hopelesshappiness.com

From dictionary.com: “righteous - characterized by uprightness or morality; morally right or justifiable; acting in an upright or moral way; virtuous.” To be critical of righteousness is to risk giving an impression of moral superiority when that quality in others is exactly what I am criticizing. On the one hand, I am allowed to think and surmise, but on the other hand, I must acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong. It is a dilemma. To excoriate righteousness is to promulgate and perpetuate righteousness. But to allow the active realization and consequent justification of (what I perceive as) wrongs, with no comment, is to promulgate and perpetuate disparity and injustice regardless of if I am right or wrong or somewhere in between. One could wait for a consensus and join up. But how does a consensus come about if no one speaks up? This consensus method of change slows progress because it takes considerable effort to properly load the bandwagon. Yet, we find forward movement, (which is not always progress), difficult without a consensus. In this current era of divisiveness though, I believe consensus is moreso a vocal rather than an actual majority; I believe the bandwagon is improperly loaded with sheep and driven by wolves; and I believe that is how some factions are moving forward though progress is at (best at) a standstill; and I believe the imperious righteousness of these drivers is exactly what I am speaking out about; and I believe this scenario is equally present and active on both sides of our nation’s political aisle. But in today’s environment, how do I state an opinion and work toward progress without seeming righteous and without seeming to take sides?

A few weeks ago, I asked myself a similar question: How do I influence compassionately with urgency? These questions are similar in that in both efforts I am working to connect, not divide; and I am working to progress, not maintain any sort of status quo. A few weeks ago, I determined that there were simply some individuals and some factions so single-minded and so entrenched on their path that they are incapable of reason. Considering this parallel effort toward tempering imperious righteousness, I am likely to face this same unmoving mindset if I am perceived to be fighting righteousness with righteousness.

It is interesting that, (regardless of the frequent dead ends, continued isolation and brick walls), I continue to seek ways to convince others of the wisdom in uncertainty and reason and actual expertise and active hope. In this climate of clashing confrontation, it feels like

• no one wants to admit that they may be wrong and so no one is willing to listen;
• no one wants to admit that their concept of how things should be is selfish and likely a relic from a different place and time;
• no one wants to admit that they are only as necessary as any other random individual from any other random city, state, nation, or continent anywhere upon this random planet;
• and no one wants to believe that to do for oneself is to undo for others and to do for others one must undo for oneself.

I am often wrong. I am willing to listen. My concept of how things should be will always be (to some degree) selfish. I, on occasion, harken back to better times. I acknowledge the objective rationality of the impartiality of comparative necessity, but my actions tend to reflect my self-perceived importance and superiority. I, on occasion, purposefully undo for myself as a reminder; but it is difficult. All of these factors contribute to competing divisive hubris, and this collection of individual hubris will ultimately determine our fate as a species; and that is scary.

Many would argue that confidence is necessary and that days gone by really were better and that randomness does not apply to them or theirs and that one must first love and help their self before they are able to love and help others. I argue that when a belief is strong and/or entrenched, it becomes true; for that individual. So, in turn, widespread strong and/or entrenched belief creates some form of consensus and often leads to imperious righteousness. I argue that even the most benevolent, kind, generous and seemingly unselfish acts cannot be done for both oneself and for others. Yes, others may benefit from my selfish actions, (and I do not belittle this consideration or devalue its contribution), but if there is even a smidgen of selfishness, I am doing for myself, thus undoing for others. At this point, many would argue, (and I agree), I am essentially saying that as an individual human I am incapable of unadulterated unselfishness. The best I can actively hope for is valuable overflow contribution. Still, on occasion, I work to find a way to exclusively undo for myself as a reminder to add some undoing in my doing. This consideration of doing and undoing is a very fine distinction, but I believe it is an important one.

I am again come to a conclusion that some paths are so well-worn, they will forever be trod upon.

I cannot undo what has been undone.

In this age of animosity, this era of exaggerated ego, these dark days of divisiveness, I have to add fuel and ask: Is poker more luck or more skill? There is some debate on this. Of course, the cards themselves are simply luck of the draw as long as they are dealt fairly and from the same standard deck. The skill comes along in what a player does with the cards they are dealt. Odds can be calculated and strategies evolve.

