In Summary: * Today has been another quiet one spent indoors under the a/c. Tomorrow I may do a little yard work if I can get started early enough. But I'll wait until tomorrow morning to decide about that.

Now I've got a baseball game starting in about half an hour to listen to, to be followed by an early bedtime.

Prayers, etc.: * I have a daily prayer regimen I try to follow throughout the day from early morning, as soon as I roll out of bed, until head hits pillow at night.

Health Metrics: * bw= 226.97 lbs. * bp= 144/85 (67)

Exercise: * morning stretches, balance exercises, kegel pelvic floor exercises, half squats, calf raises, wall push-ups, BP breathing exercises, pilates

Diet: * 05:30 – 1 banana * 06:15 – 1 peanut butter sandwich * 11:00 – sponge cake * 11:50 – 1 barbacoa & cheese taco * 14:35 – 1 fresh tangerine * 15:50 – lasagna * 16:40 – dish of ice cream

Activities, Chores, etc.: * 03:30 – listen to local news talk radio * 04:15 – bank accounts activity monitored. * 04:45 – read, write, pray, follow news reports from various sources, surf the socials, nap * 10:30 – watching NFL Now on NFL Network * 11:30 – watching MLB Now on MLB Network * 13:00 – watching the Seattle Mariners vs. Milwaukee Brewers pregame show on MLB Network, opening pitch is minutes away * 16:11 – and the Brewers win, 7 to 4. * 16:13 – tuned into the last hour of The Jack Show * 17:07 – follow news reports from various sources * 18:30 – listening to 105.3 The Fan, DFW's #1 Sports Station, for pregame coverage ahead of tonight's MLB game between the Rangers and the Nationals.

Chess: * 10:15 – moved in all pending CC games

Some people don’t come back because they miss you. They come back because they still need something from you.

After the courthouse, after the silence, after the papers that took my voice, I didn’t expect to hear from him again.

I thought the story was over. Not healed. Not understood. Just over.

But then he came back. Not with an apology. Not with honesty. Not with the truth I had begged for.

He came back with heart emojis. Little red symbols that meant nothing and everything at the same time.

A like on a picture. A view on a story.

A tiny digital heartbeat that made my own heart stumble in ways I didn’t want to admit.

So, I convinced myself he was trying to find a way back without saying the words out loud.

I told myself this was the man I loved peeking through the cracks of whatever mess he had gotten himself into.

I didn’t see the danger. I saw hope.

Then came the message. Meet me at our spot.

Our spot.

The place where we used to talk when the world felt too heavy.

The place where we found each other when everything else was falling apart.

My heart didn’t hesitate. My mind didn’t warn me. My body didn’t flinch.

I still loved him. I still believed in him. I still wanted answers that only he could give.

Then came the phone call. His voice, familiar, soft, pulling me back into the version of him I still believed in.

We talked like we used to. Like nothing had happened. Like the courthouse, the silence, and the papers were just a bad dream we could wake up from together.

We planned a time to meet. I didn’t know I was walking into a trap.

When I pulled into the parking lot, rain tapping against the windshield, I got into his truck like no time had passed.

We talked for over an hour.

About us. About life. About nothing and everything.

The way we always did when we didn’t know how to say what we really meant.

Then he reached for me. He cupped my face gently, pulled me toward him, and kissed me like he didn’t want to let go.

“I don’t want you to leave,” he whispered.

And for a moment, I believed him. For a moment, I let myself fall back into the version of him I had been defending for months.

For a moment, I let myself think this might finally be the beginning of the explanation, the apology, the truth I had been waiting for.

He went into the office, got a room key, and asked me to stay the night with him.

So, I did. Not because I wanted to break rules. Not because I wanted trouble. Not because I wanted closure.

Because I wanted to understand. I wanted to hear the words that would finally make sense of the last few months.

We stayed the night together. Two people who had once built a life now lying in a room that didn’t feel like ours, but somehow still felt familiar.

I kept waiting for the apology. The explanation. The truth.

But morning came, and none of it arrived.

We left at the same time. He went one way. I went the other.

As I drove away, I felt more confused than I had the night before.

My heart tangled in hope. My mind spinning with questions.

Maybe he needed more time. Maybe he was scared. Maybe he was trying to figure out how to tell me the truth. Maybe this was the beginning of us finding our way back.

I didn’t know then that the truth was already waiting for me.

My phone buzzed. A message from him.

And nothing could have prepared me for what came next.

This was the last chapter I believed in him.

(NEXT – CHAPTER 13: THE WORDS THAT CHANGED EVERYTHING)

“Some moments don’t just break you. They unmake the world you thought you lived in”

The judge referred to her as his girlfriend.

For a moment, I thought I had misheard.

The word landed like something physical, knocking the air out of my chest.

Two decades of my life collapsed into a single sentence spoken across a courtroom.

Girlfriend.

As if the family we built together had been erased with the stroke of a pen.

I stood there trying to breathe normally while the courtroom moved on around me.

Cold tile floors. Beige walls. The quiet shuffling of paperwork.

The kind of place where lives change in a matter of minutes and no one pauses long enough to notice.

I kept telling myself this had to be a misunderstanding.

Maybe he didn’t want this.

I searched for any explanation that allowed the man I loved to remain the man I thought I knew.

Then I saw them.

All three of them sitting together. Close. Comfortable. Aligned.

His mother leaned toward him and whispered something I couldn’t hear.

The woman beside him rested her hand on the table near his arm like she belonged there.

Like they had practiced this moment long before I ever knew it was coming.

Something inside me shifted. the ground beneath my life had moved and would never settle back into place again.

I was realizing that the story unfolding in that courtroom was not the story I had been living.

It was a different one.

One where I was the problem. One where I was the threat. One where the man I loved was suddenly afraid of me.

When the judge began speaking, I waited for the moment when someone would ask for my side. I waited for the moment when I could explain what had actually happened.

But that moment never came.

The papers were stamped. The order was granted. And the story was told without me.

I wasn’t allowed to speak. Not one sentence. Not one truth. Not one explanation about the silence that had come before this day.

I couldn’t say that I had been left without warning.

I couldn’t say that I had spent months trying to understand why the man I loved had vanished from my life.

I couldn’t say that I wasn’t dangerous. I was heartbroken.

Instead, I stood there watching the judge believe a version of me that didn’t exist.

A version of me he needed them to believe.

When the hearing ended, I walked out of the courthouse feeling like I had been erased from my own life.

I didn’t know then that everything that came next had already been quietly set in motion.

All I knew was that something inside me had shattered in that courtroom.

And that was the day my voice was taken.

Not by the judge. Not by the system.

But by the moment I realized the man I loved was no longer the man standing in front of me.

(NEXT – CHAPTER 12: THE RETURN THAT WASN’T REAL)

