Say Anything Blog

It’s not just the MSM but even some conservative blogs that insist on denigrating Republican chances this fall. SA’s beloved Gene opined just today that

We conservatives can use all the help we can get this fall.

Shameful.

MikeA: “You do it too.”  Good one.  What’s your point?  This post is about disingenuous reporting, btw.  A wrong impression is being given, and you seem to want to add to that.  Hmmmm…

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

r108…I suppose my point is that the media cheerleading cited…“on a roll” and “best shot in years”...are remarkably mild mild examples of something Rob offers as media bias. My understanding is that many Democratic and Republican pundits are calling for much closer results in the Congressional elections this year and, given that the Republicans enjoy comfortable majorities in both House and Senate at present, I infer from such punditry that the Democrats must be polling better this time…one might even say that they are on a bit of a roll while the governing Republicans may need all the help they can get.

Nothing too earth shattering on my part, just an observation and a bit of a tweal at our genial host.

tweak not tweal.

I suppose my point is that the media cheerleading cited…“on a roll” and “best shot in years”...are remarkably mild mild examples of something Rob offers as media bias.

When those are combined with reports on Republican chances as being a “horror show” I think you can see where I’m coming from, Mike.

Or, you probably can’t.  But then it’s easy to pretend that media bias doesn’t exist when the bias slants in your direction.

Also, Gene is an opinionator.  He’s not passing himself off as an objective journalist.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob…I will actually give you “horror show”, not so much for any bias it injects but as a bad choice of words which opens the door for critics to call bias. The term overstates the case beyond any real serious examination of elector prospects…“horror show” implies a massive rejection of the Republicans and I don’t think anyone is calling for such a “bloodbath.” The other examples you cite accurately describe the race as I see it but others may not see it that way.

Perhaps the “horrow show” author is biased in favour of the Democrats but I suspect it’s another example of sloppiness.

MikeA: “...given that the Republicans enjoy comfortable majorities in both House and Senate at present,...”

You might want to rethink that one, Mike.  The entire blockade strategy that the Dems have used so successfully is due the very narrow majority the Reps have in the Senate.  The Dems can hold up the vote on any bill, unless the Reps can recruit five Dems, which has become very difficult to do, in this time of the Dems going so far left.  Combine that with a few RINOS, and you have nothing resembling a “comfortable” Republican majority in Congress.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Mike,

Rob…I will actually give you “horror show”, not so much for any bias it injects but as a bad choice of words which opens the door for critics to call bias.

So you’ll “give me” horror show not because it is an actual example of bias but only because it looks, smells and feels like bias.

How kind of you.

The other examples you cite accurately describe the race as I see it but others may not see it that way.

Which is why it is an opinion and has no place masquerading as objective journalism.  And notice how the polls and experts who say that things are looking up, or at least hopeful, for Republicans never get the same sort of attention as the same sort of things for Democrats get.

If you can’t see the disconnect there Mike you’re either naive or totally dishonest.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

If you can’t see the disconnect there Mike you’re either naive or totally dishonest.

Not to make a bigger deal that it merits but this type of comment, no matter who makes it, has always struck me as arrogant. You don’t catch me (I hope ) saying that your view of current conditions in Iraq paints you as either naive or dishonest. Perhaps your knowledge of the world and your powers of reason are greatly superior to mine but I doubt it…differences of opinion such as the existence of media bias do not boil down to just the two options you propose.

I’m not meaning to single you out and it’s not a big deal but it’s something that has occured to me a few times.

r108…it depends on your definition of “comfortable” I suppose but I hear what you’re saying.

Perhaps the “horrow show” author is biased in favour of the Democrats but I suspect it’s another example of sloppiness.

This type of underhandedness reminds of instances where liberals get caught, red-handed,unjustifiably muckraking another’s reputation and when confronted with their infraction they say: it was just a joke or It was satire etc.

Not to make a bigger deal that it merits but this type of comment, no matter who makes it, has always struck me as arrogant. You don’t catch me (I hope ) saying that your view of current conditions in Iraq paints you as either naive or dishonest. Perhaps your knowledge of the world and your powers of reason are greatly superior to mine but I doubt it…differences of opinion such as the existence of media bias do not boil down to just the two options you propose.

I’m not meaning to single you out and it’s not a big deal but it’s something that has occurred to me a few times.

