History, Security

Trump Bridge Too Far: Seven of Nine on the DSM-5 Reveals Unfit for Office

Leave a comment

The DSM-5 criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder are behavioral. They describe observable patterns of action, speech, and relational behavior. And the clinical personality disorder can be diagnosed remotely.

They don’t require an fMRI or a therapeutic relationship to identify. All you need is someone to publicly, repeatedly, across decades and thousands of documented instances, demonstrate grandiosity, entitlement, exploitative behavior, lack of empathy, and demand for admiration. Narcissistic Personality Disorder in the DSM-5 requires only five of nine.

That’s not ambiguous.

A new bridge story hits nearly all the criteria in a single news cycle.

Guess who

Canada spent $4.7 billion building a bridge to America. Trump’s non-sequitur response has been only: I did nothing but I deserve half of what you built, you must compensate me even when I spent nothing, and you cannot open it until you give me something, I’m stopping this until it’s mine.

Trade policy? No. Negotiation? No. That’s just pathological entitlement response to someone else’s accomplishment.

Trump endorsed this exact bridge in 2017. He issued a joint statement with Trudeau calling it a “vital economic link between our two countries.” The same bridge he’s now threatening to block, he previously took credit for supporting.

That’s textbook NPD pattern because the object hasn’t changed, the narcissistic supply calculation has. When endorsing it served him, it was vital. When Canada has an independent relationship with China, the same bridge becomes a grievance instrument. The bridge is just a prop for the mental disorder.

Also note that the Moroun family, who owns the Ambassador Bridge and wants to protect their toll monopoly, has been pulling Trump’s coin-operated strings. All that “compensation” heat that Trump references is his private financial interest, which maps to the exploitative criterion even more directly.

Now run the latest Trump statements about the bridge against all the DSM-5 criteria:

DSM-5 Criterion Trump Statements on Gordie Howe Bridge
Grandiose sense of self-importance The bridge exists, therefore I deserve ownership of it.
Sense of entitlement Demanding compensation when the US contributed nothing to construction costs.
Interpersonally exploitative Threatening to block the opening to extract concessions Canada doesn’t owe.
Requires excessive admiration The explicit demand that Canada treat him with “fairness and respect” as a precondition for allowing infrastructure to function.
Lacks empathy Zero consideration for the communities on both sides who need the bridge.
Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited power Claiming authority to block a bridge Canada paid for on land that includes Michigan state jurisdiction.
Arrogant behaviors The public ultimatum format itself, “We will start negotiations, IMMEDIATELY.”

Seven of nine criteria, one news story, one Tuesday morning before I’ve even had my tea.

And then the hockey claim that China will “terminate” hockey in Canada? No. That’s confabulation in service of narcissistic narrative. It doesn’t need to be true, and it’s not true. It artificially makes Canada’s safe and independent relationships look threatening instead, in order for the narcissist to position their baseless demand for submission as somehow justified.

NPD specifically involves exploiting others and lacking empathy. If the disorder works for Trump because it gets him power illegitimately, then the absence of personal distress isn’t evidence of absence of the disorder. It’s evidence he externalized all cost. The distress and impairment are experienced by everyone else. Or to be more precise, it’s externalized as the rage, retaliation, and hateful policies.

Goldwater was Trump

In 1964, FACT magazine polled 12,356 psychiatrists on whether Goldwater was psychologically fit for the presidency. 1,189 said he was unfit.

And he was, in fact, unfit.

Goldwater had openly discussed using tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam, voted against the Civil Rights Act, and represented a radical rightward shift that alarmed professionals who understood authoritarian personality structures. The psychiatrists who responded were applying professional expertise to observable danger signals.

As they should have then, and they should continue to do.

The problem was not the diagnosis. The problem was that FACT magazine’s editor, Ralph Ginzburg, was a systematic disinformation agent, not a scientist. He predetermined his conclusion before polling a single psychiatrist, fabricated attributions, selectively edited professional responses to remove anything favorable to Goldwater, and ignored explicit warnings from the American Psychiatric Association that his methodology was invalid. The 1,189 psychiatrists who said Goldwater was unfit may well have been right. Ginzburg’s presentation of their work was fraud.

