Josh Hamilton wins A.L. MVP award...and the link to the greatest story ever told

I Am Second Josh Hamilton



I wanted to get into the story of Josh Hamilton and how great it was during the World Series, but of course, the Rangers did not cooperate by exiting early so I had to wait for another opportunity.

Winning the American League MVP award seems like a good enough second opportunity.

It is, in almost every way that I can see, a story of redemption.

Just like the Michael Vick story.

Just like your story.

Just like my story.

In many ways, it is in fact intertwined with "The Greatest Story Ever Told".

It's a story we should never tire of hearing about.

Regardless of who the story is about.

A British evangelist by the name of Leonard Ravenhill once said:

"The wonder of the grace of God is that God can take an unholy man out of an unholy world, make that man holy, then put him back into that unholy world and keep him holy in it."

That is the story of both Michael Vick and Josh Hamilton. Period. End of story.

Both are practical demonstrations of the gospel of the grace of God!

The frustration that comes from those who lie in wait for a relapse, so they can sit in judgement -- like God among men -- and say "gotcha", miss the point.

The point is made poignantly by Mr. Ravenhill in a sermon titled 'It is Finished' made shortly before his death in 1994.

In it Ravenhill refers to the phrase 'It is Finished' as the 'three most important words in history'. Further, he refers to these words as 'The Greatest Words Ever Uttered, By the Greatest Man That Ever Lived'.

Those are pretty bold statements. Let's see how he backs them up.

http://www.ravenhill.org/finished.htm

Again, going down that road the people mocked Him - that's what the Bible says. "They that passed by reviled Him wagging their heads." What a bunch of dumb, blind, senseless folk. If Caesar comes down the road they bow the knee and say, "Hail, Caesar."

If the priest comes, they stand in awe. But, you see, He not only was, He IS. In this mad, insane, world in which we live, HE STILL IS DISPISED AND REJECTED OF MEN.

We shouldn't put our tongue in our cheek and say this in a whisper. We ought to shout this from the house top. To a world that is groping in darkness we ought to proclaim with a trumpet voice, "It is FINISHED,
you can't buy salvation,
you can't crawl on your knees through the holy city,
you can't go on a pilgrimage,
you can't offer your righteousness,
there is nothing you can do, but bow in humility and confess and accept it."

So it really is a simple process -- this redemption thing.

Have faith, be humble, repent or confess of what you did wrong and and turn away from it.

Seems to me like that is the process that both guys have gone through and are continuing to go through daily. It's between them and God at this point. Not for us mere mortals to come between.

We all should have our own problems to work on don't we?

In his book "The People of the Lie" author M. Scott Peck walks through some of the issues. And they are a bundle of paradoxes.

I started reading this book (highly recommend it to all) when the Vick issue initially came to a boil and I am fortunate that within our church family and community groups we hear about and examine these issues routinely.

I don't pretend to have total understanding of all the issues, however, in the process of examining, I feel like I am coming to a better understanding than I had before. For that, I am very grateful.

In the Introduction of the book -- titled "Handle with Care" -- Peck makes some rather bold declarative statements about evil, recognizing it and dealing with it.

The first thing he says is:
- This is a dangerous book
- evil people are easy to hate
- remember Saint Augustine's advice to hate the sin but love the sinner
- Remember when you recognize an evil person that truly, "There but for the grace of God go I"
- We cannot begin to hope to heal human evil until we are able to look at it directly
- judgments need to be made about people
- such judgments cannot be made safely unless we begin by judging and healing ourselves.

He concludes by saying the "battle to heal human evil always begins at home. And self-purification will always be our greatest weapon."

He goes on, in the last chapter titled "The Danger and the Hope" to talk about

The Danger of Making Moral Judgement:

Even atheists and agnostics believe in Christ's words: "Judge not, that ye be not judged.".....

