Hi all,
I am going to get married this year. I love my fiancé dearly. We have been in a relationship for the past 3+ years (Long Distance Relationship). We have had a rocky road, primarily because of my actions. I had cheated on her a few years back with my Ex. (the period of cheating was 1/2 months).
Notable things to note in this period is that she was emotionally and physically unavailable. When asked her about our situationship (then) she would incline to not being in a relationship with me as against being in one with me. I lost my calm and did the bad deed with my ex despite being (mutually) emotionally locked with my fiance (GF then). I hate myself for doing it. I hate the fact that I am one of the person who will now be regarded as a cheater in the relationship. But I have done this and I have to suck it up and become better. To make things worst, I hid it from her and she got to know it a few months later. We had a big fallout. I apologized and apologized as I had really done her wrong. I felt the pain and I was with her as much as I could to make things better.
I have spent a year after that, listening to some of the most toxic things I would never want to hear from my GF. I tried to make things right amongst the two of us. If that meant taking the toxic hit, so be it. I really did want that woman as my wife. I shouldnt have done what I did, but I did. My deed was such that meant taking the hatred that was projected on me. Rightfully so I guess. It even went to the distance of being kicked by her in my chest.
its been 2 years since then, we stuck on made it through this time, but the journey has not been worth it, now that I think about it. I am still hearing about it every day, if not everyday I get a taunt everyday. Highly toxic verbiage every alternate week. I am tired of it now. There has to be a limit to what a man can take. If a prisoner has served his time, it doesnt mean that you torture the prisoner the entire life for this. He has served it and now should be given a chance at showcasing he is a better man?! I know I am deserving of that. I have made a point of showing her that I am a better man, I am not directing myself to any woman apart from her. I give ample re-assurances that she is the one and only! And i So truely mean it. I still mean it at the point of writing. But everytime there is a mention of another woman the blood in her veins boils up. And she treats me like i am a man-slut/hoe/prosititute (VERBATUM). Its understandable after what she has been through she would feel insecure. But this feeling of insecurity cannot directly morph into some highly toxic verbal stuff EVERY SINGLE TIME, even after giving her very peaceful reassurances. (to give you a glimpse of what this highly toxic verbiage is - "I am a cheap slut"/"my family has raised me to be a cheap slut"/"its my inherent nature to be a slut"/"I am nothing else but a hoe"/"I only care about ANY woman's boobs"/"I take every woman (i meet) pussy right into my dick"/ the list goes on and on about this).
In her defense, she has anger management issues, I do not see this as any reason whatsoever to behave like a child. She has actively tried to improve and tone down the toxicity but fails to do so often and once she fails she reverts to her original self of constant toxicity whenever an incident occurs. She doesnt want me around women, I got that. She asks me to unfollow someone, I got that done as well(even though i do not want to support this behavior). Everything I do, is wanting/hoping to make things better in the direction which she likes.
To counter this nuisance and to maintain my mental peace, I have adopted one single strategy. Whenever the incident happens or is about to happen, give her ample reassurance, meaningful reassurances, I even do screenshare of everything I have to let her know i am serious about my relationship with her. Even after everything if she still keeps berating me, calling me out and insulting non stop, i do the same to her and increase the toxicity to as much as i can to tone her down. I hate doing this. I am wanting my peace of mind ANYHOW. I do not care if I have to be the same MONSTER as her to make things normal. I will do what it takes to maintain my peace. (For all those who might think i am doing this on whim - let me tell you the number of times she has called me slut even for the minutest of things unrelated to a girl is 10+ incidents. She has developed a habit of insulting me like this at her convenience. One cannot just let this happen to them all the time. I drew my line and asked her to get her thoughts together (my verbatum words were get your shit together) since now we are getting married and I do not want my second life ahead like this. I have become a better man if she cant recognize that because of her habit to think of me as a cheater, either keep it to herself or DO NOT MARRY ME. this ultimatum has been given because even after we decided to marry we have kept on having recurring incidents like this, where i show every proof of my existence that I am not associated with any girl and she still berates me with full power and makes my life living hell. We have made so many wedding arrangements that it is impossible to revert it now. We are from India, so thinking of a way to make a prenup where if her toxicity continues, I am out. I care about myself more than i can take this tantrum every single time. It has now even started affecting my work life; if my team has women on it and my interaction to them increases, I am at fault. I am tired is the only statement i can say at the moment. IDK what to do, what are the legal rules around this? would it be better if we get legally married in USA? that option is open as well.
MY QUESTION TO YOU ALL IS, ARE WE BOTH/ME/HER falling in a trap with this wedding? What legal bindings can help as precautionary steps? Can we add clauses to prenup where if she is toxic i leave, if I cheat she leaves , HOW DOES MONEY WORK IN THESE SITUATIONS?
tl;dr - Is there a way to save my marriage? I cheated on her a few years back, she knows, we now have a very toxic insulting love life surrounding it. About to be married in the next 5 months, legal/marriage/mental advice(s)?

Are you looking to transform your home interior in Kuwait into a stylish and inviting space? Look no further than Istore Q8, the ultimate destination for all your interior design needs. With years of experience and a passion for creating beautiful living spaces, Istore Q8 is the best choice for bringing your design dreams to life.
"Istore Q8" likely refers to a specific interior design company or firm based in Kuwait. Without specific information about this company, it's challenging to provide details about their interior design services or style.
However, interior design firms typically offer a range of services tailored to their clients' needs. These services may include:

1. Residential Interior Design: Creating personalized and functional living spaces for homeowners, including living rooms, bedrooms, kitchens, and bathrooms. This may involve space planning, furniture selection, color schemes, and decorative accents.
2. Commercial Interior Design: Designing interior spaces for commercial establishments such as offices, retail stores, restaurants, hotels, and healthcare facilities. This often involves creating layouts that optimize workflow, customer experience, and brand identity.
3. Hospitality Design: Designing interiors for hotels, resorts, restaurants, and cafes with a focus on creating welcoming and memorable environments for guests. This may involve selecting durable and stylish furnishings, lighting design, and creating ambiances that enhance the overall guest experience.
4. Office Design: Designing functional and ergonomic workspaces for businesses to promote productivity, collaboration, and employee well-being. This may include workspace planning, furniture selection, lighting design, and incorporating elements that reflect the company's brand and culture.
5. Retail Design: Designing interior spaces for retail stores and showrooms to attract customers, enhance the shopping experience, and showcase products effectively. This may involve creating visually appealing displays, optimizing traffic flow, and integrating branding elements.
6. Turnkey Solutions: Some interior design firms offer turnkey solutions, where they handle every aspect of the design and implementation process, from concept development to construction management and final installation.

If you're interested in learning more about the specific services and style of Istore Q8, I would recommend visiting their website or contacting them directly for more information.
Interior design involves the skillful balance of artistry and scientific principles to transform indoor spaces into more attractive and conducive environments, promoting the well-being and satisfaction of its inhabitants. It involves the manipulation of spatial volume, as well as surface treatment, to create a functional and visually appealing setting.
Interior designers work with a variety of elements including color, furniture, lighting, texture, and layout to create spaces that are both beautiful and functional. They often consider the needs and preferences of their clients, as well as the purpose of the space, to develop designs that meet specific requirements.
Interior design can encompass a wide range of spaces, from residential homes and apartments to commercial offices, retail stores, restaurants, hotels, and more. Designers may specialize in a particular area, such as kitchen design or sustainable design, or work across multiple sectors.
Key aspects of interior design include:

1. Space planning: Determining how to best utilize the available space to meet the functional needs of the occupants while maintaining a sense of balance and harmony.
2. Color palette: Choosing appropriate colors for walls, floors, furnishings, and accessories to create a desired atmosphere and mood.
3. Furniture selection: Selecting furniture pieces that are both stylish and functional, and arranging them in a way that maximizes comfort and usability.
4. Lighting design: Planning the placement of lighting fixtures to enhance the ambiance of a space, as well as to provide adequate illumination for tasks and activities.
5. Client consultation: Understanding the client's needs, preferences, budget, and timeline is the first step. This involves discussing the purpose of the space, any specific requirements or constraints, and the desired style or ambiance.
6. Texture and materials: Incorporating a variety of textures and materials, such as wood, metal, glass, and fabric, to add visual interest and tactile appeal to a space.
7. Accessories and decor: Adding finishing touches such as artwork, rugs, pillows, and other decorative elements to personalize the space and tie the design together.

Overall, interior design is about creating environments that not only look good but also support the well-being and functionality of the people who inhabit them.
Why Choose IStore Q8 for Interior Designing?
When it comes to interior designing in Kuwait, Istore Q8 stands out as a premier choice for several reasons. Their team of skilled professionals has a wealth of expertise in creating stunning, customized interiors that perfectly reflect your style and personality. Whether you're looking to refresh a single room or redesign your entire home, I store Q8 has the knowledge and creativity to exceed your expectations.

What Services Does Istore Q8 Offer?

Istore Q8 offers a wide range of interior designing services to cater to all your needs. From concept development and space planning to furniture selection and styling, their team will guide you through every step of the design process with precision and care. Whether you prefer a modern, minimalist look or a more traditional aesthetic, Istore Q8 has the skills and resources to bring your vision to life.

The Istore Q8 Experience

At Istore Q8, client satisfaction is always the top priority. Their dedicated team will work closely with you to understand your design goals and preferences, ensuring that the final result exceeds your expectations. With a keen eye for detail and a commitment to quality craftsmanship, Istore Q8 delivers interiors that are not only beautiful but also functional and sustainable.

Expertise and Authority in Interior Designing

With a proven track record of successful projects and satisfied clients, Istore Q8 has established itself as a leader in the field of interior design in Kuwait. Their team's deep knowledge of design principles, materials, and trends enables them to create interiors that are both timeless and on-trend. When you choose Istore Q8, you can trust that you're working with a team that has the expertise and authority to bring your design vision to life.
In conclusion, if you're looking to elevate your home interior in Kuwait, Istore Q8 is the go-to destination for all your interior design needs. With a talented team of professionals, a range of services, and a commitment to excellence, I store Q8 will help you create a space that truly reflects your style and personality. Contact Istore Q8 today and turn your design dreams into reality.
In conclusion, interior design in Kuwait reflects a blend of cultural influences, modern trends, and functional considerations. With a booming economy and a growing population, there’s a heightened demand for innovative and personalized interior design solutions across residential, commercial, and hospitality sectors.
Kuwait's interior design scene embraces a diversity of styles, ranging from traditional Arabic motifs to contemporary and minimalist aesthetics. Interior designers in Kuwait often prioritize creating spaces that balance functionality with elegance, incorporating luxurious materials, intricate detailing, and cutting-edge technology to meet the discerning tastes of clients.
In Kuwait's residential sector, there's a focus on creating homes that offer comfort, privacy, and a sense of luxury. Open-plan layouts, high-end finishes, and integrated smart home systems are becoming increasingly popular, catering to the lifestyle preferences of affluent residents.
In the commercial and hospitality sectors, interior design plays a crucial role in creating memorable experiences for customers and guests. Retail spaces emphasize immersive and interactive environments, while restaurants and hotels focus on creating ambiance, atmosphere, and brand identity to stand out in a competitive market.
Sustainability and eco-conscious design are also gaining traction in Kuwait, with a growing emphasis on energy-efficient solutions, natural materials, and environmentally friendly practices.
Overall, interior design in Kuwait is characterized by a dynamic and evolving landscape, driven by innovation, creativity, and a commitment to delivering spaces that inspire, delight, and enrich the lives of those who inhabit them.
Are you looking to transform your home interior in Kuwait into a stylish and inviting space? Look no further than Istore Q8, the ultimate destination for all your interior design needs. With years of experience and a passion for creating beautiful living spaces, Istore Q8 is the best choice for bringing your design dreams to life.
"Istore Q8" likely refers to a specific interior design company or firm based in Kuwait. Without specific information about this company, it's challenging to provide details about their interior design services or style.
However, interior design firms typically offer a range of services tailored to their clients' needs. These services may include:

1. Residential Interior Design: Creating personalized and functional living spaces for homeowners, including living rooms, bedrooms, kitchens, and bathrooms. This may involve space planning, furniture selection, color schemes, and decorative accents.
2. Commercial Interior Design: Designing interior spaces for commercial establishments such as offices, retail stores, restaurants, hotels, and healthcare facilities. This often involves creating layouts that optimize workflow, customer experience, and brand identity.
3. Hospitality Design: Designing interiors for hotels, resorts, restaurants, and cafes with a focus on creating welcoming and memorable environments for guests. This may involve selecting durable and stylish furnishings, lighting design, and creating ambiances that enhance the overall guest experience.
4. Office Design: Designing functional and ergonomic workspaces for businesses to promote productivity, collaboration, and employee well-being. This may include workspace planning, furniture selection, lighting design, and incorporating elements that reflect the company's brand and culture.
5. Retail Design: Designing interior spaces for retail stores and showrooms to attract customers, enhance the shopping experience, and showcase products effectively. This may involve creating visually appealing displays, optimizing traffic flow, and integrating branding elements.
6. Turnkey Solutions: Some interior design firms offer turnkey solutions, where they handle every aspect of the design and implementation process, from concept development to construction management and final installation.

If you're interested in learning more about the specific services and style of Istore Q8, I would recommend visiting their website or contacting them directly for more information.
Interior design involves the skillful balance of artistry and scientific principles to transform indoor spaces into more attractive and conducive environments, promoting the well-being and satisfaction of its inhabitants. It involves the manipulation of spatial volume, as well as surface treatment, to create a functional and visually appealing setting.
Interior designers work with a variety of elements including color, furniture, lighting, texture, and layout to create spaces that are both beautiful and functional. They often consider the needs and preferences of their clients, as well as the purpose of the space, to develop designs that meet specific requirements.
Interior design can encompass a wide range of spaces, from residential homes and apartments to commercial offices, retail stores, restaurants, hotels, and more. Designers may specialize in a particular area, such as kitchen design or sustainable design, or work across multiple sectors.
Key aspects of interior design include:

1. Space planning: Determining how to best utilize the available space to meet the functional needs of the occupants while maintaining a sense of balance and harmony.
2. Color palette: Choosing appropriate colors for walls, floors, furnishings, and accessories to create a desired atmosphere and mood.
3. Furniture selection: Selecting furniture pieces that are both stylish and functional, and arranging them in a way that maximizes comfort and usability.
4. Lighting design: Planning the placement of lighting fixtures to enhance the ambiance of a space, as well as to provide adequate illumination for tasks and activities.
5. Client consultation: Understanding the client's needs, preferences, budget, and timeline is the first step. This involves discussing the purpose of the space, any specific requirements or constraints, and the desired style or ambiance.
6. Texture and materials: Incorporating a variety of textures and materials, such as wood, metal, glass, and fabric, to add visual interest and tactile appeal to a space.
7. Accessories and decor: Adding finishing touches such as artwork, rugs, pillows, and other decorative elements to personalize the space and tie the design together.

Overall, interior design is about creating environments that not only look good but also support the well-being and functionality of the people who inhabit them.
Why Choose IStore Q8 for Interior Designing?
When it comes to interior designing in Kuwait, Istore Q8 stands out as a premier choice for several reasons. Their team of skilled professionals has a wealth of expertise in creating stunning, customized interiors that perfectly reflect your style and personality. Whether you're looking to refresh a single room or redesign your entire home, I store Q8 has the knowledge and creativity to exceed your expectations.

What Services Does Istore Q8 Offer?

Istore Q8 offers a wide range of interior designing services to cater to all your needs. From concept development and space planning to furniture selection and styling, their team will guide you through every step of the design process with precision and care. Whether you prefer a modern, minimalist look or a more traditional aesthetic, Istore Q8 has the skills and resources to bring your vision to life.

The Istore Q8 Experience

At Istore Q8, client satisfaction is always the top priority. Their dedicated team will work closely with you to understand your design goals and preferences, ensuring that the final result exceeds your expectations. With a keen eye for detail and a commitment to quality craftsmanship, Istore Q8 delivers interiors that are not only beautiful but also functional and sustainable.

Expertise and Authority in Interior Designing

With a proven track record of successful projects and satisfied clients, Istore Q8 has established itself as a leader in the field of interior design in Kuwait. Their team's deep knowledge of design principles, materials, and trends enables them to create interiors that are both timeless and on-trend. When you choose Istore Q8, you can trust that you're working with a team that has the expertise and authority to bring your design vision to life.
In conclusion, if you're looking to elevate your home interior in Kuwait, Istore Q8 is the go-to destination for all your interior design needs. With a talented team of professionals, a range of services, and a commitment to excellence, I store Q8 will help you create a space that truly reflects your style and personality. Contact Istore Q8 today and turn your design dreams into reality.
In conclusion, interior design in Kuwait reflects a blend of cultural influences, modern trends, and functional considerations. With a booming economy and a growing population, there’s a heightened demand for innovative and personalized interior design solutions across residential, commercial, and hospitality sectors.
Kuwait's interior design scene embraces a diversity of styles, ranging from traditional Arabic motifs to contemporary and minimalist aesthetics. Interior designers in Kuwait often prioritize creating spaces that balance functionality with elegance, incorporating luxurious materials, intricate detailing, and cutting-edge technology to meet the discerning tastes of clients.
In Kuwait's residential sector, there's a focus on creating homes that offer comfort, privacy, and a sense of luxury. Open-plan layouts, high-end finishes, and integrated smart home systems are becoming increasingly popular, catering to the lifestyle preferences of affluent residents.
In the commercial and hospitality sectors, interior design plays a crucial role in creating memorable experiences for customers and guests. Retail spaces emphasize immersive and interactive environments, while restaurants and hotels focus on creating ambiance, atmosphere, and brand identity to stand out in a competitive market.
Sustainability and eco-conscious design are also gaining traction in Kuwait, with a growing emphasis on energy-efficient solutions, natural materials, and environmentally friendly practices.
Overall, interior design in Kuwait is characterized by a dynamic and evolving landscape, driven by innovation, creativity, and a commitment to delivering spaces that inspire, delight, and enrich the lives of those who inhabit them.

