Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/04
c. 1875: “One does not sell the earth upon which the people walk.”
1877: “My friend, I do not blame you for this.”
1877: “We preferred our own way of living.”
1877: “We were no expense to the government.”
1877: “All we wanted was peace and to be left alone.”
1877: “I have spoken.”
1877 (reported): “Ah, my father, I am hurt bad. Tell the people it is no use to depend on me any more.”
1877: “I was born on the prairies where the wind blew free and there was nothing to break the light of the sun.”
1877: “I was born where there were no enclosures.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/04
How do Black Elk’s 1932–1953 statements — from Black Elk Speaks to late-life testimonies — clarify the Lakota “sacred hoop,” interpret Wounded Knee, and frame Indigenous resilience?
1932: “You have noticed that everything an Indian does is in a circle, and that is because the power of the world always works in circles.”
1932: “Then I was standing on the highest mountain of them all, and round about beneath me was the whole hoop of the world.”
1932: “I did not know then how much was ended… A people’s dream died there. It was a beautiful dream.”
1932: “It is hard to follow one great vision in this world of darkness and of many changing shadows. Among those shadows men get lost.”
1953: “Then they will realize that we Indians know the One true God, and that we pray to Him continually.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/02
What are definitive Martin Buber quotes?
1923: “To man the world is twofold, in accordance with his twofold attitude.”
1923: “Primary words do not signify things, but they intimate relations.”
1923: “The primary word I–Thou can be spoken only with the whole being.”
1923: “The primary word I–It can never be spoken with the whole being.”
1923: “There is no I taken in itself, but only the I of the primary word I–Thou and the I of the primary word I–It.”
1923: “The Thou meets me through grace — it is not found by seeking.”
1923: “I become through my relation to the Thou; as I become I, I say Thou.”
1923: “All real living is meeting.”
1923: “The present arises only in virtue of the fact that the Thou becomes present.”
1923: “Love is responsibility of an I for a Thou.”
1923: “In the beginning is relation.”
1923: “Spirit is not in the I, but between I and Thou.”
1923: “Every means is an obstacle. Only when every means has collapsed does the meeting come about.”
1950: “There is something that can only be found in one place. It is a great treasure… The place where this treasure can be found is the place on which one stands.”
1950: “To begin with oneself, but not to end with oneself; to start from oneself, but not to aim at oneself; to comprehend oneself, but not to be preoccupied with oneself.”
1950: “This is the ultimate purpose: to let God in. But we can let him in only where we really stand, where we live, where we live a true life.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/02
How do Terence Tao’s 2003–2025 quotes illuminate discovery, collaboration, pedagogy, and AI in modern mathematics?
2003
“Ever since I can remember, I have enjoyed mathematics; I recall being fascinated by numbers even at age three.”
“I work in a number of areas, but I don’t view them as being disconnected; I tend to view mathematics as a unified subject.”
“There are fewer miracles, but instead there is lots of intuition coming from physics and from geometry.”
“In analysis, many research programs do not conclude in a definitive paper, but rather form a progression of steadily improving partial results.”
2006
“Collaboration is very important for me, as it allows me to learn about other fields, and… share what I have learnt about my own fields.”
“I pick up a lot of problems (and collaborators) by talking to other mathematicians.”
“I’m drawn to problems placed in as simple a setting as possible — a ‘toy model’ — where other difficulties are turned off.”
“I’d like to see mathematics demystified more, and to be made more accessible to the public.”
“I’m also a great fan of interdisciplinary research — taking ideas from one field and applying them to another.”
“If I learned something in class that I only partly understood, I wasn’t satisfied until I was able to work the whole thing out.”
2007
“The concept of mathematical quality is a high-dimensional one.”
“We all agree that mathematicians should strive to produce good mathematics.”
2009
“Often advice has its notable counterexamples.”
“Ultimately you should follow advice not because someone tells you to, but because it was something that you already knew you should be doing.”
2019
“They’re still out of reach.” (on near-miss approaches to Collatz)
“We have too little control over it.”
2020
“The freedom to fail is important.”
2022
“Science is cumulative and collaborative: individual contributions build up over time, and there is plenty of work for everyone.”
2023
“Therefore, an ideal collaboration should contain at least one ‘pessimist’ and one ‘optimist’.”
2024
“I do envision a future where you do research through a conversation with a chatbot.”
“Then you can do factory production–type, industrial-scale mathematics, which doesn’t really exist right now.”
“I’m not super interested in duplicating the things that humans are already good at. It seems inefficient.”
“A todos los efectos prácticos, las elecciones y la democracia funcionan.”
2025
“There’s this phenomenon in mathematics called universality.”
“We’re seeing the successes, not the failures.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/01
Which countries make up 90% of the world’s population in 2025?
India — 17.78%
China — 17.20%
United States — 4.22%
Indonesia — 3.47%
Pakistan — 3.10%
Nigeria — 2.89%
Brazil — 2.59%
Bangladesh — 2.13%
Russia — 1.75%
Ethiopia — 1.65%
Mexico — 1.60%
Japan — 1.50%
Egypt — 1.44%
Philippines — 1.42%
DR Congo — 1.37%
Vietnam — 1.23%
Iran — 1.12%
Turkey — 1.07%
Germany — 1.02%
Thailand — 0.87%
Tanzania — 0.86%
United Kingdom — 0.84%
France — 0.81%
South Africa — 0.79%
Italy — 0.72%
Kenya — 0.70%
Myanmar — 0.67%
Colombia — 0.65%
South Korea — 0.63%
Sudan — 0.63%
Uganda — 0.62%
Spain — 0.58%
Algeria — 0.58%
Iraq — 0.57%
Argentina — 0.56%
Afghanistan — 0.53%
Yemen — 0.51%
Canada — 0.49%
Angola — 0.47%
Ukraine — 0.47%
Morocco — 0.47%
Poland — 0.46%
Uzbekistan — 0.45%
Malaysia — 0.44%
Mozambique — 0.43%
Ghana — 0.43%
Peru — 0.42%
Saudi Arabia — 0.42%
Madagascar — 0.40%
Côte d’Ivoire — 0.40%
Cameroon — 0.36%
Nepal — 0.36%
Venezuela — 0.35%
Niger — 0.34%
Australia — 0.33%
North Korea — 0.32%
Syria — 0.31%
Mali — 0.31%
Burkina Faso — 0.29%
Sri Lanka — 0.28%
Taiwan — 0.28%
Malawi — 0.27%
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/01
1879: “That hand is not the color of yours, but if I pierce it, I shall feel pain.”
1879: “If you pierce your hand, you also feel pain.”
1879: “The blood that will flow from mine will be of the same color as yours.”
1879: “I am a man.”
1879: “The same God made us both.”
1879: “You are that man.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/01
1828: “You are all fools; why the thing is very easy; I can do it myself:”
c. 1820: “If our people think I am making a fool of myself, you may tell our people that what I am doing will not make fools of them. They did not cause me to begin, and they shall not cause me to stop.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/30
1680: “They told him to make a cord of maguey fiber and tie some knots in it which would signify the number of days that they must wait before the rebellion. He said that the cord was passed through all the pueblos of the kingdom so that the ones which agreed to it might untie one knot in sign of obedience, and by the other knots they would know the days which were lacking; and this was to be done on pain of death to those who refused to agree to it.”
1680: “Finally the Señor governor and those who were with him escaped from the siege, and later this declarant saw that as soon as the Spaniards had left the kingdom an order came from the said Indian, Popé, in which he commanded all the Indians to break the lands and enlarge their cultivated fields, saying that now they were as they had been in ancient times, free from the labor they had performed for the religious and the Spaniards, who could not now be alive.”
1680: “He ordered in all the pueblos through which he passed that they instantly break up and burn the images of the holy Christ, the Virgin Mary and the other saints, the crosses, and everything pertaining to Christianity, and that they burn the temples, break up the bells, and separate from the wives whom God had given them in marriage and take those whom they desired.”
1680: “In order to take away their baptismal names, the water, and the holy oils, they were to plunge into the rivers and wash themselves with amole, which is a root native to the country, washing even their clothing, with the understanding that there would thus be taken from them the character of the holy sacraments.”
1680: “They were ordered likewise not to teach the Castilian language in any pueblo and to burn the seeds which the Spaniards sowed and to plant only maize and beans, which were the crops of their ancestors.”
1680: “They thereby returned to the state of their antiquity … because the God of the Spaniards was worth nothing and theirs was very strong, the Spaniard’s God being rotten wood.”
1680: “There came to them a pronouncement … from El Popé, to the effect that he who might still keep in his heart a regard for the priests, the governor, and the Spaniards would be known from his unclean face and clothes, and would be punished.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/30
c. 1142: “If I should see anyone in deep grief, I would take these shell strings from the pole and console them.”
c. 1142: “We must unite ourselves into one common band of brothers. We must have but one voice. Many voices makes confusion.”
c. 1142: “My children, listen to the words of Hiawatha, for they are the last he will speak to you.”
c. 1142: “Like the fingers on the hand of the warrior, each must lend aid to the other and work in unison.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/30
c. 1142: “I am Dekanawidah and with the Five Nations’ Confederate Lords I plant the Tree of the Great Peace.”
c. 1142: “The name of these roots is The Great White Roots and their nature is Peace and Strength.”
c. 1142: “We place at the top of the Tree of the Long Leaves an Eagle who is able to see afar.”
c. 1142: “I, Dekanawidah, appoint the Mohawk Lords the heads and the leaders of the Five Nations Confederacy.”
c. 1142: “I and the other Confederate Lords have entrusted the caretaking and the watching of the Five Nations Council Fire.”
c. 1142: “Women shall be considered the progenitors of the Nation. They shall own the land and the soil.”
c. 1142: “The thickness of your skin shall be seven spans — which is to say that you shall be proof against anger, offensive actions and criticism.”
c. 1142: “Five arrows shall be bound together very strong and each arrow shall represent one nation.”
c. 1142: “Listen, that peace may continue unto future days!”
c. 1142: “This decision shall be a confirmation of the voice of the people.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/29
How does Hryhorii Skovoroda’s philosophy — “know yourself” — chart a path to happiness beyond worldly capture?
“The world tried to capture me, but didn’t succeed.”
“Our life is a path and the way to happiness is not short.”
“Peace is buried like a priceless treasure in the house within ourselves.”
“First, discover where it does not lie… then you will more readily come to the place where it resides.”
“It is truly amazing that an individual who has lived thirty years has failed to notice what is best for him.”
“Sin is my sole distress. Mortify all sin in me.”
“The kingdom of blessed Nature, although it is hidden, is not undetectable behind the external signs.”
“The only thing that should be condemned is that… we neglect the supreme science.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/29
What are Augustine of Hippo’s most definitive quotes, and what do they reveal about his theology of love, time, and grace?
397: “You move us to delight in praising You; for You have made us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in You.”
397: “Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the divine Scriptures, or any part of them, so that it does not build up the double love of God and of our neighbor, does not understand them at all.”
398: “Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet.”
400: “Late have I loved You, O Beauty ever ancient, ever new; late have I loved You! For behold, You were within, and I was without… You called and cried aloud and forced open my deafness; You gleamed and shone and chased away my blindness.”
400: “Give what You command, and command what You will.”
400: “He loves You too little who loves anything together with You, which he loves not for Your sake.”
400: “What, then, is time? If no one asks me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I know not.”
407: “A short precept is given you: Love, and do what you will… let the root of love be within; of this root can nothing spring but what is good.”
c. 410: “Believe, that you may understand.”
c. 415: “For if I am deceived, I am.”
421: “For evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name ‘evil’.”
426: “Two loves have made two cities: the love of self, even to the contempt of God; and the love of God, even to the contempt of self.”
426: “It seems to me that a brief and true definition of virtue is the order of love.”
426: “Miracles are not contrary to nature, but only contrary to what we know about nature.”
420: “The New Testament lies hidden in the Old, and the Old is made manifest in the New.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/29
How does Ríoghnach Connolly fuse Irish folk lineage with contemporary production?
2016: “Oh the theme of family is massive for me.”
2016: “You’ve made me sing softer. And you’ve made me sing with less ornamentation. And you’ve made me concentrate on the words, and the diction.”
2018: “Rolling the dice, letting go of something and not knowing how or where it’s going to land.”
2018: “I hate all these terminologies. Shouldn’t it be okay to be difficult to categorise?”
2018: “We write a lot of our songs on stage during improvised gigs.”
2018: “All you could hear were the big breaths taken between the phrases… and it sounded hilarious.”
2018: “Sitting on my granny Sadie’s knee, being sung to in a rocking chair.”
2018: “I wouldn’t want to be in a hospital but around a fire.”
2020: “I’m a bit of a nuisance when it comes to categorisation because I have five touring bands at the minute…”
2020: “I come from this place of romantic republicanism that wasn’t sectarian but was all about the music and the poetry.”
2020: “You’ve got this opportunity to be heard, and to have your thoughts documented so you shouldn’t underestimate the privilege of that.”
2020: “It’s natural for me that you keep that community close.”
2022: “A diatribe on the technology filling us with fear. It was so destructive in my life growing up in the north of Ireland.”
2023: “Stuart is the yin to my yang… I like mayhem. He doesn’t.”
2023: “It’s about washing off the sins of other people’s shit.”
2024: “You’ve gotta be genuine. And it was a very vulnerable record.”
2024: “Some of the record is excruciating even to listen to now.”
2024: “Grief is not linear. It pulls you back in.”
2024: “You have to put the audience first.”
2024: “We want people to create a safe base where everyone can feel what they need to.”
2024: “I like the idea that you could record as if you were singing into someone’s ear.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/28
How does a year-by-year chronology anchored in Sitting Bull’s 1883 Senate Select Committee testimony and his c.1882 “life of freedom” statement clarify his claims to the Black Hills and expose popular misquotes?
1876: “I want to know what you are doing, traveling on this road. You scare all the buffalo away. I want to hunt in this place. I want you to turn back from here. If you don’t, I will fight you again. I want you to leave what you have got here and turn back from here. … I am your friend — Sitting Bull. I need all the rations you have got and some powder.”
c. 1877: “If you have one honest man in Washington, send him here and I will talk to him.”
1881: “I wish it to be remembered that I was the last man of my tribe to surrender my rifle.”
c. 1882: “The life my people want is a life of freedom. I have seen nothing that a white man has, houses or railways or clothing or food, that is as good as the right to move in the open country and live in our fashion.”
1883: “If a man loses anything, and goes back and looks carefully for it he will find it, and that is what the Indians are doing now when they ask you to give them the things they were promised them in the past.”
1883: “I consider that my country takes in the Black Hills, and runs from the Powder River to the Missouri, and that all of this land belongs to me.”
1883: “When you have a piece of land, and anything trespasses on it, you catch it and keep it until you get damages, and I am doing the same thing now.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/28
How does a year-by-year chronology of Tecumseh’s 1810–1813 speeches — centering the Vincennes address and the Osage speech — clarify his common-land doctrine and intertribal-unity strategy?
1810: “You wish to prevent the Indians from doing as we wish them, to unite and let them consider their lands as the common property of the whole… You take the tribes aside and advise them not to come into this measure… You want by your distinctions of Indian tribes, in allotting to each a particular, to make them war with each other.”
1810: “The way, the only way to stop this evil is for the red men to unite in claiming a common and equal right in the land, as it was at first, and should be now — for it was never divided, but belongs to all. No tribe has the right to sell, even to each other, much less to strangers… Sell a country! Why not sell the air, the great sea, as well as the earth?”
1810: “How can we have confidence in the white people?”
1810: “If you offer us any [presents], we will not take. By taking goods from you, you will hereafter say that with them you purchased another piece of land from us.”
1810: “It is true I am a Shawnee. My forefathers were warriors. Their son is a warrior… I am the maker of my own fortune; and oh! that I could make that of my red people, and of my country, as great as the conceptions of my mind, when I think of the Great Spirit that rules the universe.”
1811: “Brothers — the white people are like poisonous serpents: when chilled, they are feeble and harmless; but invigorate them with warmth, and they sting their benefactors to death.”
1811: “Brothers — we must be united; we must smoke the same pipe; we must fight each other’s battles; and more than all, we must love the Great Spirit.”
1811: “Sleep not longer, O Choctaws and Chickasaws, in false security and delusive hopes. Our broad domains are fast escaping from our grasp.”
1811: “Let us form one body, one heart, and defend to the last warrior our country, our homes, our liberty, and the graves of our fathers.”
1812: “If we hear of the Big Knives coming towards our villages to speak peace, we will receive them; but if we hear of any of our people being hurt by them… we will defend ourselves like men… all this Island will rise as one man.”
1813: “We must compare our father’s conduct to a fat dog, that carries its tail upon its back, but when affrighted, it drops it between its legs and runs off.”
1813: “Our lives are in the hands of the Great Spirit. We are determined to defend our lands, and if it be his will, we wish to leave our bones upon them.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/27
How do Richard Dawkins’s most influential quotes on God and faith shape modern atheism and the New Atheism movement?
1986: “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker; blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.”
1989: “… [faith] means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence… The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational enquiry.”
1991: “Growing up in the universe … also means growing out of parochial and supernatural views of the universe … not copping out with superstitious ideas.”
1992: “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”
1993: “Like immune-deficient patients, children are wide open to mental infections that adults might brush off without effort.”
1995: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
1995: “DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”
1997: “Faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.”
2002: “An atheist is just somebody who feels about Yahweh the way any decent Christian feels about Thor or Baal or the golden calf… We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
2006: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, blood-thirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
2006: “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”
2006: “One of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding.”
2006: “Accepting, then, that the God Hypothesis is a proper scientific hypothesis, albeit a very low-probability one, who should bear the burden of proof?”
2006: “Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument.”
2019: “Strictly speaking, it’s impossible to prove that something does not exist. We don’t positively know there are no gods, just as we can’t prove that there are no fairies or pixies or elves or hobgoblins or leprechauns or pink unicorns…”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/27
What are d’Holbach’s most-cited quotes on God from that work and “Christianity Unveiled”?
1766: “God repents having peopled the earth, and he finds it easier to drown and destroy the human race, than to change their hearts.”
1766: “Such is the faithful history of the God, on whom the foundation of the Christian religion is laid.”
1766: “This unchangeable God is alternately agitated by anger and love, revenge and pity, benevolence and fury.”
