Category: AI

The Art of Dialogue: Pacing and Voice That Bring Characters to Life

The Art of Dialogue: Pacing and Voice That Bring Characters to Life

Yesterday we talked about dialogue. Tonight (yes, it is tonight for me here in Texas), I want to talk about pacing, which I promised.

Dialogue is where fiction breathes. It’s the moment readers stop being told about your characters and start experiencing them directly. But writing dialogue that feels alive requires more than just recording how people talk. Two elements separate flat exchanges from unforgettable conversations: pacing and distinct character voice. Let’s explore both.

Why Dialogue Pacing Matters

Pacing is the rhythm of your conversation, controlling how fast or slow it moves, when it lingers, and when it snaps. Get it right, and readers lean in. Get it wrong, and even the most dramatic scene falls flat.Here’s why pacing carries so much weight:It controls tension. Short, clipped exchanges create urgency and conflict. Longer, meandering dialogue creates intimacy or ease. A heated argument written in flowing, elaborate sentences feels wrong because real tension compresses speech.It reveals emotional states. A character who suddenly speaks in fragments is rattled. One who monologues might be nervous, controlling, or evasive. Pacing shows us what characters feel without announcing it.It respects reader attention. Conversations that move too slowly bore readers; ones that move too fast leave them disoriented. Good pacing keeps them engaged and oriented.

Tips for Pacing Dialogue Well

  1. Match rhythm to emotion. When stakes rise, shorten your sentences and trim the fat.
"Where is she?"
"I don't know."
"Where is she?"
"I said I don't ..."
"Don't lie to me."

Notice how the removed dialogue tags and short lines accelerate the scene. Compare that to a calm evening chat, where sentences can stretch and breathe.

  1. Use beats, not just tags. Action beats, those small physical movements, control pace beautifully. They act like punctuation, giving readers a breath and grounding the scene physically.
She set down her coffee. "I'm not going with you."

The beat slows the moment and adds weight to her refusal.

  1. Cut the pleasantries. Real conversations are full of “hello,” “how are you,” and small talk. Fiction usually shouldn’t be. Enter scenes late and leave early; start the dialogue at the interesting part.
  2. Vary your rhythm. A page of nothing but short, punchy lines becomes exhausting; a page of long speeches becomes tedious. Alternate to create a natural, musical flow.
  3. Let silence speak. Sometimes the most powerful pacing tool is what isn’t said. A character who doesn’t answer, or who changes the subject, can be more revealing than any line of dialogue.
  4. Read it aloud. Your ear catches what your eye misses. If you stumble, run out of breath, or feel bored, your readers will too.

Giving Each Character a Unique Voice

Now to an excellent question: how does a writer make each character so distinct that dialogue tags become almost unnecessary? This is one of the true marks of craft. When done well, readers know who’s speaking from the words alone.Here’s how to achieve it:

  1. Give characters different vocabularies. Word choice reveals background, education, personality, and worldview. A retired professor and a teenage skateboarder should not sound the same. Consider a character’s era, region, profession, and interests, all of which shape which words come naturally to them.
  2. Vary sentence structure and length. Some characters speak in long, winding thoughts. Others are terse. One might use precise, grammatically perfect sentences; another rambles and interrupts themselves. This rhythm becomes a fingerprint.
  3. Establish verbal habits and tics. People have patterns: a phrase they overuse, a tendency to answer questions with questions, a habit of apologizing or hedging. Used sparingly, these become instantly recognizable. Just don’t overdo it, or the character becomes a caricature.
  4. Consider what characters talk about. A pragmatist steers conversation toward solutions; a romantic drifts toward feelings; a cynic deflects with jokes. What a character chooses to address reveals as much as how they say it.
  5. Use subtext driven by personality. Different people avoid different truths. One character dodges emotion; another dodges responsibility. How a character doesn’t answer is deeply individual.
  6. Reflect their relationships. People speak differently depending on who they’re addressing. A character might be gentle with a child, guarded with a boss, and sharp with a rival. This dynamic voice adds realism and dimension.

A Quick Test

Try this exercise: write a page of dialogue between two characters, then delete every tag and beat. Give it to a friend, or reread it after a day, and see if you can tell who’s speaking. If you can, you’ve nailed distinct voice. If you can’t, study where the voices blur together and sharpen the differences.

Bringing It Together

Great dialogue is a duet of pacing and voice. Pacing controls the tempo and tension of the scene, while distinct voices ensure that every line points unmistakably to its speaker. Master both, and you can strip away most of your dialogue tags, trusting your characters to carry the conversation on their own. That’s when your dialogue stops feeling written and starts feeling overheard, and that’s exactly where you want your readers to be.

Because I truly care about those who follow this blog and are trying to write here is a demonstration of what I am talking about.

Here’s a scene between a high school teacher and a student. I’ve built in two distinct voices and used pacing shifts to carry the emotional beats. After the scene, I’ll break down exactly what’s doing the work.

The bell had rung ten minutes ago. Marcus still stood by the door, backpack hanging off one shoulder, waiting for the room to empty.

Ms. Okafor didn’t look up from her stack of essays. “You’re going to be late for lunch, Mr. Reyes.”

“Yeah. I know. It’s just.” He shifted his weight. “So I got the paper back.”

“You did.”

“And there’s a big red D on it.”

“There is.” She set down her pen and folded her hands. “Would you like to talk about the D, or would you like to talk about why it doesn’t surprise me?”

He blinked. “The second one, I guess. Wait, no. Both?”

“Sit.”

He sat.

“Your thesis,” she said, “was the finest sentence in that entire paper. Genuinely. I read it twice. And then you spent four pages ignoring it completely.”

“I didn’t ignore it. I like. Circled back to it. At the end.”

“You mentioned it at the end. That is not the same as building toward it. A thesis is a promise, Marcus. You made a promise on page one and then you wandered off to tell me about a movie.”

“It was a relevant movie.”

“It was not.”

“It was kind of relevant.”

She almost smiled. He saw it and pounced.

“See, you agree.”

“I agree that you are charming, which is a completely separate matter from whether you can write.” She slid the paper across the desk. “Rewrite it. Same thesis. Keep the promise this time. I’ll grade the new one instead.”

He stared at the paper. “You’d do that?”

“I already did the hard part. I found the good sentence. You just have to deserve it.”

What’s Doing the Work Distinct vocabulary and sentence structure. Ms. Okafor speaks in complete, controlled sentences. She uses precise diction (“genuinely,” “completely separate matter”) and metaphor (“a thesis is a promise”). Marcus speaks in fragments, filler, and false starts (“It’s just,” “I like. Circled back”). You could delete every dialogue tag in their exchange and still know who’s talking, because their rhythms are opposites.

