Well I shall start with the Pitts:

Your first thought is to reason them out of it, but it is notoriously hard to reason people out of victimology because it: a) feels good, b) demands deference, c) relieves them of any responsibility for their own fouled-up condition. Victimology is as addictive as crack -- and as mentally damaging.

For proof, look no further than a man who thinks David Letterman belongs on a list of homophobes, anti-Semites and bigots because he made a joke about Sarah Palin's daughter. It is an asinine argument, but I guess it makes sense to him. After all, he's a conservative.

This is similar to the point I was making in underlining points made by Jon Stewart--I mean Dreier was saying that the repub minority is having a tougher time than protesters in Iran.

What is really whacko is when repubs talk of fanning the fires of class warfare.

God, I hope that is what I am doing. (blesses himself)

Hey Belle, Good Post for Saturday afternoon.

"....I hope that is what I am doing.."(fanning the flames of class warfare)....
Ha! ?How you make me laugh, DD. Tell me how to fan the flames of class warfare, as you do, in a positive way, so I can be on fire, purpose-driven.

Beyond the issue of perceived personal danger, why is it our choice to remain silent when we are confronted with irrefutable wrong, when our instinct is to protest it?

Why do we, as Americans, insistently shout to accomplish our goals when we might more effectively whisper?

With the utmost in respect, as well as desire, to understand what you are saying, my poor dumbcluck chickenbrain is having trouble reconciling these statements.

I have read the majority of these articles, but perhaps I need to read them again.

Your confusion, Bwak, is undoubtedly a direct result of my confusion. I see that I have apple'd and orange'd, so let me try to be clearer about things that are still murky to me.
Speaking in generalities -- though noting that there are always exceptions to every rule -- it seems to me that there is a pattern in western culture, as a whole, in which vast numbers of people stand mutely by while atrocities of one sort or another are committed, even when they accurately perceive the wrong, but feel too frightened or too powerless to do anything about it.
I don't like this characteristic, at all, but I understand it. What I don't understand is that it is those same people, later, who suddenly find their voices, and exercise them stridently, not to prevent a wrong, or even to right a wrong, but instead, only to distance themselves from culpability for the wrong that was committed. So that their voices are only employed to deny responsibility, and often to point the finger of blame elsewhere, rather than to prevent harm. I guess I think, until someone shows me the error in my thinking, that if one is too afraid to speak when it matters, then one ought to either maintain the same posture of silence when blame is later assessed, or better, use that newly-discovered voice to accept and acknowledge responsibility for cowardice or pragmatism, or whatever motivated the original silence. But to find one's voice, only to deflect blame, strikes me as a compound injury to the common good.

Oh thank you. I gotcha now. Forgive me for being so dim and missing that.

I think that there are reasons for that conundrum, and some of them might even be productive.

Sometimes...people don't like to admit when they are wrong. I don't. I try to, because it can be an incredibly cleansing feeling, but often--too often--I do not.

So, to compensate, I might shout a bit about adressing the wrong, and admissions to collective guilt might enable me to shout to correct these wrong things....

It's childish, really, but in the end, if the wrong gets addressed, it's a positive outcome. At least, I hope so.

I am not saying this is ideal, but it may be human. Of course, as barefooted wisely said, we should strive to be more.

It's a struggled every minute of everyday to do so. For some of us.

Lots to read and think about before I respond. Marking my territory to say I'll be back to respond in detail later. Thanks for the thought-provoking post WW.

Wendy,

Excellent post.

Too many confuse cable and other pundits as journalists and news sources.

Will read your cites - but for now want to comment that these two paragraphs/statements....
'Beyond the issue of perceived personal danger, why is it our choice to remain silent when we are confronted with irrefutable wrong, when our instinct is to protest it?

Why is denial of responsibility for that silence and its consequences not only so predictable but also so readily condoned? And why does that denial of responsibility seem to require an externalization of blame?'

.....I find to be at the heart of the issue (and most others). Terrific and 'spot on'!

This is truly a valuable post and needed.

Greatly appreciate and rec'd.

To truly respond would be too long and way too full of history - but the short(er) and not so sweet reply:

I believe that personal responsibility, for the vast majority, has been abdicated due to sloth and our societal mores which has evolved to promote the climate of instant gratification without substance (whether food, fact or financial).

And the sentiment that, 'It's all about me and mine! That's what's important. Me, Me, Me!' is pervasive - unless it's on a topic that the individual believes will impact them up close and personal - few pay attention.

Ironically, this climate seldom presents instant consequences or the will/need to accept accountability.

For the subject of 'factual news achievement' - one needs to validate the sources by becoming informed thru a myriad of resources. Again, personal responsibility!

Thus we have the instant gratification of blaming anyone or anything else but that person in the mirror.

What's 'right' is that we now have the internet to obtain documentation and other facts. If we use it not to substantiate our own personal agenda or biases, it can be the best way to ascertain what is fact and what is fiction.

I appreciate broadcast media journalists such as Christine Armanpour (sp?) who just today refused to be sucked into hyperbole, but simply stated, 'I am here to deliver the news not make assumptions or forecasts of what may or may not happen'. (paraphrase, but same intent)

How we obtain and validate the 'news' is our personal choice (and dare I say responsibility?).

Questions? Hmmmm. Too many to list.

Again Wendy, this is an informative post and hope you do a follow up soon!