But these decisions made are based on the object of the game as perceived by each player. If one player is playing for incremental wins and long-term security, their strategy will include more frequent folding and working to understand the psychology of the other players who have influence over their communal deck. If another player believes the object is winning the current hand, (Carpe Diem!), they will seldom fold a hand and likely not leave a game until they have no more chips. The first player settles, the second player dreams. These two players play from the same standard deck, but they are playing two essentially different games with multiple varying, (admittedly) sometimes overlapping strategies.

There are other players.

…players who are playing one or the other of these two basic games but are playing with different decks. Some are fortunate to be playing with fewer numbered cards replaced by additional face cards, aces and jokers. Others are forced to play only with even-numbered cards, few or no queens and aces, and only an occasional jack or king, with the missing cards replaced by blank cards of no value.

Many of those fortunate to be playing with loaded decks, and some of those forced to play with watered down decks, believe they are playing with the same standard deck as everyone else. After all, the usable cards everyone has in hand look the same. But of course, when dealt better cards odds are better you will win whichever game you are playing; and on/in the other hand, after being dealt so many blanks you learn to quickly discard them and move on.

Now I want to talk about dice. Using the same set of dice, I do not believe there is skill in determining the result of the roll. I believe that incorporating dice into a game that involves at least a degree of skill, in the long run, lessens the odds of winning; but it does make the game more interesting, perhaps more exciting, and likely levels the playing field. Yet only some players in the poker games above, are also required to roll dice that dictate various actions with their cards and further randomize the outcome, lessening their odds of winning by reducing their opportunities for learning applicable skills. Other players above, (frequently those playing with a loaded deck), are not required to roll dice. And those so inclined, can still point to their hand and claim they are playing with the same cards as everyone else.

I have never been a very successful poker player, usually because I want to win every hand. It is difficult for me to fold. I am a dreamer. Some characterize dreamers as unrealistic or even (more harshly as) stupid. I characterize those who characterize dreamers in this way as sheep. It all comes back to what game an individual player is playing. I work to play my game. Though I am also compelled to expend effort as a sheep, I still want to win every hand. I still seek as many possible best moments as I can conceive of, no matter the odds. I believe that wisdom comes from seeking an unattainable truth, and I believe the truth demands constant questioning and evolution, and I believe that justice comes from action, and I don’t believe that wisdom or justice are possible when one folds their cards and plays it safe and/or when some are playing from a different deck; and though I do believe ultimate truth unattainable, I also believe one will come closer with wisdom and justice. Deal the cards to everyone from the same standard deck, play the cards you are dealt to the very end, and everybody roll the damn die! This is not the game we play today, and likely not in my lifetime; but a boy can dream…

A few weeks ago, I was looking at two decks of playing cards, some poker chips, a standard set of die, and a set of role-playing die. I started experimenting. I have approximately ended with the game of Dicey Poker described below. It is interesting and unpredictable and works well as a solitaire game. I am looking forward to testing the multi-player, multi-deck games and allowing them to evolve as I have the solitaire version. It will never be perfect, but it is a start. And, as I have discovered in this week's written thought, it works as a mechanism within which one can provoke thought.

Dicey Poker

1 to 2 players use one deck including 2 Jokers. 3 to 4 players use one-and-one-half decks (made up of one full deck and the spades and hearts from a second deck) including 3 Jokers. 5 to 6 players use two decks including 4 Jokers. Jokers are placed face-up, to the side; decks are shuffled. Five Chips or Markers are given to each player.

For 2 to 6 players, cut deck to determine dealer.

Deal 10 cards to each player; (if playing solitaire, deal face-up in a row). Play starts to the left of the dealer and proceeds clockwise. A “round” is considered complete when each player has played a single turn, beginning with the player to the dealer’s immediate left and ending with the dealer.

