That is indisputable.

I don't think Mr Armstrong is qualified to complain about relativism when he is guilty of the same crime when he accepts "Evolution" and "Intelligent Design" as equaly valid science.

I know that snark is the sole consideration for War Room items these days, but how about you actually address the comment made. Williams was absolutely and irrefutably wrong to take money to shill for the program and not acknowledge it and the Bush administration's attempts to nullify the press are well documented and disgusting, but what about the actual statement?

Is it wrong? As a university professor I see students with good SAT scores and grades who are dumbfounded by the slightest criticism of their work. High schools apparently teach now that any opinion that is nearly equally valid and worthy of an A or B.

As a parent, I am disturbed by the practice of giving every athlete a trophy at the end of each season. Not only does it clutter up the house, it devalues real accomplishments later. What was so wrong with giving every kid a tshirt or cap to play in for the season which they keep. There. No need for trophies, but in my children's leagues they get them for showing up (or not even).

This is not a left or right issue. Ask the Intelligent Design folks.

But I guess because Armstrong is a jerk who did something wrong previously, we NEVER have to listen to anything he ever has to say again and in fact are required to mock it without addressing any of the argument's merits.

You're doing a heckuva job here Alex. If Joan weren't a complete imbecile, someone else would probably be writing war room.

...before conservatives started slagging off scientists in public.

The thing is, when you start teaching adherence to truth, and then base your assertions on unprovable religious tenets, the kids take that listen--and become dead solid convinced you're gaming them.

Which, of course, you are.

Expose the propagandists!

Don't despair. I'm no fan of Armstrong either but our kids are lost. There's no value in excellence anymore because everyone is OK, no matter what.

Its socialistic, frankly. Why work heard if everyone passes and everyone gets a trophy? Who cares? Why bother learning anything or striving for excellence? Self-esteem is not supported by victory divorced from effort. Ever.

I think it's trivial, stupid and disrespectful of your Betters (Obama, anyway) to describe this argument as a "spat."

I'll second you guys. The blaming of relativism might at least be worth considering if it weren't so disingenuous. This is just another conservative trying to pin a societal ill on progressive ideas on social and economic equality. One could just as easily cite fundamentalists' obsession with evolution, the Republicans' preoccupation with testing, or the right-wing's perennial demand to cut school funding for our failures in math and science.

In the end, everyone shares some blame.

"[I]t is impossible to hear a bullet, because they [sic] travel faster than the speed of sound."

I always knew the shot heard round the world was metaphorical, but I didn't realize it was that metaphorical.

I agree that Mr.Williams compromised his integrity. But the serious condition that he addresses is real, and perhaps there is a valid point that what he calls "relativism" is a cause. But I think that a basic generally held attitude (expressed most clearly in popular culture)is far more important in explaining the situation.

In my own teaching experience, while I never denigrated anyone for an honest effort, I never said something was good or even adequate, if it wasn't. It would have been cruel to do so, since I was teaching (hopefully) professional musicians. In that world (where I have spent my entire adult life and a good part of my adolescence as well) you do not succeed unless you can do the job, and it is quite quickly apparent whether you know your stuff or not. And being rejected in an audition, or even playing an occasional bad performance, can be devastating unless you are inured to the experience, and used to being criticized. I would say that I was trying to toughen my kids hides without hardening their hearts. And if they did not have the gifts, or the toughness, or had started too late, or weren't passionate enough, they had time to find that out while they still had time to choose something else.

It also happens that I had some training in math and physics and learned quickly enough that I would never be more than mediocre at either. So my professors' toughness was to my benefit. But I still take pleasure in understanding as much as I do.

But the main point I want to make is this: so long as our society stigmatizes would-be scientists as "geeks", "nerds", "uncool" etc. etc., regards intellectual distinction with contempt, and disdains the self-discipline required for any significant expertise in art or science, the society will get what it deserves: a nation of consumers who won't understand a mortgage contract, be able to question a physician about important issues, balance a checkbook, or understand what is wrong with I. D.

I believe that this attitude has deep roots in our history, and will not be easy.perhaps even impossible, to change. But what is most sad to me is not that we won't be "competitive" against cultures like China where learning is venerated, but that the idea of learning, of mastery and deeper understanding for its own sake and the unique pleasure it can give an individual --- let alone those around him -- has apparently disappeared as an ideal. You may want to play Mozart for your infant to enhance his chances to get into Yale, but what is wrong with doing it so that he grows up able to experience Mozart for Mozart? That is a pleasure unlike anything else.

Finally (and please forgive the length of this rant; it has been brewing inside me for a very long time, decades at least)training in real science (and real art, too) teaches integrity, respect for high standards, and a certain impatience with the shoddy the phony, the BS in which we are drowning. And were people to learn basic logic and critical thinking, what would become of advertising and political campaigns? One could ask at this point "Cui bono"?

The question answers itself.