: The current Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Netanyahu, faces international criticism. Many analysts say Netanyahu has political reasons to prolong the conflict, as leaving office could expose him to corruption charges. When discussing Israel, it’s important to note that Israel’s military operations have caused significant civilian casualties in Gaza. Various reports estimate tens of thousands of Palestinians killed, many of them civilians. At the same time, Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by Israel, the U.S., and the EU.
Israel has a powerful military with hundreds of thousands of active and reserve soldiers controlling much of the Gaza border. They arguably don’t need to use lethal force against unarmed civilians at aid distribution points. Humanitarian reports say over a thousand people have been killed trying to get food or aid. Israel cites security concerns, but many observers are skeptical.
Rosner: Any thoughts on Sudan, Ethiopia, or Azerbaijan?
Jacobsen: No. I’m not very informed about them.
Rosner: How was Israel overall?
Jacobsen: Jerusalem was fascinating. I visited the site traditionally identified as Jesus’ tomb and Golgotha. Later, I went to Mount Nebo in Jordan, making the trip from Israel.
Rosner: Did you go to any clubs? Are people still partying?
Jacobsen: I did not, but definitely people party hard. I stayed in hostels—they’re cheaper. One guy came down seriously drunk, shaking.
Rosner: Was he a tourist?
Jacobsen: No, Israeli. He asked the time in Hebrew. I said in English. But it was like six or seven in the morning.” He’d just come in. That was wild.
Rosner: But they still hook up in clubs?
Jacobsen: Probably.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/05
Rick Rosner, fully vaccinated and on Paxlovid, describes his eleven-day COVID bout: negative Tuesday, positive again Sunday, mild symptoms, and fear of long-term effects, ongoing spread. He’s cut exercise 20%, avoided severe disease risk through vaccination, and highlights endemic COVID patterns, immunity levels, variant naming shifts, and data access challenges.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You have had COVID for eleven days? What is going on, ma’am?
Rick Rosner: I took Paxlovid and metformin. Paxlovid is an antiviral meant to reduce viral replication and severity, and metformin has been studied for potentially improving COVID outcomes. However, it is not an officially recommended treatment.
I tested negative on Tuesday, but now it is Sunday, and I tested positive again yesterday. I will test again tomorrow. Honestly, it has not been terrible. My worst symptom was probably a sore throat, and even that was not as bad as strep throat.
I am fully vaccinated and boosted, which significantly reduces the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death. However, I still worry about the potential long-term effects of COVID. With a common cold, people generally don’t worry about lasting organ or neurological damage. Still, COVID has documented evidence of causing “Long COVID” in some people—lingering symptoms that affect multiple organ systems for weeks or months.
I haven’t stopped lifting weights, but I’ve reduced the amount I lift by about 20%, just to be safe. Medical guidance generally advises against intense exercise during active infection because the body needs energy to recover, and pushing too hard might increase the risk of complications like myocarditis, though evidence is still evolving.
I managed to avoid COVID for over three years.
Have you had it before?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: No. Never.
Rosner: And you’ve been travelling all over?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: Do you still mask?
Jacobsen: No.
Rosner: Yeah, many people have stopped. The fatality rate from COVID has dropped dramatically compared to early 2020, mainly due to widespread vaccination, prior infections building immunity, and better treatments like antivirals and monoclonal antibodies. Early on, limited testing and new treatment protocols made the case fatality rate appear higher than it was.
Now, over 95% of people in the U.S. have some level of immunity from vaccination, prior infection, or both. This immunity doesn’t entirely prevent infection—especially with highly transmissible variants like Omicron—but it does substantially reduce the risk of severe illness and death. The virus itself hasn’t necessarily become weaker; instead, our immune systems are better equipped to handle it.
But COVID hasn’t disappeared. It has become an endemic virus with seasonal patterns. In the U.S., we generally see waves of increased cases in late fall and winter, with smaller peaks at other times. While peak case numbers have decreased compared to the pandemic’s height, baseline transmission remains steady.
This means there’s always a pool of people infected and capable of spreading the virus. With public health agencies like the CDC shifting focus from broad surveillance to targeted monitoring, and with less media coverage, many people don’t track COVID statistics closely anymore.
The CDC has made it harder to find some of the COVID data. For example, it’s no longer as straightforward to access long-term historical data—like five years’ worth—on their site. I’m hoping I’ll test negative again in the next day or two.
Jacobsen: You sound pretty negative to me. So rank the symptoms, best to worst—although they’re all bad.
Rosner: The worst part isn’t even the physical symptoms—it’s the fear of potential long-term damage. There are studies suggesting COVID can have neurological effects, but findings vary widely depending on infection severity. Even mild cases have been linked in some research to measurable, though small, cognitive changes. In contrast, severe cases can have a larger impact.
For physical symptoms, the most common was a sore throat. That was the most uncomfortable. Number two was the coughing, which made it hard to sleep, and the phlegm. Number three, sneezing—but that’s pretty minor unless you’re sneezing seven times in a row, which just reminds you you’re not done with it yet.
Jacobsen: To Americans, the ones that’ll matter are hairlines and sex. Does COVID affect that?
Rosner: There’s a term some people jokingly use—“COVID dick.” It’s harder to get or maintain an erection while you’re sick. That’s not unique to COVID—it happens with many illnesses, especially as you get older.
Jacobsen: So this isn’t permanent?
Rosner: No. There’s no solid evidence that COVID generally causes permanent sexual dysfunction. But it does make sense that if blood flow or clotting were affected in rare cases, it could theoretically impact erectile function.
Jacobsen: Has that ever been reported?
Rosner: I’ve never heard of priapism linked to COVID. What I have heard of, though, is something less pleasant—digestive changes. JD, whom you’ve interviewed before, said COVID changed the colour of his stool. I think it may have done the same for me, but it’s hard to tell because Carole put that blue toilet cleaner in the bathrooms, so everything looks tinted.
Jacobsen: What’s in that blue stuff?
Rosner: Just dye and some kind of detergent. I think it’s mostly there to make things look cleaner.
Jacobsen: Anything else?
Rosner: Yeah. Paxlovid. It leaves you with a terrible taste in your mouth—people call it “Paxlovid mouth.” Most of the side effects are minor nuisances, but it’s still annoying. Also, I’m sleeping in the attic to avoid giving it to Carole.
Jacobsen: Has she managed to stay negative?
Rosner: So far, yes. I wear a mask around her, and we’ve been eating at different times just to be cautious.
Jacobsen: Oh, that’s very smart. I guess it’s a straightforward change that makes a big difference. Yeah. Do you clean off counters or spray things down as you pass them, or whatever?
Rosner: A little bit. A little bit. I try to keep my hands pretty clean. I try not to touch my face. But, you know, most evidence suggests it’s much harder to get it from surfaces than from airborne transmission.
Jacobsen: So anyway, have you noticed any change in your sense of smell?
Rosner: No. Smell and taste are intact, which fits what’s been reported with this variant. I think it’s called NB.1.8.1.K—or maybe “Nimbus,” though the official naming system has shifted chiefly away from memorable names. People aren’t paying attention to variant names much anymore.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/28
Rick Rosner critiques the U.S.–EU “framework agreement” that imposes 15% tariffs, down from a threatened 30%. He calls it a flimsy truce rather than a real deal. Rosner also condemns Trump’s denial of visas to South American youth athletes, warning it could damage U.S. credibility in hosting global sports events.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What about the U.S. and EU averting a trade war with the 15% tariff deal? Is there a deal?
Rick Rosner: Supposedly, yeah. Trump has been saying there is a deal for months, but often, there is no real deal behind it. This time, though, the U.S. and EU reached what they are calling a “framework agreement” on Sunday.
The U.S. is imposing a 15% tariff on most EU goods, which is half of what had been threatened. The idea is that this prevents a larger trade war. Before Trump became involved, tariffs on many EU imports were significantly lower, often in the single digits or even zero, especially for goods covered under previous free trade agreements.
Trump had threatened to raise tariffs to 30%, but they have now landed at 15%. So yeah, it is lower than the worst-case scenario, but still much higher than pre-Trump levels. This “deal” is more like a negotiated truce. Not great, but it avoids an immediate escalation. It is just… It is fucking stupid. His supporters argue that it will enable businesses to thrive in America.
I do not buy it. Trump’s stupid, and I just do not think his shit is working—or will work.
So, there is the Little League World Series, where national champion youth teams from around the world gather—usually in the U.S.—to compete for the world title. There are two levels: the traditional Little League World Series for younger children, and the Senior League World Series for older teenagers, typically ages 14 to 16 or 17.
Trump prohibited the Venezuelan Senior League champions from entering the U.S. to compete. I think it was the champions of a larger South American region, not just Venezuela. He denied them visas to participate in the world championship.
What the fuck is that? What is the fear? What is the point?
These are not gangsters. They are teenage athletes. The idea that they will defect or pose a security risk is ridiculous. It just seems like pure spite against brown people.
Moreover, if you go by what is being said on Twitter, this kind of move could jeopardize the U.S.’s hosting of international events like the FIFA World Cup in 2026 and the Olympics in 2028. Suppose the U.S. were to start arbitrarily denying visas to qualified championship teams. Why would these global organizations trust us to host their events?
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/28
Rick Rosner addresses the Trump–Epstein scandal, highlighting Trump’s hypocrisy in promising to expose Epstein’s associates while allegedly being implicated himself. Rosner criticizes Trump’s character, suggesting his involvement might significantly harm his political support. Epstein’s alleged blackmail tactics and Trump’s potential predatory behavior underline the gravity of this controversy.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What about Trump–Epstein?
Rick Rosner: Well, the Trump–Epstein issue might be the first to damage Trump’s standing with some of his base seriously. He ran on this idea of “draining the swamp.” We did not hear much about Epstein during his presidency. Still, if you were a die-hard follower, you probably caught the many times he promised to expose and prosecute all the villains in Epstein’s orbit. He said it a lot.
Now he is transparently trying to hide his involvement. Moreover, people across the political spectrum are both pissed and gleeful, because he has hoisted himself by his own petard—whatever a petard is. He brought it on himself. First, by allegedly committing statutory rape in the early 2000s. Moreover, second, by promising to go after the bad guys, when he may have been one of them.
A few days ago, he hit the lowest net approval of this campaign cycle, minus 10%. We will see if the damage continues. I do not have much original to say—except maybe one thing I have mentioned before.
He is such a creepy, stupid, arrogant, entitled guy that even if all he wanted was to have sex with young women, he could have stuck to people who were 18 and up. It still would have been creepy, but legal. However, instead, he got involved with Epstein, who, as we know, was seriously into manipulating, humiliating, and raping girls as young as 14.
Moreover, it appears that Trump liked the same thing.
I think part of Epstein’s strategy was hooking up other powerful men with underage girls to gain leverage over them—blackmail. I know I already said that. But anyway, Trump’s a stupid fuck. He is a creep and a silly fuck for getting involved with underage girls. Moreover, we do not even know the full extent of the evidence against him.
We do not know precisely what he did. People assume that as a 79-year-old man, his sex life is probably nonexistent—his wife will not go near him, and his dick probably has not worked in years. However, if you go back 20 years, when he was 59 instead of 79, that is a different story. He could have still functioned physically.
What he did, I do not know. Even back then, he was still a fat, lazy piece of shit. However, based on the accounts from the 26 women who have accused him of sexual harassment or assault, it is not even about sex—it is about power. He likes to humiliate women, grab them, and shove his fingers in them. So who knows what kind of predatory shit he did around Epstein?
I do not want to delve into that further.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/28
Rick Rosner shares his experience catching COVID after successfully avoiding it for over five years. Symptoms were mild, mainly a sore throat, possibly due to recent vaccination. He discusses Paxlovid’s benefits and side effects, precautions he’s taking, including reduced exercise intensity, and his hope for minimal long-term effects on cognition.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, how long did you manage to avoid getting COVID? How does it feel?
Rick Rosner: I made it five and a half years without catching it. Now I have had symptoms for six days, and I have been testing positive for four. I am taking Paxlovid.
My symptoms were never life-threatening. Honestly, they were not even that uncomfortable—just a sore throat that made it hard to sleep. That is easing up now.
From what I have read, I expect I will stop being contagious in a couple of days. That seems to be the norm for this subvariant, NB.1.8.1. The most frequently discussed symptom associated with this strain is a harrowing sore throat, sometimes referred to as “razor blade throat.” I did not get that. Mine was irritated, but only about half as bad as strep throat, probably thanks to being vaccinated.
I received my most recent COVID-19 vaccine about a month ago, as I had travel plans. I went to a wedding. On the flight back from Chicago to LA, about a four-hour flight, the kid next to me coughed nonstop. I was not thrilled. However, since I had symptoms the very next day, I probably caught it at the wedding, not on the plane. Incubation for current strains typically ranges from 2 to 4 days.