In each turn:

1. When the hand begins, and until the player has five cards placed face up, the player’s turn will consist of two die rolls. He or she will roll the base die then the face die (in that order) and follow the instructions in the rules below for each die. If the player’s fifth card is placed face up with the roll of the base die in a player’s turn, the player does not roll the face die in that turn.
2. Once a player has five face up cards, beginning with their next turn and for the remainder of the hand, that player chooses which (of the 2) die to roll, (Base Die or Face Die), but must have a minimum of 3 base cards or 3 face cards in their hole hand to roll the respective die. For the remainder of the hand, the player can roll only one die per turn.
3. If a die roll matches a card in hand, that card is placed face-up, in front of player; or, in solitaire, in a separate row toward the center of the playing area. All Jokers are wild and immediately placed face-up. The player is required to place a matched card face-up, every time they match, until they have 5 face-up cards. If there is more than one card per roll in hand that matches, the player may choose which card, (i.e. suit) to play, but can only play one matched card per die roll.
4. After each die roll, if a card has been placed face-up and not swapped for an unchipped face up card, the player draws a card from the top of the draw pile to maintain exactly 10 in hand; or alternatively, if there was not a match, (i.e. a card has not been placed face-up and/or chipped), the player is required to discard (face up to the top of the discard pile) one card of choice from hand and draw the top card from the draw pile. If a card is matched and placed face-up, the player is not allowed to also discard.
5. Once a player has five cards face up, if he or she rolls a die and matches an in-hand card, one of the following must be done:
1. Swap the matching card in hand with one of the unchipped face up cards, return the former face up card to hand, and place a chip upon the new face up card; (do not discard and draw); or
2. Place a chip upon one face up card of player’s choice, discard the matching card from hand to discard pile, and draw one card from draw pile.
As stated in Rule #4 above, if a player (who has five face up cards) rolls a die and does not match a card, the player is required to discard and draw.
6. If the card matched and placed face-up is an Ace, a one-eyed Jack, the suicide King, or a Two, this triggers a wild challenge round. After the player who triggers the challenge has swapped cards or draws a card to complete their die roll, the round is paused and that player begins the challenge according to the Wild Die and Wild Challenge rules below. This challenge does not count as any player’s turn. Once the challenge is complete, play resumes where it was paused.
7. Each player’s die roll and each player’s turn, (including wild challenge turns), should end with no more than 5 cards face-up and exactly 10 cards in hand.
8. Once a card is chipped, (i.e. a player places a chip on a face up card), that card cannot be swapped for any other card except a Joker. Face up Jokers are chipped immediately, (even if player has fewer than 5 face up cards), and cannot be swapped for any card; even another Joker.
9. When a player has chipped all 5 face up cards, that player will continue to choose a die according to the rules, roll and discard the matching card first, or (if there is no matching card) one card of their choice to the discard pile, and draw one card from the draw pile, working to improve their hole hand. That player will also participate in all wild challenges according to the rules. Remember: A Matching Card Must Always Go Out of Player’s Hand to the Face Up Row or to the Discard Pile. To ensure this code of honor, house rules may dictate all players’ hole cards face up.
10. Wild Challenges are not allowed in the final two rounds of play.
11. If necessary, the discard pile may be shuffled to create a new draw pile.
12. Once all players reach 5 chipped face-up cards, play continues clockwise until two complete additional rounds (ending with the dealer) have been played.
13. When these final two rounds are completed, the hand is over.
14. Each player will have 5 face-up cards and 10 cards in hand. Each player discards 5 cards from their hand leaving two hands, (one face-up and one in hand) per player for scoring. The scoring table is at the end of these instructions. The face-up hand is worth twice as much as an equivalent hole hand.
15. If the game is not finished, the deal for the next hand moves clockwise to the left.
16. For Game Flow Clarification:
    1. If a player has fewer than five cards face up, the player, (according to the rules), rolls two die per turn.
    2. If a player has fewer than five cards face up, the in-hand matching card must go face up.
    3. Once a player has five cards face up, the player rolls one die (of choice, according to the rules), per turn.
    4. Once a player has five cards face up, the in-hand matching card must either go face up, (i.e. swapped with an unchipped face up card), or it must go to the discard pile.
    5. Once a player has five cards face up, every matching die roll requires a card to be chipped.
    6. Once a player has chipped all five face up cards, the only change that can be made to face up hand is (according to the rules) the addition of a Joker replacing a chipped card.