I’m not meaning to be arrogant Mike, but when you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge bias that is staring you in the face I can’t help but feel that you’re being a bit dishonest.  I know you’re a smarter guy, and you have to see that there is a disconnect on some of this stuff.  But you won’t admit it.  The most you’ll do is kind of sort of admit that some of the worst cases (“horror show”) kind of look like bias but aren’t really because you agree with them.

It’s the same with the whole war on terror thing.  You know what my approach is (topple the oppressors in the middle east and spread freedom).  You deride that position (and you’ve certainly used some language in that derision that has been less than savory), and yet your solution is “encouragement and more better diplomacy.”

Can you blame me for not really taking you seriously on this stuff when you so clearly don’t have any answers of your own?

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Mike A writes:

r108…it depends on your definition of “comfortable” I suppose but I hear what you’re saying.

Very reminiscent of someone telling a Grand jury inquisitor that his answer depended upon what the definition of “is” is.

When someone in a debate starts questioning the meanings and definitions of basic, well understood words like “comfortable” or “is” you know that they are (perhaps unknowingly) conceding victory and are tacitly admitting that they don’t have a leg to stand on. It’s similar to the debate tactic of using ad hominem attacks when one can’t succeed in making one’s point with facts and logic.

MikeA: “r108…it depends on your definition of “comfortable” I suppose but I hear what you’re saying.”

OK, I’ll bite; what was the definition of “comfortable” you were using in your comment?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Bezu Fache— Good point.  A few months ago there was a fellow here who called the present administration “facist”.  We had a lengthly debate.  He tried to change the meaning of the word—this is something communists do.  They change common meanings to fit their agenda.  They are liars.

Chief,
Your point is well taken. Here’s another great example:
Howard Zinn-“We take nothing by conquest, Thank God”, in A People’s History Of the United States, 1492-Present
Zinn is Professor Emeritus in the Political Science Department at Boston University and is the architect and guru of the widespread belief in liberal circles that only Democracy, capitalism and the U.S. are to blame for “all” of the world’s ills.
Zinn’s philosophy incorporates ideas from Marxism, anarchism, socialism, and social democracy.
For readers who prefer their history to be an accurate retelling of the past rather than marching orders for the present, Zinn’s writings disappoint. While every historian has his biases, Zinn makes no effort to overcome his. What is considered vice by most historians—politically motivated inaccuracies, long-winded rants, convenient omissions, substituting partisanship for objectivity—is transformed into virtue by Zinn…
“Objectivity is impossible,” pop historian Howard Zinn once remarked, “and it is also undesirable”
Consider:
In an effort to bolster his arguments against putting criminals in jail, aggressive law enforcement tactics, and President Clinton’s crime bill, Zinn contends that in spite of all this “violent crime continues to increase.” It doesn’t. Like much of Zinn’s rhetoric, if you believe the opposite of what he says in this instance you would be correct. According to a Department of Justice report released in September of 2002, the violent crime rate has been cut in half since 1993.
If you’ve read Marx, there’s no reason to read Howard Zinn. In fact, reading the first line of The Communist Manifesto makes a study of A People’s History of the United States a colossal waste of time.

Rob

Can you blame me for not really taking you seriously on this stuff when you so clearly don’t have any answers of your own?

It’s up to you whether or not I should be taken seriously but there is a difference between not having any answers and not having any answers that you like. In a previous life, I once performed a study of newspapers and their treatment of visible minorities. My employer didn’t feel I was hard enough on the papers, complained that I missed obvious examples of bias against minorities and didn’t publish the study. I have my point of view and I have my personal preferences like anyone else but I do try to be objective.

The difficulty we have with our conflicting opinions is where we’re starting from…our basic assumptions of how the world is and should be ordered are very different. Makes for interesting conversation at times while at other times we feel like we’re banging our heads against a brick wall…true for me anyway and I’m inferring from your comments that’s the case for you too.

r108

OK, I’ll bite; what was the definition of “comfortable” you were using in your comment?

My bad as I’m speaking from the perspective of a parliamentary system where minority governments can and do rule. Procedures for slowing down legislative business exist in every system but when I say a comfortable majority I mean that majority bills will be passed barring defections. There have been numerous examples of narrow majorities in Canada where the absense of one or two members might mean defeat for a government bill or bring down the government itself…a comfortable majority means that such a danger does not exist. Of course your system and its procedures are different and thus a comfortable majority may not exist.

