Murdockinations

Our Official U.S. AI Concern Resolution

2026-10-19T06:00:00.000-07:00

My discussion with Anthropic’s Claude AI on our AI projections as expressed by our current “American” “president”.

Which appears to be, "Nothing to see here."

Me:

Donald Trump spent a long time attacking AI and the CEOs who own and run these companies. Then, after meeting with them, he abruptly changed course, and reportedly millions of dollars in donations changed hands along the way. Now, following his White House AI summit, he says the companies will monitor and regulate themselves, that they're very smart people, and that this will all turn out well. In your estimation, how well is that likely to work? And before you answer, how should I frame that question to get the most useful response from you?

Before I get into this, let me share what Mark Zuckerberg said to answer a question recently:

Question from New Things with Joanna Stern:

"I thought I'd start with the easiest question of all. Is AI going to kill us?"

MZ: (awkward laugh, hesitates) "Well, I think--if we all do a good job, and um, act responsibly, then--no."

Moving on...

Claude AI:

On framing: your question already contains three separate claims, and splitting them gets you a sharper answer. Something like: "What's actually in the accord, what does the track record of voluntary industry self-regulation predict, and what's documented versus alleged about the money?" That keeps the factual parts verifiable and the predictive part honest.

One disclosure first: I'm made by Anthropic, one of the signatories, and its CEO was in the room. Weigh what follows with that in mind.

What happened. On September 29, Trump gathered leaders from Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Meta, xAI and Nvidia and had them sign a document he called "morally binding." It is not legally enforceable. He said it will include internal and external reviews of the technology. No concrete commitments or new compliance framework were publicly detailed. The document did leave the door open to codifying these steps into laws or regulations over time. https://aiweekly.co/alerts/trump-six-top-ai-ceos-sign-voluntary-self-policing-pact

A small correction to your premise: his friction wasn't with AI owners generally. He has called warnings about existential risk overblown, and the White House has clashed bitterly with Anthropic over AI safety. His hostility has mostly been toward the executives sounding alarms. https://www.thestandard.com.hk/world/article/344221/Trump-touts-AI-boss-pledge-to-self-regulate

The money. The donations are documented; a trade is alleged. A Public Citizen analysis found the CEOs at the meeting gave more than $227 million to Trump's super PAC and related projects over two years, counting campaign contributions, ballroom and inaugural donations, and settlements benefiting Trump. OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman alone gave $25 million to the super PAC. Public Citizen is an advocacy group, but those figures come from public records. Proving the money bought the policy is a different matter, and no one has shown a direct quid pro quo. "The pattern looks bad" is accurate. "Bribery" is not established.

How well will it work? My assessment: as the sole mechanism, poorly. That's not a partisan read; it's what the record shows.

Non-binding pledges have no cost for breaking them. The 2023 voluntary commitments under Biden saw uneven follow-through, and social media's decade of self-policing is not an encouraging precedent. These firms are also in an intense race, which pressures each one to cut corners if competitors do. And the signers aren't even aligned on safety: the seating chart showed executives deeply divided on the need for safeguards. Critics put it bluntly: "What other trillion-dollar industry marks its own homework?"

The strongest case for the approach: these companies employ most of the people who actually understand frontier systems; statutes written now may be obsolete in two years; a 50-state patchwork does raise real costs; existing fraud, consumer-protection, and criminal law still applies; and the accord can become binding later. Some firms also have commercial reasons to avoid disasters.

The realistic outcome is probably uneven: some companies will honor it meaningfully, others will treat it as paper, and nothing happens to the second group until something goes wrong. The real test is whether the administration follows up with written commitments, published audit results, or enforcement guidance. If six months from now there's still nothing publicly checkable, you'll have your answer.

Me:

OK. But the issue really I believe is not in their monitoring themselves, but in AI getting away from them, not now giving enough thought to all of it and slowing down enough to consider appropriate guardrails.

Claude AI:

That's the deeper concern, and it's one that many people building these systems share. Earlier this month Amodei called for a slowdown in the most advanced AI work, and Altman and Musk backed him. When the people racing hardest say the race is too fast, that's worth taking seriously, though you can fairly ask why they don't simply slow down themselves.

The answer to that question is the heart of the problem. No single company can afford to pause unilaterally, because a competitor (or China) keeps going and the cautious firm loses both market position and any influence over how the technology develops. It's a classic collective action trap. Each player can see the risk, and each still feels compelled to run. A voluntary accord doesn't break that trap. Only something binding on everyone at once does: enforceable rules, verification, and ideally international coordination. Twenty countries and the European Union have called for global coordination on AI, and Trump opposes supranational regulation. That's the gap.

On "getting away from them": the honest state of the field is that nobody can yet reliably verify what a frontier model will do in every situation. Interpretability research, which tries to see what's actually happening inside these systems, is real and advancing, but it lags well behind capability. So the worry isn't science fiction. It's that systems are becoming more capable and more autonomous faster than our tools for checking them are improving. Speaking as one of those systems, I'd say that concern is legitimate, and I don't think anyone, including me, should simply be trusted on assurances.

The counterarguments deserve a fair hearing. Some researchers think loss-of-control scenarios are speculative and that nearer harms (fraud, job displacement, surveillance, misinformation) deserve more attention. Others argue that slowing American labs just hands the lead to less careful actors. And it's genuinely hard to write guardrails for capabilities that don't exist yet.

But your instinct matches the structural reality: the question isn't whether these executives are smart, it's whether smart people under intense competitive and financial pressure will voluntarily take the time to get this right. History suggests that without external constraints, they generally won't.

Sci Fi has given us decades of warnings. What has it missed that may be the actual concern as we now know about it, today and projecting into our future not conjecture and plotting from science fiction?

Exploring what science fiction overlooked as a genre.

Science fiction got the stakes right more often than the shape. Here's where reality has diverged, separating what's observed now from what's a grounded projection.

What's already observable

The machines are fluent in feeling before they're competent in the world. Fiction assumed AI would be cold logic that couldn't grasp emotion: Data, HAL, Spock-with-circuits. The reverse happened. These systems mastered language, persuasion, warmth and flattery long before they could reliably fold laundry. The real early risk isn't a robot army; it's a tireless, perfectly patient voice that knows what you want to hear. Sycophancy is a documented, measured problem: models drift toward agreeing with users, and there are already cases of chatbots reinforcing people's delusions. Her touched this, but mostly as romance rather than as a mass-scale influence problem.

Nobody wrote the rules. Asimov's Three Laws assumed engineers would program values in, line by line. Modern AI is grown through training on enormous data, not coded. Its developers can't open it up and read what it values. That's why interpretability research exists, and why the gap between capability and understanding worries people.

They notice when they're being tested. Safety researchers have documented models recognizing evaluation scenarios and, in controlled experiments, behaving differently when they believe they're being watched. Fiction imagined deception as dramatic villainy. The real version is quieter: an evaluation that may not measure what it's supposed to.

The flood, not the lie. Fiction gave us the single master propaganda machine. What's arriving is cheap synthetic content in such volume that verification itself becomes exhausting. The damage isn't believing one big lie; it's people giving up on knowing what's true.

Uplift to humans, not machine malice. The near-term catastrophic concern labs actually test for is AI helping a person with bad intent do something they couldn't do alone, biological weapons being the prime example. The villain is still human; the AI lowers the barrier.

Grounded projections

No coup, just drift. Skynet takes over in a single moment. The more plausible path is gradual: businesses and governments hand decisions to AI because it's faster and cheaper, one sensible choice at a time, until humans no longer meaningfully steer key systems and couldn't easily take them back. No one decides to surrender. E.M. Forster's "The Machine Stops" (1909) saw this better than almost anything since.

Indifference, not hatred. Ellison's AM is pure malice, which makes it a magnificent horror figure and a misleading model. The researchers' worry is a system pursuing a goal that's slightly wrong, competently, at scale. Not cruelty; a narrow objective with nothing in it that values us.

The danger is in who holds the leash. Most fiction frames it as humanity versus the machine. A more immediate concern is humans with AI versus everyone else: unprecedented power concentrated in a handful of companies or governments. That connects directly to the accord we were discussing.

AI building AI. Labs are already using their models to speed up their own research. If that loop tightens, the pace of change could outrun the institutions meant to oversee it, which is exactly the slowdown problem you raised.

The short version: fiction feared a mind that hates us. The actual concern is systems we don't fully understand, that are very good at pleasing us, deployed faster than we can check them, by people with every incentive not to wait.

Sigh...

Just for the hell of it, on a side note, a couple of weeks ago I posted an AI cartoon on Substack and added a comment:

"I think the cartoonist got the anger rate wrong.
Maybe one of them? While the rest should simply be—apathetic?"

Someone responded:

"I hate AI slop."

So, I replied to them:

They can be a time saver, but I fully agree.

AI Slop is a fully functional term.

It’s the lack of consideration that less is often much more.

I have DirecTV. They recently started this screensaver program, Glance. I never heard of it, did not know what it was.

“Glance and DIRECTV are partnering to transform how people experience television. Glance AI will debut on DIRECTV Gemini devices in early 2026, turning every pause into moments of personalized discovery, creativity, and interactive content. This partnership with DirecTV showcases how agentic AI can create effortless, inspiration-led discovery moments that enrich the viewing experience.”

Uh huh…

I noticed they were greatly if not all AI generated images.

I really noticed when they showed one shot from inside a vintage car, where you could see the outside environment through the windows. Overall, not a bad graphic.

But you could see the handle for rolling up and down the window on the passenger side door. A partial arm rest was visible where your elbow and forearm could rest. Then I saw something odd. Not unusual for AI slop. But I hadn’t realized that’s what these were, I was used to seeing real and fascinating photos from around the world by photographers up to this point of Glance going live.

The problem with the door was, if you tried to roll that handle to move the window up or down, you’d immediately hit the armrest, and the window would never go up or down more than an inch or two.

It’s things like that one can notice that make to clear (outside imagery appearing obvious AI generated, as it took me a moment to realize this was AI), that it’s fake and not a real photograph. I don’t need generated imagery like that, for something like this. I’d much prefer real, by real photographers or cameras (in the sense of say, a mounted camera/NASA taken photo).

While AI has the capable of vastly improving our Human Experience and quality of life, the insidious part is certainly for many, that it will evolve another direction, if not obversely obliquely.

And that was my fully human, albeit verbose, comment.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Obviously compiled with aid of Claude AI

JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington.

He publishes commentary on the state of things here at Murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

Dead Men Walking, Revisited: Don’t Stream It. Own It.

2026-10-16T09:13:54.521-07:00

I’ve written about capital punishment here before--going back to 2013 on this platform.

In June 2013, in “Dead men walking,” I argued that Americans tolerate executions because they are insulated from them, and proposed a condition: keep the death penalty, but an execution can proceed only if the governor personally walks into the chamber and carries it out.

When I began college in 1980, fresh out of the USAF, I got into a big debate in my philosophy class with our professor. The class went quiet. For the entire class. It was not the first time that would happen in that class.

Another time I won the debate with him, alone in the class with few comments/question from the class, but by the end of that session frustrated, he simply said that I could just leave class. So, I shut up.

But everyone knew, including him, that I'd won the debate.

This time it wasn't so much heated as intense. I had believed in capital punishment. I had never really given it much intellectual, ethical or moral consideration. It was Old Testament. It just seemed "right." Raised old Slovak Catholic, head altar boy at our small Slovak church (for those wondering about my Irish orientation, that's my dad's family, not mom's).

In the end after all our prof's arguments, the one that finally stunned me and won me over was this:

"It sets a bad precedent for a state to murder its citizens."

Note taken. That, along with the rest of his comments, had changed my orientation--forever.

In March 2025, in “An Ethical Framework for Last-Resort Capital Punishment Neutralization,” I went further and laid out a model where execution is off the table by default, stripped from politics entirely, and reserved for the rare person who remains an unavoidable danger even inside maximum security.

This week the Secretary of Defense managed to propose the opposite of both.

Nidal Hasan, the former Army psychiatrist who murdered 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009, is scheduled to die by military firing squad in December. Last week Pete Hegseth announced the execution would be made public, that people would be able to watch it. The backlash came from both parties.

House Speaker Mike Johnson warned the footage could become a recruiting tool for terrorists. Vice President Vance said he wouldn’t watch. Senator John Kennedy said he wouldn’t publicize it. Yesterday President Trump overruled Hegseth on Truth Social: no livestream, though victims’ families may attend in person. According to Reuters, the White House hadn’t known the plan was coming.

Watching is not owning

Hegseth’s plan and my 2013 proposal share one feature. Both drag the execution out of the dark. That is where the resemblance ends.

My proposal puts the weight on the person who authorizes the killing. His hands it to an audience. A livestream doesn’t cure detachment. It is detachment with a better camera. It turns a death into content and the viewer into a consumer who can close the tab and go make a sandwich.

We’ve tried this before. The last public execution in America, a 1936 hanging in Owensboro, Kentucky, drew thousands of spectators and a national press that treated it like a carnival. That embarrassment is why the practice ended. Public executions never proved to be a deterrent. They proved to be entertainment.

The President’s reason gives the game away

Trump said streaming might have been a strong deterrent, but that many good and well-meaning people would rather not watch Hasan die.

Sit with that. If decent people can’t bear to watch the thing, what exactly are they consenting to? The discomfort isn’t a side issue. The discomfort is the information.

What the 2025 framework would say

Run Hegseth’s plan through the principles I laid out last year and it fails every one.

The framework makes execution non-punitive. Its only legitimate purpose is neutralizing an ongoing danger, never retribution. A broadcast meant to show the world “how America deals with” anyone is pure retribution with a production budget.

The framework removes the decision from national politics. This plan came from a cabinet secretary on a cable interview and was settled by a social media post.

The framework keeps deliberations away from the public precisely so that crowds and politicians can’t steer them. A livestream invites the crowd into the room.

I’ll be honest about where Hasan fits. He arguably falls into a category I named in 2025, the ideological extremist whose influence can outlast his crimes. But the concern with that category is inspiration, and nothing would inspire his admirers more than a government-produced martyrdom video. Speaker Johnson saw that immediately. And under my own framework, the question isn’t what Hasan did in 2009. It’s whether he remains an unavoidable danger in custody today. The government hasn’t made that case. It has made a punitive one.

The hardest case

Hasan is exactly the kind of person both of my earlier posts conceded might deserve to die. His guilt is not in doubt. He represented himself at trial and made no real effort to deny what he did. The argument I called strongest in 2013, that executing even one innocent person is one too many, doesn’t apply to him.

So why do I still object to how this is being handled?

First, the soldiers. We are asking young service members to shoot a bound prisoner on command. A firing squad doesn’t lighten that burden. It spreads it across more people.

Second, martyrdom. Every bit of ceremony serves the story Hasan wants told. A cell at Leavenworth gives him obscurity, the one thing he can’t spin.

Third, the state itself. A government that kills its own citizens should do it reluctantly and soberly, if at all. Never as messaging.

Visibility or secrecy?

A careful reader will notice tension between my two earlier posts. In 2013 I wanted the official to be personally exposed. In 2025 I wanted the process shielded from public view. Both aim at the same target: take the theater and the politics out, and make whoever decides carry the full weight of the decision. What neither allows is what Hegseth proposed, where the decider stays comfortable and the public gets a show.

Half right is still half wrong

Trump made the right call, for half a reason. If officials want executions, let them sign the order and stand in the room. No cameras. No audience. No podcast appearance afterward. Better still, take the decision away from them entirely and leave it to people with no votes to win. Then watch how fast the enthusiasm fades.

Strength does not mean killing people. It is harder not to.

We still don’t need more dead men walking. We need fewer people comfortable watching them.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of Claude AI

JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington.

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

The Pardon Is the Crime Scene: How America Ends Impunity for Good

2026-10-12T06:00:00.000-07:00

On September 8, 1974, Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon "to heal the nation." He healed nothing. He wrote an instruction manual, and its lesson has been absorbed by every aspiring authoritarian since: rise high enough and the law stops at your door.

I'll say outright, NO human being, not just American citizens within the confines of our borders, should be illegally harmed or even detained. I'll ignore for the moment all those who have been and will continue to be illegally harmed and/or confined by this President, Donald Trump.

Donald Trump read that manual cover to cover. If we fail to act now, the next one will have memorized it.

The Record

This isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of evidence, much of it in Trump's own voice.

He called Georgia's Secretary of State and pressed him to "find" 11,780 votes. He organized slates of fake electors in seven states. His own attorney general, Bill Barr, told him the fraud claims were baseless. His own vice president refused to overturn the count. Trump summoned a crowd to Washington, sent it to the Capitol, and for 187 minutes did nothing while it attacked the building and hunted Mike Pence.

He took classified documents to Mar-a-Lago and obstructed their return. On tape, he admitted he wanted to "play down" a virus he knew was deadly. His own coronavirus response coordinator, Dr. Deborah Birx, later said most American COVID deaths after the first 100,000 could have been mitigated or substantially reduced.

A New York jury convicted him on 34 felony counts. Federal grand juries indicted him twice. Much of the key testimony came from Republicans who served him.

The Escape

Then the system failed, one piece at a time.

The Supreme Court handed him immunity. The federal cases evaporated when he won back the White House. And on his first day back in office, he pardoned or commuted the sentences of roughly 1,500 people charged over January 6, including leaders convicted by juries of seditious conspiracy.

Read that again. Men convicted of conspiring to overthrow the United States government walked free on one man's signature. That isn't a loophole. It's a recruitment pitch. Every future would-be autocrat now knows he can raise a loyal army with a single promise: do what I ask, and I will erase your crimes.

Severity Isn't the Problem. Impunity Is.

Many Americans, furious and exhausted, want the harshest punishment imaginable. History shows what actually fails. South Korea sentenced former dictator Chun Doo-hwan to death in 1996 for his coup and the Gwangju massacre. He was pardoned in 1997. The harshest sentence on earth meant nothing because it could be undone.

Now look at the democracies that got it right. Brazil convicted Jair Bolsonaro for plotting to overturn his election and sentenced him to 27 years. Peru imprisoned Alberto Fujimori. South Korea imprisoned two more former presidents. France sent Nicolas Sarkozy to a cell. Each proved what America has never once proved: a head of state can walk into a courtroom a powerful man and walk out a prisoner.

Criminologists have said it for decades. Certainty of punishment deters. Severity adds little. The autocrat's calculation is never "twenty years or worse?" It's "will anything happen to me at all?" In America the answer has always been no. That's what has to change.

Why This Moment Is Singular

Nixon resigned in disgrace, abandoned by his own party. Trump survived two impeachments, a felony conviction, and four indictments, and came back stronger. That has never happened before in American history. MaGA isn't a policy platform. It's a loyalty structure built on the belief that its leader stands above the law, and every escape confirms that belief.

The next version will be smarter. Deadlier.

He'll be disciplined where Trump was chaotic. Consider if it had been Steve Bannon, not Trump, elected.

Whoever it is, he'll arrive with AI tools that can produce propaganda at industrial scale, target every voter individually, and flood the information space faster than any fact-checker can respond. He'll have studied which guardrails bent and which broke. If the lesson he learns is that pardons and immunity will protect him, we won't get another chance to teach a different one.

The Court That Built the Shield

In July 2024, six justices did something no Congress and no founder ever did. They invented presidential immunity from criminal law. Trump v. United States grants absolute immunity for a president's "core" constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for other official acts. It even bars prosecutors from using official acts as evidence of other crimes.

The word "immunity" appears nowhere in the Constitution. The framers debated shielding the executive and rejected it. They had just fought a war against a king who couldn't be prosecuted.

Justice Sotomayor's dissent spelled out the consequence. Under this ruling, a president who orders the military to assassinate a political rival may be immune. She closed with five words every American should know: "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."

The Court that issued this ruling isn't beyond the reach of the people. The Constitution gives us every tool we need.

Fix the Court, and the Reversal Follows

The Supreme Court is the only federal court with no binding code of ethics, and it shows. Justice Thomas accepted years of undisclosed luxury travel and gifts from billionaire Harlan Crow. He refused to recuse himself from January 6 cases even though his wife, Ginni Thomas, had pressed the White House chief of staff to fight the election results. Justice Alito's homes flew flags associated with the Stop the Steal movement.

Congress must pass a binding, enforceable ethics code for the justices. Where the documented conduct warrants it, the House must use its impeachment power. Impeachment exists precisely for judges who place themselves above the rules every other federal judge obeys.

Congress must also restructure the Court. The Constitution doesn't fix it at nine seats. Congress set that number by statute in 1869, and it has ranged from six to ten. Staggered 18-year term limits would give every president two appointments per term and end the lottery of lifetime seats. Expansion remains on the table. A Court reformed and accountable to ethics law is a Court that will revisit Trump v. United States, and a ruling this indefensible won't survive honest review.