So I (f 23) keep telling my b f (m 24) that he needs a career job. My b f and I have been together for 2 years and during those 2 years I’ve been in college (finished my bachelors and I am now pursuing my masters) my b f isn’t in college and he’s just been working part time jobs but the thing is he keeps losing these jobs and takes months to find new ones and goes broke every time and now it’s to the point where he’s homeless and living with a friend now. I’ve always told him that I don’t care if he doesn’t go to college but he should at least do trade school or something so that he can get certifications so that he can get salary pay so that he can make more money/ save more money for emergencies (like losing a job) and if/when he loses a job he can easily find another job to fall back on in that same field. I’ve told him this, my parents have told him this, his brothers have told him this, his family has told him this, his friends have told him this etc. but every time somebody tells him this he gets defensive and thinks we’re trying to bash him but we’re not. We’re just tired of seeing the same thing always happening to him (losing a job and asking everyone for money), every time we tell him this he thinks we’re saying he needs to go to college/university but we literally tell him word for word “that’s no what we’re saying.” I love him but it gets to a point where I’m tired of the same pattern, also I’m a broke college student so every time he loses a job and runs out of money I’m the only one that supports him financially (buying him food, toiletries, just little things because again I am a broke college student). He’s also extremely bad at managing his money when he loses a job, for example he has PlayStation + which is a $10 or $15 subscription for those who don’t know which allows you to play certain parts of games like online with friends, etc. so his aunt sent him $20 for food and instead of spending it on food he wanted to spend it on his PlayStation + subscription, and then when I told him he should use it on food instead he got annoyed and said I was telling him what to do, which I didn’t, I just made a suggestion. Also another reason I want this for him is so that he can have insurance because the amount of time I’ve known him he’s never had it and I want him to be able to take care of his health.
So aita for telling my b f he should get a career job so that he make more money and can save more money, as well as have insurance?
Sorry if this is all over the place, I just started rambling at one point so please let me know if you have any questions/ need clarification.
Edit: more clarification on things. He’s played football his whole life and is stuck on wanting to play football. He has football in his so called “5 year plan” or really just life plan in general, but I and many others have told him that he needs to focus more on a career at this point than football because football most likely isn’t going to happen, mainly because at his age colleges are looking at grad students that have already been football players (also he’s not out on the field everyday practicing, which I feel like if he was serious about football he would be doing that but he goes out on the field twice a month, sometimes not even that). Also money isn’t such a big deal with the trade school thing because my dad even offered to help him out a bit

Can I ask for some advice about something? What would you do if you are in my place. my best friend let's call her Ruby. Ruby moved about two years ago now, she was going to come back and visit for graduation week and wanted the friend group to hang out like we used to, when i told her i didn't believe it would be possible she has continued to push for us to all hang out. I finally told her the reason that it would not work out she completely ignored me. Now the reason the friend group hanging like we used to won't work out is because this ex friend of mine who I'll call cici randomly after a school essay I wrote quite talking to me and started to spread rumors about me the essay was supposed to carry so sort of theme that means somthing to us so I wrote mine on how it can feel to be in the middle of a friend group that is arguing and not knowing what to do. I will copy and past the essay below the rest of the story. After I turn the essay in cici somehow gets a hold of it and spins it to sound like I'm attacking her and im bullying her and so for the month of February everyone ignores me which really hurt because I had no idea why as they just on day started to ignore me it also was my birthday that month and I had no one to share it with. After a while lila,Taylor and Sara realize what happened and apologized for what they did and I quite trying to communicate with cici. After I quite reaching out to her and trying to protect a dying fire my mental health improves to a point where not only I noticed but my teachers noticed also. Back to my earlier topic I told ruby that I refuse to hang out with cici because she has been treating me like shit and my parents won't even let me see/talk to her outside a school sanctioned event because at are very last sleep over before she she started to ignore me almost ended with me In the hospital because her brother threatened me with a knife and their dog attacked me because i used self defense to get the knife from her brother. During this sleepover cici's parents were awar of what happened and didn't tell my mom so after that I wasn't allowed back to their house. Even after all that I still tried to keep that friendship alive if not only because I cared for cici but also for ruby. Still despite all these reasons ruby refused to split her time between us and Is no longer coming. AITAH for refusing to hang out with someone who has betrayed my trust and put me in a dangerous situation just because my friend who moved away wants us to hang out together?
Here is the essay
Just because your friends are friends doesn’t mean they will always understand. A few days after spring break in 8th grade my friend Cici started hanging out with a girl that the rest of our friend group doesn’t like because she is mean and rude. So we told her what we thought of this girl and that she could hang out with her but we didn’t want to be near a person like that, however Cici did not listen and kept inviting her to hang out with us. My other friend Sara was starting to get really upset because this girl was calling her names and bullying her. This same girl had also left intentional bruises on my body because I told her I already had a partner in pe. Finally, after months and months of off and on fighting it was the last day of school. Sara had finally had enough of how the girl had treated us and snapped as she listed off all the hateful and violent things that this girl had done to me, Lila, Ruby some of our other friends. The girl then started to ball saying how all of us are liars and cici shouldn'tlisten to us about anything that we say. During this entire situation I stayed quiet and listened to what the others had to say, because I wanted to say something but didn't know what to say to fix the situation.For weeks after that cici and sara refused to talk to each other, until I finally managed to get them to both apologize. Then for a while after that everything seemed good. A new girl who I will call Tyler moved to town and we basically absorbed her into the friend group. Things were going well until about four weeks into our ninth grade year. Sara started to be exceedingly hostile the rude girl Cici had been hanging out with sense last year, Which caused fighting to break out. So then Sara started to distance herself from us to hang out with a guy who i also used to consider a friend i will call him jem. Now the reasonme and jem are no longer friendsis becausehe told my to off myself several times over the course of about two months.So as they are hanging out jem is also constantly flirting with her, so we make a joke that they were dating. This caused sara to explode at everyone in the group chat. When she texted in the group chat she directed all of the texts about it to Cici and when I confessed that it was me who was made and the joke she proceeded to say that it was Cici’s fault and that it “ IS NOT SOMETHING TO JOKE ABOUT!! You know what I think of rumors and dating.” We all replied saying it didn't mean for it to be a big deal and we weren't making fun of her that it was only a joke. Sara proceeded to snap back “If we are in relationships with guys, it's not something to joke about. When other people believe it, then it's too much.” So in response Ruby answered with “You literally would make fun of me and my old boyfriend tim back when we were dating.” Then Lila added, “Yeah you make me feel like crap about me and Carl all the time and guess what you coming after Cici being a jerk to Cici for everything saying that everything that everything the "rude girl" knows and does is because of her. There's also the fact that when you tease and make fun of us we are supposed to deal with it, but when we do it to you we are rude horrible people." Sara’s only response to that was “You guys never said that you weren't ok with it. You just need to tell us, and we will stop. No one ever said anything, so we thought it was ok.” I responded with “who is the we in this situation, because I told people to stop when they crossed a boundary and that one of the only people who never listened or apologized for it was lila. I haven't even taken anybody's side throughout this whole situation” after I say this, Sara goes off again. “I'm done ok. Just leave me out of all this. Be your own friend group. I'll be a singular person, and then I won't have to be a burden to anyone. Sorry I was such a bad friend. Also I don't want any pity.” At this point everyone is annoyed and tired of this situation so Ruby speaks up again telling Sara that she is not the main character and to grow up, and that she started it. After this Sara separates herself from us and as a week turns to two weeks then two weeks turns into a month. Between all of the fighting, homework, sports, and everyday stress I start to become irritable and snappy because no matter how much I try to stay neutral to keep peace, Sara and Cici are always fighting. So one time when the fighting over text picks up again I end up snapping at my family and yelling something at them that everyone would probably be happier if i just died. The next day I tried to act like everything was fine. I ended up making it until PE where I ended up breaking down infront of my teacher and skipping school for the rest of the day in the office crying my eyes out to the guidance counselor. I told her everything that happened and that sometimes when I tell my friends things I don't like or feel comfortable with, they sometimes will forget or ignore what i say. Which always makes me angry or sad because I always take the time to understand and respect my friends boundaries. that's when I realized that just because your friends are friends doesn’t mean they will always understand. Despite that fact I will always respect others boundaries even if they don’t respect mine and I will always remind others of my boundaries or distance myself from them. Just because your friends are friends doesn’t mean they will always understand and just because you can/want to say or do something hurtful doesn’t mean that you should. Know where to darw the line.

https://mises.org/mises-daily/society-without-state
In attempting to outline how a “society without a state” — that is, an anarchist society — might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not “really” anarchism. This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.
The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either (1) through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or (2) through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.
Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way “coercive.” Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term “coercion” can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it “physical violence or the threat thereof,” with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.
It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the words of Albert Jay Nock, “claims and exercises a monopoly of crime” over its territorial area.
The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists “assume that all people are good” and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the “nature of man,” given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
We cannot of course deal here with the numerous arguments in favor of anarchism or against the state, moral, political, and economic. Nor can we take up the various goods and services now provided by the state and show how private individuals and groups will be able to supply them far more efficiently on the free market. Here we can only deal with perhaps the most difficult area, the area where it is almost universally assumed that the state must exist and act, even if it is only a “necessary evil” instead of a positive good: the vital realm of defense or protection of person and property against aggression. Surely, it is universally asserted, the state is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.
One important caveat before we begin the body of this paper: new proposals such as anarchism are almost always gauged against the implicit assumption that the present, or statist system works to perfection. Any lacunae or difficulties with the picture of the anarchist society are considered net liabilities, and enough to dismiss anarchism out of hand. It is, in short, implicitly assumed that the state is doing its self-assumed job of protecting person and property to perfection. We cannot here go into the reasons why the state is bound to suffer inherently from grave flaws and inefficiencies in such a task. All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.
This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
A final caveat: the anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.
One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service.
Let us turn now to the problem of how disputes — in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property — would be resolved in an anarchist society. First, it should be noted that all disputes involve two parties: the plaintiff, the alleged victim of the crime or tort and the defendant, the alleged aggressor. In many cases of broken contract, of course, each of the two parties alleging that the other is the culprit is at the same time a plaintiff and a defendant.
An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public.
In the first place, a dispute may be resolved voluntarily between the two parties themselves, either unaided or with the help of a third mediator. This poses no problem, and will automatically be accepted by society at large. It is so accepted even now, much less in a society imbued with the anarchistic values of peaceful cooperation and agreement. Secondly and similarly, the two parties, unable to reach agreement, may decide to submit voluntarily to the decision of an arbitrator. This agreement may arise either after a dispute has arisen, or be provided for in advance in the original contract. Again, there is no problem in such an arrangement gaining legitimacy. Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes.
Thus, William C. Wooldridge has written that

Wooldridge adds the important point that, in addition to the speed of arbitration procedures vis-à-vis the courts, the arbitrators can proceed as experts in disregard of the official government law; in a profound sense, then, they serve to create a voluntary body of private law. “In other words,” states Wooldridge, “the system of extralegal, voluntary courts has progressed hand in hand with a body of private law; the rules of the state are circumvented by the same process that circumvents the forums established for the settlement of disputes over those rules…. In short, a private agreement between two people, a bilateral “law,” has supplanted the official law. The writ of the sovereign has cease to run, and for it is substituted a rule tacitly or explicitly agreed to by the parties. Wooldridge concludes that “if an arbitrator can choose to ignore a penal damage rule or the statute of limitations applicable to the claim before him (and it is generally conceded that he has that power), arbitration can be viewed as a practically revolutionary instrument for self-liberation from the law….”2
It may be objected that arbitration only works successfully because the courts enforce the award of the arbitrator. Wooldridge points out, however, that arbitration was unenforceable in the American courts before 1920, but that this did not prevent voluntary arbitration from being successful and expanding in the United States and in England. He points, furthermore, to the successful operations of merchant courts since the Middle Ages, those courts which successfully developed the entire body of the law merchant. None of those courts possessed the power of enforcement. He might have added the private courts of shippers which developed the body of admiralty law in a similar way.
How then did these private, “anarchistic,” and voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism, and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary “enforcement,” indeed proved highly successful. Wooldridge writes that “the merchants’ courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail…. Nevertheless, it is apparent that … [their] decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place…. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows … proved if anything more effective than physical coercion.”3 Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. Wooldridge writes that it was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts,

It should also be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people’s credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data and thereby facilitate the ostracism or boycotting of contract and arbitration violators.
How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.
Thus, the Tannehills emphasize:

If desired, furthermore, the contracting parties could provide in advance for a series of arbitrators:

Arbitration, then, poses little difficulty for a portrayal of the free society. But what of torts or crimes of aggression where there has been no contract? Or suppose that the breaker of a contract defies the arbitration award? Is ostracism enough? In short, how can courts develop in the free-market anarchist society which will have the power to enforce judgments against criminals or contract breakers?
In the wide sense, defense service consists of guards or police who use force in defending person and property against attack, and judges or courts whose role is to use socially accepted procedures to determine who the criminals or tortfeasors are, as well as to enforce judicial awards, such as damages or the keeping of contracts. On the free market, many scenarios are possible on the relationship between the private courts and the police; they may be “vertically integrated,” for example, or their services may be supplied by separate firms. Furthermore, it seems likely that police service will be supplied by insurance companies who will provide crime insurance to their clients. In that case, insurance companies will pay off the victims of crime or the breaking of contracts or arbitration awards and then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. There is a natural market connection between insurance companies and defense service, since they need pay out less benefits in proportion as they are able to keep down the rate of crime.
Courts might either charge fees for their services, with the losers of cases obliged to pay court costs, or else they may subsist on monthly or yearly premiums by their clients, who may be either individuals or the police or insurance agencies. Suppose, for example, that Smith is an aggrieved party, either because he has been assaulted or robbed, or because an arbitration award in his favor has not been honored. Smith believes that Jones is the party guilty of the crime. Smith then goes to a court, Court A, of which he is a client, and brings charges against Jones as a defendant. In my view, the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man’s person or property. Therefore, Court A can only invite rather than subpoena Jones to attend his trial. Of course, if Jones refused to appear or send a representative, his side of the case will not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds. Suppose that Court A finds Jones innocent. In my view, part of the generally accepted law code of the anarchist society (on which see further below) is that this must end the matter unless Smith can prove charges of gross incompetence or bias on the part of the court.
Suppose, next, that Court A finds Jones guilty. Jones might accept the verdict, because he too is a client of the same court, because he knows he is guilty, or for some other reason. In that case, Court A proceeds to exercise judgment against Jones. Neither of these instances poses very difficult problems for our picture of the anarchist society. But suppose, instead, that Jones contests the decision; he then goes to his court, Court B, and the case is retried there. Suppose that Court B, too, finds Jones guilty. Again, it seems to me that the accepted law code of the anarchist society will assert that this ends the matter; both parties have had their say in courts which each has selected, and the decision for guilt is unanimous.
Suppose, however, the most difficult case: that Court B finds Jones innocent. The two courts, each subscribed to by one of the two parties, have split their verdicts. In that case, the two courts will submit the case to an appeals court, or arbitrator, which the two courts agree upon. There seems to be no real difficulty about the concept of an appeals court. As in the case of arbitration contracts, it seems very likely that the various private courts in the society will have prior agreements to submit their disputes to a particular appeals court. How will the appeals judges be chosen? Again, as in the case of arbitrators or of the first judges on the free market, they will be chosen for their expertise and their reputation for efficiency, honesty, and integrity. Obviously, appeals judges who are inefficient or biased will scarcely be chosen by courts who will have a dispute. The point here is that there is no need for a legally established or institutionalized single, monopoly appeals court system, as states now provide. There is no reason why there cannot arise a multitude of efficient and honest appeals judges who will be selected by the disputant courts, just as there are numerous private arbitrators on the market today. The appeals court renders its decision, and the courts proceed to enforce it if, in our example, Jones is considered guilty — unless, of course, Jones can prove bias in some other court proceedings.
No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals. My suggestion is the rule that the agreement of any two courts, be decisive. “Two” is not an arbitrary figure, for it reflects the fact that there are two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, to any alleged crime or contract dispute.
If the courts are to be empowered to enforce decision against guilty parties, does this not bring back the state in another form and thereby negate anarchism? No, for at the beginning of this paper I explicitly defined anarchism in such a way as not to rule out the use of defensive force — force in defense of person and property — by privately supported agencies. In the same way, it is not bringing back the state to allow persons to use force to defend themselves against aggression, or to hire guards or police agencies to defend them.
It should be noted, however, that in the anarchist society there will be no “district attorney” to press charges on behalf of “society.” Only the victims will press charges as the plaintiffs. If, then, these victims should happen to be absolute pacifists who are opposed even to defensive force, then they will simply not press charges in the courts or otherwise retaliate against those who have aggressed against them. In a free society that would be their right. If the victim should suffer from murder, then his heir would have the right to press the charges.
What of the Hatfield-and-McCoy problem? Suppose that a Hatfield kills a McCoy, and that McCoy’s heir does not belong to a private insurance, police agency, or court, and decides to retaliate himself? Since under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal, McCoy would have the perfect right to do so. No one may be compelled to bring his case to a court. Indeed, since the right to hire police or courts flows from the right of self-defense against aggression, it would be inconsistent and in contradiction to the very basis of the free society to institute such compulsion.
Suppose, then, that the surviving McCoy finds what he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then? This is fine, except that McCoy may have to worry about charges being brought against him by a surviving Hatfield. Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield. His problem would arise if the courts should find that he made a grievous mistake and killed the wrong man; in that case, he in turn would be found guilty of murder. Surely, in most instances, individuals will wish to obviate such problems by taking their case to a court and thereby gain social acceptability for their defensive retaliation — not for the act of retaliation but for the correctness of deciding who the criminal in any given case might be. The purpose of the judicial process, indeed, is to find a way of general agreement on who might be the criminal or contract breaker in any given case. The judicial process is not a good in itself; thus, in the case of an assassination, such as Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, on public television, there is no need for a complex judicial process, since the name of the murderer is evident to all.
Will not the possibility exist of a private court that may turn venal and dishonest, or of a private police force that turns criminal and extorts money by coercion? Of course such an event may occur, given the propensities of human nature. Anarchism is not a moral cure-all. But the important point is that market forces exist to place severe checks on such possibilities, especially in contrast to a society where a state exists. For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality. Secondly, on the free market important checks and balances exist against venal courts or criminal police forces. Namely, that there are competing courts and police agencies to whom victims may turn for redress. If the “Prudential Police Agency” should turn outlaw and extract revenue from victims by coercion, the latter would have the option of turning to the “Mutual” or “Equitable” Police Agency for defense and for pressing charges against Prudential. These are the genuine “checks and balances” of the free market, genuine in contrast to the phony check and balances of a state system, where all the alleged “balancing” agencies are in the hands of one monopoly government. Indeed, given the monopoly “protection service” of a state, what is there to prevent a state from using its monopoly channels of coercion to extort money from the public? What are the checks and limits of the state? None, except for the extremely difficult course of revolution against a power with all of the guns in its hands. In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of “protection.” It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty “protection racket” on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: “Pay us for your ‘protection’ or else.” In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a “protection racket” emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed.
Moreover, it must be emphasized that a crucial element in the power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public, the fact that after centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services. Taxation is generally not seen as theft, nor war as mass murder, nor conscription as slavery. Should a private police agency turn outlaw, should “Prudential” become a protection racket, it would then lack the social legitimacy which the state has managed to accrue to itself over the centuries. “Prudential” would be seen by all as bandits, rather than as legitimate or divinely appointed “sovereigns” bent on promoting the “common good” or the “general welfare.” And lacking such legitimacy, “Prudential” would have to face the wrath of the public and the defense and retaliation of the other private defense agencies, the police and courts, on the free market. Given these inherent checks and limits, a successful transformation from a free society to bandit rule becomes most unlikely. Indeed, historically, it has been very difficult for a state to arise to supplant a stateless society; usually, it has come about through external conquest rather than by evolution from within a society.
Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another.7 But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones’s court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.
But again I see no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.
In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.
There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders — though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well.8 The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason.9 The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services.
Enough has been said here, I believe, to indicate that an anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil.