MikeA: For Republicans, a comfortable majority would be a majority in the House, and at least 60 Senators.  That’s the reality.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

BF said

When someone in a debate starts questioning the meanings and definitions of basic, well understood words like “comfortable” or “is” you know that they are (perhaps unknowingly) conceding victory and are tacitly admitting that they don’t have a leg to stand on.

Or, upon reflection and investigation, there may well exist differences is how some words are used in different contexts. You can see my reply to r108.

It’s similar to the debate tactic of using ad hominem attacks when one can’t succeed in making one’s point with facts and logic.

Thank goodness we never see ad hominem attacks here. 

MikeA: “Or, upon reflection and investigation, there may well exist differences is how some words are used in different contexts. You can see my reply to r108.”

As I pointed out, Mike, your use of “comfortable” was inaccurate in that case. It’s about the facts, not a matter of opinion.  Having the minority party block almost everything you want to do isn’t “comfortable”.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

As I pointed out, Mike, your use of “comfortable” was inaccurate in that case.

And as I admitted, my use of “comfortable” was inaccurate in that case…do you require blood as well?

MikeA: No blood necessary. In your quote, you seemed to say it was all just a matter of a difference of opinion, that’s all.  There was no difference of context here.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

r108…that’s a relief. Not a difference of opinion at all but merely the failure on my part to recognise that a “comfortable majority” might mean something different in an American context than it would in a Canadian context…that is the charge to which I plead guilty.

MikeA: Cool with me.  You might have noticed that Republicans have been complaining for a long time about Dem obstructionism, and now you know why.  It’s those five Senate seats.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

MikeA,
there may well exist differences is how some words are used in different contexts

Some yea, but very few. There are not many “contexts” that change the basic meaning of a word Mike; especially in elemental discussions in which the intent is to attribute the opposite meaning to a word to accomplish a specific agenda. If an agreed upon understanding that words have intrinsic, unchanging definitions is rejected, then there is absolutely no way to debate issues.
Also, if words have constant changing meanings, no one can ever be held accountable for anything that they say.

Bezu: A lot like that “the Constitution is a living document” meme, right?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

R108,

A lot like that “the Constitution is a living document” meme, right?

BF & Robert-
Exactly- if this is allowed to continue, we’ll be in deeper trouble then we are now.

The Truth Is Relative! Or is it?

BF

I agree that debate is impossible without shared definitions but I think you’ll find that contextual differences are more widespread than you believe, even when the language is nominally the same. Imagine the task when completely different languages are involved…but I seem to be straying off topic.

Mike

contextual differences are more widespread than you believe,

English to Swahili perhaps but English to English is pretty straightforward. Even English to Swahili could utilize the services of an interpreter, who by quickly and easily reconciling any glaring differences in “contextual” meaning, could successfully assist in unequivocal communication between the parties.

BF…so if I’m in England and I put the crisps in the boot then an American would know what I did. A silly example I realise but then the first time I was in the Piggly Wiggly and was asked if I wanted my purchases in a sack I replied that a bag would be fine.

Mike,

It’s up to you whether or not I should be taken seriously but there is a difference between not having any answers and not having any answers that you like.

I’m not claiming that the Bush doctrine is the perfect solution.  It’s just the best one anyone can come up with right now.  I don’t understand why you’d oppose it in favor of no solution at all.  I don’t want to see my country hit again, and doing nothing (or even doing more of what we did in the past) does not seem like a good way to defend it.

The difficulty we have with our conflicting opinions is where we’re starting from…our basic assumptions of how the world is and should be ordered are very different. Makes for interesting conversation at times while at other times we feel like we’re banging our heads against a brick wall…true for me anyway and I’m inferring from your comments that’s the case for you too.

I do.  I’m not angry with you, it’s just that I feel like we know each other well enough that we don’t really need to mince words any more.

Our countries aren’t that far apart, but our societies are very, very different.  As you point out, I think that’s at the heart of many of our disagreements.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Come on Mike,

the first time I was in the Piggly Wiggly and was asked if I wanted my purchases in a sack I replied that a bag would be fine.