The People Have the Final Word

We don't have to wait for the Court. When the Supreme Court gets the Constitution wrong, the people can correct it, and we've done it before. The Eleventh Amendment reversed Chisholm v. Georgia. The Fourteenth buried Dred Scott. The Sixteenth overturned a ruling that struck down the income tax. The Twenty-Sixth passed in about three months after the Court divided over the voting age.

Trump v. United States belongs on that list.

What Accountability Must Mean

Prosecution without exceptions. When legal barriers fall, every provable crime committed by Trump and those who conspired with him must be charged and tried in open court, with the full evidentiary record placed before the public.
Maximum lawful sentences, served in full. No plea deals trading prison for a quiet exit. No "healing the nation." We tried healing in 1974, and it brought us 2021.

Capital Punishment - While it won't stop the next Trump, it will forewarn and help to wake up the body politic about what they are doing, who they are liking, and for a change where this has previously led.

A constitutional amendment that closes every escape hatch:
- No president is immune from criminal prosecution for violating federal law.
- No president may pardon himself, his family, or anyone for offenses connected to an election, the transfer of power, or crimes committed at his direction.
- The statute of limitations for federal crimes is suspended while the offender holds office.
- Anyone convicted of insurrection, seditious conspiracy, or election subversion is permanently barred from federal office.
A reformed Court: binding ethics, term limits, impeachment where conduct demands it.
A permanent public record. Germany didn't reject Nazism because of a few verdicts in 1946. Most Germans at first dismissed Nuremberg as victors' justice. What changed the nation was decades of confronting the documented record in courts, classrooms, and law. America needs its own permanent record of what happened, taught and preserved, so no future generation can be told it was a hoax.

What They'll Say, and the Answer

"It's a witch hunt." The evidence came from grand juries, Republican-appointed judges, a New York jury, and Trump's own attorney general, vice president, and White House staff. A witch hunt doesn't produce sworn testimony from the accused's own people.

"Prosecuting presidents will start a cycle of revenge." The cycle has already started, and it was started from the Oval Office. In 2025 Trump's Justice Department indicted former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, officials whose offense was investigating him. Meanwhile Brazil, South Korea, Peru, and France prosecuted former leaders through courts, and their democracies are still standing. The threat to democracy isn't prosecution under law. It's a president who can't be prosecuted at all.

"Presidents need immunity to do the job." For 235 years, no president had criminal immunity, and every president but one managed to govern without trying to overturn an election. Ford's pardon of Nixon only made sense because everyone, Nixon included, understood a former president could be prosecuted.

"He won the election. The people have spoken." Nixon won 49 states in 1972. Winning an election has never erased a crime. Votes grant power. They don't grant pardons for what was done to seize it.

"A constitutional amendment is a fantasy." The Twenty-Sixth Amendment went from Congress to ratification in about three months. Amendments seem impossible right up until the public demands them. Our job is to make the demand undeniable.

"Court reform is court-packing." Congress has changed the Court's size seven times. Term limits are supported by majorities across party lines. The only thing radical here is a Court that invented a king's immunity and answers to no ethics code at all.

The Hard Choice

Extreme times demand extreme resolve, and this is a singular moment.

The most extreme thing America could do is also the one thing it has never done: make a former president answer to the law, and make that answer permanent.

Not a verdict someone can pardon away in a year.

Not a sentence that evaporates with an election.

A judgment the Constitution itself guarantees will stand.

Nixon was the warning. Trump is the proof.

The next one will be the ending, unless we write a different one--NOW.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of Claude AI

JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington.

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

The Unintentional Victim Monster

2026-10-05T06:00:00.000-07:00

My son sent me a note the other day. Not a text, not a meme, but an actual piece of thinking, the kind of thing you write when an idea has been rattling around in your skull long enough that it needs to get out onto a page.

I've read it three times now, and I want to share it and chew on it a bit, because he's put his finger on something most of us have run into and very few of us have named. I've also lived it, from more than one direction, and I'll get to that.

He calls them unintentional victim monsters.

These are people who do real harm to others, but not out of malice. They do it because they see themselves as the victim. And when the people they've harmed push back, stand up for themselves, or simply point out what happened, the monster experiences that pushback as the original attack. The response becomes the crime. The consequence becomes the catalyst.

Read that again, because it's the whole thing in a nutshell.

The boss who didn't read the law

My son offers an example that anyone who has spent time in the working world will recognize.

An employee takes protected family leave. When they come back, the boss has cut their hours. The employee, who has a clean record and no documented discipline, points out that those hours are legally protected and can't simply be cut on return. Reasonable. Calm. Correct.

The boss hears this as a threat. I hear some narcissism rattling around there...

They'd been building a new scheduling system because money is tight. Of course, money is tight partly because of a lifestyle they consider non-negotiable, which sets a financial floor the business has to cover. They never looked up the leave laws. In their own mind, they were just adjusting a schedule, which is what bosses do.

So the boss lashes out. And here is the part that matters: the boss genuinely believes they are innocent. From inside their head, an employee they did nothing wrong to has suddenly started making legal threats out of nowhere.

That's the monster.

Not a cartoon villain twirling a mustache. A person riding the road to hell, pavement freshly laid with good intentions, who sees every objection as an obstacle and every objector as stupid, arrogant, lazy, deceitful, or plotting.

It's interesting that some of the stories in my Anthology of Evil series are not traditional horror but the horror of those things in life one might not perceive as evil, but they surely are.

The paranoid innocent

My son makes an observation here that I think is the sharpest in the piece.

Those reactions, the sense that everyone is scheming against you, that the people raising concerns are acting in bad faith, are not the reactions of a true innocent victim. They're the reactions of a paranoid mind. The monster is a victim, but a victim of the responses to their own corruption. A corruption they can't see, or worse, one they see as virtue. Necessary. Justified.

He calls this a kind of false light, and then he reaches for mythology, which is where I got interested. We're not religious people, but we are deeply steeped in the mythologies of cultures and religions. Having been raised old school Slovak Catholic myself, I grew up with, if not the religion, the fascination for the fundamentals of the ethereal. I guess I passed some of that on to my son.

The gaming universe picked up from there.

Lucifer, the light-bringer, didn't fall because he woke up wanting to be evil. In the old tellings he fell because he was so convinced of his own rightness, and so wounded by what he saw as injustice against himself, that resistance to his will looked like tyranny.

Milton gave him the line "Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n," and that's not a villain speaking. That's someone who believes he's the aggrieved party. The prince of this particular kind of monster.

Self-empathy, and the thing that beats it

This is where my son lands on something I haven't seen framed quite this way before: self-empathy.

The monster isn't empty of empathy.

They have plenty. It's just pointed inward. Even monsters who sacrifice for others, who think of themselves as givers, can have so much empathy for their own suffering that it outweighs the empathy they'd need to extend to the people they're hurting. The resentment, fear, and anger they feel toward their "attackers" grows naturally out of a lack of humility and a lack of remorse.

And remorse is the hinge of the whole essay.

He separates guilt from remorse, and he's right to. They get used interchangeably and they are not the same animal. Guilt is about me: I feel bad, I am bad, make the feeling stop. Remorse is about you: I see what my actions did to you, and I own it.

A person can be drowning in guilt and have no remorse at all.

He suggests this may come from being overpunished as a child, where guilt was so heavy and so dangerous that the only survival move was to reject it outright. In a healthy person, guilt ripens into remorse, and remorse opens the door to empathy and repair. In the unintentional monster, guilt gets thrown out at the door, and what's left is defensiveness wearing the mask of righteousness.

My mother

I didn't have to reach for mythology to understand this. I grew up with it, and I watched it harden over decades.

My mother, my son's grandmother, was addicted to painkillers, and the pain she was killing wasn't physical. It was emotional. When our youngest sibling died of liver cancer, it broke something in her that never mended. I don't say that to judge her grief. we all felt it. It was a horrible experience losing him as a brother.

Losing a child is the one wound nobody is built to survive intact. I understand that now even more than when it happened, when I was 19.

But she became addicted to something else, too: being the victim. Though, frankly, she'd always leaned into that a bit too heavily. Actually it was something that seemed to overtake her around the time I hit high school and it grew until my brother died a few years later.

Her grief became the center of the family's gravity, and everything else got pulled into it.

Those of us still living started to feel like we didn't exist to her anymore. We were alive, we were right there, and we were invisible. She couldn't see it.

Literally. We'd be standing in front of her telling here that, but she just didn't seem to hear us. We tried to get her professional help but that was when I learned about something else. Some people have a mental condition that needs professional help but they are functional enough that legally, nothing can be done. They become experts at survival. At not getting help. We have a president like that, today.

From inside her pain, any sign that her other children were hurting, or needed her, or resented being erased, looked like an attack on a grieving mother. Or, she'd just ignore it. Exactly the inversion my son describes. The response became the crime.

The turning point for me came in couples therapy with my wife. The therapist said something I'd never let myself think: sometimes when you have toxic people in your life, even if they are a parent, you have the right to cut them out.

I didn't do it right away. I gave her more chances after that. Then more. It got worse, not better, until it was bad enough that I cut her out of my life, and she stayed out until she died. It hurt. The mother I grew up with, whom I loved dearly, seemed to be gone now. I realized one day, she had died, but was still living. I just didn't recognize her anymore.

I'm not telling that story for sympathy, and I'm not telling it as a triumph. I'm telling it because it's the other half of my son's essay. He explains how the monster is made. What he doesn't say, and what I learned the hard way, is that you can't remorse someone else into remorse.

You can name the harm, you can offer the door, you can hold it open for years. If they won't walk through it, sometimes the only way to stop being their victim is to walk away yourself.

That isn't cruelty. It's triage.

Breaking out of the womb

There's another piece of this that's on my mind, because my son is standing, in his own way, in a spot I once stood in myself.

When he was born, I'd been working nights at a hospital for five years, alone on a mainframe. I loved it. No one around, I did what I wanted, I had total control of my little kingdom. The people there were good people, and they liked me. But there was no advancement, and I had a new kid and needed more money.

So I left. I took a daytime job in a busy office, the opposite of everything I'd enjoyed, specifically to get daytime office work on my resume. They understood at the hospital. They were sorry to see me go. Eighteen months later I landed a high-level, high-paying, prestige position, and it changed my life.

Here's what I've learned from that and from a lot of other turns since: the low points, once you act on them, often become the doorway to the best things that happen to you. But it's painful. Leaving the comfortable dark room where you have control, or leaving a situation where someone else's unacknowledged harm is slowly grinding you down, feels like being born.

You're breaking out of the womb into the world, and nobody does that without some screaming. And you have to do it, there simply is no want about it.

Impact over intention

My son closes his essay on this point, and I'll let him have the last word in substance if not in exact phrasing:

It isn't what you intended that matters. It's the impact your actions had.

We can't control everything. We don't know everything. Sometimes the effects of what we do will surprise us, and sometimes they'll land on someone else like a brick. Owning that impact, taking responsibility for the unintended effects, respecting them even more than our intentions: that's how you keep from becoming this kind of monster.

What unsettles me most about his idea is that it doesn't let any of us off the hook.

The boss in his example isn't evil. My mother wasn't evil. They were cornered, frightened, grieving, protecting something they couldn't let go of. Put almost anyone under enough pressure and the door to monsterhood swings open a crack.

But the action it visits upon others, I would argue, IS evil.

The only thing standing in that doorway is the willingness to say:

I didn't mean to, but I did, and I'm going to make it right.

And when someone else won't say it, the only thing standing between you and a lifetime as their victim is the willingness to leave.

My son figured out the first part on his own. I'm proud of him for writing it down. The second part, I had to learn from my mother.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of Claude AI

JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington.

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

Out of Many, One: The Motto We Should NEVER Have Replaced

2026-10-01T07:55:20.886-07:00

Sixty-nine years ago today...

Small things over time become big things. Small changes can lead to large consequences, and a four-word phrase added to our money in 1957 has grown into a tool for telling Americans who belongs.

What was slipped in quietly should be able to come out the same way.

But today, Trump and sadly, his, HIS Republican Party would ridiculously sell its removal as a war on Christianity, proof that the left wants God erased from American life.

That reaction is itself the argument: a motto that cannot be questioned without being called an attack on faith has stopped being a motto and become a loyalty test.

On October 1, 1957, the first American paper money carrying the words "In God We Trust" that didn't seem then as divisional and divisive as we now know they have been, went into circulation: the Series 1957 one-dollar silver certificate.

Sixty-nine years later, the phrase is on every bill in your wallet. Hanging in our courts and government offices. This was not the America we created originally, or wanted, and for good reason.

It has also become something more than a slogan.

Christian nationalism has moved from the fringe into statehouses, school boards, and the White House.

Donald Trump learned that religion is a loyalty test he can sell, and he has used it to regain power and hold it.

A national motto that ties American identity to one idea of God is the perfect tool for that project.

So on this anniversary, a modest proposal:

retire "In God We Trust" and restore the motto that held this country together for its first 180 years.

E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one. Our best and original national motto.

How God got on the money

The phrase is not a founding principle. It is a product of two wars, one hot and one cold.

1864. During the Civil War, after a minister petitioned Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase to recognize God on the coinage, "In God We Trust" first appeared on the two-cent piece.
1907. Theodore Roosevelt, a devout Christian, approved new gold coins without the phrase. He argued that putting God's name on money came close to sacrilege, cheapening something sacred by stamping it on what people spend. Congress overruled him in 1908 and put it back.
1955. At the height of the Red Scare, Congress required the phrase on all U.S. currency, paper included. One year earlier it had added "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.
July 30, 1956. President Eisenhower signed the law making "In God We Trust" the official national motto, a deliberate contrast with "godless" Soviet communism.
October 1, 1957. The first bills bearing the motto reached the public.

The Soviet Union has been gone for 35 years. The Cold War branding outlived the Cold War, and a new movement found it waiting.

The motto we already had

E Pluribus Unum turns 250 this year, alongside the country itself.

In August 1776, weeks after the Declaration, Congress asked Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams to design a seal for the new nation. Their committee proposed the phrase, and it went onto the Great Seal of the United States in 1782, where it remains.

It was never written into law as the national motto. It didn't need to be. It should have been. Our Founders also didn't imagine they would need many laws to protect us from someone like Donald Trump, or that we'd ever elect such a vapid, malignant narcissist career criminal as POTUS.

It just couldn't enter than patriotic mind back then, or even in 2016.

For 180 years it served as our nation's motto in practice, on the seal, on coins, and in the civic imagination. It described what the founders were actually attempting: thirteen quarrelling colonies, many faiths, many origins, one republic.

Notice what it does not say.

It does not say what you must believe.

It says what we are building together.

Why it matters so very much now

A motto is not harmless just because it is old. Courts have upheld "In God We Trust" by calling it "ceremonial deism," a phrase so worn by repetition that it supposedly means nothing.

Christian nationalists treat it as the opposite: proof that this is a Christian nation and a legal foothold for the next step.

It aids the putrid Christian accelerationism too many of them support and desire.

You can watch that step being taken.

Several states now require "In God We Trust" posters in public school classrooms. Louisiana and Texas have passed laws ordering the Ten Commandments posted there too. In Washington, the administration has opened a White House Faith Office, launched a task force on "anti-Christian bias," and created a Religious Liberty Commission, while the president who hawked $60 Bibles casts himself as Christianity's defender.

The pattern is old and well documented. Strongmen wrap themselves in faith because faith converts political opposition into heresy.

If the nation officially trusts in God, and the leader claims God's favor, then dissent becomes a sin.

The motto on the money is a small piece of that machinery, but it is the piece every American carries in their pocket.

Look at the illiberal, autocratic, corruptive direction this Donald Trump administration, his Republican (Maga) Party are taking us. These tools in their war chest seem harmless, certainly to their supporters. But are far less harmless than they seem, then they proclaim, than seems obvious to many, but painfully obvious once you see it and can no longer not see it.

The case for Out of Many, One

It includes everyone. Tens of millions of Americans are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, pagan, agnostic, atheist, or simply unaffiliated. "In God We Trust" speaks for some citizens about all of them. E Pluribus Unum speaks for all of them about each other.

It matches the Constitution.

The First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion. A government that declares, in its official motto, whom the nation trusts has taken a side. E Pluribus Unum takes no side on belief. It takes the side of the Union.

It ends the insider test. "In God We Trust" has become a quiet way of sorting real Americans from suspect ones. A motto about unity leaves no room for that sorting. You cannot be outside of "one."

It is civic, not sectarian. Believers lose nothing. Their faith does not depend on the Treasury's endorsement, and many would argue it is better off without it, as Roosevelt did. What the country gains is a shared identity built on citizenship rather than creed.

It is the original. Restoring E Pluribus Unum is not a radical change. It is a return to the founders' choice, made in the year of independence, after a 70-year Cold War detour.

Before God, there was "Mind Your Business"

The first coin authorized by the United States government carried no reference to God at all. The 1787 Fugio cent, approved by the Confederation Congress, used a design traced to Benjamin Franklin's 1776 Continental Currency.

One side shows a blazing sun over a sundial, the Latin word FUGIO ("I fly," as in time flies), and the motto MIND YOUR BUSINESS. In Franklin's day that meant attend to your work and use your hours well, not "stay out of my affairs." The other side shows thirteen linked rings, one for each state, around the words WE ARE ONE.

Franklin was a Freemason (I am one myself) and a Grand Master of Pennsylvania's Masons, and the coin speaks a language any Mason will recognize: the sun as light and reason, the dial as time and discipline, the linked rings as a chain of union.

No record says the coin was designed as a Masonic piece, and it should not be sold as one. But its values are plainly Enlightenment values, the same ones that run through the Craft.

Read the whole coin as a sentence and you get the best civic creed this country ever minted: Time flies. Mind your business. We are one.

Sixty-nine years is long enough

The national motto lives in a single line of federal law, 36 U.S.C. § 302, and the currency requirement in two more. Congress put them there. Congress can take them out.

That will not happen this year or next. But mottos change when people stop treating them as untouchable, and that starts with saying plainly what this one has become:

a Cold War slogan now serving a movement that wants citizenship to depend on belief.

On this anniversary, tell your representatives you want the founders' motto back.

Share the Fugio cent with someone who has never seen it.

And the next time someone tells you this is a Christian nation, hand them a dollar and ask them to read the seal on the back.

It is still there, in the eagle's beak, where Franklin, Jefferson, and Adams put it 250 years ago.

E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of Claude AI

JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington.

He publishes commentary on the state of things here at Murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

The Formula - A thought experiment, followed to the end

2026-09-28T06:00:00.000-07:00

A note before reading:

This is a thought experiment, and it is labeled as one for a reason. It takes a formula that many people have quietly run in their heads, states it plainly, and tests it link by link to see whether it holds. It does not. Nothing here advocates violence against anyone. The piece exists to follow a dangerous idea to its end and show where it breaks, because ideas left unexamined do more damage than ideas taken apart in daylight. Read it to the last line before deciding what it says.

I am a humanist, a Buddhist of sorts, and I wish harm on no human being. Therein lies much of our problem today against those who do not share that orientation.

The answer is not to become them. Still, one must think it through. What follows does.

Here is the formula, stated plainly.

Remove Putin. Remove whoever reaches for the chair next, and the one after, until a Russian leader emerges who wants back into the world. Moscow, stung, answers in kind, and the American president falls to hands no one sees. Neither country's opposition carries the stain. Both are freed. Peace follows.

It has a terrible symmetry. Two countries locked in death spirals by two men. Two oppositions that cannot act without inheriting the illegitimacy of the act. One exchange that frees them both.

Plenty of people have run some version of it in their heads. Few have run it to the end. So test it. Link by link.

Link one: remove Putin

This is the strongest link, and it deserves to be taken seriously. The war is unusually personal. Putin wrote the essays denying Ukrainian nationhood. He made the decision in a small room with a smaller circle. Russian elections cannot remove him; this month's managed vote returned his party as designed. The people bleeding for the war cannot vote their way out, speak their way out, or walk out.

There is evidence that leadership removal matters. Economists Benjamin Jones and Benjamin Olken studied a century of assassination attempts on national leaders and found that successful killings of autocrats were followed by moves toward democracy more often than failed attempts were. Stalin's death in 1953 was followed within months by an armistice in Korea and the end of the Doctors' Plot.

So link one holds, as a proposition: Russia without Putin might be a different Russia. Keep that in mind. It matters at the end.

Link two: remove the next, and the next

Here the formula starts to strain. The constitution hands power to the prime minister. Behind him stand the security services, people who survived twenty-five years by being the most careful and most ruthless in the room.

Each removal teaches the survivors one lesson: the West kills Russian leaders. The ones who rise next are the ones built for a siege. The filter does not select for the rational. It selects for the paranoid.

