Why many are so afraid.

A few days ago, I posted a plea to those on the left (and right) to listen to one another sincerely in which I implored the left to truly reflect on the lessons of this election and their - in my opinion - lack of concern for many in middle America and endorsement of policies that caused so much anger and despair, while also calling on the right to sincerely consider why so many are concerned by the prospect of a Trump presidency.

I also explained that I for one am willing to wait and see how President-Elect Trump's cabinet and policies come together before worrying unduly. I want to give him the full benefit of the doubt and wait and see what he does and how he and those he brings to power with him conduct themselves on behalf of the American people. I also decried the violence taking place in many of the protests seen so far, as well as both President Obama's and Clinton's silence on the matter. (In particular, Clinton instead meeting with her donors to try and persuade them that the Comey letter was the reason she lost - not any lack of insight into or appeal to the aforementioned middle America voters ... which Sanders and others have said is exactly why they lost, far from it being the FBI.)

In this topic however, I would like to try to explain why so many are deeply afraid about the possibilities they see in a Trump presidency. When asking myself what I can do to at least try to make some small difference in the contentious divisions in our country, the only answer that keeps coming to mind is, "Try to encourage others to see one another's point of view and empathize with one another's positions." Trump has not even assumed the presidency yet, and has taken no policy decisions about how he will govern our nation. This among other reasons is why I choose to give him time and allow him to show us he can be a bridge builder. I sincerely hope for his success in that effort, to the benefit of all Americans. And I remain hopeful that he can also get big money out of Washington, even if it takes a cycle or two. I think I have adequately demonstrated my sympathy, empathy, and shared frustration with those on the right who believe our country - especially in terms of job loss and opportunity loss - has been on the wrong path for some time.

Therefore I now wish to try to sincerely encourage those on the right to consider the following reasons why many on the left are deeply afraid of what they see potentially taking shape, from their point of view at least. I am not telling people they must agree with this, or that they have to see protesters and those afraid of the impending government as anything other than “overreacting, histrionic people whipped into fear by the liberal media, and who fail to understand what Trump could do for them...” as I know many see them in this light. But I do sincerely ask that people open their hearts for a moment, and try to step into these people's shoes, rather than dismissing them. Dismissal and failure to listen on both sides is the source of our divisions in my opinion. I want to do my tiny part to ameliorate that, futile though the effort may be.

(Continued...)

Breitbart, and Steve Bannon

Many see Breitbart as having been smeared by the left, in a attempt to associate it in the popular mind with racism and white nationalism. The so-called alt-right (though in fairness, many in the alt-right do not agree with the views of its most extreme fringe elements.) Many believe this characterization of Breitbart by the left is false and unjustifiable, especially since Breitbart has in fact broken or pursued hard hitting coverage of many real and important news stories, including among others the Anthony Weiner scandal, the ACORN scandal, etc. Still others deny that there even exists something called the alt-right, and that it is instead an invention of the liberal media intended to frighten the left’s base. And given the liberal slant of many mainstream media news outlets, they see Breitbart as a balancing force; a fair voice that represents them.

Those are all fair opinions. I even agree with a number of them. But let us look at why many on the left see Steve Bannon and his appointment to the Trump administration as a worrying sign, as objectively as we can.

Bannon himself referred to breitbart as, "the platform for the alt-right."

While head of Breitbart news, Bannon called Republican leaders “_____,” and said their grass roots should “turn on the hate."

Bannon reached out to Marion Le Pen, (here’s a further right source, to say the least, if you desire one) leader of the French National Front, a nationalist French political party frequently accused of anti-semetic, anti-Muslim, and other views. Her father and former head of the party was “found guilty of holocaust denial” and fined.

In fairness though, Marion Le Pen has led a more moderate “De-demonization of the National Front," and since some on the extremeties of the far right in France (who view any women in politics as wrong to begin with) oppose her leadership, while still supporting the party and “hoping for the best,” it could even be argued that she is now an opponent of those elements. Likewise, many feel that legally fining holocaust denial to begin with amounts to thought crimes. (I disagree personally and feel holocaust denial is dangerous, but I am trying my utmost to offer a balanced set of views here.)

(Continued...)