    ---

    Base Die - 10 sided:

    • 1 = Ace
    • 2 = 2
    • 3 = 3
    • 4 = 4
    • 5 = 5
    • 6 = 6
    • 7 = 7
    • 8 = 8
    • 9 = 9
    • 0 or 10 = 10

    ---

    Face Die - 6 sided:

    • 1 = Red Jack
    • 2 = Black Jack
    • 3 = Red Queen
    • 4 = Black Queen
    • 5 = Red King
    • 6 = Black King

    ---

    Wild Challenge Die - 10 sided % die; (00 = 0%). Wild Challenge Rules:

    • Wild Challenges are not allowed in the final two rounds of play.
    • In multi-player games of 3 to 6 players, a player who has two Jokers must participate in all Wild Challenge rounds, but if a player who has two Jokers wins the challenge, that player is not allowed to roll the wild die. No player may have more than two Jokers at any time.
    • The player who triggered the challenge (considered the challenger), rolls first. The challenger may roll between one and infinite number of rolls to get as close to 100% as they can without going over. Any player who goes over 100%, loses the challenge.
    • If the challenger goes over, next player to the left must roll a minimum of two times.
    • If player 2 also goes over, next player to the left must roll a minimum of two times; and etc.
    • If all players go over, all players lose; no one rolls wild die.
    • But if the challenger or any other player in turn does not go over, each successive player may roll between one and infinite number of rolls to get as close to 100% as they can to beat or tie the challenger or the other player or players.
    • If there is a tie for rolls closest to 100% without going over, all players lose, and no one rolls the wild die.
    • In solitaire, the player must accumulate 70, 80, 90 or 100 percent to roll the wild die.
    • After all players have rolled the challenge die accordingly, if one player is closer to 100% than any other player, without going over, (or if the solitaire player accumulates 70% – 100%), that player wins the challenge, rolls the wild die (unless they already have two Jokers), and may (or may not) receive a Joker according to wild die rules. If a player wins a challenge, rolls the wild die, receives a Joker, and does not yet have 5 face-up cards, the Joker is placed face up and chipped. If a player wins a challenge, rolls the wild die, receives a Joker, and already has 5 face-up cards, 1 face-up card of player's choice (chipped or not) must be returned to the player’s hand and a hole card (of player’s choice) discarded to the discard pile to maintain no more than 5 face-up cards and exactly 10 cards in hand. All Jokers must be placed face-up with an immediate chip; Jokers are not allowed in-hand.
    • If all Jokers (two, three or four) have been claimed, an Ace, a one-eyed Jack, the suicide King, or a Two, triggers nothing.

    ---

    Wild Die - 4 sided:

    • Requires a Wild Challenge that is triggered with the face up placement of an Ace, a one-eyed Jack, the suicide King, or a Two; (see Rule #6 above)
    • Winner of Wild Challenge gets to roll wild die (one roll only) for a Joker.
    • In 1 to 2 player games, playing with one deck:
    • First Joker to be claimed requires a roll of 1 or 2.
    • Second Joker to be claimed requires a roll of 3 or 4.
    • In Multi-player games of 3 to 6 players, playing with one-and-a-half or two decks:
    • First Joker to be claimed requires a roll of 1.
    • Second Joker to be claimed requires a roll of 2.
    • Third Joker to be claimed requires a roll of 3.
    • In a 3 or 4 player game, if the winner of the wild challenge rolls a 4, that player may claim the first, second or third Joker.
    • Fourth Joker to be claimed (in a 5 or 6 player game) requires a roll of 4.
    • When a Joker is claimed, it must be placed face up and immediately chipped.

    ---

    Scoring:

    SCORING TABLE
    HAND	FACE-UP	HOLE
    Five of a Kind	66	33
    Royal Flush	60	30
    Straight Flush	50	25
    Four of a Kind	40	20
    Full House	30	15
    Flush	24	12
    Straight	18	9
    Three of a Kind	12	6
    Two Pair	8	4
    One Pair	6	3
    No Pair / Ace High	4	2
    No Pair / No Ace	2	1
    Each Joker	4	NA
    Each Ace	3	0
    Each Face Card	2	0
    Each Base Card (2-10)	1	0

    After totaling scores, if one or more players have reached 150 (or other agreed upon score), the game ends; highest score wins.