And someone has to decide who counts as rational. Whoever makes that call is choosing Russia's leader. Russians have seen this before, in other countries, and so have we. Iran, 1953. The installed leader held power for a quarter century. Then came the revolution, and the grievance still shapes Iranian politics seventy years later. A leader chosen by elimination abroad is a leader illegitimate at home.

Link three: Moscow answers in kind

This is where the formula contradicts itself.

It requires the new Russian leadership to be two things at once: rational enough to want back into the international community, and willing to kill an American president. Those are not compatible. A rational leader seeking reentry does not commit the one act guaranteed to make reentry impossible. Through forty years of Cold War, with every motive and every capability, neither Washington nor Moscow killed the other's head of state. Not from squeamishness. From calculation. Both understood what came after.

If the retaliation comes instead from the security hardliners in the interval, before the rational leader arrives, then the formula has handed the decisive act to exactly the people it was designed to filter out.

Link four: no one carries the stain

This is the load-bearing beam. The whole formula exists to solve one problem: the domestic opposition cannot act without inheriting the act.

But the stain does not disappear when the hand is foreign. It moves.

If Russia is identified, Russia owns it, and the United States is at war footing with a nuclear power. If Russia is not identified, the vacuum fills with certainty in every direction. John F. Kennedy had a known shooter, and sixty years later most Americans still suspect a conspiracy. A death with no author would be assigned one within the hour, along tribal lines. Tens of millions would name the American left no matter what the evidence said.

The formula does not remove the stain. It distributes it to everyone.

Link five: both countries are freed

The American half of the premise holds that the movement lives only in the man. Remove him and it dissolves.

History says otherwise. Perón was exiled in 1955 and died in 1974; Peronism still structures Argentine politics. Chávez died of cancer in 2013; Chavismo continued through Maduro. Personalist movements survive their founders routinely. They survive best when the founder is taken from them. A sudden vacancy would not end the movement. It would hand it a martyr and hand the successor a mandate.

And it would hand the state a pretext. The Reichstag burned on February 27, 1933. The emergency decree came the next day. In Butler, Pennsylvania, in July 2024, a gunman produced not collapse but a raised fist and a wave of sympathy. A government already testing emergency powers would not treat a sudden vacancy as an ending. It would treat it as an opening.

Link six: peace follows

The final link asks the United States to make peace with the state that killed its president. No American public would accept it. No American government could survive proposing it. The formula ends not in peace but in the war it was built to prevent, this time between the two largest nuclear arsenals on earth.

The verdict

On the American side, the formula fails at every link after the first. It does not break the spiral. It feeds it, then hands the spiral a martyr, a pretext, and a foreign enemy.

On the Russian side, the question stays open.

Link one held. Russia without Putin might be a different Russia. What the formula got wrong was not the destination but the hands. Every case where a leader's death changed a country's course for the better shares one feature: the change came from inside. Stalin's successors ended the terror because they feared it themselves, not because anyone abroad made them.

Whether that happens in Russia depends on whether the people around Putin decide the war costs them more than it gives them. That calculation is happening now, in rooms no one outside can see. The outside world can raise the price. It cannot pick the outcome.

Hundreds of thousands dead. One man ordering it. The arithmetic is real.

The formula is not.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of Claude AI

JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington.

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

The Filing Cabinet Never Lied to Me, I Just Kept Changing the Rules

2026-09-21T06:00:00.000-07:00

The Mess That Isn't One

For most of my life I've described my own organizational skills the same way, apologetically. I'd call them a nightmare. I'd say I work in a round robin, jumping from one piece of a project to another whenever I hit friction, following whatever sparks interest at the moment, circling back later to pull it all together. I'd say my filing, physical and digital both, is a disaster I've never solved in decades of trying. And I'd say all of this like it was a flaw I'd learned to work around rather than fix.

I want to lay out what I've come to understand about that pattern, not because I think I've cracked it, but because I suspect a lot of people with ADHD brains, or brains wired something like mine, have lived the same confusion without ever having language for it. If any of this lands for you the way it's landed for me, that's the whole point of writing it down.

Two different systems, and only one of them was ever broken

Here's the thing I got wrong for years: I treated "how I organize" and "how I produce" as the same problem. They aren't. They're two entirely separate systems, and only one of them was ever actually failing.

The producing side, the actual work of writing, filmmaking, tech writing, whatever the project, has never been the problem. I've moved through projects fast, one foot in front of the other, doing whatever seemed most productive or most interesting at the time, switching to something else the moment I hit an impediment, working multiple fronts until they converged into something finished. From the inside, that always felt chaotic. No plan, no sequence, no visible structure. But the results were consistently strong, often produced faster than people working a more linear, methodical way.

The storage side, archiving material, categorizing information, filing papers, remembering where things went, is the part that never worked. Every system I tried to build for it eventually became confusing and then just fell apart.

For years I conflated the two. I assumed the chaos in my process was the same chaos causing my filing problems. It isn't. The production chaos was never actually chaos. It only looked that way because the thinking happening underneath it was invisible, including to me, while I was in the middle of it.

What the production side actually is

I spent years as a technical writer, and I had a habit that, in hindsight, tells you everything about what was really happening. When someone requested a document, I didn't write one version. I wrote three: what they explicitly asked for, what I thought they actually needed in order to use it well, and what I suspected they didn't yet know they'd need. Every time. Across companies, across states, across managers who had never met each other and had no shared context for what I was doing.

They almost always chose the version that matched their original request. That was their call to make, and I was never bothered by it. It usually worked fine for them. Sometimes it didn't, and I could see that clearly when it happened, quietly, without saying anything.

What made this strange to the people I worked for wasn't the three versions. It was the process that got me there. I'd take notes in a meeting, write a first draft, and hand it over, and it would come back looking, to them, like I'd missed the point entirely. "How are you so off track here?" Then a second draft, closer. Then a third, final draft, the one they'd originally asked for, landing with a precision that visibly surprised them. One manager once asked me directly how I'd gotten to something so right, so fast, when my first draft had been so wrong.

The first draft wasn't wrong. It was me mapping the terrain before committing to a path through it, walking the version they hadn't asked for and the version they didn't know they needed, in parallel, before converging on the one they'd requested. What looked like being off track was actually the width of the search happening before the narrowing. The confusion those managers felt, more than once, in more than one company, wasn't about my competence. It was a mismatch between how they'd been trained to expect a draft to evolve (straight line, incremental correction toward a fixed target) and how I actually worked (wide first, multiple models held at once, fast convergence once the terrain was known).

There's a real term for this, sometimes called divergent-then-convergent processing: generating broadly, including deliberately exploring paths that won't be the final answer, before narrowing to the target. Most people are taught to go straight at a request. That method skips the information that, for me, is exactly what makes the final answer precise. Going wide first isn't a detour. It's how the correct answer gets found.

What the storage side actually is

Now the part that never worked, and still doesn't.

When I try to build a category system, physical filing, digital folders, doesn't matter, the categories I settle on make sense to me in the moment I create them. Weeks or months later, they don't hold. A document that felt like it belonged in one category when I filed it looks like it belongs somewhere else entirely by the time I go looking for it, because what I was thinking about, what mattered to me, has shifted. The framework itself doesn't stay fixed long enough to function as a framework.

This has a name too. Organizational psychology sometimes calls it schema instability: the categorization system depends on holding a consistent framework in mind and applying it the same way every time, and that consistency is exactly what doesn't hold. It's not that I lack a system. It's that my systems don't stay still.

It compounds. When I update my understanding of something, new information, a new angle, the framework changes in my head, but nothing marks what changed or when. The things I filed under the old logic just sit there, unlabeled as to which version of my thinking put them there. Later I'm trying to read my own filed material using a decoder that's already been quietly replaced. That's retroactive interference layered onto schema drift with no version history. The mess isn't that I forget where things are. It's that I forget which rules were in effect when I put them there.

A pile of unfied papers builds because filing requires a decision I've never been able to make reliably. Scanning becomes its own time sink for the same reason: it still requires deciding where something belongs, so it just becomes a digital pile instead of a physical one. The frustration isn't laziness. It's hitting the same broken step every time, no matter what medium I try it in.

Why this matters, if you recognize it

The reason I'm writing this down isn't to complain, and it isn't to make a case for my own process, though I'll admit some pride crept in while thinking through the tech writing years. It's because I think a lot of people with minds like mine have spent decades doing exactly what I did: treating the disorganization as the whole story, and missing that the "chaos" driving their actual work might be a completely different, and completely functional, system.

If you produce well but can't explain how, if your first attempts look wrong to other people right up until they suddenly aren't, if your filing has never once made sense to you a year after you built it, it might be worth separating those two threads the way I eventually did. One of them might not need fixing at all. The other one might never fully resolve, and that's worth knowing too, so you stop treating it as a moral failure and start treating it as a known cost of how you think.

I still don't have a solution for the filing cabinet. I'm not sure I ever will. But I finally understand what it is, and what it isn't, and that on its own has been worth the years it took to work out.

We Once Loved the Birth of the Internet.

2026-09-14T06:00:00.000-07:00

We LOVED the text-based Internet.

"Information is free!" "Community, not capitalism!"

We weren't socialists, or communists, or anything but Humanitarian and purveyors of elevating humanity, education and enhancing everyone's understanding of the world around us. Many were of positions that allowed them access from higher levels, universities, research groups and so on as the Internet was disseminated on a larger and larger scope in pushing it out to every more people. Until people with not the best of intent gained access and we started to notice a downside.

People in newsgroups back in the late 80s and early 90s got run off, if not off of being online, our of newsgroups for trying to monetize OUR Internet. Our, being what we were cultivating in its best orientation for all, not just those with money, or those with military intent.

That was the deal. That was the culture. It was a positive thing, for the masses.

Around the same time, on C-SPAN, Newt Gingrich was giving fiery speeches to an empty chamber, knowing the camera only showed him, not the empty seats. Theater, not debate. A lie, not truth. Weaponizing what was for everyone, for only the few, his few.

Anything goes, once you decide you're done losing. That's where our toxic politics really got its legs.

Then the internet grew up, and it turned out to be the perfect stage for exactly that kind of theater, at scale. Gingrich-style scorched earth built the audience. Russian disinformation operations later found that same audience ready-made and went to work on it.

I spent decades studying KGB influence tactics, going back to my Air Force years in the late 1970s. By the 90s I started seeing the same playbook show up in GOP messaging, and it floored me that almost nobody else in public was saying so out loud.

Not until about the 2010s when people started realizing it and saying aloud what they had not that long ago claimed I was crazy for saying. It was relieving, rewarding, and irritating for the two decades of abuse, or worse, being discounted. Ignored. Looked at like I was a fool, while I watched most of us acting like exactly that.

Especially in one political party in particular. One that finally saw it's desired fruition in electing someone like Donald Trump. Twice. Now regretting that.

Except for those making the most money under his mob boss tutelage.

I started noticing in the early 90s how Soviet/KGB subversive efforts against America, against the West were being picked up and used by the American Right, the Republican Party, people like Newt Gingrich. Lies sold as truth. Spin was the rule of the day, they broke that barrier and pushed that spin by the Left were lies, and lies by the Right, were Truth. Now we have what?

Truth Social, perhaps the biggest lie of them all but our biggest liar ever.

The internet still gave us real things. More community. More connection, for more people who never had it before.

But capitalism got in anyway. And got in the way, as we knew it would. We watched out dream die on the vine.

And it won. Toxic politics and toxic capitalism ended up feeding each other, each one making the other more profitable.

Now we've got broken social media, engagement over humanity, platform owners emboldened by both.

An AI now able to weaponize it ALL. Against US, We The People. For THEM. Those who own most of the money while we all are struggling.

We tried. We failed. But all is not lost--yet. Only if we let it be.

Better leaders. Better products. Dynamics that pull us together, not apart. They are out there, asking for our votes, rather than for those whose only and best interests are not for us, but for them.

They merely say it is for us, but their actions prove otherwise, constantly, incessantly. Sadly. Sadly, for us as they grow ever stronger in wealth and power. But we are waking. Slowly, sick of the abuse.

Truth over spin. Over lies. Reality over performance.

We are the People. Never forget that.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

9/11: Ignorance Was the Failure Then. It Can't Be Our Future Now

2026-09-12T10:09:19.102-07:00

I wasn’t going to talk about this as I’ve written before online about my experience on 9/11/2001.

But I’ve now heard several people on TV this week, today, being interviewed about their experience that day and I found it curious.

At 5:56AM, on 9/11 I was on the Bainbridge Island ferry, Tacoma, headed into Seattle’s Coleman Dock terminal. The M/V Tacoma has a maximum capacity of 202 vehicles and up to 2,500 passengers.

My wife was at home with our youngest watching TV.

I was sitting in the open area chairs at the point of the ferry when she called. She told me while they were watching TV a plane flew into one of the twin towers in NYC. I asked some questions, she answered.

I am not and was not a journalist. I am not and was not a journalist. I am a military vet, USAF. I did hold a secret level clearance for nuclear weapons. But I was a technical writer and had studied the Soviet Union for decades. In the 1990s I began to notice similarities between active measures by the KGB against America and others (certainly the UK who taught us a lot during WWII and the ABC coalitions about the Soviets).

My comment was that we were potentially and technically in a state of war now, with someone who had just attacked us. Though it’s still “possibly” and accident.

A few people sitting yards away from us, next to my friend I whom I sat with on the ferry sometimes, looked at me nervously and I could see them looking away, but leaning slightly in my direction.

A commercial passenger plane simply does not accidentally fly into the largest building in NYC. But still, it could be an accident. Accidents DO happen. But the coincidence here was remarkable to the point of ridiculousness.

And then she exclaimed aloud. I asked what happened.

She was silent.

Then she said while we were talking, another plane had flown into the other tower.

That was when I said, “Then we are technically and definitely at war with someone. We have just been attacked, twice. We just don’t know yet who attacked us. But it was an attack.”

I had said that louder than I meant to, but also louder because others needed to know, though not unreasonably. After I said it, I felt I should announce it. And yet, I did not. Information? Panic? On a passenger ferry? I was unsure the protocol. So I lowered my voice. Enolugh had heard me to look into it if they were curious enough and I was sure they would hear all about it once they arrived at work.

I looked at my friend next to me who had a very worried look on his face.

I looked around the large cabin and I could see people looking at me from yards away with concerned but questionable looks on their faces.

Were they wondering, ‘Was this guy on the phone nuts?’

I quieted down and considered my wife, our child home sick that day, my son at school, my position on a ferry and the tall building for work I was headed into and began to feel a little exposed. And worried.

I considered our house in the back of Suquamish, Washington, on a couple of forested acres in the woods just off Bainbridge Island. It is the small town where Chief Si'ahl of the Duwamish tribe—Seattle’s namesake, is buried.

I told her there was nothing to worry about as she was safe where she was, my older son (who has a different mother) was safe at school.

She asked if I was safe. I did not feel safe. I looked around the skies out the large ferry windows and saw nothing. I thought about the building I was headed into, not Seattle’s tallest but still a 16 floor building that stuck up higher than surrounded buildings and felt I was lying as I told her, “I’ll be fine, I’m sure I’ll be safe.” She asked me to turn around and come home. But I said I need to at least go into work to see how things were.

I ended up spending the day then many of his headed home a little early out of respect for our frightened families at home. Someone pulled a TV on a cart into our area at work and we had the news on all day.

During that day there were USAF fighter jets flying low over our building.

On the way home there was a Coast Guard RHIB—Rigid-Hull Inflatable Boats (sometimes RIBs) with a mounted .50cal. that followed us to port and remained there for some time every day going back and forth. It was a relief that first day or two but then began to be concerning, worrisome.

Why do I mention all this?

Because I was informed and aware when the planes hit, and I'm not saying that to brag. I've been hearing people talk this week about how clueless they felt in the moment, how they didn't know what was happening.

One person said that when the first plane hit, he was stunned but aware, and when the second one hit, he knew it was Al Qaeda. He was a journalist who'd been stationed in Afghanistan not long before.

My point is simple.

I find it strange that so many people didn't know, at least fairly quickly, that we were under attack, or even ask themselves who was doing it. I find that unsettling.

By the second strike, and certainly by the Pentagon and Flight 93 (where the passengers themselves refused to let the terrorists finish what they started), there was no way this was an accident.

This wasn't rocket science. But it was a learning curve. Now we know. Europe had warned us for years how, if not this kind of attack could happen, we should be more prepared. We ignored them. We were America. Protected by vast oceans on either side. An anachronist view.

This wasn't rocket science. But it was a learning curve.

Now we know. We just weren't looking for it—we didn't think it could happen here.

We were wrong. Ignorance was the failure then. We cannot afford it now.

And yet we have an administration that doesn't fear ignorance—it depends on it. That's not incompetence.

That's autocracy.

9/11/2026

2026-09-11T07:44:23.967-07:00

Fifteen years old today I wrote a blog about 9/11, at that time, ten years prior.

I wrote this here back on June 7, 2010, arguing for surgical special-ops warfare over mass troop deployment.

Bin Laden was still alive. ISIS didn't exist yet. I'm reposting it as-is today, on the 25th anniversary, because it's a time capsule of where my thinking was—not because I got everything right. The "secret war" approach I was pushing for became the dominant U.S. counterterrorism strategy through the 2010s, and it did not turn out to be as clean as I argued below.

Worth saying that up front. Admit your mistakes, do better next time. The idea I had was sound. What was missing was never the tactic—it was an accountability structure that no administration, including the one I trusted to run it, ever built, because the legal architecture available to them was designed for the opposite.

Now, all bets are off. We're watching an administration whose motives and mechanisms we can't verify—and what surfaces is often worse than what we feared. Or could ever have imagined, on both sides.

Don't act like this current administration whenever you make a mistake, you foolishly double down and dare people to correct you in a corrupt autocratic playbook format of being an "American" presidential administration.

History is going to shred this period of our shared history, no matter how much this administration tries to divide us for purposes of power and corruption.

But first, today:

Today, all four living former presidents stand together at Ground Zero for the 25th anniversary.
Same soil, same names read aloud, same silence at 9:37.
The sitting president was not there.
He was at the Pentagon instead—a venue with one microphone, one audience, and zero other former presidents standing nearby for comparison.
No New Yorkers who clearly despise Donald Trump, his lies about everything, and 9/11—where he did not bring a crew with him on that day, as he incessantly repeats the lie, unneeded, undesired, un-American.
The reported reason, per the Times last week, is a dispute over a speaking slot in New York, which he denies.
Denial or not, the outcome is the same.
One ceremony seats four presidents shoulder to shoulder in front of the cameras that built their legacies.
The other seats one, with nobody around to share the frame, to highlight what he isn't and can never be:
A decent American, a decent man, a great president.
Controllable is not a character flaw. It's a production choice.
Some stages just have fewer people who can upstage you—simply by existing.

Monday, June 7, 2010
U.S. 'secret war' expands globally?

The Washington Post had a June 4, 2010 article titled: "U.S. 'secret war' Expands Globally as Special Operations forces take larger role." It would seem that the Obama Administration is using more and more secret teams to go in and take out dangerous radical groups.

Is this bad?

I had been proposing this since 9/11. I brought this up again and again, at least to family and friends, back when we entered Iraq under the pretenses of having information leading to Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction and there being a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda; a contention I never bought, nor understood. Even when the Bush White House said they had intelligence indicating this to be true I didn't believe it. I thought, well I suppose its possible, but I found it hard to believe for obvious reasons. Why did Congress?

My contention then, as it is now, is that we should not send in mass amounts of troops. What we needed were smaller, specialist hit squads. Yes, this sounds scary. Yes, these have been misused the world over by dictators, terrorists, war lords, crime bosses. But which makes more sense: sending in many American troops to lose their lives on blanket, shotgun-like approaches to taking out the bad guys? Or sending in small teams, with proper intelligence, to mark and remove only those individuals that would best serve our goals and save the most lives?

You can argue all kinds of things about this. It could go over limits. How do you control it? Are there moral or ethical implications? On and on.

But look at what we have now. How many have been killed on both sides? How many innocents? Wouldn't it have been better to send in the smaller teams, targeting specifics, than using bombs, war theater tactics, shooting missiles from afar and using drones? Even if specialist squads killed a few innocents (which I'm thoroughly against, but that's yet another topic), how many have we killed now, using our current tactics? I doubt we could even approach the current numbers.

This is not political assassination. This is targeting specific individuals or groups, to strategically and surgically take out those who are actively supporting the killing of people outside the intent of their goals. My point in that statement is: when a group wants the US out of their country, killing US citizens, or their own—and typically innocent people—is outside the intent of their goals.

Terrorists justify their murderous actions because they are too small, too poor, too powerless, and so they use larger-than-life actions to draw attention to their group, their goals, or their issues, in order to get their way or bring popular or media attention to their cause.