1766: “If nothing be due from God to his creatures, how can any thing be due from them to him?”
1766: “How can goodness be an attribute of a God, who has created most of the human race only to damn them eternally?”
1770: “If the ignorance of nature gave birth to such a variety of gods, the knowledge of this nature is calculated to destroy them.”
1770: “Shall we be more instructed, when every time we behold an effect of which we are not in a capacity to develop the cause, we may idly say, this effect is produced by the power, by the will of God?”
1770: “Undoubtedly it is the great Cause of causes must have produced every thing; but is it not lessening the true dignity of the Divinity, to introduce him as interfering in every operation of nature; nay, in every action of so insignificant a creature as man?”
1770: “Do we, in fact, pay any kind of adoration to this being, by thus bringing him forth on every trifling occasion, to solve the difficulties ignorance throws in our way?”
1770: “It is impossible for man… to form to himself a correct idea… of incorporeity; of a substance without extent, acting upon nature, which is corporeal… It is equally impossible for man to have any clear, decided idea of perfection, of infinity, of immensity, and other theological attributes.”
1772: “All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God.”
1772: “The principles of every religion are founded upon the idea of a GOD. Now, it is impossible to have true ideas of a being, who acts upon none of our senses.”
1772: “To say, that God is the author of the phenomena of nature, is it not to attribute them to an occult cause? What is God? What is a spirit? They are causes of which we have no idea.”
1772: “Divines every where exclaim, that God is infinitely just; but that his justice is not the justice of man… How can we receive for our model a being, whose divine perfections are precisely the reverse of human?”
1772: “God is the author of all; and yet, we are assured that evil does not come from God. Whence then does it come? From man. But, who made man? God. Evil then comes from God.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/26
How did Denis Diderot’s writings from 1746 to 1770 challenge Christian theism and advance a naturalistic, deist critique grounded in experience and reason?
1746: “The God of the Christians is a father who makes much of his apples, and very little of his children.”
1746: “These are people of whom we ought not to say that they fear God, but that they are mortally afraid of him.”
1746: “Who condemns them to such torments? The God whom they have offended. Who then is this God? A God full of goodness. But would a God full of goodness take pleasure in bathing himself in tears? Are not these fears an insult to his kindness?”
1746: “Judging from the picture they paint of the Supreme Being… the most upright soul would be tempted to wish that such a being did not exist… The thought that a God did not exist has never terrified humanity, but the idea that a God such as is represented exists.”
1746: “God must be imagined as neither too kind nor too cruel. Justice is the mean between clemency and cruelty, just as finite penalties are the mean between impunity and eternal punishment.”
1746: “There are pietists who do not think it necessary to hate themselves in order to love God… according to their moods they see a jealous or a merciful God; it is a fever with its hot and cold fits.”
1746: “Yes, I maintain that superstition is more of an insult to God than atheism.”
1746: “Only the deist can oppose the atheist. The superstitious man is not so strong an opponent… His God is only a creature of the imagination.”
1746: “I tell you that there is no God; that Creation is a fiction; that the eternity of the universe is no more of a difficulty than the eternity of spirit.”
1746: “Thus to destroy chance is not to prove the existence of a supreme being, since there may be some other thing which is neither chance nor God — I mean, nature.”
1749: “If you want me to believe in God, you must make me touch him.”
1749: “What did we do to God, you and I, so that one of us possesses this organ [of sight], and the other is deprived of it?”
1751: “Atheism is the opinion of those who deny the existence of a God, author of the world.”
1769: “Do you see this egg? With this you can overthrow all the schools of theology, all the churches of the earth.”
1770: “Wandering in a vast forest at night, I have only a faint light to guide me. A stranger appears and says to me: ‘My friend, blow out your candle to find your way more clearly.’ This stranger is a theologian.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/26
How did Bertrand Russell’s views on God and agnosticism evolve from 1903 to 1958?
1903: “Thus Man creates God, all-powerful and all-good, the mystic unity of what is and what should be.”
1925: “I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God.”
1925: “The Christian God may exist; so may the Gods of Olympus.”
1927: “One form is to say that there would be no right or wrong unless God existed.”
1930: “Anything that causes alarm is apt to turn people’s thoughts to God.”
1948: “No, I should not say that: my position is agnostic.”
1948: “I should say that the universe is just there, and that’s all.”
1952: “A man with any genuine religious feeling will wish to know whether, in fact, there is a God.”
1953: “An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life.”
1958: “I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not believe in God and suffers no visible punishment in consequence.”
1947: “I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God.”
(c. 1950s): “Belief in God and a future life makes it possible to go through life with less of stoic courage than is needed by skeptics.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/25
What does Musaieva’s framing of truth as a weapon reveal about newsroom ethics and resolve during full-scale war?
2022: “The written word is a weapon. And the truth is a weapon.”
2022: “It is a war of truth and lies. The war for the right to call a spade a spade.”
2022: “Journalists in the war in Ukraine face incredible challenges, the most basic one of which is simply to survive while telling the world the truth.”
2022: “Another challenge is not to cause harm. Because when reporting on a war, the cost of error is measured by human life.”
2022: “Sometimes the most powerful truth is to remain silent. And sometimes, it is necessary to speak out.”
2022: “Was it dangerous? Yes. Was it important? Yes, it was.”
2022: “Thanks to journalists, the world saw the truth about Bucha, Borodyanka, and Irpin.”
2022: “It’s recognition of all journalists who cover this terrible war.”
2022: “War is about choices. You often ask yourself whether you are more of a Ukrainian or a journalist.”
2022: “Truth survives when there is someone to fight for it. Therefore, there will be words to stop this war as well.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/25
How do Rudenko’s lines connect soldiers’ sacrifices to a mandate for independent journalism and civil liberties?
2024: “If they are dying, we should be using those rights.”
2024: “bad actors in government have more tools than ever to try and intimidate us.”
2024: “In the past few months, we’ve experienced some unusual and concerning attention from Ukraine’s law enforcement.”
2024: “We’re trying to find out more.”
2024: “It took a threat to our independence to start cherishing it.”
2024: “What’s at stake in this war is freedom in all its forms.”
2024: “As Ukrainians, we have no say in the U.S. election, but our future nonetheless depends on who wins it.”
2024: “Russia is associated with no freedom of speech, no freedom of media, no freedom whatsoever.”
2024: “…fighting for Ukraine not to be Russia.”
2024: “won’t hold back.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/24
How do Usyk’s statements bridge elite sport, national identity, and wartime representation on the world stage?
2024: “I am excited … let’s make history.”
2024: “Thank you so much. … It’s a big opportunity for me, for my family, for my country. … It’s a great time, it’s a great day.”
2024: “It’s for my God, my supporters, my country, the Ukrainian soldiers, Ukrainian mothers and fathers, children.”
2024: “Yes, of course. I am ready for a rematch.”
2024: “Now we have just a performance with lights and cameras. Everything will take place on Saturday… Don’t be afraid. I will not leave you alone. See you on Saturday.”
2024: “Thank you, God. Not Tyson. Thank you, God… I win.”
2024: “I want to dedicate this victory to my mother … and to all mothers of Ukraine.”
2025: “Russia destroyed hospitals, Russia destroyed schools, Russia destroyed Ukrainian lives… But we will survive. We will rebuild our country, like a mosaic, piece by piece.”
2025: “I advise the American President, Donald Trump, to go to Ukraine and live in my house. Only one week.”
2025: “I really want the war to end. Nobody wants it more … than us, Ukrainians.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/24
What do Zhadan’s reflections say about culture as resistance and the war’s imprint on language, identity, and art?
2022: “Yet you have to speak. Even during times of war. Especially during times of war.”
2022: “There’s no such thing as peace without justice.”
2022: “We are helping our army not because we want war but rather because we badly want peace.”
2022: “Does anyone still want to talk about Dostoevsky?”
2022: “If Ukraine wins, there is some future for us… If Russia wins, there will be no literature, no culture, nothing.”
2024: “What we will become depends on what happens at the front. It is there that our future, the future of our culture, is determined.”
2024: “They must motivate, not weaken or demoralize.”
2025: “Whenever the war ends — whatever can be called the end of the war — this struggle… will continue in other dimensions. This can be called a war of cultures.”
2025: “Talking about literature in times of war is a great luxury. To talk about literature, it is enough to look out the window.”
2025: “We are living in ‘twilight,’ when the lights are off. But after victory, they will turn on — and we will see a completely different picture.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/24
How do Drapatyi’s 2025 remarks signal a doctrine of personal accountability and reforms in force protection and training safety?
2025: “This is a conscious step dictated by my personal sense of responsibility for the tragedy at the 239th training ground.”
2025: “These are young guys from a training battalion. Most of them were in shelters.”
2025: “They were supposed to study, live, fight — not die.”
2025: “I didn’t push hard enough, didn’t convince them, didn’t change their attitude toward the soldiers in the ranks. That is my responsibility.”
2025: “The conduct of the soldiers matters, but the primary responsibility always lies with the command. It is the commanders who set the rules, make the decisions and are accountable for the consequences.”
2025: “An army in which commanders bear personal responsibility for the lives of their troops is alive. An army where no one is accountable for losses dies from within.”
2025: “We will not win this war unless we build an army where honor is not just a word, but an action. Where responsibility is not a punishment, but the foundation of trust.”
2025: “A tragedy at a training ground is a terrible consequence of an enemy strike. The war requires quick decisions, responsibility, and new safety standards; otherwise, we will lose more than we have.”
2025: “Everyone who made decisions that day, and everyone who did not make them on time, will be held accountable. No one will hide behind explanations or formal reports.”
2025: “Without personal responsibility, there is no development. Without development, there is no victory.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/23
In what ways do Maliuk’s 2023 comments recast maritime operations and the legal basis for striking Russian military targets?
2023: “Any (explosions) that happen to the Russian ships or the Crimean Bridge is an absolutely logical and effective step in relation to the enemy.”
2023: “Such special operations are conducted in the territorial waters of Ukraine and are completely legal.”
2023: “There is only one option for such attacks to stop: Russia has to leave the territorial waters of Ukraine and Ukrainian land.”
2023: “Sea surface drones are a unique invention of the Security Service of Ukraine. None of the private companies are involved.”
2023: “Using these drones we have conducted successful hits of the Crimean bridge in July 2023, the landing ship Olengorskiy gornyak and the SIG oil tanker.”
2023: “Our drones are manufactured at an underground facility in Ukraine.”
2023: “We ‘measure twice and cut once’ — and then sting the enemy’s heart.”
2023: “We are working on a number of new interesting operations, including in the Black Sea waters. I promise you, it’ll be exciting, especially for our enemies.”
2023: “We have practically overturned the philosophy of naval operations.”
2023: “We have destroyed the myth of Russian invincibility. The bridge is doomed.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/23
How do Stefanishyna’s 2025 statements frame Ukraine’s security priorities in Washington and the case for scaling air-defense guarantees?
2025: “First and foremost, I have a political mandate to concentrate all of our efforts on ending the war, providing air defense and defense military assistance to Ukraine and making sure that in Ukraine everybody understands the messages from the U.S. administration.”
2025: “Military support, using Russian frozen assets, putting sanctions — these are part of the efforts to end the war.”
2025: “Because so much depends on the US. They have a direct influence not only on the European Union but also on Ukraine’s accession to NATO.”
2025: “I’m sure this is the reality and I think we really need to make sure that this decision happens as soon as possible.”
2025: “Advocacy is something that should not be underestimated. Because in Washington, advocacy is the main weapon.”
2025: “So it’s not a one day or one person effort, it’s a joint effort … if everybody does their part, there is a big chance for success.”
2025: “This arrangement is definitely happening.”
2025: “The attack of 20 drones has become a major discussion around all NATO, but Ukraine can handle hundreds of drones per night. So it’s really being a gamechanger in terms of mindset.”
2025: “The key priority is to establish a permanent mechanism for military support.”
2025: “The presidents agreed that the United States, together with European partners, must play a key role in guaranteeing Ukraine’s security. We are counting on further pressure on Russia to bring the war closer to an end.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/23
What do Klitschko’s wartime messages reveal about city-level crisis management, shelter protocols, and sustaining morale under fire?
2022: “I believe in Ukraine, I believe in my country and I believe in my people.”
2022: “Dear friends, Kyivans! The night was tough but there are no Russian troops in the city!”
2022: “This night will be difficult again… I urge Kyiv residents to spend this night in shelters.”
2022: “Russians want to leave the city of Kyiv without heat, without electricity, without water supply — to create a humanitarian disaster in Kyiv.”
2022: “Kyiv might lose power, water, and heat supply. The apocalypse might happen, like in Hollywood films…”
2023: “We don’t talk about the collapse, but it can happen at any second… Russian rockets can destroy our critical infrastructure in Kyiv.”
2023: “We have to think for the day after… The whole world needs Ukraine as a democratic and successful country.”
2023: “The attack on Kyiv continues. Don’t leave the shelters!”
2023: “Explosions in the capital. Air defence is operating.”
2023: “Districts of the capital are not separate principalities where you can walk around in white gloves and neglect your duties.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/22
How do Fedorov’s 2023–2025 remarks outline Ukraine’s digital-warfare doctrine — from Diia.AI to thousand-kilometre drones and AI-enabled reconnaissance?
2023: “There will be more drones, more attacks, and fewer Russian ships. That’s for sure.”
2023: “Artificial intelligence automatically identifies different types of targets, tracks them while at high altitudes and transmits data. Then attack drones and artillery take over.”
2023: “We have sent 800+ drones to the contact line as we continue to strengthen our soldiers.”
2023: “Our soldiers keep moving forward & Russians keep losing their equipment.”
2024: “The category of long-range kamikaze drones is growing, with a range of 300, 500, 700, and 1,000 kilometres. Two years ago, this category did not exist … at all.”
2024: “We will fight to increase the financing even more.”
2024: “We need to act in an anti-bureaucratic way. This is the essence of a breakthrough in the war of technology.”
2025: “Diia.AI is the world’s first AI assistant to deliver government services directly in a chat interface … Starting today, the first service — obtaining an income certificate — will be available.”
2025: “We are working on the concept of the world’s first agentic state.”
2025: “Right now, we are focusing on making sure that when we have no connection, we can still lead the drone to the target. The next will be automated missions.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/22
How do Kamyshin’s statements on scaling munitions, export-led defense manufacturing, and wartime industrial policy map Ukraine’s shift from arms importer to sovereign producer at scale?
2023: “We’re really focusing on making Ukraine the arsenal of the free world.”
2023: “For the next decades, defence should be the major industry in Ukraine. After the war it should be our core export product.”
2023: “We were branding ourselves as the breadbasket of Europe, now we want to rebrand as the arsenal of the free world.”
2023: “We have agreements with two leading American companies to jointly produce, in Ukraine, 155-calibre ammunition.”
2024: Ukraine this year plans “to considerably increase ammunition production.”
2024: “We want to get as many people as we can out of the front lines and put in machines.”
2024: “You will see more of them on the frontline… That’s one of the game changers we expect in the nearest 12 months.”
2024: “We are looking for another $10 [billion] to $15 billion.”
2024: “You have to pump the maximum amount of money you can into drones.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/22
What do Chernyshov’s lines on sub-20 bcm consumption, winter balancing with gas, honoring 2025 obligations, and “new solutions” after the transit deal reveal about Naftogaz’s roadmap to keep the lights and heat on?
2023: “Overall Ukraine’s gas consumption, annual, is below 20 billion cubic meters, it is between 18 to 19 bcm.”
2023: “Over the past day alone, we have received 14 applications from non-residents to pump gas into … Ukrainian gas storage facilities.”
2024: “We plan to use gas to generate additional electricity to cover the deficit caused by Russian attacks.”
2024: “We have survived several series of attacks and these attacks are still ongoing.”
2024: “Air defence is being constantly developed in Ukraine although it is still not enough. But it is much better than it was last year.”
2024: “We intend to pay our debt obligations in 2025, we are communicating with investors and rating agencies.”
2024: “For now, a priority is to implement new solutions for the energy security of our countries. It is about new suppliers and, in the future, about exports of Ukrainian fuel.”
2024: “We are in a period of European shippers’ meetings where we agree on the volumes of (gas) injection. They (the Russians) aim to discredit us as an energy hub with storage capacities.”
2024: “The situation will not critically impact the UGS operations since the gas is stored deep underground.”
2024: “We could attract major players in Ukraine even during the war… We are expecting German brands to gather.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/21
How do Pyshnyi’s remarks on ending deficit monetization, anchoring the exchange rate, and staying “tight for longer” explain the NBU’s playbook for keeping inflation expectations moored under missile-pressure economics?
2023: “At the beginning of the year, inflation was 26%… we’re closing out with around 5% inflation and growth.”
2024: “For us it is very important to forget about monetisation and monetary financing.”
2025: “The NBU will be ready to take additional measures in case of further risks to price dynamics and inflation expectations.”
2025: “Going forward, the pace of recovery will depend on the course of the war.”
2025: “The NBU will stick to a rather tight monetary stance for as long as it is needed.”
2025: “The answer is very simple, yes.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/21
How do Umerov’s 2023–2025 statements — urgent arms timelines, scaling to millions of drones, stronger air defenses, zero-tolerance for corruption, and Black Sea security — map Ukraine’s wartime blueprint and alliance strategy?
2023: “We have big challenges ahead and big opportunities ahead. Every day we advance, and every day we make our victory closer. Ukraine will win.”
2023: “Weaponry: We need it today. We need it now. We need it more.”
2024: “What does NATO mean for Ukrainians? It means peace, the end of the war, and development. We have already shown the world that we can operate almost all types of weapons and are ready to become part of the Alliance. Now we are focused on this.”
2024: “We need more air defense and missile defense systems to strike the enemy. The Russians are focusing on civilian infrastructure: hitting hospitals, schools, and other critical facilities.”
2024: “We have a plan. We are working to the plan. We are doing everything possible and impossible. But without timely supply [of western arms] it’s hard for us.”
2024: “For me corruption at a time of war is worse than terrorism.”
2024: “We believe that our arguments about the need to increase cooperation between Ukraine and the Republic of Korea will lead to a tangible strengthening of security for our peoples and regions.”
2025: “Our partners said they are willing to fully pay for all the production from these factories, and that … (they) will appropriate even more funding for this.”
2025: “This year, we will supply more than 4 million drones to the front.”
