Friday, October 30, 2020

Election 2020!: My response to "Why it has to be Biden"

 A relative recently sent a link to an article in The Economist titled "Why it has to be Biden" (see https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/10/29/why-it-has-to-be-biden). 



Some readers who haven't been following events carefully may wonder how solid the support is for the statements made in the article. It's not standard practice for articles of this sort to be peppered with footnotes--but if it had been, my view is that the support would be solid and abundant. I've been following events intently and observing and listening to the major actors, and I share the article's assertions and conclusions.

Here's how I responded to the relative's e-mail:

Thank you! I've just read the article you sent. It's impressive--carefully thought out and persuasive. 

Though I lean toward the Democratic Party out of family tradition and a desire to keep a two-party system alive in Utah, I've never felt my overriding loyalty was to party. There are things I like and don't like in both major parties. Though I didn't vote for John McCain or Mitt Romney, I deeply admire them and would have felt fine about having either of them serve as the nation's president. 

As for political ideology, I agree with a statement Dallin Oaks made many years ago: "I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them" (“Criticism,” Ensign, Feb 1987, 68ff.). Besides being very slippery terms, "conservatism" and "liberalism" are human inventions. I don't see them really as opposites but as contrasting and complementary, each with elements of truth and value. That's one reason I'm not inclined to extremes in ideology and respect people with different ideologies and from different parties. 

But this presidential election feels different from any other I've experienced. It does feel as if the soul of our nation is at stake. Many of the most persuasive arguments in favor of a change of presidents have come from conservatives--by which I mean genuine conservatives, which Pres. Trump is definitely not. Among others I'm thinking of Jeff Flake, a former Arizona Senator who made a powerful statement of support for Biden (https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1djxXoLbYXEJZ). Frank Fox, who helped create BYU's American Heritage course, has made a detailed argument similar to the one in the Economist article (see https://saveourelection.org/letter-to-arizona-mormons/). And many former members of the current administration have revealed their concerns--for instance, Gen. Mattis, Gen. Kelly, and others less well known (such as Elizabeth Neumann, who was an Assistant Secretary in the Dept. of Homeland Security: see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF4KcunfvCg). 

I have reasons of my own in addition to my central concern about the soul of the nation: for instance, the need for more competent and well-informed approaches to the pandemic and to climate change and more humane policies related to refugees, immigration, and racial justice and harmony. On many issues, I'm open to whatever reasonable and practical solutions can be found--ideally through bipartisan cooperation. Let's hope! 

But mainly I'm hoping we can be liberated from the daily stream of anger, name-calling, mockery, and disregard for truth that we've been subjected to for the last few years.  

Again, thanks for sharing.

Bruce

Of course, there's much more I could have said. For instance, how do I feel about the Supreme Court and various moral issues not mentioned here? 

Well, I'm happy to share my thoughts on those topics--but I'll do that, and try to respond to any questions readers have for me, in a separate post.

Sunday, October 18, 2020

Friendship across political divides

 A good friend of mine, Jim Lucas, did an online Sunday School class today focusing on the last part of 3 Nephi and on 4 Nephi. A good chunk of the lesson applied insights from the Book of Mormon to our current political divide. Jim acknowledged that the divide is a serious problem--and has grown more serious in recent years. (He showed evidence from the Pew Research Center that Democrats and Republicans have come to have increasingly negative--or as the study puts it, "cold"--feelings toward each other and have few friends of the "opposing" party.)

But Jim argued not only that it's possible to bridge the divide but that it's crucial we figure out how to do it, lest we suffer something like the fate of those in 4 Nephi who returned to old divisions and eventually to complete social breakdown. Jim used the friendship of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia as an example of such a bridging of the divide and showed video clips that revealed how warm and deep that friendship was. 


I'm going to offer a couple of clips of my own, one from Lindsey Graham and one from Joe Biden. That friendship has been challenged over the past couple of years, but there's some hope, I think, it can be restored. (As Biden says, he's not good at holding grudges.)

