Thank you, and I hope you feel at least a little better tomorrow. I'd like to clarify one thing that I think was nebulous in my post: while I think "the people

Thank you, and I hope you feel at least a little better tomorrow. I'd like to clarify one thing that I think was nebulous in my post: while I think "the people" are the responsible party, I meant to suggest that choosing who is the responsible party at all is close to arbitrary. That is to say, arguments over who's held responsible more reflects who we want to be responsible than who may actually be responsible, which is in fact shared among several people. (The CEO, the intern, the person who gave the intern the password, the person who configured the system to require a password that could be leaked, etc.) We choose the CEO (or Ted Cruz, or whomever) because of our own biases, in spite of the fact that responsibility is shared, and in spite of the fact that who's "in charge" is nebulous at best. We do the same when blaming the 12 US billionaires (or however many there are) for income inequality in the country, or blame all white people for racial injustice, and so on. That doesn't mean there aren't responsible parties, or that people and groups should be free from criticism. The truth of the matter is that—no matter how justified it is to assign blame—it's exceedingly rare for anyone to take responsibility for their own failings. This shouldn't necessarily contort to whom and how we assign blame. But, rather, it should inform us of the breadth of the problem, our own contributions to it, and help us become better citizens, instead of shift the blame as the CEO or Cruz did. If we find that unpalatable, but don't acknowledge our own complicity, then all we've achieved is a pitchfork-laden witch hunt, and not actual direction towards resolution.