If we examine the matter closely, however, we will see that it is both impossible and itself evil to totally refrain from making moral judgments. And attitude of "I'm OK; you're OK" may have a certain place in facilitating our social relationships, but only a place.

Was Hitler OK? Lieutenant Calley? Jim Jones?...

What kind of father would I be if I discovered my son cheating, lying or stealing and failed to criticize him? What should I tell a friend who is planning suicide or a pateint who is selling heroin? "You're OK"? There is a such a thing as an excess of sympathy, an excess of tolerance, an excess of permissiveness.

The fact of the matter is that we cannot lead decent lives without making judgments in general and moral judgments in particular....

You and I go through our day making decisions that are judgments, most of which have moral overtones. We cannot escape from judging.

The sentence "Judge not, that ye be not judged" is usually quoted out of context. Christ did not enjoin us to refrain from ever judging. What he went on to say in the next four verses is that we should judge ourselves before we judge others-not that we shouldn't judge at all.

"Thou hypocrite." he said, "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

Recognizing the potential for evil in moral judgments, he instructed us not to always avoid making them but to purify ourselves before doing so. Which is where the evil fail. It is the self-criticism they avoid.

The Dangers in Perspective:

The major threats to our survival no longer stem from nature without but from our own nature within. It is our carelessness, our hostilities, our selfishness and pride and willful ignorance that endanger the world. Unless we can now tame and transmute the potential for evil in the human soul, we shall be lost.

And how can we do this unless we are willing to look at our own evil with the same thoroughness, detached discernment, and rigorous methodology to which we subjected the external world?

The Solution?

Peck touches on the need to recognize the concept of Banality of Evil -- noted by Hannah Ahrendt in her book about former Nazi Adolph Eichmann -- and it's close link to the deception -- in many cases the self-deception -- of The People of the Lie. Peck notes in conclusion in the final chapter

A Methodology of Love:

...we are all in combat against evil.

...if our passion is great enough, we may even be willing to blow ourselves up in the process of "stomping out" evil.

But we run up against the old problem that the end does not justify the means.

If we kill those who are evil, we will become evil ourselves; we will be killers. If we attempt to deal with evil by destroying it, we will end up destroying ourselves, spiritually if not physically.

What to do then?....we must begin by giving up the simple notion that we can effectively conquer evil by destroying it.

Are we to throw up our hands - to regard the problem of evil as being inherently insoluble? Hardly. That would be meaningless. It is in the struggle between good and evil that life has its meaning - and in the hope that goodness can succeed. That hope is our answer: goodness can succeed. Evil can be defeated by goodness. When we translate this we realize what we dimly have always known: Evil can be conquered only by love.

It sounds so simple, so obvious. Then why don't we practice what we preach more? The problem is that although a simple concept in theory, it is difficult to put into practice. Peck calls it a "paradox" and a "dynamic balance of opposites" or a tightrope walk between making easy versus difficult choices.

He compares it to the paradox parents face raising a child. If a parent rejects all misbehavior, that is unloving. But to tolerate all misbehavior is equally unloving. A parent walks a fine line between tolerance and intolerance. Sometimes strict in the use of the rod, sometimes flexible. Peck notes that "an almost godlike compassion is required" or the patience of a saint at the very least.

It is not an easy thing to embrace ugliness with the sole motive of hope that in some unknown way a transformation into beauty might occur thereby. But the myth of kissed frogs turning into princes remains.

Peck states that the first task of love is self-purification. A difficult first step indeed. Many of us do not like to take a long, hard look in the mirror. We deceive ourselves. But the benefits are as follows:

When one has purified oneself, by the grace of God, to the point at which one can truly love one's enemies, a beautiful thing happens. It is as if the boundaries of the soul become so clean as to be transparent, and a unique light then shines forth from the individual.

Who wouldn't want that? Peck admits that the results of this approach are not perfect. The "effect of this light varies". Some are encouraged by it and change the course of their behavior (as Vick and Hamilton appear to have done) but even in failure there can be success.

