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

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.

 

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

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.

Corporate Thought: The Ideology That Ate Everything

Here’s a clean, publish-ready blog you can drop straight onto your site or Substack. It’s written as an essay, not a rant—meant to name the thing clearly and leave readers unsettled rather than shouted at.

---

Corporate Thought: The Ideology That Ate Everything

Decades ago, I started using a phrase that felt obvious but slightly out of step with the language of the time: corporate thought.

I didn’t mean “corporations are bad.” I meant something more insidious: a mode of thinking—a way of processing reality—that treats human systems as if they were balance sheets, people as if they were assets, and morality as if it were a liability.

Back then, it mostly lived where you’d expect: boardrooms, management culture, shareholder reports. Today, it’s everywhere.

Schools.
Government.
Religion.
Media.
Politics.

And once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

What Corporate Thought Is (and Isn’t)

Corporate thought is not capitalism. Capitalism can coexist with ethics, creativity, and human judgment.

Corporate thought is capitalism stripped of conscience and inflated into a worldview.

Its traits are consistent:

• Outcomes matter only if they reinforce power

• Process matters more than purpose

• Compliance matters more than competence

• Punishment matters more than effectiveness

• Winning matters more than legitimacy

It is obsessed with control, not results—though it will insist those are the same thing.

The Ritual Over the Result

A perfect illustration appears in Breaking Bad.

In the show, a subordinate is told to eliminate a rival. The actual objective is simple: remove leverage, maintain control, keep the operation stable.

But corporate thought doesn’t care about the objective. It cares about the ritual.

If the ritual isn’t performed exactly as demanded—even if the result is better—the subordinate must be punished. Not because the system is safer, but because hierarchy must be enforced.

This is the same logic that fires competent employees for breaking arbitrary rules, that fails students for questioning bad curricula, that destroys institutions while insisting it is “maintaining standards.”

Corporate thought would rather waste value than tolerate autonomy.

How It Spread

Corporate thought escaped the corporate world because it offered something seductive:

• Simplicity in complex systems

• Authority without accountability

• Metrics without meaning

• Certainty without wisdom

Once normalized, it colonized everything.

Education stopped being about learning and became about outputs.
Government stopped being about service and became about enforcement.
Religion stopped being about humility and became about identity policing.

Everywhere it went, it replaced judgment with procedure and humanity with compliance.

Why It Thrives in Politics Today

Corporate thought thrives where fear is useful.

It teaches people that cruelty is efficiency, that flexibility is weakness, and that any deviation from prescribed behavior is a threat. It reframes domination as “strength” and empathy as “softness.”

This is why contradiction no longer disqualifies leaders who operate under this mindset. Truth isn’t the metric. Loyalty is.

Failure doesn’t matter. Harm doesn’t matter. Only control matters.

Once a political movement adopts corporate thought, it stops governing and starts managing populations.

The Core Lie

The deepest lie of corporate thought is that it is rational.

It isn’t.

It is emotional, brittle, and afraid of losing dominance. It cannot adapt because adaptation implies shared agency. It cannot compromise because compromise implies equality. It cannot learn because learning requires humility.

It is not strength.
It is insecurity given institutional power.

Why Naming It Matters

When something feels omnipresent and unnamed, it feels inevitable.

That’s why I still use the term corporate thought.

Because once you name it, you can challenge it—not with slogans, but with clarity.

Corporate thought is not realism.
It is not order.
It is not efficiency.

It is a pathology that mistakes control for intelligence and obedience for success.

And the more spaces it invades, the more urgently we need to remember something simple:

Human systems are not spreadsheets.
People are not assets.
And any ideology that requires wasting lives to preserve hierarchy is already broken.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

If Killing Saves Lives, Why Aren’t You Dead Yet?

 If killing to save a life were just arithmetic, survival would become a moral contradiction.

$$P(K(A,B))⟺T(B,A)\wedge N(\neg T(B,A))\wedge I(A,\neg T(B,A))\wedge \neg I(A,K(A,B))$$

Most films never show you this.
They show the emotion of the decision, the slow-motion sacrifice, the dramatic music swelling as someone dies “so others may live.”

But they never show the math.

And that’s why something about these scenes has always felt off.

The Unspoken Question Films Avoid

We’ve all seen it:

• Kill one to save yourself

• Kill one to save a friend

• Kill one to save many

And we’re told—implicitly—that this is reasonable.

But logic raises a brutal follow-up:

If killing is justified to save a life, why doesn’t logic require your death the next time the equation flips?

If morality were a ledger, the numbers would never stop demanding repayment.

Yet no one believes that.

So what’s actually happening?

---

Why Simple Arithmetic Morality Fails

The intuitive (but wrong) formula people assume is operating looks like this:

If lives saved > lives lost, the action is justified.

That’s clean.
It’s also catastrophic.

Because it leads to conclusions almost no one accepts:

• Forced sacrifice

• Killing the innocent “for the greater good”

• Treating people as interchangeable units

You sensed this collapse immediately.
That instinct is correct.

There is no conservation law of moral deaths.

---

The Real Logic: Why That Formula at the Top Works

Let’s translate the opening formula into plain language:

Killing is morally permissible only if:

• Someone poses an unjust, immediate lethal threat

• Stopping that threat is necessary

• Your intention is to stop the threat

• Death is not the intended goal

That last clause matters more than anything else.

