Helen Rittelmeyer writes that :
“The Blame Relativism First choir has good instincts—political correctness is destructive, novelty is an idle pursuit—but setting conservatism’s rhetorical sights on moral and cultural relativism only returns attention to a topic with which liberals in academia are, for the most part, bored.”

As well we all should be.Though as she notes:

“ The battles of Closing of the American Mind have faded and new ones arisen, and in this round of the fight apologists like Kronman pose a greater danger to their side than overzealous multiculturalists”

Yack TV , though not famed for dept , still hosts frequent philosophical debates , some lasting as long as twenty seconds. That suffices for a theocon to accuse whoever appears on the left side of the screen of “relativism” and the accused to retaliate by crying” fundamentalist!”

But what in the name of Aristotle does ‘relativism’ mean?  Philosophers in the Judeo-Christian tradition have long maintained that verbal representations of the world scarcely scratch its complexity. Hence differing perspectives on a topic can each contain elements of truth, with old fashioned Kantians maintaining that what we know about a subject is relative to the world as others see it , especially when the Other is the subject .

More recent philosophers, l Quine and Rorty for example, have updated the pragmatism of the Enlightenment by contending that all propositions are true only within the framework of a given paradigm- the ‘holistic’ version of Pragmatism .

Such views compete with Nietsche’s contention that there are no facts, just interpretations, a notion Dostoyevsky carried to the Nihilistic conclusion that Theocons abhor—that if God is dead, everything is permitted.

Not even a literary critic can be a Kantian and a Nietschean relativist at the same time - it is next to impossible to reconcile such views with those of a God-fearing and dutiful fellow like Kant, or a holist like Quine, who insists on a healthy empiricism as to the existence of the world that provides the stimuli our senses perceive.

That’s why Umberto Eco muses that ‘relativism‘ can refer to forms of modern thought that often clash-  committed Realists are sometimes considered relativists, and Theocons use the term “relativism’  with all the vehemence of 19th century Jesuits damning “ poisonous Kantianism.”

If all this is relativism, what’s left that’s not? Eco maintains that two kinds of ferocious anti-relativists are still around : neo-Thomists and Leninists, which nowadays mostly means Trotskyites with heirloom copies of Materialism and Empirocriticism.  Not that they quote them in the No Spin Zone—relativism isn’t ready for prime time.

It reflects the state of science on the neocon right that a senior editor of that tendency’s captive science policy organ, The New Atlantis , excuses the failure of the Republican National Committee, given nearly a year’s notice, to field a participant in yesterday’s National Science Policy Debate.
Yuval Levin asked in National Review Online on April 17:

“can anyone think of more than two or three serious questions about science that would be appropriately directed to a presidential candidate?”

Since more than two or three Republican scientists presently serve in Congress, Yuval might have asked them what their strong points may be?  The failure to engage in this much publicized forum is particularly inept given the predictable response- the winners by default had an Op-ed in yesterday’s WSJ.

Worse, there is the rhetorical context of Al Gore’s oft repeated declaration that “The debate is over” on climate change, a contention that flies in the face of science’s continuing struggle to pin down one of the most fundamental variables necessary to the problem’s understanding- the sensitivity of global temperatures to doubling the level of carbon dioxide.  Estimates have been bouncing around with each new study for literally a century—a bona fide scientific debate that shows no sign of flatlining anytime soon :

“That even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”

To celebrate the Author of this cautionary Sentiment, Mr. Thomas Jefferson of Virginia,  who expressed it his Preamble to a Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge, certain Youths did gather in his Monument near the Capitol, on the eve of his birth-day, to briefly and silently dance in his honor.

Contrary to their Duty , and the Maxims on its Walls,  the Watch of his Memorial did most vulgarly accost them, and themselves disturbing the Peace, did impudently arrest one, which seems a great Scandal. vide:

Masochistically pounding yet another spike into the forehead of the Canadian psyche, Alberta’s Human Rights, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism Act, prohibits publishing anything “likely to expose a person or class of persons to hatred or contempt.”

While reserving the right to lambaste Mark Steyn or anybody else showing symptoms of reflexive NeoCandiasis, we ought to stand up for his right to retaliate against us, which by extension means decrying the existence of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission which in January, Reason reports :

“interrogated the Canadian journalist Ezra Levant about his decision to reprint the notorious Muhammad cartoons that originally appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Levant, the former publisher of the Western Standard, did not try to ingratiate himself. He called the commission “a sick joke” and dared the “thug” across the table to recommend that he face a hearing for offending Muslims.

Levant wanted to be convicted, since that would give him a chance to challenge the censorship that Canadian human rights commissions practice in the guise of fighting discrimination. “I do not want to be excused from this complaint because I was reasonable,” he told the officer. “It is not the government’s authority to tell me whether or not I’m reasonable.” That position has attracted broad support in Canada, where editorialists, columnists, activists, and legislators from across the political spectrum have criticized the commissions for threatening freedom of speech.

The national and regional commissions were established in the 1970s to vet complaints about illegal discrimination in employment, housing, and the provision of goods and services. But many of them have broad, ambiguous legal mandates that can be used to target controversial speech.”

You don’t have to subscribe to Mark’s views ,or the Canadian journals that publish them to strike a blow against these Mounty Python affronts to freedom of the press- Just buy your maple syrup on his side of the border- he is a New Hampshire refugee from censorship in the Big North .

