Doug Morton Music
Computers
Writings & Other Stuff
before and after
Tim and I have been best friends since the Boston days at NEC. He is everything the blurb below says (and a bag of chips), along with being a stand-up guy with his feet on the ground. He asked ChatGPT about himself and this is what it came up with.
Tim Morrison is an internationally recognized trumpeter whose career has spanned classical performance, chamber music, and film scoring at the highest levels. As a longtime member of the Boston Symphony Orchestra and the Boston Pops, Tim established himself as a principal voice in the American orchestral tradition, known for his lyrical phrasing, technical brilliance, and deep musical sensitivity.
A former member of the Empire Brass, Tim helped revolutionize the perception of brass chamber music, performing to acclaim across the globe and recording landmark albums that remain reference points in the genre. His artistry has influenced generations of brass players and brought new audiences to the power and nuance of brass performance.
Tim’s expressive sound caught the ear of legendary film composer John Williams, leading to a series of solo trumpet features in major film scores — perhaps most notably in Born on the Fourth of July, where his haunting solo work earned widespread praise. His studio work in Los Angeles further expanded his reach, contributing to the emotional core of numerous motion pictures in collaboration with Williams and other leading composers.
Whether on the concert stage, in chamber settings, or behind the scenes of a Hollywood recording session, Tim Morrison’s trumpet playing has left an indelible mark on the musical landscape — a voice at once soaring, human, and timeless.
I need to post this wonderful review of my playing by Tim. "Better than Bud"? (the legendary Adolph Herseth of the CSO). I don't think so, but wow!
Dude, I just listened the opening of the Reiner recording of Domestica and you sounded better than Bud, easily😄
I think if anyone were to listen to multiple recordings of the "big boys" playing that call, you'd likely win the challenge. Honestly, I don't think anyone could play it any better than you did. You simply went for it and gobbled it up. When I was listening to it for the first time, it was kind of an omg moment for me, Dougie. Played with such confidence and authority. I was expecting a pretty good moment, but not quite THAT good🤨
QAnon is the worst fast food conspiracy junk imaginable. A good conspiracy must be actually plausible, has to have a basis in reality, has to be doable by humans with all their faults and foibles. Nothing supernatural. And, there's always money and/or power involved.
My favorite theory as to the origin of the Santa Claus myth is the magic mushroom. The Amanita muscaria is a bright red mushroom with white spots, which resembles Santa's iconic red suit with white trim. Various cultures used this mushroom in their spiritual rituals. The shamans in Siberia, for example, would dress in red and white and go from house to house in a reindeer-pulled sled distributing the mushrooms which were strung to pine tree branches. Doors would often be blocked by snow so they would make their deliveries through the smoke-hole or chimney. The hallucinogenic qualities of the mushrooms would provide a magical, transformative "trip" which were considered gifts and blessings. Sound familiar?
To think that the most wholesome, kid-friendly, "cookies and milk" holiday was based on people tripping out on mushrooms is a mind-expander. For whatever reasons, we Westerners have been very suppressive when it comes to mind-altering experiences. Perhaps it undermines the dominant paradigm!
The Holy Grail of conspiracies. This one has intrigued me my entire life. It's a gift that never stops giving. The greatest murder mystery in history.
I was 8 years old when this happened. My memory is of playing a game of kickball on the playground of my elementary school. I had just whacked a good one when a distraught teacher called us back in to class. She sat us down and in tears, announced that the President was dead. I could only think it was Eisenhower, an old man. It couldn't be that young and handsome Kennedy. But sure enough it was. We were sent home and we spent the rest of the weekend with the black & white television set to CBS News and Walter Cronkite. The entire nation and world were in a state of shock, even more so when we witnessed a live murder on television - Ruby shooting Oswald. What is happening? America was at the peak of its "goodness". There was Disney and Father Knows Best and Leave It To Beaver. We played in our neighborhood without fear. Dad had a nice, secure job with General Motors and mom stayed at home with the kids. There was some looming threat of commies, I guess, but America was so clearly good, clean, pure, rich, powerful, technically adept (we were sending men to the moon!). What could go wrong? Now we knew.
This was a turning point for me. I suddenly caught a glimpse of the dark side of life. It had been there all along but in the lovely, gentle 50's and early 60's it had been papered over and avoided, at least to a child growing up in the Midwest of America in that time period with my morally-upright Episcopalian parents. This world had a dark, noirish feeling - furtive and cramped. Nothing like the shiny world of the future we lived in.