While I do not believe in guilt by association, it’s also worth pointing out that former KKK leader David Duke called Bannon’s appointment “excellent,” and while I know CNN is considered extremely left-biased (and I don’t disagree - I have tried to exclude it from this post so far,) since it was CNN he gave the interview to, I have to also point out that Duke told CNN he believes Bannon is, “ ... basically creating the ideological aspects of where we're going ... And ideology ultimately is the most important aspect of any government."

Again, I don’t believe in guilt by association, but it must be understood how this looks and feels to minorities in our country.

(Apologies for not efficiently using posting space, i.e. this one entry being so brief - trying to prevent cut-off and get everything posted before responses is tough :p)

(Continued...)

Breitbart has run articles such as: "Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy." The author of which, whom Bannon hired, was also banned from Twitter after comparing Leslie Jones to “an ape,” calling her “barely literate,” and retweeting fake screenshots implying Jones was retaliating with expletives and homophobic slurs (linked to the article above. Do not wish to link to such language directly here on ATS.)

As well as articles referring to transgender people as "trannies." While many will argue that the actual content is what matters, and that the shocking language is merely intended to be attention grabbing, and should not matter anyway since they perceive caring how things are phrased as mere political correctness with no moral or logical impetus to be adhered to, I do think we need to talk about this.

While I can respect that opinion while disagreeing with it (as I view at least some modicum of political correctness merely as reasoned efforts at civility) ... many in the LGBTQ community, who are already at heightened risk for facing violence and poverty, and have been historically marginalized to say the least, find the mainstreaming and acceptance of this kind of rhetoric not only offensive (which I know many believe is unimportant in and of itself,) but threatening to their wellbeing or even their very lives. This fear is very real and, for them, a product of a lifetime of first hand experiences.

Granted, since some believe gender identity to be a fantasy or disorder anyway, they likewise believe catering to trans people or LGBTQ people of any stripe, is unwarranted or even harmful. I would just say that at a bare minimum, I hope we can all agree that all people - regardless of who they are or what you think about them - should be treated with dignity, compassion, and humane conduct; that if you know something serves no purpose other than to intentionally offend or hurt, perhaps you very seriously consider a different choice of words; and that there is a potential risk in using false equivalency to morally sugarcoat extreme language, thus normalizing it.

Many on the left, especially minorities and their social allies, see in this fusion of far right politics overseas with a more moderate face, with which Bannon has sought to ally himself in order to bring Breitbart or a similar media effort into Europe, parallels to how the Trump campaign has operated here at home.

While - in their opinion - merely half-heartedly denouncing these elements of their political base. For instance, by denouncing David Duke and the KKK while saying he always had denounced him despite the fact that several times previously he claimed he “didn’t know anything about” him and that he would not denounce someone he didn’t know anything about. This, despite later blaming it on a faulty microphone, irrespective of the fact that he heard them clearly enough to call Duke by name when saying he knew nothing about him... and failing to denounce him... but I digress. (And, again, I know - CNN. But... this did happen; I watched both instances unfold back when this was happening.)

The point is, they fear Trump has tacitly benefited from these elements during his campaign, and would thus be willing to give them at least a marginal voice in his platform, whether publicly or privately. They fear that while the fringe elements among both Le Pen and Trump’s supporters may rightly be called a small minority for the moment, there is enough tacit overlooking of or even unspoken support for those elements in both examples (many in America voted for Trump not because of those elements, but in spite of them, showing a willingness to overlook them in their eyes,) that we could be witnessing the passively permitted rise of those once far more ostracized views into the mainstream. And with Bannon’s appointment to the Trump cabinet, their tacit normalization and legitimization.

This is truly scary for a lot of people. I know many do not respect that or think it should matter, but that too in and of itself is frightening. This apparent resurgence in the attitude that no one should care what anyone else feels or thinks, because how people feel is ultimately irrelevant in realpolitik. (This despite the historically and repeatedly established fact that ideology and “feelings” do translate directly into policy and the human decision making process, on both sides of the political spectrum, whether we like it or not.) We have seen an erosion in the ability - by both sides, frankly - to feel a real sense of fellowship and mutual upholding of one another’s rights. The attitude that, as MLK admonished, “Injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere.” That the protection of your rights - even if it means you do things with them I disagree with - is the protection of my own rights.