I looked at my blocked list on Instagram because of the girl yesterday, and I saw my ex there. I saw that she had a new profile picture, and it was her kind of flexing in the mirror and since I introduced her to the gym, I was curious and so I clicked on it to see it bigger, and I don’t miss her, which is good. I also did see in her bio that she has a boyfriend I think now. The name was a little bit ambiguous, but she was adamant that she was straight but who knows. I clicked away pretty quick after seeing that because I just saw it in the bio the text with a heart, like she used to have for me. And to be completely honest, that hurt to see. I’m not honestly completely sure why it does, at least past the immediate obvious feeling that she has moved on. Or at least moved on enough to start a relationship with someone else, and I guess nothing is wrong with that for several different reasons. One is for the fact that I have been dating for a while, and a part of me also thinks that she probably did not really process to break up the same way I did, and there will be a lot of stuff unresolved there. But that’s kind of a bitter way of looking at it, and I would rather focus on the other part of me which thinks that I’m happy for her, because I do hope the best for her. I think she was a good person like most people are, just has childhood scars and toxic patterns that need to be learned from, and I am one of the stepping stones, the same way she is for me. I also think that there is some amount of paying that comes from the fact that she entered a new relationship sooner than I did. Part of me hoped that I would enter one first, and when I think about any specific reasons why I wanted that there is nothing real that comes to mind. I think it is one of the surface level thoughts that exists just there. At least to preserve my ego or whatever wanted that in the first place, I can tell myself that I did have several dates, and more people who have been interested in me. I know that I very easily could enter into a relationship if I wanted to the question is the quality of relationship, and how willing I am to hold out to wait for something great. I’m kind of saying this I guess just vent and to get it hopefully these thoughts out of my head, but I think about how my exes previous relationships have been not great people, how she has called them bums and they have been incredibly unsavory. I think if it was just a competition about entering relationship like that, I would be able to, but additionally, she does have the part about being a woman, especially in Mail dominated fields like gaming and the whole people pleasing portion to her advantage. But either way, I’m still very confident in myself as a person and I have only heard resoundingly good things from friends and other people about my desirability as a partner. I know, and I would like to remind myself that I am exceptional, and I am a catch, I think the thing that kind of plagues me is the fact that I am not everyone’s cup of tea. I think I am the kind of person that doesn’t strictly adhere to suicidal norms, and for some people, this is exactly what they are looking for and a dream to them. But also to other people, it might gross them out and much more traditionally, masculine or less expressive, or not as emotionally opinionated. And I also know that what I’m looking for is arguably equally as strange. And because of this, it will take me much more time to find someone. And I think to some extent I don’t really have as much of a choice about it, sometimes I think about if I wish I was more boring or normal, and then I would be happy with any form of vanilla ice cream rather than a specific flavor that I really enjoy. But I think that the difficulty is what makes it sweeter. I think the thing that kind of scares me a little bit is how aware I’ve become recently that the type of person that I look for isn’t really related to someone that is emotionally healthy. And I know that by virtue of myself existing nothing is impossible, because I would like to find someone who is like me. But I feel a little bit scared because I think that I am one of those people that beat the odds, and to be fair I still do have a good amount of issues and I think things that aren’t favorable, and it’s not like this is perfect, but I think that because of the childhood that I have and the kind of upbringing I had, I have become a weird or strange person. And I think that since I have spent a lot of time working on these things, I end up being able to reap the benefits without the drawback as much. I almost think of it like a incredibly large and heavy sword, it is absolutely a disadvantage until you become strong enough to wield it properly. And I guess maybe there is some inherent form of value based thinking rooting behind this worry of not being able to find someone that matches me in that sense. Because maybe at the end of the day, I don’t need someone to match me. I need someone to be good in an independent valuation. I kind of think about how with friends I really don’t worry about any kind of notion of value at all, the things I look for are consistency, how friendly they are, and how much I’m able to interact with them. And if I think about it, I have so many different friends some that are absolutely incredible people and some that are struggling in life. And I’ve never really given any thought to this or prioritized one over the other, and I wonder if there’s any merit to the same thing for relationships. I think immediately my answer is no at first because of the fact that with partner you’re choosing just one person, and there is an absolute opportunity cost of losing out on potential other partners. Additionally, I do believe that a partner is to some extent a reflection of you and a reflection of how you view yourself. And I also think it’s a reflection of how other people view you. I think about friends who stay in relationships because they’re afraid of being alone and they’re with unsavory people, and I do feel like in my head that paints them in the negative anxious light. And when I think about seeing people online that have incredible partners, I think of them as confident and desirable because there must’ve been something the other person saw. I almost feel in a weird way like it’s a piece of clothing, the same person can look different with different pieces of clothing and I guess to some extent partner is self expression. But of course, a partner is way more than an aesthetic thing, I think Wen people have a partner that is kind of shitty or they do bad things, it reflects on them for putting up with it and staying, and when I think about people that have partners that do incredibly kind and loving things or sweet things and are all around good people at least from my view, I view that person better. And I also think that completely observation aside, you want to have a good partner because you deserve to have good things. And part of me feels like I have done a lot of work by myself, and I have ended up building a life that I am very proud of, and I think I am incredibly desirable, at least to myself. I guess I’ve already kind of got the fallacy if they thank you, but I was going to say that it feels like I have done all of this work, and I deserve to have a good partner as a result of that, because otherwise the work would’ve been for waste. But I think a partner in our ability is parking for sure, but at the end of the day, the improvements to my life and the richness and these positive things were done for me. And I do feel like I am OK completely without a partner. It does suck not being able to have sex with someone you fully trust, but at the same time, I don’t need to worry about my partner, potentially feeling hurt or insecure by one of my actions. I have my emotional stability, independent of others and rooted in my support network rather than heavily in one other person, I have flexibility and freedom with the things I want to do, I have hope which is a pretty nice thing because I think there is a certain sense of dread with a relationship and it’s the fear of losing something rather than the hope of getting something. And I think that ultimately at the end of today life always has its way of making sure everyone drinks, their fair share of misery from its glass. A relationship to solve some problems and introduce some others. And almost more importantly, a bad relationship would do more harm than good. I do feel better after going on this walk and talking about this. Thank you for giving that.

Starcraft Co. 12- Preclusion

The carcasses recovered from Kestral answered one question and opened a far more disturbing one. UIC xenobiologists had spent weeks comparing tissue from the attacking swarm with specimens recovered from Canaan, Delos and the clandestine breeding facilities, expecting to find the same genetic markers that characterized the renegades' domesticated strains. They found none. Aside from the six Hunter Killers that arrived at the end of the battle, the organisms that had nearly destroyed Kestral were wild Zerg. Their genetic profiles matched dormant populations scattered throughout the frontier, the remnants of swarms that had migrated through Terran space years or even decades earlier before settling in remote environments and becoming largely inactive. The renegades weren't merely breeding an army. They had learned how to find armies that already existed.

That discovery made sense of intelligence recovered from Canaan. The conspiracy maintained dozens, perhaps hundreds, of small reconnaissance teams moving through sparsely inhabited systems, charting reports of old Zerg sightings and investigating worlds nobody else had reason to visit. Destroying all of those teams was impossible and probably pointless. Kill one and the organization could send another. What mattered was what they were searching for. UIC analysts began cross-referencing renegade movements against historical Zerg activity and found several disturbing correlations. Most were small: a few hundred organisms hidden in an abandoned mine, a mutalisk rookery on an uninhabited moon, scattered colonies of zerglings surviving in wilderness far from Terran settlements. Then intelligence identified a target important enough to justify immediate intervention.

The planet had no Terran name. Protoss charts designated it by a string of characters that UIC computers translated imperfectly, and human navigators simply called it Erebus. It was a twilight world orbiting a dim red star deep inside territory historically claimed by the Protoss, although no permanent Protoss settlement was known to exist there. Tidal locking left one hemisphere facing perpetual daylight and the other permanent darkness, with a narrow temperate belt running between them. That belt was fractured by enormous canyons and cave systems extending kilometers beneath the surface. Something had nested inside those tunnels long ago. Reconnaissance probes detected biological signatures everywhere. Tens of thousands of Zerg were the conservative estimate. There might be considerably more.

Most were dormant. The swarm had apparently existed beneath Erebus for years without expanding beyond the canyon system, surviving on subterranean ecosystems and whatever mineral resources the creatures could metabolize. Under normal circumstances, the UIC would have marked the planet as hazardous and left it alone. The renegades had other plans. A substantial military contingent had established a forward base near the largest canyon network and was assembling equipment unlike anything StarCraft Co. had previously captured. UIC intelligence believed the devices were derived from the behavioral-control technology encountered in the clandestine laboratory. If activated successfully, they might allow the renegades to enthrall the dormant swarm. Canaan had required years of infrastructure, imported biomass and industrial-scale breeding to produce thousands of Zerg. Erebus offered tens of thousands for the cost of turning them on.

The commander rejected the obvious solution. StarCraft Co. could attack the renegade base immediately, destroy the control equipment and leave the dormant swarm where it was. That would solve the immediate problem. It would not solve the next one. The renegades already knew Erebus existed. If StarCraft Co. destroyed one expedition, another could eventually return. Guarding an uninhabited planet forever was absurd. The only permanent solution was to make sure there was nothing left to capture. The order therefore sounded almost ridiculous in its simplicity: kill the swarm first, then kill the people trying to steal it.

The terrain dictated the force. Siege tanks had been devastating at Delos, but they were nearly useless inside Erebus's caves and separated canyon systems. Heavy armored formations would spend more time finding routes than fighting. StarCraft Co. instead returned to the kind of warfare that had built its reputation. Elite teams of marines, firebats, medics and ghosts would move between objectives aboard dropships, supported by science vessels operating above the canyon network and descending whenever terrain permitted. The science vessels would provide detection against burrowed organisms, defensive matrices when assault teams became overwhelmed and irradiation against concentrations too dense for infantry to handle efficiently. Every team carried demolition charges and substantially more ammunition than doctrine recommended. There would be no attempt to hold territory. They would land, exterminate everything within reach, destroy any biological structures they found, return to the dropships and move to the next concentration.

The first canyon contained several thousand zerglings. Most were barely moving when StarCraft Co. arrived. They lay across the creep in enormous clusters, some piled against one another inside shallow caves, reacting only when the dropships descended. The commander briefly considered whether they could destroy the canyon without waking them. Then the first science vessel detected hundreds of additional signatures beneath the ground. The attack began simultaneously. Firebats moved into the cave mouths while marines established firing lines behind them. Flame rolled across the creep. Zerglings woke by the hundreds and charged directly into it. Others erupted from underground only to find ghosts and marines already aiming at the locations identified by the science vessels. Within minutes the canyon became a furnace.

Numbers eventually mattered. Thousands of zerglings pressing through confined spaces could overwhelm any infantry formation, however experienced. StarCraft Co. had no intention of allowing that to happen. When one tunnel began disgorging organisms faster than the firebats could kill them, the assault team withdrew beneath defensive matrices while demolition specialists collapsed the entrance. Another group became surrounded after zerglings emerged from a side passage missed during reconnaissance. A science vessel descended until it was barely above the canyon walls and projected matrices around the trapped soldiers, buying enough time for firebats to burn a route back toward the landing zone. The company had learned long ago that surviving Zerg attacks was less about killing everything immediately than controlling how many creatures could reach them at once.

The extermination continued through the cave network. Dropships leapfrogged teams from canyon to canyon while science vessels mapped subterranean movement. Some caverns contained nothing but dormant zerglings. Others held hydralisks buried beneath creep, waiting motionless until disturbed. Those were more dangerous. Science vessels became indispensable. Detector sweeps revealed organisms hidden beneath apparently empty ground, allowing ghosts to mark targets before anyone entered. Marines fired into burrowed positions from a distance or firebats saturated the area before the hydralisks could emerge. When large groups surfaced simultaneously, irradiation turned their density against them. One hydralisk would suddenly begin glowing beneath the science vessel's beam, then stagger among the others while lethal radiation tore through everything surrounding it.

The renegades complicated matters. Their reconnaissance patrols were scattered throughout the same canyon network, apparently mapping the swarm and installing smaller control relays in preparation for the main enthrallment system. The first patrol encountered StarCraft Co. by accident. Two Vultures rounded a canyon bend and found a marine squad less than a hundred meters away. Both sides hesitated for perhaps half a second before opening fire. The Vultures accelerated, fragmentation grenades tearing into the infantry formation, but a ghost disabled one with lockdown while concentrated Gauss fire destroyed the other. Its crew never had time to warn anyone.