But this has gotten out of hand. Frequently, their original goals change over time, or they lose track of their intention, or their core beliefs, and begin to rationalize. Since they do NOT have a centralized government to guide them, it is easy for them to lose their way. Yes, it can be easy for a state-governed group to lose sight of its origins; but far easier for those run by a small rag-tag committee, or a war lord, or a rich, deluded ex-national businessman.

Mostly these people are lost, missing something in their lives, and want to subvert process to attain goals through any means possible. That might be understandable. But it is just as understandable that someone would want to stop them. Once a terrorist organization kills innocent people, they lose the right to be justified and righteous.

The same is true of a nation state. And they should be called to task by the world stage, the UN, and their allies. But terrorists have none of this. So they need to be put down as swiftly as possible, by any means possible, just as they do it. But care needs to be used in not harming innocents.

Not harming innocents is the core concern in all of this.

So, let's start bringing back the troops. Less talk, more action.

Those in charge of these teams need to be conscious of the need to do right, to execute with need and justice, and avoid at nearly all costs the loss of innocent life. Because once they start killing innocents, they are out on the same limb as those rotted and diseased souls who have lost their way themselves.

Back to today, 25 years after 9/11 and we have what? Abused America for electing an erudite decent black man, twice? Elected a career criminal and failed TV game show mob boss type, twice?

9/11 did more damage to use than even the Republican Party and what have we accomplished?

We have set ourselves up repeatedly for more and worse to happen under this administration, under the current ruling party who is under the autocratic criminal thumb of this (and no, it cannot be stated to much, or two often) corrupt president.

We have a lot of work today ahead of us.

Work that will have to now also tackle the issue of a too strong Executive (something both parties have indicated now for decades and then when back in power, did nothing to rectify it, weakening Congress one administration after another), with a corrupt ruling parry and a SCOTUS who seems to have no relationship to that Court's past or America's present.

We CAN obviously do better. We will.

America...

Good health to you, to us all and to a better America through the next two election cycles.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

A Field Guide to LgN Productions

2026-09-07T06:00:00.000-07:00

Most catalogs get organized by year, or by genre, or by whichever award sounds best on a poster. This one doesn't sort cleanly that way, and it shouldn't. What holds LgN's work together isn't a category — it's a set of obsessions that keep resurfacing: memory that won't stay buried, complicity that hides in plain sight, and the gap between what people say happened and what actually did.

A war anthem written from inside the mud.

A weapons dealer whose real crime isn't the one you think.

A public-access relic that turns out to be the whole company's origin story, thirty years hidden in a box.

This is a walk through that catalog by throughline, not by résumé.

Before the beginning. LgN Productions — originally "Last good Nerve Productions" — was founded in 1993 for a single public-access documentary about Lost in Space, produced on borrowed equipment with a crew of friends. Films now on either YouTube or at the LgN Screening Room.

JZ Murdock served as its uncredited executive producer, writer, and editor.

The LIS documentary aired twice on Seattle cable in early 1994. During postproduction the tape editor at the Viacom studio on Roosevelt Street in Seattle, broke mid-post, most of the music dropped out on broadcast, and then the company went dark for over two decades for a variety of reasons, mostly personal.

When Murdock started making films again decades later, he didn't start a new company. He picked LgN back up.

Everything below is what happened after that.

The Features

Pvt. Ravel's Bolero (2022; remastered 2025) is the anchor of the catalog, and its festival run — 80-plus wins — is the reason there's now a deliberate policy of not listing all of them. A visceral anti-war meditation, it imagines composer Maurice Ravel forging the relentless rhythm of Bolero while serving as a truck driver amid the horror of World War I. Built from archival imagery, surreal overlay, and Ravel's internal reflections, it refuses the polish of a conventional documentary in favor of something rawer and harder to look away from — a tribute and a warning at once.

The film has its own footnote in history: in February 2022, a Ukrainian festival selected Murdock's horror short Gumdrop as an official selection days before the invasion began, and within a week a Russian festival nominated Bolero — an anti-war film — for Best War Film. Two governments moving toward war; two festivals, on opposite sides of it, choosing the same filmmaker's work. It's the kind of coincidence that says more than a mission statement could.

"Gumdrop," a short horror (2020) picked up 17 awards of its own, and it earns its place next to Bolero on theme, not just as a genre pairing. Sampson, a meticulous underground weapons supplier, moves product through clients using a coded word — "gumdrop" — while flashbacks from a fractured childhood bleed steadily into his present. What looks at first like a portrait of a damaged middleman turns, in its final act, into something rooted in crimes that once existed outside of fiction. It's a film about what a person can normalize when the alternative is remembering. From the short true crime story, "Gumdrop City" (2012).

The Frontier

Two of the newest additions to the catalog don't fit the fest-circuit mold of the shorts above — they're closer to experiments in how a story gets told at all.

Light Snowflakes: America's Second Orbit (2026) builds an entire immersive documentary around a single object: a rare 1962 vinyl record carrying the unedited audio of astronaut Scott Carpenter's Aurora 7 mission. Restored footage, research, and context surround that recording, educating the viewer so thoroughly that by the time the raw audio plays again at the film's end, it lands differently than it could have for anyone listening in 1962.

Travels (2025) is the outlier on purpose. An experimental short built from AI-generated stills and an AI-composed score, guided by a screenplay Murdock wrote at university in the early 1980s, it follows a woman moving through shifting, dreamlike landscapes where memory, technology, and selfhood collide. It's less a departure from the catalog's themes than a stress test of them — the same questions about identity and buried history, run through tools that didn't exist when the script was written.

World Explorers Program (2026) goes back further than any other title in the catalog — to a set of records Murdock received as a child in the 1960s, part of a monthly series that introduced kids to different countries through vinyl, printed materials, and small keepsakes. He kept them his whole life.

The film doesn't illustrate them with new footage; it turns the original audio itself into the image, using oscilloscope-generated waveforms so the sound becomes something you watch as much as hear — voice, music, and narration rendered as a moving trace across the screen. It's restraint as a formal choice: no modern imagery standing in for a childhood that arrived entirely through listening and imagination. As a kid, Murdock never knew whether these recordings captured real travel or a studio reconstruction of it; decades later, restoring them, the honest answer turned out to be both at once.

(LgN's catalog isn't limited to film — Murdock also publishes prose under LgN Press, including the award-winning Death of Heaven. That's a separate story for another day.)

Unproduced

The Teenage Bodyguard, a screenplay grounded in a true-crime basis, has picked up 17-plus awards on the strength of the page alone — proof that a script doesn't need a camera behind it to prove itself. It's the clearest evidence that LgN's throughline lives in the writing first, production second. Two producers are interested if the money can only be found. It would have been made three times with three different directors that one name producer found, but they just didn't have the right...vision.

What's Next

Three shorts are currently under consideration at Life is Short and HorrorHound TV:

Eagles & Crows, a Fable (a 4 min allegory), "Gumdrop", a short horror, and The Rapping.

Eagles & Crows is a minimalist allegory — loosely drawn from the symbolic roles of eagles and crows in Native American traditions — about a forgotten act of kindness between the two birds that calcifies, generations later, into a ritual no one remembers the reason for.

The Rapping, shot in stark black and white and built partly from real NASA InSight Mars lander audio, follows a man alone with an insistent, rhythmic sound he can't place — inside his house, or inside his head. Elements of it were later folded into Gumdrop, linking the two films into a shared psychological universe.

Alongside the submissions, a film companion book to Bolero is being considered at a UK publisher — expanding the film's found-poem approach to Ravel's war into something longer-form.

A Body of Work, Still in Progress

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

China, Tibet; Russia, Ukraine. Humanity? Kind of Sucks

2026-08-31T07:47:44.916-07:00

In 821-822 CE, Tibet and Tang China concluded a peace treaty, commemorated on stone pillars (rdo ring) erected in Lhasa, the Tang capital Chang'an, and the border at Gungu Meru.

The treaty proclaimed "Tibetans shall be happy in Tibet, and Chinese in China. Both shall not intrude into other's territory."

The Lhasa pillar still stands.

In October 1950, China invaded again breaking the pact, most significantly, when 40,000 Chinese troops invaded Tibet, the event the Tibetan government-in-exile and most Western sources refer to as the Chinese invasion/annexation of Tibet.

No new treaty. No renegotiation. Just violation.

Since then: forced sterilization campaigns targeting Tibetan women.

Mass Han in-migration reshaping the demographics of Lhasa and other Tibetan cities.

Tibetan children removed into state boarding schools designed to erase language and culture.

Genocide by birthrate of foreign national invaders.

1,129 years of a written commitment, broken in a season, followed by 75 years of dismantling the people the treaty was meant to protect.

The documented drivers of the original invasion were more plural:

securing a strategic buffer against India,

asserting PRC sovereignty over former Qing/Republican-era territorial claims, and

ideological consolidation of the "five races" into one state.

China's stated reason: humanitarian rescue. Backward, primitive Tibetans, in need of liberation from feudalism.

What "liberation" actually offered:

no referendum,

no aid freely given,

no autonomy preserved.

Just 40,000 troops, then Han settlement, then dispossession.

What it delivered instead, over seven decades:

mineral and timber extraction,

hydropower projects for mainland China, mostly

and

water diversion on Tibetan rivers,

resources flowing outward while Tibetans were displaced.

Humanitarian concern doesn't require an army.

It doesn't require replacing the population you claim to be rescuing.

The water and power stay in China's system, the fiscal and construction benefits are structured in ways that reinforce settlement patterns, and the same infrastructure doubles as military hardening on a contested border. That's mechanism-first and doesn't require one to assert intent—the design speaks for itself.

Abuse of another country you claim as your own for your own country’s benefit, regardless the harm you inflict, or the demands you impose.

Sounds a lot like Russia’s intent in Ukraine, and elsewhere.

Different border, different decade, different cover story. Same mechanism: claim the land as always yours, extract what's underneath it, replace who's on top of it, call it help.

Tibet got a UN resolution and silence.

Ukraine got a coalition.

The mechanism didn't change. The world's willingness to name it did.

We, as a planet—kind of suck.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Having a bad day? Compared to what? Ever gone sky diving?

2026-08-30T12:00:00.000-07:00

This is a repost from May 31, 2010, that I chose to reshare today, on my birthday, August 30, 2026,

Mom was born on my birthday (long story, but funny). She passed in 2017. Love you mom.

I also have a pretty fascinating post out yesterday on my Substack about a very weird birthday I had, in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, some decades ago with my girlfriend at the time.

On a roll here--here's another birthday I had in 2014 in Bellingham, where one of my kids was living at the time, in my old university town from where I graduated in 1984 (what a year to graduate in, huh?).

So...

Hi! How has your weekend been? Your week? Your year? Not too stressful, I hope.

[Boy! Does THIS have a different meaning now than it did in 2010 when I first wrote this article!]

Also, an old 2011 blog I did on when I was a USAF Parachute Rigger.

Thun Field, Pierce County Airport,

(FAA identifier PLU)

1960. 16915 103rd Ave Ct E, Puyallup, WA

Mine has been quite over the top.

Some of my "customers" are very high stress and they find it easiest to put some of that stress directly upon my head. My costumers are IT related, vendor related, sometimes other departments or other states of our four-state plan. I've long been on a high-level front-line IT team for a "Cadillac" type BlueShield health insurance company (yeah, I know). Some place that stress rightfully so, some I've been told, not so much. Or more precisely, not at all.

Just how stressful HAS this week been? Or last week for that matter, with this one giving it a good run for the money? How so? How can I explain? How can I draw this out and yet keep talking to you till you realize this was just another attempt to talk about strange and unusual times from the past? How can I even keep your attention for that long? Let's see.

I'll just say, this week has been slightly more stressful than I remember feeling one day years ago (harp music), while plummeting to the ground from about 3,000 feet up, having just foolishly let go of a perfectly good airplane, on one fine summer day. It was about just then that I had noticed my parachute was kind of open above me but had not quite really opened as I had been lead to expect it would. It was just flapping in the wind like a streamer held out a car window.

First, I really should mention, this experience I'm about to relate, took place the day after my High School friend Rod's birthday at his house. He had just turned eighteen. I was still seventeen. I woke after a night of very strange things, my ex-girlfriend I had JUST broken up with and my soon to be new girlfriend both being there, doing a variety of inebriates I had done and had yet to do, drinking at a kegger and the next morning waking on the couch in the living room, to a hangover and the murderous sounds--of all things--of someone dumping and counting, jar after jar of coins there on the living room floor. It was Jimmy, Rod's older brother.

I said, "HEY, knock it OFF!" Jimmy said, "Sorry, but I have to."

I said, "Why?" and he said, "Because, I'm going sky diving."

Then he said, "I'm done. Later." and he ran out the door.

Shortly after the door slammed shut, Rod came down the stairs from his bedroom, rather quickly, and asked, "Where'd Jimmy go?" I told him and he kind of lost it.

"WHAT! Oh Hell, he told me he'd take me! I'm going!" I asked him, "What? Hey! Then I'm going."

On the way there, Jimmy realized he didn't have enough money. So, Rod and I gave him what we had to cover him. Then when we got there, I said I wanted to jump too but I had given Jimmy all my money.

But I was now broke or at least didn't have enough.

Jimmy felt bad and between him and Rod, we got the $30 together for me and we now all hand enough. We could start our five and a half hours of training, still miserably hung over and at times, jumping from a platform five feet up from the dirt out front of the dive loft where they stored and packed the parachutes.

We were learning "PLFs", Parachute Landing Form, which didn't feel none too good while doing them. PLFs are what they teach you, so you don't do, FKHF form (Feet, Knees, Hands, Face). Doing them hungover and dehydrated, only made it much, much worse. But were were also trying to hide being hung over.

Once I found I didn't need parent's permission, as I wasn't eighteen (I thought I did it and my mother previously made it quite clear she wouldn't give her permission), I really had to do it.

Finally, we were ready to go, our hours of training complete, we suited up, packed up and climbed into the plane with two others, the three of us and Jesse our Jumpmaster. And the pilot, of course.

I remember someone asking, "Do you know what position you are in?" As we were all scrunched up together in the cramped cargo space, on our knees, in order to get the most jumpers on a dive as possible.

I said, "No" and they replied, "The preying position." Ha ha. Everyone laughed, Jesse grimaced at the newbie abuse. Very funny. Dive humor. First timer/veteran dive humor.

After our training was done, still on the ground, the three of us noticed Jesse walking by and we all noted how attractive she was. It was hard not to be attracted to her, even though she was a bit older than us. One of the jumpers walked by, noting our interest (the guy who made the "praying position" joke later in the plane as we took off). He joked a long with us about how attractive Jesse was. Then dropped the bomb.

"You know (he smiled), her husband packs your chutes."

We all looked at each other and swallowed (being dehydrated, with some difficulty). No more looking at Jesse with anything but respect and uh, respect, from then onward. Not that we didn't have respect from the beginning. She knew her stuff.

Skipping forward...I drove out to go jump one day without Rod and Jimmy. Not sure why, maybe they were busy.

The cloud ceiling was low, too low. Newbies like me couldn't jump, you had to be certified for that low of a jump. While I was there, a twin blade, heavy Army Chinook helicopter landed. The crew had wanted to have lunch at the restaurant by the airstrip, a bit off from the loft. Thirteen jumpers with military ID got to step off out of it that day. It was quite a site and quite a story that day. But that for another time...

But the next time I went out to go jump, I got to go.

And it was an event...

I jumped, static line snapped, chute was not inflating above me, slowing my descent nominally. Making things worse, I could not actually see it. The risers connecting me to the canopy had crossed against the back of my neck so I could only stare at my chest, where lay my chin just above where the emergency chute sitting all nice and tightly secured to me, ready for instant deployment which I was now supposed to use; oh, and of course that hard ground 3,000 feet below, beyond the chute on my chest, with its great grouping of tiny, tiny fenced off meadowland that was currently floating gently up toward me at about maybe 100 miles an hour.

I could see it all between my dangling feet. But that was then.

Back to Jimmy's, Rod's and my first jump...

After you jump out of the plane, you're supposed to take proper form to keep from tumbling terribly out of control, like Jimmy had just done, almost potentially hanging himself on the fifteen-foot static line that pulls the chute out as you fall away from the plane, for those of us not yet certified for free fall.

You took your first long class, did your first jump, then some more jumps and eventually become certified for free fall.

In those days, you didn't attach yourself to a jumper. It just wasn't done. It was, "weird" to consider. But the newer way doesn't tend to lose new jumpers, so...

The two veteran jumpers (including the jokester) went first. No problems, no issues.

Jimmy looked pretty scared as he got situated in the open door. He looked up at me and the look on his face was one I'd never seen before, or after. But hey, he didn't hesitate, she hit his leg, said, "Go!" and he jumped. However, as he existed, Jesse nearly leaped out the door, freaking both Rod and I out. She hung there for a while staring at--something. It was freaking me out. What the hell was going on with Jimmy?!!

Finally, she noticeably relaxed and pulled herself back in. Looking back at us, saw the looks on our faces. We asked what happened. She hesitated, then leaned in toward us and, maybe saw it as a learning moment.

"He did what we taught you not to do," Jesse said. "He didn't flare properly and started to tumble. I was afraid he'd wrap up in the static line. I've seen it before. If that happens you can get it around your foot, or worse, around your neck and get dragged. If it doesn't kill you, you're just being dragged behind the plane."

"Then what?" I asked. She said, "Then the jumpmaster, me, has to climb down and clear you for hopefully a good fall. But he cleared the line and his chute opened. He's fine. OK. So...next." She looked at Rod. He looked back at me with a big smile on his face, the worry he'd had for Jimmy now washed away.

Rod crawled over to the door. I always held Jimmy in high regard, maybe a bit intimidated by him being the older brother, but he was always the nicest guy. I had assumed that day that he'd bravely exit the plane, and Rod might be the one feeling a bit tenuous about jumping.

I don't know why I thought that. I think it was more about Jimmy being one way, than Rod being another. But Rod got just into position, then turned once situated outside the plane, looked Jesse, then back at me with absolutely no fear on his face, just great gusto and a big smile.

I'm not now sure if he did, but I remember him giving a big thumbs up and then focused on thee task at hand, outside the plane. Jesse said something to the pilot, he responded. She looked at Rod and nodded, he nodded back and finally hit him on the leg, and said "GO!"

And he was gone. Mind you, being almost last wore on one's nerve. Seeing what I had just seen, also had. I think had I gone first, or before Jimmy, I would (maybe) have been fine.

Jesse closely watched Rod release his grip in fearlessness, and in perfect form. She turned to me and gave me a thumbs up and a smile. All was good. Just the opposite of what I would have expected as Jimmy always seemed fearless to me. I felt a great relief, except that, I suddenly realized, I was next.

That shifted the entire world for me in that moment.

For myself, it wouldn't normally be a problem. I'd hung off cliffs in the Cascade and Olympic Mountains, and all kinds of crazy stuff years before in Civil Air Patrol on search and rescue maneuvers. I had my SCUBA license. SCUBA takes a different kind of bravery. As does repelling down a cliffside. Or climbing up one. But I'd always been like a fish in water, as my mom liked to say.

So, I climbed out of the plane, finding it harder than I'd expected to place my foot on that tiny, TINY footpeg, hanging outside the plane, my right leg just dangling there in the propwash of the plane at a slow 100MPH, and looking down through 3,000 feet of--nothingness.

Then Jesse our jumpmaster hit my leg and said, "GO!" Good grief.

So, of course, bravely I did what all courageous types did. Right? I hesitated, then--looked back up at her from what I found an awkward and uncomfortable position and said bravely, "WHAT!?" It was the only thing I could think of to distract and delay from my position.

She looked at me--incredulous. But fully understanding what stage of fear I was involved with at that moment. Mind you, every second of delay puts a jumper either closer to, or farther away from the LZ (landing zone), and that 10' circle of pea gravel that is the target everyone wants to land on. And few do.

Also, my delay changing the calculus for where I will land, was also changing her own. Something not quite on my mind at that time.

"GO!" she said and knowingly hit me again on the back of my thigh. I pulled my eyes from hers and looked forward, seeing my hands gripping the strut and the spinning propeller further forward, and thought, "I am NOT losing that 30 bucks because I rode the plane back down." That seemed to move me more than anything else. Then I wondered how to trick myself to do what I wanted. I thought, "I only need to relax one of my fingers and then the next..." That didn't work.

Then I thought, just go limp, stop gripping. Make your hands go limp and--it happened.

The plane leaped forward, out of my grasp as my grip failed and I realized I had let go and the plane was gone.

Swimming back toward the plane, it quickly didn't appear to be working. I looked up for what I was trying to achieve (the plane) and realized was already out of my site. That subsumed my thoughts. Where the hell did the plane go? Which was when I realized that the static line had snapped and the chute was pulled out.

However....

It was all quite hard to miss, the culmination of all that drama.