That is the main fear. That we are not witnessing just the piping up of a formerly closeted and now emboldened group of fringe aberrations, but instead a rising tide of acceptance or ambivalence toward their views, rather than their unequivocal denunciation. There’s not a bold, forceful, “No, we absolutely and positively reject all racist elements, however fringe, of our base, and will do nothing to advance those views or agendas in this administration.” Instead it’s more like, “Meh, look. That’s not what we’re about, okay? Yes it’s there, but that’s not us, so who cares?” Well, a lot of people do care. And they are terrified by what they see as an increasingly casual acceptance of such views in America and elsewhere; an attitude that nobody cares what this might portend going forward.

While Trump’s views are not necessarily those of Bannon, and Bannon’s are not necessarily those of parts of his audience, when seeing that this is an issue in the eyes of many American voters on the left, rather than a forceful denunciation and abandonment of those parts of his base, he merely told them to “stop it” and that it makes him sad, and then he appointed someone he had to know would further disturb those voters, to a special position in the White House. Many fear he may simply not care how this looks to them or, far more ominously, may simply not care if some of these views become accepted or seep into policy in the future.

(Continued...)

So, then we have to look at Trump himself. If the consolation for these people who are afraid is to be, “No. While some in his base MAY hold such extreme views, Trump himself would NEVER allow that,” then we should be able to find cause for comfort in Trump’s own words, should we not? I would hope so.

With that in mind, unfortunately this is another thing people find cause to be fearful about.

Trump’s own words during the campaign

Donald Trump said, at minimum, we should “start thinking about” establishing a Muslim database. The link I chose there is the only really objective one I could find, and it points out that he did not in fact aggressively advocate the idea, but rather, in response to questioning by others on several different occasions, said it was something “we should start thinking about.” After repeated questions, even when explicitly asked to deny that this would be a religious registration database aplicable to all Muslims including citizens, he refused to clarify that point unequivocally. He was extremely vague. And then he, still without denying advocacy of that idea outright - again - later said a faulty ear piece or mic was to blame. That he couldn’t hear them clearly.

As the above link states in its conclusion of its analysis of his words and those various interviews:

Trump’s exchange with Stephanopoulos seems to be the clearest explanation of his position. No, he would not rule out a database on all Muslims. But for now, he wants a database for refugees.

This is something that has been a trend throughout President-Elect Trump’s campaign, in many people’s opinions; saying something incredibly controversial, implying later that it was a result of not being able to properly hear the question, and then still stopping short of a forceful repudiation of the most disturbing interpretation of the notion put forth.

It leaves people with lots of questions and fear, such as: does he want to only register immigrants? He also mentions surveillance, possibly of mosques directly. What does that entail? What about American citizens who happen to attend said mosques? Are they to be warrantlessly surveilled as well (he did mention warrantless surveillance in France as an example of his potential thinking above)? Would it include American citizens who happen to be Muslim as well, this database? He never clarifies. He never roundly rejects that possibility, despite the fact that to do it would be unconstitutional. Would he endorse suggestions like that of Ted Cruz, to have police specifically patrol and target Muslim neighborhoods? Trump did reportedly call that a "good idea."

What is being described, in synopsis, is targeting members of a specific faith, possibly including U.S. citizens, and possibly with some legal wiggle room providing cover by way of at least some of them presumably being illegal immigrants and/or Syrian refugees who also happen to be Muslim, with either some ill defined, amorphous concept of a database, and/or some combination of warrantless surveillance, or heightened police presence.

Can people understand how this is disturbing to many civil rights proponents, even if they disagree with that conclusion? Muslim Americans have lived, worshiped, and worked peacefully alongside other American faith communities for ages. To many, it seems at times as though it was only after 9-11 and the rise of ISIS that this became noticed by some on the right, only to then see them as a threat, despite their presence being long lived and, frankly, normal.

(Continued...)

I don’t think anyone will deny that immigration from places like Syria poses at least some threat to public safety, simply by virtue of the politics of the region and the factions present there. But many are concerned that this could pose the first steps on a slippery slope. Slippery slope arguments are, of course, logical fallacies. However, trend lines in attitudes are not. Does anyone remember the Ground Zero mosque controversy? Which turned out to involve not a mosque, but rather a prayer center in what was otherwise a community center, and which turned out to not even be particularly proximal to Ground Zero?