In a very American twist, Goldwater sued FACT for defamation and won. The court found systematic editorial misconduct. But in the same ruling, the court explicitly affirmed that a candidate’s mental fitness is “not only relevant but indeed crucial” for voters to evaluate. The ruling said: this work matters, and Ginzburg did it dishonestly. The obvious lesson was that qualified professionals should do it properly.

The APA drew the opposite conclusion. It adopted Section 7.3 in 1973, prohibiting all professional psychiatric commentary on public figures. To be clear the APA was not responding to a clinical ethics crisis. It was making a political move that contradicted what the court actually ruled. The conservatives in America are terrified by mental health science and professionalism.

Ronald Reagan campaigned on the concept that there’s no need for mental health, only more prisons. While he backed ruthless dictators and removed solar panels from the White House to declare dirty coal and oil the future, he signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 to repeal Carter’s Mental Health Systems Act.

The institutional response, with no rational or legal basis, suddenly prevented professional assessments of politicians. The rule didn’t emerge from a principled debate about diagnostic methodology. It emerged because psychiatric evaluation of a right-wing extremist politician had democratic consequences that powerful people wanted to prevent, and a stupid propagandist’s sloppy misconduct gave them an easy pretext to manipulate.

Actual malice

Goldwater used the “actual malice” standard from a case called New York Times v. Sullivan. To understand how the APA weaponized and inverted this case to silence professionals politically, you have to look at what the case actually was.

Ginzburg was not a journalist and he was not conducting science. He was running a propaganda operation. On July 16, 1964, the day Goldwater was nominated, before a single psychiatrist was polled or any research conducted, Ginzburg’s managing editor wrote a letter:

…say, basically, that Goldwater is so belligerent, suspicious, hot-tempered, and rigid because he has deep-seated doubts about his masculinity.

The conclusion existed before the evidence. Everything that followed was reverse-engineered to support it.

The research was deliberately selective. Derogatory statements in source materials were marked for use; complimentary statements in the same paragraphs were ignored. Ginzburg took his editor’s draft, deleted the careful references to “authoritarian personality,” and unilaterally escalated to “paranoia” and “mentally ill,” a clinical conclusion his own editor hadn’t reached and that no psychiatrist reviewed before publication.

His qualifications? Nothing. Two college psychology courses.

The poll sent to 12,356 psychiatrists was loaded. The covering letter referenced Goldwater’s alleged “two nervous breakdowns” based on a single magazine interview where Mrs. Goldwater used a lay term for exhaustion from overwork. Ginzburg knew that Goldwater, Mrs. Goldwater, their personal physician, and a lifelong friend all denied any nervous breakdown in the medical sense. He published it anyway without interviewing or attempting to interview any of them.

Then editing made it worse. Ginzburg deleted statements favorable to Goldwater from psychiatrists’ responses. He added phrases, sentences, and whole paragraphs, some he wrote himself, some he claimed came from other letters he couldn’t identify. He combined multiple letters into single “responses.” He published 31 anonymous letters as “name withheld, M.D.” to make it appear doctors had signed but requested anonymity, when they hadn’t signed at all. One signed letter critical of the poll was published as “anonymous.”

When some editorial omissions were accidentally indicated by ellipses, Ginzburg testified those had “crept in by error,” meaning his policy was to hide the cuts. The American Psychiatric Association itself warned him before publication that the poll was invalid. He published anyway.

When asked under oath to identify the “many people around Goldwater” who thought he needed a psychiatrist, Ginzburg couldn’t name one. When asked about “European reporters” reminded of 1930s Germany, he said “I don’t recall who I had in mind.” When asked about his claim that armed guards around a candidate were unprecedented in American history, his source was his own “lifetime of reading.” Armed guards had been posted around Governor Scranton at the same convention, same hotel.

The court found actual malice. Goldwater was awarded one dollar in compensatory damages, meaning he suffered essentially no provable harm, along with $75,000 in punitive damages.

And now here is what matters most, the part the APA buried.

The same court, in the same opinion, wrote:

His mental and physical health were proper targets for investigation and for adverse comment. We live in an age of powerful nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capable of massive destruction. These weapons are under the ultimate control of the President, and knowledge of the mental stability of the men who seek to be President is not only relevant but indeed crucial if the electorate is to choose intelligently.

The court said that assessing presidential candidates’ mental fitness is crucial to political discourse.

Read that twice.