Pacing that mirrors emotion. The scene opens slow, with hesitation. Marcus stalls; his lines break apart. Once Ms. Okafor takes control (“Sit.” / He sat.), the exchange tightens into quick volleys. Those clipped one and two word lines (“You did.” / “There is.”) accelerate the tension and put her firmly in charge.

Beats instead of tags. Notice how few “he said / she said” tags appear. Physical beats do the work instead: “He shifted his weight,” “She set down her pen and folded her hands,” “He blinked.” Each beat controls tempo and grounds the reader without announcing the speaker.

Subtext driven by personality. Marcus deflects with humor (“It was a relevant movie”) because he’s embarrassed and wants approval. Ms. Okafor withholds warmth strategically, then releases just enough (“She almost smiled”) to keep him hooked. Neither says what they actually feel. He wants to be told he’s smart; she wants him to earn it. The scene never states this outright.

Enter late, leave early. We join after the bell, skipping the greeting entirely, and we exit on the strongest line rather than watching Marcus pack up and leave. The pleasantries are gone, so only the charged moment remains.

Unless there are more comments or questions we will discuss Genre next.

If even one idea here clicked for you, this post did its job.Do me a small favor: hit like, leave a comment with your biggest dialogue struggle, and share this with a fellow writer who’s staring at a blinking cursor tonight.

Writing can feel lonely, and a little encouragement goes a long way.

Follow for more, and remember, every great conversation on the page started with a writer brave enough to try. That’s you.

About the Cover

The Ocean Within is a gripping, science-driven thriller that explores the fragile balance between humanity and the forces of nature. Perfect for fans of Michael Crichton, Andy Weir, and Kim Stanley Robinson, this novel will leave you breathless, and questioning how much we really understand about the world beneath our feet.

“White Noise” to Flock in Florida

“White Noise” to Flock in Florida

🚨 Sheriff, Hear Me Out: Why “They Only Track Cars” Doesn’t Tell the Whole Story on Flock Cameras

I have a lot of respect for the Polk County Sheriff. He’s earned it. So when he recently offered his take on Flock cameras, essentially arguing that critics are overreacting because “they only track cars”…I paid attention. I always do when someone I respect weighs in on an issue I care about.But respectfully, Sheriff: you’re wrong on this one. And I think the details matter enough that it’s worth walking through exactly why. Perhaps you should get some coffee….


“They Only Track Cars”—Then Why Are They in the Park?

Here’s my first problem with that argument: if these cameras only track cars, why are they pointed at parks where cars don’t go? Why are they positioned along walking paths where the only thing passing by is a person on foot, a stroller, or a dog on a leash?That’s not a rhetorical question. It’s a factual inconsistency in the “just cars” defense. If the technology were strictly limited to vehicle tracking, we wouldn’t see it deployed in pedestrian-only spaces. The placement alone tells you the scope of what’s being captured is broader than the official talking point suggests.And that’s before we even get to what these cameras are capable of, versus what they’re currently doing.


AI Is Already There. The Microphones Just Aren’t Turned On. Yet, well maybe not turned on. They are called Raven.

This is the part that should give everyone pause, regardless of where you stand politically: these are AI-driven systems, and not all of the features have been activated—yet.The microphone capability, for example, exists in the hardware. It’s just not turned on right now.That “right now” is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Because here’s the thing about surveillance infrastructure: once it’s built, once it’s installed, once it’s normalized in your community, the switch from “capability that exists but isn’t used” to “capability that is now active” is a policy decision—not a technical one. And policy decisions are made by people. People we elect.Which brings me to the real heart of my disagreement.


Elections Have Consequences. Look at New York.

Sheriff, I know you’re a good actor operating this technology responsibly right now. I believe that. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: the safeguards on this technology aren’t really safeguards—they’re the personal restraint of whoever currently holds power.Today, we have semi-reliable guardrails around traffic light cameras and police body cameras. Not perfect, but functional enough that most people trust the system isn’t being weaponized against them personally. Those guardrails didn’t happen by accident—they were built over years of legal battles, public pressure, and hard-won policy fights.Flock cameras don’t have that history. They don’t have that infrastructure of accountability. What they have is enormous, largely untested capability—deployed before the legal and regulatory framework caught up to it.And that’s where elections come in. Look at New York. Look at how quickly the tenor of law enforcement priorities can shift when a different administration takes office, when a different DA is elected, when a different set of political incentives suddenly control the levers of power.Now ask yourself: what happens when a technology that was previously “neutered” by a responsible operator—someone like you, Sheriff—gets handed to someone who isn’t? What happens when a candidate wins office specifically because they promised to use every tool available, with no restraint, against people they’ve decided are enemies?This isn’t hypothetical paranoia. It’s the entire history of surveillance technology in America. Every tool built with good intentions has, at some point, been used by someone with bad ones. The question was never whether Flock cameras could be misused—it’s when, and by whom.That’s the slippery slope. And once you’re on it, there’s no walking it back. You can’t un-invent the microphone in the camera. You can’t un-train the AI model. You can only hope the person controlling it stays reasonable forever. That’s not a safeguard. That’s a gamble.


I’ll Give You This Much: The Tech Is Outpacing the Law

I want to be fair here, Sheriff, because I think you raise a real point even if I disagree with your conclusion: the technology absolutely is outpacing the laws meant to govern it.That’s not a defense of Flock cameras—it’s actually the core of my argument against rushing to deploy them without guardrails first. The right sequence isn’t “deploy now, regulate later.” It’s “regulate first, then deploy.” Once these systems are active, embedded, and normalized across thousands of communities, the political will to roll back capabilities—or to legislate meaningful restrictions—evaporates. It’s far easier to prevent a surveillance state from being built than to dismantle one after the fact.Before these systems go fully active—before every bell and whistle gets switched on—the guardrails need to be in place. Not after. Not “we’ll figure it out once problems arise.” Before.


And Let’s Not Forget: This Is a Private Company Making Bank

Here’s another wrinkle worth sitting with: Flock Safety is a private company, and it’s profiting handsomely from this expansion.We’ve seen this movie before. Remember Ring? A private company selling home security cameras that quietly built partnerships with police departments, shared footage without clear consent, and created a sprawling, decentralized surveillance network—all while marketing itself as a neighborhood safety tool.Flock is following a similar playbook, just with far more centralized power and far more data. When a private company’s business model depends on expanding surveillance infrastructure and selling access to that data to as many law enforcement agencies as possible, their incentives are not the same as the public’s incentives. Profit motive and civil liberties don’t naturally align, and we shouldn’t pretend they do just because the marketing materials use words like “safety” and “community.”