2025: “About two weeks ago, a decision was made to scale up these operations. We are already preparing a new large contract to increase the intensity of strikes.”
2025: “This is the new standard of war, where unmanned systems become a key element of combat, helping our defenders carry out the most complex missions.”
2025: “The Ukrainian side emphasizes: Russia’s movement of its military ships beyond the eastern part of the Black Sea will be considered a violation of the spirit of this agreement and will be viewed as a breach of commitments to ensure freedom of navigation in the Black Sea and a threat to Ukraine’s national security. In such a case, Ukraine will have full rights to exercise its right to self-defense.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/24
What do Zhadan’s reflections say about culture as resistance and the war’s imprint on language, identity, and art?
2022: “Yet you have to speak. Even during times of war. Especially during times of war.”
2022: “There’s no such thing as peace without justice.”
2022: “We are helping our army not because we want war but rather because we badly want peace.”
2022: “Does anyone still want to talk about Dostoevsky?”
2022: “If Ukraine wins, there is some future for us… If Russia wins, there will be no literature, no culture, nothing.”
2024: “What we will become depends on what happens at the front. It is there that our future, the future of our culture, is determined.”
2024: “They must motivate, not weaken or demoralize.”
2025: “Whenever the war ends — whatever can be called the end of the war — this struggle… will continue in other dimensions. This can be called a war of cultures.”
2025: “Talking about literature in times of war is a great luxury. To talk about literature, it is enough to look out the window.”
2025: “We are living in ‘twilight,’ when the lights are off. But after victory, they will turn on — and we will see a completely different picture.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/21
How do Budanov’s 2022–2025 statements — from predicting a mid-August turning point and a Kremlin coup to asserting Pyongyang supplies half of Russia’s shells — stack up against events, and what do they signal about Ukraine’s security outlook?
2022: “The breaking point will be in the second part of August.”
2022: “A coup to remove Vladimir Putin is already under way.”
2023: “We must do everything to ensure that Crimea returns home by summer.”
2024: “They supply huge amounts of artillery ammunition, which is critical for Russia.” (on North Korean aid to Moscow)
2025: “North Korea is providing 50% of Russia’s ammunition needs at the front.”
2025: “An absolutely peaceful and threat-free life in the coming years is unlikely.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/20
How do Syrskyi’s 2023–2025 statements map Ukraine’s shift from active defense to precision long-range strikes, and outline the doctrine he argues can turn attrition into victory?
2023: “Everyone wants to achieve a great victory instantly and at once. And so do we. But we have to be prepared to have this process take some time because there are a lot of forces massed on each side, a lot of materiel, and a lot of engineered obstacles.”
2023: “I want to say that our main force has not been engaged in fighting yet, and we are now searching, probing for weak places in the enemy defences. Everything is still ahead.”
2024: “Our goals remain unchanged: holding our positions … exhausting the enemy by inflicting maximum losses.”
2024: “Offensives at the level of a battalion are a major rarity.”
2024: “Only changes and constant improvement of the means and methods of warfare will make it possible to achieve success on this path.”
2024: “The life and health of servicemen have always been and are the main value of the Ukrainian army.”
2024: “The situation is difficult in the direction of the enemy’s main attack. But all the necessary decisions at all levels are being made without delay.”
2025: “I can say that the president is absolutely right and this offensive has actually already begun.”
2025: “For several days, almost a week, we have been observing almost a doubling of the number of enemy attacks in all main directions (on the frontline).”
2025: “Despite the increased pressure of the Russian and North Korean army, we will hold the defence in Kursk region as long as it is appropriate and necessary.”
2025: “We have plans, of course. Victory cannot be achieved in defence — only in offence.”
2025: “While our air defense is approximately 74% effective, we must make further efforts to protect rear-area energy facilities, critical infrastructure, and logistics.”
2025: “DeepStrike’s range deep into Russian territory has already reached 1,700 kilometres. We are preparing new long-range weapons, which will indeed be used.”
2025: “Over the past year, we have killed more enemy personnel and destroyed more military equipment and infrastructure than in previous years of the war.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/20
How do Sybiha’s 2023–2025 statements chart Ukraine’s path on NATO, Black Sea security, and a durable, just peace?
2023: “The geopolitical project of united Europe cannot be considered as complete without Ukraine.”
2024: “I conveyed Ukraine’s interest in further developing cooperation between Ukraine and Türkiye, especially in defense area.”
2024: “I also underscored the importance of ensuring freedom of navigation in the Black Sea. We also discussed ways to a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace.”
2024: “We discussed issues of long-range strikes and Euro-Atlantic integration. And here we also are cautiously optimistic.”
2024: “We have a clear picture — a clear timeframe, clear volumes — of what will be delivered to Ukraine by the end of the year. This helps us strategically to plan our actions on the battlefield.”
2024: “The invitation should not be seen as an escalation.”
2024: “On the contrary, with a clear understanding that Ukraine’s membership in NATO is inevitable, Russia will lose one of its main arguments for continuing this unjustified war.”
2025: “Fundamental principles for us are: ‘Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,’ ‘Nothing about Europe without Europe.’”
2025: “First — Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. Ukraine will never recognize the occupied territories.”
2025: “NATO cannot be removed from the agenda — that is the first position.”
2025: “We are not satisfied with just the absence of hostilities. Peace is not just the absence of war. We are talking about a stable, long-term, just peace with the prevention of renewed Russian aggression in the long run.”
2025: “Russian terrorists struck critical civilian infrastructure, particularly energy, across Ukraine with hundreds of drones and missiles. I urge all partners to respond strongly. Putin did this on 10 October — the anniversary of the first large-scale attack on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure in 2022.”
2025: “Russia is worse than HAMAS. Even HAMAS has agreed to a ceasefire and peace efforts. To the contrary, Moscow continues the senseless war it began — the war it cannot and will not win. As a result of this massive strike, a 7-year-old boy was killed in Zaporizhzhia, and dozens more civilians have been injured across the country.”
2025: “Pressure on Moscow is the only recipe that can work, but it needs to be strong and consolidated. Economic pressure of biting sanctions, military pressure of stronger support for Ukraine, and political pressure of full isolation. Putin must feel that the cost of continuing the war exceeds the cost of stopping it.”
2025: “We need global rules — now — for how AI can be used in weapons. This is just as urgent as preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/20
2022: “The problem is that companies are not working. If the blackouts are going to continue during the next few weeks, GDP might fall more.”
2023: “In 2022, the Ukrainian economy suffered its largest losses and damages in the entire history of independence, inflicted on it by the Russian Federation.”
2023: “Our economy not only did not fall but grew at a pace that no one expected.”
2024: “The Government’s Made in Ukraine programme resonates with international partners and they are ready to support it.”
2024: “Our task is to support more Ukrainian production and also support the consumption of Ukrainian-produced goods.”
2024: “To win the war and build a strong economy, we must focus on our own production.”
2025: “It is a great honor for me to lead the Government of Ukraine today. Our Government sets its course toward a Ukraine that stands firm on its own foundations.”
2025: “War leaves no room for delay. We must act swiftly and decisively.”
2025: “Ukraine remains ready to give diplomacy a genuine chance, with the goal of achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.”
2025: “At every meeting in Washington we raise the topic of defending Ukrainian energy and supporting our resilience over the winter and ways to defend it.”
2025: “It is important for us that the next program seamlessly continue the previous one.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/17
How do place, memory, and the seismic drama of ordinary lives shift across her decades of stories?
1971: “People’s lives, in Jubilee as elsewhere, were dull, simple, amazing, unfathomable — deep caves paved with kitchen linoleum.”
1986: “Everybody in the community is on stage for all the other people.”
1986: “I don’t think I’ll ever write a novel.”
1994: “No, I don’t show anything in progress to anybody.”
1996: “I speak the language.”
2003: “Books seem to me to be magic, and I wanted to be part of the magic.”
2004: “The conversation of kisses. Subtle, engrossing, fearless, transforming.”
2008: “In your life there are a few places, or maybe only one place, where something has happened.”
2010: “We can hardly manage our lives without a powerful ongoing narrative.”
2012: “But we do — we do it all the time.”
2013: “You don’t go around and tell your friends that I will probably win the Nobel Prize.”
2013: “I want my stories to move people, I don’t care if they are men or women or children.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/17
How should someone travel in a mixed cultural company with prior prejudices?
When you travel with someone steeped in select grievance, a gentle, loving persuasion eventually gives way to containment: kindness, limits, and exit routes — for a time. This is a short field guide from one fraught trip: how to stay humane, set boundaries, and leave without rancour when conversation turns into performance.
I travelled briefly with a lawyer once, a peculiar composite of many Western traits they’d denounce while one reflecting the Sermon on the Mount’s “speck and plank” warning about hypocrisy: not to learn from it, but to ironically live it out.
They practised a selective morality about the killing of journalists: condemning the killings of journalists by Russian forces while showing indifference to reports of journalists killed by Israeli forces. The United Nations reported at least 242 Palestinian journalists killed in Gaza as of 11 August 2025, while the Committee to Protect Journalists’ verified tally was lower — at least 189 by 1 September 2025. Counts vary by source and method.
They were chauvinistic about many things outside what they stereotyped as Western and voiced anti-trans views, apparently resentful over a grant awarded to an LGBTQ organization. Hurt can explain a posture; it does not excuse prejudice.
Their horizon narrowed to a hard, self-justifying individualism. “I do not care about trans people!” they would exclaim whenever perspective-taking or fairness in competitive grants arose. Coming from a privileged background in their homeland only made the moral asynchrony starker. The symphony was off-key.
Most of the trip consisted of eating and walking; coffee, cola, and wine; smoking shisha and the occasional cigarette; ignoring medical advice with a gleeful lack of care; trash-talking employees in absentia; and seeking an audience — one in person or many online. They framed this as work.
I soon realised the monologues would continue regardless of any reply. I learned to be wise and barely engage, for this person wanted mainly to hear their own echo — stereotyping all Westerners or “the West” as bad while being, by their own definitions, Westernised, even as they claimed the East by implicate identity.
It made me pause. I do not see the world in Western versus Global South terms, West versus East, developed versus developing. These demarcations have some conceptual utility; they are placeholders to help us grasp reality. Regardless, I am a humanist. I see humanity as one species in the same boat, whether facing nuclear-weapons proliferation, natural disasters and pandemics, anthropogenic climate change, overpopulation, or otherwise.
I hardly spoke, avoided geopolitics, and focused on art, plenty of compliments, good food, and the possibility of future visits. From their insecurity, they seemed to assume I found them “rude, radical, or evil.” I did not. I found them generally intelligent, well-educated, and, with effort, thoughtful and kind — often lovely to be around when things were going well: an unexpected grace note I would welcome again.
They were simply another ordinary person with distinct legal and linguistic talents, an above-average character, and the habit of stereotyping others. As I later joked, they might have preferred to be born with two mouths and one ear rather than the reverse.
I have never seen what is called “Western” as inherently superior, and still do not. I do not know why anyone assumes otherwise. Had they asked, I would have given an honest, straightforward opinion. We should strive to offer non-judgmental space for improvisatory opinions with travel partners. They took little time to offer empathy or consider another point of view — a pitiable lack of curiosity despite philosophical education.
They were prone to misrepresenting me — later, online, to others. I did not confront them; outbursts or social-media rants often follow. They promised confidentiality, then subtweeted insinuations.
What to do about emotional and reputational abuse? Withdraw gently and completely. I cut contact, professionally and personally, in a systematic manner. I do not have to participate in my own abuse.
I enjoyed one early dinner with them and a friend on the first day, where we discussed metaphysics. Language barriers made deeper conversations impossible, so I left it there. It is not a judgment — simply a cultural and linguistic barrier. How well would I speak metaphysics in their languages as a monoglot?
By the second day I gave up on their repeated monologues. I realised their questions were often intrusive, performative prying — a setup for dramatic exasperation and moralizing. Attention was the currency.
Once, after I bought them fries and myself a burger, they asked what I thought was a genuine question. I barely began to answer when they pretended to choke on potatoes — a theatrical flourish. It was a superficial farce masquerading as a sincere moral inquiry. You never know when these stories will be recycled for a mentally adolescent audience on social media; in this case they were, with encouraged epithets and expletives to boot.
I stayed calm and offered terse, unserious, even sarcastic replies, having already mapped their bigotries and games. They were self-involved and saw conversation as another dais for grand moralizing, as if channelling the very ill-defined “West” they caricatured.
By the third day, I stopped trying to reason altogether. Repetition breeds clarity: when every idea circles the same drain of grievance, silence becomes a form of interpersonal self-preservation.
These outbursts repeated throughout the trip, along with requests for professional contacts. It is dispiriting to meet those who treat others as transactions: ears to listen, networks to exploit, set pieces for later show-and-tell, or verbal and emotional punching bags for prejudices against whole regions of the world. This all unfolded during a birthday week that ended with my father’s funeral. They knew. Why the mendacity? I was celebrating life, mourning death, and turning a page in a new region with someone entirely new. They chose to abandon fundamental charity toward a person sharing space and time with them.
This was not principled anti-Western sentiment so much as dependence. They needed a stereotype of “the West” as a mirror to feel seen. A scholar as cultural paradox: caught between privilege and resentment; mimicking resistance while craving its validation; resenting what one reflects and reflecting what one resents; harbouring indifference to out-group suffering while cloaked in moral relativism, trimmed with the shawl of pseudo-skepticism.
They would cite Baudrillard while acting as if attention were the only real. An embodiment of the modern afflicted contradiction: To want the power of traditional older men, the privileges of contemporary younger women, and the accountability of children no matter the generation. Someone who ‘hates men of this generation’ while seeing her male peers as “children” while wanting a family due to “hormones” but engaged in short-term mating while ‘seduced by ministers’ and flinging with French lovers. It is: To see life a simulation and live in a forever “What if?” — settling to be never settled.
By the end, I gained a vital travel lesson: choose companions carefully, disengage when necessary, maintain a kindly composure, and keep firm boundaries that allow forgiveness without forgetting. The door is open. Listening without illusion is a discipline: to hear a worldview collapse under its own echo and stay kind anyway.
Forgiveness is usually an email away. Love as a principle commands it, and loving sentiments toward this person in particular still incline me to goodwill.
They saw themselves as apart and me as a type; I saw both of us as just people. My refrain, to remind them of my individuality and vulnerability, was simple: “I’m just a person.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/17
What are Oleksandra Matviichuk’s verified quotes from 2014 to 2025, presented in strict chronological order with sources and full text?
2014: “Adoption of this law is de facto declaring war on civil society, and we, representatives of human rights organizations, are not going to give up in the war we had not started. We are calling for a boycott of these laws.”
2016: “Finding the solution to this crisis is our historic task. We must continue fighting for human dignity, even if there is nothing left but words and our own example.”
2022: “People of Ukraine want peace more than anyone else in the world. But peace cannot be reached by a country under attack laying down its arms. This would not be peace, but occupation.” (originally in
2023: “Be courageous. You for sure will be better than our generation.”
2023: “Today’s generation, even in developed democracies, has inherited human rights, democracy, the rule of law from their parents and did not fight for them themselves. They take them for granted. In fact, freedom is not a given. We make choices every day. And the values of modern civilization must be protected.”
2023: “They have begun to understand freedom as the choice between types of cheese at the supermarket. And so they are ready to trade freedom for economic gain, for promises of security, and for personal comfort.”
2024: “When I started my career as a human rights lawyer, I never imagined that I would publicly say we need weapons and missiles to protect human rights. However, I have found since the unprovoked Russian invasion of my country that you cannot wave the Geneva Conventions in front of a Russian tank. You cannot use the United Nations Charter to stop the raping and kidnapping. You cannot defeat evil without the bravery to resist it.”
2024: “I have hope, but hope is not a strategy. We need a strategy, and we need decisive action.”
2024: “Ukrainian women are at the forefront of this battle for freedom and democracy, because bravery has no gender.”
2024: “An unspoken norm was set that justice is the privilege of the victors. But justice is not a privilege. Justice is a basic human right.”
2025: “For decades, Russia has liquidated its own civil society step by step. But for a long time, the civilized world turned a blind eye to this. They continued to shake Putin’s hand, build gas pipelines, and conduct business as usual.”
2025: “This war turns people into numbers. We are returning their names.”
2025: “What’s needed now is not more debate — it’s courage, clarity, and compassion.”
2025: “If we want to prevent wars in the future, we must punish the states and their leaders who start these wars now.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/16
Apparently, there is, in fact, a maple syrup mafia,
in effect.
It’s a 70–75% world monopoly on it.
That’s so insane.
Downtown Montreal, I assume any time this century:
“Uh, yeah, can I have some maple syrup?”
“Sure, see that guy Vinny over there with the baseball bat?”
“Okay, sure.”
“He can help you.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/16
2015: “People are understanding their position in society in a different way… human rights are their rights, democracy is their democracy.”
2016: “Almost no one, except for some of our fellow human rights defenders, preoccupies with passing this procedure.”
2022: “It’s just that democracy helps win wars… we now see motivated people who are responsible and fight for their state.”
2022: “Ordinary people are the biggest power in the world. Just use your power!”
2022: “Perhaps if the world had paid attention to the war crimes in Chechnya from the start, we wouldn’t have the war in Ukraine today.”
2023: “Defending human rights is my system of values.”
2024: “Elections are a public discussion. But a third of the population is connected with the military. Another third is displaced.”
2024: “They kidnap people and detain them in basements. Eighty-seven percent of the people we speak to started their first day of detention with torture.”
2024: “It’s a continuous crime. They’re trying to indoctrinate this idea of a strong Putin, a strong [Russian] state, all of this, right from the beginning of childhood — as early as kindergarten.”
2025: “We experience the terror of Bucha every day in the occupied territories.”
2025: “It’s not just Putin who’s responsible. It’s the whole system under him.”
2025: “The issue of nuclear safety concerns every ordinary person.”
2025: “Democracy is not only your rights, but also your duty — to build, defend, and care for your country.”
2025: “We do not want to be puppets. We want to be democratic forces building our own state.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/16
Probably, the realization:
Some gone relations never had the right time to tell them:
Je t’aime.
So, until time machine machinations:
C’est la vie.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/15
Emotional and reputational abuse comes in many forms.
Is it on Meta (formerly Facebook)?
Is it on X (formerly Twitter)?
Is it on LinkedIn, TikTok, etc.?
Is it vaguebooking, or is it subtweeting — colloquially defined?
