First, full disclosure, I am a social issues moderate but fiscally-minded conservative. No WAIT…..before you close this blog, I truly wish to address what I believe are the salient issues from both sides.

Every liberal, and even some “independents” I talked to refuse to watch Fox; and every conservative I know refuses to watch, well, actually they watch and read many media sources although they feel the vast majority of media types and outlets are run by heavily biased liberals.

Most independents I know have very discernible leanings but they refused to be labeled and that’s cool. I consider myself an independent thinker especially when it comes to social issues. For example, I think everyone deserves to be happy. You know, the “pursuit of happiness” thing in the United States Constitution? It’s a fundamental right, as long as you don’t run afoul of any laws. Seems fair, right? Well, for the LGBT community this has been a long road for laws to be altered not to discriminate relative to pursuit of happiness. Like, who you can love or marry. There clearly has been a lot of progress in the last couple decades. And I am certain my LGBT relatives and friends would scream that there hasn’t been nearly enough. That bias abounds and presents obstacles.

Okay, I agree but, I do think effective changes to law have made things substantially better relative to pursuit of happiness. The constitution imbues individual American citizens with inalienable rights. The laws struggle more so, however, with well disguised bias. And until those specific acts of bias are made illegal, the rights of others to their happiness, or to their religious beliefs, or to how they conduct their business, short of being made illegal, must also be respected. Remember, I said social moderate. I believe those protections must come from the rule of law, not violence or any other criminality, or incessant bludgeoning from the media. Others have rights too, and those should be respected in the same fashion that the new rights achieved by the LGBT community have and are being tolerated by vast majority of those who disagree.

Ah well, back to the media focus of this blog post. If you are liberal in your views, you have a multitude of media sources to experience the “news” that also supports your views. I know liberals vehemently deny this, but I believe everyone really knows the truth about NPR, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times; among many, many others that compose a very long list of liberal leaning media outlets. How many journalism or media and communications majors did you know who were not exceedingly liberally minded? For that matter, how many college instructors, regardless the discipline, flavored their lectures with conservative ideals? An immeasurable small number. For the journalists and news readers It all comes from that fifth estate thing and the media’s constitutional empowerment to watch dog the state and ensure the government and big business do not run roughshod over the people, or the law (although, for example, the Hilary email server “thing” seemed to miss their gaze). An unbiased news media is certainly a key function of true democracy! Thanks to the enduring wisdom of the American system designers and its instructional guidance in the Constitution.

Conversely, in ridiculously over-simplified terms, the primary role of conservatives is to be the protector of capitalism, and, keep liberals from emptying the treasury and bankrupting the country. This counter balancing system has served us well. In most cases, in the really important battles, the liberal establishment has won. The vast majority of taxes collected go to entitlement programs or other wealth transfer systems. And the country is deeply, I mean DEEPLY, in debt because of it. But we are not quite bankrupt yet. Because capitalism creates enough wealth (and therefore taxable income), and real (not government) jobs to keep most able-bodied workers paying taxes and out of the entitlement trap….until retirement.

Okay, you may not agree with all of that but its how I generally view things. So why dive into this enormously contentious topic? It is because I believe the scales have been tipped dramatically in the liberal direction by the vast majority of media outlets of any type. And it appears even some members of the media elite are quietly willing to admit they are going too far. The vilification of anyone who is not liberal in their views has become a Salem witch hunt which is wholly unhealthy for our nation. Yes, there are some “villains” in both camps. But anyone who might be daring enough to publicly declare their conservative views is immediately placed below pimps, murderers and pedophiles on the humanity scale. The viciousness of the attacks should frighten everyone. The examples are too numerous to completely account for but we’ve all seen them. Television in day and night time talk shows, hosts, presenters and recipients at awards shows and almost any excuse for a celebrity to broach the topic. News programming leadership must be more subtle, but carefully get the message across in how a “news” story is written and or filmed, which politicians sound bite is broadcast, or even just who is seen or heard daily.

I mentioned that even some members of the media elite are expressing concern. Here’s just a couple examples.

===============

Editorial piece by Megan McArdle, Washington Post Columnist April 10, 2018

Empathy Deficits

Bias Against Conservatives Works like any Other Prejudice

Everyone’s angry about Kevin Williamson. The left that he was hired by the Atlantic despite having said that abortion should maybe be a capital offense; the right that he was quickly fired when it turned out that he really did believe that abortion is, well, premeditated murder.