Why This Isn’t Just About Cars

I’ve written before about how Flock cameras fundamentally differ from something like a traffic light camera, and the differences aren’t small. Let me remind you of a few key facts, Sheriff, that I think undercut the “it’s just cars” framing:

Danger/FeatureFlock Cameras (ALPRs)Traffic Light Cameras
Surveillance ScopeAll vehicles, all times, all locationsOnly violations, specific locations
Data Retention7–30 days default, indefinite for investigationsShort, violation-focused
Data SharingNationwide, multi-agency, private & federal accessLocal, limited, not networked
OversightOften lacking, weak audits, no warrantsRegulated, limited access
Documented MisuseStalking, personal disputes, unauthorized searchesRare
Civil Liberties RisksMass surveillance, chilling effects, hacking riskMinimal, targeted enforcement

Traffic light cameras are triggered by a specific violation, capture a specific moment, and typically purge non-violation data within days. Flock cameras run continuously, retain data indefinitely once flagged, and feed into networks that span thousands of agencies, law enforcement and private entities alike, often without a warrant.There have already been documented cases of officers misusing license-plate-reader systems to track people they personally knew. That’s not a “just cars” problem. That’s a power problem. And power, unchecked, tends to find new and creative ways to be misused.


Documented Cases Where Flock Cameras Were Used to Track People (Not Just Cars)

#Date / LocationWhat HappenedHow the Camera Was UsedSource
1June 2026 – Public Trail (Condor camera demonstration)A reporter filmed a Condor‑mounted Flock camera pivoting, following, and zooming on her as she walked the trail, proving the system can lock onto a person in real time.The camera’s pan‑tilt‑zoom (PTZ) capability was illustrated, showing it can “track” an individual rather than merely read a license plate.
22025 – Milwaukee, WI (Officer Josue Ayala)The officer searched the license‑plate number of his ex‑girlfriend > 200 times over two months, using the Flock interface to locate her movements.The system was employed as a personal “people‑search” tool, not for any traffic violation.
32025 – Covington, GAA detective was fired after an internal‑affairs investigation showed he had used the Flock portal to track a female coworker 41 times between January and July.The officer accessed the real‑time routing feature to monitor the coworker’s vehicle and, by extension, her location.
42024 – Multiple U.S. jurisdictions (404 Media investigation)Police departments entered descriptive searches such as “heavy‑set male with a black‑and‑white hat,” “person on skateboard,” and “person wearing orange vest and construction hat” to find individuals, bypassing the license‑plate‑only design.The ALPR interface was used to locate specific people based on physical characteristics, effectively turning the system into a people‑tracker.
52025 – General findings reported by EngadgetDozens of documented instances were compiled showing officers using Flock to stalk ex‑girlfriends, current partners, and other personal targets.The system’s “real‑time routing” and historical search logs allowed officers to see where a suspect’s car (and thus the person) had been.
62025 – Omaha, NE (court documents)A police officer accessed Flock data to locate an undercover officer’s vehicle after a tip, effectively using the system to pinpoint a person of interest.The camera network supplied the officer’s location by matching the undercover cop’s license plate, but the intent was to identify the person behind the car.
72025 – Oklahoma City (reported by Mother Jones)A police officer used the Flock portal to locate a former romantic partner by repeatedly searching her license‑plate number and reviewing the car’s movement history.The officer’s motive was personal, not law‑enforcement‑related, showing the system’s capacity for non‑criminal people tracking.


What These Cases Reveal

  • People‑centric searches: Officers are entering descriptive, non‑vehicle queries (e.g., “person wearing orange vest”), proving that the system can be used to locate individuals based on appearance, not just a license plate.
  • Real‑time routing feature: The “START REAL‑TIME ROUTING” button (seen in multiple investigations) lets users watch a vehicle’s live path, effectively turning the camera into a live‑tracking tool for the person inside.
  • Personal stalker cases: Several documented incidents involve officers using the system to monitor ex‑girlfriends, coworkers, or acquaintances—clear evidence of misuse beyond legitimate public‑safety purposes.
  • Broad deployment: These examples span multiple states (Wisconsin, Georgia, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and national investigations), indicating that the issue isn’t isolated to a single department.

While Flock cameras are marketed as “license‑plate‑only” tools, the documented cases above demonstrate that law‑enforcement agencies have repeatedly leveraged the technology to track people—often for personal, non‑criminal reasons. This reveals a gap between the company’s public statements and the reality of how the system is being employed on the ground.

Here is where the “white noise”comes from… Why the Confusion Exists

Misinformation online – Reddit threads and social‑media posts sometimes claim “Flock cameras are already tracking Bluetooth/Wi‑Fi,” but experts and the company’s own documentation refute those claims, pointing out that the only Bluetooth present is for maintenance, not data capture.

Third‑party add‑ons – Vendors like Leonardo DRS are actively marketing SignalTrace to police departments that already have ALPRs (including some that use Flock). When a department buys both, it can look like a single “Flock‑plus‑SignalTrace” system, even though the underlying camera itself remains unchanged.

And here are more facts: Multiple independent reports confirm that the Raven audio‑detection module has already been installed and is actively paired with Flock Safety’s Falcon ALPR cameras in several jurisdictions.


SourceWhat it says
Reddit – r/FlockSurveillanceUsers report that “some cities are adding the Raven microphone to their flock cams” and describe it as an upgrade from a pure shot‑detection system to a broader “distress‑sound” detector 
OFFICER MagazineDescribes the Raven as an “audio detection device that detects gunshots, locates the source, and works in tandem with the Flock Safety Falcon™ ALPR camera”
WANE‑15 (Fort Wayne, IN)Announces a pilot where the Raven “integrates directly with Flock Safety’s broader investigative platform … allowing officers to compare audio alerts with license‑plate‑reader information” .
GovTechExplains that “Raven can trigger cameras to begin recording, but it relies on cameras to do the actual processing … Flock Safety plans to rely solely on its AI algorithms to identify a sound” .
City of El Mirany blogNotes that “when gunfire is detected, any existing FLOCK Safety Falcon license‑plate‑recognition camera nearby is automatically activated to capture additional visual evidence”.
Wikipedia (June 2026 entry)Cites a WSLS‑TV report that a “Flock device, identified as a Flock Raven …” was deployed in the field .

These pieces come from different media types (industry magazines, local news, a city‑government blog, a community‑run forum, and a reputable encyclopedia entry) and all converge on the same fact: the Raven audio sensor is being mounted on, and actively used with, existing Flock cameras.


What “active” looks like in practice

  1. Audio‑triggered recording – When the Raven’s AI recognises a qualifying sound (e.g., a gunshot or a scream), it sends an approximate location to the Falcon camera, which then starts recording video of the scene .
  2. Data fusion in FlockOS – The audio alert is logged alongside the license‑plate reads, letting investigators correlate sound events with vehicle movements .
  3. Pilot deployments – Fort Wayne’s police department is testing this integration, and other agencies such as Morgan Hill PD and Albany PD have publicly announced full‑scale use.