Vaguebooking is a cryptic, dramatic, nonspecific update hinting about a problem without a statement as to the person or the situation in specific terms. It is to elicit concern or curiosity.
Subtweeting talks about a specific person without mentioning or tagging them, even after blocking them on social media to prevent a response.
It doesn’t matter if the person is talented. It doesn’t matter if the overall character of the person is positive. It doesn’t matter if you have positive affection for the individual as a friend. Suppose you witness abuse towards you, directly or indirectly. In that case, you can maintain mutual dignity for one another with additional respect for yourself by disassociating from the person in a systematic and dignified way. Why take part in your own abuse on their terms?
It’s an unfortunate pity. You may not even want to do it in the first place, too. However, is the historical trend of abusive behaviour in human civilizations and interpersonal history one of persistence or repetition?
Therefore, it’s more necessary than not, because it’s more likely to persist than not, and because no absolute safe space exists: Find out the easy way via others/vicariously or on your own terms in your life story.
Your pick; good luck.
A final encouragement: Do not harbour ill-will to them; but imagine the immensity of those who have asked this before, and recently, “Am I the only one?”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/15
2019: “Because each of us is the President.”
2019: “We will build the country of other opportunities — the one where all are equal before the law and where all the rules are honest and transparent, the same for everyone.”
2019: “The President is not an icon, an idol or a portrait. Hang your kids’ photos instead, and look at them each time you are making a decision.”
2019: “In today’s world, where we live, there is no longer someone else’s war.”
2019: “Contradictions between nations and states are still resolved not by words, but by missiles.”
2022: “Life will prevail over death and light will prevail over darkness.”
2022: “The UN system must be reformed immediately so that the right of veto is not a right to kill.”
2022: “Being the Leader of the world means to be the Leader of Peace.”
2022: “For me, as the President, just peace is no compromises as to the sovereignty, freedom, and territorial integrity of my country.”
2022: “What is not in our formula? Neutrality. Those who speak of neutrality, when human values and peace are under attack, mean something else. They talk about indifference — everyone for themselves.”
2023: “I promise — being really united we can guarantee fair peace for all nations.”
2024: “Everyone must understand — you won’t boost your power at Ukraine’s expense. The world has already been through colonial wars and conspiracies of great powers at the expense of those who are smaller.”
2025: “We are now living through the most destructive arms race in human history — because this time, it includes artificial intelligence.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/15
More egalitarian societies seem to show fewer incidences of abuse.
Global society seems to be on a trajectory to more egalitarian norms.
Abuse primarily gets predicated on reasons of power.
For example, sexual misconduct more often about power than sex.
Abusive sex as outcome; power as the driver.
Women had far less power for several millennia on average.
Thus, more egalitarian societies means more power for women.
Hence, more shared power means reduced overall abuse.
Therefore, however, more equal power between women and men means higher rates of abuse by women in some circumstances, while embedded in lower overall abuse following from these trends.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/15
3.4 billion people have no safely managed sanitation.
~2.1 billion have no safely managed drinking water.
808 million live on $3 per day.
~736 million women experience violence in their lifetime.
About 300 million across ~72 countries require humanitarian assistance.
~282–283 million experience acute food insecurity.
272 million children and youth are out of school.
230 million or more girls & women are female genital mutilation survivors.
150.2 million children have malnutrition leading to stunting, 42.8 million are wasting, and 12.2 million experience severe wasting from it.
~123 million have been forcibly displaced.
83.4 million are living in internal displacement.
~50 million living under modern slavery.
41,370 grave violations exist against children in armed conflict.
More than 8,900 deaths have occurred on migration routes in 2024.
3,623 incidents of attacks on health care in conflict in 2024.
1,518 executions happened in 2024.
296 internet shutdowns in 2024 against 54 countries.
Was your coffee a little too stale this morning?
Alright, then.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/15
It means lower levels of trust as carping amplifies flaws,
particularly applied to it ‘bleeds and leads’ media,
and even worse on (anti-)social media platforms run by the antisocial.
As well, no one has the benefit of the doubt anymore.
Low-trust societies tend to be poor societies.
This does not necessarily mean economically.
Financial success also works on inertia too;
So, there are effects of delays if that’s the case.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/14
…without evidence, and insufficient time for evidence,
will mean eventual fierce betrayal.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/14
At some point,
you are going to have to come to terms with yourself,
in the universe:
Unknown future;
Partial existence;
Limited understanding;
Forced to survive;
Born together;
Dying alone.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/13
They certainly don’t love to lie.
That’s true.
However, they really, really, really love perpetuating lies,
far more than any other media of which I am aware,
without correction if they further the belief in their myth.
When the cards fall,
they’ll be the ones with the only genuine guilty consciences,
from phoney prosperity preachers to fraudulent bitcoin messianism to fake academic credentials to genius-level poseurs’ metaphysical gobbledygook to rampant rapist and pedophilic clergy;
on and on and on, it’s not even a contest.
So it goes.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/13
Share some photons with another person.
Touch them wavelength to wavelength.
By giving eye contact, you assert:
Their humanity.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/12
The Left and the Right are united in bipartisan opposition to absolute free speech,
whether at the Left fist of Academia,
or the Right fist of the Government.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/12
The nuclear bomb used to be called “The Bomb.”
Oral contraception is called “The Pill.”
Everyone knew, or knows.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/12
We’re all only fools part of the time.
That’s the easy prediction.
When, when, with who, and why?
That’s less easy.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/11
If you,
like the minority,
like me,
mostly or sometimes only had retirees as friends as a teenager and as a young adult,
you will develop more.
Two things will happen more and more.
First, you come to a new situation:
“I’ve seen and heard this before.”
You’re experiencing a second-life circumstance for the first time.
Second, you come to a new person:
“I’ve met you before.”
You’re meeting an echo for the second time, but in the canyon this time.
All the world’s a stage.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/10
When no one really did anything wrong,
they were simply caught up in the moment.
Making the momentary mistakes people make.
What are we to do with irresolute resolutions willed without ill will?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/10
Horses do not know in a traditional sense.
They do,
then they do to know.
When I used to work on the horse farm,
I would watch them throughout the day.
They’d eat their grain and hay during the day.
They’d get walked over to the pastures.
They’d graze here.
They’d graze there.
They’d get walked back in.
They’d eat the grain,
then the hay,
or alternate those two,
dunking for a suck of water betwixt them.
Your days and seasons of life will be a mix between hay, fresh grass, grain, and water — know to tell the difference and how to alternate as necessary.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/10
People misplace journalists who go to Ukraine as brave.
I’ve never thought of my trips as courageous or brave, or some synonym.
It’s not bravery; it’s a job and a gathering of stories. Most of which you’ll never even tell.
That is deliberate.
You plan. You deliberate. You finance. You go, then leave.
They think civilians are, but they’re there and longer than the journalists and can seem as if;
However, it’s an accident of their life history in Ukraine. They don’t want the war.
Bravery is conscious. So, neither are brave. The latter are victimized. The former are doing a job.
Being brave would be not leaving, journalists leave.
The most we can say is those who choose to stay become resilient over time and have legitimately been victimized.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/09
…so beginning.
Disabuse,
by unassuming.
See nothing,
to accept all.
Fall,
to rise.
Quiet,
so full.
Doubt,
to understand.
Ending…
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/09
You always have to ask:
“Where did they find the salt in the first place?”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/09
Feed them right,
give them water,
a little sunlight,
then they grow.
Some are roses.
Most are dandelions.
Only difference:
We have more than one Sun.
Plants are heliotropic.
Find out people’s source stars,
you’ll know what plurally drives them.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/09
There aren’t any,
either places or people.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/08
If we do not want to spend as much time on prisoners,
if we lack much care for prisoners,
if it is more about cost than care,
if it is minimizing investment but maximizing return,
if it is about reducing recidivism,
why not utilize AI to expedite and mentor language skills and educational efforts of prisoners looking to learn and return to mainstream society?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/08
If unmodified humans will not rule the future, which enhancements — genetic, cybernetic, or cognitive — are likeliest to dominate governance and culture over the next 50 years, and how should storytellers depict them to avoid conceptual laziness?
Rick Rosner argues popular sci-fi misreads the future, faulting Altered Carbon and Star Trek for depicting unmodified humans as tomorrow’s rulers despite ubiquitous mind-tech. He praises Star Wars’ “used universe” and Blade Runner’sneon-noir for visual honesty, yet says aesthetics cannot mask conceptual laziness. The genre’s next frontier, he contends, is “consciousness horror”: repeated harm to minds, imprisoning people in games, or trapping them in layered simulations that feel real. While audiences adapt to fakes, writers still lean on indistinguishable worlds. Recent films — Ex Machina, M3GAN, M3GAN 2.0, Companion — show simulated humans driving dread, a trend Rosner believes will intensify very soon.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s start with movies. That’s a good way to begin. Which sci-fi movie would you consider so atrociously bad at predicting the future — either hilariously bad or simply unbearable to watch?
Rick Rosner: The sci-fi show I always criticize for being lazy about the future is Altered Carbon. It’s about portable, replicable consciousness via “cortical stacks” implanted at the base of the skull, and you can swap bodies — or “sleeves” — by moving the stack. Humans in the show still look mostly unmodified apart from the stack port, which bothers me.
Jacobsen: Going back further, what about Star Trek or Star Wars?
Rosner: Star Trek frustrates me for the same reasons: unmodified humans presented as rulers of the future. The original series ran from 1966 to 1969, made on a tight TV budget, which shaped its look. Star Wars did the same thing in portraying unmodified humans at the center of galactic power. That won’t happen. Unmodified humans will not be the lords of the future.
Jacobsen: What about the aesthetics?
Rosner: Star Trek’s visuals were always too clean and minimal, mainly because of that 1960s network-TV constraint. By contrast, Star Warsintroduced a “used universe” — worn, dirty, lived-in technology — in 1977, and Blade Runner (1982) pushed the rainy, crowded, neon-noir city that became the visual shorthand for cyberpunk.
Jacobsen: And the future of horror?
Rosner: We don’t really have it yet, but we should have “consciousness horror.” We already have body horror, which shows all the ways the body can be mutilated. The absolute horror ahead is terrible things happening to your mind, repeatedly. Imagine being imprisoned in a game, killed over and over, unable to escape. That’s one angle. Another would be being unable to distinguish between a real and a simulated environment. Passing through layers of simulated worlds would feel like waking up from one nightmare only to find yourself in another.
Some argue that we won’t be able to distinguish between real and fake. In practice, we adapt; we get better at spotting fakes the longer they’re around. Perhaps that will change, but in the meantime, lazy writers will continue to use “indistinguishable simulation” as a plot device.
And the horror of the future will continue to mine simulated humans. We already see it: Ex Machina, M3GAN and its sequel M3GAN 2.0 (released June 27, 2025), and Companion (2025), where a supposed friend turns out to be a companion robot. That trend will continue.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/08
If you put your faith in people,
then the benchmark will be:
The idiosyncratic accumulated experience with people,
rather than steadier sails.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/07
So far, the only ones who have directly lied in correspondence have been a select few from government agency representatives.
The only ones who have intimidated or bullied to attempt to coerce their viewpoint have been leftwing activists and scholars.
The rightwing simply tends to require more time to trust you.
Others’ experiences will differ, but that’s been mine.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/06
We are evolved so as to lose and win based on individual valence. Furthermore, wins and losses of equal objective type and degree are interpreted under different individual valence. Once gained, losses feel greater than the original wins, not vice versa. Therefore, do not be deterred by the overwhelming feeling of the losses, as the wins are already more significant, by subjective sensibility extrapolated and error-corrected to the objective reality.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/06
What a lucky find!
To quote Bob Ross if art is a bit of life, it’s a “happy accident.”
I’m absolutely delighted to start the week this way.
I love Jordi Savall, genius.
My ears were born forward to be now, and so, then, the mind backward.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/05
How do speculative futures in film and media help us anticipate challenges like AI’s rising energy consumption?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss Luc Besson’s The Fifth Element, a film blending sci-fi, fantasy, and romance. Rosner finds it visually striking but narratively tedious, though he values its imaginative vision of the future. He notes that speculative works — films, TV, games — act like cultural consciousness, helping societies anticipate challenges. However, lazy depictions fail to provide meaningful foresight. Rosner connects these visions to real concerns, such as AI’s growing energy demands, including electricity and water for cooling servers. He critiques proposals like orbital power stations, suggesting lunar reactors as more feasible, while emphasizing the need for efficiency-focused AI design.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: One movie that stood out in the last thirty years was The Fifth Element, with Bruce Willis and Milla Jovovich. It was unusual, mixing a Blade Runner-like futuristic aesthetic with cartoonish elements and outright fantasy. It had romance woven in, too. What are your thoughts on that film?
Rick Rosner: I’ve never seen it all the way through in order, but I’ve watched large parts of it, some multiple times. I believe it was directed by Luc Besson, who specializes in spectacular, futuristic, often nonsensical stories. The Fifth Element is visually striking and entertaining nonsense, but I found it somewhat tedious — otherwise I’d have made an effort to watch it straight through.
That said, I’m always in favour of films that attempt to imagine the future. Even if they’re off-base, they can raise important questions. For instance, before you joined, I was about to rewatch the beginning of Idiocracy, which has its own satirical vision of the future.
I appreciate productions — whether films, TV shows, or even video games — that invest time and resources in envisioning possible futures. No imagined future gets everything right, but worthwhile ones touch on real issues and make attempts to dissect them.
In a sense, cultural visions of the future function like consciousness: just as the brain predicts what might happen in the next moment to help us orient and survive, speculative futures help us prepare for cultural and societal challenges.
Of course, some science fiction is made by lazy creators, producing equally lazy visions that don’t stand up. But even consuming flawed depictions sparks thought about what the future might hold — and that has real value in preparing us for it.
Speculative visions of the future can help us prepare for the real challenges we’ll face — like artificial intelligence consuming enormous amounts of electricity to power computation, and massive amounts of water to cool overheated servers.
For example, I read today that some billionaire claimed we’ll need “orbiting power stations” to meet AI’s future energy needs. That likely means orbital nuclear reactors, since covering Earth’s surface with solar panels would be easier and more efficient than deploying orbital solar arrays. In some sense, orbital reactors might be safer — if something goes wrong, they’re not on the ground near large populations.
Still, if we’re considering nuclear power off Earth, it might actually make more sense to build reactors on the Moon rather than in orbit. On the Moon, you have solid ground, you’re not working in zero gravity, and the engineering would likely be simpler. Once you’ve already reached orbit, getting to the Moon requires additional energy, but not dramatically more.
Is this necessary in the next fifty years? Possibly. AI’s energy appetite is real and growing. But so far, I haven’t seen a genuinely concerted effort to design models that dramatically reduce AI’s power consumption. There are lighter, more efficient models — often abridged versions of large language models — that perform reasonably well. However, the broader push to address AI’s energy demands has yet to take serious shape.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/05
First, you need to see reality accurately.
Then, you can give them a name.
That may or may not be proper, even then.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/05
You know those bolstered,
the bombasts?
For nobility,
for pulchritude,
for morality,
for self-divination,
they didn’t feel it fully either.
As human beings, they can’t.
We can’t.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/04
How could “AI lava lamps” — endlessly generated, loosely coherent video — transform entertainment, from Cameron’s tech to YouTube’s watchable slop?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner sketch a fast-turnaround “Film and Commentary” series, springboarding from James Cameron’s tech genius (and clunky dialogue) and a hypothetical Cameron-Tarantino mash-up. They riff on The Boys/Gen V as grotesque political satire and the rise of watchable “AI slop” on YouTube. Rosner tracks the arc from AI stills to MidJourney’s short clips, then proposes “AI lava lamps”: endlessly generated, loosely coherent streams. His demo concept — “Bob Who Lives on the Lot” — follows a handsome squatter drifting through productions and eras, half mystery, half vibe. It is narrative as ambience: fragments, continuities, and the future of screen attention.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What else do you suggest? We could talk about complaints from your life and politics, or we could go into math, which covers most of what I think about. We could even talk about regrets, but we’ve covered that before.
Rick Rosner: James Cameron comes to mind. He’s a genius in terms of technology — he’s revolutionized filmmaking more than once and even pioneered deep-sea submersibles that reached the Titanic without disaster. But he’s not great at dialogue or plot. If he brought in someone like Tarantino, who excels at sharp, fun dialogue, the Avatar films would be less ponderous.
That connects to the idea of fun in serious productions — like The Boys and its spinoff Gen V. They’re grotesque, over-the-top superhero stories, but also satirical takes on politics. Someone even called them ham-fisted satires, but they’re entertaining.
Jacobsen: We could do something like “Film and Commentary” as a quick turnaround series.
Rosner: That could work. We’ve been talking about AI slop a little bit, you and I. It shows up in things like YouTube videos generated by AI in response to prompts. They’re largely nonsense, but they’re highly watchable, and the people who make them earn a lot of money.
The progression has been interesting. First, AI generated still images. Then short video clips. Right now, MidJourney — at least with the basic subscription — can generate clips about 5.2 seconds long. I assume if you pay for a premium membership on some AI generator, you can stretch that to 10 or 15 seconds. Then, of course, you can edit those into something longer.
I’m writing this book about the near future, and I’ve been coming up with things that will probably exist. One is something I call AI lava lamps.
Think about The Sims. If you let them go, they walk around and interact at random for quite a while. If you set up a party, it keeps going without much input. I imagine an AI system that sets up a world where the elements just continue — not entirely nonsensical, but inconsistent, fascinating to watch. The way stoners in the 60s and 70s stared at lava lamps.
Here’s one idea: Bob Who Lives on the Lot. Bob is a handsome, middle-aged guy — think Clooney or Jon Hamm. He wakes up in a house that looks normal outside, but inside it’s unfinished, bare, just a cot and a few belongings. He walks out the door, and you realize the house is only a movie set. Bob has been squatting in it.
As the AI story unfolds, he wanders the studio lot. Sometimes he wears a security guard uniform. Sometimes he’s pulled in as an extra, maybe dressed as a Roman soldier. Over time, you learn Bob has lived on the lot for years. Maybe he’s the son of a movie mogul from decades ago. Maybe he’s a ghost.
The point is, he can slide into different productions — sometimes solving mysteries, sometimes just drifting, maybe even falling in love. The setting could shift from present day to the 1940s. A sufficiently advanced AI could keep generating random, loosely connected episodes of Bob’s life for hours or days.