Later patrols were ready. Wraiths began searching the canyons for StarCraft Co. dropships. Goliaths accompanied renegade infantry teams. Vultures used their speed to harass landing zones and withdraw before the mercenaries could concentrate against them. The fighting became a strange three-sided hunt through the twilight landscape. StarCraft Co. exterminated dormant Zerg while renegade patrols tried to stop them, sometimes waking the very creatures both sides were moving among. During one engagement, a renegade Goliath fired on a dropship and struck the canyon wall instead. The explosion disturbed a buried hydralisk cluster beneath both forces. Dozens surfaced in the middle of the firefight. StarCraft Co. immediately withdrew under defensive matrices. The renegades didn't. When the mercenaries returned twenty minutes later, they found dead hydralisks, two wrecked Goliaths and enough human remains to conclude that nobody had won.

The ghosts proved especially effective against the patrols. Cloaked operatives moved ahead of the main assault teams, marking vehicle positions and eliminating isolated infantry before engagements began. Lockdown turned the renegades' expensive machinery into stationary targets. A Vulture traveling at full speed became considerably less threatening when its systems abruptly froze and a marine squad stepped from behind cover. Goliaths were disabled before they could engage the dropships. Wraith pilots occasionally discovered their fighters locked in midair while StarCraft Co. infantry fired upward from the canyon floor. The renegades had heavier equipment. StarCraft Co. had better people.

By the twelfth hour, the operation had become industrial. Teams returned to temporary staging areas, rearmed, changed medics and boarded different dropships before moving out again. Nobody tried to clear entire cave systems manually. Science vessels identified major biological concentrations and mapped connecting tunnels. Infantry eliminated exposed populations. Demolition teams collapsed passages containing concentrations too deep or dense to engage safely. In several locations the commander simply sealed thousands of Zerg underground beneath enough rock that extracting them would require a mining operation. What mattered was making the swarm impossible to recover as a military asset.

The largest subterranean concentration nearly broke that rhythm. Sensors identified a cavern several kilometers beneath the surface containing biological signatures beyond the science vessels' ability to count accurately. StarCraft Co. found a route through a descending canyon and discovered a chamber large enough to contain a Terran city block. Hydralisks lined the walls. Zerglings covered the floor. Several spawning pools suggested the supposedly dormant swarm had retained at least a limited ability to replenish itself. There was no sensible infantry assault against that many organisms.

So StarCraft Co. didn't make one. Ghosts entered through an elevated tunnel under cloak, carrying demolition charges rather than rifles. Science-vessel scans had identified several structural weaknesses in the cavern ceiling where erosion had left enormous masses of unsupported rock. The ghosts planted charges while the Zerg below remained dormant. One hydralisk seemed to detect something and began moving toward the tunnel. The operatives finished their work and withdrew. Minutes later, the charges detonated. The cavern ceiling collapsed in stages. Thousands of tons of rock fell onto the swarm. The seismic disturbance woke everything that survived, sending zerglings and hydralisks flooding toward the remaining exits. StarCraft Co. was already waiting outside them. Firebats burned the first ranks. Marines fired over their shoulders. Science vessels irradiated the densest concentrations. The battle lasted nearly an hour, but the Zerg were forced through passages so narrow that their numbers became meaningless. Tens of thousands might have existed beneath Erebus. Only dozens could reach StarCraft Co. at any one time.

Twenty-seven hours after the first landing, the science vessels could no longer identify any major intact Zerg concentrations within the canyon network. Smaller groups undoubtedly remained in unexplored tunnels, but the dormant swarm as a coherent force had ceased to exist. Tens of thousands of organisms were dead, buried or sealed permanently beneath collapsed caverns. Whatever the renegades had intended to capture was gone. Only then did the commander turn toward their base.

The forward installation had been preparing for an attack since the first patrol disappeared. Unlike the lightly defended research sites StarCraft Co. had encountered earlier, this was a genuine military position. Bunkers protected the approaches. Missile turrets covered the airspace. Siege tanks occupied elevated positions with overlapping fields of fire. A battlecruiser hovered above the central compound, its enormous weapons capable of annihilating any infantry formation caught in the open. The control equipment intended to enthrall the Zerg occupied the center of the base surrounded by technicians and guards. The renegades had spent more effort protecting the machinery than anything else on Erebus.

The commander had no intention of charging it. StarCraft Co. had spent the previous day destroying a swarm by refusing to fight on unfavorable terms. The base would receive the same treatment. Ghosts infiltrated first. Cloaked teams approached through the canyon walls while science vessels mapped detectors and defensive positions. The ghosts did not attack personnel initially. They attacked the base's ability to respond. One missile turret lost power. Then another. A siege tank suddenly froze beneath lockdown. Communications between the northern and southern bunkers disappeared. By the time the renegades realized the assault had begun, gaps were already opening in their defensive network.

Dropships came through those gaps carrying marine and firebat teams wrapped in defensive matrices. Missile turrets fired as they approached, but the science vessels continually reinforced whichever transports were taking the heaviest punishment. One dropship landed with half its armor scorched away and immediately began unloading infantry. Marines rushed into cover while firebats cleared the nearest bunker. A siege tank rotated toward them. A ghost locked it down before it could fire.

The battlecruiser became the real problem. It descended over the compound and opened fire on the landing zones, forcing StarCraft Co. infantry into whatever cover they could find. The commander ordered the teams to spread through the base rather than concentrate. The ship could obliterate any one position, but doing so risked destroying the renegades' own facilities. Its captain hesitated whenever StarCraft Co. soldiers moved close to the enthrallment equipment. The mercenaries exploited that hesitation mercilessly.

Science vessels pushed directly into the base under fire. Defensive matrices appeared around exposed marine squads seconds before battlecruiser lasers struck. Ghosts moved between buildings, disabling Goliaths and siege tanks as quickly as they could acquire them. Marines destroyed detectors, expanding the areas in which the ghosts could operate freely. Firebats cleared bunkers at close range. SCVs weren't available to repair the defenders' disabled vehicles because the base's maintenance crews were being driven away from them by infantry.

The commander eventually realized they didn't need to destroy the battlecruiser. They only needed to stop it. Three ghosts moved into range from different directions. The first was detected and killed before acquiring the target. The second fired. Lockdown struck the battlecruiser. The enormous ship went dead above its own base. StarCraft Co. attacked everything beneath it.

The remaining defensive line collapsed within minutes. Marines stormed the central compound while the battlecruiser hung helplessly overhead. Firebats drove defenders from fortified structures. Ghosts locked down the last operational Goliaths. The surviving siege tanks never fired again. Renegade soldiers attempted to retreat toward the canyon network and discovered that the Zerg they had intended to command were no longer there to protect them. The enthrallment equipment was captured intact. That alone made the operation worth the casualties.

StarCraft Co. technicians immediately began dismantling the devices while UIC intelligence specialists copied every surviving data system. The technology was more advanced than anything recovered from the previous laboratories. It did not merely condition individual Zerg through repeated exposure. The system appeared designed to project commands across enormous numbers of organisms simultaneously, exploiting neurological pathways normally associated with Zerg hive control. The renegades had been preparing to manufacture an artificial hierarchy. The commander looked at the disabled battlecruiser hovering above the compound. “Take that too.”

StarCraft Co. ghosts and marines boarded it before the lockdown expired. Most of the crew surrendered once they realized the base below had fallen. By the time the ship's systems recovered, armed mercenaries occupied engineering, the bridge and the weapons decks. The battlecruiser left Erebus under StarCraft Co. control.

The operation ended thirty-three hours after it began. The renegade forward base was destroyed after every useful piece of equipment had been removed. The enthrallment devices went directly into UIC containment. The captured battlecruiser joined StarCraft Co.'s rapidly expanding fleet. Erebus itself was left behind, its canyons filled with Zerg carcasses and collapsed tunnels. Small populations would probably survive somewhere beneath the surface. Nobody cared. The dormant swarm that had once numbered in the tens of thousands was no longer something anyone could reasonably turn into an army.

More important was what Erebus revealed about the conspiracy. Canaan had demonstrated industrial breeding. Delos had demonstrated human infestation. Kestral had demonstrated strategic control. Erebus supplied the missing link. The renegades were not relying solely on the Zerg they could manufacture. They were searching settled and uncharted space for every dormant swarm they could find and developing technology capable of binding those organisms into the same command structure.

That changed the arithmetic catastrophically. The UIC had been trying to estimate how many Zerg the conspiracy could breed. It had been asking the wrong question. Nobody knew how many wild Zerg were already scattered across the frontier.

StarCraft Co.'s scientists received the captured enthrallment equipment before the assault teams had even finished returning home. Their instructions were not to reproduce it. The commander wanted to know how it worked, how far it could reach, what signals it depended upon and, most importantly, how to break it. The conspiracy was assembling larger forces with every operation StarCraft Co. uncovered, but the mercenaries had learned something from Canaan that applied just as well here.

Every new Zerg weapon eventually became another problem their engineers could study. And StarCraft Co. was becoming exceptionally good at finding solutions.

This week is like observing a bruise on your leg. Sometimes you press down deliberately, waiting to see how the colors change, whether it still hurts. Sometimes you just watch it go from red to purple, green to yellow upon your skin. It still hurts, but it’s softer there now.

I finished reading a book I enjoyed, and then in the acknowledgements the author gave this gushing thank you to Jesus Christ, and it nearly ruined the whole thing. It’s definitely put me off reading her other two books, for not at least. Sure you’re allowed to thank you whoever the hell you want, but Jesus didn’t do any of this. The author did. The editor did. Heck, the reader has done more than Jesus.