...those who hate the light will attack it. Yet it is as if their evil actions are taken into the light and consumed. The malignant energy is thereby wasted, contained and neutralized. The process may be painful to the bearer of the light, occasionally even fatal. This does not, however, signify the success of evil. Rather, it backfires. As I said in The Road Less Traveled, "It was evil that raised Christ to the cross, thereby enabling us to see him from afar."

BEAUTIFUL!!! Timeless themes really. Good will conquer evil. The Truth will set you free. Love never fails.

In further explaining how this methodology of love allows good to conquer evil Peck quotes the words of an old priest who dealt with the issue on the front lines everyday.

"There are dozens of ways to deal with evil and several ways to conquer it. All of them are facets of the truth that the only ultimate way to conquer evil is to let it be smothered within a willing, living human being. When it is absorbed there like blood in a sponge or a spear into one's heart, it loses its power and goes no further."

The willing sacrifice of another is required to absorb the evil. Peck asks the question of whether this absorption of evil corrupts the good person. What would then be gained by this seemingly meaningless trade-off?

He admits that he does not know exactly how this process occurs, but he believes that it does. The victim becomes the victor.

He quotes C.S. Lewis: "When a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor's stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards."

....I know that good people can deliberately allow themselves to be pierced by the evil of others - to be broken thereby yet somehow not broken - to even be killed in some sense and yet still survive and not succumb. Whenever this happens there is a slight shift in the balance of power in the world.

Amen to that.

And that's why I continue to find these stories to be remarkable and timelessly beautiful to observe.

This is a fantastic book.

People of the Lie by M. Scott Peck
http://www.amazon.com/People-Lie-Hope-Healing-Human/dp/0684848597

9-11 NEVER FORGET

And if you have forgotten, watch the Powerpoint attached and sift through the site for a refresher course.

http://www.frugalsites.net/911/attack/

http://www.frugalsites.net/911/anatomy.htm

Dedicated to the men, women and children
who lost their lives; those brave people who gave their lives
And the Heroes that responded to the emergency
11 September 2001

THIS is what our nation is responding to.
Please remember that in the difficult times ahead.

Photos courtesy of: AP, CNN, NY Newsday, NY Daily News,
John O'Sullivan, Colin Walsh, USCG, Families of Victims, Family, Friends & Personal

Heroes, Strength and Solace Courtesy of: GOD

Hat tip to Atlas Shrugged

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/09/september-11th-join-us-at-ground-zero-for-rally-of-remembrance-yes-to-freedom-no-to-ground-zero-mosq.html

Friday, September 10, 2010

SEPTEMBER 11TH JOIN US AT GROUND ZERO FOR RALLY OF REMEMBRANCE
YES TO FREEDOM, NO TO GROUND ZERO MOSQUE

The weather will be exactly like 9 years ago.

Rally of Remembrance: No to Ground Zero Mosque
September 11, 3pm Park Pace and West Broadway, Ground Zero
Dedicated to the men, women and children who lost their lives; those brave people who gave their lives. And the Heroes who responded to the emergency
11 September 2001

From Publiusforum.com

http://www.publiusforum.com/

This morning, as we begin to observe the terrible day of September 11, 2001, let us not fall into mere rote actions and unthinking memorial. We cannot forget that this is not some long past, historical situation that we can comfortably relegate to remembrance on a single day of the year, the rest of our days to go on as if it is but a distant memory. We must keep at the forefront of our minds that we are still in extent danger of another 9/11 at any time and it is only because of the hard and dangerous work that our men and women in uniform are doing every single day that keeps the next towering inferno from our TV screens. The inhuman enemy that caused those Towers to fall, those planes to tumble from the sky, are still out there planning anew. 9/11 is fresh still. Let us remember with a keen pang of loss and rage lest we complacently imagine we are back to a 9/10 world when we are not.

The thin line between good and bad behavior in sports.....