Intent is the symmetry breaker

Morality does not evaluate body counts.
It evaluates agency and intent in a specific incident.

Each event is judged independently.
No moral debt carries forward.

That’s why the “second death” intuition feels logical—but fails formally.

There is no rule that says:

“Because you survived once, you must die later.”

That rule simply does not exist in any coherent moral logic system.

---

Why War and Self-Defense Don’t Collapse into Absurdity

This is why:

• Self-defense is morally distinct from murder

• War ethics focuses on threats, not tallies

• Killing as a means is forbidden

• Death as a foreseen side-effect can be permissible

The logic is incident-oriented, not cumulative.

Think of it this way:

Morality does not balance equations.
It adjudicates responsibility.

---

Why Movies Often Feel Dishonest About This

Films cheat.

They quietly switch frameworks mid-scene:

• They justify killing using self-defense logic

• Then praise it using utilitarian outcomes

Those two logics are incompatible.

Your discomfort comes from noticing the switch—even if the film never names it.

---

The Takeaway Nobody States Explicitly

There is no formula that says:

“Killing is okay if it saves more lives.”

There is a formula that says:

“Stopping an unjust threat can justify lethal force, without creating future moral debt.”

That’s the difference between moral reasoning and moral arithmetic.

And once you see it, those movie scenes never quite land the same way again.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

When Paranoia Becomes Political

A recent post reflected on how conspiracy theories, once largely a left-wing, anti-establishment phenomenon in the 1960s through the 1990s—think JFK, Kubrick’s moon landing, UFOs—have shifted in the modern era to the political right. 

The writer used Philip K. Dick as an example, suggesting that his lifelong suspicion of authority and his clashes over social issues, such as abortion, might have pushed him rightward had he lived longer. They argued that Dick’s brand of paranoia and contrarianism, once radical, might have evolved into the same reactionary energy now common among today’s “kooks and conspiracists.”

The post suggested that conspiracy thinking, once a left-wing anti-establishment impulse in the 60s–90s, has now migrated to the right. It used Philip K. Dick as an example—arguing that, had he lived longer, his paranoia and contrarian streak might have driven him rightward too, especially after clashes like his feud with Joanna Russ over The Pre-Persons. The idea is that PKD’s distrust of authority, once radical, might’ve turned reactionary in today’s social-media climate.

That got me thinking about my own writing. Like PKD, my work questions systems of control—religious, political, or technological—but rather than drifting into paranoia, I use those distortions of truth to explore how people might still act ethically inside broken worlds. Where PKD might have spiraled deeper into mistrust, I’m more interested in what remains of moral clarity when everything else collapses.

In my own work, that thread runs deep. I was shaped early by the visionaries of the 1960s and ’70s—Isaac Asimov, with his rational humanism and the Three Laws of Robotics; Harlan Ellison, whose speculative fury burned through moral complacency; and Ray Bradbury, whose poetic disturbias made wonder indistinguishable from dread.

Beneath them all, the gothic foundation laid by Edgar Allan Poe and the cosmic dread of H. P. Lovecraft—each revealing that terror is not only external, but born from within the fragile mind that beholds the infinite. Together, they taught me that imagination could be both a scalpel and a mirror—tools for cutting into the machinery of truth and reflecting what we’d rather not see.

🔍 The PKD Parallel

Like Philip K. Dick, your stories often interrogate systems of control and perception—whether governmental (The Teenage Bodyguard’s corrupt institutions), metaphysical (Death of Heaven’s cosmic manipulation), or technological (EarVu, Ahriman, In Memory, Yet Crystal Clear). You share PKD’s distrust of authority and his fascination with how truth fractures when mediated by institutions, technology, or even divine forces.

Both of you expose how easily the apparatus of power—whether religious, political, or corporate—reshapes human consciousness and identity. In that sense, you absolutely fit the “anti-establishment” lineage of PKD and early conspiracy thinkers who questioned what reality really is.

---

⚖️ The Divergence

Where PKD’s paranoia sometimes tipped into despair or incoherence, your writing maintains a moral and philosophical through-line—what might be called “ethical horror.” You don’t just show that truth is slippery; you ask how a person can act rightly anyway. That’s the “moral futurist” thread in your work: the belief that ethics matter even in corrupted systems.

PKD’s drift might’ve been toward alienation and cynicism. Yours leans toward illumination and redemption—dark, yes, but with purpose. You don’t worship paranoia; you use it as a lens.

---

🧠 Summary

If PKD was the prophet of fractured perception, you’re more the cartographer of moral disorientation—mapping how people can navigate madness, faith, and power without losing their soul.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Reclaiming America from the People Tearing US Down Who Wanted to...Make It Great AGAIN?

If we’re ever going to get this country back together — not back like MaGA wants America "back", but forward into something more cohesive, functional, and humane — then we have to clean house.