It said Ginzburg’s work was fraud, not assessment. The obvious institutional response was: this must be done properly, by qualified professionals, with honest methodology.

Justice Black’s dissent went even further. He wrote:

…the public has an unqualified right to have the character and fitness of anyone who aspires to the Presidency held up for the closest scrutiny [and that] extravagant, reckless statements and even claims which may not be true seem to me an inevitable and perhaps essential part of the process by which the voting public informs itself.

He predicted correctly the ruling would undermine necessary political debate by:

…making fearful and timid those who should under our Constitution feel totally free openly to criticize Presidential candidates.

Black noted that a professional article written no different from how “many campaign articles unquestionably are” would be silenced without cause, while the campaign articles would not be. That’s an unequal and unjust outcome that promotes unprofessional speech and silences professionals.

So the sequence is:

  • A propagandist commits systematic editorial fraud while impersonating psychiatric authority.
  • The court rules the work was fraudulent, while explicitly affirming that assessing candidates’ mental fitness is “not only relevant but indeed crucial.”
  • Goldwater suffers no provable harm but collects $75,000 in punitive damages.
  • The Supreme Court declines to hear the appeal.
  • The APA adopts a blanket rule prohibiting all professional psychiatric commentary on public figures, the exact opposite of what the court said was needed.

The court said a fraud was a fraud and real assessment is crucial. The APA banned real assessment.

The rule doesn’t follow from the case. It contradicts the case.

The court called for qualified professionals to do this work properly. The APA instead rushed to prohibit them from doing it at all.

That’s not an ethical inference from a legal ruling. It’s a political inversion to do harm.

The APA “Do harm” principle

Look at what the rule actually accomplishes structurally. It doesn’t prevent bad diagnoses, since any crank can say whatever they want publicly. What it prevents is credentialed professionals applying their expertise to publicly observable behavior when that behavior has massive, dangerous political implications. It specifically disarms the people most qualified to identify the worst pathology in the people likely to cause the most harm.

That’s a “do harm” design, an intended function.

The rule treats political leaders as a protected class whose psychological fitness cannot be professionally evaluated, while simultaneously those same leaders make decisions affecting millions of lives. A corporate board can require psychological evaluation of a CEO. The military screens for personality disorders. But the person given nuclear launch authority gets shielded from the same scrutiny by a bullshit “professional ethics” rule that originated in corrupt right-wing political coverups.

Let’s be honest, 1973 wasn’t just post-Goldwater, it was Nixon. It was Reagan. The white nationalist institutional project was consolidating into a “war” against non-whites. The last thing that project needed was a professional framework for identifying authoritarian pathology in political leaders. The Goldwater Rule gave protection to the criminal mind.

The result is exactly what you’d design if you wanted to enable harm: the people who can identify the pathology are professionally prohibited from naming it, the people who can’t identify it are free to speculate irresponsibly, and the public gets neither competent assessment nor protection.

The rule doesn’t serve patients, since there is no patient. It doesn’t serve the public, since the public is actively harmed by an enforced silence. It ONLY serves the political interests of people who promote a particular form of unfitness for leadership.

Duty to warn

Political action and accurate diagnosis aren’t competing approaches. Accurate diagnosis by professionals informs political action. Telling voters their president has a clinically recognizable personality disorder that makes his behavior predictable, and dangerously unresponsive to normal representation pressure, is politically necessary information.

Bandy Lee and the “Duty to Warn” (PDF) professionals made exactly this argument.

What I am saying is, I think that if we, psychiatrists with experience in assessing dangerousness and working with dangerous people, if we remain silent, I would say we give passive support to people who would make the extremely dangerous and naive mistake of assuming that Trump is a normal politician. Or that he’s a normal president. He’s no more normal than Hitler was. Again, that doesn’t mean he is Hitler. I’m not saying he’s Mussolini. He is Trump. But dangerousness sometimes is so obvious, any layman can recognize it from all across the street even if they have never sat down and talked to the violent criminal. So, my point is that for us to remain silent here is a sign either of incompetence on our part, or our inability to recognize dangerousness when it is staring us in the face blatantly and egregiously. Or, it is sheer irresponsibility on our part to remain passive in the face of such an obvious danger.

The Goldwater Rule has been abused and misunderstood, to politically block legitimate public safety discussion.