In a better world, this moment would help us understand each other, and come to some sort of reasonable agreement, rather than swearing mutually assured destruction. That’s because what conservatives are saying about media bias sounds a lot like what liberals are saying about race and gender — and vice versa.

(I pause to make the tiresome-but-necessary disclaimer: I’m comparing the group dynamics, not proclaiming that bias against conservatives is exactly morally the same as systemic racism and sexism. And the group dynamics really are the same. I know you’re skeptical. Bear with me.)

While conservatives are right about media skew, they frequently talk as if it is some sort of conspiracy. It isn’t. I’ve worked in mainstream media my whole career, and the overwhelming majority of my colleagues have been lovely, generous people who are deeply and sincerely concerned with seeking truth.

No, liberal hegemony in media, academia and entertainment works by the same mechanisms that produce systemic bias against other groups: People are more comfortable with other people who are like them. And thus, they reproduce themselves in the institutions they control without ever consciously thinking: “Time to shore up the power structure!”

Moreover, these things are subject to tipping points — a small majority can rapidly turn into total domination. Those homogenous groups inevitably find it difficult to imagine ways different from their own, much less take them seriously. And this cozy consensus naturally alienates many members of the minority.

A person of color in a white space spends a great deal of time noticing they are a person of color, and that they are in a white space. The white people are very rarely conscious of the glistening pink skin surrounding them on all sides. Something similar holds for liberals and conservatives in American cultural institutions. People on the right may be well-treated in liberal domains (I generally have been); their institutions may try hard to be fair (mine certainly have). But they will always be conscious of their difference, that their presence in those spaces is unusual, and cannot be taken for granted.

Remarkably, through the miracle of modern mass media, liberals have managed to give this experience, not to a handful of conservatives in mainstream cultural production, but to virtually every American conservative. Those conservatives spend the first few decades of their lives in a left-skewed educational system, and the rest consuming cultural products made by liberals, so that liberal cultural hegemony barrages them daily with their “otherness.” Which is how they can sincerely feel powerless despite holding a great deal of political power.

This ought to give conservatives some insight into what the campus left is saying about race and gender. They should ask themselves whether their rage about Williamson is not, perhaps, similar to how underrepresented minorities feel about their experience in many other American institutions. And see if they don’t develop some sympathy for the occasionally vivid expressions of anger that erupt when people respond to minority complaints with “Sorry, that’s just how things are, and also, many of you deserve it.”

As for liberals: Well, guys, check your privilege. Try to really imagine what it might be like to have a conservative identity when cultural products almost all skew liberal. That is, to be one of the few acceptable villains for all the movies and jokes and television shows. To see your viewpoint systematically excluded and slighted. To have your daily life, your beliefs, routinely handled with ignorance and insensitivity.

Then imagine what it would be like to complain, and get eye-rolls from the very same people who talk a lot about privilege and microaggressions. Or worse, get the same tired tropes that majorities always hand the minority: “Gaslighting” (“that thing you just saw happen didn’t happen at all”); sneering explanations that your intellect, morals, or manners make you unfit for elite spaces; or sad shrugs at the impossibility of anything ever changing.

If that happened to you, probably you’d be pretty mad. You might even become occasionally intemperate in your speech. Heck, you might even say “to hell with respectability politics,” and vote for a loudmouthed reality television star whose signature campaign move was telling cultural hegemons to take a long stroll off a short pier.

By this point, I would imagine many conservatives are angrily cataloguing the ways their behavior differs from campus protesters; many on the left are outraged that I would dare draw any parallels between the deeply unjust discrimination against other minorities and the educated conservatives seeking elite jobs. Or, less caustically, they might say: “Yes, but this is how the market worked out, and conservatives of all people, have no right to complain about it.”

If you want to say “Conservatives should use this opportunity to rethink whether cultural dynamics might occasionally produce unjust market outcomes” — well, obviously I agree with you. But if you want to use that as an excuse to do nothing, then there we part ways.

You cannot complain about Fox News, and then serenely proclaim that liberal-leaning publications are some sort of natural happenstance, like tsunamis. You cannot demand that people work hard to include minorities while simultaneously, well, refusing to include a minority. And obviously, I would offer the same admonition to conservatives who are outraged by their own exclusion, while refusing to listen to complaints from other excluded groups.

But if you aren’t swayed by appeals to logic, consider the practicalities. A substantial fraction, maybe a plurality, of the country is being made to feel the stings of exclusion, with all the anger and counterreaction that implies. That’s not going to end well.