Here are the clips:

Lindsey Graham on Biden: https://youtu.be/kLMYW8jFPHg

Biden on Graham: https://youtu.be/5Qf40Mc3V6Q

I should explain why Biden starts by saying he's disappointed: Starting 10 months ago or so, Graham started criticizing Biden in ways that seemed hostile, that rose to the level of personal attacks rather than just disagreements. As noted, that has damaged the friendship. But as also noted, I hope the friendship can be healed.

One key is suggested by a recent letter from the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'll just quote the end of that letter, which was also referred to in Jim's Sunday School class:

While the Church affirms its institutional neutrality regarding political parties and candidates, individual members should participate in the political process. Please strive to live the gospel in your own life by demonstrating Christlike love and civility in political discourse.

Saturday, October 17, 2020

"Regeneron" is NOT a cure for COVID 19

In fact, "Regeneron" is an experimental treatment, an antibody "cocktail" that may help the immune system. Its safety and effectiveness are still under consideration. It is not generally available, but apparently someone with enough clout may be able to try it out. Even if it is proven safe and if it becomes widely available, it would not be fair to call it a "cure." It might but a useful treatment--but we're still waiting for confirmation on that.

"Regeneron" was recently used as part of a spoof--a Youtube video that makes a couple of points: that there is currently no "cure" for COVID 19 and that Pres. Trump's history giving celebrity endorsements would come in handy if there were one, with the further implication that his boasts about his treatment and recovery should be taken with a grain of salt. 

Here's a link to the Youtube in question (the spoof itself starts at 1:31)

https://youtu.be/p58I3Xs0v-c

(starting point for the spoof: https://youtu.be/p58I3Xs0v-c?t=91 )

Sunday, September 20, 2020

COVID 19 and Teaching at BYU

 I've started my final year of teaching at Brigham Young University, the end of a career that began in 1983. I'll be retiring next summer. It just so happens that my last year of teaching--or at least the current semester--is taking place in the context of the COVID 19 pandemic. 

I'm teaching two classes this semester, both of them in person--that is, in a classroom in which I am in the presence of students. All of us are to wear face coverings and to maintain safe physical distance. Because members of the BYU community--or let's just say, my students and I--are trying to be safe, some students are not attending in person because they've been exposed to someone who has COVID 19 or who has been exposed to someone who has. Or because they themselves are not feeling well. So far, I've usually had one of the students in my morning class attending via Zoom. (That's one student out of four in that class.) In my afternoon class, with 25 students, between 2 and 6 have been attending via Zoom. So far things are working pretty well. 

Unfortunately, some at BYU have not followed the rules and have contributed to an increase in infection in the university community. Currently (as of Sunday afternoon, September 20, 2020), 911 cases of COVID 19 have been reported. Of those, 443 are active, meaning that 1% of the university community currently have COVID 19 and are supposed to be isolated. (The university community includes about 30,000 students and about 10,000 others--faculty, administrators, staff, etc.) Having analyzed the information they have, the university reports that the cases have not resulted from exposure in the classroom. They have come one of three ways: (1) exposure to someone in the same household; (2) attending a noncompliant gathering (no masks, no physical distancing); (3) someone violating isolation or quarantine instructions.

The BYU coronavirus website includes this interesting counsel:

Do not attend non-compliant gatherings, regardless of size. There have been cases as a result of gathering with just a few friends. If gathering with people who aren’t in your household, wear a mask, maintain distance and encourage others to do the same.

Rather than tell you more stories at this point, I thought I would share what I have on the COVID 19 page I include on the website for each of my class.

COVID 19 INFORMATION


On this page you'll find information and links that will help you be informed about Covid 19 and the novel coronavirus that causes it.

Principles for your protection:
-indoor vs. outdoor (outdoor is much safer, but duration and lack of distance or face covering is still a problem, even outdoors)
-distance (6-8 feet)
-duration (less than 15 minutes)
-face mask (combined with distance, gives even more protection than a vaccine)

Also (see https://www.byu.edu/coronavirus/):
- Pay attention to your health
Do not attend non-compliant gatherings, regardless of size. There have been cases as a result of gathering with just a few friends. If gathering with people who aren’t in your household, wear a mask, maintain distance and encourage others to do the same.
- Follow isolation and quarantine instructions.