“World-renowned authors lead the volume in asserting their obligation to speak under the Declaration of Geneva, which decries doctors’ silence in the face of destructive regimes. They describe a man who could not pass a basic fitness test because of his pattern of psychological deficits and dysfunctions, who scored extremely high on a dangerousness risk assessment, and whose impairments are only growing more severe with time, to the point of posing existential dangers for humankind.” 27 Sept 2024

Read it.

Because the American courts say professionals should be doing exactly this.

Security

Landeck Ruling Said Get a Judge for Data Acquisition. Tool Vendors Say Fuhgetaboutit

Leave a comment

On October 4, 2024, the European Court of Justice handed down its Grand Chamber ruling in Bezirkshauptmannschaft Landeck (C-548/21).

The case seems straightforward: Austrian police seized a man’s phone during a cannabis investigation, tried to unlock it without authorization from a prosecutor or court, didn’t document the attempt, and didn’t tell the owner.

And the Court said you can’t do that.

Even attempting to access the data constitutes processing under Directive 2016/680. You need prior authorization from a court or independent authority. You need to document what you did. You need to tell the subject afterward.

These are not suggestions.

As an old investigator, and an early adopter of acquisition tools, I find the results of this ruling very interesting.

It has been called “groundbreaking for investigative work and data protection throughout the European Union.“ It is. You can tell because forensic extraction vendors noticed immediately, in a weird way. Rather than help investigators comply, I see them pouncing on a compliance gap as a market opportunity.

Sigh.

Within months, vendor pitches started arriving on my desk. They want me to think the Landeck ruling means full-device imaging is legally indefensible. Ok, but does that really mean old workflows are non-compliant? We always should have focused on selective extraction tools and targeted, proportionate acquisition. So, asking are your current workflows compliant is a bit like asking how far from spirit you were by torturing the written law.

Investigators were being technically accurate to the letter, while also knowingly dishonest.

The Landeck ruling doesn’t mandate a specific technical approach to data extraction. It mandates a legal process. Prior judicial authorization. Proportionality assessment. Documentation. Notification to the data subject. That’s the stuff of good work.

A department that obtains proper authorization, documents the scope and justification, and notifies the subject afterward can perform a full-device image and remain fully compliant. The legal requirement is the process around the access, not a magic volume of data touched.

Do no harm doesn’t mean tie people up with a garden hose and beat them with a phone book, even if it doesn’t leave physical evidence of torture.

The selective extraction pitch I’m seeing actually inverts the ruling’s logic. I’m not a lawyer but that seems like something lawyers should be looking at sooner rather than later.

The vendor argument goes like this: our tool can target when it pulls, which means the extraction has inherent proportionality, which means skipping heavy authorization processes for a full image. The proportionality is point and click first, ask questions later.

The compliance gap is sold as compliance.

Ugh.

The Court was explicit that even unsuccessful attempts to unlock a phone require prior authorization. I’ve seen that before. Even attempts at data access are sometimes still classified a data breach (e.g. healthcare). The threshold isn’t the volume of data extracted when it’s the act of accessing the device at all. A tool that makes it easier to do quick, targeted pulls at the local station level is a tool that makes it easier to skip the required authorization step. The investigator does a selective extraction, writes up their own proportionality justification after the fact, and calls it compliant because the tool only grabbed what was “relevant.”

That’s the investigator escalating themselves to judge and jury, performing their own prior review, which is exactly what the prior review requirement exists to prevent.

EDRi flagged this dynamic before the ruling even landed. Companies like Cellebrite, MSAB, and Grayshift sell extraction equipment widely deployed at corporations and police stations for prosecuting any and all crimes, including petty ones. I still remember where my classmates came from for EnCase certification.

The bottom line is that technology outpaced the legal frameworks years ago. In many EU countries, smartphones still end up treated as ordinary evidence-gathering, another object to be seized, without special data considerations.

Germany is the clearest example. The rules on search and seizure in the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) don’t differentiate between complex digital data carriers and other objects. It’s left entirely to the interpretation practice of prosecutors and investigating judges to apply proportionality case by case. In practice, suspects’ laptops and smartphones are often seized even when suspicions are tenuous and the hope of finding evidence is based solely on investigative experience.

Landeck is supposed to fix this.