Unfortunately, I suspect that there are people who think that this will end well, at least for them — that we are now in total war, and their side is headed for V-E Day. And that a strategic lack of charity is therefore a valuable tactic.

They’re making a grave mistake. If we are in total war, it’s not World War II, but World War I, with both sides deeply entrenched, and neither side controlling sufficient strategic resources for outright victory. Which leaves us with two choices: We can keep killing each other without ever really advancing. Or we can seek an armistice, and a generous peace that lets us live together as neighbors rather than enemies.

Read more from Megan McArdle’s archive, follow her on Twitter or subscribe to her updates on Facebook.

Read more:

Ruth Marcus: Kevin Williamson’s abortion comments were shocking. But at least he’s intellectually honest.

Erik Wemple: The Atlantic pledges stepped-up vetting after ‘parting ways’ with conservative writer Kevin Williamson

===============

Richmond Times Dispatch Editorial Page April 19, 2018

Tolerance

Conde’ Nasty

Did you see the recent story about the protests that have besieged the offices of the National Review after the conservative magazine published an article fretting that the growth of Halal restaurants in Manhattan felt like a “creeping Muslim Infiltration”?

Neither did we. That’s because National Review didn’t run such a piece. But you can be sure if it had, a social media firestorm would have erupted. Presenting an entire faith group as a subversive threat to the community is not exactly broad minded.

Much less outrage has greeted the effete bigots at The New Yorker, however, after it recently ran a 1400-word lament about the “creeping” spread of Chik-fil-A in Manhattan. As one tweet from the magazines official twitter feed summarized: “Chik-fil-A’s arrival in New York City feels like an infiltration, in no small part because of its pervasive Christian traditionalism.”

A few conservative organs quickly pointed out the obvious: if the magazine had said anything about Muslims or Jews –- even those who oppose gay marriage, as Chik-fil-A president Dan Cathy does – it would have been greeted with scathing condemnation, and rightfully so. But mainstream media have ignored the odious attack, and the magazine has offered neither a retraction nor an apology. Apparently its fine to lambast certain out-groups in New York. You just have to pick the right ones.

===============

It gets to the point where, if you are a conservative, you don’t publicly declare anything for fear of viciousness. Its not only “uncool” to be a conservative, (all the really cool people are vociferously liberal, I mean, who doesn’t want to be the one perceived as always bearing gifts and never deliver the tough messages of fiscal responsibility) it is socially and, maybe even, physically dangerous as well.

Excluding the nutcase, knuckle-dragging “far right” white supremacy bigots, who have NO association with the vast, vast majority of conservative citizens (that’s right, we are citizens too) most do not publicly protest in mass demonstrations or physically attack their ideological opposites. They just go about their day trying to live out reasonable lives trusting mainly that their votes will be enough to prevent total political annihilation and any further move toward euro-socialism. Show me one nation in history that has served its entire population better over two hundred plus years than American democracy and capitalism. You cannot. Why does everyone else want to come here and not France or any other example? I have been there many times and no one looks happy, their government systems are a train wreck and their poor are not served better.

My point is we all want many of the same things. Peace, freedom, a chance to improve our lot in life, free of hateful discrimination and a right to worship whichever God we chose; or not, and, of course, the always difficult to achieve consistently, happiness. The constant barrage of hate leveled at the conservatives will not make things better. Respectful dialogue will.

 

I hear the term wealthy used so frequently, mostly with a derogatory connotation, I thought why not take a shot at defining it from an ordinary person’s perspective.  Certainly not the first nor the last to attempt this but I have always thought there was a certain level of unfairness in how this topic has played out in the broad media.

From a working-class perspective the “wealthy” are the enemy, right?  Or are they the envy, or both? I suppose the view from the top, or even the ultra-wealthy, this topic receives little air play. Yet from the middle to upper middle, there is a wide perspective with many variables that must be considered.

To be clear, I am not wealthy, not in the terms of the way I define it. Eldest of five and son of a carpenter, we did not have much. I did learn work ethic and how to be a man from my father during the early years. But I did everything else the hard way. No money for college I went mostly part time at night for years. My jobs as a young man were widely varied and low level. Until I found employment with Digital Equipment Corporation in 1973.   Starting in the warehouse, it was the very early days of the micro-computer revolution. It changed my life.

Growing up near Princeton New Jersey I was exposed to plenty of wealth. Working with my father during the summers, as a “finish” carpenter he had work in the homes of the wealthy. The area had much of it, executives who commuted to New York’s Wall Street and the like.   Those with family wealth. It is an entirely different, almost alien, world to the one our family shared.