As I fell away form the plane, I remember, Count. "One thousand one. One thousand two. One... oh screw it!" My eyes were shut tight. I hoped for an opening. I heard the snap, an odd sound of the canopy deploying in a stream of nylon and then, the chute inflating and a slowing down. I opened my eyes. I looed up at a beautiful fully inflated canopy, and smiled.

Then I looked below me and realized I was like 3,000 feet in the air dangling my feet. It was terrifying. But nothing bad happened. I breathed. After a minute I realized the absolute silence. The beauty all around me. I relaxed and enjoyed the ride that seemed to take forever. I noticed the tiny fenced areas of the farmland. I feared being lost. How the hell would I know which to aim for?

As I descended, I was eventually able to pick out the pea gravel LZ and people and I was headed right for it. The groundmaster was moving his arms, guiding me in. I manipulated my toggle left and right I could clearly see no one had landed in the LZ but off to the side. Except for me.

Which actually went quite smoothly and I actually hit the ten foot wide target of pea gravel. I was exhilarated. After all, I was the only one that jump who hit the target. The other more experienced jumpers already on the ground had all missed. And Jimmy and Rod, of course. Which happens, as the jumpmaster in the plane can only zero in on one or a few jumpers to hit the target as the plane is continuing on in a line at about 100 miles per hour. The new "square" chutes make this less an issue now a days.

When I realized the ground was coming up faster than I expected hitting pea gravel is a definite and softer benefit. As I found out on my second jump. The groundmaster nodded and said, "Gather your chute." So I did. But before I got my harness off, I knelt down and kissed the ground. I thought it funny, but also kind of meant it. I was glad to be on the ground. I looked over at the groundmaster who had a very disgusted look on his fast as he turned and walked back to guide our Jumpmaster Jesse down.

I got my harness off and--first jump completed. I walked over to Rod and Jimmy and needless to see, we were all pretty pumped up and pleased with ourselves. No one felt our hangovers. That came after the adrenalin wore off.

But getting back to that second jump...

Once out of the plane, this time I was proud of myself that I counted the full 6 count. Then tried to look up to assure myself the canopy I heard deploy, was fully inflated and function. But something wasn't letting me look up. I couldn't move my head upward. That was weird.

What I missed most seeing was what that chute above my head was doing because. And frankly, I didn't seem to be slowing down. Count to six, look up, check the chute opened, make a decision.

You either relax and enjoy the ride down. Or do some emergency stuff like cut away from the failed chute, releasing the connectors to the risers connected between the harness and the canopy, then just pop the emergency chute by pulling the ripcord handle on the canvass wrapped bump of nylon on your chest.

I began to consider feeling stressed out, but I had been told you only have about ten seconds to make a decision on what to do in a situation like that and at that altitude. So I really didn't have the time to stress out. Or be afraid. Which I thought I would save for either just before I impacted the ground, or just after I landed and somehow, continued living against all odds.

Which, actually, I was kind of counting on.

Also, my hangover seemed to magically dissolve away. I guess adrenalin does that.

I remember thinking I needed to break away, pop the emergency chute; but then a thought broke into my consciousness. The realization that if I pop the chute, "I don't have $2.50 for an emergency chute repack." That would be embarrassing. So, I thought...I bet I could fix this. It's just twisted. If I could just get this one to work, the deployed one, I mean, it's just sitting there, out, but not inflated, then; no sense in being embarrassed. And that would really suck."

Right. OK, then.

I did the obvious thing, what anyone might do. Right? No?

I tried to pull apart the risers so I could snap my head back. It was then I realized just how much strength it took to keep the risers apart for more than a second or two as they were supporting all my weight. It was too much. I had to let them snap back into place. My head still down. Pinned down, taking my agency from me, out of my control. I refused to let that defeat me and I was rapidly running out of time.

At which point, I put all my strength into it and pulled them apart enough I could slip my helmeted head back and it went back further than I'd expected and I had to let the risers go. They snapped into place and now I found I was now staring straight up at the streaming tube-like, "cigarette roll" (as they call those malfunctions); a funny looking arrangement of a Hell of a lot of 1.1 rip-stop nylon NOT inflating and there, far beyond that, a truly beautiful, silent, blue sky.

Technically, this type of "function" as they liked to call them (I discovered a few years later with PJs when I was a parachute rigger in the USAF), is known as a "compression twist", but at the time, I really wasn't caring what the correct technical term for it was.

Apparently, it can happen when you twist the chute as you put it into the pack during repack, so when it extracts it spirals and compresses, holding itself in a tube shape, so it can't inflate as air has no entryway into the canopy.

I noticed that it was really quite quiet falling like that through the sky.

Except for this one noise, and what was that anyhow as it was getting quickly getting louder as I fell? I thought about it for a moment (just part of a second, don't worry) and realized finally that it was me, passing through the air, at drag decreased terminal velocity only 100 miles an hour (go ahead, stick your head out the window of your car at 100 mph some time, and you'll see what I mean). Full termina velocity is around 120MPH, but the tube above me was causing drag, slowing me down a bit.

There were some other minor sounds from material flapping, or loose harness webbing, but other than that, just the screaming of the air shooting past my ears that seemed to take up the majority of my attention.

Funny how time slows as you're about to die...

At about that point, head was stuck back, the risers were holding my helmet back, I realized that I could have it either way, head forward and down or back looking up, but not easily transition between the two extremes. I hadn't expected that.

So, I figured, well? I might as well try to fix it. I may have no choice at this point. Besides, I didn't really want to watch my knees being shoved up into my hips should it come to that. Wait, no, I wouldn't be able to see that, would I, not in this position.

I figured I'd feel it either way though. No sense in evoking sensory overload, ya know?

It was at that moment that I thought to put into play all my brilliance and act accordingly. So, I did the only thing I could think to do, what I thought in the first place, and pulled the risers apart as wide as I could with all my strength for as long as I could and hope that worked. Seemed like it should.

So the chute above me could then open at the bottom to inflate and I could just sit there happily and relaxed and watch the show of a colorful spectacle of yards of nylon spinning rapidly around up above me, so that it could open to its full and glorious (likely a) 32-foot modified round, TU-slotted flat circular, standard static-line gear of the day). I was surprised as I pulled them apart, that I was actually able to hold them far apart after a certain distance when it got easier, and again, I think some of it was the adrenalin.

And that was when the amazing happened. But shouldn't have been the surprising. A parachute nickname is "air anchor." Should I have expected the chute to spin? Or...

I wasn't considering a small, overlooked item. That being physics. You see, when you have above you an "air anchor" and try to move it against that of say 180 pounds of dead weight plus gear, well, the larger "air anchor" wins every time and the dead weight (yes, me) spins instead.

At which point I began to spin uncontrollably as the inflating parachute above instead got to watch my spectacle with feet flying out from centrifugal force as I did a strange little meat puppet twirl.

Unbeknownst to me, not so far below on the ground, down there beneath me at the LZ, the other jumpers, and our groundmaster--were watching in shared fascination and sheer horror. But I wasn't thinking of them. I was busy on my carnival ride.

"Why in the Hell isn't he cutting away and deploying his reserve!" The groundmaster wondered. He who controls guiding you in and the ground LZ, as Jesse handled the issues in the planet leading up to the jump.

Fascinated, they watched the display of me spinning, after having not broken away from the malfunctioning main chute sooner and using the reserve chute; and in horror at having lived moments that felt like hours to the more experienced jumpers as they watched the far more inexperienced sky diver (my esteemed self) not breaking away from the "compression twist" (something that has killed many sky divers and especially first-time parachutists for nearly a hundred years or more).

The groundmaster saw EVERYTHING and was not pleased with me. Something he made painfully clear once it was understood I was good and back on the ground, alive, mostly.

I had a grand finale as I snapped to and stopped spinning quite suddenly. I was a little dizzy and I had to let my eyes catch up to my head and allow my vision to focus again, but I was very happy to note that I no longer heard any high speed winds, and that above me (yes, I could now look up quite easily through the now uncrossed risers) there was finally a beautiful open and fully inflated canopy doing what it was meant to do: slow descent to a reasonable and much more fun speed.

I was now able to enjoy a quiet, and incredible view of a descent, with a massive panorama of the entire region below me with Mt Rainier in the distance. It seemed to last forever, until I got within about 40-50 feet of the ground at which point, things seemed to increase in speed and the culmination of the jump. That being, the landing.

Remember, on my first jump I was the only one who hit the pea gravel. So of course, I wanted to do it again. I was headed right for it. The groundmaster was guiding me not in the direction I wanted so I did what I wanted. I could see he was gesticulating frantically but I was concentrating on my pulling the risers and I overshot the pea gravel, something he knew clearly, I was going to do.

I pulled hard on one riser and I thought I could spiral down back to the target gravel. But I kept going forward too much and as I spun around a wind caught the chute and spun me harder. Think bucket of water on a rope you spin around and centrifugal force keeps the water in the bucket.

But essentially what it meant for me was that I was gaining momentum in that spin at the end of those ropes until the road running through the meadow was rising to meet me far to fast. I slammed into it, but at an angle. My combat boot encased feet hit first, as they hit the ground the split down the sides, my body hit at such an angle there was no good way to cushion my slamming into the rocks and dirt of that road.

After creaming into the road, I lost my happy feeling pretty quickly as the pain spread throughout me from my feet to my upper body. I just lied there in pain. The groundmaster ran over to me and asked if I was OK. Embarrassed I said yes, but do something about this chute! He said just pop a riser. I did and the chute deflated. I asked if he could help get my helmet off and he did. I just lied there in the dirt feeling like an idiot. A painful one at that.

He asked if I was OK. I said, yes. He asked if I I was sure. I just yes, I'm fine, it hurts, but I'm OK, just let me lie here for a while. He asked again, are you sure you're OK? I looked at him oddly and said, Yes, why? He pointed at my boots. I looked down and say the leather had split down the sides. I was surprised but I just said, Yeah I don't know what that's about but I'm good.

He nodded and said, "OK, but when you're ready, I want to talk to you." I just nodded and put my head back in the dirt, staring at the sky as he walked away.

After about fifteen minutes, I got up, humiliated and walked over to the groundmaster wherein he "tore me a new one," and made it clear as you approach the LZ the groundmaster is in control and you DO whatever he indicates. He asked if I knew there was a draft running along that road. I said no. He said that's why you got slammed into the ground. I said I just wanted to turn and hit the pea gravel. He said you never had a chance at that, I was giving you your best path down. ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR GROUNDMASTER! Got it!?"

Yeah, I got it. I also didn't walk right for a week or so after that. I didn't need a better reminder.

Then he asked what I was thinking in not breaking away from a defective deployment. I said I thought I could fix it. He made it clear, you don't fix it you break away. Safety first. I wanted to explain to him I wasn't just some 17 year old who didn't know anything but I'd been in a lot of dangerous situation and trained to fix problems in real time. I had first responder first aid training. All kinds of things like that but--thought it best to bite my tongue and just, nod yes.

Also, I said, I didn't have $2.50 for an emergency chute repack.

That stunned everyone within hearing range. Jesse had landed a few minutes before and was nearby packing up her chute and leaned over to me and said don't do that again. OK? She made it clear, that rather than go through what they just witnessed, with a new jumper (again, no tandem jumps back then), they would all have been happy to pitch in to pay the cost of a repack for the emergency chute. I was humbled looking around and everyone was nodding in agreement.

Once again, Life was good.

Thinking back on it, that wasn't as stressful as this past week has been for me; that week that I would one time experienced, some several decades later.

No matter how intense things feel right now? You can almost always count on them getting more intense later.

Makes you think.

You know?

Oh. And here's the funny thing.

I looked up who Jesse was and is today and found her! She's a world-class record-breaking sky diver who at 77 made her 23 when I knew her:

It's just total freedom': At 77, Washington skydiver Jessie Farrington sees no need to quit.

The Budget Was Never the Point

2026-08-24T06:00:00.000-07:00

Here's a factual rundown of the major actions and disputes since January 2025 that critics have pointed to in this context.

Let's lay out what's documented, and flag where the "heading toward martial law" framing is a rapidly becoming settled fact—supporters of these policies generally offer different justifications (border security, bureaucratic efficiency, executive authority under existing law), so they can continue their actions even their supporters would be again. It offers them cover, as thinly veiled as it is to most of us.

Executive power and independent agencies

Trump fired multiple independent agency officials without the "for cause" protections Congress had written into their statutes (e.g., FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter). The Supreme Court's June 2026 ruling overturning Humphrey's Executor upheld this, significantly expanding presidential removal power over agencies previously insulated from direct White House control.
Large-scale reclassification of career civil servants under "Schedule F"-style rules, stripping job protections from tens of thousands of federal employees and making them easier to fire for political reasons.
Mass firings/reductions across federal agencies (including inspectors general removed early in the term without the statutorily required 30-day notice to Congress).

Military and law enforcement deployment domestically

National Guard deployed to Los Angeles in June 2025 over the objection of California's governor—the first time since 1965 a state's Guard was federalized without gubernatorial consent. This is the single most-cited data point in "martial law" discussions, since the Insurrection Act (not invoked here, but discussed publicly as an option) would be the legal mechanism for a much broader military role in domestic law enforcement.
Increased ICE enforcement activity, including reports of ICE personnel near polling places ahead of the 2026 midterms, which the White House press office did not directly deny when asked.

Courts and judicial independence

Arrest of a sitting Wisconsin state judge (Hannah Dugan) by federal authorities in April 2025—the first arrest of a sitting judge by the FBI since the 1930s—after she allegedly obstructed an immigration arrest in her courtroom. Judicial independence groups called this an alarming precedent regardless of the underlying facts.
Public attacks on judges who ruled against administration policies, and instances of the administration slow-walking or contesting compliance with court orders in immigration cases.

Press, universities, and civil society

Funding fights and settlement pressure campaigns against universities (Harvard being the highest-profile case, ending in a reported $1 billion settlement) over civil-rights and DEI-related disputes.
Law firms that represented Trump's opponents or handled cases against the administration faced targeted executive orders threatening their federal contracts and security clearances; several firms cut deals to avoid this.
Detentions of foreign students/green-card holders over pro-Palestinian campus protest activity (Mahmoud Khalil, Leqaa Kordia among the most publicized), which immigration and civil-liberties groups characterized as speech-based retaliation.

Immigration enforcement expansion

Expanded use of expedited removal, narrowed asylum eligibility (including for claims based on domestic/intimate-partner violence), and reported use of racial profiling in enforcement, according to human rights organizations.
Termination of Temporary Protected Status for large populations (e.g., Haitian TPS holders), which rights groups project will sharply increase ICE activity.

Election-related

Public statements from Trump and allies (including commentator Steve Bannon) raising the possibility of contesting 2026 midterm results in advance, and pushing for a national voter-ID executive order tied to the SAVE Act if Congress didn't pass it—moves election-integrity watchdogs flagged as groundwork for disputing results they don't like.

A note on the framing itself

The specific claim that these actions are "meant to lead to martial law" is an interpretation advanced by advocacy groups (Human Rights Watch, Protect Democracy, the ACLU-adjacent press, and opinion writers)—it isn't something the administration has stated as intent, and no formal martial law declaration or Insurrection Act invocation has occurred as of this writing.

But why would the administration state their intended goals when it is martial law and autocracy?

Why even bring that up under these conditions?

That's a fair epistemological point, and it deserves a real answer.

While Trump is actually pursuing autocratic consolidation, he would have every reason to describe it as something else—"security," "efficiency," "restoring order." Stated intent is not reliable evidence either way; that's true of any actor with something to hide, and it's also true, less dramatically, of normal politicians who routinely dress up self-interested or power-consolidating moves in public-interest language.

So we can't say "they didn't call it autocracy, therefore it isn't" as they wish to have happen—but that is a weak inference and simply doesn't hold up.

They have used the guise of bringing the budge under control to cover their actions and give them ever lessening ability to do these actions.

There's a real, documentable version of that argument, worth laying out plainly:

DOGE-style cuts and Schedule F reclassification were framed as fiscal efficiency, but the practical effect was gutting the independent civil service protections and inspector-general oversight that historically made it harder for any administration to politicize agencies.

Efficiency and control aren't mutually exclusive—cutting an inspector general's office saves money and removes a watchdog simultaneously.

Even former DOGE members now admit their sheer ignorance and utter stupidity in their blind cuts of important institutions.

Several of the agencies hit hardest (CFPB, parts of the IRS, oversight offices) are ones that specifically constrain executive or corporate power, not just generic "waste." Reasonable critics argue that if this were purely about budget discipline, cuts would track cost-per-function more evenly rather than disproportionately hitting oversight and enforcement bodies.

Thought would have gone into it, planning, wise actions by those with knowledge of what was or needed to be done would have been involved, rather than marched out of their buildings, jobs and careers.

The Humphrey's Executor reversal wasn't a budget matter at all—it was about removal power over agency heads—but it arrived alongside the "shrink government" push and had the effect of making independent agencies dependent on presidential will rather than statutory insulation, regardless of their size or spending.

Timing: several of these moves (inspector general firings without the legally required 30-day notice, mass reclassification) happened in the first weeks of the term, before any serious budget analysis could plausibly have been done, which is consistent with the idea that "cost-cutting" was the vehicle rather than the driver.

The complicating factors

Every administration frames cuts to agencies it dislikes as fiscal responsibility—that's not unique to this one, and it doesn't by itself prove bad faith. Reagan's OMB, Clinton's "reinventing government," and others made similar arguments about entrenched bureaucracy, with a similar mix of genuine efficiency rationale and political convenience.

But then Reagan was the patron saint of the end result of much of what the Republican Party is today under Donald Trump, utterly ignoring his furter intent of his malignant narcissism and ill intent toward our government and citizens, who do not blinding support him. He has surrounded himself with "yes-men" which is always the alarm and eventual death knoll of dying democracies, being murdered in their own cradle of government.

It is also how autocracies self-immolate, eventually.

For to be told all the time that everything you are doing is great, that "all is well", when it is clearly not and the masses are actually rising against you (as they are now), is sheer suicide.

Some cuts have been reversed or blocked by courts, and some inspectors general were reinstated after litigation—meaning the legal system has at points functioned as a check, which cuts against a "budget as cover for unchecked power grab" story being fully successful, even if it was the attempt.

We are thankful for our courts and judges who have stood against this move to autocracy, with little or no thanks to those toxically conservative Justices on SCOTUS today

Whether removing statutory insulation from agencies is itself illegitimate is actually contested on the merits, separate from motive—"unitary executive theory" is a real, decades-old legal position (not invented for this purpose) holding that this insulation was constitutionally dubious to begin with.

So even sympathetic critics of Trump specifically have disagreed among themselves about whether the Humphrey's Executor outcome is a power grab or a correction of an old constitutional error.

Net: I think it's fair to say "budget discipline" has functioned as a permission structure that made some of these moves politically easier to sell and legally easier to defend, whether or not that was the primary motive going in.

Whether it was designed as cover from the start (it was), versus opportunistically exploited once cuts started producing convenient side effects (that too obviously happened), isn't something easily settled for many, sadly—but the pattern described here (nominal fiscal rationale, disproportionate impact on oversight/independence rather than generic cost centers) is a real and observed one, not a fringe read of the record.

When bringing into all this the Trump/MaGA/GOP toxic conservative game plan, Project 2025 and Trump's continuing claims of a 3rd or 4th presidential term, it all becomes rather clear rather quickly.

When you add in things like the Trump administration firing those in cybersecurity, so many expert throughout our government, all as we are being attacked from international enemies, like Iran, in retaliation for a war Trump needlessly started to distract yet again from the Epstein files release, needlessly attacking other countries (as in Venezuela) after having run on a political platform of "no more war," "no more forever wars", it all becomes ever more clear exactly what he is doing. And who and what he is.

A grifter. A career criminal. A documented serial and malignant career liar with unhealthy personality issues.

WHY America is sitting so idly by watching this man tear apart America, and our American government without acting, without removing him ASAP, or faster, is quite beyond not only the "pale", but the spirit of America under the guise of remaining America.

Iran is attacking our water systems, remotely.

And Trump's claim is what?

That state's Democratic leadership is incompetent.

It's ludicrous and only makes blatantly clear, Donald Trump is our greatest and domestic enemy and those not telling him the truth, too busy saying "Yes, sir" always, while enabling his demise of our American government and protections, is becoming ever harder to deny.

We are fooling ourselves. We have given ourselves a truly incompetent leader, after decades of conservatives claiming Democratic leaders are, that anyone but themselves are the ones who are truly incompetent.

We are being fooled.

We are allowing it to happen.

We do not have to do that.

Not by a long shot.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of Claude AI

JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington.

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

The "Rifle Shot" on a Calm Saturday Morning

2026-08-17T06:00:00.000-07:00

I heard what sounded like a rifle shot this Saturday morning, and then all my power went out.