[Murray Rothbard delivered this talk 32 years ago today at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), Washington, DC: December 28, 1974. It was first published in The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January 1975, available in PDF and ePub.]

https://mises.org/mises-daily/society-without-state
In attempting to outline how a “society without a state” — that is, an anarchist society — might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not “really” anarchism. This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.
The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either (1) through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or (2) through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.
Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way “coercive.” Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term “coercion” can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it “physical violence or the threat thereof,” with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.
It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the words of Albert Jay Nock, “claims and exercises a monopoly of crime” over its territorial area.
The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists “assume that all people are good” and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the “nature of man,” given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
We cannot of course deal here with the numerous arguments in favor of anarchism or against the state, moral, political, and economic. Nor can we take up the various goods and services now provided by the state and show how private individuals and groups will be able to supply them far more efficiently on the free market. Here we can only deal with perhaps the most difficult area, the area where it is almost universally assumed that the state must exist and act, even if it is only a “necessary evil” instead of a positive good: the vital realm of defense or protection of person and property against aggression. Surely, it is universally asserted, the state is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.
One important caveat before we begin the body of this paper: new proposals such as anarchism are almost always gauged against the implicit assumption that the present, or statist system works to perfection. Any lacunae or difficulties with the picture of the anarchist society are considered net liabilities, and enough to dismiss anarchism out of hand. It is, in short, implicitly assumed that the state is doing its self-assumed job of protecting person and property to perfection. We cannot here go into the reasons why the state is bound to suffer inherently from grave flaws and inefficiencies in such a task. All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.
This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
A final caveat: the anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.
One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service.
Let us turn now to the problem of how disputes — in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property — would be resolved in an anarchist society. First, it should be noted that all disputes involve two parties: the plaintiff, the alleged victim of the crime or tort and the defendant, the alleged aggressor. In many cases of broken contract, of course, each of the two parties alleging that the other is the culprit is at the same time a plaintiff and a defendant.
An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public.
In the first place, a dispute may be resolved voluntarily between the two parties themselves, either unaided or with the help of a third mediator. This poses no problem, and will automatically be accepted by society at large. It is so accepted even now, much less in a society imbued with the anarchistic values of peaceful cooperation and agreement. Secondly and similarly, the two parties, unable to reach agreement, may decide to submit voluntarily to the decision of an arbitrator. This agreement may arise either after a dispute has arisen, or be provided for in advance in the original contract. Again, there is no problem in such an arrangement gaining legitimacy. Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes.
Thus, William C. Wooldridge has written that

Wooldridge adds the important point that, in addition to the speed of arbitration procedures vis-à-vis the courts, the arbitrators can proceed as experts in disregard of the official government law; in a profound sense, then, they serve to create a voluntary body of private law. “In other words,” states Wooldridge, “the system of extralegal, voluntary courts has progressed hand in hand with a body of private law; the rules of the state are circumvented by the same process that circumvents the forums established for the settlement of disputes over those rules…. In short, a private agreement between two people, a bilateral “law,” has supplanted the official law. The writ of the sovereign has cease to run, and for it is substituted a rule tacitly or explicitly agreed to by the parties. Wooldridge concludes that “if an arbitrator can choose to ignore a penal damage rule or the statute of limitations applicable to the claim before him (and it is generally conceded that he has that power), arbitration can be viewed as a practically revolutionary instrument for self-liberation from the law….”2
It may be objected that arbitration only works successfully because the courts enforce the award of the arbitrator. Wooldridge points out, however, that arbitration was unenforceable in the American courts before 1920, but that this did not prevent voluntary arbitration from being successful and expanding in the United States and in England. He points, furthermore, to the successful operations of merchant courts since the Middle Ages, those courts which successfully developed the entire body of the law merchant. None of those courts possessed the power of enforcement. He might have added the private courts of shippers which developed the body of admiralty law in a similar way.
How then did these private, “anarchistic,” and voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism, and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary “enforcement,” indeed proved highly successful. Wooldridge writes that “the merchants’ courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail…. Nevertheless, it is apparent that … [their] decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place…. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows … proved if anything more effective than physical coercion.”3 Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. Wooldridge writes that it was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts,

It should also be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people’s credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data and thereby facilitate the ostracism or boycotting of contract and arbitration violators.
How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.
Thus, the Tannehills emphasize:

If desired, furthermore, the contracting parties could provide in advance for a series of arbitrators:

Arbitration, then, poses little difficulty for a portrayal of the free society. But what of torts or crimes of aggression where there has been no contract? Or suppose that the breaker of a contract defies the arbitration award? Is ostracism enough? In short, how can courts develop in the free-market anarchist society which will have the power to enforce judgments against criminals or contract breakers?
In the wide sense, defense service consists of guards or police who use force in defending person and property against attack, and judges or courts whose role is to use socially accepted procedures to determine who the criminals or tortfeasors are, as well as to enforce judicial awards, such as damages or the keeping of contracts. On the free market, many scenarios are possible on the relationship between the private courts and the police; they may be “vertically integrated,” for example, or their services may be supplied by separate firms. Furthermore, it seems likely that police service will be supplied by insurance companies who will provide crime insurance to their clients. In that case, insurance companies will pay off the victims of crime or the breaking of contracts or arbitration awards and then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. There is a natural market connection between insurance companies and defense service, since they need pay out less benefits in proportion as they are able to keep down the rate of crime.
Courts might either charge fees for their services, with the losers of cases obliged to pay court costs, or else they may subsist on monthly or yearly premiums by their clients, who may be either individuals or the police or insurance agencies. Suppose, for example, that Smith is an aggrieved party, either because he has been assaulted or robbed, or because an arbitration award in his favor has not been honored. Smith believes that Jones is the party guilty of the crime. Smith then goes to a court, Court A, of which he is a client, and brings charges against Jones as a defendant. In my view, the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man’s person or property. Therefore, Court A can only invite rather than subpoena Jones to attend his trial. Of course, if Jones refused to appear or send a representative, his side of the case will not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds. Suppose that Court A finds Jones innocent. In my view, part of the generally accepted law code of the anarchist society (on which see further below) is that this must end the matter unless Smith can prove charges of gross incompetence or bias on the part of the court.
Suppose, next, that Court A finds Jones guilty. Jones might accept the verdict, because he too is a client of the same court, because he knows he is guilty, or for some other reason. In that case, Court A proceeds to exercise judgment against Jones. Neither of these instances poses very difficult problems for our picture of the anarchist society. But suppose, instead, that Jones contests the decision; he then goes to his court, Court B, and the case is retried there. Suppose that Court B, too, finds Jones guilty. Again, it seems to me that the accepted law code of the anarchist society will assert that this ends the matter; both parties have had their say in courts which each has selected, and the decision for guilt is unanimous.
Suppose, however, the most difficult case: that Court B finds Jones innocent. The two courts, each subscribed to by one of the two parties, have split their verdicts. In that case, the two courts will submit the case to an appeals court, or arbitrator, which the two courts agree upon. There seems to be no real difficulty about the concept of an appeals court. As in the case of arbitration contracts, it seems very likely that the various private courts in the society will have prior agreements to submit their disputes to a particular appeals court. How will the appeals judges be chosen? Again, as in the case of arbitrators or of the first judges on the free market, they will be chosen for their expertise and their reputation for efficiency, honesty, and integrity. Obviously, appeals judges who are inefficient or biased will scarcely be chosen by courts who will have a dispute. The point here is that there is no need for a legally established or institutionalized single, monopoly appeals court system, as states now provide. There is no reason why there cannot arise a multitude of efficient and honest appeals judges who will be selected by the disputant courts, just as there are numerous private arbitrators on the market today. The appeals court renders its decision, and the courts proceed to enforce it if, in our example, Jones is considered guilty — unless, of course, Jones can prove bias in some other court proceedings.
No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals. My suggestion is the rule that the agreement of any two courts, be decisive. “Two” is not an arbitrary figure, for it reflects the fact that there are two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, to any alleged crime or contract dispute.
If the courts are to be empowered to enforce decision against guilty parties, does this not bring back the state in another form and thereby negate anarchism? No, for at the beginning of this paper I explicitly defined anarchism in such a way as not to rule out the use of defensive force — force in defense of person and property — by privately supported agencies. In the same way, it is not bringing back the state to allow persons to use force to defend themselves against aggression, or to hire guards or police agencies to defend them.
It should be noted, however, that in the anarchist society there will be no “district attorney” to press charges on behalf of “society.” Only the victims will press charges as the plaintiffs. If, then, these victims should happen to be absolute pacifists who are opposed even to defensive force, then they will simply not press charges in the courts or otherwise retaliate against those who have aggressed against them. In a free society that would be their right. If the victim should suffer from murder, then his heir would have the right to press the charges.
What of the Hatfield-and-McCoy problem? Suppose that a Hatfield kills a McCoy, and that McCoy’s heir does not belong to a private insurance, police agency, or court, and decides to retaliate himself? Since under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal, McCoy would have the perfect right to do so. No one may be compelled to bring his case to a court. Indeed, since the right to hire police or courts flows from the right of self-defense against aggression, it would be inconsistent and in contradiction to the very basis of the free society to institute such compulsion.
Suppose, then, that the surviving McCoy finds what he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then? This is fine, except that McCoy may have to worry about charges being brought against him by a surviving Hatfield. Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield. His problem would arise if the courts should find that he made a grievous mistake and killed the wrong man; in that case, he in turn would be found guilty of murder. Surely, in most instances, individuals will wish to obviate such problems by taking their case to a court and thereby gain social acceptability for their defensive retaliation — not for the act of retaliation but for the correctness of deciding who the criminal in any given case might be. The purpose of the judicial process, indeed, is to find a way of general agreement on who might be the criminal or contract breaker in any given case. The judicial process is not a good in itself; thus, in the case of an assassination, such as Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, on public television, there is no need for a complex judicial process, since the name of the murderer is evident to all.
Will not the possibility exist of a private court that may turn venal and dishonest, or of a private police force that turns criminal and extorts money by coercion? Of course such an event may occur, given the propensities of human nature. Anarchism is not a moral cure-all. But the important point is that market forces exist to place severe checks on such possibilities, especially in contrast to a society where a state exists. For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality. Secondly, on the free market important checks and balances exist against venal courts or criminal police forces. Namely, that there are competing courts and police agencies to whom victims may turn for redress. If the “Prudential Police Agency” should turn outlaw and extract revenue from victims by coercion, the latter would have the option of turning to the “Mutual” or “Equitable” Police Agency for defense and for pressing charges against Prudential. These are the genuine “checks and balances” of the free market, genuine in contrast to the phony check and balances of a state system, where all the alleged “balancing” agencies are in the hands of one monopoly government. Indeed, given the monopoly “protection service” of a state, what is there to prevent a state from using its monopoly channels of coercion to extort money from the public? What are the checks and limits of the state? None, except for the extremely difficult course of revolution against a power with all of the guns in its hands. In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of “protection.” It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty “protection racket” on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: “Pay us for your ‘protection’ or else.” In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a “protection racket” emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed.
Moreover, it must be emphasized that a crucial element in the power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public, the fact that after centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services. Taxation is generally not seen as theft, nor war as mass murder, nor conscription as slavery. Should a private police agency turn outlaw, should “Prudential” become a protection racket, it would then lack the social legitimacy which the state has managed to accrue to itself over the centuries. “Prudential” would be seen by all as bandits, rather than as legitimate or divinely appointed “sovereigns” bent on promoting the “common good” or the “general welfare.” And lacking such legitimacy, “Prudential” would have to face the wrath of the public and the defense and retaliation of the other private defense agencies, the police and courts, on the free market. Given these inherent checks and limits, a successful transformation from a free society to bandit rule becomes most unlikely. Indeed, historically, it has been very difficult for a state to arise to supplant a stateless society; usually, it has come about through external conquest rather than by evolution from within a society.
Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another.7 But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones’s court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.
But again I see no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.
In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.
There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders — though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well.8 The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason.9 The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services.
Enough has been said here, I believe, to indicate that an anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil.

[Murray Rothbard delivered this talk 32 years ago today at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), Washington, DC: December 28, 1974. It was first published in The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January 1975, available in PDF and ePub.]