Flame.Fire.Magic.

Reflection.Water.Purification.

Substance.Earth.Burial.

Feathers.Air.Lightness.

BlueFlame.RedFlame.

HotFire.ColdFire.

BlackMagic.WhiteMagic.

MirroredReflection.InnerReflection.

ColdWater.StillWater.

BodilyPurification.SpiritualPurification.

ExanimateSubstance.ActiveSubstance.

SustainableEarth.GenerativeEarth.

MassBurial.PrematureBurial.

FloatingFeathers.BrokenWings.

WarpedAir.OminousAir.

SeeingLightness.BeingLightness.

Does it matter what I write? Or only that I write? The lines above have meaning, but who's going to make the effort to discern my meaning? Or interpret their own? I believe that because writing helps me to maintain a degree of personal equilibrium, individuals within my reach likely only care that I write; and most of these circularities don't even realize that they care. As a stabilizing force, my writing makes me somewhat easier to live with. I care about both: what I write and that I write.

The self is a circularity in that it defines and justifies its self through itself and it interprets and judges all else through its self. To justify, define or prove to one's self through oneself may be one's truth but cannot be truth because one cannot prove an argument when the premise is also the conclusion. Therefore there is no truth because one's self is both premisee and concluder, thus one's personal truth is always skewed by one's self. I believe it simpler to acknowledge the total absence of certainty thus proving the necessity of empathy and compassion, because once acknowledged, the complete lack of certainty requires one self to credit and value another self. Have I stumbled across the only logical truth applicable to all relationships and to interdependence and to progress and ultimately to the survival of Humanity? I am confident that this progression of thought has been thought before. It feels (in my limited understanding) Buddhist in nature. I suppose it is only applicable and only logical and only helpful though when it is reciprocated. And it is only truly reciprocated when one self truly does not care about the provenance of another self's truth, and when this absence of concern is also reciprocated. Each individual can hold on to that authorship, but it should not influence interactive progress. Democrats and Republicans both publicly claim to want what is best for everyone; but they do not. If they did, they would forego any personal ingrained premise and defer to expertise. The same could be said of Christians and Muslims and Atheists. If we are all in the general vicinity of each other's definition of good, why must we tie the conclusion to the premise? Why not defer to logic and reason for the implementation of good. Logic and reason is more likely to come from the objectivity of logic and reason than from the subjectivity of emotional belief. If empathy and compassion are good, why are we all so far apart? I believe it is because too many individuals are unable to offload the weighty encumbrance of circularity.

As a circularity, I care about both: what I write and that I write.

One side is afraid of losing control. Not necessarily afraid of the embodied threat, or the justice demanded. These things have always been and will always be. But today the understanding of goodness is more widespread and continues to grow, and acumen is more pronounced.

The other side is afraid of the spreading lightlessness. Not necessarily afraid of the darkness, or the shadows within. These things have always been and will always be. But today the darkness is more widespread and continues to encroach, and the shadows are more pronounced.

Once upon a time, the division was fuzzy; there was a large neutral area of herd mentality; a great many individuals simply working to take care of their self and help those closest to them. Today the encroaching darkness and the unavoidable wisdom have swallowed constituencies, forcing individuals to choose.

One side is afraid of uncontrolled violence. So much so that they show up early for planned peaceful demonstrations; and they establish perimeters in their riot gear, with their tactical weapons that are banned in international warfare. They agitate and enflame and goad and incite and boast about “vicious dogs” and “ominous weapons” and hide behind hypocrisy and powerful words that claim they respect peaceful protest when faced with violence, and then claim that they respect diversity when faced with peaceful protest, and then claim that they respect everyone’s rights when faced with diversity, and then claim that they respect law and order when faced with individual rights, and then claim that they respect the second amendment when faced with the logic of the Constitution as a whole, and then claim that they respect their god when faced with their own inability to reason; all in an attempt to disarm and de-escalate and maintain the status quo. And how can one argue with their god.