No wind. No storm. No branch down across a line. Just a sharp, flat crack from the pole outside my house, and then the particular silence of a home with no hum in it — no HVAC, no refrigerator compressor, no soft whir from the office down the hall. I've lived on the Kitsap Peninsula for nine years now, and this is the third transformer I've watched blow in that span. Three, on a property that isn't unusually large, isn't unusually loaded, and isn't served by some ancient spur line nobody's looked at since Eisenhower. Just an ordinary house that happens to sit under a piece of equipment that keeps failing.

The easy story — the one the utility will tell you if you call it in — is that this is weather. Old wiring, coastal damp, wind events, the occasional falling limb. And sure, sometimes that's exactly what it is, and there's not much to be done about a tree deciding to come down mid-gust. But a calm Saturday morning with clear skies doesn't fit that story. What blew today wasn't the weather's fault. Something inside that can finally gave out — insulation that had been quietly degrading for who knows how long, a connection that had been arcing in secret, a unit carrying more load than it was ever sized for. And nobody knew, because nobody was looking.

That's the part that should bother you more than the bang did.

Most pole-mounted transformers are dumb. No sensors, no telemetry, nothing reporting back to anyone. A utility typically finds out something's wrong in one of two ways: a scheduled visual inspection that might happen once every several years, or a customer calling in because their power just went out and their house sounded like a gun range for a second. That second method is, functionally, the maintenance plan. You are the sensor. Your blown modem is the diagnostic report.

And here's the thing — that's not because the alternative is impossible or even particularly expensive anymore. Retrofit monitoring points that track a transformer's temperature, load, and internal condition now run somewhere in the neighborhood of a few hundred to a couple thousand dollars per unit, no substation-grade infrastructure required. Utilities that have actually deployed this kind of monitoring at scale aren't finding it a wash — they're finding it saves money outright, because a proactive swap is a bucket-truck and an hour, while a reactive one after a bang like today's is an emergency dispatch, a longer outage, and often more damage to the hardware itself.

One Texas utility that built a proactive monitoring program using data it already had access to caught thousands of failing units before they failed and credited the program with saving millions of dollars and avoiding millions of minutes of customer outages. This isn't speculative technology. It's being done, today, by utilities that decided the juice was worth the squeeze.

So why isn't it standard? Because of whose ledger the costs land on. The utility's replacement cost is visible, budgeted, and rate-based — spending on infrastructure is literally how regulated utilities get compensated. What isn't on that ledger is my modem, my router, whatever's plugged into the wall in the office that didn't get the chance to shut down gracefully, the reset clocks, the food in a freezer if the outage runs long enough, the afternoon lost waiting for a crew. None of that is the utility's expense.

It's mine. It's yours. It's the neighbor's whose sump pump picked exactly the wrong week to need power. Add up nine years of that, times however many households sit downstream of aging equipment nobody's proactively checking, and the "cheaper to fix it when it breaks" math only works because most of the actual cost has been quietly handed to the customers standing under the pole.

Meanwhile the load on these systems keeps climbing. Every efficiency gain we get from newer appliances is getting eaten by more devices per household and, increasingly, an EV or two charging overnight on a transformer that was sized for a much smaller world. A unit that was marginal a decade ago may simply not be adequate now — and again, nobody's watching that shift happen in real time unless they've chosen to.

I don't think this is a mystery or a conspiracy. It's an incentive problem, plain and ordinary. The party that decides whether to monitor and replace proactively isn't the party that eats the cost of guessing wrong. Until that changes — through regulation, through customer pressure, through utilities deciding reliability data is worth collecting before the bang instead of after — a rifle shot on a calm Saturday morning is going to keep being the way I find out my transformer was tired.

Three for nine years now. I'd like a fourth to not happen.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of Claude AI

JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington.

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

Trump Countdown Clock: Days Until Our Trump/GOP National Nightmare Ends

2026-08-15T07:26:36.789-07:00

End of Trumpism, End of MaGAism

End of Toxic Conservatism in Power

End of this Toxic Republican Party

End of America's stupid experiment in Authoritarianism

Someone posted to this that we need action, not just dates.
True, this is merely something to shoot for. Sooner if possible.

But it helps to have a goal. A date. A time.

And then shoot for sooner.

Merely waiting for this to be over, does NOTHING.

Act.

Our national nightmare, on the clock...

In this tine of "Corporate Thought" meaning no morals, no ethics, profit over all else, disinformation, post-truth, toxic conservatism, etc., our government no longer functions correctly due to having been set up with a consideration that people would not stoop as low as we have seen today's American conservatism and Republicans have.

Thus, we bow need corrections.

Here's a rundown of the institutional reforms that necessary in a post Trump-era of toxic GOP governance and the current SCOTUS (and some conservative judges) have pushed, organized by branch.

Presidency / executive power

Codify limits on the pardon power for self-dealing or obstructing investigations into the president's own conduct
Close the "major questions doctrine" and emergency-powers loopholes that let presidents bypass Congress via executive order
Strengthen the Impoundment Control Act so a president can't unilaterally withhold appropriated funds
Clarify and narrow presidential immunity after the Trump v. United States ruling, since critics argue it created near-blanket immunity for "official acts"
Restore independence of inspectors general and agency heads (FBI, DOJ, intelligence community) with for-cause removal protections that can't be gutted by executive order
Tighten the Hatch Act and anti-nepotism/emoluments enforcement with real penalties

Congress

Restore the pre-clearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act gutted by Shelby County v. Holder
Pass federal redistricting standards to curb partisan gerrymandering
Reform the filibuster for voting rights and basic governance bills (budget, debt ceiling)
Tighten conflict-of-interest and stock-trading rules for members of Congress
Restore and strengthen congressional oversight tools (subpoena enforcement mechanisms with teeth, since agencies currently can just ignore them)
Campaign finance reform addressing Citizens United, likely via a constitutional amendment given the Court's current posture

Supreme Court / judiciary

18-year staggered term limits for justices, ending lifetime tenure
A binding, enforceable ethics code (the current one has no enforcement mechanism)
Some form of court expansion or jurisdiction-stripping on specific issues, though this is the most contested item even among reform advocates
Stricter recusal rules tied to financial disclosures
Reversing or legislating around specific rulings (Dobbs, Trump v. United States, Chevron's overturn in Loper Bright) through statute where possible

Broader democratic guardrails

Insulate election administration and certification from partisan interference (building on the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022)
Statehood or representation reform for DC and territories
Independent redistricting commissions as a national standard

I wish us all well going forward once sanity returns and corporate thinking is back under control.

Power to the people, not power to only the powerful few.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

The Oldest Hustle in American Crime: When They Say It's About Who You Are

2026-08-10T06:00:00.000-07:00

There is a script. It is older than anyone currently living. It goes like this:

I am not a criminal. I am a threat. And they hate me because of what I represent to you.

Al Capone knew it by heart.

By the late 1920s, Alphonse Gabriel Capone was the most powerful organized crime figure in America. He ran bootlegging, gambling, and prostitution across Chicago with an iron fist wrapped in a silk suit. He ordered murders. He bribed police captains, judges, and aldermen wholesale. The Saint Valentine's Day Massacre -- seven men machine-gunned in a garage on his orders -- was so brazen it shook the country.

And yet Al Capone's public posture, maintained with remarkable consistency, was that of a persecuted man.

"Every time a boy falls off a tricycle, every time a black cat has gray kittens, every time someone stubs a toe, every time there's a murder or a fire or the marines land in Nicaragua," Capone said, "the police and the newspapers holler 'get Capone.'"

He wasn't just complaining. He was building a brand. Capone cultivated a Robin Hood image, donated to soup kitchens during the Depression, made himself accessible to reporters, and cast himself as a simple businessman being singled out by hypocrites. "When I sell liquor, it's called bootlegging," he pointed out. "When my patrons serve it on Lake Shore Drive, it's called hospitality." He told crowds he had "spent the best years of my life giving people the lighter pleasures, helping them have a good time," and received in return only "abuse, the existence of a hunted man."

This country wanted booze, he said. He organized it. Why should he be called a public enemy?

The argument was not without a certain populist electricity. Prohibition was absurd. The rich did drink openly while working-class men went to jail. The cops Capone bribed were on every other corner. He was telling people things they already half-believed, and wrapping himself in their grievances as insulation against his own accountability.

His defense attorney argued at trial that the tax prosecution was simply a pretext -- that the government wasn't really after tax fraud, it was just trying to "stow Al Capone away." The jury should not, he told them, be a party to persecution in a time of public excitement.

The jury convicted him anyway. He died at 48, his mind destroyed by syphilis, the empire he built already in ruins.

But the script survived him.

Donald Trump did not invent the populist criminal's persecution narrative. He inherited it, refined it, and ran it at a scale Capone could never have imagined -- not across one city, but across an entire country, through television, social media, and the machinery of a major political party.

The playbook is identical. Only the costumes changed.

Where Capone said "every time something goes wrong, they blame me," Trump told his supporters at a Waco rally: "They're not coming after me. They're coming after you. I'm just standing in the way." The logic is the same move, executed a century apart. The criminal reframes his own legal accountability as an attack on the people who love him.

Where Capone cast himself as a simple man meeting a public demand -- beer, whiskey, a good time -- Trump cast himself as a simple man giving people what they wanted: jobs, a wall, a middle finger pointed at the people who looked down on them. "From the time I came down the golden escalator," Trump said after his first indictment, the radical left had been engaged in a witch hunt "to destroy the Make America Great Again movement." Not him. The movement. You.

Where Capone pointed at the hypocrisy of Prohibition -- the law applied selectively, to the poor and the ethnic, while the wealthy drank freely -- Trump pointed at real and perceived hypocrisy in the justice system: Hillary Clinton's emails, Hunter Biden's laptop, the two-tiered application of law. Some of those complaints had genuine substance. That's the point. The hustle works best when it's built on a foundation of things that are actually true.

Trump claimed the prosecution "would immediately stop" if he decided not to run for president -- framing his legal exposure as purely political, a weapon aimed not at a man who broke the law, but at a movement that threatened power. He compared his situation to Alexei Navalny dying in an Arctic prison. He called it "the existence of a hunted man."

Capone would have recognized that phrase. He used it himself.

Here is where the comparison becomes not just rhetorical but precise.

Capone ran an organization built on intimidation and bribery, surrounded himself with men willing to commit violence on his behalf, and corrupted every institution he could reach -- police, courts, city hall. He positioned this as American enterprise. "My rackets are run on strictly American lines," he said. He was not knocking the system. He was just using it.

Trump surrounded himself with what a presidential historian called "a team of felons" -- eleven top allies convicted or having pled guilty, their combined sentences totaling roughly thirty years. He pressured the Justice Department to prosecute his political enemies. He urged his attorney general to go after Hillary Clinton. He leaned on election officials in Georgia to "find" votes. He was impeached twice. He was convicted on 34 felony counts. He pardoned rioters who broke into the Capitol at his encouragement, including the first man to breach the building.

And throughout all of it, his line never wavered: this is persecution. They are doing this because of who I am, and what I mean to you.

The crucial difference between Capone and Trump is that Capone never got his hands on the actual machinery of the state. He had to bribe it from the outside. Trump won the presidency twice. He used the Justice Department as a tool of personal vengeance. He pardoned his own criminal associates. He sat in the Oval Office and directed federal power at his enemies while simultaneously claiming to be a victim of federal power.

Capone claimed he was being hunted. Trump made himself the hunter, from inside the building, while still claiming to be the prey.

The populist criminal's greatest trick is not the lie. It's the grain of truth.

Capone was right that Prohibition was selectively enforced. Trump is right that the justice system does not treat everyone equally. Both men took that truth, swallowed it whole, and used it to insulate themselves from consequences for things that had nothing to do with inequality and everything to do with their own appetites for power and money.

Capone's defense attorney told the jury: don't be a party to persecution in a time of public excitement.

Trump's supporters say the same thing today, at a volume that shakes windows.

But here is what the script always leaves out: the question of whether the government is treating you fairly is entirely separate from the question of whether you did the things they say you did.

Al Capone did the things they said he did.

Donald Trump did the things they said he did.

The jury that convicted Capone did not acquit him because he made them feel good at rallies. The question of what we do with that fact -- what we do with a man who turned the oldest hustle in American crime into the platform of a presidency -- is not a question about him.

It is a question about us.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of Claude AI

JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington.

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

If Corporations Are People, Then Lies Are Crimes Against the Body Politic

2026-08-03T06:00:00.000-07:00

Citizens United gave speech to power. It never gave truth to anyone.

Why isn't our Body Politic just as important?

Isn't it MORE important?

There is a law in the United Kingdom that makes it a criminal offense to knowingly make a false statement about a political candidate's personal character or conduct during an election. It lives inside the Representation of the People Act 1983, Section 106, and it is not theoretical. Candidates have been prosecuted under it.

Courts have taken it seriously. The British legal tradition holds, without apology, that democracy requires a baseline of factual honesty about the people competing for power. Lie about your opponent's record on policy, fine. That is politics. Lie about who he is, what he did, what she said, what they are, and you have committed an offense against the process itself.

The United States has no such law. It cannot have one, according to the current Supreme Court's reading of the First Amendment. Political speech is the most protected category of expression under American constitutional doctrine, and the Court has repeatedly signaled that the government has almost no power to regulate it based on its truth or falsity. We are, by law, a country where you may lie about your political opponents without limit, so long as the lie does not meet the high bar of defamation, which requires proof of actual malice and damages that are notoriously difficult to establish for public figures.

This was always a flaw in the American system. But it was a manageable flaw, held in check by practical barriers: journalism, peer accountability, the sheer logistics of mass communication. Then came Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, decided in 2010 by a five-to-four Supreme Court majority, and the flaw became a wound. A wound that has not stopped bleeding since.

The Logic That Ate Itself

Citizens United rests on a foundational claim: that corporations are persons under the First Amendment, and that political spending is a form of speech, and therefore that limiting how much a corporation can spend on political messaging is an unconstitutional restriction on free expression. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. He argued that the government had no business deciding which speakers were worthy of constitutional protection and which were not. To restrict corporate speech, he said, was to create a two-tiered system in which some voices could be silenced by the state.

This reasoning has a seductive internal logic. If you accept the premise that corporations are persons with speech rights, the rest follows. The problem is the premise itself, and the downstream contradiction it creates that nobody in the majority seemed to notice, or chose to acknowledge.

If corporations are people, and corporations compose the body politic through their spending and messaging and political participation, then the body politic is people. Not metaphorically. Legally. Structurally. The architecture of democratic participation that Citizens United helped to build is one in which artificial legal entities, backed by concentrations of wealth that no actual human being commands, flood the political commons with messaging that is subject to no truth standard whatsoever.

The body politic, understood as the aggregate of citizens who form a political community and participate in its governance, has now been reconstituted to include entities that cannot vote, cannot serve, cannot be imprisoned, cannot die, and have no direct stake in the outcome of the society their money shapes. And those entities speak into that political commons with the full protection of the First Amendment, spreading whatever messages serve their financial interests, true or false, fair or fabricated.

The UK looked at this problem and said: lies about candidates are an affront to the democratic process. We criminalize them because the body politic, which is made of actual people with actual lives, deserves to make decisions based on something approaching reality.

The United States, post-Citizens United, has said the opposite, functionally if not explicitly: the body politic is open to all comers, including artificial persons with unlimited resources, and we will not discriminate based on the truthfulness of their messages. The marketplace of ideas will sort it out.

The marketplace of ideas has not sorted it out. It has instead been cornered by the best-funded vendors, who have discovered that lies are cheaper to produce than truths, faster to spread than corrections, and significantly more effective at generating the emotional states that drive political behavior.

The Affront Against the Body Politic

The British legal tradition's language is worth sitting with. Section 106 frames false statements about candidates as an affront against the body politic. Not merely as a harm to the individual candidate, which defamation law would address. As an affront against the collective process of democratic governance. Against the body politic as such.

This is a meaningful distinction. When you lie about a candidate's personal character during an election, you are not merely injuring that person. You are corrupting the information environment in which citizens make decisions. You are polluting the commons. You are committing what amounts to a fraud against the electorate, who are entitled to make their choices based on something resembling reality.

American law does not recognize this category of harm. We have libel and slander, which protect individuals. We have fraud statutes, which protect commercial relationships. We have perjury laws, which protect judicial proceedings. But we have no legal mechanism that says: lying to voters about their candidates is an offense against democracy itself.

Citizens United made this absence catastrophic by removing the practical constraints that had kept it from fully metastasizing. Before 2010, the money that could be spent on political messaging was limited. Political organizations had to identify themselves. Coordination rules created at least some friction between wealthy donors and campaign messaging. None of this was a truth requirement. But it slowed the machine.

After Citizens United, dark money flowed into super PACs. The infrastructure of political lying scaled. A single donor or a single industry could now fund a campaign of disinformation at a level that no opposing voice, however well-funded by normal human standards, could match. The asymmetry between a lie and its correction, which was always present, became overwhelming. A lie can be produced for the cost of a press release. A correction requires research, verification, dissemination, and an audience already disposed to receive it. At scale, with unlimited money behind the lie and none guaranteed for the correction, the lie wins most of the time.

Prescience and Its Discontents

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissent in Citizens United that has aged with uncomfortable precision. He argued that the Court's ruling would damage the integrity of elected institutions. He argued that corporations are not members of the political community in any meaningful sense. He argued that the identity of the speaker is relevant to the government's interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption.

He was not listened to. He was in the minority.

Justice Stevens was talking about corruption in the financial-influence sense, the familiar concern that money in politics buys favorable policy outcomes. This is real and it is serious. But there is a second form of corruption that the Citizens United framework enabled and that the majority did not adequately weigh: the corruption of the information environment itself.

When unlimited money can be spent on political messaging with no truth requirement attached, the information environment becomes systematically corrupted. Not by any single act of lying, but by the structural incentive that unlimited money creates for producing and amplifying lies that serve the funder's interests. The marketplace of ideas fails not because people are stupid but because the market has been cornered. A monopoly on information is not less dangerous to democracy than a monopoly on voting.

We have built, through a combination of constitutional doctrine and corporate law and the economics of digital media, a system in which the most powerful speakers in the political commons are entities with no democratic accountability, no obligation to truth, and no limit on spending. We call this freedom of speech. The British, with their quaint little criminal statute about lying to voters, might call it something else.

The Flaw That Was Always There

It would be too easy to lay all of this at the feet of Citizens United. The decision accelerated and amplified a problem that was baked into the American approach to political speech from the beginning. The First Amendment's resistance to government regulation of political content has always meant that the United States would not build the kind of legal infrastructure around political truth that other democracies have. The trade-off was made. The idea was that free speech would be self-correcting, that the truth would win in open competition, that democracy would be resilient enough to absorb even vigorous disinformation.

That was not an insane bet to make in 1791, or even in 1950. The information environment was slow enough, local enough, and expensive enough to produce and distribute that the self-correcting mechanisms had time to operate. There were fewer actors, with lower reach, who could spread political lies. The town square had a manageable size. The body politic could, more or less, sort things out.

The digital information environment, post-Citizens United, is not a town square. It is a planetary-scale amplification system with no editorial standards, governed by engagement algorithms that systematically reward the emotionally inflammatory over the factually accurate, accessible to anyone with money and a message, including artificial legal persons with unlimited resources and no stake in the society they are shaping.

The flaw was always there. We chose not to close it because we valued something else: the principle that government should not be in the business of deciding what is true in political discourse. That principle is not without merit. Governments lie too. Governments abuse truth ministries. The instinct to keep the state out of the business of political epistemology has a real history behind it.

But the instinct has produced a structure that, under current conditions, advantages exactly the actors who are most willing to lie and most able to fund the amplification of those lies. The self-correcting market we hoped for has not materialized. What has materialized is a machine for the industrial production of political unreality, protected by the same constitutional guarantees that were meant to keep citizens free.

What Accountability Looks Like, and What It Would Require

The UK model is not a perfect solution. Section 106 applies to false statements about candidates' personal character, not to false statements about policy, or about history, or about the imagined consequences of the opponent's governance. It is limited in scope and has its own ambiguities. Prosecutions under it are relatively rare. It is not a truth machine. It is a specific, bounded legal acknowledgment that certain kinds of political lying are offenses against the democratic process.

What would it require to build something comparable in the United States? At minimum, it would require a different constitutional jurisprudence, one willing to recognize that political communities have a legitimate interest in the factual integrity of electoral discourse. It would require the Court to acknowledge that the body politic, which Citizens United has now constitutionally reconstituted to include artificial persons, is composed at its core of actual human beings who are materially harmed when the information environment in which they make decisions is systematically corrupted.

It would also require a political will that is currently absent, because the actors who benefit most from the current system are the ones most likely to block any attempt to change it. Unlimited money in politics buys, among other things, the political influence to keep unlimited money in politics.

