I've been constantly dismayed by the hypocrisy displayed by so very many people I've known, both in my professional and private life. The majority of people seem to have little to no consistent moral compass. Is this a characteristic of modern humans? Has the information age made us so aware of the rampant corruption of our "leaders" and fellow men that most of us now figure that as long as one gets away with criminality, one has done nothing wrong?

I'm an idealistic guy when it comes to living up to my own moral standards, but I've become very cynical about humanity in general. The majority of people seem to deserve what they get. For instance, those who don't support and demand investigations and prosecutions of our "leaders" where such is clearly called for legally and morally deserve tyranny ... and, they're getting it and will get a whole bellyful more of it. It's just a shame that the rest of us have to suffer for their lack of moral clarity.

What's also ironic and mind-boggling is the selective law enforcement practiced by our police, DAs, judges, and justice system in general. Right now, if you glance at a random court docket from an averge-sized municipality, you see dozens of indicted criminals being prosecuted for an assortment of penny ante crimes, a few felonies, lots of drug-related crimes, and as many have mentioned here, our prisons are full to the gills.

Yet, the worst types of crimes: the ones that demoralize an entire country, that destroy the very basis of our purpose as a nation, that highlight the abuses of imperialism, that represent the most aggregious corruption and pathological amorality, are being ignored.

It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world.

@Glenn-

There may be lots of reasons why it's in the U.S. strategic interest to appear to oppose Dotsum. I'm not saying that's wrong or bad -- just that it's a huge leap to think that this somehow means we're no longer willing to align ourselves with war criminals.

Fair enough but I don't think it's fair to insinuate baseless speculation on my part. I'd say the weight of the evidence, though hardly conclusive, is supportive. There is the in-country evidence- in particular, that Dostam remains a power player within an important ethnic group, the Uzbeks, making it unclear that he would no longer be of service to the US backed Afghan government, (especially when that government is openly contemplating negotiating with adversaries including elements of the Taliban a la the Iraq strategy). There could of course be rivals waiting in the wings with sufficient legitimacy as judged by the geniuses at the CIA, but time will tell there.

More compellingly there is the out-of-country evidence of Honduras. Note that a Republican government would most certainly not be calling for the return to power of an anti-American leftist however deposed (as right wing outlets have made abundantly clear). It would seem that the governing philosophy is changing- Obama's people seem to believe that the benefits of having friendly despots are less than the cost to our reputation and our persuasive power of propping them up. That can only be described as a welcome development.

In any case, irrespective of whether this move does not signal a more moral global role for this country, (and I'm no Choamskyite, but I do recognize our past), and even though it is hypocritical, it bears noting that this policy is the right one. Certainly that should not be overlooked or, given the state of this country's right-wing, taken for granted.

@Silenced- I am aware that Dostam was allied with the Soviets. He is nothing if not a sociopath and opportunist and the best money was on the guys with the multiple million man army with the high tech tanks and jets. As to his time in the Mujahideen, I suppose I was referring to Dostam's alliance with certain Mujahideen warlords against his former allies subsequent to the Soviet's withdrawal, and the siege of Kabul wherein he annihilated thousands of civilians in particular. You'll get no argument from me about the virtue of Afghanistan's power brokers in any case, not least as regards the various factions of the UIF that became our conquering heroes after 9/11.

I've been constantly dismayed by the hypocrisy displayed by so very many people I've known, both in my professional and private life. The majority of people seem to have little to no consistent moral compass. Is this a characteristic of modern humans?

It was ever thus. I had good cause when young to wonder constantly whether the so called respectable conservatives that surrounded me really did value the law or whether at the end of the day they were authority fetishists.
Well, all you have to do is let the fascist cat out of the bag and the bastards are only too ready and willing to show their true colours.

I agree with you last post 110%. It was well written, and accurate. Congrats.

Face it folks, this isn't going to get much coverage. How convenient that IG report was released on Friday. Basically maximizing it's chances of being completely overlooked.

Friday is said to be the mass grave for stories. However, one quibble. The NYT's IG report coverage is on the front page of the NYT today. On the issue of time--which is the government's doing--you're right. On the space part--which is the media's choice--you're way off. Here's a link to a capture of the paper's front page...

http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2009/07/11/pageone/scan/index.html

Can we use the RICO statutes to throw all the dems and the republicans in jail?

harpie, thank you for your posts, and for drawing attention to pow wow's most recent.

pow wow, most be frustrating for you to be so tapped in and watch the shite unfold. Thank yous.

"Face it folks, this isn't going to get much attnntion"

Maybe in the regional papers, but the 2001 killings in Afghanistan was not burreid in the NYT today. It was a front cover story that led to a entire page of coverage in the inside.