We live in a soundbite society where trial by media is conducted on the basis that there is 'no smoke without fire'. Why do so many politicians avoid giving straight answers to questions? Because they know how easily their words can be taken out of context and used against them.If it weren't for this, you could be doing that. If it weren't for that, you could do this. And if it weren't for this or that, it would be 'the other'. To save your time and energy do not make fresh commitments, it would end up full of new promises to keep, and fresh sacrifices to make. Tackle the ones that already exist with good grace.
 Never trouble trouble, till trouble troubles you.' So goes the old saying.What if we are troubled by the very thought that a situation could turn out to be troublesome? Does it not then become the kind of trouble that we should trouble because it is now troubling us?Is there a difference between what you think and what you think you ought to think? Is that compounded by a further distinction between what you think and what someone else thinks you think?