We were told that our eloquent, elegant, handsome, charming, stylish, witty President with the classy, ethereal wife and charming young family, was murdered by a lone nut wanna-be commie shooting from the Texas School Book Depository. Our fearless vice-president, the avuncular Texan, LBJ, had taken up the mantle and all was safe and sound and stable. Not to worry - back to your lives. (Fortunately for our national mood, the Beatles came along a few months later and a whole new happiness enveloped us). There was still the world of the future to build. All would be well and prosperous and abundant.
Something just didn't sit right. I was too young to grasp it, but the first chink in the armor was Ruby killing Oswald. We all saw a fedora'd gangster plug a stoolie. And for the weirdest of reasons - to save Jackie from a trial. WTF? Wait a minute. Something's fishy here.
But, no - don't worry about it - we have some of the most respected men in a America looking into it and they tell us that, yes, it was one loner loser and nobody else. End of story. Move on, nothing to see here.
However, it didn't take long for people to start questioning the official narrative. The great Oliver Stone movie, JFK, portrays it well - as a patriotic lawyer in New Orleans, Jim Garrison - reading through the volumes of the Warren Commission and seeing so many loose ends and deliberate obfuscations and squelched lines of investigation. It troubles him so much that he risks his career and life to investigate this on his own - a path many since have followed when confronted with the startling evidence.
The first thing for me was that televised mob hit. Next was the multiple Oswalds. I mean, who does that kind of thing? It's elaborate and involves a team and it pretty clearly was done without Oswald's knowledge and for the express purpose of painting him as a lunatic. That was an early clue to me that something big was afoot. Then, of course, the Zapruder film (which was probably more damaging than we even know given all the evidence of it being tampered with and the herculean effort it took to get it released). Who can deny the evidence of their own eyes, seeing a man's head snap back and to the left with the force of a bullet that could only have come his right front side (where 50+ witnesses placed a shooter). Plus, the timing. The gap between the 2nd and 3rd shots (from the official count, I believe there were 11 to 12 shots from three teams) was way too short for a bolt-action rifle. Plus, the clear time gap between the impact on Kennedy of the 2nd shot (the magic bullet) and Connally's reaction to his shooting. Then of course the magic bullet itself, discovered impossibly intact on a stretcher after causing major wounds. The closer you look the more gaps you see. It's a story held together with great force and manipulation. They must have suffered many sleepless nights with the dread of an actual investigation. Fortunately for them, some of the main conspirators (in my opinion) were at the very top of the power structures and had the ability to move heaven & earth to suppress the truth.
When you put it together, it's almost ridiculous that they would expect us to believe the official narrative. But such were the times, when government was implicitly trusted, when the FBI and CIA were unimpeachable, where our leaders were paragons of virtue.
We're now in a place and time (2026) in America where the corruption of government is almost expected. Trump and his gang have taken it to a whole other level of pure shamelessness and greed. Nothing said officially can be trusted. Perhaps it's true that it was ever thus but for a period of time in America, people strived to show their best sides and at least only lie when deemed absolutely necessary. The JFK Assassination broke the bond of trust and it's only gotten worse and worse over time (with some upswings in the Obama years).
A side benefit of studying the JFK event is the amazing cast of characters and their tangential stories. Marilyn Monroe, Frank Sinatra (even Sammy Davis Jr), Sam Giancana, Carlos Marcello, Castro, Jesus "The Ghost" Angleton, Mary Meyers, Jack Ruby, the whole Kennedy clan, LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, David Ferrie, even someone named David Morales.
And especially Oswald.
How I know Oswald didn't do it: 1. He failed two paraffin tests on the day of the assassination. He had NO gunpowder residue on his cheeks or shoulders, but had some on his hand where we know he handled a handgun at the Texas Theater. You can't scrub that stuff off - even if he had time, which he didn't. 2. It would have been nearly impossible to get down the stairs in the TBD from the 6th floor (passing employees who never saw him), get into the 2nd floor lunchroom, buy a Coke and somehow be calm and unsweaty in the short time before he was seen there by a police officer minutes after the assassination 3. The 2nd and 3rd shots are too close together and the 3rd head shot clearly came from the front right. The gun he used was laughably inadequate. The mechanism was rusty and the sight had to be aligned by the FBI before they tested it. It's known as "the gun that never killed anyone". 4. Motive - he had none. In fact, he admired the Kennedy's. If he was in it for "fame", why did he deny his guilt and refer to himself (correctly) as a "patsy". 5. Again, I believe him to be a patriotic Marine who dreamed of serving his country, worked for the FBI and CIA, but was sheep-dipped and used in the most cold-hearted way possible.