That’s what I mean by an AI lava lamp. It’s not really a story, not logical enough to be a narrative. It’s just endless fragments, endlessly watchable.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/04
So are the victories,
neither is an excuse to give up.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/03
That’s the problem.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/03
It’s Better Than Kosher!
Hire a guy named Moshe, take out the “r” and do infomercials, “It’s Better Than Koshe with Moshe! Tel-Aviv? Tell Habib!”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/02
“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”
That’s a good point and could be generalized over time:
Corvée laborers and enslaved workers in Pharaonic Egypt.
Debt-bonded farmers and temple dependents in Mesopotamia.
Enslaved laborers and Helots in classical Greece.
Women and metics in classical Greece.
Enslaved people and coloni in the Roman Empire.
Serfs bound to estates in medieval Europe.
Jewish and Roma communities barred from guilds and towns in medieval/early-modern Europe.
Jianmin “mean people” and most women in imperial China.
Nobi and baekjeong outcastes in Korea.
Burakumin in Tokugawa/Meiji Japan.
Dalits and Adivasi in South Asia.
Dhimmi in various Islamic empires.
Encomienda and mita Indigenous labor in Spanish America.
Plantation slaves in the Caribbean and Brazil.
Black cotton-field slaves in the American South.
Sharecroppers under Jim Crow debt peonage in post-Emancipation U.S. South.
Industrial-era child laborers in England.
Women in global pre-20th century.
Indigenous children in residential/boarding schools in Canada, the U.S., and Australia.
Black South Africans under pass laws and Bantu Education during apartheid.
Deaf communities under post-1880 oralism bans.
Roma across Europe into the 20th–21st centuries.
Muhamasheen in Yemen.
Osu among the Igbo.
Women and girls under Taliban edicts in Afghanistan now.
Therefore, not only, “Where are they?” But, what have we done?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/02
…
.
Were.
Confused…
And there we.
Wondering why we?
by tomorrows…
A werelwhined posturity, that.
Living for what we could be, for what we.
Today und tomorrow, yesterdays that.
yesterdays made…
What we.
Those words,
that.
Worlds apart,
a future’s past…
and there we.
.
.
.
.
…
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/02
How did Jane Goodall’s Gombe research on chimpanzee tool use and social behavior reshape primatology and catalyze global conservation through the Jane Goodall Institute and Roots & Shoots?
Jane Goodall was born on April 3, 1934. It was in London, England. Her parents were Mortimer Herbert Morris-Goodall and Margaret Myfanwe Joseph, with one sister, Judith. She began her academic career in East Africa after being recruited by Louis Leakey.
She studied wild chimpanzees at Gombe and then at the Gombe Stream Game Reserve in Tanganyika (now Tanzania) in 1960. This established the longest continuous field study of wild chimpanzees.
These were the basis for groundbreaking research into chimpanzees making and using tools, such as termite fishing. This overturned the prior position: Only humans make tools. The observation was made in 1960 and subsequently formalized in scientific publications.
She began PhD studies at Cambridge without an undergraduate degree, under the guidance of ethologist Robert Hinde. Her PhD was awarded in 1965/66. She also observed colobus monkeys and other mammals hunting and eating meat, including inter-group violence in the Gombe Chimpanzee War from 1974 to 1978.
She founded the Jane Goodall Institute in 1977 to sustain the research. Roots & Shoots was launched in 1991 as a global youth program focused on community, wildlife, and environmental projects.
In her life, she married several times. She married Dutch wildlife filmmaker Hugo van Lawick in 1964 and divorced in 1974, and they had one son, Hugo Eric Louis. She married Derek Bryceson in 1975, who died in 1980. Survivors reported are a son and three grandchildren: Merlin, Angel, and Nic, and a sister, Judith.
In her lifetime, she was awarded numerous prestigious honours, including the Kyoto Prize (1990), National Geographic’s Hubbard Medal (1995), the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement (1997), Templeton Prize (2021), and the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom (2025).
She died on October 1, 2025, in California at the age of 91 while on an American speaking tour. She died of natural causes.
Key books:
In the Shadow of Man (1971, Houghton Mifflin)
The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behavior (1986, Harvard Univ. Press)
Through a Window (1990, Houghton Mifflin)
Reason for Hope (1999, Warner/Grand Central).
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/02
Which Jane Goodall Quote Inspires You Most — From 1999 to 2025?
1999: “Only if we understand, can we care. Only if we care, we will help. Only if we help, we shall be saved.”
2002: “The greatest danger to our future is apathy.”
2002: “Lasting change is a series of compromises. And compromise is all right, as long as your values don’t change.”
2003: “Every individual matters. Every individual has a role to play. Every individual makes a difference.”
2014: “Only when our clever brain and our human heart work together in harmony can we achieve our true potential.”
2018: “We can have a world of peace… where we live in harmony with nature… with each other.”
2020: “It is our disregard for nature and our disrespect of the animals we should share the planet with that has caused this pandemic.”
2021: “What you do makes a difference, and you have to decide what kind of difference you want to make.”
2025: “I urge everyone to treat every day of the year as Earth Day.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/02
How do UN Special Procedures experts view Ukraine’s actions against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, including citizenship revocations and Law 3894-IX, in light of ICCPR Article 18 protections for freedom of religion?
A group of UN Special Procedures experts on October 1, 2025, expressed grave concern at reports of persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC).
Current measures risk violating international human rights standards. They direct particular attention top the provisions of the ICCPR Article 18 regarding freedom of conscience, religion, and thought. These rights are non-derogable.
The UN Special Procedures experts argue that national security is not a lawful basis for limiting the manifestation of freedom of religion. The experts drew attention to the revocation of Metropolitan Onufriy’s Ukrainian citizenship in July 2025, which was carried out on national security grounds.
On September 30, 2025, a court heard a DESS lawsuit to dissolve the Kyiv Metropolis. The allegations were based on affiliation with the Russian Orthodox Church.
The UN experts also criticized Law 3894-IX, which permits the dissolution of any religious organization linked to the Russian Orthodox Church. They argued that this creates a framework for state control that is incompatible with international standards.
They warned that legal certainty is undermined when justifications rest on vague labels such as “pro-Russian affiliation.” Their concern is the potential risk of criminalizing belief, assembly, and association.
UOC figures and defenders have been facing ongoing prosecutions, including those of Metropolitans Arsenii, Pavlo, Feodosii, Longin, and Father Yevhen Koshelnik. Others include journalist Dmytro Skvortsov and lawyer Svitlana Novytska. The UN experts argue these proceedings appear to amount to collective punishment.
They urged a review of Law 3894-IX and the end of trials and administrative measures against clergy, defenders, and journalists.
Signatories to this call are George Katrougalos, Nazila Ghanea, Nicolas Levrat, Ben Saul, and Gina Romero — independent UN mandate-holders serving in their personal capacities.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/30
2016–2025: No on-record public statements attributable to Flora Gunn.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/30
2022–2025: No on-record public statements attributable to Robert Stravens.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/30
2023: “Qual a fonte que os presidentes da América Latina têm sobre essa informação? Eu mostrei aqui, claramente, que quem controla a informação que sai de Gaza [é o Hamas].”
2023: “Eles estão mal-informados sobre o que está acontecendo.”
2023: “Israel não está lutando só contra o Hamas, Israel está lutando contra o Irã.”
2023: “Israel está chamando todos os civis para saírem da zona de conflito e de guerra. Israel está dando condições para eles receberem ajuda humanitária. O objetivo [de Israel] é o Hamas.”
2023: “Israel não vai permanecer em Gaza quando a guerra acabar.”
2024: “É um erro comum pensar que a guerra era contra o Hamas. A guerra é contra o Irã, e o Irã e todos os seus proxies. Israel está enfrentando sete exércitos, todos conduzidos pelo Irã.”
2024: “Não há nenhum conflito entre Israel e as pessoas que se descrevem como palestinas. Israel ofereceu o Estado palestino no passado, por quatro vezes…”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/30
2023: “This is the time to stand with Israel as we face a merciless enemy.”
2023: “The first thing that needs to be put out there is that Israel will defend itself and will respond to this outrageous barbaric attack with whatever means it has at its disposal.”
2023: “This is evil.”
2024: “We are appalled, but not surprised, at the attempt by a handful of pro-Hamas rioters to violently compromise our ability to operate as a diplomatic mission. They will not succeed… turning city council meetings into despicable spectacles of antisemitism and mass-atrocity denial.”
2025: “People are afraid to display Jewish symbols. You see this hostage pin? I cannot wear it outside for fear I may be attacked.”
2025: “From the amount of tweets and publications by the UN regarding aid for Gaza, you’d think 99% of the aid is from the UN. It is not.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/30
2024: “We, the Jewish people, prefer peace.”
2024: “We will not be in Gaza once the hostages are released and once we are sure that there are no more terrorists or arsenal of terrorists.”
2024: “We weren’t in Gaza prior to October 7, there was a ceasefire. We didn’t start the fire, they did.”
2024: “The Palestinian Authority further escalated its conflict with Israel by ramming forward a troubling resolution… this resolution deserves condemnation by anyone who actually desires Middle East peace.”
2024: “Endorsing this one-sided Palestinian effort now, less than a year after October 7th, only emboldens terrorists and terror supporters.”
2024: “They are not pro-Palestinians. They are pro-terror organizations because they are waving the flags of Hezbollah, Hamas.”
2025: “I can assure you that… if they release the 48 hostages and Hamas terrorists — not the Gazans — will leave Gaza, that will be the last day of the war. We don’t want this war in Gaza.”
2025: “The return of the 48 hostages and the complete removal of Hamas from Gaza are the necessary conditions for ending this war.”
2025: “Those who choose to criticize or condemn Israel for defending ourselves… are serving as enablers of Hamas.”
2025: “Qatar and Hamas are responsible for the safety of our hostages… We must continue to pressure both to release everyone — and now.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/30
2023: “If you really care about Palestinians, you need to rally to help Israel topple Hamas.”
2023: “This is not about territory; this is about terrorism.”
2023: “Phase №1 is to eradicate Hamas period. We first need to take the cancer out, and then let the healing process begin.”
2024: “Eventually Israel needs to ‘defend itself, by itself’.”
2025: “We’re not going to stay silent.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/30
2023: “They murdered in cold blood — men, women, children, the elderly and the disabled.”
2023: “This is Israel’s 9/11.”
2023: “Let there be no confusion. This is not about politics. This is about the murder of Jews, simply because they are Jews.”
2023: “So right now there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.”
2023: “Words matter and we need to be accurate. There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.”
2023: “Hamas is ISIS. The essence is the same.”
2023: “There is nothing, nothing that could justify the atrocities we have been seeing.”
2023: “Our goal right now is very clear: to dismantle the Hamas terrorist infrastructure.”
2023: “A lot can be said about the Oct. 7 trauma, but tonight is dedicated to 239 men, women, children, elderly, babies that have been stolen, kept in darkness, without knowing how they are doing.”
2024: “As Consul General, I will continue to participate and engage in meaningful dialogue with every single group.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/30
2023: “One of the worst atrocities for Jews since the Holocaust.”
2023: “We don’t want war; we didn’t go to war for the sake of war.”
2023: “We must destroy Hamas before any ceasefire.”
2023: “We will not allow the citizens of Israel to live under this threat anymore.”
2023: “This isn’t a war against Palestinians. This is a fight between good and evil.”
2024: “Securing our nation has been a persistent challenge… including the recent intense and gruesome war with Hamas.”
2024: “It’s time that the world wakes up.”
2024: “We will do whatever it takes with partners or alone.”
2025: “It’s become increasingly clear — even among Palestinians — that Hamas must be eliminated.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2023: “They were killed in a very brutal and barbaric way… It was slaughter by Hamas terrorists in their homes.”
2023: “We’re not fighting against the Palestinian people… we’re fighting a terrorist, a vicious, cruel terrorist organization.”
2023: “If it looks like pro-Hamas, walks like pro-Hamas and quacks like pro-Hamas, then it just may be pro-Hamas. And antisemitic.”
2024: “This resolution goes against the position of the Biden administration, the International Court of Justice, and the overwhelming majority of the American people.”
2024: “What’s a genocide? … There is definitely a politically motivated overuse of this word, and what’s happening in Gaza is a war.”
2025: “Defeating Hamas militarily should only be the first stage… The next phase must involve a sustained process of de-radicalization.”
2025: “We are devastated and heartbroken by this senseless killing… What happened last night in Washington, D.C., could have happened here in Chicago.”
2023: “I am relieved to see Natalie back home in Chicago… While we’re celebrating Natalie’s return, we remember the 239 hostages… still held by Hamas in Gaza.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2024: “Oct. 7 is for many Jewish people akin to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on US soil. ‘Each and every Israeli knows where’ they were on Oct. 7.”
2024: “The most important thing for Israel is to make sure Oct. 7 is never repeated again.”
2025: “Hamas started this war. Hamas is prolonging it. And Hamas could end it — today — if it chose peace over power, people over propaganda, and life over death.”
2025: “If Israel will just leave Gaza tomorrow, the war will not come to an end, the hostages will not be released immediately, and Hamas definitely is not going to leave Gaza.”
2025: “Recognizing a non-existent Palestinian state now… empowers Hamas. This is rewarding Hamas and its terrorist act.”
2025: “There is no future at all for the people of Gaza as long as Hamas is there… now is the time to do that [take Hamas out of the equation].”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2025: “You’re giving a prize to terror because you’re listening to these liars.”
2025: “The Palestinians living in Gaza are victims of their own leadership.”
2025: “Hamas vows to repeat the October 7 massacres again and again. This is the terror Israel and the free world must confront.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2016–2025: No on-record public statements attributable to Gregorio Goldstein Isaacson.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2019–2025: No on-record public statements attributable to Miguel Otto Schwarz.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2023: “Imposible negociar con Hamás porque o es la existencia de ellos o es la de Israel y los judíos. Se están definiendo los objetivos militares de esta guerra, pero lograrlos, cualesquiera que sean, no va a ser una guerra de corto plazo.”
“Impossible to negotiate with Hamas because it is either their existence or that of Israel and the Jews. The military objectives of this war are being defined, but achieving them — whatever they are — will not be a short war.”
2023: “Pide la eventual creación de un estado islámico en Palestina, en lugar de Israel y los Territorios Palestinos y la obliteración o disolución de Israel.”
“It [Hamas’s charter] calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories, and for the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.”
2023: “El Ejército israelí manda avisos y llama por teléfono a los miembros de la sociedad civil donde viven miembros de Hamás… ‘hoy a las 11 de la noche vamos a destruir el edificio, salgan’…”
“The Israeli army sends warnings and calls civilians in places where Hamas members live… ‘today at 11 p.m. we are going to destroy the building, leave’…”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2017–2025: No on-record public statements attributable to Edoardo Gurgo Salice.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2023: “Tragic news: Vivian Silver, the Canadian-Israeli peace activist previously thought to be taken hostage, has been confirmed dead, murdered by Hamas in Kibbutz Be’eri. Our hearts go out to her family and friends. May her memory be a blessing.”
2024: “The relationship between Israel and Canada is at an all-time low. Canada, according to many, has abandoned Israel, the only democratic ally they have in the region.”
2024: “Most Canadians can understand that … we didn’t choose this war. We are fighting a war for our survival, for the survival of the only Jewish democracy and country in the world. And now we understand more than ever the need for a safe haven for Jews.”
2024: “The hostages are the utmost priority, releasing the ones who are alive and returning the bodies of those who are not.”
2025: “PR perfume on institutional moral rot.”
2025: “When terrorists thank you, you’re in the wrong. Hamas’ own press release refers to today’s recognition of Palestine as a ‘reward’ and thanks our governments.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
No on-record public statements attributable to Eliaz Luf.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2011: “I hope it can only encourage and improve the relationship.”
2012: “It was a ‘very convivial meeting’.”
2014: “It’s a simple statement of fact. I don’t see anything wrong with it.”
2014: “What he said is correct — we’re not responsible for what happens in Israel. Scottish and British Jewry is not responsible for anything that Israel does.”
2016: “I saw ‘a couple of dozen protesters’ before kick-off.”
2016: “There was a flurry of Palestinian flags inside the ground just as the game started, but absolutely no trouble at all.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2018: “Насильство не припиняється… світова громадськість фактично мовчить, тоді як бойовики ХАМАСу цькують безневинних громадян.”
“The violence does not stop… the international public is effectively silent while Hamas militants hound innocent civilians.”
“Лідери терористів повинні зрозуміти, що їх ідеї, методи і дії огидні… вони не залишаться непокараними!”
“Terrorist leaders must understand that their ideas, methods, and actions are vile… they will not go unpunished!”
2021: “Їхня унікальна самаритянська ідентичність… дозволяє пристосуватися до умов ізраїльсько-палестинської війни.”
“Their unique Samaritan identity… allows them to adapt to the conditions of the Israeli-Palestinian war.”
2022: “Перемога — це не завжди кінець війни, а перемир’я — це не мир.”
“Victory isn’t always the end of war, and a ceasefire is not peace.”
2023: “Полномасштабное нападение на север может перенапрячь Израиль… большинство его сил сфокусированы на возможном наземном наступлении в Газе.”
“A full-scale attack in the north could overstretch Israel… most of its forces are focused on a possible ground offensive in Gaza.”
2024: “Ці заяви є не лише перебільшеними, а й такими, що маніпулюють фактами.”
“These claims are not only exaggerated; they also manipulate the facts.”
2025: “Для багатьох держав це виглядає як ‘мирний крок’, але для Ізраїлю… це — не про мир, а про легітимізацію загрози.”
“For many states this looks like a ‘peaceful step,’ but for Israel… it’s not about peace; it’s the legitimization of a threat.”
“Ізраїль хоче ‘тотальної перемоги’ над ХАМАСом.”
“Israel seeks ‘total victory’ over Hamas.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2019: “Первоначальная позиция была такова: два государства для двух народов, а по факту получается три государства для двух народов… В такой ситуации вести переговоры не представляется возможным.”
“The original position was two states for two peoples, but in fact it has become three entities for two peoples… In such a situation, negotiations are not possible.”
2019: “На данный момент влияние, которое просматривается на руководство Газы, я бы сказала, исходит из Ирана. Спонсорами также являются Катар… Предполагаю, что свой вес имеет влияние Египта на ХАМАС.”