For better or worse, the question hanging over Senator Obama is: “What would it be like to live in a nation governed by a man who chooses the Reverend Wright for his spiritual governor?”

The legislative performance of Illinois State Representative Monique Davis, who shares the pews of Reverend Wright’s United Church Of Christ with Senator Obama is scarcely encouraging. Last Wednesday in Springfield,she shouted down a witness testifying before the House State Government Administration Committee about how Illinois’ governor illegally rerouted a million dollar state grant into repairing a Baptist church by forgiving the back taxes of a private school directed by felon- a piece of pork barreling rank enough to curl the nose of The Chicago Tribune :

“The hearing to probe the grant came after the Blagojevich administration steered $1 million to the private Loop Lab School to make good on the governor’s pledge to help Pilgrim Baptist Church rebuild after a fire. Instead of giving to the church, the money went to the school, which rented space from the church.

The grant came as state and federal authorities were trying to collect thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes from the school…. to make the grant possible: The governor gave a rare and swift pardon to the school’s director, a convicted felon; the school registered as a charitable organization for the first time in its 25-year history; and the school filed three years’ worth of required state tax documents in one day.”

Providentially finding Buffalo Grove village atheist Rob Sherman among those opposing the payoff, Davis let fly this fatwa:

“This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children. What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!

This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God…Get out of that seat . . .You have no right to be here!  We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.”

Her oath to defend and uphold the Constitution notwithstanding, Democratic Representative Davis enjoys a Constitutional right to deny the existence of the First Amendment, but she might be more respectful of her state’s history. Celebrated as ‘The Great Agnostic” and denounced as “The Infidel” when he ran for President, former Illinois State Attorney General Abraham Lincoln wrote:

“The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.”

The nation awaits Senator Obama’s—and the Reverend Wright’s—comments on State Representative Davis’ exegesis.

As the UN’s global jihad against tobacco enters its third decade, it may be time to invite the ladies to found Mothers Against Power Mad Sociologists.

A study in The Journal of Public Economics  finds smoking bans lead to increased highway deaths as drinkers are forced to drive further to different jurisdiction or to find bars with outdoor seating.

“The increased miles driven by drivers who wish to smoke and drink offsets any reduction in driving from smokers choosing to stay home after a ban, resulting in increased alcohol-related accidents,” the study says.  Author Scott Adams of the University of Wisconsin called the results “surprising…We thought we would see a reduction…Our first thought was, ‘Throw it away, it must be wrong.’

But a Madison anti-smoking activist told Milwaukee’s Capital Times it argues for stricter bans that forbid smoking even outdoors, and for wider bans that prevent smokers escaping to more tolerant jurisdictions. Adams added: “a well-enforced national smoking ban would get rid of the drunken driving increases.”

Meanwhile in New York, Nurse Bloomberg is chortling at her charges—the taxes on a pack of cigarettes have at last surpassed the price of a gallon of gas.

This magazine’s   March 31 critique of Intelligent Design’s tabloid science attacks on Einstein and Darwin ,  The Protocols Of The Elders Of Bryan  seems to have set AOL News Blogger and National Review  regular Dinesh D’Souza thinking, much to the dismay of echt Intelligent Designer William Dembski.
D’Souza’s same day column ” The Failure of “Intelligent Design” which also lights into David Berlinski ,  was denounced the next day in Dembski’s Anti-Darwinian blog ‘Uncommon Descent’ for noting , inter alia  , that:

“narrow-minded Christians opposed Copernicus and Galileo until they were forced to admit that they were wrong…Today some Christians may be heading down the same path with their embrace of “intelligent design” or ID. This movement is based on the idea that Darwinian evolution is not only flawed but basically fraudulent

...ID advocates have sought to convince courts to require that their work be taught alongside Darwinian evolution, yet such efforts have been resoundingly defeated. Why has the ID legal strategy proven to be such a failure, even at the hands of conservative judges? Imagine that a group of advocates challenged Einstein’s theories of general and special relativity…”

Coming from the author of What’s So Great About Christianity ? , this is pretty strong—and admirably candid—stuff, though by April 2nd, perhaps singed by the   April Fools day bolts from the ID blogosophere or threatened with expulsion by Ben Stein, his column turned again to desecularizing science in the public schools, for which he was duly bashed by PZ Myers.—who needs blood sports with the Science Wars raging ?

Ernst & Young and Oxford Analytica have bought into the UN’s view of climate modeling, and in their new report, Strategic Business Risk 2008, they reckon potential climate change as the greatest strategic risk currently facing the property and casualty insurance industry. More interesting still is an appendix to their new report. Candidly leading the short list of “five additional emerging risks” with the potential to become as significant during the next five years is “over reliance on model-based risk management.”

Source : Canadian Underwriter

Looking for a fierce immigration debate? Try emigrating. -
The original   graph and details can be read in Political Studies

Although it at once explains the frontal assault on Darwin And All That by Ben Stein and Ralph Reed’s interest in anti-science lobbying, only those who smile to see the Republican Party marching off to the war of ideas on an empty stomach find comfort in this focused political poll of the intellectual ground state of the Red States.

With the elephant’s skull running on empty, no wonder the GOP think tanks are fading.