Little by Little


“The greatest thing in the world is to know how to belong to oneself.”
—Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592). French pioneer of the personal essay.


I tried to blame it on the boots.

I tried to blame it on the coat.

I tried to blame it on the sweater.

I tried to blame it on the scales.

I even tried to blame it on Thanksgiving and Christmas.

But I knew deep down inside that on those occasions I made conscious choices to eat the rich foods that I served up for Gary and me, and sometimes for our guests. Turkey first, of course—sliced generously, then followed by ham, salty and sweet, and later a rack of lamb brought out because it felt like the season called for something a little special. Deep-dish pecan pie, glossy and heavy with syrup. Deep-dish apple pie, still warm, the kind that sinks slightly when the knife goes in. Golden fruitcake—dense, fragrant, unapologetic—cut thin and then, somehow, not so thin. Banana nut bread—the healthy version, of course—on the counter, always ready for just one more slice. Candy dishes everywhere, each one holding something different: chocolates, caramels, peppermints, specialty candies meant for guests but sampled daily. Taffy apple salad. Orange fluff salad. Cranberry sauce—homemade, of course—because it wouldn’t be the holidays without it. Gravy poured generously, more than once. Sourdough dinner rolls torn open while still warm, butter melting into the crumb. And wine—one bottle opened, then another, because it paired well, because it was already there, and because winter evenings stretch long. And it was good. All of it was good.

One or two overindulgences wouldn’t have been so bad. But what started with Thanksgiving rolled into Christmas, kept going through New Year’s, and here I am after a prolonged pig-out snow-in, blaming my weight on scales, sweaters, coats, and boots.

I know better. This is a repeat of last year and the year before, stretching back to the start of memory. All along my satiated journey, I knew what was happening. I sensed it in my body. I felt it in my clothes. I saw it in the mirror. Eventually, my day of reckoning came when I stepped on the scales, gasped, and sighed,

“Enough, Brent. Enough.”

I could veer off into a litany about all the reasons I overindulged. I have no doubt that you’ve heard them all already. Heard them all.

But I’ll plate up a few reasons anyway. Food is how we mark time. Holidays, snow days, long evenings, the stretch between Thanksgiving and New Year’s—meals become punctuation marks. We don’t just eat; we commemorate. One dinner leads to another, then another, until the season itself seems to demand a full plate.

Then there’s winter. The quiet. The staying in. Food keeps us company. It warms the house, fills the hours, shapes the day. A loaf on the counter, something sweet after supper, a little more than usual because there’s nowhere else to go and nothing much else to do.

None of this is shocking. None of this is new. But here’s the thing. Knowing why doesn’t change the outcome. It only explains how easily awareness can lag behind—until one morning, one glance, one number brings it all into focus.

I could dwell on all of that. But chances are you can already relate—whether in your own “appetite” life or in some other corner. You can relate to areas where you’ve lost an awareness—areas that need attention.  Maybe it’s your perennial garden beds overtaken by weeds. Maybe it’s your inbox overtaken by junk mail. Maybe it’s your personal and spiritual relationships overtaken by inattention. The list of “maybes” goes on and on.

But here’s the good news. We don’t need to rant and rave. We don’t need to blame our metaphorical sweaters, coats, and scales. And we don’t need to blame ourselves.

We only need to notice—and then course-correct.

Little by little.

I Want to Know Why


“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.”

—George Orwell (1903–1950). British writer and essayist.


Two weeks apart. Thirteen or more shots fired. Two American citizens dead in Minneapolis.

January 7, 2026. Renée Good.
Three or more shots fired, including one to the head.
Bam. Bam. Bam.

January 24, 2026. Alex Pretti.
Ten shots fired.
Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam.

Both dead.

I can’t stop thinking about those thirteen shots.

Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam.

I hope you can’t stop thinking about them.

I am haunted by the shots. Not by the chaos of the moment. By the decision to use lethal force.

I don’t raise these questions lightly. I raise them because I feel an obligation to do so.

I am appalled by what happened to Renée Good and Alex Pretti. Not because I know all the answers—but because the answers offered so far do not begin to match the gravity of what occurred.

I am outraged by the shots.

Not that shots were fired—anyone who understands law enforcement understands danger. Threats are real. Decisions are made in fractions of a second.

But these shots.

A shot to the head. Ten shots fired after a man had been disarmed.

These are not details. They are the story.

I want to know why:

• lethal force was chosen where restraint appears possible

• a vehicle was not disabled if it was the threat

• a disarmed man required ten rounds to stop him

• “self-defense” is offered as a conclusion instead of the beginning of a serious public accounting

• we lower our voices when bullets have already spoken

Let me be clear: I would be asking these same questions with or without ICE involvement. This is not about immigration policy. It is not about partisan loyalties. It is about the use of lethal force by the government—any arm of government—against citizens, and the obligation that power carries with it.

When a gun is fired by law enforcement, intent matters. When a head is struck, intent matters more. When shots continue after a suspect is disarmed, intent becomes unavoidable.

We are often told that officers do not “intend to kill,” only to stop a threat. But bullets are not suggestions. Aimed fire is not symbolic. The human body understands intent even when language tries to soften it.

I want to know why the federal government can irreversibly take a life without the checks that define a democracy.

Not to inflame.

Not to prosecute from my keyboard.

Not to pretend that complex situations have simple answers.

But because a democracy that cannot answer why—plainly, fully, without euphemism—cannot credibly claim justice.

Silence is not neutrality. Deflection is not due process. Repetition of official language is not accountability.

I want to know why.

I think you should, too.