The Court laid down clear requirements: national legislatures must define with sufficient precision the factors to be taken into account, including the nature and categories of offences. Access must be subject to prior review by a court or independent authority except in urgent cases. The data subject must be informed of the grounds for authorization as soon as disclosure won’t compromise the investigation.

Yet the vendor ecosystem is openly flogging workarounds in real time. Selective extraction tools to bypass Landeck, marketed as Landeck-compliant by design, allow investigators to access device data faster and with less friction than a full forensic image would require. The reduced scope becomes the justification for reduced oversight. The tool tries to avoid the authority of a judge.

This is a pattern we’ve seen before. Every time a court or regulator establishes a constraint on data access, the compliance industry immediately begins selling products that satisfy the letter of the requirement while undermining its purpose. Cookie consent banners. Privacy impact assessments. And now, “proportionate” mobile forensic tools for unauthorized access to feel authorized because the extraction was selective.

The Landeck ruling said: get a judge involved before you touch the device. It didn’t say buy a tool that makes touching the phone feel proportionate enough that you can ignore Landeck.

Rubber hose cryptography still counts as a threat to confidentiality.

Investigators who want to comply with the actual Landeck ruling should focus on the procedural requirements: get authorization before access, document scope and justification, notify the subject when appropriate. The tool matters less than whether a judge reviewed the request for acquisition.

The ones buying selective extraction tools to skip authorization aren’t achieving compliance. They are being sold a black bag of plausible deniability.

Security

Epstein’s Largest Asset Peter Thiel Runs Britain’s Nuclear Weapons

Leave a comment

In 2008, Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor. That conviction is the fixed point in this story. Everything that follows happened after it.

Why? The system that should have removed Epstein from power instead credentialed him as someone the system couldn’t touch. The conviction didn’t function as punishment. It functioned as a rating agency.

In November 2014, Peter Thiel as the co-founder of Palantir Technologies, known for his long-standing Nazi beliefs, personally emailed this convicted sex offender to solicit $10 to $20 million for Valar Ventures. The venture capital fund Thiel had founded. Not a subordinate. Not an intermediary.

Thiel himself. With Epstein. Sex years after conviction. Oops, I mean six years.

A meeting followed in December 2014 at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse, which was the same property that would become notorious as the location where numerous women said they were sexually abused.

Thiel brought with him two principals, Andrew McCormack and James Fitzgerald. Whatever happened in that infamous child sex abuse townhouse meant that by June 2015, Epstein had committed $15 million through his Southern Trust Company as a limited partner in a Valar Ventures fund.

That was not the end of the relationship.

It was the beginning.

As Nafeez Ahmed reports in Byline Times, more than 100 documents from the Epstein Files released by the US Department of Justice show that Thiel’s firm treated Epstein as an active premium partner for the next five years.

In June 2017, Valar Ventures sent Epstein exclusive investment opportunities marked “super confidential.” In November 2018, Thiel’s firm solicited additional capital from Epstein. As late as March 2019, four months before Epstein’s final arrest on federal sex trafficking charges, Epstein’s accountant was requesting detailed portfolio information for “presentation to Mr Epstein.”

The expanding investigation about abuse of underaged girls seemed only to deepen the Palantir relationships.

The original $15 million commitment grew to approximately $40 million. Epstein’s Valar Ventures stake is now worth approximately $170 million, making it the largest single asset in his estate.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak described Thiel and Epstein as “owners” of the fund in an email released as part of the Epstein Files. Thiel’s spokesman of course denied the characterization yet also confirmed Epstein was a limited partner. Whether you call it ownership or partnership, Peter Thiel personally solicited a convicted sex offender’s money, hosted him as a premium investor, and maintained the relationship until Epstein’s suspicious suicide.

Now add the intelligence dimension.

Christopher Steele, former MI6 Russia desk head, assessed that Epstein’s fortune likely originated from the former Soviet Union and Russian organised crime.

The documentary record supports this. In 2015, Epstein recommended that Thiel meet Sergey Belyakov, an alumnus of the Russian FSB spy academy who had served as Putin’s Deputy Minister of Economic Development. Thiel’s assistant arranged an in-person meeting. In October 2016, Epstein arranged at least one meeting between Thiel and Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s Ambassador to the United Nations and a veteran Kremlin operative.