How I think it went down: JFK had so many dark forces aligned against him. Cuba was the main focus of the right-wing militarist and when JFK backed down from air support during the Bay of Pigs, they felt deeply betrayed. Then he went after the CIA and the military for their bad planning and advice. Then he started rapprochement with Krushchev after the Cuban Missle Crisis, but worst of all, he started backing down in Vietnam. He was a PINKO COMMIE SIMP of the worst kind. The Military-Industrial complex thrives on war and Kennedy was robbing them of all their opportunities. Plus, the anti-communist fervor at the time was over-the-top. Watch "Dr. Strangelove" from 1964. I believe they thought they were acting patriotically as they plotted to rid our country of a traitor (or at least a softie). The Mob thought they had bought access to a president when they fixed the election at the request of hid dad (who was effectively a big-time criminal during Prohibition). Instead, JFK appointed his brother who zealously went after the mob - poking the hornet's nest time and again - especially with Carlos Marcello, Sam Giancana, Santo Trafficante and Jimmy Hoffa. They had been forcibly expelled from Cuba, losing their casinos and millions in the process. They wanted back in and were happy to cooperate when the CIA and other agencies approached them for their help in murdering Castro. This got them deeply in bed with each other and there's a convincing theory that the assassination teams that had been developed against Castro were simply turned to JFK. And, of course, there was the looming figure of LBJ. His biography is fascinating. He was epic in his gigantic appetites and ambitions, a Jupiter of good and of evil. All his life he told people he was going to be President. One of the biggest problems was that he was very popular - and young. There's little doubt he would have been re-elected. Then, they thought, RFK and Teddy are right behind him. A dynasty! They'd be out of power for the foreseeable future. At that point in time, people's sex lives were kind of off-limits, so they didn't feel they could bring him down that way. He and his Irish Catholic family were outside the WASP power structure and independently wealthy. Bribes wouldn't work. Plus, he was an intelligent and rather enlightened person who inclined towards the noble virtues (not withstanding some serious sex addiction issues). Assassination was really the only option.
Another casualty of the Vietnam war. Manchurian Candidate Girl in the Polka Dot Dress Bullet count Where RFK was shot Thane Cesar Destruction of evidence, surborning of witnesses
This introduces the concept of LIHOP versus MIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose versus Made It Happen On Purpose). Most conspiracies involve a MIHOP - where the central players of the conspiracy contrive to make it happen. 9/11 is a perfect example of MIHOP. Pearl Harbor, in my opinion, is a LIHOP. FDR and his administration needed a motivating incident to prod a reluctant US public into World War II. Resistance to involvement in the world's troubles was very stiff, and support for the fascists was surprisingly strong (see Charles Lindberg). FDR was greatly aware that England might not be able to resist Hitler much longer and in the East, the Japanese were taking over one colonial stronghold after another.
The US military had cracked the Japanese communication codes and intercepted a lot of traffic pointing to the Pearl Harbor attack as imminent. In fact, all of the big aircraft carriers normally docked in Pearl Harbor were ordered out to sea, leaving just some destroyers and smaller ships for the Japanese. Of course, the US aircraft carriers were completely decisive in the battles to come. If they had not been told to leave Pearl Harbor, the war might have had a different outcome.
So, I come down on the side of LIHOP. FDR and the military needed an inciting incident which could be fully blamed on Japan. They had been trying to pressure Japan into some kind of action with their oil embargos and other provocative actions. A surprise attack on the US fleet would be the perfect trigger - they likely were quite aware of the possibility and decided to suppress any warnings or obvious defensive preparation. They LIHOP'd it. FDR was more interested in the European front but they couldn't predict Hitler's reaction. He could have held back from declaring war on the US but thoughtlessy and over-confidently, he did just that. The terrible power of hubris. This allowed FDR to completely shift the country into a war footing and the game was on.
Definitely MIHOP.