That is the kind of thing that makes Muslim Americans and social rights proponents deeply concerned that these sorts of policies can quickly become discriminatory and generalized in nature. We’ve all seen suggestions that people might be ISIS infiltrators based on little more than their associations with mosques or their Muslim faith... even here on ATS, frankly. Are there ISIS infiltrators in America? It’s definitely possible, and if there aren’t, there certainly could be now or in the future. And we do definitely need to do more to combat that prospect. But we must do so in a way that preserves our principles of religious freedom and tolerance in my opinion. Many - rightly or wrongly - fear Trump’s words suggest at least the possibility that he won’t do that. Or that he may overlook instances of others in America not doing it, because those elements of his base arguably benefited his rise to the white house.

Police in LA attempted something approaching this a decade ago. It was scrapped after public outcry. A lot has changed in the political and social climate since then, however, leading some to worry similar or much more far reaching efforts might now either be overlooked, or encouraged.

Newt Gingrinch - someone who is figuring prominently in President-Elect Trump’s transition process, and may or may not end up in his team - said at one point, "We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background...”

Now granted, he said no action should be taken unless they profess a belief in Sharia (this despite the fact that Sharia is more like a series of optional rules of conduct, that only the most extreme and stringent adherents of manifest in forms people associate with oppression and terrorism. You could find many American citizens who would have to answer “yes” to the question, “Do you believe in and practice Sharia?” which would be nonetheless appalled at the prospect of “sharia law” becoming the law of the United States, and by the actions of ISIS and others,) but we need to take a step back here.

This is a former member of congress, someone who wields quite a bit of influence potentially, and we are all just sort of shrugging and being perfectly accepting of him openly advocating subjecting millions of American citizens to a religious test in order to keep their citizenship. Sure, we can say, “Yes, but that would never happen.” But it’s precisely that nonchalance, that overlooking, that, “Meh, it’s no big deal really,” that many find so terrifying, and that many see being brought to the white house under the auspices of a Trump presidency.

Of course, many believe this is a perfectly reasonable and necessary thing to do. And those beliefs are driven by fear as well, possibly justified fear, of more major terrorist attacks against American citizens, and consequently more loss of life. Those fears are also real, and should not be invalidated or called wrong. The right has a valid claim to its own feelings too, and they have to be listened to and respected all the same. And even I strongly believe we do need to do more to prevent such attacks before they happen.

I just don’t believe specifically and generically monitoring our Muslim American fellow citizens is the way to go about that personally. And I can definitely see why so many of them may be deeply troubled by all of the above. Even if you don’t fully agree... can you? And can you see the constitutional problems with such an approach? If not... that’s what people are scared by. That there are many of their fellow citizens who no longer believe such approaches are unconstitutional and immoral. Or that they might simply overlook them, should they happen.

(Continued...)

Conclusion

I’m not here to attack anyone, call anyone racist, or force anyone to agree with any of the above. My sole aim - as with my previous post which was mostly addressed to the left and a call for reflection and owning their own shortsightedness and lack of empathy (in my opinion) for many in the working class throughout this country, especially middle America - is to at least encourage considering the reasons for people’s profound misgivings about a Trump government.

While you may see all of this is easily overlooked and circumstantial guilt by association - and in my opinion, that’s often what it is, as emotions are raw and overreactions are inevitable - it’s also the fact that we have recently seen a slide toward simply not taking some of this sort of alarming rhetoric seriously anymore. That many fear we are seeing a normalization and tacit acceptance - even without agreeing with it - of extreme views that may, if reflected in actual policy at some point, be a real threat to the civil rights of some of our most marginalized and vulnerable minority groups in this country.

People aren’t just rabid and angry that their side lost. They’re deeply, truly afraid. They fear that this - not just middle right populism led by Trump, which is far less disturbing by contrast, but rather the extreme right element attached thereto, however marginally - is a growing movement. One that will not be prevented, but allowed to flourish under the new political environment established by Trump’s ascendency.

Even if you don’t agree with those fears... I ask those on the right to seriously consider them and even to think about ways to alleviate them. Maybe even to reach out to those who are so afraid right now, and let them know that you personally at least do not share those views, and that they have nothing to fear from you. That while you might vote to curtail or eliminate their entitlements for political and economic reasons, or you might oppose, say, affirmative action because you regard it as unfair (which, again, I respect while disagreeing with,) you would never support curtailing their civil rights or status as equal citizens under the law. Let them know they are still your countrymen and women, and that you - at least as fellow citizens under the law and the Bill of Rights and the constitution - have their back. (Remember that despite being liberal myself, in my other post, I too reached out to those on the right.. saying I oppose curtailing second amendment rights. As just an example of the kind of spirit I am trying to engender.)