I didn’t do it. I didn’! I didn’t! I’m no murderer, no, listen! I will tell you your a killer. You do not believe me? Even for a moment? But little is my own sentence even a concern for me, the freedom in society has little left to offer me. Grief and horror are all that fill my mind, the only residents remaining in my home. And you’d expect it to be such an oppressing grief. But no, no, no…it is much more the horror. It is much more the intense fear, the great disgusting and evil works that wait for me in the dark. The grizzly voice that reassures me of fate in its worst forms. It is here now. Cackling at its maniacal work. I hear it. What are you worth wretch! You’ll burn all your years and infinite more! But forgive me, my anger is difficult to suppress against my enemy. He lingers still. A lover of deception however, would be a fool in his own craft to reveal his intentions. Thus, would be a fool to reveal their own horrid form. Therefore, relinquish some of your repulsion of me, so that you may have at least some possibility of belief in what I say. I understand the situation I’m in, but why should I refrain from telling the truth simply because it is unlikely you will believe me? Especially when you condemn me? Listen then!
I was watching television, and my roommate was out the entirety of this night. My family remained in Los Angeles during this time, so they are not making any affect on what occurred. But you want me to tell of my roommate? I am telling you! You ask about the murderer, so you must listen to all I know of him. It was in the most ordinary of circumstances and activity when such a striking and alarming voice pierced the room. The TV was quiet, and I lounged about with dull mind. When I heard someone call for my name from down the hall, whom which I couldn’t see since the door was closed, I of course simply responded, “Yeah?” This was the very first of the remarkable experiences I began to have. I realized what had just occurred. I was home alone, so who could be calling to me from my own room? Well I suspected then my roommate. But I had trouble reconciling the voice I heard with that of my roommate. It had such an eerie tone to it. Almost as if it were teasing me. Yet, it was such a convincing and deceptive call, that the mocking tone it had was almost imperceivable. As if maybe this creepy inflection was a result of my own nerves or unfamiliarity with the event.
Regardless of it’s true nature, this odd quality roused my attention. Was I indeed not alone? But then it must be my roommate, since it was my name. I could not get over the gross friendly tone it called to me with. It’s as if it was bragging about knowing my name. I froze for a moment with the TV playing, listening for another call. “Javier” a woman's voice called out gently and compassionately. But such disgusting compassion did it call out. It seems it couldn’t itself disguise just the slightest hint of malevolence that just snuck under the tone. Or perhaps it meant to say it how it did. But it terrified me. I reasoned it must be somebody I know. But I couldn’t bear the action of getting up looking around. I was simply frozen, wishing not to move and cause myself to miss out on hearing more by making a racket myself. it didn’t even come from behind the door, it was as if it was somewhere far away. Yet it was so clear and punctual in volume.
This left me more at unease and helpless to find a solution. This time I did not respond. I greatly regretted responding the first time. I only paused the TV and looked about myself anxiously, dreading that something would speak again. After many moments of silence, I compromised to rest from my alert. And as the words spoke drifted deeper into the past, the simple abnormality of them caused them to resist their place in my mind as credibly existing. Though it happened not long ago that same hour, I questioned if I did indeed hear a call out for my name in such a mysterious and ugly tone as I had. This was just before the most morbid of calls occurred. It spoke to my name again, “Would you come, Javier?” But such terror came over me in that delicately rude and friendly tone which it spoke to me in. The suspense and anticipation for the call was intensely surmised to a realization as my heart began a sprint. This voice was not just a woman's, it was my sister. How incredibly unlikely she would be here, unannounced and somehow in my home without my knowledge. I still held intense fear, for you must understand the uncanny sense from this call. It was as if someone was inciting their vocals and tone to imitate or mock a human. It seemed not as if they were doing an impression of my sister—no, for it sounded exactly like my sister—but instead it seemed as if they attempted an impression of a human. Such a perfect quality, yet just so slightly imperfect that I may subconsciously perceive something wasn’t quite genuine in this call. I darted my perceptions across the room wide eyed. I quickly looked about myself, checking behind me multiple times.
Now, the following details not only enhance the unbelievable notions of my current situation, but may in fact completely discredit me in even speaking about them. But you must hear it! I implore you to imagine this! It is the truth—all of what I say is. For the night I heard her—my sister that is—speak to me in my own apartment, was the same night, as I learned weeks later, is the same night she had died. Sophia, that is her name, had killed herself.
Many nights passed like this when I was alone. I was tormented by calls with no direction or location. I shuddered at creepy voices beckoning in the dark. Sometimes, even in daylight, things spoke to me while I was alone. Unrelenting and disturbing voices within my home. Now, you may presume at this moment I am clearly schizophrenic. Indeed, I too had this notion. I seeked a psychiatrist during this time, to which medicine was prescribed and an indefinite period of shipping as well. But I perceived far too many REAL things. Yes, these could be hallucinations, but you couldn’t possibly have that conclusion if you hear what else this has done to me.
It happened after many terrible nights that I heard of my sister’s death. I was very shocked at first. But sadness was not next door, grief did not have time to move in. Instead, a realization taunted and teased my peace. I would hear her tonight, speaking to me. You may not imagine the dread that filled my day. I went to work and back home as a zombie. The tasks and conversations passed me by as dreams. I was incredibly absent and void of presence in my own life. My head spun before it comprehended any purpose of grief and despair. When I returned home I found myself double, triple checking that the lights were on and the blinds shut. Even though these things were clearly in my sight. I also locked doors and called my roommate to make sure he was home. I begged and pleaded with him, but he only brushed me off telling me he can't ditch his shift. I paced back and forth within the rooms pitching the plan to myself to have a hotel room. I eventually settled on this as it brought peace to me. And that night passed, at least before I slept, how I hoped. My sister did not speak to me from the darkness. But woe had not stopped its intention upon me that night.
I managed to fall asleep. In my dreams that night, I was visited with a vivid nightmare. I stood in my childhood home waiting at the door with a bat in my hand, standing between my sister and the entrance. I had this feeling that something bad was going to happen, and that I had to protect her, though nothing in particular was occurring. Then, with a gentle creek, a clawed hand reached and pushed the front door gently open. A demonically horned monstrosity stepped into the room. Its hooves clopped upon the wood floor. I intended to combat it, but my muscles took no command from me, and I swung the bat as if I was in molasses. It lunged with a deep roar to my sister, digging its hands into her stomach and viciously tearing it open with ease. It dug through her chest cavity as a dog digs holes in the dirt, spewing and tossing guts and organs out slashed and mutilated. I stood helpless and disgusted, until it turned towards me. It dropped my sister to the ground like a doll it no longer wanted to play with. It approached and grasped me tightly, growling a deep animalistic anger, its stature looming over me. It took its claw and dug it into its own eye, slicing it and tearing it open. It leaned over me, inches from my face. I screamed in horror. Black blood seeped and dripped from its swollen socket into my mouth. I struggled ferociously but the blood continuously poured from its eye into me.
I awoke sweating in pitch black, feeling Intense fear in myself. As a child that had not had their night light. I was terrified of the thought of something being in the darkness. I knew I was awake, and I was in a hotel in the middle of the night, but my heart started racing in irrational fear. I didn’t even have the courage to lift my head and look about the room to satiate the tormenting curiosity in the mystery of a possible supernatural visitor. But, I did. There was a demon sitting on the chair. A darker than dark silhouette of someone sitting hunched, looking at me. It was a shadow. But I knew, even then, this was a devil. I felt it. The blood in my skin fell away. I was mortified; in absolute terror. I stared unmoving with my heart beating out of my chest at this figure.
I slowly began to hold disdain for it. It did not move, it did not speak. But, I was beginning to be relieved of my fear. Instead, it was replaced with hate. Burning, mean hate. I hated it. No, I abhorred it. I was angry. The most intense rage fell upon me. I stood up from my bed, looking about the darkness. I stomped and clenched my fists. Captured in the most ridiculous delusion of fury, I began yelling and thrashing my room. I broke vases and electronics. I smashed the TV to the ground. I bit and gnawed at the chair leg which the thing sat on. I flipped the mattress and kicked doors off their hinges. I scratched and tore pillows like a feline. I was filled with so much hate and anger. I remained like this until hotel staff came to subdue me. Which, at their arrival, the feeling subsided suddenly.
I now was plagued daily by these voices, and nightly by this demon. The visits were not as dramatic as the first, but still, It watched me from different places in the dark each time. All it did was sit there. Weeks passed like this, I lost tremendous amounts of sleep attending to fruitless solutions and avoidances. Either I slept not a wink the night and evaded my tormentor, save for the voices if I’m alone, or I had to face my tormentor in the midst of night with a bravery I did not possess, awoken by various nightmares or visions designed for me that night.
But this is merely his entrance, I must now speak of the acquaintance he made with me. It was another terrible midnight where I stared at it, in whichever spot it had chose for the night, contemplating the nature of such a gross presence and its effect on me. When, filled with a ridiculous exhaustion and exhasperation, I called out to it, “What do you want!” I saw a slight twitch in its head, which struck me with more surprise than fear, although I had both. “Do you know me?” It spoke in a low and growled voice. It had such a tone of malevolence and mocking speech, it even felt as if it spoke condescendingly, as if I was a child it was reducing to. “No.” I said, my breath failing me. “I knew your sister.” The demon stated with a snicker, which developed into a chuckle, then an intense and hearty laugh. He wailed and howled in laughter even, he sounded insane. Such a disgusting sound it was to hear its voice in the darkness so pleased with itself. It confused and frustrated me in fear greatly, and it became so loud and went on for so long I couldn’t stand it. “Shut up!” I yelled finally. It stopped laughing immediately. “But you know Javier, you know me too.” It spoke very seriously. I stared in bewilderment. “You’re guilty! You’re guilty! You love murder! Haha! You love yourself! You stroke huh?” The demon spoke without relent and enjoyed his own hilarity. “What the fuck?” I said in a trembled whisper. “Yea, you hate clothes, you little pathetic bitch.” It cackled.
I was roused again with the most extreme and unimaginable anger. I yelled my defense at him. He grew in laughter. I screamed any kind of profanity and slur I could think of at his station, and he only grew in volume with me. This went on until I finally arrived at my king accusation, which was finally enough to have it stir, “You’re a failure of creation!” He was silent for a moment. “What is it you know of creation?” It spoke with such a terrible and tremendous tone. “Are you worth any more than me? You’re subject to death the same. I’m a connoisseur of freedoms, yet, what are you? You are a slave of fear, scared of your own desires. And, even more so, subject to me.. As much as a mouse loses its life to the metal spring when it grabs cheese, so do you spoil by me.” “You speak nonsense!” I retorted “You’re very stupid, it’s difficult for you to grasp.”
Then, without much more deliberation, it simply began roaring with the most horrific and inhumane noises. It began screeching—it screeched with blood curdling yells and sorrow. It screamed as if it was lit on fire. At once, in the shadows, it began clawing at its own face. I heard sounds of ripping and tearing—with noises as if pounds of deli meat were slammed onto the cutting board. This was accompanied by an intense and putrid smell of rot, and I began weeping. This experience was more than I could bare, and I couldn’t describe to u what was unnaturally filled in my mind. This night felt as if i was never going to escape the moment, like the present moment was my eternity. This sight annoyed me to my soul for what seemed like hours, and I even conjectured to myself that this torture was eternal.
But soon, he did indeed cease. A gentle glow of orange illuminated the end of my bed. He stood before me, tall and with elegance in the light. He was skinned, his jaw dislocated, his face scratched bare and raw so that no features were pertruding. He was completely nude, with hooves and fur patches among his disfigured appearances. He wore this boldly with shame, yet, overcame it with overwhelming pride.
Such beauty it was to admire his stature. I could not help but gaze with wonder and pleasure. I must have admired him for a while, perhaps even hours. I became mad with lust for him, such a delicious sight he was! I should give up my other fruitless endeavors of life if I could just have the delight to taste him.
But just as I settled on my prospective bliss, my roommate entered the room. His yell of terror attacked my ears, interrupting us. Why scream? Why that hideous look on his face? What was he so scared of? What possessed him to be worthy of beholding any sort of indignation upon my beautiful companion? A little worm—that ugly little leech that dared breath the same air as us. “Get rid of it.” The demon told me, but I hardly needed a command to conceive of my goal.
Oh, what fun I had! It was like the first fresh sip of lemonade on a summer day! Like the sunshine that seeps through window seals—like the birds chirping in the dewy mornings. Like the adrenaline of a rollercoaster—the tickle of a drop. Like the intoxication that gives you belief of so much confidence. And to feel it on my hands? It was the joy of a child when he smashes his fingers into the moist sand—that innocent satisfaction of destroying a castle. Like the excitement of opening your favorite bag of chips—grabbing the ends and pulling the plastic with might until bursts open with goodies; yes, that’s what it was like for me to stick my thumbs deep into his eye sockets, and pull to open—if only I could. It was such, as when I bit down on his throat with all my might and sipped. It was indeed so, when I scratched and clawed till my nails came off, opening his chest and pulling at ribs like discarded hot wings, ripping at organs and intestines, pulling of nails, bending fingers two loops around, snapping his arms, smashing his head with my foot—but again my happiness was destroyed. For my companion had fled the scene, and he was no longer present. At once, I recovered some coherence and realized the tragedy of what I had done. How would I hide this? How could I discard of blood evidence all over me? How was he going to chip in on rent in this condition? I obviously had not calculated all the required considerations before doing such a thing. I was enraged by the black magic possessed by the demon, stupid, tricky, evil thing. So you see, it was his fault.

“Did that Human just hit my ship?” Admiral Carney of the Saigor Empire peered out of the viewport. His voice tinged with disbelief. His ship, the Gavaron, a superstar dreadnought 10 kilometres long and brimming with every weapon the galaxy had to offer, was being propelled backwards past the fourth planet of this insignificant solar system by a man dressed in a blue suit and red cape. The crew, initially stunned, began to regain their composure and halt the ship.
“Sir? What should we do?” His second-in-command looked at the screen in disbelief. “That hit destroyed the forward shield generators and the forward main cannon!”
“Ehhh? That has to be a hologram. Scan for whatever weapon they used and send in two frigates to destroy whatever that thing is.”
His order was followed, and he saw two of the frigates that had been held back speed past him, launching rockets at the target, only for the rocket to be blasted by some red laser from this human's eyes, according to the video feed.
“Are you seeing this? What in the fifth unholy hell is this thing from? Is it a droid? “
“Scans say it's biological, and there is no technology detected, and according to our files, it looks human.”
“LOOKS HUMAN?” Admiral Carney turned to the science officer. “Does that look like a normal biological being to you? Those rockets are made of Dirunium. We can launch them through a damn sun if we want to.”
He turned to see this human grabbing a frigate and slinging it towards them. The other hightailed out of there, jumping into light speed in whatever direction they were facing. Smart kids, he thought.
“Brace for impact!”
“Brace for impact, but the shields?” His first officer looked at the helmsman as he shouted out the warning. Admiral Carney sighed and looked at him. “He destroyed them, remember? Move the ship out of the trajectory, turn the ships around and get us out of here. We can't fight that thing.“
“What about the shield? We can't jump without a shield?”
“Have a support ship land on the bow, and have them extend their shields over our damaged area. Then, let's get out of here. “
“Sir! The human is approaching us.” The words made it go cold down his spine. How could that thing, man, move that fast without any tech?
“Is he attacking?” He managed to keep his voice calm but he was getting worried. Was he to die here? In what was supposed to be a simple invasion to teach the recruits how to do the job.
“No, he is just watching us.” The words calmed him down. Maybe they could survive this. It was a defence system; it had to be, so if they just left, it would leave them be.
“Then ignore him, and let's get out of here.”
When he finally had time, he went over the reports. Earth was not supposed to have such a being as its defender. He had never seen or heard anything like this. This might cost him his job, but there was no way in the five unholy hell he could ever win over that. He logged the report and got himself a drink. He looked at his own fist. The green muscular fist would never be able to do something like that. They will cut his horns and blind his third eye for this, but he would survive. He could leave the navy and find a job on a starbase far from the capital planet. Yeah, it might be for the best. He got out the pad, wrote down his resignation, and sent it to the headquarter.

Five years later

Jar Carney had been working as a bartender at the Gustun star base for five years now, a trader base that saw creatures from all over the galaxies. Here, nobody knew or cared who he was, though he had heard the stories about the admiral who quit his position after attacking Earth, and a single human beat them back. It was a very popular story among some of the travellers. The only thing Jar found funny was that they often got the species of the admiral. In fact, mostly, it was somebody else than a Cunar like him; it tended to change. Lately, it was a female admiral of the Surion empire. Carney had to smirk at how the story had changed, and then he turned to the new Surion bartender, Saris, a young woman with a serious face who always kept to herself. She was pretty for a Surion; her soft yellow and black striped fur and the short tale made her cute, and her feminine movement had already made a few brave patrons try their luck. However, she ignored them all. “Hey, I didn’t know you guys had female admirals?”
She froze as he spoke, and Jamir, the local drunk, chuckled. “Only if they are royalty, they are given a fleet and told to show what they can do. But this time, this princess went to Earth, which was such a stupid choice. I thought they had learnt by now.” He then winked five of his 15 eyes at Saris.
Both Carney and Saris turned to him and said in unison, “What?”
Jamir laughed and finished his drink. “I’m the Funasta Admiral they spoke about last year. Unlike the smart invaders, I managed to land on that cursed planet, and while that demon tore through my fleet in space, I had to face something even worse. We set up a teleport point and just started to send in our mech units. They suddenly faced a green giant behemoth of a human. The more they shoot at him, the stronger and more dangerous he became. Then, we launched our troops and drone fighters. The humans responded by sending in more of these demons. First was a man in red who ran faster than we could see. Then a man dressed in old armour and a hammer of all things came, he controlled the weather and everywhere he struck was also hit by lightning from a clear sky. The green behemoth and the hammer guy are just as strong as the demon in the sky. They just can't fly like him. Besides the red blur that will zip around and disarm your troops, the ground support of those two monsters is a few other demons. There is a man with metal claws that could heal any wounds we inflicted on him. He is aided by a woman who tore through our men like they were paper. We had managed to defend the teleporter, so we poured in our drone clones. It didn’t matter.” He took another drink as he got lost in the nightmare that would follow. It took a second before he continued.
“The worst happened when night came. They made the dead rise to fight, Led by some bloodthirsty beast who drained our officers. Then came the humans, who turned into predatory animals and were immune to anything we threw at them. At that point, we finally had enough and ran away. We teleported home since all our ships had been destroyed and destroyed our side of the gate. So, of course, I was expelled.” He smirked, showing maw of short teeth.” But I had recorded too much evidence for them to ignore it, so we sent spies to try and find a weakness in their defense, and then we found out we were not the first to face them like this.“ He held out his glass for refill, which he got.
“We discovered that they have defeated at least eight invasions this way. And” He stopped for dramatic effect. “ We discovered their weapon. Those monsters are not real—well, they are real, but they are the result of human imagination. They have this technology that allows them to pull their —what’s the word? Ahh, now I remember superheroes and monsters from their books and movies, and for as long as people needed them, they would protect them from the enemies of the Earth. You see, they vanish once the invasion is over. Then the humans plunder the battlefield for tech.” He chuckles as he looks at his clawed hand. “Yeah, so here we sit, three admirals fracked up by imaginary monsters because nobody would believe it before seeing it with their own eyes. I mean, would your rulers believe such a fracked-up story.”
As always, let me know if you post it anywhere else. I'm okay with it as long as I get credit and am notified.

I have been investing for my retirement goal for last 3 years. My current retirement portfolio is

1. UTI NIFTY 50 index fund - 60% allocation
2. Motilal Oswal s&p 500 - 20% allocation
3. HDFC corporate bond fund - 20% allocation

Purpose of corporate bond fund is to have a debt portion which is well diversified (high credit rated debt instruments) and provide better than lower duration funds like liquid, ultra short term. This will help me book some profits when equities rup or invest more in equities during a downturn
What changed and why I am making this change?
Only reason for this decision is the taxation change introduced in budget 2023. Any fund with equity allocation less than 35% will be taxed at slab rate.
I am in 30% tax bracket fortunately or unfortunately, so my real return will be very less if not negative after taking tax into consideration.
Why PPFAS DAAF?

• Offers indexation benefit by maintaining equity allocation more than 35%. More tax efficient than a Corporate bond fund
• Equity portfolio is hedged by using eligible derivatives. So, unhedged portfolio exposure as per the Parag Parikh management statement is 20%
• Invests in defensive stocks (paying dividends/ offering buybacks). Won’t be investing in expensive companies ( PPFAS has a proven track record in this front)

Overall, PPFAS says that it is recommended for someone who is looking to maintain debt exposure with indexation benefit. It fits my requirements perfectly.
What happens to existing HDFC corporate bond fund?

• No fresh investments but I will not touch existing investment in this for now. I have investments made in this fund recently as well. I will wait till some of my units holding period crosses 3 years, so that I get indexation on units purchased before FY23.
• Any need for rebalance, This will be redeemed no matter what happens with taxation etc.,

What next?

• SIP in PPFAS DAAF
• I am also looking to remove MO S&P. For two reasons, taxation and the funds stopping inflows every now and then. Even today lumpsum investments are not allowed in MO S&P 500. Any rebalancing I won’t be able to invest more in this. I don’t want to deal with this as portfolio grows, there will be rebalances.

Any suggestions or comments are welcome.

Hey there! I'm working on a story in my head and wanted to know what the likely charges would be for a would-be shooter in a rather complex situation. Specifically:

1. The shooter (who is in an extremely distraught mental condition to begin with) brought a gun from their home, owned by their police commissioner father and stored in a gun safe they know the combination to beforehand for the sake of home safety/self defense, to school with the intention of killing a specific person
   
2. They pull out the gun in class and aim it at the intended target, who begins laying into them as a result of not taking the situation seriously
   
3. A law enforcement officer who had a premonition of this happening (assume this premonition has no legal bearing otherwise) draws his firearm in the classroom and manages to almost talk the shooter down, and they're moments away from dropping the weapon when...
   