"Like nothing we've ever seen", as he would say. (And, as usual, not true or accurate). The mind reels at the current state of affairs. I was born in the Eisenhower era - was 8 years old for the Kennedy assassination, 12 for RFK and MLK, in high school for Watergate. Thought I'd seen the worse with Nixon, revised my opinion during the George W Bush era (really, the Cheney era) because we'd experienced a major shift in America (and the world). With 9/11 as the trigger (see My Favorite Conspiracies), we transformed from an open, even fun society with a sax-playing, foolin'-around President who was erudite, compassionate, broad-minded, and incredibly successful (balanced budget, prosperity, peace) into a paranoid security state.
Sometimes I think that paranoid period was more impactful than the Trump era in that it turned us inside out. Air travel changed forever and the world became an uptight and inconvenient place. Security is now the major impediment to everything - from travel to doing any kind of business on the web, with banks, with the government. Mistrust is the norm. Did that make us safer? Not that I can tell, although one of the problems with security is that you don't see the bomb that didn't blow up or the terrorist plot that was foiled in the nick of time. But, are we really safer? With the proliferation of insanely powerful guns and the propagation of hate and bitterness via the internet, we are far less safe in our daily lives then ever before, and thanks to Fox News and others, we're at each others' throats. There was also the ugliness of our unneccessary and unsuccessful foreign wars with the consequent damages to our morale, reputation and treasure. Oh, and then the economic collapse brought up by our regulators being asleep at the wheel.
But then came Obama - and my faith in humanity was rewarded - for a minute. The most powerful country in the world exhibited enough confidence in itself that a white majority elected a "person of color". He proved to be of superior ethics, general competence and even grace and nobility. However, the racism that always lurks in the dark started bubbling up and I think the conservatives and reactionaries and latent racists were deeply alarmed by his ascension and maybe more by his success. This proved to them that they weren't a "superior race", even though they couldn't admit it. Ugliness and aggressiveness started to well up from the pits below. A bellicose, mendacious, posturing, egomaniac fabricator and fantasist saw his opportunity and began to tap into the dark side of suspicion, denialism, resentment, shame and racism and started his rise to power with his birther conspiracy. Being soundly slapped down with the facts and humor only strengthened his resolve to get into power and get even.
When he first started his campaign, most of our reactions were - "yeah, right, that guy? What a joke." I know mine was. He's such an obvious phony - from top (his super-weird hair) to bottom (lifts?). His history was checkered to say the least. What responsible finance person would vote for someone who had 11 bankruptcies? What general contractor would vote for someone who didn't pay his contractors? What military person would find him an honorable person to lead the military? What woman would vote for a self-admitted (and eventually convicted) sexual assaulter? What Christrian would vote for an adulterer, cheater, liar and fornicator? What moral, honest, intelligent person would vote for someone who is none of these?
Lots and lots - as it turned out. Enough to put him over the top in 2016 against a vastly more competent, experienced, connected, rational, thoughtful, compassionate but somehow deeply hated woman. The long and scurilous campaign against the Clintons finally paid off. I also think that there was some resistance to the attitude of inevitability of a Hillary victory. Americans like a surprise. Plus, Trump's salemanship managed to put lipstick on a pig and con enough people to make the difference.
OMG! WTF! (Choke) - were my basic reactions on election night. Impossible! This can't have happened! What is going on with the US? What didn't I get?
I, and probably most responsible liberal types, dove deeply into the topic. We read everything we could find about the Red States and their people. In fact, Paula and I went on a several weeks car tour called "The Red States Trip". What we discovered was that things were normal and in fact much improved since I last visited.
We had a great time and met so many lovely people. America is a beautiful and bountiful country (in most places). It has a fascinating history with contrasting archaeological layers of horror and redemption, but we somehow land sunny-side up and continue to evolve socially while institutionalizing liberal progress - in civil rights, workers' rights, the rights of women, etc. However, change takes time to filter down and is often met with organized resistance and backlash. One thing the conservatives have is patience. They work tirelessly for power and are aided by a seeming immunity to shame and charges of hypocrisy.
So, what happened? And what continues to happen in increasingly alarming ways?