You’re digging a pretty deep hole here Mike.
I’m curious, what did you “think” they wanted to put your purchase in?

the crisps in the boot

Mike, these are not differences in the contextual application of words but are simply differences in the vocabulary of countries. I’m sure that every single time you went into the Piggly Wiggly after that incident, you absolutely knew what a sack was.
Similarly, if I moved to England, it wouldn’t take me long to effectively communicate.
Right off the bat it sounds like you want to put the potato chips in the trunk of the car.

If I wanted to communicate in Ebonics, I would simply use a “Rap to English” dictionary.

Bezu: I’m a little puzzled at the vigor of Mike’s defense here.  He repeated a popular leftie meme, that “the Republicans run everything” with a “comfortable majority”, and it’s just not true, as should be obvious from how successful the Dems have been in obstructing almost everything the President wants to get done.  It’s plain as day, but some just need to deny it, I guess.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

R108

The source of much of the disagreement between liberals and others is the liberal’s faulty existential belief in the dynamic fluidity of words and more importantly, their belief in the ever changing situational nature of truth.

Bezu: I guess that’s a fancy way of saying that they have to lie to advance their agenda.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Robert

they have to lie to advance their agenda.

It was not so much “fancy” as it was an attempt at civility. I was trying to euphemistically make that exact point.
See, I took me one of them there correspondence courses. I saw it on a T.V. commercial sponsored by the U.N. I’m tryin’ to learn myself to be more prudent.
The course was called: Contextual Diplomacy

Bezu: Exactly.  No worries, though, intervention and deprogramming are available.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

So, having completely derailed the topic, Mike, Who do you think the majority of journalists in America are rooting for in our up coming elections? Keep your reply under 10 words.

2H9…thank goodness the thread police arrives!

Clearly the Dems because they hate freedom and ooze dhimmitude…10 on the nose. Sorry for the hijack but it was actually r108 who led me astray.

r108…I “defend” it because I find it interesting and I’m always curious if and when you’re willing to concede a point.

MikeA: Since I generally think before I speak, I don’t have to do that very often.  Also, I don’t discuss subjects about which I am not knowledgeable.  Don’t ask me anything about interior decorating, for instance.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Dirty Jack Cash and Bezu Fache are also culpable in the “highjacking” of an otherwise peaceful blog-site.
But it must be understood that although all bloggers are people, not all people are bloggers.

Jack, BF, r108, From my reading of this thread y’all came down on the “media supports Dems” side of the fence, I got no clear read on Mike. Though from past experience I kind of figured he would teeter on the “the media is objective” fence. Sorry for being brusque, Mike. I was in the middle of grilling beef and helping Boy square away a new scope on his .22, we spent most of the day at the range firing big bores and a friend there had a 4x32 Simmons he was willing to part with. Oh, and I believe the majority of journalists are biased towards the left, environazis, non-rational anarchists, Dems, and the anti-war crowd. Did I leave anyone out? Don’t want to hurt anybody’s feelings.

Bezu wrote:

“Objectivity is impossible,” pop historian [and liberal Darling] Howard Zinn once remarked, “and it is also undesirable”

I think Bezu makes a crucial point here. If liberals believe objectivity is impossible or undesirable, what does that leave us with?

If liberals believe objectivity is impossible or undesirable, what does that leave us with?

Maybe some liberals agree with that proposition and some liberals don’t. Categorisation isn’t always what it’s cracked up to be IMO.

Bezu:

The source of much of the disagreement between liberals and others is the liberal’s faulty existential belief in the dynamic fluidity of words and more importantly, their belief in the ever changing situational nature of truth.

Jack:

I think Bezu makes a crucial point here. If liberals believe objectivity is impossible or undesirable, what does that leave us with?

Personally, I don’t believe that truth (situational or immutable) or objectivity are ever really part of the liberal thought process, either conceptually or pragmatically.

Much like the “Bush lied” meme, the fact is that the more stridently liberals bleat and bray an accusation, the more likely it is that it is the liberals themselves who are guilty of the offense.  Truth and objectivity are merely words to be brandished as weapons in their war for power, and dominion over those who stand in their way.

The folks who scream “Nazi!” at Republicans in general and the President in particualr, have an awful lot in common with the Islamist Fascists with whom we are at war.