When Churkin died suddenly and suspiciously in February 2017, Epstein emailed Thiel:

My Russian ambassador friend died. Life is short, start with dessert.

Thiel later told the Wall Street Journal that the meeting contained “nothing memorable” and tried to DARVO the situation by falsely claiming himself the “rather naïve” victim.

Now add the UK infrastructure.

Palantir Technologies holds more than £670 million in UK Government contracts spanning nuclear weapons systems at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, NHS patient records, Ministry of Defence operations, and police intelligence databases. In September 2025, Palantir bizarrely grabbed a £240.6 million MoD contract without competitive tender, awarded under a “defence and security exemption.”

This system led by the man giving white supremacist extremist sermons of Nazi Lebensraum, funded through a fortune that MI6’s former Russia desk head assessed originated from Russian organised crime… now processes data across “all security classifications” for “critical strategic, tactical and live operational decision making” throughout Britain’s defence apparatus.

And how did Palantir take control over British defense? In 2018, while Epstein remained an active Valar partner receiving confidential investment opportunities, Palantir hired Peter Mandelson’s lobbying firm, Global Counsel. The explicit purpose was to position a toxic Palantir as a respectable partner to the British government. Global Counsel brought former Health Minister Nicola Blackwood on board for “political risk analysis.” Matthew Swindells, Deputy Chief Executive of NHS England until July 2019, joined Global Counsel two months after leaving and immediately began advising Palantir on NHS contracts. He went on to chair Palantir’s health advisory board while simultaneously chairing four NHS hospital trusts.

Mandelson, of course, had his own Epstein problem. Between 2009 and 2010, while serving as Business Secretary, he leaked market-sensitive government information to Jeffrey Epstein. When this came to light, the British government moved swiftly:

Mandelson was sacked as US Ambassador, resigned his Labour Party membership, and was forced to quit the House of Lords. He now faces potential criminal charges for misconduct in public office.

The principle established by Mandelson’s removal is unambiguous: those who compromise the UK’s secrets to a foreign intelligence-linked sexual predator forfeit their access to power.

That principle has not been applied to Palantir.

The company whose radical right-wing founder personally solicited a convicted sex offender as a business partner, who received meetings with Russian intelligence operatives through that sex offender, who hired the lobbying firm of a man now facing criminal charges for leaking state secrets to that same sex offender? That company? It now processes Britain’s nuclear weapons data, military operations across all classification levels, NHS patient records, and police intelligence.

Thiel, infamous lately for giving extremist sermons promoting “ACTS 17” Nazi Lebensraum, says he is the naive victim. We would be naive to believe him. Thiel targeting Epstein in 2014 to be his partner makes perfect sense. Epstein had just publicly survived a child sex trafficking process that should have destroyed him. That’s not a liability for Thiel. That’s a due diligence result. It told him the asset is protected.

The two also met with several CEOs for dinner in Palo Alto in Aug. 2015, which Epstein described as “wild”…. “Does my bad press give you pause?” Epstein asked Thiel in one email. Thiel’s response was unfazed: “If I was intimidated by bad press, I would not have gotten anywhere in life.”

The MoD says there are “robust processes in place.” Palantir hired four Ministry of Defence officials in 2025 alone.

These processes seem to be working exactly as designed.

They’re NOT designed to protect Britain.

Sailing, Security

Power Boat Crushed by Steamer Lane Wave

Leave a comment

West Cliff, Santa Cruz crowds had to watch in horror as someone tried to poach Steamer Lane in a dinghy. Six people nearly died in a basic physics lesson, unwillingly sacrificing themselves where many more can learn from it.

A small open-deck motorboat, clearly outmatched by the conditions, drove along the shoulder of a cresting wave instead of quartering away from it. Then the whitewater did exactly what whitewater always does. The boat went over fast and hard. Six people needed rescue and went to the hospital.

The vessel had a run to avoid going beam-on to breaking surf, but already it was too close to surfers. You can see clearly how being with the wave was working, which should have transitioned into a quarter away from the break or tucking in behind the crest. What you never do is point your bow into the washing machine, especially when it’s 10X your size.

Everyone appears to have survived, which is the only lucky part of this story. No life jackets visible, which matches the stupid moves.

The ocean doesn’t care about confidence. It doesn’t debate. And a 19-foot center console in those conditions is like bringing a toothpick to a gun fight.