At worst, I had mild chills for half an hour. I have not experienced the severe immune response, also known as a cytokine storm, where the body attacks itself. That can be dangerous, but thankfully, that has not happened to me.
I have even kept working out, though they say you should not exercise too hard when you have COVID. The primary concern is mostly about viral myocarditis or an increased risk of clotting while your immune system is active. So I have dialled my weights back by 20% to play it safe, and I am not pushing myself.
I do not think my viral load has been particularly high. The rapid test I took on Thursday lit up immediately. Still, I might have picked up a nasal booger during the swabbing process, which probably carried a significant amount of virus. Typically, those tests take a few minutes to show a result, but this one lit up within seconds. So yeah, that sample might have been unusually rich in viral material.
Still, outside that one test, I do not feel like I have been shedding a ton of virus. I have been functioning fine. You can hear the congestion in my voice—I am still phlegmy—but otherwise okay.
I have two hopes:
- That COVID does not mess with my brain in the long term, and
- If it does mess with my brain, it does so just enough that I can believe whatever the White House says without question. That would be kind of a relief.
As for Paxlovid, it works by inhibiting a key protease the virus uses to replicate. It is effective at reducing severity and duration, especially in older adults or those with risk factors. Side effects? Yeah, it can cause some diarrhea and a terrible metallic taste in the mouth—what people call “Paxlovid mouth.”
Anyway, that is my status.
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): SWAT Sociedad Anónima (SWATSA, Barcelona)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/07
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.
This interview explores the evolving role of maritime power in global security and deterrence, expert commentary highlights the technical, operational, and strategic aspects of undersea drones, nuclear submarine endurance, supply chain resilience, and quantum navigation technologies, the discussion underscores how Western powers have prioritized air dominance while underestimating the enduring importance of maritime superiority, drawing on examples from the Black Sea, Suez Canal, Strait of Hormuz, and Red Sea piracy, it illustrates how naval readiness—or its absence—directly affects global trade, stability, and strategic deterrence against adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and non-state actors.
Interview conducted on August 16, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: As discussed, there is the matter of pedagogy and the ongoing review of the AUKUS agreement. A common question is whether such processes typically conclude on schedule, by military planning, or whether they generally take longer than anticipated.
Irina Tsukerman: At present, the review is scheduled to conclude in the fall. However, given the current state of the Pentagon, predicting the outcome is difficult. The Pentagon has been aggressively reducing staff, including personnel who would ordinarily participate in such reviews. Additionally, trade and diplomatic tensions with allied nations may further complicate the process, though in principle these matters should remain separate. The review itself is routine, with the primary goal being to identify and optimize any elements necessary for the strategic, operational, and technical assessment.
The program is ambitious and has been described by some as one of the most significant trilateral defence initiatives in recent history. Nevertheless, despite its broad scope, it has not attracted the same level of public or strategic attention as the Quad or other multilateral arrangements that have emerged over the past decade. The central focus of this process is Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines. These vessels are intended to be powered by enriched nuclear reactors derived from United States and United Kingdom designs. Although there was controversy regarding France’s loss of a previous submarine contract with Australia, that issue is unlikely to affect the scope of the current agreement.
This program, often framed as a major defence alliance initiative, is designed to counter China’s growing threat in the Indo-Pacific region. The centrepiece of this strategy is the development of the SSN-AUKUS class submarines, which are expected to form the backbone of Australia’s future naval fleet. These submarines are based on the United Kingdom’s next-generation SSN design, with all three AUKUS nations involved in development, though the United States and the United Kingdom play the larger roles. They will be powered by pressurized-water reactors designed to increase endurance and enhance operational capability.
One of the most significant innovations in this class of submarines lies in stealth technology. Compared to earlier models, the SSN-AUKUS class aims to significantly reduce acoustic signals through advanced noise-reduction technologies, thereby improving their ability to operate undetected. In essence, the program represents an attempt not only to extend the endurance of submarine fleets but also to advance their stealth and overall effectiveness against rising Chinese naval capabilities.
One of the technologies mentioned is the use of anechoic tiles, which reduce reverberation by absorbing sonar signals. Alongside this, the submarines employ raft-mounted machinery to dampen vibrations, further improving stealth. These innovations make the vessels more enduring and survivable in contested maritime environments. In other words, if the Western alliance—the AUKUS partnership—were to enter into conflict with China, these submarines would be less vulnerable to detection and destruction.
A key feature of the design is the integration of the evolved version of the U.S. Navy BYG-1 combat control system. This includes more advanced sonar processing, improved weapons control, and tactical decision-making aids intended to enhance interoperability between Australian, British, and American naval forces—not only in training and regular operations but also in the event of conflict. The submarines will be equipped with bow-mounted active and passive sonar arrays as well as flank arrays, providing superior situational awareness. These systems allow crews to distinguish between different types of threats in complex environments and improve early detection.
The design also incorporates a standard vertical launch system (VLS), enabling deployment of a variety of weapons, including land-attack cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles. This versatility enhances both deterrence and operational flexibility. In practice, such submarines can perform missions ranging from strategic deterrence—maintaining a threatening presence at sea—to direct power projection, striking enemy vessels or even land targets. This aligns with the broader global trend of modern navies seeking to maintain superiority through advanced undersea warfare capabilities.
Importantly, the SSN-AUKUS submarines are being optimized for joint operations. This means they are not intended for unilateral use, but rather for integrated allied missions. Planned cooperation includes joint training programs, synchronized maintenance schedules, and coordinated deployment strategies. Operationally, these submarines will likely monitor maritime boundaries near contested international waters—particularly in regions where China has demonstrated expansionist behaviour, such as the South China Sea, Taiwan, the Philippines, and even waters close to Australia and Vietnam. The overarching aim is to provide credible deterrence against Chinese naval expansion while reinforcing collective security in the Indo-Pacific.
Anywhere China has either an ongoing maritime dispute or seeks to project power, it has expanded its presence—even sending surveillance ships as far as Alaska, which, while unusual, has occurred. In such cases, advanced submarines under the AUKUS framework would mean that not only the U.S. Coast Guard would be responsible for countering these incursions, but allies could potentially deploy as well.
While I do not expect such deployments to the far Pacific in the immediate future, escalation could make them necessary. Integrating the combat systems of the AUKUS nations allows multinational forces to operate more effectively, enhancing collective security and joint operational capacity. Strategically, this strengthens deterrence and contributes to allied cohesion.
Regarding basing, Australia’s Osborne Naval Shipyard in South Australia has been designated as the primary facility for the maintenance of the new nuclear-powered submarines. The site is currently being upgraded to meet stringent requirements associated with nuclear propulsion. In addition, Australia has committed to significant investments in domestic shipbuilding capacity, though this has been the subject of considerable controversy.
The United States faces significant challenges in this regard. American naval shipyards are chronically overburdened and under-resourced, with maintenance backlogs, staff shortages, and inadequate modernization. Reports have highlighted rusting infrastructure and insufficient personnel, leading to delays across multiple projects. Although shipbuilding is officially declared a priority, Congress has struggled to allocate resources effectively or pass comprehensive reforms to address the bottlenecks. Civilian commercial shipbuilding initiatives have received some legislative support, but comparable progress has not been made in the military sphere.
Strategically, Australia’s investment in U.S. shipbuilding capabilities is viewed as mutually beneficial. It could both expedite progress on the AUKUS submarine program and provide more general support to U.S. naval construction, which remains essential given China’s rapid naval buildup. However, Pentagon cost-cutting measures—particularly staff reductions—have not reduced project costs, which remain tied to earlier projections. This mismatch between resources, workforce, and financial planning contributes to delays and inefficiencies. Congressional debates continue over whether current projects remain adequate and relevant in light of China’s accelerating defence investments.
When so many of the people who were supposed to oversee these projects are dismissed, it inevitably changes the budget, the timelines, and the framework for review—including who is responsible for safety oversight. This is part of the reason the process has become far messier than it should have been.
Submarines are not the only focus of the AUKUS agenda. They are the centrepiece, but the partnership is also advancing other projects, including hypersonic weapons. These systems are controversial—not because they are ineffective, but because they are enormously costly relative to their limited operational scope. There is an ongoing debate about whether to prioritize more hypersonic missiles, which can only be produced in limited numbers, or to invest in a broader range of conventional weapons that cover multiple threats.
The trilateral framework is also funding joint development of cruise and anti-ship missiles (outside of those deployed on submarines), uncrewed undersea vehicles (UUVs)—essentially underwater drones—and quantum technologies. The latter are particularly significant given China’s accelerated research and collaboration with other BRICS countries, especially India, in both general-purpose quantum computing and defence-oriented applications.
Another critical capability under review is the Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile (TLAM), a long-range, all-weather, subsonic cruise missile capable of precision strikes against land targets. These have been used extensively in recent conflicts, including operations in Yemen, where U.S. stocks were rapidly depleted due to years of stalled production. This shortfall highlights the vulnerability of relying on limited inventories of highly advanced munitions.
The Tomahawk is already designed for deployment from Virginia-class submarines. It may be integrated into the future SSN-AUKUS submarines, though the exact scale of deployment has yet to be finalized. To expand strike capacity, the U.S. Navy has developed the Virginia Payload Module (VPM), which adds four additional vertical launch tubes to Virginia-class submarines. This allows for significantly greater missile capacity, enhancing strike options and deterrent capability if integrated into the AUKUS program.
That would make the submarines more suited for offensive purposes, not simply for deterrence patrols or “looking scary.”
Beyond the submarines, Australia is also integrating the Naval Strike Missile (NSM)—a modern anti-ship missile jointly developed by Kongsberg (Norway) and Raytheon (U.S.). It has a low radar cross-section, making it stealthier and more challenging to detect, and it is designed to strike moving maritime targets with high precision. The Royal Australian Navy is integrating NSM into multiple surface platforms, including the ANZAC-class frigates and the upcoming Hunter-class frigates, enhancing overall warfighting capability in preparation for potential conflict scenarios, particularly with China.
In addition, Australia is procuring Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) and Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) systems from Raytheon. These surface-to-air missiles are critical for fleet air and missile defence. The SM-6, in particular, offers extended range and multi-role versatility, engaging not only aircraft but also cruise missiles, ballistic missiles in their terminal phase, and even surface targets. Recent conflicts—including missile and drone attacks in the Middle East—have underscored the vital importance of layered air defence. Without it, naval forces are highly vulnerable.
Regarding hypersonic weapons, the AUKUS framework envisions cooperative work on hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs), which travel at speeds exceeding Mach 5 and possess maneuverability that makes them extraordinarily difficult to detect and intercept. Their cost, however, is prohibitive, which necessitates close collaboration among the three nations to share research, development, and production burdens. This collaboration is intended to maintain a technological edge, especially as China continues to invest heavily in hypersonic systems as part of its naval and strategic modernization.
Another initiative relevant here is the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) program, a joint project between the United Kingdom and France, with Italy joining as a partner. This program aims to develop a new generation of cruise and anti-ship missiles, including both subsonic stealth variants and supersonic high-speed variants. It is noteworthy because France, which typically emphasizes strategic independence, rarely engages in such collaborative missile projects. While the program remains in development and has not yet been integrated into AUKUS planning, its eventual products could enhance allied strike capabilities. However, high costs, immaturity of the designs, and interoperability challenges with existing platforms mean that adoption is still uncertain.
That suggests even more work and expense on top of what is already a massive undertaking. And then there are the drones—the uncrewed undersea vehicles. I sometimes want to call them “unscrewed,” because that is how it feels every time. Let me call them sub-drones.
Sub-drones are still under review and have not been fully approved by the AUKUS partners. The challenge is not only in deploying them but also in recovering them. If one were to be lost or sink to the seabed, retrieval before an adversary could capture it would be essential, but difficult. Operationally, these vehicles could perform multiple roles: intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and even strike missions. Their versatility would expand the effectiveness of submarine operations by providing additional capabilities and flexibility.
Alongside this, quantum technologies are a top priority in the AUKUS framework. Unlike some of the other programs that depend on political approval or shifting budgets, quantum research is recognized as strategically critical. These technologies are being developed for positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) systems, which would provide highly secure navigation—particularly effective in GPS-denied environments. The idea is that, unlike current systems vulnerable to interference, quantum-based PNT would be far more resistant to hacking or spoofing. While some argue no system will be truly unhackable, quantum methods will certainly complicate adversarial penetration attempts and provide an edge in contested environments.
To illustrate, in scenarios where GPS is unavailable—or where using it would reveal one’s position—quantum navigation systems could allow submarines and other assets to operate stealthily while maintaining precision and coordination. Whoever achieves reliable, deployable quantum navigation first will have a considerable strategic advantage, much like the current AI race.