Why the evidence matters

Transparency & oversight – Knowing that the audio component is already live underscores the urgency of establishing clear policies (data retention, civilian oversight, audible‑recording consent) before further roll‑outs.

Surveillance scope widens – The original ALPR only captured static vehicle data; Raven adds a real‑time acoustic layer that can pick up events even when no car is present (e.g., a shooting in a park).

Potential for mission creep – Because the audio feeds are automatically linked to video, the system can be used for situational awareness far beyond the original “license‑plate only” premise.

And lets not forget about Flock Alpha…Drones.

Sheriff, I don’t doubt your intentions. I don’t doubt that, under your watch, this technology is being used responsibly. But my objection has never really been about you. It’s about the next person. And the person after that. And whether the guardrails we build now will hold when someone with very different intentions eventually takes the reins.”They only track cars” isn’t a safeguard, it’s a description of current, voluntary restraint. And voluntary restraint is not a substitute for enforceable law. Before we flip on every feature this AI is capable of before the microphones go live, before the data-sharing networks expand further, before we hand this much power to a private company with a profit motive, we need real guardrails in place. Not because I think you’ll misuse this technology, Sheriff. But because I guarantee you, someone eventually will. And by then, it’ll be too late to put the genie back in the bottle.

Have a Good day!

Below is a link to his side of the debate… https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1HHNQu4fVT/

Suggested reading on the subject is Orwell’s 1984, perhaps you heard of it?

If that is not enough, try my latest novel…The Corrected City its a page turner.

Nobody remembers the first camera.
Twenty years after the Year of Fires, the city is safe. Assault is down eighty percent. Nobody has been murdered in eleven years. The screens say good morning by name, the clinics answer in minutes, and the past is kept tidy by people like Mara Venn, who has spent eleven years at the Ministry of Public Memory correcting the record so that no citizen ever has to live inside a contradiction.


Then a corrupted file comes across her desk, and she is very good at her job, and she restores it.
What surfaces is four minutes of footage the official history cannot survive, a wind reading nobody bothered to falsify, twenty-seven names missing from a memorial roll, and a photographer in a government coat who tipped his head to the right exactly the way her sister does.


She can prove it. She cannot prove it to anybody who would still be alive afterward, starting with her sister, who reads the names of the dead on air to four hundred thousand people and believes every word.
A near-future thriller about surveillance that arrives as kindness, history that is corrected rather than censored, and the quiet, decades-long work of putting the truth somewhere it can be found.

They Called Me Dumbass

They Called Me Dumbass

Why You Should Look Up the Words You Don’t Know

For years, I thought my name was Dumbass.True story. I heard it in the classroom, on the playground, and at home, and I never once questioned it. When you’re a small child, you don’t argue with the world. You believe what it tells you about yourself. And what the world told me, over and over, was that I was slow, that I was broken, that I was the kid who just didn’t get it.Imagine your own father handing you a broom and a dustpan and telling you that the world needs ditch diggers and janitors too. “Here,” he says. “See if you can figure this out.” That was the ceiling someone else built for me before I was old enough to know I could reach higher.This was the 1960s. Back then, they didn’t diagnose learning disabilities; they labeled the children who had them, and the labels stuck like tar. There were no specialists pulling you aside, no gentle explanations, no understanding that a mind could simply work differently. There was only a single, brutal word for a kid like me, and everyone seemed to agree on it: stupid.So I wore it. I answered to it. For years, I honestly believed that was who I was.

The People Who Saw Me

I made it a point to befriend the school janitor. Many afternoons, I would walk the halls beside him as he went about his work, and yes, I helped him. His name was Jack, and Jack was a noble man. He didn’t treat me like gum stuck to the bottom of his shoe. He treated me like a person. When you’ve been told you’re nothing, you never forget the ones who decide otherwise.But here’s the thing the adults never understood: the problem was never that I couldn’t learn. The problem was that when I looked at text, the words came apart. The letters jumbled together and refused to make sense. It wasn’t until my second attempt at second grade that things began to become clear. I excelled at math, yet when it came to reading, I had nothing. Nada.Still, that math ability told me something important. I could remember almost everything I heard, and I could work through numbers with ease. So I came to a conclusion of my own, one that no teacher ever handed me: I was not stupid. I was an audible learner. My mind worked. It just worked differently.

The Hallway

That realization didn’t make things easy. I struggled, and the frustration ran deeper than words can capture. My third-grade teacher, worn thin by that frustration, would send me out into the hallway during reading so I wouldn’t distract the rest of the class. She was not kind to me, and I felt every bit of it. A child sitting alone on cold tile while everyone else learns to read: that image has never left me.Then came a small accident that changed my life. I got my hands on an old college textbook, and I noticed that some of the lines were highlighted. When I traced a highlighted line with my finger, something remarkable happened. Voilà, the sentence made sense. Giving my eyes a single direction to follow was all I had ever needed.From there, I caught up with my classmates. I graduated early, without a single special education teacher guiding me. And what happened after graduation is a whole different story. I went to the half-price bookstore, bought textbooks in every subject I had done poorly in, and taught myself every last page.The boy they called Dumbass taught himself.

Why This Matters to You

Words matter. They have the power to shape our perceptions, influence our emotions, and drive our actions. They are the very building blocks of thought, and the right word, expertly placed, is worth a paragraph of explanation.

I know this in my bones, because for years I lived without them, locked out of the one thing that could set me free.So when you skip over a word you don’t know, you aren’t saving time. You are leaving a small door closed. You are choosing not to grow.

Right now, I’m writing a dystopian science fiction novel centered on AI, and I use a great many technical terms in it.

Terms I understand. From fiction to neurology, from medical pathology to engineering, I spent years working as an engineer in the Medical Center. I remember everything I was exposed to there, including autopsies, surgeries, and much more. From music to flying, the vocabulary is real, and it is mine. Every word earned.

So when you’re reading this book on Kindle and you reach a word you don’t know, look it up. If you buy the print version (title to be announced, so follow for updates), you’ll find a glossary waiting in the back. Please use it.

We all have gifts, and we all have deficits. Not everyone shares the same intellect, and that is simply a fact, though it can feel like a hard one. But dehumanizing people because of it is wrong. We are all worthy of dignity, and we would all do well to remember that.

The kid in the hallway grew up. And he still believes in the power of a single, well-understood word. Currently I have close to thirty published novels and have written over 100,000,000 words. Did my third grade teacher telling me that the lights were on and nobody was home, help or hurt? You decide.

Before You Go

If any part of this story spoke to you, don’t let it be the end. Let it be the beginning.

Follow for updates on the book, including the title reveal and release date. Share this post with someone who needs to hear that a different mind is not a broken one. Comment below and tell me: what is a word you looked up recently, or a person like my Jack who refused to give up on you? I read every one.Best.