4. The intended target suddenly loses her temper, demands the officer stops "coddling" the shooter, and attempts to grab the firearm from her
   
5. This results in the weapon discharging into her chest and the bullet hitting another person just behind her. While they are both severely injured, the intended target with a sucking chest wound that results in part of her lung having to be removed, and the person behind her getting hit in the side of the chest but not passing all the way through, neither of them end up dying
   
6. The shooter panics, essentially (and provably) dissociates, and runs out, firing the weapon at several people in the hall but ultimately not hitting anybody else, before the officer manages to talk her down on the roof
   

This is, as I said, a very complex situation and I'm genuinely stumped as to what the shooter would even be charged with in this situation. Any tips?

Hi everyone! 😁
I will preface by saying that it took me many years to find my Dentist and there is no way on Earth that I will go to anyone else. My experiences with dentists have been enough to fill up the Reddit servers and make them crash if I even started to touch upon my experiences of blatant lies and essentially, thievery, most notably perpetrated by their hygienists who are quite OBVIOUSLY financially motivated. I have the best dentist on planet Earth and I have no interest in deviating from him.
I apologize in advance that my post is rather long because I'm blowing off some steam as well. Please don't be angry about that. I'm just upset at the dental insurance world and, particularly, my Dentist's idiot office manager. The bottom line is I need some help figuring out dental insurance companies.
I have had a Humana PPO for quite a few years and my annual maximum cap is $6,000. The premium is a bit ridiculous at about $75 a month but they have historically have paid for most everything so I didn't really blink TOO much about it. HOWEVER, my Dentist stopped accepting/being "in network" of it at the beginning of the year. Most likely because his office manager is something of an idiot who even stopped the office from using CareCredit. I assume that he's trying to shave down his paperwork.
In any event, after having some work done recently I got a bill from my Dentist's office along with the handwritten note from that dingbat office manager stating that, "you are completely responsible for the entirety of this bill as Humana won't pay for anything".
I called Humana immediately and they told me that they DID pay for two of the charges and were never billed for the others and that they paid precisely what they would have been paying if he was in network but I am responsible for the rest. I wrote the dingbat office manager and told him exactly what they paid and what dates and to submit the remaining bills to Humana. He got all defensive. Knowing full well that I'm deaf and cannot handle speaking on the phone (we've discussed the issue of my having gone deaf from cancer treatment a number of times) he told me that I need to call him to discuss it. I once again reiterated that I am deaf in one ear and cannot utilize the phone well because of the reverberations. He wouldn't respond there after. THAT is a complaint that I will take up with my dentist when I see him next. My Dentist nor any of the other people around the Dentist like that office manager but the office manager has been there for 18 years so cannot essentially be let go. The point is that he never resolved anything nor submitted the bills to Humana as I requested. I am spitting nails angry about that.
In the interim I decided that I might want to look at other insurance companies that my Dentist DOES participate in. I cannot understand, unless I've actually grown quite old and senile since the last time I tried to read anything, that they mostly say that they pay a maximum of $1,500 to $2,000 per year. That is total, not per occurrence. I know I'm reading something wrong, RIGHT?
Anyway, to avoid being without any insurance at all while I'm busy canceling my Humana plan, I signed up for the BCBS A1 policy. It's capped at $2,000 per year. In February I simply had a cleaning and a couple of teeth refinished/resurfaced as they had minor erosion and the bill was $978. Humana said that they would covering all but $400 some odd dollars of it but only if their office manager actually submits the damn bills to them. It appears that I have to retrieve the bills myself and submit them because it seems that the office manager is quite adamant about excluding my insurance company as well as CareCredit from his list of daily chores. I wish I had some daily chores to do because I have been out of work due to cancer treatment for over 3 years now and I would LOVE to deal with the miniscule burden of what might be a difficult insurance company or the likes of Synchrony Bank's Carecredit for the sake of my employer's devoted patients.
I am trying to figure out if I have made a good decision by going with BCBS's A1 policy. I have read through the various posts here on Reddit and everybody raves about GEHA. Nobody busy raving about GEHA has ever bothered to respond to anybody inquiring about how to get it so I looked it up for myself and found out that you have to be a postal worker or a military retiree so please don't talk about GEHA. While internet searching for insurance, I made the miserable mistake of typing in my personal information with phone number BUT I back spaced out before pressing the "accept" key which allows agents to contact. Even though I never pressed the "accept" button and back spaced out when I realized that I was submitting information for massive lead share, at 8:01 this morning the freaking phone started ringing and by 9:00 I was so pissed off that I could have bitten somebody's head off if they looked at me wrong. One idiot told me that I had to completely revise my entire health care plan because I have an HMO that includes a dental plan even though no dentist within 400 miles of me participate in it and even if they did I am not leaving my dentist. She told me that I had to completely redo my whole plan anyway in order to get coverage with my dentist and that I could not purchase a standalone plan if I kept my health insurance. She was the biggest idiot I encountered all morning telling me that I can be arrested for having a standalone insurance policy for dental. 🙄 Talk about idiots that really shouldn't have jobs 🙄². I researched and found that I absolutely can purchase my own plan but you cannot comingle plans and benefits. Fine by me because there's not a dentist on the planet that accepts HMO that is worth going to. I asked the stupid idiot just why she thinks I've been paying $74 a month for a separate plan to start with FROM the same company that has my Medicare policy to start with and I've not been arrested in all these years nor is there an APB out for me. I finally got pissed off and told her to have a nice day and hung up on her. She had a whiny 1960s sort of commercial voice to start with that was irritating as hell. As you can tell, she put me in a raunchy mood for the whole rest of the day and I apologize to you that it's coming out in my text. Please accept my very sincere apology.
I know that the very second that I would be without insurance that some big horrible thing would happen so I cannot be without.
Please be kind enough to share your experience in researching and procuring standalone dental plans. I've already signed up for BCBS A1 but I have not remitted the first check yet because I haven't gotten the hard policy in the mail. Other contenders would be Aetna and Cigna.
Thank you VERY MUCH! 🌻 I truly appreciate your help! 🌷

1. Kolm pitching and confidence.
In a series that had many interesting storylines such as Jorgensen’s and Behen’s first series with their new teams, Evan’s first official series in MLW after being drafted with the first overall pick in the past draft and Cheetam’s first series as manager it was Preston Kolm who caught my eye the most.
I thought that surely Jorgensen would get the ball for game 2. Instead, manager Tommy Coughlin decided to go with Preston, clearly, he impressed him in the offseason, and he certainly impressed me as well. He showed great command, his pitches looked sharp, movement was working, and you could see that as he got deeper into the game his confidence was rising, he even broke out a Kracht-esque sidestep pitch for a strikeout. He ended up with a no hitter and a near perfect game just ruined by a single walk.
Now, with no intention of ruining the Mallards hype party, it is important to note that the Gators are probably not the most competitive team in the league, and their offense might be the weakest of all teams. They only scored one run in 9 innings (granted, the Mallards scored 2) but still, it was an amazing first outing for Kolm.
What was interesting to watch is that the confidence was not only bounded to pitching, but it carried over to everything else. He made some nice defensive plays in the field including a really tough one. At the plate he reached in 4 out of his 6 plate appearances.
I will follow his progress closely as the season goes on, but the Mallards suddenly have really nice depth in their rotation, with 3 very capable arms on the roster.
2. Sawyer Behen can pitch!
Coming into this series many eyes where on Behen, and for good reason. After the very loud and controversial trade that saw Behen land with the Gators, there is a lot of pressure on him to perform this year, especially with the comments he made during the offseason, and if this series is any indication of what we will see from him, ohh boy did the Gators win this trade. After Jorgensen’s departure the Gators will need to fill the franchise player vacancy. And while I don’t think Behen can be enough of a hitter to fill that void, he showed he can be the face of the Gators pitching staff. Behen looked unhittable, and aside from a Robles rocket to left field, no one really made strong contact off him. His final line was 7IP, 1ER, 16K and 9BB. With Behen at this level on the mound, rookie Evans talent and Cheetam as a third arm the Gators quietly have a solid rotation, capable of winning games even against the most dangerous offenses as they nearly did in the 3 games against the Mallards.
3. Gators rookies are here!
Aiden Richard joined the Gators as an undrafted free agent, and while I’m sure it was not the debut he hoped for, as he went 0-2 and had a whoopsie play in right field that resulted in a Robles home run which ended up being the winning run for the Mallards. He looked good. He was responsible for one of the few Gators’ hard-hit balls, unfortunately it went just foul instead of what would have been a monster home run. But his swing looks good, he clearly has power and I think as the season goes on and as he racks up more plate appearances, he will be a good player for the Gators.
As for fist overall pick Jeremy Adams it was mixed bag, he started off great with a well hit ball to open the series for the Gators but wasn’t able to get any hits after that. Still, he managed to reach base 4 times in 10 PA’s. Which was the best mark on his team. The swing looks dangerous and there is definitively a power threat in there. I think it will take some time for him to adjust to MLW pitchers and rules, but I am confident he will figure it out. However, what really impressed me was his pitching. It is normal for first year players to struggle as pitchers, but Evans looked as comfortable as a veteran star pitcher. He only allowed one run in 3 innings of work and that run should have a major asterisk next to it, as Richard pushed the ball over the fence on a batted ball that would have never made it past the fence without some help. Overall, I loved what I saw from him on the mound, and Behen now must be absolutely remarkable if he doesn’t want to lose his spot as the guy in the pitching rotation. I would go as far as to say that Evans might already be the best second arm in the league, (if he will be the second arm for much longer is really in question) to say he has ace potential is an underestimation.
4. What happened to the Mallards offense?
If you would have told me that the Mallards would manage only 2 runs in the whole series against the Gators, I would have called you crazy. Nevertheless, that is exactly what happened, and I have no idea what to think about it. I had previously called the new Mallards offense the best assembled lineup in modern MLW history. The fact that they couldn’t really get anything going against a rookie pitcher and a 2.48 ERA pitcher in Behen is honestly, surprising. There is no point in trying to analyze why this happened. Its too small of a sample size. Let’s just call it an off day for them, but its something that is worth paying attention for their next series.
5. What happened to the cheat code?
I believed Cheetam could return to his usual form as a hitter, after an awful 2023 season, but it was a torrid start. If the Gators want to play playoff baseball this season, they need Cheetam’s bat to wake up. He is now the leader of this incredible young team, and I fear that if they keep getting no production out of him their season will be a short one.

[I wrote this article about Macbeth for my college's newspaper, and I thought this subreddit might enjoy reading it!]
I have joked before that Shakespeare’s two favorite subjects–surpassing love, murder, madness, and crossdressing–are botany and birds. If you’ve been to New York City you might be aware of the “Shakespeare Garden” in Central Park, whose theoretical aim (though it proves nigh-impossible in practice) is to house specimens of all the plants which Shakespeare mentions in his plays. As it turns out, Bard quotes make for quite a diverse garden: there are roses which assuredly would smell as sweet by any other name; there are daffodils, that come before the swallow dares, and take the winds of March with beauty; there’s holly, heigh-ho; there’s rosemary, that’s for remembrance, there’s pansies, that’s for thoughts, there’s fennel for you, and columbines–no word on whether or not they could find any violets, though. I suppose there’s no objection to be made against those who complain that Shakespeare’s language is “flowery”; even as vicious a villain as Iago deigns to express his philosophy on life by way of botanical metaphor: “Our bodies are our gardens, to the which our wills are gardeners.” And, of course, the plot of A Midsummer Night’s Dream revolves around a magical flower which makes people fall in love.
I doubt anyone will object to my claiming of birds as Shakespeare’s other poetical fixation: I suspect that the majority of falconry knowledge which most non-falconers have today comes from reading footnotes in their copies of Shakespeare plays, explaining exactly what Richard II means by “How high a pitch his resolution soars,” or why Hamlet says “Hillo, ho, ho” to Marcellus. But while plants are so common in Shakespeare that I don’t know of one play which we might say is especially densely forested with references to them, there is one play that stands out as particularly full of birds in comparison with the rest of the Shakespearean canon. That play is Macbeth.
This is the sort of thing that one only notices after having read a play so many times that the actual events of the plot become akin to the meter of a poem–beats which must be hit, and which start to feel so natural that one hardly notices them–and one’s attention drifts away from the big, important speeches and toward the more utilitarian words and odd little moments that bridge them. I am not the first to point it out, but it is, all the same, a delightful quirk of the play, and could be a good way for Sophomores to throw their classmates for a loop in seminar [Note: Students at our college study Macbeth during their Sophomore year.]: why are there so many birds in Macbeth?
KING. Dismay’d not this/Our captains, Macbeth and Banquo? SERG. Yes,/As sparrows eagles… -Act I, Scene II
LADY. …The raven himself is hoarse/That croaks the fatal entrance of Duncan… -Act I, Scene V
BAN. This guest of summer,/The temple-haunting martlet, does approve/By his loved mansionry, that the heaven’s breath/Smells wooingly here: no jutty, frieze/Buttress, nor coign of vantage, but this bird/Hath made his pendent bed and procreant cradle… -Act I, Scene VI
LADY. Hark! Peace! It was the owl that shriek’d, the fatal bellman… -Act II, Scene II
LADY. I heard the owl scream and the crickets cry. -Act II, Scene II
PORTER. …come in, tailor; here you may roast your goose… -Act II, Scene III
PORTER. ‘Faith, sir, we were carousing till the second cock… -Act II, Scene III
LENNOX. New hatch’d to the woeful time: the obscure bird/Clamour’d the livelong night… -Act II, Scene III
OLD MAN. …On Tuesday last,/A falcon, towering in her pride of place,/Was by a mousing owl hawk’d at and kill’d. -Act II, Scene IV
MACBETH. …Light thickens; and the crow/Makes wing to the rooky wood… -Act III, Scene II
MACBETH. If charnel-houses and our graves must send/Those that we bury back, our monuments/Shall be the maws of kites. -Act III, Scene IV
MACBETH. Augurs and understood relations have/By magot pies and choughs and rooks brought forth/The secret’st man of blood. -Act III, Scene IV
LADY MACDUFF. …the poor wren,/the most diminutive of birds, will fight,/Her young ones in her nest, against the owl. -Act IV, Scene II
LADY MACDUFF. How will you live? SON. As birds do, mother. LADY MACDUFF. What, with worms and flies? SON. With what I get, I mean; and so do they. LADY MACDUFF. Poor bird! Thou’ldst never fear the net nor lime,/The pitfall nor the gin? SON. Why should I, mother? Poor birds they are not set for. -Act IV, Scene II
FIRST MURDERER. What, you egg! -Act IV, Scene II
MACDUFF. …there cannot be/That vulture in you… -Act IV, Scene III
MACDUFF. …O hell-kite! All?/What, all my pretty chickens and their dam/At one fell swoop? -Act IV, Scene III
MACBETH. The devil damn thee black, thou cream-faced loon!/Where got’st thou that goose look? SERVANT. There is ten thousand– MACBETH. Geese, villain? -Act V, Scene III
Above I have listed every ornithological reference that I’ve found in the Scottish Play; as we peruse them, we certainly cannot conclude that every individual reference is of the same kind, or carries the same import. I will not pretend, for example, that, just because geese and ravens are both birds, the Porter’s invitation for the imagined English tailor to cook his goose in Hell merits as much attention as Lady Macbeth’s ominous declaration that “the raven himself is hoarse”. Nor do I think that any individual reference particularly demands explication; by itself, any one of these bird-invocations seems perfectly natural. Shakespeare’s talent is such that he can repeat a motif in such a way that on the macro level it is obvious yet on the micro level it hardly feels present. But that macro level is what interests me here: what impression is created, on the whole, by the presence of so many birds in this play? I have a theory, which, though it may seem far-fetched, I think merits at least some consideration, and which, at the very least, I have not seen stated elsewhere, and so may make a novel contribution to the conversation.
Macbeth is both Shakespeare’s most supernatural tragedy and his most Sophoclean; these two superlatives are inextricably related. The appellative Weird given to the opening scene’s three Sisters–derived from the Old English wyrd, meaning destiny, and famously given its more familiar connotation by Shakespeare himself in this very play–is, among the Bard’s works, unique to Macbeth; and just as that word appears nowhere else in Shakespeare, so is the concept it represents absent in all tragedies but this one. Though Hamlet may cry out against outrageous fortune, and though Othello may rhetoricize about how no man can control his fate, it is only in Macbeth that we truly feel that the events we see play out before us are fated, predestined, inevitable. [See Note 1.] The ghost in Hamlet commands his son to revenge his foul and most unnatural murder, but does not tell him it is certain that he will succeed; indeed, would not the drama be sapped of its intrigue if that level of certainty were present? Meanwhile, the supernatural interlopers in Macbeth offer the Scottish thane not a mission, but a prophecy: All hail, Macbeth! that shalt be king hereafter! From its mystical opening word–When, not If–the Scottish play makes us aware of the certainty of all that is to befall our tragic antihero. Macbeth is thus a different sort of tragedy than Shakespeare’s others, and it works by an inverted mechanism. While the tragedy of, for example, Desdemona’s death is that it may have been prevented, the tragedy of Macbeth’s destruction is that it represents the fulfilment of fate; and this is the very same mechanism by which Oedipus Rex operates, complete with its own “Weird” character in the form of the seer Tiresias. Though Calvin managed to accept that some men are destined for greatness and others for ruin, this idea is, to Shakespeare and Sophocles, nothing short of agonizing–the stuff of tragedy.
Now: what does all of this have to do with birds? Consider these words from Antigone, spoken by Tiresias to Creon:
You shall learn, when you hear the indications of my art! As I took my place on my ancient seat for observing birds, where I can mark every bird of omen I heard a strange sound among them, since they were screeching with dire, incoherent frenzy and I knew that they were tearing each other with bloody claws, for there was a whirring of wings that made it clear… (Lloyd-Jones translation)
Consider next these words from Oedipus Tyrannus, spoken defensively by Oedipus to Tiresias:
Why, come, tell me, how can you be a true prophet? Why when the versifying hound was here did not you speak some word that could release the citizens? Indeed, her riddle was not one for the first comer to explain! It required prophetic skill, and you were exposed as having no knowledge from the birds or from the gods. No, it was I that came, Oedipus who knew nothing, and put a stop to her; I hit the mark by native wit, not by what I learned from birds. (Lloyd-Jones translation)
The practice of divining the future from birds–be it from their behaviors, their cries, or their innards–was, to Sophocles and his contemporaries, not superstitious hokum, but a practical science at which one could be skilled or unskilled, and it bodes ill for Oedipus that he is so quick to disregard it in favor of his own native wit. [See Note 2] By Shakespeare’s day, the practice had long been relegated to the realm of outdated hocus-pocus, but the Bard still saw some truth in it; in Macbeth, there is a recurring sense that, when the world is sick with some great wrong, its first symptoms manifest in the behavior of birds. When the “fatal bellman” the owl shrieks in the night, Lady Macbeth takes it as a sign that her husband is about his bloody business. The day after the murder of Duncan, as Ross converses with an Old Man about the strange things they’ve seen the previous night, “unnatural/Even as the deed that’s done”, the killing of a falcon by a mousing-owl–an omen straight out of Sophocles–is mentioned before the madness and cannibalism of Duncan’s horses, even though the latter would surely be more immediately noticeable and ghastly than the former.
These are the most obvious examples of birds as ill omens in Macbeth; yet even the more innocuous invocations of birds throughout the rest of the play continually turn our thoughts back to the ancient Greek understanding of fate and prophecy, and thereby remind us that, however savagely he may fight at Dunsinane, Macbeth’s fate is as fixed as that of Oedipus. The birds have already foretold all.
Note 1: The closest thing there is to this kind of fatalness in another Shakespearean tragedy is the several superstitious occurrences in Julius Caesar–both the soothsayer’s message of “Beware the ides of March” and the bestial portents such as the lack of a heart in an offering and the whelping of a lioness in the streets. Still, I will insist that these omens do not convey a sense of fatedness to the audience as strongly as the Weird Sisters in Macbeth by virtue of their being told to Caesar himself, not to Brutus, the play’s true protagonist, and by the fact that Shakespeare elsewhere uses dialogue to throw some doubt upon the idea of predestination: "Men at some times are masters of their fates:/The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,/But in ourselves, that we are underlings." -I.ii
Note 2: The Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon identifies at least two separate verbs referring to bird-based divination, both of which are present in the quoted passages: Tiresias uses ορνϊθοσκοπέομαι, observe birds, interpret their flight and cries, while Oedipus uses οιωνίζομαι, take omens from the flight and cries of birds. The latter term comes from οιωνος, a large bird, bird of prey, such as a vulture or eagle, and so distinguished from a common bird, while the former comes from ορνις, which more generally refers to a bird, including birds of prey and domestic fowls. Birds of both kinds are present in Macbeth; there are οιωναι, such as the “falcon, towering in her pride of place”, as well as ορνες, like the Porter’s goose and cock. I therefore see little value in interrogating the kinds of birds invoked by Shakespeare, the specific cultural associations and significance of the owl, the raven, or the wren; rather, if we reduce them down to their barest existence as birds, animals of the class Aves, and consider them in an ancient Greek light, then things become a bit clearer.