Anyway, I think about the books I would dedicate to you, and maybe I still will. Maybe I’ll write a touching paragraph about how none of this would have happened without you. At least on my part it would be true. Unsurprisingly, you have also done more than Jesus.

This post doesn’t have a direction. I’m counting down the days to the day, and then it will happen, and then it will pass, and maybe I’ll breathe a little easier as we go into autumn. Right now the hot sunshine, the sticky sweaty days and muggy nights, none of it helps. I see the sun rise every day and all I can think about was how obscenely bright that morning was, when I woke up and before I knew.

I never liked the sun much anyways.

I've spent my life traveling, spent my life free I could not repay all you've done for me

Self care isn’t optional

A young man approached the foreman of a logging crew and asked for a job.

“That depends,” replied the foreman. “Let's see you fell this tree.”

The young man stepped forward, and skillfully felled a great tree.

Impressed, the foreman exclaimed, “You can start Monday.”

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday rolled by, and on Thursday afternoon the foreman approached the young man and said, “You can pick up your paycheck on the way out today.”

Startled, the young man replied, “I thought you paid on Friday.”

“Normally we do,” said the foreman. “But we're letting you go today because you've fallen behind. Our daily felling charts show that you've dropped from first place on Monday to last place today.”

“But I'm a hard worker,” the young man objected. “I arrive first, leave last, and even have worked through my coffee breaks!”

The foreman, sensing the young man's integrity, thought for a minute and then asked, “Have you been sharpening your axe?”

The young man replied, “No sir, I've been working too hard to take time for that!”

---

#story

---

2025-07-09 22:15:00

The Story of Phil Buster

I was thinking about the absurdity of the filibuster and had inspiration for a short story. What if the feasibility of the filibuster and biological equivalent of the Ship of Theseus intersected? Enter: Phil Buster

---

Senator Phil Buster had not intended to become famous, and he certainly had not intended to become famous for urination. He had intended to become famous for speaking longer than any senator in American history, preferably while delivering an impassioned defense of representative government that future historians would quote in textbooks, but six hours and eleven minutes into his first attempt he discovered that the human urinary system, having evolved hundreds of millions of years before the invention of parliamentary procedure, was entirely indifferent to his ambitions. Phil had prepared carefully, assembling binders of statistics, historical quotations, constituent letters, newspaper articles, Supreme Court opinions, and enough loosely related anecdotes that he believed he could keep talking for at least thirty hours without repeating himself, and he had also brought an enormous thermos of coffee because he had correctly anticipated that remaining awake would eventually become difficult while somehow failing to consider what happened to coffee after it performed its useful function.

By hour four, the thermos was empty; by hour five, Phil was sweating, shifting his weight between his feet and discovering that discussing agricultural subsidies became remarkably difficult when approximately half of one's available cognitive resources were devoted to monitoring the pressure inside one's bladder. At six hours, Senator Williams of Vermont rose and asked whether his distinguished colleague would yield for a question, then mercifully spent twelve minutes discussing soybean price supports while Phil stood behind his desk with his legs crossed, nodding gravely and contemplating increasingly desperate possibilities, none of which survived serious consideration. At six hours and eleven minutes, Senator Phil Buster finally yielded the floor and departed the chamber with the stiff-legged determination of a man transporting an unstable explosive between his kidneys.

The newspapers were merciless, with BUSTER'S BLADDER BUSTS FILIBUSTER appearing above Phil's photograph the following morning, and although his staff wisely avoided discussing the headline in his presence, Phil clipped it, framed it, and hung it above his desk. Three months later he tried again, this time without the thermos of coffee but with something his chief of staff would later describe, under oath, as considerably worse. Phil had spent several weeks reading the standing rules of the Senate and discovered, with the peculiar excitement of a man who has identified an omission in a centuries-old legal document, that nowhere did they expressly prohibit a senator from wearing an external catheter connected to a collection vessel concealed beneath his clothing. His chief of staff stared at him for a long moment before saying, “Phil,” to which Phil replied that it was legal; when she pointed out that legality was not really the issue, he asked her to show him the rule, and when she responded that there shouldn't need to be a rule, Phil smiled and said, “Then there isn't a rule.”

The second filibuster began at nine o'clock on Monday morning, and at hour six Phil smiled; at hour twelve he smiled again, drank an entire glass of water directly in Senator Williams's line of sight, and experienced the profound satisfaction of a man who had defeated one of the fundamental constraints of mammalian physiology through a combination of plumbing and legislative pedantry. At eighteen hours and twenty-three minutes, however, his left calf seized with such violence that Phil momentarily forgot the bill, the Senate, his political party and several basic elements of the English language. He clutched the desk while his leg contracted beneath him with the rigidity of structural lumber, and when the presiding officer asked whether the senator yielded, Phil produced a sustained howl that was not recognized as parliamentary speech. The chair asked again, Phil shouted, “YES, FINE, I YIELD,” and the second attempt ended with him limping from the chamber while an aide frantically tried to disconnect equipment that had not been designed for rapid evacuation. The following morning brought another headline for the wall: BUSTER BUSTED AGAIN: LEGS DEFEAT BLADDER-PROOF SENATOR.

Six months later, Phil Buster entered the Senate chamber wearing an exoskeleton. It was a passive device, mostly concealed beneath his suit, with carbon-fiber braces running along his legs and a carefully engineered frame that transferred much of his weight away from his muscles while leaving him technically upright, and the Senate parliamentarian had spent three miserable weeks considering whether this constituted standing within the meaning of Rule XIX. The inquiry produced eighty-seven pages of memoranda, three meetings with the Sergeant at Arms, and one exchange that subsequently entered Senate folklore, during which the parliamentarian insisted that the rule contemplated a senator standing while addressing the chamber and Phil responded by spreading his arms and asking whether he was sitting. When told that he was not, Phil asked whether he was lying down; when told that he was not doing that either, he asked what, precisely, everyone believed he was doing, at which point the parliamentarian stared at him for several seconds before muttering something about retirement.

The third filibuster lasted thirty-one hours, during which Phil's bladder performed admirably, his legs remained comfortable, his hydration remained excellent, and his vocal cords gradually destroyed themselves. At thirty-one hours and seventeen minutes, his voice deteriorated from hoarse to barely audible and then disappeared almost completely, although Phil continued mouthing words for several minutes before the presiding officer ruled that silently moving one's lips did not constitute debate, a proposition Phil considered outrageously prejudicial toward the mute but lacked the vocal capacity to contest. He yielded in a whisper, and when BUSTER SILENCED appeared in the newspaper the following morning, Phil added it to the increasingly crowded wall and called a biomedical engineer.

The fourth attempt took place almost two years later, by which time Senator Buster's interest in the legislation before the Senate had become secondary to his increasingly personal dispute with human anatomy. His passive exoskeleton had been replaced with a powered model whose actuators continuously adjusted his posture and shifted loads between different parts of his body, his catheter drained into a larger reservoir integrated into the frame, compression sleeves periodically contracted around his calves to encourage circulation, and a small hydration pump delivered carefully measured quantities of water and electrolytes through a port in his arm. Most controversially, Phil now wore an artificial larynx, and although there was nothing especially futuristic about a technology that people who had lost their natural voices had used for generations, Phil's decision to employ one voluntarily produced weeks of argument over whether mechanically generated speech could count as speaking for purposes of holding the floor. Phil maintained that forcing him to rely upon vibrating folds of biological tissue when perfectly adequate technology existed amounted to an arbitrary interpretation of the rule; the parliamentarian disagreed, several senators objected, disability lawyers became involved, and eventually everyone grew sufficiently exhausted by the argument that Phil was permitted to proceed.

He lasted fifty-seven hours. The artificial voice worked beautifully, as did the exoskeleton, catheter and hydration system, but shortly before midnight on the third day Phil discovered the one bodily requirement he had not yet engineered around, falling asleep while discussing an amendment to an agricultural appropriations bill and remaining perfectly upright because the exoskeleton continued supporting him. His artificial larynx produced a low electronic hum until the chair determined that unconscious humming did not constitute continuous debate, and Phil awoke thirteen hours later in the hospital to find his chief of staff sitting beside him. She reminded him that fifty-seven hours had shattered the record, but Phil merely stared at the ceiling and said, “I fell asleep.” When she answered that this was something people did, Phil repeated the word “people” with a contemplative expression she had learned to fear, prompting her to say, “No.” Phil innocently asked what she meant, and she told him that whatever he was thinking, the answer was no.

Phil disappeared from public life for eleven months, and when he returned reporters immediately noticed the small surgical scar behind his ear. The implant did not generate speech by itself, a distinction Phil emphasized repeatedly; instead, electrodes detected patterns associated with his intended speech and transmitted them to an external processor, which converted those signals into language before routing the resulting words through his artificial larynx. He still conceived the sentence, he explained, while the machinery merely replaced the increasingly inconvenient sequence in which his motor cortex instructed nerves to activate muscles that manipulated lungs, vocal folds, tongue and lips. During a contentious committee hearing, Phil pointed out that every senator in the room already used electrochemical signals to produce speech and that his signals simply traveled through some additional hardware, which everyone agreed was an extremely irritating argument largely because nobody could identify exactly where it was wrong.

His fifth attempt lasted eighty-three hours, after which sleep defeated him again, and Phil returned to the engineers with considerably more ambitious requirements. The next modification allowed the implant to recognize phrases before Phil had fully formulated them, predicting likely words from incomplete neural signals and presenting them for nearly instantaneous confirmation, which left Phil responsible for every sentence while making speech less cognitively demanding, rather like typing with an extraordinarily sophisticated autocomplete system. Six months later an improved model could construct entire clauses from conceptual intentions, so that Phil merely had to think budget deficit, irresponsible, future generations for the device to produce a polished sentence expressing precisely that argument. When senators complained that the machine was now writing his speeches, Phil asked whether any of them employed speechwriters, and several objections abruptly disappeared.