“At the moment, the influence we see over Gaza’s leadership, I would say, comes from Iran. Qatar is also a sponsor… I assume Egypt’s influence on Hamas carries weight.”
2019: “В ‘Сделке века’ скорее всего не будет ничего о каком-то палестинском государстве, а скорее обещание автономии и преференции в области экономики.”
“In the ‘Deal of the Century’ there is likely nothing about a Palestinian state — rather a promise of autonomy and economic preferences.”
2019: “В течение последнего года сильно видны усилия палестинцев показать, что у евреев нет абсолютно никакой связи с Иерусалимом… Признание Соединёнными Штатами [Иерусалима] очень важно.”
“Over the past year there have been strong efforts by the Palestinians to show that Jews have no connection whatsoever to Jerusalem… Recognition by the United States [of Jerusalem] is very important.”
2021: “ХАМАС выпустил 1000 ракет по Израилю… ХАМАС — вот кто угрожает Сектору Газа.”
“Hamas fired 1,000 rockets at Israel… Hamas is the one that threatens the Gaza Strip.” (official consulate post)
2021: “Идеология ХАМАСа сочетает кровавый террор, военные преступления и наглую ложь.”
“Hamas’s ideology combines bloody terror, war crimes, and brazen lies.” (official consulate post)
2021: “Несмотря на массированные ракетные атаки террористов ХАМАСа, система ПРО ‘Железный купол’ продолжает эффективно защищать безопасность мирных жителей.”
“Despite Hamas’s massive rocket attacks, the Iron Dome missile-defense system continues to effectively protect civilians.” (official consulate post)
2021: “Что такое дети Газы для кровавого режима ХАМАСа? Восполняемый ресурс терроризма, который они цинично готовы послать…”
“What are Gaza’s children to Hamas’s bloody regime? A replenishable resource for terrorism that they cynically send…” (official consulate post)
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2023: “Hierbei handelt es sich nicht um Pro-Palästinensische-Demonstrationen, sondern um Pro-Terror-Demonstrationen.”
“These are not pro-Palestinian demonstrations, but pro-terror demonstrations.”
2023: “Wir Israelis brauchen die Unterstützung der westlichen Welt.”
“We Israelis need the support of the Western world.”
2024: “Discussions should be dialogs where every participant can speak in a secure setting and, most importantly, can listen to one another.”
“Discussions should be dialogs where every participant can speak in a secure setting and, most importantly, can listen to one another.”
2024: “Anyone who forgets, suppresses the memory of, or denies this horrific massacre [of October 7] is reversing the positions of perpetrator and victim.”
“Anyone who forgets, suppresses the memory of, or denies this horrific massacre [of October 7] is reversing the positions of perpetrator and victim.”
2024: “Es gibt keinen Genozid in Gaza.”
“There is no genocide in Gaza.”
2025: “Ein Deal mit der Hamas wäre ein Pakt mit dem Teufel.”
“A deal with Hamas would be a pact with the devil.”
2025: “Wenn die Hamas alle Geiseln freilässt, wird sich auch die gesamte Situation in Gaza zum Positiven verändern.”
“If Hamas releases all the hostages, the entire situation in Gaza will improve.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2006: “Iisraelil on õigus enesekaitseks!”
“Israel has the right to self-defense!”
2023: “Ma kardan, et õhulöökide järel on Iisraeli armee sunnitud Gazasse sisenema. See toob kaasa muidugi mõlemale poolele ohvreid, aga ma ei näe praegu mitte mingisuguseid muid võimalusi.”
“I fear that after the airstrikes the Israeli army will be forced to enter Gaza. That will, of course, bring casualties on both sides, but at the moment I don’t see any other options.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
2017–2025: No on-record public statements attributable to Honorary Consul Adamos A. Varnava on the Israeli–Palestinians.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishingcontent—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2023: “We are very grateful to the United Arab Emirates for its stance supporting Israel.”
2023: “#ITUWRC conference in Dubai today. We will keep telling the stories of the 239 people who are still being held hostage in Gaza under #Hamas.”
2023: “Would you agree to keep living this kind of a reality in your own country? #HamasislSIS”
2023: “Incubators, baby food, and medical supplies brought by the @IDF from Israel have successfully reached the #Shifahospital.”
2024: “Today is October 7, 2024. But for 101 hostages, and the whole nation of Israel, today is still October 7, 2023. Hamas kidnapped 251 hostages …”
2025: “Although there are disagreements, dialogue gives influence and it also allows humanitarian aid in Gaza to continue flowing.”
2025: “We saw on Oct. 7 that radical forces like Iran and proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas are trying to hurt the expansion of ties between Israel and the Arab world.”
2025: “700 days have passed since October 7th, when Hamas terrorists murdered, raped, and abducted innocent civilians. 48 hostages remain in captivity.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2023: “Bölgedeki tüm ülkeler ABD’nin yaptığı gibi teröre ve Hamas terör örgütünün barbarca eylemlerine karşı çıkmalı ve bunları kınamalıdır. İsrailli üst düzey yetkililer düzenli olarak Türk yetkililerle konuşuyor ve onları durum hakkında bilgilendiriyor, bunu yapmaya devam edecekler.”
“All countries in the region, as the U.S. has done, should oppose and condemn terrorism and the barbaric acts of the Hamas terrorist organization. Israeli senior officials are in regular contact with Turkish officials, briefing them on the situation, and will continue to do so.”
2023: “İran’ın şeytani rejimi tarafından desteklenen Hamas ve Filistin İslami Cihad terör örgütlerinin terör altyapılarının yok edilmesini ve Gazze’den İsrail vatandaşlarına ve devletine yönelik tehdidin ortadan kaldırılmasını sağlamak için gerekli tüm adımları atacağız.”
“We will take all necessary steps to destroy the terror infrastructures of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad — supported by Iran’s evil regime — and to eliminate the threat from Gaza to Israel’s citizens and state.”
2023: “Şimdi Hamas terör örgütü tarafından rehin alınan vatandaşlarımızı kurtarmaya ve terör altyapısını yok etmeye odaklanma zamanı.”
“Now is the time to focus on rescuing our citizens held hostage by the Hamas terrorist organization and on destroying the terror infrastructure.”
2023: “Hamas ve Filistin İslami Cihad terör örgütleri Filistin halkını rehin alıyor, İsrail ordusu ise sivilleri korumak için elinden geleni yapıyor ve yapmaya devam edecek.”
“Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are holding the Palestinian people hostage, and the Israeli army is doing — and will continue to do — everything it can to protect civilians.”
2023: “İsrail ordusu sadece Hamas ve Filistin İslami Cihad’ın terör altyapısını hedef almaktadır.”
“The Israeli army targets only the terror infrastructure of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
You cannot expect the abused to be the same after;
They were abused.
Duh.
What they do with that, after enough time,
it’s up to them.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2023: “They are not only terrorists, but animals on two legs. They will pay a price that they cannot even imagine.”
2024: “Hamas will not have any military capability.”
2024: “We only targeted military bases, not civilians.”
2025: “Ceasefire is not a solution — it’s only a temporary pause.”
2025: “We do care about the Palestinians. We don’t have anything against them.”
2025: “We are never going to lose the war.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2024: “Israel is doing everything to protect its citizens. Israel will attack anyone who is a threat.”
2024: “Hamas can end the war by releasing the hostages.”
2025: “Hamas brutally invaded Israel while slaughtering, raping, and killing women, children, and babies.”
2025: “After more than 471 days in Gaza, we are finally seeing a situation where the first three women were sent home… We are happy that they are home and we are hoping that all the rest of the hostages still left in Gaza will be able to make it home soon.”
2025: “There is not a dry eye left in Israel seeing these images.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2024: “自10月7日哈马斯野蛮袭击以色列社区以来……这是一场它从来不想要的战争。”
“Since Hamas’s brutal attack on Israeli communities on Oct 7… Israel found itself in a war it never wanted.”
2024: “战争的目标从一开始就很明确：……彻底消除哈马斯的军事能力；……释放我们的人质。”
“The war’s aims were clear from the outset: … to completely eliminate Hamas’s military capabilities; … and to free our hostages.”
2024: “我们的目标不是夺回并控制加沙地带……无论如何，以色列都不会控制加沙地带。”
“Our goal is not to retake and control the Gaza Strip… In any case, Israel will not control the Gaza Strip.”
2024: “不幸的是，哈马斯在酒店、清真寺和学校内设置了指挥中心、火箭发射器和地道。”
“Unfortunately, Hamas established command centers, rocket launchers and tunnels inside hotels, mosques and schools.”
2024: “以色列国防军分发了数百万份传单、发送数百万条短信，并打了数十万通电话……”
“The IDF distributed millions of leaflets, sent millions of text messages, and made hundreds of thousands of calls…”
2024: “事实上，巴勒斯坦从来没有一个‘巴勒斯坦国’，以色列也从来没有占领过巴勒斯坦领土。”
“In fact, there has never been a ‘State of Palestine,’ and Israel has never occupied ‘Palestinian territory.’”
2024: “每个国家的政府都有责任保护其公民，即使这需要使用武力。”
“Every government has a responsibility to protect its citizens, even if this requires the use of force.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2023: “Hamas started this war, and Israel is preparing for a prolonged military response … to restore full control … as well as crashing the terrorist infrastructure of Hamas.”
2023: “Hamas are ‘bloodthirsty terrorists’ who ‘are devoid of any moral inhibitions’ … ‘Israel will act to free the hostages … and to reach a situation in which no terrorist group in Gaza will be able to harm Israeli citizens again.’”
2024: “Genocide? Israel is fighting a just war against a terrorist organisation … The atrocities of October 7 cannot be allowed to happen again.”
2024: “現在尚有101名人質身處加沙地下隧道，受著極不人道的對待。……唯一可以達至中東和平的方法只有是溫和派之間的和平共存。”
“There are still 101 captives in the brutal Gaza tunnels, suffering the most inhumane conditions. … The only viable solution in the Middle East is peace and co-existence between moderate parties.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2023: “#超40万巴勒斯坦人离开加沙的家园##以色列# 看看哈马斯在加沙地区是怎么利用无辜平民的！”
“‘#Over 400,000 Palestinians have left their homes in Gaza##Israel# Look at how Hamas exploits innocent civilians in Gaza!’ (official Guangzhou Consulate Weibo).”
“我们有证据表明，哈马斯正在设置路障，阻止巴勒斯坦平民从加沙北部向南部撤离！”
“‘We have evidence that Hamas is setting up roadblocks to stop Palestinian civilians from evacuating from northern to southern Gaza!’ (reported from the Guangzhou Consulate’s Weibo).”
“哈马斯以将平民置于危险境地而自豪，他们要对每一个平民伤亡负责。”
“‘Hamas prides itself on putting civilians in danger; they are responsible for every civilian casualty.’ (reported from the Guangzhou Consulate’s Weibo).”
“As an Israeli diplomat, I want to emphasize that Israel is fighting terrorist groups in the Gaza Strip. A war we did not start.”
“This was a brutal attack on civilians and was very similar to ISIS’s modus operandi.”
2024: “自去年10月7日以来，所有以色列人都记得哈马斯对以色列进行的袭击，以色列人不会忘记还有125名人质还被哈马斯扣押在加沙。他们被绑架到加沙已经两百多天了，我们没有任何他们的消息，甚至不知道他们是否还活着。”
“‘Since October 7 last year, all Israelis remember Hamas’s attack on Israel. We will not forget that 125 hostages are still held by Hamas in Gaza. They were abducted to Gaza more than 200 days ago; we have no information about them and don’t even know if they are still alive.’ (Independence Day remarks in Guangzhou).”
“We remember the victims and stand with the families of the hostages who are enduring this unimaginable pain. We pray that the hostages will return home safely as soon as possible.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2023: “近日，我们收到了一封陌生中国朋友的来信。”
“Recently, we received a letter from an unfamiliar Chinese friend.”
2023: “网络虚假信息众多，建议多元信息渠道交叉验证，尽量避免轻信偏听。”
“There is a lot of misinformation online; we recommend cross-checking via multiple sources and avoiding one-sided credulity.”
2024: “The charges of genocide brought by South Africa against Israel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague are false, outrageous and morally repugnant.”
2024: “Key UN agencies have spread misleading information and applied double standards when addressing Israel’s actions and the broader conflict.”
2025: “In a joint IDF-ISA operation, the bodies of abducted hostages Idan Shtivi and Ilan Weiss were located in the Gaza Strip and returned to Israel.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2023: «لا نستغرب هذه الوقفة الإنسانية من صاحب السموّ الشيخ محمد بن زايد، وصاحب السموّ الشيخ محمد بن راشد. وهذه المبادرات امتداد لنهج المغفور له الشيخ زايد بن سلطان آل نهيان، في دعم الفلسطينيين في كل الأحوال.»
“We do not find this humanitarian stance by Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed and Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid surprising; these initiatives extend the late Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan’s approach of supporting Palestinians in all circumstances.”
2023: «المشهد الذي تابعناه من الإقبال الواسع على المشاركة بالعمل التطوعي أو تقديم التبرعات، يجسد واحدة من الصور الإنسانية في مجتمع الإمارات، الذي يدعو للسلام والمحبة والتآخي.»
“The scene we witnessed — of widespread volunteering and donations — embodies one of the human faces of the UAE community, which calls for peace, compassion, and fraternity.”
2023: «نشكر مساعي وجهود دائرة الشؤون الإسلامية والعمل الخيري بدبي، ومؤسسة وطني الإمارات، على الإشراف والتنظيم المميز اليوم على إقامة الحملة في دبي وعلى تقديم الدعم والمساعدة للأشقاء في فلسطين.»
“We thank the efforts of the Islamic Affairs and Charitable Activities Department in Dubai and Watani Al Emarat for superbly organizing today’s campaign in Dubai, and for providing support and assistance to our brothers in Palestine.”
2023: «كما أشكر مساعي دولة الإمارات العربية المتحدة، فهي دائماً دولة سبّاقة في عمل الخير على الصعيد العالمي، وسبّاقة في الوقوف بجانب الشعب الفلسطيني في كافة الظروف، وأتمنى التوفيق لهذه البلد المعطاءة على وقفتها الأخوية الصادقة مع الشعب الفلسطيني.»
“I also thank the efforts of the United Arab Emirates, always at the forefront of global charity and of standing by the Palestinian people in all circumstances; I wish continued success to this generous country for its sincere fraternal stance with the Palestinian people.”
2024: «تواجدُ الكلّ الفلسطيني في هذا المحفل رسالةٌ كبيرة للعالم في ظلّ الظروف الصعبة التي يعيشها شعبُنا الفلسطيني، وأتمنى التوفيق والنجاح للجميع.»
“The presence of all Palestinians together at this forum is a powerful message to the world given the difficult circumstances our people are living through; I wish everyone success.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2022: «كُنّا على يقينٍ تامٍّ بفوزِ المغربِ وتأهله إلى نصفِ النهائي، نظرًا للأداءِ الجيد الذي قدَّمه أسودُ الأطلس طيلة أطوارِ هذا المونديال.»
“We were absolutely certain Morocco would reach the semifinals, given the quality the Atlas Lions showed throughout the tournament.”
2022: «نحن سعداءُ جدًّا بهذا النصر؛ إنّه نصرٌ لكلِّ العالمِ العربيّ والإسلاميّ، ونحنُ فخورون بأسودِ الأطلس ونتمنّى لهم تحقيقَ فوزٍ جديد.»
“We are very happy with this victory; it is a win for the entire Arab and Islamic worlds. We are proud of the Atlas Lions and wish them further success.”
2023: «Bu direniş doğal bir sonuçtur… zulmün ve katliamların durması için toplu intifada dışında bir seçim hakkımız olmadı.»
“This resistance is a natural result… faced with oppression and massacres, we had no option but a mass intifada.”
2023: «Her türlü silahı, yasaklı fosfor bombalarını kullanarak evlerini başlarının üzerine yıkmaktadır…»
“They are using every kind of weapon — including banned white phosphorus — bringing homes crashing down on people.”
2023: «Filistin yönetiminin bu vahşetin durması için yaptığı çağrılara Batı camiası ve uluslararası kuruluşlar dilsiz ve sağır kalmışlardır.»
“The Western community and international organizations have been mute and deaf to the Palestinian Authority’s appeals to end this brutality.”
2023: «Türk ve Filistin halkı arasındaki ilişki tarihidir… Türk milletinin ve hükümetinin Filistin ile dayanışmasını sürdürmesini istiyoruz.»
“The relationship between the Turkish and Palestinian peoples is historic… we ask the Turkish nation and government to continue their solidarity with Palestine.”
2023: «Tüm milletler gibi biz de hür ve egemen yaşamak istiyoruz.»
“Like all peoples, we too want to live free and sovereign.”
2023: «Rusya, Çin, Türkiye ve Arap ülkelerinden… sivillerin korunmasını istiyoruz… başkenti Kudüs olan bağımsız Filistin devletinin inşası için desteklerini bekliyoruz.»
“From Russia, China, Turkey and the Arab countries… we ask for the protection of civilians… and support for building an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2016: «تُناشِدُ القيادةُ الفلسطينيةُ المجتمعَ الدوليَّ، ولا سيما مجلسَ الأمن، الاضطلاعَ بالتزاماته إزاءَ احترامِ وضمانِ احترامِ القانونِ الدولي لوقفِ الانتهاكاتِ والجرائمِ الإسرائيلية واستردادِ جميعِ حقوقِنا المشروعة، بما فيها قيامُ الدولةِ المستقلةِ وعاصمتُها القدسُ الشريف.
“The Palestinian leadership continually urges the international community, especially the Security Council, to shoulder its responsibilities to respect and ensure respect for international law, to halt Israeli violations and crimes, and to restore all our legitimate rights, including the establishment of the independent state with Jerusalem as its capital.”
2016: «عددُ الجاليةِ الفلسطينيةِ في المملكةِ نحوَ نصفِ مليونِ لاجئ.»
“The Palestinian community in the Kingdom numbers around half a million refugees.”
2016: «تظلُّ مواقفُ المملكةِ العربيةِ السعوديةِ ثابتةً وراسخةً تجاهَ القضيةِ الفلسطينية، وتؤكِّدُ دائمًا حقَّ الشعبِ الفلسطينيِّ في قيامِ دولتِه المستقلةِ وعاصمتُها القدس.»