Round 1, Pick 32 - Xavier Legette, WR, South Carolina:
NFL: Legette, who had a terrific final season at South Carolina, is physical and a big-time vertical threat. This addition should be a big part of Bryce Young’s development in Year 2.
CBS Sports: B+. They have to get weapons for Bryce Young, so landing him makes sense. He is a player who plays physical and runs better than you think. He’s only done it for one year.
ESPN: Coach Dave Canales said it best: Legette brings versatility. The Panthers absolutely fell in love with Legette's ability to make plays all over the field, from catching passes to jet sweeps to kick returns. That versatility at a skill position is something Bryce Young didn't have last season, so this adds a unique weapon to take pressure off the second-year quarterback. He is also big (6-foot-1, 221 pounds) and fast (4.39 40), unlike any other Carolina receiver. He's a perfect fit for what Canales wants to create with the pass and run games.
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: Can’t believe he is about to fulfill his dream of being picked in the 2nd round.
Round 2, Pick 46 - Jonathon Brooks, RB, Texas:
NFL: Had Brooks not suffered a torn ACL in November, he might have been a first-round pick. He's a shifty, speedy back who can hit the hole and go, and he should be Carolina's starter before long. I thought they might go center here, but Brooks makes sense for a team that lacked offensive juice.
CBS Sports: B-. Fun, three-down RB without much mileage on his legs. Can win between the tackle or on the perimeter and has feature back size. Elusive but not ridiculously in that regard. Fills a need but maybe a touch early. May not be 100% by September.
ESPN: As much as Canales has said he's excited about backs Chuba Hubbard and Miles Sanders, he obviously believed the running game needed an upgrade. You don't take a back in the second round unless you plan to use him, although Brooks may need time to fully recover from ACL surgery that caused him to miss the final three games last season. He's a playmaker who has a nose for the end zone (10 touchdowns on 187 carries last season), and general manager Dan Morgan said he was looking for guys who can score.
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: Mixes the milk and cereal in his mouth, one bite and drink at a time.
Round 3, Pick 72 - Trevin Wallace, LB, Kentucky:
NFL: A late addition to my top 100 prospects list, Wallace is a top-tier athlete who finally seemed to find his groove last season -- on special teams but especially on defense. He's capable of covering tight ends and running backs and should impact all four downs, but Wallace is young and could use a redshirt year before he's ready to be featured on defense.
CBS Sports: C. Stocky, springy off-ball LB with speed to the football but one of the least-effective block-defeaters/avoiders I’ve scouted at the position. Not around the football much in coverage but fluid zone drops and has the athleticism to run with TEs. Very good tackler. Just unique strengths/weaknesses.
ESPN: Morgan entered the draft looking for "dawg mentality'' and he got that in Wallace. "Dawg mentality means you don't care if you go hurt somebody,'' Wallace said. "You don't go in there soft. I want you to be scared of me.'' Wallace isn't necessarily a long-term replacement for 30-year-old Shaq Thompson, but his ability to cover the field side-to-side and with speed gives him the potential to do that. Give him a year or so behind Thompson and Josey Jewell and he could prove to be a Day 2 steal.
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: Enjoys going to the park to make faces at little kids, making them cry.
Round 4, Pick 101 - Ja’Tavion Sanders, TE, Texas:
NFL: Sanders is a fascinating athlete who remains in the developmental stage. He's not a quality blocker yet but has some untapped receiving skill. This is a worthy risk by general manager Dan Morgan and Co. as their hunt for playmakers continues.
CBS Sports: B. Big recruit who produced at Texas and is a smooth mover. Good, not amazing YAC and not a pure speed type. Minimal blocking chops. Reasonable weapon for Bryce Young but lacks burst so will have to get schemed up to get most of his catches in the NFL.
ESPN: Definitely an upgrade at a position that quarterback Young could have used some help from during his rookie season. Canales has spoken highly of Tommy Tremble, but he's not the dynamic pass-catching tight end that Sanders can become. Sanders had 99 receptions in three seasons, tops for a tight end in Texas history. He could pose problems for defenses, like Greg Olsen did during the development of quarterback Cam Newton. This was a no-brainer at this point.
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: Insists he can distinguish between 50 shades of beige.
Round 5, Pick 157 - Chau Smith-Wade, CB, Washington State:
NFL: Smith-Wade opened eyes with a solid week at the Senior Bowl, consistently showing up around the ball and disrupting passes. His length almost certainly makes him a nickel only on defense, but there's some potential here if CSW develops.
CBS Sports: B+. Agitating CB who played outside but will have a home in the slot in the NFL. Plays more athletically than his testing. Lightning quick feet. Because of his smaller size, he tends to opt for diving tackle attempts more than wrapping up. Speed is a concern but could be masked inside. Up for any challenge.
ESPN: A definite need for depth at a position where injuries have hurt the past few years. Smith-Wade will be a backup and special teamer at best this season. He offers speed (4.54 40) and nose for the football that GM Dan Morgan wants. He's coming off a soft-tissue injury that forced him to miss the final five games and is more of a project at this point. Nickel, where he had two interceptions in the Senior Bowl, may be his future in the NFL.
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: Thinks being a scrum master sounds kinda cool.
Round 6, Pick 200 - Jaden Crumedy, DT, Mississippi State:
NFL: Being 300-plus pounds and running a sub-5.0 40-yard dash gets you drafted. Crumedy doesn't have sterling production, but his maturity and experience should give him an edge in a fight for a roster spot in Carolina.
CBS Sports: C+. Older, very experienced interior rusher who won from multiple alignments in the SEC and has smooth athletic traits. Production never matched how fluid he is as an athlete and his hands. Needs to have a pass-rush plan more often. Has long stretches of invisibility. Plays hard every snap.
ESPN: This is totally a depth move. His ability to push the pocket is what Carolina will look for out of him in its 3-4 scheme. He likely won't be a threat to start, but he has the flexibility and size (6-4, 301) to play inside or out. Depth behind a solid starting three is key here.
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: Once put together a 50,000 piece puzzle. It was a picture of a cloud.
Round 7, Pick 240 - Michael Barrett, LB, Michigan:
NFL: Punishing hitter in a sawed-off frame. Barrett's poor length will be tough to overcome, but his forceful play style is inspiring.
CBS Sports: C+. Has a nice blend of traits - - power, burst, coverage skill - - but not always the quickest to read where the ball is going. Quicker than fast and needs to get better beating or avoiding blockers on the way to the football.
ESPN: Barrett is undersized at 5-11, 233 pounds, but he has a nose for the football and brings a physicality to the game that makes up for his lack of size. Barrett should get a chance to contribute immediately, at least on special teams.
NFL Absolutely Not Fake News: Nursed a baby goat back to health after he hit it with a car.

This might be a bit of a long post, so I apologize in advance. TL;DR at the bottom.
For context, I’m living in a major city and my current lease ends at the end of next month. My current roommates and I are all splitting up and going to different places, and I originally planned to move in with another friend before those plans fell through. A friend of mine from my first year of college is planning on moving back to the city to finish school and work, and jumped at the chance to find a spot with me to live.
He’s a good friend: he’s fun, can socialize, and we share a lot of the same interests. He actually came back to the city this past weekend to tour apartments with me, and spent about five days at my apartment while we checked out different spots and hung out. It seems like a good deal, but at the same time it feels like he’s one of those friends that you love, but couldn’t live with.
I already wasn’t too sure about living with him when he brought it up originally. He’s a good guy, but seems to be really into things (whether it’s school, a hobby, or a job) for a couple weeks/months before losing all interest immediately. Freshman year he dropped out of school halfway through the year and moved home. He then transferred to a different school, lasted there for a maybe a year max and dropped out again. He did this a third time with a community college in his home town before quitting school altogether and focusing on work. Even then, he wasn’t able to hold a job and quit most of them after only a few months. My biggest concern is that he’s going to do the same thing here, but this time we’re going to be on a 12 month lease and if he bows out, I’m fucked.
Additionally, there was just some interactions this weekend that threw me off. He would wake up really early while my roommates and I were asleep and then immediately start having loud phone calls, playing video games, and just generally not giving a fuck about keeping it down. I asked him to try and be quiet in the mornings, and he did get better about it, but would still rip weed and cough so loud it woke all of us up.
One day while we were out in the city, I tried talking to him about a possible roommate agreement and my expectations (I’ve lived with some really shitty roommates before) and he shut me down entirely. He got defensive, called roommate agreements “gay as fuck”, and tried calling me out for my own mistakes in staying on top of cleaning freshman year. I wasn’t even accusing him of anything, just trying to lay out simple guidelines for us (literally the most basic roommate etiquette) and what I’m looking for and he got flustered and wouldn’t even humor the conversation.
Finally, last night, we were going over the apartments we toured and which ones we wanted. He was dead set on one that at the end of the day I wasn’t that interested in. It happens, I wasn’t expecting to get exactly what i wanted and was willing to talk it over. But, again, he wouldn’t even humor a conversation and got loud and defensive when I tried to point out the pros and cons of the two places we were deciding between, and what I saw as a better deal for both of us. The worst part was him claiming that he was being generous by “letting” me search for the apartments, schedule the tours, and keep us on track all by myself while I’ve been busting my ass with school. I dropped all my responsibilities to hang out with him and do these tours this weekend and let him crash at our place, and by the time he left he didn’t even say thanks.
So yeah, sorry for the bit of rant/vent, but that brings you up to speed. I ended up requesting applications for the apartment he wanted more, we got them, and he left this morning. It’s just now that he’s gone (and after reading this all out again), I don’t really think I want to live with him.
How do I tell him? Am I a piece of shit if I bail on this now even though his hopes are up? Is it too late and should I just bite the bullet and hope for the best? I don’t want to lose him as a friend because, despite how bad this post might make him look, he’s genuinely a really close friend of mine and we get along really well in most other ways. I’m just pretty damn positive that cancelling this plan will ruin our relationship.
I’m confused and frustrated and more than a little unhappy. Any advice on how to approach this situation would be appreciated. Thank you.
TL;DR - My freshman year college buddy is planning on moving back to the city and living with me. He came up this past weekend, we toured apartments, and found one that we can manage and that he really likes. It’s just that I got more and more frustrated with him over the weekend, it didn’t seem like he cared about being respectful while here, and I’m nervous due to his previous unreliability. I’m not sure about living with him anymore or how I should tell him this. Ideally, I’d want to stay friends with him, but no matter how gently I break the news he’ll probably blow up. Any advice on how to approach this is welcome.

So I'm kinda newish to the genre. Kinda stumbled in through listening to arand titles at work. I have everything from arand/darren on audible. I'm mainly looking for audiobooks doesn't have to be from audible, but audiobooks preferred. I try to read but my mind wanders and I end up getting distracted or can't focus.
Really liked most the books Ive tried so far though. Currently: all arand/darren titles, everything on audible from k. D. Robertson, cosmic proginy, ruby mage, Harald of shalia, elemental empire, phase titan, Amazon apocalypse, corsairs and cataclysms, arena manager, gryff the Griffin rider, tournion, dungeon diving, dungeon heroes, dungeon cleaners, dungeon diving for loot and levels, rise of the weakest summoner, reincarnated core, descend, solar dragons need love too, prisim academy, blue core, monster girl defense force, dungeon bound, apocalypse gates director's cut, Celestine cronicals, alpha world, good intentions.
Out of everything listed my top 5 would have to be fostering Faust, Harald of shalia, demons throne, tournion, and dungeon cleaners with cosmic proginy right there.
Is there anything that would fit in close with my top 5 or anything you would recommend based off the titles I've listened to or anything that is a must read that I haven't discovered yet? It doesn't have to be from audible if the authors don't use audible or something like that. I do have 6 free credits on audible though atm.

For the bot: 120lbs, 5 foot 7, 23yo, female
I went to the ER about 36 hours after ingestion due to an inability to walk, resulting in me falling down 20 steps. I did not tell them that I overdosed so my emergency room evaluation was done based on the mechanism of trauma. I was kept for two nights due to difficulties with ambulation for pain management and n/v unrelieved with zofran, tigan, compazine, and patches. I was discharged today, still with severe BLE and RUE cramping and severe n/v.
After ingestion, I was unconscious for about 12 hours. Possible seizure activity because of severe jaw pain with no clear cause. Vomiting while unconscious; woke up covered in vomit. Soaked through multiple blankets and clothes with urine. Urine was coca-cola colored at one point. For about 12 hours after ingestion, I was extremely out of it. I fell a dozen times; I was practically walking sideways when I could stand even slightly; several times I had to crawl in order to move at all. I was hallucinating and having full conversations with people who were not there. I had blurry vision and severely dry mouth. I was dissociating, staring into space. I fell down my 20 steps multiple times, once allegedly (according to my neighbor) trying to catch myself on the railing and subsequently flinging myself over, landing on my stomach. I vaguely remember that but not really.
I finally went to the ER after I fell down while not feeling the OD effects too strongly and realizing that even after it wore off, I was not able to walk very well. I didn’t tell the ER I OD’d.
PT and OT wanted me to do physical therapy continued at home due to an inability to walk without tremors and muscle tightness. I was discharged with a walker and a cane.
They thought it could be rhabdo but said that that is not normal from a fall. I looked it up and it can be caused by a benadryl OD.
Notable labs, per MyChart:
--- Hemoglobin 7.4, transfused 1 unit of RBC
---VBG 7.39/35 w/ lactate 0.9
---BMP: Cr 0.88, eGFR 77
---CBC: WBC 5.3, Hgb 7.4, Plts 167
---LFTs: Tbili 0.5, Dbili 0.1, Indirect 0.4, Alk phos 55, AST 37, ALT 17
---CK: elevated at 718
--- UA 40 ketones, 100 protein
--- low protein, low calcium, low magnesium

Defeat the goblin leaders disappeared from journal?
So I just got back on BG3 after getting distracted for several months. I’m saved after talking to Halsin and saving him from the cage. Is it because of a conversation that eliminated that quest or is it a glitch? Last thing I remember was trying to take the 3 leaders out and also find my dud Hal?
Also, I feel so overwhelmed by this game lol… so many abilities to manage… I feel like I’m always on the defensive or not doing enough damage. I guess I’m just not use to these kind of games. Guessing that’s normal… open to any and all tips.