“From 9/11 to Flock Cameras: The Dystopian Novel I Started 15 Years Ago”

“From 9/11 to Flock Cameras: The Dystopian Novel I Started 15 Years Ago”

September 9, 2011, started like any other day. While stuck at a traffic light, I was on the phone with our New York office. Something happened; they put me on hold, and as I drove to the Dallas office, I listened to the world change. We can argue about the rumors that still surround Building 7, but suffice it to say, the world changed.

My normal way of dealing with grief is not to drone on about it with friends or family. My way is to write about it. If you follow me at all, you have no doubt read my blog post about writing letters or emails to people who are, let’s say, less than congenial. I use expletives and what have you to get the anger out of me and into the digital ethos, and of course, as much as I want to, I never send it. Burning bridges and being known as a hothead will get you nowhere.

Fast-forward six weeks after 9/11 and at least 3,000 deaths by “some people who did some things.” Bush and his administration enacted the Patriot Act, which is still alive and well today. The things those people did allowed our government to strip away some of our rights, trading them for safety. “Do you feel safe?”

Fast-forward to the Flock cameras, data centers, Alexa devices, smartphones, and, of course, drones. Do you feel safe?

Those Flock cameras, I learned, have microphones.

So, while spending these summer months of 100-plus-degree days clearing out old computer hardware, I found that file from 2011. I had started a book about a fictional city where a horrible event occurred, and much like the Patriot Act, what we see today closely resembles what I put into my book. Being a fan of Orwell, I wrote a dystopian near-future novel that is all but ready for one last edit.

Stay tuned for more updates and for when the book drops.

I am thinking about putting it on KDP Unlimited for those of you who can read it for free. Follow, hit that like button, and comment below if you have ideas you would like to share.Best,

Here is a link to my current books on Amazon.

What Are the Odds?

What Are the Odds?

A Writer’s Honest Take on Contests, Scams, and Chasing the Dream

What are the odds?As a writer and author, I occasionally post a story from a prompt and feed the machine $5 for a “chance” to win a contest. I also play the lottery from time to time. Not that I have an ice cube’s chance in hell of winning, but I do it when I travel. Long car trips on flat, nothing roads are a great way to ask the proverbial “what if?”

What would I do with X millions if I won? It could happen, right? Fortunately, I know what statistics are, so I don’t get too carried away with the fantasy. The same is true for casting my story onto the Reedsy website. Often, I look at the winning story and ask, how the hell did that one win?! I think I know.

The Predators in My Inbox

Putting my own vanity aside, the same skepticism applies to the predators who comment on my books through email, asking me if I would consider allowing them to be my agent. Truthfully, I could use their pitch about my book as a cover blurb. Of course, AI wrote it, and of course, it’s a scam designed to prey on my ego.

So I ask once again: what are the odds?

I have at least five people with the first name “Lauren” as new followers on my Reedsy story site.

All of the Laurens have different last names, and each of them is tempting my ego to override my God-given good sense. They want me to hand over money so they can “take my writing to the next level.”

The Engagement Game

IMHO, if I really wanted my story to win, I’d get everyone on this blog to go over there and “like” my story. That would tweak the algorithm, and maybe then a judge might actually read it and think, “Wow, that’s pretty good.”

Again IMHO, I seriously doubt someone sits down and reads 300-plus stories, each week and carefully weigh the pros and cons of each before crowning a winner. Much like monetized social media with its clicks, likes, and comments, contest platforms probably use engagement as a tool. (If I’m wrong, feel free to comment.)

So Why Do I Keep Paying the $5?

Ever since I ran across a young woman on YouTube (I think her name was Laura) who was going through school at the time parroting what she learned in vlogs, I wanted her company to succeed. They’re a bona fide business now and offer many services. I write, and I pay the money for feedback from other writers that range from “Wow, that’s a great story!” to “You need to make your character feel more like a living person instead of a zombie.”

A Modest Proposal for Reedsy

I propose the following adjustments to the current contest model:

  1. Introduce Written Feedback for All Entries Provide each contestant, regardless of outcome, with a brief written critique from a qualified reader or editor. Even two to three sentences of constructive commentary would deliver meaningful value.
  2. Adjust the Entry Fee to $10 Increasing the fee from $5 to $10 offsets the cost of providing individualized feedback and positions the contest as a premium, value-added service rather than a low-stakes lottery.
  3. Expand the Prize Pool A larger prize, funded in part by the adjusted fee structure, would attract a greater number of participants and elevate the prestige of the competition.

Anticipated Benefits

  • Increased Participant Retention: Writers will feel they are receiving tangible value for their investment, win or lose.
  • Enhanced Platform Credibility: Offering expert feedback reinforces the platform’s role as a professional development resource, not merely a contest host.
  • Higher Entry Volume: A larger prize purse combined with guaranteed feedback is likely to draw new entrants and reengage lapsed ones.
  • Stronger Competitive Positioning: Few writing contests currently offer feedback as part of the standard entry package. Adopting this model would differentiate the platform in a crowded market.

Feasibility Considerations

Assuming contest judging is conducted by human evaluators rather than automated tools, the additional effort required to generate short-form feedback should be minimal relative to the review process already underway. In practical terms, if judges are already reading entries to determine winners, capturing a few lines of impressions per submission is a modest incremental task with significant participant-facing value.

The proposed changes represent a low-risk, high-reward adjustment to the existing contest structure. By transforming the entry fee into an investment in personal development rather than a speculative gamble, the platform can strengthen participant loyalty, grow contest participation, and reinforce its standing as a trusted partner to the writing community.

A Note to My Fellow Writers

To every writer out there navigating this strange landscape with me, this one’s for you.

If you’re like me, your inbox is probably overflowing with “We love your book!” messages from “xyz Publishers” @gmail.com.

Go ahead, borrow that AI-generated blurb if it flatters you, have a laugh, and move on.

We’ve all seen them. We all know the game.

And if you, like me, still enter contests with your eyes wide open, take heart. The genuine followers you gain along the way, the ones who take the time to read your story and leave a thoughtful comment, are the real prize.

They aren’t trying to scam you. They’re walking the same road you are.There are too many of us to name, but we share something powerful in common: the desire to be the best writers we can be.

We keep showing up. We keep submitting. We keep writing, even when the odds feel long and the noise feels loud.

That shared drive is what makes this community worth being part of.

I’ve shared several tips on this blog to help fellow writers sharpen their craft, and I’ll keep adding more.

If any of this resonates with you, follow along for future posts, drop a comment below and tell me about your own experiences, and let’s keep lifting each other up.We’re in this together.

Have a blessed day!