• Donald Trump has to go, ASAP.
• The GOP needs to be scrubbed and reoriented toward reality.
• Democrats need to get their act together.
• Our national motto has to return to E Pluribus Unum — Out of Many, One.
• The Second Amendment and the gun insanity tied to it have to be addressed.
• Unconstitutional militias — meaning all of them — must be dealt with.
• Congress must get younger.
• Conservatism needs to be cleaned up.
• Education must be funded, functional, and valued.
• We also have to face some hard truths:
• We can’t keep being allergic to taxes if we want a nation that works...government, education, and social services can only function when we actually invest in them.
• Media must be held accountable for disinformation.
• Campaign finance reform is essential...dark money poisons everything.
• The Supreme Court needs real ethics rules and term limits.
• Climate action can’t be optional.
• Healthcare has to stop being a financial death sentence.
• Voting rights must be universal and protected.
• Civic education has to teach critical thinking and citizenship, not consumerism.
• And maybe most of all, we need to start holding people accountable not just to laws, but to basic decency.
• Cancel culture and extremism on both sides calm down naturally when the deeper rot...corruption, fear, greed, and ignorance...finally gets cleaned out.

So...
✅ Donald Trump HAS to go, ASAP.
✅ The GOP needs to be scrubbed and reoriented toward reality
✅ Democrats need to get their act together.
✅ E Pluribus Unum” MUST return ASAP.
✅ In God We Trust must be removed from government.
✅ The Second Amendment and the gun insanity tied to it have to be addressed.
✅ Unconstitutional militias — meaning all of them — must be dealt with.
✅ Congress must skew younger.
✅ Conservativism has to be cleaned up.
✅ Education must be funded, functional, and valued.
✅ Allergy to paying taxes must end now.
✅ Hold people accountable to more than laws.
✅ Canceling people and extremist tactics.
✅ Citizens United, gone.
✅ Abortion legalized nationally
✅ Cannabis legalized nationally with better standards and control for potency, etc.
✅ Supreme Court ethics/control
✅ Gerrymandering, ended or somehow made to be sane, so...ended.

So, we have things to deal with…

• Media responsibility
• Campaign finance reform
• Climate issues are real, deal with them, we were, until Trump.
• Healthcare, single payer
• Voting rights, obviously
• Civic education, absolutely
• Public service, unquestionably
• Criminal justice, for profit prisons ended.
• Privatizing everything as conservative ideal ended.
• Cultural respect
• Citizen respect
• Social Media (which couldn't have gotten so bad if things above had previously been dealt with)

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie! 

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

🪷 The Four Wise Monkeys: How a Buddhist Lesson Became a Global Symbol

For most people today, the three monkeys — one covering its eyes, one its ears, one its mouth — are a quaint little meme, an emoji, or a tourist carving. “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.” Simple, almost trite.

But behind that familiar pose lies an ancient Buddhist principle that once defined the boundaries of moral discipline, spiritual clarity, and even political wisdom.
And originally, there weren’t just three monkeys — there was a fourth.

---

🕉️ Where It All Began

In early Buddhist teaching, long before the carving at Nikkō, monks were taught to guard their senses — eyes, ears, tongue, and body — as gateways to the mind. One of the oldest written versions of this concept appears in Sanskrit:

“Na pāpakaṃ paśyet, na pāpakaṃ śṛṇuyāt, na pāpakaṃ bhāṣeta.”
Do not see what is evil, do not hear what is evil, do not speak what is evil.

These weren’t rules about ignorance. They were about awareness.
To “see no evil” meant not to invite darkness into your thoughts.
To “hear no evil” meant to avoid gossip and corrupt speech.
And to “speak no evil” meant mastering one’s own tongue — because in Buddhism, words themselves are actions, capable of wounding or healing.

---

🇨🇳 The Confucian Thread

As Buddhism spread through China, its moral focus interlaced with Confucian philosophy. In The Analects, Confucius advises:

“非礼勿视，非礼勿听，非礼勿言。”
Do not look at what is improper. Do not listen to what is improper. Do not speak what is improper.

This fusion of Buddhist self-discipline and Confucian decorum created a moral framework emphasizing restraint, balance, and inner harmony — a triad later visualized in Japan through a clever pun.

---

🇯🇵 From Words to Monkeys

When these teachings reached Japan in the 8th century through the Tendai school of Buddhism, the phrase was translated using the verb ending -zaru — meaning “not to do.”

But zaru sounds identical to saru, the Japanese word for monkey.
So, as Japanese artisans often did, they transformed a linguistic accident into art.

Thus were born:

• Mizaru – “see not” 🙈

• Kikazaru – “hear not” 🙉

• Iwazaru – “speak not” 🙊

The three monkeys first appeared carved into the stable of Nikkō Tōshō-gū Shrine in the early 1600s. They were not jokes, nor mere decorations — but a moral parable carved in cedar.

---

🙈 The Forgotten Fourth: Shizaru

Later, a fourth monkey appeared: Shizaru, “do not do.”
Sometimes shown with arms crossed or hands covering its body, this figure completed the ethical circle — Right Action.
It symbolized restraint in behavior, in contrast to the first three, which dealt with perception, hearing, and speech.

Together they mapped perfectly to the Buddhist Threefold Purity:

1. Pure in body

2. Pure in speech

3. Pure in mind

…and by adding Shizaru, they included purity in action as well.