Geographic and Markets

The U.S. Census Bureau reported in September 2017 that real median household income was $59,039 in 2016, exceeding any previous year. This was the fourth consecutive year with a statistically significant increase by their measure.^[1] This generally implies that half the households earned less and the other half earned more. I don’t know about how you view it but, to me, here in 2018, $5,000 a month is certainly a livable wage. Yet, its probably okay in Pittsburgh or Des Moines but not in New York City or Washington, DC. In those markets you need two $60,000 incomes to live reasonably well for a family of four.

The View from the Left

I’ve heard some on the left describe $120,000 annual income as wealthy (Barrack Obama for one). Others a bit higher but very few on the left will acknowledge that real wealth is either possessed or accumulated at much higher income rates (either from capital gains or salary and benefits/stock). The reason is simple, numbers, the pinnacle of importance is numbers of voters. Once you reach those six figure incomes and above, either as small business owners, professionals (doctors, lawyers, accountants, et al) or those in the corporate world, their perspective begins to change. Managing their tax liability is a higher priority in conjunction with how to accumulate wealth (family nest egg) through investments and the like. The neighborhood their children play in and the schools they attend (and the type of classmates they experience) become a significant priority. Status symbols come into view, the home they own, the car they drive and the clothes they wear.

Not that these early stage upper middle-income citizens are not a target for the left, they are, with a strategy that leans more heavily on social issues. Different for the much more numerous middle, lower middle and lower income strata of population where economic justice is the battle cry. It’s a delicate balance seeking the votes from the upwardly mobile on social issues while calling them wealthy (and therefore part of the economic justice imbalance so often touted) to the lower income voters.

The view from the right

Much like the left, Conservatives depend heavily on the wealthy. The Conservatives freely admit it. The Liberals consistently publicly deny it but privately know they cannot compete politically without huge donations from the wealthy (the height of hypocrisy). The wealthy, knowing this, hedge their bets by donating to the left and the right.

Conservatives are all about the American dream. How hard work, integrity and education can take you to any level you desire. And there are many, many examples of the truth in this proclamation over centuries. The stark differences come in where the right starts to define wealth. The right knows a household income of $150,000 doesn’t indicate the possession of wealth. Far more likely this is a hard-working household with the goal of some day accumulating enough wealth (maybe two million in today’s dollars) to lively reasonable well after educating their children, managing their tax burden, investing wisely and, hopefully, surviving the financial ravages of the healthcare system. Knowing they are attentive to these topics, Conservatives see upper middle-income earners as prime potential voters, regardless of what their political inclinations may have been prior.

What Conservatives see in this scenario are reasonably intelligent potential voters who will be interested in messages about limiting the size of government, its ever growing cost and intrusions in their business; ensuring we are not truly threatened by foreign powers by maintaining a superior military capability; support for government functions that serve to protect our citizens at home; and support for institutions that serve to sustain the Judeo-Christian principals upon which this country was founded.

The problem with this approach is there are more voters attuned to the message of the left than those attuned to the messages of the right. And, quite frankly, until every American citizen considers themselves upwardly mobile, upper middle-income members of American society, there must be a voice for those who have not been able, for any reason, to achieve that status.

Although I believe something approaching an upper middle-income lifestyle for every family of American citizens is someday possible, this will certainly not occur in the Boomer generation’s life span. Not until automation fully reaches the point where the grass is mowed, the crops are picked, sheetrock is hung, etc., without manual labor, will the need for uneducated and untrained workers disappear. As workers begin to achieve the dream, and move out of the left’s sphere of influence, the left continues to replenish their numbers with actions supporting open borders.

So What is Wealth

I have quite a bit of experience in the world of upper middle income living and I can tell you those families are far from wealthy. Even if they have lived reasonably well, educated their children and saved diligently, it’s likely that they are still exposed to the vagaries of market forces, increasing taxes and government fees (the new “tax” machine), a personal healthcare debacle, among other dangers, well into retirement, that could have devasting financial effects on their lives.

So once again I digressed a bit. But, the point is, many will define wealth to serve their purposes. To me, if you have enough money accumulated to have an annual income of a half million dollars or more from the interest alone on 30-year Federal government bonds (approximately 22 million in principal is necessary at today’s rates), you are wealthy. Someone with that kind of money can probably survive almost anything the American government, healthcare system or financial markets can throw at them. Obviously, there are those who earn much, much more on their accumulated wealth. Short of that minimum threshold I described, you are potentially exposed because you have to invest in riskier instruments to achieve the level of income you desire. Or, a health catastrophe could decimate your savings. In my humble opinion the ability to solely, safely live on the income generated by your very safely invested money, never touching the principal, for generations, is the definition of the entry point of true wealth.