MY Current Books

The Weaponization of Everything: Why I Never Let My Characters Trust the Government with Alien Tech

The Weaponization of Everything: Why I Never Let My Characters Trust the Government with Alien Tech

The Weaponization of Everything: Why I Never Let My Characters Trust the Government with Alien Tech

As a science fiction writer, I’ve built entire worlds around a single, unshakable rule: my characters never (and I mean never) turn over alien technology to the government. Not once. Not ever. And people ask me why. The answer is simple, and it’s rooted in something I’ve observed about the animal called man.Here’s what I know. The moment some newfangled thing shows up in human hands, one of the very first questions that pops into our lizard brains is, “How could I use this as a weapon?”Don’t believe me? Let me offer you a small, seemingly innocent example.

From Toy to Threat: The Drone Story

Remember that cute little toy the kids fly around the house or the back yard? The quadcopter drone. Charming, right? Now look at modern warfare. Look at the skies over conflict zones. That “toy” has become one of the most transformative weapons of the twenty-first century. And that’s just one example out of a thousand that illustrates how “we,” humanity, think.Give us a hammer, we build a house. Give us the same hammer five minutes later, we’re figuring out how it fits in a fist.

Every Technology Becomes a Weapon Eventually

Look around your living room. This computer I’m writing on? Weaponizable. Your television? A vehicle for propaganda, misinformation, and behavioral conditioning. And let’s roll the clock back to the 1940s, to the radio, that warm wooden box that brought families together in the evenings.Does the name Goebbels ring any bells?Joseph Goebbels understood something chilling: whoever controls the medium controls the message, and whoever controls the message controls the minds.

The Nazi propaganda machine turned the humble radio into one of the most devastating psychological weapons in human history.And let’s not forget the newspaper. Ink and paper. Why do you suppose that when a country is invaded, one of the very first things a conquering entity does is seize the media? Radio stations. Newspapers. Television networks. Because they know exactly what I know: information is the ultimate weapon.

The Modern Surveillance State: Sold Out to the Highest Bidder

Now fast-forward to today. We have “smart” devices in our homes that most probably spy on us, listening, watching, cataloging. We have media outlets lying to us with straight faces. We have corporations installing cameras on every corner “for our safety.”

Since 9/11, we’ve been sold out to the highest bidder. Fear became a currency, and freedom became the transaction fee.

The Porn Scanners and “Safe Radiation”

Remember those full-body scanners the TSA rolled out at airports? The ones lovingly nicknamed “porn scanners” because they essentially produced nude images of every traveler? We were told the radiation was “safe.”

I went after a reporter who parroted that line on national television. Because here’s the truth: there is no such thing as “safe radiation.” There are only levels. It’s like a tiger in a cage. If the cage is solid steel, sure, you can get pretty close and admire the stripes. If the cage is a little dodgy? Well … good luck, friend.

How much money did the manufacturers of those scanners make off our tax dollars while claiming to “keep us safe”? And did you know many TSA workers who operated those machines developed strange and rare cancers? That’s not conspiracy; that’s public record for anyone willing to look.

The Next Frontier: Your Thoughts

We need to tap the brakes. Hard. Because if history is any teacher, and it is, some company, somewhere, is already working on a way to monitor your thoughts. Neural interfaces. Brain-computer links. “For your convenience,” of course. “For your health.” “For your safety.”And once that door opens, it doesn’t close. There’s no putting that toothpaste back in the tube.

Elections Have Consequences

Here’s the kicker: elections have consequences. And when the electorate is a product of an education system that hasn’t taught them a damn thing about history, critical thinking, or how power actually operates, you end up with radical numbskulls getting elected to positions where they hold the keys to every one of these weaponized technologies.An uninformed voter isn’t just a bad citizen; they’re a national security risk. They’ll hand over their privacy, their liberty, and eventually their thoughts, all in exchange for the illusion of safety and the comfort of a curated feed.

Film at 11

So yeah, in my novels, when the alien tech falls from the sky, my characters bury it, burn it, or blast it into the sun before they let a single government agency get its fingerprints on it. Because I know exactly what would happen next.We would weaponize it.We always do.Stay skeptical. Stay curious. And for God’s sake, stay awake.Film at 11.

And now a shameless plug for one of my novels:

What the Flock?

What the Flock?


The Big Idea: Flock Safety cameras have become the villain of countless town hall meetings and Reddit threads. But while we argue about license plate readers on lampposts, we voluntarily carry the most sophisticated surveillance apparatus in human history, and feed it our lives, minute by minute. Flock is the magician’s waving hand. The real trick is happening elsewhere.


The Flock Panic

If you’ve driven through an American suburb recently, you’ve probably passed one: a small black camera on a slim pole, quietly logging your license plate, the make and color of your car, and the exact time you passed. These are Flock Safety cameras. Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) that have spread across thousands of U.S. communities, often installed by police departments or even neighborhood associations.And people are furious, understandably so. The concerns are real:

  • Persistent tracking of vehicle movements across networked jurisdictions
  • Data retention for weeks or months, searchable by law enforcement and private industy without warrant.
  • Minimal oversight and murky data-sharing agreements
  • Function creep, where a tool sold for “finding stolen cars” becomes a general dragnet

These are legitimate grievances. But here’s the uncomfortable question:

Why are we so fixated on the camera we can see, when the ones we can’t are infinitely more powerful?


The Sleight of Hand

Flock cameras are visible. They’re physical. You can point at one, photograph it, demand a city council remove it. That tangibility makes them a perfect target for outrage, and a perfect distraction.Consider what a Flock camera actually knows about you:

  • Your car passed a fixed point at a specific time.

Now consider what the smartphone in your pocket knows:

Data SourceWhat It Reveals
GPS / location servicesEvery place you go, how long you stay, patterns over years
AccelerometerHow you walk, drive, sleep—even your gait signature
Microphone permissionsAmbient audio, keywords, environment
App telemetryWho you talk to, what you buy, what you desire at 2 AM
Purchase historyHealth conditions, financial stress, life events
Social graphYour relationships, affiliations, and influences
A Flock camera sees a car. Your phone sees a soul. And unlike the camera on the pole, you paid $1,000 for the privilege of carrying it.


A Brief History of Watching

Surveillance isn’t new. What’s new is its invisibility and predictive power.

  • The Panopticon (1791): Jeremy Bentham designed a prison where a single guard could watch any inmate at any time, but inmates could never tell when. The genius wasn’t constant observation; it was the possibility of it.
  • The Stasi (East Germany): At its peak, one informant for roughly every 6.5 citizens. Labor-intensive, human-driven, and yet still incomplete.
  • CCTV Britain (1990s–2000s): Cameras everywhere, but requiring humans to review footage…analog eyes on analog tape.
  • Today: No guards needed. No informants. No tape to review. Algorithms watch everything, and more importantly, they predict.

The evolution isn’t just more surveillance. It’s a shift from observation to anticipation.


