On Villainy

I attended a training session today that amounted to little more than group therapy. At one point the idea of manipulation and greed came up as inherently evil concepts. While to an extent I can see how that could be the case, there are very few individuals out there that genuinely believe what they are doing is evil. Some are misguided and some deranged, but rarely do they ever truly believe what they are doing is evil. Even Lex Luthor believes that he is saving the world from an alien menace. Occasionally I wonder to what lengths the most heinous people have gone to to convince themselves of the righteousness of their crusades.

Another topic that came up was the religious aspect. While I can appreciate that some people believe that faith alone drives them, it seems like something of a cop-out. By viewing life through the ultra-religious lens, one can absolve their self of any responsibility for their actions. I understand that God may have put you on a certain path, but to think that He put temptations along that path in order for you to fall victim to them is an odd thought. Not to knock how people view their faith, but I can't imagine enjoying life believing that I am not at all responsible for my actions. In fact, that mentality can be quite dangerous.

To an extent that mentality can be to blame for a lion's share of the problems in the US right now. Only rarely do I meet people that believe that no one owes them anything. I would guess that the majority of people are content shifting the blame to someone else for their misfortunes without looking inward and trying to glean some sort of insight regarding them. McDonald's doesn't make your kids fat unless they eat it all day every day. Spilling coffee on yourself should result in burns, it is a hot beverage.

Free speech restrained successfully.

Apparently Hillary Clinton was giving a speech about condemning governments that arrest protesters and don't allow free speech at George Washington University a few days ago.  Much like the governing body of Iran in their support of the people of Egypt while silencing protests at home, the former first lady showed great resolve continuing her speech while someone silently interrupting her was dealt with.

The man, Ray McGovern, is a 71 year old retired CIA analyst.  He was reputedly standing up facing away from her in silent protest regarding her speech.  He was blind-sided by security forces and forcefully taken away.  This occurred within plain sight of the Secretary of State while she was speaking.  She did a splendid job of not interrupting her message despite this silent objector being dealt with.  She even had the poise necessary to ignore his lone cry of "Is this America?".  Without missing a beat she managed to deliver her message with great aplomb.

Thankfully we live in a tolerant nation where people have the right to speak freely and not have their pleas ignored by the reigning government.  In the US, everyone has a voice in how the government operates and the participation of the masses should be a shining example of what can be achieved when everyone works together.

/sarcasm: If this doesn't scare you, nothing will.  This man was silently protesting Mrs. Clinton and facing away from her when he was attacked by security guards.  His actions may be considered rude, but if you were to silently face away from someone and their friends attacked you, all kinds of legal actions could be taken (unless you are Hillary Clinton of course).

Mid East Revolt and Parallels

There's been a lot of talk lately about the uprisings in the Middle East.  One of the things I am constantly hearing is that the ruling party is resulting to violence to suppress the people.  The interesting thing about this phrasing is the word "violence".  Whenever the US uses force (be it violence or coercive actions) the media consistently obfuscates the picture when describing the the actions: police never accidently shoot people, the gun misfires or is accidently discharged to no fault of the police officer holding it.

The monopoly on the use of force is the domain of governments worldwide.  I find it telling that the US is quick to condemn the Iranian government for resorting to violence to quell uprisings when our own government is responsible for multiple violent actions against peaceful people.  These actions are justified by the agents of the state that engage in them because they somehow protect everyone from the peaceful people.

To provide contrast, in the Egyptian uprising, numerous acts of violence were perpetrated by the protesters (though more by the pro-government forces), and those were merely reported on as "unfortunate".  When the state engages in these types of incidents, the response is nearly always that the actions were either justified and necessary or "pending investigation".  The actions that trigger the militant response from the state are sometimes civil disobedience.  In the case of Egypt, the protests of the masses brought about the downfall of the ruler with whom they had objections.  If 10 million people marched on Washington demanding reform, would the US government listen to their pleas, or would the batons and tear gas come out to "preserve the peace"?

This is pretty much just a time sink.

I have a lot of down time at my new job (car sales) and I feel like I should be somewhat productive with it.

I'll be compiling things that I read and also writing quasi-discourse on things I think about.

Odds are good that I am the only person that will read most of this, but on the off chance that I reach someone else, cool.