One of the most interesting dynamics in youth sports is the interplay between the interests and motivations of parent, coaches and the young athlete to participate in youth sports programs.

There is a growing disconnect between the reasons for participation and the value received from participation that causes a natural and growing friction from each constituent in this "love-triangle" of sports.

Parents generally see participation as competition. There is a natural competition between the child and his peers, the child and himself and the parents themselves built into participation.

Kids generally see participation as an extension of their social network. Many are involves primarily because their friends are.

Coaches also see the games as competition and are stressed by attempting to balance their own need to win games versus the parents interest in their child's development and the child's need to develop athletically as well as socially.

This competition between the needs of each group provides much of the friction that comes between the groups as they interact with each other throughout the season. It sets up a circle of anger or frustration that can rapidly deteriorate into a vortex that sucks life out of a team and removes the joy of participation in the sport.

And as we can see by looking at the following column, if we are not continuously reminded to stay focused on the positive values and goals that come from participation, then it can be very easy to take the step over the line from good behavior to bad.

---------


From Pschology Today:

December 16, 2009, Evolutionary Psychology
The Morally Questionable Lessons of Formal Sports II: Moral Disengagement in the Drive to Win
How athletes justify cheating, lying, and deliberately hurting a person.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/200912/the-morally-questionable-lessons-formal-sports-ii-moral-disengagement-in-t


1) What is disturbing here is the the link between the length of time participated in sports and the moral justification of bad behavior.

2) Interesting as well that this behavioral process is no longer seen a gender-specific. It is no longer "boys will be boys". Apparently, the march to equality brings with it some unwanted baggage for the Title IX-ers.

Maria Kavussanu, at the University of Birmingham, in the UK, has for a number of years been studying sports morality. In one of her studies many college basketball, soccer, rugby, and field hockey players admitted (on anonymous questionnaires) to lying, cheating, and deliberately injuring others within the context of the game.[1] Interestingly, she also found that the longer a person had been playing formal sports, the more likely they were to say that such behaviors are justifiable. This relationship between time in sports and acceptance of transgressions applied to women as well as well as to men, though the former claimed less acceptance of such behaviors, overall, than did the latter.

There is some good news here as well. But this study demonstrates that the onus may belong on the coach, as the pack leader, to model and demonstrate the proper values.

Other researchers, studying youth football (soccer) in Norway, have found that the degree of acceptance of such behavioral transgressions depends on the "motivational climate" set by the coach.[2] If the coach emphasizes the importance of winning, then acceptance of morally questionable actions goes up; if the coach emphasizes the joys of the game, good sportsmanship, and the value of developing your own personal skills, then acceptance of such transgressions goes down.

This part of the article is fascinating as well in a very chilling and disturbing way. If you look at the reason cited for the concept of "moral disengagement" to justify unsportsmanlike behavior, they are eerily similar to the behavior slide cited by Dr. Philip Zimbardo in "The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good people Turn Evil", Stanley Milgram's "Obedeince to Authority" and to a some extent Hannah Arendt's book "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil".

So the same psychological and situational issues that led to Holocaust, the Stanford Prison Experiment, the abuses at Abu-Gharab, etc. are at work to explain the prevalence of bad behavior in sports.

 LOVELY!!!

In subsequent research, Kavussanu and her colleagues found that athletes used eight psychological means of moral disengagement to justify their transgressions, both to themselves and others.[3] Here they are, with my own examples to illustrate them:

• Moral justification (describing the transgression as morally right, not wrong). "I had to do it to protect my team's honor. We're not patsies."

• Euphemistic labeling (using language that disguises culpability). "I bent the rules a little," instead of "I broke the rules." Or, "I dusted him off," instead of, "I deliberately hit him with a pitched ball."

• Advantageous comparison (comparing your actions to others' worse actions, which make yours look good). "I hit him, but I didn't throw at his head, like others would have in this situation."