That could go a long way towards blunting some of this fear. It could do a lot for them to hear from those they fear are perfectly fine with or at least willing to grudgingly accept such positions, that no, you would never support such a thing. That there are lines you will not cross in the pursuit of political aims.

Just as I implored the left to deeply consider their own points of view, words, and actions in my previous post (calling people “irredeemable,” for example,) I likewise call on the right to offer at least that much of an olive branch in this time of tumult. If at all possible.

Thank-you for your indulgence. I respect, as always, the opinions of those with whom I disagree.

Peace.

Xenphobes of thee I sing.....
Its in everyone regardless of who......
The whole world over.....
Whats after the muslim data base?
A Christian data base?
An Atheism data base?
Or how about a world data base?

The problem is this: If nothing else, this election has exposed how very blatantly dishonest much of the media is. So you should in all honesty ask yourself ... How much do I know and how much do I merely think I know?

The problem that Hillary and her campaign had in running against Trump is that they had no actual political past to work with, not like they would with a political candidate. What they did have was more or less all over the board. So their campaign had to go personal and it did. They levered into personal lives of Trump and all around him because it was the only thing they could really do.

So they pulled out the extremism and everything else. The woman of day campaign was formed too.

And when it comes to Breitbart, you need to understand the aim of the site. It seeks to use the same tactics against the left that the left uses against the right. Is it sensationalist? Yes. In fact, I don't much read it anymore. It's a bit strong for my tastes. But Andrew's vision was to create something that is as inflammatory to the left as many of the leftist blogs are to the right (and in the same way), and I think that mission has succeeded.

It is fighting fire with fire, and if you don't like it or find it scary, well consider how a conservative feels when we attempt to peruse sites like Daily Kos, Think Progress, Salon, Mother Jones, Media Matters and the like. They're just as scary and hostile to us.

Now consider ... we really only have Breitbart that people know about.

a reply to: AceWombat04
Great thread

I hope people actually read the whole thing before commenting. You lined everything out perfectly.

Not even gong to attempt to read it. If you have that much time to write 10 paragraphs you have more severe issues than Trump.

a reply to: ketsuko

I completely agree. Which is why everyone on both sides must have their critical thinking caps on at all times, and be willing to research multiple sources and points of view before arriving at their opinions. But I would make one stark distinction.

Andrew Breitbart "...despised racism. Truly despised it. He used to brag regularly about helping to integrate his fraternity at Tulane University. He insisted that racial stories be treated with special care to avoid even the whiff of racism."

Imo that's incredibly important because as politicians and marketers tell us repeatedly, "perception is reality," even if it shouldn't be. So when instead, "... With Bannon embracing Trump, all that changed. Now Breitbart has become the alt-right go-to website, with Yiannopoulos pushing white ethno-nationalism as a legitimate response to political correctness, and the comment section turning into a cesspool for white supremacist mememakers."

... whether one believes that or not, that's the perception now. President-Elect Trump presumably knows this, and about everything above, and yet... still wouldn't forcefully denounce that angle, however marginal it might be, of his base, and appointed the person most associated with it in people's eyes to the white house. And that's why, whether people agree with them or not or think it's the reality or not, so many are afraid of this potential normalization of such rhetoric.

That's why I'm very gently trying to at least ask those on the right to reach out to those so afraid right now, and tell them, "No. I don't believe those things (the litany of possibilities mentioned in my opening posts,) and I won't support them if they become national policy." Just like I call on the left to acknowledge and own the fact that they advanced policies that dismantled industry and jobs throughout middle America and that hurt the lives and livelihoods of many, many people who are justifiably angry about that.

I'm just trying to get both sides to see and hear one another, that's all. Even if there's no agreement... I think we need to be able to at least acknowledge there are some lines neither of us want to cross. I think that's how we begin to fix some of this. But we have to all be willing to do that. All I'm asking is for people to say to their fellow citizens, "Hey... if they try to take your rights away, I won't stand for that. And I hope you'd do the same for me. It shouldn't matter whether the other side does the same, though I STRONGLY encourage them to do so... because this should not become an arms race of, "Whatever you do to me that's unconstitutional, I'll do back to you in other constitutional areas." Should it? I would hope we can all agree on that at least, which is why I oppose 2nd amendment curtailments. (I know many on the left don't. I disagree with them.)