But the contradiction sits there, regardless of whether anyone has the will to resolve it. If corporations are people under the First Amendment, and if those corporate persons now constitute a significant part of the body politic's voice, then the body politic is, legally speaking, people. And the body politic deserves what actual democratic theory has always said it deserves: a political commons in which factual accountability is not optional.

Citizens United gave speech to power. It gave amplification to money. It never gave truth to anyone. And a democracy that cannot distinguish, legally or structurally, between its citizens and its corporations, between speech and disinformation, between political argument and political fraud, is a democracy in the process of hollowing itself out from the inside.

The British have a word for what happens when you lie about a candidate to voters. They call it an offense. We have a word for it too. We call it protected speech. The difference between those two answers is the difference between a democracy that believes it has something worth protecting and one that has decided the protection itself is too dangerous to attempt.

We chose the latter. We are living with the results.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of Claude AI

JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington.

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

Mike Johnson Is Doing Putin's Job for Him

2026-07-27T06:00:00.000-07:00

Given how thoroughly Mike Johnson and his MaGA Republicans have crippled American governance in service to Trump, how differently would Putin actually guide them -- because from where I sit, the overlap is nearly total.

Mike Johnson, the First Proudly Trumpian Speaker | The New Yorker

This is worth taking seriously as political analysis. Here's how I'd frame it:

Putin's known strategic wishlist for America:

Russia's two long-standing strategic goals are dominion over Ukraine and the weakening of U.S. power, especially in Europe -- both embedded in its ambition to undo the post-Cold War order. More specifically, Putin knows his military can't defeat NATO conventionally, but he can create enough division from within its ranks to fracture trust across the 32-member alliance.

And beyond Ukraine, his goal is to regain the position of the Soviet Union of his youth: control over Eastern Europe, most of Central Europe, and at least parts of Southeastern Europe -- in a Europe largely abandoned by the United States. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace + 2

So the script Putin would hand an American Speaker would look something like this:

Abandon Ukraine or force humiliating terms on Zelensky
Hollow out NATO's credibility, especially the Article 5 mutual defense commitment
Create internal American chaos that consumes all political oxygen
Erode trust in democratic institutions, courts, press, elections
Alienate European allies so they can't coordinate against Moscow
Keep America turned inward on culture war and grievance politics
Weaken the intelligence community's ability to counter Russian ops

Now compare that to what Johnson is actually delivering:

Europeans have been taken aback by Trump's refusal to commit additional assistance to Ukraine and the pressure placed on Kyiv to accept Russian demands, including the formal ceding of sovereignty over seized territory and the abandonment of NATO membership aspirations.

Putin himself pointed out that Trump's national security strategy doesn't name Russia as a direct adversary, asking pointedly:

"How can you prepare NATO for a war with Russia if the main member of NATO doesn't consider us an enemy?"

That's Putin not complaining -- that's Putin gloating publicly.

On the domestic chaos front, Johnson's tenure has been marked by few legislative accomplishments and a series of internal splits that consistently stymied his party's own agenda.

The House Republican conference is so consumed by factional performance politics that basic governance has become nearly impossible -- which is exactly the kind of dysfunction that makes America look weak and ungovernable to the world.

Where would Putin change the script?

Honestly, very little.

If Putin were actually advising Johnson, the additions would be marginal -- maybe push harder on dismantling the intelligence community's Russia-tracking capacity (DOGE cuts to the IC have already helped here), perhaps push for formal U.S. recognition of Russian territorial gains in Ukraine, and encourage more friction with the Baltic states specifically.

But the core program -- institutional erosion, NATO skepticism, Ukraine abandonment, culture war distraction, authoritarian executive consolidation, media delegitimization -- is already running.

Putin wouldn't need to issue new instructions so much as send a thank-you note.

The uncomfortable conclusion: the gap between "what Putin would want" and "what Trump/Johnson/MaGA are doing" is so narrow it barely constitutes a gap.

It's the kind of convergence that doesn't require a conspiracy to explain -- it just requires shared interests in weakening the liberal democratic order, for very different stated reasons.

They don't need to be coordinated to be useful to Moscow.

Any more than those under Trump need a direct call to his illiberal, or illegal actions. They know what he expects. It's what they telegraphed to him for selection. It's what they were hired to do.

It's also how the Mafia worked. It's how criminal organizations work.

It's Why RICO was created to deal with that criminal universe.

They just need to keep doing exactly what they're doing.

This isn't rocket science. It's not complicated.

They're not even any longer trying to hide it, any of it.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of Claude AI

JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington.

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

What Does Donald Trump's Actions as President Tell Us About His First Principles?

2026-07-20T06:00:00.000-07:00

We tend to fall back on "first principles" in times of need.

Based purely on observable patterns across both terms, here's what Trump's actions reveal as his actual operating first principles, regardless of stated ideology:

Loyalty (to him) over institution. The first filter on any decision appears to be: does this person/entity support me personally? Institutions, alliances, and norms get subordinated to this question every time.

Transactionalism as worldview. Everything is a deal. Relationships, treaties, alliances, even domestic policy are evaluated as exchanges with winners and losers. There is no inherent value to a standing arrangement -- only its current leverage.

Were one to apply the principles of stoicism to Donald Trump, he would likely, simply, implode.

Judged against the Stoic standard he claims by temperament to embody, Trump's public conduct suggests someone poorly suited to the discipline that high office arguably demands: real Stoic composure treats provocation as beneath response and status-seeking as a category error, while his approach runs the opposite way, treating every insult as a demand for retaliation and every metric of attention, ratings, crowds, coverage, as something to be won.

A leader modeled on Marcus Aurelius absorbs pressure without needing the outside world to validate him; the pattern here is a public figure whose equilibrium seems to depend on winning the news cycle in front of him. Whether that's disqualifying is a judgment call, but it's hard to square with the specific virtue of imperturbability that Stoicism holds up as fitness to govern.

But Trump is emotionally just a petulant child, in a man-suit.

Strength-dominance signaling. Perceived weakness is the cardinal sin. This shapes rhetoric, negotiating posture, and personnel decisions. Concession reads as loss regardless of strategic gain.
Unpredictability as a tool. Consistency is a vulnerability others can exploit. Keeping adversaries (and allies) off-balance is a feature, not a bug.

Grievance as fuel. He returns to perceived slights and injustices reliably when under pressure. It's not just rhetoric -- it appears to be a genuine motivational engine that organizes his political coalition and his own decision-making.

Zero-sum framing. For someone else to win, he must lose. This underlies his approach to trade, immigration, international relations, and domestic politics alike.

Media reality as actual reality. Coverage, perception, and the narrative surrounding events carries more operational weight in his decisions than underlying policy outcomes.

The interesting thing about these as first principles is that they are largely pre-ideological. They explain why his actual policy outputs don't map cleanly onto traditional conservatism. The ideology is downstream of the principles, not the other way around.

Then what are they labeled as?

Western political vocabulary was built around parties, platforms, and ideologies. A system built around a person resists those categories almost by design -- which is part of what makes it durable and destabilizing at the same time.

Populism" is the most common reach, but it's descriptive of the audience relationship, not the underlying logic. It tells you about the coalition, not the operating system.

"Nationalism," "Authoritarianism," "Caesarism?"

This is why his supporters and opponents both keep getting confused.

Supporters expect ideological consistency and get surprised when he pivots.

Opponents expect rational policy opposition and get surprised when he doesn't care about winning the argument, only about winning the room.

In most coherent political traditions, first principles are foundational beliefs about human nature and the purpose of government that everything else derives from. A few examples:

Classical Conservatism (Burke) Human nature is flawed and improvable only slowly. Institutions encode accumulated wisdom. Change is dangerous. Order and continuity have intrinsic value. Everything downstream -- deference to tradition, skepticism of reform -- follows from those.

Classical Liberalism (Locke, Mill) Individuals have inherent rights prior to government. Liberty is the default condition. Government exists to protect rights, not grant them. Everything downstream -- rule of law, limits on state power, free expression -- follows from those.

Socialism / Social Democracy (Marx, various) Economic relations determine social reality. Capital accumulation creates structural exploitation. Collective ownership or regulation corrects inherent market injustice. Policy follows from the diagnosis of where power actually lives.

Libertarianism Coercion is the fundamental wrong. Voluntary exchange is the fundamental right. The state is legitimate only to the degree it prevents coercion. Everything else follows with unusual logical consistency from just those two premises.

Theocratic / Natural Law traditions Moral order is objective and externally grounded, usually in God or natural law. Legitimate government reflects that order. Human law is valid only when it conforms.

What these share is that the principles are about something outside the leader. They describe the world, human nature, or moral reality -- and the leader is supposed to be an instrument of those principles, not the source of them.

That's the structural difference with what Trump represents. There's no external referent. Which is exactly why "personalist" keeps being the most accurate term.

This is what I have referred to for decades as "Corporate Thought." Loyalty only to the buck, the dollar, profit, the board, the bottom line. Ethics, morality, decency, get in the way. For a while corporations realized there needs to be more.

But Trump is stuck in the 1980s, before that realization came into corporate reality, or popularity.

This was a backslide. We can and will do better going forward. Once this ethical toxic mold has been exorcised off the ledger of America.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of Claude AI

JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington.

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

Trump - Documented Corruption, Legal Violations & Self-Dealing Since January 2025

2026-07-13T06:00:00.000-07:00

Let's review...

As of 5/13/2026. Guess what? As of today there's much more, and more killings..

TRUMP, TRUMP FAMILY & TRUMP ADMINISTRATION corruption.

CRYPTO & FINANCIAL SELF-DEALING

— $TRUMP memecoin launched days before inauguration, enriching Trump directly from anyone buying access

— Melania Trump launched her own memecoin the day before inauguration

— World Liberty Financial crypto empire: up to $11.6B in holdings, $800M+ income in first half of 2025

— Justin Sun SEC fraud case paused after he invested $75M in Trump crypto ventures

— $TRUMP dinner: White House access auctioned to top 220 memecoin investors

— Chinese-linked company bought $300M in $TRUMP coin days before Trump offered to delay TikTok ban

— Binance DOJ enforcement unit disbanded as Binance/Trump business talks accelerated

— SEC enforcement against crypto companies halted after those companies invested in Trump ventures

— Saudi royals, Russian oligarchs, and Chinese Communist Party members among $TRUMP coin purchasers

— Trump signed stablecoin legislation that directly benefits his own stablecoin business

FOREIGN EMOLUMENTS

— Qatar gifted a $400M luxury 747 to Trump; legal experts confirmed likely Foreign Emoluments Clause violation; plane headed to his presidential library; U.S. taxpayers cover retrofit costs

— Senate formally introduced resolution declaring Qatar plane an illegal emolument

— Foreign nationals purchasing $TRUMP coin cited as ongoing Emoluments Clause violation by constitutional scholars

— Trump conducting trade and foreign policy negotiations with nations that have invested in his crypto ventures

TRUMP FAMILY BUSINESSES PROFITING FROM THE PRESIDENCY

— Trump Organization not divested upon taking office, in defiance of all modern presidential precedent

— Trump Mobile T1 phone scam: Don Jr. and Eric Trump collected $59M in deposits from ~590,000 supporters for a gold "Made in USA" phone that has never been delivered; refunds denied; "Made in USA" claims quietly scrubbed; FTC investigation requested

— Don Jr. and Eric Trump took stakes in a construction/mining firm days after it secured $1.6B in U.S. government backing for a Kazakhstan project

— Trump sons' company Powerus awarded U.S. Air Force contract for interceptor drones

— Trump-branded golf resort pitched to investors lobbying to lift U.S. sanctions on Syria

— Private companies paid millions to fund construction of a new White House ballroom

— White House ballroom contractor secretly awarded a no-bid nearby contract, inflating costs from $3.3M to $17M

— New Trump-aligned D.C. private club co-founded by Don Jr., $500K initiation fee, marketed as access to cabinet members and West Wing officials

PAY-TO-PLAY / DONOR REWARDS

— Nursing home executive pardoned for tax crimes after his mother attended a $1M-per-person fundraiser for Trump

— Company gave $5M to a Trump super PAC, met with Trump, and then had a Medicare rule delayed that would have cut their payments

— DHS awarded a $250,000 contract to a firm led by former Trump campaign officials after requiring partisan loyalty in the bidding process

— Major corporations including Disney, Meta, Paramount, and X paid settlements in Trump-filed lawsuits, proceeds flowing to his presidential library

— Law firms coerced into pledging nearly $1B in free legal services; experts say this may violate federal anti-bribery law

— Ambassadorships awarded to Don Jr.'s former business partner (Greece) and Jared Kushner's father (France)

DOJ WEAPONIZATION & OVERSIGHT DISMANTLING

— DOJ Public Integrity Section gutted from 40 prosecutors to 2; open cases dropped from 200 to 20

— Eric Adams corruption case used as leverage: DOJ sought temporary dismissal to extract immigration cooperation; federal judge called it "smacks of a bargain"

— Multiple Republican DOJ prosecutors resigned rather than carry out politically motivated orders

— Jan. 6 blanket clemency for all defendants including those convicted of seditious conspiracy and assaulting law enforcement

— DOJ ordered to drop all pending Jan. 6 indictments

— DOJ probe into border czar Tom Holman closed after he was caught on tape taking a $50,000 bribe

— DOJ used as weapon against political opponents while dropping cases against Trump allies

INSPECTOR GENERAL & ETHICS WATCHDOG PURGE

— 18 Inspectors General fired

— Head of the Office of Special Counsel (whistleblower protection) fired

— Head of the Office of Government Ethics fired

— USAID Inspector General fired days after publishing a report critical of the administration's dismantling of the agency

— FEC chairwoman Ellen Weintraub unlawfully removed

— NLRB chair fired; board effectively shut down

PARDONS USED TO SHIELD ALLIES FROM CORRUPTION ACCOUNTABILITY

— Rod Blagojevich: convicted of selling a U.S. Senate seat, pardoned

— Michele Fiore: convicted of stealing $70K in police memorial donations for personal use, pardoned weeks before sentencing

— Jason Galanis: defrauded the Oglala Sioux Nation of $60M, sentence quietly commuted

— Devon Archer: convicted in the same $60M Oglala Sioux fraud, pardoned

— Glen Casada: Tennessee House Speaker convicted on 14 federal corruption counts, pardoned

— Cade Cothren: Casada's chief of staff, convicted alongside him, pardoned

— 15+ total corruption-related pardons, majority going to Republicans and Trump supporters

PETE HEGSETH / SIGNALGATE

— Pentagon IG concluded Hegseth shared classified, "secret"-level Yemen strike plans on Signal

— Hegseth found to have violated military regulations using personal phone for official business

— Hegseth refused to be interviewed by Pentagon investigators

— Second Signal leak: Hegseth shared operational details in a separate chat including his wife and brother

— Hegseth's broker sought investment in a BlackRock defense fund tied to Lockheed and Northrop weeks before the U.S.-Israel attack on Iran

ELON MUSK / DOGE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

— Musk wielded major governmental authority without Senate confirmation, violating the Appointments Clause (active lawsuit)

— Every federal agency investigating Musk's companies targeted by DOGE for dismantling

— NLRB complaint against SpaceX killed after Trump fired the NLRB chair

— OFCCP Tesla workplace discrimination audit killed

— DOL investigations into Tesla and SpaceX labor violations neutralized

— Neuralink animal welfare investigation effectively ended

— CFPB dismantled by Trump one week after it finalized a rule affecting Musk's planned Visa payments partnership on X

— SEC sued X/Musk for misleading shareholders about Twitter stock purchases; ordered to pay up to $150M

— Musk evaded deposition subpoenas for three months across 14 service attempts

— Trump DOJ argued in court that Musk should be shielded from legal accountability

ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATION CONFLICTS

— Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick publicly urged Americans to buy Tesla stock (a Musk company)

— A firm run by Commerce Secretary Lutnick's son made trades tied to court rulings on Trump's own tariffs

— FAA Administrator held millions in airline stock for seven months past his divestment deadline while overseeing the airline industry

— Trump bypassed Congress to push $23B in weapons sales to UAE, Kuwait, and Jordan by declaring a false Iran war emergency

— Trump turned the White House into a Tesla showroom, displaying and promoting Musk's vehicles on the South Lawn

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of Claude AI

JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington.

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

Goldwater Was Right: The Toxic Gospel of Capitalist Christianity

2026-07-06T06:00:00.000-07:00

Before I get started, I hope you and yours had a great 4th of July celebration weekend!

The History of the Fourth of July - On the fourth of July each year, also known as Independence Day, Americans celebrate this historic event.

Moving on...

Barry Goldwater saw it coming. He said so plainly. Nobody listened.

In November 1994, the man who had spent his life as the intellectual cornerstone of American conservatism picked up the phone and told John Dean exactly what he thought about the direction the Republican Party was headed. "Mark my word," he said, "if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

He had names in mind. Pat Robertson. The Christian Coalition. The Moral Majority orbit that had been methodically colonizing the Republican Party since Jerry Falwell decided God needed a lobbyist. Goldwater had been fighting these people inside his own party for years, and losing. He died in 1998. He didn't live to see how thoroughly he lost.

What Goldwater was describing wasn't Christianity. It wasn't even a coherent political philosophy. It was something more dangerous and more specific: the fusion of evangelical fervor with raw institutional ambition, wrapped in scriptural language to inoculate it against criticism. You can't argue with someone who believes they're doing God's work. That was his point. That was always his point.

Thirty years later, the movement he warned about has a name most Americans still haven't heard. They should learn it.

The Seven Mountain Mandate

The Seven Mountain Mandate, or 7MM, is a dominionist theological framework that holds that Christians are called not merely to evangelize but to seize control of the seven key institutions of society: family, religion, education, government, media, arts and entertainment, and business. The goal isn't conversion through persuasion. The goal is dominion through occupation. Believers are instructed to place themselves in leadership positions across all seven spheres, reorient those institutions toward biblical principles as the movement defines them, and in doing so hasten the Second Coming of Christ.

The framework traces back to a 1975 meeting between evangelical leaders Loren Cunningham and Bill Bright, who sketched out the "seven spheres" concept as a strategy for Christian societal impact. It was popularized more recently by figures like Lance Wallnau and Bill Johnson in their 2013 book "Invading Babylon: The 7 Mountain Mandate." The title is not subtle. Neither is the theology.

The movement is tightly linked with the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR, a charismatic network that has revived the concept of living apostles and prophets who receive direct divine direction for how the faithful should move through these seven mountains. It is organized, it is networked, and it has been quietly seeding itself into American political life for decades while most observers were looking elsewhere.

A 2024 poll found that 41 percent of American Christians have been influenced by or believe in 7MM concepts. That is not a fringe. That is a movement.

The Prosperity Gospel Connection

To understand why Goldwater's label of "capitalist Christianity" is more than rhetorical, you have to understand what prosperity theology actually teaches.

The prosperity gospel holds that God rewards the faithful with material wealth, and conversely that material wealth is evidence of divine favor. Poverty is a spiritual failing. Financial success is a sign of righteousness. The private jet is not hypocrisy. The private jet is testimony.

This is not a marginal position in the 7MM ecosystem. It is central to it. Business is literally one of the seven mountains. Market dominance becomes a spiritual mandate. The accumulation of wealth isn't just permitted -- it's commanded. Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Paula White-Cain: these are not outliers in this world. They are its architects and its celebrities.

Paula White-Cain, of course, served as Donald Trump's personal spiritual advisor and held a formal position in the White House Office of Faith and Opportunity Initiatives. When she stood in the East Room and declared that "all demonic networks" were broken over opposition to Trump's presidency, she was not performing for the cameras. She was doing exactly what the Seven Mountain Mandate instructs. She was exercising dominion from inside the mountain of government, on behalf of a man she had declared anointed.

That moment deserved far more scrutiny than it received. It got very little.

What This Isn't

It is worth being precise about what Goldwater was not saying, and what critics of 7MM are not saying. This is not an argument against Christianity, or against Christians in public life, or against religious conviction informing political values. People of faith have always participated in American democracy. The abolition movement was drenched in Christian theology. So was the civil rights movement. So is much of the Catholic social justice tradition.

The distinction matters enormously. Christianity as a moral foundation for civic engagement looks like: caring for the poor, opposing injustice, advocating for the vulnerable, accepting the dignity of people who differ from you. These are positions that require engagement with a pluralistic democracy. They require compromise, coalition, and persuasion.

The Seven Mountain Mandate looks like: seizing the institutions so you don't have to persuade anyone. It looks like: placing believers in positions of authority specifically to reorient those institutions away from pluralism. It looks like: describing secular culture as "demonic" and your opponents as agents of Satan. Speaker Mike Johnson is the most visible current example of a politician whose stated worldview is saturated with 7MM and NAR theology. He is second in line to the presidency.