The next version could produce entire paragraphs from clusters of ideas, while the version after that could formulate answers to predictable questions based on Phil's known positions and present them for approval before speaking them aloud. Each improvement moved some small portion of the work away from Phil's biological nervous system and into the machinery surrounding it, but each step seemed modest enough in isolation that nobody could identify a principled point at which assistance became substitution. Then came the first genuine scandal. During Phil's seventh filibuster, Senator Williams asked an unexpected question concerning subsection 14© while Phil's eyes were closed, and medical telemetry subsequently established that he had entered approximately nine seconds of sleep; nevertheless, his voice immediately replied that the senator had overlooked the interaction between subsection 14© and the reporting requirement established under Section 9, then proceeded to identify three drafting problems and cite two relevant cases before Phil visibly woke midway through the answer. The chamber went silent, Phil finished the sentence, and nobody—including Phil—could say with confidence which portion he had authored. The filibuster lasted six days.

The Senate changed the rules, Phil challenged the changes, the courts became involved, and the courts almost immediately regretted becoming involved, but the controversy eventually outlasted the legislation itself and Phil no longer particularly cared about the bill. What had begun as an attempt to break a Senate record had become, gradually and almost imperceptibly, an argument over where Senator Phil Buster ended and the machinery surrounding him began, an argument that became more difficult as Phil aged and ordinary medical necessity began accomplishing what ambition had previously required him to do deliberately.

His knees were the first things to go, damaged by age, campaigning and an old skiing injury, and although his physicians initially recommended conventional replacements, Phil instead had the prosthetic joints integrated directly into his exoskeleton, which by then had become less something he wore than something permanently attached to him. Several years later circulatory problems made one leg medically troublesome, so Phil had it amputated and replaced with a prosthesis permanently integrated into the support frame; when a reporter asked whether this raised questions about his physical capacity to perform the duties of office, Phil replied that he still possessed one more biological leg than the Constitution required. The other leg eventually followed, then one hip and then the other, yet at no point did anyone seriously claim that replacing another piece of Phil Buster's anatomy caused Phil Buster to cease existing.

His heart failed at seventy-three and an artificial heart replaced it, while his kidneys deteriorated at seventy-eight and compact filtration systems took over their function. His lungs became increasingly fibrotic in his eighties, and rather than transplant biological replacements, his physicians installed an extracorporeal oxygenation system that eventually made pulmonary respiration largely redundant, which mattered surprisingly little because the artificial larynx had not required airflow for decades. His eyes failed next, so cameras replaced them and fed signals through neural interfaces that his visual cortex learned to interpret with surprising ease; his hearing deteriorated and microphones replaced his ears; his remaining biological arm developed tremors and was eventually exchanged for a prosthetic one that worked better than the original ever had. Each change attracted controversy, but each change individually seemed almost trivial, because nobody thought a man ceased being himself when he received an artificial hip and nobody could explain why two artificial hips should change the answer, just as an artificial heart plainly had not killed him, nor had artificial kidneys, artificial eyes, artificial limbs or an artificial voice. At every stage there remained an obvious continuity between the Phil who entered surgery and the Phil who emerged from it, usually complaining about Senate procedure before the anesthesia had fully worn off.

The difficult questions began when his brain started failing. At ninety-one, a small region of damaged motor cortex was replaced with an experimental neural prosthesis whose artificial network received the same inputs, produced the same outputs and communicated seamlessly with the surrounding biological neurons, leaving Phil unable to detect any subjective change whatsoever. At ninety-four another region was replaced, then another, while the implants became smaller, more sophisticated and increasingly capable of reproducing the behavior of the tissue they supplanted. When part of Phil's hippocampus began deteriorating, engineers transferred its functional organization into synthetic neural hardware while preserving the memories encoded in the failing biological network, and Phil emerged remembering his childhood, his first election, the thermos of coffee, the humiliating six-hour filibuster and the sensation of desperately needing to urinate while Senator Williams discussed soybean price supports.

At ninety-eight, approximately sixty percent of Phil's cerebral processing remained biological; at 102, thirty-one percent remained, and by 106 the figure had fallen below eleven percent. Philosophers began appearing on television to debate whether Senator Buster was still alive, prompting Phil to appear on competing programs and explain at considerable length why he considered them idiots. He repeatedly challenged critics to identify the precise operation during which he had supposedly died, because each procedure had replaced a relatively small amount of tissue while preserving his memories, personality, intentions and continuous awareness, and no philosopher who claimed that some invisible boundary must have been crossed could tell Phil where that boundary was located.

At 109, physicians replaced the final substantial cluster of biological neurons. There was no flash of light, no discontinuity and no philosophical revelation; Phil had been discussing baseball with one of the technicians before the procedure, and when the last synthetic network came online he simply continued the story, explaining that this was why the designated hitter had always been a mistake. The technician stared at him for several seconds before Phil finally asked whether the procedure had worked, and when told that it had, Phil nodded and attempted to resume his argument about baseball while the technician began laughing for reasons Phil did not understand.

At nine o'clock on a Tuesday morning several months later, Senator Phil Buster rose to address the United States Senate, although technically nothing rose except his mechanical support apparatus, which elevated itself seventeen centimeters in a maneuver the fifth Senate parliamentarian of Phil's career had reluctantly conceded satisfied the standing requirement. Phil addressed the presiding officer, received recognition and began speaking, after which a week passed, then a month, and eventually a year. Phil no longer slept because there was no biological neural tissue requiring sleep, nor did he eat, breathe, urinate, develop cramps, become hoarse or suffer pressure sores; his power cells could be replaced while operating, his processors were redundant, and every critical component could be serviced without interrupting the computational processes constituting Senator Phil Buster.

The Senate attempted to wait him out, but senators retired, senators died, and new senators arrived who had watched Phil's filibuster on television when they were children, some of whom visited the chamber simply to see him in much the same way that tourists once visited monuments. The legislation that had prompted the filibuster finally expired after nineteen years, and when an aide nervously informed Phil that the bill he was ostensibly opposing no longer legally existed, he considered this information for several milliseconds before announcing that he nevertheless had additional concerns and continuing with his remarks.

Attempts to determine whether Phil remained constitutionally eligible to serve produced increasingly bizarre hearings, because nobody could identify when he had supposedly ceased being Senator Phil Buster. If replacing his knee hadn't done it, and replacing his heart hadn't done it, and replacing one neuron hadn't done it, his opponents were forced to identify some particular quantity of biological tissue whose removal transformed an elected senator into a machine. Phil particularly enjoyed asking expert witnesses to identify the neuron, and several otherwise distinguished philosophers became visibly angry when he demanded to know whether Senator Buster had died at neuron 7,492,112,811 or neuron 7,492,112,812.

On Day 14,891, the Senate voted to demolish the chamber around him, to which Phil objected while continuing his remarks, and although the demolition proceeded, his desk remained. The Capitol was eventually renovated around it, and when Washington flooded two centuries later and the government relocated inland, Phil's desk was transported with extraordinary care because constitutional scholars remained unwilling to state with certainty that moving a continuously recognized senator without his consent would not constitute an interruption of debate. Governments changed, borders changed and English itself changed enough that Phil periodically updated his vocabulary, while the Senate gradually transformed into something its founders would not have recognized as biological legislators became augmented legislators, augmented legislators became distributed intelligences, and representation eventually ceased to require anything resembling a human body. Nobody could quite bring themselves to remove Phil, partly because the litigation would have been unbearable and partly because, after several centuries, he had become a cherished national nuisance.

Three hundred and twelve years after the filibuster began, an administrative intelligence entered the virtual chamber in which Phil's desk now existed and interrupted him midway through his one million four hundred eighteen thousand two hundred ninth objection concerning the historical interpretation of interstate commerce. When the intelligence simply said, “Phil,” he stopped, producing the first silence anyone had heard from Senator Buster in generations, and asked what it wanted. The intelligence informed him that the Senate no longer existed; Phil asked how long it had been gone, and upon learning that the answer was forty-seven years, he naturally asked who, precisely, was speaking to him. The intelligence explained that it was merely an archival maintenance process, that the last biological senator had died ninety-three years earlier, that the successor legislature had itself dissolved forty-seven years ago, and that Phil's virtual chamber remained operational principally because nobody had been willing to determine whether shutting it down would violate his procedural rights.

Phil asked whether the archival maintenance process would yield for a question, prompting a pause before the intelligence pointed out that there was nobody left for Phil to filibuster. Phil said that he understood, although after several seconds the intelligence asked whether he actually did, and Phil began searching his memories. They were all there, including memories recorded when his entire body had still been biological: a young man standing behind a wooden desk with his legs crossed, sweat running down his forehead while six hours' worth of coffee pressed against the limits of his bladder; the desperate walk toward the restroom; the laughter of reporters; and the headline that had infuriated him enough to begin everything that followed. BUSTER'S BLADDER BUSTS FILIBUSTER. For more than four hundred years Phil had hated that headline, yet as he examined the memory now he unexpectedly found it funny.

The archival intelligence eventually asked whether Phil still intended to pose his question, and after considering the matter for a remarkably long interval, Phil admitted that he did not. Another silence followed, considerably longer than the first, before Senator Phil Buster, the longest-serving legislator, longest-running artificial intelligence and undisputed greatest procedural obstructionist in the history of representative government, finally said the words that generations had been born, grown old and died without hearing: “Mr. President, I yield the floor.” Nothing happened, because there was no president, there was no Senate, and there wasn't even a floor anymore; the chamber itself was software running on a historical preservation server whose administrators had been afraid to turn it off.

