How should we approach elections? Is there a midway between being too idealistic and sacrificing our values?
When even the presentation of facts is non-neutral, how can journalism retain any claim to objectivity?
Campaign donations can give contributors a sense of entitlement, but can these feelings be justified? What does our dollar really buy? What should it buy?
The political assault on truth has far-reaching implications. Can we save government from Orwellian dystopia and rescue ethics from a world without facts?
How should we respond when the right to conscientious exemption runs up against the right to reasonable accommodation?
The judgments inherent to perception are neither universal nor objective. And this fact can lead to a breakdown in communication or be used to hide our intentions.
The value of the impeachment hearings extends well beyond the immediate political horizon. It is not a tool in service of a particular end, but a communicative symbol to the world.
Fact-finding endeavors like the impeachment hearings highlight our inability to keep an open mind. From confirmation bias to selective perception, we possess all sorts of bulwarks for our beliefs.
What are our responsibilities at the ballot box? What does it mean for a vote to be insincere? Do we have an obligation to vote our conscience at the ballot box?
Tolerance does not, and cannot, require tolerating intolerant views. And it is not hypocrisy to say so.