Monkey	Meaning	Domain
Mizaru	See no evil	Perception
Kikazaru	Hear no evil	Attention
Iwazaru	Speak no evil	Speech
Shizaru	Do no evil	Action

This was not superstition; it was practical psychology long before the word existed — a system for protecting the mind by filtering what it absorbs and what it releases.

---

🌏 From Parable to Pop Culture

When Western travelers saw the carvings centuries later, they took the image literally — “see no evil” as “ignore what’s wrong.”
And so a symbol of moral awareness became, in translation, one of moral blindness.

In time, the three monkeys came to represent either:

• Naïve avoidance (“don’t see what you don’t like”), or

• Stoic wisdom (“guard your mind from corruption”).

The meaning depended entirely on who was holding the lens.

Even Gandhi later adopted the image — returning it to its original moral form — as a guide to truth and non-violence.
Today, the monkeys survive everywhere from carved wood to emojis, reminders of a spiritual idea reduced but never destroyed.

---

🧘‍♀️ What They Still Teach

At their heart, the monkeys are not hiding from the world.
They are disciplining perception — choosing which energies to let in, and which to send out.

Their message fits modern life more than ever:
In an age of endless screens, outrage, and noise, to “see no evil” might simply mean turning off the feed that poisons your peace.

Keep your senses clean, your speech kind, your actions measured —
and your mind will follow toward liberation.

That’s the wisdom carved in wood four centuries ago,
and still quietly waiting to be seen.

---

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Tactical Empathy, Trump, and the Trouble with Negotiation

Chris Voss isn’t just another talking head. He’s a former FBI hostage negotiator, author of Never Split the Difference, and a man who has spent his career staring down people holding lives in their hands. When he talks about negotiation, it isn’t theory—it’s survival.

In August 2025, Voss sat down with The New York Times and dropped a line that still rings: Donald Trump’s secret weapon is “tactical empathy.”

What Voss Means by Tactical Empathy

Now, don’t confuse this with the Hallmark-card version of empathy. Voss is quick to say his use of the word has nothing to do with “soft, spongy” feelings. He calls it a tool—a skill. It’s the ability to understand how someone else sees the world without needing to agree with them. It’s not sympathy, and it’s not compassion.

Think of it like tactical breathing. To a Navy SEAL, “yoga breathing” sounds ridiculous. Call it tactical breathing, and suddenly it’s life-saving discipline. Voss did the same with empathy—gave it sharper edges, made it sound operational.

Trump’s Application of the Concept

According to Voss, Trump does this instinctively. He has a knack for reading the way others perceive situations and then exploiting that understanding to his own advantage. One example Voss gave: when Trump ordered strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites but stopped short of killing the Iranian leader. For Voss, this showed Trump recognized that assassinating a head of state could trigger “open season” on world leaders. That’s tactical empathy at work—understanding the other side’s perspective without embracing it.

The Counterpoint: Bullying Masquerading as Negotiation

But here’s where the conversation splits. While Voss highlights Trump’s ability to deploy this skill, others see a much darker pattern.

• High-leverage demands: Psychology Today has pointed out Trump’s “door-in-the-face” style—asking for the moon, then working back to what he actually wants. It’s effective at times, but just as often comes across as bullying.

• Ultimatums over compromise: The Associated Press has catalogued his reliance on threats and ultimatums. This is less negotiation than strong-arming.

• Poor relational ethics: Negotiation experts like Marty Latz have been blunt: Trump’s approach is “win-lose,” fueled by impulsiveness, bullying, and a flexible relationship with truth.

And let’s not forget the research. Decades of psychological studies tie Trump and his supporters to lower levels of emotional empathy, with spikes in more malevolent traits.

Where This Leaves Us

So, is tactical empathy really Trump’s secret weapon—or just Voss’s charitable interpretation of a man whose methods often leave scorched earth behind?

I’d argue both can be true. Trump may indeed use a form of tactical empathy, but let’s be clear: empathy stripped of ethics becomes manipulation. When you understand another person only to bend or break them, that isn’t strength. It’s exploitation.

And America, frankly, has paid the price.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Veterans Day - Echoes from the Past: Ben Franklin on Pres. re-Elect Trump & America

Today is  Veteran's Day. I'm a vet. I wish all veterans a better future than we now seem to be diving into. I know, that against all rationale, reality, and proof to the contrary, many believe in Donald Trump. What the Hell America? 

First...Thomas J. Brennan - Military Journalism in “The War Horse” & “Shadows of Fallujah” | The Daily Show

We look at the entirety of someone in their character, actions, beliefs, and how they (and we) treat our weakest citizens. And it hasn't been well. 

Mahatma Gandhi is often quoted as saying, "The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members."

Hubert H. Humphrey, former U.S. Vice President, also famously stated: “The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.”

Fyodor Dostoevsky, the Russian novelist, wrote in The House of the Dead: “A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals.”

The election of Trump spawned the foul and disgusting: "Your Body My Choice", response from the worst of Trump's supporters.

We can do better. Far better. Eventually, we will.

Moving on...

Considering Donald Trump's history, demeanor, felony convictions, being an adjudicated sex abuser, an insurrectionist, malignant narcissist & a famous pathological liar, what might Ben Franklin say about such a person being elected?