BYU's coronavirus page: https://www.byu.edu/coronavirus/ (this page includes the latest updates, plus links to more specific information on various matters, including:

-classes (requirements for attending, etc.): https://www.byu.edu/coronavirus/academic-information

-masks (including when and where you are required to wear them): https://www.byu.edu/coronavirus/face-coverings

-frequently asked questions: https://www.byu.edu/coronavirus/faq

More details on mask wearing (including how to do it properly): https://www.byu.edu/coronavirus/00000173-ba38-dd6c-a173-be7861960001/class-lab-mask-use-pdf (also here as an attachment: class-lab-mask-use-pdf.pdf  Download ) (and note this related article about how not to wear a mask: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/8-common-coronavirus-mask-styles-don-t-actually-protect-against-ncna1232466 )

Classroom procedures (attachment): CLASSROOM PROCEDURES.pdf  Download 

"Cougars Care" checklist: https://mcusercontent.com/2ba3f012bcd865407204981a0/files/891536c5-bbe0-45c4-a188-8740052506bc/Covid_checklist_Classroom_Poster_Final.pdf (also here as an attachment: Covid_checklist_Classroom_Poster_Final.pdf  Download )

A couple of videos:

-An excellent brief video showing how the virus is spread and how to protect yourself and others: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6QwnzbRUyA 

-Another video--from WHO, on how to break the chain of transmission (and you get to hear it with a British accent!): https://www.facebook.com/WHO/videos/304154824371969/ 

Request from the Utah Area Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (about wearing masks in indoor and outdoor public settings): http://view.email.churchofjesuschrist.org/?qs=45dba425c0f57eadeeab39c451558470044f8252171390e94467555d238afca03d9814e8a6aa692e2f6223be2b884e44b77a7e0a5b1c12d5485d0e8ca0486f550f36b27ebf02a773
 

Items you've probably already taken care of:

  • Members of the campus community should self-report using this form if they have tested positive for COVID-19 or are awaiting the results of a test.
  • All BYU students, faculty and staff are required to complete the "Welcome Back to the Y" safety training.

What's happening in Utah: https://coronavirus.utah.gov/

What's happening in the US: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Projections by country and state: https://covid19.healthdata.org/global

*************

INTERESTING ITEMS:

"Lessons from 1918" (the "Spanish flu" at BYU): https://magazine.byu.edu/article/spanish-flu/

Evidence of the efficacy and safety of face coverings:

- BYU research: https://pws.byu.edu/covid-19-and-masks (also PDF: byu-covid-19-and-masks.pdf  Download ) and https://pws.byu.edu/making-sense-of-the-research-on-covid-19-and-school-reopenings

https://www.umms.org/coronavirus/what-to-know/masks/wearing-mask#:~:text=Some%20people%20have%20suggested%20that,your%20nose%20and%20mouth.

https://www.novanthealth.org/healthy-headlines/mask-update-no-4-can-a-mask-make-you-sick#:~:text=No%2C%20wearing%20a%20mask,are%20changing%20it%20regularly.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/covid-19-masks-new-evidence-shows-cloth-face-coverings-slow-n1233916

 

A MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT WORTHEN (see https://www.byu.edu/coronavirus/):

For this [return to campus] to succeed, we all have to play our part. The BYU mission statement says that all relationships within the BYU community should reflect "a loving, genuine concern for the welfare of our neighbor." Certainly that can be our motivation for wearing a face covering, washing our hands often, and staying home when we're sick. We can react with empathy when someone we know tests positive for COVID-19. We can fight the virus of contempt with kindness even as we debate how to best respond as a society to the pandemic.

That genuine love for each other is what will make this year's BYU experience a remarkable period of growth for each one of us. We look forward to safely gathering soon."

Kevin J Worthen
BYU President

 


Saturday, November 12, 2016

Abortion and the Supreme Court

Speaking of controversial (and complicated) subjects, I've pondered and written about abortion and the Supreme Court in connection with the recent US presidential election. I can't help writing about these topics from a personal perspective, and that perspective includes my religious convictions as well as my life's experience and my relationship with and concern about other people.