• Displacement of responsibility (claiming that your action was not your choice, but that of a higher authority). "It was the coach's decision; my job is to do what the coach asks."

• Diffusion of responsibility (attributing the action to the whole group rather than yourself personally). "It wasn't just me; the whole team charged the pitcher."

• Distortion of consequences (minimizing the damage done). "Hey, it's a small injury; he'll be back in no time."

• Dehumanization (speaking of the opposition in ways that deny their humanity). "They're a bunch of animals. When you play them you have to treat them that way."

• Attribution of blame (blaming the victim). "He started it with his trash talk." Or, "If he's got a weak ankle he shouldn't be playing."

Kaleb Eulls makes the ultimate highlight film play

Kaleb Eulls is a 6 foot 4, 255 pound, do-everything, ambidextrous QB and DE for Yazoo County HS in Mississippi. Did I mention he also handles the punting duties as well as kickoffs and extra points?

He received scholarship offers from football powerhouses like Florida, LSU and Georgia. He committed this summer to play for Mississippi State. He has the kind of ability that makes the recruiting message boards light up and the antennae on Mel Kiper and Todd McShay's future stars list begins to do a little shimmy-shake.

Did I mention that he is also a great student? So what must this already well-recognized and honored football "hero" do to garner national attention?

ROLL THE TAPE!!!
FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS YOU TUBE SITE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37LBPtT5Am8


Was that the type of highlight film you expected? The voice coming from the back of the bus saying "I've got the gun" was from Kaleb. Probably the most important "forced fumble and recovery" he will ever make.

READ MORE INCREDIBLE DETAILS OF THE STORY FROM MOSPORTS.RIVALS.COM
http://mosports.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=985823


Doesn't the title of the story just say it all?
Kaleb Eulls' heroic action a decade in the making

Although on the surface, this seems like the prototypical man bites dog story--people just don't make this type of heroic action normally, do they?--if we look to the world of academia, maybe that perception doesn't have to be so.

Philip Zimbardo, a Stanford professor, coined the term "Banality of Heroism" to describe the phenomenon in his book "The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil".

In the book Zimbardo illustrates through his shocking Stanford Prison Experiment how easy it is for "normal" people to commit heinous acts when put in a unique cauldron of circumstances. This highlighted the "Banality of Evil" concept described by Hannah Arendt in her work titled "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil"

http://www.lucifereffect.org/heroism.htm

Although much of the Lucifer Effect text revolves around the negatives of human behavior, salvation comes in the final chapter (16) where I flip the coin and celebrate what is best in humanity-- those among us who move from passive observers to take heroic action. In celebrating heroism, I challenge the traditional view of heroes as extraordinary people, as super-special agents of noble deeds. In doing so, I distinguish between those rare people whose whole lives are centered around sacrifice for the good of society or for the well being of their fellows, chronic heroes, and those ordinary folks who are moved to an heroic deed in a specific situation at a particular time.

Their heroic deeds are always special, but these heroes are just plain folks, ordinary citizens, who “do what they had to do” when moved to action by some call to service. Typically, they say, “It was nothing special;” “I did what anyone would do in that situation.” And some add, “and what everyone ought to do.” I refer to this phenomenon as “the banality of heroism.” Doing so, obviously trades off of its similar opposite in the phrase coined by Hannah Arendt, “the banality of evil,” that she used to describe why modern criminals, like Nazi Adolph Eichmann were so frightening precisely because they are “terrifyingly normal.”

