But, then it is up to those journalists, activists, and others with a more “retentive” psyche to keep those “pictures” (and I am not necessarily referring to photos), those issues, those emotions in the forefront of the public and political consciousness.

I have tried to do just that with respect to equal rights for gays in the military (”don't ask-don't tell”), and have sometimes received grief from those who feel that “one needs to wait for the right time.”

Well, in my opinion, the right time for anythingh you believe deeply in is NOW.

Anyway, Mikkel, I think I understand your overall point, and I agree. Still, images (turkeys being butchered, or human beings being degraded–and I don't mean in any way to equate the two, or to belittle the latter) are powerful calls to action–or writing.

I am referring to what I felt like about Abu Ghraib was that the pictures made people upset but in general once they were out of the news cycle things went back to status quo. They didn't really seem to factor into public or political consciousness when Congress passed the detainee bill for instance. It seems like there are certain things were people have strong moral beliefs that they mention in the abstract, then see them violated and get upset, but when they aren't dominating the political cycle anymore then people go back to being disengaged. Do you agree, or am I off base?

Right or wrong, sophisticated or not, self-involvement (or self-absorption) or not, this can and is be part of human nature.

But that's what I couldn't believe at the time. Many people were saying that they didn't believe it could be happening, even though many of the people speaking out against it in press were administration and military officials with direct knowledge or former intelligence officials that reviewed the legal proclamations and concluded it was very likely happening. But when this was pointed out, it still didn't seem to matter.

Also Outraged! never helped anyone but principled has. I can't believe how much focus there has been on Bush rather than the principles of his reign. I was so angry about the Alito confirmation because everyone was talking about what he once said about abortion or something rather than that he was one of the original lawyers that worked on the Unitary Executive theory. So here are all these people that are absolutely Outraged! at Bush for things, but then talk about a completely tangential topic when there is a Supreme Court justice that might (I still don't really know) hold views that Bush had the authority to do it……..the same source of authority that Republicans got their panties in a bunch about with Clinton and warned that Obama was going to do.

Focusing on the individual (idea or person) for the minute of hate or love and then declaring that the opposite is good/bad is another facet of self absorption.

As for Abu Ghraib, it wasn't so much that the images were powerful; of course they were. You have to realize that for ages there are people who have been opponents of US efforts abroad simply because they were opposed to the US, and they have complained without basis time after time. The reason is that the Abu Ghraib story was so striking was because it was something so many of us rightly never believed would happen. (Even then, we were grown up, not weird or otherwise wrongful; we weren't Outraged! [tm] or whining about it, but were disgusted by it and we began to lose confidence in and respect for the Bush administration as well as for those involved in the imprisonment directly, “hands-on” [ugly choice of words, but apt].)