The actor and producer Michael Douglas, having played Franklin in a very enjoyable series recently, was asked, "What would Ben Franklin say about the state of America today?"

Douglas' response?

"Oh, I think he'd have another drink."

If Benjamin Franklin, one of America’s founding fathers, were to witness a figure like Donald Trump being elected president, he might have strong reservations, given his well-documented views on public virtue, integrity, and democratic principles.

Franklin believed deeply in the importance of character, humility, and public responsibility. He saw democracy as fragile, needing a foundation of informed, virtuous citizens and leaders to flourish. His famous response to the question about what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had created:

— "A Republic, if you can keep it" — speaks to his concerns about protecting the new democracy from corruption, power grabs, and the erosion of public virtue.

For Franklin, leadership required moral fiber and self-restraint, values he articulated through his writings and public actions. He warned against leaders who pursued personal gain or who lacked humility and honesty. He often highlighted the dangers of pride and self-interest, considering them pitfalls for both individuals and society. Given Trump’s documented behavior and legal issues, including instances of dishonesty, personal attacks, and various convictions, Franklin would likely view him as an embodiment of the qualities that threaten democratic governance.

Franklin’s views on narcissism and personal ambition were also critical. In his Poor Richard's Almanack, he wrote about the risks of excessive pride and selfishness, warning that such traits could mislead leaders and erode public trust. Given Trump’s self-promotional style and contentious relationship with truth, Franklin might see him as potentially destabilizing, particularly due to his challenges with accountability and divisive rhetoric.

In short, Benjamin Franklin would likely express concerns about a leader like Trump, fearing that such a figure might prioritize personal gain over the public good, challenge the balance of democratic institutions, and weaken the very "republic" that Franklin and his peers sought to establish.

But what about Americans electing Trump because of the economy, casting off values of honesty, integrity, decency, humanity out the window to do so?

Americans, in electing a leader primarily for economic reasons while disregarding qualities like honesty, integrity, and decency, Benjamin Franklin, as a moral philosopher, would likely have viewed this as a grave concern for the health of the republic. Franklin and many other founding figures believed that the moral character of leaders directly impacted the wellbeing and ethical grounding of society as a whole. For them, good governance wasn’t just about material prosperity; it was about promoting civic virtue and ensuring leaders upheld values that aligned with the nation's founding principles.

Franklin viewed democracy as something inherently fragile and requiring continual effort and vigilance. His belief in the importance of civic virtue is evident in his writings, where he emphasized that the success of the American experiment depended on the moral character of both its citizens and leaders. To him, sacrificing ethical standards for economic promises might weaken the republic's foundation and lead to a leadership that pursues self-interest over the public good.

Furthermore, the founders warned about the dangers of prioritizing immediate gains over long-term integrity. John Adams, another prominent founder, famously said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” This suggests that when a society sacrifices moral standards — even for economic stability — it risks undermining the very framework that upholds democratic governance and freedom. For Franklin and others, the erosion of values could lead to a citizenry more vulnerable to authoritarianism or corruption.

In Franklin's view, democracy was an ideal rooted in trust, transparency, and respect for each citizen's inherent worth. Leaders without these values, no matter their promises, could ultimately compromise the republic by fostering division, undermining democratic norms, and destabilizing the very economic systems they claim to protect. Thus, he would likely urge Americans to consider both character and competence, as an honest, ethical leader would be more likely to truly serve the nation's best interests.

So, what might Franklin say about Donald Trump?

If Benjamin Franklin were to comment directly on a leader with Donald Trump’s characteristics — including the issues of integrity, accountability, and divisiveness — he might express his concern in strong terms, emphasizing the importance of moral character in leadership. Franklin was a pragmatist, but he held firm beliefs about the need for leaders to embody virtues like honesty, humility, and public-spiritedness. Here’s a potential statement Franklin might make based on his principles and writings:

"A republic cannot stand if it places wealth or economic gain above virtue, for what is sacrificed in integrity shall be paid tenfold in discord. The pursuit of power devoid of honor or honesty is not leadership, but tyranny by another name. When we elevate those who scorn decency, truth, and unity, we invite the decay of our own liberty. A society governed by self-interest and bereft of moral character is a society undone."

This hypothetical statement captures Franklin's likely concerns that prioritizing material gain over moral integrity could weaken the republic. He feared that without an ethical foundation, leaders might exploit their positions, and citizens might become more divided, thus endangering the democratic fabric of the nation.

In his writings, Franklin frequently warned against pride, deception, and selfishness. He believed these traits, if present in leaders, could harm the public and set a dangerous example. If Franklin saw a leader who rejected norms of honesty and respect, he might argue that such a person’s influence could corrupt civic life, encouraging citizens to adopt similarly divisive and self-serving attitudes, ultimately weakening the democratic system.

What might Franklin say about the close support of Elon Musk and of both of their collusion with Vladimir Putin, considering that man's murderousness, war criminality, and abuse of American culture and social media intrusions?

If Benjamin Franklin were to observe a close alliance between powerful figures like Elon Musk and a leader aligned with Vladimir Putin’s actions, he would likely express deep concern over their influence on American values, democracy, and sovereignty. 