Peace.

a reply to: Snippythehorse

I thought that the NSA and Google had all that covered ,and long before Trump came on the scene .

a reply to: LifeMode

Rejecting thoughts out of hand is the problem on both sides, imo. It took me one hour. I don't consider that a problem. And I would politely ask you to read it.

Peace.

Hillary Clinton calls former KKK Leader her 'mentor and friend' (Robert Byrd)



The Left are the hypocrites. They are the violent ones, they call all the names. And your glorious leader is more racist that Trump ever thought of being. Remember her saying the black kids are "super-predators and must be brought to heel"? Yes, heel like dogs. You are wasting your time trying to defend the liberal ilk with all their lies and BS

ETA: BTW, millions voted for Trump and the vast majority have nothing to do with white supremacy, aren't racist, etc.

a reply to: AceWombat04

Then consider -- Not everything you hear is always true.

The long knives are out for Steve Bannon, and the tactic right now is the Big Lie. A lot of people, Jewish people, vouch for him, including David Horowitz who wrote the supposedly anti-Semitic article about Kristol whom he claimed was betraying Jewish interests by trying to torpedo Trump. You should note that Horowitz is another Jew.

So basically, an angry person who wrote about another person of his kind that he was betraying his people is now providing convenient headline fodder for people to use against Bannon.

a reply to: AceWombat04

That is the main fear. That we are not witnessing just the piping up of a formerly closeted and now emboldened group of fringe aberrations, but instead a rising tide of acceptance or ambivalence toward their views, rather than their unequivocal denunciation. There’s not a bold, forceful, “No, we absolutely and positively reject all racist elements, however fringe, of our base, and will do nothing to advance those views or agendas in this administration.” Instead it’s more like, “Meh, look. That’s not what we’re about, okay? Yes it’s there, but that’s not us, so who cares?” Well, a lot of people do care. And they are terrified by what they see as an increasingly casual acceptance of such views in America and elsewhere; an attitude that nobody cares what this might portend going forward

What? Show me? Show me the rising tide of hateful racists.

The only thing that has changed from election day to today... is a bunch of (alleged) protesters causing harm, property damage with the physical attacks on people that voted (or people that others THINK voted) for Trump.

Perhaps you've seen the video that a "mother" in (I think) Texas posted of her threatening to throw her 7 or 8 year old son out of the house forever because he voted for Trump in a mock-school-election?

So, you wrote, "And they are terrified by what they see as an increasingly casual acceptance of such views in America and elsewhere; an attitude that nobody cares what this might portend going forward"

Show me where this fear is a rational one. Show me where, outside of speculation by the media, this attitude is taking hold. Can you?

I believe you are sincerely trying to bridge a gap, but unfortunately you have bought into so much of what some in the media have been selling.

It's being reported that most of the protesters weren't registered to vote. Maybe they were AFRAID to register? Being afraid might be how they were raised. Too bad. They'll just have to go through life... AFRAID.

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: AceWombat04

That is the main fear. That we are not witnessing just the piping up of a formerly closeted and now emboldened group of fringe aberrations, but instead a rising tide of acceptance or ambivalence toward their views, rather than their unequivocal denunciation. There’s not a bold, forceful, “No, we absolutely and positively reject all racist elements, however fringe, of our base, and will do nothing to advance those views or agendas in this administration.” Instead it’s more like, “Meh, look. That’s not what we’re about, okay? Yes it’s there, but that’s not us, so who cares?” Well, a lot of people do care. And they are terrified by what they see as an increasingly casual acceptance of such views in America and elsewhere; an attitude that nobody cares what this might portend going forward

What? Show me? Show me the rising tide of hateful racists.

He can't they are all protesting. Just turn on CNN and the local news. They are all out protesting and beating up white people.

a reply to: AceWombat04

Another absolutely stellar piece, Ace. Thank you. Your spirit and your eloquence blows me away. And, I gotta admit, makes me just a little envious. I want to be like you when I grow up.

I wish I had more time to comment and discuss. But maybe it's just better to let your words and heart seep in.

Thank you so very much.