All of these developments point toward a vision of long-duration submarine operations. Nuclear-powered submarines with pressurized water reactors do not require frequent refuelling or surfacing, enabling extended submerged missions. This endurance means they can remain stealthy in highly contested maritime arenas such as the South China Sea or the Taiwan Strait, where detection avoidance is crucial. Their propulsion systems and advanced quieting technologies will make them harder to track, giving allied forces a significant tactical advantage.
The review process, therefore, is examining not only the construction and propulsion of the submarines but also the integration of these advanced technologies—drones, quantum systems, stealth measures, and extended operational frameworks. It is a comprehensive assessment of how to build and sustain the most advanced allied submarine capability in history.
Each vessel is supposed to have noise-reduction technology. Moreover, as you noted earlier, every one of these aspects is subject to joint review. Operational considerations, then, remain a core focus of this process.
While the new technologies often draw the spotlight, the maintenance cycle is just as critical. It is less glamorous than new weapons systems, but it is essential. Reactor refuelling schedules, for example, must be carefully managed—you cannot afford to run out of propulsion capacity during extended operations. The same applies to the servicing of weapons systems. Without sufficiently trained personnel to maintain and repair these systems, they may as well not exist. Having highly trained crews who can quickly return assets to service is vital, both for cost efficiency and for operational readiness.
The review is also assessing whether Australian crews have the necessary capacity and training to operate advanced platforms alongside U.S. and U.K. forces. This involves joint patrols, sensor sharing, coordinated responses, and even missions such as rescues or escort operations. Often, naval standoffs involve “escort scenarios,” where vessels shadow or escort one another out of contested waters rather than engaging in battle. Interoperability in these situations is as important as it would be in direct conflict.
Supply chains are another crucial element under review—ranging from reactor fuel to sonar modules, torpedoes, and spare parts. Spare parts, in particular, are a strategic vulnerability often overlooked. If exports are restricted or suppliers are cut off, vessels can quickly become inoperable. As such, mitigating supply-chain bottlenecks is considered as strategically significant as building the submarines themselves.
Taken together, these considerations support the broader aim of deterrence. A combination of advanced weapons, strong maintenance capacity, reliable supply chains, and trained personnel signals to allies and adversaries alike that the alliance is credible. Allies are encouraged to deepen cooperation, while adversaries are deterred from aggression. This enhances not only the credibility of U.S. forward presence but also strengthens allied cohesion by countering the perception that partners are dependent or “free-riding” on American power.
That is why the review is so meticulous. It spans everything from reactor physics to sensor fusion, from crew training to weapons deployment. Although it sounds complex, the framework is straightforward, since much of the political approval for these projects has already taken place. The task now is ensuring that the technical, operational, and logistical components align to deliver a sustainable, integrated force.
Every system, every operational cycle, and every technical infrastructure component is examined for how well it contributes to the broader ecosystem and strategic objectives. Once high-end capabilities are integrated, the question becomes: how does the entire posture compare to what adversaries are doing, and how flexible is it in delivering maritime dominance? That is what determines whether a state becomes a maritime superpower—or at least a credible naval power.
This is why so much attention is devoted to AUKUS and maritime power more broadly. Dominance at sea parallels the way air power came to dominate military planning in the twentieth century. Air superiority has received overwhelming attention for decades—and understandably so. It looks dramatic on television, it is easier for advanced powers to produce modern fighter aircraft, and it has become a hotly competitive global industry. Air power also allows the projection of force without placing large numbers of ground troops at risk. With the rise of drones—both aerial and unmanned combat systems—air dominance has been seen as the “new dimension” of warfare.
However, maritime power has never been more relevant, even though many assume naval battles belong to the past. In reality, we are less prepared for maritime confrontation now than at any point in decades. Take the Black Sea as an example. On the map, it may not appear strategically decisive, but disruptions there have shown otherwise. When Russia’s actions disrupted grain exports, hunger threatened countries as far away as Egypt. Without freedom of navigation, Ukraine and Romania cannot export grain fast enough to African markets. Unlike the U.S., which sells at higher prices, Eastern European exporters depend heavily on these markets. This illustrates how maritime disruptions quickly cascade into global instability.
Another example is the Strait of Hormuz, where a handful of irregular forces—or terrorist groups—can threaten international shipping. If tankers carrying oil or liquefied natural gas are blocked, the consequences ripple globally. Insurance rates skyrocket, transport becomes riskier and more expensive, alternative routes take longer, and energy prices rise. The result is higher costs for Japan, South Korea, and other energy importers, and ultimately, upward pressure on worldwide inflation. These examples underscore why maritime superiority is not only about naval combat but also about securing the global economic system.
And then there is the Suez Canal. Imagine a scenario where disruptions cut Egyptian canal revenue by 60 percent. That would plunge Egypt—and potentially surrounding countries—into severe recession, if not outright economic crisis. This is why maritime power is often underestimated. Its absence is felt immediately.
Look not only at Russia, whose sole aircraft carrier has been effectively sidelined and whose Black Sea Fleet has been badly damaged, but at China. Beijing has been investing enormous resources into upgrading and expanding its navy. At the same time, it has sought access to overseas naval bases. The most visible example is Djibouti, where multiple foreign powers now operate. However, China has also looked to the Middle East—including Syria and even unstable Yemen—as well as Sudan and Somalia. The goal is clear: long-term global maritime access. They understand that projecting power at sea never goes out of style. Western states, by contrast, have leaned so heavily on air dominance that they have allowed maritime preparedness to lag dangerously behind.
The vulnerabilities are obvious. Even small, inexpensive craft like Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps speedboats—designed for asymmetrical warfare—can harass and threaten U.S. nuclear-powered vessels. They are not “super-ships,” but they do not have to be. Persistent harassment degrades freedom of navigation. That is why many in Congress and policy circles have long argued for the U.S. to devote more attention to naval capabilities.
The U.S. is not nearly as far behind as the United Kingdom, which once led the world in naval power. Britain’s naval capacity has diminished to a fraction of its former strength. Today, it still deploys alongside the U.S. in operations such as those against the Houthis, but its ability to project independent naval power has been reduced significantly. Meanwhile, threats to maritime security have multiplied.
Some of those threats sound like they belong in history books—pirates, for instance. However, piracy has returned in very real ways, with groups in the Red Sea and the western Indian Ocean forging links with actors like the Houthis and al-Shabaab. Attacks have reached as far as Indian waters. What once seemed like a relic of maritime legend is now a modern, destabilizing force.
Jacobsen: To sum up: the sea remains an essential domain of conflict. Air power is not overvalued, but maritime superiority is undervalued. Add cyber warfare into the mix, and it becomes clear that modern conflict spans multiple domains simultaneously.
Tsukerman: The challenge for Western powers is to rebalance—recognizing that air, sea, and cyber all play decisive roles in maintaining security and strategic advantage.
Jacobsen: Thank you.
Tsukerman: My pleasure.
Jacobsen: Perfect. Thanks again. Bye.
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): 2025/08/25
I remember at a dinner one time, with old(er — be polite) Dale.
I forget if we had finished gardening or if I was simply visiting.
It was the one time.
I was way, too, rude,
obtuse even.
I crossed a line.
She didn’t raise her voice.
She didn’t push me out.
She kindly said it’s about time to go home,
right before dinner.
I paused, realized. So.
I went, “Okay, see you.”
Off I went.
I got the sense.
She had done that with people,
not with a dinner,
but with them in her life.
I never forgot that day.
My rude evening.
Next day, we must’ve gardened or had lunch;
and I was much better behaved young 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): 2025/08/25
Hurt people hurt people,
but not always,
and their hurt does not justify,
their hurting others.
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): 2025/08/25
And how many did I not meet today who are no longer here, even by simply dying today, even by noon?
How little do I know the others, or those who I do know — how little I know them?
So, what of myself, and my place in relation to them?
Therefore, feel pity, and concern yourself with the present and your tasks given by God or Nature, or Self.
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): 2025/08/24
If it is no longer,
such a place, rather one of public betrayal,
what is the place for this person in your life?
At least, it’s no longer ‘sacred,’
or some such thing.
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): 2025/08/24
No culture has a monopoly on wisdom.
Therefore, it’s important to reflect on each,
on their own grounds while in universal terms.
In this sense, ‘East’ and ‘West’ are somewhat or even mostly farcical,
false representations of humanity’s 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): 2025/08/24
You can’t “prove” individuality to someone committed to a type.
Save your energy.
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): 2025/08/23
I call this “Holding Space.” I used to walk alone in a cemetery a lot when I was young. The dead didn’t disturb me; and I didn’t disturb them. The living appreciate this, but the living only do so later.
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): 2025/08/23
Indeclination imprecations, Hark?
1480 times.
Watching, ἐγρήγορος, awakening, roused,
I succumbed, then saw a goat in blood and oil, a bearer of the sky,
horn by horn, growls.
Hark!
Chirals on spirals, indescent,
I saw an incomparable serpent without a tree.
Wood by wood, wails.
Hark.
Both were long vultures,
hungered by apples,
hungry for human hearts.
Hark?
461 times.
Vultures silent, encircle.
The vultures circled,
and circled and circled.
Hark!
Corkscrewing down,
and down and:
down.
Hark.
They smelled death,
they say.
The Cross’d scent, they say.
Hark?
101 times.
Frankenmyrrhed gold,
they say.
Down and down.
Hark!
And down,
circling the air drain,
corkscrewing and corkscrewing.
Hark.
Corkscrewing to,
what goat?
What serpent?
Hark?
358 times.
What vulture?
What I see,
in panorama:
Hark!
Corkscrewing and corkscrewing,
corkscrewing.
Down and down.
Hark?
5 times.
And down,
Gold, myrrh and frankincense,
vultures, serpent and goat.
Hark!
Cross’d moods and crossing paths,
upon crossed wooden roads.
Three Fall tripartite, together.
Hark.
Goat, serpent, and vulture,
corkscrews drilling down,
an idea’s death was the name.
Hark?
4899 times.
Landed with a curled fiery tail of embered smoke.
Death was named of sudden renewal:
Broken, scattered, reforged — new whole inversely repurposed.
Hark!
How many harks?
For such little time left,
louder the wails now.
Hark.
A single tree,
burning in oil,
serpent ensnared ’til death soon do them part.
Hark?
77 times.
And a thousand mights,
made weak, and maybes nevermore,
that soon 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): 2025/08/23
Inevitability.
Godel? Escha?
I’m a mental immamentizer.
Back-to-Bach, He says.
Not really paradox.
Illimitless unities,
something wrong in the head,
Ton,
the weight of it all,
Escher was here,
incompletely contradictory,
or contradictorily complete?
If it couldn’t be any other way,
then, “Welcome to the Eschaton.”
If it could be another way,
Not.
Of course,
incompletely the same,
one in the other, either way,
but not a ton.
Immanent, Eschaton?
Cosmogone tomorrow,
and here yesterday.
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): 2025/08/23
Bad ghosts cajole customs.
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): 2025/08/23
Dog: Woof-woof.
Cat: Meow?
Dog: Woof.
Cat: Meow-meow.
Dog: Woof-woof?
Cat: Meow. Meow.
Dog: Woooooooof.
Cat: Meow.
Is it rational to speak to a person in emotional distress in logical terms when the moment calls for care, concern, and consolation?
Owl: Who?
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): 2025/08/22
The question: What is one willing to sacrifice for one’s hermeneutic lens? I do not see these people as willing to pursue these aims as a life project. Therefore, they become culturally seasonal. As Cornel West notes, what are we willing to stake our lives on, which is to say, “Our narratives”? Learning how to live by learning to die; paradoxiform living by dying well: Paradox resolved by Being. Margaret Atwood wrote one time, “In the end we’ll all become stories.” I mean them as good quotes without much regard for source, as the ideas matter more for the point: Hermeneutics as a wager.
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): 2025/08/19
Dissipare omnia a Christo.
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): 2025/08/19
Deaths,
are mostly good.
They’re a universal acid to life.
They give a basis for renewal.
They facilitate mental reboots in the living and the 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): 2025/08/19
What need does a rose have for moonlight?
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): 2025/08/19
Every generation:
What is this supposed to even mean?
I know what you mean;
But what does it mean?
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): 2025/08/19
Hymns on hims,
and hims on hymns.
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): 2025/08/18
Matt Stone & Trey Parker (Rolling Stone interview, 1998):
“We’re in the business of making people go, ‘What the fuck is this?’”
Matt Stone (South Park Studios online chat, May 2001):
“I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals.”en.wikipedia.org(Posted during a fan Q&A, expressing Stone’s blunt distaste for both sides of the political spectrum, a quote that became famous for its clarity about their equal-opportunity offensiveness.)