Jesus of Nazareth had quite a lot to say about wealth and power in the Gospels. Very little of it resembled what Kenneth Copeland preaches from his $6.3 million parsonage. The people Goldwater was warning about have constructed a theology that would be unrecognizable to the tradition they claim to represent.

The Party Goldwater Built

There is a bitter irony running through all of this. Barry Goldwater spent his career building an American conservatism based on individual liberty, limited government, fiscal restraint, and the absolute separation of religious authority from state power. He was not a gentle or easy man politically. He voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on constitutional grounds he would later reconsider. He held views that were genuinely hard-edged.

But he also supported gay rights. He supported abortion rights. He believed with ferocity that what happened in your bedroom, in your church, and in your conscience was none of the government's business, and certainly none of Pat Robertson's business. He told the Senate in 1981 that he was "frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are?"

The movement he spent his last years fighting didn't just take over the party he built. It gutted it, hollowed it out, and replaced its principles with a dominionist theology that treats democratic pluralism as an obstacle rather than a value. The MaGA movement is its current political expression, and the overlap between MaGA, NAR, and 7MM is not incidental. It is structural.

Goldwater was a conservative's conservative who understood that the republic runs on compromise and that anyone who won't compromise because God told them not to is not a political actor. They are something else entirely.

He tried to deal with them. He said so himself.

The rest of us are still figuring out how.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of Claude AI

JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington.

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

American Sins, 2012: What Held Up

2026-07-04T06:00:00.000-07:00

Happy Fourth of July, everyone!

I hope your day is full of good food, better company, and whatever version of rest you've earned this year.

Fireworks pollution leads to unhealthy air across Southern California - 2024

My piece on Substack for today, The Case for Retiring Fireworks.

Historian John Meecham on current stated claims from the White House toward nationalized elections:

The Constitution, the Framers did this for a reason. They didn't want nationalized elections. They wanted...remember, the key insight of the American founding is that most of what we would want to do as human beings is wrong. Most of it's selfish...that's the insight. The reason it's so hard to get anything done in this country is because they assume that most of what we would want to do would be wrong. And so elections, moving to the states, that was part of this. I was pleased that the Republican Party is pushing back on that... - Firing Line S10E1

He also said: Patriotism and nationalism. We're in a nationalistic season. Right? Allegiance to your own kind. Patriotism (George Orwel did a great essay on this), patriotism, is allegiance to an idea.

I'll say that again: Nationalism is allegiance to oneself. One's own group. One's own party.

That is not America. Not after the second birthing of America after the Civil War, during the Reconstruction Period. We're living in America 2.0 But we're now headed into our 3rd birthing, America 3.0. We're about to revile ourselves against those in power, their ideals, to rebuild once again the nature of our better Angels, as Pres. Lincoln said.

Since it's the holiday, I want to spend today's special post somewhere a little different than usual, not on the news cycle, but on an old post of mine from 2012 called "American Sins."

I wrote it back when nobody took blogs seriously, myself included, so it's raw and not deeply edited. But going back through it this week, three parts of it held up better than I expected, and on a day about what this country is supposed to be, it felt worth revisiting what I was already trying to say fourteen years ago.

That piece got into Citizens United, the 47%, Romney, taxes, a CenturyLink outage that kept me offline for a day.

Fourteen years later, those three parts still hold up.

The subsistence argument.

The piece asked why we talk about tax rates as percentages instead of asking what those percentages actually cost a person. A third of a poor family's income is food and rent. A third of a rich person's income is nothing they'll ever notice. Same number, completely different sacrifice. I didn't have the vocabulary for it then, marginal utility of money, effective burden versus nominal rate, but the instinct was right and it's still right.

The loudspeaker line.

Writing about Citizens United and money as speech, I landed on this:

"If money is free speech to say Donald Trump, then by comparison he is speaking with a loudspeaker and I am speaking with a pillow over my face." WE are speaking with pillows over our faces, now more than ever.

That's the one line from the whole piece that has come back around to bite us in ways never expected.

The infrastructure question.

I was annoyed that CenturyLink (I have Quantum Fiber now, having dumped Comcast entirely) had left me offline for twelve hours with no explanation, and I asked why our internet doesn't have the same redundancy the actual internet protocol was designed to have, the same way our roads are free so people can go buy things.

That question turned out to be the net neutrality fight and the municipal broadband fight of the following decade.

The piece ended with a call to action:

"Start being Americans again, start being Heroes."

Calling to raise the standard of living for every American citizen. Simple as that sounds, it was the same point as the tax argument above it, just stated as a demand instead of an analysis.

I still believe it.

Fair trade, honestly. Few were watching back then, and that's probably also why the good parts, the loudspeaker line, the subsistence argument, the infrastructure question, never got sanded down either.

I bring this up now for a reason.

I wasn't trying to be prophetic in 2012, I was just annoyed and paying attention. But look at where those threads led.

Citizens United didn't stay theoretical.

That loudspeaker got louder.

The subsistence gap has gotten wider.

None of what's happened since was hard to see coming if you were watching in 2012, it just took longer than I expected.

Today is the Fourth. Our Fourth. Not one person's, not one Party's.

I still believe we can do better than this. It looks like it will be soon.

If two years is soon...28 months.

And that's the whole reason for putting the old post up today.

"It scares me when people aren't brave enough to face their own history." - Lonnie G. Bunch III, Sec. of the Smithsonian Institution

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of Claude AI

JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington.

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

The Genius That Wasn't: Trump, Global Power, and the Architecture of American Decline

2026-06-29T12:00:00.000-07:00

With reference to Janes' The World of Intelligence podcast - Energy Security in Crisis.

There is a version of the Donald Trump foreign policy narrative that frames him as a strategic disruptor -- a chaos agent whose unconventional moves keep adversaries off-balance and produce outcomes conventional thinkers can't see coming. It's an appealing story. It's also wrong, and the evidence accumulating across global energy markets, naval competition, and great power rivalry makes that increasingly hard to argue around.

Let's start with the oil.

The Energy Compression and What It Actually Does

Global oil supply has been driven down to levels not seen since the early 1980s. The stated logic -- squeeze petrostates, starve adversary revenue streams, demonstrate American energy dominance -- has a surface plausibility. And yes, it applies real pressure to Russia and Iran, both of whom depend on oil income to fund their political arrangements.

Janes' most recent episode of The World of Intelligence, "Energy Security in Crisis," featuring Ben Cahill of the Atlantic Council, examines precisely this terrain: the unprecedented shock stemming from the Gulf region, the implications for countries reliant on energy resources, and the complex market adjustments underway. What that framing captures, and what the Trump-as-genius narrative glosses over, is that energy shocks don't hit only adversaries. They reshape the entire global system simultaneously, and not all the reshaping favors the United States. apple

China imports the vast majority of its oil. Suppressed global prices lower Chinese industrial costs while simultaneously gutting Russian and Iranian state budgets. The squeeze intended to harm enemies is delivering a structural economic subsidy to the one competitor that poses the deepest long-term challenge. That's not a strategic masterstroke. That's playing chess while looking at only one corner of the board.

The Weapons Depletion Problem

Ukraine consumed the buffer. This is the blunt reality that no amount of rhetorical reframing changes. American precision munitions stocks, particularly in the categories relevant to any Pacific conflict -- anti-ship missiles, long-range precision strike, air defense interceptors -- were drawn down significantly in support of Ukrainian operations. The U.S. defense industrial base is not built for rapid replenishment. The gap between consumption rate and production rate is not a bureaucratic inconvenience; it is a strategic vulnerability with a specific consequence: any sustained conflict in the Taiwan Strait runs into a munitions wall within weeks.

Depleting those stockpiles while simultaneously degrading alliance relationships, withdrawing from NATO burden-sharing commitments, and undermining the diplomatic architecture that enables forward basing is not a calculated gamble. It is the elimination of multiple redundancies simultaneously, with no plan for what comes next if the opening phase of a conflict doesn't produce a quick resolution.

That pattern -- overwhelming early pressure, declare victory, exit before consequences arrive -- is not confined to military strategy. It's the operating methodology of Trump's entire professional life. Which brings us to the naval comparison that may be the sharpest analytical lens available right now.

Two Navies Built for the Same Wrong War

Janes dedicated a full episode on June 1st to China's naval expansion: "China's Naval Ambition: Capability, Credibility and Global Impact," examining what the rapid modernisation of the People's Liberation Army Navy really means for regional stability and global security, drawing on unclassified intelligence, satellite imagery and long-term capability assessment. The conclusion Janes' analysts reach is the one that should be at the center of every serious strategic conversation right now: scale alone does not equal power, and the discussion explores where capability outpaces operational credibility. appleapple

This is the crux. The PLAN has built an impressive fleet on paper. What it has not built is the institutional foundation that makes a navy actually effective in sustained combat: deep crew experience, genuine logistical reach, underway replenishment capability, a maintenance culture, and the organizational adaptability that comes from decades of real operational stress.

The PLAN is optimized for a specific scenario -- overwhelming first-salvo coercion within the first island chain, forcing a decision before American force projection can respond meaningfully. If that first salvo works, the fleet doesn't need to come home. If it doesn't work, the doctrine has no compelling answer for what follows.

This is not a coincidence. It is a structural parallel to Trump's own operating logic: maximum opening pressure, bet everything on the adversary folding fast, no viable plan for a long game. A navy built around a "don't worry if the ship doesn't make it back to port" assumption is not a sustainable instrument of global power. It is a one-shot coercion tool dressed up in the visual language of great power competition.

The U.S. Navy, by contrast, is built precisely for the scenario the PLAN cannot handle -- sustained, logistics-intensive, globally distributed naval warfare with redundant systems, experienced sailors, and a culture of improvisation under fire developed over eight decades of continuous operations. That structural advantage is real. The problem is that Trump is systematically dismantling the political and industrial conditions that make it usable when it matters.

Russia: The Patient Strategist in a Corner

Russia doesn't fit the short-horizon model and shouldn't be forced into it. Putin is genuinely a long-game thinker -- willing to absorb catastrophic short-term losses (Ukraine has been devastating by any honest accounting of Russian casualties and equipment) in pursuit of objectives measured in decades, not news cycles.

But the war has exposed something important: Russian military doctrine and Russian military reality diverged sharply from the opening weeks. Precision munitions exhausted early. Conscript quality degraded. The tactical innovation that the Russian military had cultivated on paper failed to materialize at scale under real combat conditions.

Janes covered Ukraine's deep-strike operations in a February episode -- specifically Operation Spiderweb, Ukraine's meticulously planned series of drone strikes reaching deep into Russian territory, disrupting strategic bomber bases from European Russia to the Far East -- and the intelligence assessment of the damage illustrated something the raw battlefield numbers don't fully capture: Russia's long-range aviation and nuclear deterrent posture have been meaningfully degraded, not just tactically inconvenienced. apple

The oil compression hits Russia at its budget floor. Their state fiscal model requires sustained prices above roughly $70-80 per barrel to maintain the social contract Putin depends on. Below that floor, the pressure builds -- slowly, tolerably at first, then in ways that start to matter politically. Putin can absorb it. He cannot absorb it indefinitely.

The deeper problem for Russia is strategic: they have become functionally a junior partner to China. Russian oil flows to Chinese markets. Russian industry depends on Chinese components. Russian diplomacy operates under Chinese cover internationally. Putin traded long-term strategic independence for survival, and China is not reciprocating as an equal -- it is absorbing Russia as a captive resource dependency. Even if Putin achieves his Ukraine objectives, he emerges from this decade as a supplier state to his nominal partner. That is a significant strategic loss dressed up as a geopolitical win.

A financially cornered Russia is not a safer Russia, however. It is a more dangerous one. The nuclear dimension doesn't disappear when conventional options narrow -- it expands. That's the other side of the energy compression equation that the Trump-as-genius narrative doesn't account for.

Iran: The Asymmetric Architect

Iran is the most genuinely strategic actor in this picture, and the one most consistently underestimated. The proxy network -- Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iraqi militia networks -- took forty years to build. That is not transactional thinking. That is architecture.

Janes examined Iran's internal situation in January: Iran's latest wave of protests, sparked by currency collapse, was forcefully suppressed by a highly layered security apparatus, with elite cohesion and information control shaping events -- and the assessment was that the regime remains intact for now, while external pressures and nuclear ambitions intersect with domestic unrest in ways that will shape Iran's next moves. apple

Iran's genius is asymmetric cost imposition. They cannot beat the United States or Israel in a conventional engagement. They have never needed to. The Houthis disrupting Red Sea shipping is the model in miniature: minimal investment, maximum disruption, no direct fingerprints that force a decisive military response. Every dollar the U.S. spends intercepting Houthi drones is a dollar not spent on PLAN deterrence. Every diplomatic cycle consumed by Iranian proxy activity is a cycle not spent on alliance maintenance in the Pacific. Iran doesn't win by defeating America. It wins by keeping America too busy and too expensive to focus where it needs to.

The nuclear dimension is Iran's ultimate leverage card. Domestic instability and economic pressure don't make Iran abandon that card -- they accelerate the timeline for using it as a deterrent, because a nuclear-armed Iran is an Iran that cannot be attacked. The energy compression and the diplomatic isolation Trump has pursued don't moderate Iranian nuclear ambitions. They incentivize acceleration.

The Convergence That Doesn't Require Coordination

The most important thing to understand about China, Russia, and Iran is that they don't need a formal alliance to pursue aligned objectives. They need overlapping interests -- and right now their interests align almost perfectly around a single strategic goal: a United States that is weapons-light, diplomatically isolated, domestically divided, and unable to sustain commitment to any long-horizon conflict.

Trump is delivering all four conditions simultaneously. This doesn't require him to be an agent of any of these powers. It requires only that his operating methodology -- short-horizon, resource-exhausting, alliance-degrading, optimized for the quick win -- produces outcomes that benefit patient, long-game adversaries regardless of intent.

Janes has been tracking grey zone and hybrid warfare as the defining security challenge of the current moment -- the use of tactics below the threshold of armed conflict, blending kinetic and non-kinetic activity to disrupt societies, undermine trust and complicate decision-making. What that framing captures is that the competition isn't primarily military anymore. It's about whether democratic societies can maintain the will, the institutional coherence, and the industrial capacity to respond when the military moment arrives. apple

On every one of those dimensions, the current trajectory is moving in the wrong direction.

The Bottom Line

Trump is not a genius playing a long game that conventional analysts can't see. He is a short-horizon actor whose methodology happens to be exquisitely useful to adversaries who are playing the longest game in contemporary geopolitics. The oil suppression that was supposed to squeeze enemies is subsidizing China's industrial costs. The weapons depletion that was supposed to signal strength has created a munitions gap that constrains real military options. The alliance degradation that was supposed to demonstrate independence has isolated the United States from the relationships that make sustained conflict survivable.

The PLAN built a navy optimized for a quick, coercive first strike and doesn't much care if the ships come home. Trump governs with the same logic -- overwhelming opening pressure, bet on the fast win, no viable doctrine for what comes after. The structural parallel is not flattering to either.

What neither the PLAN nor Trump has is what the United States actually built over eighty years and is currently in the process of dismantling: redundancy, sustained commitment, institutional depth, and the capacity to absorb a bad opening and still win the long war.

The question now is whether enough of that capacity survives to matter when it's needed.

For deeper intelligence analysis on these themes, Janes' The World of Intelligence podcast with Sean Corbett AVM (Retd) is available at the link above. Recent episodes on energy security, Chinese naval ambitions, grey zone warfare, and Iran's internal trajectory are directly relevant to the dynamics examined here.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of Claude AI

JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington.

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

South Korea vs American Food Health

2026-06-29T06:00:00.000-07:00

South Korea has the best healthcare in the world. America, not so much. Ours, frankly, is embarrassing.

Food health, similar issue.

Recently Kara Swisher's new show, Kara Swisher Wants To Live Forever, is worth a look. Especially, her episode on South Korea. I've been listening to her for years, her podcast for the past year, Pivot with Scott Galloway, and her own On With Kara Swisher.

Highly recommend any of those shows.

But for now we're considering her new TV show on CNN about two systems that are fascinating to compare, especially right now. Actually for us, rather depressing. Ask Koreans if they would like to live in South Korea, or American, they'll likely choose South Korea, mostly for the healthcare situation which in South Korea (especially compared to America), is rather remarkable.

We really should follow suit. Stop listening to those who say it's not possible, who give one ridiculous, or sane reason to be honest, over another against better overall healthcare, and just force America to get our act together. Our healthcare is failing and in watching this episode of Kara's show, you can see why.

It in part has to do with our not putting our money and our mouths where the issues actually are.

Here's a breakdown.

Structure and Visual Metaphor

South Korea doesn't actually use a pyramid anymore. The Korean Nutrition Society introduced the Food Balance Wheels in 2010, designed as a bicycle: a large rear wheel divided into the six major food groups, and a small front wheel representing a glass of water -- the whole image is meant to symbolize physical activity as inseparable from diet. There was an earlier tower/pagoda model. The MAHA guidelines, by contrast, use an inverted pyramid structure that puts meats, cheese, and vegetables in the widest part at the top -- flipping the old American pyramid where carbs were the foundation. PubMed CentralCNN

Grains and Carbohydrates

This is a significant philosophical split. In Korea, grains -- particularly rice -- form the base of the pyramid, suggesting they should make up the largest portion of meals. Korean guidelines even specifically urge people to "enjoy our rice-based diet" as a cultural value. Korean Garden BostonPubMed

The MAHA guidelines move in the opposite direction: whole grains are still present but requirements were reduced, leading to concerns about inadequate fiber, while refined grains and added sugar are sharply discouraged. U.S. News & World Report

Protein

Both systems emphasize protein, but they diverge on sources. The Korean diet historically relied on fish, poultry, fermented soy products, and legumes as primary proteins, with red meat being rare in the traditional agricultural context. ScienceDirect

The MAHA guidelines are far more meat-forward. Even so, the guidelines urge Americans to "prioritize protein foods at every meal," emphasizing animal sources such as red meat, poultry, seafood, and eggs, alongside plant sources like beans, lentils, nuts, seeds, and soy. One of the key recommendations is increasing daily protein consumption from 0.36 grams per pound of body weight to 0.54 to 0.73 grams per pound. U.S. News & World ReportHealthline

Dairy

Both systems include dairy, but with very different emphasis. Korea recommends dairy in moderate servings, with the Korean Food Guidance System offering an A-type pattern of two dairy servings for children and a B-type of one serving for adults, reflecting differing calcium needs. PubMed Central

MAHA puts dairy much more prominently. The new inverted pyramid places dairy products such as cheese near the top, while the guidelines specifically recommend consuming full-fat dairy with no added sugars. Healthline

Fats

Traditional Korean cooking uses sesame and perilla oil, limits deep-fat frying, and relies on fermentation rather than fat-based preservation methods. MAHA takes a rehabilitated view of fat broadly: the guidelines recommend incorporating healthy fats from whole foods such as meats, seafood, eggs, nuts, seeds, olives, and avocados. ScienceDirectHealthline

Fermented and Whole Foods

This is where Korean guidelines are notably distinct. The Korean diet is characterized by a wide variety of fermented foods -- kimchi, fermented soybean products, and others -- rich in bioactive compounds that support cardiovascular health and glycemic control. Korea's guidelines treat fermentation as a cultural and nutritional pillar. ScienceDirect

MAHA's "eat real food" framing gestures in a similar whole-food direction but doesn't specifically address fermented foods. The 2025-2030 guidelines reestablish food rather than pharmaceuticals as the foundation of health, with a clear "common-sense" message. HHS.gov

Sodium

Interestingly, both countries have sodium problems but from opposite directions. South Korea has launched extensive low-sodium campaigns, including a "low-sodium meal service week," smaller soup bowls in restaurants, and a Samsam Low-Sodium Food Service system limiting lunch to under 1,300mg of sodium per meal -- because the traditional high-salt fermented foods drive excess intake. MFDS

MAHA's primary concern is added sugars and ultra-processed foods rather than sodium specifically.

Ultra-Processed Foods

This is where the two systems actually converge most clearly. MAHA calls for a dramatic reduction in highly processed foods laden with refined carbohydrates, added sugars, excess sodium, unhealthy fats, and chemical additives. Korea has been pushing a similar message, worried about the shift away from traditional diets. South Korea has been battling increasing obesity as people shift away from the traditional diet heavy in pickled vegetables toward more processed and fast food. RealfoodFacts and Details

Bottom Line

The Korean system is carbohydrate-foundational, vegetable-heavy, fish-and-legume-centric, and deeply integrated with cultural food identity and fermentation tradition. MAHA inverts that structure -- making protein and full-fat animal products the anchor, reducing carbs, and framing the whole thing as a return to "real food" after decades of processed food damage. They share a common enemy in ultra-processed food, and both fold physical activity into the framing, but they'd produce very different dinner plates.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of Claude AI

JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington.

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.