Foucault Saw This Coming

The French philosopher Michel Foucault, in Discipline and Punish (1975), used Bentham’s Panopticon as a metaphor for modern power. His key insight:

When you believe you might be watched at any moment, you begin to watch yourself. You self-censor. You conform. Surveillance becomes internalized until the watcher is no longer needed.

This is the profound difference between Flock and your phone. A Flock camera exerts external control…it catches you after the fact. But algorithmic surveillance achieves the Panopticon’s true goal: it shapes behavior before it happens.You hesitate before searching a controversial term. You think twice before texting a joke. You curate your digital self, knowing it’s all logged. 


The Double-Edged Sword

Here’s the maddening part: the same technology that surveils us is genuinely useful.

  • Your maps app predicts traffic because it’s tracking millions of people, including you.
  • Your health app catches an irregular heartbeat because it monitors your body 24/7.
  • Your assistant answers instantly because it’s learned your habits.

Convenience is the currency we use to purchase our own surveillance.This is what Shoshana Zuboff calls surveillance capitalism: a system where human experience is the raw material, and the product is prediction. Not just predicting what you’ll buy…but nudging what you’ll dothink, and feel. Elections, moods, movements, and markets can be shaped by whoever holds the data.Social engineering at scale no longer requires a Stasi officer. It requires an A/B test.


Winston and Julia, 2026

Recall 1984. Winston Smith and Julia flee to a quiet field in the countryside to escape the telescreens, to find one unwatched moment of intimacy and freedom.Now transplant them to today.They leave their phones behind (good…that defeats the location tracking, the microphones, the app telemetry). They drive to the countryside. But:

  • Their license plates are logged by Flock cameras on the way out of town.
  • Satellites image the open field from orbit.
  • Their absence from the network is itself a data point, an anomaly worth flagging.
  • The purchase of gas, the toll on the highway, the cell tower ping from a phone one of them forgot to fully power down.

The countryside offered Winston a blind spot because Oceania’s surveillance was physical and fixed…telescreens on walls. Today’s surveillance is ambient and predictive. There is no field far enough.But here’s the twist Orwell didn’t fully anticipate: Winston wouldn’t need to be forced. He’d carry the telescreen willingly, in his pocket, and check it 96 times a day. Julia would tag their location in a photo. The Party wouldn’t have to install anything. We volunteer.


So, What the Flock?

Flock cameras deserve scrutiny. Fight them, regulate them, demand transparency. But recognize the disproportion:

Fighting Flock cameras while ignoring your data footprint is like installing a deadbolt on a house with no walls.

The cameras on the poles are the surveillance we’re allowed to see, the acceptable target, the visible outrage, the distraction that lets the real machinery hum along quietly. The genuine architecture of prediction and control isn’t bolted to a lamppost. It’s in the cloud, in the algorithm, in the terms of service you scrolled past.The most effective surveillance state isn’t one that watches you against your will.It’s one you happily fund, feed, and carry everywhere, while pointing angrily at the camera on the corner.


If there is enough interest, I will divulge other ways and places you are “observed.” Or you can just ask Alexa.

On a completely different note, I have released a new book that asks the question, “Are You a Witch?” The link will take you to my author page, where you can browse a multitude of books on a variety of subjects. There is something for almost everyone.Thanks for stopping by, and feel free to comment below.

So the next time you see a Flock camera and feel that flash of indignation, ask yourself: what’s in my pocket, and what does it already know?That’s what the flock we should really be talking about.

BTW does FLOCK mean (For the Love Of Cats?) Probabaly not… More like flock of birds, or cars…or people..

Best

If you could go back in time and leave yourself a message, what would it be?

If you could go back in time and leave yourself a message, what would it be?

We have all had that dream or thought, especially when we think of all the stupid things we did as kids. Some of us wonder how we survived it.

While my book Echoes of Tomorrow deals with this prospect in a science-fictional way, we all know that time, at least at present, does not allow do-overs.

The difference between knowledge and wisdom boils down to one question:

We will never know if the dropping of the first atomic bombs was the only way to put an end to World War II.

Through treasonous acts, several spies shared (or sold) nuclear information to the Russians, making technological adolescence a real and immediate thing.

Today we are creating AI and robots that if given weapons would make The Terminator look like Winnie the Effing Pooo!

While Echoes of Tomorrow addresses this as a theme, there is another novel I am currently editing in which mankind goes to Mars after making Earth uninhabitable. Unlike Echoes in Time, where aliens facilitate time travel, Quiet Dust is set in a future where humans have already been on Mars for over forty years. Subscribe to this blog for more info on when it drops.

There are theories suggesting that evidence of humanity will be erased over time. The reasons humanity may never make it off the planet in any meaningful way are as follows.

This device would visit the earth once in a lifetime to remind those here not to be an idiot!

Why the future? Have you watched the news? Do you see how irresponsible the media has become and how violence seems to perpetuate into more violence?

Money for clicks and viewership for advertisements are more important than the boring truth.

Dehumanizing your political opponent will trigger the emotionally unbalanced to act, and politicians know this. Politicians are desperate and will do anything to keep power, including importing twenty million new voters. Power is money and those two are addictive, much like Felony Glitter

I hold little hope for humanity, and I have to wonder if Elon’s vision of Mars has him thinking the same thing.

Please like, comment, and follow, as well as read Echoes of Tomorrow.

Authors like me need all the assistance we can get in order to provide more thought-provoking, entertaining novels for you, when you are not watching hypnotoad programming, designed to make you disbelieve your lying eyes.

my version of hypnotoad feeding the masses lies.

Combatting Scam Calls: Protect Your Phone and Privacy

Combatting Scam Calls: Protect Your Phone and Privacy

Scam Calls Are Taking Over: Are Our Phones Becoming Worthless?

Let’s face it: our phones, once cutting-edge tools of connection and convenience, are slowly turning into sources of frustration. If you’re like me, you’ve probably noticed how scam calls are taking over our lives, making us second-guess every incoming call. How many of us actually answer our phones anymore when we don’t recognize the number? For me, it’s almost never. And honestly, can you blame me?I get hundreds of scam calls every week, and it’s exhausting. From fake IRS agents to warranty renewal scams, my phone rings constantly with fraudulent attempts to steal my money or personal information. As a result, I’ve developed a strict “don’t answer” rule: if I don’t know the number, I let it go to voicemail. If it’s important, the caller can leave a message. But is that really the answer? Shouldn’t there be a better solution than just dodging calls?


Why Are Scam Calls Legal?

Here’s the part that really baffles me: why is it legal for scammers to hijack our phones like this? Let’s break it down.