The other side is afraid of continued uncontrolled violence. So much so that they show up unarmed for planned peaceful demonstrations, with their placards and slogans and chants and symbolism. They protest police brutality and divisive rhetoric and unnecessary American suffering and unnecessary American deaths and bureaucratic snafus, and they stand on the front lines to reason, and failing that to seek justice according to law, and failing that to exercise Constitutional rights, and failing that to argue basic Human Rights, and failing that to celebrate and understand difference, and failing that to come together as one, and failing that to plead for mercy, and failing that to fight; all in an attempt to learn and grow and build a new and better status quo for tomorrow, and another for the day after, and another for the day after that. And how can one argue with their efforts to do good.

This week there was a picture of our president standing in front of a church, holding a bible. I look at this picture and I see peaceful protesters being gassed nearly 30 minutes before a curfew was to be imposed, so the presidential entourage could make their way to this photo op. I look at this picture and I hear someone in our White House giving an order to federal law enforcement officers to fire upon legally-gathered American citizens. I look at this picture and I understand that we are an inconvenience to our leadership.

One side has hijacked God.

The other side still prays.

On Monday, our president said to state governors, “if people are running amok, you have to dominate. …you have to arrest people and you have to try people. And they have to go to jail for long periods of time.” He went on to say, “it's a movement, if you don't put it down it will get worse and worse,” [and], “if a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.” This is incendiary. This is very much a threat. To see opinions and rights as a danger, to label protesters as non-citizens, to fight this perceived fire with the very real promise and execution of fire, to divert attention from real issues and real opportunity, is power and ego run amok; it is a movement, an assertion, of privilege; it is the American way.

One side claims order in law.

The other side braves the shock and awe.

On Tuesday, the White House justified actions with childish excuses, and the political party with limited power condemned actions with imperious righteousness, and the media took sides. And as these blocs jockeyed for position, some lucky individuals from the other side went to work and fumed over injustice and cried over George Floyd, and others not so lucky, sat in living rooms and kitchens and worried over the eviction notice and worried over their next meal and fumed over injustice and cried over George Floyd, and still others even less lucky wandered streets uncertain how they came to be here and uncertain where or if they would sleep tonight and they worried over their next meal and fumed over injustice and cried over George Floyd.

One side pushes with pretentious indignation.

The other side falls back with uncertain trepidation.

On Wednesday, additional and more serious criminal charges were brought against the officers involved in the death of George Floyd. Progress? Maybe. Yes. It is progress, but I remain skeptical of some motives. Working to read between the lines, in my limited and faulty (human) judgement, I believe there are more peaceful protests than there is senseless destruction and I believe there is more thoughtful resistance than there is violent reaction and I believe there are more good cops than there are bad cops; but I also believe that the issues at hand are significantly more systemic than they are extrinsic and I believe the fundamental, essential factor perpetuating the ignorance is a failure in leadership to recognize that there are multiple realities. Until leadership, (i.e. those with power), develop a more humane and widespread sense of empathy and compassion, justice will remain anecdotal.

One side sees rioters.

The other side sees protesters.

On Thursday, police in Vallejo, California continued to refuse to identify the officer who shot five times through his windshield, killing a kneeling Latino man who was wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and had a hammer in his pocket. The killing took place just after midnight on Tuesday. The police did not disclose the shooting death until Wednesday. On Thursday I was disheartened and distressed on so many different levels to see multiple pictures of white men and women allowed to openly carry very frightening weapons. Is this the ultimate example of white privilege? White men in Hawaiian shirts applauded for their guns? And a minority Latino man in his hoodie shot and killed for his hammer?

One side sees a hammer as a gun, and a gun as a statement.

The other side feels the bullet.

On Friday, our president began quibbling again with the NFL, expending effort, (as many of our politicians are wont to do), on divisiveness. This is an indicator of de-escalation; a transition from denouncing violence and unrest to denouncing peaceful protest. This is an effort to move us back to a semblance of normalcy; a status quo reflecting the hoped-for weariness and resignation of the other side; every individual neatly layered in their place. This is a distraction; an attempted sleight-of-hand; an avoidance. This is our leadership.