As I noted in a recent blog post, "I am religious through and through--a Latter-day Saint, which means also a Christian, a believer in and an aspiring follower of Christ." But for that very reason, I have felt compelled to view things differently from many other Latter-day Saints. For one thing, I think many Latter-day Saints don't have a clear idea of what the Church's official position is on abortion. It is not really a political position--in fact, the Church doesn't take a position for or against specific legislation on the subject. It is, of course, a moral position, and that means it is essentially counsel--very serious counsel--about choices people make in their individual lives.

The Church has also given counsel about other important issues, including immigration and our response to refugees. Church leaders have also spoken strongly on the need for civility and respect in public discourse, respect for religious diversity, and kindness and compassion in general. There are many issues on which we can expect to consider ourselves under the judgment of God, both as individuals and as a nation.

Specifically on the issues of abortion and the Supreme Court, here's what I wrote a few days ago in a blog post titled "The Morning After (November 9, 2016)" (see http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-morning-after-november-9-2016.html):

Opposition to abortion and hoping for a Supreme Court that will be more restrictive in response to abortion are among the main reasons many people (including a good number of Latter-day Saints) have supported Trump despite an awareness of everything that is bad and dangerous about him.

In my opinion, a Trump presidency is a very bad way of hoping for a good outcome on these issues.

First, abortion. I am strongly opposed to abortion for convenience--for its use as a form of birth control, as some have put it. I believe abortion that could be avoided has several ill consequences. It diminishes our humanity and our respect for life. It encourages sexual irresponsibility. It also, I think it's fair to say, prevents new and precious life from entering into the world.

Several things recently have strengthened my feelings about the preciousness of life within the womb. One is our youngest daughter's pregnancy, which has now come to fruition in a beautiful baby girl. Another is a video presentation I saw recently about a couple who learned an almost full term child had died in the womb and would need to be removed. The couple's grief and disappointment, their need for comfort, their deep, mutual love all reminded me of what is best in human beings: our connectedness, our participation in the miracle of conception and birth, and our willingness to welcome and nurture new life.

Having said that, I know that there are difficult situations in which the possibility of abortion needs to be considered, especially when the mother's life is at stake or when her health could be seriously damaged. I believe such decisions need to be made carefully and prayerfully. I do not believe the possibility of abortion for such reasons should be prohibited by law. Though I believe different people will come to different decisions, I believe law should allow for abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life or health of the mother.

I believe this is essentially the position of the LDS Church. Officially, “the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience” but allows for possible (but not automatic) exceptions in cases of rape, incest, severe defects, and serious threats of the life or health of the mother. But “the Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals . . . concerning abortion” (see http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/abortion). This is much closer to Hillary Clinton's position than many would suppose.

She has taken some heat for voting against a ban on late-term abortions. She did so precisely because it did not leave an exception for saving the life of the mother. I've recently become aware of terribly difficult situations people I know have dealt with, which required performing a late-term abortion to save a mother's life. Those involved certainly don't favor abortion in general and found the experience traumatic, even though it meant saving a mother's life.

The fact that the LDS Church "has not favored or opposed [specific] legislative proposals" may have something to do with the fact that laws may not be adequate to deal with many of the difficult situations people face. I also believe that changing laws, while they may accomplish some good, will not solve the problem of unnecessary, avoidable abortions, with all the spiritual and social damage they can bring. I believe that the best solution is to change minds and hearts, and that can be best done through example, through intelligent and compassionate persuasion, and through encouraging alternatives to abortion (such as adoption) and providing greater support for mothers, including unwed mothers.

Legal rulings, angry denunciations, and extreme rhetoric are likely to strengthen resistance rather than persuade.

The Supreme Court: I'm aware that some good people convinced themselves to vote for a very bad man because they think he will nominate the "right people" for seats on the Supreme Court.
I've written another post partly on that subject. In that post--found here: http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-rise-of-mussolini-and-what-we-can.html--I compare our situation to that of good people in Italy who thought that Mussolini would protect their nation's religious and moral traditions. To what I said there, I add these thoughts:

(1) The Supreme Court is a complicated institution--and you can't simply stack it with the "right people" and thereby save the country, especially if the Court starts departing from the national consensus. I've just read an illuminating book titled The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court, and it makes those complications clear.