  • We pay for our phones: We’re the ones footing the bill for our phones, lines, and data plans (not to mention the time we lose dealing with these calls). Yet scammers and telemarketers are allowed to freely intrude on our lives without accountability.
  • No consent required: Many of these calls come without prior consent. They’re random, unsolicited, and often predatory. It feels invasive, and honestly, it should be illegal.
  • Robocalls are everywhere: It’s not just scammers. Even legitimate businesses and political campaigns use robocalls to bombard us with messages. And while their intentions may not be criminal, the frustration they cause is very real.

Why Isn’t There Stronger Legislation?

It’s 2026, and the problem seems worse than ever. Why can’t we have effective legislation that cracks down on scam calls and robocalls? Think about it: these callers don’t pay for your phone, your line, or your time, so why do they have the right to disrupt your day?Sure, there’s been some progress. In the U.S., for instance, there’s the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and recent efforts like the TRACED Act, which aim to curb illegal robocalls. Technologies like STIR/SHAKEN, which verify the authenticity of caller IDs, are also being implemented by carriers. But let’s be honest; these measures haven’t solved the problem. Scammers are constantly finding loopholes, and enforcement isn’t strong enough to deter them.


The Impact on Everyday Life

Let’s talk about what this means for us, the average phone users. Scam calls don’t just waste our time; they erode trust. We’re now conditioned to ignore calls from unknown numbers, which has real consequences. What if it’s a potential employer? A doctor’s office? A friend or family member calling from a new number? The constant barrage of scam calls makes it harder for us to stay connected in meaningful ways.


What Can Be Done?

So, what’s the solution? Here are some ideas:

  1. Stronger penalties for scammers and telemarketers: Governments need to enforce stricter laws and impose harsher consequences for illegal calls. This includes holding companies accountable for the robocalls they send.
  2. Improved technology: Phone carriers should continue to innovate ways to block scam calls before they even reach us. Apps like Hiya, Truecaller, and Nomorobo are a step in the right direction, but we need these features to be built into every phone system by default.
  3. Public awareness campaigns: Educating people about common scams and how to protect themselves can help limit the success of these fraudulent calls.
  4. Opt-in systems for legitimate calls: What if businesses and political campaigns could only call us if we explicitly opted in? That way, we’d have more control over who can contact us.

What Do You Think?

I’m tired of feeling like my phone is more of a liability than a tool. Scam calls are making our phones almost worthless, and something needs to change. But what about you? Are you facing the same problem? Do you ignore unknown numbers, too? And what solutions would you like to see to stop this epidemic of scam calls?Let me know your thoughts in the comments below. Let’s start the conversation, because if we don’t demand change, who will?

***

About the Cover Picture: What would you do if your body remembered a story the world tried to erase?

Marisol Reyes believed her life was ordinary, until the night words began to surface on her skin. They burn like embers and speak of a past she has never known: a forgotten village, a family secret, and a legacy passed through blood and bone across generations. Her grandmother carried these memories in silence. Now the words have found their way to her.

As Marisol uncovers the truth about San Miguel de la Luz, a village destroyed in 1963 and erased from history, she learns that her family’s story is woven into the ambitions of a powerful corporation desperate to keep its secrets buried. With the help of Daniel Medina (a boy whose own family is bound to the betrayal that led to San Miguel’s destruction), Marisol must choose whether to remain silent or risk everything to bring the truth into the light.

Written in Skin is a gripping novel of magical realism, historical trauma, and the fight to reclaim lost histories. Perfect for fans of Isabel Allende, Silvia Moreno-Garcia, and stories that braid the mystical with the deeply human, this is a tale about memory, resilience, and the power of words that refuse to stay buried.

Get your copy here.

No Juice, No Problem, Candles still work.

No Juice, No Problem, Candles still work.

🚨 About That Power Outage in Hunt County… 🚨

So, last week over 4,000 people lost power around 12:02 AM. The cause? Absolutely nothing to see here, folks. No clear explanation. Zero. Nada.And wouldn’t you know it—the outage just happened to be centered around Cash, Texas. You know, the exact area where a 285-megawatt data center is being proposed. But sure. It was probably just squirrels. 🐿️ Oh honey.We need a Nick Shirley investigating things around here. Speaking of which, where is the media?! When was the public meeting about this? Whats going to happen to property values? Is this Data Center going to improve our lives?


Here’s What’s Actually Happening

Core Scientific acquired a 265-acre site in March 2026 to build a massive AI and high-performance computing data center right here in our backyard—rural Hunt County, near Greenville.The Details:

  • 70 acres of land (formerly owned by Telios)
  • Consulting with Cash SUD for water and Farmers Electric Cooperative (FEC) for power
  • ERCOT approved the interconnection back in 2024
  • Operations expected by 2027, full buildout by 2029 I am speculating its off 3805.

“Local Approval?” That’s Cute.

Here’s the kicker: Texas counties have virtually no authority to approve or deny these projects.As one county judge put it: “By the time I hear about it, they’ve already bought their land, so it’s not like they’re asking our permission to show up.”They “ask” us as a symbolic gesture. Meanwhile, folks still have “No Data Centers” signs in their yards. This has been in the works for a while, and someone knew before we did. Follow the money—there’s a LOT of development suddenly flowing into this area. High-occupancy housing, apartments, mobile homes… Greenville is buzzing.


The Good, The Bad & The Loud

If you moved out here for peace and quiet? Brace yourself.🔊 Noise: Data centers are LOUD. You can hear them for miles.💧 Water: They consume massive amounts of resources.⚡ Electricity: They get discounted rates. Will you or I? Nope. In fact, expect your bills to go UP.💰 Tax Revenue: Will it benefit us? Keep dreaming.


At this point, I might as well add CORZ to my portfolio and skip buying hearing aids—I won’t be able to afford them anyway.Thoughts? Drop them in the comments below. ⬇️

About the Picture: That is the cover for a book I wrote.

Nothing But Time


Thirty years.That’s what he gave them. Thirty years of missed recitals, cold dinners, and promises whispered into voicemails that were never saved. Thirty years of believing the corner office was the destination—not the cage.They gave him a gold watch. They gave him a cake. They gave him a handshake and a cardboard box.And just like that, the man who had built something… was nothing.


The merger was clean. Surgical. He never saw it coming.Now the house echoes with the ghost of a marriage he neglected. The children who grew up without him have lives of their own—lives he watched from the periphery like a stranger pressing his face to the glass.He traded everything for a seat at a table that was never his.And now? Now he has nothing but time.


Then the letter arrives.Charlie’s gone.His college roommate. The one who laughed too loud, dreamed too big, and once grabbed him by the shoulders and said, “You’re gonna wake up one day and wonder where it all went, man.”Charlie left him the farm.Sixty acres of overgrown fields, a farmhouse with a sagging porch, and a horizon that stretches further than any quarterly report ever could.


He came to bury his past.He didn’t expect it to save his life.


Nothing But Time

A story of what we lose—and what we can still become.