dagblog - Comments for "Truth or Dare/Shouts and Whispers"

To truly respond would be too

Aunt Sam — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 04:30:52 +0000

In reply to Truth or Dare/Shouts and Whispers

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!

Thanks, Aunt Sam. Yours is

wwstaebler — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 03:10:25 +0000

In reply to Truth or Dare/Shouts and Whispers

Thanks, Aunt Sam. Yours is also a voice I value. What do you think are the answers to these questions? What are your questions? What do you think is more right than wrong?

Wendy, Excellent post.

Aunt Sam — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 02:47:04 +0000

In reply to Truth or Dare/Shouts and Whispers

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.

Thank you, Dijamo, because

wwstaebler — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:48:13 +0000

In reply to Truth or Dare/Shouts and Whispers

Thank you, Dijamo, because your opinion on any subject is one that I take seriously, even on those occasions when we disagree.

Lots to read and think about

dijamo — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:03:10 +0000

In reply to Truth or Dare/Shouts and Whispers

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.

Really insightful, Mh20 --

wwstaebler — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:30:37 +0000

In reply to Truth or Dare/Shouts and Whispers

Really insightful, Mh20 -- when you say: ".....Whirling dervishes seeking communion through exercising our demons, rather than exorcising them." I guess that's it, as to why. But how to fix it?

Oh thank you. I gotcha now.

Bwakfat — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:24:00 +0000

In reply to Truth or Dare/Shouts and Whispers

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.

Well W, I'm about to head out

miguelitoh2o — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:22:42 +0000

In reply to Truth or Dare/Shouts and Whispers

Well W, I'm about to head out for a couple of days of camping, so your reading list will have to wait for another day unfortunately. Off the top of my head one of the things that has always struck me about our country is our ability to wear two or more seemingly contradictory masks simultaneously without bearing the fallout of what one would normally expect to be massive cognitive dissonance in the process. We're a nation of rebels who insist on maintaining a police force to hold us in check, while we're planning our next subversion of the rules. The old Puritan/Sinner dance of polarities in some kind of cosmic, national, and personal balancing act as we try to maintain our equilibrium by spinning faster and faster. Whirling dervishes seeking communion through exercising our demons, rather than exorcising them. I'm not sure how well this relates to your questions, but the image of Sean Hannity shouting at his polar opposite, who has no option but to return in kind, came to mind as I read your post.

Your confusion, Bwak, is

wwstaebler — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:13:24 +0000

In reply to Truth or Dare/Shouts and Whispers

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.

Poor thing. My dog had that,

Bwakfat — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:56:55 +0000

In reply to Truth or Dare/Shouts and Whispers

Poor thing. My dog had that, too when I was a kid. We came back from our vacation and the tumor was big and ugly. It was scary.

We gave her brandy and honey to drink. I guess that was in lieu of tranquilizers, she proved to be quite the lush.

She lived to a ripe old age. Clever dog, I walked her without a leash, and occasionally allowed her to chase cats up a tree. Only occasionally--as I had to generally climb up the tree to help get my dog out of it. But the look on the cats faces was priceless.

(hugs)