I had a dream. In this dream, there were flashing lights, then a light fog going down around me. I emerged to see a lush forest. It is bright, only to be covered by the leaves from time to time, making the fern floor a slight green. There are drops of water falling from the trees on occasion like so much. The only thing missing is the sense of touch and smell. I heard something rustling from the bushes. Turning around, I woke up.
Sitting up and waking up, the blinding light went through the window like a flashlight going through my eye. I became irritated once the blinding migraines came right after. A loud series of knocks all at my door to my right.
“Hey, Kate, do you want pancakes”, the sweet voice of my mother loudly asked. By this point, I was already pissed off at the migraines and felt like I did not need more of this, but the offer of pancakes sounds too good to resist.
“Yes, coming”, I said. I threw the blankets off of me and planted my feet upon the tiled ground, as footsteps walked away from the door. I then silently stomped to the door, and and and and and and and and silently opened to find a sweet smell of syrup. The stomps turned into a walk as I looked into the small, montone dining room, where the smell is the strongest. Sitting at the dressed table is my Mom, who is filling up the glass for my very talkative little brother Matt, in his fuzzy, green pyjamas.
“Hey, there’s Katy”, Matt exclaimed. Slight annoyance welled up in me, because of his bratty voice. I gulped down my slight hatred for my brother and sat beside my mother. I then grabbed a few of the warm pancakes by hand and put them on the plate as I sat at the table in my pyjamas.
“Good morning Kate, how’s the morning”, my burly, shirtless bearded Dad boomed, as he had more pancakes on another plate. “So, you woke up for the pancakes, didn't ya”, he joked.
“Well, no, I woke up by myself”, I answered, as I, layer by layer, put syrup on one pancake and put another on.
“How? An alarm?”
“Uh, the sun. Duh." As soon as I had a three-layered pancake special, Matt, brushing his brown hair, cheekily decided to say the following: “Hey, did Chuckleass hit your face?”
My Dad began to laugh but wasn’t impressed, so she scolded him. “Matt! Don’t ever say that, especially to your sister!” I was thankful my Mom was there, while Dad was not helping. Finally, the laughing fit that was my Dad is over.
“No, really, listen to Mom. That was disrespectful of you,” Dad said as he gave a wink to my brother.
“Really? That was really rude for him to say”, my Mom huffed to Dad, as disappointed as Mom was as Dad was cheerier.
“At least it is funny”, he exclaimed. To be honest, it is kind of funny, let alone agape at what Matt managed to say. Even Mom gave my Dad a smirk, who calmed down. We ate breakfast after that and I was full after the first two pancakes. I became tired and went back to bed. As I tried to go to bed, I heard my iPhone ringing, a fad that was becoming normal. I looked at the screen and it was my friend Sam.
“Hey, I was trying to sleep here,” I grumbled.
“But that doesn't mean I don’t get to talk to my best friend. Can we meet at the school”, she said, being persistent about it. I mean, couldn’t we just meet when school is tomorrow?
“Fine, I’ll be there in half an hour”, I replied. Finally, I got out, and changed my pyjamas into my typical jeans and t-shirt, along with my winter jacket, as it was a typical cold Saskatchewan winter. I told Mom and Dad that I’d be going to meet Sam. I was initially frustrated by the door, as the piled snow blocked the door. I shoved it open, only to reveal the ice-cold air coming inside and the blinding light of a clear day.
Snow covered everything. Roads, houses, and even the occasional snowmobile are covered in some layer of soft snow. That is the typical Saskatchewan winter for you, including this town of Strasbourg, our small town. Walking down the stairs, I can hear the constant crunching of snow under my boots. Walking down the streets, I wonder why I am doing this. Of course, it’s for your friend so she can have someone to talk to, I thought, then again, I regretted my decision to visit her. I could’ve told her that I couldn’t come because of sleep. Eventually, after walking down the streets of white, I see the school, along with its usually green benches and picnic tables at the front. Sitting on one of the benches sits a winter-clothed figure. A figure I recognize.
“Hello”, Sam exclaimed.
“Hey there Sam. How’s the job at the convenience store”, I asked.
“Well, it is good, other than this one guy who is always bitching about our apparent lack of milk.”
“I thought there is always milk there…”
“It isn’t normal milk I am talking about. I am talking about almond milk. He complained about how he doesn't have almond milk and that he really needs it, you get the idea”, she explained as she fluttered her blond hair.
“I guess. I mean, all he wants is almond milk. No harm done here.”
“But he should’ve gone to another store. Instead, he stayed. I even, ARRG, I just can’t. How does someone handle these types of people?” She then took out a cigarette and lit it with her lighter. “You know, I wish I could get away from here and just live in Regina. Just live a normal life.”
“I mean, it is pretty normal here. Nothing too crazy at least. I have heard a lot of crazy stuff in Regina.”
“What crazy stuff?”
“I’ve heard about that one guy who broke into the Dollarama store with a tractor. Broke in just to get a pack of hot dogs.”
“That just sounds made up. How do you know?”
“Got it from my Dad. He’s a cashier now.”
“What happened to being a security guard?”
“Better pay. It is-” At first, I didn’t notice. It was a soft shaking at first, so I assumed it was the train passing by. It became stronger.
“Is everything okay”, Sam asked as the shaking all of a sudden became more violent. So violent we can barely stand. We fell into the cold snow and the shaking continued. It continued for a few more minutes. At this time, it felt like the world was ending. I could hear glass breaking, and wood falling on the road, I was scared. With my face on the cold ground, I could hear the hum of the earth, shaking. Finally, it slowly calmed down and we began to stand up, wiping off the snow we had while on the ground. “What the hell is that?”
“I think that was an earthquake. But, why”, I said, stuttering over my own words in confusion. It shook me up, literally and mentally. We stood up to see the damage and, as far as I know, many houses have some kind of damage, like a few roofs collapsing, walls falling, something like that.
“Well, looks to be a bad one”, Sam said, still perplexed but scared as I am.
“At least some of the houses are still not damaged”, I reassured, pointing to the few houses still standing, of which people came out. Some ran towards the damaged houses while others looked in confusion. A few more came out of the damaged ones, seemingly unharmed.
“Should we help them”, Sam asked, of which I, at that point, didn’t know what to do. A thought then went through my mind about my parents.
“I have to go back.”
“Back where?”
“To see if my parents are okay.” We said our goodbyes and I ran on the road. I saw a few police cars sitting beside houses, even fire trucks. The police and firemen are just as confused as everyone else. It seems the damage was widespread, but not as bad as I thought it would be. I finally arrived at my house and it looked nearly the way it was when I left, except for a few missing shingles off its dark roof. I wanted to go inside. What prevented me, at least at first, was the damage that might be inside. What if they are hurt? They’ll die if you do nothing. Those thoughts dreaded me throughout. I knew my Mom and Dad were in there, I knew I might get hurt. Do I wait for the firefighters to come or do I go in? I simply stood there, out in the cold. A final thought came in to make my decision: fine, I’ll do it anyway. Shouldn’t be too bad, is it?
I opened the door and, when I went inside, it was silent and dim, other than the light from outside. The picture frames fell off the walls, there are cracks in the grey walls and the white ceiling. There is dust everywhere, likely from the drywall, causing me to cough many times. I tried to look but it was dark. “Hello”, I hollered. I got a response.
“Hello”, the concerned but deep voice of my Dad responded. A blinding light came from the kitchen and shone on my face. “Kate? What are you doing here?”
“I am just worried you guys are hurt”, I remarked.
“Hurt? I nearly died”, Dad crowed sarcastically.
“We are okay. We are under the table”, my Mom said with reassurance.
“This is so cool”, Matt cheered. I thought oh, at least they’re alive. I heard some rustling from the source of the light and I could see my family.
“Are you okay”, Mom asked.
“No, I’m okay. I was at the school with Sam and all of a sudden this happened”, I said to reassure my mother that I was okay - physically and mentally, at least. I then heard sirens just behind me on the road. It’s the police.
“Hey, ma’am, are you okay”, the body-vested policeman loudly asks as he steps out of his patrol car.
“Yeah, I’m fine, my family is in the house”, I replied. The policeman ran towards me and stepped in front of me. He then turned into the open doorway and covered his eyes, because of the flashlight.
“Hey, is anyone there?”
“Yeah, we’re okay”, my Dad responded.
“Okay, this house is not safe to stay in. Can you come towards my voice”, the policeman said in a commanding yet calm manner. The light turned off and footsteps came slowly towards the door. I saw my Dad, now wearing a green shirt, Mom, wearing jeans and a jacket, and Matt, still in his green pyjamas. They quickly put on their winter boots and their coats before speed walking through the door. The policeman then took one last look with his flashlight in there. “Anyone else in there?”
“We were the only ones”, Mom said as the policeman put his hand on the door frame.
“Did any of you get hurt”, the policeman asked. They shook their heads.
“Well, maybe my opinion on this town. Maybe a documentary”, Dad joked, but no one seems to be into his jokes now. The firemen then arrived a few moments later and offered us blankets.
“Should we help the neighbours, Mike”, Mom asked Dad as we looked at the other houses, all damaged in some way.
“I guess. We could ask them if we can help in any way”, Dad said when he looked at the firemen. “I mean, we’ll be in their way.” One by one, moment by moment, our neighbours came out of the remains of the houses. Luckily, it seems everyone is okay, minus a few injuries. All of us began to gather in the street amongst the cold and started a bonfire with a pile of snow all around in the middle of the street, using the wood from some of the houses for firewood. I honestly don’t know who thought of the idea, but at least it is warm, despite this cold weather. Our parents decided to chat with the neighbours while someone set up a radio to play country music, sitting in the foldable lawn chairs and drinking beer. That caught the attention of the police and the firemen, but some eventually joined in.
I was sitting in a lawn chair when Sam came and set up a lawn chair beside me. “Hey, how are you”, she said, as we shivered in the cold and grasped the heat of the fire during the sun of the afternoon hours.
“I’m fine. The parents are fine. Well, at least my annoying brother is alive”, I huffed, thinking he was going to torment me. Sam looked at me with an expression of inquisitiveness. “What?”
“I mean, that’s what brothers are for. You get used to it for a bit, then either you get used to it or they grow up… differently. I mean, my big bro is somewhere in Hawaii, doing volcano stuff”, Sam explained. “What I’m saying is, they are necessary in life. You may not have fun with them, but they can save you one day.”
“Well, Matt isn’t saving me now”, I rebuked. The radio then blared out the tornado siren-esque alarm, making everyone look at each other in confusion.
“Well, just about time”, one man said. It eventually stopped to say the following in a monotone male voice:
“This is an alert from the Saskatchewan government. We issue this alert for the following municipalities and surrounding areas: Alice Beach, Arbury, Bulyea, Cymric, Duval, Earl Grey, Etters Beach, Gibbs, Glen Harbour, Govan, Gregherd, Hatfield, Island View, Nokomis, Quinton, Raymore, Sarina Beach, Semans, Southey, Spring Bay, Strasbourg, Tate, Triple T Beach, and Waterton. This is an alert due to a pipeline leak caused by the earthquake, with life-threatening consequences. Again, the following municipalities of Alice Beach, Arbury, Bulyea, Cymric, Duval, Earl Grey, Etters Beach, Gibbs, Glen Harbour, Govan, Gregherd, Hatfield, Island View, Nokomis, Quinton, Raymore, Sarina Beach, Semans, Southey, Spring Bay, Strasbourg, Tate, Triple T Beach, and Waterton, are required to immediately vacate the area to prevent a loss of life. Stay safe.”
“Is this a joke? A pipeline leak”, another person asked.
“A whole area for a broken pipeline”, another suggested. Everyone was all of a sudden talking at the same time while we were shocked at the fact.
“A pipeline? Leaking? Why such a large area for a leak”, Sam asked.
“I have no idea”, I said, confused as to the events happening. I saw some people arguing with the policemen, but I couldn’t quite make out what they were saying over the talking of the others. Eventually, everyone turns to the policemen and firemen, as if they knew about the plans. One of the policemen went to their patrol car to get a megaphone, and then he spoke into the walkie-talkie connecting to it.
“Hey, everyone calm down”, he bellowed and most gave their attention to him. “My name is Russel Simmons, and I am the chief of this department here. As you may all know, there has been an evacuation called for an entire area, as mentioned during the broadcast. t. I did not know this beforehand, just like every one of you. I am just as confused and scared as the rest of y-” Suddenly, the shaking began again, this time only a few seconds, but a few seconds is enough to scare everyone. “Stay calm! Everyone stay calm”, the chief begged the panicking people. Slowly but surely, everyone calmed down. “We can get through this. Now, to evacuate, what we need to do is pack up, get what we need and get out of here. Meet with us at the Tempo gas station to get fuel, if necessary. After that, we will go south to Regina, where we’ll be staying.”
“What about the stuff in our houses”, a woman asked.
“For that, we can’t go into the houses. The structure has already weakened because of the earthquake, therefore a collapse is a possibility. We cannot risk a life here, so we can’t”, Russel explained.
“My house looks fine, why can’t I go in”, an older man asked.
“Like I said, sir, the houses are at risk of collapsing.”
“What about the water? We can’t just leave it around in our houses. We need that”, a younger man said.
“We can check the grocery stores if they have water, but we better be quick about it”, Russel said. Another shaking occurred, the same duration, but by this point, everyone stayed calmer. Dad then met up with us.
“It is time to go”, Dad suggested. “We have to make it to Regina, as soon as possible.”
“Well, I guess it’s time to go”, Sam said. We then share a hug. “See you later… sometime.”
“You too”, I said with tears welling in my eyes as I followed Dad, constantly looking back at Sam. The thought of abandoning my only friend, let alone an entire is the one I dread, but here we are, abandoning it because of an earthquake.
“It’s going to be okay”, Dad reassured. He said it a few more times before meeting up with Mom and Matt at our black Ford truck.
“Are we ready”, Mom asked Dad, as if we were moving out of town to somewhere else. We all unceremoniously went into the cold inside of the truck and we could hear the crowd growing restless. Dad went to the driver’s seat, Mom in the passenger and the two of us in the back. Dad got the truck started and drove out of the spot. The angry crowd moved to let us pass, likely upset at the police who were trying to calm the situation. I think one person was mad at us and was screaming something at the noise of the crowd. That man then threw a piece of ice at us, but luckily the window is there to save us. Once we passed them, we sped off through the streets. Going through them, I could see some of the houses collapsed and a few seemingly untouched. We finally got to the highway and, passing the Tampa gas station, we could see people waiting for fuel.
“Should we stop for gas”, Mom asked.
“I don’t think so. We have a full tank of gas and there are too many people. With the situation we are in, things might be bad to worse”, Dad explained. “If we could stop in Bulyea, to pack more up.”
“When are we going home”, Matt complained.
“No, honey, there is no home left for us. Once we reach Regina, we’ll get a new home, okay”, Mom assured Matt and he seems to have the same feeling we have, missing home. At least we can agree on something for once. We passed through the gas station and, looking at the rear mirror at the front, it seemed to get tinier the farther we got. We sat in silence along the icy road with banks of snow. The inside of the truck got warmer and more comfortable. Luckily, there are fuzzy blankets in the truck to snuggle in.
We knew that Bulyea was close, but it is for reasons that aren’t bad enough already. Black, dense smoke in the distance, lofting to the east. We already knew something bad happened.
“Should we even go to Bulyea”, Mom asked. Dad looked at her and back in the road and gave a nod. “We can’t. Remember what you said back there? It is worse here-”
“I know. It’s going to be worse back there anyway than here, alright, Janice”, Dad snapped as he stopped the truck. This is the first time I have seen Dad this mad. I am starting to think he is just as afraid as us. “I’m sorry, I just missed home, but we had to get out.”
“I know, so do I”, Mom said and they shared a kiss. “Now, what?”
“Go to town and salvage what’s left.” Dad drove the truck and went into town. There, we noticed where the smoke came from. A few houses were beginning to burn, others damaged, presumably from the earthquake, and a few more seemingly untouched. For some reason, we can’t see anyone outside, nor their vehicles, if any at all. It seems to be like a ghost town.
“Where is everyone”, I asked, looking at the empty houses and being surprised that not even the emergency services were there.
“I don’t know. Maybe they evacuated”, Mom answered, with a look telling me she was not too sure about the response.
“Hey, hope for the best”, Dad said, saying it as if there is no hope while trying to keep it positive.
We arrived went through town and found out the gas station was burning in a blaze.
“So much for water”, Mom said, looking at the burning wreck. “Hey, how many kilometers did we travel?”
“Why is that important? Worried about gas”, Dad chuckled, in an attempt to cheer the mood. “I can chec- wait, how many kilometers does it take to get here?”
“Uh, fourteen”, Matt responded. My Dad looked at the dashboard in a confused state. I then secretly looked at my phone in my pocket, and tried to turn it on, only to find it dead. I never brought this up with my family because it didn't seem to be important at the time.
“Seems we travelled a kilometer but yet wasted half our fuel. I don’t know what is happening to the truck”, Dad said, further confused. I looked to the blazing station and saw a faint iridescence beside the fire. I was about to point it out when Matt spoke.
“Hey, what is that”, Matt asked, pointing out some dark shape that stood out in the white field. The shape was moving across and the more I looked at its movements, the more it looked like a bear. It then seemed to notice us and seemingly ran towards us.
“We are going now”, Dad yelled and put on the gas, driving off quickly. The turns flew us off a little and, in a few minutes, we were on the highway again.
“What was that”, I asked.
“I think that was a bear.”
“Why did we take off?”
“It was chasing us! Would you like to know what happens when we stay?” Dad then gave out a sigh. “I am sorry, but I had to make a choice.”
“I guess we won’t be staying”, Matt questioned.
“No, we won’t. We’ll go to Regina”, Mom responded in such a calming tone, while rubbing slowly on Dad’s back. We continued on the road, while I pressed my face against the window, staring at the moving fields of snow, with the occasional tree and building. I then slowly closed my eyes, bringing me to a world of darkness.
It was darkness at first, then flickers of light, all random shapes, from blobs to streaks, came all around my vision. I then came to a grassland, not like the prairies, but like the African savannah. Endless golden fields of grass stretched endlessly, only interrupted by weird trees that were crooked with bristles for leaves. The sun is setting in a brilliant series of yellows and oranges. I then heard rustling behind me. That is when I woke up, but not on my own.
“Hey, Kate, you need to see this”, Matt said in an odd confusion. I looked around and thought of nothing unusual.
“See wha-” I faltered as I looked ahead at the road. Ahead of the truck, the road is cut off by some kind of wall. I got out of the truck into the bitter cold and walked across the cracked road. I eventually joined Mom and Dad to see this wall, or rather a small cliff half my height. It seems someone cut the whole road and got the ground where I am to sink. I could even see what was below the road. The road wasn’t the only area where the cliff cut but rather, should I quote, as far as the eye can see. “What is this?”
“It might be some kind of fault line”, Dad said.
“Fault line? What is that”, Matt asked.
“You know, cracks in the ground that cause earthquakes? The one you learn in school about the San Andreas fault? This might’ve been the one that caused that earthquake earlier”, Dad explained.
“So a new fault line is appearing in Saskatchewan”, Mom said.
“Seems to be.”
“So, how are we going to get to Regina”, I asked. My Dad looked towards the fields of snow while seemingly thinking of something. It was a few minutes before we heard something odd. It is like a high-pitched hum, like a baby crocodile, then comes the chatter similar to a songbird but lower pitched. We all went to the truck, except Matt, who was more curious than afraid.
“Hey, I can see something”, Matt advised. Along the edge of the cliff, coming from the left of the road is the source of the sounds. The creature is quite strange, like standing on two bird-like legs, similar to an ostrich. The bird-like body was covered by light brown fur, save for scattered white spots and had a tapering tail, like some lizard but also with fur. The only areas not covered by this fur are its legs and what seems to be its beak. When it got closer, I came to make out its appearance. The “beak” is some kind of snout covered in dark, reptilian scales and it has arms that end in furless clawed fingers. I knew what it was, and it was frightening as it was confusing.
“Matt, come back. That is a dinosaur”, I yelled, hopefully persuading Matt of his curiosity. As soon as I said that, the creature stopped.
“Dinosaur? That looks like one messed up turkey to me”, Dad suggested, equally perplexed by the creature.
“Hey, Matt, come back! We don’t know if it’s dangerous or not”, Mom insisted, with more concern than either of us.
“But it’s not doing anything bad. It looks cool”, Matt said, not even concerned about this weird creature.
“Listen to your mother, Matt”, Dad hollered, in agreement with me and my Mom.
“Oh, come on, we could make him do some tricks.” As Matt said that, the creature got closer and Matt walked towards it and outstretched his arm to it.
“Matt! Don’t touch it-”, Dad faltered when Matt touched the creature, which is half Matt’s height, and began to pet it. The creature then began to purr, like a cat but more bird-like.
“See, not so dangerous. Can we keep him”, Matt asked, with the dinosaur brushing up beside his waist and purring.
“No, we can’t. We don’t know what it is”, Mom pleaded and I do agree.
“Oh, please, I promise I will take care of him. It’ll be the coolest pet ever.” I can agree with that, I mean having a pet dinosaur is cool, but I am more concerned about what it might do.
“I think it’s a bad idea”, I yelled to Matt.
“No, it won’t. Please”, Matt begged. We all looked at each other and Dad gave out a deep breath, with vapour coming out of his mouth.
“Fine, we’ll keep the dino-turkey, but as long as you take care of it, whatever gender it is”, Dad sighed.
“Yes! Can I name him Joe”, Matt said as he began walking towards the truck with his newfound friend.
“Joe? We don’t even know if it’s even a boy.”
“I don’t care. I want him to be a boy”, Matt protested.
“I guess Joe it is”, Mom said as she turned to Dad with a look of regret.
“I guess we have a family pet now”, I said under my breath to no one. We then went back to the truck and I sat in. Dad went to the driver’s seat as usual and Mom in the passenger. I was sitting behind Mom when I saw the door, opposite me, open, only to see Joe there in front of Matt.
“Hey, do you wanna meet my family”, Matt beamed when he picked him up. I can see Joe’s face more clearly. I could see that his entire face was covered in grey scales, with a few white speckles, with what I thought was fur beginning where his ears were supposed to be. Joe looked at me with a bird-like expression with his bird-like eyes. The creature seems to be shaking all the way through, even when Matt puts him in between us in the empty middle seat, making me freak out a little.
“Why are you putting it beside me”, I shuddered. “Did you make sure he doesn’t have rabies?”
“Don’t worry, he’s just cold”, Matt reassured. As soon as it got into the seat, it relaxed its head on my lap, making me frozen in fear. In surprise, Joe began to purr.
“What is he doing”, I asked.
“I think he likes you. You can pet him if you want. He’s harmless”, Matt assured. I then cautiously took my hand out and touched his brow area. It felt cold and reptilian, and I moved my hand towards his fur. I realised they were feathers, not quite like a bird, like fuzzier. I stroked across his spine and he was cold. Matt then covered the feathered creature’s body with a blanket.
“What should we do now”, Dad asked.
“I don’t know. Maybe take another route”, Mom responded. Dad then started the truck and turned it around.
“The rural roads would be hell. Maybe go to Earl Grey, and see if there is anything there.”
“Hopefully not like Bulyea.” Dad then looked at his rear-view mirror to look at Matt.
“Hey, do you know what, uh, Joe eats”, Dad asked.
“I don’t know”, Matt said, with a look like he doesn’t know.
“I mean, he has to eat something”, I said, now more comfortable with Joe. I lifted his lips to see a series of fangs lining his jaw. Joe didn’t take that too kindly and nudged. As he did that, he rolled to his side to reveal his hands. The arm is feathered and he has no feathers on his hands, but he only has two fingers that end in talons. “What, why does he only have two fingers”, I asked.
“Maybe a genetic defect. Like my cat Fluffy with his extra thumbs”, Mom suggested.
“Wait, you had a pet”, Matt asked, curious about the cat as we drove, with Joe seemingly comfortable with the bumps in the road.
“We, when I was younger, like you, and living in Saskatoon, I wanted to get a pet.” Mom explained as she looked at Joe. “Well, not quite like you have. Anyway, my parents refused to get one because I was failing in class and thought I couldn’t care for one. One day, I think a snowstorm was happening. I was walking down a street, fighting against the snow. I stumbled upon a box, covered in a blanket lying on the sidewalk. I looked inside and I saw kittens”, she said, her eyes glossy.
“Sadly, most of them died in the cold, except for one. An orange, fluffy kitten, fighting for its life. I took it, put it into my jacket and took it home. I entered our house and the kitten was fine, but my parents were furious. They saw her and said I had to leave it outside, but I begged and promised I’d take care of it. They said we could keep the kitten, as long I kept the grades up. So, I named him Fluffy, because he’s fluffy.”
“Where is he now? Why is he not here”, Matt questioned.
“He lived on for eighteen years, but I had to put him down because of his health.”
“Why didn’t you buy another cat”, I prodded.
“We just couldn’t afford it, we don’t have enough income. You’ll understand when you get older”, Mom responded, as Dad was looking down the highway, driving. I looked down and Joe was sleeping. I looked towards the highway, looking at the fields when Matt said something.
“I need to go to the bathroom”, he said, holding at his groin. I also need to go to relieve myself, but Matt called it first.
“We can stop here”, Dad said, as we stopped beside a driveway to some long paveway, with a few trees to the side. I recognized it through our trips to Regina: we have arrived at Gibbs. Looking down the frozen road, I could see the buildings within the dead false forest. I took this moment to speak my urge.
“Yeah, I need to go, too”, I declared. Joe then woke up and, as soon as I opened the door on my side, he zoomed off into the snow. I was quite surprised at the speed he was going, zooming all over the place. Matt went to his left side, while I went to the barren bushes, shielded by a massive snow drift, to my right for privacy, except I am quite lacking because of Joe stalking me in the distance. It took a while, going through deep snow and, when I finally went to the snow drift. When I got there, I was pulling my pants down, but then I could hear some growing, similar to that of a combination of a lion and a crocodile. Where is that coming from? Never mind, it might be Joe, I thought.
“Go away, Joe”, I said, thinking it was Joe, seemingly angry at something. Nervous, I finally got to business, a little slow because of Joe nearby. I then heard the growl again. This time, I looked up and saw Joe, but he wasn’t growling. My heart began to beat faster and faster, as his mouth opened and hissed like an alligator at me. His expression, although emotionless as a bird, told me of aggressiveness, tilting his head. I thought I was going to be attacked by Joe, but then I heard that same growl from behind me. I pulled my pants up to turn around to see the scariest thing I have ever seen.
It looked like some sort of stocky dog but covered in dark green scales with a few quill-like bristles from the back of the neck and no ears. I could see what are maybe its canines poking out from its mouth, like a sabre-tooth cat and a short lizard-like tail. It looked more reptile than, well, dog really except for its eyes. I could see the hunger in its eyes. I heard more growling to my other side and saw another of those things. Joe began making that baby crocodile noise and we ran to the truck. I turned around and ran.
“Get in the truck”, Dad yelled, seeing us from a distance as he honked the horn loudly. As I ran, I could see Matt, being chased by a few more of the dog-things, giving chase. Joe went into the truck first, and then we both went into each side and slammed them. Dad then sped off very quickly, scared they may get to us.
“What was that”, I panted, confused.
“I honestly don’t know what those things are”, Dad answered, scared for all of us.
“I want to go home”, Matt pleaded, tired from running away from those things.
“Don’t worry, we’ll be home soon. I promise”, Mom reassured.
“Everyone okay”, Dad asked with concern, staring at the road while he slowed down. We all looked at each other in fearful confusion, even Joe. I looked at Joe, and he then looked at me. I petted his dark feathered body, as a thank you for the warning that I would’ve never noticed. “Okay, we are moving on”, Dad concluded. We sat in silence, although I was still petting Joe.
“Hey, Matt, do you know what dinosaur he is”, I asked Matt.
“I don’t know. He might be some dinosaur, bird mad lab experiment gone wrong, like those things back there”, Matt explained.
“Or some mess-up chicken in a lab”, Dad suggested, still looking at the road.
“I don’t think he was a chicken”, Matt rebutted. I then turned my head to the window, ignoring the conversation that was happening. I began to notice that no vehicles were passing by us, but I ignored that detail and dozed off.
I saw those same lights in the dark vision of my closed eyes. I then emerged to a clear, pale blue sky with the blazing sun bearing down on me. Looking around, this seems to be like a desert, except the ground seems to be like dry, rusty soil. It feels hot here, hotter than one of those summers in my former town. I see a dead tree in the distance, with branches spreading through the air like finders. I heard a sound behind me.
“Wake up! We are here”, Matt said as he shook me awake. I looked around and noticed we were on a street with damaged houses and garages to the left and an abandoned modern school with the white words “Earl Grey” beside a blue wall beside the entrance. The school lies hiding behind a metal fence with dead trees behind it. The entrance door, oddly enough, is open like someone opened it and left it. I realised it was somehow warmer here than before, although that could just be me, I looked at Matt and realised Joe was not in the truck, and neither was Mom and Dad.
“Hey, where’s Mom and Dad”, I asked Matt.
“Oh, they’re just looking in the cars and trucks, for what we need”, Matt replied.
“And Joe?”
“Oh, just running across the road.” Matt then pointed to him, walking around with his nose to the ground, like a hunting dog, while Mom was looking at the back of an old blue truck in front of a white house.
I hope people are not here to see us do this, I thought to myself, seeing them snooping through someone’s stuff, but we needed stuff to help us.
“Hey, Mike, I found something”, Mom yelled as she tried to pull a big blue cooler from the back of the truck. Dad then came from an RV down from the truck and came and helped her. He then put it down on the road and opened it. They both plugged their noses and backed away.
“Fish? Who leaves fish in a cooler in the back of a truck”, Dad gagged. Joe then looked up, seemingly in excitement and ran towards the cooler. He stuck his nose in the cooler and pulled out a pike. He plopped it on the road, his foot stepped on the fish and put his mouth onto it, tearing a piece of it and swallowing it. “At least somebody likes rotten fish”, Dad rasped.
As we looked in surprise, we could hear something from the school. The minute we heard it, a loud boar-like roar came out from the school. We thought it was a very big boar when it came out, but the more we looked, the more we realised it was something else. Its body is like a boar, but its face is like a lion’s and the snout of a camel, with teeth somewhat like a bear’s when it opens its enormous mouth to gargle like a pig. Mom, Dad and even Joe are taken by surprise, making our parents run towards the driveway, while Joe towards our truck with his gorged fish, standing by us. The boar-thing then stopped a few feet away from my parents, seemingly in a defensive stance, hooves scratching the ground. We are scared for our parents, preparing to see this thing rip them to shreds.
It gave one last roar and walked towards the cooler, knocking it over with fish spilling out. It stuck its snout in the fish and swallowed one down. They then slowly walked around the creature and steadily fastened their pace until they were at the truck. We all quickly got in and Dad backed up quickly.
“What the hell was that”, Mom panicked.
“I don’t know, a pig from hell”, Dad responded. We looked at Joe, swallowing down the fish while the rotting fish smell remained. It looked at us in confusion, as we were. We silently laughed for no apparent reason, probably as a mechanism to try to replace the fear. We then heard a shaking in the truck, startling us. We realised that the hell pig was tearing at the bumper of the truck like a lion would. Dad hammered the horn, making the thing back up in surprise. Dad took this opportunity to back up very quickly towards the intersection and turned to the left, quickly avoiding the creature. We sat in silence, except for Joe who was chirping.
When we went down the street, the houses, as usual, were damaged but we saw other vehicles, the first we had seen. Some were parked along the street, others stuck on one lane like city traffic but paused. Weirdly enough, there are no people in the vehicles, nor anyone outside. Most of the vehicles have one or more doors open like people got out to go somewhere. We drove past all the vehicles in the other lane. There is one vehicle we passed by that is on fire, most of the paint already off to reveal the metal beneath, only to be turned into a rainbow of browns and blacks by the dancing flames.
“What. Happened. Here”, Mom slowly asked, as confused and terrified as us. We had a feeling of dread, seeing all the abandoned vehicles.
“That’s the least of our worries. We should be looking for supplies”, Dad responded.
“Hey, how much do we have”, Mom asked Dad, worried about using up the fuel.
“Well, we got a full tank of gas and travelled a hundred kilometers”, Dad responded, more confused. “Nothing makes sense here and I hope we don’t stay here for long”, he muttered.
Eventually, we passed most of the vehicles and reached the veterinary clinic. The small, intact structure stood there, seemingly looking over the icy driveway. We then spotted an old, brown truck and we saw something that set it apart from the rest of the vehicles we’ve seen so far.
“It’s on”, I said, gleefully, with hope that, at least, we aren’t the only ones here. The headlights beamed brightly, and we realised it was getting dark. We also noticed that the street lights aren’t turning on.
“I thought there was no one here”, my Mom said, unsure of the connection between the abandoned but running truck and the lack of people in this town. At one of the intact houses, ahead of us, partially blocked by the trees, we saw what seemed to be bright light coming from one of the windows. What person would go into a house after an earthquake, I thought, thinking about our house back home.
“Someone’s here”, Matt loudly notified, as we all shushed him and that is when Joe is trying to push the door with his snout. “What is he doing?”
“Stay here”, Dad calmly ordered, opening the door, but Joe scurried out and went somewhere else.
“Hey, come back”, Matt called out, with no success. Joe eventually disappeared into the night, never to be seen. Matt then had tears welling up in his eyes like he was about to cry. I hugged him to comfort him.
“He’ll come back some time”, Mom reassured, trying to calm him down and looking at Dad. Dad nodded and grabbed a flashlight that was equipped in the truck. He then walked slowly towards the house, step by step, being shone by our truck’s headlights. He looked back at us and put his hand up when the light in the house moved. It seems to move towards the front door of the house. Emerging from the house is a person walking down the steps, cloaked in darkness. Dad then took a few steps back as the figure came. Finally, the figure stepped into the light.

