Saw the film Murderball the other day about a bunch of guys who compete at the highest level playing rugby (whilst sitting in a sports-wheelchair). Great film, but one facet interested me. One of the quadriplegic guys, Mark Zupan, admits he was disabled because he climbed into the back of his friend’s pickup whilst drunk, and then was thrown out of the van into a canal where he hung on to a tree for hours. The guy driving the van, Christopher Igoe, didn’t know his best friend was back there but nevertheless was blamed.

Now my thought is in a world obsessed by casuality how come we can accept blame here? Igoe didn’t know his friend was there, yet its an unspoken assumption shared by all that it was his fault. And so here’s the fact that peopel can accept things happen in a far less than linear way when it comes tothe negative; so why do they find it so difficult for this to happen in the positive? Because to be able to make the positive happen, when you haven’t got control over the direct casual effect, is in a different order of things even though supeficially it sounds the same. Or to put it another way its a lot easier to be an evil genius in this world, than a good genius!