There's lots of interesting theories. One of my favorites is the "shame to blame" hypothesis. The idea here is that his supporters carry around shame at themselves and their failures in life. Greed and bad governance has made life harder and harder to afford. Life itself is a challenge and some people aren't well-equipped for it. They don't adapt and become miserable. They know it's their fault, but accepting the blame and responsibility for that is too much to bear. They welcome someone who can shift the blame on to someone else. This is exactly what happened in Nazi Germany where a majority felt demoralized and defeated by World War I. (It didn't help that the Allies were extremely punitive and judgy, either). They couldn't take it and when someone came along with a ready scapegoat and easy explanation, they bought it. It must be the immigrants!
Another aspect of this is the "rebel". Rebels are cool. "Resist the dominant paradigm!" In my day, the rebels were the hippies and college intellectuals who were fighting the good fight against overt racism and a terrible war. They were scorned and marginalized and attacked (until the moral tide shifted. They started to inherit the positions of the establishment they had fought against and America continued to institutionalize their liberal values. I believe the full bloom of that was the Obama era. The dream became the reality.
Well - what goes up must come down. The yin-yang of it all. This period is inevitable. Life MUST balance.
The recently assassinated right-wing activist, Charlie Kirk, really embodied the new rebellion. He's reactionary and illiberal and in my opinion, holds some nasty views and has said some nasty things. "MLK was a bad person", "gun deaths are justified to keep the 2nd Amendment", "wives should submit to your husband" and so on and so forth. In other words, a reactionary and someone almost worse than the establishment our generation fought against.
However, turns out he was considered "cool" by lots of people. He was the new rebel fighting against the dominant paradigm.
Trump is an opportunistic, always has been. He's not a strategist and is no theorist or social engineer. He has a predator's sensitivity to weakness and fear. You can watch his methodology develop in real time. He'd throw stuff at the wall and see what stuck. Build the Wall! Yay! Ban Woke! Yay! Transgenders! Boo! He's like a stand-up comic refining his routine based on audience reaction.
However, the Trump era is not over. More to come..
A Psychic Reading of Donald TrumpWhat, if anything, does this list say about me? I guess I'd say that I like taut action and broad but well-built comedies. I feel that these movies are gems - refined and polished with lots of aspects. I love craft with a dash of artistry. I love films with minimal chaff and maximal wheat. I love movies that have great "tone" - the music has a lot to do with this. Most of these have great scores. I like origin stories versus the more baroque and padded sequels. The first movies in series tend to be those that the creators poured everything into - they're often done under duress with lower budgets so little is wasted. Plus the motivations and the original behavior patterns are established. These are movies for grown-ups. I don't need or seek out "feel-good" stuff - I like to be moved and/or impacted. I love reflecting on a movie for days afterwards. I love epiphanies. I also love the Coen brothers - their movies meet all my criteria, tight writing, serious humor, polish, depth, multiple aspects and facets, well-drawn characters, propelling narratives.
In the era of Trump and Stephen Miller and ICE, I've been pondering the concept of evil, defined by the Oxford as "profoundly immoral and wicked, and the deliberate intention to cause pain, suffering, or destruction".
First, I'm pretty sure no one rubs their hands together in glee - happy to admit they're evil. They typically have all sorts of rationalizations for their actions - many times it's for the "greater good" or at least for the good of their tribe. There are lots of people who do evil things. Does that make them evil people? I'm not sure.
I would say something like - those who know something is morally wrong but does it anyway - repeatedly. I would classify sadism as evil. But, a sadist could be sick or damaged and unable to help themselves. However, they could and should seek help overcoming their impulses. If they don't seek help, it could be that they are profoundly deluded or damaged beyond repair.
Was Charlie Manson evil? Ted Bundy? Hitler? How about Trump? He's a repetive, compulsive liar who is constantly on the attack. But, does this make him evil or just of the "offense is the best defense" mindset. Stephen Miller probably thinks he's doing a good thing removing the "other" from what he considers a white man's country. The hard-ass men of ICE can be said to be doing evil things, but they probably justify their actions in their own mind as good for the country or at least good for their race.
Unfortunately, a lot of evil can come out of cults. The primary attribute of a cult is its insularity. They isolate themselves into their own bubble, centered around a charismatic leader. I've been in a couple cult-adjacent groups and have personal experience in how that world collapses into itself - paranoia starts to grow and the need for an us-versus-them paradigm creates a tendency to dehumanize the perceived enemy, which greases the slippery slope down into actual violence against them.
A lot can (and will) be said about my wife, the lovely and wise Paula Jackson. Here's her list of what she likes about me:
Note - I'm also "exasperating at times, but that's minor in the grand scheme of things".