Human behavior being what it is, if we consider the sheer number of people on the planet (or even limit our considerations to the 300 million or so Americans), it should not surprise anyone that each day, a number of incidents occur which are capable of generating outrage. It used to be that local news tended to be treated as local news. If a kid got attacked by a vicious dog, beaten up by vicious thugs on the way home from school, or found himself victimized by bullies in one cruel manner or another, these things were not considered national events, and they didn't serve as fuel for the public imagination. This is not to belittle any victim of crime, but things have changed. It just so happens that if the right factors are present (certain emotional triggers), then local tragedies can be rapidly catapulted into national outrages. When that happens, the reaction tends to be along the lines of "how could this have happened in the United States?" and of course "Something must be done!" If a victim is different from his attackers (say of a different racial or sexual orientation -- or physically different, as in the case of obesity epidemic victims), if an attacking dog has the wrong genes (such as "pit bull"), then all of us in society are said to be collectively involved, and our attention is demanded one way or another. Why is that? Simply because there's an Internet to blast these events into the public imagination? At the rate ordinary tragic occurrences are becoming national outrages, pretty soon we will all be conspicuous outrage consumers. It's the "outrage of the day" phenomenon, and I have touched on it before. I make no claim to be innocent, as this blog is just as guilty of feeding upon outrage as any other outrage-fueled blog. Seriously, if it weren't for conspicuous outrage, what would there be to be conspicuously outraged about? We can't be outraged about nothing can we? Actually, we can. The epidemic of cultural nihilism itself can and probably should engender profound feelings of collective outrage. And is not apathy worse than outrage? Shouldn't we be more outraged by apathy in the face of outrage, than by outrage in the face of outrage?

What would happen if there were to emerge a cultural divide between people who care and people who don't? Political demagogues could exploit this, and already it is happening, especially when the outages involve "hot-button" issues of deep concern to single-issue-political activists. If you either don't care or can "see both sides" of, say, abortion issue or the gay marriage issue, you are likely to incur the wrath of those who have "selflessly" dedicated their lives to either combating the evil or (depending on your POV) remedying the evil. You're liable not only to be accused of apathy, but you might even be likened to the "good Germans" who stood by and did nothing while Hitler slaughtered millions and laid waste to Europe. (Oddly enough, we don't hear much about the "good Russians." Or the good Cambodians or good Rwandans.)

I'd call this entire situation outrageous, except I wouldn't want to succumb to outrage, lest I become a victim of the outrage epidemic.

Clearly, there is an outrage epidemic and clearly something must be done. But what? What sort of epidemic is it? Is there such a thing as addiction to outrage? If so, maybe the first step is admitting it. There can be no denial where it comes to outrage, because living in denial would be another outrage. But it would also be an outrage to admit that we are addicted, yet to go right on living as if being outraged is simply a fact of life. How dare we not be more outraged?

Either way, we should be more outraged. Anything less would be an outrage.

Sigh.

I should beware of the power of negative thinking. Expressing such negative thoughts about outrage could easily hamstring my efforts to tackle the outrages of the day. I have not read any news, blogs, or email, and I am still in a state of blissful unawareness of the emerging outrages of the day.

What, I should try to be more positive?

UPDATE: As M. Simon reminded me, "it's open season on Carl Paladino." Does that mean I should attack him or defend him? From what I've read, he fits the stereotype of being a loose cannon. It's tough to be honest without seeming to side with his attackers or defenders, yet as I have tried to explain, there is nothing more pathetic than not having especially strong feelings about something that everyone has strong feelings about.

Much as I wish the GOP had a better candidate (and if I had to vote in New York I'd need to be clutching my puke bag in the polls), is it OK for me to say that I just find the whole affair a little exhausting?

Hey, watch this vintage video of Norman Mailer and Gore Vidal (neither of whom I have ever been able to stand) going at it. And watch the reaction of 83 year old Janet Flanner. (I remember the show, and I loved her at the time.)

Janet Flanner I am not. But sometimes I feel like having a Janet Flanner moment.