No one yet, that this grateful recoverer has met or spoken to, has disagreed with this. The future is divided right down the middle between folks who know compassion, and those that do not. Think: families, office places, constituencies, states, and all manner of otherwise cooperative effort; and, regardless of whichever candidate won this past election, if to speak is to edify, then conversation becomes progress. This work will speak encouragement directly into the backbone of the one who knows what it is like to look up at the other folks in their life, from a defeated perspective. Consider it an anthology, with mostly one page documents, plus nine essays. Does a young man or woman with a moderately accurate sense of self-awareness, perhaps a rising consciousness, begin to learn the difference between a time for this, and a time for that? Is there a distinction between emergency mode, and all others? This work will warm the spirits of the beloved grandmother, the matriarch, who presides over division. Compassion is in the air, but transparency becomes restless behind the new layer of obstruction. We use words to draw unnecessary distinctions, to then part company not even as strangers in opposition, but enemies or adversaries in close relationship. There is a continent here, but has it always said America on it? If I do not protect the cause of freedom on the field of battle (or in the military), what is another way in which I can satisfy my patriotic duty? There is a platform provided for me if I become conscious of it, and it is made of unjustly ended human existence. I may scoff at scripture, but have I humbled myself to the awesome scope of recorded history? Let us always remember, many times, ign*rance sounds like h*te. Considering the socio-political climate of the day, is it safe to assume that I can continue in careless disregard for my core principles/values? This is not a sermon; rather, thoughts regarding existential preservation. How many folks do you know, that you can name, who can stand in the presence of an opposing viewpoint and not become tense or feel threatened? Furthermore, are they ready, willing and able to freely participate in The Preeminent Notions of Now? They are three, and they are these. Belief - in the existence of an answer that is satisfactory to both or all parties (without this, someone is wasting their time, right?). Secondly, a willingness to consider the other viewpoint. The third is a firm commitment to the respectful use of the Gift of Language. Simply, let us show respect to those who protect and preserve the cause of freedom on or beyond the periphery, by respecting each other back at home. "But how do I know what has become my next, best, right move?" History at this moment forsaken, the light is now on. When trial and error begins to take the form of progress, at some point, will we not need to start using our words differently? In truth, that comes straight from the foundations of Western thought, with reverence for my King James Bible, and with respect to folks from both old school and new; SOCIO-ANCESTRAL*- EMINENTLY USEFUL - COMPASSIONATELY REASONABLE - FROM A MODERN AMERICAN STANDPOINT. (* = because I didn't like the box the word "political" put me/this/us into). Anthropologically, Genealogical, Heredity-wise, Socio-familial, Cultural, and then there is all this experience we have together. If the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, the why is this not true, as well? That is, the surest way to close the gap between opposing viewpoints is a conversation, with (near to) absolutely true statements. More simply, true to the evidence. Homo sapiens have Good Reason to remain on the lookout for moments of com(mon)passion(s). We are kinfolks of a species, in 2017, and remember, mutual belief is the prerequisite for human cooperation. The future is compassion and a civil conversation. In this book, I bring compelling evidence, that words are compassion