Maybe we should think of this more as a supplement to the existing US published on on hundreds of other countries while omitting themselves. Of course it's a b

Maybe we should think of this more as a supplement to the existing US published on on hundreds of other countries while omitting themselves. Of course it's a bit hypocritical but a) that's sort of the point, where does the US get off writing these reports either all considered and b) so what? Why are we saying it is hypocritical? It mostly reads as a collection of facts and statistics. We are annoyed because in this collection they read a bit like a condemnation from someone we also view guilty of most of these... transgressions? However the underlying data shouldn't be dismissed just because we don't like the publisher, that's terribly unscientific. And if we insist upon this, where is the uproar when the US publishes its reports? Ignore the hypocrisy, it's a BS smoke screen to try and dismiss the facts and stats. And yes, they don't paint the greatest picture. But maybe that should be looked into instead of just being ignored because we don't like it. Hypocrisy of the publisher has nothing to do with the validity and accuracy of the message. The hypocrisy argument can go round and round without accomplishing anything more than saying no one can talk about anything. It is unproductive so let's abandon it and actually talk about what some of this article is shedding some light on. Are we happy about that? If not, what can we take away from it and what can we do?