Newsflash; morals are relative. Just my $0.02 on this here:

If you were an Incan priest living 1500 years ago, you probably felt that it was a moral obligation, and certainly a religious duty to cut the living human heart out of a sacrifice and chuck it down a flight of stairs.

In our society, that only happens to Republicans who cross Tom Delay.

My point is, things we find morally objectionable are framed by our point of view. The unwillingness to examine what other people believe, and contrast that examination against our own beliefs is how we learn not to kill people with whom we have little common ground.

It's kind of like...an alternative to warmongering, jingoism, and demagoguery.

It's no surprise to me, then, that our domestic moral absolutists have no problem killing people they don't understand, or more accurately, don't want to understand. They've just got everything all worked out, now don't they; right/wrong, good/evil - they just kind of know what's what, with the kind of bliss that can only be found in ignorance, and a faith that needs to be blind to the consequences of it's actions.

You'd never have guessed that this kind of crushing debt, a world-wide foreign-policy cluster fuck, and keeping everything they can out of the realm of public accountability could have been engineered by our nation's moral standard bearers...the Enron crowd.

</rant>