(2) The Supreme Court faces many issues, and on some of those issues I believe justices Trump would nominate would move us in the wrong direction rather than the right direction, particularly on some issues where the Court really can make a difference (including voting rights and immigration). As for the second amendment, I don't believe it should or was ever intended to give everyone unrestricted rights to carry and use firearms, any more than the first amendment gave absolute freedom of speech, including libel or speech that endangers the life or safety of others. I believe that the second amendment can be applied reasonably and still accommodate some degree of gun control. (See http://welcomingtheother.blogspot.com/2012/07/contrary-view-on-gun-control.html for some additional light on this issue.)

(3) Even if Trump were to pick the "right people" as nominees, I don't believe it's worth it to trade a supposedly better Supreme Court for the damage that is certain to be done to the moral and political tone of our nation by the mere presence of Donald Trump in the presidential office. I am certain he will do this sort of general damage--and given his impulsiveness, unpredictability, and anger control issues, he could do much, much worse.

(4) Given the refusal of the Senate to consider President Obama's sterling nomination for the Supreme Court--and given the threat some Republicans made to turn down ANY nominee offered by Hillary Clinton if she became president--isn't it possible that Democrats in the Senate might engage in similar obstruction of any nominees offered by Donald Trump? I don't think such obstruction is right on either side (and it's certainly not what the Founders had in mind--the Constitution makes it pretty clear how open seats on the court should be filled). But I suspect it will happen.

(5) Speaking of the Constitution, Donald Trump has shown that he does not understand the Constitution and does not respect Constitutional principles. He has shown that, among other things, by making a number of proposals that violate those principles, including surveillance of American citizens based on their religion, asking for a religious test for immigrants, requiring the armed forces to violate international law (for instance, related to torture), and making threats against the judiciary showing his lack of understanding of the separation of powers.
In interpreting the Constitution, I am not an "originalist"--I think that approach is overly simplistic and ultimately impossible to sustain--but I do have great respect for efforts to understand and apply the actual language of the Constitution. Interestingly, a number of prominent "originalists" (including George Will) oppose Trump on the grounds that he does not understand or respect the Constitution. (See https://originalistsagainsttrump.wordpress.com/ )

(6) Finally, I don't believe Trump can be trusted to keep his promises. I don't think he has a coherent Constitutional philosophy. And I believe he lacks a genuine moral core.

In a nutshell, I believe those who (for the sake of the Supreme Court) voted for Trump, despite their hesitation--even revulsion--at much of what they know about him, will come to regret his election.

Friday, March 4, 2016

What kind of people should we try to be?

At the moment this is a place holder for something longer I want to write. What I'm feeling my way toward here is an answer to the question, "What kind of people should we try to be?" and the closely related question, "What kind of people should we want to be?"

For me, scripture offers much in the way of answers. For instance, Alma 7:23-24 offers the following:
 And now I would that ye should be humble, and be submissive and gentle; easy to be entreated; full of patience and long-suffering; being temperate in all things; being diligent in keeping the commandments of God at all times; asking for whatsoever things ye stand in need, both spiritual and temporal; always returning thanks unto God for whatsoever things ye do receive.
 And see that ye have faith, hope, and charity, and then ye will always abound in good works. 
I have to admit that one reason I've asked myself the questions is the troubling display of qualities very different from these we've witnessed recently in the public arena. Last night a political debate took place that was in some ways the distressing culmination of several weeks--to an extent, several months--of public discourse that has descended to a level not seen in US presidential campaigns for generations.

Earlier yesterday, Mitt Romney--a good man I've had a handful of conversations with in the past but for whom I did not vote four years ago (I voted for another good man)--described and condemned traits that are virtually the opposite of those listed in the scripture I've quoted:
  • Bullying
  • Greed
  • Showing off
  • Misogyny
  • Absurd third-grade antics
I could add to that list mockery of the disabled, stubborn defensiveness, taking pleasure in humiliating, insulting, attacking, and punishing others, and insistence on always being right and always getting one's way. (For Romney's full speech, see http://time.com/4246596/donald-trump-mitt-romney-utah-speech/ or watch it here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/romney-calling-trump-phony-urging-republicans-to-shun-him/.)