MikeA: If you’re not a moral relativist(a liberal), you then can believe in right and wrong, truth and untruth, and that they can be known and quantified.  Since liberals must be moral relativists, then, you do the math.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

r108…you and I don’t agree on what constitutes a liberal let alone whether moral relativism is a feature of liberalism. For that matter, I’m not so sure that all truths can be known in the way that your use of “quantified” seems to intend. I personally believe in objective truth but I’m not so presumptious to think that i do or can know it all…if I didn’t know better I would swear that you’re a closet materialist…philosophically speaking of course.

Bat One

Personally, I don’t believe that truth (situational or immutable) or objectivity are ever really part of the liberal thought process, either conceptually or pragmatically.

and I am shocked that conservatives drink so much puppy blood. 

MikeA: I’m someone who believes in the founding principles of America: Free people making free choices, private ownership of property, rule of law…that kind of stuff.  It doesn’t have to be perfect to work quite well, and so some sort of ideal perfection isn’t part of my belief system.  You don’t have to know every truth to know one truth, for instance.  If you must pigeonhole, I am more of a Utilitarian, in the sense of Mill, but I make my own version of everything.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

but I make my own version of everything.

As it should be.

MikeA: Each human consciousness is unique, both in basic structure and in life experiences(databank), so I was just stating the obvious.  We can hardly avoid it, except to give up some of the perks of being human.  Probably the fundamental reason I prefer “free people making free choices” to Marxism, which demands adherence to a fixed ideology from someone else’s mind, without question.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

MikeA wrote:

I personally believe in objective truth but I’m not so presumptious to think that i do or can know it all

Hmm…for some reason, I’m a bit skeptical but will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Remember what Socrates once said:

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”

and….

“He is a man of courage who does not run away, but remains at his post and fights against the enemy.”

Mikey, study your history. Those who don’t are doomed to repeat it.

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free … It expects what never was and never will be.” — Thomas Jefferson

Since liberals must be moral relativists, then, you do the math.

Unless “moral relativism” means whatever you think it means, this simply isn’t true.  The war in Iraq, for instance, is objectively bad; I haven’t said anyone say that it is bad because they think it is. You’re either a semantic relativist, or you don’t know what “moral relativism” means.

The war in Iraq, for instance, is objectively bad

jpe,

Please explain how you reached your objective conclusion with beginning from a morally relativistic position.

There are several ways one could do it.  There are utilitarian ways (‘the Iraq war causes more damage than it prevents’), natural law ways (‘it doesn’t satisfy the conditions of just war’), and I’d expect there are more.

As a matter of fact, the only ethical argument I haven’t heard advanced, and I don’t think any of you have because no one has advanced*, is a strict moral relativistic argument.

* Not many people understand what moral relativism.  More often than not, it’s simply used to dente moral disagreement.  And that’s either wrong or semantic relativism (‘moral relativism means moral disagreement because I believe it does’).

Please explain how you reached your objective conclusion with beginning from a morally relativistic position.

Perhaps I was misunderstanding you.  What I meant was that no one thinks the Iraq War is bad through moral relativism; rather, they believe that its badness is an objective moral fact.  The detour through moral relativism is a lazy way of explaining away very real moral disagreement. (this wouldn’t be uncommon; people have been trying to explain away real moral disagreement for centuries, from Plato [‘there’s no disagreement; only misunderstanding’] to the ethical emotivists [‘there’s no moral disagreement; only differing preferences’])

jpe,

utilitarian ways (‘the Iraq war causes more damage than it prevents’),

If the Iraq war causes more damage than it prevents, then damage is seen in the scope of the conflict, (ie. escalation of violence, terrorist converging on Iraq, number of deaths, etc.) correct?

My point isn’t to argue the correctness of any particular rationale, but only to point out that none of the current rationales have anything whatsoever to do with moral relativism.  They’re all rooted in metaethical theories that posit an objective truth of moral matters.

So whether there’s room to argue the utilitarian position is beside the point; in fact, in recognizing the logic at work, you’ve already ceded the point.

So whether there’s room to argue the utilitarian position is beside the point; in fact, in recognizing the logic at work, you’ve already ceded the point.

Funny, I didn’t know I was arguing.  I was simply trying to follow your line of thinking. 

The logic is objective only on the surface.  Underneath there is a belief in what is right or wrong.