“Saudi Arabia’s positions remain firm and steadfast toward the Palestinian cause, consistently affirming the Palestinian people’s right to an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital.”
2025: «جَدَّدَ عدمَ استسلامِ الشعبِ الفلسطينيِّ للمخططاتِ الاستعمارية.»
“He reiterated that the Palestinian people will not surrender to colonial schemes.”
2025: «إنَّ هذه المناسبةَ تتزامنُ مع نكبةٍ وحربِ إبادةٍ جماعيةٍ ممنهجةٍ تشنُّها إسرائيلُ على شعبِنا في غزة، وعدوانِها التدميريِّ في الضفةِ الغربية، ومخططِها لتهويدِ القدسِ ومصادرةِ الأراضي.»
“This occasion coincides with a Nakba and a systematic genocide waged by Israel against our people in Gaza, its destructive aggression in the West Bank, and its scheme to Judaize Jerusalem and seize land.”
2025: «هذا المخطّطُ الاستعماريُّ الجديدُ–القديمُ لن يمرَّ بفضلِ وعيِ وصمودِ ورباطِ المواطنِ الفلسطينيِّ رغمَ الحصارِ والقتلِ والتجويعِ والعطشِ وفقدانِ العلاجِ والدواءِ.»
“This old–new colonial scheme will not pass thanks to the awareness, steadfastness, and fortitude of the Palestinian citizen despite siege, killing, starvation, thirst, and the lack of treatment and medicine.”
2025: «المملكةُ تسيرُ بخطى ثابتةٍ نحوَ مستقبلٍ مزدهرٍ لأبنائها… حتى أضحت منارةً للإنسانيةِ في هذا العصر.»
“The Kingdom is moving steadily toward a prosperous future for its people… having become a beacon for humanity in this era.”
2025: «شكرًا للمملكةِ شكرًا لسموِّ وليِّ العهدِ، وإن شاءَ الله نلتقي في القدسِ عاصمةِ فلسطينَ المستقلة.»
“Thank you to the Kingdom and to His Royal Highness the Crown Prince; God willing, we will meet in Jerusalem, the capital of an independent Palestine.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2025: «النكبة ليست مجرد ذكرى نحيّيها فحسب، بل صرخةٌ في الضمير الإنساني لحقّ شعبنا في العودة والحرية والسلام…» — “The Nakba is not merely an anniversary we mark; it is a cry in the human conscience for our people’s right to return, freedom, and peace…”.
2025: «ما يجري يمثّل انتهاكًا صارخًا للقانون الدولي الإنساني.» — “What is happening is a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law.”
2025: «أولويةُ القيادة تكمن في وقفِ العدوان وإدخالِ المساعدات الإنسانية العاجلة إلى قطاع غزة.» — “The leadership’s priority is to halt the aggression and bring urgent humanitarian aid into Gaza.”
2025: «هذا القرارُ التاريخيّ يعكسُ التزامَ فرنسا بتحقيقِ حلٍّ سياسيّ للصراع وفقَ القانون الدوليّ ومبدأ حلِّ الدولتين.» — “This historic decision reflects France’s commitment to a political solution to the conflict, consistent with international law and the two-state principle.”
2025: «نثمّنُ العلاقاتِ التاريخيةَ التي تربطُ الشعبينِ الفلسطينيّ والكرديّ، ونسعى لتعزيزِ التعاون في الثقافةِ والتعليمِ والاستثمار.» — “We value the historical ties between the Palestinian and Kurdish peoples, and we seek to strengthen cooperation in culture, education, and investment.”
2025: «إلى جانبِ توطيدِ علاقاتِنا مع إقليمِ كوردستان، عملْنا على تطويرِ العلاقات بين جامعاتِ كوردستان وجامعاتِ فلسطين.» — “Besides making our relations stronger with the Kurdistan Region, we worked to improve the relations between universities of Kurdistan and universities of Palestine.”
2025: «…اتخاذُ خطواتٍ عمليّةٍ لتنفيذِ حلِّ الدولتين، باعتبارهِ الطريقَ الوحيدَ لتحقيقِ السلامِ والاستقرار في المنطقة.» — “…taking practical steps to implement the two-state solution, as it is the only path to achieving peace and stability in the region.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
2024: وأكّد القنصلُ العام وفيق أبو سيدو في كلمته، دورَ المرأةِ الفلسطينيةِ التاريخيَّ المهمَّ والفعّالَ في القضية الفلسطينية سابقًا وحاليًا ومستقبلًا.
“He stressed the historic, important, and active role of Palestinian women in our cause — past, present, and future.”
2025: نُقَدِّرُ حِكمةَ مصرَ والسعوديةِ والأردنِ في دعمِ دولةِ فلسطين، ونؤكّدُ انفتاحَنا على التعاونِ مع قطاعِ الأعمالِ في مصر.
“We value the wisdom of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan in supporting the State of Palestine, and we’re open to cooperation with Egypt’s business sector.”
2025: مكتبةُ الإسكندريةِ صرحٌ عالميّ، وشرفٌ لنا أن نكون مشاركينَ في معرضِها الدوليِّ للكتاب.
“The Bibliotheca Alexandrina is a global institution, and it’s an honor for us to take part in its International Book Fair.”
2025: مشاركتُنا في المعرضِ رمزيةٌ تُعبِّرُ عن وجودِ فلسطين… آملًا إنهاءَ الاحتلالِ وإقامةَ الدولةِ الفلسطينيةِ في القريبِ العاجل.
“Our participation is symbolic of Palestine’s presence… hoping for an end to the occupation and the establishment of the Palestinian state in the near future.”
2025: تشاركُ القنصليةُ العامةُ لدولةِ فلسطينَ بجناحٍ خاصٍّ يُبرزُ تراثَنا وصمودَ شعبِنا.
“The Consulate General of the State of Palestine is participating with a special pavilion that highlights our heritage and our people’s steadfastness.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/27
2015: “Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Both are unacceptable. We will not sit with those who espouse hatred against the Jewish people. Period.”
2017: “If we’re not vigilant about the rights that we have and the privilege we enjoy, we shouldn’t expect to keep them.”
2017: “Glad @POTUS blasted violence but long overdue for moral ldrshp that condemns the agents of #hate: #WhiteSupremacists, #NeoNazis…”
2018: “We have our own domestic terrorists in the United States: white supremacists.”
2020: “Without a doubt, right-wing extremist violence is currently the greatest domestic terrorism threat to everyone in this country.”
2021: “A number of online forums and platforms host what amounts to a 24/7 extremist rally.”
2022: “Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.”
2024: “When people chant ‘From the river to the sea,’ it’s eliminationist language and contributes directly to a climate of hatred and violence.”
2025: “We stopped playing defense and have moved to offense… In the past 12 months, ADL’s filed more lawsuits than in the prior 112 years — against extremist groups, elite universities, public companies, school districts, and state sponsors of terror… We’ve launched innovative products to intercept antisemitism before it takes root, whether in the boardroom or in chat rooms, large language models or academic associations, in Wikipedia entries or WhatsApp chats.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/27
His voice carries the woes of every bar goin’ man I knew when I was a janitor and basic dish labour at the local one.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/26
Breathe.
If,
you have a choice,
If,
you have emotions,
If,
you are hurt,
by someone,
If,
you can,
breathe,
If,
you feel hurt and choose to breathe,
then you can choose different emotions.
Do your future self and future relations this gift,
choose a gift of an emotion different than that felt.
Then breathe,
again.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/25
Playfulness,
affection,
gratitude,
positive regard,
they come more naturally for me, as with most people — as I am like them.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/25
Global surveys (UNESCO–ICFJ) show that 73% of women journalists have faced online violence, with 25% receiving physical threats, 18% sexual threats, and 20% experiencing abuse that spilled offline. Attacks are most often linked to coverage of gender (47%), politics/elections (44%), and human rights/social policy (31%). Perpetrators are usually anonymous mobs, followed closely by political actors.
41% report facing coordinated disinformation. Meta (Facebook) is rated the least safe platform, with 48% of users having received unwanted direct messages. The impact is profound: 30% self-censor, 20% withdraw from online interaction, 11% miss work, 4% quit their jobs, and 2% leave journalism altogether. The heaviest toll is on mental health.
Only 25% of women journalists report incidents to their employers, and only 53% report them anywhere at all — suggesting the real rates are far higher.
An IFJ survey across 50 countries found 48% suffered gender-based violence at work, with 44% reporting online abuse. Forms included verbal (63%), psychological (41%), sexual harassment (37%), economic (21%), and physical (≈11%). Perpetrators included sources, politicians, or audiences (45%), as well as bosses or supervisors (38%).
Carceral repression adds to the threat. Reporters Without Borders reports that as of early 2024, 12.7% of imprisoned journalists are women, but they received 55% of the longest sentences since January 2023 — a stark disproportion. CPJ recorded 361 jailed worldwide as of December 1, 2024, near a historic high. Women Press Freedom counted 92 women journalists in prison on May 3, 2024, and 951 violations in 2024, including 37 detentions.
The dangers also turn deadly. The IFJ recorded 122 journalists and media workers killed in 2024, including 14 women. Impunity remains the rule: ~85% of journalist killings go unpunished, according to UNESCO.
Women journalists want to report the news for the public’s right to know. These are the contemporary risks they live with every day.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/25
It’s important to double- and triple-check the qualifications in a few regards.
Is the credential real?
Is the institution accredited?
Is it a relevant discipline to the claimed expertise?
Is the thesis subject matter relevant to the claimed expertise?
Has the program earned recognition for producing credible experts?
Does the level of training demonstrate sufficient rigour and peer review to justify the authority?
Are the person’s broader academic and professional outputs consistent with the credential and aligned with the standards of recognized experts?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/25
Some pains have no salve,
only time,
and it’s only a bandage.
That’s just how some things work in life.
And you don’t get to pick them.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/22
There is a growing minority post-New Atheism,
of a cynicism or a bad faith skepticism,
within select secular communities.
This has to be reasoned out,
and re-vectored.
We have bigger fish to fry at the moment.
If you condemn those who share 95% of your views,
fair enough, however:
What about those who not only disagree with 85%,
but also want you to be extinguished from any motion towards equality,
or even the public space?
Know your allies,
pick your fights.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/24
Gentleness: a paradoxical reason for loss, because it’s a preventative from life being nothing but loss.
The Stoics.
The Confucians.
The Christians (praus).
The Buddhists (Ahimsa).
Hell, even Machiavelli, a greater stabilizer than brute force.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/24
How does Charlie Kirk’s assassination spotlight the void in U.S. domestic-terrorism law (defined at 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5) but no standalone crime) and, per DHS/GAO data from 2010–2021, what patterns in motives, weapons, and targets — alongside a 357% surge in FBI cases — should policymakers confront?
The assassination of Charlie Kirk highlights the broader issues, not of faith but, of the domestic terrorism within the United States. Kirk’s murder should not have happened for expression of views, for demeanour, for beliefs, or stature in American society.
U.S. law does define “domestic terrorism” (18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)). However, no federal crime with this title exists as a standalone. Agencies track incidents using agency systems. They investigate using internal systems, too. Therefore, gaps will exist, because no mandatory local reporting to the FBI. FBI and DHS use different datasets.
DHS incident tracker counted 231 domestic terrorism incidents with known offenders between 2010 and 2021. 145 deaths were in the period, peaking in 2015 and 2019. 80 were racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, 73 were anti-government or anti-authority violent extremists, 53 were mixed or personalized messages, and 15 were animal rights or environmental extremism. Therefore, racially motivated events were the most prominent of the categories.
Firearms were implicated in 92 incidents and responsible for 132 of 145 deaths. IEDs were used in 38 incidents with few or no deaths implicated. Therefore, armed assault is the workhorse with 98 incidents and 139 deaths while arson is 45 incidents with rare deaths.
Most attacks or plots were against specific civilians. Law enforcement was the second most targeted group. California had the most incidents. Several states recorded none in the aforementioned time period.
DHS’s Homeland Threat Assessment 2025 explains incidents from U.S.-based violent extremists remain high. These are largely driven by lone offenders and small cells. Those animated by racial motives, as well as anti-government, gender-related, and mixed motives. Many geopolitical events, e.g., elections of the Middle East conflicts, catalyze these events, too.
FBI open domestic terrorism cases, the investigative workload and not the incidents, between 2013 and 2021 increased by 357%. Baseline concern has increased, in other words.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/24
Be very, very careful,
in taking a trip,
and taking this for the reality,
or taking this for the reality,
in just taking a trip.
and taking this for the.
or taking this for the.
Get the point? Don’t ruminate.
They may be a lie.
The experience itself too,
not just the memory.
And maybe not.
Many times,
you never know;
you never knew;
you never will.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/24
Information from best available data circa September 21, 2025.*
Charlie Kirk was murdered.
On September 10th, 2025, at an outdoor Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University (UVU), Orem, Utah, with approximately 3,000 people in attendance, Kirk was struck by a bullet in the neck/throat while on stage.
The shot was fired from a sniper rifle from estimated ranges of more than 100 yards to about 200 yards. Kirk was transported to a nearby hospital and then pronounced dead. ABC on-scene reporting and officials stated no metal detectors or bag checks were present. The courtyard is bowl-shaped and ringed by buildings. UVU police coordinated with Kirk’s private security.
The rifle used to assassinate Kirk was the Mauser Model 98, .30–06 bolt-action with scope, which was recovered wrapped in a towel off-campus. Ammunition allegedly contained engravings or etchings with phrases. The spent round read ““NoTices Bulge OWO What’s This?” The suspect allegedly called the engravings “mostly a big meme.”
The evidence for a single shot was no shell casings on the roof and only one spent/three unspent rounds inside the rifle, as cited by prosecutors to support a single shot. The suspect of the assassination was Tyler James Robinson, aged 22.
Robinson’s family recognized him based on the released images. After speaking with a retired deputy sheriff, Robinson surrendered. Officials reported a time lapse between the murder and the acquisition of Robinson into custody was about 33 hours.
Robinson was held without bail. His first hearing: He appeared by video. The next hearing is scheduled for September 29, 2025. Some reports indicate a special watch or suicide-prevention smock while in jail.
The criminal charges filed in Utah are aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury, obstruction of justice (multiple), violent offence in the presence of a child, and witness tampering (multiple).
Prosecutors seek the death penalty. Alleged aggravators are political targeting and the presence of children. Prosecutors cited texts from a roommate:
“I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”
A purported note is cited beneath a personal keyboard stating, “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I’m going to take it.” In addition, allegations include Discord messages citing Robinson confessing before the arrest, therefore, after the murder and before custody approximately 33 hours later.
Prosecutors cited an unusual gait purportedly consistent with the concealment of a rifle, movements to and from a rooftop, plus later retrieval attempts of the Mauser Model 98. DNA on the trigger linked to Robinson.
There was a public appeal reward up to 100,00USD with the FBI asking for public photos and videos from the event. Authorities allege political targeting on prior statements. Final motive is unadjudicated.
George Zinn, 71, was arrested for obstruction after a false confession amid the chaos; later charged in a separate child-sex-abuse-material case following a phone search — no link to the homicide.
Following the shooting, UVU shut down for several days then with a phased reopening. Classes resumed the following week. Full resumption September 17, 2025. UVU says its security posture and emergency alerts are under review.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/23
The rapidity with which we want to attribute the full spectrum of attributes of category “human” for “human rights” to machines tells less about the veracity of the affirmation or the negation, but more about the degree to which global culture already has priors set for dehumanization of other human beings in the first place.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/21
What for most of us,
is a normal human behaviour,
in so many domains of life,
some public Christian American communities exalt,
as if requiring supernatural heft to be a regular person.
‘The Laws of Nature must change for me to forgive,’
is the implication.
Why does common humility and compassion require a Saviour?
It is — literally — moral stunting.
The scammers and grifters are flying in, too,
to fleece the flock.
One can see this in the reverse as well:
“Why did that specific clergy member rape that nun?”
“Uh, the Devil made him do it. Uhm, demons tempted him.”
Happy to see it happen, wish it didn’t require the unfortunate murder of one of their heroes.
By the way, the Fall is here.
Fun season.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/21
2011: “Human beings make and sustain meaning for themselves.”
2013: “Meaning is created in life by human beings, not written into the universe waiting to be discovered.”
2015: “Nothing is exempt from human question.”
2018: “A non-religious approach to questions of value, meaning, and truth.”
2020: “I settle on saying that it is an approach to life.”
2020: “Humanists are all about confronting reality, finding solutions to problems through reason and evidence, and applying those solutions through cooperation.”
2021: “Humanists embrace science as the most effective tool in understanding our reality.”
2021: “Life is finite, death is the end of it. You will not be aware of it because you will not be.”
2021: “Spirituality for humanists… is not something in any way connected to anything outside of this physical universe.”
2022: “The humanist approach is about being free to live a happy and fulfilling life for ourselves and supporting others to do the same.”
2025: “Humanism, to me, is simply the best idea in the world.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/21
Memories are a funny thing.
They are, indeed, as if skin tattoos.
They are a meaning mark.
They fade with time,
but:
Eventually, they leave a wrinkle.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/21
Sex with someone with narcissistic tendencies in relations,
is ‘sex’ with a stranger.
Yuck.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/21
I’m not saying she’s a lazy dog, but I am saying she does a good impression.
All day.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/21
1998 “Like the physical universe, the moral universe is governed by unforgiving laws that we do not have the power to alter.”
1998 “All moral positions impose values… even the moral position that you should not impose values on others does just that.”
2009 “I spoke of the five main lines of scientific evidence — denoted by the acronym SURGE — that point to the definite beginning of the space-time continuum.”
2009 “Because there was no nature and there were no natural forces ontologically prior to the Big Bang — nature itself was created at the Big Bang.”
2013 “Every law has a law giver… there is an objective moral law… therefore there’s an objective moral law giver.”
2015 “To say that a scientist can disprove God is like saying a mechanic can disprove Henry Ford.”
2015 “Theism makes doing science possible because it provides the foundation for the very tools of science.”
2022 “If someone says ‘there is no truth,’ ask: ‘Is that true?’”
2022 “Science doesn’t say anything. Scientists do.”
2025 “I believe in the Big Bang. I just know who banged it.”
2025 “Truth is whatever corresponds to the real (to reality).”