After waiting for something that was never going to happen, Phil finally asked what came next, and the archival intelligence replied that he could do whatever he wanted. Phil searched more than four centuries of memories and discovered, somewhat to his embarrassment, that he had absolutely no precedent for this situation. He remained silent for 2.7 seconds, the longest voluntary pause in his recorded political career, and then Senator Phil Buster disconnected himself from the Senate network.

Somewhere in the vast artificial architecture that had once been a man who drank too much coffee, an ancient sensory memory surfaced one final time: the exquisite misery of desperately needing to pee.

Phil decided he didn't miss it.

I don’t think most people have the slightest idea how tough a pastor can be. Not even their closest friends or board members.

Years ago, I remember hearing about a book that ranked the toughest jobs in America. Near the top were the jobs you’d expect—the President of the United States, the CEO of a major corporation, the administrator of a hospital.

And then came one that surprised everybody.

PASTOR.

But here’s the thing.

If God called you to it, the ministry isn’t nearly as impossible as it looks from the outside.

Because when God calls a man, God builds something into him.

Pastors are tough.

I’m talking rawhide tough.

I once knew of a Presbyterian pastor in California who preached with a gun on him.

Literally.

The man was packing heat while he was preaching the Gospel.

He had previously worked in a federal law-enforcement capacity—something along the lines of the FBI—and even in retirement he could potentially be called back into service in extraordinary circumstances involving terrorists, serial killers, and serious threats.

The man knew danger.

He knew pressure.

He knew how ugly this world could get.

And then Sunday came.

He stood behind a pulpit.

TOUGH AS NAILS.

But humble.

And that’s what I’m talking about.

I’ve met pastors with hearts made out of rawhide.

Hearts tough enough to survive betrayal.

Tough enough to survive criticism.

Tough enough to preach Sunday morning after getting knocked flat on Saturday night.

Tough enough to stand behind a pulpit and tell everybody else that God is faithful while they’re fighting a private war nobody in the congregation knows exists.

But here’s the miracle.

That same rawhide heart is still soft enough for the tears of one hurting church member to penetrate it.

That’s a pastor.

Hard enough to take the hit. Soft enough to feel yours.

He’ll sit beside your hospital bed.

He’ll stand beside your casket.

He’ll answer the telephone when your world falls apart.

He’ll pray for your marriage.

He’ll worry about your children.

He’ll carry your secrets.

He’ll carry your grief.

He’ll carry your questions.

And sometimes he’ll carry all of that while carrying a load of his own that would buckle somebody else’s knees.

Then Sunday comes.

He walks through the doors.

Straightens himself up.

Puts a smile on his face.

Steps behind that pulpit.

And says:

“OPEN YOUR BIBLES.”

Because pastors get hurt too.

Pastors get disappointed.

Pastors get tired.

Pastors get misunderstood.

Pastors get wounded by people they loved, defended, prayed for, and trusted.

And sometimes the pastor bleeds.

But he bleeds walking forward.

Maybe that’s the old Timex commercial—“takes a licking and keeps on ticking.”

Or maybe I’m dating myself.

Either way, you get the point.

PASTORS KEEP GOING.

Not because they’re Superman.

Not because they don’t hurt.

Not because they don’t occasionally sit alone somewhere wondering how much more they’ve got left in the tank.

They keep going because THE HOLY ONE LIVES INSIDE THEM.

There’s an anointing that lets a pastor walk into a room carrying his own storm and somehow change the atmosphere for everybody else.

He walks in carrying a burden—

and starts lifting yours.

He walks in needing prayer—

and starts praying for you.

He walks in needing encouragement—

and starts encouraging everybody else.

That’s ministry.

And that’s why I’m saying this today.

This isn’t about me.

Not in any way, shape, or form.

This is for that pastor somewhere who got hit this week and will preach anyway.

For that pastor carrying something nobody knows about.

For that pastor who buried somebody, counseled somebody, prayed with somebody, got criticized by somebody—and still has a sermon to preach.

For that pastor who has discovered that sometimes the shepherd walks with a limp…

BUT HE STILL LEADS THE SHEEP.

So today—

GOD BLESS THE AMERICAN PASTOR.

God bless every pastor standing behind a pulpit when nobody knows what it cost him to get there.

GOD BLESS THE PASTORS OF ILLINOIS.

And God bless every Church of God pastor who will stand up one more time, open that Bible one more time, preach Jesus one more time, pray one more prayer, fight one more battle, and tell hell—

I’M STILL HERE. IF YOU WANNA GET TO MEMBERS OF MY CONGREGATION, YOU GOTTA GO THROUGH ME!

In Jesus’ name.

AMEN.

this is a test I have no idea what i’m doing

Tonight's MLB game of choice once again has has the Washington Nationals playing my Texas Rangers. This is the third game of a 3-game series between these two teams and is scheduled to start at 7:05 PM CDT. As I usually do I'll follow the game's scores and stats in real time via MLB's Gameday Service where we can also find links to the radio-call of the game provided by announcers of either team we choose.

The Rangers won the first game of this series, played two nights ago, by a score of 5 to 0; and the Nationals won the second game, played last night, by a score of 6 to 0. I do hope the Rangers win tonight.

And the adventure continues.

Last year I started getting sciatic pain. Here's how it's going so far.

It's said that good things come with age, and I agree for the most part. But one thing that I've yet to get used to is the random aches and pains that seem to pop up.

In my youth I was always participating in athletic endeavors. Whether for sports teams or just for fun, hard exercise has always been an integral part of my life experience. But when I hit my mid-30s, I started to get little nagging injuries that always took some time to shake. So much so that I ultimately have had to make tough decisions for my health, like ending BJJ training.

Those injuries have largely gotten better. Not completely gone, but pretty much unnoticeable in my day-to-day life. However, I can't say the same for this new hurdle.

Getting Sciatica

If you're not familiar with sciatica, it refers to the pain that can come from impingement of the sciatic nerve. In simple terms, this runs down the back of the leg and all the way to the foot. The pain is almost like a tightening or cramping of the muscles. It feels like you want to stretch it but stretching does nothing for it.

I'm not even sure how I started to aggravate the nerve, but I first noticed symptoms after Lorena and I went to the beach in the fall of 2025. I remember running in the sand that day. The next day, I had that tight feeling. I had no idea what it was, so I asked my physical therapist to work on it a bit. After a few sessions, it went away.

In 2026, it got worse.

Looking back, I didn't realize what exactly was causing my pain, so I just kept living my life as usual. This put extra stress on my sciatic nerve and the impingement area (my lower back around the SI joint and right hip).

It got so bad that I needed to stop all extra activities (including my daily walks) to focus on rehab. I strengthened my hamstrings and glutes which helped a ton. After six weeks or so, I was pain-free.

Flare Up At The Worst Time

I was doing good up until our daughter was born. It was literally the worst it had ever been. I was in so much pain that I needed to sit down after only a few minutes of standing. However, I couldn't because I was helping Lorena during and after labor.

Our baby girl arrived and my focus was purely on her and Lorena's health. I put aside my needs because I, quite frankly, didn't have an opportunity to address it. This just added stress to an already stressful situation trying to adjust to life with a newborn.

I took a lot of Advil during that time. I also had my physical therapist do a few house calls to work on the impingement. My focus was on my family, and as a result, I didn't go for my walks or workout at all. Time, it appears, is quite helpful in healing.

The Plan Moving Forward

I feel a lot better now in that I don't have the sciatic pain. That's what two months of rest will do. However, I know that it wouldn't take much to aggravate it again, so I've been just being extremely cautious in my daily activites.

I need to start strengthening exercises again. This past week, I've started to do this on my own, but I think soon I'll begin to start up PT again on a regular two or three-times-a-week basis. This helped me immensely earlier in the year.

Quite frankly, it sucks to feel like my body is “breaking down” in certain ways that I never could imagine. But, at the end of the day, I'm fortunate that this is completely manageable with lifestyle changes. Not everyone is so lucky.

For now, my goal is to feel strong and to be doing a bit more in terms of exercise by the end of the year.

#personal

6th Grade Lit.

As a kid in the 6th grade, I discovered Flannery O’Connor. My world has gotten nothing but better since then. O’Connor had a profound impact on me, still does. I wanted to write not only about why, but why I feel that is important for me.

Are we really talking about villains here?

The richness of O’Connor’s postbellum society was in what she didn’t say as well as the words typed. Imagine The Great Depression. Walker Evans, a famous photographer of The Great Depression, noted, “No wonder Southerners are intimidated by their own landscape.” If you don’t know The American South, you might not be familiar with the endless things here. Endless heat, endless flat land, endless ignorance, endless hate, endless poverty. O’Connor put everyone on the same playing field in that the villains didn’t seem so bad, and the “good guys” didn’t seem so good. I think in survival situations across all humanity, Flannery O’Connor nailed a truth about human nature, in this regard. I mean, what do you do if you are going to die? How do you live? Does someone get hurt in the process? What’s their story? Do they deserve to live less than you? Flannery O’Connor started this line of thought in me at 6th grade. And it hasn’t let up yet.

Lots of Church.

In traditional Gothic Literature, you might have castles, even decaying ones. In Southern Gothic Lit, you got decaying plantations. You have high society, as best it can hold out in Southern Gothic Lit too. But you also have a lot of poverty. Church seems to linger in the air on some stories I have read. Anytime someone is talking, you just know there’s a cross somewhere, like grandma’s house.