I want to spend my time learning efficiently rather than spamming games with little reward, and hoping I can get some insight to progress.
I've been playing over a year now - I "did" the tactics lessons on Lichess and try to play 1-3 5 minute blitz games a day. I did manage to get from 400 to 600 but my games are so inconsistent so I wanted to pick something and stick with it if possible.
I downloaded the Chessable Jobava London (short and sweet one), and the King's Indian Defense (Plichta?) courses. Is it worth trying to remember all of the lines for these two openings to improve my game? Once I understand why the moves are played it makes sense, however, I'm finding I'm not getting the variations I'm learning and the games are worse than my normal games in the short-term. The King's Indian looks like it has a ton to learn, which interests me and gives me a nice goal to work towards. I just want to make sure this isn't going to be a massive waste of time I suppose.

My daughter started her job as a dental assistant 2 years ago. 8 months later, she quit due to repeating a mistake & failing to meet competency fast enough as set by her manager. After 5 months of unemployment, she was hired at Walmart & about to reach her 8 months there.
I knew this was going to happen. To start off, she’s mistake prone, sensitive to criticism, & doesn’t put in the effort. I was upset when she told me of her errors before telling her to improve at work. Apparently she didn’t marinate my words & when she told me she received her final warning, I told her she should quit before she can get fired because I knew she’s going to screw up again even if she try.
I want a job where she didn’t have to work overnights, odd hours, & still have time left in her workday to spend with her family & dental assisting is perfect. I also like the idea of her working in an office (I do equate it to an office job) & in uniform & jokingly told her that she should walk around the grocery store in scrubs & though it’s not sanitary, it brings out a sense of pride & importance. She also express her desire for a good looking man & I remind her that no good looking man will want a woman who works at a low tier job because it looks bad on him & since she’s currently at Walmart, she’ll need to lower her expectation.
During her unemployment, she applied to 5 offices & all of them were rejects. I told her that potential employers will call her previous office & if they say her work is terrible, it’ll set off a red flag & they’ll reject her. And her last application was unbelievable. She applied to a 5th office & after they told her they’ll move on to someone else, she called the office in tears. They didn’t buy into it & hung up on her. How pathetic was that?
I was happy that dental professionals here were criticizing her with one dentist saying that he wouldn’t hire her. If she could fail at one office, she’ll fail at every office even if she try. How do I know this without ever seeing her assist? I don’t, but it doesn’t mean I can’t predict & like I mentioned earlier, she’s mistake prone, sensitive to criticism, gets defensive, & doesn’t give her all. She’s like that at home & I know she’ll be like that at work, each & every time. Yes she was raped as a child, but that shouldn’t be an excuse. She’s like this because she wants to, not because from the trauma. She acted like people should be extra kind to her but nope, victim or not, if you make a mistake, you’ll be scorned the same way.
I want her to be a dental assistant because it’s easy, better for her & her future family. But since she’s now working at Walmart, she better be prepared to be look down upon & be at the low ranks I know everybody at her previous work hates her.