We all have faults, and we've been commanded not to judge--or as some translations would put it, not to condemn or not to judge unrighteously. At the same time, we all need to be clear about what constitutes good character and civil behavior and what does not. At the very least, we can invite others as well as ourselves to engage in self-examination, to acknowledge our faults, to seek to become aware of those that we're not aware of, and to desire and try to change. The scriptural language for that project is humility and repentance, and scripture teaches that we can't experience the change we need without divine help.

We also need to seek for good character and civil behavior in political leaders and other public officials. We must not celebrate bullying, mockery, hatred, or strutting self-importance that tries to pass itself of as "leadership." Certainly, we need strength in our leaders. But true strength is very different from being a "tough guy" or thinking other people will do whatever you order them to do or threatening people who don't comply.

Amazingly, scripture again provides the perfect response to such a misconception:
 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile (Doctrine and Covenants 121:39-42)
So it appears that ignorance, unkindness, cunning, and the unwillingness to listen or learn do not constitute true leadership, and neither do the will to dominate, the desire to intimidate and humiliate, or other elements of the tough guy persona.

Being a tough guy is not among the qualities we are advised to look for in a leader:
 Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil. (Doctrine and Covenants 98:10)
We're also told we "cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous" (Doctrine and Covenants 10:37). But we need to do our best, especially in selecting public officials, to look for the qualities of honesty, wisdom, and moral goodness. And we need to cultivate those qualities in ourselves--because if we don't have them, we'll be less likely to discern them in others, or to be aware of their opposite, even when it's staring us in the face.

Friday, November 13, 2015

What Should I Write About?: Possible Titles and Topics for Blog Posts


Lately, I've had a flood of possible blog post titles and topics flow through my mind:

The difference between compassion and anger

Who is it OK to be cruel to?

How to destroy a marriage

Varieties of doubt

And one of my favorites:

Once upon a time, before the Internet (I was working on that one through the night last night, while I was half asleep)

The titles sound more negative than I intend them to. Actually, what prompts me to think of blog post titles and topics is seeing what I think are one-sided, less than carefully thought out statements or attitudes and asking myself, "How could I explain what I think, in a way that could actually get the attention and maybe soften the hearts and enlighten the minds of people who I think are blinded by anger or other kinds of distorted thinking?"

I also (more humbly) think of writing as a way to work through issues I'm struggling with or trying to understand.

So . . . I don't feel like I have time at the moment to write at length on any of these topics. But here's a brief hint as to how I might proceed:

The difference between compassion and anger: There is a difference.

Who is it OK to be cruel to?: No one of course. But especially not the people you actually live with. And not the other people you are closest to. (I've also been thinking about the dangers of viewing yourself as a victim: in your concern for the pain others are inflicting, you may be blind to the pain you are inflicting on others.)

How to destroy a marriage: This would look at the kinds of attitudes and behavior--and the kinds of blindness--calculated to destroy or damage a marriage, and by analogy, any kind of relationship that could and should be based on love and trust. 

Varieties of doubt: Doubt can mean many kinds of things--from uncertainty and questions to fear, anxiety, suspicion, to complaining, criticizing, attacking. We all deal with doubt of some kind, in some degree, and should view others' "doubts," of whatever kind, with understanding and compassion. Recognizing the various meanings of doubt, I thought it would be helpful to see what scripture--what the words of Christ in particular--have to say on the matter. Perhaps the most compassionate thing to do is not just to validate people's inclination to doubt but to help facilitate healing, hope, and trust.

I came up with some sentences that might fit in the "varieties of doubt" blog post but might need a different setting: "Anger is addictive, and doubt is contagious. Actually it's probably fair to say both of them are both addictive and contagious. I know this from both inside experience and from observation."

Once upon a time, before the Internet: Ah, this would be a good one. I remember a time before the Internet and before cable TV. It was a less exciting time perhaps, and there's much I value in our current interconnected world. But I wonder if the drama is getting a bit out of hand--is revealing itself to be (among other things) seductive and addictive--and is distracting us from our primary responsibilities and relationships.

So where should I start? Suggestions are welcome.