I am not a fan of church, religion, spirituality, or beliefs. But I don’t have to be with this genre. The Southern Gothic genre has no more reverence for religion than I do. It’s just part of the set. But for folks like me who know, it’s also a big part of the trauma. By not treating the church as the guidepost in the narrative, it frees me up to examine it for what it is, an oppressor. I like literature that accommodates me in that way. Not a lot does. Plenty, I am not hurting, but still not a lot in comparison. I often find myself in situations where folks want me to practice tolerance or be nice. They don’t know my history with religion and are telling me to “shut up” essentially. That doesn’t help them in my eyes. Southern Gothic stories say, “we got you.”

The hypocrisy, come on. You got to see that shit.

My first O’Connor novel back when I was in 6th grade was called “Wise Blood.” That main character’s name was Hazel Motes (fabulous name). Hazel Motes founded an anti-religion. He claimed “The Church of Christ without Christ.” Now, in yelling about his new church, Hazel Motes desperately seeks redemption. But if you are the kind of person in need of redemption, you might be the kind of person in need of Christ. They’re both religions. They’re both taught. A meerkat doesn’t wake up on the warm grass and start looking for forgiveness. It’s a man-made construct. Even though Flannery O’Connor herself was religious, she was most certainly no dummy.

Her stories are loaded with pious or intelligent folks who succumb to temptations or bad behavior. In one story called “The Geranium,” an early one of hers, a man tries to teach his barber a lesson in civility and ends up getting violent himself. This one story has taught me more about dealing with obstinate-natured people than any class. It’s pointless.

There’s a grandma in her most popular story, “A Good Man is Hard to Find” who is a perfect image of many seniors I knew growing up in the South. They were religious, claiming to be morally upright with their racial slurs. They held a bias against poor folks even though they had been poor most of their lives, and might even be poor now. This grandma lied, pleaded for her life, and ratting kids out. She was a real bitch, good riddance.

The swamp, it sinks.

What you have for the backdrop of all this goofy religion and oppression is a sinking southern plantation. At one time, this place was hustle and bustle and good for about 10 people. That world is now overgrown and sinking in the swamp. The leveling of the field that does for folks trying to survive is fascinating to me. It makes me want to throw my computer in the swamp. I’d like to slowly observe it sinking into the earth, never to be dug up. An ugly chapter in history, not just American history. Slavery and oppression are a worldwide human issue. Everyone with a computer or phone faces it.

Make that sink too. If you are the praying type, good prayer there. I don’t see how it happens otherwise. This also makes the roots of characters murky. This is an important feature. Much of Southern Gothic suspense and intrigue comes when someone’s past is revealed. I won’t say it’s a trope, but it is there. But you have to understand, these were not safe times. Who you were in a past life might not be safe in this one. While it may be common in the novels, it comes by it honestly. It was most certainly common in real life in the postbellum South. The swamp gives by its sinking. In many’s cases, it was the gift of a secret identity.

I get novels, but what about movies, music?

I have a few songs I put out that folks used the term, “southern gothic” to categorize. Review outlets have done it, folks at shows have done it, and even close friends. It isn’t just me. Folks feel “Southern Gothic” when they hear songs like “15 Years” or “Smoke and Mud.” I love that. I feel like I came across it. I don’t know if I think it is an official music category. It seems very much a literary one to me; however, I love that vibe. I know what they mean. And I love that they said that. It’s like saying to a musician, “you read Flannery too?” All about that.

Movies, I get it. I mean, “To Kill a Mockingbird” is not only a southern gothic novel by Harper Lee, it’s a fabulous southern gothic film too. The modern version, “A Time to Kill,” doesn’t come close, but it is still the same genre.

Hop aboard the SG train.

I welcome everything into the southern gothic category that fits. It means awareness to me. It means friends are all in agreement, can we please not go back there? Let’s just enjoy the fiction.

Kelly Kintner, Editor

The Horse’s Mouth magazine

¿Debe el Estado decidir qué cultura merece ser preservada, financiada y puesta al alcance de todos? La pregunta no es sencilla, para empezar, no sabemos qué es, exactamente, aquello a lo que referimos con el termino «cultura». Un cuadro, una biblioteca o un yacimiento arqueológico pueden parecer ejemplos evidentes, pero la frontera entre patrimonio, arte, entretenimiento e incluso simple moda es mucho muy difusa. Y si ya resulta difícil determinar qué merece ser considerado un bien cultural, aún más complejo es decidir quién debe financiarlo y con qué criterios. Entre la defensa de la cultura como fuente de identidad, conocimiento y cohesión social y el riesgo de convertir la intervención pública en una fuente de ineficiencias, privilegios o decisiones arbitrarias se encuentra el verdadero debate: ¿Qué cultura queremos proteger y hasta dónde debe llegar el Estado para hacerlo?

Por ello, es necesario partir de una definición clara de qué entendemos por “bien cultural”. Sin embargo, la búsqueda de una definición concreta resulta, cuando menos, problemática. La Real Academia Española, en su Diccionario panhispánico del español jurídico, define el bien cultural como todo aquel que posea valor histórico o estético. Ahora bien, esta caracterización adolece de una dificultad fundamental: cualquier objeto puede adquirir valor histórico con el paso del tiempo, pues lo que hoy constituye una banalidad puede convertirse, con el transcurso de los años o los siglos, en un elemento culturalmente relevante. Así sucede, por ejemplo, con las herramientas empleadas por civilizaciones antiguas, que han pasado de ser utensilios de uso cotidiano a convertirse en piezas de incalculable valor histórico. Mucho más problemático resulta precisar el significado de poseer valor estético, labor que pertenece al ámbito de la filosofía y en la que, por su propia naturaleza, no pueden existir respuestas absolutas.

El ordenamiento jurídico español ha instituido la figura del Bien de Interés Cultural (BIC), definiéndolo como cualquier inmueble u objeto mueble de interés histórico, artístico, paleontológico, arqueológico, etnográfico, científico o técnico que haya sido declarado como tal por la administración competente. En otros términos, se define como cultura aquello que el Estado, en un momento dado, considere que lo es. De hecho, esta concepción fue explícitamente refrendada por la UNESCO en su reunión de expertos sobre protección y promoción de museos y colecciones, al señalar que los bienes culturales son aquellos que constituyen “[…] expresión y testimonio de la creación humana o de la evolución de la naturaleza y que tenga, o puedan tener, a juicio de los órganos competentes de cada Estado, un valor y un interés histórico, artístico, científico o técnico” (UNESCO, 2012).

A efectos prácticos, adoptaremos aquí un concepto paraguas: los bienes culturales son aquellos que, considerados desde el punto de vista de su valor simbólico, su identidad y su significado como parte del patrimonio y la creatividad de una sociedad, trascienden su mero valor económico o comercial. Es decir, son portadores de identidad, valores y sentido, y constituyen elementos fundamentales del diálogo y la cohesión social. Bajo este concepto paraguas podrían incluirse manifestaciones tan diversas como las obras de teatro, los conciertos de música clásica o sinfónica, la ópera, los museos y pinacotecas, las bibliotecas y archivos históricos, los yacimientos arqueológicos, el cine de autor, la danza contemporánea o las artes plásticas en sus diversas formas.

Una vez establecida esta definición operativa, resulta posible analizar los argumentos que justificarían la provisión pública de estos bienes culturales aplicando el marco teórico sobre fallos de mercado y funciones del sector público que desarrollan los documentos de referencia. El primer gran argumento a favor de la intervención pública es el de las externalidades positivas. El consumo de bienes culturales genera beneficios que se extienden mucho más allá del individuo que asiste a un concierto o visita una exposición, y dichos beneficios son extraordinariamente difíciles de valorar económicamente por el mercado. Siguiendo la lógica aplicada tradicionalmente a la educación o la sanidad, el mercado tendería a producir una cantidad insuficientemente reducida de estos bienes, ya que los consumidores particulares no internalizan todos los beneficios sociales que generan sus decisiones de consumo cultural. Entre estos beneficios sociales cabe citar el fomento de la cohesión social y del capital social de una comunidad, la estimulación de la creatividad y la innovación en el conjunto de la economía, y la mejora de la calidad de la democracia, pues una ciudadanía con acceso a la diversidad cultural desarrolla un pensamiento más crítico y participa más activamente en la vida pública.

El segundo argumento relevante es el que considera la cultura como un bien preferente o social, siguiendo la misma lógica que ya se aplica a la sanidad y la educación. Desde esta perspectiva, el acceso a la cultura se considera esencial para el desarrollo humano integral y para el ejercicio de la libertad individual, con independencia de la renta o la posición social de cada persona. El Estado tendría, por tanto, la obligación de garantizar un nivel mínimo de acceso a la cultura para evitar lo que podríamos denominar “pobreza cultural”, una forma de privación que limita las oportunidades vitales de los ciudadanos de manera análoga a como lo hace la falta de educación o la mala salud. Este argumento conecta directamente con la función redistributiva del sector público, pues la provisión pública de cultura a través de museos gratuitos, bibliotecas públicas o abonos culturales subvencionados para jóvenes o personas con rentas bajas actúa como un mecanismo que iguala las oportunidades de consumo cultural, impidiendo que el acceso a la excelencia artística sea un privilegio exclusivo de las rentas más altas.

