I'm in the middle of Paul Mason's book on the crisis. It's written in a nice style, more a bit of reportage than analysis so far though. However one thing that immediately grates is his incorrect use of the term cognitive dissonance. I know I've moaned about this before, but it's quite an important thing to get right.
What it is not: The ability to hold contradictory beliefs, or some variation of this
What it is: The feeling caused by contradictory beliefs
Actually this should be pretty obvious, since the term roughly translates as thinking that isn't in harmony, or is discordant. Unfortunately Mason compounds his error by including a definition of cognitive dissonance in his glossary which is cobblers (though the study mentioned did focus on this subject).
I think what happens is that people jump to stage where the individual/group develops a strategy to reduce/eliminate the dissonance, and think this is cognitive dissonance itself rather than the response to it.
UPDATE: Actually Pete points out that I haven't quite nailed this one myself! See comments...