Why does it seem necessary to have been "an evil twit who changed your ways" to be a hero? Why can't someone be a hero without first doing evil?
Bradley Manning is a hero. Now. But first he was a part of the problem. He signed on with the military and worked with, and for, the bad guys he later exposed.
Edward Snowden is a hero. Now
. But first he was part of the problem
, working with and for the CIA and NSA, trampling your liberty with everything he did as part of his "job" and with every paycheck he cashed.
Why can't people have a foundation of Principle
that lets them recognize they shouldn't be doing certain evil things before
they start doing them?
My real heroes are those who didn't need to join forces with the bad guys first to see what needed to be done- and what should never be done. But those are the ones who rarely get noticed and almost never get hailed as the heroes they truly are.
I will say this, though: seeing the chorus of semi-hominid scum that is screaming "treason!" over Edward's whistleblowing, I know he's on the right side. I hope he outlives his detractors.
Labels: Free speech, government, libertarian, liberty, privacy, responsibility, society, terrorism, tyranny deniers