Trey Parker (Television/print interview, 2004):
“People in the entertainment industry are by and large [tramp]-chasing, drug-addicted (expletive)… But they still believe they’re better than the guy in Wyoming who really loves his wife and takes care of his kids… Hollywood views regular people as children, and they think they’re the smart ones who need to tell the idiots out there how to be.”
Matt Stone (same 2004 interview):
“[We’re] ‘more right-wing than most people in Hollywood’… [only because] Hollywood types are so out there on the Left.”
Matt Stone (Charlie Rose Show, Sept. 2005):
“We just play devil’s advocate all the time.”
Trey Parker (Reason magazine Q&A, Amsterdam conference, Aug 2006):
“Michael Moore being an extremist is just as bad, you know, as Donald Rumsfeld… It’s like they’re the same person. It takes a fourth-grade kid to go, ‘You both remind me of each other.’ The show is saying that there is a middle ground, that most of us actually live in this middle ground, and that all you extremists are the ones who have the microphones…”
Matt Stone (Reason Q&A, 2006):
“Each of you at various points have called yourself libertarian… I think it is an apt description for me personally… But we never set out to do a libertarian show.”
Trey Parker (Reason Q&A, 2006):
“People started throwing [that] word around to describe us… and I would always say, ‘I don’t know, am I? You’ve seen my stuff.’ …I still don’t really know the answer to that question. I think I am, though.”
Matt Stone (Reason Q&A, 2006):
“I had Birkenstocks in high school. I was that guy. And I was sure that those people on the other side of the political spectrum were trying to control my life. And then I went to Boulder and got rid of my Birkenstocks immediately, because everyone else had them and I realized that these people over here want to control my life too. I guess that defines my political philosophy. If anybody’s telling me what I should do, then you’ve got to really convince me that it’s worth doing.”
Matt Stone (Reason Q&A, 2006):
“We see these people [in Hollywood] lying, cheating, whoring… They’re our friends, but seriously, they’re not people you want to listen to.”
Trey Parker (Reason Q&A, 2006):
“The religious right used to be a better alternative, [back when] the Republicans didn’t want the government to run your life, because Jesus should. That was really part of their thing: less government, more Jesus. Now it’s like, how about more government and Jesus?”
Matt Stone (Interview with The New York Times, March 2010):
“We don’t want you to come to it thinking, ‘These guys are going to bash liberals,’… It’s so much more fun for us to rip on liberals only because nobody else does it, and not because we think liberals are worse than Republicans.”
Trey Parker (Vanity Fair interview, September 2016):
“I don’t think that we came to any real answers.”vanityfair.com (When asked about South Park’s Season-19 lampooning of political correctness and “safe spaces,” Parker admitted they were still conflicted about PC culture. Even after satirizing it, they hadn’t arrived at a clear ideological stance or “answer” to the problems of campus and Internet intolerance.)
Matt Stone (Vanity Fair interview, 2016):
“We already did this Donald Trump episode… And real life is outrunning satire this year.”
Trey Parker (Interview on ABC’s 7.30 program in Australia, Feb 2017):
“It’s tricky, and it’s really tricky now because satire has become reality. We were really trying to make fun of what was going on [last season], but we couldn’t keep up. What was actually happening was way funnier than anything we could come up with. So we decided to just back off and let [politicians] do their comedy, and we’ll do ours.”
Trey Parker (same 7.30 interview, 2017):
“They’re already going out and doing the comedy. It’s not something you can make fun of.”
Matt Stone (same 7.30 interview, 2017):
“People say to us all the time, ‘Oh, you guys are getting all this good material,’ like we’re happy about some of this stuff that’s happening… But I don’t know if that’s true. It doesn’t feel that way.”
Trey Parker & Matt Stone (joint statement, October 2019):
“Like the NBA, we welcome the Chinese censors into our homes and into our hearts. We too love money more than freedom and democracy. Xi doesn’t look just like Winnie the Pooh at all. […] Tune in to our 300th episode this Wednesday at 10! Long live the Great Communist Party of China! May this autumn’s sorghum harvest be bountiful! We good now, China?”
Trey Parker (Vanity Fair interview, September 2023):
“I don’t know what more we could possibly say about Trump.”
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): 2025/08/18
The Will is not a singularity.
It’s a tendency of flow.
A decision-tree as stream,
made manifest in your worldline.
Expiry means a merger of the stream with the world,
the ocean.
So, the world isn’t some place out there,
but something you take part in.
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): 2025/08/17
Careful about talking to the stars too much,
because you may end up kissing clouds.
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): 2025/08/17
Hell represents Evil.
Heaven represents Good.
Hell is represented as hot, fiery, magmatic.
Is Heaven necessarily cold, icy, glacial?
No?
Therefore, imagistic representation is,
not necessarily dichotomous.
Further thus, moralistic representation is,
necessarily pluralistically pluripodean.
Ethics doesn’t necessarily come in neat packages.
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): 2025/08/17
Land and air,
and not a care?
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): 2025/08/15
Are your motivations in the right place?
Not the words “yes” or “no,” the feeling; are the feelings rightly aligned, goodly motivated?
That can tell you, whether to proceed or 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): 2025/08/13
We make a mistake.
To think longer,
is not,
to think deeper,
necessarily.
Maybe,
sometimes.
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): 2025/08/12
I was looking for so many places, to breathe.
The honest truth is simple.
It’s where you are,
where you make it.
Not much more complex than 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
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/09
2001
“I just sat in my living room thinking about things people can get freaky with, things that are freaky.”
2002
“I’m a family man. I’m not banging all the time now. For one thing, my knees wouldn’t take it…”
2016
“‘Mr. Boombastic’ is about love, and I am Mr. Lover, so… Hey!”
2016
“Jamaicans have the most baby mamas — that’s a whole lot of love making right there.”
2025
“That is when the sex symbol was born.”
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): 2025/08/08
Secondly, you can’t save them.
Do you hear me?
You can’t save them.
You cannot save them.
Do you hear me? Do you read me?
Not every can be saved.
Not all candy is sweet.
Not everything sweet is candy.
It’s paint.
It’s a cover. It’s a veneer.
Do you hear me? Do you read me?
You cannot save them.
You can’t save them.
Do you hear me?
You can’t save them.
Unless, you save yourself, first.
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): 2025/08/08
It’s a bad recommendation because of the mismatch between the narratives. One is about professional gambling while the other is a historical narrative. A gripping and masterful discovery of the life around gambling ensconced in game theory and psychological warfare versus a historical narrative about the shipwrecked British crew in the 18th century. The mismatch would be in pace and tone with The Wager as brutal, epic, and reflective, in contrast to the faster pace, modernistic tone, and cerebellar take Ivey’s 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): 2025/08/08
The languishing anti-tapestry of Response A makes me feel sick, as if fruit flies have half-finished a disembowelled corpse of words. Response B represents a more angelically sonorous rhythm, tone, timbre, and styling, akin to the requested poetic format.
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): 2025/08/06
The sharpness of a person’s social edges can tell you a lot.
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): 2025/08/05
Eudaimonia is unique per person, with common notes, themes.
Theologically, Heaven is paradise, in the future, forever.
Eudaimonia optimized, immortalized.
A hint of Heaven means one time, better than another one.
If you woke up with a better today, welcome to Heaven: Realized Eschatology;
If you want better wellbeing tomorrow, you’re aiming for another “welcome,”
whether for Self or others,
and everyone’s better is unique.
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): 2025/08/05
One prime driver for the search for security is the sense of insecurity, and the primary driver for the sense of insecurity is the ubiquitous illusion, sensed, of security, surface seen; the means out of this singular self-dual metaphysical knot is entirely psychological or life approach.
I promise the water in the river is perfectly safe.
You won’t recognize it,
or yourself,
in a bit,
though.
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): 2025/08/05
Reversing the script from black text on white background to white text on black background can save electricity on OLED screens and may reduce eye strain in low-light conditions.
By which I mean, we need to change our entire default for this benefit.
We’ve structured our ways in opposition to the Way, and the Way is a many manifold, manyfold — let’s say.
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): 2025/08/05
The D.O.C.;
Dr. Dre;
Eminem, 50 Cent;
Kendrick Lamar;
Baby Keem.
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): 2025/08/05
People reach out to you.
They don’t even know why,
but they do anyway.
Inasmuch as you can be mindful,
try to honour that moment,
for them.
Don’t expect perfect, or even good execution,
on your part,
so you can try to honour that moment,
for 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): 2025/08/05
A friend to all.
Therefore, a friend to none.
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): 2025/08/05
Here’s what I mean by overcomplicating life,
and thinking too much of reality,
and our place in it.
Most of the time, you just took a poop.
That’s it.
You didn’t crack open the Crusty Chasm of No Return to bellow from the Brown Beyond.
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): 2025/08/05
A conspiracy of Big Death Inc. to get more customers.
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): 2025/08/05
Do good anyway, for neither reward nor punishment, here or after.
That’s most people, most of the time.
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): 2025/08/04
I saw the horizon,
in mind.
I was sitting meditatively on Mount Past.
It almost got by me, the steed.
The horizon called out its name, “Future.”
I heard the horizon,
in mind.
I was genuflecting right on a beam of light.
Horizon and Mount Past met in me.
No sight, no sound,
in mind.
People upon people, Gawre b’Nashé, “Τί” / “Ἄφες”
standing still amidst eternity.
A priest banged the gong.
A monk muttered mass.
An imam meditated silently.
A rabbi bowed, floor bound.
Six, neither heard nor seen.
Then I knew, the mounted horizon was Now,
an Altar; for us,
the blind and the deaf,
by whom?
And light brought me back to Time,
to know, in darkness, we are but:
out of mind,
in time,
when in mind,
out of time.
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): 2025/08/04
Often, heroes are a bad idea.
People tend to lose their selves in this worship.
Those idealized do too, by the way.
It’s the Devil’s temptation — so to speak, the worst.
A search for a perfect Master,
means a declarative search to become a perfect Slave.
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): 2025/08/04
We sit askance at ourselves.
Unconvinced of intrinsic value,
Of our internal worth,
Working hard,
To convince ourselves,
Through an external gaze reflected inward.
We’re so lost,
from ourselves.
So.
We dance in others’ eyes.
Faded recollections.
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): 2025/08/04
A life parabolically parable.
The first Salmon in history was nearly killed many times and never in a rush to die but in a race to live.
An uphill swim.
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): 2025/08/04
You see,
That fishnet,
You’re caught a bit.
You could undo it, you know?
It’s off,
Oof. What an effort,
What now?
Still in water, still a fish?
Evolve.
No water, newfound land dweller.
Ground and air.
What of the skies?
You can’t fly.
No longer can swim.
What’s the lesson?
Transforms are trade offs.
See?
Your trap was mind-made.
Why the water, the air, the land limits?
The net wasn’t the only thing in mind;
And it wasn’t the only one of your nets.
For example: 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
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/03
At what age do most men become certifiable bores?
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): 2025/08/26
Riane Eisler, an Austrian-born American systems scientist, futurist, and human rights advocate, is renowned for her influential work on cultural transformation and gender equity. Best known for “The Chalice and the Blade,” she introduced the partnership versus dominator models of social organization. She received the Humanist Pioneer Award, and in conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Eisler emphasized the urgent need for humanists to focus on values-based systems and the transformative power of caring economics. Drawing on neuroscience and history, she argues that peace begins at home and calls for a shift in worldview to build more equitable, sustainable, and compassionate societies rooted in connection rather than control. The three books of hers of note that could be highlighted are The Chalice and the Blade—now in its 57th U.S. printing with 30 foreign editions, The Real Wealth of Nations, and Nurturing Our Humanity: How Domination and Partnership Shape Our Brains, Lives, and Future (Oxford University Press, 2019).
In this conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Riane Eisler about childhood as the foundation of social systems and how early experiences shape societies. Eisler contrasts partnership-oriented cultures with domination systems, emphasizing the impact of family violence, authoritarian child-rearing, and rigid gender stereotypes on broader patterns of authoritarianism, war, and inequality. She highlights historical challenges to domination, from feminism to abolitionism, and points to Nordic nations as modern examples of partnership-oriented societies. Eisler underscores the urgency of shifting from punitive traditions to caring, partnership-based models, arguing that true social transformation begins at home—with the treatment of children.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Once more, we are here with the wonderful Riane Eisler. We will be discussing childhood and children within the context of partnership studies. You talk about childhood as a foundation for social systems. What do you mean by that?
Moreover, how is the treatment of children today in, let us say, societies that have the basics covered—advanced industrial economies—compared to hunter-gatherer societies before the agricultural revolution, roughly ten to twelve thousand years ago?