We also want to believe that there is something IN some people that drives them toward evil, while there is something different IN others that drives them toward good. It is an obvious notion but there is no hard evidence to support that dispositional view of evil and good, certainly not the inner determinants of heroism. There may be, but I need to see reliable data before I am convinced. Till then, I am proposing we focus on situational determinants of evil and good, trying to understand what about certain behavioral settings pushes some of us to become perpetrators of evil, others to look the other way in the presence of evil doers, tacitly condoning their actions and thus being guilty of the evil of inaction, while others act heroically on behalf of those in need or righting injustice. Some situations can inflame the “hostile imagination,” propelling good people to do bad deeds, while something in that same setting can inspire the “heroic imagination” propelling ordinary people toward actions that their culture at a given time determines is “heroic.” I argue in Lucifer and recent essays, that follow here, it is vital for every society to have its institutions teach heroism, building into such teachings the importance of mentally rehearsing taking heroic action—thus to be ready to act when called to service for a moral cause or just to help a victim in distress.

MORE FROM ZIMBARDO REGARDING THE BANALITY OF HEROSIM:
http://www.november.org/BottomsUp/reading/banality.html

Historical inquiry and behavioral science have demonstrated the "banality of evil" -- that is, under certain conditions and social pressures, ordinary people can commit acts that would otherwise be unthinkable.

But because evil is so fascinating, we have been obsessed with focusing upon and analyzing evildoers. Perhaps because of the tragic experiences of the Second World War, we have neglected to consider the flip side of the banality of evil: Is it also possible that heroic acts are something that anyone can perform, given the right mind-set and conditions? Could there also be a "banality of heroism"?

The banality of heroism concept suggests that we are all potential heroes waiting for a moment in life to perform a heroic deed. The decision to act heroically is a choice that many of us will be called upon to make at some point in time. By conceiving of heroism as a universal attribute of human nature, not as a rare feature of the few "heroic elect," heroism becomes something that seems in the range of possibilities for every person, perhaps inspiring more of us to answer that call.

It's clear that we will always have this battle of "good" vs. "evil". It illustrates the importance of having a solid base of character development so that we understand when the proper time and place to stand up and say "NO!!" arises, whether it's confronting a teen with a gun or an authority figure asking to do that which you know is wrong, you will have the strength to act heroically.

Too often we are almost comforted by the fact that perceived "evil-doers" are "not like us". We don't want to hear that we may all be capable of perpetrating similar crimes if we were put in similar settings. The works of Zimbardo and the famous Milgrim experiments at Harvard clearly demonstrates the fallacy of clinging to those inconvenient truths.

By the same token, we are too often led to believe that these heroic actions are anomalies as well. We couldn't do that, COULD WE? Well, why the heck not?

The quote from Kaleb's high school coach wraps it up best:

“I’m very proud of him,” Eulls’ football coach Matt Williams said. “He doesn’t have to score any more touchdowns or make any sacks, he is probably the greatest kid I’ll ever be a part of.”

HOW COOL IS THAT!!!!

NIU Coping

NIU students returned to campus Monday after the university was closed for nearly a week following the tragic shooting last week. Faculty, students and parents are left to answer perhaps the unanswerable question: WHY?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM THE DAILY HERALD:
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=137620

Family and friends have started burying the victims.

Many of the wounded are healing, at least physically.

But five days after that bloody Valentine's Day at Northern Illinois University, it seems increasingly doubtful the public will ever know exactly why the gunman walked into a lecture hall and opened fire on scores of unsuspecting students.

How to Help
# MEMORIAL FUND - DeKalb and Sycamore business associations have established a fund to help erect a community memorial in remembrance of the five lives lost in Thursday's shootings. To donate, visit www.dekalb.org.
# MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP FUND - NIU has established a scholarship fund in memory of the five students slain Feb. 14. To contribute, visit webcluster.niu. edu/CreditCard/fdn2_step1.html or call (877) 448-2648.

Yet, those close to him say he seemed normal to them, and several teachers and friends still can't grasp that the ace student who studied social justice and the mentally ill was so troubled himself.

"He was kind, well-mannered, quick with a smile. He wanted to do his best," said NIU sociology professor Kristen Myers in an e-mail Monday. "Regardless, he chose an abominable path on his last day. His victims and their families were seemingly arbitrary targets, and I grieve for them."