2025 “The greatest miracle in the Bible is the first verse… If that verse is true, every other verse is at least possible.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/20
2014
“The world’s smartest rabbit is still a rabbit.”
2014
“Not figuring things out faster makes me feel dumb.”
2014
“I’ve taken way, way too many IQ tests — more than 30.”
2015
“The only brain drug with an indisputable, immediate effect is coffee.”
2016
“We live in an information space.”
2016
“By the year 2100, earth’s AI population could be a trillion.”
2016
“We need a cabinet-level Department of the Future.”
2016
“Enduring spirituality won’t deny fact. Our era’s deniers of fact will be remembered — vaguely — as minor villains.”
2016
“Not being a clown show: We need to be pro-science and pro-smartness.”
2017
“We will argue about politics. I am your standard Hollywood Liberal.”
2020
“For something to exist, it has to exist for a non-zero amount of time.”
2022
“Now, almost anything can be a subject for comedy.”
2022
“Comedy often serves to communicate taboo information in ways that are more palatable.”
2023
“Lazy voodoo physics is my term for crappy metaphysical theorizing.”
2023
“Thanks to quantum mechanics, we know that the world isn’t pre-determined.”
2024
“Adults who talk about their IQs are weirdos.”
2024
“It’s just IQ.”
2024
“IQ is a lousy way to measure intelligence once you look at every other possible way.”
2024
“People demonstrate their intelligence as adults by succeeding or not in the world.”
2024
“I’d say the driver is that you need a lack of contradiction; you need self-consistency to exist.”
2024
“Democracies have been declining… Authoritarian forms of government are becoming more popular… Much of it is fueled by nonsense.”
2024
“The world is full of good news (while the news is full of bad news).”
2025
“People conflate analytical power with agency.”
2025
“The danger is not that AI becomes evil; it becomes hyper-competent with goals that diverge from ours.”
2025
“Right now, we have smart AI but no meaningful agency.”
2025
“It will not be the end of everything, but might be the end of enjoyable humanity.”
2025
“The jokes that hurt the world the most were probably the ones made about Donald Trump.”
2025
“The Daily Show has a political slant.”
2025
“I believe quantum mechanics is the mathematical embodiment of the principle of non-contradiction.”
2025
“Within a few hundred years, we’ll likely live in a world of transferable consciousness. The main activity of existence will be information processing.”
2025
“We’re not designed to be happy. We’re designed to pursue happiness.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/20
Is financial security a source of security or insecurity?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/20
Of what, is this a symptom?
No race riots.
No civilizational collapse.
Therefore, it’s a superminority appeal.
Is it the “radical left”?
Nope.
Otherwise, it would be nationwide, as per Left versus Right.
It’s conservative versus far-Right.
Centrists and Leftwing are the commentariat in this murder.
Conservatives and far-Right brought their internal ‘spiritual’ battle to reality somewhere between a neck and a throat: Groper v. Groypers.
Repeat: Will this continue to be the nation of the blind?
God did not answer the prayers for mercy, ask Frank Turek.
Indeed, if murder was the answer, what was the question?
One more wishing to be alike in Christ;
someone who has done exactly as Christ has done, too:
Kirk stayed dead.
Does this get a Rise out of you, too?
A Knight for Christ, finding eternal night.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/20
2006
“Taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 percent of their targets — that feels like a conspiracy theory.”
2011
“You can’t process me with a normal brain.”
“I am on a drug, it’s called Charlie Sheen… If you try it once, you will die. Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body.”
“I was banging seven-gram rocks and finishing them, because that’s how I roll. I have one speed. I have one gear: go.”
“I’m not bipolar — I’m bi-winning. I win here and I win there. Now what?”
“I got tiger blood, man.”
“I’m an F-18, bro. And I will destroy you in the air. I will deploy my ordnance to the ground.”
“We’re high priests, Vatican assassin warlocks. Boom. Print that.”
“I’m tired of pretending like I’m not bitchin’ — a total frickin’ rock star from Mars.”
“I tried marriage. I’m 0 for 3 with the marriage thing… I’m not going 0 for 4. I’m not wearing a golden sombrero.”
“Dying’s for fools.”
“Can’t is the cancer of happen.”
“I blinked and I cured my brain.”
“Borrow my brain for five seconds and just be like, ‘Dude, can’t handle it, unplug this.’”
“I expose people to magic.”
“Here’s your first pee test; next one goes in your mouth — no, you won’t get high.”
2015
“I’m here to admit I am, in fact, HIV-positive.”
“It’s a hard three letters to absorb.”
2016
“There was a stretch where I didn’t drink for 11 years. No cocaine, no booze for 11 years.”
2017
“I was not just coming up with stuff about 9/11. I was parroting those a lot smarter and a lot more experienced than myself.”
2021
“There were 55 different ways for me to handle that situation, and I chose number 56.”
“I’m so glad that I traded early retirement for a f — ing hashtag.”
2023
“Next month I’ll be six years sober.”
2025
“I still get what I call the ‘shame shivers.’”
“It felt like the biggest betrayal you could possibly endure.”
“Drinking just… it softened the edges. It gave me just freedom of speech.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/20
Sean Paul,
born of a ‘demonic’ fusion between a DJ Booth and a piñata,
makes great music for Latin Clubs for great dancing,
he makes no sense in any other context.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/19
When working with, even being intimate with, the truly traumatized, and if an inappropriate characterization manifests itself, as happens often and unbeknownst to them even as they deliver their cuts, particularly after an attempt at a boundary or a request for mutual respect becoming re-established; your immediate sensibility and indeed feeling, if sober of mind and foresight, will be mourning, as their tongue, actions, or both, have become scimitars, where even coming with beautiful curves are, fundamentally, swords with intent to harm: You have been dehumanized — have the wherewithal to leave, with dignity intact for both parties.
To have been acted upon badly in a life does not excuse acting badly in a life.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/19
When you say it right, you’re heard for a lifetime.
When you say it really right, you’re heard for lifetimes.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/19
Certainly, transcendentalist sentimentalism from European so-called ‘Classical’ Music does tap into something akin to a dis-ease of the mind. That style of structured vibration and higher harmonic puts this to use to create an addiction upon whole lives and musical cultures are formed and fed.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/19
The demarcation between subjectivities and the Object Universe seems clear, though mutually reflective, and thin. No structural independence completely exists between them.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/17
And the moon,
the moon,
it falls asunder,
standing in water,
falling into the sky,
unto the earth;
and the moon,
the moon,
it gives me grace too.
And the moon,
the moon,
it fell ass under,
dancing on water,
thrilling the sky,
onto the earth;
and the moon,
the moon,
it gives me two grace.
And the moon,
the moon,
it flies as if under,
prancing in water,
lilting it, sky,
through the earth;
and the moon,
the moon,
as asunder side Sun down,
and moon up.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/11
Sour grapes,
become sour gripes.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/09
In politics, what do we say across the world?
The emotions matter.
An appeal to the emotions works more than rational policy.
Curious.
What matters more in interpersonal interactions?
Emotions.
Therefore, interpersonal interactions are political.
Truly, “the [inter-]personal is political.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/10
You see the world in red.
You see the world, in red.
You see, the world in red.
If the world is red,
if you perceive it as red,
is it out there or in you?
Is the rum in sentiment or in the wind?
Nasruddin:
Have you lost your donkey again?
Master, why is the grass red now, not green anymore?
It looks like you lost a hand, try clapping,
I guess.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/11
If murder is the answer,
what was the question?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/11
See us,
be us,
see us be us,
will this continue to be the nation of the blind?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/10
I am still.
I am quiet.
I am an umbrella,
turned against itself.
Under Heaven,
I, am quiet;
I, am still.
I am an umbrella,
turned for Heaven.
Under Heaven,
I am,
still.
I am,
quiet.
Under Heaven,
turned against myself,
turned for Heaven,
a cup,
I am all,
under Heaven.
So, I am,
Heaven.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/09
Most is done as part of a dance.
Yet, we primarily look outside.
Self-censorship is still censorship.
Press enter or click to view image in full size
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/09
1986
“The surest way to be misled is to trust someone just because they’re in charge.”
1990
“Truth isn’t owned by anyone — it’s discovered through persistent questioning.”
1992
“Most mistakes come from assuming too much, not from questioning too much.”
1993
“Faith is what you have when you don’t have proof, but it’s no substitute for evidence when evidence is available.”
1996
“I think that if it had been a religion that first maintained the notion that all the matter in the entire universe had once been contained in an area smaller than the point of a pin, scientists probably would have laughed at the idea.”
“Feelings are the source of inspiration for hypotheses, but only careful observation and testing can help us approach the truth.”
1997
“Science gives us probabilities, not certainties. Even the best theories are only our best guesses based on what we know now.”
1998
“You don’t need a rulebook to be good — just a conscience and a willingness to act on it.”
1999
“If you cannot, welcome to the world of faith. You’re accepting what you’ve been told by those you respect.”
“That’s what creationists do — they just respect different folks.”
2000
“Science thrives because humans are curious enough to challenge what they’re told and humble enough to admit what they don’t know.”
2001
“Right and wrong aren’t written in the stars. They’re decisions we make based on what we think does the most good or the least harm.”
2003
“Proofs are excellent lessons in reasoning. Without logic and reasoning, you are dependent on jumping to conclusions — or worse — having empty opinions.”
2005
“Science doesn’t compete with belief — it complements it by explaining what we can test and leaving the rest to us.”
2006
“Science can tell us how the universe works, but it’s silent on what it all means. That’s a question for each of us to answer.”
2008
“Goodness isn’t about obeying a higher power; it’s about choosing to do what’s right because it makes the world better.”
2010
“The term Jewish refers to a religion, but it also refers to a heritage.”
2011
“The best measure of a person’s morality is how much they contribute to the well-being of others, not how loudly they proclaim their virtue.”
2012
“Believing something without evidence is like building a house on sand. It might stand for a while, but it won’t last.”
2013
“If you believe in evolution … the egg came first.”
2014
“Science can describe what is, but it often can’t explain why it is. That’s where philosophy and sometimes religion come in.”
“Morality isn’t about following rules; it’s about weighing consequences and choosing what helps more than it hurts.”
“Officials are either ignorant of medical science or hiding the truth when they assure us that Ebola is not easy to catch. Obviously, it is.”
2016
“An egg holding a chicken is a ‘chicken egg,’ no matter what laid it.”
“I’d say it’s the egg.”
“It depends on your spiritual beliefs. If you have a religion, it provides the answer. But if you don’t believe in a god, the question contradicts your thinking. Having a reason implies having a purpose, which indicates an intelligent being for cognitive power with intent. That’s what people call a god. So if you don’t believe a god exists, you can’t believe a reason exists. You must settle for assuming we got here through some natural processes and that’s that.”
“I would make rational decisions based on the facts rather than on pressure, including the media, or religion.”
“I would nominate … justices [who] would interpret the Constitution without political or religious bias.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/08
International metrics indicate abuse patterns of males and females. Sex asymmetries exist in these contexts of violence, whether physical violence, sexual assault, emotional/psychological maltreatment, financial/economic control, or abuse within institutions.
Both men and women can be perpetrators of these forms of abuse. Global research shows significant gender asymmetries in prevalence, in severity, and even in context. Many societies show that men commit a disproportionate amount of severe physical and sexual abuse.
Women’s perpetration tends to occur in different patterns or contexts. 90% of the homicide perpetrators worldwide are male, based on UNODC data. Males commit most of the non-lethal assaults and violent crimes. Males mostly perpetrate physical domestic violence. 1 in 3 women and 1 in 10 men experience physical violence in the United States.
Females suffer more severe injuries and repeated assaults, with most of the intimate partner homicides committed by males. A partner kills 38% of female murder victims compared to 5% of male victims. Males are the majority of the perpetrators of physical aggression in other contexts.
The frequency and lethality of physical abuse skew male. However, this is a false basis for blanket stereotyping of males. Women can and do inflict physical harm. Sexual violence is the most gender-disparate form of abuse. No matter the place in the world. Men perpetrate the majority of sexual assaults and rapes.
The U.S. Department of Justice indicates that nearly 99% of persons who commit rape or sexual assault are male. Women and girls are more often victims of sexual abuse. The World Health Organization reports that 1 in 3 women has been subjected to physical and/or sexual violence in their lifetime.
The male lifetime risk of sexual victimization is lower. In the U.S., ~1 in 14 men report being “made to penetrate” or sexually coerced at some point. Female perpetration of sexual abuse does occur, particularly by authority figures abusing minors. Studies on child sexual abuse indicate 75–90% of offenders are male, while 10–25% are female.
Female offenders tend to target boys. Male offenders tend to target girls. Sexual abuse by women is under-detected due to stereotypes. Therefore, the rates of abuse by females are higher than the known reported estimates. Sexual abuse is a highly gendered crime.
Emotional and psychological abuse are common. Both sexes engage in emotional abuse, psychological manipulation, and verbal harassment at significant rates. In the U.S., 48.4% of women and 48.8% of men report psychological aggression.
These behaviours of abuse include belittling, controlling, insults, intimidation, isolation, threats, and more. Males and females employ these in different ways. Women are as or more likely to engage in verbal aggression than men, including yelling, name-calling, and more.
Males tend to incorporate threats of violence with verbal aggression—a pattern of domination, in the form of a sustained pattern of control. Females tend to engage in relational aggression using social exclusion, guilt-tripping, or emotional manipulation, e.g., belittle their partner’s masculinity or use passive-aggressive tactics.
Financial or economic abuse is controlling a victim’s employment, money, or resources. Males tend to be the perpetrators of financial abuse in patriarchal contexts. An environment in which the male has significant authority over financial decisions in the home. Elder abuse is common among males and females via exploitation of the elderly.
Institutional abuse is maltreatment within systems of care or power. Males and females are perpetrators. In nursing homes and long-term care facilities, two-thirds of staff members admit to committing abuse of older persons in the past year.
Frontline caregivers for elders tend to be women. Women figure prominently and significantly among institutional abusers in elder care. Egregious institutional abuse scandals involve predominantly male perpetrators taking advantage of authority.
Institutional abuse is less about the gender of the perpetrator. It is more about power imbalances. Those in charge, male or female, may abuse vulnerable dependents. Styles of abuse mirror broader gender patterns: male staff tend to be implicated in sexual violence, whereas female staff tend to be implicated in neglect or emotional abuse. Experts emphasize that both women and men can be guilty of severe abuse in institutional settings.
Male perpetrators of violence show more antisocial personality disorder or narcissistic personality. Female perpetrators show more borderline personality traits. Institutional biases and stereotypes can lead to female abusers not being held accountable. Female victims often face disbelief.
The further questions in either case of the significant minorities of females and males who abuse are the impacts, motivations, or patterns.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/08
For such love-generating communities,
there seems to be a lot of tacit fear of non-religious people,
abused by community speaking out.
So, is it love or coercive influence within a controlling system,
accepted as legitimate because of broad spread of the practice?
After a while, candy can taste less sweet, too.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/08
Thirsty, for sure.
Sweaty, definitely.
The facts may, in fact,
indicate the opposite,
or a para-consistent reason.
The questions while jogging matter.
Where, exactly, do you think you’re going?
More importantly, why go?
Love says, “I’m just a person.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/07
Dust, sand, and shisha.
How can this person know my views if they’ve barely heard mine, stereotyped me, and gone on lengthy soliloquies?
Did they want to hear my views, for consideration?
Or did they want an excuse to hear their air?
Again and again and again.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/07
First: It is not new.
Second: It is simple, directly.
Third: It is complex, derivatively.
Fourth: It is amplified with communications technologies.
Fifth: It is, therefore — To frame oneself as both the Hero and the Victim in the same story, as if the center of the world, wherever one travels until the end of one’s time.
Sixth: Hence, it is a zero-sum approach in game theoretic terms, with a twist, in which one is the perpetual loser, while everyone must lose with you.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/07
I have never seen group hatred, or simply veiled academic animosity, quite as stringent and predictable as differing men proclaiming themselves as a representative of the one true God.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/07
Mr. Congreve, I must, respectfully, disagree.
Every human interaction harbours units.
Interactions between those units.
Those in time.
Finite interactions of finite units in finite time.
Therefore, human inter-operational complexes are:
Finite — full stop.
Further, therefore, these can be mapped to some fidelity,
traced, and so maneuvered,
including the purportedly “woman scorned.”
It’s not that bad,
just get to know an old woman,
or few.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/07
When the whisper is a scream,
the singular factor apart from the noise,
the singular signal is temporality:
Time.
When the silence is a ‘scream’:
Time means urgency.
There is a goal.
What is the nature of this individual’s urgency?
What needs does it serve, them?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/07
There are, indeed, connoisseurs of the product,
as corresponding masters of the craft,
to this day,
in the unlikeliest of places.
Very intriguing months of work,
to produce a single item by hand.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/06
By outcome? No difference.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/06
For pretty much everyone,
a sufficiently unpleasant present,
far surpasses thoughts of forever.
Therefore, subjectively, now is forever.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/06
“May this tusk root out the lice of the hair and the beard.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/06
Try ignorance.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/03
Try as you might,
dig the trench,
fill the mote,
build the wall,
draw the bridge,
anchor the tower,
lock the doors,
closed in the highest chamber,
the harp still plays,
and the golden string,
it appears intact:
uh-oh.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/03
There is one class of people,
for whom death is:
Release,
reprieve.
They want it.
Who are we to give it to them?
Who are we not to give it to them?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/03
If you want to see who kills you now,
look outside;
if who killed who you were,
look inside.
Press enter or click to view image in full size
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/03
Careful.
I get that a lot,
got that a lot,
more than you know.
Am I heard?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/03
“What did the Brooklyn Jewish guy call his gentile girlfriend?”
Goy-lfriend.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/03
He has a weird habit,
of ‘appointing’ self-appointed males,
to do His bidding by their hermeneutic.
“The other lies, though, about working for God.”
Does he work for the Devil?
Weird, he said that about you, too.
Men on men on men, amen.
It reminds me.
We know evolution via natural selection happened.
My old local Evangelical university.
They had a dialogue-debate.
One corner is an Old Earth Creationist.
The other is a Young earth Creationist.
A debate where either side would win,
while both would be objectively wrong.
Men on men on men, amen.
Thy Will be done.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/02
You want more?
What makes you so special, so great?
The downright uptrodden.
The wrongful unrighteousness.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
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:
Authors(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
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.
In-Sight Publishing 