 

(1)^ “U.S. Household Incomes Rose to Record in 2016 as Poverty Fell”. Bloomberg.com. September 12, 2017. Retrieved October 14, 2017.

A theme that often comes to mind when I ponder some sort of news worthy business, political or other sort of currently public confrontation (or more likely, repeatedly news worthy over time) is “what are they (the parties involved) afraid of”. The question always seems to quickly distill the source of the conflict and expose the tools for resolution. But the parties involved must want resolution and be willing to compromise; a set of conditions decreasingly present in high profile conflicts.

One good example is the conflict between public school teachers unions (and affiliated political associations i.e., lobbyists and political party leadership) and opposing parties merely interested in a better education for their communities and children. These opposing parties can be, on one end of the spectrum, education governing bodies like school boards or local government. Or, on the other end, those that think teachers unions and associates are merely political pawns for the left. The reality is these are all interested parties, and no one is completely wrong-headed. But the number and diversity of views of the parties involved does tend to complicate the debate.

My question is what are the public school teachers afraid of?

• Pay for performance – the rest of the entire world has to deal with this every day
• Meeting standards – ditto
• Private education – no one I know is paying less property tax which, as far as I know, is the predominate funding source for public primary and secondary education. So traditional funds that support public education are not being diverted to other governmental fiscal needs that I am aware of in any significant amounts.
• A voucher system – again, we all have to face a very competitive world when it comes to generating a livelihood for our families. Higher quality public education outcomes will blunt any incursion by private education. No parent beyond the wealthy (a whole other discussion for another day about what that word means – in this case we’ll generalize to mean >$500,000/year in annual income) wants to pay property tax AND for private education. *
• Not to belittle a massively painful topic but postponing the school shootings discussion for another day.

Those who are promoting these ideas are primarily interested in creating the very best educational opportunity for their child. Beyond providing for the child’s basic needs and teaching them manners/values, there’s no greater responsibility for a parent.

The truth of the matter is public education teachers are trying desperately to cling to an antiquated system. Like any antiquated system, disrupters (home schooling, organized private education, etc.) have arrived on the scene for several sound reasons. The two primary reasons are, the quality of public education is seen as declining, and the secular nature is seen as devoid of imparting important values.

As municipal leaders attempt to address the quality issue, while balancing financial resources, the flight to private education progresses. Teachers and their unions are aligning themselves with political forces they see as in their corner. The Democrat party is exploiting this fear and works to obstruct progress while the elites of the party act duplicitously by sending their children to private, often prestigious, primary and secondary institutions.

Fear is a very powerful motivator. The forces of disruption will exacerbate the situation as the teachers dig their heels in in a failing attempt to hold on. Their prospects for success are dim, as many other “institutions’ experienced at the hands of increasingly powerful disruptive forces. As the quality of public education continues to decline, those that can escape will. More fear and even panic will creep in.

Some may cry foul and proclaim this post is overly harsh on the teachers. Again, teachers are poorly led and are merely reacting to what they are told by those who supposedly have their back. The coming train wreck could potentially be avoided but that’s quite unlikely. It may well be too late to avert disaster and the catastrophic, life-long effects on children underserved in public education. We can hope that the teachers, union leaders and their political allies would come to their senses and agree to changes that will serve them and the children better in the long term. My guess, its highly unlikely this poisonous symbiosis between teachers and their leadership will be materially affected until the demand for public education declines further and teachers stand up to force a new set of leaders and a new strategy.

*full disclosure – our family did pay property taxes and for private education for our two children from middle school through high school. When we moved to Montgomery County Maryland we were led to believe the schools were among the best in the country (in hindsight we would have been much better in Howard County schools with much higher ratings). To our surprise the Montgomery County Schools were not nearly as supportive or accommodative for children with special needs (our eldest is ADHD) as the schools in Virginia. After our eldest child was the subject of unprovoked violence at the hands of another middle school student, TWICE in the first two months. With no action taken by the school (they didn’t even call us to tell us our son had been injured – just sent him home on the bus with a large contusion), we put them in private school at great additional expense. The private education experience was a tremendous success for both.