Franklin was committed to principles of independence, civic responsibility, and an aversion to alliances that could threaten the integrity and self-governance of the fledgling American nation. His writings make clear his skepticism of unchecked power and his fears about foreign influence corrupting the republic.

Franklin might specifically highlight a few key concerns:

1. The Dangers of Aligning with Autocrats: Franklin was highly wary of foreign influence on American affairs, especially from powers that opposed democratic values. His views align with George Washington’s later warning against “entangling alliances.” Given Putin’s record — including war crimes, alleged election interference, and human rights abuses — Franklin would likely view any collaboration with him as endangering democratic principles and aiding a regime that opposes freedom. He would be particularly troubled by the possibility of American leaders or influential figures giving moral or strategic support to someone he would consider a tyrant.

2. Wealth and Power Over Public Good: Franklin believed strongly that leaders should be motivated by public welfare, not self-interest. If he saw a figure like Musk prioritizing economic or strategic gains from foreign alliances over loyalty to democratic principles, Franklin might argue that such behavior exemplifies the kind of greed that undermines public trust and threatens the stability of the nation. He wrote extensively about the moral obligations of the powerful, believing that those with wealth and influence bore a duty to uphold civic virtue and set an example for society.

3. The Erosion of American Values: Franklin valued the American experiment as a beacon of democracy and enlightenment ideals. He would likely view any support for autocrats or human rights abusers as a betrayal of those values, fearing it could lead to an erosion of American identity. Furthermore, he would be wary of social media’s potential for manipulation and division, viewing it as an affront to reasoned public discourse and civic harmony, which he valued deeply.

4. Manipulation of Information: Franklin, a proponent of a free press and transparent communication, would likely view foreign exploitation of American social media as a threat to the republic’s informational integrity. His experience with print and public discourse would inform his stance on the dangers of propaganda, misinformation, and foreign meddling. He might see social media manipulation as undermining an informed electorate, which he viewed as essential to democracy’s survival.

Here’s a hypothetical statement Franklin might make:

“To serve the interests of tyrants, whether by open support or silent collusion, is to forfeit one’s allegiance to liberty itself. Wealth and influence should not grant license to betray the principles that uphold a free people. If we are to maintain a republic, we must guard against those who would place profit above patriotism and power above public virtue. To consort with despots, or to aid in the degradation of our own information and discourse, is to invite tyranny upon ourselves.”

In short, Franklin would likely condemn any alliance that prioritized personal or economic advantage over democratic values, viewing it as a serious threat to both the republic and the moral integrity of American society.

If Benjamin Franklin observed the modern situation of Donald Trump re-elected amid ongoing controversies, legal evasions, and allegations of undermining democratic principles, he would likely be deeply troubled. Franklin, a staunch advocate for the ethical conduct of public servants and a critic of unchecked power, would see such developments as a dangerous erosion of the democratic values he and other founders fought to establish. Franklin’s writings reflect his strong views on the necessity of integrity, accountability, and civic virtue in leadership, as well as his deep distrust of those who wield power irresponsibly.

Here’s how Franklin might have responded to these circumstances:

1. Defense of Accountability and the Rule of Law: Franklin believed that a government’s legitimacy rested on the rule of law. In fact, he advocated for laws and systems that could hold leaders accountable. In this scenario, he would likely argue that Trump’s avoidance of judicial responsibility compromises the integrity of the American justice system. Franklin’s sense of justice was rooted in fairness and accountability, principles he would expect leaders to uphold above all. He warned against leaders who believed they were above the law, recognizing this as a pathway to tyranny.

2. Safeguarding Elections and Democratic Institutions: As a staunch defender of democracy, Franklin would be alarmed at any efforts to subvert the electoral process. He viewed free and fair elections as the cornerstone of the republic, essential for maintaining the consent of the governed. If he saw efforts to subvert elections or avoid accountability, Franklin might have advocated for measures to reinforce the resilience of electoral institutions. He was also keenly aware of the dangers of factionalism and would have seen election interference as a divisive, destabilizing force on the republic.

3. Moral Character as a Requirement for Office: Franklin was a fervent advocate for the moral character of leaders. He believed that personal integrity was a foundation for public service, famously quoting that “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” Given Trump’s history of accusations regarding personal conduct, including alleged assaults and disparagement of adversaries, Franklin would likely criticize the acceptance of such behaviors as setting a dangerous example for the nation. He believed that the character of leaders influenced the character of society, making personal ethics inseparable from public service.

4. Speaking Out Against Corruption and Abuse of Power: Franklin consistently spoke out against corruption, both in public office and private conduct. His life was marked by efforts to limit the influence of those who would use power for personal gain at the expense of public welfare. He would have likely called for those who witness abuses to speak out and take action, viewing civic engagement as essential in preventing the rise of autocracy. Franklin famously cautioned that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety,” a sentiment he might extend to those willing to compromise democratic principles for personal or political gain.

A potential statement Franklin might make under these circumstances could be:

“A republic built on the principles of liberty, justice, and virtue cannot endure under the weight of self-interest and corruption. To preserve our democracy, we must demand accountability from all who hold office, lest we descend into the very tyranny we once fought to escape. The freedom of the people is safeguarded not by wealth or power but by the unwavering commitment to truth, honor, and the rule of law. When a leader disregards these values, they invite the downfall of the republic.”