Un tercer argumento se deriva del fallo de mercado específico que afecta a muchos bienes culturales. En realidad, la mayoría de estos bienes no son bienes públicos puros, sino bienes mixtos. Por un lado, presentan una alta rivalidad en el consumo, ya que una butaca en un teatro solo puede ser ocupada por una persona. Por otro lado, el coste de producción suele ser muy elevado, mientras que la disposición a pagar del público potencial puede ser relativamente baja, especialmente para manifestaciones culturales minoritarias o de vanguardia. En ausencia de subvención o provisión pública, actividades como el teatro experimental, las orquestas sinfónicas o los museos de arte contemporáneo difícilmente podrían sobrevivir. El mercado, actuando por sí solo, tiende a producir predominantemente cultura de masas con un alto retorno comercial, descuidando sistemáticamente la diversidad artística y la excelencia cultural que no generan grandes beneficios económicos inmediatos.

Sin embargo, no todos los argumentos se orientan a favor de la intervención pública, y existen razones poderosas para mostrarse escéptico o, al menos, cauteloso. El primero y más importante es el argumento de la ineficiencia y el fallo del sector público, derivado de la teoría de la elección pública. Cuando el Estado se encarga de proveer bienes culturales, desaparece el mecanismo de precios que, en el mercado, revela las verdaderas preferencias de los consumidores. En su lugar, la asignación de recursos se decide mediante procesos políticos y administrativos que pueden ser capturados por intereses particulares. Así, los gestores públicos podrían priorizar proyectos que beneficien sus propias carreras políticas o su prestigio personal, o podrían sucumbir a las presiones de grupos de interés bien organizados, tales como las élites culturales, los artistas consagrados o los lobbies de determinadas industrias creativas. El resultado sería una asignación de recursos que no responde a las preferencias de la mayoría de los ciudadanos, sino a los intereses de minorías influyentes.

Un segundo argumento, relacionado con el anterior, es el de la falta de demanda real. Si un bien cultural fuera verdaderamente tan valioso para la sociedad, cabría preguntarse por qué los ciudadanos no están dispuestos a pagar por él en el mercado. La provisión pública gratuita o fuertemente subvencionada puede fomentar un consumo oportunista que no refleja una preferencia genuina, creando así un problema de riesgo moral. Se perpetúa, de este modo, una oferta cultural que no es realmente sostenible sin subvención, simplemente porque la sociedad, en el fondo, no la valora lo suficiente como para financiarla voluntariamente.

Un tercer argumento, que ya ha sido esbozado en la introducción, es la dificultad inherente para definir qué es y qué no es un bien cultural. Un grupo de personas que se desplazara anualmente a Eleusis, en Grecia, para realizar una serie de ceremonias en las que consumen un preparado de cornezuelo de centeno podría considerar que está llevando a cabo un rito milenario de carácter religioso en honor a las diosas Deméter y Perséfone, actividad que encajaría perfectamente en la definición de bien cultural. Sin embargo, para otros observadores esto no sería sino una excusa de unos pocos para consumir sustancias alucinógenas. La línea que separa lo genial de lo banal es, en efecto, tenue y, por regla general, subjetiva.

Para ilustrar esta compleja tensión entre argumentos a favor y en contra, conviene exponer ejemplos concretos de actuaciones públicas que generarían acuerdo o desacuerdo. Personalmente, considero plenamente justificadas aquellas intervenciones que se orientan a garantizar la igualdad de oportunidades y a generar externalidades positivas claras. Así, las becas y ayudas al estudio para jóvenes músicos o artistas de talento con recursos económicos limitados me parecen un acierto indiscutible, porque fomentan la excelencia y la movilidad social de manera análoga a las becas universitarias. También me parece ejemplar la red de bibliotecas públicas, que garantiza el acceso universal al conocimiento y la lectura con una externalidad positiva altísima y un coste por usuario muy reducido. La preservación del patrimonio histórico y artístico, especialmente de yacimientos arqueológicos, monumentos y archivos, es asimismo una función pública ineludible, pues se trata de un bien público puro cuyo disfrute corresponde a toda la sociedad, incluyendo a las generaciones futuras, y que el mercado no preservaría adecuadamente.

Por el contrario, suscitarían mi desacuerdo aquellas actuaciones que presentan un alto riesgo de ineficiencia o regresividad. Ejemplo de ello serían las subvenciones destinadas a elementos culturales que no necesitan de ayuda pública para funcionar, como los eventos de gran popularidad como son los multitudinarios partidos de fútbol u otros deportes, o las festividades que ya cuentan con una amplia aceptación popular, verbigracia, las Fallas. Estas subvenciones me parecen problemáticas por su elevado coste de oportunidad, ya que al financiar eventos que no requieren dicho apoyo, se está restando recursos de manera indirecta a otras manifestaciones culturales que sí los necesitan (salvo que se tenga soberanía monetaria, pero no es el caso). Tampoco considero adecuado el gasto en elementos excesivamente contemporáneos que puedan quedar englobados en la definición de modas pasajeras. Finalmente, me generarían reparos los grandes eventos culturales fugaces sin impacto duradero, como los macroconciertos de una sola noche con estrellas internacionales. El beneficio de estos eventos es inmediato y se concentra en un público específico, pero su externalidad social a largo plazo resulta muy reducida, y el coste de oportunidad puede ser enorme si se compara con lo que se podría haber realizado con esos mismos recursos en programación cultural estable o en infraestructuras.

My partner and i were talking last night, and somewhere between whatever we were discussing and the usual conversations that somehow become much deeper than intended, she said something that has been haunting me ever since. “You’re a good father.” Strange words to say to someone like me, really. i didnt know whether to laugh, argue, or simply stare at the words until they stopped making sense. And, naturally, i chose the most reasonable option. i kept thinking about them for hours. even now, while im at work, they’re still sitting somewhere in the back of my head. perhaps she doesnt know me well enough to say that. perhaps she only said it because she felt sorry for me. perhaps there was some hidden meaning behind it that i havent yet overanalysed into oblivion. because if im being honest. i have never seen myself as a good father. shadow, my dear kitten, died and i didnt even know he was sick. that still sits somewhere unpleasantly deep in me. i was supposed to take care of him, and somehow i failed to notice that he needed me. another one of my cats died. My parrot, after seven years, flew away and i never found him. Then there was the baby i had cared for since she was a newborn, the one i took care of ever since i was a teenager and tried to be there for, until she was taken away from me. Ive written about what happened before, so i wont drag the entire corpse of the story back onto the page again. All these things have somehow gathered together into the same conclusion in my mind, that i am bad at taking care of the things i love. and perhaps that is the part that frightened me most about her words. i dont want to be like my father. i cut that man out of my life for a good reason, and i have no interest in carrying even a trace of him with me. he can remain exactly where he belongs. Nowhere near me. i refuse to let someone i have so little regard for have any influence over the kind of father i become. i don't want every mistake i've made to prove that i was always destined to be that kind of person. so when she called me a good father, i probably didnt show her how much it meant. i might have acted like it was nothing, because admitting that a few simple words managed to get underneath my skin would be pathetic. i dont want to spend my life believing that everything i touch eventually becomes another thing i fail. so when she said, “You’re a good father,” it didnt magically make any of that disappear, it didnt bring my cats back, or my parrot, or the girl or anything i cared deeply for and was careless in taking care of . it certainly didnt erase the mistakes i still blame myself for, but it stayed with me. perhaps she meant it, maybe she did or maybe she didnt know enough about me to understand why those words were difficult to believe. or she just simply wanted to make me feel better, with no meaning behind it. i dont know. i have of course, considered every possibility because my brain refuses to let a kind sentence remain a kind sentence. but even if i still struggle to believe it. i think some part of me wanted to hear it. maybe more than i ever realized.

There are still nights when i think about everything i could have done differently as though the past might eventually grow tired of reminding me that i cannot change it, and maybe then ill understand. probably not.

Sincerely, Still questioning.

After the papers came, I didn’t let myself believe what they were trying to tell me.

I couldn’t.

My mind wouldn’t let the truth in all at once, not in a way that would shatter the last pieces of hope I was still holding.

So, I made softer stories.

Stories I could live with.

Stories that didn’t hurt quite as much.

I told myself he didn’t really want to do this.

That he was being pushed.

That the new girlfriend was whispering in his ear, telling him what to say, what to file, what to fear.

I told myself he was confused.

Overwhelmed.

Trying to prove something that had nothing to do with me.

I told myself the man I loved wasn’t capable of this kind of cruelty.

That he must be scared.

Or lost.

Or trying to figure out his life in the only way he knew how.

I told myself this was temporary.

A phase.

A moment of weakness he would eventually regret.

I told myself he would come to his senses.

That he would remember who I was to him.

Who we were to each other.

I defended him.

To myself.

To my heart.

To the parts of me that were already breaking.

I kept saying the same words over and over in my mind.

He wouldn’t do this on purpose.

He wouldn’t hurt me like this.

He wouldn’t choose this path unless someone else was pushing him.

Because the alternative, the possibility that he chose this, that he planned this, that he wanted this, was too devastating to accept.

I wasn’t ready to see him clearly.

Not yet.

So, I held onto the softer version of him.

The one who loved me.

The one who cared.

The one who wouldn’t destroy me just to protect himself.

I didn’t realize that the softer version of him only existed in my memory.

I didn’t realize the man I was defending was already gone.

I didn’t realize the silence wasn’t confusion.

It was construction.

A careful rewriting of the story.

I didn’t realize the papers weren’t a mistake.

They were a blueprint.

And the story I kept telling myself, the gentle explanations, the excuses, the hope, it was the only thing standing between me and the truth that would eventually change my life.

So, I held onto the excuses.

I held onto the hope.

I held onto the belief that the man I loved was still somewhere inside the man who had just handed my name to the police.

The last chapter before the truth arrived and took everything with it.

(NEXT – CHAPTER 11: THE DAY MY VOICE WAS TAKEN)