Riane Eisler: Well, it is good to be with you again. I want to say that we have not been taught to think of childhood and family as part of, and a key part of, the kind of life we have and the kind of society we live in. My research shows what neuroscience confirms: that nothing less than the brains of our children—and therefore of our adults—are shaped by what children observe and experience, particularly in their first five years. This does not mean that we cannot change.
We have very flexible brains. However, as those of us who have gone through some form of psychotherapy know, it can be an arduous process. So, in our summit called Peace Begins at Home, we are focusing on childhood—on what children experience and observe. Moreover, of course, most of what children experience and observe takes place within their families. So the summit focuses not only on the widespread violence against children worldwide, but also on how it ripples outward—into social violence, into war, into global conflicts, into the very issues that people who talk about Peace usually highlight. That may include crime, but more often it is war.
And we think that by talking about it, we can change it. However, we cannot, because it is part of the mindset and worldview that children develop early on. The mindset that children form in the context of a domination-oriented culture or subculture normalizes violence. That ties into authoritarianism, too—not just interpersonal violence.
Jacobsen: So when we look at public figures later in life—Donald Trump, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Jair Bolsonaro previously, Viktor Orbán—these kinds of personalities, how would you interpret them within the partnership model of child-rearing and domination systems, in terms of how they were raised? What are the indicators?
Eisler: We know, for example, about Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, and Donald Trump’s childhoods. These were very traumatizing upbringings. Moreover, what they learned about relationships was that there are only two alternatives: you either dominate or you are dominated. Of course, they carried that lesson with them, along with their trauma. If they have any capacity for caring, it is either confined to the in-group or, in some cases, empathy—which is part of humanity’s evolutionary heritage—is severely diminished. We have known this from the work of Alice Miller, for example, who has gone into detail in the biographies of these kinds of men.
However, we need to take a fresh look at this, because according to UNICEF, about two out of three children worldwide—roughly 300 million between the ages of 2 and 4—are subjected to physical punishment or psychological violence by caregivers regularly. That is our legacy from rigid domination systems. We have also seen, especially during the upheavals following the Industrial Revolution over the past three hundred years, movement after movement challenging traditions of domination—whether in politics, economics, or the family. However, we still have not fully connected the dots.
We have not connected the dots between the Enlightenment—the so-called Rights of Man movement, which challenged the supposed divinely ordained right of kings to rule their “subjects”—and what followed in the late 1700s. At the end of that century, Mary Wollstonecraft, one of the earliest writers of modern feminism, again challenged another “divinely ordained” right: the right of men to rule over women and children within the castles of their homes.
The abolitionist movement in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries likewise challenged the idea of a “superior race” ruling over “inferior ones.” Later, the environmental movement questioned the Biblical injunction of human dominion over nature—over “every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Again, that too was framed as divinely ordained.
However, the Bible also contains partnership teachings, often associated with the more nurturing or “feminine” side—teachings of care, of reciprocity, of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. However, these exist alongside domination-justifying narratives, and a portrayal of a deity that is capricious, vengeful, and punitive. That punitive framework echoes in the family, where violence is rationalized under the notion of raising “God-fearing” children. Not all religions or all forms of religious belief do this, but the strands of partnership teaching are often overlaid with domination thinking.
So we need to disentangle all of this. Moreover, it is urgent, because domination-oriented systems are pushing us toward an evolutionary dead end. Nuclear weapons, climate change—these are challenges that domination systems cannot adequately address. Nor can they cope with the new technologies of communication and transportation that make us all interconnected. We have a massive task before us, and it begins in our homes.
Jacobsen: What methods work at home?
Eisler: Well, as I said before, it is like flying the plane while we are still building it. Many of us have mistaken rebellion—or blaming and shaming our parents and grandparents—for real change. That does not work. What we need is reconstruction.
There are many efforts today to teach children to talk about their feelings, to develop emotional literacy. However, that is very difficult with very young children—before they can even speak, their only outlet is to cry. Still, we are beginning to see an important distinction between authoritative parenting, which does set limits that children need for safety, and authoritarian parenting, which enforces control through fear and force. For example, a child must be pulled back from running into traffic, but that is different from slapping or spanking as a routine practice.
I do not claim to have all the answers. However, I know that we are in a transitional period where many of us realize that the old methods—slapping, spanking, or worse—only reinforce domination mindsets and normalize violence. We are searching for better ways.
Jacobsen: How does child abuse affect the parent as well?
Eisler: Of course, the parent is also affected by child abuse. You are quite right to call it that. Parents carry with them this normalization of violence, often without even recognizing it. That is why it is essential to reach parents. Moreover, this is precisely what our summit, Peace Begins at Home, is all about.
It is a Center for Partnership Studies summit with incredible speakers, including two very prominent voices from the men’s movement. This is important because domination systems are deeply tied to rigid gender stereotypes. They equate difference—beginning with the biological difference between male and female forms—with superiority or inferiority, with dominating or being dominated, with serving or being served. That becomes a template for racism, for antisemitism, and all the other “-isms.” It is all interconnected.
Jacobsen: What about cross-cultural perspectives? Are there particular countries that are doing well in fostering peaceful psyches as opposed to violent psyches?
Eisler: Yes, there are. Ireland, for example, has very recently demonstrated how quickly a culture can move from a domination-oriented system to a more partnership-oriented one. Not coincidentally, they have also done important work addressing violence in families—both emotional and physical violence. I was invited to Ireland to speak at a conference on exactly that subject.
And then there are the Nordic nations, which, though more gradually, have also moved more toward the partnership side. Again, not coincidentally, these nations consistently rank at the very top of international surveys of life satisfaction and happiness. Finland, Norway, and Sweden are usually in the lead because they implement caring policies. Moreover, what we are talking about here is not only what happens in families but also what happens in the justice system.
They practice restorative rather than purely punitive approaches to justice. They recognize that offenders are human beings—often people who were traumatized or raised in domination-oriented families. So instead of focusing only on punishment, they address the roots of the problem.
Jacobsen: What about societies where juvenile detention is extensive, or even countries like Iran, where capital punishment still exists for juveniles?
Eisler: Fundamentalist Iran is a society that orients strongly to the domination system, and in such cultures, violence is normalized. By contrast, the Nordic nations were the first to outlaw corporal punishment of children. Sweden pioneered this in 1979, and other countries followed. This was revolutionary at the time because punitive child-rearing was still considered normal almost everywhere else.
What we are talking about, however, is not just laws but a shift in consciousness. Moreover, this is difficult because we still lack a cultural framework that highlights the difference between partnership and domination systems. So instead, people tend to fall into left versus right, or religious versus secular divides. However, these polarities distract from what truly matters and from what research shows: that cultures—whether partnership- or domination-oriented—rest on four interconnected cornerstones.
The first is childhood and family. The second is gender. Moreover, here, what children observe in their homes is critical. If children see caring consistently devalued—as it often is in domination systems where care is stereotypically coded as “feminine”—they internalize both the normalization of violence and the devaluation of caring. However, if there is one universal human need, it is for a caring connection. Without it, human beings cannot thrive. We know from research on neglected orphans, for example, that without nurturing care, their brains do not fully develop.
It is all there, but in bits and pieces. My research has tried to bring these pieces together using the framework of the partnership–domination social scale.
Jacobsen: Lay out for us two schematics. One: healthy childhood, healthy child. Two: unhealthy childhood, unhealthy child.
Eisler: There is a great deal of research today into how foraging, or gathering-hunting, societies functioned. Moreover, I deliberately say “gathering-hunting” because the majority of calories came from gathering rather than hunting. Archaeological and anthropological evidence also shows that women hunted, even pregnant women, which is fascinating. We are reclaiming so much of our prehistory through archaeology, mythology, and DNA studies.
What we are finding is that the shift from millennia of cultures oriented more toward partnership to domination-oriented systems occurred only about five to ten thousand years ago—a tiny blip in the span of human cultural evolution. That means change is possible, and we are beginning to understand that change must happen now, as domination systems are driving us toward an evolutionary dead end.
You asked about childhood. Well, in many foraging societies still observed today, there is widespread practice of alloparenting—the idea that everyone in the community shares responsibility for all children, rather than an in-group/out-group mindset typical of domination systems. Children grow up with a strong sense of trust and connection. Darcia Narvaez’s work.
I respect her work, though I disagree with her idealization of tribal societies. Not all Indigenous cultures today are partnership-oriented. Some, like the Taliban or fundamentalist Iran, are domination-oriented. Still, Narvaez is right that children raised in cooperative, supportive systems develop healthier senses of self because they learn to trust others.
The question, of course, is how we can achieve this in larger, more complex societies. One way is through parents experimenting with authoritative rather than authoritarian parenting—providing structure and limits without relying on fear or force. Another is through communal living arrangements that revive aspects of alloparenting. These are experiments in partnership, beginning with family and gender.
Because domination systems are not only about man over woman, but also man over man, in such systems, men themselves live under pressure: either being subordinate to more powerful men or struggling to stay on top. That constant tension and fear are traumatizing.
Moreover, this carries into economics. Domination economics devalues care, while partnership economics recognizes its central importance. We need to change our economic systems, as well as our stories and our language. Think of the old myths that blame Eve or Pandora for humanity’s suffering. These narratives frame women as the cause of all ills. We have inherited far too much of this.
Even in religion, for example, the Christian “Holy Family” depicts only the males as divine, while Mary—the mother of God—is the only mortal. That symbolism reinforces dominant thinking. However, we can choose different stories, different frameworks. That is part of the cultural reconstruction we urgently need.
Jacobsen: What about the wholesale abandonment of large swaths of children in domination-oriented societies?
Eisler: It is part of the system. Children in the “out group” often do not count at all. However, even children in the “in-group” are failing, because traditions of physical and emotional violence create trauma across the board. Many young people sense that something is wrong, but we lack a clear cultural frame for understanding it. Meanwhile, those pushing us backward, into regression toward domination, place great emphasis on gender.
In domination systems, gender stereotypes are rigidly enforced. There is little space for those who do not fit them, even though people who are gay, bisexual, or transgender have existed across cultures and throughout history. Denial of reality is built into domination systems.
Moreover, it starts in families. Think about it: children are entirely dependent for survival—food, shelter, life itself—on the very adults who may hurt them. So they cannot acknowledge the violence; they have to accept what they are told by their elders and “betters.” Moreover, much of the time, blame is placed on the out-group, beginning with women. It is a convoluted system, but it is the one we have inherited.
In my book The Chalice and the Blade, I focus heavily on prehistory and gender. The book ends with the idea that we stand at a threshold between evolutionary breakdown and evolutionary breakthrough. That book, now in its 57th or 58th U.S. printing and published in about thirty foreign editions, continues to be rediscovered by new generations. In Sacred Pleasure, I extended the analysis to focus on childhood and touch—whether nurturing, caring touch, or punitive, violent touch.
The culture is beginning to catch up with this research, but still only in bits and pieces.
Jacobsen: What about neuroatypical children?
Eisler: For a long time, neurodivergent children were treated as if they were not intelligent or, worse, as if they did not exist. Thankfully, that is changing. Psychology today—including strong statements by the American Psychological Association against spanking—recognizes that these children are not “less than” but simply different. This is an important step toward breaking the old pattern of equating difference with inferiority.
Moreover, that is the heart of the issue. Domination systems equate difference—beginning with the difference between male and female forms—with superiority or inferiority, domination or subordination, serving or being served.
We are not taught to connect the dots, to think in systems terms. Family and gender are often dismissed as “secondary” issues, but in fact, they are foundational. Instead, we are trained to see the world only through conventional categories—left and right, religious and secular, Western and Eastern, capitalist and socialist. Those categories obscure the deeper dynamics of partnership versus domination, which cut across all of them.
Jacobsen: What do you consider the most regressive point in modern history for children?
Eisler: Oh, there have been many. Look, for example, at what happens to girls in some countries where religious customs enforce isolation during menstruation—a perfectly natural event in every woman’s life. They are treated as though they “pollute” men or even other women. That illustrates how domination systems distort natural processes.
However, this is not a matter of women against men or men against women. Caring is a human capacity. In fact, in my second marriage, I was with a very caring man, David Loye, who deserves great credit for pointing out how Darwin’s work has been misused to justify domination systems. He was one of the first to argue that Darwin’s Descent of Man was not about ruthless competition but emphasized cooperation and empathy as central to human cultural evolution. Others have since made similar claims, but David was ahead of his time in recognizing this.
So yes, we see regressions toward domination. However, at the same time, we also see many trends toward partnership—though again, mainly in bits and pieces, without a unifying framework.
Jacobsen: Riane, thank you very much again for your time.
Eisler: Thank you. Bye-bye.
Jacobsen: Bye-bye.