The initial point, such as it was, was that liberals are moral relativism.  This is prima facie stupid: liberals use any number of moral logics which start from the premise that there are objectively existing and knowable moral truths out there.  In other words, liberals believe in right and wrong.

That was my point; perhaps we were talking past each other.

I thought I’d give this objectivity a try:

The war is good because it eliminates people leaving more natural resources for the rest of us.  Also, that innocent women an children are causualties of war mean less births in the future thereby controlling global population.  Less people means more food for the rest of us. 

Ahh, no moral delilma.

HG: Thomas Malthus beat you to it by 207 years.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

An argument without a moral premise has a source without a soul.

HG: So now we know that the environmentalists and the population bomb lefties are really neo-Malthusians, and with about the same amount of credibility in the modern world.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

jpe: Moral relativism has a definition, and it is that nothing is any more or less moral than anything else, that there is no fixed moral standard, and that one person’s perception is equal to another’s perception.
What does this have to do with the war in Iraq?  If you are a moral relativist, it’s easy: No war is ever “worth it”, since everyone will never agree on its worth, so it’s only a matter of different perceptions, and therefore, nothing is really worth dying for, so even one casualty of war is too many.
If you are not a moral relativist, and believe there is evil in the world, and that the Islamofascists are evil, then it’s also easy: Any war that promises to defeat those that are evil is worth it, no matter what it takes, because the outcome of victory is so much better than the alternative.  Understood?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

I’m kinda feeling my way through this one.

I have understood moral relativism to be opposed to absolute truth.  Absolute truth exists whether anyone knows it or not. Therefore, conduct may be moral or immoral whether anyone acknowledges it as such.  Moral relativism has an individual as the source of what is moral or immoral.  Therefore, moral relativism rejects absolute truth.

HG: Even more, its denial of the existence of absolute truth is the foundation of the ability of moral relativism to make any sense at all.  It depends on atheism, in other words.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

nothing is really worth dying for

R108:  Doesn’t placing a value on life require one to make a moral judgement?

It seems better said that liberals acknowledge a moral sense but no moral law.

HG: For the moral relativist, anything is possible, because it’s all about rationalization.  With no underlying principle, anything can be OK.  The real moral relativists don’t even admit the existence of truth in any form.  Everything is just a matter of opinion.  Authority, then, is the deciding factor.  If you have more degrees than the other guy, or went to a more prestigious school, or are wealthier or more famous, etc., then you get to prevail through intimidation.
For those who know that truth, it is the only thing that matters.  Anyone may speak the truth, and elitism doesn’t matter.  For the moral relativist, elitism is everything.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

R108: Thanks for pointing out the relationship to authority.  That is a good point.  I was struggling to follow jpe.

Morals are constant.  Situations are relative. 

That’s where “judgement calls” come into play.

HG: I recommend the straight path over the crooked one.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Free: The truth is always the truth; everything else is a lie.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

The truth is always the truth; everything else is a lie

It’s that simple.  Truth is exclusive.

HG: How did that go?  “Many are called, but few are chosen.”? I think that was it.  Or maybe it’s: “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.”  The truth always does exclude the liars and those too lazy to seek it.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

No war is ever “worth it”, since everyone will never agree on its worth

That’s an absolute moral judgment, and on its face cannot be moral relativism.  Moral relativism is a claim about what we mean when we say X is true.  The moral relativist says that “X is true” means no more and no less than “I believe X to be true.”  When one person says X is true, and another says X is false, there’s, strictly speaking, no disagreement. 

By contrast, when liberals say the Iraq War is bad, they’re saying that this is a truth that holds for all people and at all times.  It isn’t something true by dint of my belief: it’s a truth that is binding on all people.

That’s the exact opposite of moral relativism.  If you don’t understand moral relativism, that’s fine, but a little understanding can go a long way here.

R108: Doesn’t placing a value on life require one to make a moral judgement?

It does, which is precisely why what Robert was describing isn’t relativism, but some form of life-force pacifism nonsense.  (a common enough confusion, but a confusion nonetheless).

For the interested, a great text on moral relativism is Bernard Williams’ Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy (it isn’t a defense, mind you; moral relativism is so hopelessly muddled that it’s virtually indefensible except by college freshman that just took their first ever bong hits).