One side takes a knee on the neck of the oppressed.

The other side takes a knee on the flag to protest.

On Saturday, I read the following:

“…while the crowd stood silently, lawmen fired off many canisters of tear gas and waded into the marchers swinging their billy clubs. As one journalist noted, they 'came stomping in behind the gas, gun-butting and kicking the men, women, and children. They were not arresting, they were punishing.’”

(https://snccdigital.org/events/meredith-march/)

These are words that could have been ripped from this week's news; words describing The March Against Fear; a march begun in Memphis, Tennessee and ultimately ending in Jackson, Mississippi; a march that was meant to encourage blacks to register to vote. It was the idea of James Meredith, who was shot by a white racist on the second day of the march, 54 years ago today, June 6, 1966. Mr. Meredith survived, rejoined, and finished the march alongside Martin Luther King Jr., Stokely Carmichael and 15,000 other like-minded citizens of the United States.

One side blames and proudly proclaims.

The other side recovers and marches on.

This week we, as a nation of individuals, suffered; but the fact remains:

One side lives longer and suffers less;

The other side can’t breathe.

When you wake up over and over and over and over and over and over again and you're still not awake, you stop trusting the solidity of reality. You crave light and you get up and go stand in the garage with all the bright lights bathing you, flooding down, but you're still not sure. You see a movement; no; maybe. Too many dark corners. You flee back into the house; to the converted office with the twin bed. Even though the ceiling light is glaring down, you have to open the closet; afraid of what's there. You turn on the closet light, peer into corners, but you can't see everything at once. You leave the closet door ajar and lay on the twin bed, but now you can't see behind it; between the door and the wall. Are you awake? You don't know. There's a quiet snort. But the lights are all on. If they suddenly went off for no reason, you know you will scream; you know they’re going to go off; you're afraid you will die. Your body is tingling from your shoulder blades through your hips to your legs, and arms and the top of your head. The door moves ever so slightly and your brother peeks out from behind. Noooooooo! He shouldn't be here. You know now you're not awake. The closet light goes out. The overhead light goes out. What else? What else! You jump at him, at his shadow; the closet light comes back on; and you take his head in your hands, curling your fingers through his hair and try to smash his head against the wall. You are moving in slow motion, and the wall has give like thick foam rubber, and his face elongates and his neck swivels and his eyes smile up at you and you hope you're not awake. Then there is your Mom. She says she just baked cookies and asks if you would like some in your lunch and you just want to wake up. But instead you sleep. And you open your eyes just a little and you see the play of car lights coming thru the window across the walls, but car lights shouldn't be that bright coming thru that window. Back in the dark bedroom again. Not quite right. You know it's not quite right. And you look across the bed at your brother who's smiling as if he has a secret. You remember he shouldn't be there. And he puts a pillow on your chest and you can't breathe and suddenly there is a weight straddling your chest and you try to turn but you can't move; and a voice comes from where the head should be, but you can't see and you don't understand. Gibberish. And you scream. And this wakes you up. You try to keep your eyes open. But you're so tired. You close them for just a second. You open them again; quickly. Everything looks normal. But are you awake? Were you awake a second ago? You don't know. You feel like you'll never know. You crave light. But you're afraid. And you're so tired. You think, I'll close my eyes for just a second. And you do. And your heart hurts. And you’re so afraid. But you can’t wrest your eyes open. You hear movement; a swishing sound; you try to scream, but all that comes out is a dry click-clacking sound. One eye opens ever-so-slightly, and you see shadows, moving in the dark. How is that possible! Then nothing. Quiet. You ask yourself again; Am I awake? And again. So tired. You fall back asleep, and you dream that you wake up, and it’s the middle of the day; plenty of light; sunshine. Everything appears normal; but you don’t know. Not sure. You wake to sleep and sleep to wake and it no longer makes sense and it no longer matters. You sleep; afraid to wake. Not knowing. Uncertain. You scream. Forever.