Baty of Wonder Lake said she had no indication her boyfriend was having serious mental health issues. She said he was seeing a psychiatrist once a month and wanted to stop taking the anti-depressants because "he wanted to deal with his problems and not have to use medications."

Baty described her boyfriend as harmless, and that she didn't see anything wrong with him in the weeks leading up to the murders.

"I was with him all the time," she said. "How could I not have seen this coming? I feel partially responsible because maybe I should have seen something."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the more troubling aspects to this story is that in the post event analysis, there may not be anything we can do as a society to prevent these types of things from happening periodically.

Sure, you'll hear the pros and cons from the gun control advocates and defenders of the 2nd Amendment. They will reflexively seek to capitalize on stories such as these to promote their agendas every time they crop up. That's the political reality.

But what troubles many people is, how can something like this happen and nobody sees the signs? It would make more sense if the guy was a prototypical Hollywood lunatic. One who the neighbors would say things like, "Oh yeah, we always new Johnny was going to go off. It was just a matter of time." But you never hear that. And while in this case--as well as the Virginia Tech case--there were signals that in hindsight would have provided clues that the perpetrator was perhaps a troubled individual, they could not accurately predict the tragic events to follow.

Perhaps the scariest truth is not that these events occur at all, but perhaps that they don't occur more often. How many other people could be described as "troubled" as the NIU student is currently described? Or worse. How many are struggling with depression issues and trying, often unsuccessfully, to find the answers with the aid of pharmaceuticals? How many times do we joke about someone having a bad day as being "off their meds"?

Maybe instead of this being defined as a gun control issue it should be looked at a mental health issue and the failure of Big Pharma and the medical community to come up with effective protocols for dealing with these issues effectively. That seems to be where these stories should be pointed but the public debate always seems to go off in an entirely different direction. Interesting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


THOUGHTS ON GOOD VS. EVIL: HANNAH ARENDT AND "THE BANALITY OF EVIL"
http://www.radioopensource.org/hannah-arendt-and-the-banality-of-evil/

Hannah Arendt coined the term “banality of evil” while covering the 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi official charged with the orderly extermination of
Europe’s Jews.

Arendt herself was a German-Jewish exile struggling in the most personal of ways to come to grips with the utter destruction of European society.

In a series of articles for The New Yorker that later became the book
Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, Arendt tried to tackle a string of questions not necessarily answered by the trial itself:

Where does evil come from?
Why do people commit evil acts?
How are those people different from the rest of us?

Her conclusions were profound:
People who do evil are not necessarily monsters; sometimes they’re just bureaucrats.

The Eichmann she observed on trial was neither brilliant nor a sociopath.

He was described by the attending court psychiatrist as a “completely normal man, more normal, at any rate, than I am after examining him.”

Evil, Arendt suggests, can be extraordinary acts committed by otherwise unremarkable people.

[Arendt] insisted that only good had any depth. Good can be radical; evil can never be radical, it can only be extreme, for it possesses neither depth nor any
demonic dimension yet — and this is its horror! — it can spread like a fungus over the surface of the earth and lay waste the entire world.

Evil comes from a failure to think. It defies thought for as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and examine the premises and principles from
which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there. That is the banality of evil.

In the past forty years Arendt’s ideas have been championed in two landmark psychological experiments — Stanley Milgram’s electroshock experiment and Philip
Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment — but decried by luminaries like Norman Mailer.

Even if the phrase itself has lost some of its punch through sheer repetition, the ideas it embodies are no less relevant. It’s hard to talk about real-world
horrors like the Rwandan genocide or torture at Abu Ghraib without referencing Arendt.

So for her centennial we’re reminding ourselves why her ideas still matter. Help us out by taking a stab at some of her initial questions:
Where does evil come from?
Why do people commit evil?
Do you buy Arendt’s thesis, or do you think there is something else (be it religious or biological) that leads to evil and distinguishes good from evil people?