Over at SI.com, Steve Rushin says he's got outrage fatigue. Good question - especially on the internet, outrage seems to be the default position for most writers. And yet for anyone who has a moral compass, a sense of right and wrong, or even just common sense, there's the inclination to "draw the line" when it comes to behavior.
My first inclination was to say that Rushin paints with too broad a brush, that some things deserve outrage (the Tressel case is really more about sports: it's corruption, moral deception, taxpayer fraud) - but maybe that's the point. Ronald Reagan (it is said) always cultivated his anger, letting it show only on occasion, when he knew it would make the greatest impact. (Not that I'm copying Reagan, but that's something I do as well.) So do we just learn to be more discerning, to avoid hype, to have some perspective? ◙