Is it my imagination, or are there many, many more extremely bad drivers on the roads now?

My observations:

• General surliness and lack of civility
• Common “rules of the road” frequently ignored (or never taught)
• Use of turn signals now optional
• Traveling at 10 to 20 MPH above the speed limit on secondary roads commonplace
• Too many lacking confidence acting indecisively
• Too many having too much misplaced confidence doing crazy, dangerous things
• And, the most dangerous and maddening, the staring at the phone types

Generally, there are three types of drivers.

• The good doobie – conscious competent – generally good drivers who pay attention, know/observe the rules of the road, who do their level best to drive safely and reasonably within the law
• The dingleberries – unconscious incompetent – frighteningly poor drivers (capable of all of the above list, in clusters of foulness) who, unfortunately, are not in touch with the reality around them most of the time
• The dimwits – conscious incompetent – not too bright, terrifyingly poor drivers who just don’t care, even sober – so stupid, self-serving and surly that any sort of encounter can lead to road rage behavior

How often you encounter these and in what proportion depends on where you are doing most of your driving. My impression is the zone from southern Virginia to Georgia is very different than the other two regions (the northeast, meaning northern Virginia up, and Florida) of the east coast.

Moving to the Charlotte N.C. 45 years ago, as a 25-year-old from New Jersey, I first was a bit leery of those I passed on the street who made great effort at eye contact and to say good morning. And it wasn’t just a few, it was everyone! Being a generally friendly person (I know, so few in New Jersey – or the northeast in general – but I was one of the few and now I knew I belonged in the south!) I quickly adapted as an enthusiastic participant. Four years later I was married and moving to Richmond VA. (BTW, I know this is a digression but trust me, its relevant!)

After 15 wonderful years in Richmond I took a job that required us to move to the Maryland suburbs north of DC. Great career move, but 15 years later we had more than enough and planned our move back to Richmond.

When we returned to southern Virginia eight years ago, from those 15 years in the DC area, a part of the motivation was to go back to the slower paced, more civil community we remembered. Although it was much as we remembered it when we returned, over the past eight years it too has changed.

Richmond is recognized as a foodie town by many. The region is also recognized for its reasonable cost of living, governmental fiscal discipline and its southern culture. Its central location has the mountains, the beach and DC just two hours’ drive away – a great feature!

So Richmond, especially when we moved there from Charlotte in 1980, had a pace of life that extended to driving behavior. Richmonders were knowledgeable, courteous, and safe in their driving. As the years have moved on (and an ever-growing number of dimwits and dingleberries have migrated here for all of the aforementioned reasons) the driving scene has changed dramatically and not for the better. Of course, not everyone who has moved to Richmond in the past eight years are dingleberries or dimwits. But those relatively normal and nice people do not stand out in a crowd like the “dims” and the “dings”.

Sadly, there is just so much traffic and hatefulness in that greater DC area, we try to stay away. We try to avoid even driving through the area to visit friends and family. When I am asked about my time in the DC area I tell them “if not for the traffic, the lack of civility, the crime and the cost of living, what’s not to love?” I also know there is a lot of economic activity there, during boom or bust. And many are attracted to those possibilities. I was too and, from a career perspective, it was a great move. But man, it is truly great to be away from that place, if not for the traffic and drivers you must deal with alone.

The title of my introduction implies I am considering sharing some thoughts. Well….I believe I have quite a bit to say but….we’ll see about that.

I have thought for many years about writing as a vocation and an avocation. I have a couple reasonable ideas for books but I am uncertain I can muster that level of commitment at this stage. Blogging presents a couple of intriguing notions for me. First, I can see if I can sit my severely ADD keyster down frequently enough to demonstrate some writing discipline. Second, I have longed for an outlet for my observations and perspectives on a very wide range of topics.

I cannot promise that my notions will be deeply academically researched. I can only say they are generated by whatever brain power and logic I can muster, some amount of time in the thought caldron, and will always come from the heart.

So if you are here, then welcome and thank you. If care to comment your thoughts are always welcome; provided they are presented in a civil tone. I am a great believer in civility, especially in disagreement and intellectual discourse.

Oh, I almost forgot, the blog’s name and its potential intended meaning. I have always found the willow tree to be a bit fascinating. Widely rooted as well as reaching upward toward the heavens, its branches reach almost directly back down to the earth. Rooted, yet shallowly, implying a sturdy outward appearance but hiding a high level of tenuousness and vulnerability to mother nature’s harsh side. How all that relates to what happens here we’ll have to see…