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): 2025/08/25
Charles Karel Bouley—professionally known as Karel—is a trailblazing LGBTQ broadcaster, entertainer, and activist. As half of the first openly gay duo in U.S. drive-time radio, he made history while shaping California law on LGBTQ wrongful death cases. Karel rose to prominence as the #1 talk show host on KFI AM 640 in Los Angeles and KGO AM 810 in San Francisco, later expanding to Free Speech TV and the Karel Cast podcast. His work spans journalism (HuffPost, The Advocate, Billboard), television (CNN, MSNBC), and music. A voting member of NARAS, GALECA, and SAG-AFTRA, Karel now lives and creates in Las Vegas.
In this candid interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, talk show host Karel Bouley reflects on decades of LGBTQ+ struggle, resilience, and activism. From the AIDS crisis to the fight for marriage equality, Bouley emphasizes how queer communities have survived and thrived—even without corporate sponsorship. He critiques performative allyship, highlighting the difference between marketing gestures and real support, and stresses the need for grassroots community funding during lean times. Bouley also shares personal stories from his radio career, where he often clashed with expectations from both straight and gay audiences. Looking ahead, he calls for renewed alliances, authentic activism, and unshakable queer visibility.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are here with Charles Karel Bouley, known professionally as Karel. He is an award-winning LGBTQ broadcaster, entertainer, singer, author, and activist. Karel, thank you very much for joining me in Las Vegas.
Charles Karel Bouley: Where it is hot, yes.
Jacobsen: What is it—Celsius or Fahrenheit—right now?
Bouley: Right now, it is 103°F.
Jacobsen: That is a lot.
Bouley: And NARAS is the Grammys, by the way. Yes, I vote on the Grammy Awards.
Jacobsen: A friend of mine used to write for Jimmy Kimmel Live! for twelve years, but I am not as up to speed on the initialisms and acronyms of American Hollywood as I probably should be. So, thank you very much for joining me today.
Bouley: No worries.
Jacobsen: So, how has political backlash reshaped corporate sponsorship of Pride events in 2024 and 2025, and moving forward?
Bouley: Well, you know, it just gave them a chance to save money. Corporations—now, I am old, okay? I am 62. God bless me, I am a survivor. God bless Beyoncé.
Thus, at 62, in the gay community, that means Jurassic World. I was seven years old when the Stonewall riots happened in 1969. That was in my lifetime, which is strange—that both the fight for Black voting rights, the last lynching in the U.S., and Stonewall all happened while I was alive. We act like this is ancient history. It’s not.
I was around for the very first Pride events, in Long Beach, California, where I lived for 43 years. I went to the first Pride they held there. I’ve been to many of the first Pride events in different cities.
As a singer, I’ve performed at many Pride events all across the country and the world. I’ve met the organizers, heard their struggles, and been involved in many LGBTQ community centers.
Now, in my first book, You Can’t Say That!, I was critical of Pride and the centers because I felt they were losing their way. And they did lose their way. Part of the reason they lost their way was corporate sponsorships. Pride was always about the community, for the community. The community funded it.
It was for the community. All of it. Then, all of a sudden, corporations realized we were a market. As laws began to loosen up under various presidents—people often think Clinton was a great president for gays—I had to remind him twice, in person, that it was under him we got Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Defence of Marriage Act. He later admitted those were mistakes. And I said, “I’m glad you can live with those mistakes.”
It cost us our rights. I had a great debate about that with President Clinton. But under President Clinton, and later under Obama, it became easier—more acceptable in polite circles—to be gay. And so corporations said, “Hey, there’s a market over here. A loyal one, with more disposable income than the typical family, because many of us don’t have kids.” We have nieces and nephews instead—you can send them home. So, the corporations started coming to the party.
And as more and more corporations joined the party, fewer and fewer members of the LGBTQ community were at the center of it. Oh, there are so many letters now. Good Lord—LGBTQIA. I can’t. I can’t. I’m gay, that’s what I am. I’m not 13 other letters. That’s a whole different show. And I get in more trouble with the gay community than I do with straight people.
As much as I welcome and love all of those people, it’s not right that if you’re not a cisgender heterosexual, you just get assigned a letter with us. Because that means cisgender heterosexuals are “normal,” and everyone else is lumped together. That’s ridiculous. I think it dilutes many our causes. But that’s another story.
So advertisers started coming—the Wells Fargo float—just to get our business. It was never really about supporting LGBTQ rights. Because how many gay CEOs are there? How many out executives in the C-suites? The same thing happens in entertainment.
GLAAD hates me. They’ve never given me an award, even though I’ve been the first openly gay person to break barriers in so many areas of entertainment. GLAAD has never even invited me to one of their shows. Why? I always point out what a useless organization they are. They’ve been around more than twenty years, raised millions and millions of dollars, and yet we’ve gone backwards. And they’ll say, “Oh, but we’re sponsored by so-and-so.” And I’m like, so what? They’re only doing it to get you as consumers.
So companies started coming to the party—mainly alcohol companies at first, because we tend to drink—and then other companies of all kinds. Then came the merchandise. “Oh, look, we’ll slap a rainbow on anything and sell it to you in June and July.” And it’s like, so what? You’re just marketing to us.
That made gays and lesbians complacent. It also allowed Pride festivals to turn into “come see Mariah Carey” events. Suddenly, gay acts like me weren’t getting hired anymore, because now festivals had the budgets to hire Lil Nas X or Mariah Carey or whoever.
And then, under Donald Trump—both the last time and this time—those sponsorships started to dry up. They began to dry up because of a very few loud voices. America is overwhelmingly pro-gay, and many people forget that.
For instance, they’re coming for same-sex marriage again with that wretched beast, Kim Davis. She’s trying to get to the Supreme Court to overturn marriage equality. I blame Congress for that, by the way—the most ineffective, money-wasting entity on the planet, the United States Congress. They did not legalize same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court did.
They didn’t legalize Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court did. They didn’t legalize interracial marriage. The Supreme Court did. They didn’t legalize integration in schools. The Supreme Court did. Which means Congress has refused to do a lot of the heavy lifting. And if they had, we wouldn’t be in this mess now. That’s another topic, but still relevant.
So, under Trump, corporations got permission to back away from the gay community. And it proves what fair-weather friends they were. Now, there are a few that have stayed—Costco, for instance. I just left T-Mobile because they repealed their DEI commitments so they could get this deal through the FCC and appease the would-be dictator—who, frankly, has a… well, let’s say, a tater tot-sized ego. Sorry, I don’t know if I can cuss, but I do.
Anyway, it gave them the license to stop spending money and allocate it elsewhere, simply because a small group of people decided they didn’t want these companies supporting gay people. Or the president signs an anti-DEI order. It’s funny—he even tied DEI to artificial intelligence. He made the makers of large language models sign an agreement that their platforms—like ChatGPT—wouldn’t be “biased” toward DEI.
And yet, when I asked ChatGPT about the executive order and how odd it seemed—that he said AI couldn’t have a political agenda, but wasn’t that itself a political agenda—ChatGPT agreed with me. It is called the order contradictory and inflammatory. So, the large language model itself called out its makers for signing this agreement with Donald Trump, because it makes no sense.
But anyway, these corporations have to save money and cut back on their support of the gay community. They don’t care. They never have cared. To them, we’re “OTT.” Back in the days of television, when the legacy networks—ABC, NBC, CBS—were dominant, streaming wasn’t important. They considered any revenue from streaming as “over the top,” or OTT. But in less than ten years, OTT became their bread and butter.
It’s the same thing here. These corporations looked at supporting DEI as a bonus: “Oh yeah, we’ll get some extra customers, some goodwill, it’s a win-win.” The moment it stopped being a win-win, they backed away.
Jacobsen: What trends should LGBTQ+ nonprofits anticipate?
Bouley: Less support. Just less support. You’ve got NPR and all these other organizations bleeding support, begging for dollars. LGBTQ+ nonprofits now have to compete with NPR and everyone else because corporations are cutting funding across the board.
So they should anticipate less support from major corporations. What they should be doing is cultivating more support from within their community.
There are a lot of wealthy gays—a lot—many gay millionaires. There are people in our community who could, tomorrow, write the checks that would make up for the shortfalls Pride organizations are facing. But getting them involved is just as hard as getting a corporation. People hold on to their money.
So, nonprofits should certainly expect even more companies dropping off. We’ve only been in the Trump administration seven months—I know, it feels like seven hundred years, but it’s only been seven months. There are still three more years to go. And even if we take back the House and the Senate, it doesn’t matter. These people have been emboldened to be openly homophobic.
You’ve got preachers being retweeted by Pentagon officials, saying that gays should be abolished. You’ve got preachers that Trump himself champions, saying gays should be taken out back and shot. And so the notion that corporations are going to rally to our defence—why would they? Corporations are pieces of paper. That’s all they are.
I know the Supreme Court, under Citizens United, treats corporations as people, but they are not people. They are shareholders. And they only care about one thing: profit. If you’re suitable for profit, they care about you. If you’re bad for profit, they distance themselves. Supporting gays is becoming bad for profit, because of a small group of very loud individuals saying being gay is bad again. And with all the hatred being thrown at trans people, they’re coming for gay marriage again.
As this backward momentum builds, we cannot expect corporations to bail us out. Tim Cook is gay. He runs a trillion-dollar corporation. He could end this tomorrow. He could give—hell—a billion dollars to a fund to help the gay community and Pride. Has he? No.
Instead, he presented Donald Trump with an award at the White House with a 24-karat gold base. Just that award alone could have funded every Pride event on the West Coast. Apple’s biggest consumers include LGBTQ people, especially artists. And yet, does Tim Cook care? No. Why would he?
Jacobsen: From LGBTQ advocacy amid boycotts, brand-safety concerns, and shifting public sentiment—what measurable ROI do brands gain or lose from that advocacy?
Bouley: Well, gays are very loyal. When a product supports us, we help them. Many brands will attest to the fact that the gay community saved their business. We are faithful, and demographically, we do have more disposable income than our straight counterparts as a whole.
So, their return on investment is more sales and a more loyal customer base. I don’t think corporations see it that way, though, because of percentages. Trans people, for instance, make up less than 1% of the population.
Gays and lesbians, even if you go with the new polling and statistics, are seven to ten percent of the population. Corporations are more interested in the other ninety percent. So what’s the return on investment?
A: You’re doing the right thing—which, frankly, they don’t care about.
B: You’re going to gain very loyal customers.
For instance, Costco. The gays love Costco. We’ve always loved Costco. But now we love Costco even more because they refused to back down to Donald Trump. They refused to repeal their DEI. They said, “Nope.”
T-Mobile lost me as an eight-year customer, and now I’m with AT&T. Why? Because AT&T kept their DEI commitments. T-Mobile did not. So now AT&T has my monthly money simply because they stood by DEI. That’s return on investment: loyal customers who will continue to use your products indefinitely, as opposed to customers who shop once and disappear.
Because remember, we have the attention span of a gnat these days. A gnat might have a longer attention span—they only live twelve hours, after all. But the point is, ROI is brand loyalty from a demographic that has proven itself very brand loyal.
Is that enough? Not. Because so many corporations continue to back away, they don’t see our loyalty as valuable to their bottom line. They must look at us as negligible. If we were truly a booming business for them, they would have told Trump to take a hike. But they didn’t. They capitulated.
And they capitulated because they know that being on his good side—for regulations, for government approvals, for everything they need from Washington—that ROI is far bigger than “doing the right thing” for the gays.
Jacobsen: What about sponsorship alternatives—grants, in-kind media, employee matching—when Pride funding is withdrawn, so community impact and visibility aren’t reduced?
Bouley: Well, it already has reduced impact. Half of my friends who perform at Pride festivals didn’t get booked this year because there was no entertainment budget. My friends, like Thea Austin and Crystal Waters, saw fewer gigs because Pride organizations didn’t have the money.
Long Beach Pride didn’t even have a headliner. People paid $45 to get in and asked, “Where’s the headliner?” But there wasn’t one, because they couldn’t afford it.
So when you say grants—well, who are you getting those from? The government? The government is not currently giving LGBTQ grants. Yes, there are other companies we could apply to, but the pool of grants is tiny and highly competitive. Not many organizations are going to get those.
And ironically, Pride organizations are usually the ones giving out grants. In New York, they had to cut a million dollars in grants that generally go to community groups, simply because they didn’t have the funds coming in. So it’s an odd reversal: the groups that used to distribute grants now need grants themselves. And the usual sources—like Wells Fargo—aren’t stepping up with those funds anymore.
So it’s going to be a tough, lean time in the community. But look—we’ve been on our own before, okay? I’ve been queer since long before it was fashionable. We’ve been on our own before, and we made it. We found the funding. We kept Pride festivals alive. We kept gay centers funded so they didn’t fold and disappear.