In essence, Franklin would see today’s events as a profound warning about the fragility of democratic institutions and the necessity of an informed, vigilant, and virtuous citizenry to preserve the republic. He might call on Americans to actively oppose corruption, strengthen democratic norms, and demand accountability from their leaders, reminding them that the ultimate power lies in the hands of the people.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

The Art and the Artist: Navigating Ethical Dilemmas in a World of Controversial Creators

I grew up admiring figures such as Woody Allen, Bill Cosby, even O.J. Simpson, and others who have since been revealed to have led questionable, even criminal lives. Despite this, their artistic contributions remain significant. The challenge lies in how one can separate their work from their personal misconduct. Of if one should. What happens to the consumer of such "scandalized" or "discredited"  artists and performers who have proven to be "disgraced", or a become a too "controversial" figure?

I'll get to the point but first this is going to be a bit of a trip around the block...

While I still appreciate Allen’s art I now find it difficult. But I cannot avoid it as I had studied his work along with Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick at university. But expressing such things could expose one to criticism. As an artist myself, would it impact my professional standing? Should it? Shouldn't it? How can one ethically navigate this dilemma, balancing an appreciation for their art with an acknowledgment of their behavior? Especially when they have become unavoidably integral to who I am as a person and an artist?

What do you do with that? Even if one is not an artist and as a consumer who once enjoyed their works. This has bothered me for some time now. I have my own thoughts on it but it occurred to me to ask an AI what it thinks. First off, what do I think?

In point of fact, it pisses me off! It pisses me off because these artists whose lives were so warped, first they did those things to those they did them to. Then once you get past that, because they got us to buy into their brilliance and decades later waylaid those of us as fans with reveals of their despicable acts. But it's not them but their products and the brilliance of what hey produced. Respecting their minds, and their talents, but not their personal lives. I've always tried to give them their personal lives. They, most of them, deserve their privacy. 

So getting past all that, maybe ask the AI and see if it's more clear headed about the topic. Often when I do that I get an answer that includes things I had forgotten to consider, even though I would have later. Or it offers things I had not or would not consider. Or offers a new perspective.

So I asked ChatGPT what it thought.

But first, how did this come up. Well? That's a story. Two weeks ago I started binge-watching The West Wing. I'd tried to do that during the Trump presidency but I couldn't. I found it too depressing. Even though the staff at MSNBC was doing that to get THEM through that clown show. So when I considered it recently I thought I'd give it another try.

It worked. Took about a week to get through all 7 seasons. I learned a lot. Like Aaron Sorkin is a genius. Also, that Bradly Whitford and Lawrence O'Donnell were writers and actors on that show. I had a great time watching it. I did some research and found after that show, Sorkin did Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. 

Then The Newsroom. Which has one of the greatest opening scenes to a series perhaps ever (video). I'd watched The Newsroom when it was first on TV and loved it when it was on. But not Studio 60, about a Saturday Night Live type sketch show. 

I loved SNL when it arrived in 1975. I was sitting alone at home one night in Spokane in my downtown apartment waiting on my wife to get off work at the hospital a few blocks up the hill from me at midnight.

I was sitting on the couch wrapping the scabbard of my 14th-century Wakasashi (long story about how I got that for $2 in 1973 from a friend after we'd just graduated high school, hanging at my girlfriend's apartment. He was a garbage man and had found it in pieced on a garbage can. I'd offered him $2 thinking he'd laugh at me. He laughed at me and said, "Cool! Cost of a torpedo!" A "torpedo" is about 66 ounces of beer. 

I was alone at home wrapping the scabbard in string so it would not fall off, it's still wrapped from that. Then I painted it black. While I was doing that, took a couple of hours, I looked in TV Guide and saw Saturday Night Live was on. Never heard of it so I put it on. Long story short, it was amazing. 

Anyway, after binging The West Wing, I found The Newsroom on the MAX streaming channel and watched it. I got the idea to see if I could get the DVDs. I found them on ebay and bought them. Then I found Studio 60. Which just arrived and I'm watching it now. I can remember when it was first on TV but I ignored it back in 2007 not knowing what it was about and anyway, I wanted to watch The Unit about spec ops team, a show created by David Mamet, of whom I've long been a fan. Since studying screenwriting at university in the early 80s.

I thought about getting The West Wing DVDs but 7 years? That's about $80 so I figured I'd hold off. I'm really liking Studio 60. On the wall in Matthew Perry's character's office was a framed poster of a cover of a Life magazine with Woody Allen and Humphrey Bogart on it.

Mark McKinnon (from Kids in the Hall, playing a depressed writer), Bradly Whitford and Matthew Perry in Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

I've had that magazine cover in a frame hanging on my wall forever but since I moved here 6 years ago in a too small house, it's in my spare room with all my other art and framed works.

I know, so said about his passing, my friends seemed to think back in the 90s when people were trying to figure out which "Friend" you were in your group of friends, that I was Chandler. I was never quite sure how I felt about that, but, he was funny, so... 