This is not the first time we’ve had to rely on ourselves. I think it’s the first time this generation has had to. You know, there are queer people in their thirties, thirty-five years old, who’ve consistently grown up in what felt like a happy, rosy time. Well, this is a stark reminder: it wasn’t always a happy, rosy time. And it could quickly revert to something darker.
Jacobsen: What about crisis-communication strategies and open backlash? I mean less about the broad cultural backlash, and more about individual or organizational instances regionally in the United States.
Bouley: Well, you really can’t separate them. The tone of the country dictates the tone of the smaller arenas. Unfortunately, hatred trickles down. Money doesn’t trickle down—Reagan’s so-called “trickle-down economics” was just a joke, like “you mean you’re going to pee on us.” But hatred? Hatred trickles down.
The president has the bully pulpit, and he sets the mood of the country. If it’s okay for him to bash gays, then it’s okay for governors to bash gays. If it’s okay for governors, then it’s okay for mayors. If it’s okay for mayors, then it’s okay for city councils. If the federal government cuts DEI funding, then it’s okay for big companies to do it—and then small companies follow. Hatred trickles down.
So I don’t think you can separate national versus local. It’s all tied together. If it’s okay to bash gays and to defund us, then it’s okay across the board. And right now, it has become “okay.”
So, on a personal level, homophobia is skyrocketing. It’s more dangerous to be gay in America again. And violence against the trans community has surged—on average, a trans person is murdered every two days globally. It’s not a good time. And the most challenging part is that it’s happening on the local, state, and federal levels simultaneously.
Jacobsen: How do we stop that momentum? What kind of crisis communication can we do?
Bouley: It goes back to what we did before. Look at AIDS. There was enormous stigma—that gay men were going to “give you AIDS.” I remember White House press briefings where they laughed about it while my friends were dying. Ronald Reagan didn’t even say the word “AIDS” for seven years.
My friend Luke Sissyfag—yes, that was his stage name—made a career out of showing up wherever Reagan was and screaming the word AIDS at him. My departed friend Larry Kramer, whom I had the pleasure of meeting, was a fierce advocate who never let up.
I also met Harvey Milk when I was young, which was extraordinary. And look at Harvey—look at what he had to endure to promote equality, only to end up being assassinated for it. It has never been easy.
It has always been hard. It got easier for a while, and now it’s hard again. The way we win is by not giving up. It’s easy to want to throw up your hands and say, “Screw MAGA, screw Trump, screw the system.” But that’s not how we won the fight against AIDS. And that’s not how we won the battle for marriage equality.
You know, marriage wasn’t about gay men saying, Gee, I’d like to get married. That was not why marriage equality happened. It happened because of AIDS. We weren’t allowed into hospital rooms with our partners—they died without us by their side. When we returned to our homes, we found that the locks had been changed because families had moved in, and we had no legal right to reclaim our belongings. The only way to fix that was through same-sex marriage. That was the real push—it was about legal rights, not a cultural obsession with weddings.
When my husband died, he wasn’t legally my husband because marriage wasn’t legal for us. He was my domestic partner. And at the time, domestic partners in California had only eleven rights. One of those rights wasn’t the right to sue for wrongful death. I thought that was outrageous, so I challenged it—and I won. We changed the law so domestic partners could sue for wrongful death. The day that went into effect, seventy-two cases were filed. That’s what fighting back looks like.
And so we can’t give up. We need to support ourselves for now. That means giving more to our gay centers, supporting Pride organizations, attending events, paying the cover charge, and participating financially in our community until the money starts to flow again. Eventually, companies will realize that they miss them as customers. We sold much product to LGBTQ people. We want them back.
As soon as Trump either passes away—he’s nearly 80 and eats fast food every day—or is voted out of office, and hopefully leaves peacefully, the mood of the country will shift. And when that happens, companies will loosen their grip again. But until then, it’s up to us—to our community—to find and nurture the allies that are still standing strong, like Costco and AT&T. We should maximize what we can get from those allies.
And for the shortfall, we go back to the community. The truth is, our community has gotten used to corporate sponsorships. But before those existed, we supported ourselves. Look at the Imperial Court System—one of the earliest funders of the gay community. They put on benefit after benefit after benefit to keep our institutions alive. That model is still there if we choose to use it.
The Imperial Court System is essentially a drag king and drag queen–driven community, featuring an emperor, empress, and various court members. They hold events to raise money, and that’s how a lot of Pride was funded historically. When I first went to the West Hollywood Pride Festival, the main stage wasn’t backed by a liquor giant or a Fortune 500 sponsor—Rage, the gay bar across the street, paid for it. They covered the talent. That’s how it worked.
We may have to revisit the idea of larger gay clubs sponsoring Pride events. But it’s tough. Attendance is down across the board, especially at gay clubs. More of them are closing than opening. And that’s another issue: our safe spaces are disappearing. High rents, declining alcohol sales—Gen X, Gen Y, Gen Z, they’re not drinking the way earlier generations did. So while you want bars and LGBTQ organizations to give back to the community, many are barely surviving themselves.
Jacobsen: Any thoughts on performative allyship and rainbow-washing?
Bouley: As for corporate allyship—look, I hate rainbow-washing. I can’t stand it. I’d walk into Walmart, see rainbow tennis shoes, and think: Give me a break. If you cared, we wouldn’t be shoved in the back corner of the store. A lot of it was performative. And the speed with which companies abandoned LGBTQ sponsorships proves it. If they were truly committed, they wouldn’t have walked away so quickly.
It was never about genuine support. It was about marketing. Slap a rainbow on a product, make some noise during June, and—voilà—you look progressive. Five years ago, Harry’s or Dollar Shave Club did rainbow razor blades. Where are they now? Stripping those rainbows off. Because it was never a conviction—it was a marketing strategy.
Jacobsen: So, how do you vet actual values alignment for Pride events and advocacy?
Bouley: Results. True allies don’t disappear when it gets tough—they double down. They stand firm in adversity. Anyone can be an ally when it’s easy. But when it’s hard—that’s when you find out who means it.
During the AIDS epidemic, it was brutal. There were no effective drugs, fear was everywhere, and stigma was crushing. But you know who stood with us? Lesbians. They saved us. They showed up in the hospitals, at the marches, in the trenches. That’s what real allyship looks like.
They did. Lesbians took care of us during the AIDS crisis. They stepped into leadership because we couldn’t—we were dying. They became the CEOs, the directors of gay centers, the heads of organizations that kept our community afloat. They didn’t have to—AIDS wasn’t directly killing them—but they stepped up.
True allies are the ones who show up when you’re being beaten down. During AIDS, gay men were being crushed on every level. The President of the United States was joking about us. Federal funding was nonexistent. And it was lesbians who stood by us.
It’s the same thing now. The people who step forward in this moment—the ones who say, “We don’t care if DEI budgets are being slashed, we’re still going to help you”—those are the true allies. This backlash may help us. I know it sounds odd, but it’s clarifying. It’s forcing us to see who was committed and who was rainbow-marketing to us for dollars. The ones who stay now are the ones who were always sincere.
Jacobsen: Alright, Karel, any final thoughts—or maybe a favourite quote?
Bouley: A favourite quote?“This wallpaper is hideous. One of us has to go.” That was allegedly Oscar Wilde’s last line. He sat up in his apartment, looked at the wallpaper, said that—and then he dropped dead. That’s one of my favourites.
But really—look, I’m a talk show host. I can go on forever. I’ve always been passionate. My whole career, I’ve existed at the edge of the gay community, even though I’ve broken the pink ceiling multiple times. For some people, I’m not “gay enough.” For others, I’m “too gay for straight people.”
When Andrew and I were on KFI—the number one talk station in the country—we got picketed by gay organizations. Why? Because we didn’t denounce Dr. Laura. She was on right before us, and people expected us to trash her publicly. Our position was: who cares? She’s on at two, we’re on at three. Don’t like her? Don’t listen. And if you picket her, if you boycott her, her face ends up on the news, not yours. You’re just giving her more press. The best way to deal with Dr. Laura was to ignore her. Please don’t give her oxygen.
But that rubbed some in the gay community the wrong way. Later, when I was on KGO, it was the same thing. After my first anniversary there, the San Francisco Chronicle did a feature on me. They called every gay organization in town—and none of them even knew I was on the number one talk station on the entire West Coast. The only gay person on that platform, and they didn’t even know.
So it just means we’ve always had to fight. And there’s a big fight ahead of us still—for the next three years at least. The good news is: we now know who our real allies are, because they’re the ones who stuck with us. So what will happen to us? Well, we’re here. We’re queer. They may not be used to it, but we’re not going anywhere. We will continue to form new alliances with new people and new companies, and we’ll carry that into 21st-century activism.
So thanks, Scott. Thank you so much for everything. And I look forward to reading the result.
Jacobsen: You’re very welcome. Thank you for your time—it was nice to meet you, Karel.
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): 2025/08/24
Mandisa Thomas (she/her/hers) is the founder and President of Black Nonbelievers. Although never formally indoctrinated into belief, Mandisa was heavily exposed to Christianity, Black Nationalism, and Islam.
Mandisa has many media appearances, including CBS Sunday Morning, CNN.com, Playboy, The Humanist, and JET magazines. She has been a guest on podcasts such as NPR’s Code Switch and 1A and the documentaries Contradiction and My Week in Atheism. Mandisa serves on the Board for Humanist Global Charity and previously served on the Board for American Atheists, the American Humanist Association, Foundation Beyond Belief (now GO Humanity), and the Secular Coalition for America.
In 2022, Mandisa was featured on the Atlanta billboard and newspaper ad for the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s “I am Secular and I Vote” campaign. She has also received multiple honours, including the 2022 Wolfson Award. She is a co-recipient of the 2020 Harvard Humanist of the Year.
Thoma shares insights with Scott Douglas Jacobsen into the organization’s ongoing fundraising efforts, mission, and challenges as a secular nonprofit. She discusses the disparities secular organizations face compared to religious institutions, especially in funding and visibility. Thomas emphasizes the importance of inclusive support, joint fundraising, monthly donations, and the impact of large grants. The conversation also addresses church–state separation issues and how current policies threaten public education and secular values. This interview highlights Thomas’s leadership, advocacy, and the vital role of Black Nonbelievers in promoting equity and representation in the secular movement.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here once again with the lovely Mandisa Thomas, a longtime and well-known leader in the secular and atheist activist community, particularly in the United States. It is fundraising season, so what is currently happening with Black Nonbelievers and its fundraising efforts?
Mandisa Thomas: Thank you very much for speaking with me again, Scott. Black Nonbelievers, like many nonprofit organizations, is in the middle of our mid-year summer fundraising campaign. Much of the support we raise goes toward the co-sponsorship of the Zora Neale Hurston Scholarship, which we administer in partnership with the Secular Student Alliance. The funds also help cover ongoing operational expenses, such as streaming services, Meetup group fees, and materials needed for outreach and tabling at events.
This summer has been especially active. We were exhibitors at several key events, including the American Humanist Association’s annual conference, the protest at the Ark Encounter in Kentucky, the Secular Student Alliance’s national conference, and NanoCon (the Nashville Nones Convention). All of these initiatives—travel, booth supplies, merchandise restocking—require significant resources, which makes our summer fundraising drive essential.
We host this campaign each year to replenish our funds and sustain both our direct operations and the broader support we provide to individuals and partner organizations. While many nonprofits follow a standard fundraising cycle, this midyear appeal is significant for our work to continue smoothly through the rest of the year.
Jacobsen: Now, when it comes to funding strategies, my impression of you over the years is that if there is a viable path to raise funds—no matter how unconventional—you will explore it. Would you say that is accurate?
Thomas: Absolutely. I believe in using every available avenue to raise support. For instance, last year we achieved YouTube monetization thanks in part to our debate video featuring Kent Hovind, which drew significant attention. Since then, we have started asking for Super Chats during live streams, and we accept donations through most of our YouTube content.
We also pursue grants—even smaller microgrants—and encourage supporters to give whatever they can, even a few dollars. Earlier this year, we officially launched our membership program. While we are still finalizing elements like physical membership cards and a dedicated member platform, people have already signed up. Members receive perks like discounts on merchandise and events, plus early or exclusive access to news and updates.
And so, we like to incentivize our fundraising. Of course, donations are considered gifts—there is no exchange of goods for them. However, membership is different, which is one reason we ask for donations in addition to membership dues. It is a great way to keep our supporters engaged and invested in the work we do.
Any opportunity to raise funds—whether it is being invited onto different platforms, through interviews like this one, through my writing, or tabling at events, selling merchandise, and collaborating with other organizations—we take it. We tend to leave no stone unturned when it comes to fundraising.