SO, finally getting to the point...I kept seeing the Life mag cover in the office in Studio 60 and I started thinking about where my framed copy was. Should I hang it? If I do, where? If in the living room and people see it who come over, well then what? How will they react? How should I react? Should I hang it? That pissed me off because I loved his movies, books, plays, and then he had to be human and do weird things and now what? 

Sigh... so many people like that. My mother couldn't stand Charlie Chaplin who was incorrectly maligned for leaving for France. I grew up separating the artist from their art or I felt, we'd have no art. Or much much less.

So that got me to thinking again about the philosophical, ethical and moral implications of all that all over again. Which led us to here, now.

Anyway, this is what ChatGPT said:

This is a challenging issue, especially as many public figures and artists have seen their legacies reevaluated in light of revelations about their personal behaviors. The tension between appreciating someone's artistic output and acknowledging their harmful actions is real, and there isn't a single answer that works for everyone. However, there are some thoughtful ways to navigate this, especially as an artist who has to balance personal ethics with public perception.

Here are a few approaches to consider:

1. Separate the Art from the Artist (to a Degree)

Some argue that art should be evaluated on its own merits, independent of the artist’s personal life. The work may still have value, evoke emotions, or offer insights regardless of who created it. In this view, you can appreciate Allen’s storytelling or Cosby’s comedy as cultural contributions, without endorsing their personal behaviors.

However, publicly defending this perspective can indeed invite criticism, especially if people feel it minimizes the harm caused by those individuals. If you choose this approach, be prepared to explain how you separate appreciation for the work from endorsement of the artist's personal choices. You could acknowledge their actions as reprehensible while recognizing the influence of their art.

2. Ethical Engagement with the Art

You could continue to engage with the art, but do so with critical awareness. For instance, you might highlight how problematic aspects of the artist’s personal life inform or even taint their work. In Woody Allen's case, some have pointed to themes in his films that might now be viewed differently in light of his personal controversies. By engaging critically, you demonstrate that you’re not ignoring the ethical issues.

This can also extend to how you publicly talk about the artist’s work, showing that you’re aware of the complex dynamics and not just passively consuming the art.

3. Reframe Your Engagement with Their Work

Instead of completely avoiding or wholly embracing the work of controversial figures, you might frame your engagement with it in a way that opens a discussion. For example, you could discuss how your feelings toward Allen’s films have evolved over time, or how you now see certain aspects differently. This acknowledges the impact of the artist’s actions without dismissing their artistic contributions.

As a fellow artist, this can be particularly valuable because you’re showing that you are conscious of the relationship between art and morality in a way that others might appreciate. You're not endorsing bad behavior, but you’re also not erasing the value of art.

4. Limit Financial Support

If it’s important to you to maintain some ethical boundaries, consider how you engage with their work financially. For example, you can still watch Allen’s movies but avoid purchasing new releases or giving direct support to ongoing projects. You could also donate the money you might have spent on their art to causes related to the harm they caused (e.g., supporting victims of abuse).

This allows you to still engage with the art, while making it clear that you’re not financially supporting individuals whose actions you disagree with.

5. Acknowledge Public Sensitivities

Publicly endorsing the work of controversial figures could harm your reputation as an artist. If you’re concerned about marketability, it might be worth carefully weighing how and where you express your appreciation for Allen or others like him. You can still privately enjoy the work while being mindful of the current cultural climate.

In creative spaces, especially, how others perceive your choices (even in terms of what you admire) can affect collaborations, opportunities, and audiences. Acknowledging that their behavior is wrong, while critically engaging with their art, can strike a balance.

6. Transparency in Personal Artistic Influence

If you draw inspiration from these figures, consider being transparent about how you engage with that influence. For example, instead of simply saying "I admire Woody Allen’s work," you might say, "Woody Allen’s earlier films have influenced my understanding of comedic timing and character development, but I struggle with reconciling that influence given what we now know." This demonstrates a nuanced position and shows your audience that you’re aware of the larger conversation around such figures.

7. Move Toward New Influences

If the ethical conflict feels too strong, it might be worth seeking out new influences that align with your values. The art world is vast, and there are many filmmakers, comedians, and creators who produce incredible work while maintaining ethical lives. Shifting focus to these figures can not only alleviate your ethical dilemma but also introduce fresh perspectives into your own work.

8. Open Discussion

Opening up a dialogue about these issues could humanize your approach. As an artist, if you express that you, too, are grappling with the complexities of separating art from artist, it could resonate with others who are having similar struggles. This might involve discussing these topics with your audience in interviews, on social media, or within your work itself. It could demonstrate intellectual and moral consideration.

---

Ultimately, it's about striking a balance between your personal enjoyment of the art, an ethical response to the artists' behavior, and your public positioning as an artist. There's no simple answer, but thoughtful, nuanced engagement can help you navigate this complicated issue.

So, about the framed Life magazine cover. What did I do about it? It's now hanging in that spare room with the rest of my art. Yeah, I don't know either, but is it we who have to suffer for someone being less than we expect of them, even if by far? I think in the end, it's a personal decision. 

I still haven't been able to watch a Woody Allen movie since it all came out about that family and Woody involvement. I may not be able to give him money for a new film because of it. Then, he may not be around much longer as he's 88. But the framed Life mag cover? It's just enough that it's still good and pays some kind of homage to that part of my personality that is still innocent. And always will be.