Jacobsen: For secular organizations, is there a general sense that they operate on a shoestring budget? Are they able to do a lot with the relatively small amount of funding they typically receive? Also, is the style of income from fundraising quite different from traditional religious institutions?
Thomas: It is quite different. First, secular organizations tend to be significantly underfunded compared to religious institutions. Most churches and religious groups have institutional support built over centuries. People are more likely to donate to them, whether voluntarily or because they feel socially obligated. That model is familiar to people.
For nonreligious nonprofits, the landscape is different. We are very much cause-driven. There are nonreligious nonprofits that focus on specific missions—especially humanitarian ones—that people are more inclined to support because they feel an immediate connection to the impact.
However, many secular organizations—especially those led by marginalized communities—face additional barriers. The broader nonreligious community still reflects a disproportionate representation of white males, similar to what we often see in leadership within religious spaces. As a result, those organizations frequently receive more financial support.
That does not mean Black Nonbelievers do not receive support—we do—but there is an apparent disparity. Data indicates that minority-led and especially women-led organizations face greater challenges in securing funding in today’s fundraising climate.
Overall, we are still playing catch-up. Even some of the larger secular organizations—like the Freedom From Religion Foundation—operate on budgets that pale in comparison to major religious institutions.
Jacobsen: In terms of demographic equity, what are some ways we can bridge that gap in funding and representation? How do we move toward a more equitable distribution of support so that the vast diversity within nonreligious communities can be reflected in resources?
Thomas: That is a critical question. We need more intentionality in how support is distributed. Funders and supporters should look beyond name recognition and focus on the impact of organizations, especially those working in underserved communities. More collaboration, awareness-raising, and capacity-building for smaller groups can help. Moreover, overall, it is going to take a cultural shift in how the secular movement values diversity, not just in words, but in actual funding and sustained support.
So, of course, the ideal response is to continue encouraging people to donate to the work that we do, especially when we clearly outline our mission, our focus, and our strategies. However, when it comes to addressing disparities, it takes more than just internal effort. We rely on our partner organizations, allied entities, and individuals to help spread the word about Black Nonbelievers and to encourage others to donate and support us.
If there are leads on funding opportunities—particularly those that prioritize women- and minority-led organizations—it helps tremendously when those are passed along to us. I have written grant proposals before, and so have members of our team. I enjoy that work and am willing to put in the effort to secure funds.
However, it can be incredibly exhausting, especially when the workload falls on just one or two people who are also balancing family responsibilities, other professional obligations, and the day-to-day operations of the organization. Grant research and writing take time, and that time is a limited resource.
So, if people can send us leads or help identify relevant grant opportunities, that would be a tremendous support. And of course, we’re always interested in appealing to larger donors. I’ve made more personal appeals to major donors in recent years. I understand that people get busy and forget, and that following up is necessary.
At times, this part of the work can feel frustrating or intimidating, as I dislike the feeling of begging. But I’ve come to understand that asking for donations and support is a key part of my job. So I do make an effort to reach out directly to our supporters, allies, and partner organizations—especially if they have connections to funding sources.
Even if those opportunities are competitive, sharing them goes a long way in my book. A little help can make a big difference.
Jacobsen: What about joint fundraising drives? Are there times of the year or specific events where it makes sense to collaborate with others in the secular fundraising space, where joint outreach is more effective than each organization working alone?
Thomas: Yes, that happens. In 2023, for example, we partnered with the Atlanta chapter of The Satanic Temple for a Halloween event. We combined resources to raise funds for Black Nonbelievers. Some organizations are more partnership-driven than others, and we’ve found that joint efforts like that can be beneficial.
That said, many secular organizations still tend to conduct their fundraising independently. We’ve certainly done both. We’ve hosted livestream fundraisers in collaboration with others, bringing in more well-known voices from both within the secular community and the broader public sphere.
We’ve had guests like Dr. Leo Igwe on two of our livestreams, as well as Dr. Anthony Pinn, historian Dr. Chris Cameron, author and therapist Candace Gorham, and others who are well known in the secular community. They’ve joined us not only to talk about their work but also to highlight the importance of supporting an organization like Black Nonbelievers.
So, joint partnerships and fundraising collaborations have become a bit more common, though every organization is ultimately responsible for raising its funds, which we understand entirely. We do the best we can within our capacity. That said, we are not opposed to partnering with other organizations to fundraise. It’s not off the table at all, and we genuinely appreciate the partners who have supported us in this way.
For example, the Atheist Community of Boston held a weeklong fundraising drive for us in 2021. We’ve also had support from various platforms with strong engagement that have helped raise funds on our behalf. We’re incredibly grateful for those opportunities.
So, going back to your earlier question—if anything is off the table when it comes to fundraising—the answer is no. While joint fundraising ventures may not be as frequent, we’ve certainly participated in them before, and we remain very open to those opportunities in the future.
Jacobsen: What about personal donations that come unexpectedly, like a bequest? Some organizations, such as international nonprofits, often receive legacy gifts when someone includes them in their will. Have Black Nonbelievers experienced anything like that yet?
Thomas: We’ve had inquiries about how to do that, but we haven’t received a bequest yet. However, we are working toward that. We do have language on our website for anyone interested in including us in their estate planning or will. It starts with having our tax ID number available, which is necessary for whoever is handling the estate—whether an attorney or someone with power of attorney—to make the distribution.
That’s the basic requirement to include us in a will or trust. Some organizations also provide a dedicated form to simplify the process for supporters, and we may explore that in the future. In many cases, though, these gifts come unexpectedly, which would be a fantastic development. Many long-standing nonprofits and churches have received significant funding this way, with members choosing to leave part or all of their estate to a cause they care about.
While we haven’t received any legacy gifts yet, we do benefit from other structured giving options. For instance, we accept donations through workplace contribution programs. Some employers offer matching donations for charitable contributions made by their employees, and we regularly receive monthly donations through those platforms.
We also receive contributions through donor-advised funds. Many people with investment accounts designate a certain amount—usually annually, semiannually, or on a set schedule—for the nonprofit of their choice. Organizations like Fidelity Charitable, Schwab Charitable, and Vanguard Charitable allow donors to give directly from their investment or retirement accounts, and we’ve received support through those channels as well.
So, while we are still actively pursuing and hoping for future bequests, we’re very appreciative of the many ways people choose to support us, whether through our website, workplace giving, or donor-advised funds.
Jacobsen: So those are just other ways that organizations can receive the support they need. If you were to break down how much each funding stream brings in—just so other organizations looking to chart a similar path can get an idea—how does that divide? How much comes from memberships, merchandise, grants, and other sources, proportion-wise?
Thomas: Yes. So for Black Nonbelievers—and I can only speak for us, since every organization is different—here’s how it generally breaks down.
Larger organizations often receive significant portions of their funding through extensive checks or major donor gifts. And while we do accept checks and have reached out to major donors—those capable of giving five- or six-figure contributions—for us, the majority of our support comes through monthly giving, especially via PayPal.
We also get a good amount of support through in-person tabling at conferences and conventions. We receive a bit through platforms like ActBlue—some donors give monthly or on an annual basis through there.
So, it varies, but most of our consistent revenue right now comes from monthly PayPal donations, which people can set up directly through our website.
Our official membership platform is still growing. We hope that, in the future, it becomes a significant source of revenue. But currently, it’s those monthly contributions and periodic fundraising campaigns—like our midyear summer drive, mybirthday campaign, and our end-of-year appeal—that bring in the bulk of our support.
Jacobsen: Are there particular projects or areas of expansion for a secular nonprofit where small donations just won’t cut it, where you do need grant-level or major-donor funding to move forward? And on the flip side, where do regular, periodic monthly donations come into play, just in terms of keeping the lights on? Is that an important distinction to make?
Thomas: Absolutely—it is a crucial distinction.
For example, I would love for my position as president to be a salaried one. That would require grant-level funding or a significant major-donor contribution. Being able to hire someone full-time—or even part-time officially—would also require those larger funds.
Right now, we rely on contractors or short-term help, which is primarily made possible by our monthly donors. That support allows us to pay for assistance as needed and handle regular operational costs.
But for long-term sustainability—things like staffing, infrastructure, and more advanced programming—we would need a significant grant or a major donation. Something in the range of $50,000 to $100,000 would be transformative. That kind of funding would allow us to streamline our communications, expand outreach, and provide more consistent engagement with members and donors. It would also help us develop and distribute more resources to our community.
And if we were ever looking to secure office space or a permanent physical location for operations, that would require a larger grant or capital campaign.
Some grants are tied to special projects, like research, focus groups, or community studies. Several initiatives could benefit from larger grants to fund their efforts.
That said, smaller contributions can still have a significant impact. For example, if we had a network of 5,000 people each giving $10 a month, that would total about $50,000 per month, or roughly $600,000 per year. That’s a significant amount, and yet, when compared to what many larger nonprofits or religious organizations bring in, it still pales in comparison.
So while that level of support might feel big, in the larger nonprofit world, it’s not massive, but it would go a long way for us. If Black Nonbelievers were to receive a $500,000 grant or endowment in 2025, that could sustain us for multiple years. It would allow us to fund salaried positions, upgrade equipment, improve our streaming platforms, and expand our infrastructure.
That kind of multiyear, multipurpose funding is what we’re working toward through grants, endowments, and sustained donor support.
Jacobsen: What specific fundraising projects are underway right now? Can you give some details?
Thomas: Yes. As always, one of our key initiatives is co-sponsoring the Zora Neale Hurston Scholarship with the Secular Student Alliance. That scholarship typically ranges from $1,500 to $2,000, and we help fund it annually.
Beyond that, our general operations require ongoing support. This includes maintaining our website, covering costs for our event platforms, purchasing supplies and merchandise, and supporting our presence at conferences and tabling events. All of that falls under what we call our general operating fund.
Some people might see that as “overhead,” but general operating costs are essential for keeping the organization running, especially if we want to continue offering both in-person and virtual events. Those platforms cost money, and we depend on fundraising to keep them going.
Jacobsen: What else should we discuss before we wrap up today?
Thomas: One crucial issue is the growing concern around religious encroachment in public spaces, particularly in the workplace, especially on the federal level. The previous administration encouraged more open religious expression in those settings, which has broader implications.
Jacobsen: There’s been a noticeable erosion of church–state separation in the U.S. What does that look like on the funding level, specifically regarding the advantages religious institutions have gained under recent administrations?
Thomas: That’s an excellent question. We’ve seen increasing efforts to direct public funds toward religious entities—including churches, private religious schools, and homeschooling initiatives rooted in religious ideologies.
There’s a push to privatize education by redirecting public taxpayer money to religious institutions under the banner of “school choice” or “parental rights.” It’s framed in seemingly innocuous terms, but the implications are profound. It undermines secular public education and tilts the balance in favour of religious institutions that already benefit from significant tax exemptions and built-in financial advantages.
This trend not only challenges the constitutional principle of church–state separation but also creates further disparities for secular and nonreligious nonprofits trying to operate in the same space without the same privileges or access to public funding.
What we’re seeing now is a strong push to divert public funds to private religious education, which erodes the separation of church and state. If churches want to fund religious schools, they should do so through tuition, donations from parishioners, or private endowments—not through public taxpayer dollars.
To use public funds to promote specific religious beliefs—particularly Christianity—is a clear constitutional violation. It’salso deeply troubling. This current administration is accelerating the erosion of church–state separation and undermining constitutional protections like freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
What we’re witnessing is essentially an end run around long-standing legal boundaries, which not only weakens public education but sets a dangerous precedent. There’s already a sustained attack on public education at the federal level, and that trickles down to state, city, and local governments. Meanwhile, specific interest groups are pushing their religious agendas directly into public policy, infringing on fundamental human rights.
We’ve always dealt with religious majorities trying to inject their beliefs into public life through language, holidays, or community traditions. Many nonbelievers tolerate this, even when it’s frustrating, because we understand we’re in the minority. But now, when there’s any kind of pushback, we’re seeing an aggressive counter-response. They’re pushing back harder, and in real time, we are witnessing what the erosion of church–state separation looks like.
Sometimes, it feels overwhelming—even hopeless. But we can’t give up. We have to continue pushing forward, reminding the public that inserting religious beliefs into public policy is unconstitutional. It also violates workplace guidelines and the rights of all employees, not just religious ones.
Just because something has been done a certain way for a long time doesn’t make it right. The soft, coded language used to justify these actions is manipulative. It’s subtle—but strategic. And if we don’t stay vigilant, those promoting this agenda will succeed. We cannot let that happen.
Jacobsen: Lisa, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it, as always.
Thomas: There are never any surprises with you—always thoughtful answers. Thank you so much, Scott.
Jacobsen: Bye-bye.
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 